This is out of the ordinary because of why? ......

I don't know how they reimburse the rancher if they do but that is a huge hit to his pocket book.

Wolves Suck !!!! Killed most of the sheep for pure fun evidently ! Only one was chewed on.

Don't you know wolfs only eat what they need and usually the old and crippled animals. In fact they are the ancestors to our beloved family pets.
All the mayhem thrill of killing, devouring their prey while still alive, endless appetite for pure evil can only be done by ghost wolfs from a different world.
The powers that be are cordoning the area to block the public from seeing the truth. Which could influence future votes and cut off future funding which in turn diminish their reason for existence. When will the voting public quit being so gullible? and be herded like the sheep!

quote:

Originally posted by mlfguns:
Don't you know wolfs only eat what they need and usually the old and crippled animals. In fact they are the ancestors to our beloved family pets.
All the mayhem thrill of killing, devouring their prey while still alive, endless appetite for pure evil can only be done by ghost wolfs from a different world.

Really????
This has to be the most ridiculous post I have read in recent months. Wolves hunting in packs often "pick" several animals before zeroing in on one. Thus several animals are bitten many die, only one is eaten. And depending on the pack and the location, they will kill the next day leaving their previous days spoil to the birds.

For hells sake, get off the couch and look outside, and formulate your "own" views.

quote:

Originally posted by Jon Beutler:

quote:

Originally posted by mlfguns:
Don't you know wolfs only eat what they need and usually the old and crippled animals. In fact they are the ancestors to our beloved family pets.
All the mayhem thrill of killing, devouring their prey while still alive, endless appetite for pure evil can only be done by ghost wolfs from a different world.

Really????
This has to be the most ridiculous post I have read in recent months. Wolves hunting in packs often "pick" several animals before zeroing in on one. Thus several animals are bitten many die, only one is eaten. And depending on the pack and the location, they will kill the next day leaving their previous days spoil to the birds.

For hells sake, get off the couch and look outside, and formulate your "own" views.

Oh Jon,

Perry

quote:

quote:Originally posted by mlfgunson't you know wolfs only eat what they need and usually the old and crippled animals. In fact they are the ancestors to our beloved family pets. All the mayhem thrill of killing, devouring their prey while still alive, endless appetite for pure evil can only be done by ghost wolfs from a different world.

Attempt at sarcasm... wide left. (Some of viewing public failed to note attempt.)

Doubless thanks for catching the sarcasim. Gent's lighten up. Wolfs kill at their whim with no justification or tactic. They are that capable. That is all I was trying to convey.

The wolves didn't 'kill" 176 sheep. But they may have caused their deaths unwittingly. I was stationed in the Swan valley area of Idaho in the late 60's which is about 30 miles from where this occurred. I was called out on a reported bear caused "sheep pile up" as it was called at that time. I rode into the area and found the pile of dead sheep. It was higher than my head and around thirty feet across. I didn't count the number of sheep killed but the herder estimated the pile contained 250 sheep based on what was missing from the band. I only found one sheep that had been fed on and it appeared that the sheep was eaten as carrion after it was dead by the bear. I killed that bear a few hours later to appease the sheep owner. These pile ups were not uncommon and I heard of several more over the years.

If you understand sheep band behavior it is readily apparent why these pile ups occur. They spook easily and run from perceived danger. If they run down hill the herd gains a lot of momentum and if the front runners encounter an obstacle that slows or stops them such as a mountain ash thicket, the sheep run into each other pile up and suffocate. Pile ups have been reported to have been caused by lightening, headers dogs, bears and mtn lions. The real cause is sheep behavior. Under the same situation cattle will seldom have the same problem but it isn't unknown.

465H&H

Never seen a sheep pile up. But, I did witness the top layer of an open topped semi full of sheep unload themselves. One jumped, the rest followed til there wasn't a single one on that layer. Biggest part were ok, but, there were a great many others with broken legs that we shot. A few others got out onto a main roadway and got hit by cars. In all it was one hell of a mess for several hours.
This was at a livestock auction. They'd loaded the top layer, then middle and was about done with the bottom bunch when a couple got thru the narrow space by a gate. The sheep on top saw them and wanted to join near as we could figure. They're stupid as hell animals. Oh yeah, this was back around 1959 or so.
George

The only thing dumber than a sheep is two sheep. With turkeys running a close second.

quote:

Originally posted by Jon Beutler:

For hells sake, get off the couch and look outside, and formulate your "own" views.

This happened within an hours drive of me. In fact it very nearly bordered on some old family property. I'll be getting off the couch and formulating some lead in their direction.

I'm often amused at how many people defend wolves. Perhaps that wasn't your intent, though it sure reads like it. Try living in a hunters wonderland, then have the Feds come in and force a reintroduction of wolves on you and let that population boom for almost a decade before no longer being able to say that wolf numbers are too low to sustain hunting them. All the while, elk populations and moose populations plummet.

All the areas you used to enjoy are now void of wildlife due to pressure from wolves. And while you complain, your "fellow" sportsmen from other states defend wolves and tell you to calm down and formulate your own opinions by leaving the couch.

I live here. I see what the wolves do. It's been devastating to ungulates. Those of you who think we cry to easily about this reintroduction realize that they put a NON native subspecies of wolf here, right? The species that was here, and not extinct at that time I might add, was smaller and did not band together in as large of packs as do the transplants. Granted their numbers were next to nothing, but the native wolves did exist. No longer, now.

They dropped a larger wolf, that has seen packs over 25 animals in number, in an environment FULL of ungulates that hadn't seen a predator like that in who knows how long. Fish in a barrel. And for what? To help save riparian areas in the Park. Pfffft - what a pant load that excuse was.

I've yet to talk to a wolf supporter that's a hunter, that lives here in any local area, that's been affected by this reintroduction, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, that supports the reintroduction. It's always been some know it all that lives and hunts somewhere else that isn't affected by this issue.

Perhaps it's those people that need to get off the couch and the Internet before speaking of things they have no first hand knowledge of. And perhaps I'm preaching to the choir and misread your reply. I hope so. I hope so because I see you're from Utah. Well, guess what? You guys have some awesome elk and deer hunting there and I hate to tell you, but Utah has some Yellowstone wolves. That's a fact. It won't be long until you folks will get to experience this "joy". The difference will be that your "fellow" sportsmen from Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana, will actually support you when you need the help to fight local and federal governments, for the right to protect your ability to continue to enjoy hunting, rather than just hiking with a rifle...

Damn good post !!!!

quote:

Originally posted by sdkidaho:

quote:

Originally posted by Jon Beutler:

For hells sake, get off the couch and look outside, and formulate your "own" views.

This happened within an hours drive of me. In fact it very nearly bordered on some old family property. I'll be getting off the couch and formulating some lead in their direction.

I'm often amused at how many people defend wolves. Perhaps that wasn't your intent, though it sure reads like it. Try living in a hunters wonderland, then have the Feds come in and force a reintroduction of wolves on you and let that population boom for almost a decade before no longer being able to say that wolf numbers are too low to sustain hunting them. All the while, elk populations and moose populations plummet.

All the areas you used to enjoy are now void of wildlife due to pressure from wolves. And while you complain, your "fellow" sportsmen from other states defend wolves and tell you to calm down and formulate your own opinions by leaving the couch.

I live here. I see what the wolves do. It's been devastating to ungulates. Those of you who think we cry to easily about this reintroduction realize that they put a NON native subspecies of wolf here, right? The species that was here, and not extinct at that time I might add, was smaller and did not band together in as large of packs as do the transplants. Granted their numbers were next to nothing, but the native wolves did exist. No longer, now.

They dropped a larger wolf, that has seen packs over 25 animals in number, in an environment FULL of ungulates that hadn't seen a predator like that in who knows how long. Fish in a barrel. And for what? To help save riparian areas in the Park. Pfffft - what a pant load that excuse was.

I've yet to talk to a wolf supporter that's a hunter, that lives here in any local area, that's been affected by this reintroduction, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, that supports the reintroduction. It's always been some know it all that lives and hunts somewhere else that isn't affected by this issue.

Perhaps it's those people that need to get off the couch and the Internet before speaking of things they have no first hand knowledge of. And perhaps I'm preaching to the choir and misread your reply. I hope so. I hope so because I see you're from Utah. Well, guess what? You guys have some awesome elk and deer hunting there and I hate to tell you, but Utah has some Yellowstone wolves. That's a fact. It won't be long until you folks will get to experience this "joy". The difference will be that your "fellow" sportsmen from Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana, will actually support you when you need the help to fight local and federal governments, for the right to protect your ability to continue to enjoy hunting, rather than just hiking with a rifle...

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner

quote:

The wolves didn't 'kill" 176 sheep. But they may have caused their deaths unwittingly. I was stationed in the Swan valley area of Idaho in the late 60's which is about 30 miles from where this occurred. I was called out on a reported bear caused "sheep pile up" as it was called at that time. I rode into the area and found the pile of dead sheep. It was higher than my head and around thirty feet across. I didn't count the number of sheep killed but the herder estimated the pile contained 250 sheep based on what was missing from the band. I only found one sheep that had been fed on and it appeared that the sheep was eaten as carrion after it was dead by the bear. I killed that bear a few hours later to appease the sheep owner. These pile ups were not uncommon and I heard of several more over the years. If you understand sheep band behavior it is readily apparent why these pile ups occur. They spook easily and run from perceived danger. If they run down hill the herd gains a lot of momentum and if the front runners encounter an obstacle that slows or stops them such as a mountain ash thicket, the sheep run into each other pile up and suffocate. Pile ups have been reported to have been caused by lightening, headers dogs, bears and mtn lions. The real cause is sheep behavior. Under the same situation cattle will seldom have the same problem but it isn't unknown.

Unless or until a person has had actual first hand experience with sheep and predators, they do not have any real idea how sheep respond. 465 has it pretty well nailed down.

Wasbeeman, the saying I have heard is that God made turkeys so sheep would look smart.

Having worked with sheep for a few years now their "Written In Granite" defense mechanism is to bunch up instead of scatter. That is why the numbers of dead animals involved in a predator attack can be so amazing. The actual number of animals killed by the predator is a fraction of the total, simply because they pile up on each other instead of running away.

This Is Not A Defense Of Wolves, hey Should Not Have Been Forced On To The Citizens Of Those Areas WITHOUT Further More Intense Research. JMO.

Totally agree. One of my Grandpa's raised sheep. Stupidest critter on the face of the earth. My point wasn't to say the wolves attacked and killed all 176 sheep. My point was that sportsmen need to be informed and they need to stick together. Also that if they have no first hand knowledge that maybe they shouldn't attempt to try and appear as if they are on the high road.

Believe it or not in one way anti-hunters including PETA and anti-wolf proponents have one thing in common. Both groups tend to give human characteristics to animals. In the above threads sheep have been called stupid and dumb, when in reality sheep use the defensive system of herd behavior to reduce the impact of predation. The same tactic is used by many species of animals including pronghorns, bison, zebra, etc. etc. I never heard any one call them dumb. The problem with domestic sheep is that while this tactic worked fine for wild sheep, when sheep were domesticated they were also bred to be heavier, shorter legged and much slower runners that used open grazing areas and this is why they are more vulnerable to predation. It is like tying one of someone's arms behind their back and expecting them to be able to defend themselves and then calling them stupid because they can't.

I see the same thing happening in the wolf debate. Anti-wolf proponents calling wolves all sorts of names that are actually human characteristics. Nature or God if you prefer designed the wolf to kill prey to survive. Feel free to blame either if you think they were wrong in their design.

I would hope that hunters would rise to higher ground than PETA by not arguing on anthropomorphic grounds in the debate. Fact are what is needed and a good understanding of animals and their behavior patterns.

465H&H

It's my understanding that domestic sheep can, and have in fact spread disease to the Bighorns, resulting in widespread deaths. If true, this might be the only arguably good result of the wolf mess.

465, while I agree with you on the aspect that the wolves or other predator involved do not actually kill all of the sheep that are found dead at one of these attack sites, I respectfully disagree with you concerning your estimation about anthropomorphic use of the terms dumb/stupid in regards to sheep. Having worked with various forms of hoof stock for the past 30 years or so, in comparison to horses/buffalo/goats/hogs and cattle, sheep are stupid.

Not in the same way that a human is stupid, a sheep can be taught/can learn some behaviors outside their normal realm of behavior, but they really are dumb.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Having worked with various forms of hoof stock for the past 30 years or so, in comparison to horses/buffalo/goats/hogs and cattle, sheep are stupid.

Not in the same way that a human is stupid, a sheep can be taught/can learn some behaviors outside their normal realm of behavior, but they really are dumb.

Times two, as that sounds quite similar to my own experiences and summed up nicely. We're getting off of the issue by worrying about us as hunters/sportsmen calling sheep "stupid" and comparing it to the anti's with anthropomorphism. I do see your point, and it is a fallacy of the anti's to try and humanize animals.

Once again, the point is to stand together, as divided we fall...

When predators cannot find enough wild game to eat and turn towards domestic animals that is a clear indication that the predators have become over populated and should be thinned out.

Simple.

quote:

When predators cannot find enough wild game to eat and turn towards domestic animals that is a clear indication that the predators have become over populated and should be thinned out.

Ann I respect your opinions and observations, usually, this is one time I can not do that. Predators turn toward taking domestic livestock because it is easier. I am sure you have a lot of experience in the natural world, but domestic livestock has had the survival/fight instincts bred out of them over the years.

Which is easier Ann, buying all the ingredients and starting from scratch making a pizza, or calling Domino's??????

Deer/Elk/Moose et al try to get away or fight. Domestic animals do neither.

Great Horned owls would rather take a house cat or a lap dog than a coon/skunk or rabbit any day, same with coyotes.

Not meaning to or trying to offend you Ann because you have had a lot of experience and have a lot of knowledge, but from experience, predators going after domestic livestock or pets has nothing at all to do with the availability of natural wild prey.

quote:

When predators cannot find enough wild game to eat and turn towards domestic animals that is a clear indication that the predators have become over populated and should be thinned out.

Ann

You are correct
The tree huggers are complaining that the Yellowstone Wolf population is on decline.
But they can't figure it out that the wolves have destroyed the elk,deer,moose and bighorn
sheep herd and the wolves have moved out of the park looking for food, doesn't matter if it's domestic or wild. Their eating themselve out of house and home.

Can anyone explain to me what survival benefit there is for a predator population to eat its way out of house and home and starve to death?

465H&H

quote:

When predators cannot find enough wild game to eat and turn towards domestic animals that is a clear indication that the predators have become over populated and should be thinned out.

One more time, that is simply not accurate.

Yes, I believe that there are too many wolves in the region around the Yellowstone, no problem there.

Yes, wolves or any other predator need to be managed just like any other wildlife, no problem there.

Problem is, wolves/bears/mountain lions/coyotes/bobcats prey upon domestic animals because it is EASIER, NOT because they have ran out of their natural food source.

Humans from as far back as anyone wants to research have ALWAYS, removed the predators in an area.

quote:

Can anyone explain to me what survival benefit there is for a predator population to eat its way out of house and home and starve to death?

That right there is why humans have always killed out the predators. Humans depended upon the hoofed herbivores for food, predators directly competed for that food source, plus there was and still is in some areas around the globe for a human to end up as a meal. So the first animals that went when humans came into a region were the larger predators.

When people started keeping various forms of wild hoof-stock confined to specific locations in the early days of developing domestic livestock, the predators adapted and figured out real quickly that animals trapped in a small area were a lot easier to kill than animals that could run for miles in an attempt to get away.

An additional drawback to the domestication process, something we can look around and observe in America today, is a "Dumbing Down" of the species.

Predators figured that one out also. One of the reasons that the Red Wolf re-introduction in the Eastern U.S. got curtailed, and this also deals with the domestication process and wolves in particular, is the wolves, and this is how we ended up with our pet pooches readily connect humans and a food source. Not humans as prey per se, but because of our hunting activities, leaving gut piles in the field, our domestic livestock that are in pens just like steaks in a meat counter at a store and about as dumb as that steak is, because , we are humans, we have pet dogs around that livestock and not always guard dogs. Consequently lots of domestic animals, especially sheep and cattle to a lesser extent do not view wolves or coyotes as an actual threat.



This business of wolves only switching over to domestic stock after they have killed out everything else, is simply not true.

Randall, I say that because it has been my observation for many years of farming.

Predators do not find it easy to go after my fowl because I have a LGD plus I am very proactive about defending them. My birds free range and do not stand around looking to be eaten. Nothing has been bred out of them as far as instincts. They do not have certain capabilities that wild cousins have such as flight but they do know how to find safety and they are always looking over their shoulder, so-to-speak.

Predators do not like to challenge such proactive measures. When they do it is because there is nothing for them to eat in their wilderness territories.

I am not going to argue with you further but you know wolves, dogs, coons, fox, ermine (ETC!)do kill for sport much more than they do to just eat. That is why they ruin their own territory for food sources. They is why their populations also crash, whether at the hand of a rancher, farmer, disease or good old fashioned starvation.

I"ll pipe in again.
Good debate so everyone of us in States that have wolves, get out this Fall and especially this Winter and hunt them hard every chance you get. Forget about warm vacation, skiing etc...
I said it before what I heard from lot of ranchers, " They wish just as many hunters would be knocking on the doors in Winter to hunt wolves like they do in elk and deer season ".
Until then nobody has right to complain.
Feds put them in, we can take them out, but it takes real effort ( hell of a harder then elk and deer hunting ) on our part instead of complain about it on our warm couches.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
but from experience, predators going after domestic livestock or pets has nothing at all to do with the availability of natural wild prey.

I guess this depends on your definition of available. If you (a wolf pack) have run off or killed the majority of the ungulate population in your home territory, is your only choice to move? What if it's pup season? Do you move, or do you kill what's available and easy? Domestic animals are available, and easy.

Wolves love winter. Know why? It's easier to kill prey in the snow. No natural prey around half way through winter, do you move or eat domestic animals that are available and easy? Your experience just doesn't seem to be all encompassing with what we're seeing here where we have wolves. It's too much of a blanket statement on your part to say it's untrue.

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
Can anyone explain to me what survival benefit there is for a predator population to eat its way out of house and home and starve to death?

465H&H

There "is" no benefit. Don't humanize them.

Do you recall a boom in the rabbit population in Idaho back in the 80's? It made national news. Same question: what survival benefit was there for that population to explode like that, to the point they were eating themselves out of house and home? They were doomed. There was no way the environment could have supported the population if man hadn't stepped in, yet they still did it. Why?

Predator populations grow when there is an abundance of food (prey), correct? So what happens when you drop a top level predator into a target rich environment? They flourish, right? We can't give them human characteristics, meaning, they aren't thinking "hey we better not breed in case the food runs out". Lots of food, lots of tail wagging, lots of breeding, all equates to lots of wolves. Prey gets pushed around and or killed, so a natural supplement is...? Domestic. And the cause is too many wolves, hence the need for management through hunting.

Look at any animal population that explodes. There is no benefit. When times are good they breed, breed, breed. When times are tough, fewer young are born. Thats true of any animal.

Not trying to argue with you Ann, you have experienced what you have experienced in your situation. I have done the same. But from my experiences and the research I have done, availability of natural prey is not a deciding factor when predators start taking pets or domestic livestock.

sdkidaho, your putting human characteristics on wolves. Rabbits/hares, especially snowshoes, have definite cycles where the population builds up to a high point and then crashes, the lynx population goes thru that same cycle. It builds as the snowshoe population builds and then when the snowshoe population crashes, the lynx population crashes. That is a well documented fact.

Lynx are not coyotes or wolves, both of which prey on domestic livestock, regardless the amount of available natural prey species. It is a proven fact, that wolves will attack domestic livestock if it is available in preference to natural prey.

The difference between coyotes and wolves is that coyotes normally do not have a "Pack" type society. A pair or family group will hunt together until the young are old enough/big enough to go off on their own. Mexican Grey wolves are similar to coyotes in this aspect of their physiology.

From what I am seeing in this discussion, is that most of us agree that the reintroduction of wolves without any real plans for their management, was a bad idea.

It was not my intention to offend anyone with my comments my apologies to anyone/everyone that has been offended, but from my research over the years, depredation of livestock has really nothing to do with the availability, or lack there of, of natural prey species.

quote:

Originally posted by sdkidaho:

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
but from experience, predators going after domestic livestock or pets has nothing at all to do with the availability of natural wild prey.

I guess this depends on your definition of available. If you (a wolf pack) have run off or killed the majority of the ungulate population in your home territory, is your only choice to move? What if it's pup season? Do you move, or do you kill what's available and easy? Domestic animals are available, and easy.

Wolves love winter. Know why? It's easier to kill prey in the snow. No natural prey around half way through winter, do you move or eat domestic animals that are available and easy? Your experience just doesn't seem to be all encompassing with what we're seeing here where we have wolves. It's too much of a blanket statement on your part to say it's untrue.

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
Can anyone explain to me what survival benefit there is for a predator population to eat its way out of house and home and starve to death?

465H&H

There "is" no benefit. Don't humanize them.

Do you recall a boom in the rabbit population in Idaho back in the 80's? It made national news. Same question: what survival benefit was there for that population to explode like that, to the point they were eating themselves out of house and home? They were doomed. There was no way the environment could have supported the population if man hadn't stepped in, yet they still did it. Why?

Predator populations grow when there is an abundance of food (prey), correct? So what happens when you drop a top level predator into a target rich environment? They flourish, right? We can't give them human characteristics, meaning, they aren't thinking "hey we better not breed in case the food runs out". Lots of food, lots of tail wagging, lots of breeding, all equates to lots of wolves. Prey gets pushed around and or killed, so a natural supplement is...? Domestic. And the cause is too many wolves, hence the need for management through hunting.

Look at any animal population that explodes. There is no benefit. When times are good they breed, breed, breed. When times are tough, fewer young are born. Thats true of any animal.

When wolves were first reintroduced into Idaho, they were released in or adjacent to road less areas where the only livestock that they came into contact were those with grazing permits on Forest Service lands. Almost immediately they started taking some cows. The natural prey base of the wolf was not depleted and they still took domestic stock. Wolf populations like many predator populations are territorial. They will not allow other wolves or even other predators to come into their territory with out them being challenged and they will kill them if possible. This territorialism protects the pack's food source. To increase, the wolf has to increase its range. So to increase, new packs have to be formed and they must seek out their own territory. As they expanded from their original release sites they began to encounter domestic livestock more and more often. As stated above the predator goes for the easiest prey. They can not tell that one prey species is a domestic animal and another is wild. To them one is just easier prey. In most cases a predator is not solely dependent on one species for survival. The lynx is one of the few exceptions. When one the numbers of one prey species drops they revert to their alternate prey species. If it is more difficult for them to get domestic livestock than natural prey because of anti-wolf kill measures taken by herders then they may try a little harder to take domestics if their primary prey are reduced. One rule to remember in this debate is that predators concentrate on the easiest prey to kill. That is why there has been good success with domestic herd protection schemes.

On another note we have found that when we introduce or reintroduce a population into uninhabited areas, the reintroduced population grows fairly rapidly, reaches a peak and then crashes down to about half of its maximum growth. It then tends to remain at that level with smaller ups and downs.

skidaho,

I wasn't in SE Idaho for the 80's jack rabbit boom but was there for the even larger late 60's early 70's boom. Scientists still can't explain why jack rabbit populations have been known to boom and then bust. When these booms occurred they occurred all across southern Idaho not just in the Mud Lake area. They occurred in the Lemhi and Pahsimeroi Valleys, all across southern Idaho and even in Owyhee County in western Idaho. While populations in those areas grew substantially they didn't reach the boom numbers seen in the Mud Lake area. Why just there? No one really knows. Food availability was ruled out as the reason the populations crashed. Interestingly, all of the populations crashed at the same time that the Mud Lake population did. Food was not the determining factor. The most likely but unproven reason for the decline was a disease that is inherent in the rabbits but held in check until population densities reached a certain level.

465H&H

Damn, that's a lot of sheep.
But it did say that most of them died from trampling each other.

quote:

Originally posted by sdkidaho:
Totally agree. One of my Grandpa's raised sheep. Stupidest critter on the face of the earth. My point wasn't to say the wolves attacked and killed all 176 sheep. My point was that sportsmen need to be informed and they need to stick together. Also that if they have no first hand knowledge that maybe they shouldn't attempt to try and appear as if they are on the high road.

totally agree but do you think that makes a damn bit of difference to the PETA types that are milking money hand over fist from the cliff dwellers in NYC and similar places?

465, why do African Lions/Tigers and or Leopards become man-eaters? Sometimes it is due to age or injury, but in many cases down thru the years it has been a case of humans are easier to catch and kill.

No difference with wolves/mountain lions/bears/coyotes/bobcats, domesic livestock and house pets are easier to catch and kill than a healthy deer or elk.

Down thru the history of the American West there have been accounts of predators that became famous for preying on livestock. Predators are opportunists, and even with good management practices, given the opportunity they will kill domestic livestock/pets, regardless the status of available natural prey.

Anthropomorphizing predators by saying they will consistently take natural prey over domestic livestock simply does not hold true. If there is no domestic livestock in the area then that would be a true analysis, but historically, even in areas where wolves have been continually present in association with humans, livestock and pets are preyed upon by wolves if the wolves have the opportunity.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

It was not my intention to offend anyone with my comments my apologies to anyone/everyone that has been offended

No offense taken here at all. I like a good debate.

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:

totally agree but do you think that makes a damn bit of difference to the PETA types that are milking money hand over fist from the cliff dwellers in NYC and similar places?

Nope. But I try not to argue with those types as sheep tend to be smarter...

quote:

Nope. But I try not to argue with those types as sheep tend to be smarter...

Love it.

quote:

Originally posted by mlfguns:
[QUOTE]Nope. But I try not to argue with those types as sheep tend to be smarter...

Well, we need to start talking to them. Not the in your face tactics espoused by some but we mustn't ever forget these cliff dwellers vote regardless of how ill informed they are. A prime example is the current resident in the WH.
I asked a WY rancher a question about predator control and he told me that the people in NYC told him what he could and couldn't do. He pointed out that 1 borough in NYC could negate every vote cast in WY. This is also why the current interest in abandoning the electoral college is a bad idea.

No limit with no closed season would be a good start for wolves. It would drive them to the furthest reaches of wilderness where they belong. It wouldn't wipe them out so the bunny huggers couldn't say sh1t.

quote:

No limit with no closed season would be a good start for wolves.

I see the situation, I do not see the problem!

This whole mess could have been handled differently had the Feds limited the input concerning the re-introduction program to the states involved and the citizens of those states. People that were not going to be directly affected in any way should not have been allowed any input.