Should We Kill Wolves?

Question

Wolves in Yellowstone have not yet taken off the endangered species list, yet in March, a new law will allow them to be shot or trapped. It is mighty hard to shoot a wolf without the help of an airplane, as is allowed in Alaska. When wolves were killed off in the U.S. years ago, they were killed by poison...as were thousands of other animals who tasted the poisoned meat.

Ranchers dislike wolves, because they have been known to attack their herds of cattle and sheep. The truth is, wolves usually attack the most vulnerable, the old and the sick. Moose herds are usually improved by the culling done by wolves.

There has never been a human killed by a wolf in the United States. They are elusive creatures and it is difficult to even see a wolf, let alone shoot it. Game officials have worked hard to bring back the wolf to our country, rescuing it from extinction. The question is, should hunters be allowed to shoot wolves before they are removed from the Endangered Species List?

Answer 1

Read The Loop by Nicholas Evans. It is a novel written about this exact thing.

Answer 2

no never

Answer 3

We should absolutely not kill wolves.  When we kill wolves, we are killing an animal just trying to survive.  Ranchers could use special collars for sheep that when an animal of the Canis species gets near it, it will send signals that only the Canis species can hear, and it will scare them away.  Or they can shoot it with a tranquilizer and put a tracker collar on it while it is asleep so they know if it is near the rancher's land.  Wolves are just another animal trying to live.

Answer 4

As long as ranchers hold control over the political strings in that part of the USA, such laws will continue to be enacted. I think the best is to "let things be". When their herds begin to die of starvation (poor health and lack of gracing land) then they will realize the wolf was really their best friend. Wolves only kill to survive. They are not killers of sport like humans.

Answer 5

Wolves are marvelous and wounderous animals... they are very intelligent.. they take a mate for life and their whole life is for protecting and raising their young...

But some morons want to kill them. NO.. they should not allow hunting them.. but it's just so AmeriKan to kill everything and everyone.

Answer 6

I didn't read all of the extra detail but in answer to the actual question NO we have no right to kill any animals, even those we deliberatly breed to kill as we have an unfair advantage over them because we have dominated the world. We are destroying everything. I could go on and on but there would be so many typos it would no be understandable

Answer 7

Let's see...

It's true that the wolves in Yellowstone are on the protected species list.  It's also true that the original 30 or so wolves that were released into that area have expanded their population to over 1,000.  There are many different packs in the Yellowstone area, and even expanding into Idaho (which was also one of the approved reintroduction locations), Montana, Wyoming, and even Utah.  There's potential for them to spread into Colorado and even northern Nevada (and Nevada has NO historical record of wolves being in that area IF I remember correctly).  

Mighty hard to shoot a wolf without the help of an airplane?  Are you serious?  At the rate those wolves are expanding their population and range, it probably wouldn't be too difficult for a rancher to shoot a wolf from his pickup truck or horse - especially while watching the wolves attacking his livestock.  

Your "truth" about wolves attacking the "old and the sick" is true when it comes to WILDLIFE - but that truth goes right out the window when it comes to domestic livestock such as sheep and cattle.  When it comes to domestic livestock - which animals do not have experience with wolves - they are easy prey for a wolfpack.  

...And "moose herds"?  Am I missing something?  Because in ALL of my travels around the back areas of the western United States, I have yet to EVER see a moose herd.  For your information, moose are generally solitary animals.  You'll see a bull moose and a cow moose getting together to mate, and that's about it.  Then, after the calf is born, the cow moose cares for it until it's the age to strike out on its own.  On occasion, you might see two or three adolescent moose together - but that doesn't qualify as a "herd".  

Now, ELK do travel in herds.  ELK herds have been thinned by wolves.  Heck, even the range quality in Yellowstone has improved because the wolves keep the ELK moving - that way the ELK cannot stay in one area and overgraze.  They are moving pretty much constantly, so the range health has improved in Yellowstone.  

Oh, and while the overall population of wolves was reduced in the lower 48 states, there was still a huge, viable population of wolves in Canada - so they weren't really on the brink of extinction.  

Now, ranchers have always been legally able to shoot a wolf that was in the process of attacking or killing his livestock.  Further, ENVIRONMENTAL organizations have promised to compensate ranchers for the "fair market value" of each animal that has been killed by wolves.  Unfortunately, those same environmental groups fail to keep their promises.  They'll try and worm their way out of paying by saying the animal wasn't "killed" by the wolf - and that the wolf was merely eating a dead cow/sheep/horse/etc.  

Am I against wolves?  Actually, NO.  I'm glad they were reintroduced into the Yellowstone area.  However, those wolves need to be managed.  If they attack livestock, they need to be hazed, or even shot, to protect the ranchers' livelihood.  

Unfortunately, most of the "wolf loving" population are Urban Environmentalists whose experience with wolves or ranching comes mainly from the Discovery Channel and from the meat section of their local supermarket.  They have no practical knowledge about life in on ranches or in wolf country except from the internet, TV, or books.  

Oh, and yes, I know I'll be given almost exclusively "thumbs down" - because I'm not willing to worship the wolf and accept everything the wolves do as OK.  I know my position goes against the internet urban environmentalist thought process...

Have a nice day.

Answer 8

Yes,

I am guess most of you live back east if not I apologize. I am for the original number proposed for release in Yellowstone and surrounding areas. What we failure to see is that when wolves roamed the west people were not in abundance. They will continue to multiple and if left unchecked will venture across the west until every farmer and ranch has problems. Deer, Elk and Moose are regulated by humans to maintain herd sizes due to available winter range. Winter range is now where we humans live. The ecosystem that once existed is not there. The areas for the animals are now back yards. The continental united states has limited room for wolves and the excess needs to be removed. The wolves from Yellowstone will be protected in the recovery area but for the most part will be terminated if they are outside of the area. As you say yourself they are elusive creatures. I am not for poisoning them but hunting them will be fun. Five years?? Looks like 2009 it will be hunting season.

Answer 9

Shoot every last one. They serve no use  to have them million dollar wolves eating our livestock.

Shoot only on Private land. Want do you they can read.  All you wolf lovers when you write your answer tell everyone where your from.

read the one that she thinks we should improve our fences. and put up cameras. Lady do you know what it would cost to put a wolf fence around 60000 acres.where should we place our cameras? go out and buy a satellite? You people do have a clue on what goes on in the west.

Answer 10

It's really a sad example the law makers in your country are putting up by taking such a decision. Perticualrly when wolves are a part of America's character.

by me, ( I apologise deeply if I sound cruel) killing rats for spreading nuiscance and chicken and lamb for meat (and occassionally a pig) is still ok. But killing other creatures on tenuous grounds is a definite NO.

Answer 11

Wolves are no more special in their right to life than rainbow trout, pheasants, gophers, starlings, or tunas.  The are not some kind of royalty in the animal kingdom.  When they become a problem to someones livilhood, or to the continued existance of some other animal, they need to be controlled, just as other animals (such as coyotes, jackrabbits, and mountain lions) have been.  The Greenies and enviro-fascists think that they have to right to declare certain animals as something more special than other animals.

Answer 12

Only if its done by firearms on ones own property.

Answer 13

NO!!

Answer 14

NO! I agree with you. Endangered means just that. It's so hard to be that we can bring them back from almost extinction and then start killing them again. Why can't they be relocated?

Answer 15

Are they good to eat? I eat what I kill. Or I don't kill it.

Answer 16

kill or be killed

Answer 17

People just don't see what their doing, Their going into their homes. but anyways h**l NO! Wolves are one of the most beautiful creatures in this world.

Answer 18

Don't kill them. Disturb them, they kill you. Leave them alone.

Answer 19

This is an issue that has been going on longer than you know. We discussed the Yellowstone wolves in one of my environmental studies courses. People aren't dying, but farmers are getting a little impatient. They won't reinforce their fences and they are actually allowed o shoot at a wolf if they see that wolf trying to attack their livestock. There should be camera monitors, I think, so that the government doesn't get taken advantage of by these farmers putting in claims for money for their livestock and so that the farmers can scare off the wolf before it has the chance to attack a cow.

Hunters, on the other hand, should not be allowed to hunt and kill this animal unless for protective reasons. What reason would hunters have to kill a wolf? The Endangered Species list protects these animals for up to 5 years after they are removed from it. We probably don't have to worry about the hunters- we'll have to worry about the money-grubbing cattle ranchers.

Answer 20

As much as I am 1) a biologist and 2) have a vested interest in natural conservation as I consider myself an outdoors adventurer, I think your "question" is phrased in a way to bias toward a conclusion.

Also, I think you answered your own question.  It sounds like the intent of the law is to allow ranchers to defend their herd if wolves attack.  It would not be legal to do so under current law, and I would think it'd be awful hard to shoo away wolves from a fresh kill.

The gray wolf is NOT AN ENDANGERED SPECIES even though it is currently on the endangered species list.  This is simply because the list is not current enough to the situation-at-hand.  Even if we're just talking about just the Yellowstone area, after reintroduction of 66 individuals back into the Yellowstone area in 1995-1996, there are now over 1500 wolves in the area.  Wolf kills of domestic animals and livestock are now at ~330 per year.  This is the impetus for the new law.

The second paragraph of your question blatantly mixes non-comparable situations.  Predators usually attack the most vulnerable of WILD HERDS, which means the old, the sick, and the young (people sometimes conveniently leave that last one out, as you did).  On the other hand, a rancher's herd is NOT A WILD HERD, and breeding is deliberate.  It does not at all help the herd gene pool when wolves attack.  Also, the rancher does the "weeding out" much better than any wolf can.

Finally, do you know that the increase in gray wolves are decimating the coyote population in the same area?

Had this been phrased as a fair question, the issue in debate should have been:  what is the correct gray wolf population level to maintain?  The debate is between the ~500 proposed by this new legislation, versus the ~2500 proposed by certain environmentalists.