(Please be sure to follow this link to sign the the petition to Congress concerning the wolf problem)
The pictures you will see below are all taken in the Lolo Elk Management Zone 10 and 12. All that is except for 6 x 8 bull elk, which was taken 30 miles outside Libby, Montana in the Winter of 2008. I added it just to show that the wolves are also attacking and killing healthy adult bull elk for fun, and not for food. All these photos and and more were given to the Idaho Fish and Game officials IFG who refused to act upon the problem. You can bet that this problem is happening in every state that the government has released wolves into.
Like every other government bureaucracy, whether it be state or federal, the IFG has been infiltrated and taken over by leftist radicals who's aim is to ultimately stop hunting all together. These photos prove how bad the problem is in what was considered one of America's most prime elk hunting areas. Had the IFG been doing their job then they would have seen what these sportsmen saw in Lolo zone 10 & 12, the carnage was everywhere in plain site. One cannot help but ask how many hundreds of such carcasses are strewn about in the other elk management zones of Idaho. My guess is that hundreds more elk are being slaughtered in all the management areas of Idaho, they're just not being monitored by those who are paid to do so.
The IFG also claims that there are only about 1000 wolves in all of Idaho, but if they do not know about the carcasses laying about in plain site, how can they then claim that only 1000 wolves exist. It does give credence to those who claim there are over 2000 wolves in Idaho. Also, if the IFG is so inept in their management, then what does that say about the other states that have had Canadian gray wolves set free in there forests?
For those who may accuse me of spouting off on something I know nothing about, allow me fill you in on the damage the Canadian wolves have done to the elk herds in the once prime elk hunting area known as Lolo Zone 10 & 12. Below is a map that shows where the wolves were introduced into Idaho in the mid "1990"s.
A year before the department of Fish and Wildlife Service began their reintroduction program by releasing 35 Canadian gray wolves into the Frank Church-River of No Return
Wilderness area, there were 13,559 head of elk in Lolo Elk Management Zone 10 & 12. The management zone just South of Lolo in where the wolves were released. It's just me, but I find it a bit sick that they would release Canadian gray wolves just south of the most prime hunting area in the whole state. That's why I call it "Brewsters Killing Fields". Well as expected, by everyone but the government authorities, as of March 2010 there are only 2178 head of elk left, that makes 11,381 elk killed in 15 years. At this rate there will be no elk left in Lolo by 2013. As for the impact that the wolves have had on hunters, the authorities warned them from the beginning that when push comes to shove, it would be the hunters who suffer, not the program. That is pretty much what Wayne Brewster, a retired Biologist for the National Park Services and probably the main architect behind the wolf reintroduction program, told the hunting guides and outfitters in 1994 when said, "Wolf predation and harvest by man (hunting) are not compatible. Studies have shown that prey populations cannot withstand hunting by man and uncontrolled wolf predation. If wolves recover in an area where hunting is allowed, hunting would most likely be stopped or limited significantly for the benefit of wolf recovery. Studies on wolf recovery have estimated that hunting could be reduced by 50% in certain cases."After reading the book , "Decade of the Wolf: Returning the Wild to Yellowstone", by Douglas W. Smith. I came away with the understanding that Brewster was trying to do everything in his control to limit the hunters ability to continue hunting while expanding the ability for the wolves to become the problem they are today. Well here we are 15 years later and Brewster has achieved a good portion of his goal.
The chart above tells the story of how devastating the FWS program has been to the Lolo's elk population. Just like Wayne Brewster warned, man and wolf are not compatible, so now that there are 1,381 less elk then there was before the program started, the government has drastically limited the number of elk hunting licenses available to benefit the very animal that is responsible for the devastation. Out fitters are reporting a similar problem In the surrounding areas of Yellowstone National Park where another 41 Canadian Grays were released at the same time as Idaho's. The once numerous hunting outfitters have been run out of business due to elk hunting opportunities that have been reduced by as much as 90% since 1994. The most recent numbers I could find for Yellowstone are from 2005, but the numbers for the elk deprivation there is just as staggering as you can see in the chart below that I got from 2005 Winter edition of the Yellowstone Science Magazine.
Now just in case you are under the assumption that all the elk were killed for food, think again. The photos below are proof that wolves kill for fun, not just for food. Be warned though, because the photos are not pleasant to look at. These photos should put to rest the lies put forth by the left that wolves kill only for food, and then only the weak and the young. The Hunters were finally allowed to hunt wolves in Montana, & Idaho, but after the season ended it was obvious that the government needs to up the number allowed to be killed. In Idaho the hunters were given a quota of 27 wolves, but only 13 were killed.
Considering the way the wolves have decimation the elk herds, next years the quota needs to be much higher, because 27 was woefully inadequate to control the problem. Make no mistake, this problem was created by Wayne Brewster and his political connections that have an agenda favoring the wolves at the expense of ungulate herds, sportsman, hunters, farmers and ranchers. Something that the citizens living all around the country will eventually learn if the left gets its way and the government sets loose Canadian gray wolves in other states like California, Arizona, New England and even some Southern states as they would like.
For some strait facts about wolves, I would suggest an excellently written article by T. R. Mader, the Research Director of Abundant Wildlife Society of North America ,titled THE WOLF: MYTH, LEGEND & MISCONCEPTION. In my opinion, Mr Mader did a masterful job of destroying the pro-wolf argument, leaving little or no room for debate.
This bull elk was found killed but not eaten 30 miles outside of Libby, Montana in the Winter of 2008.
The photo on the left shows blood where a wolf landed that the bull elk hooked by the horns and threw in his struggle to survive. The body print of the wolf in the snow is evident. The photo to the right gives you an idea of how big one of the wolves were by the size of his paw compared to the man's hand. There are plenty reports of 180 lb wolves roaming in Idaho like the one Brett Pitcher of Coeur d'Alene shot in the St Joe area this past winter.
The remaining photos are all from Idaho's
Lolo Elk Management Zone 10 & 12
Lolo Elk Management Zone 10 & 12
This cow elk, from which the fetus had been torn, died in this man's arms.
Wolf Overpopulation
Worldwide wolf abundance-wolves are NOT endangered
Canada ----------------- 50,000 wolves
Alaska ------------------- 11,000 wolves
Europe and Asian ----- 60,000 to 100,000 wolves (estimated)
Please go to Big Game Forever to learn more about the Wolf overpopulation that is dramatically damaging and even eliminating entire populations of Moose, Rocky Mountain Elk and other large ungulate populations. Wolf predation is erasing decades of effort and hundreds of millions invested in rebuilding healthy big game populations.
Ill-advised experimentation and anti-management philosophy continues to be pushed by extreme animal rights and anti-sportsmen special interest groups. This war on the west threatens big game herds, proactive state wildlife management, use of renewable wildlife resources and the western way of life. Our success ensures that delicate wildlife populations are restored to healthy levels.
Our combined effort is needed to make sure that these giants of the forest are not lost for generations to come in our wilderness areas. We must act now to protect our future. Help us win this battle by signing our petition.
About Me: I am a born again Christian who enjoys talking religion and politics. I have always believed that it is the Christian's obligation to understand the workings of our government as well as they do the precepts of God. Jesus tells us to be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves". (Mark 10:16) So it is with this understanding that I approach life. I was born in the Midwest, and while I may have grown up in Northern Minnesota, I have earned my degree in knowledge and understanding from the many regions of America and Europe that I have either lived in or visited as an adult.
Moan, sob, cry - not! Although I support hunting as a means to carry out the role of predators that have been lost due to human interactions, I can't support this. It comes down to this: who was there first, the wolves or humans? I would say the wolves belong there and we humans are only a guest in their world.
Also, the logic that wolves prevent hunting is ridiculous! If that was the case, then Native Americans would have starved to death trying to compete with wolves. Rather the case was they lived in harmony with the world around them and took sustainable levels of game. Today there are too many hunters, especially those just looking for trophy game. We as a species have taken over to much habitat, and gone beyond being stewards of the planet, to being the rapers of the planet.
Maybe the reason these elk are dying is because they were weak? Ever heard of survival of the fittest? Those elk obviously were not afraid of wolves, which they need to relearn, or they were not fast enough runners. Either way they did not survive the game of life. Whether a wolf killed it for fun or food is regardless of the fact the animal was the weak link. That wolf is providing a service to nature, as it was designed to do, and it ancestors also probably killed for fun. But it is a natural service that is the duty of a wolf, by its design by nature, to hunt and kill. Also other animals, such as scavengers, could feed off those carcasses, thereby completing the cycle of nature.
I think you're problem is that you believe humans own the world and should be the dominant species on the planet. It's a delusional world view brought about from your religious dogma. Humans are not special and we are not here to dominate the planet in the name of a sky god.
So get over it and just enjoy the woods for the raw nature of it! If you are blessed by it with the bounty of meat from a elk on your hunt, then good for you. Just don't criticize how the wolf lives it life and we won't criticize how you live yours.
To start with, these animals you see in the photos were neither weak nor already dying. They were all very healthy and vigorous animals who were killed for sport by the wolves. What you fail to realize, is the present condition, or at least as it was before the Canadian wolves were brought down, was created and preserved for the hunters by the hunters.
Check out the numerous organizations that have spent millions of club member dollars, plus a lot of money from regular citizens who pay for hunting licenses, along with the taxes of the very citizens the government refused to listen to. The money from the hunters and hunting groups has been used to make sure the hunting game was were they needed it to be as to keep it healthy and safe for all hunters involved. Now thanks to the introduction of these killing machines the forests are neither safe nor healthy.
The introduction of a killing machine like the Canadian wolf was done without any input from the various organizations that finally were able to achieve the balance that was needed in the forests and hunting areas to have a healthy hunting system and a healthy forest with a wide range of predators. The wolf was not needed to balance things out, things were already balanced.
What they did by bringing in a non indigenous animal like the Canadian gray, was destroy a balance in the wild that took decades to create. All, as I pointed out in the article, to limit the hunters, not help them. That is the very statement from the man, Wayne Brewster, who is credited with instituting the whole wolf program himself.
As I said the wolves dropped into Yellowstone Park and Central Idaho were not Rocky Mountain wolves, also known in the scientific community as Canis Lupus Irremotus, which are smaller animals that hunted in pairs and were the indigenous species of the Northwestern Ecosystems of Idaho, Yellowstone, Wyoming, and Montana. Rather, they were the Canadian Grey Wolf also known as the Canis lupus Occidentalis. THis Canadian species, is a super sized predator which hunt in super sized packs, and evolved through the years so they could keep up with the caribou herds which they would have to chase for hundreds of miles, and be big enough to bring them down.
That is why we are now seeing packs of 15 to 22 Canadian grays in Wyoming. The sad truth is that thank to the idiots who introduced these killing machines, the smaller Rockey Mountain wolves are almost extinct because the bigger Canadian one have killed them off. Leave it to a bunch of liberal wackos to cause more problems then they ever fix. Now we have the Canadian wolves living and breading in the areas that were once dominated by wolves which averaged about 40 to 60lbs each. The Canadian Grays on the other hand average 80 to 180 lbs as seen in this article of a hunter who shot a 180lb wolf, and said that after he shot it, he saw another one just as big run off. That's makes two wolves at 180 lbs, how many more wolves that big are out there, but have not been confirmed? Oh yea, I do not expect any pro-wolf group, nor the state or federal authorities to admit they see them when they refused to admit what was happening in Lolo 10 & 12.
One more thing, when the government was being sued in court to stop the introduction of these Canadian wolves, it was none other than the National Audubon Society, Predator Project, Sinapu, and Gray Wolf Committee that joined the anti wolf farmers and hunters in litigation to stop the program from ever being started. I am talking about animal rights organizations who were primarily concerned with protecting the endangered status of naturally occurring Rockey Mountain gray wolves or better known to them as the Canis Lupus Irremotus. They were concerned that naturally occurring wolves which wandered into the recovery areas would essentially lose their “endangered” designation and would mistakenly be treated as part of the experimental population, or that the larger Canadian wolves would decimate what was left of the endangered Rockey Mountain wolf. (Which Has Happened).
In the resulting joined lawsuit, the first allegation was that defendants introduction of “Canadian” gray wolves, which were neither threatened nor endangered, violated the requirements of ESA section 10 (j). They wanted to show that the fact that the wolves indigenous to the northern Rocky Mountain region (Canis Lupus Irremotus) and the Canadian wolves used for reintroduction (Canis Lupus Occidentalis) were two different subspecies of gray wolf. They also argued that because the two types of wolves were distinct subspecies, the Recovery Plan would have an adverse impact on the conservation of the irremotus subspecies because of possible interbreeding, thus the Canis Lupus Iiremotus would cease to exist.
Thanks to the introduction of the Canadian Grays, not only are we seeing the destruction and devastation ofg the elk populations around Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, we are also seeing the complete annihilation of the very animal they claimed they wanted to save, the Canis Lupus Iiremotusthe.
You sir are not a hunter or you would not make the accusations you make. You are not even a very good animal rights wacko, or else you would know for which I speak is true.
Hello,
This is an interesting post. I live in California and am far removed from most hunting but we have our fair share of animal activism.
I did not know the wolves that were introduced were the larger species. That does not make sense if one is trying to restore the previous ecological balance.
My dad lives in Montana and commented how people from elsewhere were always trying to tell them how to manage wildlife. From a city dwellers perspective - most do not see ranching but just the meat in the supermarket. I think the people that live there should have the most say in how to manage their wildlife resources.
My ancestors are homesteaders in Montana and I can tell you for a fact, the wolf that roamed the West was no bigger then about 50 lbs average, which is much, much smaller than the Canadian gray they replaced it with.
The Canadian gray they brought down in 95 & 96 normally get about 100 to 180 lbs on a regular basis as I stated in the article. Regardless of what the pro-wolf crowd claims.
Oh, by the way, I also have about 1/6 Blackfoot in my ancestry, and I have had legends and stories handed down to me from the Nez Peirce who are supposed to be the caretakers of the Wolf program in Idaho.
If you look at the devastation in Idaho's Lolo Elk Management zone 10 & 12, you will find that my native brothers are doing a very poor job of what the white man's government is paying them for.
You said "From a city dwellers perspective - most do not see ranching but just the meat in the supermarket."
I would agree. I was told by a friend on another site I usually frequent that as far as city folk are concerned, an egg comes from the dairy section at Safeway, not from a chickens butt. Also, do not even tell them how sausage is made.
Thanks for commenting, I hope you come by and comment frequently.
By the way, what part of Montana is your dad living in? My ancestors finally settled down just outside the Gallatin Canyon area in what is now Gallatin Gateway. Gateway is about t20 miles Southwest of Bozeman. I met my wife in Bozeman, even though I grew up in Northern Minn. I still have relatives and friends in Gateway, Thee Forks, Belgrade, Livingston, Great Falls, & Bozeman. I currently reside just outside Chico Ca.
One more thing, nice site you have at My Self Defense Blog.
Things like this break my heart because I know full well that there's no way this is going to change. The way things are run is that fools who have no business whatsoever holding power or making decisions like this end up making them.
Meanwhile the federal government controls massive portions of lands in the West, making it all but impossible for change to occur on the one level where it could--on the state level.
Meanwhile, as usual, the farmers will pay for this. Not that they haven't already paid for it as the swarms of Californians have moved in and driven up property taxes and the like.
I'd personally like to introduce some wolves in a non grower's backyard. Heaven knows that kid is far removed from the situation to speak with that kind of ignorance.
Sadly, that is the aim of those who support the UN. They want everyone in the cities so they can control them easier. If no one feels safe in the forests, then only the government authorities who are allowed guns will be there. That is another reason they have banned weapons in Federally controlled National parks.
Now a judge has even ordered the wolves be put back on the protected list so they cannot be hunted. When a predator like the wolf can not be hunted they will then become the hunter, and one day man will become their prey when they have wiped out all that is in their path.
Thanks for commenting
To get the point accross these wolves need to be relocated somewhere back East where they will really be felt. Imagine what they could do in some of the National Parks back there, and the surrounding forests. Someplace near Washington DC.
Great information.
You have an excellent point. Matter of fact, I think we should reintroduce them back into Central Park of New York. After all, the citizens of New York City just don't realize how much better the park would be if there were some actual wolves that walked on all four still running around instead of the ones on two feet.
We could also reintroduce a couple of mountain lions. But instead of the kind that used to inhabbit the area, we should bring some from Africa, or better yet a few Bengal Tigers from india. I mean if we learned anything from the introduction of Canadian gray wolves into Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming it would be that a cat is a cat regardless of the subspecies like it is in the case of wolves. Right?
There is too much misinformation here to address. So I will lock onto only a couple points, which you will probably fight and foam:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/
Gray wolves have very keen senses. They have learned that humans are a threat. Some of these photos are of fresh kills, some of these may be scavenged winter kills, and others it is difficult to say what killed them. Pseudo-ignoring this, the main point is that wolves will return to a carcass over the course of weeks. They will not stand around eating in most locations when there is human disturbance. The exceptions include places like Yellowstone National Park where wolves are not hunted and are habituated to consistent human presence. All the same, if a carcass was approached this closely for photographs the wolves would flee.
Look at the photographs with the fresh wolf tracks. These are very recent kills that were either observed and the wolves chased away, or were stumbled upon immediately after the deed was done. Undoubtedly if the carcass was left alone the wolves would return.
The first photograph of yet another fresh kill looks to have been taken from a helicopter or fixed wing aircraft. In areas where USDA's Wildlife Services guns down wolves, or where wolves have been hunted from or tranquilized from these machines, it's a given that they will dart for cover. Why don't you contact someone like John A. Vucetich and ask him if he has any photographs you might peruse of efficiently consumed moose carcasses. These are animals 10 times the size of any wolf commonly reduced to only those bones which cannot be broken. They'll even consume the hide. I bet he has more than a couple handfuls of cherry picked photographs. And he knows how to read the signs, is intimate with predator-prey interactions and outcomes.
Aside from the disturbance aspect, what is left in between gorging depends on the number of wolves in a pack and how much can be consumed in a single sitting. Nothing in nature is wasted, regardless. What wolves are not able to consume is enjoyed by a whole host of other organisms. From bears to beetles to soil. Kill sites are highly beneficial to local ecosystems.
Also these wolves are the same subspecies that roamed the region historically. Averaging 80-110lbs. Same weights as those documented during their extermination. This was well researched before they were reintroduced. Wolves do not recognize human lines drawn on a map. They do not cap their howls with an "eh". They are cursorial pack hunters that disperse far and wide to find new haunts to raise family. An invisible line that only existed in human minds fairly recently did not keep wolves from spreading their genes up and down the spine of the Rockies.
There is just too much misinformation involved with your comment here to address, so I will lock onto one aspect of your comment\.
EVERY ONE OF THESE PHOTOS, PLUS 100's MORE HAVE BEEN TURNED OVER TO THE AUTHORITIES AND THEY FINALLY ADMITTED THERE IS A PROBLEM THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED.
Was that loud enough to get through your thick ignorant head?
This is a real problem, and too many like you would like to sweep the under the carpet and hopefully people like me will cave into your idiocy and just go away.
Too man hunters, farmers, and hikers have seen the wolves that have done these things and they are afraid. What part of fearing for your life do you not understand?
When one sees such destruction I would think that ome would realize that we need to step back and think twice about this problem.
Look, even the animal rights activists were against the introduction of these killing machines. Read the article that has the evidence about the court case, and you will see that you are wrong about the Canadian Gray wolf.
Go back to your concrete jungle and stay away from the woods, people like you only screw things up. And don't give me some crap about you having studied the problem and understand more than me because you DON"T live with these killing machines. It is ignorant people like you who force farmers, hunters, and normal citizens just trying to live a peaceful existence, to live with them. As far as you are concerned, all the damage and death that happens to these individuals you could care less\about.
I think it is time we re-introduce mountain lions back into New York's Central park, but instead of the natural mountain lions, we should bring Indian Bengal Tigers in. I mean what the hell, a cat is a cat right? The damage to people and pets be dammed.
Le3t me know where your family and relatives live so I can start protesting and demanding dangerous predators be released in their neighborhoods. After all, everyone should know what its like to live in fear of natures wildest animals that kill for fun because they are bored.
You're not thinking clearly, Chuck. You're being overly emotional.
I happen to be actively working to see that gray wolves do return to their ancestral lands here where I live. Sad to see so much irrational hatred continuing on in this day and age. The largest predator we have in our backyard just so happens to be puma concolor, amusingly enough. It is not active territory, though that isn't far at all. They use our creek as a corridor.
You seem to think that there are no wolf advocates living in the Northern Rockies, the southwest, or the Great Lakes. Boy are you mistaken.
It also seems more that you should be the one to go live in a concrete jungle where the big, mean predators won't get'cha. You seem jumpy. Scared of the shadows. Me? I appreciate the wild for what it is. I know how to behave around wildlife. Even those with big pointy teeth! As a native carnivore it simply isn't healthy wilderness without wolves. Wolves enrich biodiversity. Those ungulates you have good intentions for, poorly expressed, co-evolved alongside wolves for hundreds of thousands of years. "What but the wolf's tooth whittled so fine the fleet limbs of the antelope?"
Photographs of disturbed kill sites are meaningless other than to show what human interference looks like. Common sense should tell anyone that wolves are not going to feed whilst people hold up the head of a dead elk for a picture.
So, about that concrete jungle. Careful not to trip on your red cloak en route to those sterile, encrusted blights... bad falls kill more humans annually than most predators. Likely well more than all predation combined. A bold statement, but I did find an article detailing how in Wisconsin alone 918 people died from unintentional falls in 2008, more than died in motor vehicle crashes - 581.
Deep breaths.
Just because people die at a higher rate due to other activities is not a good argument to bring in another element that will kill more, regardless of how few numbers of humans would be killed. The government outlaws and puts restrictions on all types of products and activities because as few as a couple hundred people in the whole country are harmed over a 5 year period.
You seem to come from the school of thought that man is no better than the wolf, and in fact we should accept a death now and then at the jaws of such predators. Unfortunately there are many Americans that think like you, What should we as a society expect when for the last 35 years we have been murdering innocent unborn children at the clip of over a million a year just in America. The value of human life in America has been reduced to nothing mare than an inconvenience to the earth worshiping crowd that you belong to.
My faith does not allow me to put even one human life at risk for your desire to hear the sounds of a wolf howling in the forest. That is because I come from the school of thought that God put man in charge of the world and in such we are to take care of it, but not at the expense of human fatalities.
There are accounts of people, in every state that has an overpopulation of wolves, about the fear they have for their children, pets, and themselves. You bring up the Midwest, well even in Northern Minnesota the people living there are in fear of their lives. Here are just two articles of many I could cite that are being written about the troubles and fear those who live in rural parts of the country have with the wolves.
Rise of wolves putting Minnesota pets at risk
Growing wolf numbers renew tension over animal, By Bob Kelleher, Minnesota Public Radio
An interesting aspect of the PR article by Mr. Kelleher, is the comments that follow. One in particular is from a man who admits to being a bit of a tree hugger and he has had it with the likes of you who would rather see wolves in such an abundance that they have no fear of man. Mark my words, when a predator has no fear of man, man will soon become their prey. Here is his comment.
You tell me that because of my fear of the wolves that i should move to the city. Well there you go telling the exact truth of the whole wolf re-introduction program. The idea from the start was to eventually force humans to live in the big cities where they can be managed easier by the government then they can if they live in rural areas. You may say I am a nut for even thinking so, but there is even documented evidence both written, audio, and video of those on the left who would like to see American limited from where they can live and roam.
As for my fear of the wolves, II would not fear living around wolves if I could carry a weapon for protection, but the same government agency that has set these killers loose is also banning the possession of weapons in many places that men need to protect themselves from these predators in. My family was homesteaders in Montana, so do not think I do not know from where my understanding of the wolves behavior comes from. I can tell you plenty of stories that took place in Montana due to wolf and human contact. You seem to belong to the group of people who I refer to as the "Wolf Cult". Read the three part article I posted today about the truths that you and your type would rather ignore and lie about, just to get the ignorant masses who never leave the safety of their cities to believe that wolves are no more dangerous then their pet poodle pissing on their rug while they watch soap operas.
Due to the length and space the blog allows, I divided the article into three parts. Below are the links to all three installment of an article written by T. R. Mader who wrote this at the height of furor over the wolf re-introduction program in 1995 & 96. I posted it to give everyone a better understanding of the anger many ranchers, farmers, hunters, and even regular small town city folk have with a program that has proved to be everything those against the program warned about some 15 years ago.
Those like you have told many lies about the wolves and the reintroduction of them. You have had the MSM and the federal government on your side, but now the Americans are getting the truth. Unfortunately for you, the MSM does not carry the day with their lies anymore, and I and many like me will not back down. Regardless of how many of your kind attempt to obfuscate the issue by, trying to convince the ignorant masses that a dead human now and then, a few thousand lost pets, tens of thousands of prime elk, moose, or deer, is just the way things should be in nature.I live in eastern tennessee. My husband and I are active hunters. Recently my husband, two brothers and a number of friends traveled to wisconsin to participate in their bear chasing season. I have spent thousands of hours in the woods; many with others and quite a few alone. I have never been frightened of the woods or the wildlife it contains. However after viewing the pictures of the devastating loss of much loved and valuable bear hounds owned by my brother and a friend I am very much relieved we do not have wolves in our part of the country. Five dogs had a bear treed (not bothering the wolves) two lost their lives and the other three sustained bite marks on their flanks. The three ran for their lives absolutely terrified when they reached my brother. The visious attack and consumation of the two dogs in a very short time by a supposed pack of four wolves was shocking. It was obvious the dogs were partially consumed while still alive. The small reinbursement by the "STATE" not the federal gov. does not come close to replacing the numerous hours it requires to train a bear dog of Goldie"s caliber, to replace a beloved friend and companion or maintain a bloodline that my brother has fostered since he was a child. Goldie will be missed. For the prowolf activist, YOU CAN HAVE YOUR WOLVES!! Just keep them out west.
Thanks for your comment Sandra, but be very alert because the powers that be are deciding how to introduced these animals to your neck of the woods as I type this.
It is absulutely unbelieveable at the rearranging of information hunters will post to get their point across. As ulogoni mentioned, NO KILL can be consumed immediately as a whole. Do people eat everything in their fridge in one setting? For you hunters, do you eat the entire Elk in one setting? No! I have worked in the field researching many issues, and EVERY Wolf kill I have witnessed the pack ate what they could immediately, and came back in multiple settings to consume whatever they can. As for dogs (hunting dogs) being killed by Wolves. It is for the purpose of defending their territory and nothing more. If someonw broke into your home, would you not defend it? Wolves are territorial, which means they will defend their territories if they feel threatened by the others. Hunting dogs bark constantly, and when Wolves hear this and see them in their territories, they will attack to defend. Wolves CANNOT sport kill. Predators like Wolves do not have high stamina in active and excessive actions. For a Wolf to kill for no survival purpose, it will put them vulnerable to attacks from other conspecifics or heterospecifics. This is a learned behavior they have imprinted in themselves. This is an article written by a hunter or someone who benefits from hunters or hunting organizations. Ulogoni hit is right on the spot. If you don't believe me, check out "isleroyale.org/wolves. Rolf Peterson explains everything and has videos and photos to prove what I have explained.
if wolves are introduced here in new england we will kill them as for commies like brewister maybe he should be introduced to the wolves.
if wolves are introduced here in new england we will kill them as for commies like brewister maybe he should be introduced to the wolves.
What is it with people and wolves? Why do people hate them so much? More deer, elk and moose are killed by cars and hunters than by wolves. Sure, wolves may take only certain parts of their kill, if there is plenty of prey, as do all predators. But you hunters need to understand one simple fact: YOU don't NEED to go out have elk, deer or moose for dinner. The wolf does. Just because you don't like wolves does NOT give you the right to go out and exterminate them. Also, trophy hunting should be considered worse than what the wolves do, as trophy hunting degrades the gene pool by taking out the animals with the best genes. Predators kill what they can catch, usually the weak and injured, but HUMAN hunters take what is the strongest because they want that fancy rack on their wall. Humans are the worse plague on this planet. We are worse than rats. We overpopulate(by 4.5 BILLION!), we destroy, we pollute, we kill indiscriminately. We are heading our species toward extinction with our wanton disregard for nature and the "we are the only important species on the planet" attitude.
The more we take from this planet without care, the closer to extinction we get. And the Point Of No Return is probably about 20 years away. What kind of futrue do want your children and grandchildren to have? One where they know that their hunter parents helped to contribute to humanity's extinction?
Oh and just so you know, I have nothing against hunters who go out and get a deer or elk or moose to supplement their meat in the freezer. But if you ain't gonna eat it, don't kill it.
Grow up and get educated. You really should read everything on this page before making such an emotionally irrational comment.
This is the normal response from people who are absolutely clueless. Comparing the hunting in the past to now is evidence of pure ignorance.
Of course the Native Americans ability to hunt was not impeded. There were MILLIONS of game animals to choose from, not thousands.
Then there is the fact that THESE ARE NOT THE NATIVE WOLVES for this area. The *newly introduced*, not re-introduced wolves are of the subspecies Canis lupus occidentalis not the native Canis lupus irremotus. The difference? The occidentalis alphas can max out at 200 lbs. The irremotus tops at 135. The size difference also means the true native wolf eats fewer ungulates per animal, has to hunt elk in larger packs, and their size gives an elk a better fighting chance.
So once again your analysis proves to be not only faulty, but based on ignorance of the true facts.
You're what is called a poser. You start off saying you aren't against hunting, but then you spout all the same rhetoric, false information, and greenie crap that has no basis in reality. You are nothing more than a greenie kool-aid drinker.
Wolves don't take only the week and injured. They are gone in short order and then they hunt healthy animals. Unless you consider a pregnant elk to fall into weak or injured category. This is a fable perpetuated by the pro wolf organizations to make people think the wolf is such a noble animal, when they are like any other predator- vicious, opportunistic, and uncaring of their prey.
All wildlife has to be managed, there isn't enough land to allow for a natural balance. And when a totally new species is introduced without management, you are setting up an ecological disaster.
It's so sad that people fall for the tripe fed to them by people with no more concern for the wildlife than they have for a head of lettuce. If you really cared, you'd be up in arms, but you are to busy being wrapped up in your self righteous attitude. You care about nothing but your cause.
Personally, I admire the author for giving you your say. No matter how misguided it is.
Well, this is an interesting read. I searched for "wolves kill for fun" in order to get some info after a friend commented a few months ago that wolves do exactly that. Here's my first observation: the people who weigh in on the "wolves are bad, we should have left them killed off" side of things tend to bring an emotional, righteous attitude, and more than their fair share of grammatical / spelling mistakes to boot. Call it what you will, but I still value more highly the point(s) made by someone who can properly exercise the language in which they are trying to make said point. Second, it appears that, when faced with a counterpoint, however full of merit and void of emotion, the response is more contempt and derision, not a well-reasoned and well-backed argument. Here's the thing -- I came into this discussion willing to believe either side, depending on the information provided. "Gate" got the lead off hit, and then stumbled beyond comprehension from there. How you can just cast aside the arguments about "disturbed kill" sites is beyond me. OF COURSE the wolves won't hang out and eat with you watching! And just so you know, you don't get anywhere immediately labeling the people who put this plan into being as "liberal wackos." Full disclosure: I have lived in Colorado, Montana, California, and now Oregon. I know a thing or two about life in the American West. The brutally honest fact is that an indigenous animal was wiped from our country for the convenience of a select few (ranchers and, to a lesser extent, homesteaders.) Not because they were inherently evil, but because it was better for business. Usually, these days, we like to look back and see where decisions like that can be "undone." If ungulates are dying too easily at the "hands" of these animals, it is only because they lost their innate fear and/or defensive behaviors over the last century as we inadvertently created a massive population of these animals with very few remaining natural predators. You want to build a house on the Gulf Coast? You want to raise beef cattle in wolf territory? Have at it, but understand the risks. God has not given us permission to kill off everything we call a "risk" so that we can more easily put more steers or lambs through the slaughterhouse.
Yours truly,
A registered Republican and retired Marine Officer
Thank you John M., it was a joy to read your post.
What troubles me (like you) most about this issue is the fact that this is a species that mankind has practically exterminated largely to make cattle ranchin' easier. It flabbergasts me that people can be so heartless. If one were just to take the time to learn about wolves, and the way a pack operates, I find it hard to believe that a person could harbor hatred for these animals. Their complex relationships and the way each member of the pack has a specific role/job to do is amazing. A pack of wolves is a family, and resembles the way a human family interacts quite a bit. I wonder if this posts' 'author' has ever seen the way a pack of wolves reacts when new pups are introduced into the family. Yeah. True "Killing Machines."
People hardly recognize that our beloved household pet dogs all come from the wolf. So how about giving this animal who we have been slaughtering for so long, some damn respect? Let them exist.
You have no idea of that which you speak. You probably live in some bedroom city far away from the problem caused by your type of thinking. Sitting in front of your pc making a comment about an animal that if you ever ran across it you would crap your pants because for the first time in your life you would be faced with pure hatred for you. yea, wolves do not love you, they do not want to be pet by you, and if you have a pet dog with you the wolf will eat your dog in front of you like is were nothing more than a treat.
These animals are not like the ones that went extinct in the lower 48 states, they are Canadian grey wolves, and that is why even the leftists judges are giving a green light to ranchers to kill them. They are being introduced closer and closer to areas that are populated by citizens who live in bedroom cities like you now probably live in. Just last week a couple of these wolves decided to enter an area that is inhabited by humans living and farming. Their dog was tied up like the law requires these days in many areas, and when they woke up in the morning the wolves killed and ate their pet dog while it was tied up. All that was left was a bloody collar tied to a chain.
Wake up fool, or one day that will be your pet, or even worse your child.