Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Killing bears Options · View
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Sunday, July 18, 2010 9:54:36 AM

Rank: Alpha Blonde
Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,595
Location: Your dirty fantasy
Jillicious wrote:
Dancing_Doll wrote:
Culling an animal that just came off the endangered species list makes no sense to me, especially using the argument of 'sport hunting' being a good idea for it.


Easy to come up with solutions when you aren't the one actually experiencing it. We'll just tell all the ranchers and shepherds to tie orange or red flags to their herds.

It still does not dismiss the fact that the timberwolf is not and never was a native species to this area. Nor have there been wolves in this area for nearly a century before the environmentalists decided they knew best.


You're right Jill, I'm not a rancher, so I don't have direct experience with it. I'm just considering other ways where humans and vulnerable species can exist peacefully together. When they don't exist peacefully together, it tends to create the shifts in balance that ends up causing a species to go extinct in certain areas and then having to be reintroduced later.

The "Timberwolf" is actually just another name for the "Gray Wolf" which is your basic North American wolf. They are the largest of all the wolf subspecies to be sure (ie. compared to the arctic wolf, arabian wolf, mexican wolf etc.), but this is common species that was indeed native to all of North America and Eurasia originally so it's not like introducing a foreign species into an area that has never known them before. Destruction of habitat and hunting by humans, caused their extinction in certain parts, and smaller populations in other areas. You can call them by a different name, but in the end it's still the same wolf that would have roamed Idaho before their numbers dwindled.



Jillicious
Posted: Sunday, July 18, 2010 10:35:58 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/28/2009
Posts: 1,293
Yes, the timberwolf is a gray wolf. But it is not the native species of this area and never was.
The Rocky Mountain wolf is also a sub species of gray wolf. It is the native species. And it is half the size of the timberwolf.
But I guess Mountain Dew is a Pepsi product. So its close enough.

Thousands of user submitted stories removed from the site. You are nothing without your users or their freely submitted stories.
LadyX
Posted: Sunday, July 18, 2010 10:45:29 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
From what Jillicious has added- the main problem with wolves, and the beginning of the whole root species discussion, seems to be the livestock they kill, right? Then this stat gets posted:

Quote:

First to quote continental US statistics: "Only 0.11% of all cattle losses were due to wolf predation in 2005."
"Theft was responsible for almost 5 times as many cattle losses as were lost by wolf predation. "


And granted that was just for one year- but is one or two out of a thousand cattle being lost a bigger deal than it might seem just from the numbers, or do you think the US stats are wildly wrong?
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Sunday, July 18, 2010 11:02:37 AM

Rank: Alpha Blonde
Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,595
Location: Your dirty fantasy
Jillicious wrote:
Yes, the timberwolf is a gray wolf. But it is not the native species of this area and never was.
The Rocky Mountain wolf is also a sub species of gray wolf. It is the native species. And it is half the size of the timberwolf.
But I guess Mountain Dew is a Pepsi product. So its close enough.


I had to look up the stats on the Rocky Mountain Wolf because I wasn't familiar with it.
To my understanding though, the Rocky Mountain wolf was the breed reintroduced into Idaho (see below quote). They are considered the largest subspecies of grey wolf. Reintroducing a species is quite a task and approvals to throw a foreign species into an area is not something that would likely ever pass.

But in the end, it's all semantics... a wolf is a wolf... they have the same prey diet. A larger wolf may have a better chance with elk or moose. But in this case, talking about cattle, the size of the wolf probably isn't making a huge difference.

Quote: "The Rocky Mountain wolf (Canis lupus occidentalis) is also sometimes called the Alaskan or Mackenzie Valley wolf. This subspecies inhabits parts of the western United States, much of western Canada, and Alaska, including Unimak Island in the Aleutians, and is the subspecies which was reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park (YNP) and central Idaho."



DamonX
Posted: Sunday, July 18, 2010 4:58:35 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
Hey everyone, congrats on our new forum section!

I just thought I'd try and clear up some of the confusion regarding wolf types.

All wolves in North America are Gray wolves. The term "timber wolf" is more of a slang term, and synonymous with "gray wolf."

Although they are all of the same species, gray wolves have several subspecies. Most of these subspecies have different names due to geographical locations rather than actual genetic differences.

It is debated whether or not "Rocky Mountain Wolves" and Mackenzie valley wolves should even be considered separate subspecies. Again the difference is mainly geographical: Those north of the border tend to be called Mackenzies and those south of the border tend to be called Rocky Mountain wolves. Genetically, they are the same and possess the same physical and behavioral characteristics. The Rocky mountain wolves that were eliminated in Yellowstone in the 1930s were simply Mackenzies that had been gradually migrating south for the last few hundred years and out-competing the smaller "Great Plains Wolf."

When people talk about the Canadian wolves being larger, they are usually mistakingly comparing them to the Great Plains wolves which are about 25-40 lbs smaller (These are the ones that now only exist in the far NE corner of Minnesota.)

Whew! There.

Now whether the re-introduction of the wolf was good or bad, is another question and has nothing to do with imaginary subspecies.

After being eliminated in the US by hunters and ranchers by about 1930, it was reintroduced to Yellowstone in order to help keep the population of Elk down, since the exploding population of Elk was starting to have a detrimental effect on the surrounding forests. In the absence of an apex predator, ungulate populations explode and begin to put pressure on the environment. I'm not sure what the reasoning was for re-introducing them to Idaho, but I do know that they came from the same project as the Yellowstone one.

The problem with wolves is that they are an apex predator, so when they were re-introduced to a region that has just experienced a boom in prey population, they tended to multiply very quickly. Even so though, the entire wolf population in the Rocky Mountain Region is estimated at only about 1200.

People tend to look out for their own interests so of course ranchers and hunters will want them killed off. Wait a minute...isn't that how the problem started in the first place?

confused1
MrNudiePants
Posted: Monday, July 19, 2010 7:06:20 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,211
Location: United States
Dunno. I was tending to be on the side of the hunters, but then I read these stories:

Idaho confirms first wolf kill in seven years.
Quote:

POCATELLO, Idaho (AP) — Idaho Department of Fish and Game officials say southeastern Idaho has had its first confirmed wolf kill in more than seven years.

Regional Wildlife Manager Toby Boudreau says a sheepherder in the Franklin Basin, east of Preston, killed the 94-pound wolf after the animal killed one of the sheepherder's lambs. The Idaho State Journal reports the sheepherder also lost a ewe, but Boudreau said that animal's death couldn't be confirmed as a wolf kill.

Boudreau says the last time a wolf was killed in the region was in 2003. In that case, the shooter said he mistook the wolf for a coyote.



Montana sets this year's wolf quota at 186.

Quote:
HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Montana wildlife regulators on Thursday set this year's wolf-hunt quota at 186, more than doubling 2009's quota, with the aim of reducing the state's wolf population for the first time since they were reintroduced to the Northern Rockies in 1995.

Advocates for the wolf hunt hailed the decision, although some said they would still like to see a bigger number.


Quote:
Ranchers and hunters say the wolf population has grown too high, which has led to more attacks on livestock and game.

Victor hunter Steve Wilson said a much larger hunt is needed to bring wolf population numbers down to around 150. He argued that elk in some Bitterroot Valley areas are in danger of being wiped out.


So everyone is saying that the wolves are causing all these losses, yet there's only been one actual wolf attack (in Idaho, anyway) since 2003. Who's correct?
DamonX
Posted: Monday, July 19, 2010 9:10:16 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
MrNudiePants wrote:
Dunno. I was tending to be on the side of the hunters, but then I read these stories:

Idaho confirms first wolf kill in seven years.
Quote:

POCATELLO, Idaho (AP) — Idaho Department of Fish and Game officials say southeastern Idaho has had its first confirmed wolf kill in more than seven years.

Regional Wildlife Manager Toby Boudreau says a sheepherder in the Franklin Basin, east of Preston, killed the 94-pound wolf after the animal killed one of the sheepherder's lambs. The Idaho State Journal reports the sheepherder also lost a ewe, but Boudreau said that animal's death couldn't be confirmed as a wolf kill.

Boudreau says the last time a wolf was killed in the region was in 2003. In that case, the shooter said he mistook the wolf for a coyote.




Montana sets this year's wolf quota at 186.

Quote:
HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Montana wildlife regulators on Thursday set this year's wolf-hunt quota at 186, more than doubling 2009's quota, with the aim of reducing the state's wolf population for the first time since they were reintroduced to the Northern Rockies in 1995.

Advocates for the wolf hunt hailed the decision, although some said they would still like to see a bigger number.


Quote:
Ranchers and hunters say the wolf population has grown too high, which has led to more attacks on livestock and game.

Victor hunter Steve Wilson said a much larger hunt is needed to bring wolf population numbers down to around 150. He argued that elk in some Bitterroot Valley areas are in danger of being wiped out.


So everyone is saying that the wolves are causing all these losses, yet there's only been one actual wolf attack (in Idaho, anyway) since 2003. Who's correct?


Yeah, with only 1200 wolves in the entire Montana/Idaho/Wyoming area it seems to be a statistical improbability that they could be responsible for an extraneous number of cattle kills.

It seems that the issue is the hunters dislike the competition that the wolves present. In the absence of an apex predator the elk were, for so long, complacent and easy kills for lazy hunters.

84 lbs though! Wow, that seems a far cry from the 150 lb Canadian Wolf monsters that the Idaho hunters have been crying about. icon_smile
castlequeen
Posted: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 2:02:29 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/24/2009
Posts: 593
Killing bears is WRONG! Fat, hairy gay men are people too!!!

"A black cat crossing your path signifies that the animal is going somewhere." - Groucho Marx
LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 4:57:06 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
castlequeen wrote:
Killing bears is WRONG!


I'm guessing you're opposed to the destruction of the cougars, too. Lwinking


As for the main point- I get the feeling that this isn't really about bears and garbage, it's about humans invading animal territory, and trying to perform the trick of being humane yet keeping people safe. I don't envy that mayor- but I envy hungry bears there even less.
Bunny12
Posted: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 6:55:22 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 1,008
Location: My own little world, United States
Who is shooting the bears the authorities or the residents? If the authorities are shooting the bears, which I would suspect, they should charge themselves $10,00 cuz they are asses! Live trap and relocate that's my policy for problem creatures I have my own live trap and if your nasty ass cat comes killing the wildlife in my yard it's getting a one way ticket to the pound! The only thing I kill is moles with a harpoon trap they are super destructive to my many gardens so their outta there. Don't kid yourself Dept. of Fish and Game is there to collect license fees not protect anything!

Bunny12


Bunny Rabbits cute and fuzzy they want to love you but they have razor sharp teeth - don't piss them off!
MrNudiePants
Posted: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 7:00:45 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,211
Location: United States
Bunny12 wrote:
Who is shooting the bears the authorities or the residents? If the authorities are shooting the bears, which I would suspect, they should charge themselves $10,00 cuz they are asses! Live trap and relocate that's my policy for problem creatures I have my own live trap and if your nasty ass cat comes killing the wildlife in my yard it's getting a one way ticket to the pound! The only thing I kill is moles with a harpoon trap they are super destructive to my many gardens so their outta there. Don't kid yourself Dept. of Fish and Game is there to collect license fees not protect anything!


Bears are notorious for being able to find their way home after being relocated. We had a case here in Florida where a bear started foraging through the garbage cans of a rather wealthy subdivision. (This NEVER happens here - seriously. This is the first case I've ever heard of.) This bear was trapped, and relocated to a forest a few hundred miles away. Two weeks later, he was back. He was trapped again, and relocated again, this time to a forest in Georgia. He went for garbage cans again and a Georgia resident killed him. Once the learn of a readily available food source, they're going to keep returning to it. It's just the way they are.
DamonX
Posted: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 8:07:48 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
castlequeen wrote:
Killing bears is WRONG! Fat, hairy gay men are people too!!!


That actually made me laugh out loud. icon_smile
LusciousLola
Posted: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 8:19:47 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/5/2010
Posts: 2,907
DamonX wrote:
castlequeen wrote:
Killing bears is WRONG! Fat, hairy gay men are people too!!!


That actually made me laugh out loud. icon_smile
sign5
Remington
Posted: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 8:39:43 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/21/2010
Posts: 1,753
Well I live in one of the 3 states you've mentioned, Damon and seeing wolves where I'm at is not normal. The difference between a wolf and coyote are very distinct. I don't see how it's possible to mistake a wolf for a coyote. dontknow

Go check out my new story - How Did This Happen? - John's Story

WellMadeMale
Posted: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 9:25:39 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,469
Location: Cakeland, United States
I think the point that Jill is making and which Bunny drove home (at least for me) is that we humans, remove these wild animals from urban population areas and 'we' think we're doing those animals a favor by putting them in vans or on helicopters and shipping them a couple hundred miles into some new habitat which for the animal has to be:

Confusing and terrifying.

We're relocating animals which some wildlife department has deemed as being a trouble animal, to another area of a state, or another state of the country, and dumped it into the wilderness - but, right into some other US citizen's back yard area, where it then becomes a top level predator again but this time, it's up there in Jill's or Tom's or Dick's backyard, raising hell, just doing what comes natural for it to do to survive.

In all reality, where I live now...a 120 years ago, wolves, bears and puma roamed these parts. 170 years ago, buffalo herds in the millions stretched from the Mississippi river to the front range of the Rockies, from Northern Texas to and into Canada.

We don't want those animals relocated to our backyards, but we don't mind sending them off to Idaho, Montana, places we think are not as populated as where we reside.

We as a species are simply choking out all the other top level predators (and prey).

Most intelligent people are introspective and doubt themselves while many fucktards are proudly over-confident. - a tip of the hat to Charles Bukowski
DamonX
Posted: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 11:13:41 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
WellMadeMale wrote:
I think the point that Jill is making and which Bunny drove home (at least for me) is that we humans, remove these wild animals from urban population areas and 'we' think we're doing those animals a favor by putting them in vans or on helicopters and shipping them a couple hundred miles into some new habitat which for the animal has to be:

Confusing and terrifying.

We're relocating animals which some wildlife department has deemed as being a trouble animal, to another area of a state, or another state of the country, and dumped it into the wilderness - but, right into some other US citizen's back yard area, where it then becomes a top level predator again but this time, it's up there in Jill's or Tom's or Dick's backyard, raising hell, just doing what comes natural for it to do to survive.

In all reality, where I live now...a 120 years ago, wolves, bears and puma roamed these parts. 170 years ago, buffalo herds in the millions stretched from the Mississippi river to the front range of the Rockies, from Northern Texas to and into Canada.

We don't want those animals relocated to our backyards, but we don't mind sending them off to Idaho, Montana, places we think are not as populated as where we reside.

We as a species are simply choking out all the other top level predators (and prey).


In regards to the wolf, it was actually done for two reasons:

1) To stem the population growth of elk, which was beginning to have a deleterious effect on the surrounding vegetation.

2) To repopulate an almost extinct species within the lower 48 states by re-introducing them to the most population-sparse region of said lower 48 states.

I think the bears in Vancouver could easily be relocated. Unlike the US, Canada is massive and very underpopulated. It would be easy to relocate them somewhere else....but, it costs a lot of money. Bears are a dime a dozen here, so it's easier and more cost-effective to put them down.

The two situations really aren't the same at all though.
DamonX
Posted: Monday, July 26, 2010 12:17:50 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
Here's an interesting case somewhat related to the original thread. :)





This bear has been wandering around for days with pickle jar stuck on its head. Everyone has been looking for it, but they can't seem to track it down. Seems a little like Winnie the Pooh. :)

Guest
Posted: Monday, July 26, 2010 2:14:35 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 674,136
DamonX wrote:
Here's an interesting case somewhat related to the original thread. :)





This bear has been wandering around for days with pickle jar stuck on its head. Everyone has been looking for it, but they can't seem to track it down. Seems a little like Winnie the Pooh. :)



How long can a bear survive without eating or drinking, especially now, outside of hibernation season?
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Monday, July 26, 2010 4:52:31 AM

Rank: Alpha Blonde
Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,595
Location: Your dirty fantasy
gypsymoth wrote:


How long can a bear survive without eating or drinking, especially now, outside of hibernation season?


Actually this particular bear was followed/tracked for two weeks by officials trying to rescue it from this pickle jar that had been tossed in the garbage and not recycled properly. They suspect that the bear had been surviving via the condensation forming on the inside of the jar to prevent dehydration. Luckily, it has a happy ending. Yesterday they found the jar with a claw mark through it and fur stuck on the inside, so it looks like he got it at just the right angle to pull it off. Poor thing... It just once again shows the importance of people taking more responsibility for their recycling and garbage... especially in rural areas... or in this case, a summer cottage community, where urbanites probably have a more lax mindset about how their actions might be affecting the environment.

Guest
Posted: Monday, July 26, 2010 5:24:49 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 674,136
Thanks for that info, DD. Poor bear.
DamonX
Posted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 1:32:28 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
Awww, its good that he got free. That was the skinniest ass bear I've ever seen. Looks more like a dog in that pic.
Remington
Posted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 1:35:55 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/21/2010
Posts: 1,753
DamonX wrote:
Awww, its good that he got free. That was the skinniest ass bear I've ever seen. Looks more like a dog in that pic.


I thought it was a dog when I first saw the picture haha.

Go check out my new story - How Did This Happen? - John's Story

Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.