Thanks for the heads up. I have added my name to the list opposing this terribly ill conceived plan. I just amazes me that anyone in this day and age would even consider such a cruel and inhumane action.
Posted by Carl Donohue on July 13, 2007 at 12:31 AM
Hey Jim
It still blows me away how few wolves live in the Lowe 48. Absolutely blows my mind.I remember when I first moved to the US, in 1991, and did a backcountry trip in the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness on the Idaho/Montana border - beautiful country, (what hasn't been clearcut) - and when the locals told me there were no wolves (or grizzlies) there I didn't believe them. How could it be true? Reality, of course, is that it was/is true. And it STILL blows my mind.
I hope they don't pass this proposal.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Basil Greber on July 13, 2007 at 9:26 AM
Stupidity reigns the world. It's the same on this side of the pond. We have something like 3 or 4 wolves in Switzerland (yes, three or four!) that wander around in the mountains that form the borders to Italy (and they illegaly immigrate and emigrate at will ), and recently, two brown bears "invaded" Swiss territory. Already now - with a total of 6 large carnivores, sheep owners are claiming that there's "not enough room" in this country for both sheep and large carnivores. Some people urged that the wolve should be taken off the endangered species list (sure, 3 or 4 is a lot, no danger of extermination anymore ) so it could be shot without further "bureaucracy".
Not enough room? Yeah, absolutely right, but I'd rather have the wolve and bear living in the mountains than a bunch of state subsidized sheep owners.
To make matters worse, a dead wolf was found in Oregon in late May (this was just announced, though, by U.S. Fish and Wildlife). So, we finally get another migrant to Oregon (this is the 4th known wolf found in Oregon), and then BAM, someone blows it away...even though wolves ARE still considered endangered. What the heck could it have been hurting, especially on its own like that? I think it's all fear and a lack of knowlege about wolf behavior, just like Basil said. Here's a link to wolf news from Ralph Maughan, one of the most thorough sites I know of when it comes to wolf issues:
A couple of years ago I spoke with a writer who owns a ranch in Western Wyoming. He told me that his greatest pleasure in life was having his coffee in the morning and watching the Elk herds; at least it had been his pleasure before the wolves slaughtered the Elk. When I talked to him the Elk were gone.
Last year I talked to a childhood friend of a close friend of mine. He grew up in the Colorado mountains, but now is a guide in Alaska. He has a similar story about what the wolves in Alaska have done to herds in that State.
Wolves don't kill to live, they live to kill and are very efficient at doing what they enjoy.
Posted by Carl Donohue on July 13, 2007 at 3:32 PM
Hey Dave
I remember reading a story written by a native American one time. Paraphrasing:
"One of the great moments in life is sitting on a ridge and watching an endless bison herd saunter across the Great Plains, so vast they cover the ground like a carpet. At least, it used to be so. Now the bison are gone."
Or, to stick to the species of elk, you do realise that when Europeans arrived on this continent, there were lots of both elk and wolves, right? Sure enough, soon afterward, all the elk east of the Mississippi were gone. All of them, not 'most', but 'ALL' of them.
Which herds in Alaska have the wolves 'slaughtered'?
"Wolves don't kill to live, they live to kill and are very efficient at doing what they enjoy. "
Excuse me, but who are we, of all things, to even begin saying this about ANY other species? I'm neither a wolf, nor an elk, nor a bison, but I am pretty sure if any of those animals, or just about ANY other species on the planet, could use our words, they'd say that same sentence, substituting "humans" for "wolves". The difference, of course, is that they'd have greater justification and support for their claim.
I just Googled "Wyoming wolves elk" (without quotations) and found some good reading.
Posted by Alan Olander on July 13, 2007 at 7:07 PM
"Wolves don't kill to live, they live to kill and are very efficient at doing what they enjoy. "
I live in northern Minnesota which has a couple thousand wolves, some in my "back yard". There are also 800,000 white-tailed deer in the state, of which wolves kill an estimated 40,000. Deer hunters kill 200,000 deer each year. Now who is the efficient killer?
Posted by Basil Greber on July 13, 2007 at 7:54 PM
It's always the same - the dolphins eat the fish, the cormorants eat the fish, the wolves eat the elks, the foxes eat the phaesants, and it's always the human impact (for food or fun) that's ten times as bad, but still, it's the carnivores that bring other species close to extinction, not the humans. Some people are living in a bizarre world. Fairytales are for children, at least where I live... but they should have no impact on politics or anything serious for that matter.
THe fed is nt the only enemy here,, the states of wy and id are quite adamant in there need to destroy the populations down to just above the required limits,, in fact, the gov of idaho, said he hoped that he could get a permit to be one of the first ones to kill one,,,,, there was a big stink about it several months ago,,,,the new dept of interior man is from idaho and has had a history of non tolerance of the wolf reintro,,
I suppose the anti-wolf forces in the west sense that there will be a change of attitude in Washington after '08, and they're making their big push to strengthen their position. Some wildlife people in Jackson told me that the decision to classify wolves as varmints in Wy, came directly from the FWS regional office in Denver and certainly was't based on any science or public involvement. I imagine it was made in DC, since the Interior Secretary is the ex-gov of Idaho. (Idaho politicians are about as bad as they come). Hopefully, environmental groups can keep this tied up in court until after the election.
Basically, it comes down to this: If you want to help wolves, elect Democrats.
Posted by Kent Staubus on July 21, 2007 at 11:18 PM
There are also 800,000 white-tailed deer in the state, of which wolves kill an estimated 40,000. Deer hunters kill 200,000 deer each year. Now who is the efficient killer?
Obviously the wolf is more efficient. This is an easy math problem. There are estimated ~3,500 wolves in MN which kill ~40,000 deer. The 500,000 deer hunters (combines bow, rifle, shotgun, muzzle loader seasons) kill ~200,000 deer. The ratio is ~13.33 deer per wolf and 0.4 deer per hunter. Wolves are way more efficient. With 800,000 deer, sounds like there are plenty for everybody. Most of MN is cropland, and the deer population can almost reproduce itself in a single year since many does have twins when the food supply is as good as that.
I've tried very hard to stay away from commenting here. I've been studying wolves as an amateur for almost 30 years, and have heard it all, ad nauseum, from all sides. But I have such definite opinions that it's hard to ignore some of this.
The last figures I read indicate wolves kill about 6 to 10 percent of the deer they become aware of. Sorry, I can't cite source because I can't remember the source. The idea that wolves kill most of the deer they find is widely believed. I've been a deer hunter for many, many years, and I kill a much higher percentage of deer I encounter than wolves do. And I don't need to kill deer to live. Not that I believe my experience is representative, but I reckon deer hunters kill a higher percentage of deer they encounter than wolves do, and, thus, are more "efficient" predators than wolves.
And, of course, if we want to extend efficiency beyond hunting, humans in the United States kill more deer with their vehicles than they do with their guns. But that's potentially misleading, too, because it's human development over the last 200 years that has led to an explosion in the deer population.
Wolves in northeastern Minnesota historically didn't eat many deer. Back before logging and other development, wolves in the Arrowhead ate moose and woodland caribou. There were few deer here before we created the right environment for them.
Who's the more efficient killer? The argument is moot.
As for the ridiculous talk about wolves killing the elk herds out west and other ungulate herds in Alaska, sheesh. Yeah, and the Plains tribes killed off the buffalo, too.
I don't want to quibble with your numbers Kent, but I believe your measure of efficiency is faulty. Assuming Alan's numbers are correct, MN wolves kill 0.03 deer per days spent hunting, while people kill 0.57 deer per days spent hunting. I believe that makes man the more efficient killer.
Jeremy
Here, check my math:
Wolves hunt 365 days per year--3,500 wolves times 365 days is 1,277,500 wolf x days of hunting per year. Do the math (40K / 1.28 million) and you have a success rate of 0.03. Hunters in Minnesota get a week (less if you figure people can't hunt at night). Seven days by 200,000 hunters equals 1.4 million man x days of hunting per year, which comes to a success rate of 0.57 (800,000 / 1.4 million).
FYI: I emailed a friend at the MN DNR and got pop estimates for deer. I checked these against estimates for wolves published on the DNR's website (there are only 2 that overlap):
Elk, of course, are another story. The northern herd in Yellowstone National Park has declined severely since wolf reintroduction. However, the herd population was roughly 5 times the historic estimate (i.e. the herd was overpopulated). In fact, part of the justification for returning wolves to YNP is that they would help bring the elk population back in balance. Unfortunately, the return of wolves to YNP corresponded with a relatively severe drought, so it is not really possible to separate wolves from drought as the cause of the northern herd's decline.
They do! A recent study found that white-tailed deer comprised roughly 39% of northwestern MN wolves' diet. However, it is a bit misleading to say one wolf will only kill a deer every 33 days for a couple of reasons. First, wolves hunt in packs. If each wolf in a pack of five kills a deer every 30 days, the wolves (as a pack) kill a deer every 6 days. Also, wolves are opportunists and will eat a lot more deer than they kill. How? By picking up the carcases of road-killed and hunter-killed deer, as well as those that die of natural causes (e.g. starvation).
According to the study I'm citing, other sources of food for MN wolves include muskrats (17%), moose (14%), domestic cattle (10%), domestic pig (4%) and others (6%). This study focused on wolves in agricultural areas of northwestern MN. Wolves in southern MN will prey on different items (e.g. no moose). If you want more information, see:
Chavez, A. S. and Gese, E. M. 2005. Food habits of wolves in relation to livestock depredations in northwestern Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist, 154 (1):253-263.
They do! A recent study found that white-tailed deer comprised roughly 39% of northwestern MN wolves' diet. However, it is a bit misleading to say one wolf will only kill a deer every 33 days for a couple of reasons. First, wolves hunt in packs. If each wolf in a pack of five kills a deer every 30 days, the wolves (as a pack) kill a deer every 6 days. Also, wolves are opportunists and will eat a lot more deer than they kill. How? By picking up the carcases of road-killed and hunter-killed deer, as well as those that die of natural causes (e.g. starvation).
According to the study I'm citing, other sources of food for MN wolves include muskrats (17%), moose (14%), domestic cattle (10%), domestic pig (4%) and others (6%). This study focused on wolves in agricultural areas of northwestern MN. Wolves in southern MN will prey on different items (e.g. no moose). If you want more information, see:
Chavez, A. S. and Gese, E. M. 2005. Food habits of wolves in relation to livestock depredations in northwestern Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist, 154 (1):253-263.
Cheers,
Jeremy
Posted by Fred Stearns on August 6, 2007 at 10:58 PM
Quite a while ago, a Canadian naturalist was sent to the tundra to document the wolves decimating the Caribou herds. When he set up camp, it was immediately inundated with field mice. It was long enough ago that I do not remember the details of how he coped. However, he found that the primary food of these wolves was the field mice. Since they were eating him out of camp, he resorted to eating them. Yes, the wolves also killed the sick and weak Caribous. Where he found the largest stack of Caribou bones and antlers was near the huts of the dog sled drivers. They were shooting the Caribou and feeding them to their dogs! Needles to say, this report was not published. If I remember correctly, he lost his job as a result. He did find a friendly publisher ans was able to publish his findings. Unfortunately, I do not remember the name of the book. I would be surprised to find that this book was still in print. It has always surprised me that this book was never used as as a source.
I searched through Amazon and think that it might have been, "The Migratory Barren-Ground Caribou of Canada" (Paperback) by John P. Kelsall. The date associated with it is Oct 31, 1968, which is about what I would think. Wolves getting the blame for the actions of Man is nothing new.
The idea that wild wolves could sustain themselves solely on a diet of small rodents is a common misconception that was originally introduced in Farley Mowat's Never Cry Wolf (1963). (see: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/mammals/cowolf/index.htm)
Here's what Dave Mech, a biologist for the U.S. Geological Survey had to say about it:
"Other misconceptions about wolves encourage wolf protectionism. Because of the book Never Cry Wolf by Farley Mowat (1963) and the popular movie made from the book, many people believe wolves live primarily on mice rather than ungulates. Both are fiction (Banfield 1964; Pimlott 1966), but both purport to be true and are sold and shown by museums and other unsuspecting educational organizations. Other misconceptions, half truths, and outdated views that many protectionists hold include the following: wolves only prey on livestock when no natural prey is available; the loss of pack members fosters disastrous social chaos in the wolf population; wolves socially limit their own population; because the wolf is on the U. S. endangered species list, this means that there are very few left anywhere in the world; and wolves are so shy of humans that they will move out of areas of high activity or avoid settling in them, and they will maintain dens and pups only many kilometers from such activity."
Posted by Fred Stearns on August 7, 2007 at 10:19 PM
Jeremy,
You got the book that I was trying to remember. So, it is fiction. It sure had me fooled! That must have been because I was younger and more gullible. I wasn't taken by the other misconceptions, or, if I was, I have learned better as the years went by. I do believe that wolves are opportunists and will take the easiest prey, or carrion. So, the wolves will kill and eat the sick, old and very young. This would include livestock, even though they are not necessarily old or sick, just domesticated. I think that this is true of any predator, including man before the invention of firearms.
Thanks fore clearing up my mis-information.
Posted by mark miller on January 15, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Last I heard, elk populations in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming are huge- numbering over 100,000 in each state, whereas wolf numbers are just a few hundred in each. I also hear that elk hunting in all three is superb now.What I can't figure out is that ranchers don't want bison on public lands because they carry brucellosis. Yet elk carry brucellosis, they graze on public lands, and number in the hundreds of thousands, but are welcome on public lands. Figure that one out.
Posted by mark miller on January 15, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Last I heard, elk populations in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming are huge- numbering over 100,000 in each state, whereas wolf numbers are just a few hundred in each. I also hear that elk hunting in all three is superb now.What I can't figure out is that ranchers don't want bison on public lands because they carry brucellosis. Yet elk carry brucellosis, they graze on public lands, and number in the hundreds of thousands, but are welcome on public lands. Figure that one out.
Many years ago when I was growing up, Defenders had a pair of wolves, Clem and Jethro, they used as PR animals. In my elementary school I was one of the "hosts" when they came for a program. Back then I learned that no records existed of humans being attacked by wolves.
In the years since, I have discovered how wrong Defenders was to state that. There are plenty of records of aggressive wolf behavior toward man. You just have to open your eyes if you want to see them. The lesson was painful and I am still angry at this organization for their lies.
Now, before I get slammed, which I am sure I will (thats okay), let me add that I am surely a die hard conservationist, environmentalist, and such. Most of the time I hunt with my camera, but not always. But the fact is, the truth about wolves lies somewhere to the right of organizations such as Defenders, and left of the "kill 'em all" crowd. Coyotes we are all told are harmless too, yet just in the past few years there are a handful of very well documented instances of coyotes attempting to haul off toddlers in California. These instances cannot be ignored. It is my belief that we are seeing the emergence of a newer, bolder coyote, because compared to decades ago very few people are hunting them, and they are losing their fear of man (what we are seeing with wolves is very similar). Years ago I was also taught by the same sort cited above that coyotes don't attack deer, umm yeah right. here in NH our State fish and game department still reports this as fact. Anyone care to bet me that coyotes don't attack deer?
I don't for a second think the wolves ought to be exterminated, but those of us living far away from the areas the hunts are proposed in ought to remember we are at the mercy of what we read or hear, and any of us is a fool if we believe everything we read, or hear. Those ranch owners and others who have to live beside wolves and coexist with them should be listened to, because there is a lot of truth in what they have to say about these animals. The rancher has a right to exist too, and most of them are open to leaving most of the wolves alone. It is just the packs that are raiding their herds they are seriously interested in, and as a consumer of beef and leather, I can't blame them a bit.
Posted by Carl Donohue on June 23, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Hey Geoffrey
I think the claim has mostly been along the lines of 'there are no recorded accounts of attacks by healthy wolves on people in America'. Most accounts of conflict were either defensive, explained by disease (such as rabies) or unhealthy animals, or viewed as wolves trying to prey on animals close to people, such as dogs or horses.
If we want to go over the 'lies and deceipt' on both sides of the argument, I've no concern that Def of Wildlife will fair better than the other side of the coin. We could start with the last sentence of your post above - if you think the anti-wolf crowd are only 'seriously interested the packs that are raiding their herds', you've got another 'painful lesson to learn' and can expect to be 'angry at another organization/s for their lies' for years to come. :)
Discussion
26 replieshttp://www.defenders.org/releases/pr2007/pr070507.html
http://www.wyomingwolves.org/
http://action.defenders.org/site/PageServer?pagename=savewolves_homepage
http://www.nrdconline.org/campaign/actionfund_wolfaerial
It still blows me away how few wolves live in the Lowe 48. Absolutely blows my mind.I remember when I first moved to the US, in 1991, and did a backcountry trip in the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness on the Idaho/Montana border - beautiful country, (what hasn't been clearcut) - and when the locals told me there were no wolves (or grizzlies) there I didn't believe them. How could it be true? Reality, of course, is that it was/is true. And it STILL blows my mind.
I hope they don't pass this proposal.
Cheers
Carl
Not enough room? Yeah, absolutely right, but I'd rather have the wolve and bear living in the mountains than a bunch of state subsidized sheep owners.
Basil
http://wolves.wordpress.com/
Last year I talked to a childhood friend of a close friend of mine. He grew up in the Colorado mountains, but now is a guide in Alaska. He has a similar story about what the wolves in Alaska have done to herds in that State.
Wolves don't kill to live, they live to kill and are very efficient at doing what they enjoy.
I remember reading a story written by a native American one time. Paraphrasing:
"One of the great moments in life is sitting on a ridge and watching an endless bison herd saunter across the Great Plains, so vast they cover the ground like a carpet. At least, it used to be so. Now the bison are gone."
Or, to stick to the species of elk, you do realise that when Europeans arrived on this continent, there were lots of both elk and wolves, right? Sure enough, soon afterward, all the elk east of the Mississippi were gone. All of them, not 'most', but 'ALL' of them.
Which herds in Alaska have the wolves 'slaughtered'?
Excuse me, but who are we, of all things, to even begin saying this about ANY other species? I'm neither a wolf, nor an elk, nor a bison, but I am pretty sure if any of those animals, or just about ANY other species on the planet, could use our words, they'd say that same sentence, substituting "humans" for "wolves". The difference, of course, is that they'd have greater justification and support for their claim.
Cheers
Carl
I live in northern Minnesota which has a couple thousand wolves, some in my "back yard". There are also 800,000 white-tailed deer in the state, of which wolves kill an estimated 40,000. Deer hunters kill 200,000 deer each year. Now who is the efficient killer?
Basil
Basically, it comes down to this: If you want to help wolves, elect Democrats.
Obviously the wolf is more efficient. This is an easy math problem. There are estimated ~3,500 wolves in MN which kill ~40,000 deer. The 500,000 deer hunters (combines bow, rifle, shotgun, muzzle loader seasons) kill ~200,000 deer. The ratio is ~13.33 deer per wolf and 0.4 deer per hunter. Wolves are way more efficient. With 800,000 deer, sounds like there are plenty for everybody. Most of MN is cropland, and the deer population can almost reproduce itself in a single year since many does have twins when the food supply is as good as that.
Kent in SD
The last figures I read indicate wolves kill about 6 to 10 percent of the deer they become aware of. Sorry, I can't cite source because I can't remember the source. The idea that wolves kill most of the deer they find is widely believed. I've been a deer hunter for many, many years, and I kill a much higher percentage of deer I encounter than wolves do. And I don't need to kill deer to live. Not that I believe my experience is representative, but I reckon deer hunters kill a higher percentage of deer they encounter than wolves do, and, thus, are more "efficient" predators than wolves.
And, of course, if we want to extend efficiency beyond hunting, humans in the United States kill more deer with their vehicles than they do with their guns. But that's potentially misleading, too, because it's human development over the last 200 years that has led to an explosion in the deer population.
Wolves in northeastern Minnesota historically didn't eat many deer. Back before logging and other development, wolves in the Arrowhead ate moose and woodland caribou. There were few deer here before we created the right environment for them.
Who's the more efficient killer? The argument is moot.
As for the ridiculous talk about wolves killing the elk herds out west and other ungulate herds in Alaska, sheesh. Yeah, and the Plains tribes killed off the buffalo, too.
Jeremy
Here, check my math:
Wolves hunt 365 days per year--3,500 wolves times 365 days is 1,277,500 wolf x days of hunting per year. Do the math (40K / 1.28 million) and you have a success rate of 0.03. Hunters in Minnesota get a week (less if you figure people can't hunt at night). Seven days by 200,000 hunters equals 1.4 million man x days of hunting per year, which comes to a success rate of 0.57 (800,000 / 1.4 million).
1998 -- 862,400 deer (pre-hunt) 2,445 wolves
2004 -- 1,247,800, deer (pre-hunt) 3,020 wolves
Elk, of course, are another story. The northern herd in Yellowstone National Park has declined severely since wolf reintroduction. However, the herd population was roughly 5 times the historic estimate (i.e. the herd was overpopulated). In fact, part of the justification for returning wolves to YNP is that they would help bring the elk population back in balance. Unfortunately, the return of wolves to YNP corresponded with a relatively severe drought, so it is not really possible to separate wolves from drought as the cause of the northern herd's decline.
Jeremy
Dave
They do! A recent study found that white-tailed deer comprised roughly 39% of northwestern MN wolves' diet. However, it is a bit misleading to say one wolf will only kill a deer every 33 days for a couple of reasons. First, wolves hunt in packs. If each wolf in a pack of five kills a deer every 30 days, the wolves (as a pack) kill a deer every 6 days. Also, wolves are opportunists and will eat a lot more deer than they kill. How? By picking up the carcases of road-killed and hunter-killed deer, as well as those that die of natural causes (e.g. starvation).
According to the study I'm citing, other sources of food for MN wolves include muskrats (17%), moose (14%), domestic cattle (10%), domestic pig (4%) and others (6%). This study focused on wolves in agricultural areas of northwestern MN. Wolves in southern MN will prey on different items (e.g. no moose). If you want more information, see:
Chavez, A. S. and Gese, E. M. 2005. Food habits of wolves in relation to livestock depredations in northwestern Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist, 154 (1):253-263.
Cheers,
Jeremy
They do! A recent study found that white-tailed deer comprised roughly 39% of northwestern MN wolves' diet. However, it is a bit misleading to say one wolf will only kill a deer every 33 days for a couple of reasons. First, wolves hunt in packs. If each wolf in a pack of five kills a deer every 30 days, the wolves (as a pack) kill a deer every 6 days. Also, wolves are opportunists and will eat a lot more deer than they kill. How? By picking up the carcases of road-killed and hunter-killed deer, as well as those that die of natural causes (e.g. starvation).
According to the study I'm citing, other sources of food for MN wolves include muskrats (17%), moose (14%), domestic cattle (10%), domestic pig (4%) and others (6%). This study focused on wolves in agricultural areas of northwestern MN. Wolves in southern MN will prey on different items (e.g. no moose). If you want more information, see:
Chavez, A. S. and Gese, E. M. 2005. Food habits of wolves in relation to livestock depredations in northwestern Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist, 154 (1):253-263.
Cheers,
Jeremy
I searched through Amazon and think that it might have been, "The Migratory Barren-Ground Caribou of Canada" (Paperback) by John P. Kelsall. The date associated with it is Oct 31, 1968, which is about what I would think. Wolves getting the blame for the actions of Man is nothing new.
The idea that wild wolves could sustain themselves solely on a diet of small rodents is a common misconception that was originally introduced in Farley Mowat's Never Cry Wolf (1963). (see: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/mammals/cowolf/index.htm)
Here's what Dave Mech, a biologist for the U.S. Geological Survey had to say about it:
"Other misconceptions about wolves encourage wolf protectionism. Because of the book Never Cry Wolf by Farley Mowat (1963) and the popular movie made from the book, many people believe wolves live primarily on mice rather than ungulates. Both are fiction (Banfield 1964; Pimlott 1966), but both purport to be true and are sold and shown by museums and other unsuspecting educational organizations. Other misconceptions, half truths, and outdated views that many protectionists hold include the following: wolves only prey on livestock when no natural prey is available; the loss of pack members fosters disastrous social chaos in the wolf population; wolves socially limit their own population; because the wolf is on the U. S. endangered species list, this means that there are very few left anywhere in the world; and wolves are so shy of humans that they will move out of areas of high activity or avoid settling in them, and they will maintain dens and pups only many kilometers from such activity."
You got the book that I was trying to remember. So, it is fiction. It sure had me fooled! That must have been because I was younger and more gullible. I wasn't taken by the other misconceptions, or, if I was, I have learned better as the years went by. I do believe that wolves are opportunists and will take the easiest prey, or carrion. So, the wolves will kill and eat the sick, old and very young. This would include livestock, even though they are not necessarily old or sick, just domesticated. I think that this is true of any predator, including man before the invention of firearms.
Thanks fore clearing up my mis-information.
In the years since, I have discovered how wrong Defenders was to state that. There are plenty of records of aggressive wolf behavior toward man. You just have to open your eyes if you want to see them. The lesson was painful and I am still angry at this organization for their lies.
Now, before I get slammed, which I am sure I will (thats okay), let me add that I am surely a die hard conservationist, environmentalist, and such. Most of the time I hunt with my camera, but not always. But the fact is, the truth about wolves lies somewhere to the right of organizations such as Defenders, and left of the "kill 'em all" crowd. Coyotes we are all told are harmless too, yet just in the past few years there are a handful of very well documented instances of coyotes attempting to haul off toddlers in California. These instances cannot be ignored. It is my belief that we are seeing the emergence of a newer, bolder coyote, because compared to decades ago very few people are hunting them, and they are losing their fear of man (what we are seeing with wolves is very similar). Years ago I was also taught by the same sort cited above that coyotes don't attack deer, umm yeah right. here in NH our State fish and game department still reports this as fact. Anyone care to bet me that coyotes don't attack deer?
I don't for a second think the wolves ought to be exterminated, but those of us living far away from the areas the hunts are proposed in ought to remember we are at the mercy of what we read or hear, and any of us is a fool if we believe everything we read, or hear. Those ranch owners and others who have to live beside wolves and coexist with them should be listened to, because there is a lot of truth in what they have to say about these animals. The rancher has a right to exist too, and most of them are open to leaving most of the wolves alone. It is just the packs that are raiding their herds they are seriously interested in, and as a consumer of beef and leather, I can't blame them a bit.
I think the claim has mostly been along the lines of 'there are no recorded accounts of attacks by healthy wolves on people in America'. Most accounts of conflict were either defensive, explained by disease (such as rabies) or unhealthy animals, or viewed as wolves trying to prey on animals close to people, such as dogs or horses.
If we want to go over the 'lies and deceipt' on both sides of the argument, I've no concern that Def of Wildlife will fair better than the other side of the coin. We could start with the last sentence of your post above - if you think the anti-wolf crowd are only 'seriously interested the packs that are raiding their herds', you've got another 'painful lesson to learn' and can expect to be 'angry at another organization/s for their lies' for years to come. :)
Cheers
Carl