Wolf introduction out west has been a financial disaster for hunting, ranchers and the economy.

[Rattler]

Another example of a government feel good policy that turned into a total disaster for all who are touched by it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INZZSt0kp4w

[Rattler]

More about wolf issues in Idaho.

 

[Lexingtonlegend]

Border Collies? Sorry but, not the right breed for the job.  Anatolian Shepards are wolf killers and have been protecting herds for 1000's of years......Border collies are the size of coyotes...LOL

[Rattler]

They use the Collies to keep the herd together.  Do those Anatolian Shepards do that too?

[Merlot]

I wonder about the government a lot, but were they RE-introducing the wolf to that area of the country, as opposed to introducing wolves to the area? If a re-introduction, I may be able to see why, but if the locals were not informed or talked to before, then the government may have screwed up.

I also heard about wild horses being relocated off federal lands and paying owners of large ranches to take them? That seems crazy to disrupt the natural order of things....Of course Occasional Cortex in the house of reps is a disruption all by herself. 

[Rattler]

The wolves were in those areas, but it was 100 years ago, but not in the numbers that are there today.  Much has changed since then.  Special interest groups pushed to re-introduce them, but they didn't have the foresight to see what would happen, or were not saying what they knew.  The locals were against it from the start, fearing it would cause problems, but even they are surprised how big the problems are.

Edited June 9, 2019 by Rattler

[ATbuckhunter]

Its not a total disaster. Wolved definitley have to be managed intensively, but they did help in some ways. There were areas that the elk had devistated by taking out age classes of vegitation and the wolves did knock down the numbers enough to allow for regeneration. Im definitely not saying that the wolf numbers shouldnt be reduced, becuase I do believe they have to be reduced by a substancial amount in a lot of places. 

[Hunter007]

I would think the right amount of hunting and trapping would keep the wolfs overthere in check , With out having to get rid of all of them altogether. 

 

[Rattler]

The wolves were on the endangered species list for far too long.  Special interest groups vigorously fought taking them off the list and allowing hunting.  Even now, the number of wolf hunting permits is far too low to control them and most are taken as targets of opportunity by Elk hunters.  In areas where Elk were too numerous, they should've allowed more Elk hunting.  Letting the wolves take them down helped control the Elk population, but is now over controlling that population, as well as the cattle and sheep in those areas.

The reality of the situation, which the government is just starting to understand, is that wolves are apex predators that are very intelligent, adaptable, wary and extremely hard to control with hunting and trapping.  They also breed very intensively.  The old timers who lived in these areas 100 years ago understood this and spent many years getting these predators under control.  Allowing the emotions and faux science of animal special interest groups to drive the decision making process for re-introducing them, was a politically correct decision that has proven to be a huge mistake.

The government allowed the situation to get way out of control and now it's costing millions a year to try to get it under control.

Edited June 10, 2019 by Rattler

[Rattler]

Twenty-three years ago, the United States started an experiment: What would happen if U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released grey wolves in the West? The results are mixed. To their credit, wolves have successfully controlled the grass-munching elk and deer populations of the Northern Rockies. That means they also leave more habitat available for other species, from bugs to beneficial algae. But wolves aren’t picky. And ranchers’ cows make for easy targets. In states like Idaho, where wolves were released two decades ago, ranchers can protect their herds by killing wolves, and the states allow wolf trophy hunts to further thin packs. But in Oregon, ranchers are caught between the wolves killing cows on their grazing grounds and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, which has strict rules against killing wolves in all but the rarest circumstances. Ranchers who keep losing cattle to wolves, and the residents of Eastern Oregon who rely on the economy created by the cattle industry, have long argued the state of Oregon should loosen the rules around wolf kills, and let ranchers kill whole packs of wolves. For the first time, last year, the state allowed for just that — four wolves from the Harl Butte Pack of northeastern Oregon were killed. Environmentalists decried the wolf killings as unnecessary and cruel. Ranchers here hope it’s just the start.

Edited June 10, 2019 by Rattler

[Rattler]

As hunters, this film has some data that should be of interest to us.  How does the government introduction of apex predators affect hunting opportunity.  That can be seen here at the 2:20 mark.

 

[Rattler]

Wyoming issues.

 

[left field]

So it's a complicated issue that will require a complicated and compromised solution. Okay.

Personally, I like wolves. I'd rather have wolves and compensate ranchers for livestock loss than have a few more cows/sheep/dogs and no wolves at all.

[Rattler]

Nobody says have no wolves at all.  Why do people think that is what is being requested?  They need to reduce their numbers dramatically.  Why are wolf supporters fighting that solution?

It's not complicated at all.  It a political issue.  Right now the solution is not being implemented.  It is being actively fought by special interests.  There is simply a program to throw money at a problem, that is getting bigger and more expensive by the year.

The losses include cows, sheep, dogs and Elk, as well as other wildlife.  We hunters should be looking at the damage to hunting and it's related industries here.  The losses amount to a couple hundred million a year.

If anyone were to make a decision in the private sector that cost all of their neighbors that kind of money, they would be sued for damages in a heartbeat. 

How about if only people who want to compensate ranchers, or defend the losses to all involved, fork over the money?  Does the government have a right to install an expensive, inefficient, wasteful program, with a cost to ALL taxpayers, to satisfy people who want an immense population of wolves?

Basing environmental decisions on emotion, always costs taxpayers huge amounts, because they are not based on science.  The people who want wolves are often the same people who demand we all look at the science behind climate change, yet conveniently ignore science in cases like this.

Wolf re-introduction without any controls, was a mistake.  Fighting the solution is a mistake.  Wishing the wolves won't do what wolves do is fantasy.  The numbers must be reduced.

[Hunter007]

They should just chop down the population with lots of hunting and trapping  even this technique and you can get there numbers down really fast probably.  Having them around is not a big deal if you just manage it right .

 

 

 

[LET EM GROW]

I always had the mind set of, everything in life has to managed one way or another, Checks and balances.. Bank accounts, cash flow, Groceries, behaviors etc.. Same goes for wildlife, whether its a precisely planned hunting season, trapping season. Open to ranchers only.. who knows.. i sure don't.. but at some point, somehow, some way... everything must be managed. I think we all know this..  

[stubborn1VT]

Politics won't allow for wolves to be managed like other game animals at this point.  It's not that simple.  If it was just a matter of using biology to determine suitable numbers, that would be fine.  Just like any number of other issues, there are two sides that don't seem to compromise.  Re-introducing wolves is a nice idea and there is tons of land out West, but the reality is that the environment is much different than it was 100 years ago.  I'm not against wolves, but I don't know how you manage/control packs of killing machines so they don't affect the economy and the ecosystem in a way that negatively impacts humans.  People I know from Montana complain that they have to worry about their pets, livestock and small children.  They can't call and hunt elk like they always have because the elk are less vocal.  They don't want to give their location away to wolf packs.  Until the state governments are allowed to aggressively manage them, there will be conflicts.  If you think it's as simple as reimbursing people for their lost livestock, then you haven't done any farming of your own.

[Rattler]

The special interest groups defend wolves, grizzlies and mountain lions.  These animals kill a lot of other game animals.  The special interest groups are also anti hunting.  How are those groups allowed to decide what predators are allowed and what damage they will be allowed to do?

I can't help but suspect this has much to do with eliminating hunting from the wildlife management plan.  If game animals become scare due to predators, hunters will be the ones who are told they can no longer control the population of these animals.

Considering all of the revenue generated by hunters in many areas of the economy, as well as contributing to state coffers, that would be and economic disaster that may be irreversible.

[left field]

Yes, never farmed. Or appreciate the amount of work involved. And I haven't looked into this past these videos and reading about the Yellowstone reintroduction that literally changed the ecosystem for the positive: wolves meant a more mobile elk which couldn't over browse which lead to more willows, aspen and cottonwood and therefore more beavers, and better bird and trout habitat.

1 hour ago, Rattler said:

The special interest groups defend wolves, grizzlies and mountain lions.  These animals kill a lot of other game animals.  The special interest groups are also anti hunting.  How are those groups allowed to decide what predators are allowed and what damage they will be allowed to do?

I can't help but suspect this has much to do with eliminating hunting from the wildlife management plan.  If game animals become scare due to predators, hunters will be the ones who are told they can no longer control the population of these animals.

Considering all of the revenue generated by hunters in many areas of the economy, as well as contributing to state coffers, that would be and economic disaster that may be irreversible.

 So, no to that special interest group but yes to this one?

Edited June 11, 2019 by left field

[Rattler]

Well, one creates a huge expense for taxpayers and one contributes huge revenue to the economy and wildlife conservation.  Which one would you choose?  BTW, it was the hunting revenue that was spent to re-introduce these wolves.

[left field]

Can I be in favour of all? Wolves, ranchers, elk, hunters, coyotes, F&G scientists, beavers, hikers, willows, hippies, and trout? 

[Rattler]

I don't see how.  A Coexist bumper sticker won't make it work.  What's your plan?

 

[left field]

I don’t have a plan. Do I need one to comment? 

[airedale]

I actually like Wolves myself, being a dog person how could I not, they are so like domestic dogs. Had no problem when they introduced them to Yellowstone so long as they stayed in Yellowstone and that is where I part company with the so called endangered species act that has been weaponized with everything Wolf. These are not animals that do well with humans and their lifestyle and to have them expand in large numbers out of the parks into farm and ranch lands causing big time problems with out control is not good. I have no problem with them being protected in wild places but to reintroduce among people and their animals is a bad idea, they were eradicated for good reason.

Before judgement is passed on a subject such as Wolves being a big time problem as the old saying goes "Walk A Mile In My Shoes". It is so easy for someone that lives in a place far away to trivialize the disaster Wolves have caused on livestock, pets and large wildlife animals that are hunted. They are not the ones that hunted areas that for generations provided good Deer, Elk and even Bison populations for sport hunting and outfitting businesses and now have populations that are so low there is no hunting. They are not the Farmers and Ranchers that have to deal with livestock loses. The are not the hunter who uses dogs to hunt birds and fur in areas that have been taken over by Wolves.  Even pet owners have felt the impact. 

I have acquaintances in that live, hunt and farm-ranch in the Wolf zones and to say things are bad is an understatement but you will not see any Wolf negativity on your evening news or on Nat Geo or Animal Planet.

Below are few photos of hunting dogs that met the Wolf wrath and this happens a lot. Many folks I have talked to just quit hunting with dogs because of this. Speaking for myself money is no compensation for the time spent training and the bond developed between me a good hunting dog. Seeing those dogs pictured makes me very angry to say the least. Some serious hunting of Wolves needs to be done.

Edited June 11, 2019 by airedale

[b3h]

Yes, never farmed. Or appreciate the amount of work involved. And I haven't looked into this past these videos and reading about the Yellowstone reintroduction that literally changed the ecosystem for the positive: wolves meant a more mobile elk which couldn't over browse which lead to more willows, aspen and cottonwood and therefore more beavers, and better bird and trout habitat.
 So, no to that special interest group but yes to this one?

Left field
Not tryin to be a dick but that study was pretty much bs. Dig a little deeper with google-fo if u want to find out the whole story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk