OT: Wolf Watch - Page 4

Believe me, I'm chill, and the comment wasn't directed at you.  I don't have issues with anyone discussing their opinions "for" or "against".  I just believe there needs to be some facts or rationale provided to support those opinions, whatever they may be.  I was only making the comparison for the sake of the hypocrites to who it would apply.  For the ones that see no fault of their own, and judge others for what is IMO "lesser infractions in morality", which would in no way interere with their personal lifestyles.

daryl -- I agree

Daryl......understood...and agree. Excuse my "impulsive" rely.
Thank you for the original topic.....I find the information very interesting & informative.....please continue...
Respectfully,
Robin

I should also add, that even if we're not directly involved with the overbreeding/underproducing of dogs, as a group we seem to tolerate it much easier also, than the killing of wolves.

Facts,
there's the trick.

Who's facts?

I don't know where morality comes in to play either.

You either love the Wolves or you hate them, there seems to be little in between.

The out come will be decided by policy.
The Federal government will control their lands, and the states will have say over theirs.

From what I have read here there is much misinformation and misleading numbers.
The pictures are non-typical as well.

So...... is the discussion about saving the wolf population, or how many hunting permits to issue?
Is it about Elk populations and the hunting of Elk?

What is the point here?

Who is trying to convince who of what?

Just trying to get my bearings.

Moons.

I don't personally disagree with anything you've stated Moons, except perhaps that the human race needs to be extinguished.  It could go for a good "culling" IMO, but that's a bit extreme for what's to be discussed here.

The big wolf in the first pic, was taken in Sun Valley Idaho, where they've had a recent meeting last week as to how to deal with the issues as "last year wolves hunted them as they wandered through town".   The people whose lives it affects, are the ones who should be setting the policy.

http://www.magicvalley.com/news/local/article_5d7be22e-90b5-51e2-9c5d-23aa41e87c0f.html

I share your love of humans...lol

The policies are being debated as we speak from what I gather state by state and the federal government still has a hand in some policy regarding government lands and the status of the wolf.

I like knowing wolves are in the lower states, if the were abundant enough I would not mind hunting them.
That means on foot or horse back, not from a helicopter.   I'd love to hunt Elk as well. 
If I were a rancher I would not like losing my herd to the wild predators, depends on the numbers.
I lost animals here to the wild life, at some point it becomes too many.

You are right it is in the hands of those who live there except for the federal properties that we all have a say in.

I get a kick out of this guy I saw commenting that nature needs to be managed, I heard the same thing from foresters here in the National forest.

Who do they think managed it before we got here.

Anyway,
I was trying to figure out where the thread was heading.

Moons.

Nowhere in particular, just reporting.  There tends to be a single sided view, and my agenda is just to open some eyes.  The fact is, for those with any agenda, there is manipulation of public perception on both sides.

"Remember, pro-wolf groups make their living by prolonging this conflict. There is no real incentive for them to admit that wolves are overly recovered. Fundraising is their major motive and they've built a goldmine by filing lawsuits and preaching that nature will find its own equilibrium between predators and prey if man would just leave it alone. That's a myth.
http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/news/story?id=4950733

I do know there are several law suits in play.


Nature would find its own balance but only if man was not in the picture.

Thats not going to happen.

It will be interesting to see how the Polar bears and Churchill get along in the coming years.

Jackson Hole is another spot to watch.

Both sides of every issue tend to spin their point of view as the better part of the public have little else to go on.

The Nine is very real.


Moons.

Lav, down there in AZ there might be an excess of elk...Here we have too many deer and too many moose, but elk are not that common at all.  Right here in extreme northern Idaho, there are few wolves...In fact, aside from a couple of anecdotal sightings, I'm not entirely sure there are any here at all.  The elk population I'm referring to is the one directly affected by the large wolf packs around Yellowstone and surrounding areas.  There is absolutely no doubt about the decline of the numbers.  It has been confimed by government and non government sources.  The only question is whether there are as many as Fish and Wildlife says there are, or less.

Last year, deer season was reduced to a whole nine days, for some crazy reason...there are so many deer that the highways frequently have slaughtered animals littering the sides.

I don't hate the wolves.  Nor am I empassioned for them.  I think they are magnificent animals.  They are beautiful animals.  But they are not noble, honorable animals...Nature is not noble, or honorable.  They are brutal creatures.  Nature is a harsh reality, where only the strong survive and the weak are killed...Predators seek prey.  As for the killing of the 122 sheep in the pasture being parents teaching the young to hunt...Three wolves did all that.  What sort of lesson would killing that many sheep teach the pups?  At most, there were two offspring and a parent there, and I can't see any wolf killing that many...Kill one and feed, that's what they usually would do.  Yes, they don't always clean the kill down to the bones, but to just kill it and eat NOTHING, or to kill so many, and still eat nothing...That's just killing for the pure joy of killing, and that's not what the wolves used to do. Even the biologists are shocked by such behavior.

So we have the issue of non native wolves, the overkilling of the population of prey animals, and the excessive predation of the flocks of some of the ranchers and farmers...What does that tell us?  I'm not worried about it from the aspect of hunting, though all told, I prefer elk to deer any day.  Hunting isn't the issue here.  The pointless killing of the elk is.  If the wolf population is destroying the elk so rapidly, and the wolf population is continuing to skyrocket, soon they will exceed their food supply.  Then starvation will kill them off...Complain about the "slaughter of the wolves" if you want, but starvation would not be my preferred way to starve...I understand it's quite painful, though I daresay not as painful as being pinned by the nose by wolves while they tear out your guts so they can eat your baby, then being left for dead.

As for the farmers, I think I'd invest in some good Great Pyrenees or other livestock guardian breeds, and put a few out with my stock..They are very effective at stopping predators from damaging flocks or herds.  As for the wolves, I believe the area can handle only a small number of wolves, and if they exceed a certain number, they need to be hunted. 

Last note, on that page I read a comment wherein someone suggested infecting dogs with parvo and dropping them in areas where the wolf packs hunt..Don't know what effect that might have on the wolves. It seems to me that they would have some sort of natural immunity to parvo and other things since they live in the wild, not isolated from nature.

You can want to protect the wolves all you want, and they are awesome creatures, but there are numerous accounts of humans being stalked by wolf packs and single wolves, children mostly, in towns near wolf packs...Think about it.  If it was your child, would you want something done?

Crys