KXLY.com: First kill reported in Idaho wolf hunt

[The 12th Commandment]

If did a google search on this, and found out that:

http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/ciwc-narrative.htm

From Wiki which is probably a little less biased I think (if it's correct:silly:).

"Wolves have on occasion been observed to engage in acts of surplus killing. This phenomenon is common when wolves target livestock.[82] In the wild, this usually occurs in late winter or spring when deep snow impedes their prey's escape.[82][83]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_wolf#Dietary_habits

If I implied they do that all the time I was incorrect. But I've heard of it happening a number of times in the Gila Wilderness close to me where they are reintroducing the Mexican gray wolf currently (to much controversy). Just anecdotal.

[karmacop]

From Wiki which is probably a little less biased I think (if it's correct:silly:).

"Wolves have on occasion been observed to engage in acts of surplus killing. This phenomenon is common when wolves target livestock.[82] In the wild, this usually occurs in late winter or spring when deep snow impedes their prey's escape.[82][83]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_wolf#Dietary_habits

If I implied they do that all the time I was incorrect. But I've heard of it happening a number of times in the Gila Wilderness close to me where they are reintroducing the Mexican gray wolf currently, to much controversy. Just anecdotal.

Sounds about right. I found another web site that mentioned that surplus killings usually happen in the winter, and that the wolves would usually come back to the carcasses later to feed on them.

[ljs]

So, unless you live in a dirt hut and eat berries, you can't talk about environmental issues? That's ridiculous. You bringing up recycling is just totally changing the subject. We're talking about whether these wolves should be hunted. The merits of a person's position on wolf hunting has absolutely nothing to do with that person's lifestyle or environmental habits. If you want to talk about recycling, start a new thread.

.

hey, you are the one who said to me,

And you seem to place no instrinsic value, or even any value to humans, in not destroying nature or driving species to extinction.

B/C I support wolf control population I have no value on nature? You said it, not me. I responded with a simple example that if you are throwing away plastic, or supporting industrial areas, then you too must have "no intrinsic value in not destroying nature."

And how is killing a few hundred wolves, in 2 states driving them to extinction? And you haven't answered as to what population you think will be sufficient.

and on your view that wolves eat everything they kill- every single cow/calf that my gf's dad has lost this year- was mutilated and not eaten. The dog killed- had its head chewed off and that was it. granted, its one example, but something tells me its not isolated.

[Duncan]

Population control is vital for the health of a species whether you let "bloodthirsty rednecks" kill them hunting or they are culled by the government.

My parents used to live on Hilton Head and the liberal ninnies banned killing deer. I mean, they are so cute and part of nature right. I would be outside smoking a cigar and drinking a bourbon and 5 or 6 deer would stroll into the backyard completely unafraid. Then the trophy wives started running into them with their BMWs. THEN the fancy gardens started disappearing. How are good northeastern liberals supposed to have animal rights fundraisers in their second winter homes without pretty landscaping?

Sure enough, the city council authorized a mass killing. Same thing happened to the gators when little lapdogs started getting eaten.

[ljs]

Why do you say things like that? No one is suggesting that. Not here, not anywhere.

.

sarcasm meter Predicto- I know you have one.

[karmacop]

B/C I support wolf control population I have no value on nature? You said it, not me. I responded with a simple example that if you are throwing away plastic, or supporting industrial areas, then you too must have "no intrinsic value in not destroying nature."

And how is killing a few hundred wolves, in 2 states driving them to extinction? And you haven't answered as to what population you think will be sufficient.

and on your view that wolves eat everything they kill- every single cow/calf that my gf's dad has lost this year- was mutilated and not eaten. The dog killed- had its head chewed off and that was it. granted, its one example, but something tells me its not isolated.

I based my statement not just on the fact that you want to kill wolves (whether as population control or just because they impact a rancher's bottom line), but also on your earlier post about the California desert farmers, and on the general language you use in framing the debate and belittling wildlife in favor of business interests. The complete package you are presenting smacks of a person that will always side against wildlife, no matter how little it might cost us to avoid that destruction. Just my opinion.

It just seems to me that killing 20% of the wolf population, when there are only 1500 to begin with, and when there are non-lethal ways to prevent herd losses, is not a good solution.

Until you, ljs, come out and say that it is not always appropriate for a rancher to kill a wolf, no matter how small the wolf population might be, I have to assume that you will always say, "kill the wolf," even if it means possible extinction. After all, you were ready to wipe out of existence those fish in California.

And as far as what population of wolves is "healthy," I'll leave that to the experts. Those "experts" do not include the Bush Administration hacks in the Interior Department that de-listed the wolves in 2008 as one of the last acts out the door as a favor to ranching interests, or even the current Interior officials allowing the hunt. There's too much political pressure on this issue.

All of the scientific evidence (on both sides) will be presented to the federal judge hearing the recent lawsuit that the article you posted references. If this recent lawsuit turns out to be a loser and a federal judge says that the current number of wolves in Idaho and Montana means that they are not endangered or threatened, I'll be the first one to come back here and say that a controlled and regulated population control plan can be implemented. I wouldn't trust the states of Idaho or Montana or the ranchers, however, to restrain themselves and kill the appropriate number of wolves.

[GoSkins561]

Pass up several deer a day on most days of hunting season. Thats part of being responsible. Most days it is illegal to kill does so it limits the number of possibilities to make a kill. If you follow the rules then it truly is good for the environment.

Never pass on the tiny ones (without spots of course) they taste the best. I actually have no interest in bagging a trophy; the smaller the better imo.

[ljs]

The complete package you are presenting smacks of a person that will always side against wildlife, no matter how little it might cost us to avoid that destruction. Just my opinion.

Until you, ljs, come out and say that it is not always appropriate for a rancher to kill a wolf, no matter how small the wolf population might be, I have to assume that you will always say, "kill the wolf," even if it means possible extinction. After all, you were ready to wipe out of existence those fish in California.

.

you have no clue about me and my feelings on wildlife. While I'm no member of PETA, I'm far from what you think, but frankly I could care less what you think. I believe in a farmer/rancher being able to defend their stock. Their livelihood. And saying there are only 1500 wolves is a total distortion. There are an estimated 1600+ just in 2 states, plus over 10,000 just in Canada. Killing 295 of them in 2 states, with control over the # in each area- will not put them to extinction. You keep saying I'm in favor of killing them to the point of that, and I've said over and over in this thread that is not how I feel. Twist it however you want. The fish in California is an example of how people will put even the tiniest of animals well above a human.

To Predicto or PSC who asked what kind of dogs my gf dad was using- she said that last year a neighboring rancher had 2 great Pyrenees and the wolves mutilated both dogs. I asked her about a fence, her response, "you can't build a fence across that mountain-impossible". I asked her about the noise maker thing someone posted about- she laughed. Her response, it might save a few here and there, but it will not stop the problem. She said there was not an issue until the wolves were relocated to their area. That her dad has tried "all the gimmicks they have out there" and it doesn't work. So yes- I completely stand by my belief that if a rancher or farmer finds that a wolf is attacking their herds, they should have a right to kill it. Hell, they can if its someone's pet dog.

[ljs]

http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=8327150

story from a town 30 min from me- last may. The quote is from the owner of a Great Pyrenees who was attacked by a pack of wolves. He's a doctor- not some po-dunk bubba backwoods guy.

"I've never shot an animal," Sadler says. "Never."........"I was always the one that liked gray wolves," he says. "I said they just kill to eat. But they don't kill to eat, they're glutten killers. They kill to kill."

one dog survived.

another article on it

http://www.cdapress.com/articles/2008/05/16/news/news03.txt

"I don't get pleasure out of shooting animals," he said. "Up until this happened, I always thought wolves kill what they eat. Walking around our property, I've seen over a dozen elk chewed and left for dead. Wolves are killing just to kill." .....

"I didn't know there was an animal like this on Earth," Sadler said.

[PCS]

Well don't look at me,I didn't say that.

oh gross PCS

you ****

What? At least I didn't post a pic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xrLPKenCaI

[Destino]

You really think I have a horrid disregard for the world? wow. If that's the case, you must have a horrid disregard for humans. :doh:

that would make sense if I advocated destroying humans. I don't. Not even in cases where it would benefit some family owned farm.

What I have disregard for are business interests. If you can't make it work, fail. That's america.

[fire5man80]

I have to disagree, some of my best and favorite duck hunts I watched the sun rise in a duck blind with my son and dog. Talked, had breakfast, talked some more but never pulled the trigger. Great time, highly recommend. That's why it's called "hunting" and not "shooting".

AHHHHHH isnt that the life man. I love winter mornings on the duck boat. Its an awesome site. We hunt the Potomac, Patuxent and Wicomico in Maryland every winter. And every winter we find some opposition to us being out there. Luckily for us we are all law abiding citizens and everything we do is perfectly legal. It is still a great time even if we dont pull the trigger, but I'd rather be pulling the trigger.

[stevenaa]

As a hunter, killing an animal is not a big deal. There is no emotional attachment to the animal. We don't project the emotions of human death on our prey. There is no fulfilling of some blood lust. I have no compulsion to kill. But I enjoy hunting. I rarely go, and if I never went again, It wouldn't be some void I'd need to fill. Maybe there are some who have blood lust, but I'd say they may be a bit sociopathic and it's probably a good thing they can fill it hunting aniimals.

If someone wants to take a Wolf for a trophy, I just can't get worked up about it as long as conservation is at work and the species is not being endangered. It just doesn't seem like a big deal.

[ljs]

that would make sense if I advocated destroying humans. I don't. Not even in cases where it would benefit some family owned farm.

What I have disregard for are business interests. If you can't make it work, fail. That's america.

This isn't about business. This is about people. People who immigrated here in the late 1800's, traveled via the Oregon Trail and settled a cattle ranch. Numerous families, who have worked together for generations. Who grow their own hay in the spring/summer- while running the cattle along the neighboring mtns. Running the cattle back down as it cooled, while harvesting the hay and corn that feeds the cattle through the winter. Employing numerous others throughout a community- for generations. Its a way of life.

Said family I've spoken of in particular has some land deeded from Woodrow Wilson, and some is now national forest, but they still own over 12k. BTW, I thank this thread for a nice evening chat and a time to really understand the personal side of this long going issue within a particular community. One established well over 120 years ago.

Back in that day the pioneers had ridden the timber wolves from that area before the ranchers brought the cattle.

These people survived and settled a productive community with self sufficient farms/ranches-but they all also depend on each other. For over 100 years there were no wolves, only coyotes to deal with. Then in the mid 90's the gov't brought in Hybred wolves from Canada. They aren't even wolves that are native to that area. It is not just interfering with some business.

These are families who depend on this way of life. They provide jobs for many others in the area. And besides, who says it's fair that everyone out east gets to live in a settled area, where people killed off all the wild life a couple hundred years ago so they could create communities and settle this country. How would you all like it if they came and dropped off a bunch of wolves in DC or Central park?

It really comes down to wanting to maintain their way of living, maintain their community. This really isn't anti-wolf, or eradicate the wolves-but people deserve the right to protect their family, their land and their herds-period.

[MadiSkins]

Never pass on the tiny ones (without spots of course) they taste the best. I actually have no interest in bagging a trophy; the smaller the better imo.

Killing the yearlings is not so good IMO, but I agree that if the animal appears older and smaller it is an animal that should be harvested as it is bad for breeding. I was just saying that given the choice I'd take a large doe over a yearling to even out the herd. Have only ever killed one deer with horns in my 7 years hunting by myself, so I'm also not a 'trophy' hunter.

[No_Pressure]

Because hunting is enjoyable. Because the deer meat I feed my children is not pumped full of Steroids and Antibiotics. Because I can put deer meat on the table cheaper than beef, whether you think so or not. Because it tastes better.

If the Wolves are at the desired sustainable population, it's not for me to say if someone else should be able to hunt them. I certianly would shoot a wolf if it was endangering my livestock. And I don't think ranchers should be asked to invest in very expensive, purpose bred dogs, many of which will be killed. Many of which will kill wolves in a much more gruesome fashion than being shot. Humans have been shooting predator animals to protect livestock for as long as there have been guns. This isn't something new.

With that said, I don't believe in sport hunting. Eat what you kill. But that is my personal belief system.

I never advocated dealing with the wolfs in a non-lethal manner. I said I would rather not hunt and I feel that the people who hunt for sport do it because they simply enjoy killing which doesn't seem like a good trait to me. If someone kills an animal because they need to eat and it's readily available thats fine. I know sport hunters who pretend that they're in it for the meat because it's so amazing but they just like standing over a dead deer and lifting up it's points.

[PCS]

I spent a lot of time in a rural setting when I was young. Killing animals for food is a necessity, at least for me. I get no enjoyment out of it. I never hunted a lot and don't hunt at all anymore. If I want to be one with nature I'll grab a camera and head out like PCS. Killing animals is no fun.

I've followed Elk,moose,and deer out here. It was a rush when I managed to close within about 20-30 feet of any of them. Getting a good pic is to me,a great reward for the trip. Had a moose see me coming a couple of weeks ago from about 300 yards. Shook his head and did a jump in the air,so I figured that was close enough and I'd try again some other day for a closer pic.

[Destino]

This isn't about business. This is about people.

No this is about business. If they can get buy without putting the wolves back into the endangered category they should be allowed to fail. We have plenty of steak and frankly destroying a species to get steak from PLACE A when we can get it without any such crisis from PLACE B is absurd.

This is also about policy. When you put the business interests one a handful of businesses above an endangered animal you're basically going to be rewriting the species lists soon because other businesses will demand the same treatment. Policy can't favor short term interests over long term damage that can never be undone.

Now if on the other hand they can get along without destroying nature many wish to preserve... more power to them. I personally hopw they can continue to thrive.

[karmacop]

you have no clue about me and my feelings on wildlife. While I'm no member of PETA, I'm far from what you think, but frankly I could care less what you think. I believe in a farmer/rancher being able to defend their stock. Their livelihood. And saying there are only 1500 wolves is a total distortion. There are an estimated 1600+ just in 2 states, plus over 10,000 just in Canada. Killing 295 of them in 2 states, with control over the # in each area- will not put them to extinction. You keep saying I'm in favor of killing them to the point of that, and I've said over and over in this thread that is not how I feel. Twist it however you want. The fish in California is an example of how people will put even the tiniest of animals well above a human.

For someone who "doesn't care" what I think, you certainly are devoting lots of effort to rebut what I think. Don't ask for my opinion and then say you don't care about my opinion. That's just rude.

And I know enough "about your feelings on wildlife" based on your own words and what you've posted in this thread and others. I'm not assuming anything - they're your own statements.

So if you're not in favor of killing the wolves if they're endangered, I'm assuming that you'll be in favor of the court decision, assuming it comes out in a few days or weeks and says that the wolf is still threatened, and people can't kill them. Right?

And you prove your point yet again with the last statement about the California fish. You're in favor of completely wiping out this fish. Gone forever. Poof. And I'm wrong about "your views on wildlife." Riiight.

[skinfan133]

I think it's a valid question though.

Sad though that folks have worked so hard to re-introduce wolves into their natural environment in order to help maintain healthy herd animal populations, so Cleetus and Bubba can shoot them and pose with their dead body, like they really did something. "I dun shot me a purty one paw!"

Meanwhile, Joe Rancher is applauding 'cause he knows someone who knew someone that heard a wolf ate a chicken.

.....

glad you aren't simplifying things.

also good to see you seem to think people who hunt " R nt to smurt"

edit: and whoever called wolves "defenseless creatures" on the first or second page:

[edgun88]

So you guys wouldn't kill a wolf if it meant having food on your table? I would. I would kill them if I was losing money. Otherwise, I wouldn't.

[XsamhainX_999]

glad you aren't simplifying things.

also good to see you seem to think people who hunt " R nt to smurt"

edit: and whoever called wolves "defenseless creatures" on the first or second page:

Are you suggesting that wolves can defend themselves against a man using a high-powered rifle with a scope?

[JonsieRB34]

What I have disregard for are business interests. If you can't make it work, fail. That's america.

Destino, let's work in reality. I know you've heard the term "bail-out"...

[Destino]

Destino, let's work in reality. I know you've heard the term "bail-out"...

I also know that the only reason it's even considered is because our own interests are at stake. If any of those companies could have gone under without impacting the economy at large they would have. Don't agree? Note the hundreds of small banks that weren't bailed out.

[The 12th Commandment]

Destino, let's work in reality. I know you've heard the term "bail-out"...

Ranching has ALWAYS been a highly subsidized industry. You pay, the last time I checked, $2.53 for enough feed, in terms of the land it takes for an animal unit (cow/calf or steer), for a year. That's absurdly undervalued but we do enjoy cheaper meat because of it.