Gray wolf hunting to begin again in Idaho

Source: LA Times

Gray wolf hunting to begin again in Idaho

The move may undo the success of the animal's comeback, say environmental groups, which have asked a judge to intervene.

By Kim Murphy

Reporting from Seattle - The gray wolf, virtually exterminated in the West in the early 20th century, will be hunted once again in Idaho beginning today after a successful reintroduction program saw populations of the predator bloom across much of the northern Rocky Mountains.

Though a federal judge has been asked to intervene, new state laws call for wolf hunts to begin today in two parts of Idaho, followed by hunts in much of the rest of the state and in Montana later this month.

Protected under the federal Endangered Species Act since 1973, when they were nearly extinct in the continental United States, wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park and parts of Idaho in the 1990s and have since formed a large number of hunting and breeding packs that are beginning to range as far as Oregon.

The federal government concluded that the wolves, which now number about 1,650, had recovered, and lifted the endangered-species protections this year.

<snip>


Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-wolves1-2009sep01,0,1812207.story

---

Yeah. Thanks for the great big heap of"change." And gee, back to rooting for the courts to stop an out-of-control Federal policy.

Do they just like killing?

The other day I saw a big pickup truck with a huge decal over the back window with the head of a wolf framed by a gun sight target. It was captioned "TAKE 'EM OUT!"

:puke:

n/t

Unfortunately, we are in the minority and have to fight against the Michael Vick types every day.

...which lifted the protections.

because the wolf is wiping out the elk herds. It's been devastating here in North Central Idaho.

And of course, cattle grazing, etc., couldn't possibly be impacting elk herds, eh?

by not leaving any elk at all. Plus, it's not just the elk that have been devasted. These beautiful animals (the gray wolf)were NOT here to begin with. The word reintroduced is not correct.

People who want the wolf herds under control are not killers or death hungry. We just want our forests back.....and the animals that once multiplied and sustained us. You, evidently, have no idea whats been going on over the past decade or so.

as they originally evolved, the original range of wolves, or an idea that there *might* be other pressures on elk populations.

But why take on cattle ranchers, developers, or climate change when it's easier to murder wolves?

After all, humans have been "blaming wolves" for centuries now -- why stop in Idaho?

First off, the grey wolf IS indigenous to Idaho, as it is to most of the continental United States.

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/

If you believe otherwise, please cite your source.

Second, wolves are a key component in maintaining a healthy elk herd. Without wolves, elk may stop migrating, and will suffer boom and bust population levels, and will actually damage the carrying capacity of their habitat.

If the wolves trim the elk herd to the point there is no surplus elk for humans to hunt, so be it. The wolves will NOT wipe out the elk. Period.

Here, some light reading for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka-Volterra_equation

I think that says it all.

BTW Lewis and Clark found them when they were on their trip.



wolf herds :rofl:


they are called packs

:shrug:

data backing up the claim.

The wolves are not wiping out the elk although they might be putting the #s of elk back into
a more normal population.

Which has all kinds of positive, usually unforseen benefits.

http://www.yellowstonepark.com/MoreToKnow/ShowNewsDetails.aspx?newsid=179

A key component to understanding the ecosystem is comprehending the predator-prey relationship. Wolves are declining in Yellowstone, and Elk are increasing, because the elk herd has leveled off at a healthy number, they are migrating, etc. Meaning, the wolves now have to work harder to catch elk, so their numbers have declined somewhat. A strong indicator that a healthy balance has been reached.
http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2009/03/Yellowstonewolfnumbe.htm

Without the wolves, the elk herds in Yellowstone will follow a boom-bust cycle, getting as low as 4-6,000 elk on starvation, then when the habitat can provide food again due to the lower elk numbers, the elk population can explode to around 30,000. They strip the nearby vegitation, and then they starve back down to sub-10,000 numbers. This is unhealthy.

The wolves will manage the elk better than we can. Yes, that will result in fewer hunting opportunities. So be it.

The elk had become "cattle" and would lounge about stripping out the vegetation .... they (the elk) really liked
to lay in the Aspens by the creeks and rivers .... the elk would eat the young Aspens sprouting from the roots
of the older Aspens ..... some of these old clones of Aspens were 1,000 + years old and they were being wiped
out. Well bring in the wolves and the elk could no longer just hang out in the Aspen groves by the creeks so
the following things happened:

more cutthroat trout because the aspens grew back and shaded the creeks and more insects fell from the
branches = trout food

The grizzly did better because they like the trout and more bears stayed away from people

The meadows grew higher because of less grazing pressure and with higher meadows the mice, voles, rabbits, and what not did better.

The eagles, hawks, and owls did better w/ the greater amounts of mice & .......

The native grasses and wildflowers did better which in turn helped butterflies, birds, and insects.

***************
Sadly many out west have been sold the idea that the wolf = big liberal government that doesn't understand "how the real people who live
here really understand how things are."

Many out west in the sheep and cattle ranching biz see the wolf as something that cuts into their profits .... that is true but if you lose some
stock to a wolf you get paid for your loose ... and if the wolf comes back you can shoot it.

The Wolf also thins the coyote population way down too and the coyote loves sheep and baby cows .... I know because my grandfather had
a ranch and an orchard in southern Oregon.

Also many got used to easy elk hunting and the wolf has changed that .... although there is still plenty of elk to hunt
http://www.bowhuntingworld.com/ArticleContent/8/2009/1834/Elk-Hunt-Forecast-for-2009-Released

The cause-effect relationships in an ecosystem are mind-boggling. When the elk were stripping down the easy to reach aspen, they were annihilating the beaver habitat. So the beaver moved off downstream. Without beaver dams, the streams ran faster, and there were fewer pools where water loiters and absorbs into the water table.

Restoring the wolves restored the beaver habitat, and the water table rises, the vegetation does better, and on and on.

And good point about the coyote's. Wolves keep them in check. Coyotes are much more likely to attack various livestock than wolves.

.... comes into an area like clock work and has lost much of it's natural instincts. Although in Idaho
the Mt. Lion keeps the elk "honest" although I don't think they kill enough to effect the population
size ..... a Mt. Lion will kill an elk or a deer and feed on it for a week or so unless a bear or some other
animal finds the body.

A wolf pack will finish off a kill soon after it is taken down .... as dogs they can go a long time with out eating
but the pack will start hunting pretty soon after they are done with their meal ..... because it will take some time
to make another kill .... that is true w/ moose and caribou because they "run them" for days. I don't know if
it is true w/ elk in Idaho though. I would bet a lot of elk that get hit but not killed on the roads or wounded by
hunters became wolf meat.

Thanx about the beaver story.



I work w/ native plants .... in Wisconsin the return of the wolf .... (they did it on their own) has helped the native ecology by
helping to thin the deer herds too.

I live in NE Illinois and would love to see them in the wild...

(A family of wolves was found living under a culvert by a freeway close to Madison.)




However wolves do not like to be seen.

Chequamegon National Forest has some good spots ..... look for the pine / oak scrub lands.

:thumbsup:

But thanks for playing. :eyes:

because this is an Idaho state-sanctioned hunt only possible because the ESA protection was lifted. they THINK that wolves are "devastating" the elk population, just like they THINK the wolves MIGHT predate sheep, & THINK that yellowstone bison MIGHT give montana cattle brucellocis. anomalous anecdotes do not equal science.

idaho is the last bastion of the government-subsidized rugged individualist, too driven by self-centered fear and too obstinate to consider that there is a different way than bible-sanctioned rape and pillage until the resource is extinct. this goes for the hobby montana cattle ranchers around yellowstone and their lust for bison blood, too.

I don't get it. Why do people want to hunt wolves?
Posted by Coventina


Do they just like killing?

Wolves are efficient pack hunters, and yes, they do enjoy hunting. They are larger and more dangerous than coyotes, and very dangerous to stock. If they are not hunted at all, they lose their fear of humans and will come right up to buildings to eat stock, at which point they are also a danger to people. That usually happens mostly during the winter, when game is shorter.

Look, feral hogs in the southeast, which are omnivores, will break into a chicken coop and eat the contents. They even eat baby deer and lambs, and if they get a dog down they may eat it too. Wolves are more dangerous.

Do you remember the story the other day about the two old people killed by a pack of feral dogs in GA? Think about it, and then you'll understand that decal. If you allow some hunting the wolves will try to stay away from humans.

domesticated animals gone feral?

You don't know the first thing about which you speak.

people who want to hunt wolves.

Of course wolves "enjoy" hunting. For them it's survival. If they didn't hunt they would starve.

And hunting wolves has NOTHING to do with the problem of feral dogs. NOTHING.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/14/HOGCRGL75U1.DTL

One death, in the wilds of Saskatchewan, and twenty seven documented attacks. That's going back as far as the writer could find records.

More people are attacked by raccoons, by feral pigs, than by wolves. Thousands of people every year suffer dog bites. Many are killed.

One death. Twenty seven recorded attacks in North America. Period.

In the entire written history of human habitation in North America, there's been one direct fatality in a human attacked by wild wolves, which is disputed and may have been a bear attack, and two indirect fatalities in people who contracted rabies after being bitten by wolves.

Further, the main factor in non-rabid wild wolves showing aggression towards humans is the scarcity of wild game.

then it boils down to you want to kill wolves just for the sake of killing them.

http://www.lgd.org - Livestock Guard Dogs

http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/flockguardians.htm - Flock Guardians



We had Great Pyrs with our herd & didn't lose a single animal to predators.

they're only going to be recovered for a brief period if they're hunted again.

Cattle rancher Salazar, et al...

First of all, I find it hard to believe that because there are now a whopping 1,650 wolves now that they are somehow "recovered".

Second of all, I am opposed to all "thrill hunting". I have no problem with hunting for food. All meat comes from dead animals, and food shot while oblivious in its natural environment is a much more humane end than being herded through a processing plant. But killing things just for the thrill of killing things is barbaric.

At its website the Minnesota DNR estimates 2,500 gray (aka timber) wolves just in northern Minnesota which is certainly a much smaller range for them. As far as I know, no hunting season on wolves has been declared here despite some somewhat inflammatory concerns about them moving into more populous areas.

to know that there are other sick bastards out there just like her.

I'm not a fan of hunting and I damn sure wouldn't shoot a "dog". I understand that ranchers have had problems with predator type wolves menacing sheep and cattle herds and that they are tired of protecting the wolves. They haven't been allowed to protect their livestock because the endangered status. If they did kill a wolf they had to turn it in to some department to see of the wolf had domestic creatures in its gut to rationalize a shooting. It's gone from making the farmers and ranchers so resentful of the reintroduction to a free-for-all wolf-killing spree.

I hate it. Wolf packs are small societies where each member is a valuable hunting partner. They spread out and close in on whatever animal they are hunting. All that howling is a communication confirming where the other members are. It really disrupts the ability to hunt as a pack when individual members are randomly picked off.

I can only hope that some stupid hunter has a giant grey wolf leap down on him and eat him alive. Turn about is fair play and the wolves could live up the reputation given them by the mighty hunters.

Jesus, people. Priorities.

Someone remind me...who won the election? I'm confused.

checks, and using rendition, and bailing out bankers and corrupt execs, all *lost*....

Uh....

I think....

Oh wait....

is a very sad little creature.

Nobody eats wolf.

on elk herds.

no wonder we get stupid arguments heard for killing wolves -- a very important part of the north american eco-system.

...if it puts things into a better balance. Philosophically, that is. I'm not a hunter. But when we build roads and houses in once-wild places we've gone off the "keep things all natural" map, and after that allowing hunting (and on the other end, winter feeding) can be good policy.

Sadly I don't know enough about the amazingly complex ecosystems involved to know whether this is BS or good science. I have to hope, though, that every naturalist that works for the feds isn't just a bloodthirsty bastard. There is always the distinct possibility they know what they're talking about.

However, our overpopulation will have to be addressed at some point, or nature will do it for us, and it won't be pretty. We need to voluntarily reduce our numbers through birth control on a massive scale.

As a species, we've chosen to take more than our share of the planet, and have caused all of the imbalances addressed in this thread. Therefore, I'm against culling another species because WE made it a problem.

Philosophically, I'm against punishing other creatures for our mistakes.