Off endangered list, wolves face new pressure from hunters

[BruceRDucer]

Yeah but...

Yeah, but the wolves were not in danger of "extinction".

As I understand it, they were "reintroduced"?

Weren't the primary stock brought from Canada, where they are not even close to extinction?

So some animal rights nuts who don't live in the forest, thinks its cool to have wolves in some rancher's backyard, because it is no sweat to the activist if some rancher suffers loss, of if Elk herds are severely impacted.

So we're all supposed to sit back and contemplate how beautiful the wolves are, eating everything they can?

"Oh look darling, the wolves are eating the Buffalo Calves, the Elk Calves, and the rancher's livestock. Isn't nature beautiful?":banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[qdemn7]

Perhaps you should look at the Fifth Amendment's right to life, liberty and property?

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So if an introduced wolf eats an animal the Government can compensate the farmer or rancher. That still doesn't give them the right to kill every wolf they see.

BTW, read my sig.

 

[Zangetsu]

Perhaps you should look at the Fifth Amendment's right to life, liberty and property?

I thought the fifth was protection from double jeopardy, self incrimination, and government seizure of life, freedom, and/or property?

Yeah, but the wolves were not in danger of "extinction".

So some animal rights nuts who don't live in the forest, thinks its cool to have wolves in some rancher's backyard, because it is no sweat to the activist if some rancher suffers loss, of if Elk herds are severely impacted.

So just because an animal is a nuisance we should wipe it off the face of the earth? They probably aren't convenient for Canadians either, so does it become their job to keep wild wolf populations around simply because we killed ours first? Also, there's no way to make everyone happy here, because I'm sure farmers who grow crops that are eaten by deer and other animals that are eaten by wolves have a completely different opinion on them. What's more, just because an animal is doing ok elsewhere doesn't give one the right to destroy it somewhere else just because it's convenient; you should support wild indigenous populations as much as possible, and reintroduce them to areas where their numbers need bolstering or else the whole system goes out of wack. A good example is in the Chicagoland area where the deer population in the forest preserves is massive partly from a lack of predation (a few skinny coyotes don't do much good to keep down herds and herds of deer). You know there used to be North American leopards as well? Finally, why can't ranchers simply write off losses from wild predation on their taxes? I don't see a reason why they shouldn't be doing that, and if they are, I don't see how the losses they incur can't be nearly as bad as they claim...

 

[MakAttak]

You know there used to be North American leopards as well?

So should we re-introduce the elephant? We had mammoths, after all.

 

[Vicious-Peanut]

I have been doing alot of thinking on this subject since the subject of human population pressure was brought up in one of my classes last week.

Here is quote directly from my Biology book, "Park officials noted significant environmental improvements as wolves on again roamed Yellowstone. As wolves killed elk, moose and deer, stream beds and other lands near waterways started to shelter more plants and animals. Fewer hoofed animals meant more grass and taller trees. Those plants brought more birds, along with more water-dwelling beaver. In all, park biologist report that the wolf's return has affected at least 25 different species" (pg 777, Biology Concepts & Connections)

Now I realize that wolves wander and leave the park every year (go to and from Canada) and kill some rancher's property as they wander, but to be fair they have been wandering this route for thousands of years, the ranchers maybe 200, I realize this is an overused statement, but realistically the ranches out in Wyoming and such hare huge commercial ranches with thousands of head of cattle and to lose maybe twenty to wolves a year is really not that big of a deal, especially since they get a tax break for lost cattle. I'm no environmentalist, but we need to preserve the wilderness and wildlife we have left or else no one will be able to enjoy it, hunters or wolves.

Thats another thing that bothers me, the population explosion. The earth has a carrying capacity of 1 billion people, we have artificially raised that to 6 billion. How do you think it is going to fare with the projected 12 billion people when the population levels off?


*step down from soapbox*

 

[The Tourist]

wolves in some rancher's backyard

You may have just put your finger on the answer!

Obviously the wolves have been re-introduced, and ranchers have to make a living.

If the wolves were in parks, the wilderness, or thinning out wild game, there would be no controversy. The issue only manifests itself when wolves kill livestock.

So let ranchers kill wolves on their grazing land. The ranchers cull.

When a wolf is shot, the rancher calls the sheriff or local game warden and the wolf is counted. The animal might even be tagged by a study group.

The issue for me is slob hunting, and it's a big one. You might have hunters who can control themselves in your area, we do not.

Wisconsin has the highest number of drunks, binge drinkers and flat out alcohol consumption in the United States. Our college football games are simple a fraternity party. The parents of the opposing team get insults and beer cups hurled at them. We flat out cannot hold our liquor.

Another story on our abuse appeared in today's (April 28, 2008) issue of the WSJ.

And being the Number One abuser of booze also translates into our hunting. As I have stated, the DNR's cement deer gets shot at on a regular basis. We think "violating" is a right.

In fact, if you've ever heard the song "Thirty Point Buck" you'll know that even the guy singing the song uses a "Two Rivers" accent.

You give these champion brandy drinkers a new season and an additional species to shoot at and you'll start hearing tales of domesticated dogs being shot, simply because they were gray in color.

 

[XDKingslayer]

So we're all supposed to sit back and contemplate how beautiful the wolves are, eating everything they can?

No. We find a happy medium that will sustain healthy populations of wolves and at the same time allow farmers to protect their investment and allow hunters to hunt them with limits that will sustain the species and not cause over or under population. It's not a cheap or easy thing to do.

We're seeing a perfect example of the wrong way to do it down here with the Jewfish/Goliath Grouper. They were fished almost into extinction. The fisherman don't care about population when they're making money.

The .gov stepped in to protect them and now they are back in number to the point of being a nuisance. Almost every bridge has multiple jewfish under them and all the wrecks, which used to be prime game fish locations when the jewfish were almost gone, are now taken over by the jewfish.

 

[The Tourist]

The fisherman don't care about population when they're making money.

Boy, you said a mouthful. We have the same problem.

Wisconsin is no longer "The Dairy State." We're third after New Your state and California. But we are big on tourism, and that also means out-of-state hunters.

To make the dollars, we have to have a healthy deer herd, often times way, way too large for the area. It's easy to drive down a Class A highway and count 20 does chewing down the remnants of a corn field. In the 1950's, most hunters never even saw a deer.

You can see deer in your front yard now, eating your plants. We also have many instances of deer crashing through the plate glass windows of a home and getting trapped indoors. We have more car/deer accidents than any other state.

Money.

 

[brerrabbit]

Just my take on this.

Many ranchers in the NW use federal land for grazing. They have no rights to protect their herds from predation. If they do not want to follow the federal rules, get your herds off of federal land. Cheap grazing comes at a price.

I own my land. If the government introduced a predatory species that causes me damages, I will remove it when I see it on my land. SSS

The fed gov has no right or expectation of me providing free range to a predatory species.

If you like the sight of pretty wildlife frolicing in the wild, do it on your own land. do not expect me to pay the cost of it.

I have a mountain lion on my back acreage he has been there for the past ten years that I know of. If he starts going after calves, he will be hunted. As he has a healthy fear of people, me and him have not had major issues.

 

[ArmedBear]

Over the past few years we're had pressure to include crows and morning doves to the list of things you can hunt in my state. I've read sports magazines my whole life and never saw a recipe for "raven."

Mourning doves are hunted and eaten all over the country. I find it really odd that some states don't allow hunting. They're also an agricultural pest, with no sign of a diminishing population. Reducing their number slightly, while letting people eat them, isn't a problem.

Crows have become an extreme pest here, as well. They have decimated endangered local species. Their population growth is related to human disturbance of habitat, and the ready availability of human garbage for them to eat. I see no problem with humans acting to limit the population of these destructive birds, and hunting licenses provide revenue for the state. Professional hunters, who are employed in my state, cost tax dollars.

This has nothing to do with "slob hunters". One can be a slob, or not, no matter what he's hunting.

As far as recipes, here's a whole list of them: http://www.crowbusters.com/recipes.htm

 

[IllHunter]

I disagree..

We have more car/deer accidents than any other state.

Illinois has more.http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/04/news/newsmakers/deer/index.htmWisconsin ranks tenth, while Pa wins. Just to add, there are over 200,000 deer/car accidents in Illinois each year. Most in the county with most cars,(Cook), second most in the county with most deer (Pike). Some people pay thousands to hunt in Pike Co. guess I could do it for the price of a used car. We don't have wolves in Chicago but we do shoot the cougars that get in.

 

[Zangetsu]

So should we re-introduce the elephant? We had mammoths, after all.

First, mammoth is not elephant, so you can't reintroduce it since elephants were never here in the first place. Second, it died out from the climate shift after the last ice age, not from people hunting them to extinction. If you wanted to reintroduce an elephant somewhere, the best place to do it would be Europe, which I think used to have a type of "tiny" elephant that was hunted to extinction by the Romans back in the day because it made for sweet fights in the gladiatorial arena.

I own my land. If the government introduced a predatory species that causes me damages, I will remove it when I see it on my land. SSS

That's different than getting a few hundred people and a few helicopters together and stomping through the woods blasting every last wolf you see.

 

[MakAttak]

First, mammoth is not elephant, so you can't reintroduce it since elephants were never here in the first place.

And along those lines, the wolf that was just "re-introduced" was not a western wolf, it was the Canadian wolf. The leopard that was mentioned is not the african leopard but another type of leopard.

My point is that to say "they were here first!" is foolish.

These wolves now live in an environment changed by man. Man, as a part of the environment, has a responsibility to manage the population, including hunting.

The foolishness of people saying how predators do not need to be hunted- what happens if they wolves eat too many deer?

They starve? Well, that is what would happen without man in the equation.

What really happens is they eat cattle and pets and continue to decimate the deer population because they do not suffer.

This is why human intervention (hunting) is required.

Why do so many people on this site, particularly, think that hunting means we hop on a 4 wheeler and blast away at every wolf in sight?

 

[Cosmoline]

I don't see why the rural ranchers should have to shoulder all the burden on these reintroductions. Wolves should be brought back to the western cascades and into the urban growth boundaries of Seattle and Portland. Brown bears can be brought back across the NW and esp. to California. The bears will likely maul a few people every year like they do up here. And the wolves will likely snatch fidos to supplement their diet. But I don't really see that as a bad thing. Humans ought to live under some threat from predators. Without it we grow soft and unwary.

Why do so many people on this site, particularly, think that hunting means we hop on a 4 wheeler and blast away at every wolf in sight?

Comments from the Gov. of Idaho, for one thing. But I do undestand his irritation at Idaho being treated as an animal park for wealthier states. I'll be happy when I read about the first bear mauling in the Hollywood hills. Believe me nothing will change the stance of the actors on carrying firearms faster than seeing the tracks of old horribilis.

 

[Zangetsu]

And along those lines, the wolf that was just "re-introduced" was not a western wolf, it was the Canadian wolf. The leopard that was mentioned is not the african leopard but another type of leopard.

True, it was the type of leopard you find in south america, which also happens to be one of the only place it's still alive. Also, I was not aware that there was a difference between the wolves they jacked from canada and the ones that were gone in the first place (since canada is irrefutably as west as we are), but I'm sure the difference is negligible, whereas the differences between a mammoth and an elephant are many and obvious, such as them not even being the same species and thus being unable to reproduce with eachother, but I digress...

These wolves now live in an environment changed by man. Man, as a part of the environment, has a responsibility to manage the population, including hunting.

The environment isn't really changed by man in the sense that the environment changed from the iceage to the modern temperate climate. Anyway, I do agree that man has a responsibility to manage the environment of which he is part, so how is it responsible to declare it open season on a predator that is only now just beginning recover from being over-hunted in the first place?

The foolishness of people saying how predators do not need to be hunted- what happens if they wolves eat too many deer?

First, they are going to need to eat a ton of deer for that to even be a problem. Second, predatory species end up controlling their own population based on how plentiful food is. For instance, right now, they'd have a population boom because there is lots of food. When/if that changed, food being less plentiful alone would lead to less pups being born. The only way you'd have tons of wolves and not enough deer would be if some disease or something struck down the deer or their source of food, dramatically reducing the numbers in a rapid fashion. Wolves alone won't cause a change rapid enough to hurt themselves.

They starve? Well, that is what would happen without man in the equation.

So yeah, this is false based on everything I just wrote.

What really happens is they eat cattle and pets and continue to decimate the deer population because they do not suffer.

This is why human intervention (hunting) is required.

I'm sure they eat much more venison than they do beef. And a cull (hunting) would only be required if a situation occurred when there were in fact too many wolves and not enough deer. IF/WHEN that happens, go shoot as many as you want, but that's not what's happening now.

Why do so many people on this site, particularly, think that hunting means we hop on a 4 wheeler and blast away at every wolf in sight?

Because it's that type of irresponsible hunting that's driving so many wild populations to extinction? Also, because with open season edicts such as this, that's what tends to happen. I can't tell you how many times I've heard or seen people doing this in Illinois to coyotes, and from what I've read, we're not nearly as drunk or cantankerous as the folks in wisconsin, so I can only imagine how it goes down up there. Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with hunting, but if you're going to open up wolves to hunting, they should do so via the issuance of permits, which will not only help deter poaching, but also help to keep their population within a strict set point. For instance, say it's been determined that a healthy wolf population for an area is 3,000, but there are 3,200 of them around; issue 200 permits, and problem solved. If the number goes below 3,000, no permits will be issued. Seems like an easy fix to me...

Cosmoline:

Believe me nothing will change the stance of the actors on carrying firearms faster than seeing the tracks of old horribilis.

I was thinking this, but didn't want to say it

 

[cracked butt]

Putting the red herring anti-hunter rants from the gentleman from Madison aside, the black bear population in Northern Wisconsin is very strong, possibly because the bears are actively managed through hunting. I only have 2 more years before I have enough preference points for a bear tag myself.

As for controlled seasons on wolf- why not? The DNR can probably sell some high dollar tags for a few dozen every year- money which goes to study, track, and manage populations.

As far as the rant over crows and doves go- doves are plentiful in this state and are good to eat, crows cause a huge amount of crop damage - we can either controll their populations or continue to pay farmers for the damage through taxes- take your pick.

 

[MakAttak]

For instance, right now, they'd have a population boom because there is lots of food. When/if that changed, food being less plentiful alone would lead to less pups being born. The only way you'd have tons of wolves and not enough deer would be if some disease or something struck down the deer or their source of food, dramatically reducing the numbers in a rapid fashion. Wolves alone won't cause a change rapid enough to hurt themselves....
I'm sure they eat much more venison than they do beef. And a cull (hunting) would only be required if a situation occurred when there were in fact too many wolves and not enough deer. IF/WHEN that happens, go shoot as many as you want, but that's not what's happening now.

And your analysis is faulty here. You saw they "self-regulate births" when food is plenty or scarce... based on what evidence? Any other animals do this?

Secondly, do you suggest we let the wolves get to the level where there are too many and are decimating the deer population before we allow hunting? Or, as I believe, should we begin management before there is a problem?

Now, as for Cosmoline's suggestions- I'm all for introducing a few bears into Beverly Hills. ONLY as long as they are listed as endangered species and killing them is illegal.

 

[Vicious-Peanut]

As has been said there is always a happy medium, it is just that often people who's money is at stake don't care about whatever is putting their money at stake. I know that Alaska has actually hired helicopters to go in and shoot any wolves that they see from the helicopters. That is NOT hunting, nor is it to protect rancher's property since there are no ranches in Alaska.

About irresponsible hunters, my Grandfather owns a ranch in East Texas and I have seen plenty of idiots knocking down his steel gates to get into his property, and alot of out of season hunting and of course shooting anything that moves as to not let any deer mature.

And your analysis is faulty here. You saw they "self-regulate births" when food is plenty or scarce... based on what evidence? Any other animals do this?

Uh, all of them. Very simple, it is actually closely related to supply and demand. If there is a ton of food then there will be more predators, and if there is less food than less predators will survive. Why do we need to play nature, when it can do it's job better than we can?

 

[ArmedBear]

About irresponsible hunters, my Grandfather owns a ranch in East Texas and I have seen plenty of idiots knocking down his steel gates to get into his property, and alot of out of season hunting and of course shooting anything that moves as to not let any deer mature.

Yup.

And that's just like gun control. These guys aren't deterred by laws anyway. This has nothing to do with whether legal, ethical hunting should be allowed.

 

[Zangetsu]

And your analysis is faulty here. You saw they "self-regulate births" when food is plenty or scarce... based on what evidence? Any other animals do this?

How is it faulty? Before I go through the trouble of trying to find sources I can link, just think about what I'm saying because it makes sense. If all predatory animals hunted their prey to extinction like you're suggesting, they'd all die of starvation within a few years. They don't want to die of starvation, because nothing in nature wants to die (except lemmings, but they don't count.) To avoid starvation, they have a built in mechanism that prevents lots of births when they are stressed/hungry. This isn't something isolated to wolves either. Most animals have this function, not just predators. Humans have it too. It's natures way of preventing octuplets being born to starving parents, and while that example is a little extreme, realize that it functions on a sliding scale. Fat parents that are never stressed/hungry will have lots of kids. If they get stressed/hungry more often, their child level tapers off accordingly. Also, would you mind providing an example of a wild population overhunting their prey species? I have never, ever heard of any animal doing this...well, except humans of course.

Secondly, do you suggest we let the wolves get to the level where there are too many and are decimating the deer population before we allow hunting? Or, as I believe, should we begin management before there is a problem?

Yes, I do suggest that, and there are a few reasons. First, I HIGHLY doubt you'll ever have a naturally occurring wolf:deer ratio that it'd be a problem. Second, who's saying that the deer population doesn't need some decimating? They've had it too easy for too long and a lot of their good blood has been thinned out from lack of competition and environmental pressures; it's about time the fat stupid ones get what's coming to them. Third, you shouldn't start touching things that aren't broken. How would you feel if the government started passing laws trying to control the economy in order to prevent problems from happening? It's widely known and accepted that a hands off policy, letting nature take its course, is the best way of action in the marketplace. It's a natural law, stemming directly from nature. In fact, most of our constitution is based on that idea...the idea that things left to their own devices will naturally be better and more efficient than if you try and force them to adhere to a given regimen. I'm not saying not to intervene, or not to shoot animals eating your beef or family. I am saying that taking action to regulate things that don't need regulating will cause many more problems then they will fix. Also, as an example of when some intervention would be required, go open season on wolves if chronic wasting disease cuts the deer population by 90% overnight, because then you'd have a problem.

 

[Cosmoline]

there are no ranches in Alaska.

There are some outfits in the valley. There used to be a growing cattle business on Kodiak island and a lot of reindeer herds out west, but in the past half century all that's been phased out. For one thing the price of importing feed and exporting any beef makes the operation a money loser. But back when there were cattle barons on Kodiak there were a LOT of arguments over the existence of the predators. The bear came very close to getting snuffed out forever. I like beefsteak, but it would have been a true crime against the world to destroy those animals.

 

[Grizfire]

the wolf that was just "re-introduced" was not a western wolf, it was the Canadian wolf.

I would like to get a reference for this, from a peer reviewed, high impact factor scientific journal please.

Wolves that were in the west are of the same species as those in Canada...the Gray wolf.

Lets also not forget that wolves tried to reintroduce themselves. Wolves came down from Canada and started a pack in the Nine mile valley in Montana.

 

[bearmgc]

The wolves have a designated protection zone, and we in Wyoming are seeing them roam well out of the Zone, onto plains, sheep herds, cattle ranches and, yes,elk wintering and calving areas. They are considered nuisence predators when out of the protected zone, and will most likely be killed on sight. Their breeding patterns thus far have resulted in almost 3 times the original planned number for the Rocky mountain region. And considering their mortality rate up to this point, that's likely to run into an explosive population increase and wider ranging. There really aren't many alternatives, but to shoot on sight in areas not part of the protected zone. A limited hunt in the designated protected zone will become necessary considering average 2 litters a year for a female wolf. And yes, this is not your greatgrampas wolf. This is the larger cousin, the Canadian wolf, a strikingly large canine, if you've ever seen one. These were not endemic to the Wyoming region 100yrs ago.

We have the govenment guys that are in the field 12 months a year scouting the outlying regions of the protected zone, and responding to nuisense reports. I've run into them frequently, and hear of episodes of euthanizing/shooting wolves in certain areas, in order to protect a targeted moose range or deer range, that has been decimated by a pack of wolves outside the protected zone. When you see piles and piles of deer/moose/elk bones along a ridge overlooking a creek, and you hear them at night, those bones could have been a herd of sheep 20 miles away, if the government guys didn't step in and shoot them. Its a problem already.

 

[RancidSumo]

I consider wolves to be not much more then big cyotes. They are fine up near Yellowstone but in the rest of WY, I don't care for 'um. They get into and eat my grandpa's sheep and I don't have any problem shooting them for it just like he shot the Mountain Lion that was in there several years ago. I wouldn't probably go wolf hunting since I doubt they taste very good.

 

[RancidSumo]

Quote:
the wolf that was just "re-introduced" was not a western wolf, it was the Canadian wolf.

I would like to get a reference for this, from a peer reviewed, high impact factor scientific journal please.

Wolves that were in the west are of the same species as those in Canada...the Gray wolf.

Lets also not forget that wolves tried to reintroduce themselves. Wolves came down from Canada and started a pack in the Nine mile valley in Montana

I've heard this as well but don't have a source off hand, I'll go look for one.