Wolves

[MDHunter]

NJ Deer

thats true you need predators speaking as someone from NJ we have millions of deer in less than 30,000 sq mi It's insane thousands are killed in car accidents every year- To be fair we have some insane hunting regulations and a pop. density that makes it hard to hunt, but even if are rules were like KS(a state i'm familar with) there would be too many

Quert - a big part of the problem in NJ is the governor, didn'e he appoint an anti-hunting rep to the DNR or game board? Also against black bear hunting, etc etc....he's a real piece of work.

 

[MDHunter]

Good for You

Up here in Minnesota we have the timber wolf.

My family has a pack of them that lives on/off our land and we encourage this.

We also have a dairy farm with the typical assortment of animals.

We have had zero problems with these wolves.

We have also have had zero problems with the Fox, Mountain lion, bobcat and lynx.

What we do have problems with are cross breeds domestic/wolf and packs of wild dogs in general.

These mame or kill a lot of farm animals yearly and are a huge problem.



We practice real conservation up here.

Not this nonsense were we only try to keep around the animals we want, like deer, or elk.

We don't shoot every wolf or coyote on sight because it MIGHT be a problem later.

If I did that I would be shooting every Rottweiler and Pittbull I came across because of what I've read in the news.

I wish more people would practice living with nature rather than against it.

(gad, that sounded tree huggy of me)

You'd think more hunters would understand this.

__________________

Sounds like you have things at a state you like.

Can people still hunt moose in Minnesota - what is the population like there?

 

[walking arsenal]

Meh.

I have more issues with the people than I do with the critter populace.

I think people can still hunt moose up here but I'm not sure.

I haven't seen one since we had one wander across our soccer field at school back in 1994.

Of course I don't actively search for them either.

Rumor has it we have a large heard of Elk up by International falls too.

I'd like to see more of both of those up here too but poaching is a really big problem with certain cultural members of the state.

 

[qwert65]

MD hunter, we've had this problem at least since I went to hunter's saftey which was 10yrs ago
You are 100% right about our gov I can go on and on about him but it wouldn't be high road. You are correct about the blackbears, though the problems Are overblown and hunting is not viable since they're in north jersey and live in little spots of trees. It is illegal in NJ to shoot 500 ft from any dwelling making hunting really hard except in sussex and warren counties in the north. central and south is a different story. I am for bear hunting by the way on a controlled level maybe a 100 tags or so a year. personally with all the people I thought reintroducing them was a mistake.

 

[Harve Curry]

It should be obvious to some that southwest parts of the country that get an average of 12" rain per year cannot be compared to Florida, Wyoming, Minn, Wisconsin, Montana, , New Jersey, Alaska, the east or southeast. Like Art wrote it's like comparing apples and oranges.
The southwest does not have the numbers of elk, deer or antelope that some of these aother states have. If you have ever hunted in Arizona or New Mexico, you would experience looking through your binoculars or spotting scope vast country with nothing moving. Could go a few days and see nothing. Then all of a sudden you might see some elk or deer. Herd maybe a dozen elk or deer. Maybe 100 elk if it's the rut, depends on the time of year. Is there a buck or bull you want? Maybe not one in all of them. Lots of miles between game, all rough mountains.
If the southwest doesn't have the populations of deer and elk then why do we need to support another predator? USFW raise them at Ted Turner's Ladder Ranch kennels (now he's a real advocate of our RKBA). Then feed them through a fence. Humans feed them not shoot them.
We are plentiful in lion, bear, and coyote.
I would give credit to our forefathers who removed wolves and grizzlies from certain areas and left them in other areas. The same forefathers that started the fish & game dept's, US Forest Service, and National Parks. Teddy Roosevelt, Aldo Leopold (and not the way the Sierra Club has reinvented him) are two that come to mind. I would bank on them and not some newage annonimous advocates of wolves in the southwest.
, Bill Weddle

 

[qwert65]

The link in the op was talking about WY

 

[Art Eatman]

Yeah, Wyoming; but the problems of Wyoming merely occurred sooner than in the SW. Same politics of emotion.

Now, if those Mexican wolves will eat burros and aoudad, we have a seriously good home for them down here in southern Brewster and Presidio Counties. There are about 400 feral burros in the Big Bend Ranch State Park, and large bunches of aoudads from over west of US 67 all the way east into the Christmas Mountains north of Big Bend National Park. Gonna have feral hogs in BBNP before long, also.



Art

 

[Wheeler44]

Hey Art, are those burros and aoudads and hogs native species to the great state of Texas? I had to look up Aoudad to see what one is, neat set of horns on them.

 

[stevelyn]

So how will the reintroduction of northern wolves & Mexican grey wolves affect huntable numbers of deer, elk, turkey, and antelope?

it could be a very good thing and may very well help to balance the eco system

OR.............................It could wipe them out. Especially since the prey species down there aren't adapted to dealing with them.

We've been having issues with wolf over-population since the late 80s to early 90s. They've practically wiped out moose and caribou populations in some game management units.

They've had to close the caribou season in my area due to low numbers and in the GMUs that have been targeted for intense wolf control, closure of the hunting seasons were a condition to going after the wolves.

Ordinarily, one might not think that is a big deal. However, folks living out in the bush depend on the fish and wildlife resources as their primary source of protein.

Because of mismanagement and eco-nazi pandering by Gov. Tony Knowles administration during the 90s, the wolf situation was allowed to get out of hand. The ungulate populations in the GMUs targeted for areial wolf control may not recover for several years.

The idea that wolves kill only the sick and weak animals is a myth perpetrated by the eco-nazi mercenaries brought in by the like of PETA and Fund for Animals who got the their wildlife degrees from Walt Disney School of Wildlife Management.

The truth is a healthy pack pack of 8 to 12 wolves will kill a healthy adult moose or caribou about once every three days or so. They travel a circuit of 60 to 100 miles about every 2 weeks. It doesn't take long to wipe out a moose population.

 

[Wineoceros]

Hey Art, are those burros and aoudads and hogs native species to the great state of Texas? I had to look up Aoudad to see what one is, neat set of horns on them.

Aoudad (a.k.a. Barbary Sheep) are natives of North Africa. The hogs running around TX (and the rest of the states that have them) are feral descendants of domesticated livestock, and are therfore also an "exotic" species. Ditto for burros.

 

[Harve Curry]

Stevelyn ,
+101+
Thanks for jumpin in with both feet to help straighten out the story with facts from Alaska. I never would have thought of comparison of wolf enviromentalists, but you ain't far off by the way they have treated working folks down here. They think they are above everyone else and none of them have to worry about producing a product or service on any given day, just dictate to the working class. Whereas wolf predations can affect the quality of whats for supper, to those working in producing or a service industry.
, Bill Weddle

 

[Wheeler44]

Thanks for jumpin in with both feet to help straighten out the story with facts from Alaska.

Nothing in the lower 48 states is Alaska.

Harve , both of the above quotes are yours, so which is it?

 

[MDHunter]

Wolves/AK

Wheeler - not speaking for Harve, but I would suggest that if wolves can decimate the moose/caribou populations in certain parts of AK, they can do the same do cows, steer, elk, deer, etc in other parts of the country.

 

[paintballdude902]

md u make me jealous

im planning on spending the summer after my senior year in high school up in ak right now i looking at job with forestry and the nps

so right now im planning on being up there summer of 2009 gonna stay up there as long as i can and do some hunting

 

[MDHunter]

AK Gets in the Blood

Hey paintball - be careful, the place gets in your blood! I was born in AK, lived there until I was 12, go back every Fall to hunt/fish and visit my Mom and sisters.

Forest Service/Park Service sounds good, if they're full up you may be able to help some of the fishing guides who tailor to non-residents in the summer. just a thought.

 

[paintballdude902]

yeah my dad and a a friend of his (joe blum was his name later became fairly big in fish and game up there) spent 3 summers clearing trails in tangus with the ccc in the late 50's early 60's his friend went home and changed his major to wildlife management and moved up there for a while

thanks for the idea of the fishing guides at the very worst ive got a good friend in anchorage that i can stay with, ha every time i talk to him he asks me when im gonna come get a bear

 

[Wheeler44]

MDHunter, the reason that I asked about the aoudad and the burro and the feral pigs and the reason that I asked Harve about which reference he was making is to illustrate a point.
That point being that Alaska has a wolf density of approx. 1 wolf per 60 square miles. Using that as a reference New Mexico wouldn't have an over abundance of wolves (that Alaska is experiencing) until it reached a wolf population of approx. 2000 wolves.
Currently the wolves in the reintroduced areas of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming will be de-listed from the endangered species act when their population for the tri-state region reaches approximately 1500.
That is for the entire region or about 500 wolves per state (ok thats really simplified but it helps illustrate the point).

The aoudad, burro and feral pig problem that Art refers to are caused by one thing and one thing only. Mans interference with ecological balance. Introduce a species with no natural predators and population control for that species falls to humans. If they fail in that respect there will be consequences, most often unfavorable consequences.

On the other hand remove a natural predator from an ecosystem and there is potential for the same unfavorable consequence.

Very rarely do mans interference benefit the ecosystem (think the rabbit in Australia, the starling, the dandelion or Himalayan Blackberry here in the U.S.) one notable exception, the so called Caribou in Alaska, they are really imported Reindeer from Siberia.

I don't think that 2000 wolves in New Mexico is desirable or realistic. I doubt that anyone else does either.

Two more things to consider are that the Mexican wolf average about 60 lbs. the Alaska Wolves 125-145 Lbs. Not really the same animal are they?
The other thing is that the poulation of wolves in Alaska are being reduced to increase hunting and subsitance use of game animals, not really because there are too many of them for a healthy ecosystem.

I know that this subject is emotionally charged, it always has been and will most likely continue to be so. I only wish to bring some objective thought to some who may not be able get there on their own.

I acccept that I have gone as far as I can with that ideal in this thread and will try to refrain from posting more here.

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

Wheeler44

 

[eliphalet]

Currently the wolves in the reintroduced areas of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming will be de-listed from the endangered species act when their population for the tri-state region reaches approximately 1500.
That is for the entire region or about 500 wolves per state (ok thats really simplified but it helps illustrate the point).

Couple of problems here,

One is the target amount of wolves was to be 360 IIRC in the beginning, but when that was reached nothing was done except talk. Can anything different be expected in New Mexico?

Second these wolves are not reintroduced, they are a somewhat different species. We had a native wolf population here in Idaho, small though it it was, when this whole fiasco began. My understanding is that the natives have been eradicated by the introduced Canadian species.
Like I wrote earlier, we were fed deceptions, half truth's to outright lies from the beginning to now. Which again my own opinion but doesn't place the wolf advocates in a very positive light to say the least.

 

[stevelyn]

The other thing is that the poulation of wolves in Alaska are being reduced to increase hunting and subsitance use of game animals, not really because there are too many of them for a healthy ecosystem.

I doubt the folks up in Mcgrath agree with you.

There is nothing healthy about an ecosystem that has had a large portion of it's ungulate population wiped out and the predator/prey ratio is out of balance.

 

[Art Eatman]

And as I've said somewhere or another, the eradication of the screw worm fly has forever changed the entire equation about "proper" numbers of animals, whether predator or prey.

We know as fact that hunters and coyotes cannot control the numbers of whitetail deer. I'm dubious that merely adding some bears and wolves would provide any real aid in that control. As it is, the whitetail will fairly rapidly outstrip the carrying capacity of the habitat. But the vast majority of whitetail are eastern.

The west is different, in many ways. Rainfall, terrain, vegetation: A whole different deal. And, we've developed an economy from hunting on which many people depend--and for many, to augment their income in an inflationary world. (Didn't help the loggers, though, insofar as the importance of that economy compared to spotted owls and suchlike.)

Personal opinion: I'm highly in favor of our allowing the romance of having large predators co-existing with us. I'm against having romance clobber working folks in the billfold. I guess you could call it an issue of priorities.

Art

 

[32winspl]

I think that the main thrust of Michael Crichton's piece is that living systems are inherently complex, and that we (humans) think and try to implement simple solutions; and then are confounded when they don't work, and/or give us unintended consequences.
First off, in his article, remember that he made references that someone perceived a problem, real or otherwise and that the media went to town on it, appealing to the "masses" through fear to motivate them/us. I'm 50 years old. When I graduated highschool, (1976) the new fear (The sky is falling, the sky is falling; oh sh*t we're all gonna die) was global cooling and the comming ice age. Now, of course, it is global warming and coastal innundation... and yes, "oh sh*t, we're all gonna die. Total and utter reversal in 30 or so years. Then there was "Beef fried on a 350 degree griddle causes cancer"... evidently that one died a quiet death. Then there was (oh yes, it's true) "Mother's milk causes cancer" (Who CAN you trust?); coffee causes cancer, followed some years later by "coffee has beneficial effects"... "red wine's deadly effects" followed by "red wine's beneficial antioxident qualities"; I guess one of the ones I'm waiting to be repealed was how wonderful movie theater popcorn tasted 20 years ago before somebody "discovered" that it being popped in whatever the oil du jour was (I think it was coconut oil), was gonna kill us dead, and it was switched to whatever the hell they pop it in now. Look, 40 years ago, sugar in softdrinks was going to rot our damned teeth out, and make us all into blimps. So we got rid of it (what did that do to the sugar industry?) and turned to Cyclamates... oops, carcinogen; somebody, probably Cargil or Archer Daniels/Midland, came up with corn-syrup, and now the incidence of type 2 diabetes is up many-fold; No matter that the human body evolved metabolising cane and other naturally-occurring sugars, now we're ingesting artificial sweeteners, and perhaps not doing it so well. You Southerners may recognise some of these... Kudzu was imported from Japan, and widely planted in the South to control erosion, and has wiped out large areas of native plants. Nutria, simillar to muskrats, were introduced to pelt farms in the South in the South and earlier, but when the market went south for their furs, they got "out" or were released, and have gone on to damage aquatic vegetation and human structures. Oops.
There are dozens of other examples where we change one variable thinking that it will solve some problem, real or immagined, and it does something entirely different.
Crichton may not have been entirely correct, but he should certainly have you thinking that the NEWS you read tomorrow may not be entirely correct either.

 

[paintballdude902]

i still think that anyplace that at one time had a native population of wolves should atleast consider and look into the pros and cons of reintroducing them


but i also do my part of trying to remove non native species when i can i got 5 nutria this year they were all at a friends house that was having a problem with them digging around his sea wall except one that a friend who is the grounds keeper at a local golf course called me for one that had been screwing up the area around water hazards so he closed 2 of the holes that had problems for the day and i took it with a .22 when it poped up


at the farm we spend about a week once a year cutting down and burning all the kudzu we can find its hard work with a machete and a brush axe but it sure makes for a pretty trail ride