Question about wolf management/law???

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

elks

New member
First of all no one come here and advocate for anything illegal or come here and ruin my answers due to personal issues/strong opinons. My question is somewhat simple and I will delete my post if it goes in a direction not pertaining to my question.

I am conerned about the recent Wolf Sighting in CO. Now evidently there has been a problem already. Please refrain from doing anything other that answering my questions.

The area where the CO wolf was recoeded is right where I and my Wife and our dogs enjoy ice fishing. My fear is that a wolf will take my pet. My understanding is that you can not shot a wolf or defend your property from it. Is this just because it is federally protected? Or is this a state by state law? If it is a federal law will it change once delisting occurs? Do they really expect me or others to stand by and see my best freind attacked and killed? I feel for the ranchers that loose stock and hope that soon the wolf will be delisted such that we can deal appropriately with attacks. Again do not attempt to justify breaking the law etc. I want to know how the law is structured and on what level, such that I can start to work at getting CO law such that I protect my family(including my loved pets).
 
Last edited:
Elks I have asked the same questions. You can ask 10 different USG&G people get 10 different awnsers and 10 different canned speaches. Yes they will attact you pets and kill them and you can do nothing, call the your local USF&G and get a well reahursted speach and be told that is what wolves do. We have lost dogs and stock and you can talk to the people in charge of reintroducing the wolves and really if they don't do something about it no one can.
The reintroducing of the wolves created jobs for the USF&G, they recieved lots of money to do this,you,me,or anyone else that have loses becuses of the reintorduction are just collateral damages in a much bigger program. Untill they are put on the delist stay at home. But remmber this year is election year, get involved email your Reps. call the USG&G daily and keep track of the diffenet stories you get told and then relay to you Rep. It is you pets your tax money. Aske your Rep is the wolf program and the USF&G just another government agency run like FEMA? Ask them why these things are happening and you can't protect your propery?


Now Mr. Mike did I break any of the rules? Does Elks desirve a stright honest answer form some who knows or is there anyone who does know what a person can do to protect his property without breaking the laws?

Mr. Mike if you don't like my opinion delete my post. Victums of the wolf reintroduction need to have a voice not to break the laws but to hear what others have to say about their loss and the chance of having losess because of the wolfs. Mauser

Again see what Jim Beers has to say about this program look him up on Google and check out the other side from a man that worked for the USF&G. This is probely my last post as I will get banned for not loving the wolf and what it has already cost.
 
Far out man. On the Church forum it's ok to promote genocide, but here anyone who suggests shooting a wolf will be banned. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bowingsmilie.gif
 
Last edited:
Elks, my understanding is that i depends on whether or not the wolf is listed as endangered or threatened in the geo area that the attack may take place in.

If listed as threatened, then you can protect your animals and livestock from the wolf. If listed as endangered, you may not. Your only recourse is to see damages.

Anyway, that's my understanding of it.

It was front page in todays Rocky Mountain News.
 
The more post I see from people who live in wolf country the more I think that it is time for regulated hunting seasons. A series of limited hunts would provide a lot of information on issues that we are having to guess on at this point. A lot of the populations should be viable enough to stand limited hunting.
 
If its in an area with no current managment plan it would be illegal to shoot it regardless of what property it was destroying/killing.
 
This is a lagitimate question and I'm sure there is an answer out there somewhere. The discussion of when it is legal to kill a wolf might seem to be the same as what has gotten people in trouble, but it deffinately is not. Wolves are dangerous animals and I'm sure the people that manage them know it. So, it's not much of a streach to find yourself in the need to legally take a wolf. But even then you will need to be prepared for a relatively long legal fight.

When Wolves were first introduced into Arizona a family out camping had a family dog attacked by a wolf. He shot and killed the wolf, got in some big trouble for it but in the end I believe the killing was declaired justified. But it took alot of doing to prove that he was right to do it. I believe his major mistake was not reporting the incident. I also believe that it depends on where you are and there this absolutely HAS to be a life or death need to kill the wolf. From what I can gather it is not legal to kill a wolf if it is simply near you or your livestock. Simply being near you or your family or your property is not a legal reason to kill. But, if there is a direct threat, and I mean it has to be no question about it you, your family or your property is in direct danger of harm the story is different. Simply finding a wolf on a dead cow is not a direct threat because you don't know how that cow died.

Past troubles with this subject had more to do with how the subject was handled. Stepping into PM and saying "I hate wolves and will kill every one I see near my live stock", is openly defying the law and is not appropriate. But throw in a true life & death struggle and the whole discussion changes. Unfortunately it is also not a cut and dried sanario. To one man being in danger is another mans childs play. Let it be known that if one of my family members (or any human being for that matter, even those that have said publicly that they wouldn't pee on me if I was on fire) was being attacked by a wolf I'd be guilty of killing it. If my dog was being killed right in front of me I'd be just as guilty. If it was one of my cats I'm not so sure. The key would be that I'd also call the Game & Fish office to turn myself in. For me the old saying "I'd rather be judged by 12, than carried by 8" would apply in this situation.

We have a few fairly highly ranked wildlife managers here on Predator Masters, I'd like to hear from them on this issue. When would it be a legal action to kill an endangered species bears, wolves and Mt Lion (in some places) come to mind. In my view we are talking about having no other option to kill, not randomly killing just because you don't feel safe.

NONYA, Mauser and a few others, I know this will be a little difficult for you, but if you keep it on this side of the arguement, have at it. We are talking about legally stopping a bad animal attack, NOT random killing actions, go there and this thread will go away. And please save your self richeous indignation, you might see what I just wrote as going against my past writings, I do not. As a matter of fact I was waiting for you fellas to turn the discussion toward the legalities reather the your owns outlook of right and wrong. If you had gone there I would have not taken any action to stop the discussion.
 
Here in montana they have a plan that allows livestock owners to shoot wolves caught harassing thier property,I think we have had 7 killed under this new rule since it was enacted last fall,all investigated and all ruled legal.If you shoot one here you have to report it imediatly so they can come out and recover thier radio collar/ear tag and investigate the shoting.
 
NONYA - /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif - Thank you!

To be honest, I do believe this should be moved down into the "Biology" or some other forum. But for the time being I'm leaving it here.

MJM
 
Last edited:
It should fall under the "Use of Deadly Force" like the police and military laws fall under! We all have to realize that if you were convicted, it could go to a "Court of Law" and be assigned a Jury. I don't really think that there is a Jury out there that would convict someone of protecting Family and Pets. Especially, "Tree Huggers!" But like Micheal said, "From what I can gather it is not legal to kill a wolf if it is simply near you or your livestock. Simply being near you or your family or your property is not a legal reason to kill." Thats just "Common Sense."
 
I think Michael is right. I would think it would be similar to "use of deadly force" against a person.

You can't kill someone for "threatening" you, "looking mean" at you, or even "harassing" you (or your pets or loved ones).

It will amount to a case by case basis (I would think), and should be a last resort.

Would I be prepared to spend time in jail for killing someone or a wolf) if I truely believed that my action saved the life of my wife or kids? You bet.

Would I be prepared to go to prison to save the life of my pet(from man or beast)? No.

That means I wouldn't act if there was any gray area (at least for a pet.)
 
I always try to be a good citezen, but I have heard of people try to do the right thing and turn themselves in, and had to go through the ringer! Its seem like it would be easyier to just bury it. Lets just hope and pray that we don't get put into that kind of situation!
 
Yes, lets hope and pray .... But its been shown time and time again that its better to step up, than it is to make the authorities find you. Besides if you were truly threatened the quicker you let them know more evidence will still be available as to what actually happened. The mere act of stepping up shows sincerity.
 
A Police Officer can use deadly force against another human being in response to an IMMEDIATE THREAT of death or serious bodily injury. It is generally a Fourth Amendment question of "Objective Reasonableness" guided by the landmark United States Supreme Court case Graham vs. Connor. The investigation will generally look at the facts to determine if the situation was tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving. It will also focus on what the Officer knew and perceived at the time of the use of force and not the facts afterward. It can be a little more complicated than that but that is the general jest of it. I wont get into the use of deadly force against a dangerous fleeing felon (Tennessee vs. Garner) because its a whole other can of worms and would not apply here. I would think that the test for a citizen using deadly force against another citizen would be similiar (Objective Reasonableness) minus Graham vs. Connor which is a law enforcement use of force case.

I do not know what the law exactly states about the killing of a protected or endangered species in the presence of an immediate threat of death or serious injury but I cannot believe for one minute that the same standards would not apply. For a prosecuting attorney (who is generally an elected or appointed official) to prosecute someone for legitamately protecting themselves, their family or another human being from the threat of death or serious injury would be ludicrous. I have a hard time believing that the public would stand for a person being tried in a court of law when the same person could have used justifiable deadly force in the same situation against a human. I think we get into a whole different discussion when we start talking about protecting pets and the like from the same threat of death or serious injury and I would hate to even speculate on the legality of it. If citizens dont have the legal right to protect their pets/livelyhood (livestock) from such a legitimate threat then they should. I fully support the delisting of Wolves and Grizzlies and control of their population by some type of hunting management program. I wish you the best of luck Elks and I do hope you can get some clear answers. I think in most cases, clear cut answers are hard to come by just like Mauser alluded to because they are afraid to draw that line in the sand and make the issue black and white. They (Fed Govt) find it much easier to manipulate situations if they operate in that gray area. I hope I did not violate what you asked for Elks.

P.S. I support the immediate reporting that Michael spoke of to the appropriate authority. I also think I would take the consequences of protecting my dogs.
 
why in the world would you ban someone for life for their honest opinion?,,since your such a "legal" stickler,,haven't you ever heard of,,,let the punishment fit the crime?,,,but a lifetime ban? did someone murder a server or a CPU on your computer?,,,i for one would shoot a wolf if it was attacking me,my family or my dog,,but i dont have to worry about a wolf in Ohio,but that is my opinion on a very touchy subject,,but i read the other posts and seen where someone is going in front of a review board,,and i realize thatI probably dont know the entire situation,,but couldnt a PM to these people stating the situation to these so called offenders,,and like the other post said,,it might be a big thing to one person,BUT not be nothing but a smile to other people
Bob
 
You might want to reasurch this slush fund, if you have not went throught the procedure of trying to collect on it and see who makes the decisions. You have know idea of how it really works. In a court of law first the law enforcement investagate,go to a prosacuter,then a judge or jury awards damages. With this slush fund the same people that put the wolf in the position to cause you a lose are the same people that decide if it is a wolf caused lose. If you don"'t have it on film save your phone call. The less confirmed wolf damage the better it is for the wolf program. When you report a wolf caused lose and see how you are treated you will not do it twice. Don't take my word for it reseaurch it get in touch with the different livestock grower associations, who have members that have reported loses. See what they were paid,see how they were treated. check the Wool Growers members in Mont. Wy Id. check out the other organizations that livestock producers belong to. Check it out it is your tax money!!! Mauser
 
Last year a woman rancher down by Bozeman shot a wolf she mis-identified as a coyote from her front porch,she turned herself in as soon as she relized here mistake and was prosecuted in federal court for her honesty,if i remember correctly the judge gave here the minimum sentence he could wich consisted of a heavy fine and some community service.There was a peta type pro wolf group that was offering reperations to ranchers/livestock owners who could prove they ost thier property to wolves but they quit offering to help after the wolf ploan in MT started letting ranchers shoot wolves,before this new rule the head of the wlf program here was going out and shooting entire packs of wolves that were causing problems on a pretty regular basis so he made it easier on everyone by allowing the ranchers to do his job for him.
 
Ed Bangs is the head honcho in the wolf program here in Montana and for a federal employee he is suprisingly level headed and receptive to the plight of the ranchers effected by them,here is a story about him from a local paper.

Two wolf packs attacked cattle in four incidents in four days in the Madison Valley and now a federal gunner has orders to kill half of one pack and try to put radio collars on the other pack.

It they attack livestock again, they'll all be shot, said Ed Bangs, wolf recovery leader for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Helena.
"They killed a yearling for us this morning about daylight," rancher Gary Clark said Tuesday afternoon. The attacks started on Friday.

Clark said the wolves brought down the steer, which weighed several hundred pounds, about 250 yards from three ranch houses.

"That's pretty close," he said.

He spotted six wolves on the steer when he left home for the day's work. He immediately called federal officials.


Other recent attacks by that pack include the killing of a calf and the chasing of a herd of cattle on separate ranches, Bangs said.

The Sentinel pack, which resides in the Madison Range, is the culprit, he said.

A helicopter carrying an agent from FWS -- the federal agency that controls predators -- was already in the area, so it was able to fly over the ranch shortly after daylight, Bangs said.

The pack could not be located immediately because the three members that had been wearing radio collars had been illegally shot between September and December, Bangs said.

He instructed the shooter to dart one wolf so it could be collared. He also ordered him to kill two more, if possible.

However, the wolves made it into the timber and only the darting could be accomplished.

That animal now wears a collar that can lead a shooter to the pack. Bangs said he has ordered that two or three wolves be killed. If another depredation occurs, they'll all die.

Clark said he's frustrated with the situation because he heard conflicting stories. He said he was told in the morning that all the wolves would be killed, only to hear in the afternoon that half would be allowed to live.

"I was satisfied in the morning, but this afternoon I was not," he said.

He said he believes he's lost cattle to wolves in the past but could not confirm the cause of death.

Clark lives in the Bear Creek area east of Cameron.

The Sentinel pack has been the subject of a long-term study in that area, but Bangs said that livestock concerns have to take priority.

As of the end of December, officials had killed 208 wolves in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming for preying on livestock.

A rancher living about 12 miles north of Clark's place also reported wolves killing two young calves over the weekend, Bangs said, and the helicopter gunner spotted a pack of four wolves near the site of that killing, but couldn't get close enough to dart one, Bangs said.

He said he understands the anger of ranchers, many of whom are now working 24-hour days during calving season.

"When it's your cattle being killed, it's a very emotional issue," he said.

But he defended his agency's quick response.

A helicopter was hunting wolves within an hour after the report of the attack on Clark's steer.

"You can't get much more on top of it than an hour later," he said.

Clark said he works with Madison Valley Ranchlands, a group that is trying to find ways for ranchers and wolves to get along.

"I don't want to sound like a rabble rouser," he said. "But sometimes, you've got to take a stand."



a couple weeks after this article came out Ed returned and shot the remaining wolves himself when they killed a couple more cattle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top