Wolves kill 120 sheep at ranch near Dillon
Story Discussion By EVE BYRON of the Helena Independent Record | Posted: Friday, August 28, 2009 6:30 am | (119) Comments



HELENA - While the debate about how many wolves are enough to ensure a healthy population will again come to a head in a federal courtroom Monday, a Dillon-area ranch is picking up the pieces from the largest known wolf depredation in recent history.

In a highly unusual move for wolves, they killed about 120 adult male sheep in one incident on the Rebish/Konen Livestock Ranch south of Dillon last week.

That compares with a total of 111 sheep killed by wolves in Montana in 2008, according to Carolyn Sime, the statewide wolf coordinator for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

"This is one of the most significant losses that I've seen," Sime said. "That situation is really unfortunate."

Suzanne Stone with Defenders of Wildlife added that in the 20 years she's been working toward ensuring healthy wolf populations, this is the first time she's heard of such a mass killing.

"I've heard of bears or mountain lions doing that, but what usually happens is the sheep panic and jump on top of one another or fall into a ditch and suffocate," Stone said. "I've never heard of any situation where wolves killed so much livestock in such a short period of time.

"... This is the most extreme case I've ever heard about."

The ranch has suffered confirmed wolf depredations twice in three weeks. In late July, three wolves - two blacks and a gray - killed at least 26 rams. The gray wolf was lethally shot by a federal wildlife manager, and one of the blacks was injured. They thought that would scare off the rest of the pack.

Last week, wolves struck again. This time, they took out 120 purebred Rambouillet bucks that ranged in size from about 150 to 200 pounds, and were the result of more than 80 years of breeding.

"We went up to the pasture on Thursday (Aug. 20) - we go up there every two or three days - and everything was fine," rancher Jon Konen said. "The bucks were in the pasture; I had about 100 heifers with them on 600 acres."

He had some business to attend to in Billings, so Konen told his son to be sure to check on the livestock while he was gone.

"He called me, and said it was a mess up there. He said there were dead bucks all up and down the creek. We went up there the next day and tried to count them, but there were too many to count," Konen recalled.

"I had tears in my eyes, not only for myself but for what my stock had to go through," he added. "They were running, getting chewed on, bit and piled into a corner. They were bit on the neck, on the back, on the back of the hind leg.

"They'd cripple them, then rip their sides open."

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks has taken the lead in wolf management from the U.S. Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service, and the state agency has a "memorandum of understanding" with the federal Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services to provide damage management services when livestock are killed by wolves.

After the dead sheep were found, Graeme McDougal with Wildlife Services flew in a small plane over the sheep pasture, looking for the one or two remaining black wolves to complete the control work requested by Montana FWP. Within a half-mile of the sheep pasture, he spotted the Centennial pack of three adult gray wolves and five pups.

McDougal shot and killed the one uncollared adult wolf, but wasn't authorized to remove any more wolves.

This was the first known depredation incident for the Centennial pack in 2009.

Konen doesn't want to wade into the debate over the reintroduction of wolves in the Rockies, but said that in his opinion, it's time to stop managing wolves and start controlling them.

"My bucks were on private ground, in a pasture where we've been pasturing them for 50 years. The wolves were intruders that were in the wrong place," he said.

Wolves were recently taken off the list of animals protected under the Endangered Species Act, and both Montana and Idaho have instituted hunting seasons for them this year. Idaho will allow 265 wolves to be taken by hunters, in a season that starts Tuesday. Montana will allow 75 wolves to be taken, with the season starting Sept. 15.

Montana is home to an estimated 500 wolves, while Idaho has at least 850. Wyoming also has wolves, but they remain under Endangered Species Act protection.

In Stone's opinion, hunting wolves could create even more problems for ranchers.

"If the adults are shot, then the young ones are dispersed too early," Stone said. "Young pups on their own might turn to livestock to survive, and that's not a good situation for anybody."

Her organization has put out a book to educate ranchers on proactive steps they can take to prevent livestock loss, like hiring range riders, hanging "fladry" - closely spaced cloth - on fences, and minimizing attractants such as dead carcasses.

Defenders of Wildlife has spent more than $895,000 since 1998 to help pay for installation of nonlethal methods to prevent conflicts.

Since 1987, they've also made 885 payments totaling $1.35 million to ranchers to compensate for livestock killed by wolves.

In Montana, the Legislature has earmarked $150,000 to compensate ranchers for livestock lost to wolves, and U.S. Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., co-sponsored a bill that includes $5 million in federal funding over five years for depredation losses.

George Edwards, state livestock loss mitigation coordinator, said the Rebish/Konen Ranch probably will receive $350 per dead sheep.

But he added that the loss is more than just monetary to ranchers.

"The compensation still doesn't make up for the loss by any means," Edwards said. "The rancher still needs to make up his breeding stock, and people in town may not realize the attachment livestock folk get to their animals. The emotional toll it takes is just indescribable."

Reporter Eve Byron can be reached at (406) 447-4076 or at eve.byron@helenair.com.

quote:

"That situation is really unfortunate."

Well, f*ck, as long as the F&W folks have officially declared it's "unfortunate", everything is again okay. Everyone pack up their bags and go home.

quote:

In Stone's opinion, hunting wolves could create even more problems for ranchers.

This is the real kicker. Nothing like an animal-rights activist's rationalizations.

What the hell, just raise taxes so the do-gooders can spend more of your money on their pet wolves.

" killed one ---wasn't authorized to remove any other wolves "
That's really stupid !!

Shoot, shovel, shut up!

Being an Irishman, I always get myself into a real fight so here goes. How is it that deer,moose,elk,etc, managed to survive long before the white man arrived in North America -but, all of a sudden, became endangered by wolves after white hunters arrived? Just asking. (Not really - I am talking to the sport hunters who fear that their chances of hunting other animals will be reduced because of wolves.I am not impressed by posters from western states -How come their own Fish and Game Departments seems to favor the introduction of wolves? If there will be adequate compensation to ranchers and sheep herders for any losses from wolf depredations - then shouldn't it be OK? I have posted in favor of wolves before so I expect the usual tirade of abuse that I am 1) a PETA poster in disguise 2)an environmentalist bunny hugger. I happen to honestly want to support hunters of big game who live in wolf country and I'm perfectly willing to believe (and do believe) that wolves are not some kind of gentle little puppy dog types. (BTW, I saw wolves in the Nipissing District of north central Ontario over some years and do recognize that wolves are not gentle little critters. I only want them to survive because they are the ancestors of all dogs - and I love dogs.

quote:

How come their own Fish and Game Departments seems to favor the introduction of wolves?

I have two friends that are big game biologists in the Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks Department. They are both 100% against the introduction of wolves.

In 1995 the northern Yellowstone elk herd numbered over 22,000 animals. You could drive through Yellowstone Park between Gardiner to Cooke City, and if you didn't see at least 1,000 elk you were probably sleeping. The moose and bighorn sheep populations in this area were also very healthy.

Last year, the official count of elk in the northern Yellowstone herd was about 8,000. And now if you make the drive from Gardiner to Cooke City you'll see a few elk in Mammoth and if you're very lucky, you may see another small group or two of elk. Your chances of seeing a bighorn sheep or moose are close to zero.

In the mid 90's there were over 2,000 late season and special elk licenses in Montana unit 313. This year there are only 189 late season and special elk licenses in unit 313, only 1 moose license in unit 328 (Gardiner), and 2 moose licenses in unit 316 (Hellroaring).

The Federal Yellowstone Park and Fish & Wildlife Service biologists have tried to blame the reduction of elk on forest fires, drought, and grizzly bears, but the only real change in this area that has affected the elk population is the several hundred wolves that have been allowed populate this area.

As to the compensation to ranchers for livestock lost to wolves, these stockmen have only been compensated for animals killed by wolves. There has not been any compensation for the wolf caused stress on the livestock that has resulted in reduced weight and lower reproduction rates.

And finally, the cost of wolf management has been put on state game departments, which takes money away from the management of our game animals.

Wild animals have a chance to escape and the pack might pull one down. But domestic animals do not stand a chance.
All wild predators will do the same thing, kill for fun.
We had a fox get into our chickens and he killed 17 of them. He carried off one.
I am a firm believer in shoot and shovel.

Yup! Only kill what they eat, even though it is still alive!

I might as well join in on this one.

I worked for the US Fish and Wildlife in the mid 90's as apart of a study on the "Effects of prescribed burns on Large Ungulates Winter Range" in the Beartooths of Montana mainly. It was during the reintroduction of the first Yellowstone wolves and their was a lot of debate amongst biologist, environmental groups, and hunters. A couple points that we should consider. First, is that this was a deliberate way to control game populations with other means than hunting. This may have been needed in the Yellowstone ecosystem but there was no plan of controlling the wolves that left Yellowstone. Second, the wolves of Canada and Northern Minnesota were apart of a equilibrium in that environment. The Northern Rocky Mountians were in a state of equilibrium before the wolves. The only places that were in any state of flux from this were vast area of refuge such as Yellowstane, thus the need for supplemental feedings on the National Elk Refuge outside of Jackson for winter range. In the Northern Boreal forests all the game is adapted to this environment, not always so in the Northern Rocky mountians. Elk were primarily a plains mammal. Now they are being driven back down onto the plains and agriculture ground of the floodplains due to wolf predation. We are seeing a lack of game in its historical ranges (mountians) and more movement to lower elivations and agricultural ground. Lastly, most of the winter range in the Beartooths where our study was located, is being used by 70% fewer large ungulates. The game numbers may be on a pendulum but we are going to see many more growing pains in the future before an equilibrium between wolves and game populations is established again.

In my opinion and most of the biologists in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho I still am in contact with, the reintoductions were irresponsible, careless and poor use of resources.

Again, just my opinions.

ddj

First let's cancel all grazing rights on Federal land (BLM, etc.) That's America's land and the wolves have a right to it, and the cattle don't. So if the ranchers will pull-back to grazing their own land then let's allow them to shoot any wolf they find on THEIR land.

The federal government can then issue maps and tags so that we can kill and eat any cattle, sheep, goats, etc. found on Federal land, where they don't belong.

This is a win-win for everyone. The ranchers get to kill wolves and we get to stock our fridges with beef. I'm tired of subsidizing ranchers to graze cattle on my land.

quote:

If there will be adequate compensation to ranchers and sheep herders for any losses from wolf depredations - then shouldn't it be OK?

The compensation funds are a fixed allocation and when the money runs out, there is no more compensation for that year. If your loss occurred in the last quarter or you're at the end of th eline for some other reason, you may be screwed that year. No IOUs issued. Second, registered or breed stock has a value much higher than ordinary livestock and most compensation plans don't take that into account. Last, when you lose that many breeders in one season, the one-time payment doesn't cover the ensuing annual losses during however many seasons it takes to get back to the original heard count.

The notion of kicking all ranchers from public land might sound good to people who live far away from the land in question, but local people have real world problems like maximizing the local tax base and the well being of businesses that wouldn't exist without ranches buying supplies and employing people. How many jobs were lost in timber country because of the spotted owl? We can't all move to town.

quote:

The notion of kicking all ranchers from public land might sound good to people who live far away from the land in question, but local people have real world problems

That right there sums up the whole frigging deal.

It is easy as hell for some one from Perth, or Perth-Amboy to run their mouths about something that does not affect them in any fucking way what so ever.

In the history of humans, the first animals taken out in any area where humans have set up housekeeping is Predators and there is a reason for that.

You arrogant sons of bitches that have no experience dealing with livestock and predators need to bend over and suck your own dicks!

Predators will take out the easiest and most convinient prey first.

It has been proven several times over the past few years, wolves being re-introduced to ANY area will begin to prey on DOMESTIC STOCK, BEFORE they will normal prey species.

Why don't you fuckers that have no working knowledge of the situation, cram your heads up you ass and die.

1 or 2 wolves in an area is not a problem, a pack of several animals is.

quote:

Originally posted by Kensco:That's America's land and the wolves have a right to it, and the cattle don't.
.

animals dont have rights. if the cattle dont,the wolves dont.

quote:

Now they are being driven back down onto the plains and agriculture ground of the floodplains due to wolf predation. We are seeing a lack of game in its historical ranges (mountians) and more movement to lower elivations and agricultural ground.

That will explain why hunters comeing out of the Thourofare aren't seeing any elk, and why the G&F is scratching their heads wondering where the elk are. I just came out of Sunlight Basin,(south of your Beartooth area, 5 days worth of glassing and looking for Mt. Goats. Never seen a single elk. Which my thought is pretty much what you have said, they haven't been eaten or decimated, reduced I am sure, but pushed out. Thus, the 1000 head of elk that are now in and around Heart Mountian, as well as the, general, "any elk" season, this year on the lower Greybull River, near Burlington. The elk are trying to escape being eaten alive, having their guts ripped out and strung on the ground while they try to run away, and having almost all of their offspring eaten before the first winter of their life.

Most of the biologists that I worked with East of Yellowstone believe the reintoductions may be the single worst mistake in Wildlife Management. But they are there and probably always will be. I just hope we can put together a management plan that can be appproved to keep the numbers low.

I don't think will ever happen and it will take hunters and ranchers taking the problem into their own hands.

Just my opinions,

ddj

quote:

Not a liberal, just think we are playing into the liberal's hand going off half cocked.

Just my opinion, but this topic has nothing to actually do with Liberals or Conservatives, and I did not go off Half Cocked.

It is about people, like the guy you said you talked to, that have no real concept, and never will until they actually experience the situation first hand.

Here in Texas, and this has become the latest rallying point, people of all political beliefs, that never came into contact with ANY form of wildlife, because they lived in the big cities, are now getting one hell of an expensive and oft times extremely traumatic education about wildlife.

Contrary to what they have had shoved down their throats or up their asses, by Disney, Marty Stoufer, and lots of the stuff on PBS, coyotes don't chase road runners when Fluffy and Mittens are allowed outside to experience their new homes.

Great Horned owls are not the "Wise Old Bird" they are one of, if not the most efficient predator of small mammals 10 pounds and under.

They also find out, and quite expensively at that, that 99% of the plants they have put on their new land in the country is prime deer/beaver/nutria et.al. food.

For folks that have experienced and live with it, it is difficult to get the unexperienced to understand that just telling the predators to stop just does not work.

It seems that the farther removed some individuals are from the situation, the easier it is for them to offer suggestions that are not only impractical but unworkeable.

Just to go OT for a second, take the issue with Mustangs and Feral Burros in the U.S..

Americans have a love affair with the Old West and the Spirit Of The West and visualize wild horses grazing the prairies.

Few folks realize that until the Spanish brought horses and donkeys with them in the late 1400's, there were no horses or donkeys in North America.

The species evolved here, but moved across the Bering Land Bridge to Asia as the Bison were moving in to North America from Asia.

Horses were not supposed to be here, they are an exotic, along with donkeys.

The plant communities in the west developed with out horses and donkeys being part of the environment, all that was in North America was cud chewers.

One of the reasons, and I used to work with both Mexican Grey and Red wolves at the Fort Worth Zoo, that the re-introduction efforts on wolves started getting curtailed, was simply because no matter where in a given wilderness area they were released, the wolves would find their way to the closest human habitation and come into direct conflict thru depredation of livestock.

Sevenxbjt, if my words offended you, that was not my intention.

If my words offended any of the arm chair naturalists that have never had any first hand experience with the situation, GOOD, that was my intention.

It should also be noted, that with respect to the wolves released into the Middle Fork and Chamberlain Basin areas of Idaho, this was not a "reintroduction", but an "introduction" as there was no historical evidence that there was ever any wolves resident in these areas; however, they have certainly found a liking to the area and have had a devastating effect on the ugulate population in the Frank Church Wilderness Area.

Tell us how you really feel CrazyHorse.I would treat them just like I treat the dogs that people drop out in the country,cuz they think that some will take care of them.So far since the turndown in the oilfield started I have "Taken care of" more than 10 big dogs.So I think shoot and shovel will take some pressure off but untill real control is taken place the rancher will still get the short shaft.Some folks in the big cities just think that beef prices are high now,if it gets worse they will need to get a loan to buy a steak.Good Luck

Grazing subsidies huh? Why don't you check out the subsidies on recreational uses on public lands.

Furthermore, take away all the public land grazing permits and you'll have most of the base properties subdivided. That'll be good for wildlife.

Do what Kensco suggests and beef prices in the U.S. will hit $100.00 a pound. Anything that hurts cattle ranchers hurts all of us when we buy groceries. This guy talks about the oeople who raise our food as if they are the enemy.

I read responses to my post on this thread with ggratitude that I didn't get the previous iinsults that I had read whenever I spoke up in ffavor of wolves. I'm grateful (I used to dread reading any replies) and appreciate that I'm in tthe company of people who know what they are talking about.

I had not considered the fact that "compensation" to ranchers and sheep herders might not even begin to compensate for the stress on herds (and I guess, also on sheep flocks) -and, of course, worse, that the compensation arrives late.

Wolves are fascinating animals -I think we all can agree on that. The issue of where they should be is really emotional. I read two comments by professionals in wild life management who say that every professional they know objects to introduction of wolves. I believe them. I said that their wild life departments didn't object - because that's what I read in the newspapers -and the governors of their states don't want to get in bad with the enviros - a fact I should have considered before I made that statement -so, Gentlemen, I do apologize for making so sweeping a statement.

I still do want the wolves to be around. Nothing ever conveyed a sense of real wilderness to me as hearing the howl of wolves at night. It happens that I don't think that any Westerner wants to eliminate hearing that sound. He is the ancestor of dogs and we all love dogs. The problem in today's world is how ddo we keep the wolf around?

The answer to that last rhetorical question was/is they are around, in Alaska and Cananda. They do fine up there in the large wildeness as do the big bears. So I would suggest those that want to hear them at night take a trip and go camping. Or buy a Bose Wave Radio and wolf CD.

Next thing you know, they'll want to reintroduce brown bears to Detroit. Wait...maybe that's not such a bad idea...

tiggertate:

It happens that you come from a state even less qualified to talk about the "wolf problem" than my own (which, at least has real woods and real animals besides dumb mule deer) - and from a state where in the old joke - "there's no where else that you can look farther and see less". Don't lecture people about going north to see wolves when you live in a godforsaken stretch of ground like Texas. It just shows your ignorance about wolves.

You're doing a pretty good job of displaying ignorance yourself. At least in regarding the topography of Texas and its flora and fauna. Both Oklahoma and Texas have wolf populations. Deeply cross-bred with coyotes but wolves, none the less. I can remember my great aunt in Marrietta, OK driving her ranch for days trying to find and kill the Red wolves that killed her beagle. Didn't eat it; just killed it. They hide out in the Arbuckles and come out from time to time.

tiggertate:

Don't make me laugh - a cross with a coyote? -and you want to compare that with a real grey or timber wolf? Look, I don't want to fight with a Texan (even if I did insult you - I did that to get your attention. Some of my mother's people were from Texas (Mundy, north of Waco) I knew of a dog I petted often at a lodge in north central Canada (Nipissing District) who was snatched out on Canadian ice and eaten by wolves -but I still say we have to preserve animals that we should want around -if we care at all. Apparently you don't. You are entitled to your opinion. Let me have mine -or is that too much for you?

People kill way more animals than they eat. Hundreds of thousands more than wolves do.

What happened to the great buffalo herds in the middle 1800s is one good example.

quote:

but I still say we have to preserve animals that we should want around -if we care at all.

A lot of folks care and have no problem with wolves being in places and in the proper numbers in those places.

Wolves are facinating creatures, as I stated earlier, I worked with both grey and red wolves for about 15 years.

That don't change the fact that if their numbers aren't kept down in the wild, they have too great an impact on the local prey base, wild or domestic.

Would you like having wolves introduced into where you live GP375?

I dealt with lots of folks from the inner city and suburban areas of the Dallas-Fort Worth MetroMess, and many of them had similar feelings as you about the need to protect and re-establish wolves, until asked how they would like looking out their window and seeing a coupkle of those critters lurking in the bushes eyeballing their 5 or 6 year old kid.

That changes a persons mind in a heart beat, ask the folks in Californicate how they feel about those poor misunderstood/oppressed Mountain Lions now.

As for the remark about Red wolves, there are no Red Wolves left in the wild in Texas or Oklahoma or Louisiana.

Big damn coyotes/coyote-dog hybrids/Mountain Lions/feral dogs.

It takes a good expert and DNA to actually make the call as to it being a Red Wolf and not a coyote.

The point still remains, In My Opinion, people that do not live in the affected areas or that do not have first hand/working knowledge of the problem, should have no standing in the decision making process.

If they are allowed to, the next round of wolf introductions need to be done in ANY state park or other semi-wild area close to those individuals home.

22WRF -

The days of the buffalo are gone and should be for wolves in most locales. I would agree that wolves are fine in Northern Minnesota because the vastness of the timber and cover. Wolves are very efficient hunters. The diverse habitat of the northern Rockies allows te to be more efficient. We should not compare the wolves of Minnesota to the wolves of the Norther Rockies. This is one of the mistakes that got us into this mess.

ddj

The days of the deer are not gone and people kill hundreds of thousands every year in cars. Should we eradiate those who hit a deer? Maybe we should.

Sir,

I saw your argument about the loss of game casued by vechicles. I can't see the correlation to Western Wildlife and wolves. I think you are compareing apples and oranges.

ddj

quote:

Originally posted by Gerrypeters375:
tiggertate:

Don't make me laugh - a cross with a coyote? -and you want to compare that with a real grey or timber wolf? Look, I don't want to fight with a Texan (even if I did insult you - I did that to get your attention. Some of my mother's people were from Texas (Mundy, north of Waco) I knew of a dog I petted often at a lodge in north central Canada (Nipissing District) who was snatched out on Canadian ice and eaten by wolves -but I still say we have to preserve animals that we should want around -if we care at all. Apparently you don't. You are entitled to your opinion. Let me have mine -or is that too much for you?

I think you misinterpreted my post. I don't want wolves erradicated. I don't want wolves exterminated. I do want private property rights respected when decisions are made that adversley effect citizens and small businesses. A significant portion of the people behind wolf reintroduction programs or their like-minded cousins have a much larger and more aggregious agenda than viable wolf populations. Your romantic musings about the ambiance of wolf howls in the night seems to do a disservice to the real issues.

Insofar as saying insulting things to get one's attention, I suppose I have done that a time or two myself.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

The notion of kicking all ranchers from public land might sound good to people who live far away from the land in question, but local people have real world problems

That right there sums up the whole frigging deal.

It is easy as hell for some one from Perth, or Perth-Amboy to run their mouths about something that does not affect them in any fucking way what so ever.

In the history of humans, the first animals taken out in any area where humans have set up housekeeping is Predators and there is a reason for that.

You arrogant sons of bitches that have no experience dealing with livestock and predators need to bend over and suck your own dicks!

Predators will take out the easiest and most convinient prey first.

It has been proven several times over the past few years, wolves being re-introduced to ANY area will begin to prey on DOMESTIC STOCK, BEFORE they will normal prey species.

Why don't you fuckers that have no working knowledge of the situation, cram your heads up you ass and die.

1 or 2 wolves in an area is not a problem, a pack of several animals is.

Right on!! I live in NW Mt and have seen the rapid decline in deer and elk #'s. I can tell you and so can any (honest) biologist there are far more than 500 wolves in MT hell there are probably 500 just in my county. I think that we should send some to NY and Perth and see what they have to say in a few years.

22WRF, it is the deer numbers that need to be controlled, just like the wolf numbers need to be controlled.

Sport hunters can do neither.

Allowing "Nature" to take its course is only going to result in major die offs.

Any comment you can make or attempt to make about buffalo and what happened with them shows a complete lack of any real knowledge about the history of the west, and the conditions that caused the near extinction of buffalo.

I really do not understand where some of you folks get your supposed information or knowledge.

The United States Goverment during the period After The Civil War, not the Middle 1800's, developed a policy that had the sole purpose of removing the food supply of the Plains Indians so they would have stop their normal way of life.

If you are going to make statements, please have the courtesey to try and get facts correct.

The Forts in the west would give settlers/hunters/anyone, that was willing to kill buffalo, all the ammunition they could use.

What meat was salvaged, tongues and some hump meat was shipped to New York and Boston and Chicago, the rest was left to rot, simply becatse the more Buffalo killed, the faster the Indians would face starvation and be easier to remove from the equation.

The slaughter of the buffalo herds in the 1870's and 1880's, had nothing to do with sport hunting nor the problem with wolves today.

Trying to rationalize one with the other is ludicrous, the same conditions do not exist today, nor do the reasons for them exist.

Take a deep breath. Wolves (and other big predators)aren't the end of the world. We have'em all over AK. I live in the suburbs of Anchorage and have seen (and heard) them near my house, have brown and black bears in the yard in summer, see new track all of the time, etc. I do look out the window before I walk to my truck! Be smart, be careful, and live your life. I think mass killings by predators are probably because they can't figure out why the domesticated stock aren't reacting like they "should."

I personally would love to see wolves AND brown bear reintroduce to their historic range all over the lower 48. A few thousand bears would do wonders for the "Golden Bear State" in my opinion, and keep people on their toes. Both are a blast to sit and watch and remind you of your place in the scheme of things.

Bob

The problem with your scenario, is that not EVERYONE lives in Alaska.

How about as an exchange for your suggestions, the rest of us import all of the folks that think wolves and other such critters are harmless, up to where you live, and let them explain to you how wrong you are in your way of thinking about you deal with animals.

The rest of the country ain't Alaska, and something tells me you ain't real big into raising livestock.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on the matter, but something tells me that you would not be so open minded about things if folks in Los Angeles or Houston or New York City were all of a sudden able to dictate game laws in your little corner of the world. JMO.

Alaska doesn't have vast herds of cattle grazing in wolf and grizzly bear country and New York and Perth don't have wolves. None of you people who are arguing in behalf of wolves have any right to dictate to others trying to make a living on western cattle ranches. You're just hypocrites!!!!! When grizzlies and wolf packs existed in the past many were credited with killing over 1,000 head of livestock each. Until you pledge personnaly to compensate these ranchers for their losses you should keep your mouth shut. Don't tell me because I'm from Texas that I don't know what I'm talking about. We don't have grey wolves, but we have other cattle-killing predators, and a dead cow in Texas is quite similar to a dead cow in Montana. We have mountain lions, mexican lions, black bears, and many claim that red wolves still exist in Texas along with an occasional jaguar.

AK does have reindeer herds that live year around on the open tundra. And yes, the do lose some each year to wolves and bears, paritcularly during calving season, but they do quite well overall. Having said that, I'd be pissed too if my livelyhood was at risk, but think there is a balance that can be maintained.

As an aside, I was once taking my retriever and a friend's dog out for some exercise when they smelled a calving reindeer herd about 2 miles away. They jumped out of the bed of my pickup and took off. As the herd was dropping calves, I knew there'd be bears around and foolishly didn't have a gun in my truck. Fortunately it was raining and foggy so no one was around to shoot at the dogs. In the coarse of retrieving THEM I saw two single boars and a sow with three cubs, all shuffling along behind the herd, as the dogs obliviously checked out the interesting smells. Nerve racking to say the least!

This issue is no different than any other. People want to make as much money as possible at wildlife's expense. Whether you are a rancher or a housing developer. You want what you want and to Hell with anything else.

Luckily the Feds get things right once in a while, and the U.S. hasn't been completely given away to special-interest groups, but that is why lobbyists are thick in Washington, to try to sell the country out from under us. We have a wolf problem, it's the two-legged kind.

Read the thread again, and pick out the idiots that begin using insulting language. These little-men wouldn't have to revert to school-yard posturing if they had a valid argument to support their case.