More On Wolves

[another pake]

toiville2feathers, thanks for the reference file #. I will check it out, although I doubt that that Bill For An Act would garner much traction. It will receive it's day in session however. That's the way the system works.

As to whether they should be allowed to have a seat at the table....If they are citizens, they get a seat, through their Representatives.

As to whether they should pay for a voice, and where the DNR gets it's operating budget monies, please follow the link. The people of Minnesota fund the DNR in many, many ways.

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/budget/fy10-11/budget_from.pdf

Respectfully,

 

[buck460XVR]

As I previously stated, when they start to help pay the bills needed to implement this wolf policy, then and only then should their voice be heard.

I hear this all the time when it comes to sentiment of wolves. That hunters pay all the bills for the "tree huggers". But as another pake has pointed out, most all DNRs receive revenue other than that from hunting licenses. I hear the same thing from hunters that have to contend with Skiers, Hikers and ORV folks on public lands. Hear the same thing from Fishermen that have to contend with jet-skies and Party-barges on the local lakes. But truth is, those folks pay use fees also. They buy licenses. They also contribute to the local economy like hunters do. They also pay local and state sales taxes on their equipment like hunters do. This gives them the right to use facilities, lands and resources as the hunters/Fishers do. It also gives them the right to voice their opinions on such. Kinda how it works. For every hunter in Wisconsin that buys a camo shirt for deer hunting, there's a nature lover than buys a shirt/sweatshirt with a wolf or a loon on it.(don't even get me started on the Loons).:banghead: Believe me, ask a walleye fisherman in the upper midwest about their opinion of a Loon or a Cormorant and you get a discussion similar to what we have here. But...folks pay big bucks to hear a loon call early in the morning or a wolf howl on a starry night. All one needs to do is to compare the numbers of licenses sold to the general population of their state to realize that hunters are in the minority. For example....in Minnesota there was 725,000 deer licenses and permits sold, 98% of those were to residents...that means 710,000 Minnesotans bought deer licenses. The population of Minnesota is about 5 and one half Million. Shouldn't the other 4,750,000 folks there have a voice in how deer are managed to reduce auto accidents, crop/property damage and to enjoy them in the wild? The "they don't pay" argument does not fly.

 

[another pake]

OK, I've taken the time to look up the Senate File and it's accompanying House version.

These files have already received a hearing, been referred to appropriate committees and it looks to me like they've gone to finance.

Now, I've read them too and it appears to me that the mandatory oversight committee makeup gives weight to many voices. In all honesty though toiville2feathers it looks as though they are looking hard for scientific inputs as well as emotional and cultural (Native American) inputs. And yes, they want the information easily obtained by the public.

Do you see it differently?

Looking at other sites it appears that the MN Deer Hunters and possibly the DNR are opposed.

 

[Palehorseman]

This is not about hunting; it's about the arguments over the environmental effects of predators and other factors which then affect our opportunities for successful hunts.

http://www.nature.com/news/rethinking-predators-legend-of-the-wolf-1.14841

"But several studies in recent years have raised questions about the top-predator rule in the high-profile cases of the wolf and the dingo. That has led some scientists to suggest that the field’s fascination with top predators stems not from their relative importance, but rather from society’s interest in the big, the dangerous and the vulnerable. “Predators can be important,” says Oswald Schmitz, an ecologist at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, “but they aren’t a panacea.”

Seems the enlightened in California are huge proponents for increasing protection for wolf and grizzly populations.

What area (now a state) once had the greatest population of grizzly bears of anywhere in North America? Answer, California, and their state flag is a rampant grizzly bear. How many free roaming grizzly bears remain in California today? Answer, zilch, nada, zero, AKA none.

I would safely wager at odds of ten to one, if a move was made to reintroduce the grizzly in said California, those same champions of grizzlies everywhere else, would scream "NO" like stuck pigs

 

[another pake]

Permit this interlude please,

Buck,

I know what you mean about Cormorants. I know a couple of old guys up here who are neighbors. They have adjoining farms across a gravel township road from a shallow bay on a good walleye lake; and they don't like each other much.

Anyway each year in late spring the Cormorants hold an Annual Convention there and for a few weeks they roost and feed by the hundreds, eating up walleye fry and whatever other baitfish hatched out there. Knowing how much his neighbor disliked the birds was incentive enough for the other, who posted a plywood sign down by the highway with an arrow directing passers by to his hay field where he offered free parking and a Nature Watch for Cormorants.

Of course the hayfield parking lot was almost right across the fence from the other guys farm yard and house. The accompanying traffic and dust helped insure their continued belligerence.

8^) Neighbors, you gotta love em.

 

[westy39]

Wow now this is a post that will continue to generate a lot of interest. I live in Montana, was born in Montana, worked cows in Montana, I also hunt in Montana and for the last couple of years I have bought wolf tags and I will shoot the miserable bas%$#@s. I think the money spent on the reintroduction of wolves could have been better spent elsewhere. The really smart people tell us that the wolves are good for the environment... Well I can say from first hand experience wolves are good killers. The reduction of the Yellowstone Park Elk herd has been noted. Yes, the wolf watchers bring money to the park and the surrounding areas. Yes, wolves will tend to thin out the herds, but they also prey on the new born, elk and deer and calves and sheep. I think the wolves should be allowed to stay in the park and once outside the park, all should be treated as predators. This year in Montana if I remember the numbers correctly there were 230 or 270 wolves taken by hunters and trappers. I think that is a good start. I also believe the wolf should be reintroduced to central park in New York City. The wolf should be reintroduced to Chicago I think there are still parks there. The wolf should be reintroduced to LA in some of their park areas. If the wolf is good enough for Montana and Wyoming then the wolf is good enough for the other states. As the great Obama said "spread the wealth" Just my thoughts from the Big Sky Country, Montana...

 

[toiville2feathers]

another pake: Yes the native american tribes want the wolf protected because they consider them brothers. That file also asks that no baiting,trapping or hunting of wolves be allowed within 10 miles of tribal land borders. That closes over 10 million acres of land. My land fall into that criteria, my landwhich is patented homestead land. It isn't ceded land either, but now they wish to stop me from shooting wolves on my land. The native americans can do what they want on their reservations, I don't want them telling me what to do on mine. Wynona LaDoux and council chairwoman Erma Viznor don't want me, and have tried to stop me from planting roundup ready corn, because they have some ancient religion base corn plant that is going to get its DNA contaminated by my corn pollen blowing onto the reservation. I'm getting sick and tired of groups of people trampling on my rights as a land owner because they have some lame ass agenda they want to force on everyone else.
After you read that file, are you telling me that by studying all wolf deaths and diseases is a prudent use of resources and funds and consider that hard scientific data. I don't see it that way, I see it as a sneaky backdoor outhouse move to create problems and undermine the process at hand.
Now I understand this conversation is about wolves and not corn. But the fact remains that many of these individuals show up time and time again with their agenda when these discussions take place. As far as I'm concerned this cuts their credibility to almost nill and I consider them trouble makers.
As Buck stated there are 4.7 million in the state that don't hunt. Does he believe that this fractured group of people are spokespeople for them. 99.9 percent of that group could care less about the wolf. Using his criteria I can claim I'm the spokesman for 2-1/2 million people. But I'm not, just saying it could work that way.

 

[buck460XVR]

As Buck stated there are 4.7 million in the state that don't hunt. Does he believe that this fractured group of people are spokespeople for them. 99.9 percent of that group could care less about the wolf. Using his criteria I can claim I'm the spokesman for 2-1/2 million people. But I'm not, just saying it could work that way.

No, I didn't say that. What I was trying to say was that all of those folks have a right to voice their opinions. Kinda how it works here in America. Wolf lovers/haters are a minority here in Wisconsin, and also in Minnesota, just like hunters/anti-hunters and gun lovers/haters. Those that fall in between those two extremes are the ones that tend to sway the decisions on these items. They are also the ones that generally make the least noise. Those in the middle have neutral feelings about the issue and basically tolerate those in the extremes and deem their choice at the time on what suits them the best at the moment. Many times, unfortunately, misinformation guides those decisions. It is not that they are totally ignorant, but the issue is not a major concern to them. A non-hunter land owner may not hunt, but his decision to allow others to hunt on his land most times are dependent on how he views those others that hunt or don't hunt, along with how those game animals affect the quality of his land. How many times have we seen access denied to an area once open to hunting because of what some irresponsible hunter did? It is virtually impossible to sway the opinion of those in the extremes.....but those in between, many times change their minds more than once. The last two Presidential elections are proof of this. I think for the most part, in all of the upper mid-western states, those DNRs have been working on and have developed pretty good wolf management plans. They too are tired of having to cater to folks that tend to use emotions other than facts when making an argument for change. But, they still have to consider all points of the argument, not just yours or mine.

I understand and appreciate your frustration with your situation toiville2feathers. It is a unique situation and would frustrate me also. Hopefully those folks making the decision will realize your rights as a landowner or provide you with a fair compensation.

 

[another pake]

I think that you stated it well buck, as did Art in his opening remarks where he stated that it's not about the hunting so much as it's about the arguments over the environmental effects of predators and other factors which then affect our opportunities for successful hunts.

For anyone that may be interested in these things, do a search of Peterson, Isle Royale. You'll come up with loads of interesting research material on the longest running predator, prey, environmental study in the world. Now over 50 years running.

One of the things that Rolf Peterson said has stuck with me,

"Important attitudes about how we should relate to Nature, and some of our abusive relationships with Nature, are rooted in convictions that we understand Nature well, and can accurately predict how Nature will respond to our actions. For 50 years, the focused purpose of the Isle Royale wolf-moose project has been to predict and understand a relatively simple natural system.


But the more we studied, the more we came to realize how poor our previous explanations had been..."

We've got to be willing to continue learning. That's usually not easy or painless.

 

[another pake]

toiville2feathers, you're in a difficult situation and I don't want to hijack this thread with some of those issues but I hope you can try to get assistance from one of the methods I mentioned in the PM.

In the meantime, if you want to sometime, PM me. We're only a short drive apart. Maybe a cup of coffee....

We can solve all the worlds' problems.

 

[d2wing]

Perhaps we should have a poll. Many of you do not have wolves in your area. Some of us do. How many would like wolves introduced into their state that do not have them. Also how many that have them would rather not have them. I suspect that many want wolves to be somewhere. But that somewhere be somewhere else.

 

[spaniel]

I have no issues with wolves, as long as they are properly controlled like every other game population.

Problem is, they are not and politics prevent that.

I understand we can't all have the privilege of living in connection with game. I left the farm, got an education, and was fortunate enough to be able to balance a city career with living in the country on a reasonable piece of land. But it is hard to stomach some of the same people talking to be about how great wolves are having a hissy fit when coyotes show up in their subdivision and start taking out Yorkies. To tell the truth I care about the elk that disappeared from where I used to hunt more than their overly pampered and utterly useless pooches.

 

[ZeroJunk]

If somebody lives in MN then I can understand the interest in managing the wolf population in as balanced a way as possible.

But, in Mt, UT, WY and ID they were already rid of the things. An active program was created to reintroduce them. Nobody who has to deal with them wanted the wolves back. Nobody who has to deal with them was involved in the reintroduction.

I don't buy the argument that something negative was happening in the ecosystem because of the missing wolves for a second.

It is a curious love affair if you ask me.

 

[Art Eatman]

Pro/con about wolves as wolves has been beaten to death many times.

The issue is the overall environmental effect of predation on the numbers, habitat and location of the prey animals.

Wolves affect elk numbers and locations, which affects certain vegetation. And, as a for-instance, more vegetation on sloping land can retard runoff, resulting in a longer period of streamflow from snowmelt.

While stream bank terrain may become danger zones insofar as feeding, deer/elk/etc. must drink. If streams have longer flow times, that could mean that prey animals hang out longer in the general area, before moving elsewhere to find water.

I've not lived nor hunted in elk/wolf country, so I have a lot of ignorance. But I can figure out bits and pieces of "big picture" environmental effects.

Digressing somewhat: Residential development along the front range of the Rockies in Colorado had people seeing elk on winter grazing. Trouble was, little by little, the development reduced the amount of wintertime grazing land--and the numbers of elk declined. Natural effect of habitat reduction. But hunters were blamed. While tens of thousands of acres were available in the high country during (say) eight months of the year, a smaller amount of acreage was available at a critical time. Again, I plead ignorance as to any similar problem outside Colorado.

 

[buck460XVR]

.

The issue is the overall environmental effect of predation on the numbers, habitat and location of the prey animals.

This relationship between prey and predators is what is most understood, not only by laymen and the average Joe, but by experts. A prime example is the Bobwhite Quail in Wisconsin. In the late 50s and early sixties it was thought the huge decline in numbers from this once popular and plentiful game bird was because of predation by foxes and remnant wolves. Between the bounty and the price of fur, those predators were nearly wiped out, but still the Quail population did not increase so hunting them was closed until 1970. Still, it was seldom that you could go out early in the morning or just before dusk and not hear a Bob whistling his song. When the season reopened one could find coveys, but they were small and widely scattered. Still the numbers decreased. Now-a-days, when you here a Bob, you stop and take notice. Many young hunters don't even know what that sound is. After all those years, it has finally been realized that the predators had very little impact on quail numbers here....as did hunting. It was the loss of habitat due to new farming practices and the extensive use of pesticides. This is why even tho numbers are low, they still allow the hunting of them. Used to be, commercial hunting took more quail in a year here in Wisconsin than are alive in the state today. Another example of how man wanted there to be an easy solution and there was not.

 

[ZeroJunk]

I am particularly interest in the Bob Marshall Sun River elk herd because that is where I hunt. That herd was nearly extinct at the turn of the century and grew to about 3000 by 1930 . Coincidently 1930 is about when the wolves in Montana disappeared.

The winter range is the limiting factor, not what is going on in the mountains. Bears, coyotes and hunters were quite capable of managing this population.

So, why wolves . Nothing objective about it.

 

[buck460XVR]

I am particularly interest in the Bob Marshall Sun River elk herd because that is where I hunt. That herd was nearly extinct at the turn of the century and grew to about 3000 by 1930 . Coincidently 1930 is about when the wolves in Montana disappeared.

I've been reading several articles from several different resources. They all state that the peak of the elk herd there(1930's) coincided with large fires, excessive logging and land clearing practices and other deforestation that created much more open "prairie" type terrain, which is more suited for elk. (similar to the boom of deer populations in Northern Wisconsin at the same time period). They also state that altho wolves were not present, changes in these practices that led to forest encroachment is what started the dramatic reduction in herd size.....due to the overall availability of browse. They also claim that this created high competition between elk and whitetail deer over winter browse. Seems the deer lost. Again, a very complex system that has no simple answers. Very interesting history on the area and tons of info available. Here's just one of them......it has a good piece on the Sun River area elk herd.


http://www.foresthistory.org/ASPNET/Publications/region/1/story/chap21.htm

 

[another pake]

Pro/con about wolves as wolves has been beaten to death many times.

The issue is the overall environmental effect of predation on the numbers, habitat and location of the prey animals.

Are predators important to the environment?

Let's forget wolves for a minute and use another example.

Grizzly bears and their environmental impacts are another interesting study. Bears, both Blacks and Grizzlies are omnivores, and besides meat they love ripening berries. Some researchers say that upwards of several hundred thousand berries a day pass through these guys. Guess what? They poop out the seeds, accompanied by a rich pile of fertilizer and spread em out miles away from where they started, and providing continued habitat regeneration for all kinds of species.

How about Grizzlies and Salmon? Predator/ Prey. Bear eats Salmon. Bears climbs mountain. Bear craps out the nitrogen richness of the worlds' great ocean on the slopes of the mountain helping to ensure the development and growth of soil holding roots for the new crop of cedars, spruce and pine. And as you said, the roots slow the soil runoff, allowing the habitat to regenerate, allowing the continued use by the predators although they don't stay around for the view, they stay for the Salmon, which will be there if the water is clean and they can still get there.

Get there? Dams, but that is another discussion....

 

[another pake]

BTW, if you want to bend your mind around something, start thinking about what effect the loss of salmon spawning habitat has had/will have on the forest...

Understanding the interaction between predator and prey is not just interesting, a growing number of researchers believe that it is vital.

 

[buck460XVR]

Understanding the interaction between predator and prey is not just interesting, a growing number of researchers believe that it is vital.

This is because predators and their prey evolved together over millions of years. Not just over the period of the memory of a single human. This is why that relationship is so complex. Not only did the prey and predators evolve together, so did the plant life and the terrain. One reason why so many ecosystems are so fragile and do not adapt well when they change quickly. Humans are one species that do adapt quickly to change, much quicker than their ecosystem and the other participants within that system.

 

[another pake]

Good point. Couldn't agree more buck.

 

[d2wing]

As Zerojunk said, nearly all the people that want wolves want them somewhere besides where they live, as long as someone else suffers the loses it is all good. Most people have a Disneyland view of the outdoors.

 

[Art Eatman]

The concept of "carrying capacity" of land is totally unknown to so many city dwellers. Many use the words "eco-system" or "habitat" with no clue as to the meaning or of the complex variables.

However, many of the early ranchers began in ignorance or unconcern. For that matter, same deal as in the Sahel of Africa, south of the Sahara. Severe over-grazing, resulting in desertification--just as around Phoenix, AZ, or in much of west Texas.

 

[buck460XVR]

The concept of "carrying capacity" of land is totally unknown to so many city dwellers.

From my experience Art, nor do many hunters out there. This is why they question State biologists that recommend the use of antlerless tags. That's why they get pissed when the neighboring farmer uses his crop damage tags. They want to see hundreds of deer from stand everyday while hunting without knowing(or caring) what impact those artificial numbers are doing to the flora. One reason food plots and supplemental feeding are so popular....to try and increase the carrying capacity. Problem is, deer and Elk are browsers. They don't just eat what's planted in the field. On their way to and from that food plot they also nibble on the tips of every young tree/bush they walk by. One point that link to the Sun River Elk Herd I gave tried to impress, was that the carrying capacity of the area was dramatically reduced when forest fires and logging were controlled in the 1930s. The land could no longer realistically support the size of the elk herd it once did....altho hunters thought it should. One reason wetlands are so heavily protected is once they are destroyed, it takes hundreds or thousands of years for them to become what they once were. They are not just an area of random standing water. Mother Nature is very resilient. But she ain't magic.

Most people have a Disneyland view of the outdoors.

When you say most, you must mean majority. This would include both hunters and non-hunters then. This would be correct. IMHO, for every non-hunter out there with an non-realistic view of what is a stable ecosystem, there is a hunter making the same incorrect assumptions. In America, we run on a system, where the majority tends to make the choices for all. That is why there are wolves back in the Lower 48. Regardless of their reasons, whether we like it or not, the majority of folks want them here. Either the minority of those that don't, need to use facts and the correct information to change their minds, accept them, or they can just keep whining about it.

 

[Art Eatman]

Lotsa hunters are city dwellers. Think about it: Less than 3% of the workforce lives on farms/ranches.

I feel real lucky: I started learning about farming and ranching and carrying capacity back when I was a little-bitty. Later on, I took over the old family place and ran cattle. In my formal working career, I spent some four years brain-picking on the bug'n'bunny PhDs.

IMO, anybody from Texas should be at least an associate member of the Texas Wildlife Association ($35/yr). Many articles about range management and habitat improvement.

Another worthwhile quarterly publication is Range Magazine. It focuses on ranching and farming in (mostly) the high country of the northwest. Many of the articles name the players in wildlife and agribusiness issues. It has a website, http://www.rangemagazine.com/