U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delists Wyoming wolves.

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 61 - 80 of total 99 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
The user formerly known as stzzo

climber
Sneaking up behind you
Sep 4, 2012 - 10:50am PT
wolves do indeed eat people. BUt even worse, unlike mtn lions, they kill out of habit and "fun". They run deer, elk, and many other mammals relentlessly- and either catch them or chase them from the area

Can we also get rid of all the humans who kill deer, elk, and many other mammals (and non-mammals) for sport?
crasic

climber
Sep 4, 2012 - 10:55am PT
Wolves do seem to strike an emotional chord in humans: love in some & hate in others.

I think that some people identify them with domesticated dogs and other don't.

Wolves nicer than humans?? Hmmm,,, a wolf equivalent in humans would be that theater shooter. They both Kill for fun.

Hunters kill for fun all the time...

little Z

Trad climber
un cafetal en Naranjo
Sep 4, 2012 - 11:14am PT
Ron,

you are an artist, very impressive taxidermy.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
USA Moundhouse Nev. and land o da SLEDS!
Sep 4, 2012 - 11:17am PT
Thank you Little Z!


And being a hunter, i dont really kill for fun. I prefer to eat natural meats that have NO additives, hormones, dyes or any other such non-sense. Just good LEAN proteins,, and TASTY at that!
crasic

climber
Sep 4, 2012 - 11:22am PT
And being a hunter, i dont really kill for fun.

You wouldn't be doing it often if you didn't enjoy it. And I'm not saying there is a problem with it, but there is a lot of fun in hunting, most of us derive pleasure from the chase and the shot or we wouldn't do it, we moralize by defering our pleasure from "the kill" onto the other aspects of the hunt, but its all the same.

There is nothing wrong with it, but claiming people don't hunt for fun in these modern times (along with other valid reasons - cheap meat being one of them :D ) is disingenuous.

Fishing is also quite the same, its fun to catch and kill fish. We morally 'cleanse' ourselves by claiming we don't enjoy the actual killing, but in the end, thats just a lie we tell ourselves.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
USA Moundhouse Nev. and land o da SLEDS!
Sep 4, 2012 - 11:59am PT
maybe for you,, but not for me. Ive never enjoyed the kill moment. Its more a deep seated appreciation. Im a hunter by nature just like the rest of humanity. Gatherers, farmers and hunters is what we all are. We have canines which identify us as carnivores, and a taste for green which makes us omnivores.
crasic

climber
Sep 4, 2012 - 12:05pm PT
Im a hunter by nature just like the rest of humanity.

Along with wolves and cats. I don't understand why you think your pleasure from the chase is any different then the wolves. Was the hunt necessary for your immediate survival? Most likely not. That means you, at its essence, hunt for fun and pleasure. Be it the pleasure of being able to provide your own food or the fun of being outdoors, or the instinctual pleasure from tracking and chasing game. Hunting IS fun, and hunting is, at its essence, killing.

Cats play with their prey for fun, we do the same when tracking our game. Any distinction we place on their motives vs ours is just a little lie we say to convince ourselves we are rational empathetic beings.
Cragar

Trad climber
MSLA - MT
Sep 4, 2012 - 01:42pm PT
Wolves nicer than humans?? Hmmm,,, a wolf equivalent in humans would be that theater shooter. They both Kill for fun.

projection and anthropormiphic.

Sucks to be so fearfull. Do you have any valid links to support your claim?

Ron Anderson

Trad climber
USA Moundhouse Nev. and land o da SLEDS!
Sep 4, 2012 - 02:00pm PT
Did you see the pic i posted of my buddies hound? Which was taken out of a kennel the wolves broke into. Im not fearful of wolves but i do know well what they do. And to say they should be protected and let to run their course "naturally" is the SAME stupid argument the TREE folks gave us around Tahoe decades ago.. They too argued to let their stands go "naturally" and they did. Right up to the predicted insect and disease then wild fire. Man has moved into every state, every county every riparian zone. We RELY on our wildlife agencies to MANAGE the wildlife for the lands left open to them, and wolves are no different. There are govt trappers that shoot mtn lions, bobcats, coyotes, ravens and YES wolves. They are paid by your tax dollars in an effort to CONTROL populations. When wolves freely roamed the lands long ago, game was more than plentiful, and people were scarce. Taint like that anymore.

In my own micro climate nearby, i have an area i USED to hunt cotton tail rabbits in as they were plentiful. But for the last decade or so that area has gone down dramatically in rabbits and UP in coyotes, bobcats and mtn lions, but even recently bears have now appeared in the pine nut range.

The rabbits are all but hunted out of there by a host of predators. That range COULDNT sustain a pack of wolves for more than a couple of years at best. When furs became taboo, the fur markets went to heck in a handbasket and trapping was reduced dramatically and populations began to increase dramatically. Our own wildlife state agency here encourages all hunters to obtain a mtn lion tag in an effort to help control them.
crasic

climber
Sep 4, 2012 - 02:06pm PT
too argued to let their stands go "naturally" and they did. Right up to the predicted insect and disease then wild fire

Fighting all forest fires as a matter of policy is not natural at all.


Its also interesting that humans can't be trusted to manage an economy but its perfectly ok to manage nature *rollseyes*.

survival

Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
Sep 4, 2012 - 02:07pm PT
Im a hunter by nature just like the rest of humanity.

Like wolves?
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
USA Moundhouse Nev. and land o da SLEDS!
Sep 4, 2012 - 02:17pm PT
yes, only im an ALPHA due to the larger brain (space) and thumbs.


edit: crasic,, game management and hunters/fishermen are responsible for the bringing back of many a species in our country. Elk, wild sheep, deer, predators, waterfowl and upland birds like the turkey, antelope etc. Introductions of very successful exotics like the chukar and the himalayan snowcock made use of lands not inhabited by other birds. The ring neck pheasant is an economic boom to many states! No agencies are perfect, but to just bash upon what is a success in terms of over all management isnt really justified.
Jennie

Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
Sep 4, 2012 - 03:40pm PT
This Idaho Fish and Game- graphic illustrates the decline in elk numbers in the Lolo Zone where wolf density in Idaho is highest. (The declines in the 19990's were due to hard winters but the agency maintains that the decrease over the last decade was primarily due to predation by the wolves.

The wolf population in this wildlife management zone was estimates to be as high as 100 in 2010.

Wolves were shot from F & G agency helicopters in an attempt to contain the population. That effort is continuing. According to the agency, wolves in the Lolo Zone now number less than 50. (from hunting and F & G helicopter culling)



10b4me

Ice climber
dingy room at the Happy boulders hotel
Sep 4, 2012 - 04:21pm PT
I just drove through Yellowstone and Grand Teton a few weeks ago with a friend who lives in Livingston. Saw NO wildlife except for bison. No elk, no moose, only a couple of dear. He said it was because of the wolves that were brought into the area. They are killing everything else off.

that analogy is about the dumbest thing I've read
Brokedownclimber

Trad climber
Douglas, WY
Sep 4, 2012 - 09:56pm PT
Elk hunting is "way of life" in Wyoming, and long time natives are pi$$ed about wolves and their population explosion in the "Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem."
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Sep 4, 2012 - 10:05pm PT
Brokendown...I believe you about Elk hunting being a way of Life in Wyoming...In Michigan they close the schools down for opening day of deer season and you don't dare go into the woods without day-glow clothing...
Fritz

Trad climber
Choss Creek, ID
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 4, 2012 - 10:11pm PT
Pre-wolf introduction: I did have a U of Idaho wildlife biology Grad student assure me that there were still wolves living in the huge Selway Bitteroot Wilderness.

Wolf introduction was being pushed by U.S. Fish & Wildlife and the biology Grad-student told me that their only acceptable documentation of Idaho wolves would be a dead Idaho wolf.

Bear in mind that a lot of folks at U.S. Fish & Wildlife made their careers and career money on wolf introduction into the Northern Rockies.

**I think a lot of us in the Northern Rockies resent the wolves because the government rammed them down our throats.
How ungrateful of us, little people!**

Here is some more documentation that the wolves introduced were not what once roamed the Rockies.

This article from a pro-wolf site seems fairly informative on size and origin of our current introduced wolves in the Northern Rockies:


http://www.timberwolfinformation.org/?p=12297

OR: ‘Canadian’ wolves – How big and bad are they?
Posted on June 21, 2012 by TWIN Observer
By Pat Valkenburg

To many people in rural areas of the West, bringing wolves back was a bad idea. To perhaps have brought back a possibly larger subspecies that was never here to begin with (the “Canadian” wolf) has added fuel to the controversy.

Pictures of very large wolves taken during the Idaho hunting season have appeared on the Internet, but some people suspect the photos have been digitally enhanced to make the wolves appear larger than they actually are.

So, what is the truth about these “Canadian” wolves? Are they really larger than the original wolf that used to roam the western states, and if so, how much larger are they?

Perhaps more importantly, if the introduced wolf is a larger subspecies, are they more likely to kill livestock and working dogs or to kill more deer and elk than the original subspecies?

Within the last several months, using newly available genetic information in addition to existing morphometric data, research biologists (Steven M. Chambers, Steven R. Fain, Bud Fazio, and Michael Amaral) with the US Fish and Wildlife Service completed an extensive review of wolves in North America – the third comprehensive review since 1944.

These researchers support the view that only three subspecies of wolves should be recognized in western North America and that a single subspecies (Canis lupus nubilus) inhabited all of the western states north of Arizona and New Mexico, and southern Alberta, southern British Columbia and Southeast Alaska.

The original common name for this relatively small wolf was “plains” wolf because it was first encountered by Europeans on the Great Plains. Although it was completely eliminated from the western United States by the late 1920s (except for a handful in the Cascades until the early 1940s), it continued to exist in healthy numbers in southwestern Canada and southeastern Alaska.

A considerably larger northwestern wolf (Canis lupus occidentalis) occupied northern Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon, and the rest of Alaska. This wolf has always been common and its distribution has never been appreciably affected by human activity. The northwestern wolf evolved in northeast Asia and Beringia during the Wisconsin Glaciation, while smaller subspecies of wolves developed south of the ice sheets.

The third subspecies of wolf in western North America, the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi), is the only subspecies that was ever truly endangered, having died out in the wild in Sonora in the 1970s. It is currently being reintroduced from captive animals into northern Arizona and New Mexico.

Unfortunately, biologists did not have good information on wolf genetics during the early 1990s when the decision was made to reintroduce wolves to Wyoming and Idaho from Alberta and British Columbia.

The concern at the time was that wolves for reintroduction should come from relatively abundant populations that had experience at hunting elk and bison, the two major prey species in Yellowstone National Park that were considered overly abundant.

Although there is a zone in southcentral British Columbia and southern Alberta where the two subspecies mix, the capture sites (Hinton, AB and Fort Saint John, BC) of the wolves transplanted to Wyoming and Idaho were well within the range of the larger, northern subspecies.

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game sent two pilots and two biologists to help with wolf capture and they were impressed by the large size of the wolves and their similarity to Alaskan wolves. The largest males weighed around 140 pounds.

The original wolf of the western states was 20-25% smaller, with large males seldom exceeding 110 pounds and the largest recorded being 125 pounds. The skull size of the northwestern wolf is also about 4-6% larger than that of the plains wolf. The evidence is pretty clear that the subspecies of wolf brought to the western states for reintroduction is not the same wolf that historically lived here.

Will this larger subspecies make a difference? Although it is generally true that larger predators tend to select larger species of prey, there is plenty of evidence that the original wolves made a good living hunting bison and elk and were often a serious problem for livestock as well, including the horses raised by Native Americans (for many examples see “The Wolves of North America” by Stanley P. Young and Edward A. Goldman, published in 1944).

No matter which subspecies of wolf had been reintroduced, managing livestock depredation problems would have required considerable money and effort, just as it did with the smaller plains wolf.

Fortunately for cattle ranchers, wolves seem to prefer elk more than domestic animals. The natural tendency for most wolves to hunt elk, and use of nonlethal conditioning methods combined with lethal removal of wolves that develop a pattern of killing livestock, should keep livestock depredation to a low and economically tolerable level.

However, it will be important for wolf advocates to be willing to compromise with ranchers on the issue of lethal wolf control because the interests of ranchers are critical, not only to successful wolf reintroduction, but to the conservation of habitat for many other species of wildlife as well.

The effects of the new, larger subspecies of wolf (or any subspecies for that matter) on populations of elk, deer, and other wildlife are more of an unknown and will likely be quite variable. All of the original ecosystems of the western states have been greatly modified by fencing, grazing, introduction of new species of plants, and by agriculture. In other words, it’s a whole new ballgame now, not just because of the larger wolf.

The amount of wolf predation on elk and other game species that people are willing to tolerate will be ultimately up to state legislators, governors, game commissioners, and voters. It is likely that wolf control programs, such as those conducted in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, will be eventually implemented in other states as the range of the wolf continues to expand.

Pat Valkenburg is a certified wildlife biologist who worked for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for 28 years on caribou, wolves, bears, and other wildlife. Since first retiring from ADF&G in 2003, he has continued to work on wildlife research projects in Alaska, Ontario, Manitoba, Labrador, and Oregon. He has spent the last two winters in the Enterprise area working with his wife Audrey Magoun, documenting the presence of wolverines in the Wallowa Mountains.
Captain...or Skully

climber
Sep 4, 2012 - 11:25pm PT
Fix it or Fuck it...bitchin' don't do shit.

Except make ya a whiner......
zBrown

Ice climber
chingadero de chula vista
Sep 4, 2012 - 11:46pm PT
Wolves nicer than humans?? Hmmm,,, a wolf equivalent in humans would be that theater shooter. They both Kill for fun.

Isn't that what all so-called sport hunters do? Kill for fun (macho ... whatever).

Yes indeed "happiness is a warm gun"

How in the fyuck do you know what motivates a wolf to kill? Some kind of wolf expert? I doubt it.
Brokedownclimber

Trad climber
Douglas, WY
Sep 5, 2012 - 11:58am PT
zBrown-

Your're totally incorrect about hunters. Some 80% of the hunters I've known are strictly after the meat. Lots of hunters in this category are at the lower incomes side of the socioeconomic spectrum and NEED the wild game to ease the burden of feeding a family. I've seen an awful lot of hispanics hunting for exactly that reason.

Hunting while I was in Grad school, trying to support a family on a graduate teaching assistantship, was damned useful. It was possible to save alot of $$$ on groceries by fishing and hunting. I managed to draw a moose permit, and bagged on the Fall of my final year in school; it made life pretty good, even though I was living on $375 with a wife and baby.

So...fuk off about the "macho" bull$hit.
Messages 61 - 80 of total 99 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews