# Pack of Wolves Killed Using GPS



## Olivers mama

They said it "had" to be done... Big brave men in a helicopter.

Wolf pack that killed cattle taken out by sharpshooters - U.S. News


----------



## Jax08

....


----------



## Dainerra

unfortunately, it doesn't take long for wolves (coyotes, any predator) to learn that domestic animals are MUCH better/easier to kill than wildlife. Once they learn that, there is really no way to break them of it. 
Much like bears who start breaking into houses to find food. And, no there really is no 100% way to secure livestock to keep out predators.


----------



## selzer

Would it have been better if they took the wolves, one by one, and pitted them against a man in a ring, sort of like blood sport? No. It would not. This was not about being a brave hunter or a hearty survivalist. This was about wolves who have learned that cattle are easy prey. 

I am not a cattle farmer, but I like beef, milk, and leather products. If the wolves are affecting a rancher's livlihood, I don't have a problem eliminating them. 

People want to re-introduce wolves, and they want to re-home critters, but the problem is that when you put critters into an environment, you are displacing other critters and changing the nature of how things work. If these wolves would have stuck with deer, they would be alive today. But calves, steers provide excellent meat and are easier to hunt down, catch, and possibly kill. So the wolves, who are opportunists, found a good food source and that wasn't going to change. 

It isn't about being brave. It is about protecting livestock.


----------



## Olivers mama

Oh, I understand WHY it had to be done. If I were the rancher, I'd want to protect my herd, as well. I can do without beef, but don't EVEN go after my milk!  Leather? I can take it leave it - I prefer diamonds. 

In a "perfect" world, there would've been alternatives. Calif has been screaming that it has no wolves. So I say, we should've taken some of the state's $$ they've been wasting & had the wolves brought here. Rather have the 4-legged ones vs some of the 2-legged ones we have....


----------



## Nigel

selzer said:


> Would it have been better if they took the wolves, one by one, and pitted them against a man in a ring, sort of like blood sport? No. It would not. This was not about being a brave hunter or a hearty survivalist. This was about wolves who have learned that cattle are easy prey.
> 
> I am not a cattle farmer, but I like beef, milk, and leather products. If the wolves are affecting a rancher's livlihood, I don't have a problem eliminating them.
> 
> *People want to re-introduce wolves, and they want to re-home critters, but the problem is that when you put critters into an environment, you are displacing other critters and changing the nature of how things work.* If these wolves would have stuck with deer, they would be alive today. But calves, steers provide excellent meat and are easier to hunt down, catch, and possibly kill. So the wolves, who are opportunists, found a good food source and that wasn't going to change.
> 
> It isn't about being brave. It is about protecting livestock.


I'm not sure about the cattle that were killed by the Wedge pack, but a big part of the problem is that cattle are released to roam and graze through "our" national forests. These cattle defecate and trample the banks of what used to be nice trout streams. It is the cattle that are the invasive species competing with and displacing the native species. Allowing cattle in the national forests, the very place where wolves are supposed to recover, is a recipe for failure. I hear hunters whine about the wolves killing all the elk and moose, but where are the best places to hunt elk and moose? The same places that have the highest populations of wolves Alaska, British Columbia, and Alberta.


----------



## blackmeadow

selzer said:


> ...but the problem is that when you put critters into an environment, you are displacing other critters and changing the nature of how things work.


The sad thing is, wolves were there before the cattle. By getting rid of wolves and moving in cows, the ones being displaced were wolves and the ones changing the nature of how things worked were humans. It seems a bit unfair to go after wolves, when they were just being wolves. Did they have proof that it was even the wolves doing it...? I've seen plenty of cases where "wolves" taking down cattle wound up being feral dogs, or companion dogs that decided that killing livestock was fun. 

I do wish there were better ways of dealing with all of this than killing wolves. I don't know what ranchers do and don't try, but I'd like to believe that there was more than could have been done other than destroying predators we really need.


----------



## WhiteSpirit

My friend who breeds Chihuahuas lives in a heavy predation area. She is at an intersection for 2 wolf packs and has never lost a chicken or cow. She keeps 2 GSD on her property that are trained to sleep around the chicken and cow pens. The wolves won't step foot on her property. This did not need to happen.


----------



## mosul210

I read about this, very unfortunate. I wish more work would have been done in terms of alternative options such as relocation and such.


----------



## Radio

Dainerra said:


> unfortunately, it doesn't take long for wolves (coyotes, any predator) to learn that domestic animals are MUCH better/easier to kill than wildlife. Once they learn that, there is really no way to break them of it.
> Much like bears who start breaking into houses to find food. And, no there really is no 100% way to secure livestock to keep out predators.


I'm agreeing with all this.

I wouldn't have said the same thing a few months ago, but since moving to rural Wyoming I have a muuuch better understanding of what its like to live in a place where humans and wildlife want to occupy the same land. After talking with local Fish & Game guys, yes, of course the first step is to relocate the animal. If it keeps coming back and is considered a threat, it's eventually put down. A bear was recently removed from ranch land nearby for similar reasons. 

On the other hand, in defense of the animals, if one is found dead (shot, natural causes, whatever) they autopsy to determine cause and analyze the animal to help determine the heath of the local population.

I think the system is working.


----------



## Magwart

Nigel said:


> I hear hunters whine about the wolves killing all the elk and moose, but where are the best places to hunt elk and moose? The same places that have the highest populations of wolves Alaska, British Columbia, and Alberta.


There's a reason for this correlation between wolves and healthy populations of elk and deer. They studied this in Yellowstone and found that the elk herds are actually _healthier_ now that the wolves are back. The wolves mainly prey on the weak members of the herd, strengthening herds. They weed out the gene pool, resulting in more robust, healthy herds.


----------



## selzer

blackmeadow said:


> The sad thing is, wolves were there before the cattle. By getting rid of wolves and moving in cows, the ones being displaced were wolves and the ones changing the nature of how things worked were humans. It seems a bit unfair to go after wolves, when they were just being wolves. Did they have proof that it was even the wolves doing it...? I've seen plenty of cases where "wolves" taking down cattle wound up being feral dogs, or companion dogs that decided that killing livestock was fun.
> 
> I do wish there were better ways of dealing with all of this than killing wolves. I don't know what ranchers do and don't try, but I'd like to believe that there was more than could have been done other than destroying predators we really need.


Throughout the history of the world, there has been survival of the fittest. One predator would come in and other predators would be edged out, and some died out. This has been happening long before humans existed. 

Humans are predators. we move in, we put the land to our use, and raised herds of animals for meat and products. 

The wolf was in direct competition for the land, the hunting, and the safety of livestock and were eliminated. 

Society changed from a society that survived as much off of wild game as livestock and hunting decreased and grazing herds increased. It balanced out to a point. 

Then people felt that hunting is terrible, awful, etc, and hunting decreased further as public opinions and laws went into place. The balance was shifted again as deer and other critters started to over-populate. 

And instead of encouraging hunting, the idea to re-introduce the wolf in many places took hold.

The only thing is, which is easier to catch a deer or a steer? 

I guess I am not of the opinion that the only animal that has no right to live should be humans. And, I like beef. Wolves are cool. I can see them at the zoo. I don't want them in my back yard, and if I owned livestock I wouldn't want them within a couple of hundred miles.


----------



## Nigel

Magwart said:


> There's a reason for this correlation between wolves and healthy populations of elk and deer. They studied this in Yellowstone and found that the elk herds are actually _healthier_ now that the wolves are back. The wolves mainly prey on the weak members of the herd, strengthening herds. They weed out the gene pool, resulting in more robust, healthy herds.


The return of wolves to Yellowstone has also helped beavers make a come back there as well.
Yellowstone National Park: Wolf Reintroduction Changes Ecosystem

In Northeast Washington, there is the Diamond, Smackout, Huckleberry, and Salmo packs (confirmed) and Boulder creek & Ruby creek (suspected). There are 2 other confirmed packs in the north & central Cascades. So while it sucks to lose the Wedge pack, it's nice to know they are making a comeback.
Washington Wolf Packs | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife


----------



## blackshep

Magwart said:


> There's a reason for this correlation between wolves and healthy populations of elk and deer. They studied this in Yellowstone and found that the elk herds are actually _healthier_ now that the wolves are back. The wolves mainly prey on the weak members of the herd, strengthening herds. They weed out the gene pool, resulting in more robust, healthy herds.


Not to mention the amount of damage deer and elk can do to the landscape, stripping trees etc. when their populations spin out of control Wolves are a vital part of our ecosystem, as are the sharks in our oceans. We're in huge trouble if we knock out top predators.

Very unfortunate.

I can understand taking out a problem pack, who's going after livestock, just not indiscriminate killings.


----------



## von Bolen

The rancher took no measure to deter the wolves. He let his cattle get attacked so he could back the state into a corner and allowed the wolves to become habitual cattle killers.


----------



## APBTLove

I'm probably of the minority here.. But I think every preventative measure should be taken before you go on a killing spree. Humans are intelligent enough to protect their cattle, we moved into THEIR home and sat easy meals in their living room. And now kill them for taking advantage of it. 

I understand some farmers can't afford to put up barricades (such as acres of electric fencing), but there are cheaper, easier methods to cut way down on wolf killings..


----------



## Kayos and Havoc

Nigel said:


> I'm not sure about the cattle that were killed by the Wedge pack, but a big part of the problem is that cattle are released to roam and graze through "our" national forests. These cattle defecate and trample the banks of what used to be nice trout streams. It is the cattle that are the invasive species competing with and displacing the native species. Allowing cattle in the national forests, the very place where wolves are supposed to recover, is a recipe for failure. I hear hunters whine about the wolves killing all the elk and moose, but where are the best places to hunt elk and moose? The same places that have the highest populations of wolves Alaska, British Columbia, and Alberta.


Agree with this. I used to live in the PNW and the cattle are everywhere.


----------



## bocron

We are huge Wolf advocates. Our business (WolfBrook) is named after our love of wolves and their superior social structure. For my husband's birthday last week we adopted him a wolf from Wolf Park. I'm saying this just so it's clear how much we revere the wolf in our household. Having said that, I have been reading about this situation for a number of weeks and fully believe this was a viable solution. I'm not sure that is how I would go about it, but I don't know how likely it is you can catch the pack and euthanize them. There are many documented cases of wildlife specialists trying to "rehab" wolves that have taken to livestock as their prey of choice. This is generally considered a no win situation and is heartbreaking to say the least. I frequent the Wolf Park site (where my husband's adopted wolf Wotan lives ) and a few other well known wolf specialty centers and while they are all posting their sadness about this outcome I haven't seen any disagreement with the solution.


----------



## Nikitta

I am also very pro-wolf. I hope that the proper measures where taken to try everything else first. I hope the people who dealt with this were professionals. I don't know enough about the situation to comment. There are other solutions to just killing them all and I agree that a proper introduction to wolves in an area can be healthy for the eco-system. God made nature a series of checks and balances, predator and prey. Man is the one who has messed with it. On the other hand, if you livestock is your livelihood, you need to protect it too. Its a difficult line to walk and the sad thing is it is usually the wolves who suffer.


----------



## Olivers mama

APBT - No, I don't think you're in the minority, but if you are, I'm right there with you.

I have 2 problems with this story. (1) The wolves were there first. The cattle owner should've known of their presence & taken whatever precautions necessary. (2) 'Hunting' might have been 1 thing, but I have a problem using GPS & snipers dangling from a chopper. Kinda like "hunting" a sitting duck.

And again - Calif wastes money like it was TP. Why not spend a bit & relocate the wolves here, since the state wants them so badly? (They've been tracking a gray wolf for some time. But he's smart - he enters Calif, only to turn around & return home...even HE doesn't want to be here! )


----------



## wyominggrandma

Okay, gonna say what nobody wants to hear.
So, what about the wolves that have come out of Yellowstone, gone into neighborhoods of Jackson homes and killed their pets? What about the wolves that have pulled down horses that were tied to their trailers while camping? Um, what about the wolves that are going into populated areas and killing animals? 
The wolves did not stay in Yellowstone, they are following the herds leaving Yellowstone for winter and coming into towns and killing livestock... The wolves have decimated the elk/buffalo herds in Yellowstone, they no longer allow moose hunting because the wolves have killed them in the same area.
There is no possible way, except culling the packs to keep the population down. When the wolves were brought back into the yellowstone eco system, they brought Canadian wolves, not the same wolves that used to roam here. These are bigger, more aggressive wolves. They kill to kill, not just to eat.
Go ahead, blast away. Until you have gone hiking and have a wolf follow you from 20 yards away, step for step, until you have run into one while jogging on the trails, VERY close to town, until you have seen the damage they do to livestock, in their own pastures, close to the farm house, then maybe you will understand the need and reasoning behind killing them.


----------



## selzer

Olivers mama said:


> APBT - No, I don't think you're in the minority, but if you are, I'm right there with you.
> 
> I have 2 problems with this story. (1) The wolves were there first. The cattle owner should've known of their presence & taken whatever precautions necessary. (2) 'Hunting' might have been 1 thing, but I have a problem using GPS & snipers dangling from a chopper. Kinda like "hunting" a sitting duck.
> 
> And again - Calif wastes money like it was TP. Why not spend a bit & relocate the wolves here, since the state wants them so badly? (They've been tracking a gray wolf for some time. But he's smart - he enters Calif, only to turn around & return home...even HE doesn't want to be here! )


Many of these places that is not true. The wolves have been gone for years. They have been re-introduced. 

What is the difference how the bullet enters the body, whether it is a sport, where man is a mighty hunter, or whether it is out of a chopper? The end result is the wolf is dead, hopefully without much suffering. In my opinion, making a sport out of the killing, doesn't make the killing any more noble. The object is not to give men glory, but to protect livestock. So long as the method of the killing is not significantly more painful and drawn out, why should it make a difference? I don't get that. 

Hunting is a sport and is a form of pleasure/entertainment, hiking being one with nature and all that, also a method of obtaining food, while thinning the herd. No problem with hunting. The object of hunting is not generally to eliminate a prey species. It is a one-sided sport/recreation. There is nothing recreational or sporting on the part of the beast that is hunted. I don't understand why people would feel it more acceptable for people to practice their sport/recreation to kill the wolves, than people just plain out killing them.


----------



## Olivers mama

Whoa grandma! Wyoming's situation is different from Washington State. No one is saying Big Bad Wolves shouldn't be killed. And - if you notice - most people here agree with you.

I'm just saying that maybe - possibly - there could've been alternatives. Whenever it's a cow -vs- a wild animal, we always side with Bessie. And Red Riding Hood. 

selzer - my "hunting" comment is more in jest. IMO, hunting does not equal tracking the animal via GPS & in a chopper. Well, at least my dad never hunted that way. Here, they keep reporting it as "hunting". Which it was not. They put a device on the suspected ringleader. Then watch him move on a computer map. Then jump in a chopper & have a sniper shoot them. I'm glad the "controlled hunts" in my area aren't done that way. Wouldn't need "hunters", just 1 guy & his GPS tracker.:crazy:

Anyway, I posted the story for it's information. Certainly nothing over which to argue. More for info purposes.


----------



## selzer

Olivers mama said:


> Whoa grandma! Wyoming's situation is different from Washington State. No one is saying Big Bad Wolves shouldn't be killed. And - if you notice - most people here agree with you.
> 
> I'm just saying that maybe - possibly - there could've been alternatives. Whenever it's a cow -vs- a wild animal, we always side with Bessie. And Red Riding Hood.
> 
> selzer - my "hunting" comment is more in jest. IMO, hunting does not equal tracking the animal via GPS & in a chopper. Well, at least my dad never hunted that way. Here, they keep reporting it as "hunting". Which it was not. They put a device on the suspected ringleader. Then watch him move on a computer map. Then jump in a chopper & have a sniper shoot them. I'm glad the "controlled hunts" in my area aren't done that way. Wouldn't need "hunters", just 1 guy & his GPS tracker.:crazy:
> 
> Anyway, I posted the story for it's information. Certainly nothing over which to argue. More for info purposes.


I have hunted, my dad is a hunter. Hunting is done many ways. Some hunt with dogs, some hunt with bird dogs. Some hunt with hounds. Some hunt with shot guns, some with rifles, some with bows and arrows. Some do it on foot. Others do it with vehicles. Hunting has been done with horses too. The fact that the hunting is not carried out in the fashion that you are accustomed does not mean it is not hunting. They still need to find them and shoot them. That is hunting. It is just not the type of hunting that you approve of. The end result is the same. 

I would think that for people who love the wolves, the idea that people are actually getting a measure of pleasure out of killing the wolves would be worse. 

When they need to thin the herds up in those areas in Ohio where they do not want to allow hunting, they go in at night with automatic rifles, snipers, and slaughter them. That ticks my dad off. Why not open a hunting season and sell a set number of licenses and let people go in and hunt them properly and use the meat, and perhaps take a trophy. He has a point as the meat is actually used that way. Other than that, I do not see that it makes a difference how a critter is shot and killed so long as it isn't done in order to satisfy someone who likes to torture critters and watch them suffer.


----------



## Lilie

Washington Wolf Packs - Wedge | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

A great read for those who are interested in the rest of the story. 

There were steps taken to avoid the killing of the pack, which btw, are not the only pack located in that area. The hunting of livestock by this pack was also threatening the other packs who are utilizing natural prey for food. 


*Were non-lethal measures used to control predation by the Wedge Pack?*

Yes. Several non-lethal measures have been taken at the Diamond M Ranch – both by the rancher and by WDFW – to control predation by wolves on livestock. In spring, WDFW also helped to install wolf-repelling “fladry” on a wire fence at a neighboring ranch where wolf sightings were also reported. Specific actions taken at the Diamond M Ranch include:

Calving areas have been located away from the region to make calves less vulnerable to predation.
Cows with calves were released onto the range later in the spring when they are larger and more natural prey is available to wolves.
The rancher now employs five cowboys or “range riders” to help monitor the herd.
WDFW has worked with USDA Wildlife Services staff to patrol range in mid-summer with the goal of driving any wolves away from the herd.
Injured livestock have been moved off the range to recover, reducing the risk of attack.
The state’s wolf plan states that these pro-active measures offer a “partial alternative to lethal control,” but that “lethal control of wolves may be necessary to resolve repeated wolf-livestock conflicts.”​I'm very pleased to see the use of GPS to single out the offending pack. It protects the remaining packs that are not creating a threat to the ranchers. The use of a helicopter is justified due to the vast amount of land covered. I am also pleased that they used sharp shooters or marksmen and not Dewey, Huey and Louie from the Ducksville ranch. This was a well thought out and planned process people.


----------



## Caitydid255

wyominggrandma said:


> Okay, gonna say what nobody wants to hear.
> So, what about the wolves that have come out of Yellowstone, gone into neighborhoods of Jackson homes and killed their pets? What about the wolves that have pulled down horses that were tied to their trailers while camping? Um, what about the wolves that are going into populated areas and killing animals?
> The wolves did not stay in Yellowstone, they are following the herds leaving Yellowstone for winter and coming into towns and killing livestock... The wolves have decimated the elk/buffalo herds in Yellowstone, they no longer allow moose hunting because the wolves have killed them in the same area.
> There is no possible way, except culling the packs to keep the population down. When the wolves were brought back into the yellowstone eco system, they brought Canadian wolves, not the same wolves that used to roam here. These are bigger, more aggressive wolves. They kill to kill, not just to eat.
> Go ahead, blast away. Until you have gone hiking and have a wolf follow you from 20 yards away, step for step, until you have run into one while jogging on the trails, VERY close to town, until you have seen the damage they do to livestock, in their own pastures, close to the farm house, then maybe you will understand the need and reasoning behind killing them.


My friend in Idaho has the same complaints. He and others I know from the area (Washington state as well) insist that there were local packs before the reintroduction of the Canadian wolves. Those packs have since disappeared.


----------



## KentuckyGSDLover

I don't have to live with wolves, so I'm not judging.


----------



## Olivers mama

KentuckyGSDLover said:


> I don't have to live with wolves, so I'm not judging.


 Our biggest wolf problem in this state is the politician. 

Lilie - I appreciate the 'rest of the story' - Thank You very much!
But how did they know the wolf they GPS'd was the Bad Wolf? DNA? Paw print analysis? (Just kidding...)
I said earlier that I understand the WHY of what they did, but I don't have to like it.


----------



## RocketDog

Caitydid255 said:


> My friend in Idaho has the same complaints. He and others I know from the area (Washington state as well) insist that there were local packs before the reintroduction of the Canadian wolves. Those packs have since disappeared.


I live ten minutes from the Idaho border. I spend much of my time in the Panhandle and in Montana. There were no local packs here. There is much myth and ignorance, though. Also, I have friends that live outside of Jackson, WY. They've lived there for 16 years. Their experience and what they've heard about the wolves doesn't match Wyominggrandmas.


----------



## selzer

Olivers mama said:


> Our biggest wolf problem in this state is the politician.
> 
> Lilie - I appreciate the 'rest of the story' - Thank You very much!
> But how did they know the wolf they GPS'd was the Bad Wolf? DNA? Paw print analysis? (Just kidding...)
> I said earlier that I understand the WHY of what they did, but I don't have to like it.


Because going against the popular mood and killing wolves to make a handful of ranchers stop whining is such a politically sound decision. I remember a recent vice-presidential candidate that allowed this same thing to go on and got tons and tons of guff for it.


----------



## Olivers mama

selzer said:


> Because going against the popular mood and killing wolves to make a *handful* of ranchers *stop whining* is such a politically sound decision.


How true - I LMAO reading this! :laugh:


----------



## bocron

selzer said:


> I remember a recent vice-presidential candidate that allowed this same thing to go on and got tons and tons of guff for it.


I'm pretty sure that WAS admittedly for sport and not to resolve an ongoing issue. Had it been to remedy a situation I'm sure that would have been made abundantly clear. If I recall correctly, I thought it was also questioned whether that hunt was for one of the species of wolf that is on the vulnerable list in Alaska. 
I have nothing against hunting for sporting purposes, I used to quail and dove hunt when I had the time. I guess I look at it like the quail have a chance to get away(and they usually did ) as I'm on foot and am using the only means I have of getting around. Hunting wolves from a helicopter is the opposite, using a non natural means of transport to hunt them down and for what? They don't eat them. I've eaten (or given to those who will) every bird I've ever shot.


----------



## Nigel

RocketDog said:


> I live ten minutes from the Idaho border. I spend much of my time in the Panhandle and in Montana. There were no local packs here. There is much myth and ignorance, though. Also, I have friends that live outside of Jackson, WY. They've lived there for 16 years. Their experience and what they've heard about the wolves doesn't match Wyominggrandmas.


:thumbup:

Don't know if this has been posted yet. Here is a link of what Sen. Kevin Ranker chair of the Senate Natural Resources and Marine Waters committee thinks of the killing.
Killing of wolf pack criticized by key Washington state lawmaker - U.S. News


----------



## selzer

bocron said:


> I'm pretty sure that WAS admittedly for sport and not to resolve an ongoing issue. Had it been to remedy a situation I'm sure that would have been made abundantly clear. If I recall correctly, I thought it was also questioned whether that hunt was for one of the species of wolf that is on the vulnerable list in Alaska.
> I have nothing against hunting for sporting purposes, I used to quail and dove hunt when I had the time. I guess I look at it like the quail have a chance to get away(and they usually did ) as I'm on foot and am using the only means I have of getting around. Hunting wolves from a helicopter is the opposite, using a non natural means of transport to hunt them down and for what? They don't eat them. I've eaten (or given to those who will) every bird I've ever shot.


And I have heard that some native tribes in Alaska are dependent on wild game, and that the wolves were considered a problem to those populations, but if you go back about four years, you can read the whole lengthy thread (which was allowed, since it concerned wolves, which some people must have felt were close enough to dogs to allow it). 

So you hunt doves, and eat them? I never heard of anyone eating pigeons, but then I never heard of people eating squirrels until last week. I guess learn something new every day. 

You get there on your own legs, but you shoot them with what? A gun? A bow -- either way you could argue using an non-natural means of cutting them down. 

They may not eat the wolves, but we do eat the beef. Sorry but I am more concerned about cattle than I am wolves that are killing cattle.


----------



## bocron

selzer said:


> So you hunt doves, and eat them? I never heard of anyone eating pigeons, but then I never heard of people eating squirrels until last week. I guess learn something new every day.
> 
> You get there on your own legs, but you shoot them with what? A gun? A bow -- either way you could argue using an non-natural means of cutting them down.
> 
> They may not eat the wolves, but we do eat the beef. Sorry but I am more concerned about cattle than I am wolves that are killing cattle.


Like I said, I'm a huge wolf proponent but I also did not disagree with this particular pack being eliminated. The ranchers (from what I read) took measures to dissuade the pack and change their hunting pattern but I'm sure there is only so much you can do before you reach a point of diminishing return.

I have hunted with a gun and a bow. I guess what I was trying to say was my method of pursuit was on my own two feet. I actually prefer skeet shooting now, less time to travel and I don't have to get up at 4am .


----------



## selzer

bocron said:


> Like I said, I'm a huge wolf proponent but I also did not disagree with this particular pack being eliminated. The ranchers (from what I read) took measures to dissuade the pack and change their hunting pattern but I'm sure there is only so much you can do before you reach a point of diminishing return.
> 
> I have hunted with a gun and a bow. I guess what I was trying to say was my method of pursuit was on my own two feet. I actually prefer skeet shooting now, less time to travel and I don't have to get up at 4am .


I used to hunt and fish. And one day I realized I did not like to hunt or fish, I used to go to do something with my dad. I do like to shoot with a bow. But I gave my bow to my nephew so he could get some archery badge. My dad was into the bow thing too. We're engineers. And Dad got deep into traditional archery and would make his own arrows, and create machines and fixtures to turn the rods, make the proper angles for the ends of the arrows, cut feathers, paint them. It was a big deal. But after two shoulder surgeries, the bow has lost its charm I think. I find it is better to just spend time with Dad and stay away from the topic of computers which really bores me to tears.


----------



## martemchik

I think Wisconsin is about to institute a wolf hunt. When animals are protected like the wolves have been they tend to spread very quickly and so now we kind of have an overpopulation of wolves. Don't see anything different with population control. It's a big reason deer hunting is allowed.


----------



## von Bolen

wyominggrandma said:


> Okay, gonna say what nobody wants to hear.
> So, what about the wolves that have come out of Yellowstone, gone into neighborhoods of Jackson homes and killed their pets? What about the wolves that have pulled down horses that were tied to their trailers while camping? Um, what about the wolves that are going into populated areas and killing animals?
> The wolves did not stay in Yellowstone, they are following the herds leaving Yellowstone for winter and coming into towns and killing livestock... The wolves have decimated the elk/buffalo herds in Yellowstone, they no longer allow moose hunting because the wolves have killed them in the same area.
> There is no possible way, except culling the packs to keep the population down. When the wolves were brought back into the yellowstone eco system, they brought Canadian wolves, not the same wolves that used to roam here. These are bigger, more aggressive wolves. They kill to kill, not just to eat.
> Go ahead, blast away. Until you have gone hiking and have a wolf follow you from 20 yards away, step for step, until you have run into one while jogging on the trails, VERY close to town, until you have seen the damage they do to livestock, in their own pastures, close to the farm house, then maybe you will understand the need and reasoning behind killing them.


The wolves in Canada and the BC Rainforest wolves knew know borders before. They share these territories with the N. Rocky Mtn and Cascades Mtn wolves. They even interbred. So really, this non-native arguement that I see alot doesn't hold alot of water.

And as far as the danger they pose to humans... I fear the bear and cougar in my area FAR more than i do the wolves. If people don't want their animals preyed upon, they better educate themselves and take precautions, like i have. Ignorance is not bliss.


----------



## von Bolen

Caitydid255 said:


> My friend in Idaho has the same complaints. He and others I know from the area (Washington state as well) insist that there were local packs before the reintroduction of the Canadian wolves. Those packs have since disappeared.


Sorry, but no, they have not. I cant state my sources, but wolves were never 'gone' from this state, which helped the new migrating packs intigrate so easily.


----------



## HillaryCarolCrockettCher

selzer said:


> the problem is that when you put critters into an environment, you are displacing other critters and changing the nature of how things work.


That is exactly what cattle ranchers have done to wolves. No pity from me for the ranchers. The wolves have had everything taken from them thanks to the greed of man.


----------



## von Bolen

The thing people arent understanding is, nature ebb's and flows. Yes, the elk/deer/moose number WILL decrease, heavily. And with little food, wolves will either starve or disperse, ten the ungulate numbers will rise again. Thats how nature has worked for millions of years. And if people want to argue the non-native thing, how about you remove the non-native mountain goats from my state that you hunters wanted for hunting and are now out of control?


----------



## RocketDog

von Bolen said:


> The wolves in Canada and the BC Rainforest wolves knew know borders before. They share these territories with the N. Rocky Mtn and Cascades Mtn wolves. They even interbred. So really, this non-native arguement that I see alot doesn't hold alot of water.
> 
> And as far as the danger they pose to humans... I fear the bear and cougar in my area FAR more than i do the wolves. If people don't want their animals preyed upon, they better educate themselves and take precautions, like i have. Ignorance is not bliss.


Agreed. Pioneers did not leave their livestock unprotected. They also did not expect the government to reimburse them when the inevitable happened infrequently. If a dangerous rogue predator became uncontrollable, they took action against, but typically as a last resort.


----------



## von Bolen

Money is everything now. they dont care about anything but money, money, money.


----------



## wyominggrandma

Rocketdog: I have driven down the highway to the airport in Jackson and saw a wolf trotting down the road. My husband and myself talked to the man whose horses were attacked and one killed, saw the photos, talked to fish and game about it. Maybe your friends need to read the paper, the article about the wolves killing a pet in Jackson was in the paper. Wolves are in the valley I live in, 75 miles south of Jackson, jogging and ran into two of them... My daughter was having surgery in Jackson and we watched a pack of wolves pull down two elk on the feedground and leave them both down and dead. My husband was hunting up in Jackson and was shadowed, at about 10 yards away by a pack of wolves, they followed him step for step, stopped when he did, walked when he did. Glad he had a gun, he would have used it if necessary.. Funny, the grizzlies are bad enough, now the wolves are doing the same thing. They are NOT afraid of people at all.
Sorry, but I have lived in the area for 30 plus years, BEFORE the wolves were introduced to Yellowstone........ I have watched all this happen since the wolves were released and the wolves did not stay in the park like was intended, they left to roam and kill livestock and pets. They have learned easy pickings involve humans and the animals they have.


----------



## Lilie

von Bolen said:


> The thing people arent understanding is, nature ebb's and flows. Yes, the elk/deer/moose number WILL decrease, heavily. And with little food, wolves will either starve or disperse, ten the ungulate numbers will rise again. Thats how nature has worked for millions of years. And if people want to argue the non-native thing, how about you remove the non-native mountain goats from my state that you hunters wanted for hunting and are now out of control?


And feral hogs in my neck of the woods........


----------



## RocketDog

wyominggrandma said:


> Rocketdog: I have driven down the highway to the airport in Jackson and saw a wolf trotting down the road. My husband and myself talked to the man whose horses were attacked and one killed, saw the photos, talked to fish and game about it. Maybe your friends need to read the paper, the article about the wolves killing a pet in Jackson was in the paper. Wolves are in the valley I live in, 75 miles south of Jackson, jogging and ran into two of them... My daughter was having surgery in Jackson and we watched a pack of wolves pull down two elk on the feedground and leave them both down and dead. My husband was hunting up in Jackson and was shadowed, at about 10 yards away by a pack of wolves, they followed him step for step, stopped when he did, walked when he did. Glad he had a gun, he would have used it if necessary.. Funny, the grizzlies are bad enough, now the wolves are doing the same thing. They are NOT afraid of people at all.
> Sorry, but I have lived in the area for 30 plus years, BEFORE the wolves were introduced to Yellowstone........ I have watched all this happen since the wolves were released and the wolves did not stay in the park like was intended, they left to roam and kill livestock and pets. They have learned easy pickings involve humans and the animals they have.


I'm guessing there must be records of how many pets they've killed? Not as many as coyotes I'm guessing. And livestock that's contained and fenced, or allowed to roam federal or state land? I would be very interested in actual, factual statistics, since I'm sure that coyotes still kill more domestic pets than anything else, and the grizzly attacks (and fatalities) are still statistically much lower than they really ought to be considering the amount of people that visit Yellowstone and the Tetons.


----------



## RocketDog

#7 on this list reiterates the fact that there has _never been a recorded fatality of a human due to a wolf attack. Period. 



_Frequently Asked Questions about the Gray Wolf in the United States : The Humane Society of the United States


----------



## Olivers mama

Nigel said:


> :thumbup:
> 
> Don't know if this has been posted yet. Here is a link of what Sen. Kevin Ranker chair of the Senate Natural Resources and Marine Waters committee thinks of the killing.
> Killing of wolf pack criticized by key Washington state lawmaker - U.S. News


It appears we might want to take a look at this info - Thank You, Nigel for posting this. Perhaps Farmer-with-attitude was not so HELPFUL after all?

As far as the stories go about the Big Bad Wolf - there are few recorded "attacks" on humans. Most are from coyotes & cougars. Perhaps this is a case of mistaken identity? Also, including the above link, we need to remember that news stories quite often OMIT a lot of facts. It's the nature of the beast. Going to the news in order to state facts is akin to reading an anatomy book & calling yourself a doctor. I doubt we'll ever know all the facts in this story.

But - as has been pointed out already, both here & on other threads - if you're gonna live where wildlife roam, the protection of you & yours is YOUR responsibility. I'm not pitting the Pro-wolf people with Pro-cattle. I don't think that one's preference for eating beef is the issue. When humans encroach into areas of known wildlife, there will be problems. I don't think the solution should always be the state-sanctioned killing of the wildlife.

And really grandma - you honestly expected the wolves to STAY in the park? Well then, someone should've taught them that command.


----------



## von Bolen

People put their personal interests over the integrity of nature. Nothing more selfish. It completely negates what we are taught about being responsible for ourselves. There have been a few wolf attacks, even a few fatalities. But, there were some odd circumstances to the incidents, and really, its only been a few in recorded history. It's them using fear to rally people up and keep them scared, like livestock.


----------



## von Bolen

Grandma, they are wild animals. If wolves arent afraid of bears, why would they be afraid of this odd two legged creature?


----------



## Olivers mama

RocketDog said:


> #..."The Humane Society of the United States"


Isn't this the one that uses Michael Vick as a spokesperson?

I'll have to find another good source for wolf info. 

BTW - Last week, Montana euthanized 7 bear because some stupid woman had been feeding them. They got too used to human contact. Plus, a couple of the bear got too heavy. Glad I don't live there - I'm probably too heavy, as well!


----------



## von Bolen

I am knee deep in the WA wolf issue. I fight both sides, the environmentalists and the ranchers/hunters. They both have misconceptions and dont understand fully how this animal works.


----------



## selzer

People should go to PRISON for deliberately feeding bears. 

I am tired of the idea the humans are the the only creature that should commit suicide as a whole because we do not have the right to live. A wolf does not care if by eating the last jack rabbit he will wipe out jack rabbits. He doesn't care that if he eats rabbits when he should stick with larger prey animals, the smaller predators will starve and maybe die out. The wolf or the lion or the tiger will kill to eat, and some of them will kill to kill. 

I am just not too fussed about wolves that are going after cattle, nor am I worried about mountain lions that are killed because they have attacked people. And I am not worried about a group of bears that have managed to get too friendly, though there should be strict laws against people feeding bears. And people shouldn't feed deer either, sorry. They are blamed nuisance, and dangerous.


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

Lol your right its OUR responsibility when we move to areas with predatory wildlife. So Ill handle MY responsibility with my rifle, you wont have a problem with that right?  Wolves are clever you take out a few and the rest will learn to fear man pretty quickly. 
It was THEIR responsility, they followed the legal process and dealt with the problem. Wolves are on the comeback many studies show that to be true, eliminating a problem pack will have no impact in the grand scheme of things. Id be curious to see how any of the monday morning quarter backs on here would catch and relocate an entire wold pack not to mention the enormous cost of such an endeavor. 
Allow predators to prey on livestock and just blame the farmer for having the nerve to be on the wolf's turf is not only un intelligent but also short sighted. 
1. The ranchers at some point will just take things into their own hands and eliminate predators on their property indiscrimantely. This already happens to some extent but take a hands off, blame the human tree hugger approach and see how quickly things escelate.

2. The cost of food goes up not just meat food.

3. Taxes increase as farmers will demand compensation they are entitled to under the law for livestock killed by predation.

Funny, the majority of people with strong negative opinions surrounding this and similar stories always tend to live in the city...and be rather uninformed about the realities of nature and farming. All they see is cute lil wolves getting shot by evil humans. Im not surprised some politician is critisizing, like all politicians he sees and opening to score some brownie points with the uninformed masses and you better believe he is taking it.


----------



## Betty

I think most people just want a balance.....They want to know other methods were tried before slaughter....


----------



## Olivers mama

Blitzkrieg1 said:


> 1. Lol your right its OUR responsibility when we move to areas with predatory wildlife. So Ill handle MY responsibility with my rifle, you wont have a problem with that right?
> 2. It was THEIR responsility,
> 3. Wolves are on the comeback *many studies* show that to be true, eliminating a problem pack will have no impact in the grand scheme of things.
> 4. Id be curious to see how any of the monday morning quarter backs on here would catch and relocate an entire wold pack not to mention the enormous cost of such an endeavor.
> 5. ...blame the human tree hugger approach and see how quickly things escelate.
> 6. The cost of food goes up not just meat food.
> 7. Taxes increase as farmers will demand compensation *they are entitled to under the law* for livestock killed by predation.
> 8. All they see is cute lil wolves getting shot by evil humans.


Blitz - feel better now that you got that off your chest? 
1. You're exactly right - I WOULD feel better, had the farmer taken things into his own hands.
2. Whose responsibility? The farmer's or the government's?
3. "Many studies" tells me nothing. A "study" will produce "facts" any way they want. The wolf population is certainly not growing in this state.
4. We monday-morning-quarterback because we knew nothing about this until after it happened. Duh. And the cost to relocate? - I'm sure some Hollywood Wonder would've jumped at the chance to show how wonderful they are & donated the funds to move them here - Calif keeps saying they want the wolf back. They're always on somebody's bandwagon.
5. I'm not a tree-hugger.
6. You're entirely right - I can see how the cost of broccoli would go up because a farmer shot a wolf.
7. Never could understand this, but maybe it's time to change that, as well. In this case, looks like the farmer still got his government protection - not in terms of compensation, but in terms of having the government kill the wolves for him. So who do you think will pay THAT bill? Yep - the people. Even the ones that don't eat beef.
8. I don't think anyone here has stated that.

BTW - I grew up in the country, where we had coyotes & cougars mostly. A few bear. If the critters got too close or harmed a pet, our dads took care of it. I'm not naive.


----------



## Lilie

Certainly your not suggesting that the ranchers should have hunted down the pack and killed them instead of Fish and Wildlife - which are paid by tax dollars?


----------



## Olivers mama

Lilie said:


> Certainly your not suggesting that the ranchers should have hunted down the pack and killed them instead of Fish and Wildlife - which are paid by tax dollars?


I'm not saying they "should" have. It was a response after having been told I'm a dumb city girl who hugs trees. I merely said that was the way things were in the olden days, by our dads (the country bumpkins, I guess). Back when people looked to themselves for solutions & not the government.

Was it not the rancher who ID'd the wolf ringleader? Someone had to - so the Fish & Wildlife people would know which one to GPS, right?


----------



## RocketDog

If you were local, you'd know that the ranch in question has opposed wolves from day one, been extremely vocal about it and has taken absolutely NO precautions or followed any protocol that OTHER ranches in the are have, which have been successful by the way. 

OM, I don't know if that's the one or not. Google yourself. Find me a documented fatality in the US--there is a questionable one in Canada. So in all of North America, there has been one questionable fatality. If you can find other proof, I'd love to see it.


----------



## Olivers mama

RocketDog said:


> If you were local, you'd know that the ranch in question has opposed wolves from day one, been extremely vocal about it and has taken absolutely NO precautions or followed any protocol that OTHER ranches in the are have, which have been successful by the way.
> 
> OM, I don't know if that's the one or not. Google yourself. Find me a documented fatality in the US--there is a questionable one in Canada. *So in all of North America, there has been one questionable fatality. If you can find other proof, I'd love to see it.*


Rocket - I was being snarky about who ID'd the Wolf Ringleader. My point being, if he got close enough to ID it, he was close enough to shoot it himself. Somehow, I can't really picture my dad taking photos & DNA samples from an animal. Then running to the government so they can get a GPS appt. Gov't sends out GPS Installer. Then the computer guy tells the shooter guy where the wolf is, by virtue of his newly-implanted GPS. Then the shooter guy does his thing.

It would've been easier - & less expensive - to shoot the darn animal from the offset. Yes, I'm making light of it by being snarky. But that's what city girls do.

WA is lucky to just have wolf problems, yes?  Coyotes & cougars added to the mix, tho, would keep Fish & Wildlife busy...


----------



## Nigel

RocketDog said:


> #7 on this list reiterates the fact that there has _never been a recorded fatality of a human due to a wolf attack. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> _Frequently Asked Questions about the Gray Wolf in the United States : The Humane Society of the United States


I am very pro wolf, but I came across this story a while back and it does look like wolves were implicated in the death of an Alaskan school teacher.
Wolves Killed Alaska Teacher in 2010, State Says | Alaska Dispatch


----------



## Olivers mama

2010 --- 2 years ago. Hardly an epidemic, tho, huh?


----------



## RocketDog

In the how many hundreds of years of people and wolves... One. I would have a way better chance of getting killed by a domesticated dog than a wolf.


----------



## RocketDog

Actually, DH and I saw a cougar a stones throw from my house last April. Supposedly there was a cougar kill one house away from mine last weekend. Fish and Wildlife Dept was out. I'm not crying for the govt to protect me or my cats. And if somehow my dog got killed, I would chalk it up to living in the mountains.


----------



## Nigel

Olivers mama said:


> 2010 --- 2 years ago. Hardly an epidemic, tho, huh?


Nope, no epidemic. With human encroachment into their environment, there is bound to be trouble at some point. If you CHOOSE to live in a location that has large predatory animals, it would be wise to learn how to live with them as safely as possible.


----------



## Nigel

@Rocketdog, we have wolves at Riverside state park in the Nine Mile area!


----------



## selzer

The rancher might not have been able to kill the wolves if they are protected. Does anyone know the law in that area?


----------



## wyominggrandma

S. S. S. The mantra many ranchers etc are now using.

Shoot, Shovel, Shutup

I am outa this discussion, going to go round and round. Enjoy


----------



## crackem

RocketDog said:


> In the how many hundreds of years of people and wolves... One. I would have a way better chance of getting killed by a domesticated dog than a wolf.


actually, your average American is infinitely more likely to die from their own stupid actions than by a wolf, dog, or any other animal.

Living in WI we have our own wolf debate. I laugh when I see dead deer on the roads everywhere I go and I do mean everywhere, yet some will claim the wolves are killing them all. I can't go anywhere in this state, which I travel frequently and not see deer, live and dead. I hunt and am in "nature" frequently, but to listen to a loud mouthed group of hunters you'd think this state had no game left because of the wolves scattered around the state.


----------



## von Bolen

wyominggrandma said:


> S. S. S. The mantra many ranchers etc are now using.
> 
> Shoot, Shovel, Shutup
> 
> I am outa this discussion, going to go round and round. Enjoy


You mean 'Shoot, Shovel and Serve your time'?


----------



## von Bolen

Look up the 'of wolf and willow' analogy.


----------



## Nigel

Blitzkrieg1 said:


> Lol your right its OUR responsibility when we move to areas with predatory wildlife. So Ill handle MY responsibility with my rifle, you wont have a problem with that right?  Wolves are clever you take out a few and the rest will learn to fear man pretty quickly.
> It was THEIR responsility, they followed the legal process and dealt with the problem. Wolves are on the comeback many studies show that to be true, eliminating a problem pack will have no impact in the grand scheme of things. Id be curious to see how any of the monday morning quarter backs on here would catch and relocate an entire wold pack not to mention the enormous cost of such an endeavor.
> Allow predators to prey on livestock and just blame the farmer for having the nerve to be on the wolf's turf is not only un intelligent but also short sighted.
> 1. The ranchers at some point will just take things into their own hands and eliminate predators on their property indiscrimantely. This already happens to some extent but take a hands off, blame the human tree hugger approach and see how quickly things escelate.
> 
> 2. The cost of food goes up not just meat food.
> 
> 3. Taxes increase as farmers will demand compensation they are entitled to under the law for livestock killed by predation.
> 
> Funny, the majority of people with strong negative opinions surrounding this and similar stories always tend to live in the city...and be rather uninformed about the realities of nature and farming. *All they see is cute lil wolves getting shot by evil humans.* Im not surprised some politician is critisizing, like all politicians he sees and opening to score some brownie points with the uninformed masses and you better believe he is taking it.


If the cattle were grazing on the ranchers land and he DID take real preventative measures, It would suck, but I'd certainly understand. The rancher in this case was using public land (Colville National forest) to fed his cattle. These cattle are trucked onto public land in the spring and picked up in the fall with little to no supervision. So my problem is, why is it the tax payers responsibility to provide risk free range land (at laughable fee rates) so he can make a profit. 
I believe if you want to make money using public land, then you accept the risks that come with it.
....and yes I do eat beef, but mine comes from a local small farm. My sis & I go in on it. Yummy!
NWCN.com Washington - Oregon - Idaho


----------



## selzer

Grazing rights, range rights. I really don't know a lot about it. But people might have purchased the land they did because of the availability of extra range land, meaning they paid extra for the land because of that. 

Also, they way the government taxes farmers/ranchers, when the farm/ranch people have lived and worked on their whole lives, and now it is passed from father to son, and the government demands so much in estate tax that many of these small businesses end up folding. I guess there is probably more to the story than ranchers/public lands. It may even be good for the cattle to graze on those lands. I don't know. Perhaps the public lands were ceded to the government with the agreement that so much of the land could be used for grazing. 

In our town we have village greens, and these areas have old laws that are specific to allow grazing on them. If anyone chose to use those areas for letting their horses graze (and yes, we do have people that come riding or driving into town, Amish and horse fanciers), and a dog or another predator attacked the animal, that animal would be taken down immediately. An individual has a right to protect a domestic animal over a wild animal, public land or private lands. 

If you were out in the woods, on public property, and a wolf or a couger attacked your dog, and you had a pistol, would you shoot it, or would you think, oh well, we are encroaching on their turf, too bad fido, it was nice to know you.


----------



## von Bolen

But ranches are given subsidies to stay alive when they fail. kinda hard to feel sorry for them. Sorry, but i vote for balance in nature over farmers whose fore-fathers stole the land from natives to begin with.


----------



## selzer

von Bolen said:


> But ranches are given subsidies to stay alive when they fail. kinda hard to feel sorry for them. Sorry, but i vote for balance in nature over farmers whose fore-fathers stole the land from natives to begin with.


So we should all kill ourselves? I just don't understand this group think that suggests that we, the current residents, are guilty of living. 

Since time began, people moved into other people's territory. 

Those natives fought and killed other natives. The only people who should feel guilty about it are the current people that own the land? Well, I think not. 

Most of the people who own land today, came to this country or their fore-fathers came to this country long after any land was "stolen" or "purchased." 

Well, since you do not care to side with farmers, maybe you should give up eating all of their produce. 

America requires beef. I will side with the beef-producers, because I like beef. And the wolves that are attacking the beef gotta go. I WANT people to be out there producing beef. I WANT them to make a profit producing beef so they will produce more of it. If all the wolves in the US completely die out, well so sad, but I will STILL side with the beef. I like leather shoes, and leather couches. I like beef stew, and roast beef, and hamburgers, and maccaroni and beef, and spagetti with meat sauce, and sloppy joes, and Hungarian goulash, and beef vegetable soup, and probably a lot of products that come out of the rendering of beef that I don't even know about.


----------



## Nigel

selzer said:


> Grazing rights, range rights. I really don't know a lot about it. But people might have purchased the land they did because of the availability of extra range land, meaning they paid extra for the land because of that.
> 
> Also, they way the government taxes farmers/ranchers, when the farm/ranch people have lived and worked on their whole lives, and now it is passed from father to son, and the government demands so much in estate tax that many of these small businesses end up folding. I guess there is probably more to the story than ranchers/public lands. It may even be good for the cattle to graze on those lands. I don't know. Perhaps the public lands were ceded to the government with the agreement that so much of the land could be used for grazing.
> 
> In our town we have village greens, and these areas have old laws that are specific to allow grazing on them. If anyone chose to use those areas for letting their horses graze (and yes, we do have people that come riding or driving into town, Amish and horse fanciers), and a dog or another predator attacked the animal, that animal would be taken down immediately. An individual has a right to protect a domestic animal over a wild animal, public land or private lands.
> 
> If you were out in the woods, on public property, and a wolf or a couger attacked your dog, and you had a pistol, would you shoot it, or would you think, oh well, we are encroaching on their turf, too bad fido, it was nice to know you.


Ranchers have no special rights to any of the lands, they have to pay for a permit for the privilege. Unlike eastern states, western states have huge national forests. This land belongs to the citizens of the USA. I don't think any of this discussion is going to matter anyways. I think the "old ways" of public land use are comming to an end.

In regards to your scenario there is quite a big difference between defending yourself on public land vs protecting wallet.


----------



## von Bolen

I like beef too(but prefer sheep), but to me, thats not whats important here. And so you know, these specific wolves HAD TO DIE. That farmer bucked the tide, resisted methods to deter them and allowed the wolves to become habitual cattle killers.

No, we should not kill ourselves. But famers screaming "We've been ranching this land for over 100 years!" at all the wolf meetings I go to, sorry, but there were people here before you running this land alot longer, and they coexisted with the wildlife. Cattle pollute the rivers, mow down the landscape into sun-parched deserts, and more damage I'm too tired to list right now. There are people needing jobs everywhere, hire them as range riders to stay with the herds out there.


----------



## von Bolen

I hope the price of beef does raise, people should vary their diet anyways, as red meat is an element of heart disease. Sadly, unlike Europe, its expensive to eat healthy in this country.


----------



## RocketDog

I don't "live in the city and see cute lil wolves getting shot by evil humans"---and just like bears, if a wolf or wolf pack became accustomed to humans, and brave, and was encroaching on cattle/ livestock/pets/garbage, yes....often the solution isn't pretty. But I live here, in a fairly local vicinity to this pack being discussed. This ranch DID NOT TRY TO PROTECT ITS STOCK. Geez. 

And Nigel, my best friends are Scottish and German. You are right on about how expensive quality food is here vs. there. I don't know if it's because of the size of the United States versus the UK or Germany or what ---- but it is definitely different.


----------



## sparra

von Bolen said:


> Sorry, but i vote for balance in nature over farmers whose fore-fathers stole the land from natives to begin with.


While this is a very romantic notion of how things should be it is also a very unrealistic one. How do you suppose we feed the world?? You like lamb?? Where does it come from?? I am afraid that if the world is to be fed then critters have to be displaced.......simple fact. It is a real luxury to be able to have such a view of the world.....you live in a country where you have a choice of what you eat, where it comes from, organic non organic, meat or no meat, was it treated humanely and the list goes on.....many countries don't...they just need food for their children and probably don't care much at all for this "balance" you speak of.


----------



## von Bolen

Well, its not our responsibility to feed the world. People need to go back to buying from what's produced in their communities, and not what's sold to them at Walmart(I would never eat meat from there). And frankly, the human world population is too high, and we need to cut back on reproduction before we destroy the earth trying to feed ourselves.


----------



## von Bolen

The movie Lords of Nature shows what happens when you allow the ranching community free range to do what they please.


----------



## Lilie

RocketDog said:


> This ranch DID NOT TRY TO PROTECT ITS STOCK. Geez.


I posted earlier the exact measures this specific ranch took BEFORE Fish & Wildlife elected to eliminate the pack. Including but not limited to hiring extra hands to ride with the herd. To say they did not try to protect their stock is an untruth. What else would YOU propose they do? 

Remember to keep in mind that they are grazing on thousands and thousands of acres. The rancher pays permits and fees to utilize public land. This money goes to said state. This specific pack is NOT the only pack in the area. But it was the ONLY pack that choose to feed on livestock. How do they know this? Because F&W study the packs! They GPS a member of the pack so they can locate them. Because the cattle were killed in the EXACT area that this wolf pack claimed. 

To think that they are only interested in what a pack feeds off of is insane. There is much more they are learning from the wolves. 

By eliminating this pack they are protecting the remaining packs who are feeding on wild life as intended. 

Why do you think they introduced the wolf back into the wild? So people can make movies off of them and we can all watch them roam around on National Geographic? They are an important part of the eco system. Us horrible humans were at least smart enough to figure that one out. If the wolves decide to only feed on livestock, their purpose within the eco system is lost. 

Each year ranchers will lose livestock to pedators. It would be disillusional to think differently. But when it has been confirmed that a wolf pack has learned a specific behavior and can not be reconditioned to return back to it's natural prey, then for the sake of the entire wolf population within that area the offending pack should be removed.


----------



## RocketDog

I missed your link. I'll go and look for it. You're talking about the Washington State pack, right? Did you read my link?


----------



## RocketDog

Dang I couldn't edit. But:

If you read the WDFW page closely, you'll find that neighboring ranches took other precautions that were more effective. Also, Diamond Ranch did NOT start these practices until AFTER the wolves had already started killing their livestock, where again, the neighboring ranches were proactive---instead of waiting until after the fact. It's equivalent to start bringing your garbage in AFTER the bear is used to eating out of it. Then the wolf pack pays. Anyone who knows anything about the local ranching scene in NE Washington, knows about this ranch. And how the meetings went--the amount of cattle injured or killed sounds impressive until you find out how many hundreds of cattle they have.


----------



## RocketDog

I'll provide a link at the bottom, but here is what a local and long time county commissioner for Spokane had to say about the Wedge pack:

"The WDFW rushed this decision to exterminate the Wedge Pack to avoid having to deal with the public or legislators like Sen. Rankin. I stopped at the meeting in Colville Thursday night; the WDFW got their nose bloodied by McIrvin and other Stevens County ranchers; the agency decided on a quick and dirty fix; provided the news media with their excuses for their action; used Conservation Northwest and the Cattlemen's Association as justified supporters; pretended to hunt the wolves by foot; and then proceeded to do what they intended all along - wipe the wolves out quickly via helicopter and sharpshooters before the public woke up and some organization filed an injunction to get it stopped. The WDFW agency people had their mind made up weeks ago, but they knew better than to let the public in on something this controversial before it was a done deal.”

This is John Roskelley, some may know him from his Everest and other mountain climbs. Also, on this blog, written by a long-time outdoorsman and journalist for our local newspaper, 

"Washington's wolf management plan clearly states that, to avoid cattle losses, non-lethal measures must be taken _first _to protect livestock. In this case only minimal actions were taken to avoid wolf-livestock conflicts. The state should not reward irresponsible ranchers by killing wolves that are only acting as wolves do."

Obviously, media has to be viewed through a skeptical lens. But I know both of these men personally, and they both are outstanding as well as upstanding members of this community who are worthy of respect and their word is good with me. 

Outdoors blog - Spokesman.com


I agree that problem animals have to be dealt with in ways that are effective and that some people won't like. But I disagree with special interest groups on BOTH sides that think they can push their way to the front and disregard the agreement, the "rules", the balance and protocol. Such as Diamond M ranch did in this case.


----------



## Olivers mama

RocketDog said:


> I agree that problem animals have to be dealt with in ways that are effective and that some people won't like. But *I disagree with special interest groups on BOTH sides that think they can push their way to the front and disregard the agreement, the "rules", the balance and protocol*. Such as Diamond M ranch did in this case.


:thumbup: That was (is) my problem with this story. Everyone has an excuse for breaking the rules or think said rules don't apply to them. In this day & age, there is no 2nd thought given to break a rule, go against an agreement, break the law. Honesty is no longer sacred.

Whether or not you eat beef is not the issue. There are plenty of cattle ranchers out there following the rules, so you can still have your steak. We eat very little of it, as I don't trust most of it. Pink slime & meat glue notwithstanding.


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

von Bolen said:


> Well, its not our responsibility to feed the world. People need to go back to buying from what's produced in their communities, and not what's sold to them at Walmart(I would never eat meat from there). And frankly, the human world population is too high, and we need to cut back on reproduction before we destroy the earth trying to feed ourselves.


 
Sad this shows how much you understand about economics, geography and history. If people were only able to purchase food in their local communities the prices would go up. Variety and availability would go down, communities with less arable land would yeild less produce. Catostrophic weather events would cause famine, rationing and in many cases price increases. The sudden decrease in available food products would actually lead to greater agrocultural demands being levelled against the land. More encroachment on forests and local wild life. More hunting the list goes on and on. So be thankful that our modern economy allows us to import much of our food from other nations and export our surplus produce in turn. 

I want you to look at communities in other parts of the world that farm organically and rely completely on local produce..how are the majority of them doing? There are some real good examples in Africa if your interested.

I also tire of this whole we stole the land nonsense. Throughout history numerous peoples have taken land through conquest or trade. This is how civilization occured, and flourished. Native peoples were scattered across this continent in many small groups subsisting off hunter gathering or crude farming methods. They were often at war with one another and while we like to romanticise how they lived it was a hard way of life that usually ended in an early grave. Every day was spent simply trying to produce or obtain enough food to prevent starvation in winter. No time for education or arts, equality science innovation etc.

Yes in the process of settling this continent atrocities occured as they do and have done all over the world. That does not devalue the entire process nor the end result. 
Im assuming your female if it wasnt for the civilization and the modern economy you clearly dislike you would likely be squatting in a hut spending your few years popping out babies, cooking cleaning and chopping wood. If you were a man you would be toiling from dawn to dusk hoping to amass enough food to feed your family. 

Nothings perfect not the economy, not our farmers, not our history, but we have made great strides to get were we are and have made many advancements as a race. Your comments denigrating our history and economy as well as how you think we should all live say alot about how much thought you put into your opinion. The fact that you are even able to have an opinion and share it is because of the civilization and economy which we enjoy.


----------



## selzer

Blitzkrieg1 said:


> Sad this shows how much you understand about economics, geography and history. If people were only able to purchase food in their local communities the prices would go up. Variety and availability would go down, communities with less arable land would yeild less produce. Catostrophic weather events would cause famine, rationing and in many cases price increases. The sudden decrease in available food products would actually lead to greater agrocultural demands being levelled against the land. More encroachment on forests and local wild life. More hunting the list goes on and on. So be thankful that our modern economy allows us to import much of our food from other nations and export our surplus produce in turn.
> 
> I want you to look at communities in other parts of the world that farm organically and rely completely on local produce..how are the majority of them doing? There are some real good examples in Africa if your interested.
> 
> I also tire of this whole we stole the land nonsense. Throughout history numerous peoples have taken land through conquest or trade. This is how civilization occured, and flourished. Native peoples were scattered across this continent in many small groups subsisting off hunter gathering or crude farming methods. They were often at war with one another and while we like to romanticise how they lived it was a hard way of life that usually ended in an early grave. Every day was spent simply trying to produce or obtain enough food to prevent starvation in winter. No time for education or arts, equality science innovation etc.
> 
> Yes in the process of settling this continent atrocities occured as they do and have done all over the world. That does not devalue the entire process nor the end result.
> Im assuming your female if it wasnt for the civilization and the modern economy you clearly dislike you would likely be squatting in a hut spending your few years popping out babies, cooking cleaning and chopping wood. If you were a man you would be toiling from dawn to dusk hoping to amass enough food to feed your family.
> 
> Nothings perfect not the economy, not our farmers, not our history, but we have made great strides to get were we are and have made many advancements as a race. Your comments denigrating our history and economy as well as how you think we should all live say alot about how much thought you put into your opinion. The fact that you are even able to have an opinion and share it is because of the civilization and economy which we enjoy.


What? Someone other than me that does not feel guilty for being alive. Someone who is not going to go and drown themselves in a toilet because of the deeds or lack of deeds of unknown ancestors. 

We have 47 million people on food stamps. Many of these people simply cannot afford beef. Increasing the price of beef is obviously not the answer. By increasing the cost of beef, more people will eat chicken instead, and with the laws of supply and demand, the price of chicken will raise, and that will hurt people who cannot afford to just pay more for meat.

There are enough reasons that prices increase, bad years where there is drought. We really don't need to manufacture reasons to cause the prices to increase.


----------



## von Bolen

Meh, never said I knew everything. So maybe im wrong about economics, I still tire of peoples false entitlements that they think is more important than how public land is treated.


----------



## sparra

von Bolen said:


> Well, its not our responsibility to feed the world. People need to go back to buying from what's produced in their communities, and not what's sold to them at Walmart(I would never eat meat from there). And frankly, the human world population is too high, and we need to cut back on reproduction before we destroy the earth trying to feed ourselves.



This just shows a complete lack of understanding. You said you preferred lamb....how many "communities" in your area produce enough lamb to feed everyone (NOT JUST YOU) in your area??
What about places where growing food is not an option due to droughts, wars etc.....Here in Australia my husband and I run a large property where we grow wheat, barley, canola, beans, peas and prime lambs. MOST of our produce heads overseas.....maybe you have eaten some Aussie lamb at one time. Your views sound like they come from the mouths of PETA and the like ......all very well and good for a person who doesn't have to worry about where their food comes from.....


----------



## Lilie

sparra said:


> This just shows a complete lack of understanding. You said you preferred lamb....how many "communities" in your area produce enough lamb to feed everyone (NOT JUST YOU) in your area??
> What about places where growing food is not an option due to droughts, wars etc.....Here in Australia my husband and I run a large property where we grow wheat, barley, canola, beans, peas and prime lambs. MOST of our produce heads overseas.....maybe you have eaten some Aussie lamb at one time. Your views sound like they come from the mouths of PETA and the like ......all very well and good for a person who doesn't have to worry about where their food comes from.....


 :thumbup:


----------



## von Bolen

Ok, so I don't fully understand food economics. 

Oh, and I hate PETA. Hypocrites, the whole lot of them.


----------



## selzer

von Bolen said:


> Ok, so I don't fully understand food economics.
> 
> Oh, and I hate PETA. Hypocrites, the whole lot of them.


I think many of us have a soft spot when it comes to wolves as we are dog lovers. I mean, we move in to an area, and when the mosquitoes or black flies or other pests start becoming unbearable, most of us don't have any problem with fumigating, putting up fly strips, whatever. We can always make the case that whatever lies in nature was here first, but we also have to remember that we have a place in nature too.


----------



## Dainerra

a couple people have mentioned that the ranchers should handle the problem the same way our fore-fathers would have - personally, with their own weapons. to those people, I wonder if you have thought of how the wolf population became endangered in the first place?

Yes, it was our forefathers who took it upon themselves to wipe out not just the wolves who attacked their cattle but the entire population. And the government assisted by offering a bounty on pelts.


----------



## Olivers mama

You know, I started this thread because - honestly - I was aghast that it happened this way. Altho for general information, at the same time, I was wishing it would've had a different outcome. I'm neither Pro-Wolf, nor Anti. Maybe just "wishing" the outcome would've been different. But my dad had a saying: "Wish in 1 hand & Poop in the other - see which 1 fills up the fastest."

I certainly think there were alternatives.

But I never intended to have discussions about our forefathers, one's preference for beef, or of the economics of world hunger. I have my own battles to fight, & none of these topics ever come up during my day-to-day life. Hate to turn philosophical but, when you're battling cancer, you really could care less whether Person A is a vegetarian & Person B wants a steak. My forefathers? - I don't care what they did; doesn't apply to this day & age anyway. It wasn't my "forefathers" who shot wildlife - it was my dad. And our neighbors. If wildlife threatened our well-being, it was dealt with. I know for a fact no one called for government intervention. And some of the other, off-topics brought up here? I, personally, don't care.

I am not an environmentalist. I'm not a tree hugger. I don't watch the news, looking for a cause to fight. (Actually, there are days when I wonder why-in-Hades I DO watch the news!:crazy

I have my own cause I'm fighting.

And I love a good debate as much as the next person. But the personal attacks always drag me down. And we wonder why the "government" can't get things right? Can't find solutions? Heck, we can't do it either - a bunch of dog lovers on a computer screen can't even figure this out. No one wants to "reach across the aisle" (HATE that phrase, but you always hear it in an election year) - to find a solution.

Maybe it's time to stop the discussion - unless there are those who really want answers or alternatives. If you just want to pick a fight, how about we close the thread.

To the Mods --- can you start a discussion where people can go ONLY if they want to fight? Computer Boxing, you could call it. All other topics could remain open for decent discussion. But those that want to cyber-box would have their own safe place.


----------



## Dainerra

I don't think that anyone is "fighting" Just seems like a normal friendly online discussion with everyone speaking from their own experiences.

For me, the way it was handled was the correct way. Killing livestock is a thing that can't be trained away from even domestic dogs who are left to roam. Wolves/coyotes/raccoons/cougars and all other predators survive by getting the easiest meal with the least amount of work. Just to **** and coyote proof a small (13' X 7') yard for my chickens cost almost $300 in materials. And, of course, that isn't full-proof because even with all of the work getting into the run, chicken dinner is still 1000X less dangerous than hunting for food with a much bigger payoff - fat well-fed chicken vs stringy wild prey.
Even domestic dogs have a fatal flaw. I know more than one farm dog that was 100% safe unattended with his own livestock but that saw nothing wrong with going on a killing spree a mile down the road. The solution always came in the form of a bullet. At my house, any unattended dog gets shot on sight the second time it comes into the yard, unless caught in the act of killing something on their first visit. Then they never leave. Each of my neighbors know this and see nothing wrong with allowing their dogs to roam and pillage as they please.

I'm curious of what solution the farmer should have tried and at what expense to himself? The government still sells permits to use government land. Obviously you can't fence that in and, even on private property, the cost to keep out wolves is going to be astronomical. Why were the neighbors successful at keeping out wolves? Because his place was easiest to get into. If he spent $50,000 upgrading his fencing, the wolves wouldn't have stopped killing cattle. They might have stopped killing HIS cattle but they would have simply found an easier target.
Plus, it has been shown that with food easily and readily available, wild canines can develop the habit of killing more than they can eat. Probably because of a glitch in the instincts - wild prey must always be killed when the opportunity presents itself to insure that you will have food for tomorrow to go back to in case that hunt fails. Of course, in a wild herd that might mean 2 scrawny sick animals instead of only 1. In a domestic herd, that can be 7 or 8 cows. And no predator eats "old" kills when a new one is right in front of his face.


----------



## sparra

Olivers mama said:


> And I love a good debate as much as the next person. But the personal attacks always drag me down. And we wonder why the "government" can't get things right? Can't find solutions? Heck, we can't do it either - a bunch of dog lovers on a computer screen can't even figure this out. No one wants to "reach across the aisle" (HATE that phrase, but you always hear it in an election year) - to find a solution.
> 
> Maybe it's time to stop the discussion - unless there are those who really want answers or alternatives. If you just want to pick a fight, how about we close the thread.
> 
> To the Mods --- can you start a discussion where people can go ONLY if they want to fight? Computer Boxing, you could call it. All other topics could remain open for decent discussion. But those that want to cyber-box would have their own safe place.


Huh...... Sorry but I have not seen any personal attacks in this thread....just good robust discussion. Start a thread on farmers/ranchers getting rid of wildlife to protect their livestock and you will always get this type of discussion.
I don;t much care about the wolves over there.......but i do care about people making sweeping statements about farmers and their rights to make a living.....no one is picking a fight.....just trying to educate people in an area they obviously know little about.....nothin wrong with that...


----------



## Dainerra

it's not really a matter of "more fencing" either. There have been some years where the predators have zero interest in my chickens. I could leave the door open all night long and no one waltzed in for the free buffet. Other predators will rip doors off of hinges and chew through walls to get at what is inside. 
The solution? Kill those predators that have a taste for chicken and let the others live. The same goes for these wolves. Let another pack move in with the exact same situation and it is every liklihood that this farmer won't lose a single animal.


----------



## sparra

von Bolen said:


> Ok, so I don't fully understand food economics.
> 
> Oh, and I hate PETA. Hypocrites, the whole lot of them.


----------



## RocketDog

Dainerra said:


> I don't think that anyone is "fighting" Just seems like a normal friendly online discussion with everyone speaking from their own experiences.
> 
> For me, the way it was handled was the correct way. Killing livestock is a thing that can't be trained away from even domestic dogs who are left to roam. Wolves/coyotes/raccoons/cougars and all other predators survive by getting the easiest meal with the least amount of work. Just to **** and coyote proof a small (13' X 7') yard for my chickens cost almost $300 in materials. And, of course, that isn't full-proof because even with all of the work getting into the run, chicken dinner is still 1000X less dangerous than hunting for food with a much bigger payoff - fat well-fed chicken vs stringy wild prey.
> Even domestic dogs have a fatal flaw. I know more than one farm dog that was 100% safe unattended with his own livestock but that saw nothing wrong with going on a killing spree a mile down the road. The solution always came in the form of a bullet. At my house, any unattended dog gets shot on sight the second time it comes into the yard, unless caught in the act of killing something on their first visit. Then they never leave. Each of my neighbors know this and see nothing wrong with allowing their dogs to roam and pillage as they please.
> 
> *I'm curious of what solution the farmer should have tried and at what expense to himself? * The government still sells permits to use government land. Obviously you can't fence that in and, even on private property, the cost to keep out wolves is going to be astronomical. Why were the neighbors successful at keeping out wolves? Because his place was easiest to get into. If he spent $50,000 upgrading his fencing, the wolves wouldn't have stopped killing cattle. They might have stopped killing HIS cattle but they would have simply found an easier target.
> Plus, it has been shown that with food easily and readily available, wild canines can develop the habit of killing more than they can eat. Probably because of a glitch in the instincts - wild prey must always be killed when the opportunity presents itself to insure that you will have food for tomorrow to go back to in case that hunt fails. Of course, in a wild herd that might mean 2 scrawny sick animals instead of only 1. In a domestic herd, that can be 7 or 8 cows. And no predator eats "old" kills when a new one is right in front of his face.


I'm not trying to be snipey by asking this: did you read any of the posted links? Also, he's not a "farmer", he's a rancher. There IS a difference (not that it matters with rogue wolves, but I guess I just get hung up on technicalities heh). The neighboring ranches didn't let their sick or very small calves out of protected areas (Diamond M ranch pulled theirs, but only AFTER the wolves started viewing them as prey), they also sprayed a "wolf repellent"--sounds silly, but it works--. These are but two examples. 

The thing is, like I stated before, if you're not LOCAL, it's easy to assume that your sympathies should lie with the rancher. Just as someone just mentioned above, it's hard when one is in the same field to not automatically become defensive when "sweeping" statements or assumptions are made. But if you ARE local, and you know people in the ranching trade, know the area, etc, well, trust me. Things aren't always what they are made out to be and unfortunately, this pack of wolves paid the price. Were they a problem pack? Probably. Could they have been relocated or stopped (in the sense of viewing livestock for prey)? Unlikely, but that's because too much time passed with irresponsible practices being followed.


----------



## Dainerra

well, where I'm from the farmer's average around 600 - 1000 acres but don't consider themselves "ranchers" so I'm not sure where the definition changes. Would they bring in young calves from the outer reaches of the property? Maybe after there had been some deaths and even then only if they were unsuccessful after a few nights sitting up waiting for the culprits to come back.

I don't think that it's a matter of "local" vs "non-local" but of people who have farmed for generations and those who haven't?


----------



## RocketDog

And what makes you think my family didn't/does ranch on thousands of acres in Montana? 

'Round here, with the gorgeous Palouse below us, we consider "farming" to be crops. "Ranching" is typically livestock. 

This ranch uses National Forest Service land. To expect their livestock to be free from predation is ridiculous.


----------



## Dainerra

I don't think anyone ever expects that their livestock will not be preyed upon to a certain extent. However, it still goes without saying that it is much more common for wild predators to NOT view domestic animals as prey. Except for cats, everything seems to eat them - then again cats are the least domesticated animals in the human family.
I just know from my own experience with livestock and that of friends and family. I don't know anyone who takes more than the basic preemptive measures (and you can't fence in national forest land so that measure is gone). 99.9% of the time there will be no problem with predators. That small percentage is handled with a rifle and another, non-problem, predator moves in the area in their stead.


----------



## Olivers mama

OK - back ON TOPIC...politics notwithstanding...

How would YOU have handled this? Not as the rancher (if we believe he's an "innocent" bystander). <gag>

As a government rep - what would you have done? Kill the wolves, Spare the cows? If so - Why? If not - Why? Were there any alternatives?


----------



## Dainerra

kill the wolves. no alternatives are really available. Once they have learned that livestock makes a easier meal, they lose all desire to hunt for themselves. Even if the farmer puts up expensive fencing, uses scent deterrents, or other methods, it never takes them long to find a way around them. Relocating only makes them the problem of some other rancher.
It's much like people who feed bear, deer, or any other wildlife. They lose their natural fear and mistrust of humans and become at best an annoyance and at worst a danger.


----------



## hunterisgreat

Dainerra said:


> unfortunately, it doesn't take long for wolves (coyotes, any predator) to learn that domestic animals are MUCH better/easier to kill than wildlife. Once they learn that, there is really no way to break them of it.
> Much like bears who start breaking into houses to find food. And, no there really is no 100% way to secure livestock to keep out predators.


Same applies to people and fast food compared to fresh prepared from scratch food lol


----------



## Dainerra

yes that is true hunter. But the McDonald's junkies generally don't start eating the neighbors if the local drive thru gets closed down.

It's no longer a matter of guilt or innocence regarding the rancher at this point. The wolves were now a problem and needed to be dealt with.


----------



## RocketDog

Agreed with the fact that extermination is often the only solution. Which is why this is so frustrating-- because frankly, this may have been avoided if the ranch in question had had a different attitude from the beginning.


----------



## Olivers mama

Have to agree...But are we naive to think this is the only too-lazy-to-hunt wolf pack there? Or that 1 of the rancher's Bessie's won't wander off & become a wolf's meal?

Maybe that's what bugs me. Once a practice gets started - esPECially if the government is involved - it's unlikely to stop. We could wind up wiping out the wolves there, in favor of all the steaks with feet.:crazy:


----------



## Nigel

RocketDog said:


> And what makes you think my family didn't/does ranch on thousands of acres in Montana?
> 
> *'Round here, with the gorgeous Palouse below us, we consider "farming" to be crops. "Ranching" is typically livestock. *
> 
> *This ranch uses National Forest Service land. To expect their livestock to be free from predation is ridiculous.*




:thumbup: farming=plants & ranching=livestock. This is how I've always thought of it. (Of course, I'm from around here)

:thumbup: yes, if you *choose* to use public land to fatten *your* *cattle*, then you take the risks that come with it


----------



## Olivers mama

Nigel said:


> [/B]
> 
> :thumbup: farming=plants & ranching=livestock. This is how I've always thought of it. (Of course, I'm from around here)
> 
> :thumbup: yes, if you *choose* to use public land to fatten *your* *cattle*, then you take the risks that come with it


 
:thumbup:Exactly.


----------



## selzer

Olivers mama said:


> Have to agree...But are we naive to think this is the only too-lazy-to-hunt wolf pack there? Or that 1 of the rancher's Bessie's won't wander off & become a wolf's meal?
> 
> Maybe that's what bugs me. Once a practice gets started - esPECially if the government is involved - it's unlikely to stop. We could wind up wiping out the wolves there, in favor of all the steaks with feet.:crazy:


Being able to afford steaks, or even hamburger in my opinion trumps wolves. But the way this was done, not just the ranchers going out and killing every wolf they can find, but a government agency identifying the problem and taking out the problem wolves would be more palitable to the people who are biased against the ranchers and for the wolves. 

And the rancher in question has hired people to ride along babysitting the beef, and will not allow the weaker animals to be released in the areas while they are still weak/young, etc. So it was a two pronged solution, dealing both with the wolves and with the rancher's practices.

I can only believe now, that there are some people who will never be satisfied.


----------



## Olivers mama

But selzer - can't you see where this will keep happening? It's not a matter of people who "will never be satisfied". Cows chew the grass down to the dirt. So they keep moving where there's more grass. And, if that newer feeding grounds takes them where the wolves live, the wolves will find easy prey. More Bessies die. More wolves die, because the rancher will go back to the government & they'll, in turn, send out more shooters. At what point does the rancher have to take SOME responsibility?

My mom-in-law lives on 40 acres in AR. She allows some neighbor guy to have his cows on her property to graze - even pays part of her water bill so he can insure the cows have H2O. It takes them a few months, but pretty soon, there's no grass. So they move this guy's cows to a different part of her property. Then fling mout seed for new grass where they just ate it down to the dirt. They keep rotating the cows & replenishing the grass they ate. Works out well for my mom-in-law, the cows' owner, & the land.

And oh, BTW - there aren't many wolves in the ares, but there are coyotes & bear. And, when 1 of the wild animals comes in to attack the cows - which happens roughly every 2-3 months - SOMEONE is there to kill the wild animal. The rancher himself, one of my brothers-in-law. Heck, even my 85-yr-old mom-in-law shot & killed a coyote. And I've seen DH & his brothers shoot wild packs of dogs when they'd attack & eat the guineas.

I UNDERSTAND the wild critters have to be controlled. But, IMO, the pro-cattle/anti-wolf people see ONLY 1 way: Kill the Wolves. Government to Protect the Cows at all Cost. Rancher has no Responsibility Himself. And again - IMO - that's just crapola.


----------



## RocketDog

Seltzer, just because a ranch "says" they've hired hands to ride during the day, doesn't mean they do. Or do it everyday. Or even do a good job. The boys at my workplace "say" they do stuff all the time. It's often half- assed. They are still on the payroll, however.

Surely you know of "breeders" who SAY they do certain things and have websites etc and come across like they're doing all sorts of great things but in reality, since _you know the breeder, you know that is all hogwash_


----------



## Dainerra

Oliver's Mama, the part that you are missing is that, even given the opportunity, most predator's will AVOID domestic livestock. Only a few animals will even make that first attempt so the odds are actually in the ranchers' favor.


----------



## Dainerra

I called and asked my Grandmother last night, the difference between a "farmer" and a "rancher" So, in the East, a farmer has fences to contain his livestock while a rancher has no fences


----------



## hunterisgreat

The real problem is the humans assumption that the wolves don't have the right to be wolves and do what wolves do best exactly where god intended the wolves to be. The arrogance of humans to label wolves a problem because they are inconvenient to ranchers incroaching in their habitat sickens me. If the earth could speak it would scream about how much of a severe problem humans have become and need to be dealt with


----------



## GSDolch

Dainerra said:


> I called and asked my Grandmother last night, the difference between a "farmer" and a "rancher" So, in the East, a farmer has fences to contain his livestock while a *rancher has no fences*



I know my opinion probably wont be popular (but when has that stopped me) but honestly, I have no sympathy or empathy for the ranchers who let their animals roam on federally funded land and then complain that their animals are killed by the other animals that the land is there to protect.

While I agree that livestock should be protected, I also think that they assume the responsibility of their animals dying when they do nothing to protect them (no fences, letting them roam where ever). 

Its one thing when a wild animal does what it can to get to animals that are protected, its another when they hunt naturally on animals that are roaming around unprotected.

ETA: I also disagree with the assumption that livestock usually avoided, I think there is a big difference in area. (east vs west and the predators) but I think its one of those things to agree to disagree one lol.


----------



## RocketDog

Arkansas is the East? I thought it was the South.


----------



## Olivers mama

Dainerra said:


> Oliver's Mama, the part that you are missing is that, even given the opportunity, most predator's will AVOID domestic livestock. Only a few animals will even make that first attempt so the odds are actually in the ranchers' favor.


Really Dain??? Avoid an easy dinner??? Wow - & you're from AR, huh? Must be Little Rock. Because, in Damascus, a wild animal will make ANYTHING it's prey when it's hungry. I've seen it & I understand it.

AR is in the South, not the East. Fences have nothing to do with the definition of farmer -vs- rancher. Farmer=food crops (veges, fruits, etc). Rancher=livestock (hamburgers w/feet, horses, etc).

GSDolch - :thumbup: Amen.

This government-sanctioned slaughter will continue because it's easy. The rancher has no obligation to protect his cows because the government is more than willing to take care of the preying wolves. AKA-killing the wolves. On government land.

I don't care if Jolly Rancher has to feed his cows in a barn. But HE needs to protect his cows, not the government. The closer the cows get to the territory of the wolves (or coyotes or bear or cougars), the more they become easy prey.

And, for those that believe a wolf - or any other wild animal - will "pass up" an easy meal - well, that's just a classic case of not being educated about wildlife. If a domestic dog runs into "their" land, a wild animal will kill & eat it. Fact of life. Especially if they're hungry. It's simply ludicrous to believe a wild animal will, if hungry, avoid an easy kill.


----------



## Dainerra

I'm from west Virginia, lived on a farm all my life. Just explaining the definitions that I grew up with.
Yes predators will always go for an easy meal, but unless they associated human scent with that easy meal they will avoid it. Honestly the wrist predators problems we've ever has has always been the domestic dog


----------



## Nigel

Olivers mama said:


> OK - back ON TOPIC...politics notwithstanding...
> 
> How would YOU have handled this? Not as the rancher (if we believe he's an "innocent" bystander). <gag>
> 
> As a government rep - what would you have done? Kill the wolves, Spare the cows? If so - Why? If not - Why? Were there any alternatives?





Dainerra said:


> kill the wolves. no alternatives are really available. Once they have learned that livestock makes a easier meal, they lose all desire to hunt for themselves. Even if the farmer puts up expensive fencing, uses scent deterrents, or other methods, it never takes them long to find a way around them. Relocating only makes them the problem of some other rancher.
> It's much like people who feed bear, deer, or any other wildlife. They lose their natural fear and mistrust of humans and become at best an annoyance and at worst a danger.


Had the rancher been more proactive in the beginning, killing them may have been avoided. In this case, unfortunately, taking out the pack was the only answer. 

If the rancher is found to have violated any land use laws, which Rocketdog has mentioned, he has a reputation, to which I agree, then he should be banned from using public land.


----------



## Lilie

Olivers mama said:


> Have to agree...But are we naive to think this is the only too-lazy-to-hunt wolf pack there? Or that 1 of the rancher's Bessie's won't wander off & become a wolf's meal?
> 
> A pack will learn to hunt as a team. Agreed? Raising puppies, that pack will teach the puppies how to hunt. Agreed? If the pack begins hunting solely on livestock, they are teaching generations to hunt soley on livestock.
> 
> A pack who has learned to hunt soley or mainly on livestock places the entire wolf population in that area in danger.
> 
> I really don't think it has anything to do with a 'lazy' wolf pack.
> 
> 
> Maybe that's what bugs me. Once a practice gets started - esPECially if the government is involved - it's unlikely to stop. *We could wind up wiping out* *the wolves there, in favor of all the steaks with feet*.:crazy:


Yea, I think you're most likely right on that one. That is why thousands of your tax dollars are being spent to reintroduce and study the wolf. Because of all of the benefits the wolf has on the eco system.


----------



## selzer

With one last statement on this, I am done with this topic (unless you guys start spouting something new and interesting): I really don't care if the government wipes out the wolves to protect livestock and the ranchers who depend on the livestock for their livlihood. If they start paying a bounty on wolves' heads as they did in the past, well, maybe I will sit up and take notice. But, I am done caring what AR people are in a tizzy about. And even if you aren't AR, and aren't PETA, their marketing is getting to you all because you are sounding just like them -- "they were here first," what humans have done to the land, to the animals, etc etc etc. When are we going to let humans be humans and strive to earn a living by raising food for the table?


----------



## Olivers mama

selzer said:


> With one last statement on this, *I am done with this topic (unless you guys start spouting something new and interesting):* I really don't care if the government wipes out the wolves to protect livestock and the ranchers who depend on the livestock for their livlihood. If they start paying a bounty on wolves' heads as they did in the past, well, maybe I will sit up and take notice. But, I am done caring what AR people are in a tizzy about. And even if you aren't AR, and aren't PETA, their marketing is getting to you all because you are sounding just like them -- "they were here first," what humans have done to the land, to the animals, etc etc etc. *When are we going to let humans be humans and strive to earn a living by raising food for the table*?


Whoa. OK.

Well, I don't have anything new, so let's just drop the whole topic & let lazy ranchers & the government decide what species lives & which one dies.

I'm not AR (???), nor am I PETA. Have never argued over who was there first. Enjoy your steak. That is, after all, the whole point of this discussion. (WTH???)

Guess I'll find another way to look for a solution. Because, if it happened once it'll happen again. And if it happened in WA, it could happen here in CA. But WTH, must be someone else's problem. And dang it Rocketdog - would you PLEASE quit threatening to leave meat off everyone's kitchen table?!

Seriously selzer - altho I usually agree with your views, guess we have to agree to disagree. I am, however, disappointed in the disappearence of the usual well-thought-out suggestions. This never was a discussion about meat-eaters -vs- vegetarians. This was about right & wrong.

Geez.....:crazy:


----------



## selzer

But, I feel they did the right thing. 

There are lions that sometimes choose to target humans. Not all lions bother with humans. Humans must smell untasty. Or they are not easy prey. Or there is a lot easier stuff to go after. 

But some lions decide that humans are tasty and target them. These lions need to be killed. If this was lions causing the issue, I would suggest grazing donkeys or burros with them, the meaner the better. I guess donkeys HATE lions, and for some reason, they can do serious damage to lions. I don't know if they are good at protecting stock from wolves though.


----------



## Blanketback

I don't know enough about this situation to add anything to the discussion. But I do have a story that I find intersting, wolf related. A friend of mine is 80, and she tells me some fascinating stories about the 'olden days'. One of my favorites is way back when she was a child, if there was a wolf pack sighting, none of the children went to school - they all had to stay indoors.


----------



## Dainerra

I missed the last line of the post Earlier. Yes, if there it's no other food any predator will turn for livestock. However, out it's my experience and that of everyone that I know that domestic animals and human farmland is a meal if last resort. Only once the idea of human scent equals easy prey does livestock predation become a problem. In some areas where there is close daily contact between humans and wildlife such as the suburbs or even in the city the lines get blurred and animals begin to lose that instinctive avoidance of anything related to man. 
I saw more wildfire predators (bobcats, coyotes, fox, and raccoons) during the time we lived in Orlando than I have ever witnessed living in rural areas. Why? Because they had no fear of humans and actually viewed them as food. Like RJ the raccoon in over the hedge lol


----------



## selzer

Blanketback said:


> I don't know enough about this situation to add anything to the discussion. But I do have a story that I find intersting, wolf related. A friend of mine is 80, and she tells me some fascinating stories about the 'olden days'. One of my favorites is way back when she was a child, if there was a wolf pack sighting, none of the children went to school - they all had to stay indoors.


Who's that walking in these woods,
Why, it's Little Red Riding Hood.
Hey there Little Red Riding Hood, 
You sure are lookin' good, 
You're everything a big bad wolf would want.
Ahoooooo!

Hey there Little Red Riding Hood, 
I don't think little big girls should
Go walking in these spooky old woods alone.


----------



## Blanketback

Ahoooo - that song's going to be stuck in my head now, lol!

(naturally I had to google to remember the artist, lmao)


----------



## von Bolen

There are ways to prevent/deter this from happening. Livestock guardian dogs to warn range riders, rubber bullets/bean bags and more. NOTHING is full proof, but everyone has to be proactive. There is a ranch in Minnesota lives between two major wolf packs, and almost never has predations because they have livestock guardian dogs. Theres a ranch on 500000 acres in Wyoming wolf country. Has yet to have any predations. Why? Pro-activity about surrounding wildlife.


----------

