Ranchers say weights have declined since wolf reintroduction ( Middle class under attack )

Associated Press ^ | May 5, 2006 | Jim Knight

[Wizy]

En wen u have no good pont o few, you make ridiculous pointless attacks, that actually don't pertain to the topic. Come on back to me when you actually think up something at least "semi-intelligent" this is news forum, not an English class...u go git life!

[Wizy]

I guess "if" you can you actually think up something at least "semi-intelligent" would be more appropriate.

[Wizy]

Thats what I thought

[Don W]

While my post had nothing to do with the thread topic, it was a direct response to your comment about the "spelling police".

Oh, just so you know, many people here are involved with or reading several different articles at the same time, and don't feel beholden to any thread they post to, and may respond much later, or perhaps not at all if they think their response is too late, or the post TO them is inane, childish, ignorant; or even for no reason at all...

As for the re-introduction of wolves, it was a stupid idea that is reaping untold damage to the ecosystems that had adapted to the absence of that predator, let alone the serious damage it is causing the ranchers and farmers affected by their unneeded presence.

Have a good night. Some of us have to work in the morning.

[finnsheep]

I used to also think wolves needed to be in Central Park, when I saw what happened to the coyote that showed up there, I just give up. The coyote was captured after a lengthy pursuit, treated for fleas and probably other parasites, probably given a shampoo and a blow dry. They intended to "rehabilitate"it(because it was going metrosexual?)and release it upstate. Luckily it died in captivity. There is currently an investigation regarding the cause of death. I am not making this up.

[tomzz]

That was one coyote. Turn a couple dozen wolves loose in the park and they'd easily kill a dozen or so yuppies before they rounded the last wolf up. That might just be enough to get the idiots' attentions. Then you send some sort of a letter to the editor of the NY Times saying something like "Hey, you commie bastards release these monsters wherer we live, and we're gonna keep on releasing em where YOU live..."

[gdc61]

good, leaner beef.

[qam1]

You would think that with $96 Billion dollars in farm subsidies tax payers give to them each year, these ranchers would be able buy a couple of German Shepherds

[SW6906]

"Ever caught a big fish on a barbless hook? Of course not -- and you WON'T."

ALL salmon fishing in Puget Sound (Seattle) is with barbless hooks. The minimum keep size is 22 inches. I have caught dozens of 5 to 15 LB salmon on barbless hooks. My fishing buddy has landed a 28 LB King salmon on a barbless hook.

[george76]

Two German Shepherd's would not do well against a pack of wolves.

These ranchers are not asking for farm subsidies.

These ranchers want to Federal Government to go away and let the state government control local wildlife decisions on state lands.

[rahbert]

Beware that some may have embedded RFID chips, and if they
come searching for a missing wolf...

[glorgau]

Ennis:

I know the area well. Heck, I even make a special stop at the meat shop where 287 splits off to Virginia City to get the best Buffalo jerky in the world. I've bought ammo at the gun shop there. Outstanding 4th of July celebration in town - real Americana.

However, if one leaves a "meal on hoof" roaming unattended, then they shouldn't be surprised if the meal gets eaten. It happens in the city too. Whether or not they are "moneyed people" doesn't make a lick of difference. And just as manufacturing gets plowed under if they aren't competitive, so must other industries.

The trick is for people to be smarter than the wolves. Difficult in Montana I guess. How about have them get a pack of dogs that can raise a ruckus and then take appropriate action when the wolves are caught in the act. Or is that too much work? Not practical? Or "un-economic"? Or did they just get lazy and "let" an accident happen to them? Remember, nobody owes them a living.

Finally, an old quote about the Romans - "they make a desert and call it peace". That seems to be the prevailing attitude on this forum.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

They have been working on plans to do just this. Wyoming, Montana and Idaho were to work on a plan on managing wolves, but Wyoming's plans (which is basically any wolf not in Yellowstone or wilderness area is a predator and thus could be shot on sight) have not been accepted and thus not allowed the delisting of them.

Negotiations continue...I personally think that perhaps excess wolves should be sent to New Jersy, New York, Massachusetts, and such places, myself...

[girlangler]

george76,

I don't have time right now, but if you do, you might want to look up some of the articles written by Fred Bonner, editor of Carolina Adventure Magazine.

I haven't talked to Fred in years, but he wrote extensively about/in opposition to the Red Wolf Reintroduction project in North Carolina.

He is a wildlife biologist and really sharp guy.

Meanwhile, here's some links:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9919703&dopt=Abstract

http://canidae.ca/MTDNA.HTM

(This article below states the reintroduction into the Great Smoky Mountains National Park was successful, it has not been successful, and they now think none exist in the park)

http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=AD7A1756-1FB6-48D8-9119-5EB62AC8286

http://www.outer-banks.com/alligator-river/redwolf.asp

[Wizy]

"Oh, just so you know, many people here are involved with or reading several different articles at the same time, and don't feel beholden to any thread they post to, and may respond much later, or perhaps not at all if they think their response is too late, or the post TO them is inane, childish, ignorant; or even for no reason at all..."

You don't say? Yeah I suppose when involved with several posts at one time (as I was), you may not be overly concerned with a misplaced (or heaven forbid)...wrong letter here or there. And given your response I guess I should not have responded to your post at all...as it did fit your last sentence up there...so I apologize for that.

"As for the reintroduction of wolves, it was a stupid idea that is reaping untold damage to the ecosystems that had adapted to the absence of that predator, let alone the serious damage it is causing the ranchers and farmers affected by their unneeded presence."

Seriously Don (all childish attacks aside), the statement "that ecosystems have adapted to their absence" is false for the following reasons:
1. In the absence of these top predators, in many areas deer herds overpopulated causing some of the following (but not limited to) problems...
a) Economic impacts associated with; crop damage, and increased insurance costs from deer/vehicle related accidents.
b) genetically inferior deer (CWD and smaller...stunted deer)

2. Increased in secondary predator populations such as coyotes (if you would like details associated with this please see my earlier posts). Wolves are very territorial, and when in sufficient numbers do not tolerate "lesser competitors" in their home ranges.

"Have a good night. Some of us have to work in the morning."

Hope you a good day at work...I went fishing!