U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to delist wolves nationwide in a few weeks

[mcb]

Seems to depend on what wolf expert you read some say they where in middle Tennessee some say they where not. The red wolf was. I will take either.

 

[buck460XVR]

Seems to depend on what wolf expert you read some say they where in middle Tennessee some say they where not. The red wolf was. I will take either.

Yes. The Red wolf was. From what I've read the Grey/Timber wolf never was. Could very well be some wolf/hybrids there tho. Those were a problem around here for a while. We had local folks breeding them because they were getting a premium price for them. When the bottom dropped out of the market, these folks just let them go. Same goes for when the appeal of having to feed and contain a wolf hybrid wore off. Folks just opened the pen and figured they do just fine on their own. These are the ones that have no real fear of humans because they were around humans and fed by them.

 

[CraigC]

I will take either.

Simple question. Why?

 

[MaxP]

Simple question. Why?

I think lots of folks like the idea of wolves.

 

[CraigC]

So no one wants to share why they think reintroducing wolves is a good idea?

 

[Blue Brick]

So no one wants to share why they think reintroducing wolves is a good idea?

I already did. They are important to balance out the ecosystems.

 

[CraigC]

And I asked "who said they're out of balance"? You don't think 330million humans have balanced out the prey?

 

[daniel craig]

With how out of control the deer population is here and how ineffective hunters are in managing it, is LOVE to see the wolf population come to Western NY and grow stronk.

 

[daniel craig]

I already did. They are important to balance out the ecosystems.

Yeah. Have you seen the documentary on how much Yellowstone changed for the better over all after wolves were introduced? That to me combined with out of control deer populations in some areas makes me feel like a better balance is needed and that wolves are part of that balance.

 

[CraigC]

Sorry folks but wolves aren't running down healthy deer. If they have a choice between a healthy whitetail and your dog, your dog is going to lose every time. Same for calves, sheep, goats, housecats, etc.. They eat what they want, not what you want them to.

Yeah. Have you seen the documentary on how much Yellowstone changed for the better over all after wolves were introduced? That to me combined with out of control deer populations in some areas makes me feel like a better balance is needed and that wolves are part of that balance.

Who produced that documentary?

 

[Blue Brick]

And I asked "who said they're out of balance"? You don't think 330million humans have balanced out the prey?

The organizations that reintroduced the wolves.

No I don't. Do you think there are 330 million hunters in the United States hunting deer?

 

[daniel craig]

Sorry folks but wolves aren't running down healthy deer. If they have a choice between a healthy whitetail and your dog, your dog is going to lose every time. Same for calves, sheep, goats, housecats, etc.. They eat what they want, not what you want them to.



Who produced that documentary?

I mean, I’ll double check but what you described sounds more like how coyotes are explained to me and not wolves.

 

[CraigC]

The organizations that reintroduced the wolves.

No I don't. Do you think there are 330 million hunters in the United States hunting deer?

It doesn't matter if they hunt or not. The ecosystem has been fundamentally and profoundly changed by our presence. It cannot be ignored.

 

[CraigC]

I mean, I’ll double check but what you described sounds more like how coyotes are explained to me and not wolves.

I just watched a security video of a pack of wolves killing and eating two dogs last week.

 

[WrongHanded]

And I asked "who said they're out of balance"? You don't think 330million humans have balanced out the prey?

Not really, Craig. The issue as I see it, is that we really have no good point of reference as to what level the ungulate populations should be at, prior to the European settlement of the US and the near complete irradiation of Grey Wolves in the lower 48. So the numbers we have in some areas may be artificially high, as a result of removing an Apex Predator half a century or more ago.

However, we do have ecological studies based in Yellowstone National Park, documenting the state of flora and fauna prior to the reintroduction, and continuing from that point. As I understand it, the reintroduction had a cascading effect on the health and balance of the ecosystem within the park. And the effect was for the better.

I also have heard that in the East, Coyotes are now in some cases hunting in packs, and growing larger. There's also some new hybrid called a CoyWolf, or something. My understanding is that Wolves kill Coyotes. This is documented in the YNP reintroduction.

I've also heard that due to the increasing levels of agriculture in the Midwest - and consequently an abundance of food, and lack of natural predation - the Whitetail deer population is becoming so large as to be somewhat of a problem.

You're correct that wolves do not go after healthy animals, when easier prey is available. But they also 'prefer' to stay away from human activity. So they prey on the weak animals in the herds whenever possible. They are uneffected by CWD, so they do keep it from becoming an issue. They also keep the herds moving and often broken up, which helps prevent CWD from spreading.

In the areas where wolves come into contact with human activity, they need to be controlled. But, as many have said, they balance the natural ecosystem, in a way that even 330M humans cannot.

 

[CraigC]

However, we do have ecological studies based in Yellowstone National Park, documenting the state of flora and fauna prior to the reintroduction, and continuing from that point. As I understand it, the reintroduction had a cascading effect on the health and balance of the ecosystem within the park. And the effect was for the better.

And I have heard it both ways, depending on who it is telling the story. As evidenced in the link I provided, the negative effect is very, very often downplayed. For instance, if you gauge the negative effect by the number of monetary claims of wolf damage but make it exceedingly difficult to successfully file those claims, the numbers will appear artificially low. As they do.

The problem here is that when the wolves are introduced, they are 100% protected. By federal law, unless they are threatening human life, they cannot be molested. What that means is that if wolves are eating your livestock or your pet, you can legally do nothing to stop it. It takes years to get them delisted and then it's put upon the hunting/trapping/ranching community to control them. This is not something to be taken as a light-hearted experiment just because 'some' people think wolves are cool.

Not to even get into the issues surrounding the species of wolf being introduced. A much larger Canadian variety than what was here originally.

 

[WrongHanded]

And I have heard it both ways, depending on who it is telling the story. As evidenced in the link I provided, the negative effect is very, very often downplayed. For instance, if you gauge the negative effect by the number of monetary claims of wolf damage but make it exceedingly difficult to successfully file those claims, the numbers will appear artificially low. As they do.

I may be mistaken, but with talk of "monetary claims" and "wolf damage", I think we're speaking of two different aspects of reintroduction. My point was solely based on the natural ecosystem, and not on an effect to humans or their property. I do realize that certain packs have a negative impact on livestock and pets, but the actions of those packs should not be held against all wolves. Those packs should be destroyed, and I personally knew someone who's job it was to do just that. I'm not saying it's 100% effective.

The problem here is that when the wolves are introduced, they are 100% protected. By federal law, unless they are threatening human life, they cannot be molested. What that means is that if wolves are eating your livestock or your pet, you can legally do nothing to stop it. It takes years to get them delisted and then it's put upon the hunting/trapping/ranching community to control them. This is not something to be taken as a light-hearted experiment just because 'some' people think wolves are cool.

The more wolves we have, and the more States we have them in, the less protected they will be from hunting or removal (read destruction) in the case of problem packs.

Not to even get into the issues surrounding the species of wolf being introduced. A much larger Canadian variety than what was here originally.

As has been discussed up thread, the Grey Wolf is the same species that was eradicated in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Washington, etc. as it is in Canada. They just grow a little bigger in colder climates or where prey is larger, and a little smaller in warmer climates with smaller prey. It's not a different species. Unfortunately, the internet (and hatred) has way of creating "fact" out of fiction. Often for the purposes of propaganda.

I haven't brought this up previously, because it hasn't been terribly relevant. But for 18 months, I lived and work at a captive wolf refuge. I was exposed to a lot of factual literature, as well as many very knowledgeable individuals. Some of whom directly assisted with the reintroduction program in YNP, or were part of research and study teams post-reintroduction. I do not claim to be any kind of wolf expert, nor do I claim that my experience with captive wolves is anything akin to observing wild wolves. But I do consider myself somewhat educated on the subject.

I have met people who think the only good wolf is a dead wolf. Just as I have met many people that think wolves should be in the wild and completely protected, regardless of their actions and effects on humans. I believe the best course of action is somewhere between these two extremes.

 

[Reeferman]

It’s not the wolf’s that are causing issues up here where I’m from it’s the two legged ones that are allowed to hunt anytime anywhere and any amount that are decimating the elk and moose populations.

 

[buck460XVR]

This is and always has been a highly controversial subject. For either side to gain, the other has to give something up. What it comes down to, do the benefits outweigh the disadvantages? Hard for anyone to deny the benefits of the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone. Not only did they control the numbers of elk and the amount of damage they did to the habitat within the park and to crops outside the park, but their presence, actually increased the number of Bison in the park, and increased the number of beaver in the park to levels they were when the first Mountain men came to trap. The introduction of wolves to Yellowstone resulted in 150,00 more visitors every year, that came just to see wolves and with them, they bring about $35 million extra, to the local economy. Is that worth more than a few hunters going home empty handed? Maybe a few calves lost in a winter storm? Everyone has an opinion. Which does the greater good for all?

Yes, wolves will occasionally prey on domestic livestock and pets. Especially when they haven't been hunted and have lost their fear of man and his habitations. But it's actually much less than many folks want us to believe. The idea of wolves regularly preying on small children......pretty much a fairy tale here in the U.S. Most attacks on humans are by rabid wolves, and even that number is low compared to other rabid animal attacks. The biggest risk to domestic animals around here is to hunting dogs. Household pet dogs are very rarely targeted. Most of the dogs targeted are hounds, either running wolves, running coyotes, running bears or running bobcats. While an occasional bird dog is targeted, that too is rare because of the close proximity to the hunter. While sometimes the wolves are just protecting themselves, more often it's because the dogs got to close to a den site, a rendezvous site or a fresh kill. Plott hounds(bear dogs) seem to be the number one hound killed by wolves in Wisconsin almost every year. Miscellaneous varieties of coon hounds makes up the majority of the rest. Basically comes down to dogs being far from their owners. This is why our DNR posts warnings of where den and rendezvous sites are. Dogs don't seem to read very well tho. The average reimbursement for a hunting dog killed by wolves in our state is $2500. As for cats....if they are of your property and unattended, they are considered feral and are subject to removal. One reason our DNR is so stringent about verifying a wolf kill before paying out any monies is they huge amount of fraud that folks commit in attempt to get damage payments. For every actual verified wolf depredation on domestic livestock, there is one that was said to be wolf, but actually was coyote or domestic dog.

No body is claiming that having wolves around is all Rainbows and Unicorns. But for what they do for the environment, the habitat and the local economy, intrinsically and extrinsically, in the eyes of many, outweighs the cons. As for man doing such a great job of keeping nature in balance....that too is a fairy tale. Man has manipulated wildlife numbers for years for his benefit. Kinda why he has reintroduced wolves. More manipulation In my state, there was no reintroduction, just the protection order made their population grow. A little over a century ago, my local area was in the original breeding range of the lowly passenger pigeon. At one time, a billion of them nested here in the Oak Savannah that was on the edge of the Central Outwash plains. 3 decades later....they were gone. Completely. Yep, good job there. This was at the same time the idea of wolf elimination was endorsed. Oh yeah, those Oak Savannahs? They're gone too. Farms and Cranberry Bogs. Do farms and cranberry bogs make money for folks? Sure they do. Does that justify eliminating a natural resource? Everyone has an opinion.

 

[daniel craig]

This is and always has been a highly controversial subject. For either side to gain, the other has to give something up. What it comes down to, do the benefits outweigh the disadvantages? Hard for anyone to deny the benefits of the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone. Not only did they control the numbers of elk and the amount of damage they did to the habitat within the park and to crops outside the park, but their presence, actually increased the number of Bison in the park, and increased the number of beaver in the park to levels they were when the first Mountain men came to trap. The introduction of wolves to Yellowstone resulted in 150,00 more visitors every year, that came just to see wolves and with them, they bring about $35 million extra, to the local economy. Is that worth more than a few hunters going home empty handed? Maybe a few calves lost in a winter storm? Everyone has an opinion. Which does the greater good for all?

Yes, wolves will occasionally prey on domestic livestock and pets. Especially when they haven't been hunted and have lost their fear of man and his habitations. But it's actually much less than many folks want us to believe. The idea of wolves regularly preying on small children......pretty much a fairy tale here in the U.S. Most attacks on humans are by rabid wolves, and even that number is low compared to other rabid animal attacks. The biggest risk to domestic animals around here is to hunting dogs. Household pet dogs are very rarely targeted. Most of the dogs targeted are hounds, either running wolves, running coyotes, running bears or running bobcats. While an occasional bird dog is targeted, that too is rare because of the close proximity to the hunter. While sometimes the wolves are just protecting themselves, more often it's because the dogs got to close to a den site, a rendezvous site or a fresh kill. Plott hounds(bear dogs) seem to be the number one hound killed by wolves in Wisconsin almost every year. Miscellaneous varieties of coon hounds makes up the majority of the rest. Basically comes down to dogs being far from their owners. This is why our DNR posts warnings of where den and rendezvous sites are. Dogs don't seem to read very well tho. The average reimbursement for a hunting dog killed by wolves in our state is $2500. As for cats....if they are of your property and unattended, they are considered feral and are subject to removal. One reason our DNR is so stringent about verifying a wolf kill before paying out any monies is they huge amount of fraud that folks commit in attempt to get damage payments. For every actual verified wolf depredation on domestic livestock, there is one that was said to be wolf, but actually was coyote or domestic dog.

No body is claiming that having wolves around is all Rainbows and Unicorns. But for what they do for the environment, the habitat and the local economy, intrinsically and extrinsically, in the eyes of many, outweighs the cons. As for man doing such a great job of keeping nature in balance....that too is a fairy tale. Man has manipulated wildlife numbers for years for his benefit. Kinda why he has reintroduced wolves. More manipulation In my state, there was no reintroduction, just the protection order made their population grow. A little over a century ago, my local area was in the original breeding range of the lowly passenger pigeon. At one time, a billion of them nested here in the Oak Savannah that was on the edge of the Central Outwash plains. 3 decades later....they were gone. Completely. Yep, good job there. This was at the same time the idea of wolf elimination was endorsed. Oh yeah, those Oak Savannahs? They're gone too. Farms and Cranberry Bogs. Do farms and cranberry bogs make money for folks? Sure they do. Does that justify eliminating a natural resource? Everyone has an opinion.

Yeah honestly I wish they would bring wolves to New York because our deer population is a huge problem the number of deer and vehicle collisions up the number of ticks carried around by deer is up, deer you are so plentiful in some areas that forests can’t regrow to the way they used to be because dear completely browsing. There are even some areas where we’ve tried to increase human hunting and it showing to be not very effective for controlling the deer population’s even cullings aren’t that effective. Sure wolves might not hunt down the healthy deer but they might kill a few more fawns and thereby help with our population.

 

[MaxP]

Yeah honestly I wish they would bring wolves to New York because our deer population is a huge problem the number of deer and vehicle collisions up the number of ticks carried around by deer is up, deer you are so plentiful in some areas that forests can’t regrow to the way they used to be because dear completely browsing. There are even some areas where we’ve tried to increase human hunting and it showing to be not very effective for controlling the deer population’s even cullings aren’t that effective. Sure wolves might not hunt down the healthy deer but they might kill a few more fawns and thereby help with our population.

You all have bigger problems in New York than deer populations!

 

[daniel craig]

You all have bigger problems in New York than deer populations!

It’s really not as bad as all that.