It's time to delist the wolf what do you think?

[elkslayer338]

It's time to delist the wolf. This may interest you did you Know
"There's never been a documented case of a healthy, wild wolf killing a human in North America." If we received two bits for every time we've heard this overstated statement, we could buy all those North American wolves filet mignon.
Unfortunately, the "no healthy, wild wolf" sound byte is often misstated with the word "killing" replaced by "attacking". This is not true. Wild wolves have attacked humans in North America. That's why we always add, "This doesn't mean that wolves have absolutely never killed a human or that they never will. After all, humans never cut a deal with wolves to leave us alone." So how much danger do wolves pose to people? Should we steer clear of dark forests inhabited by wolves? Are the reasons given for aggressive wolves more an apologia than an explanation? Is it reasonable to think that wolves will eventually kill a human?

Before reviewing recent wolf attacks in North America, it should be noted that, outside of North America, wolves have killed humans. Tales about massive wolf packs devastating caravans of Russian troikas (as in Willa Cather's My Antonia) are undoubtedly fiction. During their brief reign of terror in France from 1764 to 1767, the infamous Beasts of Gervaudan killed at least sixty-four people-but it's been well established that these animals were hybrids not wolves. Most of the deaths blamed on wolves in southern and central Europe and in central Asia are attributable to hybrids or rabid wolves.

However, in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, from March to October 1996 and March to April 1997, a wolf or wolves killed or injured as many as seventy-four Indian children, almost all of them under the age of ten. The deaths occurred among children playing or relieving themselves on the outskirts of small villages. There were also reports of a wolf entering huts, though it sounds as if no children were harmed.


[font=""]Recent Attacks in North America
In Ontario, Canada where thousands of people visit Algonquin Provincial Park-and many of them come to see or hear wolves-five people have been bit in the past twelve years. During August 1996, a wolf dragged 12-year-old Zachariah Delventhal from his sleeping bag. This particular wolf, prior to attacking Zachariah, had entered campsites and taken things such as a backpack, tennis shoe and other human items. As we've been in contact with the Delventhal family, we can let Zachariah describe what happened. He wrote the following in November 1996:

"The scariest night of my life� was the last night of a terrific 10-day camping trip at Algonquin Provincial Park in Ontario. We were exhausted and wanted to get out the next morning quickly so we decided to sleep under the stars. I remember dreaming that me, my mom, and my dad were walking through the woods. Then I felt pressure on my head and the woods started flying past. I awoke and still felt the pressure, but there was a new feeling of pain. I screamed, immediately the pressure released and the pain lessened. I opened my eyes-nothing but dark forest. I had been dragged six feet and I knew it was an animal mouth that did it. I yelled, 'Something bit me!' My mother came and held my sleeping bag to my face. Then my dad got up and started yelling. I got scared as he disappeared into the underbrush but he came back. I asked, 'What was it?' Then came two terrifying words, 'A wolf.' I immediately started to pull away from where I was dragged, I freaked. It was so scary and confusing at the same time. I didn't want to get eaten by such a strong animal. As for confusing, think about this-I had been told wolves don't attack people and here I was practically killed by one. My list of wounds is extensive. I had over 80 stitches to close the many cuts, my nose was broken in five places, I am missing a piece of my ear, my gums, and my tear duct and cheekbone were punctured. After all this, don't be scared to go in the woods, don't think of wolves as killers. The chances of getting attacked are so slim; I can't get a hold of the fact that I was attacked. My parents were wrong when they said wolves don't attack people, but wolves almost never do."

Two years later, on September 25, 1998, another Algonquin wolf circled a little girl and despite blasts of pepper spray, didn't leave until the child entered a trailer. Two days after that, a nineteen-month-old boy sat playing in the middle of camp, with his parents twenty feet away. The father thought he saw a dog emerge from the brush. He turned away for a moment and when he looked back, he saw his son in the jaws of a wolf. The wolf held the boy for a moment and then tossed him three feet. A local newspaper quoted the parents, "It wasn't hit and run. He hit him [the infant] and then it was wait and see. He [the wolf] circled the picnic table a number of times before he was scared off enough to leave." The infant received two stitches for minor injuries.

On April 26, 2000, a six and nine year old boy cut down small trees as they played at being loggers on the outskirts of a logging camp near Yakutat in southeastern Alaska. Upon seeing a wolf, the children fled. The wolf took down six-year-old John Stenglein and bit him on the back, legs and buttocks. A neighbor's golden retriever rushed to the rescue but the wolf drove the dog back and then set upon John again. The boy's cries brought adults who drove the wolf away. John received seven stitches and five surgical closure staples.

During the evening of July 1, 2000, on the shores of Vargas Island, British Columbia, a wolf entered the campsite of a kayaking group. They chased the wolf away. Members of the group also spotted another wolf that apparently hung back from the bolder wolf. At 2 a.m., 23-year-old Scott Langevin awoke with a small dark wolf tugging on his sleeping bag. "I yelled to try to spook it off, and I kicked at it," Scott said. "It backed up a bit, but then it just lunged on top of me, and it started biting away through my sleeping bag." He rolled in an effort to situate the fire between him and the wolf, but the animal jumped on his back and bit him about the head. The noise woke his friends and they drove the wolf away. The wounds to Scott's head required 50 stitches.

In all of the previous incidents, the offending wolves were killed. Autopsies indicated healthy animals.

"I pulled these story's up to clear things for some people, After the wolf has killed off most game. it will come for our kids or us. "

[MuleyMadness]

I hope the wolf never kills most of the game, but if it does then yep they will have to find food and any predator gets bolder and bolder as they get hungier and more desperate.

I'm okay if we delist them.

[elkslayer338]

This was in the tuesday paper of the Idaho Statesman,

"Idahoans could be hunting wolves within 12 months, when Gov. Jim Risch and state wildlife officials take over managing the state's wolves as federal officials proposed Tuesday.
Federal wildlife officials told the Idaho Statesman Tuesday they plan to remove wolves from the endangered species list in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, turning over management of the predators to the states.
The removal of the wolf from the endangered species list would be the culmination of one of the most heralded conservation success stories of the 20th century. But for many Idahoans, especially ranchers and hunters, it has forced a difficult transition.
Wolves were re-introduced in a controversial program that began with 35 wolves in 1995-96.
Idaho Fish and Game commissioners said they plan to establish regulations for hunting wolves that will be in place when delisting is final.
Before that happens, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must publish in the Federal Register its proposal to delist, which Dale Hall, the agency's director said would come by the end of January. The public will have at least 60 days to comment; a final decision is expected a year from the publication.
Opponents of delisting, however, worry that Idaho and Wyoming will reduce wolf numbers to minimum levels allowed and are expected to try to halt the delisting in court. That could delay the day when the state takes over wolf management.
Hall and Todd Willens, assistant Interior secretary for fish, wildlife and parks, told Risch Tuesday they will seek to delist in all three states if Wyoming agrees to expand the area where wolves are protected in that state.
Hall and Willens had met earlier Tuesday with Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal and other lawmakers, who indicated they would go along with the new federal plan.
"We have every reason to believe they will," Willens said.
But even if Wyoming doesn't agree, federal officials would go ahead with delisting in Idaho and Montana, Hall said.
That's what Idaho officials have been demanding for several years as the wolf population has grown beyond all expectations since wolves were released in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness in 1995.
Idaho has more than 650 wolves, twice the minimum number the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said was necessary for preserving the viability of the species in the Rocky Mountain region.
"This is way overdue," Risch said Tuesday. "They have admitted that wolves are no longer endangered in Idaho."
Fish and Wildlife officials have been negotiating with Wyoming for several months, seeking to bridge their differences over a Wyoming law that would allow wolves to be shot on sight outside a trophy-hunting zone.
The federal agency decided Tuesday that if the state could expand the trophy area — where wolves would be managed as a game animal — it could allow unlimited wolf killing outside that zone.
"It's not any different than what we are doing now," said Mitch King, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regional director from Denver. "What's the difference if someone else is shooting them?"
Idaho would be able to approve similar shoot-on-sight rules once wolves are removed from endangered status, King said.
But Idaho Fish and Game Commission Chairman Cameron Wheeler said Idaho plans to manage wolves as a game animal, just as it does mountain lions and black bears. Hunters have to buy a special tag before they can kill these big predators.
"That's the template we would probably use," Wheeler said. "I envision it would be like big game seasons with maybe a little more time on each end."
The state increases the limits on lions and bears when it seeks to reduce their numbers, such as to allow elk populations to grow or where the predators cause livestock depredation problems.
Suzanne Stone, Rocky Mountain representative of the Defenders of Wildlife, worries that Idaho will seek to kill off as many wolves as possible — aiming for the minimum number of about 100 allowed in the state management plan.
The Idaho Legislature advocated eradication of wolves and accepted responsibility to protect a minimum population only to delist wolves.
"Under the current political climate, delisting will definitely lead to a great reduction of wolves in Idaho," Stone said.
Nate Helm, executive director of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, said he would like to see wolf numbers greatly reduced
"After delisting occurs, we have the autonomy to adjust to the reality of what we have today," Helm said.
This year, wolves have killed more than 300 sheep and 100 cattle in the Council area alone, said Lloyd Knight, executive director of the Idaho Cattle Association. He asks opponents like Stone to consider his members' situation.
"For those that don't think delisting is a good idea, if they would like me to break into their home and steal a couple thousand dollars worth of property, then maybe they might understand my folks' perspective on wolves," Knight said.
Defenders of Wildlife pays compensation to ranchers for confirmed cases of livestock killed by wolves, Stone said.
And Wheeler said state officials won't authorize a wolf slaughter. F&G won't necessarily open the season immediately after wolves are delisted, and would not, for example, open the first season while wolves are raising pups in the spring.
Sen. David Langhorst, D-Boise, was among the people advocating wolf reintroduction in 1995. Delisting would prove Westerners are humble enough to allow the wild animals to return and smart enough to manage them so they don't destroy people's livelihoods and sports, he said.
"I would see getting a tag and being able to hunt and stalk wolves with a bow and arrow as closing the circle," Langhorst said.
Even if there's a legal challenge, Risch said he's hopeful a federal court will not issue an injunction stopping the decision to turn management of wolves back to the state.
"If that's the case, we will have management in less than 12 months," Risch said.
Contact reporter Rocky Barker at rbarker@idahostatesman.com or 377-6484."
We need to ban together

[Hiker]

It is way overdue. They need to be kept in check ASAP. The anti's will fight tooth and nail to hold this up in court as long as they can. Truth be know, anti's aren't really into game management as their true colors came out and they have no concern about healthy elk numbers. In parts of Idaho the elk are bad shape i.e. Lolo. The anti's have shown no compassion toward this.....all they care about is their beloved wolf. The grizzlies really are doing damage too to the elk numbers, especially the calves. It has taken us over 100 years of good, active wildlife management to grow the elk and moose numbers up the levels that we had but only 10 years to watch the wolves and grizzlies decimate our efforts. I'm not for wiping out these wolves and grizzlies from the lower 48 but we need sound biology and balance. The anti's have proven they don't really care about smart game management. It seems as if the wolf introduction is a "spiritual" thing to them.

[elkslayer338]

Dang tree huggers!
Here's a fact the animal rights crowd doesn't like to hear, or to admit:

There wouldn't be nearly as many (if any) vast tracts of publicly owned land to hike, bike, bird-watch, dog-walk, horseback ride, or generally gambol around on if regulated hunting did not exist. Funds generated by license fees and federal excise taxes on outdoor gear pay for these lands by an overwhelming margin. In fact, these monies dwarf all other sources combined -- including the nearly nonexistent contributions of animal rights organizations (more on this in a minute). That means outdoor sportsmen are overwhelmingly the largest source of conservation funding in the United States….

Right to Hunt vs. Animal Rights: "Hunter-Vationists" Are Paying for Everyone's Party

Here are the numbers, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and other public sources:

** $746 million -- Annual amount of money spent by hunters in the United States on licenses and public land access fees alone. Sportsmen's licensing revenues account for more than half of all funding for state natural resource agencies

** $300 million -- Additional monies contributed to wildlife conservation every year by the more than 10,000 private hunting-advocate organizations, like the National Wild Turkey Federation, Ducks Unlimited, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

** $4.2 billion -- Amount of money sportsmen have contributed to conservation through a 10% federal excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, and gear since the 1937 Pittman-Robertson Act established the tax. Millions of acres of public-use land has been purchased, preserved, and maintained with this money.

From an ecological point of view, here's what all this translates int The needs of wild animals -- especially endangered and threatened species -- are immeasurably better served by the millions of acres of well-maintained, patrolled habitat that hunters' dollars are paying for than the lies and propaganda dished out by animal rights groups. In fact, their efforts are among the most destructive forces facing wildlife of all types today…

Why? Because if the animal rights crowd got its way and hunting were outlawed, there'd be no money for the preservation and expansion of the habitat that houses not only game species, but the endangered, threatened, and recovering species as well. Like it or not, and believe it or not, sportsmen's dollars are in large part what has made possible the wildly successful re-establishment of the wild turkey, black bear, bison, elk, bald eagle and the Wolf . Yes, it was vast tracts of public, protected land and plenty of dollars for reintroduction efforts that made these miracles of conservation a reality -- not to mention the 20-fold increase in the number of wild elk, the 133-fold increase in the wild turkey flock, and the roughly 70-fold increase in the national whitetail deer herd over the last century.

If sport hunting and/or sport fishing were outlawed (animal rights groups are gunning for them both), many of these species would dwindle once again -- because sooner or later, the government would no doubt pony up a lot of these lands for development. They'd have to; who else would pay for their upkeep and regulation? The animal rights crowd?

Uh, no.

Right to Hunt vs. Animal Rights: A-Hunting They Will Go -- for Headlines and Hype

In case you're wondering how much money animal rights groups devote to habitat preservation and the welfare of wild species, take a gander at PETA's 2004 financials. Straight from its Web site, I discovered that PETA's prodigious revenue of over $29 million bought:

** 2,700 media interviews

** 703 organized demonstrations

** Nearly 11,000 mentions in print

** Coverage on at least seven major TV networks

** 150,000 "vegetarian starter kits" disseminated to the public

** Enough "educational materials" for 235,000 teachers and 11,000,000 students…

But not a single acre of land for wildlife preservation -- not even for endangered species!

Hmmm. Seems that PETA and friends just don't realize that what critters of every stripe need more than billboards, picket lines, ad campaigns, and celebrity advocates are places to live and thrive. Without the immense revenue of hunting-related dollars, these lands simply would not exist. That's a hard pill for them to swallow. And as if it isn't bad enough that animal rights groups -- for all their high-profile anti-hunting bluster -- don't seem to pay for ANY true wildlife conservation efforts, they also spend a good deal of their time and resources obfuscating the truth about where conservation money does come from. Case in point:

In a 2003 news release aimed at opposing the New York Bureau of Wildlife's plans to promote hunting and trapping in publicly owned sections of the Catskill Mountains, the notoriously militant Fund for Animals (ironic name, since I could find no evidence that they spend any money on wildlife conservation, either), stated that: "Although [the Bureau of Wildlife] is financed by millions of dollars of the public's tax money, the nonhunting public's viewpoint is consistently ignored…"

Yet according to the New York Bureau of Wildlife's own financials, its primary source of funding is hunting, fishing, and trapping license fees, public land usage fees, and fines for violations of fisheries and wildlife management policies. Less than 12% of its operating budget comes from state tax revenues. This is a similar ratio to other states' natural resources agencies' funding. In fact, nationwide, sportsmen's dollars outpace tax dollars for conservation efforts by a ratio of 9-to-1!

Can you think of ANY other federal government program that divines only 10% of its budget from the general fund?

But what's really mind-boggling about the whole shebang is this: Even if animal rights groups could match the $3 million a day American sportsmen contribute directly to wildlife conservation and protection through license fees, land usage fees, and excise taxes, it still wouldn't even come close to justifying the outlawing of hunting from a dollars-and-sense perspective, personal freedom issues notwithstanding.

[supersiderjr]

what is the point of hunting wolves theree awesome animals i myself love wolves and know alot of other people that love wolves so what is the point are they out there killing us no so whats the point of killing themthey are beutiful animals so what is the point in killing them

[a_bow_nut]

The point is that any predator (including us) that is allowed to expand and hunt uncontrolled will soon wipe out entire herds of game animals. Leaving behind a countryside with little to no wildlife in it. Up where I went bear hunting the locals have watched the wolves push the elk to the edge of being wiped out. In a spot that used to teem with elk and deer is almost barren now. For anybody trying to find elk in that region they had to go up to where the mountian goat and bighorn sheep live just to find any sidn of elk. It's the last place that the elk can go the get away from these predators. Nobody is saying to wipe the wolves out. Just that they need to be kept in check so that they don't over run an area. What would you say if coyotes in you area were protected like the wolves are now and they were wipeing out all of your upland bird hunting? Then when that was gone the coyotes moved on to the deer heards and hunt and kill them until it's reare that you even see a deer any more? Wouldn't you want there to be some kind of control plan in place to keep this from happening?

Also this goes for all of the animals that live in the wild. When I was a kid it was very rare that you ever saw an elk let alone a bull. In Utah now I have a hard time not seeing a heard of ten to twenty elk almost every time I head into the hills. Don't get me wrong they are cool to see but it's coming at a cost to our deer heard. Where you used to see deer all over the place the elk have moved in and taken over so that you don't hardly see a deer any more.

Will all of these animals ever be in total balance? No. I know this will never happen but with the wolves it's time to change the current plan that we have.

IN MY OPINION. ONLY

[Sneaky]

Hey supersiderjr,
They said the same thing about mountain lions in California. "They are beautiful, why hunt them?" Now look what is happening. Game and Fish in California actually kill more lions now then hunters did when it was legal to hunt them. If you leave the population unchecked they WILL cause loss of wildlife and HUMANS. Same thing with the wolves. What I want to know is why the game and fish in almost every western state is trying to save all the dang predators when the mule deer population is at all time lows almost everywhere in the west.

[Keyman]

On a physically smaller scale the racoon, coyote, fox, weasel etc. have a huge detrimental effect on gamebird populations. The numbers of these furbearers has skyrocketed since the anti-fur, anti-trapping forces have held sway. A friend of mine shot 68 coon 2 years ago...from 1 spot behind my neighbors barn. This was over a period of about 2 months with only occasional hunting. And people wonder why we don't have much of a wild pheasant population anymore here in Michigan...

[elkslayer338]

On a physically smaller scale the racoon, coyote, fox, weasel etc. have a huge detrimental effect on gamebird populations. The numbers of these furbearers has skyrocketed since the anti-fur, anti-trapping forces have held sway. A friend of mine shot 68 coon 2 years ago...from 1 spot behind my neighbors barn. This was over a period of about 2 months with only occasional hunting. And people wonder why we don't have much of a wild pheasant population anymore here in Michigan...

That is a great point I am sure the wolf has taken a few game birds to.
I just read that a pack of wolves is killing calf cow's around Potoskey in lower Michigan.