Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just think that these wolves use to be all over the US. So instead of Minnesota killing them, why don't they capture them and release them in Nebraska where there are no wolves? Or Illinois, Indiana, Ohio? These creatures are no as plentiful as they use to be and any help to increase their numbers is a good thing.
Yes they will especially if it seems vulnerable or injured. Small children would appear vulnerable due to their size and wolves will readily attack them. The only reason you don't see that many attacks now a days, is because of the low numbers, they do not exist in areas where they once roamed freely. They were a huge threat in the pioneer days of this country.
I'd love to see wolves in the East again (and not just the infrequent lone wanderer from Canada). The problem is, after what the animal rights activists did out West after the wolves met the recovery goals to stop any hunting of them, it may be impossible. Protecting a few wolves out there cost the East the return of the wolf. There are some lingering debates over the specific type of wolf that was here. The Eastern wolf (still around in Canada) was certainly here, the larger timber wolf that's in MN, MI, etc., might have been present but it's hotly debated.
I don't think the animal rights activists have any idea just how far back they set the cause of endangered species restoration by what they did with the wolves. It has turned many wolf supporters against the wolves. Not just for wolves but catamounts (cougars), maybe even wolverines, elk, caribou...marten reintroduction in Vermont was ruined after the spotted owl mess in the PNW, as there was too much opposition in the best habitat areas by loggers over fear of lawsuits.
The chances of a wolf pack surviving in modern day Nebraska, Illinois, Indiana, or Ohio are less than slim. At the time when wolves were common in these areas, they were still in the wilderness phase. While there are still parts of these states that would qualify as wilderness, a wolf pack needs a huge area to roam in, and there just isn't enough in these places.
Actually, they could adapt to farmland as habitat. They persisted in Northern New England long after most of the land was cleared in the 19th century. It wasn't habitat loss that eventually extirpated them here, but hunting as farmers viewed them as pests. I don't think the cornbelt states would be capable of supporting a large number of wolves, but they can handle some. Personally I would not be bothered to see some of those states returned to a more wild nature. I think the prime Eastern wolf habitat will be northern NY, VT, NH, ME, and then in the Appalachians down into the South.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
