"Wolf" What would you do ?

Discussion in 'Turf and Surf Hunting and Fishing' started by Quigley_Sharps, Feb 15, 2010.

  1. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn Mosquito Sailor

    Forget what I just posted about talking smack. You are not worth talking to. I salute you with your old avatar !!!
  2. SLugomist

    SLugomist Monkey++

    I do too and it is a problem "feeding wild animals" but that's only because good humans want more and more and more. I'm all for people to live free and happy long lives but not at the expense of the ecosystem. And I will never lose a wink of sleep hearing about someone eaten by a wild animal. Animals are the one underdog I will always back, period. Man needs to live in balance with the planet and not like a virus.

    I know the risks of feeding a wild animal, but I am not city folk, and I know that feeding one doesn't mean I can go pet it. If I had land in the range of a wild animal I would feel, "personally" responsible for it's care, since I encroached and would do what I could to help the animals. I for one wouldn't allow tourists, and would just as with a firearm, teach my children about respecting nature and animals as they can be just as dangerous as a loaded firearm.
  3. SLugomist

    SLugomist Monkey++

  4. monkeyman

    monkeyman Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    Im pretty sure the original post mentioned the injured family dog that had already ben attacked cowering against the door. That being the case, I have a dep love and connection with nature but recognize I get the same rights as that animal, Im higher on the food chain and he is in my territory attacking my pack. He dies and I go on.

    Now if he were NOT being aggressive and not causing a problem, just pasing through, I would enjoy the siteing and we both go on.
  5. Jayway

    Jayway Monkey+


    Well I do wonder what wolf would taste like - pretty horrible ? Foxes that killed my hens were dispatched in their next visit, one was sold to the bar as rabbitmeat ( we must have got mixed up somehow) and I made stew with the other. Ours was HORRIBLE, even the dogs wouldnt eat it but the hens did -vengeance ! The barman thought he had cooked it wrong -we never said - -
  6. tired-medic

    tired-medic Monkey+++

    You know at times I have been called insensitive or callous. But under the circumstances kill it. I do not tolerate dangerous animals near my home or animals. Too dangerous to take chances.
  7. bnmb

    bnmb On Hiatus Banned

    Here we have hunting seasons for all animals, except wolves and foxes...But i don't like killing wolves, they are my people's totem animal from tribal times, thousands of years ago...
  8. cornmonkey

    cornmonkey Monkey+

    Fact if its in town where children are no contest, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Bye Bye wolfie. For the sensitive i would derive no pleasure from killing so majestic an animal. People first animals comes second even the purdy ones.
  9. fortunateson

    fortunateson I hate Illinois Nazis!

    Bows are quieter than guns.
    That's all I'll say.
  10. Quigley_Sharps

    Quigley_Sharps The Badministrator Administrator Founding Member

  11. bnmb

    bnmb On Hiatus Banned

    AMEN!!! [beer]
  12. NVBeav

    NVBeav Monkey+++

    Wolves are just misunderstood and people need to be tolerant. A few extreme wolves shouldn't blight their nature of peace.

  13. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn Mosquito Sailor

    Muslims are just misunderstood and people need to be tolerant. A few extreme muslims shouldn't blight their nature of peace. Kum bay ya my lord Kum bay ya.b::
  14. horology

    horology Monkey+

    I live where the grey wolf..........

    I live where the gray wolf have been re-introduced to the area. I see them from time to time. They usually won't bother a adult, but a child or calf has problems.

    We have seen two calf kills in the area in the last few months. I have also seen them up close, they stare real good, spooky eyes! But being strapped at the time can change your perspective.

    I think the gray wolf should be re-introduced to the washington dc area, you never know the gray wolf may like the taste of lying politicians and then it could be a good match.


    Dan m
  15. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn Mosquito Sailor

    There ya go, the answer is in the previous post. Being armed can change your perspective. I couldn't agree more! Now as to the children... Young children should not be out and about alone in wolf country.
    All others and children 10 years and older properly trained in safe and accurate gun usage should be armed. Killing the beast may not be necessary at all. They are obviously wary of a full grown adult. A child armed with a rifle or pistol could touch one off in the general direction of the beast with no intent to hit, only scare, and I would bet they would reconsider, and reject all humans as a possible food source. Before I get slammed for the 10 year old thing, I accompanied my father and grandfather from 6 on, and paid for my first shotgun with grass cutting, and snow shovelling earnings at age 10.
  16. Byte

    Byte Monkey+++

    When I was about 10 we often visited family friends outside Cody, WY. Very shortly after hellos were made a .22 pump or .410 pump was placed into my hands with a box of shells and I was sent out alone. Couldn't shoot any of the pistols alone though. The first few times my mom could hardly keep from panicking. I was very safe and responsible though. I only shot rabbits when they were in season and only if I planned on cleaning and cooking it over the back BBQ pit. She still refused to buy me my first .22 until I was 13 and that was a Marlin single shot bolt gun.

    There were no wolves in the area back then but their range is pretty big now so I would absolutely not let a kid wander around the outskirts of the park unarmed these days. Did take a few coyotes for the $100 bounty. Neighbor was a sheep rancher! Boy did he hate coyotes.

    Each child is different and a responsible adult will know when they are ready to be responsibly armed.

  17. Quigley_Sharps

    Quigley_Sharps The Badministrator Administrator Founding Member


    Wolf attacks on humans have been relatively rare over the past century in comparison, for example, to bear attacks. However, claims by environmental activists and their sympathizers in the major media that wolves never attack humans (and historically never, or very rarely, ever attacked humans) have been proven false by Candice Berner's fate. And the Berner case is not unique, as the following stories show: Ontario man killed in wolf attack, coroner's jury finds; Six injured in rare wolf attack;
    Wolf Attacks on Humans (an historical survey); The Danger of Wolves to Humans.
  18. Quigley_Sharps

    Quigley_Sharps The Badministrator Administrator Founding Member


    If you've mistakenly clicked onto this website, thinking this is another fluffy sales job to make the wolf look like the loving, cute, cuddly and friendly animal that Walt Disney so wrongly portrayed through the 1960s...the above headlines and photos should tell you that you've screwed up. This IS NOT YOUR website.
  19. Quigley_Sharps

    Quigley_Sharps The Badministrator Administrator Founding Member

    ranchers sue over changes in wolf program


    ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Ranching groups and two southern New Mexico counties have sued over a program that is reintroducing endangered Mexican gray wolves into the wild in New Mexico and Arizona, claiming its managers have made substantial changes that require a new environmental impact statement.

    "The bottom line is that the individual landowners and small rural communities that are located in places in close proximity to where the wolf release program is being operated are not getting an adequate voice into the process," said Daniel Bryant, a Ruidoso attorney who filed the lawsuit.

    The complaint alleges the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish violated the National Environmental Policy Act by altering the rules without the environmental review. It asks a federal judge to stop the program from changing how it operates until it complies with NEPA.

    The lawsuit was filed Friday on behalf of Americans for the Preservation of the Western Environment, located in Reserve; the Adobe and Beaverhead ranches in southwest New Mexico; rancher Alan Tackman; the Gila National Forest Livestock Permittees' Association, which represents livestock growers around the wolf reintroduction area; and the Otero and Catron county commissions.

    It also names as defendants Fish and Wildlife Southwest Regional Director Benjamin Tuggle and Game and Fish Director Tod Stevenson.

    Officials began reintroducing Mexican gray wolves along the Arizona-New Mexico border in 1998. The effort has been criticized by ranchers who have lost cattle to wolves and by conservationists who disagree over how the federal government has managed the program.
    The wolves have been designated a "nonessential, experimental population," which gives Fish and Wildlife greater flexibility to manage them under the Endangered Species Act and allows permanent removal by capturing or killing a wolf after three confirmed livestock kills in a year.

    The lawsuit — which outlines numerous cases of wolves killing or injuring livestock — contends the program is not removing them after three livestock kills. It said no wolves have been permanently removed since December 2007.

    Tom Buckley, a spokesman for Fish and Wildlife, had not seen the lawsuit and said he could not comment.

    Buckley said, however, the so-called three strikes provision was guidance, not a hard and fast rule. Each incident is assessed individually, considering such things as a wolf's genetic value, he said.

    State Game and Fish spokesman Marty Frentzel said the agency had not seen the lawsuit and he could not comment.

    The lawsuit alleges the original environmental process never analyzed keeping "problem habituated wolves and depredating wolf packs in the wild."

    Fish and Wildlife "arbitrarily determines which management methods to implement and which to ignore," the lawsuit said.

    Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity said the conservation group will intervene against the lawsuit.

    Robinson said Fish and Wildlife has authority to remove wolves from the wild as long as that doesn't impede the species' recovery but it isn't required to remove particular animals.
    Biologists had expected a self-sustaining wild population of 100 wolves by now, but the last count at the end of 2009 found 42.

    The lawsuit also contends the agencies failed to budget adequate resources to accurately count wolves and deliberately withheld evidence of hybridization and of "the social and economic effects of hybrid wolf-like animals on citizens living within the reintroduction area."
    Bryant said whatever judge is assigned the case will decide which federal court in New Mexico will hear it.
  20. Quigley_Sharps

    Quigley_Sharps The Badministrator Administrator Founding Member

    Interesting Article:

    Endangered or not, wolf killings set to expand

    Proposals to control population include gassing pups in their dens

    AP This 2004 photograph provided by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks shows an adult male wolf from the Lazy Creek pack north of Whitefish, Mont. Government agencies are ramping up killings and removals of gray wolves in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes, despite two recent court actions that restored the animal's endangered status in every state except Alaska and Minnesota.


    [​IMG] BILLINGS, Mont. — Government agencies are seeking broad new authority to ramp up killings and removals of gray wolves in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes, despite two recent court actions that restored the animal's endangered status in every state except Alaska and Minnesota.
    Various proposals would gas pups in their dens, surgically sterilize adult wolves and allow "conservation" or "research" hunts to drive down the predators' numbers.

    Once poisoned to near-extermination in the lower 48 states, wolves made a remarkable comeback over the last two decades under protection of the Endangered Species Act. But as packs continue to multiply their taste for livestock and big game herds coveted by hunters has stoked a rising backlash.

    Wildlife officials say that without public wolf hunting, they need greater latitude to eliminate problem packs. Montana and Idaho held inaugural hunts last year but an August court ruling scuttled their plans for 2010.

    "As the wolf populations increase, the depredations increase and the number of wolf removals will increase. It's very logical," said Mark Collinge, Idaho director for Wildlife Services, the U.S. Department of Agriculture branch that removes problem wolves, typically by shooting them from aircraft.

    "You just have to accept that part of having wolves is having to kill wolves," he said.

    But wildlife advocates and animal rights groups contend the response to depredating wolves has become too heavy-handed. They say a string of court decisions in their favor underscores that the species remains at risk.

    The draconian lengths they are poised to take really are a throwback, to when the same agency was gassing wolf pups in their dens almost a century ago and setting poisoned baits and trapping them," said Michael Robinson with the Center for Biological Diversity.

    At least 1,700 wolves now roam Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. There are more than 4,000 in Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. New populations are taking hold in Oregon and Washington, and wolves have been sighted in Colorado, Utah and New England.Some of the most remote wilderness habitats are becoming saturated with the animals. As a result, packs are pushing into agricultural and residential areas where domestic animals offer an easy meal.

    One of the more extreme proposals — burying wolf pups in their dens and then poisoning them with carbon monoxide gas — would be used only infrequently, in cases where the rest of the pack had been killed for preying on livestock, officials said.

    More established practices, including shooting wolves from the air and ground, would be expanded.
    In Montana and Idaho, officials hope to revive hunting seasons by rebranding them as "conservation hunts" or "research hunts." Also, Montana Democrat U.S. Senator Max Baucus wants ranchers to have more freedom to shoot wolves harassing livestock.

    A novel, non-lethal approach to wolf control is being considered in Idaho, according to a Department of Agriculture proposal. After being surgically sterilized, pairs of wolves would be radio-collared and released — "to maintain and defend their territory against other wolf packs that might be more likely to prey on livestock."

    Killing marauding wolves is nothing new in some parts of their range: In the Northern Rockies, more than 1,400 have been killed by wildlife agents and ranchers since the first 66 wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho in the mid-1990s.

    But Wisconsin and Michigan in the past avoided wolf killings, instead relocating plundering animals or taking defensive measures such as fencing in livestock. Under applications pending with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the states want new authority to remove up to 10 percent of their wolves annually, equal to about 110 wolves a year.
    Government statistics back up critics' claims that wolves account for a small proportion of livestock losses caused by predators. They kill fewer sheep and cattle than coyotes, bears, mountain lions or even dogs.

    Yet where packs get onto ranchlands, the results can be brutal for both wolves and livestock. That was illustrated in a string of recent cattle killings and reprisals outside the small town of Ennis, Mont.

    Since late July, at least six ranches near Ennis have suffered cattle killings by a wolf group known as the Horse Creek pack, which lives at the base of the Gravelly mountains.

    Within two weeks of the first calf being killed, wolf specialists with Wildlife Services killed two adult members of the Horse Creek pack in hopes of deterring the others.
    One was shot on July 29 and the second on Aug. 6 — just a day after U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula, Mont. ordered the region's wolves back onto the endangered species list.

    After the attacks continued and several more calves died, state officials on Aug. 12 ordered the entire pack removed. Another calf was found dead on Aug. 13, and two on Aug. 17.
    Two more Horse Creek wolves were shot.
    On Aug. 18, three more calves turned up dead, bringing the total dead livestock to at least a dozen.

    The remaining four members of the pack remained at large late last week. But there was little doubt they would be killed, said Carolyn Sime, Montana's lead wolf biologist
    "When we authorize it, we're confident they're going to get it done," she said.
    Rancher Jerry Dickinson said the Horse Creek pack killed at least three calves worth a combined $2,400 on the Granger ranch, which he manages.
    Their carcasses were found on the Beaverhead National Forest, where the calves had been grazing. Others have disappeared without a trace.
    "If they take that pack out, we've bought ourselves maybe two or three years until another pack establishes itself," Dickinson said. "Eventually another bunch of wolves will move in there and we'll get the same problem all over."
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary