nodog
Junior Member
Posts: 152
|
Post by nodog on Feb 29, 2008 9:46:58 GMT -5
Well here we go... the same problem exists on both sides - we all think the other side is stacking the deck in their favor. To be honest, pictures of cut up animals does not do much for me. Gross pics have a shock value that can be negative more times than positive. The other problem is whose "experts" do we believe in? The ones that say everything is OK, or the ones that say hunting as we know it is about to be gone? Last, how do we tell what is valid and what is hype? How do you make that determination? Answer that, and the facts step forward by themselves. To just off hand renounce anyones information without checking with the known facts is wrong to do so. Sure, but both sides are using a tactic to get an agenda approved, emotion. One of the things that the English wouldn’t learn was how to fight like the revolutionaries. They tried to fight an enemy who would not show themselves to be shot at while they remained in drill formation. Sometimes it takes fire to fight fire. How do you fight an enemy that has no desire to check the facts? You’ll loose if you try. Some number of wolves in some of the national parks is probably the right thing to do. However, the numbers of wolves can not be controlled. The wolf they introduced is not the wolf that lived here before, at 150 pounds it is 50% bigger (I think I said 30% earlier, I goofed the math, from ~100 pounds to 150 pounds) Does it matter which wolf? Does the bigger wolf eat more, but is less of a hunter because of it’s size? I don’t know, but I don’t think it matters. It was just a ploy to get them their. Some number? Was there a problem before the reintroduction? No one knows how this will end up. However, to answer my above question about how do we know - we watch the numbers of big game animals and compare notes from pre-wolf to post wolf arrival. Time will provide an unbiased answer. I wonder if it will make anyone happy though... If you love seeing big game animals out there, you might not see them anymore. (In fact, Yellowstone elk and deer stay in the woods more now to make it harder for the wolves to get them. Plus, there are a lot fewer animals to begin with. If you like to hunt, there might not be much to hunt for anymore. Either way, the big game animals loose in this. People say that it is OK if the wolf kills these animals, just so long as the animals are not hunted by man. It is the wolfs nature to do so... Chief Sitting Bull said "When the buffalo are gone, we will hunt mice, for we are hunters..." At the risk of taking something out of context - I think he would have argued that it is our nature, too. I'll shut up now. Sorry. Kind of... No need to be quiet. Ever ask, What’s the big picture? Got to be a big picture. |
|
smj
Forum Guide
Traditional Council
Posts: 1,819
|
Post by smj on Feb 29, 2008 21:01:15 GMT -5
Does it matter which wolf? Does the bigger wolf eat more, but is less of a hunter because of it’s size? I don’t know, but I don’t think it matters. It was just a ploy to get them their. Some number? Was there a problem before the reintroduction? I think it does. The larger wolf is stronger, eats more, and a better killer. Therefore, I think it matters a lot, and has been totally glossed over by those who put them here. Was there a problem before? When you look at both sides, there is always a grain of truth somewhere. In this case, the ecosystem was being badly over-run in some instances. For example, Yellowstone and even here in Rocky Mountain National Park. There got to be a few to many elk/deer. (Why is that, no one answers that question. Could it have something to do with the changes in available habitat maybe?  ) The restricted acerage does not really support them all, so the idea of trying to thin out the numbers is most likely valid. Ultimately, I think the question is do we want to see big game animals or plants? Supposedly, when the correct balance is found we can have both. OK. Once we all buy in to the idea that there is a problem to look at, we get to the question of controling one or more aspects of the system. I agree to some extent that shooting animals in the park system might not float with some individuals. OK. What else might we do? Bring in animals that have never been native, are bigger than ever, to environments that have change an almost infinate amount, and release these animals without any check in place. You can control hunters. You can not control wolves. Once again, one problem makes yet another? Again, time will tell. |
|
royden
Senior Board Member
Posts: 1,349
|
Post by royden on Mar 1, 2008 9:20:22 GMT -5
where did the info come from on the introduced wolf not being the same as the original? Agreed that a 150# dog eats a whole lot more than a 100# dog due to their metabolism (and they eat a lot more than cat too). I have yet to find it but a study done here in MT for 12 years tracked cats down in the Garnet's. One tom would eat only elk; consume 30-50#'s or so in two days then go look for females in heat. Ten days later he would return to his haunts and kill another elk for his two week meal. Wolves eat that much every two to three days I've been told.  I agree the parks have a two part overpopulation problem. No predators in the parks and lots of summer graze. Winter is the population control (without predators) and there is little winter graze in the high elev. parks so the elk and bison head out of the park onto private lands and get slaughtered by late season hunts trying to thin the population. Remember Nodog - were not fighting the english ... were fighting ourselves. And really we are fighting for the votes of the undecided middle ground people - might as well give up trying to sway the minds of the majority of anti's; let their negativism work against them. The big picture is the american mindset. "There is a problem and we caused it - now how do we fix it quickly." That mindset has gotton us into a lot of hot water in various arena's. I only see education of the middle ground people and lawmakers as the cure. |
|
smj
Forum Guide
Traditional Council
Posts: 1,819
|
Post by smj on Mar 1, 2008 14:34:25 GMT -5
It would appear I have been spewing forth potentially slanderous statements about our current, and most beloved, grey wolf. My apologies to everyone... Mr. and Mrs. Wolf... When I went to find the "facts" to prove that this current grey wolf is not the same as grey wolves of the past - I can not come up with any convincing data. It is alluded to on the anti-wolf sites, and totally avoided on the pro-wolf sites. My original assumption, read that as stacking the deck for myself if you will but know that it was not intentional, was based on data from Theodore Roosevelt, his book "Outdoor Pastimes of an American Hunter" - page 104, where it is stated that big timber wolves run from 97 pounds down to the size of the coyote. (copyright 1893) The original posting for this thread, the second slide, puts the current grey wolf at an estimated 150#s. Knowing the wolf came from Canada, and also from a general statement that wolves increase in size as you progress north (which might also be in error - although consider the arctic wolf...) led me to believe what I presented. (Note, the arctic wolf, male, can run 175 pounds. See the data presented in: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Wolf ) For the grey wolf, wikipedia states that the wolf can run from 20 to 68 kilograms - which is right at 150 pounds. Also that there are many subspecies, but the actual number of these is still under debate - hence, any wolf living north of the mexican wolf is a grey wolf. All one big happy family. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_WolfAnother site, wolf country, states the following: www.wolfcountry.net/information/WolfObserved.html#size"Most of the adult grey wolves weigh in the vicinity of 75 to 125 pounds (34 to 56 kilograms). Males are usually larger than females by as much as twenty-five percent. There are authenticated records of male wolves weighing as much as 175 pounds (79 kilograms)." This must certainly include the arctic wolf in the data points... If you can believe what wikipedia says in the above links, hence, once again - all one big happy family. My mistake. Should I remove, or modify my past postings? nodog - it appears you are correct, what does it matter what wolf. These could be arctic wolves that have been moved in, it would not matter as these are all one big happy family of the grey wolf... |
|
nodog
Junior Member
Posts: 152
|
Post by nodog on Mar 1, 2008 14:59:24 GMT -5
Education is always a good thing I think, if it is looked at from a third person perspective. I don't think the big picture is the way you see it. We are part of a larger world. There is plenty of info to support the fact that man can thin a herd out quickly and he doesn't need a collar to keep track of him.  If there was an over population and I doubt it, hunters could have easily taken care of it and paid for it like we do now. So, there was no problem, just mismanagement. The English statement was just my attempt to justify using the emotional plea instead of the facts, if the emotional plea is all people will respond to, and it seems to be the case. Long term it isn't good IMO. Case in point. For a long time religion was in charge of schools and discouraged/kept out others. The bias used is now used against it, fear of... was the tool. Fear of religion is now the tool. It's their own fault they are now pushed out. To use biased info to sway people will be used against them. Gun control is the same. Started by gun owners/slave owners who wanted the limit the freedom of others/slaves. Fear of armed slaves. We were a new way of doing things, supposedly. We took up where England left off. They had gun control laws against us and why, fear of us. What happened to them here! The pictures of animals used in this thread cause people to view such things with disdain. What will happen when the wolf is the victim of the hunter in the same kind of picture? Cool info on the cat. Pretty much what I thought, eating and breeding. ;D |
|
nodog
Junior Member
Posts: 152
|
Post by nodog on Mar 1, 2008 15:05:25 GMT -5
It would appear I have been spewing forth potentially slanderous statements about our current, and most beloved, grey wolf. My apologies to everyone... Mr. and Mrs. Wolf... When I went to find the "facts" to prove that this current grey wolf is not the same as grey wolves of the past - I can not come up with any convincing data. It is alluded to on the anti-wolf sites, and totally avoided on the pro-wolf sites. My original assumption, read that as stacking the deck for myself if you will but know that it was not intentional, was based on data from Theodore Roosevelt, his book "Outdoor Pastimes of an American Hunter" - page 104, where it is stated that big timber wolves run from 97 pounds down to the size of the coyote. (copyright 1893) The original posting for this thread, the second slide, puts the current grey wolf at an estimated 150#s. Knowing the wolf came from Canada, and also from a general statement that wolves increase in size as you progress north (which might also be in error - although consider the arctic wolf...) led me to believe what I presented. (Note, the arctic wolf, male, can run 175 pounds. See the data presented in: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Wolf ) For the grey wolf, wikipedia states that the wolf can run from 20 to 68 kilograms - which is right at 150 pounds. Also that there are many subspecies, but the actual number of these is still under debate - hence, any wolf living north of the mexican wolf is a grey wolf. All one big happy family. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_WolfAnother site, wolf country, states the following: www.wolfcountry.net/information/WolfObserved.html#size"Most of the adult grey wolves weigh in the vicinity of 75 to 125 pounds (34 to 56 kilograms). Males are usually larger than females by as much as twenty-five percent. There are authenticated records of male wolves weighing as much as 175 pounds (79 kilograms)." This must certainly include the arctic wolf in the data points... If you can believe what wikipedia says in the above links, hence, once again - all one big happy family. My mistake. Should I remove, or modify my past postings? nodog - it appears you are correct, what does it matter what wolf. These could be arctic wolves that have been moved in, it would not matter as these are all one big happy family of the grey wolf... It's the net LOL ;D Great info!  |
|
smj
Forum Guide
Traditional Council
Posts: 1,819
|
Post by smj on Mar 1, 2008 15:13:37 GMT -5
So, there was no problem, just mismanagement. This statement could start a whole new thread! ;D |
|
royden
Senior Board Member
Posts: 1,349
|
Post by royden on Mar 1, 2008 18:45:50 GMT -5
;D  smj - I was only curious about the diffences in the wolves - not prodding!! I had heard before that they were different, but like you could not find anything concrete. I kinda suspect the wolves we used to have were in between the two. Kinda like antelope, deer or elk - depending on where you go they have different body sizes. Bottom line is they eat a lot, kill very effectivly and often. nodog - I agree on education and not taking it personally. However the big picture as being the world? I dunno. 1 billion indians, 1 billion or more chinese, lots of third world countries - and not one single one of 'em would be reintroducing a predator like the wolf. American's would however. Who do we blame for the indians problems - ourselves; who do we blame for vietnams problems - ourselves; who do we blame for the blacks problems - ourselves; who do we blame for global warming - ourselves. The list just goes on ... and there is truth to some of it but not to the degree we take responsability and then jump to assumptions on the "fix". |
|
smj
Forum Guide
Traditional Council
Posts: 1,819
|
Post by smj on Mar 1, 2008 20:46:33 GMT -5
;D smj - I was only curious about the diffences in the wolves - not prodding!! I had heard before that they were different, but like you could not find anything concrete. I kinda suspect the wolves we used to have were in between the two. Kinda like antelope, deer or elk - depending on where you go they have different body sizes. Bottom line is they eat a lot, kill very effectivly and often. I think it very convenient that all wolves from the east coast to the west coast to arctic are all defined as being a "grey wolf" by those to who want so badly to re-introduce them, and that subspecies is as yet undecided. And by the way - I didn't feel as though anyone was prodding at all. Rather, this is a valid question that I had assumed an answer for - to be honest I was well on my way to being a part of the problem, rather than the side of logic and reason. It does make me wonder though, if the lack of subspecies definition is not due to the grand plans of reintroduction... A wolf is a wolf therefore any old wolf will do, keep it vague so no one can make a legal claim? I think somewhere, someone, knows. Although, control of the predator population and assuring huntable numbers of big game animals is probably the biggest question as this point! Then again, maybe we have nothing to fear, maybe this will all work out just right all by itself. Time will not lie. |
|
nodog
Junior Member
Posts: 152
|
Post by nodog on Mar 2, 2008 8:24:27 GMT -5
This is off topic but not. Unless your a speed reader and very good at it, education takes a long time. Having an answer, a good one takes a long time. I personally would rather come across it than look for it and that happens for me by just reading history books. Old ones are best for me because they are sort of from a third person, the times were different so the bias is not typically one I'm controlled by, typically. Man really is just about as predictable as the wolf and very much like them.
That's the long way of saying I bought another last night at the local coffee shop. People can drop off all and any books they have and get a little credit. Thousands of those books people bought and never read, vintage books.
:The American Past" by Rodger Butterfield 1947.
WOW! I've read enough of it in the past so I don't say to myself anymore "unbelievable". "The good old days", what a joke. I haven't read anything about the 4 legged wolves yet. The 2 legged wolves have never needed reintroduction here, matter of fact they are still running the show, doing the same thing, slaughtering the same sheep.
Get out and read some history books everybody, then again it might just be better to eat, drink and be merry, the deck is stacked.
If ya care too, look up Shays' rebellion. Good old General George wasn't going to put up with any revolutionary spirit in his country.
"We the people" that's a good one.
|
|
) The restricted acerage does not really support them all, so the idea of trying to thin out the numbers is most likely valid. Ultimately, I think the question is do we want to see big game animals or plants? Supposedly, when the correct balance is found we can have both. OK. Once we all buy in to the idea that there is a problem to look at, we get to the question of controling one or more aspects of the system. I agree to some extent that shooting animals in the park system might not float with some individuals. OK. What else might we do? Bring in animals that have never been native, are bigger than ever, to environments that have change an almost infinate amount, and release these animals without any check in place. You can control hunters. You can not control wolves. Once again, one problem makes yet another?
If there was an over population and I doubt it, hunters could have easily taken care of it and paid for it like we do now. So, there was no problem, just mismanagement.
