Feb 21, 2008 2:04pm

The Fate of the Gray Wolf

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has announced that the gray wolf in the northern Rockies "is thriving and no longer requires the protection of the Endangered Species Act."  The Interior Department says there are now 1,500 wolves roaming free in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.  The wolves, which once ranged from Mexico to the Arctic, all but disappeared by the 1930s.  They were listed as an endangered species in 1973.  In 1995, amid great controversy, wolves from Canada were released in the region, and now, says the government, there are at least 100 breeding pairs in the area. A quote from Lynn Scarlett, Deputy Secretary of the Interior: "The wolf population in the Northern Rockies has far exceeded its recovery goal and continues to expand its size and range. States, tribes, conservation groups, federal agencies and citizens of both regions can be proud of their roles in this remarkable conservation success story."  Find more HERE, and the actual rule, proposing that state governments take over, HERE. Local people, especially ranchers, have been pushing for the government to do what it did today.  They complain about wolves threatening their livestock; now, if the decision stands, they’ll be allowed to hunt them. But not so fast, say environmental groups.  “The decision to remove protections for wolves is premature. We still have a long way to go before wolf populations are sustainable over the long term. This is like declaring victory at mile eighteen in a marathon,” says Melanie Stein of the Sierra Club.  They had been expecting today’s decision, and had their responses — as well as legal petitions — at the ready.
Take a look as well at what’s been posted by the National Wildlife Federation. And contrast it with an editorial last month in the Idaho Statesman: "As the wolf population continues to increase — actually explode — so do concerns about conflicts." The paper, like many of its readers, expresses distrust of Washington bureaucrats making decisions from afar. The issue is really more nuanced than left-vs.-right.  But how you feel about the gray wolf, it’s been suggested, can depend on where you live, how you vote, how you interpret Genesis.  Are you a rancher or a city-dweller?  Do you think of humans mostly as having domain over the earth, or having an obligation to be stewards of it? 

User Comments

Unfortunately, we humans have gotten used to “taking dominion” over the land. We’ve only recently realized that we’ve taken so much dominion that we’re about to run out of resources. We moved into the wolves’ territory (and the territories of a lot of other animals) and now, we consider them to be pests. The truth be known, we are the pests. We’ve interrupted and broken food chains and disrupted whole ecologies. We still don’t have a handle on the effect we’ve had on the “big picture.” The whole planetary ecological system is being disrupted because of our rapacious ways. I hope we can learn quickly enough to stave off disaster.

Posted by: Andy | February 21, 2008, 2:19 pm 2:19 pm

I can’t believe that since there are a whole 1500 wolves they are going to start killing them again. Of course that’s about how many Indians were left when we decided to quit killing them off. The wolves will be back on the endangered species list in no time once the good ol boys get the ok to start shooting.

Posted by: Wayne | February 21, 2008, 2:36 pm 2:36 pm

1,500 doesn’t sound like that many. This on the heels of the story that the governemnt had done the research and finished the report making ready the polar bear’s move to threatened/endangered status but our government held off until they could get some oil drilling legislation in place. They knew that if the polar bear became protected first, they couldn’t let their friends drill in the bears’ habitat. Republicans are unbelievable. Well, unfortunately, I CAN believe it.

Posted by: TSnow27604 | February 21, 2008, 4:13 pm 4:13 pm

As a resident of wolf country (Montana), I can tell you that this decision has been negotiated for at least a couple years now. The issue was whether the states could manage the wolf population so that it didn’t decline again. Wyoming was the hold out, since their original plan would have allowed up to half the wolves to be killed. Probably no one is satisfied with the outcome, but if you are going to have wolves in ranch country, some kind of flexibility in management is going to be necessary.

Posted by: jock59801 | February 21, 2008, 4:28 pm 4:28 pm

this is outrageous. 1500 is not enough for a successful reproductive population. Next Bush will be organizing Florida Panther hunts and Manatee roasts.

Posted by: cturple | February 21, 2008, 4:41 pm 4:41 pm

Wolves are beautiful creatures that deserve FULL PROTECTION!!
Ranchers…..build a bigger fence!!

Posted by: johnsan | February 21, 2008, 4:44 pm 4:44 pm

I say let the rancher hunt them. Only on the wolf’s terms. No guns. Claws and fangs only. Fair’s fair.

Posted by: BigT | February 21, 2008, 4:46 pm 4:46 pm

It just doesn’t make sense…spend millions to have Canadian wolves released in Yellowstone…sucessful program….wolf population expands…wolves move and change ranges..solution is to shoot wolves.
How American!!

Posted by: Canajunlady | February 21, 2008, 4:49 pm 4:49 pm

hunt wolves at your own risk

Posted by: chris | February 21, 2008, 4:51 pm 4:51 pm

The wolf is part of the land just as we are. He is our brother. He has just as much right to the land as we do. We can learn to live with nature or learn to die without it. We will soon learn the latter I fear.

Posted by: jijalagi | February 21, 2008, 5:04 pm 5:04 pm

I cant beleive this mess! how dare we shoot something that deserves to be here just as much as we do. hello they were here first. i know and understand that there is an issue because of farming and ranching, but you know what you knew that moving to the mountanous states where you live you would encounter problems like this. did you not? now everyone wants to hunt & shoot them. not to mention people are hunting and shooting with high powered rifles… oh thats real fair. how stupid! i agree fangs and claws all the way. things like this make me question my americanism…. how sad for this animal, to be protected and now to be klled off again. all we can do is pray.

Posted by: angryinohio | February 21, 2008, 5:04 pm 5:04 pm

I just returned from a vacation in Wyoming and learned first hand from ranchers there that the wolf population needs to be controlled. The wolfs may be beautiful creatures, but they no longer have a natural predator. There have been wolf attacks on ranchers live stock and actual ranchers (humans) themselves. So, while we need to maintain the wolf population, we also need to consider how an exploding population without a natural predator can impact the local residents in these western states. It’s not an easy issue to solve, but the population must be controlled for all (human and wolf) to survive.

Posted by: Bill | February 21, 2008, 5:04 pm 5:04 pm

pencil head bureaucrats have failed to educate ranchers and farmers of the threats wolves poses to livestocks. They have failed to prove that wolves don’t threaten the livelihoods of ranchers and farmers. People’s livelihoods are more important than wolves.

Posted by: fred | February 21, 2008, 5:09 pm 5:09 pm

Wow, what a response. How many people here have had the advantage of seeing these magnificent animals take down an Elk? They will run them down when the snow is deep and crusted, where the elk will fall threw and they stay on top. They will hang on the bellies of these animals until there guts fall out and they trip on them. Then they go after another, and another. They eat only the guts out of them and leave the rest.
It is a wonderful site. I think all should witness it before they give an opinion.

Posted by: henry | February 21, 2008, 5:12 pm 5:12 pm

I think that this is very bad for our country, if our wolfs are going to be hunted then what will happen if they get hunted again? We just hurt our country so much and don’t care, like global warming.

Posted by: Shina | February 21, 2008, 5:25 pm 5:25 pm

Just read “State of Fear” this morning and boy does this conversation sound familiar. I guess Michael msy be right after all.

Posted by: Quietman | February 21, 2008, 5:29 pm 5:29 pm

Shina
Urban or suburban neighborhood?

Posted by: Quietman | February 21, 2008, 5:35 pm 5:35 pm

henry – I’m not sure what your point is. Yes, wolves are predators, and when they take down an elk it probably isn’t pretty. So? Does that mean they don’t have a right to exist? As for your “eat only the guts out of them,” that would be a pretty stupid wolf, and a pretty gullible person to believe it.

Posted by: jock59801 | February 21, 2008, 5:43 pm 5:43 pm

For those of you who don’t live where the wolves do – think about this little nugget. They say 1500 wolves, however, they really don’t know how many there are. This is only an estimate and it is conservative at best. The last know originally released breeding pair of wolves died this last year at about 12 years old. If those wolves had just one litter of 8 pups a year for twelve years, and only half lived to breeding age, you would be talking about more than 100 breeding pairs in a very short amount of time and that is just one pair. How many canines (aka dogs)living in pampered homes live that long??? These are very resilient, dangerous, smart, adaptive, and prolific predators that have dramatically impacted several large game populations in a short amount of time. We no longer live in a “natural” wild land, and we have been managing wildlife populations for the last century. Letting the wolf population explode without parameters to protect other wildlife populations and human will not be a pretty sight. populations. On your next camping trip to areas with wolves, remember to keep your pets and children close to you at all times – wolves think of them as tasty little snacks! Really not kidding, there are already documented cases of pets being taken right in front of their owners.

Posted by: Informed Citizen | February 21, 2008, 5:55 pm 5:55 pm

I live in a rural mountain area, can’t see any neighbors unless it winter. We see bears, deer, coyote and tracks from big cats (never see the cats but most likely cougar) quite often around the perimeter of my property. We supposedly have timer wolves in the region but I’ve never seen one. You watch the kids and keep large dogs – no problem with the wildlife. You don’t keep dogs, you got worries.

Posted by: Quietman | February 21, 2008, 6:09 pm 6:09 pm

Sorry about the spelling. I can’t see the text in the comments box so well.

Posted by: Quietman | February 21, 2008, 6:11 pm 6:11 pm

Yes they are preditors, do they deserve to be here more than the elk? What are you going to replace the elk with Beef?
I have seen elk herds demolished, where there were 50 elk in a herd, wolves come in and now there are none.

Posted by: henry | February 21, 2008, 6:23 pm 6:23 pm

henry
From what I just read it was the Elk that became a problem when the wolves were killed and the main reason for bringing them back. Here they want the Timber wolf population to grow because of an over population of white tail deer. If they would simply throw away the endangered list and just not allow hunting there would not be any of these problems. It comes on your property and is a danger you kill it, otherwise you let it be. The natives seem to have got a long just fine that way 500 years ago.

Posted by: Quietman | February 21, 2008, 6:30 pm 6:30 pm

I should have said not hunting non-game animals – sorry.

Posted by: Quietman | February 21, 2008, 6:32 pm 6:32 pm

If wildlife is a problem for those selfish people then they first need to educate themself not to have too many kids. Second, they should not move or build homes in the wild. I wonder if they know they invate the animal land? Just put the situation in reverse…Do you feel the pain of these animals? What right does anyone have to go gun down any life? Why animal lives are so worthless compared to humans”???? This is a human’s world of selfishness and distruction.

Posted by: Jbellevie | February 21, 2008, 6:41 pm 6:41 pm

Before we allow the hunting of wolves, we should allow the hunting of Sierra Club and PETA members.

Posted by: J.O. | February 21, 2008, 6:47 pm 6:47 pm

First of all, 1,500 wolves is not that many for such a large area. Genetic diversity within a population needs to be maintain, and it is better maintained with larger population numbers. Wolves are beautiful creatures that deserve to live undisturbed in the wild with as little human interference as possible. Secondly, the wolves are apex predators. This means that they have NO NATURAL PREDATORS and never have. Humans are the wolves only predators. With an apex predator, the populations will work themselves out. If they become overpopulated, they starve for the lack of prey. This has happened in other apex predators like the orca, great white shark and African lions. As for the comment that the ranchers need to protect their stocks. The wolves would only eat the cows that were sick or weak, and the ranchers can get monetary compensation for the cows that die from the wolves. If anything, the ranchers only gain from the wolf predation because they only eat the animals that were sick or dieing anyway. Also, under normals situations, the wolves would only prey on livestock if they could not find natural prey to eat. Wolves only kill what they need to survive and will never kill more than one animal just for “sport”. As for the human attacks. There has NEVER been a documented wolf attack on a human. The wolves would rather run than attack a human. The only exceptions are if the wolf is cornered, their young are threatened, or they are extremely sick. The fear of wolves is just a stereotype that has been passed down from generation to generation, like the fear of snakes and sharks. Please do us all a favor and do some research before you post unsupported information.

Posted by: Nicole | February 21, 2008, 6:49 pm 6:49 pm

NO!!!! The gray wolf sould NOT be hunted!!! Nor should it be taken of the endangered species list. 1,500 wolves is a mere handful which could easily be wiped out if they are hunted. We should’nt think that it’s just okay if we alter the fate of nature at our choosing. There are PLENTY of other thriving animal species out there flourishing. Lets not target the species who’s numbers are few….

Posted by: denny22257 | February 21, 2008, 7:06 pm 7:06 pm

JOCK59801: The ranches are in wolf country, not the other way around. This so-called “management” program allows for more than half the existing wolf population to be killed, often employing ARIAL HUNTS – a disgusting practice still extensively employed in the lower 48 and Alaska, and which ought to be outlawed. I called the US Fish & Wildlife Service last night to make my opposition known, and will be
donating to wildlife defense efforts in the weeks ahead. Bush/Cheney will not be happy until they’ve eliminated every wild and beautiful thing and paved the entire country.

Posted by: Holly | February 21, 2008, 7:32 pm 7:32 pm

This is a complicated issue. We want the wolf populations to stay healthy, but we also need the support of the people who have lived on the land for generations. Without that support, no mere laws are going to protect the wolf.
There are no plans for indiscriminant hunting of wolves. Everything will be rigidly managed and argued over at every step, you can count on that! Wolves do sometimes kill livestock, and some wolves have to be removed if they get into trouble – that has been going on all along. The main issues are whether it is possible for wolves to coexist on ranchlands, and the issue of sport hunting. I would prefer not to have any sport hunting, but if it occurs it will be strictly limited and not allowed to decrease core populations; and of course there will never be hunting in the National Parks.

Posted by: jock59801 | February 21, 2008, 7:41 pm 7:41 pm

I always find it interesting how people who live in cities can love a creature that decimates entire elk herds. For the “they were here first” crowd. The gray wolf was never a primary predator in the inland northwest until they were ‘re-introduced’ at a cost of millions of dollars. These are dogs, they breed quickly. As soon as one pack reaches around 12-15, they break off and start a new pack. One pack needs nearly 50 sq. miles to remain healthy. Packs can double and split within ten years. As canines, they WILL kill for sport and are doing so now within Yellowstone Park. While their re-introduction to the park was beneficial to cull out the Elk herd and expand the Bison, their numbers have grown to proportions that the park itself cannot sustain. They will travel literally miles to find prey. And for the ‘they won’t attack livestock unless they are starving’ crowd. You may want to visit Wyoming, Montana and Idaho before you make such wholly incorrect statements. Cattle make for nice prey because they are slow when compared to a healthy elk.

Posted by: Bill | February 21, 2008, 7:44 pm 7:44 pm

IF a wolf is shot, the shooter should be made to eat it. Wolves hunt and kill only to eat and survive. Most white trash just hunt for pleasure, and prefer canned hunts.

Posted by: Thorpe | February 21, 2008, 7:46 pm 7:46 pm

Bill – The truth is usually in between somewhere. Wolves do not decimate entire elk herds. The elk populations in and around Yellowstone are doing just fine. Some wolves attack livestock and others don’t. It seems to vary by pack. That is one reason wolves need to managed on a case by case basis.
And of course wolves were once a primary predator in the inland northwest; but then they were a primary predator where the city-dwellers live too, so nobody should be talking about kicking anyone else off their land.

Posted by: jock59801 | February 21, 2008, 8:14 pm 8:14 pm

jock59801
Well said – That is what I was trying to point out. The native americans lived with the wolf for centuries and would only kill one in defense. They did not need an endangered species list.

Posted by: Quietman | February 21, 2008, 8:25 pm 8:25 pm

Holly
Never been to L.A. huh?

Posted by: Quietman | February 21, 2008, 8:27 pm 8:27 pm

Quietman – To be fair, the native Americans never had domestic livestock (other than well-guarded horses) or I’m sure they would not have been quite so tolerant of wolves. But they also were never numerous enough to wipe out enitre populations even if they had tried. But you are right, coexistance is obvioulsy possible, although domestic livestock makes it tricky.

Posted by: jock59801 | February 21, 2008, 8:35 pm 8:35 pm

jock59801
And those farmers should be allowed to protect and defend their property – not the same as going out on a hunt. Like I siad before, keep dogs and predators tend to keep their distance – why else would we have domesticated the dog in the first place? Of course a handy 30-06 helps too.

Posted by: Quietman | February 21, 2008, 8:49 pm 8:49 pm

jock59801
Oh yes – by the way – the horse was introduced to the americas by the Spanish. Prior their were only “indian ponies” and for most tribes they were food. Just an FYI :)

Posted by: Quietman | February 21, 2008, 8:53 pm 8:53 pm

Quietman: I have traveled extensively, but no, I have never been to LA but would like to visit some day. Native Americans didn’t need an endangered species list, perhaps, but certain newcomers drove the wolf population (as well as the bison and other animals) to the brink of extinction with over-zealous hunting, trapping, etc. It happened once, so it is fair to assume that, without the protection an endangered species list affords threatened animals, it could happen again. I simply like a world with wild creatures in it- what is so wrong with that?

Posted by: Holly | February 21, 2008, 9:16 pm 9:16 pm

Delisting isn’t about allowing ranchers to shoot wolves to defend their livestock, btw – the majority of individuals who will obtain a license to hunt wolves will (probably) be sportsmen who want to add the wolf to their list of kills. There are plans to allow aerial hunts as well; a wolf pack taking down an elk has been painted as an horrific event, but a human being in a fixed wing aircraft gunning down an animal that can’t possibly get away – is this acceptable? Just wondering. Delisting is a polarizing issue, to be sure, but one that can be discussed with civility, I hope.

Posted by: Holly | February 21, 2008, 9:42 pm 9:42 pm

I go to Hawaii and scuba diving there every year just to see the sea turtles and other lives. I really love and appreciate wild life. Human are selfish, destructive, and idiot for almost everything.
What right did the we have to decide on animal population control? I say human population control is long over due for a limit. Stop invation into the wild and leave some land for other lives. The earth is a place to share and it doesn’t matter if it were not a human!

Posted by: jolie | February 21, 2008, 9:45 pm 9:45 pm

Then, since no agreement can be reached on whether or not to allow “hunting” wolves who attack a herd, why not allow their killing only if attacked by them? Of course, that would require some sort of policing, but it would eliminate organized hunts, with the unfairness that entails.

Posted by: Andy | February 21, 2008, 9:53 pm 9:53 pm

Quietman & jock59801
Your comments are interesting to me. Please allow me to provide information that most Americans don’t know or forget soon after they pass that test in high school.
You’re right in that the Spaniards brought horses to North America. Until that time we had no equine animals at all. The term “Indian pony” refers to an unshod horse, usually a stocky mustang, descendants of the animals brought by the Spaniards. There were domesticated dogs used as beasts of burden, guards and when necessary, food. (It’s kind of stringy.)
We still respect the wolf we call “Waya”. I am Uni-Waya, Wolf clan or one of the wolf family. One of seven clans of the Cherokee. Most Indians today have taken the ways of the Whites and know little of the old ways. Those of us who still hold the old ways (as much as is practical) respect all nature. We will kill the wolf when necessary to defend ourselves or our stock. We will kill deer, squirrel and anything else we need.
We will not kill that which we do not need to kill. We will not kill a wolf just because he is a wolf. We won’t kill a deer just for the trophy. Killing is sometimes necessary but it is wrong to kill just to kill. I fear that some people kill wolves like they kill coyote. Just because it’s there.

Posted by: jijalagi | February 21, 2008, 10:04 pm 10:04 pm

Holly
Re: “I simply like a world with wild creatures in it- what is so wrong with that?”
Nothing – so do I. That’s why I don’t live in L.A. anymore. It’s paved over.
The coyotes come into yards and eat pets because there is no game. Dogs scare bears into trees and they have to be sedated to get them down and sometimes they fall and kill themselves. An animal dies in a gutter and rots until the winter rains wash it into a sewer. You would not like it.
And this is the home of the loudest of the environmentalists.

Posted by: Quietman | February 21, 2008, 10:06 pm 10:06 pm

Umm…yes, there are only approximately 1500 gray wolves in the northern Rockies; however, there are over 350,00 gray wolves in a range extending roughly from Canada, through Alaska, into Siberia and Eastern Europe. Same species,(Canis lupus)hardly “endangered”.

Posted by: Chris | February 21, 2008, 10:11 pm 10:11 pm

Someone earlier calculated the exponential growth of wolf population incorrectly. Not all wolves in the wild will breed. Only the Alpha pair in each pack. When the pack grows too large an Alpha pair will split off and form a new pack.

Posted by: jijalagi | February 21, 2008, 10:17 pm 10:17 pm

jijalagi
Thank you, I always wondered where the ponies came from. You are right about the young ones. My daughter-in-law is part Cherokee and knows some of the history but almost nothing of the customs. Her family lives not far from the end of the trail of tears.

Posted by: Quietman | February 21, 2008, 10:17 pm 10:17 pm

jijalagi
The Alpha pair? I was aware of the Alpha male but I did not know that they paired. Are they paired for life?

Posted by: Quietman | February 21, 2008, 10:23 pm 10:23 pm

Yes, they pair for life, and the other members of the pack are usually related to the alpha pair, but not always. The genealogies and pack status of all the wolves in Yellowstone have been closely followed since the introduction.

Posted by: jock59801 | February 21, 2008, 10:27 pm 10:27 pm

Holly
Re: “human being in a fixed wing aircraft gunning down an animal that can’t possibly get away – is this acceptable?”
That is known as culling. It is used in some game reserves to hold down the population so that the animals won’t starve.
The acceptibility is questionable.

Posted by: Quietman | February 21, 2008, 10:29 pm 10:29 pm

Shaking my head in disbelief at how people can get so wrapped up in petty self indulgence. Honestly like Holly wouldn’t be screaming murder if we started doing human population control!
Back to the wolf topic – You are correct that there is no documented case of wolves attacking humans in the lower 48, but there are documented cases of them attacking and killing dogs walking with humans in my own backyard (refering to Idaho). And personally having stood face to face with a wolf that has shown no fear of humans – the comment of “they run from humans” holds no validity in my mind. It is a scary situation to have 125lb wild animal with -as previously stated- no natural enemies stare at you in the middle of a hiking trail before it decides “I’m not that hungry, it probably tastes gross anyway”. They do not have a healthy fear of humans currently because WE don’t hunt them! Once they do run out of natural prey, who is to say they won’t eat someones unattended child? Or is that Holly’s idea of population control???

Posted by: Informed Citizen | February 21, 2008, 10:29 pm 10:29 pm

No, you’re right, I would not like to live in L.A. – I prefer the quiet of the country and a long trail ride on my horse, where I can encounter deer, wild turkey, fox, and the occasional bear – all doing what they were meant to do, being what they were meant to be. Without sounding pedantic or pithy, there is a sacredness to the natural world we often miss in the rush of modern life, which is why I tend to want to defend (the natural world) from the impersonal encroachments of human ambition.

Posted by: Holly | February 21, 2008, 10:31 pm 10:31 pm

I don’t know how long the Alpha pair is mated. I assume until one dies but I really don’t know
If your daughter-in-law is interested in learning about her heritage it can be done. We still hold our dances every third weekend, other ceremonial grounds have different weekends. We dance all winter, others only in the summer. There is a dance every weekend somewhere in Oklahoma in the summer. Cherokee, Creek, Seminole, Choctaw, Euchie… All the eastern tribes dance together now.

Posted by: jijalagi | February 21, 2008, 10:33 pm 10:33 pm

Informed citizen
Wolves in the wild will stay away from humans. Wolves that have been around humans won’t. Some people today breed “wolf dogs”. They have the hunting instincts and prowess of a wolf but they aren’t afraid of people since they are raised in captivity. Those things are dangerous and are often mistaken for wolves.

Posted by: jijalagi | February 21, 2008, 10:39 pm 10:39 pm

Informed Citizen: I never said anything about population control in human beings, and I am neither petty nor self-indulgent; my life does not allow me that luxury. Your assumptions are way off, so why all the vitriol? Are you seriously suggesting that because I oppose delisting, I hope a wolf “eats someone’s unattended child?” That’s a pretty big jump. I advocate for creative, not merely expedient, solutions, and I think I have expressed my opinion here tonight in a civil fashion, don’t you?

Posted by: Holly | February 21, 2008, 10:40 pm 10:40 pm

The main issue with the ESA de-listing is how well the states can take over management. The de-listing has been delayed several years until all three states came up with adequate management plans. Montana’s plan was the best and the state has been effectively managing their wolves for the last three years. Wyoming’s is still fairly inadequate, however. They have only promised to allow 7 packs outside of the National Parks. Montana has rejected the option of aerial hunting, but Wyoming may well still allow it.

Posted by: jock59801 | February 21, 2008, 10:44 pm 10:44 pm

Holly
As jijalagi said “kill the wolf when necessary to defend ourselves or our stock.” This is my sentiment exactly.
This is a logical and unavoidable conclusion. In Northern NJ, NY and PA we sometimes have this problem with the black bear. Many are not afraid of people and will kill a child. It does not happen often but it does happen. But bears fear wolves and dogs so I always have a pair of big ones (between 80 and 100 pounds) in my house to watch my grandchildren. But what do wolves fear?

Posted by: Quietman | February 21, 2008, 10:49 pm 10:49 pm

Wolf population unfortunately will have to be controlled. I fear however that people will start killing wolves just because they can. Perhaps population control should only be done by agents of the government who will only kill what is necessary, leaving what they can. Allowing people to “shoot at will” has a tendency to get out of hand.

Posted by: jijalagi | February 21, 2008, 10:54 pm 10:54 pm

Quietman -
Not much. Big dogs can keep a wolf away I think. I have seen a pack of wolves slowly trot away at the sound of a WW2 Mauser rifle. I do mean slowly and those things are loud. They were close to my sister who was about 10 at the time. My dad was afraid to shoot at the wolves because my sister was so close and it was hard to see with only the porch light. The wolves never made a move to her. They just trotted by. I don’t know if they would have attacked without Dad’s interference but they were already trotting by when my Dad went out on the porch. My sister said they just looked at her and walked on by. Dad’s gun didn’t scare them much.
Personally I carry a .45 in the woods. Wild dogs scare me a lot more than wolves. They don’t have the hunting abilities of a wolf and they aren’t afraid of people. People dump unwanted pets in the country and they eventually end up in hungry packs. A pair attacked me once, or tried. One was a white shepherd and the other looked like a mastiff. I knew I carried that .45 for a reason.

Posted by: jijalagi | February 21, 2008, 11:15 pm 11:15 pm

jijalagi
We get the same treatment here because we have a nice lake nearby. We call them summer people. Stay a month or so and leave behind their dogs and cats.
It upsets the local hunters because the wild dogs run down the young deer. We had a fawn hiding under the porch last spring that was seperated from his mother by wild dogs so we herded him back to the game trail after chasing off the dogs. The stray cats we don’t care too much about, once they turn feral they do a good job of keeping the rodent population down.

Posted by: Quietman | February 21, 2008, 11:34 pm 11:34 pm

I’m 52 and I’ve never seen a cat catch a mouse yet. Heard of it, never saw it. I hate cats. We had a shepherd / coyote that caught field mice! I got to go now. You folks have excessive quantities of fun. ….

Posted by: jijalagi | February 21, 2008, 11:38 pm 11:38 pm

Lets get the truth from these ranchers. What these guys want is to let their cattle roam freely, grazing on federal land. Now all of a sudden the wolves see a free lunch. Why wouldn’t they, isn’t that instinct taking over? Lord knows they can go buy beef at the grocery store………….
Are you people total idiots? I have a plan; How about these ranchers keep their cattle on their own land and they build fences around the entire thing that wolves can’t get into? How about they protect their livelyhood with something other than a gun? I’m often amazed at how some people can build fences to keep large animals in for the sake of trophy hunting for profit yet these poor cattle ranchers can’t keep out a wolf without killing it and the entire species. This is nothing but BS to the core. I say we just buy Japanese beef and put these jerks out of business!!!

Posted by: DK | February 22, 2008, 12:58 am 12:58 am

DK
Maybe you can afford Japanese beef but most of us can’t.

Posted by: Quietman | February 22, 2008, 1:00 am 1:00 am

Ok now address the fences and the fact that ranchers want to graze their cattle on land we all pay for instead of using their own land and protecting their own livelyhood………….. you jumped right on the easy part now lets go to the hard part……. defending it is hard my solutions are rather simple.

Posted by: DK | February 22, 2008, 1:08 am 1:08 am

thats graet!

Posted by: jazzmine | February 22, 2008, 1:21 am 1:21 am

DK
Fencing in an area sounds nice on the surface and here in the east many farms keep their animals from wandering with simple barbwire fence. Fences capable of keeping out wolves is entirely another matter. Wolves jump and dig so you need a solid foundation to stop digging and a fence they can’t jump over or squeeze through. And these are not like eastern cattle with lush vegetation all around which means more land is required. A very expensive proposition. Might as well buy the Kobi.

Posted by: Quietman | February 22, 2008, 1:44 am 1:44 am

DK
Besides, the farmers and ranchers have the right to defend their property, their lives and the lives of their family.

Posted by: Quietman | February 22, 2008, 1:49 am 1:49 am

If the fense solution is too expensive then tough luck. Somehow I don’t feel their pain. As far as protecting “their” property, you’re exactly right if you mean property as in land. They have no right to graze cattle on federal land and then complain about the consequences that come with it. That would be like me complaining because there are rocks in a river I want to Kayak in. I guess I should be permitted to blow them up with dynamite because they pose a danger? To hell with these ranchers and their whining.

Posted by: DK | February 22, 2008, 3:50 am 3:50 am

Also for Bill. Consider that humans also have no natural predators and our population is also exploding. What now?

Posted by: Andy | February 22, 2008, 10:50 am 10:50 am

DK
If the river is on your property and your actions have no effect on those that live downstream you can basically do what you want. Dredge it, build a dock, etc. But if it interferes with the health and safety of others – not.
The issue is not grazing cattle on federal lands, it’s about the right to defend yourself and your property from predators.

Posted by: Quietman | February 22, 2008, 2:04 pm 2:04 pm

jijalagi,
I spent a lot of time in the wild when I was younger, and got to know and respect wolves in their own country. A lot of things were learned, on both sides, and I never had any trouble with them at all. Yes, I watched them hunt and it is not a sight for squeemish city-folk who do not live close to death. It is brutal and bloody, but it is also well planned, well executed, and necessary for the pack’s survival.
The trouble started when I was back in “civilized” areas. One day I had to kill a pair of wild dogs who had no man-fear and must be been really hungry as they attacked me in an open area in broad daylight. Through what I can only consider the grace of God I sustained no major injuries at all, even though I was defending myself with nothing more than a Randall knife. It was one of the most frightening experiences of my life. Nothing like this had happened when living literally nest door to a wolf pack in BC. Since that time I have always carried a .357 magnum when out hiking – never had to use it (yet) but I never again want to be faced with one or more wild dogs with nothing more than a knife for defense.
My take on all this should be obvious: kill wolves only when they directly threaten people or livestock, but go ahead and kill pack dogs wherever they are found. The dogs are the real danger – the wolves aren’t.

Posted by: Walker Evans | February 22, 2008, 2:07 pm 2:07 pm

Myth: Woles are a major threat to livestock.
Fact: Wolves never disappeared from Northern Minnesota– And animal farmers there have never had major problems with wolves killing their livesstock.
Why doesn’t the press report this– in every article about this controversy?

Posted by: Phil Murray | February 22, 2008, 9:57 pm 9:57 pm

That’s fine if you assume these ranchers issues are regarding their cattle on “their” land but you indirectly admitted yourself they are grazing their cattle on federal land. As far as I’m concerned the wolves have as much right to that land as does the rancher or his cattle. Actually they should have more right.
I said it before, for profit trophy hunters have no problem fencing off thousands of acres to keep animals in so they can be “hunted” and these whining ranchers can do the same. The real issue is they want free reign to federal lands because it costs them less that way.

Posted by: dk | February 23, 2008, 2:35 am 2:35 am

dk
Re: ” indirectly admitted ”
I live in rural PA now, have lived in L.A., N.J., L.I. and Texas. I have no idea where they are grazing cattle, nor do I care. I do not agree with hunting down predators only in killing them in defense when it becomes neccessary. The cities have taken away much of their habitat so if you want to blame someone tell it to the trogdolites. Those of us who prefer a rural life live side by side with these animals on a live and let live basis.

Posted by: Quietman | February 23, 2008, 12:44 pm 12:44 pm

I live in NE Minnesota and have a cabin in NW Ontario. There are many wolves here and always have been, so far as I know. I hunt for food (I’m a predator) and have seen wolves while hunting, hiking, fishing, etc. but have found no reason to shoot one. This area has no ranchers, not much for livestock and a low population of humans. The packs here have huge areas to hunt whitetails, moose, mice and other prey without coming across humans. Still they have attacked dogs (yes with the owners present), cows, horses and have crossed humans in other ways (but bad encounters rare). I’ve personally never had a bad encounter despite having them enter my yard (I have huskies and they weren’t attacked). Wolves are shy, smart scavengers and opportunists and being near humans is something they clearly avoid.
Wolves are hard to find here with all of the forrest they have (easier to hear). If we could hunt them, most hunters would pass I think due to the difficulty of the hunt and low value retuned from a kill. You would have to hunt in the winter when its uncomfortable and dangerous (-40 F happens), during daylight hours (wolves are mostly nocturnal) and in remote locations. A hunt would happen after deer season when most hunters have used all of their vacation, money and appetite on deer. Our DNR has gained much respect lately and has proven very capable at managing hunts. In MN at least, its very impractical to hunt wolves and there seems no likelihood that a hunt would attract the numbers required to severely impact the population. I won’t opine on western populations but I think I can make the case that our wolf population can be sustain even with a controlled hunt (I wouldn’t partake in the killing of our wolves nor would I protest it).
On a side note… I feel pretty safe with wolves around but not with mountain lions. Wolves hunt and kill cougars and in doing so help keep us safe from a predator that occasionally attacks humans.

Posted by: MN Man | February 24, 2008, 1:47 am 1:47 am

Wolves were here first. They deserve a chance to live and prosper. It is not their fault that we have taken over their territory. Humans are the pest. We destroy and take everything we want. It is no wonder that our planet is in the current state it is in.
Ranchers: Build higher fences. Respect all life!

Posted by: Pat | March 29, 2008, 12:44 pm 12:44 pm

Wolves are beautiful creatures, until you see them in action… Unfortunatly our youngsters are being misinformed about wolves. Rememer “Little Red Ridding Hood” or the “three little pigs” there is a reason my grandparents told those stories. I know the wolves need to be controlled, I am not saying kill them all, but controll… Wolves are cruel and do thrill kill… I live Know where near the mountains, (Flat Land) wolves kill livestock, just this year one cattle producer lost 38 head, each animal lost is worth $500.00 to $1000.00. You want to talk about cruel. Sometimes Wolves eat the milk bag off the cow, while the cow is fighting to protect her calf, leaving the cow live, and the calf with no milk to drink. Wolves kill one cow a night, but leave many wounded, complete loss. I know a turkey farmer that lost all of his 300 turkeys in two nights. Thrill killing…. I know kids that have been stalked while waiting for the school bus in the morning, the next morning the wolves were eating thier pony 20 feet away from where the bus picks them up. I scene the pictures and wolves are crueler than anything I have ever seen, yet so beautiful. “Evil hids itself in beautiful faces” I seen a film where wolves attack and eat a black bear and her two cubs. This took the wolves awhile, they took turns, they eat before the animals even die. For the person that says that people should be allowed to hunt wolves with no weapon, hand to tooth, please… A pack of wolves is more than capable of eating to armed grown men. To those of you that live in the cities, and do not believe, there is good news for you… Once the wolves are done eating our cattle, pets,livestock, and wildlife, the wolves will move on to find food, they will head to the cities and move in and claim territory where there is plenty to eat. Please wake up and change things, or the wolf will be at your door too.

Posted by: Sara | November 29, 2008, 3:17 pm 3:17 pm

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.