Wolf attacks boy in Minnesota

I agree with the Chuck Norris theory.

Quote:

---

I’ve noticed that wolfs seem to disappear once the deer numbers drop dramatically…..

---

true in places like north-central and north-east MN

not so true in places like southern MT where there’s significant sources of other prey in the area … like sheep herds

Quote:

---

I’ve noticed that wolfs seem to disappear once the deer numbers drop dramatically (and children sleep inside of their tents)…..

---

Fixed it.

Quote:

---

true in places where deer are the only significant sources of prey

not so true where there’s significant other sources of prey in the area … like sheep herds or children sleeping in tents

---

OK; respecting your lead, fixed mine too

Quote:

---

Based on the fact that we still have wolves, we therefor didn’t ever eliminate them

“Level” of problems is: “number of” livestock losses and level of depradation of other wildlife populations (i.e. deer, moose, elk) << yes there will always be some, but is there really any doubt that wolves have much more impact now than 20 to 50 yrs ago

maybe the population was lower than optimal 50 yrs ago, but I believe it’s significantly higher than optimal now

---

I was disputing the more incidents, not the lower numbers of wolves. The problem is correlation does not imply causation. I could argue we have more wolf incidents because of carbon emissions and more co2 rates now. Deer, moose, elk and wolves kept in balance for thousands of years. Maybe the higher rate of incidence is actually related less to wolf populations and more so to human actions, population and expansion.

Maybe we really need human management more than wildlife management.

Quote:

---

Maybe we really need human management more than wildlife management.

---

some of the human behavior that we all witness far too frequently makes that proposal seem rather attractive at times

We start with politicians!

Hilarious!

Great, now the fish are after the kids too…

Quote:

---

Great, now the fish are after the kids too…

---

PITA would be proud.

Looks like BK with a walleye on the end of the line…

Quote:

---

We need to be able to keep wolves in a range that is manageable. I don’t think we need to eliminate the wolves BUT we have TOO many. That is my take on the problem. It saps our DNR resources that could go for many more things than paying damage claims.

---

Let’s try this with are own species just a little. How many times has the human population doubled in the last 100 years? My thinking also stands to reason that a wolf pelt might be in my living room someday

Quote:

---

I’ve noticed that wolfs seem to disappear once the deer numbers drop dramatically…..

---

Wolves …. LOL Had to do it Sorry Love the fish pug

Wow, the only professions you can be horrible at and the government “bails” them out.

Quote:

---

Looks like BK with a walleye on the end of the line…

---

I was going to post the same thing!

Who found my old gif?

Quote:

---

Wow, the only professions you can be horrible at and the government “bails” them out.

---

Airlines, Banks, and Automobile Manufacturing

Quote:

---

We need to reduce the amount of lightning to zero which injures more people than wolves.

I find it funny when an accident like this happens it is suddenly a news story. Its like when 10 people get ill from poopy lettuce and all of a sudden it is all over the news and there is a massive recall.

---

He he he… “poopy”

Quote:

---

Very lucky it was not a small child or the results could of been much worse. I guess it will take someone getting killed before they realize that there are too many wolves, maybe zero would be a good number?

---

That’s just plain silly.

How many wolves have attacked people in the last 50 years?

We do need to manage the population but to completely eradicated wolves makes no sense.

Quote:

---

Farmers are reimbursed for livestock lost to wolves…I think we may subsidize everything a farmer does including taking a dump, but that is another thread.

---

Farmers do NOT get “reimbursed” for wolf-killed livestock.

They may apply for aid and if (and ONLY if) it can be proved that the loss was due to a wolf they may recieve a payment.

However! The maximum payment amount is at best a few hundred dollars and that is NOWHERE near “reimbursement” for the full value of that animal.

What your average surburbanite/urbanite doesn’t understand is that while a calf might be worth $500-700. But as a grown animal, that cow might have a value of anywhere from $1,500 to $10,000.

Now I hear you say, “$10,000???? That’s nuts. No cow is worth that!”

But in the case of a stock cow, whose job on the ranch is to produce a calf every year, that could easily be what it costs the farmer/rancher in total losses. It’s the cost of cow (including the cost to raise it) PLUS the value of all the calves she would have produced in her lifetime.

If wolves were setting fire to cars in Minneapolis, than urbanites would be squealing like pigs for compensation. Just look at all the Minneapolis residents with their hands out as soon as an act of nature damages their houses.

But farmers are bad guys for wanting/getting a small fraction of the total cost of a loss when a wolf destroys their assets?

Grouse

Just say no to wolf hunts and yes to people being in tune with nature and understanding and respecting its beauty and danger!

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Farmers are reimbursed for livestock lost to wolves…I think we may subsidize everything a farmer does including taking a dump, but that is another thread.

---

Farmers do NOT get “reimbursed” for wolf-killed livestock.

They may apply for aid and if (and ONLY if) it can be proved that the loss was due to a wolf they may recieve a payment.

However! The maximum payment amount is at best a few hundred dollars and that is NOWHERE near “reimbursement” for the full value of that animal.

What your average surburbanite/urbanite doesn’t understand is that while a calf might be worth $500-700. But as a grown animal, that cow might have a value of anywhere from $1,500 to $10,000.

Now I hear you say, “$10,000???? That’s nuts. No cow is worth that!”

But in the case of a stock cow, whose job on the ranch is to produce a calf every year, that could easily be what it costs the farmer/rancher in total losses. It’s the cost of cow (including the cost to raise it) PLUS the value of all the calves she would have produced in her lifetime.

If wolves were setting fire to cars in Minneapolis, than urbanites would be squealing like pigs for compensation. Just look at all the Minneapolis residents with their hands out as soon as an act of nature damages their houses.

But farmers are bad guys for wanting/getting a small fraction of the total cost of a loss when a wolf destroys their assets?

Grouse

---

Quote:

---

Farmers do NOT get “reimbursed” for wolf-killed livestock.

---

The $154,136 the state paid in fiscal 2012 was for 111 verified claims. That’s about a $14,000 average. And that isn’t just for cows and bulls. That also includes sheep, turkeys, a horse and a llama.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-09-06/wolfs-recovery-seen-in-livestock-loss-payouts

Serious question. Like any other business, do they have insurance?

Farming is a business. In any business you need to protect your assets. In any business their is risk. SSS. Shoot wolves on your land. Be attentive.

Quote:

---

If wolves were setting fire to cars in Minneapolis, than urbanites would be squealing like pigs for compensation. Just look at all the Minneapolis residents with their hands out as soon as an act of nature damages their houses.

---

Good points, same result. People should have insurance for autos and houses. While I don’t mind aid for areas devastated by natural disasters, I don’t think individuals and families should be getting giant lumps of cash for bad luck.

And I am for management. I don’t want to see these number of incidents double or grow exponentially.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Farmers do NOT get “reimbursed” for wolf-killed livestock.

---

The $154,136 the state paid in fiscal 2012 was for 111 verified claims. That’s about a $14,000 average. And that isn’t just for cows and bulls. That also includes sheep, turkeys, a horse and a llama.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-09-06/wolfs-recovery-seen-in-livestock-loss-payouts

Serious question. Like any other business, do they have insurance?

Farming is a business. In any business you need to protect your assets. In any business their is risk. SSS. Shoot wolves on your land. Be attentive.

---

In the interest of prventing gross calculator abuse, it should be pointed out that the $14,000 per wolf kill is NOT what the farmer/rancher recieves in compensation. I understand you did not say that, simple math gives overly simplistic impressions.

The last firsthand knowledge I have of the compensation for a verified wolf kill (of a calf)was that the rancher recieved $500. That was in 2010 and it was for a calf, so it may have increased and obviously payments for a bull or stock cows are higher. I don’t know what the current cap is, but I believe it was $3000 or less in 2010.

However, the VAST majority of that $14,000 goes as payments for investigation, the efforts of professional trappers to trap problem animals, program administration etc, etc. Essentially, like any government program, it’s overhead.

Like all businesses, the farmers and ranchers I know DO carry insurance. And just like homeowners insurance that excludeds flood damage, business insurance includes/excludes different things. The ones who have insurance are certainly using it, but just like homeowner’s insurance that may or may not cover the full extent of the loss.

Why are you in favor of aid for Minneapolis urbanites to recover from “natural disasters” but against aid to farmers for the same thing? How is a wolf killing livestock not a “natural disaster” for the farmer, but a tree falling on a Minneapolis house somehow worthy of compensation?

Minneapolis is the most heavily subsidized city in Minnesota. Minneapolis residents recived almost twice the level of per capita subsidy of any other place in Minnesota, even though that money goes to fund services that the rest of MN is expected to provide without handouts from the rest of the state.

Grouse

Quote:

---

Why are you in favor of aid for Minneapolis urbanites to recover from “natural disasters” but against aid to farmers for the same thing? How is a wolf killing livestock not a “natural disaster” for the farmer, but a tree falling on a Minneapolis house somehow worthy of compensation?

---

I said I was ok with aid when it is a large disaster and I was not for compensating individuals and families. Obviously if you have major damage to an area affecting infrastructure that impacts a lot of people. I am for money to recover like clean up and repairs to shared resources.

I wouldn’t say I am against compensating farmers either, because wolves are protected and that can put a farmer in a tough position.

My original response my angst was more directed to all the subsidies given to farmers. I also shouldn’t lump all farmers either, because I am sure some probably “take advantage”, while others bare more personal responsibility.

Just a recent example of why these animals need controlled.

Sheep kill

IDAHO FALLS, Idaho — A southeastern Idaho ranch lost 176 sheep as the animals ran in fear from two wolves that chased through a herd of about 2,400 animals south of Victor.

Sheepherders for the Siddoway Sheep Co. heard the wolves at about 1 a.m. Saturday, but didn’t know the extent of the damage until they saw the sheep piled up on each other at daybreak.

J.C. Siddoway of Terreton says almost all of the sheep died from asphyxiation. About 10 died of bite wounds and one was partially consumed.

Idaho Wildlife Services State Director Todd Grimm says it’s the greatest loss by wolves ever recorded in one instance in the state. About nine years ago, wolves killed 105 sheep on one night.

Grimm says a dozen wolves have been removed from the Pine Creek area this year.

In the face of public scrutiny it seem as though most State DNR offices are proceeding with wolf hunts despite the backlash from the general public.

I think they deserve some credit for moving forward with wolf hunts, the problem is they will never be able to appease both sides of this issue.

Very true. The problem with our DNR is they lose all credibility when you dive deeper into how they estimate the # of wolves in Mn. Their surveys are far from scientific. When these state agencies allow the total decimation of elk herds, possibly our moose etc… I understand these agencies are in a no win situation in our politically correct world.

I am thankful we have the opportunity to hunt these creatures. However, I do take acception to those who claim these creatures are shy and majestic. I see them mid-day trotting by a large group of guys at 100 yards. These dogs are simply an amazing predator. Maybe after a few seasons of hunting them we’ll put some fear back into them. Right now, my personal experience has been they don’t fear us humans.

I don’t think there really is any true estimate of any spieces. When you really look at it,it just boggles my mind.

Count the # springtime of drums they hear for grouse.
Count the # of fish spieces that get entangled in thier nets.
Count the # spring pheasant broods seen while driving

multiply x X x per acre.

They are just guessing

.