[url]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26409[/url]

They did something like that down here a couple of years back. Mexican grey wolves, I believe. They put tracking collars on them and turned them loose. The gov't. told everyone that interfering with these animals in any way would be subject to extreme penalties and jail time.
Seems like the wolves didn't last long. The collars kept leading to rotting bodies with bullet holes. Don't know if any survive still or not. I can't think of anyone who moved back to the city, though.

Wolves are actually quite beneficial to keeping deer (and caribou) populations healthy. Wolves are pack hunters which usually will single out old or sick or weak animals and hunt them down.

I am sure that even some domesticated live stock could benefit from wolves. The drawback being a loss in money by ranchers. This loss could be compensated by giving ranchers a tax exemption for not shooting wolves. An income Tax Exemption would not only take care of any lost livestock but would make the Ranchers come out ahead financially.

In certain parts of the country, where hunting is virtually banned. Deer populations have exploded and are out of control.

There is a real need for wolf populations being re-introduced to keep such populations in check. Even Hunters aren't enough to control the populations.

But unlike Hunters...wolves are able to differentiate between old/sick/weak animals and healthy ones. And the wolves will take the easy route of going after old and sick animals, thus keeping such population quite healthy.

GWF- You hear how they were going to paint em with orange dots too? So they'd match the front sights on the rancher's 870's I guess..*Laughs*

Then there were TWO incidents of these reintroduced wolves attacking parties of capmers, and being subsquently dispatched..

Arizona has feral dogs, two kinds of Coyote (Two, and four legged), and tossing an endangered wolf into the mix just is not going to work with it's existing competetion..

Meplat-

Don't complicate the tax code any more.  Just mail the rancher a check for, say, 150% of the market value of any livestock animal killed by a wolf.  


Make things easy enough for the hunters and they'll do fine.  They might not kill the sickest and weakest deer, but the remaining population will still be healthy enough to survive.

I live in an area that had wolf reintroductoin done and they pray on anything not just weak animals, a pack of twelve wolves can take down any animal it wants sick or healthy. Here in idaho we were feed a bunch of bull about how they would only do this or that or they would only stay in yellowstone park, now they are everywhere and populating far faster than was predicted. By the way they were not reintroduced in a state where hunting is banned or atleast not yet.

New business opportunities!!!  Shoot your Livestock!!!  Earn up to 50% profit on each animal!!!  Find out how by....

Why not just keep it simpler; raise the bag limit, and ease up the gun restrictions.  That ought to take care of most of the problem.

A couple of months ago there was a very interesting thread in the talk section at marlinfirearms.com.  A guy and his wife were attacked by a pack of wolves in the mountains near Salmon, Idaho.  He ended up shooting one of the radio collar tagged pets with a 45/70 that was trying to chew up his wife.  He had a real scrape with the law over the whole incident.  Check it out.  It will really pi$$ you off.  Watch-Six
Edit:  Here I'll try and post a link to the story.
[url]www.rangemagazine.com/stories/winter02/wolf.htm[/url]

I know the man of whom you speak, and I will say that I believe his story 100%. If he says it happened, it happened the way he said.

So, what's the going rate on a man's wife nowadays? How do you compensate him for that?

BTT.  Fixed the link.

I saw a mountain lion for the first time last year while elk hunting.  It stopped and looked at us for about 20 seconds, before deciding that we were probably too much for an afternoon snack.  That was pretty cool.  I would not mind seeing a wolf or a grizzly too.

Some friends of mine are not so enthusiastic.  They were camping and woke to find a lion going through their stuff.  The manuevered around the animal and got their pistol, but missed seven times.  Because they only had 3 shots left, they beat a hasty retreat with nothing but their underwear.  They could not report the incident because it took place in a national park (weapons prohibited).  Another of my frinds shot a lion with a .40 S&W 7 times before killing it with a rifle.  Lesson: if you are going to have these animals, people neeed to be allowed to carry rifles or shotguns to protect themselves.

Because the lion population has recovered, you have a pretty good chance of getting a tag.  Hunting gives lions, and would give wolves, a healthy fear of humans.  They should give out more tags, because the lions are killing too many deer.

Where wolves have been reintroduced, it has had some interesting effects on the local ecosystem.  For example, wolves kill coyotes, which has led to an increase in the beaver population.  I guess elk populations have also plunged, but that would moderate once hunters can kill wolves.  It would also make sense to me to exterminate the wild horses; they eat the same stuff elk do, and they are not a native species.

My conclusions is that if sensible game managment can take place, and people can carry weapons to defend themselves, I am all for reintroducing these species.  If they are going to be protected then we are probably better off without them.  Without hunting, we will exchange one out-of-balance ecosystem for another.

Imposter,

Exterminating the wild horses, well in that case I would be willing to exterminate the people who were trying to exterminate the horses.  I value the life of horses almost as much as I value the life of my family and my own life, I am a horseman and I really do love horses even the feral ones.
And if it comes to either the life of an elk or a horse I will chose the horse to live. By the way neither are humans a native species so I guess that would justify exterminating all the people too would it not?????

I'm all for the reintroduction of wolves to their former native habitats. Because people wiped them out a while back means that it was the right thing to do? Not as far as I'm concerned.

I personally don't think it's a good idea to wipe predators out simply becuase they behave in a way that people refuse to adapt to. Like all native wildlife, they have just as much of a right to share the land as any other species. Sure, if one threatens you, kill it, defend yourself. Nobody disputes that. How soft do we have to make our lives?

I've spent time, a lot of time, in places around the world where the local predators make wolves look like f*ckin' rodents. It's not impossible or even detramental to "allow" them to exist. It just takes know how and an approach that might not be 100% convenient for people, but get over it. Exactly how sterile and soft does our wildlife have to be to accomidate everyone?

Diversity of wildlife makes for a much more interesting place to live. And forgive me for not giving a rats ass about the cattle ranchers. I think their livelyhood desimates the landscape and if there's anything we can reasonably do without it's a damn burger joint every 2 blocks. Hell, why don't we just pave the whole god damn planet over?

I like the outdoors, I like wildlife and I'm willing to adapt to the presence of predators in my backyard. I live in Florida, and yeah, there pretty much are predators in my back yard. If it's that, or more grazing ground for the 8 gazillion cattle in this country, my vote goes to wildlife, not more hamburger fodder. There's plenty of deer for predators AND hunters.....and we have enough damn cattle.

Because then one quarter of the earth's surface would be designated as handicapped parking spots. [%|]

Wow, that is pretty twisted.  I'm really not sure what to say about that except you need some help.

Good for you.  I have no problem with that.

Again, good for you.  And I believe you should be able to vote on making that choice, especially in regards to all of the wild horses and elk in Rhode Island.  But in regards to the elk and wild horses here, I think the locals, who have to deal with these pests, ought to have a little more say.

Again, your equating human life with an animal is pretty sick.  Are you serious, or just trying to make a point?

Actually, your point would be better made by pointing out that horses were native to this continent before the injuns ate them all (pre-Columbian).  And what exactly does being native have to do with it anyway?  But before you go on about the majesty of these wonderful wild horses, I suggest you take a look at how different they have become from domesticated animals, the ecological damage they do, and the very real danger they pose to motorists.  

I just do not like them because they, under the current state of the law, serve no useful purpose.  Maybe if I liked horses, I would see it different.  Personally, I do not like bumping into feral domesticated animals in the untrammeled wilderness.  Just another reminder of man, which is what I am trying to get away from in the woods.