Get Rid of the Wolves

....... the mauling and killing of adults and children have been by bears.


Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator

1) black bear can be hunted.
2) black bear can be eaten by humans, I've had some myself years ago. Good meat, taste like greasy beef, not dry like venison.
3) black bear attacks are most often retaliatory in nature.
4) black bear will often break off an attack when one plays dead.
5) black bear don't travel in predatory packs.
6) black bear don't target cattle

The nature of the two are quite different and a wolfpack would better be compared to a ferile dog pack that begins attacking domesticated animals. No state back East here would tolerate such a wild pack of dogs ravaging the countryside. Yet, for some reason there are some of those same who feel their distant neighbors out West should have to.

... from the East to the West.

Also, a feral dog pack could be considered an invasive group of animals... not to mention the irresponsible human behavior of allowing a domestic animal to become wild is against the law.

I can't speak for your part of the East, James, but here in WV, we have had an explosion of deer during thee last 50 years. My grandfather described his youth of hunting in the woods of WV in the 1920's, where you could go days without seeing a deer. Today, I can look out my window of an evening and see 4 or 5 and not be surprised. Sadly, I see a fresh roadkill deer almost every day. There is a mother with a broken front leg that feeds off of my fruit tree's that I will soon be culling after it's fawn disappears or it doesn't die first, or a black bear doesn't take it.

If we had a wolf pack nearby, I wouldn't have to watch that deer stumble across my lawn and into the woods every night. JMO... but there are well established reasons why the world is the way it is. In my experience, mankind's "improvements" often make a bigger problem out of nature than what it was before.

It's true population densities are different, but the dangers are the same, and maybe more due to smaller human population groups.
Read this family's camping trip of terror due to wolf attack.

Also deliberate lying to cover up the truth of the danger. Pay attentin to this particular part in that report.

"When federal agents arrived, they took both bodies for their own autopsies?and exchanged a stillborn calf for the one the wolf killed, claiming the wolf had not killed the calf. What they didn?t know was that Cope had a videotape of the original autopsy. ?He had indisputable evidence that the calf was live born,? says Tim. ?The feds didn?t know about that tape. When they found out, they knew they?d hung themselves; it showed they were not honest,?"

Canadian man killed by wolf attack

The real facts about wolves attacking humans.

Here's one excerpt from 27 documented wolf attacks on humans. Our forefathers were certainly more acquainted with the dangers of wolves than our current crop of wolfies who support the mistake that's been made by reintroducing them.

The news has just reached here that a father and son, living several miles northeast of this city, were destroyed by wolves yesterday. The two unfortunate men started to a haystack some ten rods from the house to shovel a path around the stack when they were surrounded by wolves and literally eaten alive. The horror-stricken mother was standing at the window with a babe in her arms, a spectator to the terrible death of her husband and son, but was unable to aid them. After they had devoured every flesh from the bones of the men, the denizens of the forest attacked the house, but retired to the hills in a short time. Investigation found nothing but the bones of the husband and son. The family name was Olson. Wolves are more numerous and dangerous now than ever before known in North Dakota." (Saint Paul Daily Globe, March 8, 188

Now, there may be some who even keep wolves in kennels or at approved places for domesticated wolves, but they suffer from an indeliberate ignorance of wolves in the wild and therefore a personal bias concerning the matter. Considering oneself a expert due to some domesticated associate with wolves or half wolves (mixed with dog breeds) is about as valid as the city kid who visits the zoo every day near his house on the way home from school with his zoo pass and thinking he's an expert on chimpanzees in the wild because he hangs out at the monkey house most afternoons observing them.

The blood of those attacked and killed by these wolves is on the hands of those who advocate and support their introduction to Yellowstone or other areas.

you forgot Little Red Riding Hood and the tale of the three pigs.

James, rather than accepting those tales at face value you might have actually done sone checking and you would have discovered that Tim Sundles has a vested interest in anti wolf interests. That same research and checking that you didn't manage to accomplish (should be no problem for such a "speed reader") would have shown that the alledged "attack" wasn't proven and that based on his prior words and deeds the illegal killing was accomplished to provide the "needed" attack to polarize people and get feel good legislation passed.

This alone should have clued you from the very fairy tale you cited:

"They woke next morning just before daylight, with a pack of wolves among their horses. ?What woke me was their howling, and the horses were having a fit. I ran out with a flashlight and small revolver. I screamed and hollered?shot up in the air a few times and ran the wolves off.?

Wolves hunt SILENTLY!

If that didn't clue you then surely you might have gained a bit of an idea regarding how and when he brought it to light - "The purpose of the hearing was for input on delisting the thriving population of reintroduced wolves."

Regarding the Robert Cope tape of the "calf autopsy", do note that despite that "tape" (it wasn't made by the vet, it was made by Hussey, the owner of the calf and there was no autopsy) the federal biologist's determination that the calf was dead before the wolf got to it has stood up to the test. "Before notifying authorities, rancher Hussey had videotaped his investigation by a local veterinarian. Using Hussey?s videotape, a walk over the kill site, the vet?s written statement and an examination of the calf, Koch and Layne Bangerter, who works for the federal Animal Damage Control program, reconstructed the deaths." All the "evidence" showed (in Hussey's tape)was that the calf had possibly been killed but NOT that the wolf killed it. It's location 66 feet from where it supposedly died and the wolf was eating it indicate that it was more likely killed by a bear (if it was killed) because a 90 pound wolf cannot carry a 66 pound calf without leaving drag marks although a bear can. The main trouble with the "evidence" of the tape is that prior to taping, the site had been trampled by local residents, including the local sheriff, who conducted their own "investigation" prior to contacting the Service. Another little thing to consider is that despite what was said about an autopsy by the vet and a substitution by federal agents the ONLY "autopsy" (actually a necropsy) was conducted at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's lab in Ashland, Oregon which determined that the calf "may have been stillborn or ... died from natural causes shortly after birth.". (possible to read more at http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/wpages/idaho-o.htm )
Wolf killing will never be solved
http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=1334
more near the bottom of this page:
http://www.forwolves.org/120296g.html

By the way, here is a slightly more complete version of his FAIRY TALE and the way he accuses the federal government of killing people in Klamath you can see why parts were left out -- even those wanting to be able to show an attack couldn't take it.
http://www.cascadehorseman.com/archives/cattleman/2002/mar02wolf.htm

Lemhi County Sheriff Brett Barsalou by the way has always been against wolves and is known for refusing to investigate illegal shootings. It is little wonder that he accompanied Sundles and the agents and rather strange that Sundles refused to re-enact the "attack" or submit to questioning.

Your second link, despite what you called it, also lacks reality. A weak "maybe" in view of the fact that bears are also living in the area and there have been several recorded instances of bear attacks.

Your final link is also rather short on any verifiable proofs and worth about as much.

Shame on you.

PS - I got your thinly veiled reference to me an my wolves but it is you who is woefully ignorant of the realities of wolves and myself who has studied them, observed them both at home and in the wild, and lived with them. You yourself are limited to linking to and citing sensationalist stories related by and via persons and media with a vested interest in not having nor wanting them around. You fear what you don't understand.

but the page i'm looking at says "It?s extraordinarily rare for a wolf to attack a human. In the US, there have been 25 wolf attacks in the past 100 years ? and no recorded deaths"

.,

did you read the rest of it AND take a moment to discover what was behind the page?

No, you didn't.

and then consider this....

you have no idea what page i was reading.... it was NOT in any way a SENSATIONALIST story....


but you carry on doing your thing regardless...


.,

? An adult wolf can eat 10kg of meat in 40 minutes.
? It?s extraordinarily rare for a wolf to attack a human. In the US, there have been 25 wolf attacks in the past 100 years ? and no recorded deaths.
? Wolves are strong enough to kill humans, but they're scared of us. The problems start when they become habituated to human contact ? if people start feeding them or they spend a lot of time around people.
? In Yellowstone National Park, where wolves are constantly visited by tourists, park rangers shoot bangers, bean bags and rubber bullets at them to reverse the habituation. The wolves have now learned to stay away from anyone dressed in green.
? The country with the biggest wolf problem is India. In the past 50 years, habituated wolves have killed hundreds of children.
? One wolf eats an average of six to seven moose per year. On Isle Royale, that means about 200 moose will be eaten this year ? almost half the current population of 550. The moose population has plummeted from 2,500 in 1995, leading scientists to speculate that the wolves may not last another decade.
? Wolves only arrived on Isle Royale in 1948, when an ice bridge formed from the Canadian mainland. The small pack that crossed only contained one female, so the island?s entire population is descended from her.


http://www.wanderlust.co.uk/features/feat74b.html


.,

I noticed the statement "In the US, there have been 25 wolf attacks in the past 100 years ? and no recorded deaths.". Trying to find hard statistics on this is hard. Could you help us with a link on some hard numbers?
Of course, the thing that is needed is numbers on wolf attacks in the wild, excluding attacks by ones kept as pets or in other not in the wild situations. After all, a couple of years ago there was an attack on a human by a tiger in Las Vegas and even in a casino, no less.

... to try and reintroduce the tiger, into casinos.

i chose the link at random from a google search on wolf attacks USA


.,

I noticed something else in that story. In the sidebar it said "In Yellowstone National Park, where wolves are constantly visited by tourists, park rangers shoot bangers, bean bags and rubber bullets at them to reverse the habituation. The wolves have now learned to stay away from anyone dressed in green.
I wondered about them avoiding green, so I tried to find out info on how well they see color. I found a site that said "Dogs don't see color very well. The ability to see color depends on the number and type of color-sensitive cells -- called cones -- in the eye. The human eye has more cones, and more kinds of cones, than a dog's eye does. So we can perceive more colors than a dog can. But dogs' eyes outdo ours when it comes to rods. Rods are cells that help dogs (and us) see in dim light. Dogs may not see color very well, but they can see in the dark much better than we can.".
Granted, it was info about dogs, but in the light of that info, I can't help but wonder if the color vision on a wolf is better - or at least better enough to justify that avoiding people dressed in green statement.
I noticed that it said "park rangers shoot bangers". I wonder if they are referring to those 12Guage noise/flash rounds. I happen to have a box of them, and believe me they would frighten any animal. If that is the case, could they be avoiding outline of a human with a ranger "Smokey the Bear" hat rather than the color green because sometimes that outline means flash/bang?

so you won't have to read the whole thing again to see this I will just point out a few lines.

YOUR LINK:
http://www.wanderlust.co.uk/features/feat74b.html

The only sensible thing to do was close my eyes and hope for a quick death.

Somewhere in the back of my mind a tiny voice was saying, ?Relax! It?s just a fox ? no wolf would ever come this close to camp.?

then

Then came the bit we?d all been waiting to hear: wolves.

then

?You know the only way to tell the difference between a wolf and a loon? Easy ? they sound the same, but only one will make the hair on the back of your neck stand up.?

I wondered what possible evolutionary advantage it could give a species that can already fly to be able to scare the wits out of people by howling exactly like a wolf in the middle of the night? That wasn?t going to help it survive. In fact, if I?d had a gun, it would have been a distinct evolutionary disadvantage.

So for the second morning in a row I woke up late, sun on my tent-canvas, feeling slightly sheepish (albeit in wolves? clothing).

And to cap it off -

In the end, he mosied round camp for 45 minutes (at one point, strolling right past a picnicking family), before finally bedding down for the night at the very centre of the few tents. After dinner I went out to find him again, and there was a female moose ten metres away in the other direction. Half an hour later, the male gave me a nod as he sauntered past my tent.

Two hours earlier, I?d been worried about going home without having seen one of these gentle giants. Now my main worry was not tripping over one if I had to pee in the night. I went to sleep to the sound of chomping.

In the night, I woke again. No fear of wolves this time, just the light of the full moon. ...

Do you really have any idea of what sensationalism is Jonah? Any idea of the large number of well documented attacks on people by a moose - those "gentle giants"?

Don't suggest "pills" to others when it is apparent yours aren't working for you.

something on the web than you do by actual experience in the situation.

Here's some more quite recent wolf activity that didn't really happen and is probably nothing more than sensationalism. I can just see Ed telling this person "Now that's quite a sensational tale you told there fella!". You see, if the wolf isn't killed or caught where they can't make up a good "dat dere's a rabid wolf story", they have to try harder to come up with something else like, uh, "hunger drove him/her to it". No joke Sherlock! We didn't think it was a full belly that caused it! But, for the wolfies sake let's just pretend these things don't happen. </wink>

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=88d43181-3122-4ed4-a5a2-5ce16ea229d4
http://outdoorlife.blogs.com/newshound/2007/08/bc-wolf-attack-.html
"British Columbia wildlife authorities said there was no doubt about the wolf?s intentions. ?This was a predatory wolf attack,? conservation officer James Zucchelli told the Vancouver Sun newspaper. ?That fellow was perceived as a prey source. He was attacked with intent to eat. Upon investigating the incident and discovering the wolf?s carcass, it was found that the animal was not rabid, but weighed only 55 pounds?far less than the average of 88 pounds for a healthy female. A necropsy found the wolf?s stomach contained a river otter jaw, a feather and bones from a fish scavenged from the beach."

Well, aren't we relieved this wasn't an incident of some violent human deciding he'd like to attack some poor lil' wolf with his bowie knife and got a few nips in the bargain.


I like this hunter's comment;
"In my life time sportsmen, mostly hunters, have invested million, maybe even billions of dollars on wildlife tags licenses and other ways,(taxes donations etc.) to improve wild life herds. Why? so they could be hunted? Or become Wolfe and Cougar food. Environmentalists, haven?t spent there money, they have your money to destroy your investment. Kinda sucks huh?"

Some other comments there about news of 6 children in Canada being wolf attacked while at a beach, just having a fun day with the family.

I didn't see your post till after I'd posted, or I'd have placed mine in a different part of the main thread. I don't use the "tree" view and don't always refresh till I've made a post.

I searched for references to Saint Paul Daily Globe, March 8, 1888 stories about wolf attacks.
How about that, I got a couple of hits. It was referred to by the Abundant Wildlife Society Of North America.
The next logical step was to find information about this organization. I found this:
ABUNDANT WILDLIFE SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA
A for-profit group that claims to oppose the "exploitation of wildlife or the needless destruction of habitat." Founded by a former Wyoming cattleman named **** Mader, the Society advocates predator control, hunting and trapping on public lands and is working toward dismantling the Endangered Species Act. "The hunting of rare and endangered species is what keeps [the animals] alive," says spokesperson Troy Mader. Members are mainly hunters, trappers and ranchers. The Society won't disclose membership or budget figures.

Each side has their truth I guess. Wolfies are discredited simply because of their bias that borders on wolf worship, Ranchers and Hunters are discredited because they have their livelihood or sport threatened. One thing is clear to me though. No one would be wanting to kill or eradicate the wolves unless they were a problem, unless they'd created hardship where it didn't exist before the wolves' return. From the news of increasing problems with the wolves, I think it won't be long before we hear of tourist in Yellowstone being attacked.

all must share the same actual FACTS and the FACTS fail to support your thoughtless view.

You state: " One thing is clear to me though. No one would be wanting to kill or eradicate the wolves unless they were a problem, unless they'd created hardship where it didn't exist before the wolves' return."

Your very own posts refute that statement and further indicate that you apparently consider yourself to be "No one".


Still haven't told us whether you also ascribe to the "only good indian is a ..." philosophy. (Indians being something else you do not have a functional nor working knowledge of.)

One thing I found interesting is, if you google Tim Sundles, you find Idaho's anti-wolf crusade is expected to intensify in coming weeks with the federal trial of Tim Sundles, an ammunition maker from Carmen, a rural town of 600 in northeast Idaho. He is charged with attempting to poison wolves in the Salmon National Forest last winter, and with placing a pesticide on federal land without permission, both misdemeanors.
Sundles, 47, operates an anti-wolf website that provides detailed instructions on how to "successfully poison a wolf." In a recent interview, however, Sundles said he is innocent of the attempted poisoning charge and decried the law-enforcement search of his home as a "Gestapo-style raid" by "an out-of-control federal agency."
Sundles dismisses the poisoning of pets as "collateral damage" and blasts federal wildlife managers for "dumping" wolves in the state.
"I'm shocked that human blood hasn't been spilled on this issue," Sundles said in an interview. "I'm surprised there hasn't been a gunfight. I'm surprised that the feds who've done this haven't been hunted down and killed," he said of the reintroduction of the wolves.
Sundles is the latest face of Idaho's campaign to eradicate wolves from the state. Ron Gillett, co-chairman of the Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition, is another.
"Let me tell you something. We will get rid of these wolves, one way or another," Gillett said, his index finger stabbing the air, during a recent interview in Lakefield, a hamlet east of Boise.
"We are law-abiding citizens. We will try it legally. But I'm not going to live with no elk, no deer, no bighorn sheep and no goats, just because some environmentalist someplace wants to hear a wolf howl. No. You either give up or move over, because we are going to run over you. No compromise. No negotiation. No Canadian wolves in Idaho."
But Steve Nadeau, wolf coordinator for Idaho's Department of Fish and Game, said the state's elk population has been stable for years. This year "has been a banner year for elk and deer. Really good hunting," he said.
Nadeau estimated that wolves are responsible for about 1% of elk deaths in Idaho. According to many wolf biologists, hunters aren't seeing as many elk because wolves are driving them into higher country, which is less accessible to humans.In Idaho, data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service indicate that only 35% of sheep deaths are attributable to predators, with wolves accountable for only 0.4% of sheep kills by predators. The data indicate that domestic dogs are responsible for nearly 20 times more sheep kills than wolves.
The same numbers hold true for cattle, where wolves are responsible for 0.6% of predator kills.
As far as the threat to humans, a 2002 study by Alaska wildlife officials found that there have been only a handful of documented wolf attacks on humans in North America since the 1800s. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police suspect wolves in a fatal attack on a man in Saskatchewan last month. If true, it would be the first such recorded death in 100 years, according to the Alaska study.

Diana

of his STORIES for background such as the reality of Hussey's calf and what the "tape" actually consisted of.

One of the links I provided for James to educate himself tells a similar tale of how Hussey acted and the tales he told of Wildlife agents being abusive "thugs" and how recordings made by those he claimed were abusive showed a completely different story.

The sad thing here is that Idaho's governor wants to initiate hunting immediately upon the wolves coming off the endangered list and immediately reduce the total population to a non sustaining minumum. It is doubtful that Idaho's governor will be re-elected for that reason because even MOST of the ranchers support and voted for their re-introduction.

...trying to learn what kind of a dog pack that is.