Wolf in Utah?

[Bambistew]

Has there ever been a documented case of brucellosis being transfrered from a buffalo to a moo cow? How about to a person? I'd be intrested to know...

If so and if brucellosis is such a big "issue" in MT how come they are still classified as being "brucellosis free"???

I wish I could find that thread about the elk populations of the northern heard that started out 20 years before wolf reintroduction... There are still way more elk now with the wolf than there was just 20 years ago!!! I don't remember hearing that the sky was falling back then, but maybe I wasn't listening...

BTW cathunt are you cows black and white, 2" tall, and made of plastic?

 

[SageGhost]

reply..

i dont think he would because he would be affraid of being classified as a PETA member !!!

 

[Cathunt MT]

can you get $1,200.00 a pair for them maybe I should get some of them

 

[JoseCuervo]

Cathunt,
You are still struggling with your argument..... "they" got their mone from "us", as it was a Federal effort that used taxpayer money to re-introduce wolves.

How much is Defenders of Wildlife paying for the few kills that are documented??? Aren't they keeping the ranchers "whole"?

Still, what cows in MT are getting Brucellosis, and how are you able to blame the wolves???

 

[huntinfool]

My point is.....
The wolves would have already been here so......
And since they are here why complain about it?
Why not do something like push for a hunt for them, weather it is a draw hunt or what
That way the wolves can stay here (where they belong) but their population can be controlled. I'm not PETA I'm a hunter and have grown up hunting. The way I see it is that the wolves are here does not matter how they got here their here so... know we need to get in place for controlling the population. The best way to do that the way I see it is to put in place a draw hunt. Everyone knows that there are way more wolves than the Fish and Game are willing to say so why not push to get a hunt on them?
It would help with the ranchers, hunters and the environmentalists.
Just a thought there.....

 

[mtmiller]

Most of the time I learn something on this board. Not this time, if fact I may dumber than I was 5 minutes ago. Maybe it was from banging my head against the wall. |oo

 

[Cathunt MT]

Go back to the web site I gave you The defenders of willife payed for the whole thing as stated in that wright up. Wolves dont give cows Brucellosis They just kill them.
SORRY buffalo are getting killed because they could give it to the cows. Elk # down from 10 years ago buffalo # up

 

[JoseCuervo]

Defenders of Wildlife DID not pay for the re-introduction costs. You are crazy if you think they did. Please show me where they paid for the re-introduction. More than just the home page for DOW, please.

And why should you care if a Angus gets her guts chewed open by a wolf, if you get money from the Defenders of Wildlife? Is their money not as good as the money from Iowa Beef or Armour?

But, at least thanks for clearing up that Wolves DO NOT give cows Brucellosis.

Now can you answer if Buffalo give cows Brucellosis?

And do you have any comments on Bambistew's comment that Elk have INCREASED over the last 20 years, during the period that Wolves were re-introduced???


MT,
Wouldn't you love to see somebody argue against Wolves that had their "ducks in a row"???

 

[mtmiller]

Wolves brucellosis--false
Bison brucellosis--true
Elk brucellosis--true
Moo cows contract brucellosis from wild ungulates--true
Brucellosis bad--true
Wolves eat all elk and bison, moo cows saved from brucellosis
Wolves good for moo cows

 

[Bambistew]

For your wolf loving/hating pleasure... check out this monster, it was quite entertaining...

http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/3411043/m/923107681/r/945101542#945101542


Here is the numbers I was looking for... Sorry its not entirely complete, but I don't have the time today to any more "reserch"... IIRRC 2003 was something like 9500, but had poor counting conditions, and 2004 was good counting conditions and and the found something like 11500... I wish I could find the "complete" data to show the fluctuations over the years.... Also if IIRRC the average populaton for the last 30 years is like 12000... Takes a lot less cheetos now

1) In 1970 there were an estimated 4000 elk in Yellowstone. In 2002 there were estimated 12000. Populations have fluctiuated widely here are some examples:
1970-4000
1979 10,500
1988 18,000
1993 12,000
1995 18,000
2000 14,500
2002 12,000


Bison population is up because they haven't really killed many in the last few years. The fish and game put a serrious dent in them about 7-8 years ago if I remember right...

I have no doubt that the wolves are killing elk, deer, moose etc. but the sky hasn't fallen and I really dont' think its going to anytime soon... All we can push for is a season! That will give me an excuse to buy another rifle... yeah I need a "wolf" rifle... I'm thinking a 25-06 and 100 balistic tips....

What is the percentage of elk in jellystone that carry it? How come we arn't as worried about it with them?

 

[Bambistew]

I forgot to add... Why didn't we think the sky was falling between 88 and 92? A third of the elk "vanished"... when were the wolves reintroduced again?

 

[A-con]

A-Con,
Are you sure, or are you like the rest of the big bellied- wolf haters that only know how to "fall off" a bar stool and "pass out"?

I dono, mAby if U cod get 1 clos nuf 2 my stool, befour I gut to drunk ?

Chill out Jose, go rub one off and come back in a better mood. I'm not a wolf hater.

 

[JoseCuervo]

A-Con,

A 48 hour bender???? If you buy the good stuff, the hangover ain't so bad....

Try drinking Diet Pepsi and Aleeve and the ringing will go away....

 

[Muledeer4me]

"Again, why single out wolves as the only predator that "they should kill everyone befor they get out of hand"?"

As far as I know the wolf isnt the only one being singled out to kill .
We can't forget about the grizzle bears .
It's not the animal so much as the greenie/treehugger/anti -hunters mind set that stinks up the whole predator issue.


The issue isnt that other predators (cat's and black bears) eat game animals ,its that now we have MORE predators being "reintroduced " that will compete with the available game.
So who do you think the anti-hunter/treehuggers will decide should get the first pickings? Not us hunter's.
Isnt that the whole idea in the first place with most of these greenie/treehuggers????

Before any of the green leaners jump down my back let me say ,
I dont hate predators ,and wolves dont scare me.
Now(grizzle bears) might be another thing. LOL Im not chomping at the bit to go hunt in areas that have them.

 

[ColdNosed]

Sageghost Thanks.

I have been told a few things about the wolf in Idaho, maybe I was misinformed?

Is it not true that the average age of Elk in areas that contain wolves is rising?

Is it not true that the availability of white-tail tags have been, or will be reduced in areas that contain wolves?

Is it not true that cow/calf (elk) ratios have been reduced from 25-29 calves per 100 cows to 3-6 per 100 in some areas? Leading to no cow tags in these areas?

Is it not true that wolves killed 55 sheep plus one cow elk and scattered the flock to the point that 30 others were not found?

Is it not true that the wolves left the sheep and one cow elk to rot and didn’t consume much or any of their kills?

I don’t hate the wolf, and I don’t care much for hunting deer and elk. I have friends that do hunt deer and elk. The majority of people who attended the initial meetings seem to agree that wolves should be killed if they do damage to livestock or start to decimate big game populations. I would like to see sportsmen have a chance to remove the wolves who are damaging the big game populations. I think that ranchers deserve professional hunters (not biologists) that will respond immediately.

Other issues that I have:

Are the ranchers who have lost livestock to wolves getting paid fair value of the animal they lost or just market price per pound? That would be fair in the case of a steer as long as they pay for the finished weight, but a heifer or young bull with good blood lines adds more value to the herd.

What will happen when these groups that are donating money to pay for lost livestock to wolves proclaim mission accomplished and the well goes dry?

Will the sportsmen’s conservation groups and state fish and game agencies be reimbursed for their efforts to build huntable populations that end up getting killed off by wolves?

Will the pro-wolf groups and Federal Government reimburse the state fish and game agencies for lost revenue due to decreased tag sales?

What is the value of a hunters lost opportunity? I know some of the memories I carry around with me are priceless.

The Federal Government continues to protect the wolf in the lower 48. In my opinion until the State can make management decisions on their own, Utah should continue to ship wolves found in traps back to Yellowstone or wherever they came from. Maybe my opinions have been based on misinformation?

 

[Cathunt MT]

great post coldnosed

 

[BuzzH]

Cold Nosed, your post is a little on the "uninformed" side.

For starters ranchers are reimbursed 165% of the fair market value of any lost livestock...does that sound fair enough to you? While on the topic of ranchers and "fairness" how do you feel that they graze public lands for $1.48 an AUM? Is that "fair" to ranchers? Is that "fair" to the tax-paying public?

Should the states and sportsmens groups be reimbursed for elk and deer being killed? I dont believe they should...but if we start heading down that road I have a question for you. Should holders of lion and bear tags (and houndsmen) be charged for all the deer and elk those predators kill each year? I say if you want to charge the feds for wolf predation, I absolutely believe the houndsmen and bear/cat hunters should be held financially responsible for any predation on MY ungulates as well. Whats fair for one should be fair for the other.

While on the subject of who pays for what...do you suppose maybe the feds should start charging the states/hunters for allowing STATE OWNED elk/deer/antelope to graze FEDERALLY OWNED LANDS? Sound fair to you?

I think most of the wolf paranoia is just pure BS.

 

[ColdNosed]

BuzzH, I can see that my use of the word “fair” may have struck a nerve. 165% of market value of a steer assuming they are paying for the full grown animal is too much. But to pay 165% of calf prices to a guy who finishes the cattle might be close. Too much in some cases and not enough in others, maybe it would average out in the long run?

To respond to your question about the grazing permits the money gained from those permits relieve SOME of the pressure from the tax-payer to manage those lands. At the same time the rancher is saving on feed costs that allow him to stay in business producing FOOD. More ranches=more supply and keeps it so you and I can afford to eat meat after we have eaten our limit of wild game. So yea, I think it is a wash, both are benefiting from the deal.

What do you have against the predator hunters? Dose the revenue generated from the sale of those tags go to importing more lions and bears? I would think if it went to improving lion and bear habitat it would benefit YOUR ungulutes as well. Maybe you need to gain a respect for the predator hunters and houndsmen that are paying good money to help keep these animals balanced? The difference between the lions/bears and the wolf is that the state can say we have too many lions here and increase the number of lions removed from the area by sportsmen even to the point of allowing a second lion to be taken in by the same sportsman in a specified location, that is not an option with the wolf at this time.

I didn’t think that my questions were that extreme, but I knew I was pushing the envelope with one or two. LOL “Uninformed” perhaps that is why I structured everything as a question so those who know all could straighten me out.

I didn't intend to start a debate, just inform fellow Utah hunters of the meetings so their views could be heard. If they agree with me or not.

 

[BuzzH]

Coldnosed, I see from your post that you havent put much research into these issues.

You really need to research the public lands grazing issue. The current system is nothing more than welfare to ranchers, no matter how you cut it. Why should the BLM/Forest Service only charge 1.48 per AUM when private land fetches many times more than that?

Oh, and last I checked, in a FAIR MARKET ECONOMY, how can ranchers who DO NOT have federal leases and must pay $10-$12 AUM compete with ranchers who are subsidized by the taxpayers and only pay $1.48 AUM? Subsidizing grazing does nothing but hurt the over-all cattle economy, and we'd be better of without it (or make the ranchers pay FAIR market value for their federal leases). I bet you also didnt realize that 60% of BLM lands are OVERGRAZED and in POOR CONDITION...what exactly is the taxpayer gaining from that? Cheap beef is a pretty steep price to pay for my public lands, public wildlife habitat, and public wildlife taking a beating...dont you think?

While on the subject of revenue...do you suppose lion and bear hunters draw more money into the Game and Fish agencies or do elk, deer, antelope, bighorn, mountain goat, moose hunters draw more money for the Game and Fish Agencies?

I have nothing against predator hunters...only pointing out that bears, and in particular lions, kill the living shit out of the States (MY) deer and elk. If you want the federal government to pay for wolves preying on MY deer and elk, then people who want lions and bears should also pay for losses of MY deer and elk. You dont find it hypocritical to make the feds pay for wolf predation...but then give a pass to people who want cats and bears around that kill WAY MORE of the publics elk and deer than wolves do, by far? Hmmmm?

By the way, if Wyoming would come up with an acceptable plan, wolves could be controlled the same as lions and cats are. Oh, and I've killed bobcats, lynx, bears, and lions so I dont have anything against predator hunters.

 

[jmcd]

Buzz,

Your last two posts make no sense at all. The only thing that is clear is that you're an argument-loving ass. I love how you turn a discussion on wolves into an opportunity to bash ranchers. Kind of looked like a side-step to some of the points that coldnosed made about wolves, the damage they do, and the inability to manage their numbers. That seems to be the favorite tactic of the wolfhugger types.