This does look like the real thing. This is about 100 miles from the Key Lake attack on New Years Eve.
http://www.shootersforum.com/showthread.htm?t=17360

Bye
Jack

http://www.cbc.ca/toronto/story/tor-wolfattack101105.html
Oshawa man 'likely' killed by wolves in Saskatchewan
Last updated Nov 10 2005 05:47 PM EST
CBC News


A 22-year-old man from Oshawa, Ont. whose body was discovered Tuesday in northern Saskatchewan, was likely killed by wolves, says the RCMP. The man's body was found at Points North Landing near Wollaston Lake, about 450 kilometres northeast of La Ronge, Sask. Police have not released the victim's name. An autopsy indicated he was likely killed by animals, according to RCMP spokesperson Heather Russell. "All of the injuries discovered in the autopsy are consistent with animal bites," she said, "but you can't completely rule everything out until the investigation is complete." Russell added that the autopsy hasn't confirmed what sort of animals attacked the man, but noted wolves have been sighted in the area and there were tracks – believed to be wolf tracks – around the body. It was likely those animals that killed him, she said. If it's confirmed that wolves killed the man, it would be the first time in recent history that's happened in North America. A 2002 study of wolf attacks in Alaska and Canada done by the Alaska Fish and Game Department found no examples of human deaths attributed to wolf attacks for more than 100 years. Wayne Galloway, a veteran outfitter in northern Saskatchewan, said he wouldn't be surprised if wolves attacked and killed a human. He said in recent years, he's seen an increase in wolf numbers and a decrease in the wildlife they prey on. "They're a predator and I guess if man happens to be something that they'll take a pass at, they'll do it," he said.

Northern Michigan University has done a study on Gray Wolves and has even put together an informative video. In their report they stated that no documented wolf attacks on humans could be found. However, they also stated that wolf-dog hybrids have a terrible record.

As the man said they're gonna eat one way or anouther. When I was a teenager I owned a wolf hybrid. He was the only dog that I've ever been afraid for my life around. He was big and deadly fast. When I was around the house all of the time as a high school kid the two of us were pals. However after I returned from the Marine Corps he dind'nt know me anymore. One day while I was in his pen watering him out of a water jug he snatched the jug out of my grasp. Not thinking I snatched it back, which upset him. He latched onto my arm and began to jerk me off my feet. I clobbered him on the side of his head just as hard as I could with my free hand. He let loose, and made a deep throated growl which made me think that this was the end for me. Not having any other alternative because he stood between me and the only door to his pen, I stood my ground and tryed to make him think that I was tougher than he was. Finally we called it a draw, and I slipped out the pen never taking my eyes off of that beast. Call it irrational fear or what ever you like, but I promptly went into my house grabbed up my rifle, and prooved beyond a shadow of doubt that I was the master predator! I won't ever own a animal like that again. The speed and fury that that animal was capable of taught me all I needed to know about wolves.

Northern Michigan University has done a study on Gray Wolves and has even put together an informative video. In their report they stated that no documented wolf attacks on humans could be found. However, they also stated that wolf-dog hybrids have a terrible record.

I'd urge you to read this:

http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html

The word "documented" allows the lie to continue that no "documented" attacks have occured.

"Those requirements for documentation negate all historical records!

As with rabid wolves, the biologist can say, "There are no `documented' cases of wild healthy wolves attacking humans." In order to be "documented" these unreasonable criteria must be met:

1. The wolf has to be killed, examined and found to be healthy.

2. It must be proven that the wolf was never kept in captivity in its entire life.

3. There must be eyewitnesses to the attack.

4. The person must die from their wounds (bites are generally not considered attacks according to the biologists).

That is a "documented" attack."

Shean, A very informative article for sure, thanks for the link.
also, www.natureswolves.com some more attack articles also showing livestock pictures. beware graphic photos.
Halfbreed

Here's the local newspaper's version.
http://www.canada.com/regina/leaderpost/news/story.html?id=ad399e94-d304-4ab1-8b6e-00265514d04d

Bye
Jack

Brushes with wolves increasing

Darren Bernhardt
Saskatchewan News Network; CanWest News Service

Friday, November 11, 2005

SASKATOON -- Wolves are striking fear into miners and residents in northern Saskatchewan where encounters have become frequent because the animals lose their fear of humans.

Bill Topping, who makes routine hauling trips to the hinterland regions south of the Northwest Territories border, spoke with two men from Ontario Sunday at a camp community in Points North, west of Wollaston Lake.

The men, who were conducting aerial surveys, spoke excitedly about a close encounter with a wolf pack. They took photos of the animals from just five feet away.

Two days later, one of those men was found dead. His mangled body was located Tuesday after he failed to return from a walk. An autopsy confirmed the 22-year-old man's injuries are consistent with an animal attack, according to an RCMP release.

"They thought it was quite an experience being that close to a pack of wolves," said Topping in an interview. "Bet they don't think that today."

According to Saskatchewan Environment and other government agencies in North America, there are no documented cases of wolves killing a human in the wild. That may change. Despite the autopsy result, the RCMP are continuing to investigate the cause of death and the type of animal involved.

There is no doubt in Topping's mind it was wolves. "I've been up there three or four times in the past week and I've had some close encounters with wolves. They're everywhere," he said.

At another camp site, on the road to Cigar Lake, he came across "a great big white timber wolf."

"I said to the guys there, 'You got a nice big dog.' And this one guy said, 'A big white one? Oh, he's been hanging around here for weeks now.'"

A week or so earlier at Key Lake, another mining community, Topping was waiting at the security gate and felt he was being watched. He looked out the window of his truck and stared into the glare of a wolf about 25 yards away. The animal then crept across the road in front of him, staring the whole time.

In January, a Saskatoon man working at Key Lake fought off a timber wolf when it lunged at him while he jogged from the mine to his camp site. Fred Desjarlais, 55, dodged a couple of lunges and was scraped and bit before jumping on the wolf's back and wrestling it into submission long enough for a passing busload of co-workers to arrive and scare the beast away.

"There's so many people working in the north now the wolves have just adapted to it. They're not scared of nothing -- trucks, equipment or people," Topping said, adding bears used to frighten him but he now considers them "big, cuddly things" in comparison to wolves.

"A bear you can hear walking up and sniffing around. But wolves are sneaky. They're smart, they're fast and they're deadly. They lay in wait," he said. "That guy wouldn't know what hit him. That's the scary thing."

A buddy of Topping's was at Points North Wednesday but "no one was talking about it (the attack) much," Topping said. "Word is, the guy was killed right at the gate to the camp" which is about a half-mile from the office.

No one from the Points North campsite was available for comment, according to a woman who answered the phone. The site is privately-owned by Points North Freighting and has an airstrip and shops for contractors. People heading to Cigar Lake must pass through the site to link up with the provincial highway.

© The Leader-Post (Regina) 2005

Shean, A very informative article for sure, thanks for the link.
also, www.natureswolves.com some more attack articles also showing livestock pictures. beware graphic photos.
Halfbreed


Yup, that site has a lot of the same info....revealing info, I might add. Thx.

Shawn, you're welcome, any time I can add to a valuable read. Halfbreed

Sounds like they need to do some serious "thinning out". Mabey that would instill a little fear back into the wolves minds.

I know that here in Northern Idaho my elk season was kind of a bust, though the wolves singing every evening was interesting.

I ran into wolf tracks every time I went out hunting and even the large population of deer were more skittish than I have ever seen.

I used to carry a 22 revolver to finish off a wounded animal but now I've got a 41 mag on the hip instead, not just in case I should run into a rouge wolf, but we also are working on improving the grizzly bear population in this area.

I've got to tell you this re-introduction thing sure leaves me cold. I don't feel near as comfortable camping in the backwoods with my granddaughters anymore.

I know one thing for sure both of them can shoot the 22 revolvers thay carry camping with deadly effect out to 25 yards and I keep them practicing.

The latest news

http://www.cbc.ca/sask/story/wolves-tested051116.html
Wolves killed in Wollaston Lake area
Last Updated Nov 16 2005 12:31 PM CST
CBC News
Tests are being done on two wolves killed in the Wollaston Lake area – the same area where the body of an Ontario man was found last week following a suspected attack by animals. According to the Canadian Press, Saskatchewan conservation officers shot the animals and sent the carcasses to Saskatoon to determine if they were the animals that killed 22-year-old Kenton Joel Carnegie. Carnegie, a third-year geological engineering student at the University of Waterloo, had been working at Points North Landing as part of his fall term co-op program. Following an autopsy, RCMP said although they couldn't say for certain he had been killed by wolves, that was the working theory. Tim Trottier, a wildlife biologist with the Environmental Department, said four wolves had been seen in the area for some time and had been showing signs of losing their natural fear of humans. Trottier said he's never heard of wild wolves killing a human.


PUBLICATION: The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) (no link)
DATE: 2005.11.16
EDITION: Final
SECTION: Third Page
PAGE: A3
BYLINE: Darren Bernhardt
SOURCE: The StarPhoenix
WORD COUNT: 460

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wolves linked to death killed: Lab to determine if pair fatally attacked
Ont. student

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two wolves from Saskatchewan's northern hinterland have been shot and
sent to a Saskatoon lab to determine if they killed an Ontario man last
week.

The animals are suspected to be part of a pack seen around the body of
Kenton Joel Carnegie, 22, when searchers found him, says Tim Trottier, a
wildlife ecologist with Saskatchewan Environment.

Carnegie, a third-year geological engineering student from the
University of Waterloo, was on a three-week work term. It would have
been his dream job, working in a remote place surrounded by nature, said
Leo Rothenburg, one of his professors.

"He was a very kind soul, always trying to help everyone. He was also a
very good artist. He does sketching and maybe that's why he was walking
in the woods -- trying to find a place where he could sit down and
sketch," said Rothenburg, the university department's chair of civil
engineering.

Carnegie was staying at a mining camp near Points North, on the west
part of Wollaston Lake, while doing aerial surveys for Ottawa-based
Sander Geophysics Ltd. The other crew members left shortly after the
incident.

Luise Sander, co-president of the survey company for which Carnegie was
working, did not want to comment out of respect to the family. She said
an internal investigation is underway to determine if any changes in
protocol are necessary.

Two dark wolves and two greys had frequented the Points North area in
the weeks prior to Carnegie's death. They were again seen near the body
on the evening of Nov. 8, chased off by people looking for Carnegie, who
failed to return from a walk.

Two days earlier, he and a colleague were showing off pictures of
several wolves they had encountered. Bill Topping, who makes routine
hauling trips to the region, spoke with the men during supper that day.
He warned them to be careful, relaying a story about a dog shredded by a
wolf.

Two conservation officers were sent into the area shortly after the
death. They issued permits to Points North officials to shoot any wolves
deemed aggressive or habitually near the area. The animals sent to
Saskatoon were shot Nov. 10, said Trottier.

Tests at the Prairie Diagnostic Services labs, on the University of
Saskatchewan campus, will determine the wolves' physical condition.
Their stomach contents will be analysed along with body fat, and blood
and hair for DNA.

Wolves are typically afraid of people but have become more comfortable
around northern camps where food scraps are readily available, said
Trottier. Wolves are at risk to attack if they are wounded or diseased
and have been shunned by the pack. But there has never been a documented
case of a fatal wolf attack in North America, Trottier said.

Autopsy results confirmed Carnegie was killed by an animal. Wolf tracks
and sightings suggest those animals are responsible, but RCMP aren't
sure, said spokesperson Heather Russell.

dbernhardt@sp.canwest.com

Note what the old professor says near the end of this article.

http://www.cbc.ca/sask/story/wolves051114.html

Kill wolves if necessary, conservation officers told
Last Updated Nov 14 2005 02:58 PM CST
CBC News
Conservation officers looking into a possible wolf attack in northern Saskatchewan have been given permission to kill the suspected animals if necessary. That follows the discovery last Wednesday of a 22-year-old man from Oshawa, Ont. who died in a wooded area at Points North Landing. The victim has been identified as Kenton Joel Carnegie, a third-year geological engineering student at the University of Waterloo who was at the remote mining camp as part of his fall term co-op job. Following an autopsy, RCMP said they couldn't say for certain he had been killed by wolves, but it's "likely" that's what happened. A funeral service for Carnegie was held in Oshawa on Monday. Tim Trottier, a wildlife biologist with the Environmental Department, said last week two conservation officers were sent to the area, about 450 kilometres northeast of La Ronge, to investigate. Because it's suspected that wolves attacked a person, department staff will be taking "a very cautious approach," he said. "We know that there were four wolves in the area … that had been in that area for some time and had been showing some signs of being unafraid of people," he said. "If they show any signs of aggression – unwarranted signs of aggression – our department has given permission to destroy those animals." Trottier said there's not a documented case in North America of wild wolves killing a human and he was surprised about media reports that said an animal attack is considered the likely cause of death. "I've never heard of something quite like this before," he said, adding that wolves fear humans and tend to avoid them. University of Calgary professor Valerius Geist sees things differently. The environmental scientist says low numbers of the wildlife wolves prey on have been accompanied by an increase in the wolf population. The combination of those factors can be fatal for humans, he said. "When you find that wolves are not running away but on the contrary, looking at them, beginning to follow them, it's a very, very bad sign," he said. "It's a dangerous sign, because the wolves are looking at them as potential lunch."

Too bad the young man wasn't carrying a Marlin or Winchester .30-30 instead of his sketch pad.

L.W.

. But there has never been a documented
case of a fatal wolf attack in North America, Trottier said.

]

I like wolves and have been severely disheartened that the majority of my fellow hunters don't share my respect and admiration for such a truly wild and regal animal. I like having them around my part of the country.

However, statements such as the above from "Trottier" are just plain ignorant. There are documented cases of wolf attacks on humans in North America. It does not happen often, but it has happened.

A wolf attack does not surprise me in the least. Especially wolves that don't fear humans. Thats partly why I'm surprised somebody "out west" has not been chewed up by one of the "released wolves", which have interfaced with humans. Trottier and others that make such silly statements do not do the wolf any good by denying the facts. Wolves are wild animals and not always predictable, especially if they are stressed (starving, etc.).

:cool:

boreal,
We'll be glad to send you our wolves (dead or alive!), depending on where your part of the country is! I know that in the Clearwater country, after the elk took a severe winter kill hit ('96/'97 I think it was), with the bear numbers very high, then the wolf population rapidly increasing, they have really stuggled to rebound. Farther south in the Frank Church wilderness, I think the wolves have been there for quite a few years (before the reintroduction program), but not increasing to the levels that we now have reports of. And I believe that the numbers of wolves that the feds are estimating are probably light. Even farther south, mainly in the Stanley basin and E Fk of the Salmon River, they have really rapidly increased and hunter reports of far fewer elk are rapidly increasing as well. This "experiment-in-progress" could very well have bad results.

I agree that the statement "But there has never been a documented case of a fatal wolf attack in North America..." is ignorant, but I'll go a step further and say that it is deliberately deceptive, as the links that I and halfbreed posted, reveal.

boreal,
We'll be glad to send you our wolves (dead or alive!), depending on where your part of the country is! .


Thanks Shawn! Send 'em on over. That would be Grand Marais, Minnesota. Of course, our wolves will simply kill them.

As I said, I find it very disheartening that the American hunter has fallen to the level of hatred of large predators, instead of trumpeting the wild places and the wild life within those places, including the very intelligent and glorious timber wolf. You can go ahead trying to wipe them out any disgraceful way that you like, including poaching. Go ahead and talk the tough talk about killing them and sending them to wolf supporters. The American public will only learn to hate hunters more and will continue to punish all the poachers that are caught.

Minnesota's 3,000 wolves are getting along just fine. Our deer herd is as large as ever and deer harvest has set all-time records in recent years. I can get up to five whitetail tags in many places. But then, this is my back yard and I'm not about to tell other places what type of wildlife they/you should have. I've stopped hunting the west long ago, as its getting far too civilized for me. The western outfitters, who seemed to be taking over western hunting are going to have to get their money elsewhere.

I'm very tired of being called "green" or "tree-hugger" or "gay" or the many other derogatory names on hunting forums (mostly other forums) any time I defend the wolf. Anti-wolfers seem to despise me greatly because I like wolves. Well, guess what? I've grown to despise those who would poach wolves and spew their rediculous anti-wolf propaganda. I shall no longer hold back when talking to my fellow hunters simply because they are so full of hate toward wolves. I may be the minority on forums like this, but the majority of US citizens and our representatives agree with me, the laws have been passes, the wolf is introduced in many places, and its range is expanding. Guess what? So far, I win.

Shoot, shovel, shut up?
At least, shut up! :)

Thanks Shawn! Send 'em on over. That would be Grand Marais, Minnesota. Of course, our wolves will simply kill them.

As I said, I find it very disheartening that the American hunter has fallen to the level of hatred of large predators, instead of trumpeting the wild places and the wild life within those places, including the very intelligent and glorious timber wolf. You can go ahead trying to wipe them out any disgraceful way that you like, including poaching. Go ahead and talk the tough talk about killing them and sending them to wolf supporters. The American public will only learn to hate hunters more and will continue to punish all the poachers that are caught.

Minnesota's 3,000 wolves are getting along just fine. Our deer herd is as large as ever and deer harvest has set all-time records in recent years. I can get up to five whitetail tags in many places. But then, this is my back yard and I'm not about to tell other places what type of wildlife they/you should have. I've stopped hunting the west long ago, as its getting far too civilized for me. The western outfitters, who seemed to be taking over western hunting are going to have to get their money elsewhere.

I'm very tired of being called "green" or "tree-hugger" or "gay" or the many other derogatory names on hunting forums (mostly other forums) any time I defend the wolf. Anti-wolfers seem to despise me greatly because I like wolves. Well, guess what? I've grown to despise those who would poach wolves and spew their rediculous anti-wolf propaganda. I shall no longer hold back when talking to my fellow hunters simply because they are so full of hate toward wolves. I may be the minority on forums like this, but the majority of US citizens and our representatives agree with me, the laws have been passes, the wolf is introduced in many places, and its range is expanding. Guess what? So far, I win.

Shoot, shovel, shut up?
At least, shut up! :)

Boreal! do you own pets or livestock? do you consider me rediculous that I want to protect mine? I am very happy to hear you and the US taxpayer don't mind paying for the livestock we lose hear to the Wolf.

Thanks Shawn! Send 'em on over. That would be Grand Marais, Minnesota. Of course, our wolves will simply kill them.

As I said, I find it very disheartening that the American hunter has fallen to the level of hatred of large predators, instead of trumpeting the wild places and the wild life within those places, including the very intelligent and glorious timber wolf. You can go ahead trying to wipe them out any disgraceful way that you like, including poaching. Go ahead and talk the tough talk about killing them and sending them to wolf supporters. The American public will only learn to hate hunters more and will continue to punish all the poachers that are caught.

Minnesota's 3,000 wolves are getting along just fine. Our deer herd is as large as ever and deer harvest has set all-time records in recent years. I can get up to five whitetail tags in many places. But then, this is my back yard and I'm not about to tell other places what type of wildlife they/you should have. I've stopped hunting the west long ago, as its getting far too civilized for me. The western outfitters, who seemed to be taking over western hunting are going to have to get their money elsewhere.

I'm very tired of being called "green" or "tree-hugger" or "gay" or the many other derogatory names on hunting forums (mostly other forums) any time I defend the wolf. Anti-wolfers seem to despise me greatly because I like wolves. Well, guess what? I've grown to despise those who would poach wolves and spew their rediculous anti-wolf propaganda. I shall no longer hold back when talking to my fellow hunters simply because they are so full of hate toward wolves. I may be the minority on forums like this, but the majority of US citizens and our representatives agree with me, the laws have been passes, the wolf is introduced in many places, and its range is expanding. Guess what? So far, I win.

Shoot, shovel, shut up?
At least, shut up! :)

Well, I didn't think my post was that threatening to bring about this type of response, and it seems you misinterpreted it a bit. Did I say I was trying to wipe them out?!! And did I call you names? (no, I didn't)

As I stated, there were wolves in the Frank Church wilderness area long before the "reintroductions", and very likely in the Lochsa/Selway/Bitteroot areas as well. So if we accept that as being true, did we really need this costly reintroduction program and some bureaucrats' target population levels?

I confess that I don't even know what the laws were at that time, if shooting a wolf was legal or not. Is it legal to kill a wolf in Minnesota today?

With the reintroductions and the severe penalties for killing a wolf, they have rapidly increased here because our state game management has been taken out of the equation, and political game management usually results in failure or unintended consequences.

I'm not afraid of the big bad wolf....more afraid of the effects they may have on my hunting opportunities. Selfish? Maybe. I guess I'm tired of politicians looking at Idaho and other western states with quite a lot unspoiled wilderness as a place for their wildlife experiments such as this. We only need to look at California and the ban on cougar hunting (by legislative initiative, not sound game management) to see the failure of that with them now hunting humans and decimating the deer population. And now there is talk of grizzly reintroductions. I say they reintroduce them into CA (their state emblem still has a grizzly on it) where they once thrived!

I'm not going to get overly emotional about this wolf issue, as you have, because it would be wasted effort.

Boreal! do you own pets or livestock? [\QUOTE]

I do, and I find it easy to protect them with a few precautions. Stockowners in Minnesota are finding effective ways to get along with wolves. I'm sure you won't believe this, but a small operation near me raises a couple hundred beef cattle every year. The cattle have learned to group up when threatened by predators. The owner loses a couple of calves every few years, be he has told me that his cattle have actually "stomped to death" two wolves and a few coyote in past years. You wanna buy a few of his cattle? Maybe they will teach your cattle a thing or two.

[QUOTE]do you consider me rediculous that I want to protect mine? [\QUOTE]

No. I think you have the right to protect your property. Why do you assume the worst, simply because I think we should have large predators in some areas? But your assertion that you cannot protect your property is false and simply a scare tactic put out by politically motivated groups like you will find at natureswolves.com. If you read the western state's management plans without blinders on, you will realize that you will be able to better protect your property as the plans are implemented. If westerners can't figure out how to live with wolves, then this country should expand its parks to include much of the outlying federal land for exclusive use by large predators and other wildlife. If that stops some federal grazing and some hunting opportunities, then tough. If people can't allow some space for wild things, we are a disgusting lot. I used to agree with the old Wyoming plan that was rejected by the feds. But, after many discussions with other "hunters" on various forums, I've come to believe that there are too many poachers and SSS types for that plan to work. Therefore we had to be much more forceful in protecting wolves. Now that their range has expanded beyond expectations, and the "experiment" has been successful beyond all hope, the feds are handing over management to the states. I'm sure the feds will be watching closely, for good reason.

[Quote]I am very happy to hear you and the US taxpayer don't mind paying for the livestock we lose hear to the Wolf.

Among the other things that I must do to accomodate wolves in my back yard, I'm happy to pay for wolf damage (even in western states until the states take over management) to protect a great animal from those who would hate them to death.

Now, how about if YOU and "the taxpayer" pay for all other damage that occurs on my property from browsing deer, woodchuck and gofer damage, flooding by beaver activity, damage by hares (all the previous are wolf food), seagull waste cleanup, disease spread to my animals and gardens by wild animals and plants, infestations of exotic species that I have to work at removing, etc, etc.?

Just remember that every time you giggle "Shoot, shovel, shut up", or repeat falsehoods about wolves, or speak of those who support wolves as arm chair..., city boys, tree hugger, or some other rediculous charge, hunters (and biologists) like me don't find it cute or smart of you to insult us in those ways. You will lose any backing from hunters like me and the general public. We will take the side of the wildlife (wolves in this case) every time. In fact, after finding out how the average hunter on hunting and shooting forums feels about wolves, I've been saddened greatly and have much less respect for "the average hunter".

I did not charge you personally with calling me names. I addressed the "American hunter" with the "wipe them out" comment. Please read my post more carefully. And you have incorrectly assigned an emotional state to me. And Just exactly is "this type of response?" One that gives a differing opinion than yours? One that unabashidly gives you an unpopular response? Its about time that anti-wolf hunters heard that there are hunters who support wolves in a few wild places.

And good grief, read your own state's wildlife web page: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/



Here is an excerpt:

Private Land

Wolves seen attacking livestock (PDF Format, 702 KB), livestock herding and guarding animals, and dogs (PDF Format, 252 KB) on private land can be shot by the landowners without prior written authorization. It must be reported within 24 hours and there must be evidence of a wolf attack such as dead or wounded livestock, trampled vegetation, and mixed wolf and livestock sign. State lands are considered private for the purpose of this rule, and permitted livestock producers on state land can kill a wolf attacking their livestock.
Public Land

Wolves attacking, chasing, molesting, or harassing livestock and livestock herding and guarding animals on public federal lands can be shot by grazing permittees and guide/outfitters that use livestock as part of their federal land-use permit, on their active livestock allotments, and on public ceded lands by Tribal members, without prior written authorization. It must be reported within 24 hours and there must be physical evidence of a wolf attack.
Under some circumstances landowners and public land grazing permittees and guide/outfitting permittees may be issued written authorization to use rubber bullets to harass wolves, or shoot-on-sight permits to kill wolves on their private land or their federal grazing federal allotments.
Also under the new rule, wolves determined to be causing unacceptable impacts to deer and elk populations can be controlled. This is allowed only after the States complete science-based documents that have undergone public and peer review and have been approved by the USFWS.

"I'm sure you won't believe this, but a small operation near me raises a couple hundred beef cattle every year. The cattle have learned to group up when threatened by predators. The owner loses a couple of calves every few years, be he has told me that his cattle have actually "stomped to death" two wolves and a few coyote in past years. You wanna buy a few of his cattle? Maybe they will teach your cattle a thing or two."

Anecdotal "evidence" such as this can't possibly be expected to be successfully applied everywhere, can it?

"If you read the western state's management plans without blinders on, you will realize that you will be able to better protect your property as the plans are implemented."

Yes, the plans allow some measure of wolf control, it's definitely better than it was before.

"If westerners can't figure out how to live with wolves, then this country should expand its parks to include much of the outlying federal land for exclusive use by large predators and other wildlife. If that stops some federal grazing and some hunting opportunities, then tough."

There you go, expecting "Westerners" to save the wolf or any other threatened species, possibly at the expense of their livlihood. Idaho, for example, has the largest wilderness area in the lower 48, yet you suggest we should maybe have even more (certainly, as a hunter, you wouldn't support more park land that doesn't allow hunting, would you?). Why not relocate a bunch of farmers and ubanites near Minneapolis and set aside a bunch of wilderness out there if you really believe in this? Some could relocate to your property! It's easy to take a position when it doesn't affect you personally.

"I've come to believe that there are too many poachers and SSS types for that plan to work. Therefore we had to be much more forceful in protecting wolves. Now that their range has expanded beyond expectations, and the "experiment" has been successful beyond all hope, the feds are handing over management to the states. I'm sure the feds will be watching closely, for good reason."

As I stated before, there were already wolves here before the reintroduction program in areas that rarely saw a human, yet that wasn't good enough, and the reintroduction program was born at great expense. Worth it to some, not to others, which is why we're having this debate. And, the costs are not near to being over with.

"Now, how about if YOU and "the taxpayer" pay for all other damage that occurs on my property from browsing deer, woodchuck and gofer damage, flooding by beaver activity, damage by hares (all the previous are wolf food), seagull waste cleanup, disease spread to my animals and gardens by wild animals and plants, infestations of exotic species that I have to work at removing, etc, etc.?"

Absolutely not, because you are largely able to control that situation. You can shoot woodchucks and gofers. You can shoot up to 5 deer, and if that doesn't do it, then maybe you should invite some more hunters to your place to shoot more (but that would impact YOU so maybe you're not willing to take that step). Seagull waste?!! C'mon, now you're reaching. Beavers? Why not accomodate them on your property, they're animals too?

"I did not charge you personally with calling me names. I addressed the "American hunter" with the "wipe them out" comment. Please read my post more carefully. And you have incorrectly assigned an emotional state to me. And Just exactly is "this type of response?" One that gives a differing opinion than yours? One that unabashidly gives you an unpopular response? Its about time that anti-wolf hunters heard that there are hunters who support wolves in a few wild places."

Sadly, you have a dim view of the "American Hunter" and it's unfortunate if you've painted that broad brush based on the opinions concerning the wolf issue. There are many good and polite folks on this board and I've found this board to be one of the most pleasant to visit and converse. The "At least shut up" comment at the end of your post is what I was referring to as "emotional", and a smily face at the end really doesn't mitigate that. And, it appears that you yourself are more intolerant of differing opinions.

"Wolves attacking, chasing, molesting, or harassing livestock and livestock herding and guarding animals on public federal lands can be shot by grazing permittees and guide/outfitters that use livestock as part of their federal land-use permit, on their active livestock allotments, and on public ceded lands by Tribal members, without prior written authorization. It must be reported within 24 hours and there must be physical evidence of a wolf attack.
Under some circumstances landowners and public land grazing permittees and guide/outfitting permittees may be issued written authorization to use rubber bullets to harass wolves, or shoot-on-sight permits to kill wolves on their private land or their federal grazing federal allotments.
Also under the new rule, wolves determined to be causing unacceptable impacts to deer and elk populations can be controlled. This is allowed only after the States complete science-based documents that have undergone public and peer review and have been approved by the USFWS.

Ah, the "...science-based documents that have undergone public and peer review and have been approved by the USFWS." How long do you think that process takes? Probably too long to take effective necessary action, especially with respect to elk populations. For example, after the severe winter kill (elk) in the Clearwater region in '96/'97, our state F&G were able to bump up bear permits from one to two to help the elk rebound. A year or two delay to satisfy the wolf "plan" requirements could severely adversely affect a regional population.

My concern with reintroduced wolves is they have been around humans and have lost the fear most wild animals have of humans.
Where I hunted this year I saw 4 does in a week. I usually see more than that in a day. There were no fawns around at all. There were more cougar and bear sign then I have ever seen before. One hunter shot a cougar that was with a second one walking down the road. We can't bait, we can't use dogs, I hope they don't add wolves.

There were more cougar and bear sign then I have ever seen before. One hunter shot a cougar that was with a second one walking down the road. We can't bait, we can't use dogs, I hope they don't add wolves.

They'll be coming your way soon enough....maybe already there. Next up, grizzlies, and another bump in your taxes!

Anecdotal "evidence" such as this can't possibly be expected to be successfully applied everywhere, can it?

Anecdotal evidence from me, but not when directly from the cattle owner. That is first hand. By your measure, anything at natureswolves.com or from you or most others on this forum is also anecdotal.




There you go, ......... Idaho, for example, has the largest wilderness area in the lower 48, yet you suggest we should maybe have even more (certainly, as a hunter, you wouldn't support more park land that doesn't allow hunting, would you?).

Not at all! I did not suggest more so-called "wilderness areas", I suggested enlarging PARKS "if man and wolf cannot live side by side" then we need to remove man. Yes, I would suggest removing hunters also. Thats why I said PARKS. I would rather adjust our hunting and ranching activities, but if it comes down to not being possible, then remove man.

Why not relocate a bunch of farmers and ubanites near Minneapolis and set aside a bunch of wilderness out there if you really believe in this? Some could relocate to your property! It's easy to take a position when it doesn't affect you personally.

Because we already have lots of public-owned lands around our federal parks. Private property around Minneapolis and my private property are not public land. We do have lots of federal land that is managed as wilderness and national forest, roadless areas, etc. in northern Minnesota. In fact, my land is bordered on three sides by roadless national forest. I like it that way.



Absolutely not, because you are largely able to control that situation. You can shoot woodchucks and gofers. You can shoot up to 5 deer, and if that doesn't do it, then maybe you should invite some more hunters to your place to shoot more (but that would impact YOU so maybe you're not willing to take that step). Seagull waste?!! C'mon, now you're reaching. Beavers? Why not accomodate them on your property, they're animals too?

I do accomidate those critters. That was my point. And you can shoot wolves too. See Idaho's wolf page on the internet. I gave you the link. Defending private property is becoming a non-issue with the evolving rules. And, have you ever had everything you own crapped on every day by hundreds of seaguls? :)


Sadly, you have a dim view of the "American Hunter" and it's unfortunate if you've painted that broad brush based on the opinions concerning the wolf issue. There are many good and polite folks on this board and I've found this board to be one of the most pleasant to visit and converse. The "At least shut up" comment at the end of your post is what I was referring to as "emotional", and a smily face at the end really doesn't mitigate that. And, it appears that you yourself are more intolerant of differing opinions.

I have not used a wide brush to paint the American hunter. My comments regard the WOLF ISSUE. I'm sorry that you continue to misread my posts. I agree that there are many good folks on this forum, more so than any other which I've visited. I hesitate to even discuss this topic because of that. I'm sorry that "shut up" offends you, but it is to point out that there are three SSSs in Shoot, shovel, and shut up. Many seem to forget the last one. And if you go back to your previous posts, you will see statements by you that offend me greatly. "We'll be glad to send you our wolves, dead or alive" and in another post; "I'm glad you don't mind paying for.....". Maybe you don't realize it, but both those statements are both over-used, rediculous talking points that anti-wolfers use. They are insulting to those who like wolves. And of course, you bring up the old "why can't I protect my pets and livestock" bullpucky. I provided the link that shows you CAN protect property, even in Idaho! As the states take management, the rules will likely relax even more.



Ah, the "...science-based documents that have undergone public and peer review and have been approved by the USFWS."

Yup, there is another talking point from your side. Exactly who would you have make these decisions? Perhaps a group of non-scientists with an agenda? Politicians? A bunch of "hunters?" And perhaps you would like to leave out the public and peer review?

Have a good day.
:cool:

OK, we're comparing apples and oranges here, in 3 different ecosystems with three different management systems. I posted this for informational purposes, not to start a flame war, but I'm sorry to say that I have to lock this thread.

Bye
Jack

The coroner's jury verdict on the wolf attack.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2007/11/01/wolf-verdict.html

Bye
Jack