HikeArizona.COM

Tucson paper stating Tucson Center for Biological Diversity filed an act with Game and Fish for an updated Grizzly Bear Recovery plan.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/spec ... ition_.pdf

gummo wrote:

SpiderLegs wrote:@kevinweitzel75

I'm not a hunter, but had friends of mine that were. When I lived in Idaho hunters hated the wolves, once they hit an area they ate everything that wasn't nailed down. So friends would go into an area to hunt and there would be almost no living thing left.

No offense to you, because you seem like a nice guy on here, but your hunter friends in Idaho are liars. Wolves don't kill everything in an area. People do that. Wolves are not gluttonous and their prey is hard to obtain. It'd be impossible and impractical for wolves to chase down and kill every animal in an area. If this were true, then Isle Royale National Park, a small isle off MI that wolves occupy, would have nothing living on it.

Not to sound trite, but wolves are part of the natural cycle and killing everything in site would not benefit wolves or anything in the long run. Also, wolves don't kill for sport and breed when there's food around and won't breed when food is scarce. The only animal that kills for sport and continues to breed when food is scarce is man. People who think that wolves kill everything that isn't nailed down need to go to Yellowstone, Glacier NP, Isle Royale, or any where wolves occupy and they would realize that this is BS.

Like I said, I don't hunt - just restating what a couple of friends said. But they were big gun and anti-government nuts, so I usually took everything they said with a grain of salt.

@azbackpackr
If I read that report correctly, that disease is propagated worldwide and hosted by a number of animals other than wolves. It seems that having sheep as prey is more of the "common link" to spreading the disease -- more so than the predator that feeds on the sheep.

Then again, different people have different concerns. Be it backpacking when there's an open deer hunt, or avoiding wildlife that can carry disease. Hantavirus in rodents, West Nile with mosquitos? There's a lot to be afraid of out there. Everybody has to make their own decisions regarding the risks they are willing to take.

I might not be concerned about the things others are concerned about. That's ok. There's no right or wrong. Just lies, damn lies, and statistics. ;)

swamphammock wrote: I don't think think the stats can be so easily discounted that way. ( Some statistical data tends to be subjective, this one not so much.) The stats basically just say it happened and when.

It's not that these stats are "subjective" per se. It's that they have a few problems, primarily because they leave many questions unanswered (how many humans actually come into contact with grizzlies versus bears, and under what circumstances?), but also because the death numbers are so small. 1 grizzly-caused death and 0 black-caused deaths in 2012, for example. You can't draw out a statistically significant pattern from numbers that low. If you try, then you'd have to explain why black bears killed 2 people in 2009 but grizzlies killed 0. And also my earlier question of why there are more black bear fatalities in Arizona than grizzly fatalities in Denali National Park.

I noticed that 2 of the 12 total grizzly fatalities were of Timothy Treadwell and his girlfriend. He was basically running around frolicking with grizzlies for 13 years before one decided that Tim would be better for dinner than as a playmate. If you haven't seen the movie about this guy and his girlfriend, I highly, highly recommend it: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/grizzly_man/

azbackpackr wrote:

kevinweitzel75 wrote:Ask someone that lives in Idaho how they feel about the wolf re-introduction in 1995? See how well that went over.

My brother lives in Challis, and isn't fond of the wolves. But not for any of the stated reasons I have seen in this thread. There is a disease prevalent in the Idaho wolves which can be spread to dogs and humans. It is called Echinococcus granulosus, a type of tapeworm, also called "hydatid." It causes cysts in lungs, liver and brain, in animals and humans. Humans can be exposed to it numerous ways.

https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wi ... Wolves.pdf

Echinococcus granulosus is prevalent in sheep. Sheepdogs get it from sheep feces and could be vaccinated for E. granulosus beforehand. People get it from sheep and unvaccinated dogs. Wolves initially got it from eating sheep. The disease isn't spread to humans by wolves, unless people handle wolf feces or dead wolves. If the people of ID don't want E. granulosus in their state, then they can get rid of their sheep.

Getting rid of the sheep would be a good thing for the land. As much as I love wool sweaters and socks, sheep are just hard on the rangeland.

azbackpackr wrote:Getting rid of the sheep would be a good thing for the land. As much as I love wool sweaters and socks, sheep are just hard on the rangeland.

Plus it's no fun running into them when you are out hiking. The mutant, Cujo-like sheep dogs take their job way to seriously.

@SpiderLegs
Must be an Idaho thing. I've never run into sheep dogs. Just dumb happy sheep.
http://hikearizona.com/photo=432770
http://hikearizona.com/photo=433138

chumley wrote:@SpiderLegs
Must be an Idaho thing. I've never run into sheep dogs. Just dumb happy sheep.
http://hikearizona.com/photo=432770
http://hikearizona.com/photo=433138

It's because they are fenced in mellow European sheep. Better stop now before my sheep jokes take a turn, this is a family friendly website.

@SpiderLegs
No doubt about it, there will never be another ewe

@azbackpackr

Getting rid of the sheep would be a good thing for the land

But maybe not a good thing for some of those single guys running around those hills... :whistle:

friendofThundergod wrote:@azbackpackr

Getting rid of the sheep would be a good thing for the land

But maybe not a good thing for some of those single guys running around those hills... :whistle:

Eeeeyew! (Or, "ewe!") ;)