Resources for wolf debates

[trphyhntr]

Does anyone even know what this thread is about

[wish2hunt]

Does anyone even know what this thread is about

Shooting the wolves.

[Edge]

Management is key. If there's healthy numbers, let's see some tags issued and I don't mean just a token governor's tag which none of us will ever get.

 

I've had wolf encounters in AK, NM and AZ. Wouldn't trade those memories for anything.

[firstcoueswas80]

That's already permitted.

Are you sure they can shoot on sight or does the wolf have to be harassing or killing their animals?

[Edge]

 

Funny part is that wolves have always been in northern az and northern nm. My dad seen them in the 80s in northern nm and I've heard howls in the mid 90s in norhtern az before the reintroduction started. So I believe solid game management with all predators would be the key here. The energy focused on just hating the wolves would probably be better served on keeping lion hunting alive and well in AZ. If we let lion hunting slip now the wolf issue would be the last of the worries here.

Wolves were reintroduced in the mid 90's btw. Probably what you heard. There have always been "sightings" since the eradication in i think the 50's, but there have also been grizzly bear and bigfoot "sightings"

There was a Sonoran Grey hanging around my family's remote ranch in south central NM in the early 70's. I watched him circle me for several minutes at a distance of only 150 yards. My grandfather saw him also, several times over several days. I'm pretty down to Earth so please don't lump us in with the crazies.

[GreyGhost85]

 

That's already permitted.

Are you sure they can shoot on sight or does the wolf have to be harassing or killing their animals?

It has to be actively harrassing or killing livestock. They can however kill your pet and you can't do anything about it. Their use of the term "livestock" can be pretty blurry too if i remember tight

[firstcoueswas80]

 

 

That's already permitted.

Are you sure they can shoot on sight or does the wolf have to be harassing or killing their animals?

It has to be actively harrassing or killing livestock. They can however kill your pet and you can't do anything about it. Their use of the term "livestock" can be pretty blurry too if i remember tight

Yeah that's what I thought. In my opinion, if a wolf is seen near livestock, there WILL be an issue. Hence why I believe ranchers shoukd be able to shoot on site.

[zackcarp]

 

 

That's already permitted.

Are you sure they can shoot on sight or does the wolf have to be harassing or killing their animals?

It has to be actively harrassing or killing livestock. They can however kill your pet and you can't do anything about it. Their use of the term "livestock" can be pretty blurry too if i remember tight

Greyghost is correct.

[azslim]

some cousins in Wy lost 2 800 lb calves to wolves a couple months ago, just killed them, no feeding, didn't have any of the pro-wolf factions offering to pay for their calves. At least Wy finally gets to manage wolves without the Feds dictating to them.

[Xnt]

 

I could use some good conservation and science-based authoritative sources for arguing with the hysterical anti-wolf crowd. I want it to be just that: science based over their emotion. It seems as though Google/YT's censorship really pushes the pro-wolf narrative. I'm specifically looking at the issue of canis lupus occidentalis replacing canis lupus irremotus in the GYE--I have a suspicion that the so-called reclassification that has been done in recent years was to show that the wolves transplanted were the same as the wolves that were present historically. thanks for any info you can provide.

I don't understand the question. You want information to argue with the hysterical anti-wolf crowd? I think most ranchers, hunters are anti-wolf, meaning against the wolf reintroduction. Do you mean pro-wolf, anti-hunter crowd that you want to argue with?

 

 

Yep, thanks for pointing that out. The pro-wolf crowd, who I contend is usually anti-science

 

[Flatlander]

So someone explain to me again why a rancher who uses public land to support his living, and many times closes down access to said public land should receive taxpayer money when a native species is restored and kills his non-native livestock? I am all for ranchers defending their wildlife, but I am also all for wildlife having the right to exist.

 

Go ahead, spit your fire, I am from a farming and ranching family but I am aware enough to know common sense is a two way street.

[firstcoueswas80]

So someone explain to me again why a rancher who uses public land to support his living, and many times closes down access to said public land should receive taxpayer money when a native species is restored and kills his non-native livestock? I am all for ranchers defending their wildlife, but I am also all for wildlife having the right to exist.

 

Go ahead, spit your fire, I am from a farming and ranching family but I am aware enough to know common sense is a two way street.

If you ask me, it's because they didn't set up shop where wolves were at, the wolves were brought to the area.

[Flatlander]

 

So someone explain to me again why a rancher who uses public land to support his living, and many times closes down access to said public land should receive taxpayer money when a native species is restored and kills his non-native livestock? I am all for ranchers defending their wildlife, but I am also all for wildlife having the right to exist.

 

Go ahead, spit your fire, I am from a farming and ranching family but I am aware enough to know common sense is a two way street.

If you ask me, it's because they didn't set up shop where wolves were at, the wolves were brought to the area.

The homesteaders were the ones who wiped out the wolves.

 

Regardless, at this point there are plenty of wolves, let the ranchers shoot them and at the same time give them nothing for a lost cow.

[PRDATR]

Because wolves weren't in the equation of calculated risk when they leased those rights.Not sure where you're going with closing down access to public lands. That seems to be a separate topic altogether.

[firstcoueswas80]

All he's stating, is that someone who locks access to public lands shouldnt be given taxpayer money.