# Stupid Wolves



## gwailow (Jan 20, 2008)

I just received this in an email today......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Attention All States: Prepare to be Sued Over Wolves*

MISSOULA, Mont.-With their latest petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, animal rights activists are preparing to sue for federally mandated release of wolves in every state, warn officials with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

David Allen, RMEF president and CEO, says animal rights groups have learned that introducing wolves translates to major fundraising, and activists have found a way to exploit the Endangered Species Act-as well as taxpayer-funded programs that cover lawyer fees-to push their agenda and build revenue through the courts.

"There are now about 100,000 gray wolves in the U.S. and Canada, and over the past few years in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, activists discovered that every wolf is also a cash cow," said Allen. "If we don't get some reform in federal laws very soon, we're all going to be living in Jurassic Park. This is not about saving a lost species. It's about money and special interest agendas."

"Americans need to wake up," he added, "because when you respond to those fundraising letters with photos of cute little wolf pups, you're writing a check that our country's rural and traditional lifestyles can't cash. You're eroding the fundamentals of America's model for wildlife conservation."

Allen said undermanaged wolf populations in the northern Rockies are compromising the health of other wildlife species-especially elk and other prey. In areas of Montana and Idaho where wolves share habitat with elk, calf survival rates now are too low to sustain herds for the future.

"How do animal rights groups who claim to defend wildlife justify elk calf survival rates below 10 percent? Clearly they have another agenda," said Allen.

Participation in hunting and the funding it generates for conservation also are being negatively affected, as are local economies, livestock production and potentially even human safety.

Continuous lawsuits by activists have setback wolf control and management efforts, compounding problems and costs for states.

"Now imagine bringing these kinds of impacts to more populated states elsewhere in the U.S., and I think we're looking at an unprecedented wildlife management disaster," said Allen.

RMEF has helped to successfully restore elk populations in Kentucky, Tennessee, Wisconsin and other states where habitat is suitable and citizens support the effort. Elk restoration is being considered currently in Virginia and Missouri using these same criteria.

"There are two proven ways to restore a species," said Allen. "Our way is offering to help with funding and expertise so long as the local public wants the species and the state can manage them. The other way is using lawsuits and loopholes to shove a project down people's throats."

Animal rights groups filed a petition July 20 complaining that wolves now inhabit just 5 percent of their former range in the U.S., and that wolf populations should be recovered in all significant portions of that range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) responded by saying that it is reviewing "what is realistic and where the suitable habitat would be." The agency's review could be complete by late 2010 or early 2011.

"We urge USFWS to be very cautious in this evaluation and reject the rhetoric of the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Earth Justice, Humane Society of the U.S. and other animal rights groups. Wolf re-introduction in the greater Yellowstone region was a classic example of 'let's get our foot in the door and then move the goal line,' and should be warning enough. This is a fundraising strategy with anti-hunting, anti-ranching, anti-gun impacts, and the public needs to understand and see it for it is," added Allen.


----------



## GSPonPoint (Sep 24, 2008)

Here's a few pictures of what wolfs did to some domestic dogs:


















































Here's a few pictures of what wolfs did to some elk (sport hunting):


























































Deer pictures:


























This mans was stocked and killed by wolfs in 2005 in Saskatchewan:










According to the USGS, the average kill rate per wolf per month = 3.05 elk = 36 per year/wolf

According to the Alaska F&G, wolf hunting had the desired effect, more caribou got a chance to live.
Calf Survival Rates:
2008 (39) calves per 100 cows
2007 (1) calf per 100 cows
2006 (1) calf per 100 cows

May 2007 - Two Catron County Scool children were followed home from the bus stop by (3) wolfs.

December 2007 - Glenwood elementary school, a wolf was seen on the playground after multiple reports of the animal seen in town.

Jan 2008 - Wolf killed within 70 yards of a school bus stop in Idaho.

According to a US fish and Wildlife study: 
- Elk are the primary prey for wolves, comprising 92% of kills during the winter.
- Elk decreased significantly from 16,791 in winter of 1995 to 8,335 in winter 2004 as the number of wolfs increased.
- Kill rates by wolves in winter are 22 elk per wolf per year - double the rate predicted in the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
- Since 2000, wolves have caused 45% of known deaths of radio collared female elk in the north range. (Human harvest and winter kill accounted for 30%).
- Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks has reduced the antlerless permits by 51% (2004) and 96% (1995-2005).
- Elk numbers for Yellowstone between 1993 - 1995 Averaged 17,000 and 19,000. After wolves were introduced in 1995 the elk numbers for 2005-2007 were between 6,700 and 6,300.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

Unchecked they are the equivalent to cancer on an eco system.

The only answer is 22-250 kemo-therapy.


----------



## CUT-EM (Dec 19, 2007)

Go to www.biggameforever.org and sign their petition


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Petition signed,,,,,AND,,,wolves suck!


----------



## Bhilly81 (Oct 18, 2009)

signed it and sent it on


----------



## Lilswab (Nov 1, 2007)

LOOK at this and tell me how it makes you feel...

[youtube:23j1si01]http://www.youtube.com/v/1B-ZoHgo5mo&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1[/youtube:23j1si01]
((edited by Huge29 to see if I can get the video to work as original post was not done correctly))


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

All I see is a bunch of code. Got a link?


----------



## fyfcalls (Dec 13, 2008)

The only good wolves are the ones that are skinned and rugged!!


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

photos like these are just what are needed to combat the Wolfe activist who clam wolves don't kill for sport and wolves don't come close to people. maybe if some of those activist see photos of animals and pets torn to pieces and left to rot they might change there minds and start feeling sorry for the elk, deer, moose, pets ect.
our forefathers killed them off for good reason, they where destroying the early settlers livelihood they had to kill them in order to survive. they where not hunted back then for sport. humans livelihood depends on farming it always has and it always will. wolves are just as destructive to farmers as they are to wildlife.


----------



## Briar Patch (Feb 1, 2010)

I wonder if this thread would fare better in Outdoor News forum. Perhaps it would get even more exposure there. What say you?


----------



## duck jerky (Sep 8, 2007)

fyfcalls said:


> The only good wolves are the ones that are skinned and rugged!!


 :O||:


----------



## GSPonPoint (Sep 24, 2008)

Bump!


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Wow, very graphic :shock: 

This has been quite the topic posted on multiple threads over the past few days. It seems that most sportsmen are quite anti-wolf, and most un-informed people think everything is hunky-dory with wolves.

I dont think anyone is ever going to win the battle of eliminating wolves from Yellowstone / Utah, but I think that given the proper exposure and pressure from Utah sportsmen, we could definitely get the go ahead to hunt them out of the state.

After spending some time researching this topic for myself, one question seems to elude me: WHY would a different breed of wolf be introduced to the area than was originally indigenous to the West? From what I can tell, the original breed may be extinct, but I remember other members of the forum pointing out that there are similar breeds of wolves living in the Minnesota area. Why wouldnt we have introduced a less aggressive breed rather than one that was clearly inappropriate for the area?


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

> by Bax* » Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:31 pm
> 
> After spending some time researching this topic for myself, one question seems to elude me: WHY would a different breed of wolf be introduced to the area than was originally indigenous to the West? From what I can tell, the original breed may be extinct, but I remember other members of the forum pointing out that there are similar breeds of wolves living in the Minnesota area. Why wouldnt we have introduced a less aggressive breed rather than one that was clearly inappropriate for the area?


It's really not a cut and dry issue Bax. At one point there were over a dozen subspecies of the Gray Wolf (Canis Lupus), but it has pretty much been downsized to 4. The Mackenzie Valley Wolf, aka Timber Wolf, aka Rocky Mountain Wolf (canis lupus occidentalis) was the one introduced to YNP. I don't know their reasons but it wasn't too far off what once roamed the Rockies long ago. It's historical range dipped from Canada down into Utah. At that time the most prevalent in the US was the Great Plains Wolf (canus lupis nubilus), aka Timber Wolf, aka Buffalo Wolf, which also roamed throughout the west, and is the one in Minn.

The Mackenzie Wolf is more adapted to mountains and deep snow than the Great Plains Wolf, maybe that was their reasoning. It really doesn't matter though. Aggresiveness in wolves is arbitrary, they all kill efficiently, and hunt in very similar ways. It's a complicated issue in that respect. ANY wolf, even the smaller ones are apex predators where ever they exist. Lots of folks get caught up in the "species" that was introduced but it is a moot point I think..


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

stillhunterman said:


> > by Bax* » Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:31 pm
> >
> > After spending some time researching this topic for myself, one question seems to elude me: WHY would a different breed of wolf be introduced to the area than was originally indigenous to the West? From what I can tell, the original breed may be extinct, but I remember other members of the forum pointing out that there are similar breeds of wolves living in the Minnesota area. Why wouldnt we have introduced a less aggressive breed rather than one that was clearly inappropriate for the area?
> 
> ...


Its guys like you that keep me coming back to the forum 8) I love the wealth of information presented here.

You do make a point that the subject is somewhat moot. But correct me if I'm wrong here, I was under the understanding that the Timber was a less aggressive breed? My less aggressive, I mean less apt to kill just to kill like some wolves are currently doing.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

This thing going around about the particular "aggressiveness" of the Mackenzie Valley Wolf vs. the "Timber Wolf" is not valid in the true sence of the word. There are at least 3 subspecies of wolves that are called Timber Wolf, and every one of them follow the same pattern of an apex predator. The only difference really is the relative size of the animal which dictates the amount of food it needs to survive. At a MINIMUM, each wolf needs about 4 pounds of food per day to keep its "minimum" nutritional needs up. Growing and reproducing wolves need much more, double or triple that amount.

All wolves, including timber wolves kill to kill. They all will aggressively persue prey for a number of reasons (foremost to eat), including killing as a learning tool for the younger animals. That being said, the "aggresiveness" of one wolf vs. another doesn't mean much. Although the physical "killing" of animals takes out a large number of ungulates per year, other factors caused simply by the wolf's presence will reduce heard numbers, ie. STRESS. Female ungulates will not reproduce or will even abort when wolves are around. This is a huge problem with the ungulates maintaining their herd numbers. Good luck on your learning process. It is amazing how many falicies are being spread, especially by the "cute and cuddley radical wolf loving" side...


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Great information there stillhunterman!

It seems that researching the topic is muddled with too many misconceptions passed along as fact. 

Regardless of which wolves are in the area, it seems that the idea wasnt fully researched / understood by the groups responsible for wolf repopulation (research bias IMO).


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Quantify aggressive....... Propaganda?


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Propaganda would do it Tree


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> It is amazing how many falicies are being spread, especially by the "cute and cuddley radical wolf loving" side...


 -_O-


----------

