Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would also like to point out that Perkins flat out called a man a lier and is excused from deride, but me having a different opinion gets me mocked and ridiculed.
That didn't escape my notice and I'm glad you pointed that out.
Funny thing. The other day, someone who clearly doesn't understand the situation pointed out that I was talking about all the deer hanging out on the acreage behind the house in South Central Idaho. "There are so many deer, they are living right down in town. So, how can you say their numbers are declining? It seems to me you have too many deer!"
Ummmm....the deer are living down in town, because they don't stand a chance up in the hills. Deer that used to use the property as a migratory path now stay all year long. We saw at least a dozen fawns last year. This year, only three and one was killed by a coyote, in spite of my best effort to shoot the son of a gun.
Last year, in very late summer, we had a herd of 30 or so elk cows move through. I would say the cow/calf ratio was 2/1. This year the cows moved through and we didn't see one single calf. Call me a liar if you want, but it's the absolute truth.
A long time ago I studied wildlife management as part of an environmental science degree. Never in these studies was a reintroduction of a major predator expected to be done without human population control (hunting) until a predator/prey balance was achieved. IIRC this would be expected to take several generations of both predators and prey. Apparently extraneous human organizations (ecofreaks and courts) have interfered with the reintroduction program. I have never, and never expect to, live in as wild an area as Idaho but I heartily agree with the poster that suggested that the elk, bison, deer and wolf populations be regulated by wildlife rangers until an equilibrium is reached.
Just to put a different perspective on this debate I have noticed a major increase in coyotes in my southern New Hampshire suburb. Although not a big as wolves and not introduced by man these wild dogs are becoming a nuisance. They will run down and kill domestic cats that have been left outside. On the other hand they will also kill off groundhogs and other critters that eat my little garden. Unfortunately they do not hunt skunks. Those are killed by Toyota pick up trucks to the detriment of the atmosphere.
Up north of here the resident top predator is still human but a relative’s small flock of ducks was systematically eliminated by a Bob Cat or Lynx. We would up teaching the California Girl how to shoot a .22 rifle. Bobcat problem has been reduced and the ducks replaced with chickens. Chickens are smart enough to take shelter in the coop when a predator walks into the yard.
I have heard some people talk about reintroducing the Eastern timber wolf to New Hampshire. I cannot document this because I forget where I heard this conversation. Personally I think more human hunting of the resident White Tail deer makes more sense. At least until some other predators, besides cars and trucks, move in.
One of the problems with wild populations in crowded towns like mine (20,000 people in 40 sq miles) is that discharging a firearm within town limits outside of a range is illegal. I agree because even a .22 LR would create a problem with wild shots. I keep the squirrels out of the bird feeders with a BB caliber air pistol that lets me hit a squirrel in the head at 25 to 30 feet.
In any case this is an interesting discussion for an Eastern Dude.
I would also like to point out that Perkins flat out called a man a lier and is excused from deride, but me having a different opinion gets me mocked and ridiculed.
That didn't escape my notice and I'm glad you pointed that out.
Apparently you both missed the "or in denial" text in that post. Claiming that someone is "lying or in denial" is not the same as calling someone a liar, impolite though it may be. Let's not head down that path folks...
While I don't like the tone of that person's post, it's acceptable in a heated debate to claim that a person must be in denial if you contend that the facts of the matter don't support what a person claims to have observed.
It is simple biology, the elk were originally more of an open plains animal, and are unable to escape the canadian wolves with their large snowshoe like feet in deep snow in forested areas. Now this isn't just something I think or have been told, I have seen the results with my own eyes, up to 20 elk all dead in a small area with very little eaten off from any of them.
Actually, they're North American wolves, not Canadian wolves. I would
recommend reading 'The Great American Wolf' by Bruce Hampton which
was first printed in 1997.
As for 20 partially eaten dead elk within a small area, that doesn't sound
right. Did you actually see wolves killing *and* eating them? There have
been reports of elk and deer starving to death during the winter months.
We have to keep in mind that, unlike hunters, wolves cannot go over to
the grocery store for blister-packed meat. :-)
Sorry, but I found 'in denial' just as offensive, a way to minimize another's experience when it clashes with their own opinion.
I dunno. I'll take someone's first hand experience over an opinion any day.
So then, how did you feel about the ChcknLttle_Skyisfalling's snarky post to me and my experience versus opinion? Or does experience over opinion only valid when you agree with it?
So then, how did you feel about the ChcknLttle_Skyisfalling's snarky post to me and my experience versus opinion? Or does experience over opinion only valid when you agree with it?
Well, since I didn't comment on that particular post and therefore, did not get called on it, I can't really respond to your question, either.
At least I don't get cranky with people who don't agree with me.
* Wolf pups are born in April and May
* The average litter size for the wolf is 4 to 7 pups but up to 14
* Mortality rates for wolf pups can be as high as 50%
* Wolves breed only once a year; most dogs breed twice
Do the math and let's try to figure out why they were put here in the first place given the food supply.
*Predation is not violence, it is the act of obtaining food for survival
Unlike our hunters who probably aren't going to barbeque a wolf.
*The wolf can kill healthy animals but naturally seeks out the sick, the weak, crippled, old and young animals
* Wolves actually have a low hunting success rate
*A pack may cover distances from 30-125 miles in a day
Wolfheart stated "The attitude of Wolf eradication is medieval and barbaric, but quite in line with the current practices in the State of Alaska, where the only good wolf is considered to be a dead wolf. Wolves are a primary example of what a family is; faithful to their mates for life, guardians and protector of their off spring, which is more than we can say for ourselves as humans considering divorce and child abuse statistics.
It is barbaric. The simple reality again is, you aren't going to take it home and eat it. Therefore, it's called a "thrill kill".
Excellent articles Lperkins, thanks for the links!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
