I can understand and saw the frustration with the ranchers due to the wolves. I believe they do have a case.



I know I might get "thrown under the bus" for this one, but where is Perth?

ddj

quote:

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.

I don’t think that would be a good idea. There’s already enough stress of the herds as it is. With all the subdivision of large ranches and people building houses and living right in the middle of prime winter ranges.

Between development and CWD already putting a hurt on some herds in this state, than you have the people that want to re-introduce wolves and grizzly bears? I don’t see that as a winning scenario for any of the animals involved. It sure wouldn’t make elk and deer hunting any easier for Colorado hunters.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
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.

Your arguments are fine, and I respect them. But calling people ludicrous and telling them they have no knowledge of anything is not fine. Please have the courtesy of staying on the topic rather than personally attacking other posters. Its just as easy to say "my information tells me otherwise" than it is to say "you are ludicrous".


With regard to wolves killing for sport. Maybe a little bit. But wolves are alot like other animals. They kill, and then, if they don't eat, the come back later. Sometimes much later. Sometimes much much later.
Obviously, if they make a fresh kill of a ranchers cow or calf and the rancher is there or takes the calf away the wolves can't come back and eat if they want to.

I have seen photos of the high piles of buffalo hides, and read about the fact that hundreds of thousands of buffalo were slaughtered for their hides, and no meat was taken. Whether there were weather conditions that then contributed to their almost demise I don't know. But I do know this. At this point in history Man is far far far more responsible for killing wild animals than any wolf will ever be.

Omnivorous_Bob there is 2 major problems, white-tails, elk, moose and other critters don't have as much open country side to run over as caribou do, nor do they travel in herds like the caribou do, especially numbers wise.

quote:

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.

Kensco, first off I am not a little man, and I do have a valid arguement, much more so than you.

I have been watching this whole thing play out ever since the first talk of re-introducing and in some cases introducing wolves took place.

The people backing this are folks like you, that have evidently no real working knowledge the amount of wilderness type land that it takes to support ONE healthy wolf pack, let alone several.

The folks backing this have no real understanding that there is no such thing as Balance in Nature.

How much do you really know about predator/prey relations in a natural environment?

Nature never was In Balance, before human beings came on the scene and all we have accomplished is to screw the pooch even farther.

Are you in favor of reducing the number of humans on the Planet?

That would at least reduce the problems we cause.

I simply can not keep from losing my temper and responding the way I did to you, or anyone else setting on their brains, thousands of miles removed from the situation, giving advice on what would fix the mess.

If you or they do not have first-hand/real time working knowledge of the situation, everything you come out with is pure .

Nobody likes or responds well to having beaurocrats and "Know-It-All" environmentalists, thousands of miles removed from what is really happening, forcing their will down the throats of those directly involved or affected by those supposed "Well Intentioned" rulings and ill thought out programs.

You don't like what I said, it is a two way street Kensco, I don't like seeing people that have no actual point of reference, telling folks that , they know what is best for them, when they are not affected in any way by those lofty thoughts and noble actions.

quote:

can understand and saw the frustration with the ranchers due to the wolves. I believe they do have a case.



I know I might get "thrown under the bus" for this one, but where is Perth?

You make sound, valid points, and from first hand experience it sounds like. Your opinion should be respected, not beat to death and thrown under a "the bus"! LOL! The rancher has as much right as the rest of us. It is his pulic land also. Plus he is paying per animal unit to use it in addition to taxes, which about the only dollars the majority pay to have public lands. Some ranchers abuse, some are very good stewards.

The reintorduction of the Canadian Grey wolf, into Wyoming, has and never will do any good. I can attest to deminished elk numbers, diminished opportunities for humans, and diminished incomes to those trying to scrape out a living in the areas affected by the wolves. The wolves return was yet another misguided attempt by our government trying to right a wrong. To late!

I also know,of the original packs released,the cost exceeded $1 million per wolf. Nice huh? The government also promised hunting and management by affected states once numbers reached a certain level, this agreement has long since passed, and numbers have far exceeded the original agreement, in other words, the feds lied to the state of Wyoming, to the hunters who hunt in Wyoming, and in general to all the people of Wyoming.

So for those of you who get a woody just knowing there are wild woofs in the woods,

quote:

Originally posted by trouthunterdj:
I can understand and saw the frustration with the ranchers due to the wolves. I believe they do have a case.



I know I might get "thrown under the bus" for this one, but where is Perth?

ddj

On another continent originally populated by criminals and now apparrently populated with people who are overcome with stupid ideas.

Not to say they are actually stupid, I'll reserve judgement on that....
AD

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Omnivorous_Bob there is 2 major problems, white-tails, elk, moose and other critters don't have as much open country side to run over as caribou do, nor do they travel in herds like the caribou do, especially numbers wise.

quote:

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.

Kensco, first off I am not a little man, and I do have a valid arguement, much more so than you.

I have been watching this whole thing play out ever since the first talk of re-introducing and in some cases introducing wolves took place.

The people backing this are folks like you, that have evidently no real working knowledge the amount of wilderness type land that it takes to support ONE healthy wolf pack, let alone several.

The folks backing this have no real understanding that there is no such thing as Balance in Nature.

How much do you really know about predator/prey relations in a natural environment?

Nature never was In Balance, before human beings came on the scene and all we have accomplished is to screw the pooch even farther.

Are you in favor of reducing the number of humans on the Planet?

That would at least reduce the problems we cause.

I simply can not keep from losing my temper and responding the way I did to you, or anyone else setting on their brains, thousands of miles removed from the situation, giving advice on what would fix the mess.

If you or they do not have first-hand/real time working knowledge of the situation, everything you come out with is pure .

Nobody likes or responds well to having beaurocrats and "Know-It-All" environmentalists, thousands of miles removed from what is really happening, forcing their will down the throats of those directly involved or affected by those supposed "Well Intentioned" rulings and ill thought out programs.

You don't like what I said, it is a two way street Kensco, I don't like seeing people that have no actual point of reference, telling folks that , they know what is best for them, when they are not affected in any way by those lofty thoughts and noble actions.

Sir

I would tend to disagree a little bit. The reason being that while wildlife control is mostly a state issue, every state is in the United States of America. Therefore, I welcome your comments on what we do with our wolves here in Minnesota, and I think you ought to welcome everyone elses comments on what you do with your wolves in Texas or anywhere else in the United States of America.

Problem is, Wolf Management in the United States, especially the Lower 48 is NOT in the hands of the states involved, it is under the authority and whims of the United States Fish And Wildlife Service, a Federai Agency, controlled by the political Machine in Washington D.C..

All of the states involved, have wolf management plans already written up and ready to implement.

Guess what, that does not matter as long as U.S.F.& W. is in charge of the wolf programs.

It is like individual states setting up waterfowl seasons, they can not do one thing with out Federal approval.

You don't see people all upset and writing their congressmen and senators about ducks and geese, you don't see high profile entertainment celebrities holding fuzzy ducklings/goslings trying to get folks to accept those things as part of the natural order.

You seem to want to discuss this in a logical manner, so tell me, how long have wolves been an intergal part of the wildlife in Minnesota, in fact, were wolves ever completely exterminated from Minnesota?

Wolves had been exterminated from the areas being discussed and had been that way for decades.

The natural order of things has adjusted to the abscence of wolves, coyotes/mountain lion/bobcats/lynx and humans had filled that niche.

I am probably wrong, but as far back as I can remember wolves in varying numbers have always been part of the fauna in Minnesota.

The problem with the introductions/re-introductions, is that no living person knows what the numbers of wolves and other large carnivores, and prey species were between the Corp of Discovery expedition and present times.

U.S.F.& W. wants to have enough wolves so people can see them, touristas to these areas want to be able to come out for a few days, see "Wolves" in their natural environment, and then go home and show their pictures and talk of their experiences.

Not a single one of them realizing that in a true and natural setting, the only way anyone would know wolves were present would be to hear them howling and maybe find some tracks or a kill location.

Wolves are supposed to be animals of the wilderness, afraid of humans and their presence, not Yellowstone Yogi's setting on their ass on the side of the road for a handout.

Reality has to be taken into consideration at some point and way too many folks that ate in the decision making end of this issue, do not comprehend the concept of reality.

The only place named Perth that I've ever encountered is in Australia. That's the country where the ranchers exterminated Dingo dogs in order to protect their sheep flocks.

I'm really not interested in raising this discourse to a "higher level" since that just doesn't work with people who worship at the enviro religion.

So I'll just say that I think the answer to the intrusion of Eastern Libs opinions of Western ecological issues is the re-introduction of maybe two mating pair of Canadien or Mexican wolves to Central Park in NYC, and various and sundry other "open areas" east of the Mississippi.

Absolutely!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Kensco:
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.

Kensco,
As far as I can tell reading this post, I'm the only one posting that is 100% in the cattle business (which I only deem as pertinent as you keep referencing ranchers and there role in this proposal). That said, if you read my posts, I'm certain I haven't said anything insulting to you or anyone else. I think my argument is very valid, just as I'm sure you feel yours is.

The comments of making money at wildlife's expense I don't think are accurate. They insinuate that there is some sort of resentment to wildlife from ranchers, which simply isn't true. As I have stated several times already, the best advocate wildlife has are the landowners. Studies have shown that cattle do the best as a component, the primary component albeit, of a healthy ecosystem. Ranchers spend more money then most other groups of people on things such as fencing cattle out of riparian areas and not brushing portions of creek bottoms so does have places to have their fawns. I think the correlation between rancher and developer also isn't accurate. While wildlife certainly isn't the primary concern of a rancher, where would a herd of antelopes for instance fair better, on a prarie grass steer ranch or on the same ground once it has been subdivided? Your comments of wanting what you want and to hell with anything else also just aren't the case. I think people in production agriculture more so then almost any other industry understand that everything requires a balance. For a business to work everyone needs to make a little money and for a ranch to work, effort and improvements need to be put back into the land.

I guess at this juncture what is disheartening to me is that you aren't pointing out the errors of what I'm saying in your opinion. Just as insulting comments don't sit well with you, I can't understand your sweeping generalizations. At least not just because you made them. Maybe if you have some statistical data to reflect why wolf reintroduction into these areas is a good idea (or a few of the other things you have brought up) I would hear you out. Up to this point I feel as if I have gave several takes on why some of your generalized statements would not work (in my opinion), hoping that as obvious opposites on virtually everything on this topic we could have a logical debate and maybe each of us would learn something constructive about the other side. Unfortunately, that has yet to happen.

quote:

KUDU 56 - "I also know,of the original packs released,the cost exceeded $1 million per wolf. Nice huh? The government also promised hunting and management by affected states once numbers reached a certain level, this agreement has long since passed, and numbers have far exceeded the original agreement, in other words, the feds lied to the state of Wyoming, to the hunters who use hunt in Wyoming, and in general to all the people of Wyoming."

Exact same thing in Idaho.

L.W.

Seven, I'm in the cattle business. Maybe not "totaly" as I also farm dry land cotton. The Ak gentleman who brings up the caribou heards of the north really brings up an irrevelantcy. You can't compare a wild animal that makes a few hundred guides a living with an industry that makes literally millions of people a living through directly raising, tranporting, processing and ultimately feeding a nation of 300 millions. The animal rightists spouting off always reminds me of the true story of a meeting between livestock producers and animal welfareers. Some woman got up and declared that coyotes didn't have to killed to be controlled, they could be captured and neutered. A rancher got up and said " the coyotes are eating our sheep, lady, not f***ing them."

quote:

Some woman got up and declared that coyotes didn't have to killed to be controlled, they could be captured and neutered. A rancher got up and said " the coyotes are eating our sheep, lady, not f***ing them."

Uhhh...reindeer are domesticated andwere imported into AK.

Caribou are wild and indigenous.

quote:

Originally posted by gbanger:
Seven, I'm in the cattle business. Maybe not "totaly" as I also farm dry land cotton. The Ak gentleman who brings up the caribou heards of the north really brings up an irrevelantcy. You can't compare a wild animal that makes a few hundred guides a living with an industry that makes literally millions of people a living through directly raising, tranporting, processing and ultimately feeding a nation of 300 millions. The animal rightists spouting off always reminds me of the true story of a meeting between livestock producers and animal welfareers. Some woman got up and declared that coyotes didn't have to killed to be controlled, they could be captured and neutered. A rancher got up and said " the coyotes are eating our sheep, lady, not f***ing them."

Dry land cotton, now THERE is a tough way to make a living.

I only brought that up about ranchers due to the remarks about ranchers and then about rude comments made by posters. I did not think I had said anything wrong, but I didn't expect anyone to get lumped with me if I had. After I re-read his post, I understood what he meant about the posters, I had misread it the first time.

Great story about the 'yotes by the way

In the 1800's the most lethal way to eradicate wolves by use of poison. Just thought that point should be mentioned sometime.

ddj

And your reindeer feed how many millions?

Comparing wolves killing animals to humans killing animals is ludicrous. Wolves do not have seasons, tags, pay millions and millions of dollars to help improve the quality and quantity of game herds and on and on.

The posters who point out that this is a FEDERAL clusterfuck, and that the FEDS data was incomplete and inaccurate are just plain right. Some of the necessary data, e.g. how many wolves were there really alive here or there just simply was not available--the data never existed. Some areas where wolves NEVER were in history, wolves were put--introducing a species to an area where they never existed naturally is often prone to cause problems--regardless of the species, including humans! The difference in the case of something like a wolf is that they do not listen to or follow policies, or constraint or common sense--they just do what they do.

Letting States and their constituents decide what to do in their own case would absolutely be the best course of action, and those who are actually most affected should have a larger say than those who don't, a rancher in a rural area as opposed to a computer technician in a big city. If in fact the decision had been left to the states themselves, with the exception of Comminfornia, which who the hell knows what those liberal idiots would have said, I can assure you all other states where the Fed put wolves would have said HELL NO to the inroduction or re-introduction of wolves into their respective states!

BTW, poison IS a great way to kill wolves, but it is very indiscriminate, and many birds of prey, racoons, and other assorted critters will fall prey to a poisoning approach as well--but the 'balance' is always the goal hey????

quite a nerve we've struck here!

my only problem with "shoot 'n' shovel" for non-native species is that it makes it tough to have the hide draped over your couch...

quote:

That's the country where the ranchers exterminated Dingo dogs in order to protect their sheep flocks.

Yes and it is the same country where the enlightened, immigrant landowners hunted down the Aborigines and shot them too.

Funny how some folks lose sight of what has taken place in their own country when trying to tell folks in another country thousands of miles of away how wrong they are with what they are doing.

quote:

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.

I believe that you were the one that posted this O_B, and if you will try asnd gather some better infomation, Europeans refer to Caribou as Reindeer, domesticated or not.

What was your point anyway, a difference in nomeclature over an animal that is called one thing on one side of the globe and something else on the other, yet it is the same damn animal no matter what name a person calls it???

Also, I believe if you will look and if I am not completely mistaken, I believe you Alaskans, can kill wolves and on a regular basis at that.

tiggertate:

I'm grateful that you accepted what I did mean as an apology to you (in my roundabout way -being an Irishman who hates to apologize. The whole subject of wolves is an emotional one. You are a Westerner and I'm an Easterner. That doesn't mean that I don't recognize how bad wolves can be. I also want Westerners with cattle herds and sheep flocks -and who want to hunt the animals that wolves hunt - to be able to have wolves stood off. I said, "stood off" - not wiped out. Soem people want wolves wiped out. I'm unhappy about that - but I am prepared to listen to "the man on the ground". If you Westerners truly want wolves eliminated once and for all -like dinosaurs- I will, very reluctantly, support you. I really don't think that the guy "on the ground" looking at what remains of a calf or sheep killed by wolves and raging about it -really wants that after he cools down. Just my opinion.

kudu56:

I laughed out loud at your post. ( It reminded me of when I was in your beautiful state once many years ago and was confronted by a guy at the bar in the Hotel Connors in Laramie (Hope the bar is till there.It was a real old timer even then over 50 years ago) He first asked if I was from NY and after I pleaded guilty he showed me a copy of a New York Daily News newspaper which had a picture of a magnificent looking bull - the NY paper caption read " Steer wins prize". I managed to talk my way out of being lynched!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
[

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.



QUOTE]

I grew up in Nebraska. There were always rumours of cougars out west, and then one day, my father ran into one. He lives on a hog farm in Eastern Nebraska.

Luckly, the cougar had not lost it's fear of men yet, and never came close. But now he carries a .40 cal XD when he dose the chores.

The Nebraska Game and Parks brought in the cougars to "take care of" the excess deer. Didn't work so well, many decided that Rover on a leash was easier prey. Well, untill quite a few cougars ended up shot.

Now they just issue antler less tags by the basket and let hunters manage the population

quote:

He first asked if I was from NY and after I pleaded guilty he showed me a copy of a New York Daily News newspaper which had a picture of a magnificent looking bull - the NY paper caption read " Steer wins prize". I managed to talk my way out of being lynched!

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:

quote:

He first asked if I was from NY and after I pleaded guilty he showed me a copy of a New York Daily News newspaper which had a picture of a magnificent looking bull - the NY paper caption read " Steer wins prize". I managed to talk my way out of being lynched!

Don't feel to bad, we've had a kid or two apply for cowboy jobs with us, I guess cause it sounded cool, that I don't think knew the difference either.