Will you hunt wolves?

[SHOOT1SAM]

Ankeny: It's not news to you anymore, now. The Feds are on the verge of turning control of wolves over to us here in Idaho, as well as to our neighbors in Montana & Wyoming, for exactly the reason stated.

ID_Shooting: I will absolutely "hunt" wolves when there is a searon-probably like I hunt bears & mountain lions now-I'll buy a tag so when deer & elk hunting, if the opportunity arises, I will take one, absolutely.

The thing about them killing hunting dogs, well, I do understand that the dogs are valuable and probably family-loved pets as well, but they'll kill any coyote they see, out-of-hand. It is instinctive in wolves to kill "lesser" canines which they see as competitors in the never-ending struggle to survive in the wild. I don't believe that we should have eradicated them, but that we should have simply kept them in check all along. However, I certainly don't agree with the current situation either.

As to the wolf-hybrid: my thoughts are that this is an inherently dangerous situation-too much of the wild wolf to be comfortably domesticated, & too much of the domestic dog to survive in the wild. Too many episodes of them attacking for no apparent reason. Much like pit bulls. And please don't tell me how it is all in how they are raised-my wife can tell you about how great the pit bulls were that her family had when she was growing up. When you examine the number of attacks by pits & wolf hybrids, as opposed to the very small overall number of these dogs that are out there, it is, to me at least, a foregone conclusion as to their risk.

Sam

 

[itgoesboom]

Art,

I know where you are coming from. When I was a kid we had a goat that was part of my sisters 4-H project, no problem with them slaughtering that thing. Ofcourse, we hated that damn thing.

And I would have no problem with shooting coyotes. I am actually looking for places nearby to shoot them.

But I just couldn't shoot a wolf, not unless we had a serious problem with them around here.

I.G.B.

 

[Sindawe]

Just to toss a little petrol on the fire...

How would you all feel if the wolves started to achieve a 1:1 ration of wolves harvested to hunters harvested? Ask both those who would hunt them, and those who would not?

Personally, I would not. They are predators, like us. Professional courtesy and all that. If they come into MY territory and start taking my pets and offspring (if I had any), I'd shoot 'em there when I found 'em, but then I'd of course expect the reciprocal if I made a habit of taking THEIR pets (if they had any) or their offspring.

 

[Art Eatman]

Aw, Siindawe, I think it would be far more logical to rephrase the issue: The ratio of wolves harvested by hunters, to non-hunters harvested by wolves.

Far more likely that a non-hunter would be harvested, vs. a hunter. The hunter carries the means for non-harvest. Were the harvest to be an anti-hunter, I'd call it "...a consumation devoutly to be wished," as the Bard said.

"There aren't many things which can't be fixed,
With seven-hundred dollars and a .30-'06."

Inflation has affected the power of $700, but not that of the venerable ought-six.

Art

 

[Lonestar.45]

Well, I've got mixed feelings about all this. I grew up in a "don't shoot unless you're going to eat it" household. And I am a firm believer in that mindset. To a point. I've been known to shoot the coyote or two, or crows, or other "pest" animals. I don't necessarily make a hunting career of it, but I don't have a problem with it.

Wolves, on the other hand, are a little different. If I saw one in my area of the country, no, I wouldn't shoot it, because there are so few (make that none), that I wouldn't consider them pests. If there were packs running around (like there are coyotes around here), I'd have no problem culling the herd. I'm not for letting them run wild with complete protection, but I'm also not for killing every one I see "just because".

I think the problem up in the Montana/Idaho/Wyoming area is the fact that the wolves enjoy complete protection. I think the cattlemen ought to be able to shoot them if they're attacking their cattle. I don't think they ought to be allowed to poison and kill every one they see. Make sense? But what do I know, I'm far removed from that area, and the locals ought to be allowed to police themselves.

As for those here advocating the "shoot, shovel, shut up" method, well.....all I have to say is, there's a right way and a wrong way to solve the problem, and that isn't the right way in my mind. You're flirting with disaster. If you're unlucky enough to shoot one with a radio collar, they just might nail you......you may be looking at jail time, hefty hefty fines, forfeiture of your hunting rights for life, forfeiture of your guns, the truck you were driving, on and on and on. The Feds don't screw around with this kind of stuff. Is it really worth the risk?

 

[sturmruger]

I live in NW WI and have heard plenty of first hand accounts of people having issues with the wolves that have been released around here. While it wouldn't bother me in the least I don't think I would shoot a wolf on site while in the woods. I would adopt more of a wait and see atitude. If there was an official season I would apply for a tag in a heart beat.

The one wolf I did see was chasing a crippled deer. The wolf was just jogging along like it knew it was only a matter of time until it got a good meal. My buddy shot a deer but they had to go back in the morning to bring it back in. When they got back to the deer in the morning it was half gone!!! I guess the wolves ate good that night.

 

[rick_reno]

I'm pretty sure Idaho F&G could really screw up wolf hunting - so I'd have to pass. We've got some property a little north of here (Priest Lake) where we keep horses - we had a big one hanging around there last winter. Haven't seen it this year (yet).

 

[Art Eatman]

itgoesboom, anybody who hates goats can't be all bad.

Seems to me that unless somebody wants a wolfskin coat, or a tanned-hide trophy, there's no real point in wolf-hunting other than as wild-problem children around one's livestock. (Lower 48, anyway.)

Same sort of deal for me, with cougars. If I really wanted a bunch of hides around the house, I could probably shoot two or three every year. All I'd have to do is leave my household burn-pit unburned, and sit and watch and wait. They ARE pests on the mule deer herd, though...

, Art

 

[Jalexander]

I was kicking around trying to figure out how to answer this question, and then Lonestar.45 did it better than I could have. Thank you sir. Sounds like we were raised in the same sort of household.

James

 

[Ankeny]

Sam:

Ummm...well I happen to know some of the folks involved with the wolf reintroduction, and I know a lot of the guys in the district Game and Fish office. Wolf hunting in Wyoming is not a done deal by any stretch of the imagination as far as they know. BTW, I live in Fremont County.

 

[Iain]

We've not had wolves since the 18th century, so I don't have a 'dog in this fight' either. There has been some talk of reintroducing them to roam free in Scotland. Never seen a wolf. Seen a wolf-dog hybrid walking the streets of Iruna (Pamplona) in Spain, truly primal moment, certain muscles contracted, it looked a lot like a full wolf.

Like most of these issues that I see debated here I generally agree with the management crowd. Now they have been reintroduced, if the most compelling evidence that can be put forward for their total eradication is the loss of one dog, I don't agree with the eradication. Of course as soon as they start taking dogs out of peoples backyards then that is a different issue, it could be a young child next time. Keeping their numbers down will cover this will it not?

There are a few wolves left in Spain. From what I read once the locals say that if you go walking in the mountains you may see one or two if you are lucky. If you take a gun, you'll never see any.

 

[elkhunter]

Yes I would. Wolves are hard on livestock, and they are also extremely hard on big game populations.

There's also the economic side of it. When a Rancher loses his livestock that's money gone for him. Not only the money that he would recieve for the sale of a certain critter, but the money he had invested in the care and feeding of said critter.

And guides/outfitters may also lose money when prime hunting areas that they used to use are no longer so great because a local wolf pack has eliminated the vast majority of game in the area. If you don't believe that they can do it, just look at Oregon. Ever since the use of dogs for hunting has been banned the cougar population has skyrocketed and deer herds have plummeted.

Personally I believe that wolves should have never been reintroducecd. Our ancestors worked hard at eliminating them for a reason, and they will never go extinct with areas like Alaska and Canada to support their populations.

 

[SHOOT1SAM]

Ankeny:

Umm..okay, you're right, Wyoming is still working on it. I knew that, too (doh!), so, as to your original post that all this was news to you.....?

Personally, I've always been in favor of the reintroduction, as long as we could hunt them when they established themselves, especially when it became obvious that the Clinton administration was going to force this on us, one way or another.

Sam

 

[ID_shooting]

I am so glad this conversation has been civil. Good Job!

That said, I feel my great grand pappy and his pop decimated the wolfs for a reson. We (man) have permanently changed the ecosystem beyond repair. We have esentially taken the place of the natural predators. By reintroducing more predators in to the mix, you have to reduce the number of competitors (us) or the prey species will be decimated. Since I am not about to give up my falimies or my kid's future rights to hunt, somthing has to give.

If the species of wolf that was reintroduced were the original, then maybe we could share a coexistance; however, they brought down the Canadian variety witch is much larger and more robust than what lived here 150 years ago.

Ask any one who has hunted in ID, MT, WY for the last 10 years if there are any where near as many elk and deer now as there was when the wolfs were brought in, they will tell you no, not by a long shot.

 

[bones]

Will you hunt wolves?

NEVER!
There is NEVER a reason to hunt the Wolf.The WOLF is not the problem.
MANS the problem- "What we don,t understand we Kill "

 

[El Tejon]

Sport hunting? No.
Extermination? Yes.

 

[Art Eatman]

bones, when you say "Man's the problem," are you saying mankind should not raise domestic animals for food? That a rancher should not try to protect his economic investment?

If by "hunting" you're limiting yourself to meaning hunting in the sense of wanting a trophy, I say you're welcome to your opinion. If "hunting" includes protecting one's livestock, I have to strongly disagree with you.

I note that even among hunters, few agree with El Tejon, who also is welcome to his opinion...

, Art

 

[auschip]

NEVER!
There is NEVER a reason to hunt the Wolf.The WOLF is not the problem.
MANS the problem- "What we don,t understand we Kill "

Never is a long time, I could think of a couple reasons why people would need to hunt wolves. Without trying to be rude, I think I understand them pretty well. They are predators. They eat prey. Prey could be an old elk, an injured whitetail, a slow Mulie, a young calf, or a lost hiker. They don't do it because they are evil, but rather just because they are hungry and eating (and breeding) is what they do.

That being said, I think they should be managed just like any other animal species.

 

[rbernie]

Just to dip my toes in the water....

That being said, I think they should be managed just like any other animal species.

And it sounds like most people so far would agree with this; it's a reasonable middle-of-the-road statement. So my next question becomes, 'How do you know when it's time to cull the herd, so to speak?".

 

[Pat S]

More news in today's(1/20/2005) paper:


Wolves take deadly toll on hounds; Two more hunters lose valuable dogs to region's growing packs

By ERIC BARKER
OF THE TRIBUNE

Hound hunters in the Clearwater region continue to lose dogs to wolves.

Mike Stockton, a hunting guide from Orofino, lost three dogs near Dent Bridge on Dworshak Reservoir last week. Donnie Haukedaul, a hunter from Kooskia, lost a dog Sunday while hunting near Lookout Butte.

Both incidents follow the report of Kevin Stamper of Grangeville losing a dog earlier this month at Service Flats near White Bird.

Both Stockton and Haukedaul believe they had taken proper precautions against wolves and it was safe to turn their dogs loose.

Stockton was hunting bobcats with fellow outfitter Travis Reggear of Orofino. The two men drove a large loop around the area they were hunting to check for wolf tracks. When they found none, Stockton turned four of his Walker/black and tan mix hounds loose on a bobcat track.

The dogs treed the cat in about 40 minutes only about a mile from the spot they were released. But their baying drew in a four-member wolf pack from Swamp Creek.

"When I found out I had a wolf problem I had three dogs already dead," Stockton says. "One of them was irreplaceable. It decimated my pack."

Stockton has been hunting around wolves for the past seven to eight years. Wolf packs do not tolerate other canines in their territories and will chase and kill any dogs they find.

To protect his dogs, Stockton has been driving more miles to check for fresh wolf tracks in his hunting areas. He also has been hunting with more people, so they can spread out and more quickly reach baying dogs that have treed a cat. The added precautions had been working.

"We did everything you possibly could," he says. "They say you shouldn't hunt around wolves. Well, there is no other place to hunt."

Haukedaul was hunting near Lookout Butte outside Kooskia Sunday. He felt safe to turn his dogs loose because a wolf pack in the area had been hanging around his rural Kooskia home and away from the area he planned to hunt.

While hunting, a tracking device that receives a signal from electronic collars worn by his dogs told him his dog Ann wasn't moving, but she wasn't barking either. At that point, he knew something wasn't right. But it was already dark and he didn't want to follow the dog.

When he returned at daybreak, he found the dog had been killed by wolves. He later heard from others who hunt in the area that they believe there are two wolf packs there. One of his dogs had been out for a few hours and likely drew the wolves in, he says.

"About all we can do is go fresh, because we can't leave them out there very long," he says. "We used to like to listen to the dogs bark and let them cold trail for a couple of hours. Now we want to be right there."

Haukedaul says he will continue to hunt. He has four dogs left.

"I'm thinking of selling my good one, so I don't lose him to wolves. I don't want to walk in on him and see what I saw the other day."

Stockton would like to see more of the wolf packs tracked and collared. He says hound hunters use tracking devices similar to those used by biologists to track wolves.

Most have so much money invested in their dogs -- Stockton estimates his loss at about $5,5000 -- that they would purchase the devices that receive signals from collared wolves. Then they could more easily scan for wolf packs before they turn their dogs loose.

Officials at the Idaho Department of Fish and Game advise hound hunters to check for fresh wolf tracks in the areas they plan to hunt and to turn their dogs loose only on fresh cat tracks.

------

Barker may be contacted at [email protected]

Pat S.

 

[Selfdfenz]

"Not being in wolf country myself I don't have a dog in this hunt ( ) but it seems to be the folks who MOST want wolves reintroduced are the people FURTHEST AWAY from the place they're being reintroduced to. "

Well put.

S-

 

[Art Eatman]

rbernie, the wildlife biologists aren't any different from ranchers in understanding "carrying capacity". A rancher typically thinks in terms of acres per cow*; in dryer areas, cows per section (section = 640 acres).

The wildlife biologists calculate (say, for elk) the equivalent numbers for the area of the free-ranging elk in some particular herd or group of herds. There should be some long-term average number which is reasonably constant.

If the wolf population grows beyond its own carrying-capacity limit, the elk will decline in numbers below the range capacity. There will also be more interactions between wolves and ranchers' animals...Or, hunters' dogs, as per the article.

Some form of predator control is then needed to maintain some proper balance.

Art

* Actually, "animal units", defined as a cow and calf. For the sheep/goat ranchers, an animal unit is several sheep/lambs or several goats/kids. One horse = three cows, insofar as grazing requirements.

 

[rbernie]

I guess I'm wondering how they 'count' the wolves, so to speak. Or will they look for indirect signs that the wolves are getting too populous?

If there's one thing that I *do know, it's the logic in closed-loop dynamics. One of the hardest things to do is to determine the presence of an undesirable state change (e.g. too many of something) and address it before the swing gets so severe that the effort needed to address it winds up having ramifications of its own.

Can you tell that I'm an engineer and not a wildlife biologist or rancher?

 

[spacemanspiff]

as far as i know the state biologists up here keep regular tabs on the number of wolves, using airplanes to spot the packs and count them.

and alaskas wolf problem is decidedly different than the lower 48's problems. pardon my input, since i myself am not a hunter (yet), but the reasons provided so far as to why the wolf population up here needs to be reduced just doesnt make a lot of sense.

seems the wolves are killing moose before the moose hunters can get to them. the wolves kill moose for sport probably as much as they kill for food. which wastes meat that subsistance hunters rely upon. that much i do understand.

however, the natural cycle of any environment goes through such motions on its own, as it has for tens of thousands of years. when the moose population gets low, wolves die off, and moose numbers come back strong. removing the predator from the equation throws the cycle out of balance.

i know lots of people who do hunt wolves or at least support it so that alaskas hunters can put enough meat away until next season. but i doubt i'd ever hunt a wolf just for that reason.

 

[Art Eatman]

Well, to some extent I'd figure myself in competition with the wolves, if I lived in Alaska.

I guess what I'd like--If I'm appointed Stud Hoss Of All--would be enough wolves around to make life interesting, and enough meese around to hunt for both trophy and meat.

Maybeso, sometimes and with some species, "balance" is in the eye of the beholder.

One place where I'm off on my own little set of notions is that I don't hold with "noble" insofar as one species above another. Cats, dogs, cows, deer, coyotes, cougars, wolves: I like'em all.

Don't have much use for sheep or goats, though. Bait. Sorta like small yip-yap dogs.

Art