# Timberwolf Back on Endangered Species Act



## maanjus11 (Nov 17, 2006)

Take a look at this article:

http://www.startribune.com/local/594711 ... aUycaEacyU

I'm a former MN resident and have a lot of friends/family that raise beef cattle. This definitely affects their business.

Looking at all the people's posts, it appears the consensus in MN is that it is a good thing that farmers can't shoot these things when they are attacking their livestock. This seems outrageous to me. For one, I don't think they should have ever been re-introuduced in the first place, but that is never going away, but when the wolves are attacking your livestock you should have the right to dispose of them if necessary.

Am I alone in this issue? It seems like a no-brainer to me, but I'm obviously wrong!


----------



## Jungda99 (Nov 17, 2006)

I think it is crazy that the landowners can't shoot them if they are a problem.

In my opinion...look for collar...if you don't see one...shoot in the gutz!!


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

It seems convenient that they fail to mention in the article that they're hunting wolves out West now...and they have half the population spread across several states. Yet apparently it's enough to justify a season and here they are endangered? It doesn't make a lot of sense.

To be honest this is probably the worst thing they could have done if they were really concerned about wolves. The ranchers (and a lot of others in wolf country) will go renegade when there isn't some leeway.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Matt Jones said:


> It seems convenient that they fail to mention in the article that they're hunting wolves out West now...and they have half the population spread across several states. Yet apparently it's enough to justify a season and here they are endangered? It doesn't make a lot of sense.
> 
> To be honest this is probably the worst thing they could have done if they were really concerned about wolves. The ranchers (and a lot of others in wolf country) will go renegade when there isn't some leeway.


I agree Matt.

I see it again as a liberal state vs. a conservative state. Don't expect Minnesota to do the intelligent thing with a ball and chain like Minneapolis swinging from their ankles. People in the cities who hate hunters love animals that kill to eat. Go figure.

By the way, any of you guys who happen to be from Minneapolis and on a site like this I don't lump you in with the idiots you have for neighbors. I sympathise with the your plight.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

I have a couple questions.

First of all, aren't the wolves in Montana and Idaho grey wolves rather then timber wolves? Or are they the same?

Secondly, what makes northern Minnesota good livestock range? I mean it is mostly timber right?

I agree that timberwolves should not be on the endagered species list. I also agree that states should be allowed to manage wolves. I also beleive that ranchers should be allowed to protect their livestock.


----------



## maanjus11 (Nov 17, 2006)

HUNTNFISHND said:


> I have a couple questions.
> 
> First of all, aren't the wolves in Montana and Idaho grey wolves rather then timber wolves? Or are they the same?
> 
> Secondly, what makes northern Minnesota good livestock range? I mean it is mostly timber right?


They are the same.

Northern Minnesota has plenty of areas where there are beef cattle. In several areas, it opens up quite a bit. However, I would say that it's not the most prime habitat, but there are still a lot of farmers big and small, mainly small. Which hurts these guys more.


----------



## MOB (Mar 10, 2005)

Pasted from the article: "The new designation makes it illegal for Minnesota landowners to kill wolves they catch in the act of preying upon livestock, pets or guard animals." That's just fine and dandy, if it was my livestock or pets being preyed upon, I'd use the SSS method and use it on every wolf I could. What do they want you to do? Are you supposed to stand there and watch, report it and hope it doesn't happen again? BS! Why is it all the morons and idiots are in control of making the laws and regulations now? What has happened to common sense?


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

Thanks maanjus11.

I agree with MOB too. Common sense is definitely lacking!


----------



## Jungda99 (Nov 17, 2006)

SSS method....now that is funny. :lol: I have to use that more often


----------



## ruger1 (Aug 16, 2006)

Jungda99 said:


> I think it is crazy that the landowners can't shoot them if they are a problem.
> 
> *In my opinion...look for collar...if you don't see one...shoot in the gutz!!*


That's what makes people like you sound really stupid when you talk.

While I do agree that I'd probably solve the problem if a wolf was attacking my dog (a member of the family). Most livestock is not a member of the family. It's just a commodity, a commodity that is insured? I believe livestock is insured. Someone who knows can better inform me.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Yes, livestock are insured. Think of it this way though. If a cow gets killed, you lose her,and her calf and all the other calves she would have had. So you are actually losing quite a bit of money. Because when a cow gets killed you just get paid for her.


----------



## ruger1 (Aug 16, 2006)

blhunter3 said:


> Yes, livestock are insured. Think of it this way though. If a cow gets killed, you lose her,and her calf and all the other calves she would have had. So you are actually losing quite a bit of money. Because when a cow gets killed you just get paid for her.


I understand what you are saying. However I think it's a weak argument. There is no guarantee that the cow will survive winter, or a storm, or disease. I would assume ranchers go into business knowing this. My thoughts, it's the cost and gamble of doing business.


----------



## maanjus11 (Nov 17, 2006)

However, if your making an insurance claim every week on your livestock, your premiums are going to go through the roof.

From Dairy Star:

Wolves responsible for cattle attacks in Wadena County

Two dry, three-year-old Holstein cows were attacked by anywhere from one to ten timber wolves on Aug. 8 near Wadena, Minn. According to the cows' owners, Mike and Patty Strayer, the cows were being pastured with 30 animals on an 80-acre pasture located approximately two miles from the Strayers' farm site.

One of the Strayers' sons, Zachary, discovered the cows while cutting meadow hay near the pasture. He called Mike, who then came out and found one of the cows in a mud hole, attacked with one-third to one-fourth of her hindquarters eaten, but still alive; the other cow was laying a few yards away, dead.

The county sheriff and a DNR conservation officer were called to the scene and confirmed that it was a timber wolf attack. The surviving cow, only 3 ½ weeks from her due date, had an emergency caesarian section performed on her, but the calf was dead and the cow was put down due to her injuries and obvious stress. Both cows were buried, after obtaining permission.

That same day, a Jersey cow four weeks from freshening, also owned by Strayer, delivered twin heifer calves; one of the heifers survived the birth, but the cow showed signs of stress and had several scratches on her body.

The Strayers sought compensation from their insurance company as well as from the state department of agriculture for the loss of the two cows.

One week after the attacks, USDA state trappers set up nearly one dozen traps throughout the Strayers' land as well as on neighboring land. On Aug. 18, one of the wolves was caught.

This was not the first report of wolf attacks in the area. Several weeks prior to these attacks, a 150-pound beef calf was attacked and killed on Melvin Kinnunen's 65-cow dairy farm near Menahga, Minn., in northern Wadena County.

It has now been five months since the wolf attacks at Mike and Patty Strayer's farm, and although there have been no more timber wolf attacks there have been several sightings within the area.

"[The wolves] definitely affected deer hunting," Strayer said. "This was the first time in 15 years that I did not get one."

On the positive end of things, the Strayers have been paid by both the state and their insurance company for the loss of their two cows. Also, the surviving twin Jersey heifer that was born four weeks before her due date is alive and doing well.

"Her name is Hope," Strayer said. "And I just had the cow (Hope's dam) confirmed pregnant, so the end result on her was good."

Unfortunately, the downside of situation is slightly more extensive. Shortly after the attacks, timber wolves were put back on the endangered species list, making it illegal to exterminate them for any reason, even if they are attacking livestock.

"Legally now, we can't do anything," Strayer said. "It's very disappointing. Either you shoot [the wolves] and go to jail, or you let them chew on your animals."

State trappers did catch one wolf on the Strayers' land in the days following the attacks, and a total of six wolves were terminated around the area before they were put back on the list.

Following the attacks, Strayer said he did continue to pasture his animals through fall, but every evening he would lock them up at his parents' place so they would be near buildings, people and dogs.

"We will continue to pasture our cattle, but we will monitor them heavily and will lock them up in the evening," Strayer said.

His cows, however, were attacked during the day. But, according to Strayer, locking his animals up and feeding them in a dry lot is not an option due to potential costs.

"We are just crossing our fingers and hoping for the best," Strayer said. "We are hoping for a reversal of the law [which would take timber wolves back off the endangered species list]."

In the meantime, Strayer and his family continue to heal from their loss and the stress from what they went through.

"I sure hope no one else has to go through what we did," Strayer said. "It's not fun."


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

ruger1 said:


> blhunter3 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, livestock are insured. Think of it this way though. If a cow gets killed, you lose her,and her calf and all the other calves she would have had. So you are actually losing quite a bit of money. Because when a cow gets killed you just get paid for her.
> ...


If your a farmer or rancher then its not a weak argument due to the fact that most farmers get rid of the weak or sick animals, so your then left with only quality animals.

I understand what your saying, and someone who better understands the insurance then I with the lose of livestock due to predation should chime in too.


----------



## Jungda99 (Nov 17, 2006)

ruger1 said:


> Jungda99 said:
> 
> 
> > I think it is crazy that the landowners can't shoot them if they are a problem.
> ...


Sounds good MR. SERIOUS.

In some states you can shoot a human if they break into your home and attempt to steal your stuff but poor farmer can't shoot a wolfe for "stealing" his "stuff". Something about this doesn't make sense

I have never actually seen a wolfe while hunting. I have seen them running in the road ditches ect from time to time but never with a rifle in my hands so I can't say what I actually would do. It all depends on the circumstances of the situation.

I do know of a guy that was losing several sheep a week in NW MN. Nothing they could do about it.

Once the last sheep is killed they are throwing in the towel because it is a losing battel.

We coyote hunt on his land but havn't seen any Wolfs. Only the tracks.


----------



## USAlx50 (Nov 30, 2004)

Jungda99 said:


> In some states you can shoot a human if they break into your home and attempt to steal your stuff but poor farmer can't shoot a wolfe for "stealing" his "stuff". Something about this doesn't make sense


You are allowed to shoot an intruder to your home if they are a threat to you, what states let you shoot people for burglary?

wolfe, is actually spelled wolf.



> That's what makes people like you sound really stupid when you talk.


 :wink:


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y (Sep 23, 2004)

Two timbers were just shot by DNR yesterday on my Ex's land. I think they are up to 12 just this year.


----------



## Jungda99 (Nov 17, 2006)

USAlx50 said:


> Jungda99 said:
> 
> 
> > In some states you can shoot a human if they break into your home and attempt to steal your stuff but poor farmer can't shoot a wolfe for "stealing" his "stuff". Something about this doesn't make sense
> ...


I someone walks into my house to steal from me I am "threatened"

I will werk on mi spelling of Wolfe just fer yu!

I just really think you need to look at this situation from a different perspective. What do you do for a living so I can shed some light for you?


----------



## USAlx50 (Nov 30, 2004)

My occupation isn't relevant since I agree with you on the wolf issue. I think its complete BS that people cant protect their property/business from wolves. Where I got rubbed the wrong way is "if it doesn't have a collar, shoot it," comment. Maybe if your comment was more along the lines of "If it's a wolf or coyote, and you think it might pose a threat, shoot it." I'm not big on shooting things unless I know what they are, especially if we're talking about dogs.

My dog doesn't wear a collar very often :wink:


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

ruger1 said:


> blhunter3 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, livestock are insured. Think of it this way though. If a cow gets killed, you lose her,and her calf and all the other calves she would have had. So you are actually losing quite a bit of money. Because when a cow gets killed you just get paid for her.
> ...


It is not a weak argument. The interests of ranchers have always come before wildlife. If deer are getting into feed they can be shot with permission, if wolves are getting after cattle they should be shot. It is the correct stance by the state. You want more timberwolves, some want more deer, and that is all fine and dandy but it cannot and should not come at the cost of someone's livlihood.

Insurance should only be used for things out of the producer's hands. Fire, massive disease, weather, etc are uncontrollable and a gamble of doing business, predation can be controlled.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

ruger1 said:


> blhunter3 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, livestock are insured. Think of it this way though. If a cow gets killed, you lose her,and her calf and all the other calves she would have had. So you are actually losing quite a bit of money. Because when a cow gets killed you just get paid for her.
> ...


Your clearly not a rancher. Its not as "cut and dried" as you make it sound.

Ill also add, most wolves are NOT livestock killers, as are MOST any predators. The problem arises once they figure out livestock are easy prey compared to wild prey. Now you have a SERIOUS problem. A pair or pack of wolves, (or coyotes), once they get a "taste" for domestics, and figure out how much of an "easy pickings" they are, can virtually decimate a herd down to nothing if not dealt with.

Shoot, shovel, and shut up. The "three S's" of wolf hunting the lower 48",.........at least back east!


----------



## ruger1 (Aug 16, 2006)

barebackjack said:


> Your clearly not a rancher. Its not as "cut and dried" as you make it sound.


I am not a rancher. I'll even go so far as to say that I've got a pretty low opinion of Ranchers and the Cattleman's Association as a whole. We all know there are exceptions to the rule though. And before you jump all over me. This opinion was formed off Rancher's I've dealt with out west. Some are great people, others not so much.


> Shoot, shovel, and shut up. The "three S's" of wolf hunting the lower 48",.........at least back east!


While I disagree with this and think you are stealing from me. I will say.........This conversation wouldn't exist and be consuming our time if the shut-up part was practiced more.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

ruger1 said:


> I'll even go so far as to say that I've got a pretty low opinion of Ranchers and the Cattleman's Association as a whole.
> 
> While I disagree with this and think you are stealing from me.


Care to elaborate on these statements?

If you'd rather, you can PM me.


----------



## ruger1 (Aug 16, 2006)

barebackjack said:


> ruger1 said:
> 
> 
> > I'll even go so far as to say that I've got a pretty low opinion of Ranchers and the Cattleman's Association as a whole.
> ...


No problem BareBackJack. I'm not ashamed of my opinions, so I'll answer here. I've seen ranchers pushing their fence lines and No Trespassing signs a GPS'ed 1/4 mile onto BLM and/or School Craft land. I've seen Rancher's cattle on BLM and School Craft land many days past the fall deadline to remove them. I've seen Rancher's deny me access to BLM lands. Lands that were purchased or protected with my tax dollars.

In summation. I've seen Rancher's take from me and other hunters by over grazing "our" lands for the wildlife, denying me access to "our" lands, and encroach their property lines on "our" lands. On top of that, the Cattleman's Association lobbies and protects Ranchers and allows them to feel they can take advantage of the rest of us.

As for "SSSing" wolves. That is stealing from me because every dead wolf that ends up on the news or on some Human Society lobbyist's desk. They will fight that much harder and pull on the heart strings of the ignorant bunny huggers to deny me the ability to harvest wolves legally.

Instead the Rancher's should be beating the Animal Rights people at their own game. The Ranchers should be on the news and the internet complaining about all the wolf killed livestock so there will be an outcry to manage the wolf population.

Again, I know some kind and generous Ranchers as well. This is not meant as a personal attack to any Rancher I do not personally know. I made a broad generalization from personal experiences and data I've received over the years.


----------

