Idaho hunter 58

Muley, I'm glad you decided to chime in. I agree with you on this, even though i disagree with you over man vs. wild.

hillbillyhunter1

Yeah, and meantime you'll be deadwaiting for that cycle to come around again....plus when the deer population fades, the wolves may TRY to switch their diet, and have to be "dealt with" because of it. Wouldn't it just be easier/better to prevent that scenario altogether??

pdoughertyMU

i dunno, wolves were here long ago, and the heard was still strong back then. I think it can be managed. Wolves are part of wisconsins history, and have always been around in canada, and canada has strong herds too. I think we are overthinking and worrying too much. A wolf pack usually will only take smaller and weaker deer. Although they are capable of taking full grown deer, I don't think they would waste their energy if they didn't have to. so I think the big shootable deer will still be around.

hillbillyhunter1

I think it can be managed too, but not with the current federalpolicy in place.

Also, it seems to me that the current prey animals of the wolves today, because of man's encroachment,have less chance of survival after extended harassment by the wolves than before the coming of the white man.

Prey animals in the time of Lewis and Clark lived along the most fertileareas in huge herds (I'm talking out west now--I'm not sure what was going on in Wisconsin). Herd defense mechanisms, the significant proliferation of Elk, Deer, andBuffalo, as well as the overall and perpetual health of the herdskept the wolves at bay, so to speak.

Most animals today don't have as big a "margin" to withstand and defend themselves against the federally protected wolf, because of the long term changes in their ownenvironment.

caselesss5

[quote]ORIGINAL: bigbulls


on this point i will agree....sss helps but to rid us of these d*** animals poison is the only way to do it. our fore fathers used poison and it worked, and they killed wolves off for a reason.

and a hunting season will do vey little to control numbers anyway because wolves are smart enough to know what you're up to sothey split

Idaho hunter 58

eehhhggghhh.... wrong answer, come again.

Most native wolves in the lower 48 are a much smaller "Timber wolf", not the large Canadian Grey wolf that was thrown apon us.

Big difference. [8D]

bigiron

Wow you dont have a clue do you?So I read that the wolves take 36,000 to 49,000 deer in minnesota a year thats off a tree hugging wolf lovers website so its not some hunting site making it sound worse now your going to tell me that theres that many sick weak deer out there. Whens the last time you seen a sick weak deer in the wild?

I support the eradication of all the dirty mutts in any matter shooting, running down on snowmobile, poison, burning at the stake, etc..etc..

muley69

Yeah, now that's what I'm talking about.[8D] I would like to hear Brutal Attacks reasoning, I have agreed with him on some other biological issues and I think he has some training in that area but I can't remember. BTW, one of the huge supporters that offered fincial contributions and pushed the re-intro was a group called Defenders of Wildlife, I haven't seen their website but I can guess what they are all about.

wyotimberghost

I love arguing about wolves. It's almost a past time.[8D]

I haven't read all of the responses in this thread yet, but so far I haven't seen any mention about the economic impact that has resulted from the mangy muts.

Keep in mind the wolf population increased by an estimated 27% in 2006. (Source: Casper Star Tribune)

In 2006, there were 124 head of CONFIRMED cattle killed, 39 sheep, 1 horse, and 1 mule. And as most of you who have done research about wolves know, most wolf-killed cattle don't get confirmed as wolf kills because ranchers have a very limited number of days to report them as wolf kills after they die. Most of the bigger outfits don't find the kill sites until they see circling birds or smell rotting flesh, at which time it is too late to report it as a wolf kill. So the reported 124 head of cattle CONFIRMED as wolf kills only represent a fraction of the number of cattle that were actually killed. You do the math- that's a lot of money that ranchers are losing as a result of wolves. (Source: USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service/Wildlife Services)

Ranchers are also negatively effected by the wolves since wolves force elk to bunch up and stay in the open, which in turn makes cattle bunch up. The end result is that range quality takes a dive- meaning ranchers cannot stock as many head on ranges. (Source: Casper Star Tribune)

Then there's the matter of the declining wildlife herds in the mountains. Common sense dictates that if the wolves keep multiplying and hammering the elk herds, fewer hunting tags will be made available. Outfitters will take a huge hit, as will towns whose economies currently receive a big boost from the hunters that spend their money there each fall.

I believe that humans should take precedence over wolves, and as such I support the complete eradication of wolves outside of Yellowstone. Having wolves inside Yellowstone is not a bad idea since hunting cannot be used to control the elk herds. But outside of Yellowstone hunting does a fine job of controlling elk herds. Wolves have no purpose there. I don't think ranches and outfitters should be pushed to the brink of bankrupcy to accomodate wolves. Plain and simple. I stand fully behind S.S.S.

pdoughertyMU

"Wow you dont have a clue do you? So I read that the wolves take 36,000 to 49,000 deer in minnesota a year thats off a tree hugging wolf lovers website so its not some hunting site making it sound worse now your going to tell me that theres that many sick weak deer out there. Whens the last time you seen a sick weak deer in the wild?

I support the eradication of all the dirty mutts in any matter shooting, running down on snowmobile, poison, burning at the stake, etc..etc.."


I personally haven't, but dnr officers here are thinking about getting in helicopters with snipers and hitting deer to keep the population down. Btw, if you read my post i didn't say anything about them taking sick animals. If you don't remember the whole cwd problem in WI, and not wanting it to come back. Plus, I was talking more about yearlings or younger is what they would take first. if a wolf passes by a yearling, a mature (but not too old) doe, or a mature buck, what is going to be its choice? The yearling. they would go for the slower animal.

(this also is seen in africa and such where predators always go for the weakest of the heard because it is the easiest to catch)

you might not have the problem that wisconsin does, and i don't even really think WI has a problem anymore, but people who study deer patterns there whole lives think there is a problem. And the deer herd is still strong now with that 69% increase or however much.

Also, The majority of wolves here are timber wolves, Not the canadian ones that you speak of