Possible Fatal Wolf Attack in Chignik... (Barrow: earthquakes, horse, dinner)

[NomadicBear]

Originally Posted by starlite9

Well sorry you think that nature is perfect, it clearly isn't. Animals die en mass for a bunch of reasons. Rabbits breed in numbers to where they die off in large number to almost extinction in cycles, they too affect the preditors when they die off. When times are good, wolf, bear, coyote and other multiply, when their numbers reach a saturation point and they have killed off all their food base, they starve in large numbers also and prey on each other as well.

Like it or not, man is part of the Problem/solution depending on your point of view, but that doesn't change the boom/bust cycles that go on with or without us. What our game management tries to do is to keep in in less drastic climb and falls... That is what culling is about, and more than likely why we have such large numbers of wildlife that has been wiped out in much of the lower 48 states.

I see you're engaging in strawman arguments, yet again. This is why it's so difficult to have any sort of meaningful discourse with you. Never did I say nature was perfect. But I do believe in a natural balance, and the overreaching of human beings insofar as wildlife management is concerned.

[NomadicBear]

Originally Posted by Marty Van Diest

When people want to believe what they have been taught about "nature" taking care of itself in perfect balance there isn't any way to change their minds. They have completely bought into that mindset and are so committed that "facts" and figures are just not believable.

The only thing that might change them is personal experience over a long period of time. Since they are not going to go out to get that personal experience so they will continue to read Farley Mowat and watch Bambi. The teachers in their concrete schools surrounded by asphalt will continue to paint the idealistic picture of predator/prey relationships. They will believe the tales that predators kill off only the weak and sick.

They do kill off the weak...as in calves...by the thousands. Some areas have calf survival rates as low as 20% in the first 30 days with the vast majority of calf fatalities caused by wolves or bears. Wolves can take any moose they happen to come across. A decent pack can take down a full grown bull moose.

But the wolf lovers won't believe it...not much you can do about it.

I still like my training collar idea.

I don't see any "facts or figures" in any of your posts, just empty rhetoric. From what I recall, you're a used house salesperson. Are you moonlighting as a wildlife biologist but neglected to mention that? Are those not paved streets you've been traveling upon in your internal combustion powered motor vehicle? Was that not the local school surrounded by asphalt that I saw in your video that you posted to youtube? Your town looks much like mine in rural WA, where elk, bear, cougar, deer, beaver, opossum, raccoon, skunk, squirrel, moles, voles, rats, mice, not to mention the countless birds outnumber humans. I don't need to "get out", because I grew up outdoors, and I work outdoors to this day.

[Marty Van Diest]

Originally Posted by NomadicBear

From what I recall, you're a used house salesperson.

Hey!...I resemble that! I sell new houses too.

Actually, reading my post in the cold light of morning I invited that attack. I admire wolves myself and would never want them to be wiped out. But I do support predator control and support the Alaska constitution that mandates management...

If you want to do some reading here is some.
Predator Control

Wolf Pack Size and Food Acquisition

When Biologists Stocked Alaska with Wolves , Alaska Science Forum

But the main point is that wildlife populations in Alaska are to be managed. Predator control is just part of that management. In most of Alaska, predators are not controlled and do not need to be controlled. In a few areas predator control becomes an important tool to manage the wildlife population and so it is used. It is not a statewide policy to wipe out wolves, very few Alaskans want that.

In Unit 16 just North of Anchorage there has been very targeted and successful black bear control in the last few years. You hear very little about it because apparently black bears do not have the mystique that wolves possess. Black bears were determined in that area to have been preying on moose calves to the point of severely depressing the moose population. There are wolves in that area as well, but they were not the main predator of moose calves.

Other areas have higher moose populations than the habitat can sustain so instead of waiting for a huge die off, less restricted moose hunting is allowed. Again, it's management, by humans.

[Captain Crunch]

Good post Marty...

[richelles]

[quote=Marty Van Diest;13549049] But I do support predator control and support the Alaska constitution that mandates management...

If you want to do some reading here is some.
Predator Control

Wolf Pack Size and Food Acquisition

When Biologists Stocked Alaska with Wolves , Alaska Science Forum

But the main point is that wildlife populations in Alaska are to be managed. Predator control is just part of that management. In most of Alaska, predators are not controlled and do not need to be controlled. In a few areas predator control becomes an important tool to manage the wildlife population and so it is used. It is not a statewide policy to wipe out wolves, very few Alaskans want that.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The article on Wolf Pack Size and Food Acquisition was interesting and one I don't recall seeing previously. But it was published in Oct 2000 and the study was conducted between 1971 and 1989 which means there was probably no investigation of Pack interrelationships. Few predators are pack animals being they are mostly solitary hunters so my mention of Lion Prides was the only study I knew of where relationships were actually known. Today when a pack, or pride, is examined, using DNA, it has been established the there is an Alpha Male and an Alpha Female which rule the pack and offspring are there usually related to the Alpha female. The hierarchy in a wolf pack has been little studied which is why I fault F&G for shooting any study animals wearing collars. It is as if they have a mind set, which some on this forum have, which can't tolerate any viewpoint other than the one they want to believe or espouse. F&G has repeatedly shown that mind set. Packs and Prides are usually led by an Alpha Male which is unrelated to the females in the pack and in some cases unrelated to the offspring. However it is known that new Alpha Males sometimes kill off the very young so the offspring are from their genetic line. New Alpha Males reach status as Pack leaders because they have overthrown the previous Alpha and assumed pack leadership.

But pack size is usually determined by food availability and larger packs (which implies more young offspring) are a direct result of that limiting factor. Usually pack size is controlled by the Alpha Male rejecting young males who then pack up with other young males until they reach a point where they might be able to challenge some Alpha male for dominance of a pack. Females are allowed to remain in the pack, or pride, because they are valuable in assisting bringing down prey. Shooting entire packs isn't an accepted method of controlling wolf packs and that fact has brought Alaska's method considerable derision. Removal of lower ranking females is considered an acceptable method because that actually limits the hunting ability of the pack. At a kill the Alpha Male gets his share first. Then the Alpha Female is allowed, by the Alpha Male, to take her desired portion and finally the remainder of the pack, mostly young of the Alphas, are allowed to feed on what remains. With a wolf being able to gorge on 12-20 KG there aren't many kills where the entire pack gets to gorge.

But destroying pack hierarchy is an unlikely means of successfully culling a predator. The young males are likely to be frightened and escape forming roaming packs of males and young females are likewise likely to escape and are then adopted by another pack. Young animals under stress are very likely to resort to fight or flight tactics which makes them likely to escape Alaska's chosen method and form damaging packs. But culling is seldom an effective method of increasing the supply of what human hunters want to grab off for them selves. We came into being as scavengers, likely on what other better equipped predators killed, and only when we developed tools such as spears or heavy artillery were we as good as Nature's chosen few. We can't run, don't have claws, long canines, and we sure can't smell very well. The advantage we have is we can destroy the system we claim we want to save and we are very efficient at doing that and not much else!!!!!!!

[richelles]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

That's not what happens up here ... We are not shooting wild animals just because they are wild, but because we want to reduce their numbers.

Which is an unproven method that damages the entire system. Read my Post and see if you can understand something about management. You need to study a subject so you have a decent basic understanding of it.

[gobrien]

It's interesting to read about animal social and behavioral structure in comparison to human behavior. Some animals just don't have a chance to do well but people can at least try to change their station in life and possibly be a success. But that is off topic. Glad I am not a wolf.

[Marty Van Diest]

Richelle, you say that shooting entire packs is not an accepted method of controlling predators. Are you saying that if an entire pack is killed another pack will take its place but if you leave the core of the pack there they will become place holders?

I think that is what you are saying, but obviously there can be a lot of room for disagreement there. This isn't absolute established science and no one believes that wolves will not eventually come back to these locations. When they do come back, the moose and or caribou will have recovered from their depressed state.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by Smallville

Ignorant fool. We don't have wolves here.

You may not have wolves over there, but you do have people in charge of animal rights groups who come to Alaska (from your "here") to tell us what to do about wolves.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by NomadicBear

I see you're engaging in strawman arguments, yet again. This is why it's so difficult to have any sort of meaningful discourse with you. Never did I say nature was perfect. But I do believe in a natural balance, and the overreaching of human beings insofar as wildlife management is concerned.

There isn't a balance in nature. However, humans can at least try to approach a balance. Game management and habitat enhancement are two of numerous things done in Alaska and Canada, and the fact that we both (AK, and Canada) maintain the healthiest predator and pray populations in the northern hemisphere, should account for something.