Wolves, Ranchers, LEH.............

[Jagermeister]

This is the way I see it.

This started with the increase in the moose population in the central interior. With a totally exclusive Limited Entry Hunting for moose, there were fewer hunters in the woods. There became an over-abundance of moose and it was just natural that the wolf population should increase as well, feeding on those juicy moose and succulent moose calves.
With the copious quantity of feed for the wolves, secondary wolf bitches were having litters as well as the those of alpha bitch. This resulted in a wolf population explosion which has decimated the moose populations in that region. These wolves are now spilling over into other regions to the south-east.
Now, since there are fewer moose to predate, the wolves have turned their attention to the next best meal and have developed a taste for cattle.

In the short form; to blame something, blame the exclusive LEH and the lack of a GOS for spike-fork horn in Region 5. Less groceries for the wolves, less pups put on the ground. A GOS would have put more hunters in the woods seeking a bullwinkle and there would have been a greater chance that the hunters would have stroked a few wolves just for good measure.

My Forecast:
I predict that you will see a great reduction in the amount of LEH authorizations for moose available for the coming year in all of Region 5, those MUs of Region 7 that border Region 5 and the northern MUs of Region 3. This may carry over into the other species in those regions as well. The logic here is that when the aerial population surveys are completed for those regions (and the government will be doing them this year because it would be foolhardy not to), they are going to get dismal numbers.

And a final word to those West Kootenay hunters that opposed the move to GOS from LEH, heed the example.

Time will tell if I am right or wrong.

Okay, have at'er ladies and gentlemen.

[horshur]

been sipping to much Jager

[boxhitch]

Money has been made available for inventory work on large ungulates where they could address FN issues, but that won't help the ranchers or hunters.
Gov't would rather manage people than wildlife, and no bureaucrat wants to suggest a predator control plan is needed.
I see your point Jag

[ianwuzhere]

wolves eat more then just moose ;)

[Jagermeister]

wolves eat more then just moose ;)
That is true, they do eat more than just moose, they eat deer, sheep and mountain goats. The moose were the most abundant with the lack of a GOS and the wolves took advantage of that as mentioned proviously. Easy pickins, breed like hell. Now they're eating beef too.
QUOTE=horshur;1031532]been sipping to much Jager[/QUOTE]I haven't had a nip yet, but since it is past the yard arm, I'll get to it toot sweet.

[igojuone]

Speaking of wolves, the ranchers are losing cattle as well.

This is on Castanet.



Predators, specifically wolves, continue to be a major source of concern for cattle ranchers in the province.

Kevin Boon, General Manager of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, says the problem is so bad in some regions that cattle ranchers are selling their herds, giving up their rangeland and leaving the industry.

Boon says cattle loss at the hands of predators is the single biggest loss felt by ranchers.

"Ranchers expect to lose four to five per cent of their herd each year. Those losses are built into the cost of doing business," says Boon.

"Some ranchers are being hit with a loss of 15 to 20 per cent of their cattle. Some ranchers are quitting and rangeland leases are being given up because of wolves."

The association is in the midst of the second, of what Boon hopes is an annual, survey of cattle ranchers on the problem of predators.

While this year's survey goes until the end of January, 2012, Boon says results so far are similar to those from a survey conducted in 2010.


Photo: Trevor Rockliffe
A rancher at the Spiyu Ranch, near Kamloops, works a heard in this file photo.
"The problem is no worse, but it's no better either."

Boon says the wolf population in the province is out of control.

"We need to reduce the population."

He says it's not just a matter of taking out one problem wolf but, "you need to take out the entire pack."

Two pilot programs, which targeted the control of predators, have been in place since 2004.

Under these programs Boon says ranchers who lost cattle to predators could apply to have those wolves removed.

He says the association lobbied the province in the Spring to make the program permanent.

"The province instead reorganized the conservation department who are now in charge of removing the problem animals."

Boon says the association has been working with ranchers and cattle producers in an effort to teach 'best management practices' when it comes to predators.

He says they are being taught how to trap on their own land which is within their rights in an effort to protect their herd.

Boon also says the association needs to work more closely with the trappers association in an effort to try and concentrate on over-populated areas.

[Jagermeister]

Speaking of wolves, the ranchers are losing cattle as well.

This is on Castanet.



Predators, specifically wolves, continue to be a major source of concern for cattle ranchers in the province.

Kevin Boon, General Manager of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, says the problem is so bad in some regions that cattle ranchers are selling their herds, giving up their rangeland and leaving the industry.

Boon says cattle loss at the hands of predators is the single biggest loss felt by ranchers.

"Ranchers expect to lose four to five per cent of their herd each year. Those losses are built into the cost of doing business," says Boon.

"Some ranchers are being hit with a loss of 15 to 20 per cent of their cattle. Some ranchers are quitting and rangeland leases are being given up because of wolves."

The association is in the midst of the second, of what Boon hopes is an annual, survey of cattle ranchers on the problem of predators.

While this year's survey goes until the end of January, 2012, Boon says results so far are similar to those from a survey conducted in 2010.


Photo: Trevor Rockliffe
A rancher at the Spiyu Ranch, near Kamloops, works a heard in this file photo.
"The problem is no worse, but it's no better either."

Boon says the wolf population in the province is out of control.

"We need to reduce the population."

He says it's not just a matter of taking out one problem wolf but, "you need to take out the entire pack."

Two pilot programs, which targeted the control of predators, have been in place since 2004.

Under these programs Boon says ranchers who lost cattle to predators could apply to have those wolves removed.

He says the association lobbied the province in the Spring to make the program permanent.

"The province instead reorganized the conservation department who are now in charge of removing the problem animals."

Boon says the association has been working with ranchers and cattle producers in an effort to teach 'best management practices' when it comes to predators.

He says they are being taught how to trap on their own land which is within their rights in an effort to protect their herd.

Boon also says the association needs to work more closely with the trappers association in an effort to try and concentrate on over-populated areas.
I guess you were not aware that this has been posted on another thread.
I must admit this thread was spawned by that thread but I think it is far more encompassing.
One has to understand, or suppose as to why the wolves are at their current expanded population. What I am suggesting is that it was the overabundance of moose in Region 5 and the lack of a GOS. It was an oppotune time for wolves. No hunters, lots of food.
If there were more hunters in the field under a GOS for spike-fork horn, it would have served 2 purposes. (1) It would have reduced the food supply for the wolves thereby causing only the alpha female to have pups. Any pups born out of incidental pregnacies in subordinate females
would have resulted in the alpha female killing the subordinates offspring. (2)More hunters out in the field gives greater chances of hunters seeing and killing a wolf.
According to the biologists, culling 50% of the population in one year will not help control the wolf population. Those 50% culled in one year will be replaced in the following year. They suggest a number closer to 70% to be more effective.
The question then is, how do you achieve that cull number? Hunters are not that effective because their wolf hunt is inconsistent. In other words, wolves are not the primary target for hunters, so hunters cannot be bothered to target wolves.
Perhaps if there were a bounty, then interest in hunters hunting wolves may gain some momentum.
Will the government put up a bounty? Will the Cattlemens Association?
It's a political hot potato as the greenies would rise to the occasion.

Eventually, the wolf problen will go away, but not before the severe depredation of the ungulate populations.
Think of how the lynx population cycles with that of the rabbits. The same will occur with wolves and ungulates, but the recovery time for the ungulates will take more than the 7 year cycle of the lynx and rabbit.
This is a very complex problem for the government. What are the legal ramifications for the government not acting on a problem that forces ranchers out of business? On the other hand, you have the greenies who will be clamouring should the government decide to eradicate a large portion of the wolf population.
I think that this would be a legitimate time to take money from the HCTF for a in-depth aerial population survey for ungulates, particularly moose, focusing on Regions 3 and 5. The Cattlemens Association should consider ponying up some money toward this too.
My apologies for repeating some of my previous post.
Time for another sip of the golden nectar.

[blackbart]

Pretty complicated subject for sure. Even the "experts" can't agree, so always dangerous to throw out an opinion.

Some of what the orig poster suggested makes sense, but I have a different spin on it.

Yes wolves eat moose - usually the meal of choice.
Lots of moose = lots of food for wolves and lots of pups
Less moose = wolves looking for other food and possibly having less pups
Other wolf food (in a natural ecosystem) = deer, sheep and other native animals. These animals normally have ups and downs in their abundance. Hence a reduced availability to predation and an associated reduction in predator breeding during down cycles.
Other wolf food in a man influenced ecosystem = native ungulates, cattle, feral horses, domestic sheep etc.

The trouble with the last scenario is that during down years in native ungulates the livestock are still there and provide the biomass to keep the wolves breeding. We then have a scenario where the native species never have the chance to rebuild after a hard winter.

Basically I am saying - manage the non-native species better (cows) and the predator/prey dynamic won't be as much of a problem. For those having some troubles connecting the dots let me make the point clear - The issue is with livestock, not wildlife management.

I welcome other opinions and feedback.

BB

[CanuckShooter]

Not one chance in a thousand that our current government would even consider it, they would lose some votes from environmentalists so it's a no go. The NDP is remembered for the pine beetle fiasco and by the time it's done we will be calling them Christies wolves.....and eating more veggies!

[Rainsford]

I personally don't understand all this wolf talk. For thousands of years when the prey runs dry the predators also thin out, then the prey numbers boom and the predators increase, seems like the circle of life to me. That being said i could see this being an issue for ranchers if the predators then turn their attention to their livestock but not for hunters. Maybe there's something im missing here and please inform me if there is but to me it just sounds like a bunch of greedy whiney hunters wanting more for themselves.

[CanuckShooter]

After the livestock comes some kids waiting for a schoolbus....

[The Dude]

I personally don't understand all this wolf talk. For thousands of years when the prey runs dry the predators also thin out, then the prey numbers boom and the predators increase, seems like the circle of life to me. That being said i could see this being an issue for ranchers if the predators then turn their attention to their livestock but not for hunters. Maybe there's something im missing here and please inform me if there is but to me it just sounds like a bunch of greedy whiney hunters wanting more for themselves.

Two things:

1) Natural cycles aren't natural anymore. Man is here, and we're part of the equation.
2) When the wolves kill off too many moose, other species suffer that normally wouldn't be prime targets. i.e. Bighorns and Goats. Also an artificial food source , cattle become prey.
This is essentially because man is in the equation, manages moose, deer and predator numbers (to some effect), and provides cattle, domestic sheep and alfalfa-fed deer to help with the lean times, that carry wolves through what would otherwise be a die-off. Without our input there would most likely be a lot fewer starving wolves.
Hunters (and Bios) don't want huge spikes and huge crashes. We want steady, reliable numbers with a healthy allowable harvest, and enough winter range to carry a particular herd through the winter. We like going back to the same area year after year with a reasonable chance of success. We like meat in our freezers for all that effort.
The "natural" cycle of overpopulation, starvation and predation (both for predator and prey species) is unbelievably cruel, and doesn't sell many licences.

[coach]

Interesting conversation, Jager..

- The greenies want to protect wolves from us evil hunters for their own social reasons.
- Hunters want to kill wolves because we want healthy ungulate populations for our own social reasons.
- FN's and GO's in region 5 convinced Regional Managers to stop the moose GOS for their own social reasons.
- We all understand that animal populations are cyclical, but that isn't what we want. Again, social reasons.
- cattle ranchers want wolf populations controlled because it's affecting them economically. On the other hand, cattle ranching has significant negative affects on the environment.

Pulled in all these directions, how can we get back to scientific game management?

[Rainsford]

Two things:

1) Natural cycles aren't natural anymore. Man is here, and we're part of the equation.
2) When the wolves kill off too many moose, other species suffer that normally wouldn't be prime targets. i.e. Bighorns and Goats. Also an artificial food source , cattle become prey.
This is essentially because man is in the equation, manages moose, deer and predator numbers (to some effect), and provides cattle, domestic sheep and alfalfa-fed deer to help with the lean times, that carry wolves through what would otherwise be a die-off. Without our input there would most likely be a lot fewer starving wolves.
Hunters (and Bios) don't want huge spikes and huge crashes. We want steady, reliable numbers with a healthy allowable harvest, and enough winter range to carry a particular herd through the winter. We like going back to the same area year after year with a reasonable chance of success. We like meat in our freezers for all that effort.
The "natural" cycle of overpopulation, starvation and predation (both for predator and prey species) is unbelievably cruel, and doesn't sell many licences.

So in order to maintain more level and consistent numbers of prey we must control the predators numbers to prevent the highs and lows. Good reply strong points.

[Looking_4_Jerky]

After the livestock comes some kids waiting for a schoolbus....

Dude, are you kidding? Been reading a bit too much Little Red Riding Hood?

[The Dude]

So in order to maintain more level and consistent numbers of prey we must control the predators numbers to prevent the highs and lows. Good reply strong points.

Ed Zachary :D

[CanuckShooter]

Dude, are you kidding? Been reading a bit too much Little Red Riding Hood?

Have you missed the headlines lately?? Even the coyotes have taken up harvesting healthy humans...do you think you'll be safe from a pack of starving wolves??

[hunter1947]

What we need is more recruitment of trappers throwout the BC province and have permission from the owner of a trap line to trap on his or her registered trap line..

Most trappers will not let a registered trapper trap on his or her trap line like myself I would trap wolfs on someone else's trap line but I have to get wrighten permission from the trap line owner to do this..

[pete_k]

OK,
1) We kill more moose
2) Starve the wolves to oblivion
3) Moose numbers go up

I understand what you're saying but there is plenty of room for that plan to backfire.

The Gov't should give a special privledge or free hunting licence and tags to any hunter who kills 2 or 3 wolves inside a year.

Thanks to hollywood wolves are held in romantic regard. Hell, back when i started hunting 8 years ago I never would have thought
about killing a magestic noble wolf. I've done a 180 and hope to bag some this winter.

The new regs should have an appeal to hunters to get out and do some wolf hunting in these problem areas. Because apparantly NBL is not clear enough of a message.

Every wolf killed means 15 more deer next year. Likely more if you count the preggers as two and add for surplus killings.

So. No hijack intended. But what you want won't happen. IF the moose numbers do increase alot due to a wolf cull, they may offer more moose LEH.

[Fisher-Dude]

After the livestock comes some kids waiting for a schoolbus....


Dude, are you kidding? Been reading a bit too much Little Red Riding Hood?


Actually, CS has the backing of Val Geist on that theory. He's bang on.



Who and What killed Kenton Carnegie?
Valerius Geist, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science, The University of Calgary
Calgary, Canada.
On November 1st 2007 a six-member coroner’s jury in Saskatchewan ruled that wolves killed Kenton Carnegie, a 22-year-old 3rd year honors and scholarship student in the Co-op program in Geological-Engineering at the University of Waterloo. He was killed on November 8th 2005 at Points North Landing near Wollstone Lake in northern Saskatchewan. Though he was the best-investigated human victim of wolf predation in North America in the past century , there have been other victims such as five-year-old Marc Leblond, killed Sept. 24, 1963 north of Baie-Comeau, Quebec , and more according to native people. It is they who pointed out in conversation that wolves “eat the evidence” and also disperse it, making detection and confirmation of cause of death very difficult. In addition there have been a number of attacks on people in Canada and Alaska in recent years , and more are expected as wolves become more numerous and disperse after decades of control.
Victims of wildlife tragedies in North America tend to be blamed for the event , and it was not different in Kenton’s case. It greatly upset Kenton’s family, as did the whitewash of wolves that could only mislead the judiciary and the public . They thus asked two (Correction: three!) scientists to look independently into the matter. One was Alaska biologist Mark McNay, the other was Brent Patterson of Ontario, the other was myself. At the coroners inquest only one expert witness was allowed to testify on behalf of the Carnegies and the court chose Mark McNay. His presentation was effective!
The Kenton Carnegie case is significant as it points to deficits in scholarship pertaining to wolf/human interactions, and consequently to flawed assumptions underlying wolf conservation legislation her and in Europe. As alluded to above, a sideshow to be noted in passing is an attempt to blame black bears for Kenton Carnegie’s death . However, this assertion failed to survive scrutiny by peers and by the court. Nevertheless, it was reported in important popular outlets and remains uncorrected in such, thereby still misinforming the public . There is a danger of a parallel to Farley Movat’s book “Never Cry Wolf” which was quickly exposed as erroneous by Canadian scientists, but whose informed voices were ignored by the public and the literati, which even now accepts that book on face value .
The coroner’s inquest in Saskatchewan, however, only answered the narrow question of who killed Kenton Carnegie. To this the answer is: wolves. Change the question to what killed Kenton Carnegie and the answer is: the belief that wolves are harmless and do not kill people. Yet, I must confess that I too embraced a similar view during my career and well into retirement, having been taught such even in graduate school, and reinforced by years of experience with painfully shy wilderness wolves. However, a misbehaving pack on Vancouver Island, and a review of historical matters, taught me otherwise . The myth of harmless wolves is a well-established modern dogma. It is deadly! Belief in this myth has killed at least three persons in North America alone in the last decade, two of which were bright, educated young people.
Nobody at Points North Landing noticed that the wolves involved were not merely habituating, but were targeting people as prey . Wolves do this in the very same manner as coyotes in urban parks when targeting children . Both canids explore humans very cautiously and over a protracted time period before mounting the first, exploratory attack. This two wolves had done four days prior to Kenton’s death. They attacked a bush pilot and a geophysicist outside the camp, but the two young men beat back the wolves and photographed them. While the behavior of wolves signaled at Points North Landing a disaster waiting to happen, nobody recognized it as such even after the failed wolf attack. The belief in the harmlessness of wolves was firmly entrenched.
Ironically, while coyote biologists recognized that the smaller coyote will target people as prey, wolf biologists were denying that wolves were a danger to people. A wolf biologist in the service of the Saskatchewan coroner likewise failed to recognize that wolves, habituated to camp garbage delivery, were also targeting people .

Contd...

[Fisher-Dude]

How could one uphold the view that wolves are harmless to people, despite centuries of recorded experience to the contrary in Russia , Finland , Scandinavia, Germany , India , Afghanistan , Korea , central Asia, Turkey , Iran , France or Greenland ? In the first instance, the overwhelming experience in North America is that wolves are very shy, difficult to see creatures that avoid people. The causes of such were normally not investigated, although some authors pointed to the facts that wolves were very much prosecuted and thus rare in 20th century North America, and that North Americans are usually armed and quickly eliminated troublesome wolves. Moreover, the killing of wolves in rural settings is not newsworthy, as I can attest to from personal experience . It is thus very difficult from North American accounts to decipher the conditions when wolves are dangerous to people and when they are not.
What about Eurasian wolves? Are they different, and is their behavior thus irrelevant to an understanding of North American wolves? Or are the accounts of wolf attacks on people exaggerated and untrustworthy, and the Little Red Riding Hood fairytale by the brothers Grimm based on misunderstanding, ignorance and exaggerated fears? A respected Canadian biologist, Dr. C. H. Doug Clarke, decided to investigate . He concluded that the killing of people by wolves in Europe was real, but that rabid wolves caused all the attacks. In exonerating healthy wolves, Clarke fell back on his experience with shy Canadian continental wilderness wolves, an experience much as my own and shared by others. One can trace the origin of the “harmless wolf myth” to him . And yet Clark erred! He failed to notice the distinction in behavior between attacks by rabid and by non-rabid wolves. There are differences!
Historically, the most frightening aspect of being bitten by a rabid wolf was the certain death of the victim from rabies. In modern times quick medical intervention can save the victim. Rabid wolves, so it was noted historically, attacked swiftly with great ferocity, bit multiple victims as well as livestock and non-animate objects, and aimed their bite at the face and head of the victim. Consequently, any survivor of a wolf attack could not have been bitten by a rabid wolf. Secondly, rabid wolves do not stalk, sneak or hunt, nor complete an attack, nor drag the victim away for consumption. Yet some victims were saved just in time after having been attacked, subdued and dragged away by wolves. Therefore, these were attacks by non-rabid wolves. Such occurred with sufficient frequency that a pattern of selectivity emerged: in predatory attacks, wolves targeted primarily children . Rabid wolves made no such choice . Also, adults could escape most attacks by single wolves, but never that of a pack.
The second problem is that accounts of wolf attacks are, of course, not scientific data. They are usually reports by witnesses as recorded second hand by the police, priests, doctors and county clerks. As there were few literate persons about in past centuries many attacks must not have been reported. The records are most subjective. There is suspicion that some reports, especially in newspapers, may have been padded or are somehow not trustworthy. Whether it is so is not for scientists to decide, but for historians! Records of predation on humans require the expertise of historian scholarship to locate, verify, clarify and place into perspective. What scientist can do subsequently is to winnow such reports for patterns and trends that relate to what happens to be known about wolf biology. And our modern understanding of wolf biology has been and is changing.
However, North American wolf biologists did not seek the assistance of historians. They also faced language and cultural barriers, and were prematurely enthralled by early insights based on young captive wolves. They also had an abiding respect for Clarke’s sterling authority. Consequently, they did not investigate foreign historical material systematically. Had they done so, they would hardly have concluded that the fairytale of Little Red Riding Hood was based on ignorance, misunderstanding, malice or an exaggerated fear of wolves! Where wolves are de-facto protected by an unarmed populace, where the prey base is diminished and livestock is not abundant, wolves focus on humans – then as now – with frightening consequences. No sovereign would expend the high costs, accept the losses in economic activity or the meager results of wolf control in centuries past were it not for telling reasons .
To the above one must add two factors, the first being: the global impact of a very popular book by a famous Canadian author, Farley Mowat, depicting wolves as harmless, lovable mouse eaters. While Canadian biologists did not fall for this prank , the literati did and are still falling for it. Secondly, this book was most welcome to the Communist Party in Russia, which had systematically suppressed information about man-killing wolves since 1917, but especially during and after World War Two, in order to forestall the call for arms by the populace. So western environmentalists and eastern communists shouted with one voice praising the harmlessness of wolves. The Russian scientist Mikhail P. Pavlov disclosed the matter in a book on wolves after the fall of Communism . His work, upon translation into Norwegian, was denounced with furor leading to the responsible ministry destroying the translation. It was subsequently published in Swedish . An English translation lingered unpublished, as nobody wanted to touch it. It has recently been published .
The historical and current evidence indicates that one can live with wolves where such are severely limited in numbers on an ongoing basis, so that there is continually a buffer of wild prey and livestock between wolves and humans, with an ongoing removal of all wolves habituating to people. The current notion that wolves can be made to co-exist with people in settled landscapes (in multi-use landscapes surrounding houses, farms, villages and cities) is not tenable. Under such conditions wolves becoming territorial will confront people when such walk dogs or approach wolf-killed livestock. In addition even well fed habituated wolves will test people by approaching such, initially nipping at their clothing and licking exposed skin, before mounting a clumsy first attack that may leave victims alive but injured, followed by serious attacks. While a healthy man can fight off a lone wolf with some chances of success, a lone person cannot defeat a pack. And such killed Kenton Carnegie.



Read more: http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2008/12/29/commentary-the-dangers-of-wolves/#ixzz1fTr9UtXM

[moose2]

I think the BC MOE needs to address the wolf problem with a reward sytem to BC resident hunters. I think if you turn in a wolf to the MOE between Aug 1 and March 1 they should cut the tounge out and return the wolf to you along with a LEH moose tag of your choice for the following season, while they are avaliable. This may spark intrest in targeting wolves or at least taking the effort to harvest one if given the chance. I see it as a win ,win for BC hunters. Wolf population goes down and other animal #s increase and the successful hunters will get a LEH for thier efforts. Taxidermists may also get some wolf work that they may not have gotten without this program. After the deadline, remaining LEH authorizations will be given out under the system the same as they are now. This could be done with other threatened species as well. This is just an idea I had let me know what you think.
Mike

[Wild one]

What we need is more recruitment of trappers throwout the BC province and have permission from the owner of a trap line to trap on his or her registered trap line..

Most trappers will not let a registered trapper trap on his or her trap line like myself I would trap wolfs on someone else's trap line but I have to get wrighten permission from the trap line owner to do this..


Trappers would be a big help but the thing preventing them from trapping more wolves is the MOE has not been auctioning off inactive traplines. They are also not enforcing the rule that if you don't trap your line you loose it and because of this there are lines that people own just to have a cabin that they are not trapping. I know a good number of trappers looking for lines and because of these 2 problems they struggle to be able to find lines to buy. This should not be a problem when there are more traplines in BC than licensed trappers at this time.

If hunters want to see less wolves they should help support the trappers of BC

[cariboo crawler]

Have a look at this guys.
And we can't pack a pistol.
Just a matter of time in BC

Idaho Woman Attacked By WolfHome > Idaho Woman Attacked By Wolf

According to the information I was given, the woman in the photo below was hunting elk with bow and arrows. The wolf appeared and attacked her full on. She dropped her bow, drew her sidearm and shot the wolf in the head 10 feet from her. A couple more rounds were required to finish killing the wolf.Accompanying this photo and caption was an account of visiting hunters from out of state. Here’s what the email said:“One of my Idaho Outfitter friends hunted a group of out-of-state elk archery hunters from the Great Lakes region last week and they called in a pack of 17 wolves by cow calling. None of the hunters had a sidearm or wolf tag and it was a very traumatic experience as the wolves surrounded the hunters! All hunters went home early very disturbed claiming these wolves are very different from the Great Lakes wolves as they claimed these Idaho wolves actually “Hunt” you and were not afraid!The account came with a plea to archery elk hunters to carry a sidearm for protection, where legal.It happened Monday,Sept 26.Headquarters is a town 18 miles from my house (as the crow flies) on Idaho State Highway 11.I've done some hunting in the area,in the past.The North Idaho Correctional Institution is in Orofino.Her son works there. People we have been preaching for years now that wolves will start attacking people when their prey base runs out.Read this and tell me if it isn't a sign that things are under way William Anderson 9/27/2011 9:25 AMThis email should be read by anyone who hunts,camps,or spends any amount of time in the woods in northern Idaho.Last night I received a phone call from my mother who lives in Headquarters.She informed me that on Sunday while bow hunting she was attacked by a wolf.A few of you know that she is not your typical mother or grandmother.She has worked as a professional hunting guide for many years,so she has spent many hours in the woods.She has seen wolfs on many occasions and this is the first time one came at her.She said as soon as the wolf saw her it charged.She was able to drop her bow,draw her 44 mag. out of its holster,and put 1 round in the wolfs head at a range of a few feet.Please let any of your family and friends know of this so they can take whatever precautions needed while out in the woods.If any of you have any questions please feel free to call me. William Jeff Anderson Pre-Release Specialist North Idaho Correctional Institution

[Big Lew]

Predator/prey cycles had found a balance for thousands of years until Europeans entered into the equation. We interfered with both the prey and predator for personal gain, killing too many for furs and food. We brought in domestic animals which predators found to be an easy food source when their normal prey was scarce. We inhabited the best lowland wintering ranges for the prey, which give the predators an unfair advantage because of weaker wintering herds. Until recently, farmers, ranchers, and trappers would use poison to kill predators, killing other creatures as well. When I was a youth, it was common practice to fly over a problem area and throw strychnine-laced meat out of airplanes. Coyotes quickly learned to adjust, and many live within our communities, living off our domestic birds and animals. Poisoning is not allowed anymore and if anything, killing a few here and there only seems to make them breed and raise more pups. Scientists and researchers suggest tracking and finding dens, and sterilizing are the only efficient methods to control predator populations.

[Jagermeister]

I think the BC MOE needs to address the wolf problem with a reward sytem to BC resident hunters. I think if you turn in a wolf to the MOE between Aug 1 and March 1 they should cut the tounge out and return the wolf to you along with a LEH moose tag of your choice for the following season, while they are avaliable. This may spark intrest in targeting wolves or at least taking the effort to harvest one if given the chance. I see it as a win ,win for BC hunters. Wolf population goes down and other animal #s increase and the successful hunters will get a LEH for thier efforts. Taxidermists may also get some wolf work that they may not have gotten without this program. After the deadline, remaining LEH authorizations will be given out under the system the same as they are now. This could be done with other threatened species as well. This is just an idea I had let me know what you think.
MikeWith this in mind, the Chase & District Fish and Game Club passed this motion and would like to see it on the agenda for the upcoming BCWF convention;

Whereas there is an over abundance of wolves in the central interior of British Columbia and most notably in Region 3 and Region 5

and

Whereas this plethora of wolves is having a severe depredating impact on the populations of ungulate species in these regions; notably moose, deer, mountain caribou, big horn sheep and mountain goat

Therefore, be it resolved that as an incentive, the government immediately institute a $5.00 credit for every wolf tail surrendered by a current holder of a BC resident hunter license. Further, this credit is to be applied solely to the purchase of hunting licenses and species tags.

Hopefully it will make the agenda. Right now it is in the hands of the Shuswap regional president.

[Singleshotneeded]

Throw out a bunch of yummy chuck steaks laced with strychnine and the wolf problem should be wrapped up
pretty quickly. It'll also cut down on coyotes and foxes, so the deer and grouse will benefit too...

[moose2]

With this in mind, the Chase & District Fish and Game Club passed this motion and would like to see it on the agenda for the upcoming BCWF convention;

Whereas there is an over abundance of wolves in the central interior of British Columbia and most notably in Region 3 and Region 5

and

Whereas this plethora of wolves is having a severe depredating impact on the populations of ungulate species in these regions; notably moose, deer, mountain caribou, big horn sheep and mountain goat

Therefore, be it resolved that as an incentive, the government immediately institute a $5.00 credit for every wolf tail surrendered by a current holder of a BC resident hunter license. Further, this credit is to be applied solely to the purchase of hunting licenses and species tags.

Hopefully it will make the agenda. Right now it is in the hands of the Shuswap regional president.

I don't think a $5.00 credit would make anyone target wolves or spend the time to submit them if they did get one. Also cutting the tail off a hide that may be used as a rug dosn't seem to make sence. Thats why I thought a hand picked LEH moose tag might work. Its like the MOE saying you saved 10 moose so you can have one. I mentioned cutting off the tounge as a way of them not getting the same wolves back , yet it won't effect anyone if they want taxidermy done.
Mike

[kidconcrete]

Here are some pictures of that wolf from Idaho.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3NaS8F53Wag/TpSGYP2RKmI/AAAAAAAAAyg/iOSp9w1y5CU/s320/wolf+024.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-f-CXJ_yPjEc/TpSGYmD9hOI/AAAAAAAAAyo/5-sNXElMW14/s320/wolf+018.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3-ARak_gtMQ/TpSGZLISaEI/AAAAAAAAAyw/v8zeyTuVLdQ/s320/wolf+006.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pYn1IGOcZxg/TpSGZQHRekI/AAAAAAAAAy4/1CxlHKRuhQk/s320/wolf+004.jpg

[CanuckShooter]

Aha...I wasn't just spreading LRRH stories!! Unfortunately I fear nothing will be down about the surge of wolf packs until our wildlife is gone and some people start getting attacked. :-(

[Jagermeister]

I don't think a $5.00 credit would make anyone target wolves or spend the time to submit them if they did get one. Also cutting the tail off a hide that may be used as a rug dosn't seem to make sence. Thats why I thought a hand picked LEH moose tag might work. Its like the MOE saying you saved 10 moose so you can have one. I mentioned cutting off the tounge as a way of them not getting the same wolves back , yet it won't effect anyone if they want taxidermy done.
MikeIf the motion can get to the floor, then an amendment can be made to the original motion to increase the credit to the price of a moose tag. Pass the amendment, then pass the amended motion and it's all up to the government whether they buy in or not. I think it has a greater success of passing at the 5 buck mark. The hunter will just have to take more wolves to get a moose tag.

I had it in my mind that the guides could put up a stone sheep hunt as a prize for resident hunters. The entry would be a tail off a wolf. I have not been able to contact any one yet as Ian Scott is unavailable until the 10th. This could be implemented right at the beginning of the new year and would be in effect long before the resolution could be implemented. If they wanted, they could put a stop/gap that there would have to be a minimum number of entries, like 1000+. Of course, this is dependent on whether the guides are serious about wolves or not. They could approach the Cattlemans Association to see if that organization wanted to go in conjuction with the guides. We will see where this goes. Don't hold your breath.

[pete_k]

Dude, are you kidding? Been reading a bit too much Little Red Riding Hood?
Looks like V. Geist had it correct. No red riding hood story here. See video of large pack of wolves in urban area of Russia.
After watching this video you may reconsider that a child at a bus stop in a town or city is immune from wolf attacks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt12XGOJto0

[The Dude]

Proof of kill? A photo, the genitalia and a patch of hide. That way you can still do a rug if you like.

[The Dude]

Looks like V. Geist had it correct. No red riding hood story here. See video of large pack of wolves in urban area of Russia.
After watching this video you may reconsider that a child at a bus stop in a town or city is immune from wolf attacks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt12XGOJto0

I see a large group of similar sized canines running down a road.

[Husky7mm]

They looked like collies( lassie). Anyways if wolves are killing cows then maby we will get some preditor control after all. NBL no closed season, why on earth would you want wolves to expand into a huntable population first. Why would greenies perfer wolves ripping apart a live animal over a person quicky killing some nice organic meat. Really which one is in-humane? In nature preditors kill other preditors that is natural.
The high moose and deer popualtion of region 5 was caused by the posioning of the wolves there many years ago. The wolf numbers have just rebounded as of late. A large push by all parties should get something done. WHO DO WE BUG?

[Moose Guide]

Dude, are you kidding? Been reading a bit too much Little Red Riding Hood?

Maybe you should google wolf attacks on humans

[Moose63]

Jager;

The only problem with your theory is that you may be cutting out the grassroots hunter or a guy that can't put in the time and money to hunt wolf. Personally I find it time consuming and costly enough hunting edible game. Wolf recipes anyone??;)
I read a post where a hunter was giving away a wolf pelt and another that said it was worth $500. What gives?
I think the best approach is to publicize the available traplines, and if you have one you have to be minimally active otherwise you lose it. A trapper friend of mine mentioned that trapline availability is by word of mouth?? In the age of the internet, we should have this info at our finger tips. Seems like an old boys club.
I know nothing about trapping, but it would intrique me if the barrier to entry was low and a little profit could be made.