I find it interesting that you don't hear more about all the depradation wolves are causing from the local media!!~~~wolf report click here~~~
interesting article about wolves
- Thread starter Michaelr
- Start date
Muledeer4me
New member
Good One.
Worth reading.
Worth reading.
dgibson
New member
That is an interesting article, Mike. It doesn't scream "kill all wolves now," but he is certainly frank about who gets the short end of the stick when wolves interact with humans. Let's hope that the entire project is as hardnosed as he is about it.
BuzzH
Well-known member
This is the most interesting part of the article, "During the planning effort that resulted in wolf reintroduction, the Service estimated that for every 100 adult-sized wolves about 10-20 cattle and 60-70 sheep would be killed by wolves annually. To date, confirmed wolf depredation on livestock and the number of wolves removed for attacking livestock has been lower than our predictions."
Yet the big-bad wolf still frightens so many tough guys....
Yet the big-bad wolf still frightens so many tough guys....
Buzz== what that says to me is the people that said the numbers would be high lied when they said they'd help pay.
That other(lower) number is the number of PROVEN kills. The estimate is prob closer to the ACTUAL number of kills.
This shell game of numbers is BS. That is the part sticking in most folks craw. Just be honest about what you're saying, don't try to switch what we're talking about.
That other(lower) number is the number of PROVEN kills. The estimate is prob closer to the ACTUAL number of kills.
This shell game of numbers is BS. That is the part sticking in most folks craw. Just be honest about what you're saying, don't try to switch what we're talking about.
from everything I have read, the majority of wolf kills are never found. Think about it for a minute, cattle are out on their range, does the rancher have an oportunity to count all of them very often?? NOPE they usually find out how many are missing when they bring them in, and by then it is impossible to prove it was wolfs, (LET ALONE EVEN TO FIND THEM.)
The true number of wolf kills is probably 10 times what we are told.
A good example is the U.S. sheep experiment station in clark county, they have lost a bunch of sheep, 65 as of last memorial weekend, but they go unreported because they are the govs, sheep...
The true number of wolf kills is probably 10 times what we are told.
A good example is the U.S. sheep experiment station in clark county, they have lost a bunch of sheep, 65 as of last memorial weekend, but they go unreported because they are the govs, sheep...
BuzzH
Well-known member
LA, I think you're wrong about that. I think it was in good faith that the numbers of lost livestock was presented. I believe they (USFWS) took an honest look at the numbers of livestock they felt would be killed. Maybe they did over-estimate slightly. Can you imagine the outcry if wolves killed more than they predicted? By the way, those numbers were presented in the EIS too, and commented on by the livestock associations, etc. just like all the other wolf issues.
Oh, and dont worry about the money end of things in regards to livestock losses. The reimbursment rate of 170% for each confirmed predator kill should easily compensate for the unconfirmed kills. Kills that undoubtedly are blamed on wolves, regardless of how they died. Hell, I'd blame a wolf, bear, lion or anything I could to collect some $$$...like I'm sure most ranchers do.
I've always wondered why other business owners, who take and assume risk, arent compensated for loses? Kind of a double standard.
Michaelr, if they want to be compensated, perhaps they could get off their asses and tend to their stock once in a while. When ranchers leave their stock out for months on end without checking them, well, thats their problem, not mine. They know the risk.
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-07-2003 16:13: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>
Oh, and dont worry about the money end of things in regards to livestock losses. The reimbursment rate of 170% for each confirmed predator kill should easily compensate for the unconfirmed kills. Kills that undoubtedly are blamed on wolves, regardless of how they died. Hell, I'd blame a wolf, bear, lion or anything I could to collect some $$$...like I'm sure most ranchers do.
I've always wondered why other business owners, who take and assume risk, arent compensated for loses? Kind of a double standard.
Michaelr, if they want to be compensated, perhaps they could get off their asses and tend to their stock once in a while. When ranchers leave their stock out for months on end without checking them, well, thats their problem, not mine. They know the risk.
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-07-2003 16:13: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>
Just to keep things interesting....
I think they did overestimate the actual losses, for the reason you state. The losses that are counted now are actual confirmed losses, not suspected losses. The money part doesn't really matter until its enough to wipe ya out, the losses of some critters is part of the risk of sending them out. I know I don't get 170% on any of my losses, but I am not looking for it either, I want a straight honest answer when I ask, not this ghoulish I have been getting, If they don't know the answer, I rather have a I don't know instead of some fabrication. The grizzly we had roaming around here the f&g moved and it came back and still the f&g said they didn't know anything about it. The moment it was on the interstate the f&g had it doped up and hauled out to its death. Up til then, it was bear? what bear?
" Kind of a double standard."? what, look a little deeper into every business. Airlines, petro, steel, ag, outfitters, the list goes on and on.
I think they did overestimate the actual losses, for the reason you state. The losses that are counted now are actual confirmed losses, not suspected losses. The money part doesn't really matter until its enough to wipe ya out, the losses of some critters is part of the risk of sending them out. I know I don't get 170% on any of my losses, but I am not looking for it either, I want a straight honest answer when I ask, not this ghoulish I have been getting, If they don't know the answer, I rather have a I don't know instead of some fabrication. The grizzly we had roaming around here the f&g moved and it came back and still the f&g said they didn't know anything about it. The moment it was on the interstate the f&g had it doped up and hauled out to its death. Up til then, it was bear? what bear?
" Kind of a double standard."? what, look a little deeper into every business. Airlines, petro, steel, ag, outfitters, the list goes on and on.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Michaelr, if they want to be compensated, perhaps they could get off their asses and tend to their stock once in a while. When ranchers leave their stock out for months on end without checking them, well, thats their problem, not mine. They know the risk. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is just the kind of asshole comment that get these threads turned into pissing matches.
Obviously you don't know jack shit about what the hell your saying.
If all you can do is be an asshole, like your pissing match with mule, I suggest you shut your cake hole.
That is just the kind of asshole comment that get these threads turned into pissing matches.
Obviously you don't know jack shit about what the hell your saying.
If all you can do is be an asshole, like your pissing match with mule, I suggest you shut your cake hole.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Hey Michael, the only way you'd take that as a start to a pissing match is if you're one of the lazy ranchers who leave their stock on public lands for months at a time.
Whats wrong, too much truth in that statement. Hit a nerve?
Well, its the damn truth, if you cant handle it shut your cake hole.
If you leave your stock untended for a few months, where theres lions, wolves, bears, etc. you better be expecting some losses, thats the way it is. Nobody is forcing any rancher to lease the public lands anyway...if you dont want to take the risk, graze them on your own land where you can watch them. Simple as that.
I do have more sympathy for a rancher who suffers losses on private land, but not on public lands. Public lands are not for the exclusive use of one individual and their livestock.
If a rancher losses livestock on public lands...tough luck.
Oh, and that article you provided a link to is real dandy.
Answer this, if wolves really do "wipe out" all the wildlife anywhere they live, why do Canada and Alaska have plenty of caribou, elk, deer, bears, moose, goats, sheep, etc.?
If we were to believe that article there wouldnt be anything alive in either Canada or Alaska. Yet, it sure seems to me that theres plenty of good hunting in both those places even though theres wolves around. I also find in kind of funny that I've managed to kill at least one elk a year in either MT or WY every year since I was 12, even after the dreaded wolf was reintroduced. I've also not seen any significant decline in elk numbers in any areas I've hunted, including Gardiner. In fact according to a recent FWP news release, theres more elk now than theres ever been in MT. How can that be?
Something aint adding up.
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-08-2003 09:08: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>
Whats wrong, too much truth in that statement. Hit a nerve?
Well, its the damn truth, if you cant handle it shut your cake hole.
If you leave your stock untended for a few months, where theres lions, wolves, bears, etc. you better be expecting some losses, thats the way it is. Nobody is forcing any rancher to lease the public lands anyway...if you dont want to take the risk, graze them on your own land where you can watch them. Simple as that.
I do have more sympathy for a rancher who suffers losses on private land, but not on public lands. Public lands are not for the exclusive use of one individual and their livestock.
If a rancher losses livestock on public lands...tough luck.
Oh, and that article you provided a link to is real dandy.
Answer this, if wolves really do "wipe out" all the wildlife anywhere they live, why do Canada and Alaska have plenty of caribou, elk, deer, bears, moose, goats, sheep, etc.?
If we were to believe that article there wouldnt be anything alive in either Canada or Alaska. Yet, it sure seems to me that theres plenty of good hunting in both those places even though theres wolves around. I also find in kind of funny that I've managed to kill at least one elk a year in either MT or WY every year since I was 12, even after the dreaded wolf was reintroduced. I've also not seen any significant decline in elk numbers in any areas I've hunted, including Gardiner. In fact according to a recent FWP news release, theres more elk now than theres ever been in MT. How can that be?
Something aint adding up.
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-08-2003 09:08: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>
As usual, a pissing match enues because nobody says what they really mean.
BuzzH is correct in his statements, and micheal is correct in his. They both are pissing about the same thing.
I think when micheal meant to say was ranchers put their stock out, they do not count them so by hte time they come in and are counted and sold, wintered, whatever its too late then to go back to find out what happened the missing and to contribute them to what?. My own critters out on grass aren't counted unless I notice something unusual, any even then I'd have a real tough time counting. And I know there are quite a bit of stock out in Associations that noone really knows how many are there. I don't beleive any one turns their stock out and never checks them. If they did that they sure wouldn't have any stcok left.
BuzzH is correct in his statements, and micheal is correct in his. They both are pissing about the same thing.
I think when micheal meant to say was ranchers put their stock out, they do not count them so by hte time they come in and are counted and sold, wintered, whatever its too late then to go back to find out what happened the missing and to contribute them to what?. My own critters out on grass aren't counted unless I notice something unusual, any even then I'd have a real tough time counting. And I know there are quite a bit of stock out in Associations that noone really knows how many are there. I don't beleive any one turns their stock out and never checks them. If they did that they sure wouldn't have any stcok left.
Just for the record.
We don't run any cattle of our own on our ranch anymore. We lease some of it to a rancher. Which is enough to help pay property taxes, keep fences in good repair ect, ect.
we don't use our place as a money maker. it is treated as a place to gather for family toodoo's, a place to hunt and fish.
If you want to blast an individual rancher for poor practices and can back up your claims I would support you.
It's when you stereotype that I take exception. That is a favorite tactic of the anti's and tree huggers.
The fact is there are alot of great folks who are ranchers, loggers, miners, blah, blah, blah.
I hate it when all hunters are stereotyped as bambi killers, murders ect, ect, and I think we should set an example and not do it ourselves.
We don't run any cattle of our own on our ranch anymore. We lease some of it to a rancher. Which is enough to help pay property taxes, keep fences in good repair ect, ect.
we don't use our place as a money maker. it is treated as a place to gather for family toodoo's, a place to hunt and fish.
If you want to blast an individual rancher for poor practices and can back up your claims I would support you.
It's when you stereotype that I take exception. That is a favorite tactic of the anti's and tree huggers.
The fact is there are alot of great folks who are ranchers, loggers, miners, blah, blah, blah.
I hate it when all hunters are stereotyped as bambi killers, murders ect, ect, and I think we should set an example and not do it ourselves.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Answer this, if wolves really do "wipe out" all the wildlife anywhere they live, why do Canada and Alaska have plenty of caribou, elk, deer, bears, moose, goats, sheep, etc.?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Go to the big game forum I have stated my position there.
I have never made the claim that wolves will wipe everything out.
I do believe that they will eventually depress numbers in the areas they inhabit to the point that hunting will be limited or stopped.
My biggest concern is that the wolves will be used as a tool by those that want to stop hunting, and by those with political agendas instead of good solid wildlife management.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Go to the big game forum I have stated my position there.
I have never made the claim that wolves will wipe everything out.
I do believe that they will eventually depress numbers in the areas they inhabit to the point that hunting will be limited or stopped.
My biggest concern is that the wolves will be used as a tool by those that want to stop hunting, and by those with political agendas instead of good solid wildlife management.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Michael, I know a person shouldnt stereotype but....
When a majority of public lands are over-grazed, its pretty easy to do. So, whenever I start stereotyping, please insert, "70%" or "most".
That should take care of that.
When a majority of public lands are over-grazed, its pretty easy to do. So, whenever I start stereotyping, please insert, "70%" or "most".
That should take care of that.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Michael I just dont agree that wolves are ever going to stop hunting. I really dont.
I can say that with a lot of certainty for many reasons.
Like I said, look at Canada and Alaska, or just look at ID, MT, WY, etc. Show me where one elk or deer season has been limited by wolves. There hasnt been one, and wolves have been on the ground for over 8 years.
Sure, it may eventually happen, but it isnt going to happen anytime soon. For Christ sake, I can kill 2 elk a year in Wyoming, Colorado you can kill at least 3. MT doesnt even give away all the available cow tags. Many units give out 500 plus cow permits and the FWP is begging people to kill cows to control numbers. Cant you now kill 2 elk a year in Idaho? I wouldnt even want to guess how many depredation hunts take place in the West. Yet people still bitch about wolves killing too many elk? I cant, by using half a brain, believe they are having a huge impact. Certainly they have an impact, but is it even worth worrying about? I think, let me rephrase, I KNOW, theres much bigger concerns to our big-game herds than wolves.
Also, I dont believe that wolves will ever be allowed to reach large numbers in the West. Too many ranchers pack rifles, too many hunters shoot on site, and have been since day one. Because of the limited amount of favorable habitat, the wolves themselves will control their numbers. Packs do not tolerate each other.
Like I've said countless times I'm all for wolf seasons, all for controlling numbers, etc. But I wont jump on the anti-wolf band wagon or view it as a threat to hunting, because I cant find any evidence to support that theory.
I have to comment on what you said here, "by those with political agendas instead of good solid wildlife management."
Come on lets get real here. Nearly every hunter, outfitter, rancher, farmer, Game and Fish dept., state, etc. does the same damn thing.
When was the last time they didnt self serve themselves with regard to wildlife management for gods sake. If you believe that most of those mentioned above are really concerned about whats best for the wildlife and not their own agendas and wallets, well...
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-08-2003 09:58: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>
I can say that with a lot of certainty for many reasons.
Like I said, look at Canada and Alaska, or just look at ID, MT, WY, etc. Show me where one elk or deer season has been limited by wolves. There hasnt been one, and wolves have been on the ground for over 8 years.
Sure, it may eventually happen, but it isnt going to happen anytime soon. For Christ sake, I can kill 2 elk a year in Wyoming, Colorado you can kill at least 3. MT doesnt even give away all the available cow tags. Many units give out 500 plus cow permits and the FWP is begging people to kill cows to control numbers. Cant you now kill 2 elk a year in Idaho? I wouldnt even want to guess how many depredation hunts take place in the West. Yet people still bitch about wolves killing too many elk? I cant, by using half a brain, believe they are having a huge impact. Certainly they have an impact, but is it even worth worrying about? I think, let me rephrase, I KNOW, theres much bigger concerns to our big-game herds than wolves.
Also, I dont believe that wolves will ever be allowed to reach large numbers in the West. Too many ranchers pack rifles, too many hunters shoot on site, and have been since day one. Because of the limited amount of favorable habitat, the wolves themselves will control their numbers. Packs do not tolerate each other.
Like I've said countless times I'm all for wolf seasons, all for controlling numbers, etc. But I wont jump on the anti-wolf band wagon or view it as a threat to hunting, because I cant find any evidence to support that theory.
I have to comment on what you said here, "by those with political agendas instead of good solid wildlife management."
Come on lets get real here. Nearly every hunter, outfitter, rancher, farmer, Game and Fish dept., state, etc. does the same damn thing.
When was the last time they didnt self serve themselves with regard to wildlife management for gods sake. If you believe that most of those mentioned above are really concerned about whats best for the wildlife and not their own agendas and wallets, well...
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-08-2003 09:58: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>
BigHornyRam
New member
Darren,
The press release michaelr posted is from Ed Bangs, head of the USFWS wolf project. He issued it in response to all the hate mail he recieved from the wolf wacko's when lethal control measures were implimented. He was trying to explain why lethal control measures are needed to make this reintroduction work. He is just doing his job. All these issues were aggreed upon prior to reintro. Now that the wolves are here, the wolf wacko's do not like the rules.
Paul
The press release michaelr posted is from Ed Bangs, head of the USFWS wolf project. He issued it in response to all the hate mail he recieved from the wolf wacko's when lethal control measures were implimented. He was trying to explain why lethal control measures are needed to make this reintroduction work. He is just doing his job. All these issues were aggreed upon prior to reintro. Now that the wolves are here, the wolf wacko's do not like the rules.
Paul
Here's a pretty good article on wolf predation of elk in Yellowstone. This shows that the winters determine how many elk are taken by wolves, plus showing that predation levels and success are similar to that of caribou herds in AK.
Article
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-08-2003 16:38: Message edited by: 1_pointer ]</font>
Article
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-08-2003 16:38: Message edited by: 1_pointer ]</font>
Lets see if this works:
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2002/severity/severity.htm
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2002/severity/severity.htm
Similar threads
