Wolves vs. hunter in Star Trib

[caseynicole]

I've had a few encounters with wolves in my short amount of years, first time deer hunting up on echo we had quite a few, then when we hunted out of a buddy's shack outside of cook the whole area had been overrun by wolves. Never a close encounter but they were around, never remember being scared, but I can tell you if one slinked out of the woods behind my house after my girly (dog) that wolf would be ever so dead. I'm definitly for management of wolves but not for the extinction, read "the loop". As it is we have an abundance of coyotes behind our house looking quite mangy and nasty, we plan on having a party one weekend to take them out too many diseases. Great thread we got going here.

me and the booty hunting at our lease past Orr

[barney]

If these wolves were only killing for food, then they must have been pretty hungry.

Wolves Kill 120 Sheep at Montana RanchSee More News 9/3/2009

In the largest predation incident of its kind, 120 sheep were killed by a wolf pack in one single swoop on the Rebish/Konen livestock ranch in near Dillon, Mont.

The incident was an unusual display of wolf behavior since most wolf packs do not kill so many animals at one time.

During 2008, only 111 sheep were recorded as killed by wolves according to Carolyn Sime, wolf coordinator for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

"This is one of the most significant losses that I've seen," Sime said. "That situation is really unfortunate."

Defenders of Wildlife’s Northern Rockies representative Suzanne Stone agreed saying she had never heard of such an “extreme case” of wolf predation.

Last Friday’s loss was not the first attack the ranch has seen recently. Rancher Jon Konen said 26 rams were killed by wolves in late July as well.

Konen was going to Billings to attend to some business last Friday and asked his son to check on the sheep in the pasture.

“He called me, and said it was a mess up there. He said there were dead bucks all up and down the creek. We went up there the next day and tried to count them, but there were too many to count," Konen said. "I had tears in my eyes, not only for myself but for what my stock had to go through. They were running, getting chewed on, bit and piled into a corner. They were bit on the neck, on the back, on the back of the hind leg. They'd cripple them, then rip their sides open."

While the Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services will provide Konen with compensation for his loss, it still does not undo the damage the wolves caused.

Graeme McDougal with Wildlife Services was called in to use lethal control on one gray wolf from the Centennial pack of three adult gray wolves and five pups marking the first depredation kill for the pack.

Konen was not interested in debating the recent wolf hunting season debacle, but stated that in his opinion it was time to stop managing wolves and start controlling them instead.

"My bucks were on private ground, in a pasture where we've been pasturing them for 50 years. The wolves were intruders that were in the wrong place," Konen said.

[Steve Foss]

Wolves don't only kill for food. Indigenous people (Indians and Eskimoan people on our continent) have always known about what biologists have termed "surplus killing." Sometimes wolves kill way more than they need to eat.

In modern times, surplus killing almost always happens with livestock. Probably at least partly because the wolf encounters very few situations where wild prey that is small enough to be helpless to wolves is massed in such packed-in numbers.

Turkey farmers in Minnesota and sheep ranchers out west know alll about surplus killing. It does not happen often, but it does happen. No one knows why. Some say they do it just for the "joy of killing," but of course no one really knows what a wolf feels, or what drives wolves to do what they do. It's only self-centeredness that allows us to fool ourselves with the idea we can think like a wolf thinks.

Many people who hate wolves simply need an object for their hate, and if it wasn't wolves it would be something else. It's the same for many people who love wolves. It's not about what drives the wolf, which is a creature too complex to suit that class of lovers and the haters -- it's about what drives us, and which of our own needs we simplify and transfer onto the wolf's shoulders.

A good thing is that it seems to me there are very few (or even none) contributing to this thread who are blinded by hate for or love of the wolf. Most seen genuinely interested in participating in an actual discussion.

That deserves a salute!

That's IMO, anyway.

but I can tell you if one slinked out of the woods behind my house after my girly (dog) that wolf would be ever so dead.

I'd defend my dog against a wolf any day, too.

[barney]

Are you paraphrasing Wolf Trust.org? What does "indigenous" people have to do with this?

"people who hate wolves simply need an object for their hate"

If your talking about me, I really don't need an object for my hate, especially wolves. I hate wolves because I hate any carnivore that eats it's warm blooded prey alive.

[Steve Foss]

Are you paraphrasing Wolf Trust.org?

[upnorth]

Truth be told Barney that is the first time I heard of anything like wolves killing like that and sure am not going dispute it. But I do tend to think it is somewhat of an oddity.

And there are plenty of carnivores that start to eat soon after or during the death of there prey. I think that may even include a few predatory fish that will eat mammals that stray onto the water. Spending much of my summers when I was young, I have seen dogs, cats etc eat their kill literally alive when they do catch them. The list of your hatred must be pretty darn long.

Nature and survival is not always pretty nor civilized. And I think that would include our early ancestors.

[life=outdoors92]

in the winter of 1995-96, 1 report, and the only report of killing surplus was noted in a on going 15 year study in the N part of the state. that winter happened to be one of the harshast on record. many biololgists have come to an agreement have that these only occur when wolves are highly stressed and need food. however in that same study, an overwhelming majority of those deer were almost practically dead based on fat reserves and nutriotion tests. hence, making them easy picking for wolves

[Steve Foss]

in the winter of 1995-96, 1 report, and the only report of killing surplus was noted in a on going 15 year study in the N part of the state. that winter happened to be one of the harshast on record. many biololgists have come to an agreement have that these only occur when wolves are highly stressed and need food. however in that same study, an overwhelming majority of those deer were almost practically dead based on fat reserves and nutriotion tests. hence, making them easy picking for wolves

Was that study limited to surplus killing of wild animals, or was livestock included?

[life=outdoors92]

just wild animals, specifically deer. if u get MN Outdoors News magazine, there was just a huge article on this subject in the latest issue

[delcecchi]

Perhaps you hate people then. Look what they do. Do you hate chickens? They will peck each other to death. Wolves are wolves. They eat whatever will hold still long enough.

And of course this behaviour is widespread among fish. And fishermen. Why do you draw a line between warm blooded prey and cold blooded?

[Steve Foss]

just wild animals, specifically deer. if u get MN Outdoors News magazine, there was just a huge article on this subject in the latest issue

Thanks, L=O. I don't take any print subscriptions any longer. Print is dead. Everything I need to know I learn online. Well, ALMOST everything.

[delcecchi]

Steve, it occurs to me that since wolves will eat some pretty funky stuff that they might kill a few over the limit if they get a chance just in case they don't do so well next time.

Sort of like being out crappie fishing and they are biting really well and you don't notice until you get home that you have like 50 in the bucket. In another galaxy long ago and far away, when I was young.

[Steve Foss]

Steve, it occurs to me that since wolves will eat some pretty funky stuff that they might kill a few over the limit if they get a chance just in case they don't do so well next time.

Sort of like being out crappie fishing and they are biting really well and you don't notice until you get home that you have like 50 in the bucket. In another galaxy long ago and far away, when I was young.

Yeah, you don't have to be a wolf to engage in surplus killing. I suspect some individuals within any predator species population do it. Man, of course, is the ultimate predator.

[barney]

Why would you think it's an oddity? Do you know that the population of the northern Yellowstone Park elk herd has plummeted from 28,000 animals in the early 90's to ~6,000 animals today? The population decline is attributed almost solely to wolf reintroduction.

"and there are plenty of carnivores that start to eat soon after or during the death of their prey." I don't have a problem with the ones that eat "after" the death. I hate wolves because they don't seem to mind either way.

"The list of your hatred must be pretty long"

Are you assuming I hate dogs and cats based upon what you presumably have seen? I've never seen either of these animals "eat their kill literally alive." Do you even know the difference between wolves and cats in the way they kill?

Hamstrung=alive but immobile

Suffocated=dead and ready for the palate

[Steve Foss]

Why would you think it's an oddity? Do you know that the population of the northern Yellowstone Park elk herd has plummeted from 28,000 animals in the early 90's to ~6,000 animals today? The population decline is attributed almost solely to wolf reintroduction.

"and there are plenty of carnivores that start to eat soon after or during the death of their prey." I don't have a problem with the ones that eat "after" the death. I hate wolves because they don't seem to mind either way.

"The list of your hatred must be pretty long"

Are you assuming I hate dogs and cats based upon what you presumably have seen? I've never seen either of these animals "eat their kill literally alive." Do you even know the difference between wolves and cats in the way they kill?

Hamstrung=alive but immobile

Suffocated=dead and ready for the palate

So much here that is interesting. Wolves rarely hamstring their kills. I'll dare bring up indigenous peoples again, who have long known that most wolves kill large game by harrying it and bringing it down with repeated bites to the neck/body/head, anywhere they can get ahold of it, but most often it's the weakening of the animal and the weight of the wolves that brings down large game. Wildlife biologists have come to the same conclusion in their more methodical way. Yes, the so-called "hamstring kill" does happen. People have seen it happen. But it doesn't happen very often. The myth that wolves typically hamstring game is alive and well, I see.

Indian and Eskimoan peoples, BTW, didn't look at the natural world the same way most wildlife biologists do, but it's foolish to dismiss their hundreds/thousands of years of observations. They had to understand the natural world far better than a university educated biologist (or the typical deer hunter) in order to survive out on the land.

The Yellowstone elk population, with little natural predation, had ballooned far past the point of being a mere nuisance. Wolves brought it back down. By definition, the elk population "declined," but the way you used it is clearly pejorative. Well, elk hunters could have killed a lot of elk too, but the outcry from the bunny lovers (no, I am not one of them) would have been long and fierce if we allowed humans to shoot and eat all those elk. Predation from reintroduced wolves, on the other hand, seemed "natural" enough to those folks. Draw your own conclusions about game management vs politics. My conclusion is that politics, in reality, trumps biology/wise management pretty darn often. I only wish that, when politics wins, it isn't driven by people who have never hunted a deer or seen a wolf in the wild.

When I was a young man in Wisconsin dairy farm country, I watched a pack of feral dogs (including some of the neighbors' homebody dogs that roam at night), taking down deer. They started to eat before the animal was dead. Cats, which tend to be lone hunters, usually don't have the opportunity to do this, since they want their prey in such a condition that it can't escape, and that usually means dead. Pack hunters have more leeway that way. However, I've watched many housecats (I use the term "house" loosely, as many are feral) take birds and mice and bite their heads off in order to kill them. Why it seems more cruel to you that some predators eat animals before they are quite dead and less cruel that some kill by tearing off heads isn't something I understand, but we all have our own sensibilities, and it's not my place to judge yours, as I believe your perspective is every bit as valuable as anyone else's.

[upnorth]

Thanks for replying to that Steve saved me the time hammering on the keys.

I echo what Steve said.

All I am going to add is if you are searching for a reason to continue the hatred/fear you have for wolves I am sure you will find something somewhere.

[BRULEDRIFTER]

Your hatred is pure ignorance.... Plain and simple! Every critter has a place and a role in nature. There are plenty of deer and elk for both man and wolf.

[Steve Foss]

Your hatred is pure ignorance.... Plain and simple!

Way to keep the peace, buddy. You CAN make your point without inciting the online equivalent of a bar brawl, right?

[thedeadsea]

Nice job guys!! 3 pages full of good stuff since I last checked.

Wolves rarely hamstring their kills.

Not true. Not always they way they bring down game but quite often. One wolf trips up the deer and the others are on it the second it slows down.

As one example, a friend of a friend lives on a very sparsly populated road up the north shore where they have a huge problem with wolves. They have a pitbull. The lady was walking the dog down their road and they encountered 6 wolves. The wolves surrounded the dog and were continuously trying to hamstring it. (Side note, this is the only time in my life that I would root for a pitbull, worthless animals IMO). The dog was so fast on its feet, it was able to spin around fast enough so the wolves couldn't get ahold of its back legs. It finally got free of the pack and got back to the lady. As they walked the last 1/4 mile home, one of the wolves (most likely the pack leader) got in front of them and kept trying to lure the dog off to the side. It would stay a little ways ahead of them and back off as the lady walked towards it. The other 5 stayed roughly 20 yards behind them.

That's scary stuff to me.

Para, what can I say, great minds think alike!

[Steve Foss]

Wolves rarely hamstring their kills.

[thedeadsea]

Steve, you can take a single example and extrapolate into "quite often," if you like, but it won't wash.

Seen it on TV and in articles MORE THAN ONCE. That is just one example of multiple wolves trying to do it in the same instance.

As you know, I am an opinionated person, but I always attempt not the ASSuME things.

Steve

[Steve Foss]

Seen it on TV and in articles MORE THAN ONCE.

Sooooo, twice makes a trend?

I know you are opinionated, my buddy. And a very cool thing that is.

[BRULEDRIFTER]

Way to keep the peace, buddy. You CAN make your point without inciting the online equivalent of a bar brawl, right?

Now, now..... No fight intended. I had a long, drawn out opinion I was going to post but it was just to long and full of ramblings, so I decided to just cut to my point and leave out the fluff.

Claiming ones opinion as ignorance isn't that nasty, is it? If so, I apologize.

Those little red squirrels sure do make life he11 when your up in a tree stand. And at the time I wish them a harsh death, but I understand their role in nature and as soon as they shut up, were cool again!

I just can't understand hating on any critters, no matter how much they inconvenience us.

[life=outdoors92]

"Why would you think it's an oddity? Do you know that the population of the northern Yellowstone Park elk herd has plummeted from 28,000 animals in the early 90's to ~6,000 animals today? The population decline is attributed almost solely to wolf reintroduction."

http://www.yellowstonenationalpark.com/elk.htm

how come this says 30,000 elk in the summer, and 15,000 in the winter?

[Steve Foss]

Seen it on TV and in articles MORE THAN ONCE.

I was going to edit into my post, but decided to add one so we aren't cross posting against edits after the fact.

TV and other media are not research. They are entertainment. To use entertainment as underpinning for a thoughtful discussion of animals is specious at best. I'm not a guy who believes wildlife biology knows all answers or can EVER know all answers, but at least those folks work hard to remove hysteria and heresy from their assessments. When it comes to media, hysteria and heresy are the rule, not the exception.

Trust me on that one.

[delcecchi]

You can find support for any position

It's the wolves fault....

http://www.physorg.com/news166894603.html

It's hunters and the weather, not wolves

http://www.physorg.com/news9625.html

And my favorite, wolves get old and slow just like the rest of us so they have to live off the work of the young. :-)

http://www.physorg.com/news175787683.html

[delcecchi]

"I can't understand hating critters just because they inconvenience us"

I sort of agree but make exception for mosquitos, ankle biter flies, and ticks. Also certain virii and bacteria. And a few other critters.

[upnorth]

Quote:

Seen it on TV and in articles MORE THAN ONCE. That is just one example of multiple wolves trying to do it in the same instance.

You have to admit it is an attention getter and adds drama and that is what many writers or people doing documentaries are after. Heck it is what sells air time and magazines/newspapers. I am not saying that to debuke anything, just saying they are going to broadcast or write about things that sells.

[thedeadsea]

Originally Posted By: thedeadsea

Seen it on TV and in articles MORE THAN ONCE.

I was going to edit into my post, but decided to add one so we aren't cross posting against edits after the fact.

TV and other media are not research. They are entertainment. To use entertainment as underpinning for a thoughtful discussion of animals is specious at best. I'm not a guy who believes wildlife biology knows all answers or can EVER know all answers, but at least those folks work hard to remove hysteria and heresy from there assessments. When it comes to media, hysteria and heresy are the rule, not the exception.

Trust me on that one.

Sometimes, but what about when the "experts", some of them who have been quoted more than once in the thread are doing the show as a documentary. Is it still all just for "entertainment"?

Steve

P.S. Steve F check your inbox.

[Steve Foss]

I was going to edit into my post, but decided to add one so we aren't cross posting against edits after the fact.

TV and other media are not research. They are entertainment. To use entertainment as underpinning for a thoughtful discussion of animals is specious at best. I'm not a guy who believes wildlife biology knows all answers or can EVER know all answers, but at least those folks work hard to remove hysteria and heresy from there assessments. When it comes to media, hysteria and heresy are the rule, not the exception.

Trust me on that one.