outdoorsman4life_103

did you sttend UW- Stevens Point?

1sagittarius

No, but my wife did.

stancel

I couldn't agree with you more!! It is funny how animal populations were well balanced and self sustaining for millions of years, then man comes along and feels the need to improve on what has worked since the beginning of time.

I am no tree huger, and I think most hunters aren't, but I do love nature and the outdoors. And personally, I would NEVER shot an animal that wasn't going to end up on my dinner plate. If I go an entire year without getting a deer because a group of coyotes killed a few to eat, then so be it. Such is the circle of life.

Stan

Ihuntandfish

Just out of curiosity, how many of you who say that you don't mind wolves actually live in an area with a large wolf population and have to deal with them every day? I would guess that is not too many people. I don't mind having some wolves around, but when they go unregulated and people start seeing more wolves than deer during hunting season, I do have a problem with that. I do not know anybody that supports the large wolf population in northern wisconsin who actually lives in that area. That is why I completely disagree with the wolves being on the endangered list. Wolves have to be regulated, just like every other species and the population is already getting out of hand in some areas.

Zrabfan26

I'm aware of the increase in wolf problems out west. I believe they should be regulated to avoid bigger livestock and possibly human encounters. Sell only so many tags to keep them in check. Now in no way is this going to threaten there overall numbers making them extinct, but it will keep them from getting out of control. Its good to have them around for their balance on wildlife, but should not be protected forever judging on how their numbers have grown already since reintroduction. They would just become out of control.

farm hunter

Ihuntandfish

I hear what you are saying - but - from what i read - there is like 500-600 wolves in all of wisconson. That seems like a "few" to me. Sure they eat deer - and probably sheep, dogs, cats and whatever else they want. Wisconson is over 65000 square miles - 600 wolves equates to 1 per every 109 sqare miles. I realize that they are in the northern wisonson mostly - so lets say 1/4 of the state - that works out to one Wolf for every 27 square miles. What would you call a large wolf population?

I do think the state should have some control over the population - and from what I read - It sounds like - at least they think they do.

As a hunter - I'd wish I could hunt them. At the same time - I'd be all for protection if need be.

FH

Ihuntandfish

Farm Hunter---I couldn't agree with you more that five to six hundred wolves to the entire state, or northwoods is not a large population. However, as any Wisconsin hunter who actually spends some time out in the woods would tell you, there is a lot more wolves than that in Wisconsin. This DNR that is coming up with these wolf estimates is the same DNR who claims that there are 1.7 million deer in the state. There are people up north who see more wolves than deer during gun deer hunting season. Also, wolves can be found in almost any county in Wisconsin, other than the southeast portion. There isn't a person I know who hunts up north that doesn't see wolves or at the very least, signs of them being around. Just to give you an example of how wrong the DNR can be, all you have to do is look at the deer herd estimation of 1.7 million. Every other form of predicting the herd shows that the herd is drastically being reduced. Deer/vehicle crashes are down over half in the last few years. Hardly anybody sees close to as many deer as they used to, and this years hunting season for most hunters was the worst its been. After the gun season has closed, the DNR is finally admitting that they "may" have overestimated the deer herd. Also, did I mention that they also just realized that the bear population in Wisconsin is over 100% what they had predicted. It's only a matter of time before they realize that they have seriously misjudged the wolf population as well. All of these things hunters could have told them before it was too late, but they refuse to listen to hunters and go instead with their "good old, reliable" ways of estimating herd sizes like the SAK formula.

muley699

BS. Here we go again. Somebody from back east pretending to know whats good for us out here in the west. If the goal is to establish wolf populations in native areas, then lets put them in Chicago. Of course we won't. They fed mandates they go out here, and we local tax payers get stuck for the tab regulating them even on state land. It is a different time now, the wolf no longer belongs here. Wolf re-introduction is supported by, and was put into law by extreme environmental groups, the same ones that want to BAN hunting. That have outmanuevered the hunting community by doing a brilliant end around. The USFS is closing roads daily, and the wolf numbers go unchecked. We have already lost tags and seasons for elk do to wolf predation, and the numbers continue to sink. Get it through your heads, this is a covert attack on hunting by animal extremist. It is a concerted effort to remove man as the primary controlling force in wildlife populations. The ecosystem mangement principle is bunk. Our ecosystem has radically changed from 100 years ago and re-introdcing a super-predator to an area devoid of such for 10 decades isn't going to reverse that change.[:@]

Ihuntandfish

You're exactly right muley699. I don't know about in Montana, but here is Wisconsin, it is amazing how much of hunters' license money is wasted through the wolf program. Not only is the DNR spending money on tracking the entire population, which they are doing a horrible job at, as long as the wolf is on the endangered list, farmers and anybody else who has an animal attacked by a wolf, are able to be reinbursed for their loss. Before anybody thinks that I am against this, I am not. Farmers were the ones who originally wanted to get rid of the wolves in Wisconsin, and I think it is fair that they get paid for their losses. However, because there are so many wolf attacks on livestock, an incredible amount of money is being paid out in the form of livestock reinbursement. Although the DNR does get some of this money from the government, a lot of it also comes from hunters buying licenses. The DNR now is having problems getting enough money to run their operation effectively, and they're doing stuff like limiting the amount of miles a warden may drive. This is ridiculus, and obviously its time to cut down the wolf population, not only because the population is growing unchecked, but because they are costing a ton of money to the DNR.

1sagittarius

The WDNR only has one guy tracking wolves and it does not occupy 100% of his duties, and he sometimes gets assistance with traps from other personell. Given the magnitudeof the wolf situation,the state should be monitoring wolves, the bitching and whining would be worse if the stated did not monitor them.
License fees go into the states general fund, controled by the Joint Finance Committee. The DNR budget is set by the Joint Finnance Committee.
Yup, costs are up, responsibility is up, budgets are down.
Yes, but the feds are in total control, and the WDNR has not been given legal authority to do anything about it ... yet.