‘Shoot’ remark was unnerving

During a talk in Spokane, Washington given by the director of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Department about how budget cuts were affecting the department the subject of wolves came up and then things got ugly.

A response blurted out from the middle of the room:

“Why don’t we shoot some legislators?” a man said.

‘Shoot’ remark was unnerving.
Rich Landers – The Spokesman-Review

83 Responses to “‘Shoot’ remark was unnerving”

  1. jon Says:

    Thanks for posting this Ken. This shows you how extreme some wolf haters are getting. Not only do some of them want to eradicate wolves all over again, now they are saying about we shoot some legislators. This may have been a joke on the hunter’s a part. Maybe he was being dead serious, who knows for sure.

  2. Brian Ertz Says:

    “unnerving” ??? Try: Standard.

    This, atop Rex Rammell’s “Obama Tags” comment, atop any number of additional public and private instances of allusion to violence demonstrates that this type of rhetoric can’t be attributed to some outliers – it’s a part of the culture, a part of their narrative.

    • ProWolf in WY Says:

      People who are joking about things like that need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And I’m not saying this in defense of wolves but in general.

      • jon Says:

        The problem is there are so many gun nuts in the usa. When the gun nuts, in this case the wolf hating gun nuts don’t get their way, they start throwing around threats like “sss” when it comes to wolves or in this case at the meeting, how about we shoot some legislators. The opposite they love to threaten simply because things aren’t going their way.

      • howlcolorado Says:

        And enter the 1st Amendment…

        And so it continues…

      • jon Says:

        http://www.thelocal.se/31436/20110114/

        Things are getting real dangerous. More and more people are being disgusted because hunters are killing wolves.

      • JB Says:

        People say a lot of things when they are extremely upset that don’t accurately reflect their intentions. I will not defend these actions; however, rather than prosecute people (which is not likely, and probably not desirable in many cases), they should be shouted down by their peers. People need to understand that such rhetoric is inappropriate no matter how pissed off they are.

      • Daniel Berg Says:

        JB,

        I think there are a lot of people who don’t speak up about this kind of stuff in rural areas because they don’t want to damage themselves socially. I’m sure it’s a lot to risk when it comes to wolves.

  3. Immer Treue Says:

    This is more an observation than a “comment.” Electronic messaging does not convey tone of thought.

    Whether there exists an anti-hunting movement in this country or not, the SSS and gut shooting proponents, and these loose cannons are all that is required to give all hunters, and that includes all the good ethical hunters a bad name in the eyes of the general public.

  4. howlcolorado Says:

    Here’s the most interesting part, even without the external current events in Arizona.

    And it’s the reality which these people live in.

    They live in a world without wolves, or a world without black people, or a world without jewish people, or a world without liberals, or a world without people who don’t believe in the same God that you do. Whatever it is they fear the most, they envision and perceive the world through that filter, and within that very limited and self-defined reality.

    While they may not be delusional to the point that they think they can force the world to fit into that reality, they certainly fantasize that they can and in some cases, they act in a way to try and make their fantasy a reality.

    So, is the outburst unnerving? Only in so much as it recommended a specific, and violent solution to cracks appearing in a very specific, and self-centered delusional reality.

    That someone can’t comprehend a situation which is outside of their reality? That is all too commonplace.

    Indeed, these realities can become less self-centered, and become the unifying philosophy behind which a false reality CAN be fully, and completely implemented. I am sure you can think of several examples.

    If social networking has demonstrated one thing, at least in the western world, there are many who believe this is their world, and you just live in it… though they would prefer you didn’t.

    • Nancy Says:

      Ran into a sheep rancher today while in town running errands (known this man for years, but seldom had much of a conversation with him other than the usual “hi, how are you”) But I found myself in a slow simmer where he made a derogatory comment (to the owner of the busniness I was in) and questioned why “we” should be honoring Martin Luther King with a holiday.

      I looked at him and said ” I liked the man and what he tried to stand for” and then I said (knowing full well where the conversation would go from there) ” I also happen to like wolves”

      WOW! Right away I got a look of astonishment and then a speech about the “200 lb.” wolves, roaming around in packs…….. ranchers are now having to deal with in this area (Montana) He cited numerous livestock losses to wolves on his ranch. I asked what he was doing to prevent those losses and got another look of astonishment (instead of an answer) and, another speech on how “we will all suffer” if he’s “forced” to go out of business because of wolves.

      The final blow (and pretty much the end to our discussion) came when he went on to tell me about how awful it is when it comes to wolves and their methods when taking down prey (or, their livestock left unattended) So I had to ask if he’d ever been to a slaughterhouse?

      Out of sight, out of mind……………..

      • william huard Says:

        There was a book written by Olsen in the 1970s entitled “Slaughter the Animals, Poison the Earth. The book explains this rancher mindset of it’s us against the world mentality where they look at any and all predators as the enemy, and a common rancher mantra was ‘ those wolves will drive me out of business”. Many of these ranchers were very wealthy and never were in danger of going out of business. The point was always to try and draw sympathy to their plight of downtrodden rancher about to go under.

      • jon Says:

        You think the people who live there with the wolves would know most about them, but most of them (specifically the wolf haters and ranchers alike) have no clue about them. The 200 pound wolves running around prove that. It’s like people make these things up on purpose just because of their deep hatred for wolves. I would not be surprised if a good deal of them are racist as well. They probably think anyone that is different than me is my enemy. If you don’t ranch or kill wildlife with your gun, you are my enemy.

      • jon Says:

        Nancy, I give you a lot of credit. It takes some courage to tell a wolf hater you like wolves. You must feel somewhat alone in your views on wolves. Maybe I’m wrong, but I take it most of your neighbors are probably ranchers and hunters and I bet 99% of them hate wolves. Am I close?

      • Elk275 Says:

        ++So I had to ask if he’d ever been to a slaughterhouse?++

        Most ranchers over the years have slaughtered pigs, sheep, chickens and cattle on the ranch. I do not think that a slaughter house would affect a rancher. How is one going to get their Big Mac or a steak with out a slaughter house.

        Why should a rancher have to protect his livestock today differently today on his private property than he had to in 1990, because a segment of the populous wants wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains. It takes times and money.

        After reading this forum for several years, I feel that wolves should be protected on federal lands and the state can decide what they want to do with wolves on private and states lands. And if you do not want this to happen why don’t you try to prevent wolves from leaving federal property the same as a rancher should be proactive with their livestock. It would cost you time and money — we both know that it would not work out.

      • jon Says:

        This is one thing that makes no sense. Why do some complain about the wolves methods of taking/killing pray? Don’t they realize all they have is their teeth to kill? Any wild predator that kills pray is going to seem inhumane and barbaric to us, but that is how nature is. Why can’t they see that? Faulting wolves for using their teeth to kill does not make a lot of sense.

      • Ralph Maughan Says:

        While there are exceptions, it is my observation that a large percentage of ranchers do not love their cattle, sheep or dogs, as individual animals nearly to the degree they tell the media.

        Yes, they love the fact that they own property, and they love their property, but I think the comments about what the “vicious” predators did to their poor animals is often just a way to manipulate urban sentiment where seeing a ripped apart sheep or badly mauled and dead dog is a shock because they imagine them as pets.

      • howlcolorado Says:

        I could spend hours discussing the parallels between racism and the hatred of wolves. The human mind is fascinating, particularly in its ability to deny the truth in favor of a delusion.

        However, here’s the basic fact…

        Whether it’s racism, wolf-hatred, or hate of liberals…it all comes from one place. Fear.

        Hate is just the true, and natural, manifestation of fear. If you fear nothing, you hate nothing. You don’t hate spiders if you can happily pick them up and put them outside. You don’t hate wolves if you fully understand them and have no fear of them.

        Fear has friends. Ignorance and stupidity.

        To maintain the level of fear and hatred necessary, you must deny all evidence that does not support your position. There has never been a 200lb wolf in North America. The largest was 179lbs. 150lbs is very rare, and in the Northern Rockies, the food and ecosystem is not conducive to massive wolves and so most won’t ever get above 110-120lbs. But these facts will just be denied and instead they will only believe their own eyes and look at a photo of a dead wolf (whether photoshopped or not) and say: “That sure looks like a 200lb wolf to me.”

        If you ask one of these people how many livestock are killed by wolves each year, you can assume they will claim losses of their own, and by doing the math, this will stretch into the thousands for livestock deaths. The government numbers don’t mean anything, and to discount this evidence they will claim that the government is either covering up the truth, or “them folks don’t know what they are talking about.”

        This stretches to wolf populations. It’s not 1,700 wolves in the entire region, it’s 1,700 wolves on THEIR ranch! Okay, that’s an exaggeration, but they should certainly start up a wolf-watching business since there always seems to be a pack taking up residence on their property…

        If you present the fact that wolf attacks are incredibly rare, and that fatal wolf attacks are relatively speaking, almost unheard of… you will be countered by anecdotal evidence. The fact that you don’t know of a wolf attack, doesn’t mean they don’t happen, and they’ll have heard stories you wouldn’t believe… probably because they didn’t happen.

        Do they REALLY think that wolves will put them out of business? I would like to think not. There are many threats to their livestock, and wolves are not only a threat that can be deterred, but it’s not even a threat that high up on the list. It is as William mentioned. They would rather find a scapegoat, and use it to leverage action in terms of handouts and subsidies.

        So you are facing an inbred cynicism – and you are facing fear. Irrational, yet self-perpetuating fear.

        Jon, they don’t want to learn about wolves because it’s their ignorance which they can use to fuel that fear.

        Remember, the livestock industry tricked the US Government into killing all the wolves for them before. Why change the playbook, perhaps they will do it again. And with Wildlife Services out there, I certainly wouldn’t rule it out.

      • jon Says:

        Ralph, I agree. Some ranchers don’t give a shit about their cattle. When their cattle is killed by predators, they could careless about the cattle. What they are angry with is they lost some profit.

  5. Daniel Berg Says:

    Yeah, those two packs really must be soaking up the WDFW budget.

    • william huard Says:

      Jon
      Ranchers do not embrace change they are afraid of it.

    • jon Says:

      From some strange reason, the washington hunters believe the wolves are going to kill off all of the game animals. Look at states like Oregon and Washington just to name two, both states have very few wolves compared to other states with wolves and these 2 states have many more mountain lions than wolves and not a peep from the hunters about the mountain lion population. It’s always the small population of wolves that they think is going to wipe out all of the game.

      • Elk275 Says:

        Jon there are peeps from hunters in both states about mountain loins, just read what you do not want to read. The only effective way to hunt mountain loins is with dogs and Portland and Seattle have voted against the use of hounds. But wait, if one is going to study lions then they have to use hounds to tree the loin and collar it. My brother’s girlfriend is in Wyoming doing a mountain loin study and they use dogs everyday. In my 50 plus years in wild country I have only seen one mountain loin in the wild, will it was on the rim rocks in Billings, Mountana in fourth grade.

      • Daniel Berg Says:

        Jon,

        Most of the hunters I have spoken to in Washington about wolves are just recycling information they have heard from fellow hunters, hunting forums, friends from rural areas in NRM states, etc.

        Probably the same different collection of opinions as can be found in hunters from NRM states, just more of it being second or third hand.

      • Jay Says:

        Mmmmmm, mountain loins are delicious!

      • howlcolorado Says:

        “Mmmmmm, mountain loins are delicious!”

        That’s interesting, because from what I have heard, trolls are not.

      • Jay Says:

        Lighten up Francis, it was good natured ribbing.

      • Elk275 Says:

        I understand mountain lion is very good meat. I do not care to eat it. I do love shellfish, clams and osters. It took a brave man to eat the first oster, shimp, lobster or crab. I

      • Save bears Says:

        Personally,

        Cooked properly, Mt. Lion meat is very good. I have no problem with it at all..

        Now. Oysters and such, not on the top of me list!

      • SEAK Mossback Says:

        Lynx is actually quite good eating. It along with beaver tail were served at Athabaskan potlatches in the George Hall in Nenana when I lived there in the early 60s. I have to agree about shellfish. We keep a crab pot in front of the house that seldom gets baited or it gets excessively packed with big male dungies. We occasionally run a string of spots out into the channel for coonstripe shrimp and I’ll be digging a bucket of cockles on a minus 3.6 tide Friday evening while, if the weather is calm, my wife and the dog will be hunting weathervane scallops along the tide line with a flashlight and rake. You have to use a little care about it though. None of our clam beds are tested and a local woman died of paralytic shellfish poisoning from eating cockles this past summer and another guy who got it from eating dungeness crab viscera died later in the day after being discharged from the hospital, although they said the actual cause of death was a heart attack. Only dig in months with “r” in them, and better to skip the fall and spring, particularly September and October, and pass over the butter clams.

      • Craig Says:

        Selective ignorance Jon, that’s what you promote! If you had a clue it would matter but again……….and again….. and again………and again same old shit not having a clue!

      • Elk275 Says:

        ++We keep a crab pot in front of the house that seldom gets baited or it gets excessively packed with big male dungies. ++

        What is the meaning of that phase. Are male dungies not good eating and why would you not want a all the crabs you could have in your pot? Isn’t there a 6 inch across the shell rule?

        I can eat 3 dungies at a sitting and could eat dungies 2 to 3 times a week. Crab was $3.99 a pound the other day and 2 dungies cost about $12 to $14, I can not afford to eat it but several times a year. Nothing I love better than crab, clams, scallop, halibut, salmon, cockles, musseles and octopus.

      • Peter Kiermeir Says:

        I always feel bewildered by the western american gastronomic culture. Just read this blog over the years and you learn of people eating bear and lion. It took some time until finally a coyote recipe showed up. Now somebody mentioned eating Lynx. I´m still waiting for wolf, but who knows? And I always thought about the French and the Chinese to devour everything with legs (regardless how many……) :-))

      • SEAK Mossback Says:

        Elk275 –
        I love crab, but wouldn’t if I had to eat it 7 days a week. I give a few away and turn some loose but once they’ve been going in the pot for awhile it seems to get “seasoned” and they will keep marching in, although not as quickly, even without bait. I don’t like to hold them too long. I’ve got a salmon head in now because they are much less active in the winter and need a little more inducement. A dollar bill across the carapace makes an excellent guage for legal size, but I don’t keep any that are remotely close to the size limit and catch very few that small anyway. Also, for some reason I rarely catch females, which are also protected. The king crab personal use fishery is open right now, a real treat, but they run in herds a little farther out so its definitely more work whether you use rings or pots (which are considerably larger than dungie pots and pulled from greater depth) and I don’t have a power pot puller.

      • JimT Says:

        SEAK,

        If you ever feel like giving away some D’ness crab, by all means, let me know, and I will provide you an address and pay for shipping.:*) One of my all time favorite meals..I miss the days we used to drive to the coast from Eugene, and get crab off the boats, steam them, and have them with some good bread, salad and white wine watching the sunset…Not a bad way to decompress from the insanity of law school..

      • Ann Sydow Says:

        Oregon and Washington are already complaining about their very few wolves because the Mother Goose followers here in Idaho have been been trying to incite panic there as well.

  6. Nancy Says:

    Jon – not sure I would associate the word hate to what some are trying to come to grips with now when it comes to the reintroduction of wolves.

    The past in this part of the country managed to exterminate most threats to their livelyhoods and the offspring of that past (fast forward) to the present, doesn’t want to acknowledge or accept, any kind of introduction of a species capable of re-creating the headaches of the past, regardless of the scientific benefits outside their little kingdoms.

  7. NotafanofWW2 Says:

    This statement was on Black Bear Blog in the comments section of an anti-wolf article in December. It got reported to USFW, Capitol Police and the FBI. This was nearly a month before the Tucson tragedy.

    Chandie Bartell wrote:
    “There�s a lot I can� say on this blog, due to the other side reading it. I hope finally we are getting legislatures that will quit waiting for the �uprising� of the people and come to our assistance to protect their political positions. If our legislatures don�t start standing with us there will and could be violence.”

    Chandie Batell is a member of Scott Rockholm’s Wolf Watch 2 group.

  8. Mtn Mama Says:

    Howl,
    “There has never been a 200lb wolf in North America. ”
    I agree with all of your points except this one. Ever heard of the now extinct “Dire Wolf”? They evolved on the North American continent and averaged 240lbs, though they have been extinct for approximately 10,000 yrs now. Maybe there are Dire Wolves making a comeback in the Northern Rockies…..

    • jon Says:

      Hi Mtn mama, dire wolves averaged around 150 pounds, not 240 pounds. The way some hunters talk about the weights and sizes of wolves today, you’d think we would have some dire wolves amongst us, but no, they are all gone sadly. Hunters underestimate the true size and weights of the wolves today. They look at them with all that fur and assume they are 200 pounds. tHEY DO this with bears as well.

      • Craig Says:

        Yeah you would know! Ever shot a Bear or seen a dead wolf? You must be an expert on it sitting in a apartment reading msn all day! How the hell would you know anything about it?
        You have never seen it,experienced it or nothing but now you are an authority on it? Jon you are so blinded by this obsession it makes you a complete looney!
        Do you even realize your insanity or are you that far gone? You are like the guy in the Movie Seven but just Obsessed with Carnivores instead of the 7 deadly sins.

      • Elk275 Says:

        ++Hunters underestimate the true size and weights of the wolves today. They look at them with all that fur and assume they are 200 pounds. tHEY DO this with bears as well.++

        John it is overestimates not underestimates. If hunter underestimates wolves and assume that they are 200 pounds, then it is possible that there could be 300 to 400 pound wolves.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        Craig,

        In defense of Jon, and this is without rancor. I have 95lb German Shepherd. Folks always estimate his weight at 115 to 125lb. Throw in a wolf, with a larger head and longer legs, and a much thicker Winter coat and walla 150lbs is imaginable, but decidedly wrong.

        In Denali, folks were fairly consistent in overestimating grizzly bear weight.

      • jon Says:

        Thanks elk, that was a typo.

      • Elk275 Says:

        Jon

        I make more than you make. Several of mind have been difficult to correct.

      • jon Says:

        IT, the problem is none of these hunters who are claiming there are 200 pound wolves have ever weighed a wolf because if they did, they would see they are much smaller than that. You can see a wolf and come to any conclusion you want about how much you think they weigh, but unless you truly weigh a wolf, you can’t be certain. I was reading some comment section on a wolf article and one guy, I believe he was from Idaho said that the wolves are 300 pounds. The people who make these outrageous claims up clearly have never weighed a wolf. Most of the hunters who killed their wolf during last wolf hunting season know very well there wolf was much smaller than what some claim out there.

      • jon Says:

        Did your dad ever end up getting his antelope elk?

      • jon Says:

        http://www.wc.adfg.state.ak.us/index.cfm?adfg=wildlife_news.view_article&articles_id=63&issue_id=5

        iT, check out that website.

        “Martinez couldn’t believe it when Hollis told him his bear probably weighed only about 150 pounds. It took him and a friend 2 1/2 hours to carry it a mile back to the road after lashing it to a pole, Martinez said.

        But then, most hunters tend to overestimate the size and weight of their bears they shoot, Hollis said.

        “Normally they’re all six-footers,” Hollis said with a grin. “They’re all about 100 pounds heavier than they actually are.”

      • Elk275 Says:

        Jon

        My father is 86 years old, overweight, one bad knee and one knee replacement. He and I did not get an antelope.

        One week later he went with my nephew, his grandson. A few minutes after sunrise they spotted deer and he got out of the truck with his walking stick. My nephew came around the front of the truck and handed him my Kimber 7MM — 08, one shot 250 to 300 yards through the heart off hand. My nephew, the grandson gutted the buck and they loaded up in the truck and off they went.

        One half hour later they came upon a small herd of antelope and he repeated the scenario again, one shot through the heart 250 to 300 yards off hand. Two shots, two animals. Both the deer and antelope with given away and the antelope has been eaten and the other party is working on the deer.

        It was working on ranches during the depression, World 2 and OCS that prepared him for today. After each shot there would be a beep on my cell phone with a new picture. I am very proud of my father. He is talking about deer, antelope and elk this fall and we are going to get it done at 87.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        jon,
        Sorry so late responding, but yes, I have seen that photo before. And it looks as though it has popped up all over this blog. Whether photo shopped, creatively photographed, or having someone of short stature holding the wolf, I would presume that it is nothing more than an attempt at sensationalism apprpriate for The Nationl Enquirer.

    • howlcolorado Says:

      I believe they were closer to 175lbs (though perhaps they got bigger). They weren’t really much “bigger” than gray wolves, but they were quite different.

      If you think about a pit bull or a mastiff and then think of a german shephard, this does a pretty good job of showing the comparison between a gray wolf and a dire wolf.

      They are thought to have been stocky creatures, bulky and with short legs and massive heads and teeth. Evolutionarily speaking, they seemed to be poor hunters and perhaps were more scavangers. Gray wolves were faster, better hunters, and had larger brains. The fact that they lived side-by-side is interesting, but clearly the darwinistic natural selection was always going to favor gray wolves.

      However, since we can’t weigh an extinct animal, I could stick with my statement, but for clarity, let’s re-word it to say “there has never been a 200lb gray wolf in North America.”

      I could still be wrong, abberations happen, we just have never recorded it.

      • jon Says:

        Some sites said 150 pounds on average and another one said 240, so mt. mama may be correct. I’ll go with 150 on average and some got as big as 240. Depending on what site you are looking at, let’s just say anywhere from 150 to 250 pounds for arguments sake. Gray wolves are clearly smaller than dire wolves, but the way some talk of the wolves size and weights today, you’d think we would have dire wolves amongst us. What I don’t like is hunters looking at a wolf without weighing it and just making up any number. This is not the correct nor right way to determine’s a wolf’s true weight. This is what a hunter tried to do a few months ago when wolf hunting season as going on in Idaho. He killed a wolf and said it was 180 pounds without ever weighing it. Turns out the wolf was a little over 120 pounds. A lot of people overestimate the size and weights of some animals.

      • jon Says:

        I emailed Val geist a while ago and he said recolonizing wolves could reach 200 pounds absolutely. These were his exact words. he also said the largest wolf ever killed was in the Ukraine and it was 212 pounds. Is there any way of finding out if this is true or not? You gotta be careful when hearing folklore stories about wolves when it comes out of Russia or the Ukraine. They like some here probably have a tendency to exaggerate quite a bit when it comes to wolves.

  9. timz Says:

    SOFIA — A grey wolf shot dead in northwestern Bulgaria and reported to be the biggest wolf ever recorded at 80 kilograms (176.4 pounds) actually fell far below this weight, an independent expert told Agence France-Presse Thursday.

    “The male beast that was shot dead on December 30 near the town of Brusartzi weighed 48 kilograms,” Hunting Association chief Mihail Boyadzhiev told Agence France-Presse.

    The heaviest wolf on record weighed 175 pounds (79.4 kilos), according to The International Wolf Center in Ely in the US state of Minnesota.

    That was an animal shot dead in east-central Alaska in 1939, said Andrea Lorek Strauss from the centre, who added that she was investigating whether there were any heavier wolves recorded outside the United States.

    • jon Says:

      http://thegreatwhitehunter.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/drayton-valley-wolf-230-lb-record-smasher/

      About this “230 pounder”? I bet my life this wolf was well under 200 pounds. I bet this wolf didn’t even weigh over 150 pounds. Zoom in your camera and you can make any wolf appear to be much bigger than what it really is. The hunter also appears to not be having any trouble holding the “230 pound” wolf up.

      • Idaho Dave Says:

        I too doubt it is 230#, however it is far larger than my 80 Chesapeake!

        I couldn’t find the report again, but I saw a summary about the wolves in Idaho that were shot during the 2009-2010 hunting season.

        The average male weight was 127#, he listed the largest which was over 150# but i can’t the actual weight. Remember average, so an adult alpha male is going to be a very large critter indeed.

        The average female was only 79#, big difference, but still remember average weight.

      • timz Says:

        127 was not the average male weight it was the largest.

        “Harvested wolves ranged in size from 54 to 127 pounds – males averaged 100 pounds, and females averaged 79 pounds. Of the wolves taken, 58 percent were male, and 15 percent were juveniles less than one year old.”

      • timz Says:

        I have posted this before about that picture, it’s been around awhile with a lot of different stories as to how and where it was shot. It was posted in our local grocery store for a while with a caption that it was shot near Sun Valley while killing sheep. You can also find several articles where it is de-bunked by photographers as a fake.

      • jon Says:

        I found this hogwash on ww2.

        wolf depredation between our former resident wolves and the introduced Canadian
        > Grey Wolf, let me attempt to clarify some of the historical issues that
        > surround the work done by several counties in Idaho to document the Resident
        > Wolves in the late 1980’s.
        > Starting in the early l980’s attempts were being made by several Wildlife
        > Agencies including Idaho Fish and Game and US Fish and Wildlife Services to
        > locate and monitor large predator species that were considered “threatened”
        > or “endangered”. A program was started to send questionaires to trappers and
        > hunters asking for help in locating these animals, and signs were posted in
        > public offices around the state seeking input from the public to determine if
        > any of these species remained in the state and if so how many individuals were
        > there. These programs came to be known as “The Wolf and Wolverine Hotlines”. In
        > reality there was a phone number to call that put you in contact with members
        > of Idaho Fish and Game who would take the details of the public’s sightings of
        > these rare animals.
        > It was in response to these efforts that counties in Central Idaho began
        > to respond by sending correspondence and sightings to the Agencies involved. As
        > the years passed in the 1980’s a significant amount of data was collected by
        > trappers, hunters, and Fish and Game officers to warrant full time research and
        > monitoring of these species. As criterion to use for observing these species
        > county residents were asked to look for numbers of individuals, sex, age, size
        > of territory and behavioral qualities such as secretiveness, and recruitment
        > numbers of young.
        > During approximatley twelve years time, 1984-1995, much data using these
        > criteria for observing Resident Wolves was collected and maps of the wolves
        > territories and packs were created. During these years of observation, very
        > consistent and difinitive behavioral and social traits became evident as this
        > variety of wolf was observed. These traits would become all important in
        > determining what the habitat and prey base this variety of wolf would need and
        > the impacts it would have on our ungulate populations. A very important
        > contribution to our ability to compare our variety of wolf to the introduced
        > Canadian Grey Wolf was also a result of these years of observing the Resident
        > Wolves in their prefered habitats.
        > I will list the criterion used by the individuals involved in collecting
        > data on the Pre-introduction Resident Wolves and then I will give a brief
        > comparison to the same criterion as observed by all of us in the field as
        > paticular to the Canadian Grey Wolf. Remember that really the most important
        > issue to all of us now is the resulting impacts to our fragile ecosystems of
        > one variety of wolf as compared to the other and its portent when deciding on
        > effective wolf control measures.
        >
        > Pre-introduction Resident Wolves: (Wolves observed thru 1995 in Idaho)
        >
        > 1. Highly secretive behavior. Very sensitive to roads and highways.
        > Largely nocturnal.
        > 2. Usually found either as dispersed individuals or pairs.
        > 3. Packing activity was very rare accept during months of Jan.-Feb.
        > 4. Pack size at breeding time was usually 4 to 7 individuals.
        > 5. Females (breeding bitches) retained pups for average 18 months.
        > 6. Pack dispersal was very consistent after breeding season.
        > 7. Litter size consistently 1-3 pups. Bitch bred at 2-year old stage.
        > 8. Extremely selective as to food source. Rarely fed on old carcasses or
        > kills of other species accept in the most harsh winter conditions.
        > 9. Very much an opportunist when different prey was available. Spent great
        > percentage of hunting effort on rodent acquistion, (voles to rabbits).
        > 10. Sport Reflex Killing almost neglegible. Most ungulate depredation was
        > consumptive not surplus. Typical kill had hams and shoulders consumed.
        > ll. Territory of individual or pairs quite large. Average 2 week return
        > cycle.
        > 12. Wolf body size: Female 55lbs-70lbs, Male 85-105.
        > 13. Competion with other predator species including coyote and fox was
        > low. Other canine species coexisted and thrived in presence of Resident
        > Wolves.
        > 14. Habitat utilized consistently: Mid to high elevation, with forest and
        > mixed forest. Resident Wolf very resistive to utilizing large areas of
        > open rangeland with grass or sagebrush cover.
        > l5. Older mature males almost always solitary except at breeding interval.
        > 16. Conflict with domestic dogs very minimal except in rare cases.
        > 17. Livestock depredations extremely rare but do occur in remote areas.
        > l8. Consistent avoidance of manmade structures, roads, vehicles, humans.
        >
        > Note: This data as well as maps locating individual wolves as well as
        > breeding pairs was hand delived to Craig Groves in l992 and entered
        > into Idaho Fish and Game’s Consevation Data Base by George Stevens.
        > Craig Groves was at the time in charge of oversight of the Consevation
        > Data Base and an Idaho Fish and Game employee.
        36 minutes ago ·
        Kevin Watson NON NATIVE WOLF
        > Observed Criterion: Introduced Canadian Grey Wolf
        > 1996 to present.
        >
        > 1. Exibits low level of fear of humans. Non-secretive behavior. Minimal
        > avoidance of humans, vehicles, domestic animals. Will cross large open
        > terrain at will even when other options for cover are available.
        > 2. Canadian Grey Wolf is found in small to very large pack sizes. Small
        > packs of 5 individuals are common as are large packs with over 20
        > members.
        > 3. Pack merging, the condition of 2 or more packs combining is being
        > observed in many areas in the west and is not uncommon. Merged packs
        > of over 40 wolves have been observed in the Central Idaho Wilderness.
        > 4. Females (breeding bitches) are can be bred even at 1 year of age and
        > produce from 5 to 9 pups per season. The pups usually remain with the
        > pack but can disperse or be driven off by other pack members. All
        > females of breeding potential in the pack are usually bred. There is
        > absolutely no indication that any females are kept from breeding by the
        > theoretical “Alpha-female”. Large packs are quickly produced and can
        > disperse and merge several times within a week.
        > 5. Canadian Grey Wolves show a diet preference for elk but will switch at
        > will to secondary prey species. Low preference is shown for rodent
        > species but wolves do sporadically hunt rodents.
        > 6. Sport Reflex Killing is highly developed in Canadian Grey packs. From
        > observations in the field, 3 to 5 ungulates are killed for each
        > ungulate consumed. This surplus killing is greatly increased if the
        > pack size is large or packs have merged. Often small wintering herds
        > of deer or elk are completely extirpated in one hunting event.
        > 7. Body Size: Females 60-85lbs, Males 90-120lbs.
        > 8. Competion with other predatory species is extreme and often fatal. Both
        > mountain lion and bear have been impacted by attacks and from reduced
        > available prey. Other Canines such as Coyote and Fox have been severly
        > impacted in most of their habitats. Fox are only able to survive in
        > habitats that include lots of willow or dense underbrush. Coyote
        > populations have been reduced but are persisting at lower than historic
        > levels.
        > 9. Canadian Grey Wolf has been found to utilize all available habitats,
        > from high elevation alpine to sagebrush deserts. This has allowed the
        > wolf to be opportunistic in all ecosystems available to it.
        > 10. Large mature male wolves remain with the pack thru out the year,
        > sometimes dispersing for short periods of time.
        > 11. The Canadian Grey wolf is highly predatorial on all domestic canines.
        > Hunting hounds are especially vulnerable to attacks and are usually
        > killed outright in a confrontation by wolves.
        > 12. Canadian Grey Wolves have shown a prefence for depredating on domestic
        > livestock even with abundant natural prey present. Beef calves are the
        > most common victims of wolf depredation.
        > 13. Canadian Grey Wolves show a high level of habituation to humans, and
        > man-made structures. It is not uncommon to find Canadian Grey Wolves
        > in very remote areas eating out of dog dishes and coming onto porches
        > of homes when the owners are present.
        >
        >
        > It is clear from a comparison of the two varieties of wolves that control
        > efforts will have to take into account the realities of dealing with a wolf as
        > different as the Canadian Grey Wolf is from wolves found in other parts of the
        > continent. Both the high fecundity of the Canadian Grey Wolf and its
        > depredating qualities ensures that control efforts will have to be highly
        > organized and long term if we are to protect our manificant wildlife from the
        > debacle that is ongoing in Canada and in our western states.
        > Mrs. Bartell, I will not in this email go into the fraud and corruption
        > that brought us to this wildlife disaster, but suffice it to say that had the
        > Federal Agencies not been corrupt in dealing with the information given them by
        > Idaho and Montana and Wyoming citizens we would by now have had a recovered
        > Resident wolf population that would still need to be managed but we would not
        > have what we have now with the very existence of our ungulates hanging in the
        > balance and wolf borne diseases threatening our way of life. If possible and
        > time permits I will fill you in later on how our investigation turned out and
        > who was responsible for purging our maps and data and carring out the
        > introduction of the Canadian Grey Wolf in direct violation of the Endangered
        > Species Act. It is a very tragic story, but God willing we will turn this
        > around!!.
        > Yours,
        > Tim Kemery

    • Save bears Says:

      Anyone of us, with half a brain, understand what sizes wolves are, we have seen the data, we have done the research, I don’t understand why certain individuals keep bringing this BS crap up about the wolves gigantic sizes, because we all know it is bullshit!

      It seems as if every single time a new user shows up, the question has to be asked…”Did you see this” and “What is your thoughts”

      And when it comes down to it, the sizes of wolves have absolutely nothing to do with the “Shoot” remark…

      Cripes.!

      • Idaho Dave Says:

        I would have to say that biologically it is well know that body sizes of animals increase in colder climates. White tail are bigger in body in Minnesota or Maine as compared to Arizona. This is to due with heat disspiation in hot climates and survivng in cold climates.
        While there may not have been a genetic difference, I can believe that wolves living, breeding and surviving on the Canadian Tundra would tend to be larger than wolves living and breeding in the Idaho Mountains.

        And for discussion sake I can believe that the wolves following the Bison were different from the other two in personalities and size. Genetically who knows?

        Also, as far as attitudes go and the elimination of the wolf at the turn of the century, how about this picture?
        Wolf populations exploded with the killing of the bison, plenty of food just lying around. At the end of the century, no more bison, few deer and elk due to over hunting (both market and subsistence), plenty of cattle and a whole lot of wolves. I could imagine a large depradation problem. Also, since the population in the west consisted of primarily ranchers and farmers, I can see them exterminating the wolf to protect their livestock. It was their livelihoods and conservation did not really exist yet.

        Puts a little different perspective on things…..

      • Immer Treue Says:

        And then, over time, some sort of recovery program was put in place for just about everything the wolf would eat except the wolf. Now a plan has been in place for the past 15 years, in a sense to restore an animal that was so enthusiastically destroyed for close to a century. And I’m sure there are those who will correct me if I am wrong, but for most of that time was it the ranchers exterminating wolves and coyotes, or was it the government doing it for them. Conservation does exist now.

      • jon Says:

        IT, so much for ranchers being stewards of the land. A better title for them would be killers of the land! Ranchers are one of the biggest reasons why wolves were exterminated in the first place.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        jon,
        I’m in the process of reading Cater Neimeyer’s book Wolfer. It’s been a while since I’ve read anything about how the Feds were so involved in the elimination of predators. Simply amazing how many coyotes met their end through the feds. Another book out is the Predatory Bureaucracy that from the reviews I have read is a trail of tears for any predatory animal out West. The zeal applied to making things “safe” for the ranchers is one of the reasons ranchers may be having trouble now. They never learned how to cope with wolves and coyotes, because the Feds did it for them. This is not meant to say that ranches should become the meat counter at Bohacs for wolves, but ranchers never learned how to “live”with wolves.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        jon,

        Is there a site out there that compiles all the SSS, and gut shooting comments, as per some of those who post on those sites and coordinates with pictures of dead wolves, dead coyotes, wolves and coyotes caught in snares, and left to die…

        In a short period of time, I’ve come to realize that one cannot debate with those folks, but how much of that rhetoric affects the unknowledgeable? Some of the folks with whom I teach know so very little about wolves, I’m sure there are more important things going on in their lives, but are somewhat aghast when I tell them about some of my experiences with wolves.

        A recent acquaintance who specialized in environmental conflict management said it’s the young people who need to be mobilized for the dissemination of what is true and not true about wolves. It is more than obvious that wolves have had a negative affect on some people. That being said, we cannot allow the benefits of wolves, some of which may take decades to come to full fruition to be buried beneath the tripe on sites such as the one you sited.

        This carries far beyond wolves. I could say there are too many people on the Earth, but that also includes me. We are fortunate by birth that we were born here. We all need to do a better job in taking care of what we have, even if that means taking a couple of steps backwards at times, to fix something that was done wrong. The wolves are back.

  10. timz Says:

    The key to weighing wolves accurately is to do it before it eats Little Red Riding Hood and after it huffs and puffs and blows the house down.

  11. JimT Says:

    Somehow, this thread got sidetracked from the main point, I think. And that is the increasingly ease with which violence is advocated as a problem solving means, from the schoolyard to the political arena. We have always been a somewhat violent society, but the threshold for outrage..and resultant action…has been lowered substantially in the last few decades. I found it amazing to read that the guy who sold the two semi automatic weapons to the person who shot the kids at Virginia Tech recently appeared there to say he thought concealed weapons should be allowed on that campus and others. And he thought it was fine, and didn’t see any reason why he shouldn’t be shilling for business there. His business was also linked to another public setting shooting as well.

    So should this guy be prosecuted? I don’t think so..no specific or credible threat. But I find it amazing that someone would feel comfortable enough to advocate violence against public officials especially in the light of Tucson. But then again, there were plenty of warning signs with the shooter in Tucson that could have been paid attention to…and were not. Price we pay I guess for a relatively free and private society.

    And I am not looking for a gun right discussion with this…too heated, too complex.

  12. Ann Sydow Says:

    As to the pic at http://thegreatwhitehunter.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/drayton-valley-wolf-230-lb-record-smasher/
    This same pic is labeled as 180 lbs and killed in Central Idaho at http://proliberty.com/observer/20090623.htm
    Also as coming from Glenivis, Alberta and weighing 197 lbs at http://www.grimsmonstermix.com. Its obviously photo shopped (see the wierd string on the shoulder, and the pic changes from fuzzy to crisp?) And i’m sure its in alot more places online with alot more fake locations and weights.

    • jon Says:

      Hi Ann, you are right. I like others have done some research on that photo of the supposed 230 pound wolf. I have seen different weights listed for that wolf in that specific picture. I have also seen some claim that wolf was shot in another state, not Canada like some claimed when the pic started circulating on the internet. The picture looks photoshopped to me and if that wolf was truly 230 pounds, I’m certain that small man would have had a lot of trouble holding that wolf up without falling down.

    • jon Says:

      That wolf’s weight was never verified by any expert. I think it’s fair to say that the hunter who shot that wolf obviously overestimated the wolf’s weights for bragging rights as the reason. Oh, look at me, I’m a macho man and I shot the biggest wolf ever.

    • ProWolf in WY Says:

      This dead wolf’s (and the ones by the snowmobiles) carcasses seem to travel around North America quite a bit. These pictures have been taken in Idaho, Canada, Wyoming, Alaska, and Montana. So if this wolf is over 200 pounds why is this person not straining to hold it? Isn’t a white-tailed or mule deer close to that size? I know from experience mule deer are not the easiest thing to drag out.

      • jon Says:

        Simply put, whoever the hunter was that shot it lied about it’s true weight.

      • timz Says:

        I have a legit picture of a guy from Alaska that is 5’11” 185 lbs, holding a 125 lb wolf that looks similar to the pic in question. You can barely see the guy holding it up behind it.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        If you look at these pictures, most are taken from below the hunter, so with the wolf in front of the hunter, it will naturally block out the hunter and make the wolf appear larger.

  13. Linda Hunter Says:

    Part of growing up in a rural culture is being lied to by your elders. In America, there was a time in the “old west” when it was the best tall teller in the bar who was the hero and everyone understood that it was a tall tale. When I was growing up violent, blood thirsty tales were regularly told about all animals . . it makes the men who go out in the wilderness seem more brave, capable and necessary to protect the rest of us. I was never so shocked in my life at the first time I really looked into the eyes of a grizzly/brown bear and found that the animal in not inherently violent or bloodthirsty. Mind you after all the stories I heard growing up it took a great deal of observation skill to look and really see what was there and not what I expected to see. I find it interesting when I am going somewhere in the wilderness now and someone who doesn’t know that I have spent so much time with bears starts telling my how dangerous it would be for me to be in the woods alone and some of the stuff they come up with to tell me about bears. . well, I don’t carry around a book to hand them so I just nod politely, but I wonder how much of their own lies they believe or if it is just that they feel obligated to try and scare me. They must perceive me as a clueless, city dwelling woman with some of the stuff they tell me. I don’t call them on it because I would be there all day talking to them and I would usually rather just get going out to the woods where I belong.

  14. Nancy Says:

    Way to go Linda! Bet you changed some minds when it comes to the perception of animals being +inherently violent or bloodthirsty+


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: