country1

Predators will take livestock even when there is an abundance of wildlife for them to eat- they just take more livestock when the wildlife food supply goes down.

Reintroducing a wild animal appears to become a petproject for a head honcho or one of his subordinates. I wonder if they don't use it to get more pay.

Where I am from, we had some wildlife officials who wanted to change the habitat toproduce more ducks. Quite often when you have a high goose population, your duck population is down and vice versa.They appear to run in cycles - a few years of high numbers of one and low numbers of the other and then it starts to swing the other way. We had experienced several years of alow duck and high goosepopulation when they started their project. It was not too long before the duck population was on the rebound (and the goose population was on the decline), and all the credit was given to these wildlife officials. They must think the farmers and general public are stupid.

MT would be much better off if the celebrities and movie stars would sell their lands and move to NYC, San Franciso, LA or DC. If they cared so much, why don't they pay their fair share of the property taxes?

Ihuntandfish

Well, thanks for the sympathy. The wolves wandered in from other states like Minnesota, but nobody could do anything about it because they're federally protected. Yes, it would make sense to increase the deer harvest, but now the DNR is realizing what hunters have know for a long time, that the deer herd is not as large as they thought. All these earn-a-buck zones and doe hunts are really taking a toll on the herd. Predators like wolves and bears(DNR realized thebear populationwas much larger than they thought) are certainly not helping things. It seems like a lot of people posting on this thread seem to support the wolf population. I have talked to many hunters in northern wisconsin. I have yet to hear a single hunter say that they are happy with the wolf situation. I would guess that the vast majority of you wolf supporters do not live in an area with a large wolf population.

country1

I doubt they have livestock either.

1sagittarius

For the thousandth time!! WOLVES WERE NOT REINTRODUCED TO WISCONSIN!!!!!

The wondered inall on their own,from Minnesota and the UP Michigan, and repopulated naturally. High deer populations, perfect habitat, think about it.They are a federally protected animal. The state is not allowed to do anything with them except monitor the wolf population from a distance!

It still amazes me some still believe the state stocked wolves .... as if there was some super secret state program, with no documentation, no feasibility study, no planning, no publicity, no nothing ..... on a federally protected animal ..... and yetsome how the state pulled it off, with out even the feds finding out ... yeah right.

Nothing personel timbercruiser, but this myth/fairy tale just never seems to die. [:@]

finnbear

Well boys and girls......we must remember that the wolves and indians were here way before the white man got here! there was plentiful game MILLIONS of bison roaming the land!! Unlimited salmon in the rivers!!! but now????

Now that the white man is having trouble getting his deer,elk or fish....WHO gets the blame???? well not the johnnycomelatlies thats for sure!!! it's always someone elses fault!!!

I have not seen any species become extinct because of indian hunting nor wolf or coyote predation!!! let alone bear kill!!!!!!

Redclub

The wolves were not introduced in Wi. but when they caused problems they were trapped and moved to a different location.
Redclub

1sagittarius

Yeah, and why was that? Because the Feds would not allow the State to just euthanize problem wolves, like the State wanted to! That issue went back and forth in the Federal courts several times, not the state court.

Lanse couche couche

What little reading I have done on the subject suggests that a big problem is that Wolves quickly learn that sheep, house pets, calves, etc. are much easier to catch and kill than deer, elk, etc. That seems to be becoming apparent in areas where panthers arespreading. Any argument about the usefulness of predators as a wildlife management tool has toconsider that local folks will see the animals as endangering not only local wildlife, but livestock as well. Also, even though attacksby wolves on humans have been very rare, I just can't bring myself to be critical of rural folks with small children who just don't want to risk having wolves anywhere near.

JW

Okay - so the population is supposedly between 5 to 600 but who takes the census.

And I am told absolutley NO wolf packs are counted on Indian Reservation land.

Now being a grouse hunter and needing to deal with potential wolf attack on my birddogs - I carry another weapon.

Don't tell me wolves do not take out bear of birddogs - they have and one highly title briddog was within 25 yards of a public campground! So how does that make you feel.

Leaving the wolf intact in WI is a huge mistake.

JW

1sagittarius

It is unfortunate every time any domestic animal is attacked. There is a choice, you can hunt the wild north woods, or some place safer. The local warden or field biologist should be able to tell you which areas are safer than others, and which area to avoid altogether.

Yup, thats what the Federal Government does, one mistake after another.