Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (12 total)
photo
gdauth
Dogs rule
07:14 AM on 04/11/2011
So it is all about killing. Wolves reduce your opportunity to kill. If you are so into hunting and killing, I suggest that you join the army and volunteer for Afganistan. Oops, the game hunts back over there, forget that idea, let's get rid of the wolves.
photo
From my cold dead hands
pro-gun/anti-criminal
07:54 AM on 04/11/2011
Are you a vegetarian?
photo
gdauth
Dogs rule
08:30 AM on 04/11/2011
No, in fact I hunted when I lived in Michigan, which is overrun by deer by the way. I just object to wiping out a species for short term economic gain. In the 1800s we tried to wipe out wolves and we succeeded in many areas. At the same time we also tried to wipe out the native Americans for similar reasons. The difference was the native Americans could fight back, otherwise we would have wiped them out too. We have succeeded in relegating them to poverty, so I guess that we won.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lindayb
i used to be a Martian in a previous life
06:06 AM on 04/11/2011
some day humans will be endagered species, after we kill every other living thing on the planet...
photo
From my cold dead hands
pro-gun/anti-criminal
08:01 AM on 04/11/2011
Why would we want to kill every other living thing? I am an omnivore and a hunter, and I support game laws and the responsible management of our natural resources because I always want to be able to hunt. If I were to try to kill all the animals I like to hunt now, then I would not have any animals to hunt later. I love animals but I am not a vegetarian. The thing is, if you eat meat, then you have to kill an animal. Whether you do it yourself, (like the wolf) or you pay someone else to do it, the harsh reality is that you are responsible for a death.
hagenjr
Shovel ready freeborn son of the Republic
05:10 AM on 04/11/2011
1 incident 120 dead sheep. Guess thats not sport killing;
http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_5ff01772-938f-11de-9aca-001cc4c03286.html

23 lambs several just wounded died days later. More sport killing:
http://www.kval.com/news/43055822.html

Here is an article from several wolf experts talkin gabout sport killing by wolves:
http://www.savewesternwildlife.org/sport-killing.html


Just this past year, in early summer, I was in the Lamar Valley where I personally saw 3 adult wolves ferociously kill and rip apart 10 Elk Calves. They viciously and quickly brought the calves down and proceeded to rip away at the carcasses, fiercely shredding away but oddly they failed to eat anything from the carcasses that they were ripping and shredding. It took them all of a half hr. to do this and after they appeared to tire, they just wandered away.

There’s no question about that that this is part and parcel of the nature of wolves. When they have the opportunity to kill in excess, just simply kill and leave, kill and leave, and go on killing, they will do so. This has nothing to do with Yellowstone wolves, Russian wolves — this is a universal characteristic of wolves, period. By the way, grizzly bears will do the same thing.

At any rate, this is part and parcel of normal wolf biology. When you introduce wolves, that’s what you will realize.
hagenjr
Shovel ready freeborn son of the Republic
04:06 AM on 04/11/2011
It must be stated clearly that the wolf is the best tool for shutting down hunting. The anti-hunters know this. Most hunters don't. Thus, wolf recovery is not opposed by the people who will be impacted most.
04:27 AM on 04/11/2011
It's obvious this poster has an agenda and is getting paid to post, so I encourage everyone who is reading this forum to search the internet and get real facts on wolves, their low yield on hunting for food (they do not hunt for sport as this poster is proporting) and learn about how they are crucial for the ecosystem and wildlife management.
hagenjr
Shovel ready freeborn son of the Republic
04:37 AM on 04/11/2011
I got a better idea, talk to state reps from minnesota, you choose dems or repubs and ask them. Or if you dont like minnesota, question DNR from montana, idaho or any northern state.

I also encourage all to read up on it. That they only kill to eat is like saying lemmings blindly follow each other off cliffs.
hagenjr
Shovel ready freeborn son of the Republic
04:39 AM on 04/11/2011
A wolf requires five to ten pounds of meat per day for survival, thus the wolf requires a considerable amount of meat in one year - nearly a ton of meat per year per wolf. A wolf is capable of consuming great quantities of meat, up to one fifth of its body weight, at one time. Thus, a wolf does not have to kill each day to survive.

Wolves hunt year around - 365 days a year. Wolf predation is not limited to two weeks, one month or whatever a hunting season length may be, it is year around.

Wolves are opportunistic hunters, meaning they kill what is available and convenient. For years, hunters have been fed the line, "Wolves kill only the weak, sick and old." Worse yet, hunters have believed it.

It is true, wolves do kill old animals, but so do hunters. Those are the big bulls or bucks prized by many who hunt. In fact, biological studies have shown wolves kill older male animals more than any other adult member of a wild game population.

Regarding sick animals, there are not many sick wild animals today. Hunters and trappers are directly responsible for healthy wild game herds today.

In the cyclic "balance of nature" of years past (no hunting by man), ungulate populations would thrive until they overgrazed their habitat and starved. This malnutrition made ungulate populations susceptible to disease. Consequently, disease
photo
From my cold dead hands
pro-gun/anti-criminal
09:49 AM on 04/11/2011
Hey, hagenjr, can you tell me who is paying you to post? I have become hooked on these darned message boards, and I am spending way too much time on them, but if I could make a living at it...... I mean, I am posting anyway.... ( I suspect that you were falsely accused, and are posting simply because you are passionate about your convictions, but just in case, it would be cool to make money doing something I am having fun doing anyway)
hagenjr
Shovel ready freeborn son of the Republic
03:01 PM on 04/11/2011
I dont post for a living that charge is usual operating procedures for the left. If they can get you to waste time defending against their BS claims they feel like they win. its straight out of rules for radicals from Alinsky.
luminavi
Love kicking over anthills on both left and right.
03:42 AM on 04/11/2011
I guess Team Jacob gets to live another day.
hagenjr
Shovel ready freeborn son of the Republic
01:23 AM on 04/11/2011
We have more then 3000 wolves in MN. Its past time to de-list them.

Or as Senator Amy Klobuchar says:
“The Endangered Species Act has helped bring numerous species back from the brink of extinction, and like the bald eagle, the gray wolf has made a comeback in our state,” Klobuchar said. “But now these wolves are hurting our farms, families and businesses, and our hunting industry. It is time for a plan that ensures we restore balance to our natural habitats.”
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CBasilJr
62 Retired Vet
12:21 AM on 04/11/2011
The judge merely stated that he lacked jurisdiction. That reeally means that he's passing the question up to the Congress and the President.

This is definitely an issue which needs to be the subject of hearings and debate in both the House and the Senate and, if necessary, the final signiture of Obama.
photo
Deep Thinking Man
A Wet Bird Never Flies At Night !
11:18 PM on 04/10/2011
http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/overview/overview/wolves.html

this link did not contain what i'd hoped it would.
i was told years ago by my grandfather that wolves and feral dogs will hunt sheep because the lanolin in sheep wool acts as a drug would in any human's system. true or false, i do not know.

dnr is re-introducing wolves here in Illinois, it's time. deer and coyotes populations here are over-whelming. there is a deer season (shotgun, handgun, muzzleloader, and cross-bow, for the dis-abled) but a short one each season is one week-end. there is also an open season on coyotes.because the coyotes are indiscriminate killers, while wolves are very selective.

wolves do kill livestock, but ONLY the sick, weak, and old !!!! they do this only when game is in short supply !!!!

feral cats and dogs do MORE DAMAGE than wolves !!!!!
hagenjr
Shovel ready freeborn son of the Republic
01:09 AM on 04/11/2011
Wolves will engage in killing for sport this was well documented at Isle Royale.

Wolves achieve a very low yield on hunting expeditions in the wild; somewhere between 4 percent and 8 percent of their attacks are successful. (Lions, by contrast, manage a kill rate of 27 percent or more when they hunt in groups.) Consequently, wolves are opportunistic hunters. If the chance to kill prey en masse presents itself, they have been known to go after more than they can consume.


During moose population peeks they watched several sport kills by wolfs.


There was a report (by DNR officers) of 2 wolves killing 21 deer in 2 days in minnesota.

Wolves of course will also attack humans. In 2005 a 22yr old canadian male was killed by a wolf. of course non lethal attacks are 10x more common then lethal.


Research by Professor Warren Ballard in Alaska documented that wolves will kill about 30 moose per year (per wolf), and he is careful to say that this is a low number because the researchers probably missed some kills with their survey methodology. It is interesting to note that Ballard found no evidence of sickness or debility among any moose killed by wolves.


In MN we have to many wolves now. Soon you will now what that means in your neighborhood.
Wolves are not the lovable furry critter that you think they are.
05:42 AM on 04/11/2011
You plagiarized your second paragraph from a Slate.com article which, amusingly enough, makes the point that wolves do not hunt for sport. The article in question is Brian Palmer’s Do Wolves Kill for Sport?, seen at

http://www.slate.com/id/2234729/

In case you didn’t read Mr. Palmer’s article in full, it might surprise you to learn that wolves do not, in fact, hunt for sport. Their hunting is energy-consuming, dangerous, and not approached as play. Wolves do not hunt “for fun”; they hunt to survive.

On a related note, your claim regarding two wolves killing 21 deer over two days is amusingly over-the-top. You claim wolves have a low hunt success rate, and then contradict that point, stating that two wolves killed 21 deer in two days, indicating a very high success rate. The fact is, hunting wolves enjoy only a relatively low rate of success, far less than that required to achieve the number of kills you’re claiming here.

You ended your post with “Wolves are not the lovable furry critter that you think they are”, ignoring the fact that wolves are so similar to dogs as to be practically the same species. Wolves and dogs are very much alike, and wolves can indeed be cute and lovable, featuring so many of the same good qualities which dog’s possess that they can’t help but be, as you said, “lovable”.

In short, your statements are inaccurate to a point which damages your credibility.
05:45 AM on 04/11/2011
Additionally, incidents of wolves attacking human beings are so rare as to be almost unheard of, and your claims otherwise are easily refutable.
photo
From my cold dead hands
pro-gun/anti-criminal
10:34 PM on 04/10/2011
OK, I am looking for some answers here.... trying to learn something. I am from NM, so I am not going to be telling you how to run affairs in your own state, I think you can figure that out on your own.... by which I mean to say, It is your state and you know what is best for it.

Can anyone from Idaho, Montana and Wyoming which are apparently the three states that are most affected by these wolves let me know how they feel about these wolves? And can you state (haha :) which state you are posting from?
photo
jbdrs
Moderate this! On second thought, please don't.
11:32 PM on 04/10/2011
As a Montanan, I can tell you that there is strong majority support in the state for controlling the numbers of wolves:
http://www.kaj18.com/news/poll-respondents-back-montana-s-defiance-on-wolves/
This story cites a poll that says that about 72% of Montanans want Montana to control wolves. In Western Montana, which is more liberal, it is less I'm sure. Eastern Montana is very conservative, and I would wager that a majority on that side of the state would want to eliminate wolves altogether. Montana is a very conservative state, and even the Democratic Governer Schweitzer and Democratic Senator Tester are very conservative are would seem more like Republicans to those who live on either the east or west coast. Montana is different than those areas, because for one hunting is much more mainstream and an important part of life and feeding of families than in most states. Given that, I will guarantee you that there will be some sort of wolf population control program eventually run by the state which will include sport hunting of wolves and elimination of problem wolf packs which kill livestock. Wolves compete with hunters for game, and many are in a frenzy up here right now with elk numbers espescially declining. As someone who welcomes wolves but also recognizes the needs and wants of people living here, I am resigned to the fact that wolves will be controlled, but it is better than having no wolves at all.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CBasilJr
62 Retired Vet
12:18 AM on 04/11/2011
I, too, believe that the controlling of the wolf populations will end up being the law in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. All three of those states are reporting substantial losses of big game and cattle. Both of these are needed for significant sources of public revenue in all three states.

Our history has examples of allowing one segment of our wildlife to expand without control, and I have never read about one that did not resort in a disaster. People reside in those areas, and our first order of business should be their protection and wellbeing.

I'm usually a liberal progressive but on this issue I lean toward the right. That means that I like the idea of wolves returning to their once native habitat, but it should be a controlled return to ensure that people aren't hurt.
photo
From my cold dead hands
pro-gun/anti-criminal
12:21 AM on 04/11/2011
Thank you very much for your reply. I am learning a lot about this issue tonight.
hagenjr
Shovel ready freeborn son of the Republic
01:13 AM on 04/11/2011
MN has a ton of wolf and may have already de-listed. Wolves are not a lovable furry critter you want around. There is a reason they were hunted to extinction. Wolves engage insport killing in the winter during heavy snows (deer are hard pressed in deep snow when their feet break through but the wolves can run on top) and in the spring. They do not focus on the sick rather the young which can have devasting impact on local herds. This is well documented along the US/Canada border.
03:52 AM on 04/11/2011
Wolves do not hunt for sport killing. They hunt to eat, unlike their human counterparts.
05:47 AM on 04/11/2011
Your statements here are inaccurate to say the least.
09:48 PM on 04/10/2011
Check my post I am not a big ,gov guy as a matter of fact I think I could find ways to shrink the .gov 50 percent and be happy. However wolves have been made the villain for years and mostly by ranchers who are grazing on my public land for pennies on the dollar that ranchers get from the Chinese who rent range land. So please let me say this as openly as possible, if you loose a cow or steer take it off the taxes and shut up. If it is private land and you catch the wolf killing that is different but if this is just to make it safe for you cattle on public grazing lands tough.
hagenjr
Shovel ready freeborn son of the Republic
01:16 AM on 04/11/2011
must not be any wolves in your state. In mine they attack cattle and kill lots of pets. They sport kill deer.

The only real benefit they offer is a check on the coyote population.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sophiemaki
01:37 PM on 04/11/2011
ever heard of fences?
03:56 AM on 04/11/2011
Great point, so you are fanned! I'm tired of hiking through devastated trails we have to share with cattle who create non-native weeds replacing the grasslands. I pay a lot of taxes for these federal lands which are being destroyed.
photo
TggerJen
Protect at snowleopard.org
09:33 PM on 04/10/2011
Large predators like wolves are incredibly important to our ecosystems and they facilitate healthy populations in their prey which also impacts vegetation and other species.
It's time to do as the judge requires, and manage these populations based on science, not on state lines or hunters' demands. It's time for our really corrupt Interior Department to stop catering to mooching hunters and freeloading ranchers at our expense and take care of our public lands and our species to the benefit of all of us and our future.
photo
Jokergirl
No joke actually, humor helps heal
09:54 PM on 04/10/2011
Yes, they are they're a KEYSTONE SPECIES, very essential. Keep the hunters and ranchers OUT of it.
photo
From my cold dead hands
pro-gun/anti-criminal
11:36 PM on 04/10/2011
You know, Jokergirl... I am a hunter and a lot of the people I know are ranchers here in New Mexico.... If you could introduce the wolf here in NM would you seize the ranchers land and kick them out and end all hunting? That seem harsh to me.... do you have some animus towards hunters and ranchers, or is it just your great love for the wolf that drives your enthusiasm? If it is your great love for the wolf, how would you feel about giving up YOUR home so that the wolf could thrive there? If you are against hunting, then I am sure you are a vegetarian, right? No one that eats meat could be so hypocritical as to say that they eat meat but hate the people that provide that meat for them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ann Joyce
Already going to hell, just pumping the gas
09:15 PM on 04/10/2011
Howlingly good news!
photo
Praetoria Cohors
Pragmatic Libertarian
08:45 PM on 04/10/2011
Wolves were in fact de-listed as endangered species a few years ago, and the public in Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana were allowed to manage them through hunting. But a single federal judge decided to re-list wolves as endangered, purely for political expediency. Judge Molloy realizes the judiciary does not have jurisdiction in this instance, so therefore made a non-decision. In essence, he punted.

The current legislative path will indeed de-list wolves once again. And the affected states will be responsible again for the management of wolves, NOT the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, as is now. Unfortunately, right now, they are doing nothing to control the population.

I live in Idaho, about an hour from Yellowstone National Park. And I remember when the Lolo Pack was introduced in 1996. Releasing this apex predator was monumentally shortsighted. After Canadian Gray Wolves were brought in, they have reproduced in staggering numbers. The original federal goal of a total of 300 wolves across Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana was reached in 2002. As of 2007, an estimated 732 wolves lived in Idaho alone. Currently, there are over 1000 wolves in Idaho. This is a bit more than the 100 initially envisioned. Pandora's Box was opened, and no one can agree on how to close it.

So all those cheering this judges decision, are cheering for state management of Canadian Gray Wolves, and de-listing them from the endangered species list.

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/manage/PopManagePlan.pdf
08:49 PM on 04/10/2011
You seem to be very familiar with statistics, but you also seem unaware that 1000 (or even slightly more) does not equal plentiful.
photo
Praetoria Cohors
Pragmatic Libertarian
09:24 PM on 04/10/2011
A thousand is on the low end, and it is INDEED plentiful. Our ungulate herds are being decimated by wolves. I am about as staunch a conservationist as they come, but wolves were brought in without any thought of the repercussions. Do the math. Idaho has approximately 150,000 elk. A single wolf eats 2-3 elk a month. 1000 wolves x 2 elk x 12 months = 24,000 elk eaten in a year. This is absolutely unsustainable. Wolves are also sport killers, so add more to the total.

So in essence, statistics do in fact matter. And if you lived here in Idaho, you would see first hand the ramifications of introducing a top predator into the mix. We have always had wolves in Idaho, but the species was far smaller and less aggressive the Canadian Grays. These new wolves have even been known to drag an adult grizzly bear out of its den and kill it.

http://westinstenv.org/wibio/2008/12/13/effects-of-wolf-predation-on-north-central-idaho-elk-populations/

http://www.saveelk.com/wolf_005.htm
photo
From my cold dead hands
pro-gun/anti-criminal
10:37 PM on 04/10/2011
Are you a resident of Idaho? Just curious :)
photo
Nomadius
The least common of the senses: Common Sense.
08:35 PM on 04/10/2011
I salute you Judge!
08:20 PM on 04/10/2011
I even have a wolf sticker on my van , great spieces , family oriented .
I recommend people read about them , that is how I have fallen in love with them and support financially wolf rescue group .
Judge is a good men !