Off endangered list, wolves face new pressure from hunters

Status
Not open for further replies.
The "carrot" in my state doesn't seem to be working. As much as I dislike the heavy boot of authority, this is one case where it's needed

Do you even have a clue as to the penalties for poaching?

If we cannot even keep Toothless Clem from shining deer at night, on a road, outside deer season, then you're not going to get his compliance to a program where "management" is the goal, not the trophy.
A little predjudiced are we?
Maybe you should leave the confines of Madison once.
These bubbas will shoot every wolf, coyote, gray dog and half of the gray cats because it is simply something to shoot at.
If that statement had any truth, ther ewouldn't be any wolves in wisconsin.

Their idea of management is make sure private land doesn't get posted if that's their favorite area. Anyone with a fence is a "communist hippie."
Never heard of such a thing, and I've hunted in many different areas of the state.

Until their idiots can controll themselves, we are simply not a good candidate for responsible management.
Sportsmen do a very good job of managing wildlife in the state.

Come down off your antihunting high horse and get back on the High Road.
 
I don't advocate adding man into the mix. Man is ALREADY in the mix. Even if we are not hunting, our growing of crops, raising cattle, building cities, harvesting timber, flying airlines all will affect the populations.

So since you see how much damage we can do via indirect methods, how can direct methods be much better? Indirect man in the mix is harmful enough, and nature is one of those things that is so finely balanced that direct actions should only be taken after careful consideration of every possible repercussion.


As such, I am advocating that we also take it upon ourselves to help regulate the populations in BENEFICIAL ways as well.

And your definition of this would be blasting the crap out of a bunch of wolves? I reread that article, and didn't see anything that looked like concern or disappointment with how many wolves they have. On the contrary, they seemed rather pleased with their success. They don't seem to think that there is an overpopulation issue. And if there was, then perhaps some sort of regulation would be in order, but as it stands, regulating things that don't need regulating has NEVER worked to the benefit of anyone, wouldn't you say?


You apparently believe mother nature gets everything right and we live in a world where everything survives except for the interference of EVIL MAN.

Not at all. I simply believe that mother nature rarely makes mistakes that she can't fix, and that most of the environmental issues facing us today are mistakes that man made, not her. Even so, she does a pretty good job of fixing our mistakes as well, however, we should certainly be trying to do more to clean those up ourselves. That being said, I don't see any evidence that would lead me to believe that the wolf population is a mistake that nature can't fix by itself...if it's a mistake at all.


Hunting and game management are beneficial to animal populations.

Hunting and game management are beneficial to game populations.

Hunting and game management are beneficial to game populations.

Is that clear? Ignoring our responsibility within nature thinking that it is best left alone is foolish.

We are already a part of nature.

Hunting and game MANAGEMENT are beneficial. I don't see any management in declaring it open season on an animal that is only just starting to recover, and has such a bad rep to boot. I mean really, people love to shoot wolves. There's some primal, instinctual fear of them that is best assuaged by killing one or a few, and making it legal to take as many as you want anytime you want is not a good idea for an animal that conjures that type and that level of emotion. As I said before, if you're going to hunt them, go for it, but if you don't maintain some type of control on the time or amount of animals that can be harvested it won't be long before they find themselves back in the same position they were in before. I'm not saying ignore our responsibilities, I'm saying be responsible while you're trying to attend to them. Also, unless you live off the land in the forest, the part we play in nature isn't all that great. I mean really, unless you're in there competing for food and shelter with the wildlife, our part in nature is to observe. Heavy handed measures for delicate systems will never work well.
 
Well, I guess I'm done here. Everyone in the country now knows I'm toothless, married my cousin, have idiots for kids, throw my trash out the car window, shoot deer at night, etc. Gosh, I love Wisconsin.
 
Jim, last comment was tongue in cheek. I'm from Wisconsin..... Madison. Escaped to Wyoming 25 years ago. Come on down if ya haven't been brainwashed yet.
 
The original wolf management "Compromise" in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho was for 300 wolves in the "Yellowstone Ecosystem". this was determined to allow enough genetic difference to sustain a healthy population.

Today there are over 1500 wolves in AND outside the "Yellowstone Ecosystem", and those within that area are protected but MAY someday be hunted as Trophy Game if the numbers allow.

Those outside the "Yellowstone Ecosystem" (or "recovery area") are handled diffferently by each state. In Wyoming they are predators, and may be controlled just as any other predator. They estimated number of new wolves is 500 PER YEAR based on the 1500 currently existing. This means 500 per year need to be taken just to maintain the 1500 population (which is 5 times the original estimated population for continuation of a healthy population).

Many of the 50- 60 wolves which have already been taken outside the "recovery area" would have been taken by government hunters anyhow under the rules in existance for the past 8-10 years, the only change is that they are now being controlled by the ranchers rather than government hunters.
 
bear, glad you got out before you lost your sense of reason. I have never spent too much time in Madison, so brainwashed, no. I hunted around Buffalo, near the Big Horns, very nice area. A good friend of mine was the cop in Madison that had to shoot the Polar Bear in the zoo when a kid got into the enclosure somehow, that happened a few years ago, scary situation.
 
Thank you Pat McCoy! Simple facts speak volumes.I'm down the road from you in Riverton.

Jim, just say goodbye to taxhell Wisconsin. No polar bears here, just a few little Grizzlies on the NW end.
 
Last edited:
Jim Beam - just FYI - I live in northern WI so I'm even more of a toothless rube than you are:). I wouldn't live in The People's Republic if you paid me. I also see plenty of deer up here. The only people I ever hear complaining that the wolves are killing all the deer are the guys who shoot their rifle twice a year: a box of ammo at the range the week before the opener (maybe), and whatever shots they take at some deer that comes into their pile of apples dumped 20 feet off the road. And their poulation is way too numberous up here around late November.

If the wolf population ever does get out of control, I don't think an open season is the answer. Hire a contractor.
 
Never were endangered. Just were not here......

Now the children waiting for the school bus in Catron County NM have wolf proof cages to wait in. Wolves have been within sight of the kids and along the road near the bus stop early in the mornings.
So now the people are in cages looking out and the animals are looking in. Planet of the Apes anyone??
It is illegal to shoot wolves in New Mexico. Along with the grizzly bear, they were trapped and shot out of here by the 1920's with government help. No less then the greenies poster boy Aldo Leopold was a wolf hunter.
 
Harve, I hope they have ashtrays in the cages for the smokers. Don't want to litter the environment... I remember as a student at U of WYO, hiking the Colo/Wyo Border. At a place, I noticed tons of bear scat and marked trees. I casually mentioned this to a Fish and Game guy, who remarked sternly, "there ARE NO BEARS in that area." OK then, that was in 1986. If they wanted to protect that area, maybe a delicate population of black bears, who was I to argue. Today I get straight answers from our government guys, and a few I know on first name basis, because I see them up in the Pinedale area and Sweetwater, and have shared a few cups of coffee on the roadside. That was then, this is now. Wyoming was adamant about managing their wolf population in a specific way, and it held out for pretty long time against hope, against what others deemed reasonable. It took a long time to finalize a workable management solution. Point being, I am proud of our Fish and Game guys and all those who persevered to bring this management program in effect.
 
Last edited:
To Hunt Or Not To Hunt

All this fuss over a wolf don't fig-er If all their worried about is to protect their genetic diversity well let me say this CANADA will be glad to give 500 more.
 
Cracked Butt, I can prove every claim I made. I worked in a sporting goods store. I've heard the stories and the bragging, got to know the "hunters" and even repaired their damage.

As for living in Madison too long, yikes, you should get to know me personally. I think that Darth Vader is soft on crime. And yes, I know the penalties--and they're not making a dent in poaching and destruction.

But just because we're both from Wisconsin is no reason I'm going to roll over and defend every move these idiots make. I don't know about you, but I'm getting sick and tired of having Wisconsin place as "Number One" everytime alcohol consumption, bunge drinking, drunken driving and bubba hunting are discussed.

Just exactly why is "The Thirty Point Buck" so funny? It's because we all know guys like that.

Don't you wonder why there's a bullet hole (and most times a dozen holes) in every Stop sign just minutes outside a city? Don't you wonder why more and more land is posted every years? Don't you wonder why the cement deer keeps getting whacked?

Personally, I think it's because we cheeseheads either think it's funny or macho.

I once fixed a knife that was used to cut down a posted barbwire fence. I chewed the bubba out in public, fixed the knife, over-charged him and demanded a tip. No more.

Bubbas are the worst thing for my state and I will not support them in any way. Either grow up and start obeying the law or gut your deer with a sharp stick for all I care.

I'm tired of being embarrassed because I live here.
 
But just because we're both from Wisconsin is no reason I'm going to roll over and defend every move these idiots make.

It's also no reason to assume that every hunter across the country is a scumbag, which is what you are communicating.

I can honestly say that I haven't met a hunter like that, EVER. I've met some people I don't much care for, but nothing as extreme as what you describe as commonplace.

It's also a bit strange that you wouldn't know that doves are eaten regularly wherever it's legal to hunt them. We have no shortage of the things, either. DFG enforces limits and other regulations vigorously, too. The only place I've ever actually had to show a warden my gun and game bag was when we were out dove hunting.

I'm tired of being embarrassed because I live here.

Maybe so. But what does that have to do with hunters in general?
 
ArmedBear said:
It's also no reason to assume that every hunter across the country is a scumbag, which is what you are communicating.

No, I didn't. And I'm not going to let you twist my words.

I said lawbreakers, plain and simple.

And lawbreakers make it difficult for responsible gun owners and hunters to ever make gains or roll back the damage Governor Doyle has done to this state.

But I must ask the question, if you are a responsible hunter, why aren't you joining me?

We have enough liberals dancing around protesting hunting without giving them a real life Floyd R. Turbo to hang their complaints upon.

When the "cement deer" story appears on local news, it tars everyone who obeys the law. If you sit silent and smug it is tantamount to allowing the lawbreakers to poach and thumb their noses at laws that effect us all.

Restrictions on hunting in Wisconsin will not come from liberal whackos. It will come because too many average citizens report violators, tresspassers and bubbas shooting their cattle.

The slob hunter is our worst enemy for gun rights.
 
But I must ask the question, if you are a responsible hunter, why aren't you joining me?

We have enough liberals dancing around protesting hunting without giving them a real life Floyd R. Turbo to hang their complaints upon.

When the "cement deer" story appears on local news, it tars everyone who obeys the law. If you sit silent and smug it is tantamount to allowing the lawbreakers to poach and thumb their noses at laws that effect us all.

Restrictions on hunting in Wisconsin will not come from liberal whackos. It will come because too many average citizens report violators, tresspassers and bubbas shooting their cattle.

The slob hunter is our worst enemy for gun rights.

That's nice.

What does that have to do with the argument here?

You've been arguing against allowing legal hunting in Wyoming because poachers will ruin it and kill wolves.

I've been arguing poachers will kill wolves no matter the rules, how is making it illegal to poach them going to stop poachers?

Your arguments don't make sense.
 
Also here's some numbers:

According to Pat McCoy (see post #80 above), there is an expected increase of 500 wolves per year.

In the article, 37 had been killed in the past month.

37x12= 444.

So, for all the whining about them being hunted into extinction and wiping out the population, the current rules seem to indicate that the wolf population will continue to grow, but at a much slower rate.

Hmm....

Yeah, we're screwing up nature here.
 
MakAttak said:
What does that have to do with the argument here?

Because at its core, the OP presents an issue that deals with the responsible culling of wolves.

Do you actually think that lawbreakers are ever going to do anything responsible? Heck, we cannot even get them to keep from tresspassing on posted land.
 
Because at its core, the OP presents an issue that deals with the responsible culling of wolves.

Do you actually think that lawbreakers are ever going to do anything responsible? Heck, we cannot even get them to keep from tresspassing on posted land.

Quite true.

However, I will ask the question again. If poachers are going to poach no matter what the laws, why does that therefore limit responisble game management?
 
But I must ask the question, if you are a responsible hunter, why aren't you joining me?

In what?!?

Your opposition to a dove season, which I find ludicrous, since doves are considered game birds all over the West?

Your opposition to using hunters instead of paying people to cull wolves? My state pays guys to kill mountain lions because HSUS pushed an initiative to ban hunting them (very few people ever did, they weren't slob hunters, and they paid well for the tags). More of the lions get shot now than before, and at a net cost to the taxpayer instead of a net gain.

Your assumptions that all hunters are slob hunters, just because you live in a state whose inhabitants apparently embarrass you?

(I've only met a few people from Wisconsin, and they've all been nice, polite, and what seemed like good folks.)

What in the world would I "join you" in?

Sorry if I "put words in your mouth". I'm tired of reading all your verbage, so maybe I missed something. It all sounds like "hunters are *******s, so we shouldn't sell wolf tags." Maybe you should start over if you want allies in your quest, whatever that is.
 
MakAttak said:
why does that therefore limit responisble game management?

Very simply.

It is because the DNR only enforces laws, they do not create them.

Even if the DNR provide credible information to lawmakers--and the anti hunters win--we have all lost important privileges under the law.

Here's an example. On the Galopogos Islands, you can only walk on a well defined path. That's the law to protect their environment.

I've found cigarette butts in The Badlands. So let's assume that the South Dakota legislature decides that enough is enough. All of their natural treasures are being defiled by drunks and out-of staters.

So you go to South Dakota on vacation and some ranger points to a rope fence delineating a path. "Sorry, sir," he admonishes you, "you are not allowed beyond the designated path under law..."

Now, you're a good citizen and responsible hunter. (Heck, you wouldn't bother being amember here if you didn't care.) But the circumstances of slob hunters throw a long shadow. The laws passed to restrict the slobs also apply to you.

And fences will still be going up on private land. That beautiful Weatherby rifle might as well be firewood.
 
Boy, this thread really got sidetracked.

Anyways the point I was trying to make and I think most people were was that regulated hunting with tags and etc. is what they need to do with the wolves (and pretty much everything, like the problems Africa is facing) as this will allow the closet management of the numbers they want. Unregulated, shoot them as if they are coyotes is not the solution for this it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top