Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
12-29-2006, 05:31 PM
#81
Fork Horn
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location:
Posts: 357
RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
We have a pile of wolves here in mn. Its not even rare to see them anymore. This year on opening weekend of firearms deerthey didnt stop howling till 10:30 in the morning. you cant drive down a logging road that isnt littered with tracks they just seem to use them like there own little trails I just read that we have over 3000 wolves here the deer are scared to death of them. 2 years ago my buddy got chased back up his deer stand by them when he went to get a doe he shot with his bow. and just last year in pre dawn theywhere walking around my ground blind bad feeling when your bow hunting I feel sooner or later with rising human contact its only time before they get brave enough andsomeone ends up in a bad way.
12-29-2006, 07:45 PM
#82
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Beautiful Western Montana
Posts: 2,308
RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
ORIGINAL: bigbulls
Muley, I never said I like or disliked any thing about the ESA.
But the fact is if it werenot forhumans killing off different species of animals there would have never been any need for the ESA to begin with. The ESA is theonly reason there are now huntable populations of animals, like the Grizzly, numerous seal species, numerous whale species, numerous salmon speciesthat were once on the brink of extinction. Other wise the humans would have continued killing these animals until they actually did become extinct and we wouldn't have anything to complain about cause there would be no animals left.
The elk once roamed 90% of this country but now only lives in about 10% of its original range thanks to the greed of humans. It damn sure wasn't the wolf that killed off the elk. It was us. So quit bitching about the wolf, go look in the mirror and realize where the true and original problem lies.
Animal conservation goes full circle, predators and prey. They both belong and IMO would be a shame to loose any of them for ever. I have no desire to kill off the predators so that I may have all the prey to myself.
You and others with your same attitude continue to be on the extreme side of kill-em-all and there will continue to be the tree huggers that are there to protect every animal from everything. Your thought process about issues like this are exactly why we are in this situation in the first place.
I find it fascinating how many people arethe moral and ethicspolice when it comes to deer, elk, moose, others trespassing on their property, shooting yearlings, taking long shots, etc.. etc... but mention the wolf and their true colors shine through.
Muley, I never said I like or disliked any thing about the ESA.
But the fact is if it werenot forhumans killing off different species of animals there would have never been any need for the ESA to begin with. The ESA is theonly reason there are now huntable populations of animals, like the Grizzly, numerous seal species, numerous whale species, numerous salmon speciesthat were once on the brink of extinction. Other wise the humans would have continued killing these animals until they actually did become extinct and we wouldn't have anything to complain about cause there would be no animals left.
The elk once roamed 90% of this country but now only lives in about 10% of its original range thanks to the greed of humans. It damn sure wasn't the wolf that killed off the elk. It was us. So quit bitching about the wolf, go look in the mirror and realize where the true and original problem lies.
Animal conservation goes full circle, predators and prey. They both belong and IMO would be a shame to loose any of them for ever. I have no desire to kill off the predators so that I may have all the prey to myself.
You and others with your same attitude continue to be on the extreme side of kill-em-all and there will continue to be the tree huggers that are there to protect every animal from everything. Your thought process about issues like this are exactly why we are in this situation in the first place.
Thats just the way I was brought up! To be A law abiding citizen and hunter who does not trespass or hunt out of season. Don't brake the Law Change it!
12-29-2006, 08:24 PM
#83
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: wisconsin
Posts: 1,061
RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
The DNR arround here has classes for volunteers to take so they can properly identify a track and count it during there winter count.They also have post cards for hunters and everyone else to fill out and report a track or sighting of an unusual animal for the area.Its a good thing to REPORT an unhealthy population.I probobly wont if its walleye,or big giant bucks,but wolves chasing me up a tree,I would call the DNR before i told anyone.
Im sure there are more wolves here too.But you can only count what you can prove.tracks are evidence,so are sightings.And they will be happy to see volunteers.Give yourself a reasion to go in the woods in the off seasion,Youll be helping yourself.
Im sure there are more wolves here too.But you can only count what you can prove.tracks are evidence,so are sightings.And they will be happy to see volunteers.Give yourself a reasion to go in the woods in the off seasion,Youll be helping yourself.
12-29-2006, 09:45 PM
#84
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: MN USA
Posts: 1,392
RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
I like most people in areas of northern MN who have to live with wolves year in and outsupport controlling their numbers. They weren't "reintroduced" here in MN. They've been here all along. Their population has gone through the roof in northern and especially NE MN in the past 30 years they've been under federal protection.
The biggest problem once you've got wolves in your states is to get the federal bureaucrats to relinquish control of controlling numbers back to your state wildlife departments. They have so many “enviro-no-nothings” who don't have to live with or deal with the problems of too many wolves bring.
If you can get past that enormous hurdle, which we haven’t in several decades since Timber (gray) Wolves reach the federal goals for sustainable pop., then your states I think will be more reasonable in control numbers. Talk of totally wiping them out will only further exacerbate the problem of dealing with the wolf crazed fanatics who don’t want a single one eliminated. Once you’ve got the wolf in your state, you’re stuck. The best you can hope for in state control and reasonable controls put on their population to avoid the heavy losses to domestic animals and wildlife, especially the young (e.g. calves, etc.)
The biggest problem once you've got wolves in your states is to get the federal bureaucrats to relinquish control of controlling numbers back to your state wildlife departments. They have so many “enviro-no-nothings” who don't have to live with or deal with the problems of too many wolves bring.
If you can get past that enormous hurdle, which we haven’t in several decades since Timber (gray) Wolves reach the federal goals for sustainable pop., then your states I think will be more reasonable in control numbers. Talk of totally wiping them out will only further exacerbate the problem of dealing with the wolf crazed fanatics who don’t want a single one eliminated. Once you’ve got the wolf in your state, you’re stuck. The best you can hope for in state control and reasonable controls put on their population to avoid the heavy losses to domestic animals and wildlife, especially the young (e.g. calves, etc.)
12-29-2006, 10:38 PM
#85
Fork Horn
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location:
Posts: 357
RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
In 1989 minnesota passed thepopulation goal that the feds had set for thedirty mutts, and have since doubled that according to estimated population surveys of 2005. Where we live there isn't to many farms/ranches so depreditation on livestockisn't a big deal but they do kill the $hit out of the deer. The wolves still seem to find the few cattle and make it a problem. I know if they were eating my calfs I would be gut shooting'em and lettin'em run, one has to protect their own right. I dont like the wolfs one bit and hope you ranchers/hunters out west were depreditation is a big problem can get the mutts taking care of.
12-30-2006, 07:17 AM
#86
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,679
RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
Ok and your point was... I am Moral and fair when it comes to the Wolf, I would like to see its numbers controlled threw hunting not SSS.
Once again, the fact is, the wolf is here to appease environmental whackos, that's it, the only reason.
12-30-2006, 08:51 AM
#87
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WV
Posts: 4,485
RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
another fact remains. The only reason their numbrs are low enough to even be listed in the first place is because of the actions of humans many years ago with your same attitude toward wolves.
Wolves in AK and Canada have NEVER reached the point that protection under the ESA is necessary. In AK, the state manages the wolves, which number 6000-8000 animals. Similarly, Canada's 50,000gray wolves are managed by provincial governments and are NOT considered endangered or (even) threatened
----http://training.fws.gov/library/Pubs3/wolves00.pdf
So, the wolves aren't listed because their overall numbers are in ANY danger, They're only listed here in the continental US and since it is that case combined with re-introduction into once existing territory, where does it end?? If it's right to re-introduce them into once existing territory in MT, ID, and WY, then why shouldn't we reintroduce them to Pennsylvania, New York, and Ohio. They were once "wolf territory" right??.
If one place is now right for the taxpayer funded "re-introduction" and the other is not, then obviously the places where they are being "re-introduced" is determined subjectively, and it is the subjectivity of the current policy that is being called into question....and, if that same "subjectivity" is being supported by a bunch of warm and fuzzy feeling, anti-hunting, Walt Disney idealists, along with an uneducated public, then of course, it is right for real sportsman to oppose it and fight for their own way of life. It's just a shame that all sportsman can't concentrate their efforts effectively because of differences and ignorance within their own ranks.
12-30-2006, 10:24 AM
#88
Fork Horn
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: James Bay Frontier, Ont. Canada
Posts: 337
RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
We have lots of Timber Wolves here. The packs in this area range from 10 to 50 or more in them. And this time of year they drop a lot of moose. Plus they have lured and grabbed several smaller dogs, which they killed and ate...just like the moose. I have them walking down the road, in my yard andaround my bear stands. In fact this fall there were so many wolves coming to several of my stands, that I couldn't put hunters there. I had a very bad experience back in the late 80's. A pack of 7 attacked me. And yes it was documented, so don't tell me it doesn't happen. I killed 3 of those out of necessity. I like listening to the packs call at night and I love seeing them. When they're hungry, they're going to eat. I guess it all depends on where you live as to whether you would like to see wolves eradicated. Our season use to be year round on them but the government found a way to make money so now you have to buy a special license to harvest wolves. But the trapping goes on. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I would never bait and kill wolves.....even after my experience, unless they are endangering me or my way of life.
12-30-2006, 01:04 PM
#89
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: wisconsin
Posts: 1,061
RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
Its nice to hear you lived through that anddont hold any hard feelings twards them.If they had killed you,do you think anyone would have found out what had happened? Or would you just be a missing person.After seeing what 2 wolves can do to a deer,there isnt much left.
12-30-2006, 01:39 PM
#90
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Beautiful Western Montana
Posts: 2,308
RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
ORIGINAL: bigbulls
That is my point. You, for one, have some sense aout you concerning this problem. You and I are on the same page. Delist them and have hunting seasons to keep their numbers in check but don't just let any one and everyone just wipe them out again.
Regardless of who this is apeasing another fact remains. The only reason their numbrs are low enough to even be listed in the first place is because of the actions of humans many years ago with your same attitude toward wolves. When SSS whakos do what they do then the environmental whakos react by doing what they do and no one gets anywhere.
Ok and your point was... I am Moral and fair when it comes to the Wolf, I would like to see its numbers controlled threw hunting not SSS.
Once again, the fact is, the wolf is here to appease environmental whackos, that's it, the only reason.