Just an interesting article in the news today about a grizzly attacking a hunter.grizzly attack
BSF

I have that nightmare at least three times a week. I try to balance the bad dream by watching shows like "Growing Up Grizzly," and other "This is a nice, nice bear" shows. Talk about trauma...he's lucky Mr. Bear only felt like batting him around a bit, though.

lucky guy. he lived.i wonder why he was attacked. there are no cubs this time of year.oh well nature is a fickle friend.

I recommend that EVERYONE read Alaska Bear Tales by Larry Kaniut.

It is a very sobering collection of accounts ranging from stalkings to maulings to deaths.

When I am out "Squatchin" in bear or puma country, I am ALWAYS armed.

Why... because I rather enjoy being alive.

HERE is a link to the book.

Be Prepared,
The BruinWatcher

Larry Kaniut has 3 or 4 Alaska Bear Tale books published now. He's presently working on another, and said he'd like to include one of my bear encounters, which I shared with him via email. He asked me for permission to do so, and I said it would be fine.

I haven't read kanuit's books yet, although they have been on my reading list for quite a while. Most of this information never makes the press. Lions and wolves do a great deal of killing of livestock, and just for pleasure. Attacks on humans by predators (bears, wolves, cougars, etc...) occur much more frequently than most people realize.
Here's a link to a cougar that killed 102 sheep in one attack that I just ran across today in my normal reading. Re-introduced wolves have done the same. I am not for their extermination, but you do need to use caution. Be armed. I could list many that I have seen recently.
BSF

Heck I wonder if this was the same bear my dads buddy saw that night? Mabye it's even the same one responsible for the empty canister of bear spray on the trail. We were hunting in the Bridger-Teton national forest around where this attack occured. It's things like this that make me glad I had the bear spay while in Wyoming.

You know....an emptly can of bear spray, just sitting on the trail..would be rather spooky.

I have that book, Quatch... some VERY nasty stuff in there!

On the BFRO's new reports is a report from BC of a BF chasing a Griz down a hill throwing boulders at it.....

YIKES! :willies:


Belle

Here's a very good article about mountain lions. Hornocker is considered to be one of the top big cat biologists in the world. I have met him a couple of times and the guy is fascinating to talk to.

http://www.angelfire.com/co/KlueLass/lions/peterson.htm


Extermination is never the answer....

Thanks Sosha. I enjoyed the article. Here are a few more, as well. Link 1 (US) Link 2 Link 3.
I know it is easy to discount info that we do not agree with, but if the attacks listed and described in these links are genuine, verified, then attacks are not really as rare as we are (falsely) lead to believe. Also, if it is true that there were so many fewer "verified" attacks in the past, then mountain lion attacks truly have dramatically increased. Sometimes, the info we read is skewed or bias. I trust lists, as long as the items on that list can be verified. US List (Excluding Ca) California listPretty hard to argue with a list.

An article about a few individual attacks:
one

And a book that describes and lists 284 cougar attacks, and 42 fatalities. She also claims to have discovered evidence of 47 attacks since publication of the book. Know the facts, is all I am saying. Book Read the book and judge for yourself.
Thanks, Sosha
BSF

Wolves are an interesting predator. While there is no doubt that they are hell on livestock, folks in the environmental movement like to tout the statement that there are no recorded instances of wolves attacking humans.

Of course, that isn't true. Although extremely rare, it happens. An attack occurred near Yakutat just a year or two ago. Usually these attacks involve children.

I've personally approached two different wild wolves (unarmed) on two different occasions to within 30 feet. Both times I spoke softly to the creatures, avoided direct eye contact, and moved slowly. Both times the wolves simply sat down like my dog at home and curiously watched me.

I can see why it was the wolf that was domesticated so long ago by humans, and which has evolved into man's best friend.

I agree totally, Huntster. Even using the reports of all known attacks, and not just the few that the tree-hugging "biologists" would falsely lead us to believe have been all that occurred, the risk of being attacked by a predator is not huge by any means. I just like honesty, and dislike agenda ridden "experts" knowingly misleading people to support their twisted ideals. Sometimes total protection is called for, other times allowing some hunting is the logical answer. Warm cuddly feelings vs. reality. I do not worry per se about being attacked, but in cougar country, I like to be prepared. Were I in grizzly country, I would do likewise. Predation on livestock, on the other hand, is far more of a problem, and also much more widespread than some would like us to believe. The extermination of any one of the great American predators would be a tragedy, but control is not extermination, not by a long shot. The animal rights activist types were fond of saying that animals never kill for pleasure. That's a laugh. Don't hear them spouting that much anymore. That is only because people started regularly calling their bluff. I am just doing the same. Stopping disinformation. Unfortunately, there are a few unbalanced, and highly vocal, individuals out there would would like to put a moratorium on predator hunting and/or all hunting.
I did not eat the meat of some of the predators I have hunted, but I did feed the meat to my dogs in most cases. Some will say that there are too many choices in dog food to justify that, but I say again, misguided thinking. SOMETHING died for the dog to eat. I decided what it was, not them.
BSF

I am going hunting. See y'all tonight.

We think alike, friend. Propaganda is a dangerous thing.



Again, I agree.

I recently heard some statements made by a professional coyote hunter in Wyoming. He claimed that hunters paid by sheep ranchers kill thousands of coyotes each year, yet the predation on sheep is still incredibly high, and coyote numbers remain high as well. While history shows that it isn't difficult to exterminate brown bears, I think it's equally clear that you simply can't exterminate coyotes.

In any event, hunting (whether for sport, meat, livestock protection, or fur) will not cause extermination as long as wildlife biologists honestly manage species numbers under a sustained yield principle.

One of my pet peeves is urban/suburban Americans pursuing or supporting laws and regulations which go overboard in "saving" a place like Alaska while continuing to degradate their own backyards. They're trying to save the grizzly and the wolf here (even though we're infested with them), and do nothing to repair the outright extinctions in their own states. A griz behind every tree in Alaska does nothing for the environment in Ohio, but it can make life quite hazardous for Alaskans who want to go fishing.

For example, you've all heard the propaganda regarding ANWR and caribou.

Folks, there are as many caribou in this state as there are people (nearly 700,000). When bison numbers (not to mention the appropriately balanced numbers of grizzlies and plains wolves) are brought back up to equal the human population in, say, Iowa, then I'll be more amenable to listen to preservational whining regarding Alaska.

I agree that there is a lot of propaganda on both sides of the issue, and I personally have no great love of groups like PETA that do more damage to the animal welfare cause by making people think we are all detached from reality. But you have to look at the motivating force behind why people want to protect wilderness and the wildlife within it. There has, in the past, been a lot of mismanagment of our resources. Most groups that get started don't start because someone just has some hair brained idea, it is because someone experienced something that made them stop and think.

I got involved in protecting mountain lions because I was seeing a lot of data that didn't support the idea of trophy hunting. I researched the issue quite thouroughly and was amazed at what I found out. I learned about the government agency known as the ADC (Animal Damage Control) which recently changed it's name to "Wildlife Services" to improved it's image with the public. However they still slaughter thousands of animals every year. WS kills tens of thousands of coyotes as well as hundreds to thousands of bears, mountain lions, bobcats, wolves and other predators. The animals are shot, poisoned, gassed, snared and caught in leg hold traps. The agency has survived and prospered despite strong opposition to its control tactics, primarily because of its lap dog relationship to the powerful livestock industry. In 1999, Wildlife Services killed 601 badgers, 349 bears, 2,435 bobcats, 85,938 coyotes, 6,182 foxes, 359 cougars and 173 wolves – for a grand total of 96,037 predators in one year. Often animals are killed for minor concerns such as eating flowers or pet food, digging in gardens and frightening people – all of which could be easily addressed by non-lethal methods.

Wildlife Services also wastes millions of taxpayer dollars by spending far more to kill predators than the actual damage those animals cause. It costs over a $100 for each animal that is killed (sometimes this price can be up to $2,000) while the damages incurred by the animal average $22.50. Lethal control is far more expensive and inhumane than other non-lethal alternatives.

Wildlife Services currently utilizes methods condemned by many as non-selective, imprecise, haphazard and brutally inhumane. Many of these methods endanger more than just target predators. People and domestic pets have been hurt or killed by traps and poisoning devices.

One of the very very critical points that Dr. Hornocker makes about predators is that when you indiscriminately kill a "good" experienced predator, meaning one that is doing what it should...hunting other wildlife, not people dogs or cats...you open up that territory for younger more inexperienced animals to take it's place....this is true of coyotes and wolves also. If they cannot kill what they are supposed to kill, then they will go after something that is usually not on the menu if they get hungry enough. We need to understand that the biology of predators is very complex and they fit into a very critical role in an ecosystem. When people go in and mess with this balance....it causes havoc. That article about the Wildlife Services Offficer hunting the mountain lion that was in Outdoor California.....in that article he states that he thought the mountain lion took over the territory because the other Tom that was there was either killed by another lion or a human. This is why....when you have predators that are avoiding people and doing what they should do.....they should be left alone. The ones that are going after livestock and people do need to be eliminated. The idea is that after a while the animals will go back to staying away from people and going after wildlife. But if you just kill anything...you may be creating more of a problem by making room for more inexperienced predators. I'm saying we have to be very careful about what we kill and why...this is why Hornocker and other like him study these animals so that the information they gather can help people as well as the animals.

They kill so many coyotes every year....how do they know which ones are killing livestock and which ones aren't? Learning the biology of these animals helps us get a little closer to understanding their habits and behavior. Coyotes are opportunistic as many predators are. They are going to go after whatever is easiest. That is where humans can use our smarts and make it harder for them to go after what we don't want them to kill. I have mentioned deterrents....I have worked with ranchers that used Llamas in their herds...also burros and special dogs. These deterrents work. There is a woman in Montana and Wyoming that is using Karelian Bear Dogs to dissuade Grizzlies from eating livestock, these dogs are fearless....it does work. It takes more effort of course....but it does work. I am not saying it will eliminate the problem all together...but it is a start...and an effort in the right direction. There are very intelligent rational people in the animal welfare movement who are trying to make a difference through education and by studying the results of people like Dr. Hornocker and Dr. Paul Beier, a professor of wildlife ecology at Northern Arizona University. These people are getting to the truth of predator behavior and finding that predator presence is critical to the health of an ecosystem. We need to understand the complex structures of these ecosystems before we go killing everything. In the past.....that was not done. It is being done now.

Wally Hickel, former Governor of Alaska supported wolf control by uttering the now famous proclamation that "you can't just let nature run wild." he wanted officials to kill hundreds of wolves. Yep...when you can get almost $2000 for a wolf pelt....that is a hell of a profit.

http://www.northcountrymarketing.com/wolf-mounts.htm

Great book, Quatch. I just started this morning, been reading on breaks. I am going to make it a point to read all of his books.
Thanks
BSF

No problem brother!

Enjoy,
The BruinWatcher

I think that the idea of "controlling" predators is redundant. We are part of the food chain whenever we set foot in the woods. If you are that concerned, carry protection. If you're concerned about wolves or cats getting your sheep or cattle, put up bigger fences. There are always options to consider before killing an animal.

Here's a shocking thought: You all have posted statistics for the number of people killed by this and that animal. Here are some statistics (for the US) to consider:

# of people killed by (for last year statistics available)
Sharks: approximately 10 fatal attacks per year (varies from year to year)
Bees and similar insects: 90-100 http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/2000/2076.html
Human Beings:
Intentional Murders: 16,110 (year 2002)
People running red lights: around 800


I don't see an outcry to "control the population of people" so that we don't have 16K + people getting killed every year. Decision on things like this shouldn't be made solely on the fact that "X" number of people were attacked and/or killed, but rather on the odds that it will happen. If 1,000,000 people go camping (and I pulled that number out of the air for the sake of argument; and I think the number is actually much higher, if you count all the days spent by all the people who go camping- think of it as sort of the camping equivalent of "man-hours") in the western US every year and we only lose 30 people a year (which is about the number quoted in most non-fearmongering sources) that only amounts to a rate of 3 per 100,000 people per year, which means that your risk of being attacked by a wild animal is less than your risk of:

-Being a victim of a crime (4118.8 per 100,000 people)
-Being murdered by another human being (5.6 per 100K)
-Drowning in your bathtub (300 people per year)
-Dying in a fire (4,500 people per year in the US)
-Being raped (33 per 100K)
-Having your house broken into (746.2 per 100K)
-Living to see Ralph Nader elected president

Think about those numbers for a while....and then decide if a few sheep (the cost of which is not much when you figure ranches basically buy them in the livestock equivalent of bulk and the cost of these losses is already figured into the price mutton and wool (i.e. we're gonna pay for it anyways)) is worth killing noble and beautiful animals (which sheep are about as far from as you can get).

:willies: ewwww...I'd rather be mauled by a rabid squirrel.

Love the drawing.....personally I'd rather take on the squirrel too

Well, USAF, I am glad we agree that the chance of being killed by a vicious animal is pretty remote, anthough you disguised that agreement pretty good.
"Even using the reports of all known attacks, and not just the few that the tree-hugging "biologists" would falsely lead us to believe have been all that occurred, the risk of being attacked by a predator is not huge by any means."
I am sorry, but this kind of rabid, human hating talk just does not cut it with me. Certainly good conservation measures are the responsibility of humans. That may include stopping all hunting of a species, allowing some hunting, or a combination of both. Hogs are an introduced pest in Texas, and can be hunted 24/7 365. You have watched (and been affected by) too much Disney in my opinion. Porky pig is not real. It's called transference.
BSF

well, i heard on the radio this morning, somewhere on the mississippi river the fish have been jumping out of the water and attacking the fishermen in their boats........that kinda makes me think of the the old movie called day of the animals..... :willies: :willies: :willies:

Well, I don't blame them! Those mean old fishermen catching those poor widdle fishi-wishies!
BSF

Actually did I ever say that animals shouldn't be hunted? I was trying to imply that animals that have population problems as is shouldn't be hunted (such as people trying to kill wolves that have been recently reintroduced). Deer are a pest around here and massively overpopulated. I think we should be able to hunt them year round personally (and many do the very thing I am suggesting).

I have a problem with the misconception you seem to have about my beliefs. I never brought up hogs, so I don't know where the porky pig reference came from (and I personally don't like that stuttering swine to begin with). The comments I made were directed towards predatory animals (namely wolves, mountain lions, and bears) which are all the targets of bad publicity. Anyone who goes in the woods take their a-- in their own hands. You go into the forest you should know (and most do) that there are things in there that can maul and/or eat you. It's not the fault of the animal, it's not the fault of the person. It's just nature and many people seem to forget that human beings are first and foremost a part of it.

By the way, the statistics I looked at were from government sources, not some "tree hugging biologist" (although I take slight offense at that, because my major in college is wildlife biology (although I plan on going to dental school, don't ask). You seem to have a preconceived notion that all biologists are card carrying members of PETA and Greenpeace (two groups I personally happen to despise)......well that is as wrong as saying all hunters are inbred, stupid gun-toting rednecks...the point is that there are extremes in any group. You have those who think the woods should be left untouched and those who think we should be able to kill anything walking this planet on two or four legs. They are both wrong and the ideal is somewhere in the middle.

Well, I am not sure what the heck is going on here, but I was trying to decipher this:

I think that the idea of "controlling" predators is redundant. We are part of the food chain whenever we set foot in the woods. If you are that concerned, carry protection. If you're concerned about wolves or cats getting your sheep or cattle, put up bigger fences. There are always options to consider before killing an animal

And it sounds an awful lot to me like you think predators should not be hunted. Do you as a biologist agree that the predator populations are cyclic, as are the prey? You absolutely seem just a little touchy here. I would say that, if reintroducing predators to an area where they have been absent for a long time, either pay the ranchers in the area to protect their herds, or for their losses, or to relocate. Right now, the govn't says they do that, but in reality, very few of the losses are actually reimbursed. If there are just too many predators (as is the situation here in SE TX with coyotes), hunting is the best solution.

My complaint was with the biologists who are so outspoken with their false statements like "No wolf has ever attacked a human in the US". At making a statement like that, he just told me he is extremely inept at his job, and/or a liar. Either way, he has zero credability in anything he or she says.

Actually, I was suggesting that you arm yourself against attack when going into woods with known dangerous predators.

BSF

I agree that predator populations are cyclic.....diminish the prey population and the predator population will follow. It would make more sense to hunt the elk, deer, etc (and limit access to livestock) that make up the food source for a predator. Historically, at least according to a former professor of mine, attempts to control predator populations by direct hunting (taking out the predators) has almost always caused more problems by causing a prey animal population boom immediately after the hunting, then after a while the predator population comes back up to where it was.....if you can maintain a balance in the prey animals, then the predator population will stay in check. That's what I think should be done. But I don't think the animals should be faulted for doing what comes naturally. Like I said, I don't think anyone or any animal is to blame. It's just a matter of being part of the food chain (something a lot of people are terribly uncomfortable with.)

Just FYI (and mainly so people dont think I'm misrepresenting myself or something): I'm not a biologist yet, just I will be a biology major again when I return to college next fall.

NOTE: I'm trying to learn from everyone here, not get up on some soapbox. I want to know why everyone holds the opinions they do. There are people here who have far more education and knowledge on any topic you can think of than I do. If I misstate something, or if I am missing something, point it out please (This includes if I'm being a self-important little pr-ck)

Oh, and by the way, there was a study done that said coyotes actually breed more when put hunted (so the population stays steady despite animals being killed)....I can find it if you'd like to read it...I thought it was a weird finding and I remembered it when you mentioned it.

Of course, wolves have attacked people, not very frequently but I am sure it does happen. Anyone who tells me different will have lost my respect as well.

And I am always armed when I go into the woods anyway, not so much against predators (no bears or anything around here- except maybe black panthers?) but against poachers.

I feel I have to speak up here as an advocate for wolves. Man in his arrogance has almost wiped wolves off the face of the Earth once. They are trying to make a comeback and yes, in some areas like Alaska are doing very well, but in other areas you don't see them at all anymore. Coyotes on the other hand are doing very well at thriving and there's a good reason for that. Wolves are natural enemies to the coyotes. When wolves were all but wiped out in the lower 48, that left coyotes to breed and live without that natural enemy, which will not suffer a coyote to live in its territory. Now we are overrun with coyotes. Nature has, or used to have a balanced ecosystem, but mankind keeps thinking he can do a better job and improve on what nature has to offer. When you wipe out one species, it creates an imbalance in nature, and another species going to become a problem. When a wild animal attacks a human it is NEVER the animal's fault. Let me say it again. When a wild animal attacks a human, it is NEVER the animal's fault. How can I say that? They don't murder us. They defend their territory, their young and their food supply. When wolves run into man, they would much rather get as far away as possible than attack, but when left no other alternative are forced to attack. A sick or wounded animal (wolf) would be more prone to attack a human, especially a child. A wolf pup who has grown up without the benefit of it's parents through trapping and killing or other means of death has not been taught the essentials it needs to hunt wild game which is its natural prey. Children should never ever be left in the vicinity of a wolf pack alone. They are small, they make prey-like sounds, and they are an easy target for a wolf. If you aren't big enough to see over the top of a wolf's head, you are an easy target alone out in nature, not just by wolves but other predators. Looking a wolf in the eyes is the same as waving a red flag in front of a bull. It's a challenge. Most wolves will run when challenged in this manner, however, there are exceptions with sick, injured, animals or pups who have not grown up with the benefit of their parents teaching. I have researched wolves, and I have wolves, or rather they have me. I've learned a great deal about them both in research and from them. They are more like us than any other animal. They are quite intelligent. They raise their young in a family. They have organization in their families up to and including babysitters for the pups. They practice birth control, believe it or not. They have a great capacity for love among themselves and those they adopt, like me. Would I leave a child in my yard alone with one of my animals for any length of time at all? Nope. NEVER. Because for all of their intelligence, love and organization, they are still wild animals with a hierarchy. They fight for dominance and they hunt for their food. If your child looks like prey, they just might be. They might look at you as an alpha animal to be submissive to, but your child is a whole different story, small, with no defenses, they may take your child on for dominance. Wolves rarely kill each other in a fight for dominance, but your child has no defenses and can be mortally wounded by a wolf (or dog for that matter) with even the best intentions. Is it the animals fault? No. It's our responsibility to keep our children safe, out of harm's way.

I'm sure I haven't covered everything here. I just wanted to speak out as an advocate for an animal that is so misunderstood by so many.

Teresa

Thank you Teresa.....I was hoping you would put your two cents in on this.

You know me, Steve, can't keep my mouth shut when wolves are involved.

Well, if hunting has that type of an effect on the population. why are you against it?
It certainly doesn't hurt the predator population any by your own words. I think a lot of biologists would turn that statement around when it suited their cause.
Of course you know that range sheep and cattle have no fences. Perhaps you were hoping I were unaware of that? This is where wolves are a problem. Biologists have said for years that it wasn't wolves killing 100 or so sheep or cattle in one night, then eating maybe 1 or 2. They came by after the attack. That was the story until the ranchers filmed a sheep slaughter. Shut a few guys up when it played on TV.
BSF

Were these wolves that were bred domestically for reintroduction, kept in containment and then released out into the wild? I know they had some problems with the Mexican Red wolves slaughtering livestock.

It has that effect on coyotes....it's never been documented in any other species that I am aware of. I shoot coyotes myself when they come in our yard here in Indiana (I've dropped two in the past four years) because they tend to be rabid around here and try to start trouble with our animals. I'm not saying that explosively uncontrolled populations (coyotes and deer being the two major examples in the US) shouldn't be hunted- since short-sighted people eliminated the predators that kept these in check (read as bears, mountain lions and wolves). Killing off any animal that is slow to reproduce (wolves are not quick to breed if I remember their biology correctly; correct me if I am wrong Teresa)

I wasn't aware that the cattle are free range without fences.....That's news to me. I learned something new. I always assumed that the areas they ranged in were fenced in. How do they keep the cattle from wandering off then? I now have even less sympathy for the ranchers. If they don't want to fence their herds in, then OH WELL>


I think I am just going to stop trying to convince you that a few ranchers losing a small portion of their massive herds is no reason to basically wipe out a population that is barely cutting it as is.

Teresa, don't bother trying to argue with him....he thinks he is right and there will be no convincing him otherwise. The ranchers have apparently convinced everyone that they are so close to financial ruin that any little thing can push them over the edge :rolleyes:

You are correct. Wolves breed once a year in November - December and have their pups in the spring. They usually have between 2 and 6 pups depending on how healthy they are and how much of a food supply they have. However, as stated earlier they will practice birth control and will not breed if food sources do not support it.

Actually, I am at work now. If I have time later, I will hook you up with some sites that tell another side of the wolf story. Believe me, I do admire wolves, and most predators. I just see them as what they are, animals. Control is man's responsibility. But, sane control. Not "No hunting at any cost", "humans are the culprit" mentality. That is just plain ridiculous, and those who preach it will indeed have a very small and undistinguished following. They can be both destructive and dangerous. Some people are so closed minded they can't see no matter how much evidence is placed before them. I know no one here is like that.
BSF

I apologize then....you had me convinced for a second there that you were one of the hunting for trophy, killing anything that moves types. Apparently I was mistaken in my assumption and I know see that you

Contrary to what you seem to think of me, I hunt and it that activity that first interested in biology....actually I need to go again, I'm running low on meat. I hunt deer, turkey, squirrel and occassionally rabbit. I don't have a problem with hunting animals for food. It's "population control" hunting of animals that are not over populated that I have a problem with.

Man has no more responsibility to control anything than squirrels do. Unless you're looking at the whole "we were (supposedly) created in God's image" argument, which should never be brought into an argument on ecology because it contradicts almost every tenet of biological law. There are a lot of good people who are looking out for the best interests of everything as a whole (which may not be the best thing for any one animal including man), and that has to be respected because despite what we'd like to think we are far from in control of anything when it comes to nature (other than our ability to seriously screw things up if we're not careful). Caution is a by word in anything, but especially when you're thinking about doing anything involved with the ecology of an area.

At least with the sheep slaughter he may be half right. If those were indeed the Mexican wolves that were all but extinct, raised in containment and then reintroduced to the wild it is quite possible they would slaughter sheep and other livestock. They have been raised around people, have lost their fear of people, and in a lot of cases have been fed domestic meats while in containment. They have no natural hunting skills having been contained their entire lives, and do not have the natural instincts to kill prey that is natural to wolves in the wild. I dont' think they kill because they enjoy it, they do mass slaughters because they don't know any better. They've been raised by people with the best of intentions but that's a poor substitute for being raised in the wild where the pack would have given them proper skills for taking down wild game instead of livestock.

It's a shame that the Mexican wolves were hunted so close to extinction. As I understand it there are no breeding pairs left in the wilds of Texas or Mexico, so they are having to be reintroduced by people, which isn't working well and is only aggravating the ranchers who are losing livestock by animals that don't no any better. The further the generations out of the wild with F1 being first generation out of the wild and F6 being six generations in domestication with every generation some natural instincts are lost. They still look like wolves, but their instincts are weakening. My alpha female is an F1 and my male is an F12 and you could drive a truck through the difference in their behaviors with the F12 being less afraid of people and more aggressive and the F1 being very afraid of people. The pups are a good spread of everything in between with one pup being very much like her F1 mother and very skittish even to my husband and I, while the other pups have varying degrees of instincts. One could argue that I am harming the wolf breed myself, however, my wolves are not being reintroduced and in fact we are striving to breed closer to first generation out of the wild.

Teresa

You have a lot of animosity toward man, there, USAF. Possibly you should discuss this with a good therapist. The problems with wolves attacking large amounts of livestock and man on occasions occur in Idaho and New Mexico primarily. Some are possibly reintroduced wolves who have spent some time in captivity, others definately are not. Did you get that? Others definately are not. It is my understanding that a predator will take the path of least resistance to a meal. Do you agree? Then what is all this baloney about these wolves only attacking sheep because they were raised in captivity? That is called, again, transference. Is it for moral reasons they do not kille the much easier sheep and cattle, or is it just not sporting to them? Think, people.
Of course, since people do have the greatest capacity to do harm or good, what you are saying about humans could just not possible have been any other way, historically. But my mind is already made up. Don't bother arguing with me, Teresa. Of course, so is your mind. But that is ok, because you are right. Are you mad at me because I didn't buy into your beleifs?
BSF

Exhibit A: A 5/8 wolf-hybrid, three generations out of the wild.

I have had her since five weeks old and she is NOTHING but a lover...

The ONLY difference between wolves and dogs, IMO, is that wolves DO NOT need man to survive.

Barking At The Moon,
The WolfWatcher

If a rancher loses a very small percentage of his stock (all calves, by the way) and he goes out killing wolves, he probably isn't justified. If he looses several hundred per year, he definately is. Cattle grazed on USFS or federal or state land cannot legally be fenced. Same with sheep. But you have at least done some moderate, light research on this right? I mean you just didn't emotionally jump on a bandwagon here did you? Let me make sure I understand "wolves good, ranchers bad" is that right?
I am leaving town, going out to my son's ranch. See you monday if I am not online this weekend.
BSF

I wasn't the one who brought up the captivity argument- That was Teresa (ARSQUATCH), so don't ask me about that; she's the forum expert on wolf behavior, not me. I've said that they are first and foremost predators and ANY animal is fair game in their eyes. That includes man, sheep and cattle. Like I said, you take your a-- into your hands whenever you go into the woods or when you put your animals out without the protection of a fence. It's nature at work. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't expect anyone to want to do away with cars just because I might get runover while crossing the street or while working a car accident on the interstate. I am out there and I accept the risks as something that I, and only I can be held responsible for.

That is something a lot of people have problems with- accepting the fact that the choices you make have consequences: be it that you get shredded by a bear or big cat (which is far more dangerous than the wolf you are focusing on) or breaking your neck because you crash your car or that you lose a few sheep (easily replaced) because you put them into an area with large predators (dogs also kill sheep in large numbers too....are we going to establish open season on the German Shepards and Labrador Retrievers of the Western US too....by the way dogs are far more aggressive than any wolf- ask anyone who has worked around them both). I'm not saying we don't need population controls, but when a population is only a few hundred animals for several million square miles there is no population problem (actually it could be and has been stated that there are too FEW wolves; hence the reintroduction programs). Instead of forcing the wildlife to adapt or die, perhaps there should be a change in the way that sheep and cattle are raised (ask any soil expert about what cloven hoofed animals like cattle do to terrain, all sorts of erosion problems, but that is a topic for another forum.)

I don't have animocity towards man. I'm just honest and state what I think (which is exactly what you're doing). We're animals, there is no denying that. Humans are just glorified (by our own hand mind you) monkeys. Now if I had a problem with people don't you think I would place the blame squarely on others whilst elevating myself. I know no better than any one with equivalent training and experience, I am just trying to share what I have been taught. If anything we both have problems with certain groups (albeit opposing ones) because of our differing opinions. That's not a problem with the person, but rather with their views (for example, you seem like a fairly bright, interesting person- I just happen to not agree with your views on predator management; that doesn't mean I don't value you as a person).

Misanthropism this is not, just a case of not agreeing with certain points of view. Which is something that everyone has a right to do....

Not to start another fight, but I don't think livestock belong on federal land. 'Nuf said. But like I said, even if the rancher loses several hundred animals (which rarely happens) still he has no right to kill animals which may or may not have had anything to do with his losses. Most ranchers (and this is a quote from my aunt's ex-husband who grew up on a cattle ranch in Montana) can't tell the difference between a cat kill and a kill by canines (dogs, coyotes or wolves). Anyhow, one of my neighbors here in Indiana- less than a mile from my parent's house lost 10 or 11 sheep in one night to COYOTES. Just goes to show you that don't blame the animals unless you see them doing it.

Oh, well.....I'm wasting my breath....I came here to discuss sasquatch, not debate wildlife management. Have a nice weekend.

Pretty animal, Teresa.

:doh:

This is getting gooderer and gooderer.

Sorry Quatch.....I thought Teresa posted that. LOL :doh:

Since I probably didn't have your respect in the first place , it's my understanding that there are no recorded instances of a healthy wolf pack (or even single healthy wolf) attacking a person.

There are instances of foolish people that were bitten trying to hand feed a wild wolf, but heck, they deserved that.

If you can find 1 documented case, I'd love to see it posted.