More On Wolves

[buck460XVR]

Lotsa hunters are city dwellers. Think about it: Less than 3% of the workforce lives on farms/ranches.

Kinda why I used the term "hunters" instead of country folk. So many try and claim that it's just the granola eatin' tree huggers that live in municipalities, or an urban setting, but the truth is, so does the majority of folks that use the outdoors.

I feel real lucky: I started learning about farming and ranching and carrying capacity back when I was a little-bitty. Later on, I took over the old family place and ran cattle. In my formal working career, I spent some four years brain-picking on the bug'n'bunny PhDs.

IMO, anybody from Texas should be at least an associate member of the Texas Wildlife Association ($35/yr). Many articles about range management and habitat improvement.

Another worthwhile quarterly publication is Range Magazine. It focuses on ranching and farming in (mostly) the high country of the northwest. Many of the articles name the players in wildlife and agribusiness issues. It has a website, http://www.rangemagazine.com/

I too grew up on and around farms. Milked cows for several years. Saw how while pumpin' the fertilizer, herbicide and insecticide produced bumper crops, the soil, and many times wildlife suffered. Many times while there was more food available for wildlife such as Quail and Pheasant, the farming practices produced little cover and protection from weather and predators. Without the habitat of waterways, windbreaks and fence-lines, they declined.


I buy what is known as a Patron's License here in Wisconsin. It gives you most of the licenses needed to hunt and fish in the state, plus park and trail passes. I don't use all the privileges, but feel the extra donation helps those species and activities I don't pursue. One of the other benefits is the subscription to the DNR publication "Wisconsin Natural Resources". Not only does it cover hunting and fishing in the state, but other outdoor activities. It also gives correct and factual information on conservation, not just with wildlife, but with soil, water and our forests. Very seldom are they able give simple explanations or solutions. Many times, even tho studies have been extensive and ongoing for many years, they still have many questions left unanswered. Many times ideas and notions that once were thought to be fact have now been proven wrong. Sometimes changes in the environment or management of that environment, make facts obsolete. One needs to involve themselves and educate themselves constantly to keep up. As I said before, so many answers that were once almost impossible to find for the average person, is now just a keyboard touch away on the internet. One reason I like these types of discussions so much, is that they motivate me to do so, and in the long run, I become more educated and more informed. I don't claim to be always right, but I do try to make educated answers. This thread in itself has shown me that the majority of the answers to the questions asked here, are easily found.

 

[another pake]

Many years ago, in the late 70's, "when I wore a younger mans' clothes", I took some time off from my farming/ranching responsibilities and went to Purdue U to "hone my skills".

I'm certainly glad that I did, but......

The speaker at our Commencement was Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butz. Some of you may remember him for other reasons, but his advice to us was...

"Get Good First, Then Get Big Fast."

Many in the room did take his advice and soon after in the National and International Food Games, promptly lost everything. But they were soon replaced by others only too eager to clear cut, slash and burn as much of South America as they could in order to plant soy beans.

Ummmn, it's OK to be skeptical. The experts don't always get it right. Those of you who have been verbally jousting with us here, Keep On Being Skeptical. Don't stop asking Why? And if confronted with sensible dialog backed by facts, don't be afraid to investigate further yourselves. buck is correct about research and information being available. Don't be intimidated by verbal smoke screens or verbal abuse. Knowledge is power.

 

[d2wing]

I do strongly agree that informed conservation measures are very important. And that they should be free from romantic, emotional influences, the Bambi effect, and also the raw greed causing harm to our water systems. Realistically that is not going to happen.
Wolves are large pack animals and it takes a lot of meat to feed them. Everyday. Maybe you should import them to Texas to he with all those hogs and deer and non native animals.

 

[another pake]

d2wing,

Sigh....

I wish you had a little more confidence in the power of the people to act.

When you say things like "realistically that is not going to happen." It tells me that you are either unfamiliar with what can be done, or unwilling to acknowledge what IS being done.

Your facetious remark about importing wolves to Texas was probably meant for a laugh. I get that. I do that kind of thing too. Maybe you didn't know though,

1. There is a current active Management Plan to do that very thing. Except it's Mexican Gray Wolves, once populating the 4 State area of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Oklahoma. They've been gone 30 or 40 years. Feds want em back.

2. No everybody wants em and they are using the system to say so. Bills in the US House and Senate have cycled and apparently been approved, opening the door for Arizona to pull out of the plan. This is very, very recent activity.

Why aren't people more informed about the things they hold dear?

But a guy has to be willing to roll up his sleeves and work for what he wants.

Respectfully

 

[d2wing]

Thanks for the comments, Pake. I am aware that a wolf in that area thought extinct, is not. And efforts are being made to breed them in captivity. I did not know that the intent is to reintroduce them. You are right, I am too cynical.
Sometimes it is easier to bad mouth than do something constructive. Wish you the best.

 

[another pake]

d2wing,

No harm, No foul!

Here's a site outlining (poorly I think) the FWS plan on Mexican Gray introduction. There must be better info somewhere, but this is what I have.

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/index.cfm

The next link is a recent news piece from last week, briefly describing the opposition. It looks like they are gaining traction.

http://www.therepublic.com/w/AZ--Mexican-Wolves

Listen, like I said before, I'm not a wolf lover, whatever that is, but I guess I am a respecter. A respecter of life. Yours, mine, all things and what it takes to support us. And I support your rights too. So I have to walk a fine wandering line in a world of gray shadows.

But that's my journey.

Respectfully,

 

[Art Eatman]

The Mexican wolf has already been released into New Mexico. Local ranchers there report problems. (Again, I reference Range Magazine for info.) Aside from wolf-killed dogs and calves, little kids don't just stand around by the ranch gate, waiting on the school bus.

I recall a USF&WS report about funding (numbers from memory; approximate): Full effort, around $12 million per year. Medium effort, $8 million (maybe six-point something). No effort, $3.4 million. The obvious question is, how does doing nothing cost $3.4 million per year?

Back around 1997 there was a gathering of west Texas ranchers and the wolf question was discussed (more accurately, cussed). I suggested that instead of worrying about cows and calves, they should get some wolf-howl tapes and then advertise to Sierra Clubbers to come listen. $100/night and bring your own firewood. The rancher could sit off a half mile with a tape deck.

 

[d2wing]

I like your idea Art. Too late here.

 

[buck460XVR]

The Mexican wolf has already been released into New Mexico. Local ranchers there report problems. (Again, I reference Range Magazine for info.) Aside from wolf-killed dogs and calves, little kids don't just stand around by the ranch gate, waiting on the school bus.

I believe it has also been reintroduced to Arizona. as for the bus stop kids, that's another easy Google.

Daniel MacNulty, a professor of wildlife ecology at Utah State University who has been studying wolves for 18 years, told National Geographic that the idea wolves would attack children at bus stops “is fear-mongering and unhinged from the facts,” adding that children are more likely to be injured or killed “in an incident with an off-road all-terrain vehicle, or in an encounter with a feral dog, or in a hunting accident.”

I think the “kid cages” are a publicity stunt designed to stoke opposition to Mexican wolf recovery in general and to the federal government in particular. Why else would the anti-federalist group Americans for Prosperity be circulating photos and videos of the cages? I would be skeptical of any wolf-related information coming from this organization or its agents.

Maggie Dwire, a Mexican wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) told High Country News that no one has complained about wolves bothering school children and that if they had a team would have visited the area to determine if the animal reported were a wolf and whether it were watching children. If a wolf were caught posing a threat to safety it would be removed.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/kid-cages-stir-up-irrational-fear-of-wolf-attacks.html#ixzz2xAhD2RF7



....and this goes back to part about how in the U.S., the majority generally makes the call.

Despite the kid cages and all the propaganda, residents still seem largely supportive of recovery efforts. A recent poll found that 87 percent of voters in both Arizona and New Mexico agree that “wolves are a vital part of America’s wilderness and natural heritage,” while more than 80 percent in both states agree that “the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should make every effort to help wolves recover and prevent extinction.”





....again so much info is readily obtained. And yes, if one looks long and hard enough, one can find both sides of the coin. But on those two sides, one needs to consider who is doing the talking and who is using facts that pertain to the argument.

 

[ZeroJunk]

Eighty seven percent of the voters in Arizona and New Mexico live in the cities and will never be involved with the wolves one way or the other. Same deal with wolves in general. Pretty easy to vote on something that has no effect on you and never will.

 

[buck460XVR]

Eighty seven percent of the voters in Arizona and New Mexico live in the cities and will never be involved with the wolves one way or the other. Same deal with wolves in general. Pretty easy to vote on something that has no effect on you and never will.

No argument there, altho a quick Google show the number less than 87%. That is the point to my "majority rules" thing tho. We may not like the outcome all the time, but that's kinda how things work here. But just as it's easy for someone living in the city to determine what should happen within their whole state, it's easy for someone in North Carolina to attempt to tell folks in Arizona and New Mexico, how they should handle their Natural resources and that they are doing it wrong. Since they have the voice, what we think don't mean squat. What they decide don't make any difference on our wolf populations 1000 miles away. IMHO. that's part of the complexity that Art was pointing out.

 

[Art Eatman]

While some ranchers aren't necessarily credible about wildlife, many are. I'll listen to those who live on the land before I'll listen to non-residents, no matter how many degrees the non-resident has.

A full-grown wolf is as big as a full-grown mountain lion. I know as fact that two attacks by mountain lions in Big Bend National Park were initiated against small children of the 6-to-10 age group.

I figure that a hungry predator will go after a "target of opportunity". If I have a small child who has to wait for a school bus and the wait is at a spot a fair ways from home, I'll arrange for some sort of protection. "Cage", sit in the truck, whatever.

Just because some event has not happened does not mean that it cannot happen or won't happen.

 

[another pake]

Once again, and Respectfully,

Pretty easy to vote on something that has no effect on you and never will.

Not believing that something has no effect is not necessarily the same as Having No Effect.

Research "Trophic Cascade Relationships" or the like. What do you come up with?
First, things will go on. Nature will continue in some form. It may not be to your liking though.

You could ask something as simple as, "What effect does the presence or absence of fish in my local pond have on the local environment?

 

[Art Eatman]

I rather doubt that a New Yorker's vote about wolf restoration will ever really impact that New Yorker's lifestyle...

 

[buck460XVR]

I rather doubt that a New Yorker's vote about wolf restoration will ever really impact that New Yorker's lifestyle...

I dunno...when you look at statistics and probabilities, the odds that wolves will have some sort of impact on the quality of life of a New York resident is probably equal to or higher than the probability of a child in Texas being attacked by a mountain lion.

If I have a small child who has to wait for a school bus and the wait is at a spot a fair ways from home, I'll arrange for some sort of protection. "Cage", sit in the truck, whatever.

While protection while waiting for the bus is a wise idea, since the odds of a wolf attack or a lion attack here in the continental U.S. is so much less than the child gettin' stung and killed by bees, struck by lightning, attacked by the neighbors dog or kidnapped by a pervert, building a cage to save them just from the lions and wolves seems like more of an emotional decision than one derived from fact. This is one of those things that always makes me smile. Folks always want to use the "they prey on small children" when it comes to discussions about wolves and cougars. The same folks blame the reduced numbers of deer/elk on them. Reality is tho, that more kids are hurt/killed because of the high deer/elk numbers every year than have been killed by wolves/cougars in the continental U.S. ever. Still they want more deer/elk and less wolves/cougars. Kinda ironic.

I'm not being argumentative(at least not tryin'). I enjoy being able to discuss these things in an adult and civil manner. I'm not telling anyone they need to reintroduce wolves/lions/tigers/bears into their area when I know nuttin' about it, nor do I think anyone else should. I, like many others did not like it when the feds had control over the wolves when it was the states that had to deal with them. Now that the states have control over them, I think they will do a better job of addressing the needs and desires of those folks within their state. As I have said many times, I live within the territories of a coupla wolf packs. The local paper last winter had a picture on the front page of two wolves takin' down a deer on the ice on the local lake that I can see from my front windows. My grandkids play in the yard, a stones throw from the very spot. I keep an eye on them while they do, but wolf attacks are the farthest thing from my mind. Last year there were two children attacked within two blocks of here. Both were from dogs belonging to a neighbor.

 

[j1]

The first thing you must do is choose one elk or wolf. Then we can get down to the debate and interpret the facts to suit our needs.

 

[buck460XVR]

The first thing you must do is choose one elk or wolf. Then we can get down to the debate and interpret the facts to suit our needs.

I'm not choosing one. That's my point. I choose them both. Maybe why I do not interpret the facts in favor of one or the other. History and facts show us we can have both, in healthy numbers that provide a good balance, with enough excess to hunt, with enough left over to propagate the species and for those folks that just want to see them in the wild. This is if there is the habitat to sustain them. If there is habitat to sustain either, there is the habitat to sustain them both.

 

[dook]

I'm in Western Montana and I can remember when elk were so plenty that in Mineral County they issued 800 cow tags a year. Now it's about a dozen. Success rates for bull elk are so pathetically low that many hunters have simply quit hunting.
In the 17 or so years since the introduction of foreign wolves, the elk population has dropped to around 12% of what they were.
Federal and state game numbers are not to be trusted.

The feds have killed the mining and timber industries here, and having an elk in the freezer means a whole lot in terms of making ends meet.

These diseased foreign wolves are so clever that if they allowed us to hunt them 24 hours a day 365 days a year with automatic weapons, silencers, dogs, bait and helicopters, we would never be able to get elk populations up anywhere near where they were before introduction.

There already were wolves here in small quantity but they never were as agressive and didn't breed as fast as the ones they introduced which killed off the native wolf species.

The Feds bought these wolves at our expense of a million bucks each and 2/3 of them carry a disease called Hydatid. Niether federal state nor even the RMEF disclosed this to us.

 

[ZeroJunk]

Success rates for bull elk are so pathetically low that many hunters have simply quit hunting.

Yep. I have been going to Cox Creek, or Whitetail Creek or Lynx Creek in the Bob Marshall Wilderness since 1985, but I doubt I will go back. I hunted before the wolves and after.

I'm not much in to conspiracies but if the anti hunters wanted to come up with a plan this would have been a good one.

 

[Art Eatman]

buck, as with many possible hazards, the odds may be low but the stakes can be very high. Think homeowner's insurance, or a CHL.

 

[Ankeny]

History and facts show us we can have both, in healthy numbers that provide a good balance, with enough excess to hunt, with enough left over to propagate the species and for those folks that just want to see them in the wild.

I don't know about areas that have elk and wolves, but in some areas around here that have wolves and grizzly bears, the elk numbers are pathetic. No need for hunting to maintain elk numbers far below carrying capacity.

 

[hartcreek]

I have a healthy deer and elk population and a small wolf pack in my area. Since introduction is not the right word as these animals were allowed to move in naturally the hunter frustration has gone up but the hunters that I encounter are some of the laziest losers I have ever seen.

They come in to the area and camp right where the animals were the day before the season opened and then proceed to drive up and down every cow path in their truck often with their loser comrads riding in the back of the truck with their bow or rifle at the ready.

Me I keep a trace mineral salt block out behind the cabin and my game cam shows me what is coming by If I am lucky and the animals not spooky I toss apples out to them. I rake pine needles and burn brush and limb trees and repair the roads and get my scent all over so that the animals can get accustomed to me. I fish the local rivers and streams and further spread out my scent.

Out in the field I have found reasons for less available deer and elk.....road kill and poachers is what I have seen.

 

[another pake]

The elk hunting situation is changing. I think that serious elk hunters understand that.

Whether someone trusts the numbers of the experts is their choice, but all indications are that...

1. The herd size has risen, to somewhere between 130 and 150,000.
2. Hunter success rates vary widely by area.
3. Weather effects, starvation, wolves, hunter success rates have not kept the herd from growing.
4. Distribution has changed. Dramatically in some areas.

PayAttention, This Is A Very Important Factor

5. Over 40% of the herd winter range on Private Property.

Elk Are Migratory.

If someone wished to have a successful elk hunting experience,

What Might They Do to increase their odds in the future?

 

[dook]

1. The herd size has risen, to somewhere between 130 and 150,000.

Where? On paper?

Elk Are Migratory.

Funny that they are all migrating AWAY from us instead of towards us. I think it's safe to say they're migrating into the bellies of wolves.

It's true that Elk spend much more time on private ranchland than they did before wolves. The non-hunting population sees them there and thinks the elk numbers are true. Yet those of us who go on foot in the mountains to all the places we hunted in years past, we find the old elk trails overgrown and unused. Elk droppings, when you see them are several seasons old.
The local game processing house says they have lost more than 3/4 of their business due to wolves.

 

[ZeroJunk]

Dook, you need to quit paying attention to what you see and just buy in to the propaganda.