OT: Wolf Watch - Page 11

This is a placeholder text
Group text

by michael49 on 27 March 2010 - 14:03

I have no first hand knowledge of the wolves,I live in the south. However I frequent a forum about bush life in the Alaskan wilderness, most of these people hate the wolves and would like to see them destroyed.There are plenty of first hand reports of wolves wiping out entire herds of elk and moose.When the natural prey is no longer available they quickly turn to another source for food. It seems dogs are one of their favorite foods and they are quite willing to enter the remote villiages and lure the dogs out, quickly killing and eating as many as possible.These are cunning animals that lure dogs away from safety on the pretense of being friendly and wishing to play.This is normally done by a solitary female, sometimes in heat,once the dogs are out of their safety zone they are ambushed by the rest of the pack that lies in wait.I have yet to read a thread where any one had any love for the wolf in this part of the country.Majestic creatures they are,but like all alpha predators they are a threat to man and his domesticated animals.Even in a remote area like the Alaskan wilderness the wolf population has to be controlled by man,otherwise it would quickly be overrun. Wolf population in Alaska is estimated at 7,500 - 11,000 with 11 - 20 % harvested each year

Pictures of moose kill by wolfpack

http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/photo_essay/photo_essay/moosekill.html

by Prager on 28 March 2010 - 06:03

1. Keep the dog under control and he will not get lured out by wolfs and eaten.
2. If you live near wilderness, then keep your valuable miniature horses in the barn or behind the safe fence. They could have been killed by coyote or bear too.
3.Wolf eats moose (and Bambie too?). Where is a problem?
4.Everybody(?!?) dislikes wolves in Alaska and everywhere where they live?
I do not know ....You are not doing any favors to your cause.
Prager

by LAVK-9 on 28 March 2010 - 16:03

If people are stupid enough to not have their animals protected from the wildlife then they probably shouldn't have those animals anyway. It is like the stupid neighbor here that had a Russian Blue cat...bout $1000 and left it out to be a mouser.Then he freaked out when it disapeared...DUH we are in a coyote area not to mention many birds of prey that could have taken off with little kittywitty.
If i knew how to attach a PDF file here I would and maybe it would educate some more people that need it. It is from biologists and other people that are out in the field studying the wolf packs and their social structure etc etc etc.Maybe Michele who has been awesome at explaining how to attach things on here will come about.Then I can post it.Till then it isn't worth arguing. It's like arguing over GSDs and Mals. People have their views.

by Jon luc on 28 March 2010 - 19:03

Either that man holding up the wolf is 3 feet tall, or that is a very
big wolf. It is sad to see such a creature hunted down. But to be
confronted by a pack would be frightening. If they are such a danger
why has there not been more reports about killing wolves. I would
think there would be some like dogs. They are the ancestor of the
domestic dog, the Grey wolf. I guess because the population was
reduced at a level there was not much press. When there natural food supply
runs low they eat what they can. They are carnivores.

by darylehret on 28 March 2010 - 23:03

"If people are stupid enough to not have their animals protected from the wildlife then they probably shouldn't have those animals anyway."

And people stupid enough to not protect their children from drive by shootings, sexual predators, and attend drug free schools shouldn't have children either. Even grown adults stupid enough to be jogging in Alaska deserve to be wolf-lunch too?

Would someone please educate her, so she can educute us? I can't wait.

Prager, the predatory habits of bears and coyotes differ quite a bit from that of wolves. If animals were criminals, then bears would be burglars, coyotes would be purse snatchers and shoplifters, and wolves would be serial killers, or rather gangs of serial killers. A closer comparison with killer instinct might be mountain lions, but they don't work with the "teamwork advantage" that wolves do, or go into extended killing frenzy for pleasure's sake. Anyone of these species are much easier and less of a danger to cohabitate with than the wolf.

by LAVK-9 on 29 March 2010 - 02:03

I am educated!! If there are grown up adults that are jogging in AK or anywhere....whether it is in a wildlife area or in the bad area of a city...they should always be aware of the surroundings and have something to protect themselves. If the Masai Tribes can live among the lions then people in the US should be able to live among wolves and other predatory animals. They use to hunt lions but now are stuards for them and protect them. Hmmm wolves or African lions...I think wolves are a bit safer and easier to deal with. I have handled both....the pressure of an African Lion are a bit more severe then the wolf. Plus the lions aren't as afraid of humans as wolves. Never heard some someone being attacked by a healthy wolf. More attacks by domesticated dogs the wolves. Like I said...if I knew how to post a pdf file I would post it and educate you!!!(if that is possible) I know a few biologists/scientists/wildlife researchers and people with wolf recovery programs that have been in the field and studying them for years....I think they know a bit more then you would.

by darylehret on 29 March 2010 - 02:03

OK then, this is quoting biologist Doug W Smith, the director of the wolf recovery program in Yellowstone.

I’m pro wolf, but I’m not against killing wolves when circumstances call for it. To have wolves, we’re going to have to kill some. And that’s a position that sometimes makes me unpopular. In taking a realistic look at land management, there are places that are flat out not good for wolves. I’m almost to the point of saying that when they show up in certain places, you should get rid of them; they’re going to cause problems.

One thing for the park, and possibly for the ecosystem as a whole, it seems that the population has hit its high point. When we first released the wolves, there was an unexploited prey situation. But now I think things are coming into an equilibrium. The park population actually went down this last year a little bit. I think the number of wolves in the park will probably be declining. I can see a situation in 10 years where we’ll have 35 percent fewer wolves.

Outside the park, we’ve probably reached the max there too. We’ve reached a social carrying capacity; not a biological carrying capacity but a social capacity. The probability that a wolf outside the park will survive from this moment until this time next year is only 55 percent. Which isn’t a sustainable population. The best case scenario outside the park would be to see the wolf population maintained where it is now, not decreased because of conflict with humans.

Now, this statement was made June 15th, 2005. Five years ago. SINCE then, the wolf population within Yellowstone has grown about 40 PERCENT, and if you observe the total growth including Montana and Idaho, it has DOUBLED. What part of ENOUGH do you not get? The trouble is, there's a lot of environmentalists that are posing as "experts", to further their agenda. Don't confuse the field biologists with the environmentalists, or the paper-shuffling experts writing their dissertations and theses from out of state universities that have never even seen a wolf, much less lived amongst them.

by LAVK-9 on 09 April 2010 - 00:04