More wolves??

[VolGal423]

I agree with the fact that if a habitat cannot support them then they should not be released there. But the fact of the matter is that they can thrive in certain areas of the country. Grey wolves belong in the west where there is enough food to sustain them while Red wolves can thrive in the southeast. The government would need to regulate and track their behavior and population in order for the reintroduction to be successful.

Bears and other animals coming in to human areas is due solely to human encroachment upon their habitat. I am by no means a radical environmentalist but I do believe that we have to stop destroying forests and habitats because it only leads to problems for humans AND the animals involved.

 

[VolGal423]

Are you saying that all of that information on wolf attacks in Wiki was hogwash? It seemed to be pretty credible to me and included supporting bibliography at the bottom.

I just don't ever trust anything from Wiki. I could go write that Bruce Pearl has a third nipple and quote an encyclopedia. That doesn't make it true!

 

[J-P]

I agree with the fact that if a habitat cannot support them then they should not be released there. But the fact of the matter is that they can thrive in certain areas of the country. Grey wolves belong in the west where there is enough food to sustain them while Red wolves can thrive in the southeast. The government would need to regulate and track their behavior and population in order for the reintroduction to be successful.

Bears and other animals coming in to human areas is due solely to human encroachment upon their habitat. I am by no means a radical environmentalist but I do believe that we have to stop destroying forests and habitats because it only leads to problems for humans AND the animals involved.

But see, you're getting at the root of my whole problem with this. The government and these environmental scientist groups will be long on talk and short on action when it comes to studying and containing these wolves once released, and at the same time, the same government will ensure an ample supply of victims by keeping the parks open to camping and hiking but preventing said hikers and campers from having any way to defend themselves, and prohibiting farmers from shooting the wolves to defend their livestock. They will once again create a bunch of new problems for which they will have no solution.

I guess it boils down to: you trust the government, I distrust the government.

 

[JTrainDavis]

The government would need to regulate and track their behavior .

how?

 

[VolGal423]

But see, you're getting at the root of my whole problem with this. The government and these environmental scientist groups will be long on talk and short on action when it comes to studying and containing these wolves once released, and at the same time, the same government will ensure an ample supply of victims by keeping the parks open to camping and hiking but preventing said hikers and campers from having any way to defend themselves, and prohibiting farmers from shooting the wolves to defend their livestock. They will once again create a bunch of new problems for which they will have no solution.

I guess it boils down to: you trust the government, I distrust the government.

I see your point and I know that there has been a big disconnect between the enviro groups and the govt in the past. I guess what I should say is the reintroduction would be a good idea and could work IF the U.S. Fish and Wildlife would regulate and work with the public/local gov'ts to find the best solutions for problems that might/would arise.

p.s. I definitely do not trust the gov't....most are liars.

 

[VolGal423]

how?

Remove/relocate problem animals. Right now they are talking about a 3 strikes and they're out system. If one specific animal kills 3 live stock within 365 days they are relocated.

Although I don't know how they would know which animal would be doing the killing.

or microchips in the wolves brains that allow them to be controlled. It's possible...I've seen it.

 

[droski]

why in the world would you go through the trouble of "controlling them" and 3 strikes you are out? should we go jurrasic park and reintroduce pterodactyls too? they existed here at one point as well.

 

[JTrainDavis]

If the reintroduced packs in the mountain west, high plains, and upper old northwest work out, good for them, but I think it's asking for problems introducing them to other areas.

 

[gsvol]

He's a pretty big outdoorsman up in Alaska, so...


Yes, I have heard of that snail in Idaho. I've told you, I grew up right there near that snail in Mountain Home, Idaho.

You told me about the Idaho snail.

My question is this; "have you heard a peep about it since the enviros got their court ruling???????????

Has the snail gone extinct?

Has the snail made a huge come back?

Has the snail been able to hold it's own?

Has their been any other government funded study that says anything different than the first study?

Do you understand what I'm asking?

They'll insinuate humans, although wolves attack less people than bears, moose, or deer.

Look, if you want to rasie livestock you can't do that with a pack of wolves accessing your land!!

WILD wolves are less of a threat to humans than domesticated/stray dogs. I don't see a problem with re-introducing a species that was here before us (in appropriate numbers).

Are you a vegetarian??

If not how much would you like your steak to cost??

Is $20 to $30 a lb no problem with you??

So first come first serve???

I suppose you are opposed to muslims immigrating to America?

I agree. Many of the things blamed on wolves and coyotes are actually feral dogs, especially east of the Mississippi. I remember a few years ago when a neighbor of my parents was saying he had finally shot that coyote that had been bothering his animals: it was definitely just a scrappy german shepard mix stray.

Coydogs are widespread, that is a cross between a coyote and a dog.

I knew a woman who was 1/4 Scottish and 3/4 Arapaho who had a full blooded male wolf as a pet.

One time she remarked to me; "You are the only man my wolf doesn't growl at."

I agree and the portrayal of wolves in movies make them seem like bold killers when in all actuality they are afraid of humans. Even the Red Wolves at the Chattanooga Nature Center, who are used to humans, shy away from visitors.

WOLF ATTACKS ON HUMANS

"Why so many attacks in Asia and so few in North America?"

Two factors must be considered:

1. The Philosophy of Conservation - Our forefathers always believed that they had the right and obligation to protect their livelihoods. Considerable distance was necessary between man and wolf for the wolf to survive.

2. Firearms - Inexpensive, efficient weapons gave man the upper hand in the protection of his livelihood and for the taking of wolves.

Newly released wolves would have to relearn fear of man, in Russia they had zero fear of humans because the peasants weren't allowed to have firearms.

 

[gsvol]

No but neither would a pack of stray dogs (it's happened here in Chattanooga). Anyone out in the wilderness takes the risk of being attacked by wild animals (deer, moose, bears, wolves etc etc). That's the risk you take when hiking or camping.

My point is that wolves were here before us. Therefore I believe that re-introducing them ( a species that were here before us and were brought to near extinction at human hands) is a good idea. Wolves are native to the United States and do not lose their "native" status just because they've been gone a while. If you leave the US and live in a different country for 25 years that doesn't mean you're no longer a US citizen.

It is shere insanity that the grey wolf is even on the endangered specie list given the facts.

I don't see why they should be reintroduced to areas where the programs haven't already been started, as in many areas they would be an apex predator, and are pretty creative when food is scarce.

That said, I don't believe that they are having an appreciable effect on numbers of livestock and game mammals in areas where they currently live.

Talk to the guy who bought the farm next to my dad here in Tennessee who sold his ranch that adjoined Yellowstone national Park and try to tell him wolves have no appreciable effect on numbers of livestock.

I would imagine you would get a first rate cussin.

Do the math, how much meat does the average pack of wolves eat in a year.

CLUE ONE, wolves don't live on granola bars.

I suppose it amounts to what you call 'appreciable.'

If a rancher can't make a profit at the end of the year, how damned appreciable is that??

To you not a damned thing.

To him everything, his land, his way of life, his livelyhood and support for his family.

In many cases these enviro freaks run people off land they have been using to gain their lively hood for hundreds of years and many times on the flimsiest of evidence or some far fetched vision of how they would like the world to be.

how?

And how much would that cost the taxpayer when common sense tells anyone that any such program would be unrealistic.

Check out what happened in Wisconsin.

Then too, what if you decide it's a bad idea??

You can't just go out and call wolfie wolfie and they would volunteer to come runing to get back in a cage.

I see your point and I know that there has been a big disconnect between the enviro groups and the govt in the past. I guess what I should say is the reintroduction would be a good idea and could work IF the U.S. Fish and Wildlife would regulate and work with the public/local gov'ts to find the best solutions for problems that might/would arise.

p.s. I definitely do not trust the gov't....most are liars.

There has been a disconnect between a coaltion of govt and enviros from the people of the country for wuite some time with the enviro/animal rights people always winning because they have zillions of dollars to lobby and the average farmer/rancher is isolated.

Do you trust enviro/animal rights groups?