Please use this area to post comments or questions about this news item.
Please use this area to post comments or questions about this news item.
Well, I guess we'll have to start shooting the big coyotes that come across the eastern border of the state now.
This is ridiculous politics. Wolves were eradicated in this region long ago. They don't belong here anymore, this isn't the 1700s, and wolves won't have any decent forage here, except for livestock. Allowing large predators back into an area that has been civilized is disastrous. If you think finding a coyote in your back yard eating your poodle is annoying, wait till you see what a pack of wolves does when they discover what morsels are sitting around the farmhouse.
If I see a big coyote running around out in the open, or a pack of them, I am shooting them. They don't belong here.
I dont like the fact that wolves are being introduced back to oregon. They are dangerous to hunters, wild game and livestock. If I see one its dead thats all I have to say,
Well I got a great wolf management plan. Winchester case, CCI 200 primer, 58.0 grs RL-22 behind a 100 gr Hornady spire point. OLL 3.213". From a 700 ADL my 25-06 give's right at 3400 fps from a 24" barrel. The plan also call's for a pair of size 10E Danner's w/10" top's, Wrangler Rustler's with a shoch more fit, a green flannel shirt from Wally World and either my Hornady hat in OD green or my Peterbuilt hat in two tone green. That's for spring and summer. For winter and fall I would add a comfortable and suitable coat. Underwear is optional.
I can only imagine the effect of the reintroduction of the wolf.
We already have cougars and coyotes feasting on the stock and working their way into the city suburbs.
It's a matter of time.
As it is now the activists, fur huggers, have the law on their side.
The out spoken threats of slaughtering an animal that is being reintroduced, only, gives these yahoos a stronger case for the related situations.
Gun control, who should and shouldn't be able to hunt and what can be hunted are written into the laws. Don't make it easier for them. Make it harder.
When something close to them starts disappeairing we're going to see some drastic changes in their way of thinking. They may get blood thirstier than they claim the hunters are. Then who's got the upper hand?
What we need to do, as a part of the ecosystem, is stop being control freaks and let nature take it own course. Some behaviors are not acceptable under any conditions. Intimidation doesn't accomplish any goals. It creates another situation, so they don't have to look at the primary problem.
What a person needs to do to protect their own is a natural instinct. Do what you need to do.
Did you guys actually READ the plan? Where does it say they will be "introduced"? They could disperse from ID, but there are no plans for reintroduction. This is part of the problem, people don't actually listen and understand what is happening. Maybe you should be active in helping the Feds get the wolf delisted so they can be managed effectively and locally instead of spouting off about poaching(which in this case is a federal crime, not a state one). The reason they can't get the wolf delisted is because the courts are siding with the protectionists.
There is a debate, on another forum I am a member of, about wolves that has similar sides to the story. One side spews intolerance and the other spews protectionism. Of course, as is the case in most of reality, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Maybe benjammin WE are the ones who don't belong here anymore!! (Of course, I really don't believe that, but it makes as much sense as your comment!)
I have to stop before I say something I will regret. It justs gets old listening to the same old fear mongering and irrationality. The only way this will get better is when wolves are allowed to be managed by the states as either game animals or predators, and like fuzzybear said, hunters, ranchers and others stop falling into the protectionist trap by acting like rednecks. Sorry for the rant.
A couple links to help you understand:
Stillhunter, what is is. I realize there is no re-introduction plan in Ore. But wolves like lion's are rather large preditors that are not concerned about which bones their meal comes off of. These preditors are dangerious to man. The wolf, unlike the lion, run's in packs. The lion, being pretty much left alone any more, is showing up a bit to close to, and in some cases in, cities. Wolves are much bolder than the lion's and many more wolves inhabit the same area than do lion's, which are entering civilization! I believe I read where five square miles is habitat for one lion. Wolves on the other hand are in pack's. How about one wolf size pack of lion's per five square mile's? It would be open season on jogger's! I believe you'll find that wolve's are bolder than bear's, how many bear's do you want in your back yard?
Don, I have bears and wolves in my back yard, oh my. At last count Northern MN had right around 3,000 wolves(not including the 700-800 more in WI and the UP of Michigan). That makes the population of less than 1000 in a much larger area of the west look pretty pathetic. Don't talk to me about wolves in my back yard. Pretty sure there are more of them in my backyard than yours. Yet somehow, I don't find them offensive.
How are wolves dangerous? If you mean they can kill you, well surprise your more likely to die falling down in the shower than to be killed by a wolf. As for which predator kills more people read this(yeah I know it's a couple years old)
P.S. Forgive me for being belligerent tonight, I've had a few beers. But my ideas still stand.
Aw have another, that's OK. I'm aware that you have them, wolves that is. In fact I believe that up there somewhere is a island full of wolves and bears isn't there? But haw many cattle and sheep ranchers, major ranchers do you have? I'm not sure I said shooting them was right or wrong. I think I said what is, is. These ranchers are not going to tolerate them nor do I believe they would be tolerated in Central Park! They eliminated the wolf in most areas a long time ago and most who live in those areas like it.
I think the biggest problem comes in when people that live far away tell us they want to see themjust not in their backyard. In the earily 70's some group in Idaho wanted to re-introduce the wolf but they wanted them in Montana. Their feeling was there was more room for them there. It didn't happen, in fact Montana told them to put them in Idaho. The group said no, they didn't want them there. True story. Now someone got their way and they've been planted in Idaho. Problem is that they haven't stayed there, a couple came to Oregon and there was an outcry about it. The state of Oregon says to leave these animals alone. The ranchers say sure thing, buy them a beer and talk to them across the tail gate and those wolves are gonna die.
As a side note, the coyote is a canine. I've seen them in LosAngeles. Well not LosAngeles but Buena Park, right near Knott's Berry Farm. Next, while I lived in Alaska, betweem Wasilla and Big Lake, Some people living at Big Lake had a pet 90% wolf. Very loving animal so they thought until they caught it eating their 18 mos old baby. True story.
Sober this morning.
The island you refer to is Isle Royal in Lake Superior-no bears though, just wolves and moose and other small animals. Wolves migrated to the island in the late 40's when the big lake froze over(only happened a few times this century). Interesting you bring that up because there has been an ongoing study done there since the 50's. It seems the wolves had a field day originally since there were too many moose. But guess what, after a couple cycles up and down the population of wolves has fairly stayed constant since the early 80's. Now the moose are growing in population and the wolves can't keep them in check. So much for the idea that wolves slaughter everything in their path. Yes, this is an island, yes there are no livestock, yes there are only people there in the summer. Does that mean what's happening there is useless information? I think not.
What I think it proves is that the alarmists who say all the game animals and livestock will be gone are wrong. Sure there is some imbalance for awhile, maybe a long while in the larger ecosystem of the west. But that's the one thing the world has a lot of, time, millions of years in fact, even though we tend to avoid thinking about what is going to happen next week.
As for the people who let their baby get eaten by a "pet" wolf, I say it's Darwinism at it's fineist. Too bad, yes, but not really bright of them now was it?
Ya, those people that let they're baby get eaten, don't know why they thought it couldn't happen. Isle Royal, that's it. I watched a wonderful TV show on it years ago, like maybe 20 yrs. It was a great show and in areas like that, I'm all for the wolf. But the preditor's and man have alway's clashed and alway's will. The best intrest of man will always prevail, alway's has. I personally would not like to see wolves re-established here. But were there a way to contain them, pretty much like Isle Royal, I'ed reconcider and am sure I'd be on your side. I love all animals, there's just some I prefer not to live with.
© 2000-2013 Outdoor Hub, LLC