This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Mindhunt on 06 March 2010 - 17:03
Those talons can be pretty sharp and those birds are so incredibly strong. Awesome pic Lav-K9
by LAVK-9 on 06 March 2010 - 17:03
Mindhunt- Yes the birds are strong and talons sharp as i learned first hand. Don't know how it happened but aparently my right arm got in the way of when the Red Tail I was holding tried to fly off and the talon must have caught me.A few seconds later I felt like a spider was crawling on me and it was blood dripping down my arm.lol ooops!
Daryl- and they couldn't call it "The Balanced State" with the oversaturated wolf populations.
What is considered oversaturated and who's right is it to call it. I have been through WY and I have never seen a wolf.
It's like if I said there are too many stupid people in this world and I think I should have the right to cull them. What is my judgement on who should go might not be someone elses. So where is the fairness of that? The people that are making these laws to kill wolves....sorry I don't see them being educated enough to make those calls. ie Sarah Palin
Although I do have to say I think I would do a damn good job of culling the right people. It is aparent that you just don't like wolves so no matter what is said even if stated by a biologist or someone that has been studying them and knows more about them then a Joe Shome like you....you will never understand.
Daryl- and they couldn't call it "The Balanced State" with the oversaturated wolf populations.
What is considered oversaturated and who's right is it to call it. I have been through WY and I have never seen a wolf.
It's like if I said there are too many stupid people in this world and I think I should have the right to cull them. What is my judgement on who should go might not be someone elses. So where is the fairness of that? The people that are making these laws to kill wolves....sorry I don't see them being educated enough to make those calls. ie Sarah Palin
Although I do have to say I think I would do a damn good job of culling the right people. It is aparent that you just don't like wolves so no matter what is said even if stated by a biologist or someone that has been studying them and knows more about them then a Joe Shome like you....you will never understand.
by CrysBuck25 on 06 March 2010 - 18:03
I log on here this morning to see that this discussion is still pretty much civilized, which is good to see. Lav, it's "Joe Shmoe" I think, not "Joe Shome"...
Aside from that, there is a natural balance that can be achieved between predator and prey...when predator hunts too much, predators begin to starve until their numbers are brought down to a reasonable number.
Although wolves are opportunistic hunters, they seem to take a disproportionate number of elk to the moose, deer, and others...And yes, they will return to the kills later to eat. What I refer to as sport kills are those that are killed and not fed upon, period.
Many years ago, when I was a child, we began losing one chicken a day from our chicken pen. One hen would meet her fate...we'd find only a little blood and feathers, and nothing else. After a week of this, the predator responsible made its presence known, a wolf hybrid. At first we thought it was a wolf, but then we realized it had a collar and tags on. The tags were a dog license calling the animal a husky...not. It had the yellow eyes, the physical structure, and the extreme agility of the wolf. For a week it had been killing our chickens to eat...One at a time, when it could have killed all, and eating what it took. Granted a chicken is a lot smaller and eating all of it in one sitting is far more likely. But the point I am making is that having been raised by humans, this animal still did not kill everything it could simply because the opportunity presented itself. It killed and ate only what it needed, though the rabbits around the place would have been preferred to our egg layers;-)
Nowadays, man also hunts the moose, deer and elk, which makes competition for the wolf and other predators for the prey. And man hunts too much for the "Trophy" animals, those of the largest size with the largest antlers. I don't care if they want to hunt for trophies, but my feeling on that is if you want to shoot an old bull elk, you'd better be ready to eat all the meat on his grizzled old body...Otherwise, don't do him the injustice of killing him.
I think that there is simply too much human interference in nature these days...We have ranchers and others with money at stake here wanting all species that threaten their grazing gone, a list which includes bison, wild horses, and others. Then they want the wolves gone because of the predation on the herds, a fact which was achieved though hunting, poisoning and the use of bounties to encourage killing. Then we have the government scientists who study things coming in and telling us how things have always been, and how they must be, without regard to the fact that things are changing, and are always in a state of change.
Humans no longer rely on hunting for survival, but that is changing as more folks are deciding that it is far healthier to eat meat you hunted, or have raised for meat, so that will raise the problems for the wolf in the future. A balance can be achieved, but it's going to take looking past the special interestes and realizing that we all share this planet together, and there's no place for those who are squeamish about what survival is all about.
Crys
Aside from that, there is a natural balance that can be achieved between predator and prey...when predator hunts too much, predators begin to starve until their numbers are brought down to a reasonable number.
Although wolves are opportunistic hunters, they seem to take a disproportionate number of elk to the moose, deer, and others...And yes, they will return to the kills later to eat. What I refer to as sport kills are those that are killed and not fed upon, period.
Many years ago, when I was a child, we began losing one chicken a day from our chicken pen. One hen would meet her fate...we'd find only a little blood and feathers, and nothing else. After a week of this, the predator responsible made its presence known, a wolf hybrid. At first we thought it was a wolf, but then we realized it had a collar and tags on. The tags were a dog license calling the animal a husky...not. It had the yellow eyes, the physical structure, and the extreme agility of the wolf. For a week it had been killing our chickens to eat...One at a time, when it could have killed all, and eating what it took. Granted a chicken is a lot smaller and eating all of it in one sitting is far more likely. But the point I am making is that having been raised by humans, this animal still did not kill everything it could simply because the opportunity presented itself. It killed and ate only what it needed, though the rabbits around the place would have been preferred to our egg layers;-)
Nowadays, man also hunts the moose, deer and elk, which makes competition for the wolf and other predators for the prey. And man hunts too much for the "Trophy" animals, those of the largest size with the largest antlers. I don't care if they want to hunt for trophies, but my feeling on that is if you want to shoot an old bull elk, you'd better be ready to eat all the meat on his grizzled old body...Otherwise, don't do him the injustice of killing him.
I think that there is simply too much human interference in nature these days...We have ranchers and others with money at stake here wanting all species that threaten their grazing gone, a list which includes bison, wild horses, and others. Then they want the wolves gone because of the predation on the herds, a fact which was achieved though hunting, poisoning and the use of bounties to encourage killing. Then we have the government scientists who study things coming in and telling us how things have always been, and how they must be, without regard to the fact that things are changing, and are always in a state of change.
Humans no longer rely on hunting for survival, but that is changing as more folks are deciding that it is far healthier to eat meat you hunted, or have raised for meat, so that will raise the problems for the wolf in the future. A balance can be achieved, but it's going to take looking past the special interestes and realizing that we all share this planet together, and there's no place for those who are squeamish about what survival is all about.
Crys
by LAVK-9 on 06 March 2010 - 21:03
Lav, it's "Joe Shmoe" I think, not "Joe Shome"...
Yes Crys...I was in a rush this morning,had to meet with a client...didn't even phrase things the way I wanted but I figure what was said would be understood....then again on here who knows!!!
Yes Crys...I was in a rush this morning,had to meet with a client...didn't even phrase things the way I wanted but I figure what was said would be understood....then again on here who knows!!!
by darylehret on 07 March 2010 - 01:03
LAVK9, I've been pretty polite to you, despite the fact I think you're pretty stupid too. I don't have a reason to hate wolves, but I do get sick of hearing the pro-wolf opinions, from people that are essentially clueless to what really goes on. You're only getting half the story, and a lot of it's make believe.
Yes, the wolves are at full saturation in the "Greater Yellowstone Area", without a doubt. Ask any bioligist that studies them, ask the fish & game wardens. They are NOT the wolf advocates that are vehemently fighting the government's attempts at managing a situation gone out of control. Sure, they may want wolves, it's part of their jobs, but too much is too much! None of the "positive spin" you read about the wolf situation was actually written by these experts!
Why do you think the mortalities are so high from rival wolf packs? As you can see from this 2008 map of the packs, they require a large range (gray polygons), despite their pack sizes (red circles), frequent territorial disputes are inevitable, and pack size can't/wont increase much more. Just depends on what the land can yield, and when it can't, they'll kill each other. Today was the Druid pack, but they won't be the last. If you're shedding tears over them, you might as well cheer for their neighbor packs.
Yes, the wolves are at full saturation in the "Greater Yellowstone Area", without a doubt. Ask any bioligist that studies them, ask the fish & game wardens. They are NOT the wolf advocates that are vehemently fighting the government's attempts at managing a situation gone out of control. Sure, they may want wolves, it's part of their jobs, but too much is too much! None of the "positive spin" you read about the wolf situation was actually written by these experts!
Why do you think the mortalities are so high from rival wolf packs? As you can see from this 2008 map of the packs, they require a large range (gray polygons), despite their pack sizes (red circles), frequent territorial disputes are inevitable, and pack size can't/wont increase much more. Just depends on what the land can yield, and when it can't, they'll kill each other. Today was the Druid pack, but they won't be the last. If you're shedding tears over them, you might as well cheer for their neighbor packs.
by Prager on 07 March 2010 - 03:03
I still would like to say that if someone makes claim of 200lb wolfs and all that sensationalist stuff about eating fetus from live mama elk (and I do not mean you darylehret) than credibility of people like that is shot to hell. I have lived in Jackson area and hiked all those areas criss cross for almost 10 years. Those rectangles are huge areas many 20 x 20 miles that is up to 400 square miles and then there is in it 3 or 5 or 10 wolfs. That is not over saturation. Yes Yellowstone is little more dense but that is the park. Look wolf eats everything from moose to night crawler and grasshopper. Wolves can eat every 5-6 hours when there is plenty of food available, or they can fast or live on scraps for 2 weeks when there is less food around. Just like coyote and the coyote can live in the downtown Phoenix and in the desert in huge densities. I believe that the wolf is an unusual animal for a lot of people so they are freaking out. I believe that when the dust settles all will be well. The wolf is ultimately healthy for the environment. The hatred of wolf from some people from Mt and Wy and Id ( and again I do not mean you darylehret) which I have met and talked to is of mythical proportions. Wolf lived there before people and now is there again. For some people it is an inconvenience, loss of easy hunting of elk, moose and deer, and so on and loss of some business for others (and gain for some) and for some people, I firmly believe, it is the passion to kill evil wolf. Here in AZ almost extinct Mexican red wolf is being killed by morons like that too. And there is no over saturation of those, I assure you.
Prager Hans
Prager Hans
by darylehret on 07 March 2010 - 04:03
I know precisely the irrational hatred you speak about, and it's true. But the dust has been settling for two decades now, how much longer do you figure it takes? If I lost my livlihood, or my best friend(dog) due to wolves, you can bet I'd be angry. But I wouldn't be angry at the wolves, I'd be angry at the people who pushed it too far.
20 Years of studying the wolf, a "keystone" species that has great impact on multiple species in the Yellowstone ecosystem, and probably the best funded environmental research in this nation's history. On NatureServe's database it states the U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) as "Not yet assessed". Really? How long could it possibly take? Lemme guess, "warrants further study"...(more $$$)
20 Years of studying the wolf, a "keystone" species that has great impact on multiple species in the Yellowstone ecosystem, and probably the best funded environmental research in this nation's history. On NatureServe's database it states the U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) as "Not yet assessed". Really? How long could it possibly take? Lemme guess, "warrants further study"...(more $$$)
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank)
Which non-native species pose the most serious threats to native species and ecosystems? To answer this question, NatureServe, in collaboration with The Nature Conservancy and the U.S. National Park Service, has developed a protocol for assessing and categorizing non-native plants according to their impacts on native biodiversity. The protocol is designed to focus specifically on the effects non-native species have on native plants, animals, and natural communities and to make the process of assessing non-native species objective, transparent, and systematic. It is intended to be applied to species as they occur over large areas, such as nations, ecoregions, provinces, or states.
AN INVASIVE SPECIES ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL
Section III. Trend in Distribution and Abundance
Section III, with seven questions, is based on the premise that species with a high potential for further spread have the potential to cause greater damage, especially if they are likely to spread to distant but currently uninfested portions of the region of interest. The questions in this section therefore assess the likelihood and rate at which the species (if not controlled) will spread to new areas and/or increase in abundance within areas it already occupies. Estimates of the species’ current range, its possible potential range in the region, and its current rate of spread help to answer questions in this section.
Section IV. Management Difficulty
Section IV, with four questions, is based on the premise that a species that is difficult to manage (control or prevent from spreading) will have a greater chance of causing significant damage because it is more likely to persist and spread. The questions in this section assess the difficulty of control, the accessibility of invaded sites where it threatens natural diversity, and the likelihood that known control measures will cause collateral damage to native species.
I-Rank Values
I-Rank values range from High to Insignificant as follows:
High: Species represents a severe threat to native species and ecological communities
Medium: Species represents moderate threat to native species and ecological communities
Low: Species represents a significant but relatively low threat to native species and ecological communities
Insignificant: Species represents an insignificant threat to native species and ecological communities
Generally speaking, factors which can push a species’ I-Rank upward (towards High) are the ability
by darylehret on 07 March 2010 - 04:03
Generally speaking, factors which can push a species’ I-Rank upward (towards High) are the ability to change ecosystem processes; ability to invade relatively undisturbed ecological communities; ability to cause substantial impacts on rare or vulnerable species or ecological communities, or high-quality examples of more common communities; wide distribution and general abundance where present; ability to disperse to new areas readily; and difficulty of control. Conversely, species with minimal impacts on ecosystem processes, native species, and ecological communities will generally be assigned an I-Rank of Low or Insignificant. Other factors that can push a species’ I-Rank downward are lack of potential to spread beyond a small existing range, stable or decreasing abundance within the current range, and ease of control.
by darylehret on 07 March 2010 - 04:03
Natural resources are what defines their "range requirements", and territorial disputes are the inevitable result. That's why some smaller packs need larger ranges, and larger ones do fine in smaller areas. According to Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and conservation, 2003, pg.493, "Saturation is thought to occur at about 1 wolf/26 km2", but you really can't place an arbitrary number on it like that. It's determined by what the land will yield.
by Prager on 07 March 2010 - 21:03
You know, I have lost one of my dogs to a rattlesnake bite and they lost their dog to a wolf. So what? That is the life. Some people's dog get hit by a car. Wolf was there before the man. I just wonder who was managing nature before the man was there. I do not like the word manage in this context. Protect is the word I would like to use. I know I sound idealistically. But as I said the nature have funny way to take care of itself. We should just give it a proper chance. Wolf pack fighting. Too much killing of prey. Things need to assume the balance. You introduce a wolf to non wolf region then it will take long time for things to get balanced in the nature. And then the people will have to learn to live with it or destroy it. That will take longer then 20 years. I'd say maybe hundred or more.
Also people in Government, even so some are honest, but most , I suspect, are there to spend money on THEIR research and projects . I am pretty sure that all this controversy is a matter of different political and financial pressures and not a matter of wolf difficulties at all. I have learned that person able to talk convincingly enough will persuade the masses one way or the other. And if we have two or more such opposing able persuaders then the tempers go high.
This is just my philosophical input.
Prager Hans
Also people in Government, even so some are honest, but most , I suspect, are there to spend money on THEIR research and projects . I am pretty sure that all this controversy is a matter of different political and financial pressures and not a matter of wolf difficulties at all. I have learned that person able to talk convincingly enough will persuade the masses one way or the other. And if we have two or more such opposing able persuaders then the tempers go high.
This is just my philosophical input.
Prager Hans
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
