2 Wolves Escape from Predator World in Branson West

[gonefishin]

If I recall correctly I was taught that wolves were top predators that mainly preyed on the Buffalo herds that used to roam the plains. Now it seems logical to me that when faced with starvation a predator would try to find and hunt its natural prey. What animal, of any appreciable abundance, in all of the Ozarks closest resembles a Buffalo? I would say the wolves were/are just doing what wolves do.

[jdmidwest]

And farmers were doing what they do, helping to make the wolves extinct in this area again.

[SilverMallard]

I have NO problem with a rancher protecting his livestock from predation. That's why wolves are so scarce in North America nowadays. Sometimes people...especially city folks and suburbanites...forget that WE are full members of nature and the food chain as well. Everything in life is ultimately about competition for limited resources. In the end, one has to decide if he/she wants to be a winner or a loser.

[Don]

I live in the middle of a large pasture full of cattle and am keenly aware of all the losses caused by coyotes and dogs. If they were my cattle, and I were losing calves, I would not hesitate to shoot at any animal, regardless how rare, in order to protect my livelihood.

Also, it had been previously reported that individuals knew the whereabouts of the wolves. Captive efforts could have been taken if it was a priority to get the wolves back.

Don

[gonefishin]

And farmers were doing what they do, helping to make the wolves extinct in this area again.

Agreed. I am no fan of having large predators in my back yard. Be it Wolves or Cougars. My point was they, predators, are going to do what is natural to them and in this area that is going to involve cattle and if cattle aren't available then it will be anything lower on the food chain than the wolves are. I don't have a problem with them or their doing what they do in less populated areas. I don't think it would be wise to re-introduce them to this part of the world at all.

[Al Agnew]

Yep, this story was preordained. As romantically nice as it sounds to have wolves in an area like that, it just ain't gonna happen. Somebody was bound to shoot them if they didn't get run over first.

I've actually spent quite a bit of time around "domesticated" wolves, a little time around wild wolves, and a lot of time researching wolves in order to paint them effectively. I also did paintings as fund-raising vehicles for organizations that were working to reintroduce wolves into Yellowstone. So I think I know something about them.

First, 100-130 pounds is actually on the high side of average for wolf weights. 175 pounds is approaching record weight. The average wild Minnesota female timber wolf will weigh 75-80 pounds, the average male around 100. They get bigger as you go north, but even the big tundra wolves of northern Alaska seldom weigh over 140.

Domesticated wolves are far different from dogs. They are even more pack oriented than dogs, and in order to work with them to MUST convince them that you are the alpha male. They react to stimuli differently than dogs, and in order to raise them successfully and live with them, you have to completely understand them. For every wolf that is successfully domesticated and lives well with its owner, there are a bunch that end up totally screwed up and sometimes dangerous. It's criminal, in my opinion, to even try to raise a wolf to be a pet. Most caged wolves are semi-domesticated, and are usually as screwed up as the ones that are supposed to be pets. But wolves are highly individual animals, and some are going to be more aggressive, more intelligent, more able to learn to hunt for themselves, more likely to move around and try to get back to where they came from, than others. You can't predict what they'll do. It's this unpredictability, coupled with their acclimation to humans, that, if anything, would make these paricular wolves dangerous. I wouldn't have been very concerned about them being dangerous to humans, but there is that chance, MUCH more of a chance than if they had been completely wild. Same thing with danger to livestock.

Yep, we killed off most of the wolves in America to protect livestock. Even in pioneer times, there was very little predation of wolves on humans. There was a lot of fear of wolves, but it was mostly baseless. Wolves in Europe and Asia did a lot more human killing in the long ago, but that was probably due to either wars or plagues resulting in a lot of unburied bodies for the wolves to scavenge, that gave them the idea that they could eat live humans as well. In North America, humans were never wolf prey, and there are almost zero recorded instances of non-rabid wolves killing humans in North America. I have spent a lot of time in wolf country, and have never had ANY fear of being attacked by a wolf. But like I said, I'd be a little bit wary around supposedly domesticated wolves.

you can't believe the strength in their jaws. I have no doubt that they were able to chew the wire enough to bend it open. I was in an enclosure once, photographing wolves. I had on a fleece jacket, and one wolf took an interest in my jacket. He sniffed around, nosed it in various places, and finally figured out there was something in my pocket, which happened to be a couple of rolls of film still in the plastic cannisters. He decided to very gently nibble on them through the fleece. At least it LOOKED very gentle. But when I pulled the cannisters out of my pocket, they had very deep dents in them.

I always get a kick out of people in this part of the country who see coyotes and say they saw wolves. Trust me, when you see a wolf, if you've spent much time around coyotes, you'll know the wolf is different. Even though the rare coyote will get up to 50 pounds or so and a lot of wolves aren't all that much bigger, the wolf moves differently, holds itself differently, and has very different mannerisms.

They are wonderful animals, and I respect them and love to paint them. They belong in the wild, and I have little sympathy for ranchers in the West that are making their living off public lands and want to re-eradicate wolves...as far as I'm concerned, wolf predation should be part of the cost of doing business if you are using public lands. But they belong in the wild, and unfortunately, the Ozarks just ain't wild enough.

[SilverMallard]

Very well said, Al. And I agree with your opinion on federal land out West. You lease it with the full knowledge that there might be wolves, cougars, bears, etc. running around there. Predation is part of the cost-benefit analysis. But this would make that land less marketable, and the feds aren't even going to support that vigorously. Somebody might lose his gov't job. And ranchers are politically powerful out there in no man's land. Wolves don't vote or contribute cash to campaign coffers. That is why conservationists need to be their advocates - WHERE AND WHEN IT IS APPROPRIATE.

These weren't wild wolves. This was a manmade problem in a densely populated suburban, recreational, and historically agricultural setting. In a sense, this was a "pollution" matter. And I hold the owner of Predator World responsible for the deaths of these animals and anything else they killed. I'm not saying they were negligent with the escape. That can...and WILL...happen from time to time with any such operation. Permit issuing authorities TAKE NOTE! But they had them located and pinned down to a den quite some time ago and decided NOT to capture them due to the owner's financial interest in the pups that momma was about to whelp. That was a gamble and we all knew it. And it was socially irresponsible.

[KATroutman13]

I live in the middle of a large pasture full of cattle and am keenly aware of all the losses caused by coyotes and dogs. If they were my cattle, and I were losing calves, I would not hesitate to shoot at any animal, regardless how rare, in order to protect my livelihood.

Don, I only quote you because you were the closest to the end of the thread, but I pose a mere rhetorical question for the similar thinkers. Do you have a problem with a developer clearing a hillside to further his livelihood? Just some food for thought.

[troutchaser]

Not that you would care to know, but the issue out west concerning the wolves is not that they have been reintroduced to Federal land, but the fact that they're leaving these protected areas and wreaking havoc in other places.

[Don]

I don't have a problem with responsible developers. In a few years, I'll be viewing part of the largest development in the history of christian county. I live where I live to get away from all that. I't will be sad to look at the open scenic natural countryside I grew up in and see it packed with houses.

On the other hand, we cannot stop growth, so it is important we accompany the growth with proper infrastructure. As long as the developer does the right thing and does not have a high impact on environmental aspects (Overlook Estates) because houses do not belong everywhere. Proper zoning may have some influences.

Terrell Creek subdivision in my neck of the woods is experiencing some holdups at the time because local citizens want to ensure things are done right. Caveat to those who oppose the development. The 2000 plus acre development will be made up of quality and attractive homes. The alternative could result in a combination of many lower end subdivisions running on wells and septics instead of water and sewer.

Don