Endangered or not, wolf killings set to expand From The Detroit News: http://detnews

The argument is that they are being eradicated on a large scales, while still being a species at risk.

Quote:

---

Billings, Mont. -- Government agencies are seeking broad new authority to ramp up killings and removals of gray wolves in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes, despite two recent court actions that restored the animal's endangered status in every state except Alaska and Minnesota.
Various proposals would gas pups in their dens, surgically sterilize adult wolves and allow "conservation" or "research" hunts to drive down the predators' numbers.
Once poisoned to near-extermination in the lower 48 states, wolves made a remarkable comeback over the last two decades under protection of the Endangered Species Act. But as packs continue to multiply their taste for livestock and big game herds coveted by hunters has stoked a rising backlash.


From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20100905/...#ixzz0yhzTHFCt

---

When your livelihood is at stake, wolf or human, you tend to disregard neighborliness. There is something about 'livestock' that wolves persist on seeing as a natural herd. Wolves and herds are partners. Wolves hunting the herds keeps the animals healthy, and culls out the weak ones. Wolves eat, herd animals stay strong. Then comes the white way, where money gets involved. Each animal taken by wolves represents dollars out of the owner's pocket, money that they were counting on to pay their bills and feed their families. That's why the wolves were killed off a hundred years ago. Bringing them back is the right thing to do, but it is sadly predictable that we will have the same problems we had before if we have the same exact livestock systems that we had before.

I can see a way to handle this that preserves both the wolves and the livelihoods, but it would take community effort, which involves 'government' and all the ill words that go with it these days. Semantics can kill us, or cure us.

How about leaving them alone and stop encroaching on their habitat. Wolves rarely if ever kill people [[I don't think there is a documented case to support it).

I believe a significant percentage of these "wolf" killings could be dogs. Nobody wants to blame their neighbor's dog, right?

ok so we set up a fund to compensate for loss...far better than the expense to hunt and trap...also it already has proven to be a great balance for the ecosystem at yellowstone where there is a better new growth forest becuase of the reintroduction of wolves and control of the elk herds...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GOAT

How about leaving them alone and stop encroaching on their habitat. Wolves rarely if ever kill people [[I don't think there is a documented case to support it).

---

I have to agree 100%. I get tired of idiots moving to the wilderness, then complaining about all the wildlife. Here's an idea, why not stay in the city if your terrified of wild animals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gazhekwe

When your livelihood is at stake, wolf or human, you tend to disregard neighborliness. There is something about 'livestock' that wolves persist on seeing as a natural herd. Wolves and herds are partners. Wolves hunting the herds keeps the animals healthy, and culls out the weak ones. Wolves eat, herd animals stay strong. Then comes the white way, where money gets involved. Each animal taken by wolves represents dollars out of the owner's pocket, money that they were counting on to pay their bills and feed their families.

---

Well put. Odd how the moose and other prey animals have gotten healthier since wolves were re-introduced to yellowstone.

Pay the ranchers for the livestock killed by wolves? no. the VAST majority of livestock kills by wolves happen on PUBLIC LANDS they are allowed to graze. the loss of livestock should just be part of the expense of using free/subsidized grazing land

There have been 2 wolf attacks ever documented in North America.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35913715/
Your neighbor's cat is more dangerous than wild wolves.

Yet another reason not to watch MSNBC. While they may or may not be correct that it was the second fatal attack in North America, others have documented many more nonfatal attacks. A simple Google search would have discovered that.

The issue is not people moving to the wilderness, as Detroitej72 alleges, it is closer to gazhekwe's post. There have numerous losses of cattle, chickens and dogs to wolves on ranches here in NM. These aren't suburbanites with vegetable gardens, these are folks whose families have been the land for decades, and whose livelihood depends on the land. Those who do graze on public lands already pay a fee to the Feds for that right based on market conditions and private fees. The Feds have reimbursed folks for cattle losses on federal lands.

If wolves attack other wildlife, that's their purpose and hunters shouldn't argue about it. I've also hiked in places with wolf, grizzly and cougar populations and took proper precautions. If someone is attacked in those settings due to their own lack of care in those environs, so be it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jiminnm

If wolves attack other wildlife, that's their purpose and hunters shouldn't argue about it. I've also hiked in places with wolf, grizzly and cougar populations and took proper precautions. If someone is attacked in those settings due to their own lack of care in those environs, so be it.

---

Wolves are supposed to tell the difference between wild life and livestock?

wolf attacks on people ARE rare [[the recent one in Alaska is the first fatal one in 60 years, or something like that). Cougar/Puma/Mountain Lion attacks are more due to encroachment into their territories than the wolf issue. Cattle are a problem because they are docile and slow, same as sheep, etc.