'Super pack' of 400 wolves terrorise remote

[Psukhe]

I'm not being condescending, I'm being rational. The solution to kill the wolves is not rational, nor, as pointed out before, is it the easiest solution. I don't believe any word out of my mouth has insinuated that I have any fuzzy bunny emotions about anything. I actually find that funny as most people seem to feel my problem is the lack of emotion I have during debates. It's called common sense. The population will even out on its own if, indeed, there is a population problem to begin with, everyone seems to be in agreement a pack of 400 is an exaggeration. All they have to do is use methods to keep the wolves away. It's the most logical and best solution for all involved. The livestock won't be bothered, and the numbers will even out if there is, indeed, a problem.

What would these methods be? Keeping in mind they have to be economically feasible and practicable for a city in the Siberian winter.

BTW the butterfly example flew completely over your head.

[Set the Fallen]

Yes its true that they deserve to live on earth as much as we do and I doubt that the wolves are targeting humans here, so why kill them?

this is just pure cruelty.

"Bounty: Twenty four teams of hunters have been employed by authorities to tackle the wolf pack, with officials paying £210 for every one killed"

And wow they are actually promoting for this hunting of wolves ?

As I can see here, instead of trapping them and leaving them in a secure environment they are just relying on killing them, this is just brutal or maybe its just not economical for them to trap them first and them transport them to another safe location, now this is very bad,.

I think these packs could be taken care of without killing but it is very sad its because of the reason that I described above.

It is a sad thing what humans allow themself to do.

What bizarre logic. Do you consider yourself a misanthrope?

I have no clue what it meens, but if you meen a human hater then the term is rightfully on me.

Even if I posses a human body I am not one of your kind, the low lifes that is destroying the world for their own pleasure, but life will find it's own way in things, and humans are a part of this world like any living thing. I am not one to judge the life of others.

This story is complete BS.

quote source

Of course it is, but if it is true, there is no point hunting them for being able to coperate.

It should be seen as a sign of inteligence and used as a opertunity to make contact with the wolfs if true.

If anythings blood-thirsty its the Human race, killing everything in sight.

True... if anyone should die it should be humans.

There is to much humans already, less would make a beter world for all. Yet, nature created man this way, so it is part of the nature.

Some might have though humans a mistake, but time is the only thing that will show.

I believe there is hope for humans to be less blood-thirsty.

Again, I will say, man will grasp at anything to avoid blame.

And, lacking the sense of the balance that occurs in nature, I am not surprised how you see no correlation with the environmental problems existent there. I find most humans need direct cause and effect in order to comprehend certain things. . .but it just isn't present in nature much of the time. It is a chain reaction and one that may not have a clear cut beginning/end, and may include several different factors. In other words, viewing such incidents with a black and white mentality are folly, at best. Reducing things down to "This caused this" generally does not work. It's more of a "This caused this, which caused this and this, which caused this, this, and this, etc".

Balance is what balance gives, there is nothing holding humans back, thus there is no balance.

Perhaps earth itself is the only balance, holding humans back.

400 wolves mmmm I would like to see the "ALPHA" male that runs that show

That would be more like a werewolf, huge wolf... would be facinating.

[theGhost_and_theDarkness]

What would these methods be? Keeping in mind they have to be economically feasible and practicable for a city in the Siberian winter.

BTW the butterfly example flew completely over your head.

Apparently it did.

There are sprays for sale that are used as wildlife deterrents, but a many can be made at home. Generally, predators view humans as potential threats and will leave them be unless under the most dire of consequences. Generally starvation is such a consequence, but even then attacks on humans are not as much as we build them up to be. There are rare examples, as with the case of the Tsavo Maneaters, but such events are the exception not the rule. Wolves, red wolves in particular, have an extremely low attack rates on humans when compared to other predators. There have been 18 known fatal attacks, worldwide, from 2000-now. Keep this in mind.

Dogs are very effective deterrents. Not only will their scent marks deter wolves, but the ones that do stray onto property are more likely to be run off. There are breeds that have been specifically bred for such work and, having owned some, they are very good at their job. I can not stress the importance of getting a dog bred for this purpose, as other dogs may not be physically and mentally equipped to deal with a wolf attack. I've seen many people say this is a method which failed them, but they were not using the right dogs. It would be like strapping a poodle to a sled and getting angry when it turned out to be a horrible sled dog. Sarplaninacs, kangals, kuvasz, and other dogs specifically bred for withstanding wolf attacks and attacking back would be best. In this area, I would say sarplaninacs would be the best, as they are more abundant on that side of the world than in America and are well-known for their wolf deterring skills. It's a shame Irish Wolf-hounds had the mean bred out of them as, from historical example, we see that they were not only good at their job, they were too good at it.

Strong perfumed or peppery scents, even human hair, have also been used. There are certain fence designs which can be incorporated, either built new or added to existing fences. Some of them are actually called "wolf fences". I have also seen people use a type of fraise, usually added on to an existing fence. Fladry can also be incorporated, either or alone or (for better results) in conjunction with a fraise or other deterrents. To emphasize that these things are "bad" and should be avoided, negative reinforcement in the form of hot-wires and electric fences have also been used, but would probably be unavailable in this part of the world. Fladry is a very old method, but studies show that it is quite effective on its own. Many ranchers are actually switching over to the system. It's simple, cheap, and keeps the wolves away from livestock.

Ideally, more than one of these methods should be used. For the minimal investment, I would say fladry and livestock guard dogs with scents along the border of the livestock area, also, maybe, some incorporation of the use of sounds. Assuming this is an area with absolutely no modern conveniences, people would have to use their imagination for the sound deterrents. Shots fired into the air are usually sufficient, though not quite as efficient as, say, a RAG box.

I feel I should let you know why the topic is of such importance to me.

The main issue I have with killing predators, or anything that is threatening to humans, is our ability to over-exaggerate the threat. Our imaginations will run wild at the thought of, say, a jaguar in the area, and we will immediately go up in arms. .despite the fact that, in all truth, there was very minimal threat to any of us to begin with. This is seen with many species, not just large predators. How many snakes are killed annually? How many of those snakes were actually venomous? How many out of those were actually a direct threat to a person? The answer that comes out would probably be around 1-2%. Then, the vast killing of these animals is leading to over-population of their prey animals, which are generally little melting pots of diseases and bacteria. We currently have an over-population of a invasive rat species in my area. It would not have become the problem that it has if we had not also been experiencing dwindling snake numbers. There was no lack of food, it was due to people killing every snake they came across. "Snake hunts" became popular for a while. Groups of people would gather together and just go kill snakes. Of course, this particular rat that has now over-populated houses some extremely dangerous parasites and bacteria, many of which can infect and, potentially, kill humans. More people become sick due to the pathogens the rats harbor than get bitten by snakes. . .even when we take into consideration times when the snake populations were high.

Killing off of large predators, wolves, cougars, etc, has led to an overpopulation of deer, which also house some extremely dangerous parasites. Out of all my years working around "dangerous" animals, my downfall came not from a snake bite, not from a wolf or big cat attack. . .it came from a lone-star tick whose numbers have increased dramatically with the over-population of hosts, which is caused by the dwindling number of predators. Years of venomous snake contact, big cat work, and animal relocation, and a bacteria from a tick from a prey animal is what nearly killed me. . .and not just me, a rising number of people in the U.S. You are much more likely to be affected by pathogens with overpopulation of prey animals as a source than by a predator.

So we work ourselves up in this frenzy with "OMG, wolves! They're going to eat me!" when the lack of wolves is actually more of a threat to you, statistically speaking, than their presence. They're actually keeping populations of things that your more likely to come in contact with down to a minimum. Yet, we kill them, because we are still stuck in this dark age mentality of wolves and other large predators being harbingers of doom.

The area of the world in the OP may not have such problems with parasites and bacteria. But enforcing the "wolves bad, kill!" mentality will lead to problems in the long run. The are necessary to the local environmental health, or they would not be there. But, since they are, they will likely be blamed for every misfortune that occurs, even the ones that they had no part of. Killing them now will lead to more killing in the future. Every time a horse or other livestock dies and gets scavenged, wolves will be blamed, actual incidents will be exaggerated (usually to a preposterous degree), and "control" measures will be put in play. I've seen it happen before, over and over again. And, when the wolf population is nearly wiped out, new problems will arise that will likely be far worse than dead livestock here and there. And, even with these new problems, wolves will still be the "bad guys" that need to be controlled. These people need to learn how to coexist now, before their mentality gets the best of them in the future.

One example I feel I must share is an incident which happened on a ranch near my grandmother in Texas. A rancher was blaming coyotes for a number of his goats (I believe it was goats, at least. . .I could be mistaken) being killed. It wasn't until he was convinced to let a vet examine the goats that he found out they had been very ill, and the wounds they had were post-mortem, from scavengers. Yet he had worked himself up into such a frenzy, even this was disregarded, and still, probably to this day, he does all he can to rid the world of coyotes. He's been so brainwashed by this mindset that it must "always" be coyotes, that he ignores logic. His story changed from finding the goats to seeing a pack of coyotes "ravaging" them (though the wounds were quite obviously *not* from a ravaging), to being personally threatened by said coyotes. It was ridiculous, yet this type of behavior is seen amongst many.

[Siheya]

Russians and wolves have always had problems. The lack of food could have been due to people, or it could be other environmental factors. Either way, both humans and wolves are adapting to changes in their habitat, who did what is unimportant at this point. Humans are part of nature too, and nature always works itself out.

[Psukhe]

Apparently it did.

There are sprays for sale that are used as wildlife deterrents, but a many can be made at home. Generally, predators view humans as potential threats and will leave them be unless under the most dire of consequences. Generally starvation is such a consequence, but even then attacks on humans are not as much as we build them up to be. There are rare examples, as with the case of the Tsavo Maneaters, but such events are the exception not the rule. Wolves, red wolves in particular, have an extremely low attack rates on humans when compared to other predators. There have been 18 known fatal attacks, worldwide, from 2000-now. Keep this in mind.

Dogs are very effective deterrents. Not only will their scent marks deter wolves, but the ones that do stray onto property are more likely to be run off. There are breeds that have been specifically bred for such work and, having owned some, they are very good at their job. I can not stress the importance of getting a dog bred for this purpose, as other dogs may not be physically and mentally equipped to deal with a wolf attack. I've seen many people say this is a method which failed them, but they were not using the right dogs. It would be like strapping a poodle to a sled and getting angry when it turned out to be a horrible sled dog. Sarplaninacs, kangals, kuvasz, and other dogs specifically bred for withstanding wolf attacks and attacking back would be best. In this area, I would say sarplaninacs would be the best, as they are more abundant on that side of the world than in America and are well-known for their wolf deterring skills. It's a shame Irish Wolf-hounds had the mean bred out of them as, from historical example, we see that they were not only good at their job, they were too good at it.

Strong perfumed or peppery scents, even human hair, have also been used. There are certain fence designs which can be incorporated, either built new or added to existing fences. Some of them are actually called "wolf fences". I have also seen people use a type of fraise, usually added on to an existing fence. Fladry can also be incorporated, either or alone or (for better results) in conjunction with a fraise or other deterrents. To emphasize that these things are "bad" and should be avoided, negative reinforcement in the form of hot-wires and electric fences have also been used, but would probably be unavailable in this part of the world. Fladry is a very old method, but studies show that it is quite effective on its own. Many ranchers are actually switching over to the system. It's simple, cheap, and keeps the wolves away from livestock.

Ideally, more than one of these methods should be used. For the minimal investment, I would say fladry and livestock guard dogs with scents along the border of the livestock area, also, maybe, some incorporation of the use of sounds. Assuming this is an area with absolutely no modern conveniences, people would have to use their imagination for the sound deterrents. Shots fired into the air are usually sufficient, though not quite as efficient as, say, a RAG box.

Great long essay. I even agree with a lot of the conservation concepts presented.

However your solutions are impracticable, in the here and now: especially for people living in this less than ideal climactic and economic situation.

I highly doubt scents of any kind will even raise an eyebrow of a starving wolf, let alone deter them.

Predator (bear sprays) are useless as the livestock in danger don't have thumbs.

Dogs are hard to find, expensive, have to be trained and they'd have to get numbers of them to Siberia and they'd have to withstand the -49 temperatures.

Fancy fences are too complicated; setup/buidling is hampered by climate (workers outside, frozen ground) Siberia. Not to mention availability and price in that area of freekin Siberia.

Fladry like bear sprays, is as useless as teats on a boar.

Loud sounds? So people are supposed to stand outside in -49, freezing, wait for wolves and then fire warning shots? See boars & teats comment.

[Set the Fallen]

Great long essay. I even agree with a lot of the conservation concepts presented.

However your solutions are impracticable, in the here and now: especially for people living in this less than ideal climactic and economic situation.

I highly doubt scents of any kind will even raise an eyebrow of a starving wolf, let alone deter them.

Predator (bear sprays) are useless as the livestock in danger don't have thumbs.

Dogs are hard to find, expensive, have to be trained and they'd have to get numbers of them to Siberia and they'd have to withstand the -49 temperatures.

Fancy fences are too complicated; setup/buidling is hampered by climate (workers outside, frozen ground) Siberia. Not to mention availability and price in that area of freekin Siberia.

Fladry like bear sprays, is as useless as teats on a boar.

Loud sounds? So people are supposed to stand outside in -49, freezing, wait for wolves and then fire warning shots? See boars & teats comment.

You seem like a narrow minded person... pretending to care, when all you do is wish for death.

Your words might fool others, but you prefer killing what is not in the hands of man, and wolfs are a proud race of earth that will never submit for humans. You fear their freedom man.

That's the reason demons hate your kind, so much of your ego blocks the way to true peace on earth.

Peace for all the species, peace for every living being, eaqual right from start to end.

There are ways to end the fight, but is it to hard to do something good for others? Is that trully the way of humans? Whatever is easy does not meen it is right. There are truths of the world, there are laws, and those laws include respect for others. To make things harder than they are seem like a person who has given up kindness, given up peace, given up doing whats best and being lazzy before duty. The duty of humans, as a species that do transform this earth in a way is to see to it that at least other species can live in peace.

Dogs are not hard to come by, it is the lack of willpower and the lazzy asses of those *******s that lead them to kill instead of doing something good. Also there is other technology that can help... to give up without trying shows how much they really care. People are just lazzy d****.

*sorry, but that's what I think in this case, not rudly meent, but my opinion on the weary mater. Duty falls on all with power.*

Edited February 17, 2011 by Set the Fallen

[Psukhe]

You seem like a narrow minded person... pretending to care, when all you do is wish for death.

Your words might fool others, but you prefer killing what is not in the hands of man, and wolfs are a proud race of earth that will never submit for humans. You fear their freedom man.

That's the reason demons hate your kind, so much of your ego blocks the way to true peace on earth.

Peace for all the species, peace for every living being, eaqual right from start to end.

There are ways to end the fight, but is it to hard to do something good for others? Is that trully the way of humans? Whatever is easy does not meen it is right. There are truths of the world, there are laws, and those laws include respect for others. To make things harder than they are seem like a person who has given up kindness, given up peace, given up doing whats best and being lazzy before duty. The duty of humans, as a species that do transform this earth in a way is to see to it that at least other species can live in peace.

Dogs are not hard to come by, it is the lack of willpower and the lazzy asses of those *******s that lead them to kill instead of doing something good. Also there is other technology that can help... to give up without trying shows how much they really care. People are just lazzy d****.

*sorry, but that's what I think in this case, not rudly meent, but my opinion on the weary mater. Duty falls on all with power.*

Um. OK.

[odiesbsc]

You seem like a narrow minded person... pretending to care, when all you do is wish for death.

Your words might fool others, but you prefer killing what is not in the hands of man, and wolfs are a proud race of earth that will never submit for humans. You fear their freedom man.

That's the reason demons hate your kind, so much of your ego blocks the way to true peace on earth.

Peace for all the species, peace for every living being, eaqual right from start to end.

There are ways to end the fight, but is it to hard to do something good for others? Is that trully the way of humans? Whatever is easy does not meen it is right. There are truths of the world, there are laws, and those laws include respect for others. To make things harder than they are seem like a person who has given up kindness, given up peace, given up doing whats best and being lazzy before duty. The duty of humans, as a species that do transform this earth in a way is to see to it that at least other species can live in peace.

Dogs are not hard to come by, it is the lack of willpower and the lazzy asses of those *******s that lead them to kill instead of doing something good. Also there is other technology that can help... to give up without trying shows how much they really care. People are just lazzy d****.

*sorry, but that's what I think in this case, not rudly meent, but my opinion on the weary mater. Duty falls on all with power.*

Please tell us, "Oh Broad Minded Person" What good do all those wolves do?

[supervike]

Wolves are unique and a great species given a bad name by superstition.

I don't disagree that they are a unique and great species, but that 'bad name' is also because they have eaten livestock (and people) for generations. It's not all down to superstition. Wolfs are hunters. I'm not saying that makes them evil or anything, but there is a real reason wolves were/are feared by rural people.

[The Silver Thong]

Wow did this thread take a bizarre turn someone's been sipping the bong water.

Edited February 17, 2011 by The Silver Thong

[Essan]

I don't disagree that they are a unique and great species, but that 'bad name' is also because they have eaten livestock (and people) for generations.

So have humans.

We dislike wolves because they're a direct (and sometimes equal) competitor. That's all. It's why we've aniliated most major carnivores. We want the lambs for ourselves. They'd have done the same, given half the chance.

As for the 400 strong pack, I advise reading William Horwood's The Wolves of Time - an excellent, epic, story and one which may make folk look a little different on wild doggies.

Edited February 17, 2011 by Essan

[Robbie333]

I don't disagree that they are a unique and great species, but that 'bad name' is also because they have eaten livestock (and people) for generations. It's not all down to superstition. Wolfs are hunters. I'm not saying that makes them evil or anything, but there is a real reason wolves were/are feared by rural people.

Actual documented wolf attacks on humans are almost none. As far as the killing of livestock they are just surviving. Before man they hunted Buffalo, Deer, Elk, etc. It is a natural food chain. Naturally when man added livestock to the mix they hunted the easier prey. Less expendable energy for the hunt is a good thing in nature. We invaded the wolf brothers world, not the other way around. Have a good day.---Robbie

[supervike]

As far as the killing of livestock they are just surviving. ...

We invaded the wolf brothers world, not the other way around. Have a good day.---Robbie

Absolutely. I'm not disagreeing with that at all. Wolves hunting for survival, whatever the prey is, is understandable.

I was just pointing out that it wasn't superstition alone that causes men to fear wolves.

EDIT...and I just did a quick check on 'Wolf attacks on Humans' and found plenty of documented events. Again, that doesn't make wolves evil, but obviously it does happen.

Edited February 17, 2011 by supervike

[The Silver Thong]

Wolf attack in North America are extremely rare it appears.

http://www.hcn.org/issues/315/16084

[Dougal]

Have no one thought of the wolf as they do help the entire ecologic balance in many area of the world!

Sigh...I believe sometimes men need to let nature take its course.

Would "letting nature take it's course" not involve the farmers either killing or relocating all their domesticated animals and leaving the majority of the wolves to starve to death?

In my opinion, cull the numbers but learn from what's occurred here and act more appropriately in the future.

[Psukhe]

In my opinion, cull the numbers but learn from what's occurred here and act more appropriately in the future.

Stop talking sense. It has no place here. Could you please replace your post with an emotionally charged and illogical one?

[alphafemale]

Would "letting nature take it's course" not involve the farmers either killing or relocating all their domesticated animals and leaving the majority of the wolves to starve to death?

In my opinion, cull the numbers but learn from what's occurred here and act more appropriately in the future.

Of course, culling was the way they became Yellowstone National Park in America caused the extinction--only to use millions of Americans tax dollars to "re-introduce" the species to the Park after the balance of the buffalo, moose, mule deer etc. had themselves starved to death & died from overpopulation related diseases. I think there is a solution, but in the first place I have question that 400 wolves were terrorising just this one place.

[theGhost_and_theDarkness]

Great long essay. I even agree with a lot of the conservation concepts presented.

However your solutions are impracticable, in the here and now: especially for people living in this less than ideal climactic and economic situation.

I highly doubt scents of any kind will even raise an eyebrow of a starving wolf, let alone deter them.

Predator (bear sprays) are useless as the livestock in danger don't have thumbs.

Dogs are hard to find, expensive, have to be trained and they'd have to get numbers of them to Siberia and they'd have to withstand the -49 temperatures.

Fancy fences are too complicated; setup/buidling is hampered by climate (workers outside, frozen ground) Siberia. Not to mention availability and price in that area of freekin Siberia.

Fladry like bear sprays, is as useless as teats on a boar.

Loud sounds? So people are supposed to stand outside in -49, freezing, wait for wolves and then fire warning shots? See boars & teats comment.

You obviously did not understand what any of the things were that I was talking about. Predator sprays are not necessarily used by spraying in the face of the predator. Sprayed around a perimeter, they can be just as effective. There are some that are used specifically for this. The fences I mentioned were not fancy in the least, and could be made from minimal supplies. The fact that you do not know that points to you not knowing what they are, hence you would not be aware, either, of their effectiveness. Dogs are not difficult to find, even in this area. There are specific breeds that have come from areas with extremely harsh temperatures. There are some that are specific to the area that would likely be very easy to get a hold of. And, OOOooo, they have to train a dog. . .a dog whose natural instincts will do most of the work for them. . . It's so much easier to go shoot something, isn't it? How about all that time they'll spend in the freezing weather hunting down wolves and killing them? Your "it's too cold" argument fails to take that into consideration.

You also fail to consider that all these methods are specifically FOR deterring starving or unhealthy animals. Animals in a healthy environment tend not to attack livestock. Fladry, as much as you wish to discount it, has proven in studies to be effective. Along with other deterrents, it would cut attacks down drastically. No method will work 100%, even shooting them. . .unless they intend to wipe them out completely. . .which would be extremely dumb.

The poor excuse, likewise, does not work. There have been methods used that require little to no money, depending only on what could be found or made using the land. Natives did it, and the ancestors of these people also did it.

Letting the animals starve to death may seem crueler than culling, but, in the long run, it is not. Starvation is natures population control, and it works to a degree more precise than humans could ever hope for. As can be seen by past precedents, culling never works. It causes more problems and costs more money long term. I don't know how many times I'll have to repeat that before it gets through.

As for the posts about wolf attacks, see my previous posts. Wolves, despite all the propaganda, have a very low human attack rate.

Stop talking sense. It has no place here. Could you please replace your post with an emotionally charged and illogical one?

I suggest you take your own advice. You seem to be only on the side of killing the animals, and refuse to take any other option into consideration. Such a reaction is, in my opinion, more emotionally and illogically fueled than one based on extensive research. Please tell me, what fuels your reasoning? I believe I will find your answer to be much more illogical and emotionally based than mine. You make excuses that have no basis in fact or research. They are assumptions. I don't assume. I research and draw conclusions. And, actually, during the entire thread I believe I've actually been the one doing all the work researching the area and the people, while you sit back and dispute everything I say and call *me* the illogical one. Hmmmm. . .

Of course, culling was the way they became Yellowstone National Park in America caused the extinction--only to use millions of Americans tax dollars to "re-introduce" the species to the Park after the balance of the buffalo, moose, mule deer etc. had themselves starved to death & died from overpopulation related diseases. I think there is a solution, but in the first place I have question that 400 wolves were terrorising just this one place.

Good luck. I've been barking up that tree the whole thread. It's like yelling at a brick. The sad part is there probably *isn't* a 400 strong wolf pack. But no one seems to be thinking of that either. Let's go shoot them and find out there are only 20 and we've just wiped them all out.

Edited February 18, 2011 by theGhost_and_theDarkness

[Psukhe]

You obviously did not understand what any of the things were that I was talking about. Predator sprays are not necessarily used by spraying in the face of the predator. Sprayed around a perimeter, they can be just as effective. There are some that are used specifically for this. The fences I mentioned were not fancy in the least, and could be made from minimal supplies. The fact that you do not know that points to you not knowing what they are, hence you would not be aware, either, of their effectiveness. Dogs are not difficult to find, even in this area. There are specific breeds that have come from areas with extremely harsh temperatures. There are some that are specific to the area that would likely be very easy to get a hold of. And, OOOooo, they have to train a dog. . .a dog whose natural instincts will do most of the work for them. . . It's so much easier to go shoot something, isn't it? How about all that time they'll spend in the freezing weather hunting down wolves and killing them? Your "it's too cold" argument fails to take that into consideration.

You are kinda talking out of your hat.

1. Pepper spray actually attracts bears once it's sprayed, so wolves would likely be the same. Probably not the most practical solution to ATTRACT them.

2. Dogs,if not the right breed or if not bred or trained properly, will actually become wolf food themselves. Even the breeds that are bred for this work, Kuvasz, Great Pyrenees, Tatras, Akbash, Ovcharkas, etc are all relatively rare and expensive, $1000 US + & hard to find.

3. Fences are EXPENSIVE when most are electric" and you have to find and run electricity to get them to work. Not to mention the cost of power to run them. Who's pounding fence polls into the permafrost. Who's giving them the money to build the fences?

4. Wolf culling is cheaper and many times more effective. Guess which one the people in the coldest, most inhospitable place in freekin SIBERIA are going to choose? They simply want to survive and don't give a rat's ass about the wolves.

You can sit at your keyboard and type out some more inane, impractical ideas; but the cheapest most effective one will be the one that's chosen by these people -- I can't blame them for that.

Your great solutions are overly simplistic, coming from someone in a safe 1st world "living room" -- away from the harsh reality of subsistence agriculture in SIBERIA.

[Farmerboy]

Fences won't stop anything, If the wolf wants the food bad enough it will probe and prod and find a way through guaranteed. I know because my land is well fenced yet 2 Japanese Akitas managed to get in and take down some wild deer. Sprays are not practical because youd have to spray all the land cus the the wolf will figure out that it doesnt stink anymore 3ft over the line, plus in when conditions are bad they will not let something like that stop them from needing what they need to do to survive.

With starvation increasing they will put increased pressure on already dwindling food resouces, which isnt going to magically appear overnight,which may cause the population of wolves to crash or be wiped out thus havinga further detrimental affect on the environment.

[dmotwani]

You are kinda talking out of your hat.

1. Pepper spray actually attracts bears once it's sprayed, so wolves would likely be the same. Probably not the most practical solution to ATTRACT them.

2. Dogs,if not the right breed or if not bred or trained properly, will actually become wolf food themselves. Even the breeds that are bred for this work, Kuvasz, Great Pyrenees, Tatras, Akbash, Ovcharkas, etc are all relatively rare and expensive, $1000 US + & hard to find.

3. Fences are EXPENSIVE when most are electric" and you have to find and run electricity to get them to work. Not to mention the cost of power to run them. Who's pounding fence polls into the permafrost. Who's giving them the money to build the fences?

4. Wolf culling is cheaper and many times more effective. Guess which one the people in the coldest, most inhospitable place in freekin SIBERIA are going to choose? They simply want to survive and don't give a rat's ass about the wolves.

You can sit at your keyboard and type out some more inane, impractical ideas; but the cheapest most effective one will be the one that's chosen by these people -- I can't blame them for that.

Your great solutions are overly simplistic, coming from someone in a safe 1st world "living room" -- away from the harsh reality of subsistence agriculture in SIBERIA.

Must say there is quite a bit of logic in your comments, telling it like it is.... What we think about the matter is utterly irrelevant to those who live there. They will go with the most feasible action to survive, and who can blame them for that? (armchair crusaders, I reckon.... as usual)

[Set the Fallen]

Please tell us, "Oh Broad Minded Person" What good do all those wolves do?

Let me rephrase the question of yours for you.

What good do all the humans do?

If the rule applies for wolfs, and humans are to a species of this world, then the rule applies for humans to. If you have to kill a wolf to control them even though they are inteligent, then do the same with humans and don't act high and mighty all the time. There is a lot more useless humans around, more so than wolfs.

Consider the ecosystem and the things a wolf do, I see only animals that survive as part of the circle.

They are a good thing in nature and contains a order in the wilds, unlike humans.

Regarding humans, if the wolfs are in trouble, the population of humans is the thing that should reduce for the sake of the animals so the animals do not starve as cause of humans. Controling population of species is surely not one sided, but if killing can be avoided it should be done in such a maner before rater than later. To prevent this "starving" created by the human village, they should reduce their hunting, make rules for how many children a family should have, and take nonviolent acts to prevent unbalance in nature.

If a species dies out, there are things that is bound to happen as cause of this. with no wolfs a lot more moses would run about killing trees with overfeeding, or deers would eat the land until there is nothing left, even rabits would leave the grounds bare for life. If it was so, it would become like a death desert with no life able to survive, and thus nature will use many years to regain it's life again, if ever. Though I see that humans do not care to protect the world, but only nuture their own gread of controling land. With so much DEATH they could surly build the city more and then starve to death before knowing what they have done to bot themself and the nature.

Wolfs are nececary as part of the balance, humans are not thus I voice this opinion.

Though the wolfs are more than needed in their numbers, they will be able to solve as part of nature, but killing wolfs is not a solution whatever others might say. Life is more valuable than such small trival things as human issues of lazyness of respect to nature. Cowards always take the simplest solution, yet it solve nothing in the end... they should focus on a way to solve this rightfully on all parts.

I have to say though, humans in the past was more to my liking.

They would hold a proper court to solve it all with a judge and lawyers that protect the animals, all having eacual rights as everyone was living beings. Humans of today are to selfish.

[Set the Fallen]

Would "letting nature take it's course" not involve the farmers either killing or relocating all their domesticated animals and leaving the majority of the wolves to starve to death?

In my opinion, cull the numbers but learn from what's occurred here and act more appropriately in the future.

Yes. It is nothing special just the law of nature.

Only those that fail will learn, and since wolfs have been in such low numbers the last hundred years, and little animals are left in the wild, they have to learn by this insidence. They are inteligent and even if it seems cruel, they should be left. If humans interfer always, then nature will not be able to learn them the necaritys. If most of the wolfs are ment to starve, then it will be that way, but interfering and killing wolfs is not a option if the wolfs do not learn on their own.

IF the humans of the village hide anything edible the wolfs will move on to find other food sources on their own, or meet their fate. They will have to spread if there is no food to find for many, and so the pacs will become smaller and more spread in the country. In the end, I do not think to many of the wolfs will die if they are left in peace and is forced to spread each other to solve with smaller numbers. Some wolfs are known to feed on the weak in their pack, so I suppose some will be eaten to by others before they spread.

[theGhost_and_theDarkness]

You are kinda talking out of your hat.

1. Pepper spray actually attracts bears once it's sprayed, so wolves would likely be the same. Probably not the most practical solution to ATTRACT them.

2. Dogs,if not the right breed or if not bred or trained properly, will actually become wolf food themselves. Even the breeds that are bred for this work, Kuvasz, Great Pyrenees, Tatras, Akbash, Ovcharkas, etc are all relatively rare and expensive, $1000 US + & hard to find.

3. Fences are EXPENSIVE when most are electric" and you have to find and run electricity to get them to work. Not to mention the cost of power to run them. Who's pounding fence polls into the permafrost. Who's giving them the money to build the fences?

4. Wolf culling is cheaper and many times more effective. Guess which one the people in the coldest, most inhospitable place in freekin SIBERIA are going to choose? They simply want to survive and don't give a rat's ass about the wolves.

You can sit at your keyboard and type out some more inane, impractical ideas; but the cheapest most effective one will be the one that's chosen by these people -- I can't blame them for that.

Your great solutions are overly simplistic, coming from someone in a safe 1st world "living room" -- away from the harsh reality of subsistence agriculture in SIBERIA.

You still are not understanding at all what I am saying. There are sprays used SPECIFICALLY for spraying around perimeters. If such sprays attracted predators, they would be of no use.

As for dogs, you are using American prices, and do not know your dogs. Great Pyreneses, for instance, while on so many livestock guard lists are NOT ideal dogs and are discouraged among those more knowledgeable. In areas on that side of the world, there are good breeds available at much lower costs. They are not so caught up in papers and lineage in those parts. Most of these dogs you do not have to train as much as you seem to think. I had some, they did most of their work with little guidance from me. Most of the necessary training had more to do with indoor stuff. The rest was in their nature.

There were no electric fences included on my list. There was a mention, but there was also my discounting of it due to the locations.

I begin to wonder if you read my posts at all or just skim a bit and draw conclusions, as your arguments fail to take much of what I say into consideration. Wolf culling is NOT cheaper. Possibly in the short term, but most definitely not long term. We have seen this over and over again. How many times before we learn our lesson?

And, again, the probability that the numbers have been greatly exaggerated will exacerbate long term problems and is yet another reason culling is not a good idea. They could wipe out the entire wolf population in the area because they exaggerated their numbers. Then what?

The "easy" solution is never the best solution with problems such as these. Quick, fast, and cheap answers are band-aid solutions and generally put in play by those too lazy or too ignorant to come up with something good and long term. In today's world, regardless of where you live, everyone wants instantaneous results and lose sight of the consequences that come along with getting those results. It's one of the reasons we've managed to muck things up as much as we have.

As Set the Fallen pointed out, canines of any kind will turn on and kill the weakest members of their numbers when it comes down to it. It will work itself out if the people start using precautions. Whether they like it or not, it's the best solution not only for the environment, but for them as well. They will be spared many more future headaches. Not to mention, there are organizations that work world wide that will offer funding for non-lethal predator control. All it takes is taking the incentive to go down those routes. It's actually funny, in a sad way, that such routes are not the first ones considered, but culling is. Even sadder considering those organizations tend to invest more money than what these people are being offered to shoot the animals.

Edited February 20, 2011 by theGhost_and_theDarkness

[jesspy]

I just want to say I doubt the 400. 40 maybe...maybe.