Welcome to the New GunAndGame.com
02-28-2008, 04:22 PM
| #61 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: May 2007 Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 3,605
|
Wingwiper I find it surprising that you as a hunter are either unaware of or do not appreciate the fact about the significant efforts of farsighted men and before their time organizations which brought many of our most treasured game species back from the brink of extinction, through the practice of sound game management and elimination of unregulated sport and all market hunting. Roosevelt, Audubon, Leupold, Safari Club International, National Wild Turkey Federation, Boone and Crockett to name but a small portion of these! Your claim that deer (and other game species) dramatic increases are due to clearing and alteration of land for farm and ranch is false on it's face as you should well know, in fact exactly the reverse is what actually happened. If your belief were true we would have seen steady increases throughout the 17-18-1900's as more and more land was brought under cultivation and cleared for ranches. When in fact deer populations were in steep decline throughout their ranges well into the early 1900's. It wasn't until regulation of sport hunting with defined seasons and limits were adopted along with habitat improvement and protection that we began to see steady sustainable increases in game populations. This just didn't benefit only deer but many other game and non game species as well! As to your belief that wolves north or south will not surplus predate I am sorry it's a false notion as well, it's obvious to me you've no first hand observations of either wolf or coyote predation upon stock or local game animals. I have seen wolves and coyotes both go after new calves, goats and foals and either kill the animal and immediately abandon it or consume very little and then abandon it. Don't think I am necessarily picking out canids for this observation of their activities they are not alone in the animal kingdom being guilty of surplus predation, most predators do indeed surplus predate to some degree or another. If you've ever seen the aftermath charnal view inside a chicken coop that's been raided either by skunks or weasels then you would know exactly what I am talking about. There are other such observations throughout nature of surplus predation. I will agree attacks by wolves upon man are rare but as we have all seen with other apex predators repopulating or being reintroduced to areas they once inhabited these attacks and confrontations between man and wolf are on the increase. Yes you may be far more likely to be nipped by Fifi the wonder poodle than the big bad wolf. But encounters between wolf and man are far more likely to result in a serious injury than a run in with Fifi! I also agree that only the Alpha pair will breed in a wolf pack, however since you seem to claim some knowledge of wolves you should know that similiar to coyotes (wherein again only the alpha pair breed) litter sizes are wholly dependant upon habitat and prey availability. In areas of plentiful game mild weather and good denning sites litters will be large 6-8 cubs per litter, as the pack grows in numbers they expand their range preying increasingly upon more and more prey species to support the pack. Wolves will also kill any and all other canids within their range to eliminate competition, they do not feed on these other canids they simply kill them whenever they encounter them.
__________________ "You can have my Freedom when I'm done with it!" |
|  |
|
02-28-2008, 05:38 PM
| #62 |
| Banned Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 789
|
It seems there were or are TWO SAWTOOTH WOLFPACKS. The doc was about "Many folks recently saw Jim and Jamie Dutcher's beautiful documentary, "Wolves at our Door," on the Discovery Channel. The program detailed the organization and development of the captive Sawtooth Pack, held at the base of Idaho's Sawtooth Mountains. It ended with the movement of the pack to an enlarged enclosure in northern Idaho held by the Nez Perce tribe. " One is pups transferred to the nez Perce Holding area from Montana. These pups were never taught how to hunt from the adult wolves and did indeed go after sheep and were destroyed. I wen tto a site written about ALL of the Relocation Wolf Packs and all of the indiviual Wolves and I would have to conclude that because there are so few NATIVE WOLVES the relocation wolves are what you all may be referring to as TAME. They were held and some were even reared in hte Nez Perce area but the 20 acre enclosure was not large enough to hold more than what turn out to be two packs. The 6 years in reference to the Dutchers was prior to 1997. In 1997 a Judge ordered all Relocated Wolves removed from the Yellowstone area and I am trying to conclude if that is the time the Twin fence enclosure was actually built. (I don't know why this has turned into the focus of the discussion, but hey, it is turning intersting) Here is the sight that gives reference to all the packs in Wolves for that relocation Project. Ralph Maughan's Wolf Reports 1997 archive Many of these Ranchers have left their livestock on the lands for 3 weeks past the expiration of their permits. Here is an interesting site, I think you may enjoy it Dave Idaho's Wolves: Myths and Delisting MYTH: Wolves are "vicious killing machines" with no purpose. REALITY: Like any top predator, wolves play an enormously important role in their ecosyste DETAILS: Wolves play a key role in their ecosystem by culling weak and old elk and deer (Smith, Peterson and Houston 2003) and reducing the long-term concentration of elk herds on sensitive meadows and wetlands (Ripple and Beshta 2004). In what is known as the cascade effect, the presence of wolves affects a multitude of species within the ecosystem. Elk, wary of the new top predator, have altered their grazing behaviour. With less grazing pressure from elk, streambed vegetation such as willow and aspen are regenerating after decades of over-browsing. As the trees are restored, they create better habitat for native birds and fish, beaver and other species. In addition, wolves have reduced the Park's coyote population by as much as 50 percent in some areas, which led to increased populations of pronghorn antelope and red fox (Crabtree and Sheldon 1999). In short, wolves play an important role in nature and their presence enhances native biodiversity and healthy ecosystems. WOLVES AND ELK: MYTH: Wolves devastate elk herds leaving hunters with fewer elk to kill. REALITY: Elk and deer populations have been relatively unaffected by wolves. DETAILS: Wolves prey upon deer and elk as do other predators, but what has been the impact to our game herds? Despite rumors that wolves are depleting elk and deer for game hunting, data from Idaho Department of Fish and Game shows that as the wolf population has steadily increased since 2003, so has the hunter harvest success rate. According to IDFG statistics, hunter harvest numbers for elk go up and down from year to year, but the overall success rate has remained relatively consistent since before wolves were reintroduced. For example, data shows that in 2005, the most recent year we have statistics for, hunter harvest numbers are higher than they were in 1993, two years before the wolves were ever reintroduced. Most importantly, IDFG statistics verify that elk and deer populations are at ecologically sustainable numbers, and wolves account for less than 10 percent of all elk and deer deaths in Idaho. Source: Idaho Fish and Game PDF File. Researchers have documented that wolves tend to prey on the most vulnerable elk and deer, which includes weak, diseased, injured, very young calves (that appears to be largely compensatory as overall elk calf survival has remained steady), and older adult cow elk that are beyond their reproductive prime. Hunters, on the other hand, tend to kill prime reproductive age elk when harvest includes adult cow elk. WOLVES, LIVESTOCK AND RANCHING: MYTH: Wolves are devastating Idaho's sheep industry. REALITY: Wolves are responsible for less than 1 percent of all sheep losses in Idaho. DETAILS: According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, in 2005 wolves killed 244 sheep in the state of Idaho. Source: US Fish and Wildlife Service . How does that compare with other causes of losses? In 2004 (the most recent year data is offered by NASS), not including sheep that were slaughtered at market, 22,000 sheep died from all causes in Idaho but only 270 sheep (less than 0.2 percent) were confirmed killed by wolves. Overall sheep deaths were reportedly due to: Digestive problems (1,600); Respiratory disease (1,300); Birthing problems (1,100); Misc. health problems (3,200); *Predators (all combined) (12,100) Harsh weather (600); and Poisoning (800). Sheep deaths due to predators represented 55% of overall losses. These predation deaths included coyotes (7,100 sheep), dogs (1,400 sheep, bears (1000 sheep) mountain lions (400 sheep) and wolves (270). Source: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/sgdl/sgdl-05-06-2005.pdf In 2006, wolves killed 173 sheep in Idaho. Source: Steve Nadeau, Statewide Large Carnivore Manager, Idaho Fish and Game, 600 S. Walnut, Boise, ID 83707. MYTH: Wolves are devastating Idaho's cattle industry. REALITY: Wolves are responsible for less than 1 percent of all cattle losses in Idaho. DETAILS: According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, in 2005 wolves killed 20 cattle in the state of Idaho. Source: US Fish and Wildlife Service. How does that compare with other causes of losses? In 2005, not including cattle that were slaughtered at market, 105,000 cows and calves died from all causes in Idaho. These deaths were reportedly due to: Digestive problems (23,200); Respiratory disease (16,500); Birthing problems (9,200); Misc. health problems (7,900); Lameness and injuries (3,100); Predators (all combined) (2,500) Harsh weather (1,300); Poisoning (800); and Theft (100). Cattle deaths due to predators represented less than 3% of overall losses. These predation deaths included coyotes (600 calves), mountain lions (200 calves), and dogs (100 calves). Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. In 2006, wolves killed 24 cattle in Idaho in 2006. Source: Steve Nadeau, Statewide Large Carnivore Manager, Idaho Fish and Game, 600 S. Walnut, Boise, ID 83707. MYTH: Ranchers are not reimbursed for their losses to wolves. REALITY: Most livestock owners who experience verified depredation losses to wolves do seek and receive compensation for their losses. DETAILS: In 1987, Defenders of Wildlife (Defenders) initiated the first privately funded, livestock compensation program of its kind to reimburse livestock owners for wolf caused losses while wolves are under federal protection. To date, [The] Bailey Wildlife Foundation Wolf Compensation Fund, named in honor of its largest contributor, has reimbursed ranchers almost $700,000 in the Northern Rockies for their livestock losses to wolves and celebrates its 20 year anniversary in 2007. Since the program's inception in 1987 (shortly after the first pack was established in Montana) through 2005, Defenders has paid for more than 90% of all verified livestock losses. In addition to Defenders' compensation program, the Idaho Office of Species Conservation administers a secondary compensation program that reimburses Idaho livestock owners for the remaining losses and also compensates for missing and unverified livestock losses. Sources: Table: Confirmed Wolf Depravation and Management by State1987-2005 Idaho Office of Species Conservation: PDF Files Defenders of Wildlife: Wolf Compensation Maps and Records MYTH: Most livestock losses to wolves are undetected. REALITY: Some losses are undetected, but even under the "worst-case" scenario, these still represent a small percentage of overall cattle losses. DETAILS: Wolf-related livestock deaths are documented by federal and state agencies but what about losses that weren't found? By adding a factor for undetected losses under a worst case scenario (e.g. heavy vegetation, remote location, infrequent human supervision of livestock), researchers determined that from one to eight wolf depredation losses remain undetected (Oakleaf et al 2003). If that number is accurate and all undetected losses occurred under these worst-case scenarios, wolves may have actually killed between 40 and 160 cattle in Idaho in 2005. However, this estimate still represents less than one percent (0.15 %) of total cattle losses. WOLVES AND IDAHOANS MYTH: Idahoans don't want wolves in the state. REALITY: According to a statewide poll conducted by Boise State University in 2003, slightly more Idahoans support having wolves in the backcountry than are opposed to them. DETAILS: 42% of Idaho residents said that we should have wolves in the wilderness and roadless areas in the state while 39% disagreed. Source: http://sspa.boisestate.edu/ssrc/arch...alsurvey14.pdf BUT AREN'T THEY "CANADIAN" WOLVES? MYTH: Wolves from Canada were used for reintroduction to central Idaho and Yellowstone so they aren't native. REALITY: The wolves that currently inhabit Canada once historically inhabited the central and western United States, live in similar habitat and rely on the same food source. Since wolves were exterminated in the western region of the lower 48, capturing animals from Canada as a source population was actually the ideal match. .DETAILS: Reintroduced wolves are often incorrectly called "Canadian" wolves however, biological and genetic research provides evidence of only two subspecies of wolves inhabiting the central and western portions of the United States, both of which moved freely across the Canadian border. Other taxonomists reject the subspecies theory, believing that the same wolf species lived in both the western U.S. and Canada. When selecting wolves for release into central Idaho and Yellowstone, biologists chose wolves in Canada that were already preying on elk and living in habitat similar to that of Idaho and Wyoming. A few wolves have even made the trip on their own. In 1991, a GPS collared wolf traveled from Banff National Park, Alberta to British Columbia, down to Browning, Montana then southwest past Coeur d'Alene, Idaho into Washington state and back to her home territory traveling an area of about 40,000 square miles in less than three years. While this is an extreme example, several wolves have dispersed hundreds of miles in just a few weeks. Source: Lukens, Jim. Idaho, eleven years with wolves what we've learned. News release, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, April 25, 2006. Mech, L.D. and L. Boitani, editors. 2003. Wolves: behavior, ecology and conservation. University of Chicago Press. Wandering Wolf Inspires Project, 5/23/2006 New York Times. Hope you read it all Dave.... Enjoy  |
|
| |
|
02-28-2008, 06:00 PM
| #63 | |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Idaho
Posts: 560
| Quote:
error you told: Wolves have been here 35 million years, man 2 error you told: Wolves hunt only the sick and weak error you told: Wolves dont surplus kill error you told: Wolves eat all they kill. error you told: No people in North America have ever been killer by wolves in the past 500 years. error you told: Wolves hunting is "fair chase" In deep snow, out numbered and babies. error you told: beaver damns are good for trout. error you told: no proof that the saw tooth wolves raised by Dutcher's were bottle fed. error you told: wolves are endangerd come on really I spend 2 days posting sites you wont eve look at now you think your a researcher again. Good to see yo are actually trying to REALLY research things this time. thirty years later. But now you need to look at both sides of the story and stop wantanly spreading falsehoods to support your, how did you say, own logic. so why dont you look at some of the other wolf sites that paint a less rosey color so you can look between the two extremes and really see reality
__________________ Living the life Last edited by Idaho Dave; 02-28-2008 at 06:03 PM. | |
|
| |
|
02-28-2008, 06:09 PM
| #64 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,916
|
darkwingduckwingwiper: About every year I shoot,trap and slaughter between 200 and 300 woodchucks/groundhogs and most just lie there until fox,coyote,or vultures consume them.I do this for my own pleasure and satisfaction.I am bored with your long oratories and articles on wolves and how terrible it is to shoot them.Could you post some long winded oratories and articles on why we should save these varmints and what a terrible person I am for killing them indiscriminately for my own intertainment?I mean come on!!! dont you realise you are boring me to death on the wolves?Please post some long winded BS on varmints and make me madder than he## at you.I promise not to even answer. sam.
|
|
| |
|
02-28-2008, 06:25 PM
| #65 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Idaho
Posts: 560
|
hey by the way wing it is good to see you using idaho fish and game states because they are the ones saying there is enough to delist and start a hunt, and by the way Ralph has as much credibilty many feel tht him and his plans are politically motivated. LOOK and because Idaho Wolf Management What does state management mean for wolves? The state wolf plan requires that a minimum of 15 packs of wolves be maintained in Idaho. Currently Idaho has about 40 packs well distributed across the state. The state has begun planning and coordinating with the USFWS, the Nez Perce Tribe, and Wildlife Services to transition into the primary management role. Once delisted, wolves will likely be managed similar to black bears and mountain lions. The state will likely propose hunting wolves to provide opportunity for harvest of wolves, as well as to attempt to reduce problems with livestock and to maintain a balance between wolves and their prey. (However, if the state allows hunting of wolves, they will be managed at a level that allows a harvestable surplus, which will and here Wolf Management and then read this right from the fish and game not run through welovewolves.com http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wil...DelistRule.pdf Since 1997, Defenders of Wildlife has compensated 210 ranches around the U.S. for livestock lost to wolves and has paid them more than $240,000, Bishop said. According to the organization's Website, it has paid for 288 cattle, 657 sheep and 32 other animals killed by wolves in the U.S. The average payment per animal is $247.79. what? Your facts say 700,000 and where did they get any of that money anyway? look here do some more reading Fact Sheet get some real info to sift through I know it is hard as the anti hunters run soooo many web sites you really gotta look but the truth is out there Man is not evil, not the enemy just another animal you hate us killing but it is okay for the wolves how prejudice. youll have to go to the site for the pics After their success at forcing wolf recovery in Yellowstone National Park, special interest groups are proposing the reintroduction of wolves in various regions of the United States (U.S.). Based on extensive research, we oppose transplanting wolves in the U.S. for the following reasons: 1. Wolves are not biologically in danger of extinction and should be removed from the Endangered Species Act (ESA). There are 1,500 to 2,000 wolves in Minnesota, 6,000 to 10,000 in Alaska and 40,000 to 50,000 wolves in Canada, according to the biologists. They are certainly not in danger of extinction. The ESA has two provisions for listing a species as "endangered." One is a species in danger of actual extinction, and two, a species can be placed on the Act if it has lost a considerable amount of its former territory. The wolf is listed "endangered" for the second reason since it inhabited most of the U.S. However, wolves have not ever been in danger of biological extinction. ESA protection of the wolf will assist in land lock-up as advocated by special interest groups. Certain groups favor large areas of land to be designated as wilderness which eliminates virtually all multiple use of land. There is organized opposition to hunting and trapping. Wolf recovery could be used to further these agendas. Note: The penalty for killing an endangered wolf, even in the protection of ones' livelihood, is $100,000 and a mandatory prison sentence. 2. Wolf recovery will be very costly, and a constant on-going expense for federal and state governments as well as placing hardship on individuals who live near recovery areas. In Yellowstone, cost estimates on wolf recovery are from $200,000 to 1 million per wolf. Furthermore, little, if any, actual benefit is gained from wolves being in the region. For example: A. Very few people will see a wolf. Wolves are very shy, elusive and nocturnal by nature. Yellowstone Park officials have praised the numerous sightings. However, in relation to total numbers of visitors to Yellowstone in 1996, less than .005 ever saw a wolf in 1996. If wolves become accustomed to humans, then they are a danger just as mountain lions have become throughout the West. Even Yellowstone's records document several coyote attacks on humans. Similar incidences have been reported in other parts of North America. B. Wolves will reduce the numbers of animals observed by people. Wolves are hunters. They hunt 365 days a year and need 5 to 10 pounds of meat per day to survive. Therefore, to maintain a healthy wolf population, wolves would have to kill a significant number of wild animals for survival. Thus, there would be fewer animals seen by wildlife viewers. Additionally, fewer animals will be observed due to the wariness of the animals. Just as elk or deer become vigilant during hunting season, so will the wild animals of the regions where wolves roam. One significant difference will be that hunting season for wolves is year-round and therefore the animals will be significantly more wary and seen less by people. Algonquin Provincial Park in Canada is a good example - deer are seldom seen. C. Reduction of harvestable game. In other words, wolves will have a negative impact on hunting. Often recovery programs are implemented in National Parks where hunting is not allowed. However, the wild game herds migrate out to areas where people can hunt them. Wolves will reduce these animal numbers. Wayne Brewster, a National Park Service Biologist, told guides and outfitters, who lived north of Yellowstone National Park, to expect a fifty percent (50%) reduction in harvestable game when wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park. Wolf predation and harvest by man (hunting) are not compatible. Studies have shown that prey populations cannot withstand hunting by man and uncontrolled wolf predation. If wolves recover in an area where hunting is allowed, hunting would most likely be stopped or limited significantly for the benefit of wolf recovery. Studies on wolf recovery have estimated that hunting could be reduced by 50% in certain cases. Hunting has a significant positive impact on the economies of the western states. It is a valuable wildlife management tool. Hunting can be used very effectively to control wildlife populations while contributing substantial amounts of money for wildlife habitat improvement and wildlife studies. Wolf predation contributes no monies to states' economies, habitat improvement or wildlife studies. Wolf predation causes management costs to rise dramatically while offering no positive economic gain in return. D. Balance of nature will not be restored. Many claim the wolf is "the missing link" in the ecosystem. What's not being said is that wolves would create a whole new set of problems in the course of nature and wildlife management. Studies in Minnesota, Alaska, and Canada prove this conclusively. E. Wolves will kill livestock. Our research indicates there is more history on wolves and their destruction of livestock than any other predator. A good book, still available through Inter- Library Loan, is THE WOLVES OF NORTH AMERICA, by U.S. Fish and Wildlife biologists Stanley Young and Arther Goldman. From the time of the colonists, wolves have killed livestock. One of the first wolf bounty laws was passed in Boston in 1630. It wasn't until the 1930s that wolves were significantly reduced in number to prevent livestock depredation in the U.S. ************************** Here's how wolves impact hunting so severely. Wolves are opportunists, meaning they kill whatever is convenient. This may be an old or sick animal, a pregnant female (wolves are particularly hard on females heavy with young - they kill many of them), but most significantly they prey on the young due to the ease of catching and killing them. We have interviews with several wolf biologists in Canada. Wolf biologist John Elliot (British Colombia Ministry of Environment) took the time to explain the impacts of wolf predation on a herd of wild game, whether it be moose, caribou, elk or deer. In this particular example, he used a number of 300 females in a herd of elk. In his region, wolf predation is often 90% on the young (100% mortality rates due to predation are common in the north). If 300 females gave birth in an area of wolves, the approximate loss would be about 270 young calves killed during the summer months, leaving 30 yearlings to serve as replacements. A regular die-off rate on such a herd is about 10%. So the 30 yearlings would balance out the regular mortality rate of the female segment of the herd. But overall there is a decline in the elk herd due to the fact the 30 yearlings are usually sexually split in half (15 females and 15 males), thus the reproductive segment of the herd declines although the numbers appear to balance out. Without some form of wolf control, the rate of decline will increase within a few years. There were approximately 100 males in this herd of elk. Figuring the regular mortality rate and compensating with the surviving young leaves 5 animals which may be harvested by man (harvest of males only). Now if this herd of elk were in an area of no wolves, there would be approximately 60 - 70% successful reproduction (calves making it to yearlings) or 200 young. Half of those surviving young would be male (100 animals). After figuring a 10% mortality rate, 90 older animals could be harvested without impact to the overall herd numbers. In fact, the herd would increase due to additional numbers of the reproductive segment (females) of the herd. Dr. Charles E. Kay, Ph.D. illustrates the impacts of wolf predation on hunting in a comparison of moose populations in British Colombia to that of Sweden and Finland. Both areas have a comparable amount of moose habitat. Dr. Kay stated: "During the 1980s in Sweden and Finland, the pre-calf or the wintering population of moose was approximately 400,000 animals and was increasing. While in British Colombia, it was 240,000 animals and decreasing. "In British Colombia where they have a population of 240,000 animals and after a calving season, they killed only 12,000 animals which is a 5% off take. In Sweden and Finland, on the other hand, they have 400,000 moose and guess how many they killed in the fall? They killed 240,000 moose in the fall which is a 57% off take rate. "Now the two main differences, I don't want to imply that there's not vegetation differences and other things, but the two main differences is that British Colombia has somewhere between 5,000 and 6,000 wolves, all sorts of bears, grizzly bears and black bears, which are also important predators, and mountain lions. Sweden and Finland have none of the above." The 2 maps included with this fact sheet further illustrate these impacts caused by wolves. Let's address another important issue concerning wolf recovery - compensation to ranchers for livestock killed by wolves. Defenders of Wildlife have established a $100,000 compensation program to reimburse Wyoming, Idaho and Montana ranchers (Yellowstone Wolf Recovery) and New Mexico and Arizona ranchers (Mexican Wolf Recovery) for losses caused by wolves. This program is often referred to as the answer to ranchers' concerns about livestock loss to wolves. In reality, the program is nothing more than a publicity tool for Defenders. It is totally inadequate for addressing the problem of livestock loss to wolves. Here's why: First, the animal killed has to be "confirmed" as a wolf kill. Confirming a wolf kill can be done by examining the carcass noting areas attacked, bite marks, possible tracks, etc. However, this is difficult due to certain natural processes. 1. Carcass not found - totally eaten. Wolves are opportunists, meaning they kill whatever is easiest. Wolves are well known to kill the young, both of wild animals and domestic stock. If a young calf or lamb is killed by a wolf, most, if not all, of the animal is eaten so that you simply cannot find the carcass. 2. Scavengers and decay, especially in hot weather, rapidly eliminate evidence confirming cause of death. Scavengers -- coyotes, eagles, fox, skunks, crows, ravens, magpies, gulls -- are often waiting to feed on the carcass before the wolves leave. Consequently, there is no confirmation. 3. Terrain - heavy vegetation, such as timber and undergrowth hide the carcass. There are thousands of acres of heavy timber in the United States. A carcass can be easily overlooked. So Defenders can't lose too much. Animal Damage Control Officers tell us confirmed kills are often 10% or less of what a predator actually kills, meaning that up to 90% of the livestock lost to wolves will never be compensated under this program or any program similar to it. The compensation program is also short term. Defenders have specified the program will be in effect until the wolf is removed from the Endangered Species List. That means when there are significant numbers of wolves to merit their removal from the ESA, Defenders' program will cease. One would assume when wolves are in significant numbers in various regions of the U.S. to merit removal from the ESA, there would be more loss of livestock to wolves than with a few turned loose in a recovery area. We wouldn't want to give you the impression that Defenders instituted a program in which they knew they could not lose unless that is what they had planned. Hank Fischer, Representative for Defenders of Wildlife, stated: "The purpose of a compensation program isn't to make ranchers happy or gain their support,... The purpose of the program is to develop enough of a political and economic comfort level with the public so as to allow wolf recovery to proceed unimpeded." It has worked very well for them. Another aspect of compensation should also be addressed. How does one compensate a person for the emotional loss felt when a beloved pet or family animal is killed by wolves? This question was driven home to us when an elderly woman called our office and related the following personal account: In the early 1900s, her family homesteaded in east central Wyoming. She and her sister were the only children. There was a country school four miles away. Each day the children rode bareback on the family horse to school. The horse was pastured near the school during the day and then the children rode the horse home. One winter morning, the horse failed to come in. The father and the two sisters went to investigate and found, by examining the tracks left in the snow, that two wolves had passed through the area in the night and attacked the horse. The wolves were able to rip open the abdominal cavity of the horse, causing the intestines to fall out on the ground. Thus, they found the horse, still alive, standing on its own intestines. The horse had to be killed. Just how does one compensate those children for their loss? **************** Finally, two important points: 1. It's questionable how much actual benefit wolf recovery is for wolves. We do know wolf recovery benefits the people who make money off the animal. These are the special interest groups, biologists and researchers who study and promote the animal -- often at great taxpayer expense. Further, there are those who use endangered species as a surrogate for personal agendas such as anti-hunting and land control. There's also a conflict of interest involved: "Those who write recovery plans for wolves and other endangered species, choose the alternatives, conduct and edit the science, edit the comments and make all the decisions, are the same ones who benefit directly from their own contrived determinations." 2. Wildlife management is an art science, not a specific science. A specific science is something that is specific and can be tested, tested and re-tested with the same results every time. Chemistry is an example. A chemist can mix one element with another element and get a certain and definite reaction every time. That is specific. Wildlife management is an art science in that there are so many variables that two biologists can look at the same studies and come up with different conclusions. Quite often wolf biologists do not agree with each other in their studies about wolves. This is the very reason for the need to review history. History helps biology and wildlife management become realistic. For more information, contact: ABUNDANT WILDLIFE SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA PO Box 2 Beresford, SD 57004 (605) 751 - 0979 PRINT THIS FACT SHEET AND PASS ON then read this it is a book THE WOLVES OF NORTH AMERICA, by U.S. Fish and Wildlife biologists Stanley Young and Arther Goldman Alaska’s efforts to aggressively reduce wolf numbers to help moose and caribou populations rebound has brought an international tourism boycott and successful legal challenges by environmental groups and animal rights advocates. Alaska has 8,000 to 11,000 wolves, robust populations with no threat of extinction and wide-open expanses of wilderness. State agencies have found wolf hunting by itself insufficient to reduce wolf numbers enough to increase the numbers of moose and caribou. The state first used state shooters from helicopters to attempt to reduce wolf numbers in key areas. While effective, helicopters are expensive and the most controversial method. Environmental groups’ opposition to helicopter gunning led officials to halt the practice in the 1990s. Four years ago, they came up with a new strategy. They gave hunters and pilots who qualified permits to kill wolves from airplanes in popular hunting areas where moose and caribou numbers were far below goals. For the last three years, these volunteer shooters have met their goals. This year’s mild winter made wolf shooting more difficult, said Matt Robus, Alaska’s Division of Wildlife Conservation director. Hunters and even newspapers like the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner urged new Gov. Sarah Palin to authorize the use of helicopters and state employees to make sure the goals were met. Research conducted along with the program shows increased moose numbers in the areas where wolves were reduced. “We have early indications that if you sustain (the wolf killing program), it works,” Robus said. Friends of Animals | Wolves & Elk: THE OVERRIDING ISSUE IN DELISTING
__________________ Living the life Last edited by Idaho Dave; 02-28-2008 at 07:07 PM. |
|
| |
|
02-28-2008, 08:08 PM
| #66 | ||
| Banned Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 789
| Quote:
Quote:
I don't care what you do and if you are so bored with my long oratories, why do you read them? Are you that much of a moron that what bores you, you continue to read and then reply to. You have not said one intelligent word in this thread, only thrown in your wise ass remarks. Your Intelligence level has shone well sam. move on or be quiet. | ||
|
| |
|
02-28-2008, 08:17 PM
| #67 | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Idaho
Posts: 560
| Quote:
you make out like they are warm and fuzzies with a mind on conservation you are on drugs you get proven worng so you just make up more lies and try to attack those that disprove you. it is funny but i will never, ever let you leave one of your lies her unchallanged. frankly I think it is funny that you would resort to keeping with all the falacious tactics, and fall back on those tired old lies that any one interested canjust look back on past posts and see you sir are at best in error blinded by your emotional love of an animal you obviously know very little about and have never really seen. I know you just keep this up because you enjoy learning something hey look we are related to the wolf too and by your logic we have been here just as long CNN.com - Tiny creature may be ancestor of all mammals - May 24, 2001 hahaha any way i dont care haw dangerous they are to man the point I made is that you told a lie you heard some place with out trying to check it out, and where caught instead of saying "oh i guess i was worng" you attack to try to discredit it is good to see that now you addmit there was at least one (come on you know there was 2) documented cases and probably more undocumented (oh you are learning. of course now the montra is one human attack, maybe. not the never ever of before). you said "Beave dams, supply Bird Sanctuary and usually are damn good Trout fishing " to imply that the happy beaver helps the world with his work where man is the destroyer. man you are funny. there are less deer now then there was before. proved that wrong and you just dont get it. those talking points are intended for, what did you say? independent thinkers, not people who will look around a little. better keep them for others. No sir it is not in print that wolves only hunt sick and weak. they prey on all. you are still lying you show mw where it says wolves only hunt sick and weak animals. you sir continue to lie to fool people or to cover up your ignorance hoping I will just go away. tada "Wolves are opportunistic hunters, meaning they kill what is available and convenient. For years, hunters have been fed the line, "Wolves kill only the weak, sick and old." Worse yet, hunters have believed it. " Wolves and Hunting you keep lying "Wolf predation on ungulates varies seasonally. It is highest during mid to late winter, when animals are suffering from poor nutrition and the snow is deep, making them easier to kill. It is also quite high in early summer when prey animals have their young, as wolves prey heavily on vulnerable young." "In a severe winter, wolves may kill healthy deer (notice it dosent say feed on) which would have survived the winter had they not had been made vulnerable by the deep snow. " International Wolf Center Learn - Wolf Predation on Ungulates Of course, wolves are opportunists and will sometimes kill healthy animals if safe opportunities arise Wolf Recovery Foundation - Wolves your right it is in writing and even the wolf recovery foundation knows that you continue to lie and/or make mistakes. and the only thing fair chase about five angry dogs attacking a health calf elk in snow up to its knees is after they kill it they will wait a few minutes before starting on the next one by the way your personal experinace is hardly more then aticdotal evidence and your using that as the basis of your arguments once agian shows how egocentric you really are. Your fist statment was " Idaho Dave and anyone else Wolves have NEVER killed a human, in all of North America for the last 500 years. Research it and find me to be wrong. ( oh wait we did and you got mad)The case in Canada is still under investigation and if proven to be a Wolf would be the FIRST human killing in 500 years. Wolves very rarely attack a human unless provoked or sick, they may attack the Dog that is with the human and the human gets in the way. Wolves are of NO DANGER to humans, never have been, that is pure B.S. to even speculate that they are. German Shepards are more apt to attack their OWN Masters than a Wolf is to attack a human. Wolves ONLY kill what they need and do not kill for sport as does the Coyote. Wolves will bury the carcass and return to it, many weeks or even months later. Wolves were here before Livestock or Man and will be here long after our departure. Wolves do NOT need to move over for a Farmer, the Farmer needs to learn to live with the Wolf. The TWO states with the Largest and Healthiest Deer herds are Minnesota and Wisconsin, they are also the TWO states with the largest and healthiest Wolf Packs.Wolves are like SOME humans in that they kill ONLY what they need. Some humans kill for thrills or for ego but not the Wolf. Wolves will kill the sick, lame or weak and through this practice they ensure the species they hunt will be more healthy and less apt to be killed off by sickness. Wolves do more good than man does and leaves its enviroment better, man tries to imply they have a right to decide what is to live and what is to die and man destroys his enviroment. Wolves have been on Earth for about 35 million years, Man for about 2 million. If you want to study a Proud and very Social animal, read about the Wolf. Wolves do not need to be MANAGED because Man can not even manage his own checkbook. Nature has been controlling this planet for billions of years and been doing a might fine job, Man is who with his philosphies and ideas have destroyed habitant, Enviroment and enroached on Wildlife and then when wildlife comes to the backyard, it is suddenly MORE management needed. B.S. Wolves do more good than all of man. This country didn't have crazy European influence for millions of years and WILDLIFE was abundant, it wasn't until the arrival of man and the Cattle and then the Sheep and then the Railroads. Man slaughtered Buffalo through his own ignorance and would do the same to every single animal, they had a notion about if they could. Deer are not here ONLY for Man's pleasure they are here for Natures reasoning. I too, am a hunter but I am a Sportsman and try to keep balance and FAIR CHASE in my hunts." and you wonder why any one would take offense to being told they dont know what they are talking about when your are exhibiting that very behavior. what on earth makes you thins I would listen to you your staments are wrong and you challenged me to find them then got all upset cause your own, unsupported, claims dont hold water when looked at. they did sound good at first but I really do know and I didnt buy it. and sir my oppinions are not out numbered at all. it is like was stated earlier the squeaky want the greese so they squak the loudest. poeple who have no idea are using talking points and spout them with such furvor that thier voices are hard to hear over (you are a fine example. proven wrong again and agian you cannot accept it and continue to tell things that arent true actin in you regocentric high and mighty way.) and with the statement of my voice being small thus worng you commit yet another logical fallacy called "appeal to majority" just because lots of people say dosnt make it so or the earth would be a flat disk in the center of the universe.
__________________ Living the life Last edited by Idaho Dave; 02-28-2008 at 09:10 PM. | |
|
| |
|
02-28-2008, 08:34 PM
| #68 |
| Super Moderator   Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: sawyer, ok
Posts: 1,083
|
i personnaly just wingwiper would just go away as i agree with sam. just my opinion. steve
__________________ For those who never fought for it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know. |
|
| |
|
02-28-2008, 11:00 PM
| #69 |
| Senior Member |
Opinion sparks debate and that is good as two swords sharpen each other.I understand that.What I don't understand are what seem to be anti-hunting statements made by some posters on this thread.Perhaps it is just me, but that is the thoughts and feelings I have got from this debate.With that said, I am pro-hunter and offer my opinon.The Wolf will no longer be on the endangered species list.He has made a remarkable come back and some states D.N.R. departments believe his numbers are ready to be controlled and regulated by sport hunting.I trust there judgements as professionals.
|
|
| |
|
02-28-2008, 11:18 PM
| #70 | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,916
| Quote:
Last edited by samuel; 02-28-2008 at 11:21 PM. | |
|
| |
|
02-29-2008, 12:08 AM
| #71 |
| Senior Member   Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: South Arkansas.
Posts: 17,217
|  
__________________ IN GOD WE TRUST NRA MEMBER |
|
| |
|
02-29-2008, 03:03 AM
| #72 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,096
|
Somebody living in a state with no wolves, and telling people who live with them that they can't manage their population is like somebody living outside the USA what we should do with the second amendment. I know that isn't totally wingpipers stance, I just think it is crazy on how people elsewhere tell other people on how to deal with their problems. We can't manage our other big game species, unless we manage the wolf also. I live in a state that tells me we have had 3,000 and only 3,000 wolves for the past 7 years or so...so did they quit breeding in 2001? I think not, I just think we have been lied to for 7 years, and it is starting to make people mad. I heard somebody blaming Global Warming for the dissaperance of our moose the past few years. It probably isn't 100% percent the Wolves fault, it just blows my mind on how they ruled them out. If they came out and said Wolves were eating a lot of Moose (imagine that) people would start killing them. |
|
| |
|
02-29-2008, 09:28 AM
| #73 |
| Banned Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 789
| Either many of you have a lot of trouble with the English language or you need someone else to read to you. I am a Hunter, I am NOT against INTELLIGENT CONTROL, I am against Knee Slapping Control. This was said, yet those of you want to argue for whatever reason. Wolves started to evolve 60 million years ago; the Wolf as we know it today is just a few hundred thousand years old. Does that clear it up for you Dave, or would you like someone to research and read it to. Humans started to evolve 2 million years ago and Lucy use to be the oldest known link to the human evolution, there is now one or two older. Dr Leahy was credited with that find. You are talking about one sub species of the wolf and I am talking about the WOLF in general. Sorry you missed the point. Wolves in Vermont? Absolutely, and many like what are on this website, have called them Coyotes or Coy dogs. We do have a Coyote migration and we have a NATIVE NORTHEASTERN GREY WOLF and it is a totally separate DNA from the Red or the Grey in the Midwest. Beyond ignorance they are not mixed with Coyotes, on rare and really rare occasions there may be a cross over, by Wolves and Coyotes don't even go into heat at the same time.. Research my foolish friends. Plenty of room for a debate here. You do not have to live with wolves to know wolves and I am sure most of you and that Includes Idaho Dave, haven't had any or extremely little contact with them as well. On the Internet one can boast about anything. Fact is you all are just guessing and spewing out opinions. My state has Catamounts, Lynx, Fisher Cats, Bear, Moose, Bobcat and I will guarantee the majority and I mean probably close to 90% have never seen any of them. So just because YOU all live in areas where Wolves are known to be, does not mean you have EVER had any contact with them yourselves, regardless what you type on this thread. That really has nothing to do with the facts that have been researched and published by people who HAVE spent incredible amounts of time with them. I have no idea other than when I said Dave should watch the Documentary by the Dutchers, why that has shifted to be the center of the conversation. I really don't think any of you or dave has any idea what this discussion is REALLY all about. Go back to the beginning and read slowly, you all have missed the points. Dave, You have problems, you say one thing and then you get all twisted around and accuse me of lying. I have said it over and over and I am done with you, you are arrogant and you are extremely ignorant and your claims are empty. I have made it clear over and over what I am saying and you continue to miss the point and stoop to your low level name calling. I am sure with out a doubt you do not have a clue what you are talking about or what I am talking about. You are totally out in la la land. I do not know how else I can say what I have said to make it plainer for you. For Christ’s sake you are even arguing over the Evolution process, that any fool can spend 5 minutes on Google and read about. PRODUCE A DOCUMENTED CASE OF A HUMAN BEING KILLED BY A WOLF IN THE LAST 500 YEARS IN ALL OF NORTH AMERICA, WHEN YOU DO, THEN YOU CAN CALL ME A LIAR. UNTIL THEN DAVE, YOU ARE ALL WET. I really do not think any of you have a clue what I have said or am saying, I think you spot read, draw a wild conclusion and then make your statements. You all have DISCUSSION BOARDS, but few of you can carry on a discussion without name calling and worthless mumble jumble, What do you all want? little arguments where no one benefits or do you want discussions? I really thought this was a place where people could post and expect a civil discussion from adults and instead I see children playing and foolishness. I go to other threads and I see people who want to tear into people with out provocation and then claim they are experts in every category. People come here to learn, to share, to discuss and some of you think this is a KING OF THE MOUNTAIN GAME and that these forums are your little HANG OUTS and no outsiders are allowed. Grow UP people, read the posts and see if you can get the jest of what is being said and if you can't then, sit back keep your comments to yourselves and wait until YOU do understand. If you all don't have anything INTELLIGENT to say, it is best to keep your mouths closed than to open them and prove you are idiots. Dave, I would have loved to have had a civil discussion with you, but you are loose with your name calling and that clearly shows me I am debating with an UNEDUCATED FOOL, too bad, You not only missed the points I was making by a long shot, you did a pretty poor job establishing what you were saying. Oh! you have colleagues and BIRDS OF A FEATHER DO SEEM TO FLOCK TOGETHER. Wolves are grand animals and have a Proud heritage, many of you don't see that or understand that and one of you feels that MAN is part of the equation when Man is really the problem. There would never need to be a Management of any part of Nature if there was an absence of man. That was one of my main points. The problems that Man has with Nature are ones that were created by him. Man is greedy, man does NOT want to share, man wants it all and another of my points was that the Ranchers are concerned about their Bottom line and abuse their Permits for grazing rights on the FEDERAL LANDS. The Ranchers are more of the problem than the wolf is. When I found the website to reinforce what I said in the beginning, Dave twisted it to claim it defended what he was saying. Oh! well the humor of it all. Now! I am sure it is to SAM"S enjoyment, but I will stick around and see if anyone would like to carry on with a civil discussion or would they prefer to belittle, degrade and stay with the insults that have nothing to do with the topic. I have read a lot about Wolves and have watched a lot of Docs, do I know everything? Well Sam, I never claimed that at all, I was here to learn and you my friend are the one person who seems to love to start a fight by never contributing anything of substance to any conversation. I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS TOPIC FURTHER AND I INVITE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO DO IT CIVILLY TO PARTICIPATE. I AM HERE, IDAHO DAVE, TO HEAR THE OTHER SIDE AND NOT BE CALLED NAMES FOR MY POSITION. IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED WE COULD START A NEW THREAD AND START OVER, THIS ONE HAS GOTTEN INTO THE GARBAGE DUMP. I LEARNED A LOT MORE IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS WITH MY GOOGLING AND I AM STILL WANTING TO HEEA MORE ABOUT THE OPPOSITE VIEWS. Lng Rng don't forget your Moose are under a Management Program and probably have had OVER HARVESTING as with OUR Moose. We have two car accidents and suddenly the F&G issues 200 more Moose Permits. I said it earlier, Fish & Game Biologists are BOOK LEARNED Morons who have tons of BOOK SENSE and little or no COMMON SENSE I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS WITH ANYONE WHO WOULD WANT TO DO IT CIVIL, IF THERE AREN'T ANY HERE, I UNDERSTAND. Last edited by Wingwiper; 02-29-2008 at 09:39 AM. |
|
| |
|
02-29-2008, 10:20 AM
| #74 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Idaho
Posts: 560
|
sir I am not arguing at all I am simply pointing to your distortion of facts, and you sir began your diatribe by saying you were an expert (remember that post or do i need to quote it) by your research. then you got angry when some one called you on it (hu, just what you say others are guilty of. WOW), if i called you a liar that is becasie one that tells untrue stories is. you are the one who offendes with your fallatious arguments, attacking the messanger, calling people crazy and saying they are on drugs, claimaing there is no evidence to support claims made even when evidence is porvided with them. then you claim that your logic needs no evidence due to your research, then complain when you are called on it. you were the one that lied about the age of the wolf. then it was me that showed you your lie and where in the net to google it sir so you got caught spreding and propogating a fantasy you have. I did post evidence of wolf kills on humans so did others (simply look back), you sir ar the one that is all wet. your lies will not be left unchallenged as so many of your type of people are used to. your accusations of all these fine people having not had much contact with wolves and so they dont know and you sir have NEVER EVER seen a wholf in the wild. and you know that is true. you have been bested at your propaganda game because you started by assuming that we would all roll over and belive what ever you spouted like so many freshmen at brekly. WE dont, I wont. youe began your discussion with assurtions that were untrue and demanded that we all take notice of your great research. I am sure you have never ween wolves, at this point I doubt that you eve are the hunter you claim to be and I am wondering if you even own any guns. each one of your FACTS was a talking point right out of the seirra club. You sir are fooling no one....... you cant just come in spouting ideas you think are facts and have poeple who really do know sit in silence I am sure you are used to that due to your squeaky wheel comment but sir, it wont happen every time.....
__________________ Living the life Last edited by Idaho Dave; 02-29-2008 at 10:28 AM. |
|
| |
|
02-29-2008, 11:31 AM
| #75 |
| Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 3,605
|
Now I have tried to be as civil as possible in this here discussion, but I take umbrage at some statements wingwiper has made, one of which is his insistance that wolves "By the Laws of Nature" do not surplus hunt, that it is mans "interference" that causes this particular behaviour in wolves. Another is his comment that wolves will sometimes return to a kill months after having made it to feed again upon the carcass. Both remarks are untrue wolves and coyotes do surplus (Sport) hunt, both are opportunistic predators that being the case means that both predators prey largely BUT NOT exclusively upon the injured, sick and young of their prey species. This behavior isn't exclusive to terrestrial predators either. Neither canid has ever been documented as having caching behavior of their kills unlike the fox, bear, cougar and wolverines which are well documented. Wolves will wait out a superior predator such as a bear or cougar over a kill until the carcass is abandoned and then feed upon the remains as well but this is not caching behavior. The wolf is a magnificient animal however it is also an apex predator and like any other animal will breed to and beyond the sustainable carrying capacity of it's enviroment if left unmanaged. Coyote populations demonstrate this quite clearly, and although the two canids have many different behavior traits they share many as well. Additionally wolves that exist in near proximity to man have begun to display much of the coyotes indifference to man as any kind of threat to them. Wolves that learn to hunt livestock continue to do so because preying upon sheep or goats within a pasture or pen is easier than trailing and killing their usual prey, coyotes share this trait with wolves as well. I am glad that wingwiper seemingly endorses sound management of wolf populations (intelligent control). I don't recall anyone here suggesting anything different. However genuine nusiance animals (or packs) of ANY predatory animal requires immediate action to either remove them or humanely kill them to remove the threat to both humans and livestock/pets. I do NOT advocate in any way the return to bounty hunting of wolves or poisioning as was done in the past, I do strongly support rational biologically sound management hunting and trapping to limit their numbers to a healthy sustainable level which will in the end as with so many of our game animals today ensure their continued survival in the wild and the overall health and population stability of not only the wolves themselves but their prey as well.
__________________ "You can have my Freedom when I'm done with it!" |
|
| |
|
02-29-2008, 11:50 AM
| #76 | |||||
| Banned Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 789
| Quote:
Quote:
My UNTRUE STORIES?? WHAT UNTRUE STORIES? Everything I have said comes from multiple sources and tons of research from hundred of people. Dave, listen, I refer to the WOLF without the presence of MAN. The WOLF is not bad and the WOLF in one form or another started to evolve 60 million years ago and it then started taking on the canis characteristics at about 35 million years ago. I have no clue why you insist I meant the Grey Wolf of North America, when I am using just the WORD WOLF. I was referring to the WOLF in general and I was referring to Man in general and that is why I said Man was 2 million years and not 200,000 years. You read what you wanted to read. MY point about the WOLF is that Without MAN, the WOLF has been on the planet for over 35 million years and has evolved by the controls of nature and without man's help. Man in the last 200 years has destroyed Wolves, Buffalos, and countless other species. When that peticular species is on the verge of being wiped out like the Kiwi, Duckbill Platapus or whatever, then suddenly some men and not man, but some people within the species of man, try to do something. Of course the Wolf is Native to all of North America and of course their numbers have all but been eliminated by man in many of the lower 48. The wolves, I bet in all of North America number less than 500,000 and I really have no idea what the number is. Now what is man's population? what will the Wolves population be in 100 years? man's population in 100 years? As far as my logic, that comment was in reference to a single statement about the Deer population. I still say and regardless of what you post, that management had little to do with the explosion of Deer population. If anything, it is the failures of Management. Now if you want to give me a specific reason why you insist it is Deer management that should take the credit and not the lack of or by opening of Wooded land for farming etc, I will listen. Offer your position and do so with posts and not a bunch of links. I started that after you did ad don't find the need for googling a mile a minute. Give me your LOGIC and YOUR reasoning and If I find the need to google or to challenge then I will, until then just give YOUR views and not a much of CUT AND PASTES. Quote:
NO ONE has posted any DOCUMENTED human WOLF kills. North American Wolves in North America for the last 500 years. Did you ever read the description by Lewis and Clark about the Moose? A so-called reprinted diary entry by a Bird Sketcher (and damn good one too, I might add) taken supposedly from 3 Negroes who probably were fresh from Africa, knowing the dates, is not in any way DOCUMENTED. Come on, I already went thru this and I know people who will print they rode on a UFO. Google it Dave, argue with the 1000s of web sites that say what I said. Argue with them, Dave, stop blabbering about Wolf kills when there are none. I did agree to give you the ONE Canadian man, even though that has NOTbeen Fully documented as a Wolf Kill. damn you are thick headed. Here we go.... Yes! I have seen Wolves in the Wild. Yes! I have seen them in the wood and in my state. Does that make me an Expert? Hell! No, never said it did, but when I hear others cut me down, because they assume I have lived where there are no Wolves and therefore should not be able to judge. I hear B.S. at its finest. That in itself tries to establish that they have and that THEY are the EXPERTS and for me to be quiet and fade away. You my friend have even IMPLIED that yourself and I CHALLENGE you and anyone else in this discussion that YOUR contacts have been NON EXSISTANT or rare and those who have seen them, did not gain enough information to be able to JUDGE the Wolf one way or the other. I think I made that clear enough earlier and if I didn't, I just did. Once again, what we have seen does NOT establish the points to this discussion, hopefully it is more of a collection of everything that will lead to an Intelligent outcome. The claims of ' I LIVE WITH THEM AND YOU DON'T" B.B. is the EXACT keen Slapping Judgement I refer to, when I say I am against knee-slapping Management. Lies, my friend are UNTRUE (proven to be) statements spoken with MALICE. When information is laid out in a discussion, those statements are the basis of the discussion and when you can produce TRUE PREMISES and then a TRUE CONCLUSION, I will listen. So far, you have fallen very short. You can have many TRUE PREMISES, but that will not neccessarily lead to a TRUE CONCLUSION. Hopefully there are some Rhetoric Logic people here who can help explain that to you, seeing how you don't like listening to me. Quote:
Now, as far as I am concerned, I would like to further discuss this with people who may have some knowledge to share in a civil manner. If you would like to end your name calling and present a civil discussion, I would like to hear from the OPPOSITION and that is why I am still here. You have to be also willing to hear from the Pro side and then maybe, maybe there will be a down the middle, compromise. That is the goal of most discussions, about these type of topics, is to find workable solutions that will make both sides happy. You know what Dave, How many times have you heard me say " I AM FOR INTELLIGENT MANAGEMENT"????? You see dave, I am not against harvesting Wolves, never was. I am against the root of the reasoning. Read my posts from the beginning. I say there hasn't been given enough time and I don't care about Japanese land owners. I want to see the wolf populate and then have new packs spring out and venture out into other states and become the purpose once again that Nature put them here for in he first place. I said and I will say it again. Ranchers need to be controlled as well and it seems they don't want to even honor their permits. It is FREE Grazing for them, kinda NO OVER HEAD and I as a U.S. Taxpayer and a Hunter and a Lover of the WOLF, have a problem with them, when they feel it is ALL THE WOLF and not them. Now do we continue to debate the Dutchers and bottle feeding or get back to what the topic was referring to when it said GREY WOLF HUNTS and I came along and spoke support for the Wolf and the logic behind these hunts? The Ball is in YOUR Court Dave and anybody else who wants to join in. I would like a Civil discussion and everyone will be able to state the pros and the cons, some better than others. Otherwise if there is going to be more snide remarks and name calling, I will sit back and wait for the nut cases to leave. Quote:
The reason I read that the 8 pups brought down from Montana and relocated at SAWTOOTH MTN on the Nez Perce compound, didn't make it was simple and I agree with everything you wrote but......... Wolves do not kill for sport.... (hold on a minute now) Wolves by nature do not, they cannot spare the energy for a senseless kill. NOW on the other hand, the Wolves have been pretty much wiped out and the reintroduced Wolves are being located in areas that have been claimed (not owned) by ranchers who have been at war with each other overgrazing rights for decades and don't want a wolf to become part of their overhead. The WOLF pups that were brought down to the Nez Perce compound, had no clue how to hunt, their pack had been killed and no older Wolf was around to teach them. So YES! they went for the easy kills, and got themselves killed off in the mean time. Now that Ranchers have claimed the Wolf Habitant for themselves even though it is still owned by the Federal Government, I don't know how the Wolf will become a successful relocate unless we give them a couple of generations (Wolf) to adjust. We can not depend on Wolves brought up with Man to be able to hunt as they should. The Ranchers have been reimbursed for their losses during this transition time, but has it been enough time for the Wolf to fully adapt to the new areas? I doubt it. Are the Ranchers willing to work with the Programs? NO. DO they even honor the time limits for grazing in the permitted areas? NO. That is not only bad for the WOLF it is bad for the land. Coyotes and Wolves are enemies. I do not think it is from the lack of Management that has caused the influx of Coyotes, I think it is the poor management of other animals that would have kept the Coyote in check, Wolves being one of the main ones.. "Cattle deaths due to predators represented less than 3% of overall losses. These predation deaths included coyotes (600 calves), mountain lions (200 calves), and dogs (100 calves). Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. In 2006, wolves killed 24 cattle in Idaho in 2006. Source: Steve Nadeau, Statewide Large Carnivore Manager, Idaho Fish and Game, 600 S. Walnut, Boise, ID 83707. " The problem in Idaho is NOT the WOLF but the Coyote and the Domestic Dog. too head of cattle killed by Coyotes and Dogs and ONLY 24 by Wolves and, THE RANCHERS WERE REIMBURSED FOR THE WOLF KILLS, but NOT the Coyote or Dog kill or even the Lion kills. I believe with more time, the Wolf will displace th Coyote who does indeed kill for fun.The wolf will also decrease the Coyote and possibly the Dog kill on the cattle, will the Wolf kill increase? I am sure, but not to the levels of 700. Wolves prefer Elk, Deer and Moose, to judge a Wolf by 24 cattle kills is a bit over doing it. Coyotes will kill the calves because of their size, Coyotes are normally hunting smaller game. Wolves will not pick a calf (won't feed the pack) if a weak Deer or Elk is near which is a preferred Pack Feast. In the areas where Wolves do NOT have contact with man, they indeed will return to a carcass to feed off later. It may be many months later and this may not show as evidence in a warmer climate where the carcass doesn't freeze and will rot before the Wolves return to the area. . Last edited by Wingwiper; 02-29-2008 at 12:13 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost | |||||
|
| |
|
02-29-2008, 12:26 PM
| #77 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Idaho
Posts: 560
|
when some one tells the same old broad generalizations and packaged talking facts that have been heard by me and others for the past 20 years, though there is evidence to prove them to be in error they are making a mistake. when they continue to tell them in the face of said evidence, with the intention of swaing others oppinions, they are being deceptive, that is lying. there will be no civil discusson as you, true to your form, only accept evidince that you find, or, how did you say, arrive at with your own logic. when shown evidence you only want to discount it even the most easily proven like the surplus killing and 35 million year old wolf. you assume a lot but you are learning a litttle, keep looking. you need to stop the free grazing commmets as that shows your real intention. goverment controlled land, socialistic policies. you know how you said "some people have too much land so they should have less" We know who you are keep reading up on the wolf though. the hunting matter is that the state of idaho has determined that the number of wolves needed to maintain a biologically viable pouoation, has been reached, exceeded and now wolves, never realy endanged, can be down graded to allow managment. Which the Idaho fish and game have determined would be most successfully, biologically and monetarily, through draw hunting permits. that sir is the issue. okay one more try. stop lying this article states that alaskan officials are certain canadian man was killed by wolves. you read it you ignore it but it is there Wolf Crossing » Blog Archive » Alaska biologist certain wolves killed Canadian another link with the same reslut. coroner inquest states wolf killed man Ontario man killed in wolf attack, coroner's jury finds A coroner's jury in Saskatchewan has determined that Ontario university student Kenton Carnegie was killed in a wolf attack. Carnegie was 22 when he died in November 2005 near Points North Landing, Sask. On a work term for a company at the mining exploration camp, located about 750 kilometres northeast of Saskatoon, Carnegie went for a walk and didn't come back. course your research and thrity years as a coroner makes you know better? this only shows everyone that you are sir continuing to try to decive others, an error? a lie? keep it you have sealed your credibillites own fate. you cant have a civil argument becasue you are too steeped in the practice of deception when you make errors
__________________ Living the life Last edited by Idaho Dave; 02-29-2008 at 12:35 PM. |
|
| |
|
02-29-2008, 01:02 PM
| #78 | |||||||
| Banned Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 789
| Quote:
You call them FACTS and then say you have evidence they aren't facts.....hmmm which is it??? If you don't want to hear it, then I would suggest, shut up and leave. Quote:
 I did say my own logic and that was about ONE STATEMENT about the Deer population, you INSIST to twist and take out of context, everything I say. After this reply, I am adding you to my IGNORE LIST, you are like talking to a ROCK. Quote:
Quote:
If you have so much land that you can NOT take care of it or monitor it, then YES! you probably have too much. Nothing wrong with that statement and in many states there are SQUATTER"S RIGHTS to prevent the wealthy from buying up all the land. We have them Wealth Bast--ds here, they buy up 5000 acre parcels, hide under LAW USE and have the rest of the taxpayers pay their taxes for them and then they sell to developers. I know I know, I only own 10 acres and you own hundreds so I am the whiner....right? Quote:
I stated pretty cleary what I meant no less than 12 times. Quote:
This is taken from your FIRST link. Wolf Crossing » Blog Archive » Alaska biologist certain wolves killed Canadian Quote:
Guess there still is TWO SIDES TO THE STORY, HUH! DAVE??? | |||||||
|
| |
|
02-29-2008, 01:17 PM
| #79 |
| Super Moderator  |
I have to make a logical point because you dont want to accept that Wolves killed somebody...It was Late November with snow on the ground so BLACK BEARS WOULD BE IN HIBERNATION...There were NO Bear Tracks around the Body, just Wolf tracks, so Paul Paquet Twisted the facts and Insulted the Family that lost their son...The family requested an official coroner’s inquest based on what McNay told them. Carnegie’s father, Kim, said he never doubted that wolves were culprits. "My main focus was to prove my son was killed by wolves and not a bear," Kim Carnegie said. "I knew it was wolves and everybody up there knew it was wolves." How about the other workers that were attacked and fought off the Wolves with sticks ??? Common Sense needs to prevail...
__________________ You know you might be facing your doom,when all you get is a click when you're expecting a BOOM!  |
|
| |
|
02-29-2008, 01:47 PM
| #80 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Idaho
Posts: 560
|
look you started by saying things that werent true, I am willing on good faith to accept that maybe you didnt know (funny how you said no human kills, then maybe one, then only one then none) that there was, how did you say, 2 sides to every story but now you do no rest, not now not ever I sir have all the time in the world. you did say wolves had been here for 35 million years. an error? a lie? by the way they only came into northe america about 700,000 years ago (that is a generous guess considering that some believe that it maybe 200,000) from asia on one of the land bridges. therefor, by your own logic, they need to get out just like we do, and let nature take its course with out thier involvment. then the coroner and fish and fish and agme experts told under oath that they were certain wolves had killed the young man. you cant hide it. and the funniest part is I dont care that they did (guy should have been packing) I only care that the tierd old lie "No wolf has killed any humans on N America in the past 500 years" is shown to be a lie and Paul Paquet was shown to be wrong you and he should get together. you may have more in common then you know Ontario man killed in wolf attack, coroner's jury finds but of course you know better!!!!!!! and sir you can fool some folks but not me. the talking points (oh I mean Facts) you stated from IFG came from sites that used parts of complete documents not the documents in thier entierty. here is more form some of those same documents send these to your firends no ifg officer is going to agree to your inital claims of wolf evolution, no surplus killing, no waste killing, etc. they simply agreed tehy had a place and could be maintained. part of IFGs maintance program sir is hunting, really. it is the IFG and thier research, not just logical thinking but actual hands on research, that has said numbers are now to a point that hunting is/and will be a viable management tool. I am sorry you dont like it, but here in the good old USA, at leat so far, you not liking it wont stop it any more then you hating that I have more then you will make them take what is mine, what I worked for, away. so keep siding with IFG cause they will be teh ones issuing those permits. However, there is more from one of those documents sir the IFG is certain we have surpased numbers to maintain viable population. cerainly that must mean that you, siding with the ifg are ready to put in for a tag.the Act requires us to ensure a species is no longer threatened or endangered not that its viability would be theoretically maximized. A wolf metapopulation of at least 30 breeding pairs and at least 300 wolves ensures it will remain viable and recovered. http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wil...DelistRule.pdf [SIZE=1][FONT=Melior]Idaho intends to manage well above 20 breeding pairs to maintain opportunities for regulated public hunting of wolves only above that level, and ≤2003 levels of livestock and big game conflict (in 2003 there were 345 wolves in 25 breeding pairs in Idaho) (Idaho 2007, pp. 16, 20–21; Idaho 2007 pp. 20–21; Service et al. 2007, Table 4); http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wil...DelistRule.pdf oh by the way look here. another. you guys need to spend more time reading. proof of another error? lie? mistake? WOLF ATTACKS ON HUMANS The news has just reached here that a father and son, living several miles northeast of this city, were destroyed by wolves yesterday. The two unfortunate men started to a haystack some ten rods from the house to shovel a path around the stack when they were surrounded by wolves and literally eaten alive. The horror-stricken mother was standing at the window with a babe in her arms, a spectator to the terrible death of her husband and son, but was unable to aid them. After they had devoured every flesh from the bones of the men, the denizens of the forest attacked the house, but retired to the hills in a short time. Investigation found nothing but the bones of the husband and son. The family name was Olson. Wolves are more numerous and dangerous now than ever before known in North Dakota." (Saint Paul Daily Globe, March 8, 1888) Noted naturalists documented wolf attacks on humans. John James Audubon, of whom the Audubon Society is named, reported an attack involving 2 Negroes. He records that the men were traveling through a part of Kentucky near the Ohio border in winter. Due to the wild animals in the area the men carried axes on their shoulders as a precaution. While traveling through a heavily forested area, they were attacked by a pack of wolves. Using their axes, they attempted to fight off the wolves. Both men were knocked to the ground and severely wounded. One man was killed. The other dropped his axe and escaped up a tree. There he spent the night. The next morning the man climbed down from the tree. The bones of his friend lay scattered on the snow. Three wolves lay dead. He gathered up the axes and returned home with the news of the event. This incident occurred about 1830. (Audubon, J.J., and Bachman, J.; The Quadrupeds of North America, 3 volumes. New York, 1851 - 1854) keep trying and congrats on at least looking instead of saying what you heard another good sources when you are thinking of spreading the misinformation about wolves only killing what they need and eating all they kill Surplus killing Surplus killing is defined as the killing of several prey animals too numerous to eat at one sitting. During a surplus-kill, a predator's killing instinct is continually sparked off by the stimuli of so many prey animals unable to escape, so that the predator cannot stop killing. An instance of surplus killing by wolves was witnessed in Canada's Northwest Territories by researchers coming across 34 neonatal caribou calves, scattered over three square kilometres. The wolves had eaten only a few parts from half the calves and not touched the rest. Wolves sometimes only eat a part of their surplus-killed prey, like the tail or the internal organs. it is found here with info on when wolves really evolved into wolves and when they may have come to North america Gray Wolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia there is a lengthy (120)reference list there for you to say is lies but it contans some of the people you quote such as Mr. Maughn. more evidence of another error or two? intentional distribution of misinformation? lack of knowledge? your right I shouldnt judge. its okay your buddies wont know you looked
__________________ Living the life Last edited by Idaho Dave; 02-29-2008 at 02:24 PM. |
|
| |
