I didn't address your other questions.
How does a rancher watch over his stock at night? By being there. Historically, stockmen did watch over the stock at night or hired people to do so. Ranching has changed though and today, the range is expected to be kept hazzard-free so that such vigilance it unnecessary.
Why is hunting best on ranch land?
First off; this is not always the case but where it is the case it is often due to two factors. The first factor is enhanced grazing. Ranchers, at least where they care for their grazing land, do a lot to increase grasslands which benefits any grazing animal.
The second factor is the restriction of access and restriction of hunting opportunity. Ranchers, where they can, have realized a financial benefit from providing quality hunting opportunities for those who can pay so it pays them to do what they can to enhance wildlife habitat. The presence of predators may or may not be a factor. In some cases, having some predators around may add to the experience and may also add some hunting opportubities; laws permitting.
Another thing to keep in mind is, in some jurisdictions, privately owned land, including ranchland and grazing leases, covers a huge percentage of the map. Alberta, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona; these are examples of places where ranching has a pretty big footprint. It stands to reason that large areas of good grazing can attract wildlife. Add to this the restricted hunting access and opportunity and big game populations should be good. Even some areas which have bee over-grazed by cattle are a boon to antelope, for instance.
Again, I think management of predator populations is an important part of the wildlife management equation but I think many want to blame natural predators for a lot more than is deserved. Regards, Bill

My hat is off to you Sir, you really do seem to have the most realistic grasp on the whole situation I have seen.

The problem is that the powers that be have their heads stuck where the sun don't shine. They introduce a species (or sub species in this case) then don't manage it once it has exceeded it's population goals.
Here in California they have let the lion population increase, then put the question of managing the population to a vote via a referendum instead of letting the wildlife managers decide how the population should be managed. So some housewife in Santa Monica who's total exposure to wildlife is through Disney has as much say as a rancher in Siskiyou County.
Result? Wildlife and domestic stock is being devastated. If we had gov't officials with half a brain we wouldn't have these problems.

quote:

If we had gov't officials with half a brain we wouldn't have these problems.

We DO have gov't officials with half a brain. THAT is the problem.

Bill, I think that you don't know near as much as you think you know. Kinda like the people in Washington these days.

What people keep forgetting is that things are not the way they were 150 years ago because millions of people have settled here. Along with people came farms, ranches, houses, roads, big cities, fences etc. If we want things to be they way they were before people came then we need to displace people. For instance, we can remove 99.9% of all humans from the green area (bison range) in this map, including all man made structures, roads, fences, etc. and then we can reintroduce the bison, wolves, elk, antelope, deer, various birds, and everything else that used to live there and let it return to a "natural" state.


Otherwise, we need to accept the fact that people have invaded by the millions, built things, and changed the environment. We can't have it both ways even though some well meaning idealists would like us to.

quote:

Bill, I think that you don't know near as much as you think you know. Kinda like the people in Washington these days.

He knows more than you do, and I do not knopw either of you.

He has a much better concept of what is actually happening than you do.

How can that be, as I live here and have seen first hand what has happened through the years. You guys make it up as you go. Again I live here.

The only real difference, apart from the 300 or so mile difference in our locations, is that I don't subscribe to the hysteria. Here, I frequently speak with people who talk about the wolves overrunning the country and decimating the big game. This when they haven't even seen a wolf track.
Now, I'm not so stupid that I think wolves do not have an impact; of course they do. I also believe they have to be managed as a big game animal; just like bears and cougars. That is the way things are. As far as livestock predation is concerned, there is no question the potential exists and has to be taken seriously and where there is predation, I think it is taken seriously.
While it is true that things are not as they were 150 years ago, there is no reason not to make some effort as preservation and conservation where possible. As hunters and outdoormen, we should all be in favor of doing what can be done to preserve some remnants of the natural world.
I may not know as much as I think I do, being essentially uneducated and all, but I'm not a kid and I've been around. I see more pure hysteria around wolves than any other factor. Nobody much cares about range degraded by invasive weed species (in many areas in Montana it looks like they cultivate knapweed)but they get wild-eyed and vocal about the wolves they imagine are behind every bush. Regards, Bill

Wolves were eradicated, yes, eradicated for a reason. And it was not only done in the USA but in other countries as well. The truth is that wolves and people do not coexist well. As wolf numbers increase we will see more and more adverse impact.

quote:

Originally posted by Grenadier:
Wolves were eradicated, yes, eradicated for a reason. And it was not only done in the USA but in other countries as well. The truth is that wolves and people do not coexist well. As wolf numbers increase we will see more and more adverse impact.

I've said the same thing many times. It's so obvious to anyone who's not prone to ignoring reality. There's no appealing to people that live in fantasyland.

The truth is that no animal which is not domesticated co-exists well with people. Regards, Bill.

Correction, rats and mice seem to do OK.

We coexist just fine with coyotes, snakes, deer, wild/feral pigs, porcupines, raccoons, otters, seals, squirrels, opossums, countless varieties of birds, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Animals like black bears, elk and moose are an occasional nuisance and, unlike wolves, do not represent a significant hazard to livestock or humans. That is why wolves were systematically and deliberately eradicated while those other animals were not.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
The truth is that no animal which is not domesticated co-exists well with people. Regards, Bill.

Would you say that applies to whitetail deer? They numbered approximately 150,000 in 1900 and somewhere around 30 million now here in the USA.

I guess it all depends on how you define coexist. Depleting livestock and prized game animals is less desirable "coexistence" than nibbling on hastas IMHO.

quote:

Originally posted by Norton:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
The truth is that no animal which is not domesticated co-exists well with people. Regards, Bill.

Would you say that applies to whitetail deer? They numbered approximately 150,000 in 1900 and somewhere around 30 million now here in the USA.

I guess it all depends on how you define coexist. Depleting livestock and prized game animals is less desirable "coexistence" than nibbling on hastas IMHO.

Or coming through a windshield.

quote:

I guess it all depends on how you define coexist.

And that is the question. Deer do not co-exist. They do as they please. That is why so many are run over.

The issue however is NOT deer, it is wolves, deer do NOT eat cattle/horses/sheep or deer.

Anyone care to stick to the issue?????

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:
Great article on this very topic

Yes indeed, it is a very good read.

Crazyhorse,
have you read the article?
It is reality of what's really going on.

Excellent article. Thanks Frostbit. I forwarded the link to friends and family I thought would be interested.

quote:

It is reality of what's really going on.

Norseman, your the one that has NO IDEA of what is going on! USF&WS introduced/re-introduced a subspecies of Grey Wolves into an area that they should not have been put in. Both because they were not native to the area, and they put more animals into the area too quickly.

How about you try actually reading what I am saying instead of guessing.

USF&WS introduced a subspecies that they should not have. USF&WS introduced too many animals too quickly into the area!

USF&WS made many mistakes on many levels concerning the reintroduction of Grey Wolves, and if you do not understand that, you are an idiot!

?

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

It is reality of what's really going on.

Norseman, your the one that has NO IDEA of what is going on! USF&WS introduced/re-introduced a subspecies of Grey Wolves into an area that they should not have been put in. Both because they were not native to the area, and they put more animals into the area too quickly.

How about you try actually reading what I am saying instead of guessing.

USF&WS introduced a subspecies that they should not have. USF&WS introduced too many animals too quickly into the area!

USF&WS made many mistakes on many levels concerning the reintroduction of Grey Wolves, and if you do not understand that, you are an idiot!

You do realize that is exactly what the article says don't you? Try reading it. LINK

Hey crazy....why so ornery this early in the year?

Frostbit, I have been following the whole wolf reintroduction fiasco since it was still in the talking stages, before a single wolf had been moved.

While working at the Fort Worth Zoo, the areas I was in charge of were part of the group of facilities around the country that were being used to hold animals that were eligible for the release programs, both Mexican Grey and Red wolves.

A person does not have to live in an area where wolves are or were part of the habitat to know that the whole reintroduction program was a clusterfuck from Day 1.

USF&WS bent over from pressure from groups and individuals whose only real knowledge of wildlife in natural conditions were pigeons in the downtown parks.

Norton, not trying or meaning to be ornery at all. I was against the reintroduction concept just like the folks that were going to be actually effected.

Thing is however people need to get their information correct concerning what happened, whose fault it was, and the various aspects that caused things to get out of control, such as using a different subspecies that have radically different physiological aspects than the naturally occurring subspecies of that area.

It is also frustrating or should be to anyone that feels strongly about the natural environment, to see a government agency totally ignore so much actual/factual evidence simply to placate a certain segment of Americas populace that will never have to deal with the daily impact/effects of such a program.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
Again, I think management of predator populations is an important part of the wildlife management equation but I think many want to blame natural predators for a lot more than is deserved. Regards, Bill

We have become used to the absence of competing predators in our hunting practices. I wonder what will be the equilibrium between human and wolf predators with regards to deer and elk.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Frostbit, I have been following the whole wolf reintroduction fiasco since it was still in the talking stages, before a single wolf had been moved.

While working at the Fort Worth Zoo, the areas I was in charge of were part of the group of facilities around the country that were being used to hold animals that were eligible for the release programs, both Mexican Grey and Red wolves.

A person does not have to live in an area where wolves are or were part of the habitat to know that the whole reintroduction program was a clusterfuck from Day 1.

USF&WS bent over from pressure from groups and individuals whose only real knowledge of wildlife in natural conditions were pigeons in the downtown parks.

Norton, not trying or meaning to be ornery at all. I was against the reintroduction concept just like the folks that were going to be actually effected.

Thing is however people need to get their information correct concerning what happened, whose fault it was, and the various aspects that caused things to get out of control, such as using a different subspecies that have radically different physiological aspects than the naturally occurring subspecies of that area.

It is also frustrating or should be to anyone that feels strongly about the natural environment, to see a government agency totally ignore so much actual/factual evidence simply to placate a certain segment of Americas populace that will never have to deal with the daily impact/effects of such a program.

Did you read the article?

quote:

Originally posted by TomP:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
Again, I think management of predator populations is an important part of the wildlife management equation but I think many want to blame natural predators for a lot more than is deserved. Regards, Bill

We have become used to the absence of competing predators in our hunting practices. I wonder what will be the equilibrium between human and wolf predators with regards to deer and elk.

The wolves introduced were not part of the natural equilibrium any more than the introduction of the Mongoose to Hawaii. These Canadian Wolves are killing machines.

Fact of human existence that will never change, man will always try to take out any organism that presents either direct competition or danger.

Natural predators directly compete with humans as far as wild game is concerned.

Natural predators present a direct threat to humans on several levels, from actually preying upon humans to preying upon the livestock and pets humans own.

All one has to do is a little reading on the natural cycle of Lynx/Snowshoe hare. The hare population builds up for a few years and the lynx population does the same. Then at Point B, the hare population crashes followed by the lynx population crashing.

What happened in the American West, was that humans for various reasons waged war on predators, not just wolves, to the point of almost exterminating them. Prey species populations flourished which for some humans was a good thing, hunters usually. Some people were not all that happy with increased numbers of such species as elk, farmers and ranchers, because the elk were eating up the food their livestock needed.

Elk numbers increased, but at the cost of less aggressive species such as Mule Deer. Too much of any organism is not a good thing on the environment.

Now enters "Public Opinion", from a basically uninformed public. USF&WS bows to pressure from this uninformed Public via elected officials in Washington, who are just as uninformed if not more so.

So instead of moving slowly and inventorying the existing numbers of wolves that are native to the region and formulating plans to help those numbers increase at natural rates, they flood the country with a non-native subspecies, and the rest has become a monumental cluster.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

you need to remember that they introduced the wrong breed of wolves. They introduced Timber wolves not Gray/Grey wolves which were the native wolf breed.

I believe if you will do just a small amount of research, with the exception of the Red Wolf (Canis rufus), the rest of the wolves native to North America are all Grey Wolves.

Whether it is the wolves on the Tundra in Alaska and Northern Canada or the Mexican Grey Wolves in Arizona.

Timber Wolf is simply a colloquial(common name) for wolves in general.

However, you are correct in the aspect that they re-introduced the wrong subspecies of Grey Wolf.

Instead of capturing breeding stock from the Yellowstone region, they obtained animals from Northern Canada, which is a different subspecies with different physical characteristics and pack habits.

Regardless of the names/species/sub-species classification, USF&WS made one hell of a mistake.

Wrong, the Wolves were from South Western Alberta.

You probably can't even come close to finding out how happy this makes me. Our next goal is to trap a pack and transplant them to Central Park...