Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Two Wolves Kill 176 Sheep in 1 Night Near Idaho Falls

Syndicate

Syndicate content
Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!

Newshound Recent Posts

Categories

Recent Comments

Archives

Newshound
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

August 21, 2013
Two Wolves Kill 176 Sheep in 1 Night Near Idaho Falls - 11

If you have any doubts about the gray wolf's hunting ability, or its impact on livestock, you should talk to the sheepherders in Idaho where two wolves recently zeroed in on a flock of 2,400 sheep near Idaho Falls.

They killed 176 animals, with most of the sheep dying of asphyxiation as they panicked and stampeded each other while trying to escape the wolves. Ten sheep died from bite woulds and only one was partially consumed.

In a similar attack in Montana in 2009, wolves killed 122 sheep, surpassing the number of sheep killed by wolves in the entire state in 2008, according to the Spokesman-Review.

Todd Grimm, director of the Wildlife Services Program, told the Teton Valley News that there is already a “control action” in the area. Since July 3, 12 wolves have been lethally trapped, including nine pups. The goal is to take them all, he said.

 

Comments (11)

Top Rated
All Comments
from nowolves wrote 32 weeks 5 days ago

Yup, and the anti-hunters post only the Confirmed depredations. This article is quite telling of that fact. Dr Mech testified in court that only 1 in 6 true depredations are confirmed.... This is an ADDITION to those numbers and part of what is called herding and harassment costs. Herding and harassment costs include thinks like lacerations from being run through fences, fixing fences, stress on animals / loss of weight & potential weight, stress on Rancher, loss of pregnancies & hard to get pregnant and jus the general hard to work with cattle/livestock.

People that pimp wolves are disgusting....and even more so when they quote confirmed depredations as the only costs associated with having this animal around people there pets and livestock.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from nowolves wrote 32 weeks 5 days ago

Yup, and the anti-hunters post only the Confirmed depredations. This article is quite telling of that fact. Dr Mech testified in court that only 1 in 6 true depredations are confirmed.... This is an ADDITION to those numbers and part of what is called herding and harassment costs. Herding and harassment costs include thinks like lacerations from being run through fences, fixing fences, stress on animals / loss of weight & potential weight, stress on Rancher, loss of pregnancies & hard to get pregnant and jus the general hard to work with cattle/livestock.

People that pimp wolves are disgusting....and even more so when they quote confirmed depredations as the only costs associated with having this animal around people there pets and livestock.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jacob Stokes wrote 33 weeks 4 days ago

Maybe the article should have been Titled "Wolves Cause 176 Sheep to Die". Even though the wolves didn't physical bite all the animals, they did cause their deaths. It's the same logic if you get an a car accident and you hit your head and die you don't say the car killed you. Predators need to be managed in this day and age. Before the settling of the west I would have said just let nature take care of itself.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from huntfishtrap wrote 33 weeks 4 days ago

I think the article in general and the headline in particular were poorly written, but the fact remains the same, that 176 sheep are dead that otherwise would be alive if the wolves hadn't been there. I'm not anti-wolf or pro-wolf, but I just think the facts should stand for themselves.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Lynne Jaquith Lowe wrote 33 weeks 5 days ago

If anyone actually read the article, instead of the usual over inflated not to mention totally FALSE headlines, they'd see that the sheep died from suffocation and NOT wolves. Just more inflammatory remarks, geared to further incite wolf haters and give them another excuse for senseless slaughtering!

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 33 weeks 5 days ago

i am for wolf hunting and the management of wolf populations based on science, not emotional stories and reactions.

however the way this article was written is downright awful by outdoor life. you mean a pack of wolves killed 10 sheep, not 176. the bias in the headline is clearly meant to sway opinions, much like something i would see on a cable news network.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Washington Irving wrote 33 weeks 5 days ago

Funny how nobody focuses on the fact that the shepherds actually heard the wolves the night before, but failed to act until morning. When herding sheep on public property where wolves are present, a bit of diligence is probably warranted.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from lorendn wrote 33 weeks 5 days ago

Actually the story in the local papers was a little different. 176 sheep committed suicide (perhaps) while running from a wolf pack. Only 1 sheep was partially eaten and about 10 has possible bite wounds. Four of the 6 adult wolves were killed and all 7 pups were killed on the public grazing land.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from MNwhitetailHunter wrote 33 weeks 6 days ago

JM , I guess exaggerations makes better stories. 176 sheep dying from bite wounds seemed a little far fetched when I first read the title. In my opinion, the article was too short for that many sheep dying. It seems though, that a wolf's appetite is never consistent or ever ending, making the management of wolves difficult.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from idduckhntr wrote 33 weeks 6 days ago

It was a pack of wolves. We had problems with them over there for a couple years now.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from JM wrote 33 weeks 6 days ago

Two wolves killed 10 sheep* When I clicked the title I thought you meant they actually killed 176 sheep in one night(I don't think you can really call the sheep stepping on each other a kill by the wolf). Either way, biting and killing 10 sheep and hardly eating anything shows the true nature of wolves that many anti-hunters do not realize(or chose to ignore).

+1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment (200 characters or less)

from idduckhntr wrote 33 weeks 6 days ago

It was a pack of wolves. We had problems with them over there for a couple years now.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from nowolves wrote 32 weeks 5 days ago

Yup, and the anti-hunters post only the Confirmed depredations. This article is quite telling of that fact. Dr Mech testified in court that only 1 in 6 true depredations are confirmed.... This is an ADDITION to those numbers and part of what is called herding and harassment costs. Herding and harassment costs include thinks like lacerations from being run through fences, fixing fences, stress on animals / loss of weight & potential weight, stress on Rancher, loss of pregnancies & hard to get pregnant and jus the general hard to work with cattle/livestock.

People that pimp wolves are disgusting....and even more so when they quote confirmed depredations as the only costs associated with having this animal around people there pets and livestock.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from JM wrote 33 weeks 6 days ago

Two wolves killed 10 sheep* When I clicked the title I thought you meant they actually killed 176 sheep in one night(I don't think you can really call the sheep stepping on each other a kill by the wolf). Either way, biting and killing 10 sheep and hardly eating anything shows the true nature of wolves that many anti-hunters do not realize(or chose to ignore).

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from MNwhitetailHunter wrote 33 weeks 6 days ago

JM , I guess exaggerations makes better stories. 176 sheep dying from bite wounds seemed a little far fetched when I first read the title. In my opinion, the article was too short for that many sheep dying. It seems though, that a wolf's appetite is never consistent or ever ending, making the management of wolves difficult.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from lorendn wrote 33 weeks 5 days ago

Actually the story in the local papers was a little different. 176 sheep committed suicide (perhaps) while running from a wolf pack. Only 1 sheep was partially eaten and about 10 has possible bite wounds. Four of the 6 adult wolves were killed and all 7 pups were killed on the public grazing land.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jacob Stokes wrote 33 weeks 4 days ago

Maybe the article should have been Titled "Wolves Cause 176 Sheep to Die". Even though the wolves didn't physical bite all the animals, they did cause their deaths. It's the same logic if you get an a car accident and you hit your head and die you don't say the car killed you. Predators need to be managed in this day and age. Before the settling of the west I would have said just let nature take care of itself.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from nowolves wrote 32 weeks 5 days ago

Yup, and the anti-hunters post only the Confirmed depredations. This article is quite telling of that fact. Dr Mech testified in court that only 1 in 6 true depredations are confirmed.... This is an ADDITION to those numbers and part of what is called herding and harassment costs. Herding and harassment costs include thinks like lacerations from being run through fences, fixing fences, stress on animals / loss of weight & potential weight, stress on Rancher, loss of pregnancies & hard to get pregnant and jus the general hard to work with cattle/livestock.

People that pimp wolves are disgusting....and even more so when they quote confirmed depredations as the only costs associated with having this animal around people there pets and livestock.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Washington Irving wrote 33 weeks 5 days ago

Funny how nobody focuses on the fact that the shepherds actually heard the wolves the night before, but failed to act until morning. When herding sheep on public property where wolves are present, a bit of diligence is probably warranted.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from huntfishtrap wrote 33 weeks 4 days ago

I think the article in general and the headline in particular were poorly written, but the fact remains the same, that 176 sheep are dead that otherwise would be alive if the wolves hadn't been there. I'm not anti-wolf or pro-wolf, but I just think the facts should stand for themselves.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 33 weeks 5 days ago

i am for wolf hunting and the management of wolf populations based on science, not emotional stories and reactions.

however the way this article was written is downright awful by outdoor life. you mean a pack of wolves killed 10 sheep, not 176. the bias in the headline is clearly meant to sway opinions, much like something i would see on a cable news network.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Lynne Jaquith Lowe wrote 33 weeks 5 days ago

If anyone actually read the article, instead of the usual over inflated not to mention totally FALSE headlines, they'd see that the sheep died from suffocation and NOT wolves. Just more inflammatory remarks, geared to further incite wolf haters and give them another excuse for senseless slaughtering!

-3 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment (200 characters or less)

bmxbiz