This Video is So Bad This Must be Mrs. Farley Mowatt

Yeah, I agree with that, the problem is not the low mortality rate, the problem is other people trying to claim wolves won’t kill humans. Also the problem is the public at large is not willing to be responsible for their public property, which invades private property and causes the private property owners financial harm. For example in my lifetime (52), a cougar or bear has never harassed my horses, wolves have done so three times now, damages were $3000.00, to fence and the DVM. It was almost a relief when all the wild life around here vanished three years ago, I knew it couldn’t hold up much longer in 2008. Thus the wolves left. Now the coyotes are back, and some small game, not enough small game though. I’ve decided wolves are the dumbest carnivore I’ve ever met, because they keep coming back for more trouble, where the cougar and bear most often learn the once is enough lesson and keep back. The Coyotes keep coming into the place at night as well. Reminds me of my well trained hunting dog, as long as the electric collar is on he minds, take it off, he quits listening at about 120 yards, it’s the I can’t hear dad and I’m gonna run like hell.. Wolves are stupid.

Statistically, in a country of over 300 million, pitbull attacks are also insignificant, yet we have laws across this nation concerning them.

Statistics are a funny thing, as well as easily manipulated. The reality is, to the human who may find himself on the menu of a wolf, the insignificance is meaningless.

And yet we only examine one aspect of a wolf related death, direct attack. Somehow they escape the diseases they infect people and other animals with. They are a disease ridden animal and as such we really have no need for them around areas humans inhabit.

Even one wolf death in the lower 48 is unacceptable, and it is bound to happen, dismissing it as insignificant will not fly.

Where did I say exterminated? I would greatly appreciate if you didn’t attempt to put words in my mouth.

The typical excuse that all animals carry disease is a pretty weak one. Wolves carry a disproportionate number of very serious diseases that not only affect humans but other wildlife. Few other animals carry diseases that are as medically serious or as commonly as the ones wolves do. Idaho and it’s wildlife are now thoroughly contaminated with EG.

Historically wolves do not cohabitate well with humans, both on the impact of health and private property, thus it becomes the argument of which is more important, humans or animals. Wolves have their place, it is just not around humans.

The impacts of other animals on private property has been addressed and we take steps to alleviate those, unfortunately addressing those issues with wolves is anything but simple, and the only really effective methods are mass assault in a lethal manner.

While the propaganda mill has painted our ancestors as greedy, selfish morons, they are proving to be far more knowledgeable than we may want to give them credit for; and it obvious they had a much greater grasp on reality than we do now. Of course they never had to deal with a huge population of people that weren’t effected demanding they live their lives by what the masses demanded. It’s pretty easy to make an emotionally based demand when it doesn’t directly effect you.

I get the feeling from your comments, that you are one of those whom places animals far above you own species. This wolf issue in the lower 48 is a ridiculous example of unwarranted impact. Wolves were never endangered, they were not needed, they do not fit into the modern human affected ecosystems and therefore there was no valid reason to bring them back. As such, any death resulting from them is unacceptable. Perhaps you have no problem watching a loved one waste away from EG, but I surely do, especially when it was preventable. But then again, I do not place animals above humans.

If I were to drop a vicious animal off in any neighborhood in this country and it resulted in any injury to any person, I would be held accountable, and rightly so. yet somehow, the rural people of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Washington, Oregon and Utah are suppose to just be okay with sickness and death because some emotionally distraught people feel we need to live with an animal that no longer belongs here. For 16 years we were not even allowed to defend our property from these animals, and now that we can, we are going to do it en mass.   

There you go again…..trying to displace the issue.

First, I have never supported the extermination of any animal, wolves included. But, I do understand the realities of human effected ecosystems and that not all animals are necessarily appropriate for these modern ecosystems. Nor, do I ignore the realities of extinction as a natural reality, wolves were exterminated from the lower 48 for a reason, they do not mix with humans, a history lesson we failed to grasp and therefore must learn again. This habitat was no longer appropriate for them, they were pushed north and found adequate habitat that the species was in no harm of extinction, nor were they even endangered. A little fact the emotionals love to ignore.

As far as the diseases, you are attempting to play a numbers game that ignores threat per capita. Considering we have an official number of wolves around 750, we have 5 cases of EG in humans in Idaho, we have vast numbers of elk infected with EG, we have infected wolves that approach 70% of the population. If that percentage of any other species carried such threats there would be a large outcry for control. Yet, one must also consider, none of those other species were completely protected while they spread their damage.

I could see the outcry in NYC if rodents were protected, allowed to spread their diseases unchecked, somehow I do not think it would be accepted by those who were directly effected, yet somehow we are suppose to accept that. The government introduce NEW threats, can you grasp that truth….NEW, as in not here before. If I find an infestation of rodents on my property, I can do a massive poisoning as no one gives a rip, the threats from deer, elk and moose were extremely small, and I mean extremely small, especially in comparison to the massive percentage of the overall population of wolves that are infected.

Here is the bottom line, introducing an unnecessary animal into human inhabited areas, known to carry over 50 diseases, known to be a huge negative impact upon those humans both in health and property, was not only irresponsible, it was negligent. It is actually just shy of giving away small pox infected blankets to the natives when the government attempted to drive that population off the land. Some delusional emotional attachment to this animal does not outweigh those realities.

It is not the governments place to create higher risk. It is not the governments place to create negative impacts on private property.

No….this strain of EG has never been found in Idaho, and no strain of EG has ever been found in Idaho’s wildlife.

This is the little lie the wolfies like to push, but the truth is we now have infected wildlife and over 70% of the wolves have been shown to carry this and other diseases. There is no proof EG was ever here, every previous case was traced back to contraction in areas outside of Idaho, every case, that is, except the ones that have currently surfaced.,

Of course they picked it up from an infected dog or stream…..these wolves have spread these spores across the entire state, every watershed and any trail they have walked on is now a threat to breathing in these spores. Other wildlife have now become a threat as well, as we now, for the first time in history, have elk showing up full of EG.

Direct or indirect, wolves ARE the primary carrier, a fact that was well known before they were dumped here, a little fact that was ignored, and a public health and safety violation that should land those involved in jail.

There is no reason to assume that they are here to stay. They do not belong in the lower 48 and their removal will do no harm to the ecosystems, actually the negatives of wolves on the landscape far outweigh ANY positives.

You show me some valid science and we’ll use it. The latest current batch of outcome based garbage does not qualify. Our ecosystems were doing just fine until the implementation of that conservation biology that was founded emotion and opinion.

Wolves have used up their tolerance, just as they did in the past. History has a funny way of repeating itself when those kinds of things happen.

It is obvious that Idaho roper wants to see wolves exterminated The hilarious part is that he is too afraid to just come out and say it and admit that he hates predators because they kill the wild animals he wants to hunt and kill.

The reintroduced wolves were indeed treated for parasites and tapeworms. The wolves that were naturally migrating to Idaho, Montana, etc over the years before wolf reintroduction were not, so it is possible that these naturally migrating wolves could have brought the tapeworm in Idaho. Wolves in Idaho before wolf reintroduction would never tested for the tapeworm, so why someone would assume it was never in Idaho when wolves in Idaho weren’t tested for the tapeworm is beyond me. Looks like those that hate wolves want to blame them for anything it seems. What is well known though is it this tapeworm exists and has existed in places where there have always been wolves. So, to say that the tapeworm that wolves carry was never in Idaho is not based on any real evidence. Again, wolves in Idaho before wolf reintroduction were never tested for the tapeworm.

Lets be honest here Tom, this site in general is littered with biased opinion and propaganda masquerading as fact from both you and those of us in the comments sections. There is also a fair share of pertinent and interesting outdoor related material, which is what drew me to the site in the first place.

Lets not pretend that there is consensus regarding the complex and multifaceted issue of wolves in the continental U.S.  Both the pro and anti-wolf factions will site anecdotal and scientific information that will serve to further their own point, while discounting opposing viewpoints.

I find it interesting and enlightening to challenge the views that I disagree with and to conversely have my own views challenged. None of us has the definitive answers, but our “bantering” leads to questions that are then further researched, and thus a wealth of previously unexplored information is accessed.

Perhaps you are right that each of our posts should cite source information, and I urge you to do the same, but attempting to stifle discussion and belittle those who may disagree with you does nothing to facilitate the overall spread of ideas.

I don’t come to this site to have all of my beliefs reaffirmed and have my comments bounce around an echo chamber of like-minded individuals. I enjoy having my assertions challenged and the subsequent search for facts. If these types of comments are unwelcome please let me know and I will no longer post.

Even if the introduced wolves were treated for parasites, that treatment would not kill all the parasites, and would have been useless in the long run, because of no follow up treatments. The treatments might have killed parasitic worms in the introduced wolves stomachs, not their blood streams.  Get your self a few DVM manuals and see for yourself.

This argument concerning the wolf issue for most of you is based on faith, you read science papers and listen to biologists, we have biologists in disagreement over these issues, we have people like you guys in Maine relying on one sides biologists, and we have people in Idaho seeing the results of mismanaged wolves.

I see what has happened here on the ground, this is the worst science experiment concerning wildlife I’ve ever witnessed first hand in my life. I’d say people like Jon876, hates wolves more than anyone I’ve ever met here in Idaho. Idaho was once teeming with wildlife, never to full carrying capacity either. Now you people ought to be ashamed of what you’ve done. This is a disaster out here. 29 elk hunting units under objectives.

You see how easy you are? While I intentionally used spores to make you head explode, the truth is, the eggs are microscopic and have the ability to survive after being passed by wolves. They can infect people and other animals through inhalation. Imagine being the second or third person in line as the leader kicks those eggs in the air.

The claim they have to be eaten is a fallacy put forth by people trying to downplay the dangers of this disease.

There you go again, playing russian roulette with the citizens of the
west over an animal that has no real benefit to our environment. The
fact that the chance exists at all and that it was preventable is an
egregious violation of the public trust.

When you have 2000 wolves crapping across the state, those people who actually utilize that habitat risks rise exponentially, of course, diluting the numbers using a bunch of the population that doesn’t use it fits your argument and your willingness to discount human lives.

Ingestion of the eggs is a far greater danger than inhalation. Consider that as wolf numbers grow and anyone who lives in these areas can attest, wolves readily visit back yards, farms, etc., shitting as they go. The family dog, often a free roller over dead carcasses and strange fecal droppings brings the eggs home on their fur on in their mouths from eating waste or dead carcasses containing the eggs. The dog comes in the house and your 2-year-old is playing on the floor. The dog goes over and licks the kids face and or hands, the hands go in the mouth and we have a problem.

Recent studies have also shown that common flies that land on egg infested feces can fly away carrying eggs, land on your picnic and perhaps 10-15 years down the road, somebody rained on your picnic.

This is new stuff here because we got rid of the wolves years ago, but in countries where there have always been wolves, the problems that have and still do occur with this disease are more than just something to pass off as insignificant.

However, Idaho roper points out the violation of public trust. During the entire process and the drafting of the Environmental Impact Statement, noted scientists sent information to the USFWS about the problems associated with disease. All of it was dismissed and the only discussions was a passing mention in an appendix to the EIS that there are no concerns about disease issue.

I see that as a real problem.