Wolves?

[Dave Workman]

Anyone here interested in the wolf re-introduction situation?
It's starting to raise hackles in Washington State.

How do you think this is going to shake out?
What do you think about wolf re-population in the Lower 48?
What effect is being felt by hunters, game herds?

 

[303tom]

You don`t want to get me started !

 

[Art Eatman]

We know from experience that wolves will be a problem for livestock operations. After all, that's why they were killed out, originally. Pest control.

As far as ecosystem balance, a reduction in prey populations is good for the land itself, insofar as it allows regrowth of food plants to more healthy amounts. However, reducing the size of the game-animal herds does not help hunters at all--just the opposite. And it is reported by outdoorsmen that wolves have reduced the numbers of game animals in existing reintroduction areas.

From the standpoint of a material quality of life, there will be a reduction for stockmen and hunting guides.

 

[Dave Workman]

Art:

All good points. Right now up here in WA, we're in the throes of the wolf reintroduction war in stereo.

I've done several columns on the wolf situation in recent months, and today i wrote about a hearing on the "final draft" of the wolf management plan. Hunters and ranchers up here are not happy campers, and to them, it appears that the Department of Fish & Wildlife has been taken over by wolf lovers

 

[KodiakBeer]

In the west there is an awful lot of public land carrying feral cattle that need to be thinned out. If the wolves kill off significant portions, you might see those areas become more fecund and have a net increase in game animals. Of course, the price of hamburger will also rise...

Wolves on private land ought to be dealt with by the land owner in any way he sees fit.

 

[Magoo]

rant deleted. No need to start a war.

Suffice to say, I'm pro wolf reintroduction.

If anyone is interested, a great read on some of the first wolves to reintroduce themselves to the lower 48 can be found in Rick Bass's "The 9 Mile Wolves".

 

[Maple_City_Woodsman]

I think Wolf reintroduction has the POTENTIAL to be a good thing for everyone, so long as the wolves are tightly managed.

Once they have established a population of sustainable size, then hunting tags need to be issued to reduce / control them. This should hep minimize the impact on professional hunting guides, who could offer services on wolf hunts.

The population should be kept low enough that it doesn't impact game populations enough to deter sportsman from hunting other game. This should keep the hunters happy, because they would still be able to bag game most of the time.

Additional depredation permits need to be easily available to ranchers who have suffered livestock loss, and should be transferable so they can sell them to hunters and recoup part or all of their loss. This should make life easier for the ranchers and livestock operations.

Basically, I think wolves should EXIST through their traditional range, but I don't at all think they should be a common sight.

 

[Art Eatman]

I tend to favor having the wolves around, but not as sacrosanct critters to be worshipped and never have the numbers controlled.

I still think the best deal for folks who want to hear wolves howl in the wilderness would be to set up a special Wolf Howl Campground deal; $50 a night and bring your own firewood. Somebody could be off a quarter-mile or a bit more and play taped wolf howls on a boom-box.

There are reports from reintro areas in New Mexico of some aggressive display behavior by wolves against people. No actual attacks, but definite, "You get off my turf!" behavior. Since one was against a ranch kid who was waiting for the school bus, you won't find much sympathy. And livestock losses have increased to a notable extent.

 

[jwalk]

Here's my question about wolves spreading to Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and Utah. They told Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming that we would see more money come in from tourists going to Yellowstone to see wolves than ranchers and hunters would lose do to predation of cattle and elk/deer. Maybe that's true now maybe not. What happens to all the other states that will see no increased tourism to offset the costs? You will not get tourists go to Oregon/Washington to see wolves. Those states are going to lose out on money from hunters refusing to pay a lot of money when their chances of harvesting an elk go way down.

Maybe I'm biased about who has the best plan for controlling them living in Wyoming, but I have to give our legislators credit for sticking to their guns. Basically you have to buy a tag for wolves around the greater Yellowstone area to shoot them. However in the rest of the state they will be considered a predator and can be shot on sight. I say why not? We were told wolves were only supposed to be reintroduced around the Yellowstone area and would stay there...okay. Everyone treated the Wyoming plan as if we just wanted to exterminate them all. We don't want them spreading all over the state (maybe too late). I have personally seen a dead wolf on Hwy 20 right next to Boysen reservoir between Riverton and Thermopolis WY about three years ago. You do have to wonder why the feds and environmentalists would fight us so hard on our predator status we gave wolves outside the Yellowstone area when they were not supposed to spread out from there in the first place.

I don't care for wolves, don't want them around here (I'm not in the greater Yellowstone area), but I don't pretend to think we are going to slaughter them all or even advocate for it, it would be counter-productive to do so in my mind. I say keep them in the Park and elsewhere they should be treated as predators and be able to shoot them on sight. That takes most of the bureaucracy out of play, keeps ranchers/hunters happy, and the wolves will not go extinct. Once they learn to fear man again, they will start to become harder targets and not target sheep and cattle as much. I believe all the surrounding states are going to have a real challenging time dealing with the spread of wolves, especially without the increased tourism dollars from Yellowstone offsetting some of the costs.

 

[Mr. T]

Here in Wisconsin, the northern part in particular the wolves have decimated the deer herds. They were introduced by the DNR in an attempt to control the deer herd; now the hunters rarely see a whitetail in the woods. 10 years ago you couldn't hardly kick a brush pile without a deer running out of it. An article I read in a local newspaper said that the average adult wolf will kill 26 deer a year. If the average pack has 6 to 8 deer a year that's a 156 to 208 deer in a year for your typical pack. I think you all get the picture. Some people I have talked to have resorted to gut shooting them on site. Personally I don't think it's worth getting caught shooting one unless it's a self defense situation. 6 years ago I did have them follow me into a hunting stand at 5:30 in the morning. 2 wolves bracketed me down a logging road for about 3/4 of a mile; let me tell you that had the hair standing up on the back of my neck. After I got to my stand two different wolves circled my stand and passed through the area. That was the last year I hunted that area. Two weeks after that two wolves circled a mother and son while they were walking from their house to a neighbors house. The wolves circled them for 10 minutes on a country gravel road; the mother and son went back to back...the son had a folding blade hunting knife. The wolves did leave them after 10 minutes, but they were very shaken up. The people do not want them here; I think the WI DNR is making a big mistake by reintroducing them here.

 

[BikerRN]

I'll keep this short and sweet,

The only good wolf is a dead wolf.

I see no use or reason for wolves in the lower 48.

BikerRN

 

[Art Eatman]

A passing thought: If wolves--allegedly quite smart, as critters go--learn that they need not fear people, why would a predator which kills 600-pound elk refrain from killing a 150-pound human?

 

[788Ham]

Some one mentioned the wolves will be okay, as long as they're kept under control. Bull manure! Take a look at the states of Montana and Idaho where the wolf packs are taking over everywhere! Deer and elk herds are being decimated. Keeping them under control is only accomplished by using a rifle! The reintroduction to the lower 48 was an insane idea, Fish and Wildlife officials haven't a clue now what to do!

 

[blackDdefense]

+1 for Art. Those who do not know history are bound to repeat it. Our elders had a problem with these things and completely destroyed them for a reason.

 

[MtnCreek]

DNR in Western NC re-introduced wolves prior to re-introducing elk. They felt the elk needed it's natural predator. I've heard Kentucky did the same.

 

[jwalk]

How do you keep wolves under control if judges keep on shooting down the states' plans as violating the endagered species act? The USFW previously ruled Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming's plans as good enough even with Wyoming's shoot on sight rule for most of the state. We had one wolf season here, the wolves were not decimated. Then Judge Malloy ruled Wyoming's law in violation of the endagered species act. When Montana and Idaho had their controlled hunts approved, Judge Malloy again halted hunting saying you couldn't have different states with different plans or you would be violating the act. It seems as if Congress has gone around the judge and is going to approve Wyoming's plan (a whole other discussion) and Idaho and Montana should be allowed to go along with thier hunts. It seems to me certain parties just don't want wolves hunted period. The original plan was there could be no less than 150 wolves in the tri-state area. Now there are at least 600-1500 depending on who's count you go by. This is going to be a huge headache for the neighboring states as wolves start to spread out. I'd say look at our experience and learn from our mistakes/accomplishments. I agree we should be able to properly manage them with hunts. Problem is it seems like some powers don't think that should be the case.

 

[blackDdefense]

The funny thing is about wolves...they are protected by the FEDS. Unlike the mountain lion and bear..which here in Illinois (believe it or not) we can shoot them whenever we feel like it because they are not listed in the wildlife code (not that i have ever seen either). You shoot a wolf mistaking it for a GIANT yote..TROUBLE!

 

[DM~]

After living around wolves for 25 years in Alaska, the only thing i saw good that they did, was to give me a target i could shoot on site!

EVERYTHING else that they did was an negative!!

DM

 

[buck460XVR]

Here in Wisconsin, the northern part in particular the wolves have decimated the deer herds. They were introduced by the DNR in an attempt to control the deer herd; now the hunters rarely see a whitetail in the woods. 10 years ago you couldn't hardly kick a brush pile without a deer running out of it.The people do not want them here; I think the WI DNR is making a big mistake by reintroducing them here.

The Wisconsin DNR DID NOT reintroduce wolves into the state to control the deer herd or for any other reason. Wolves reintroduced themselves into the state from Northern Minnesota and the U.P. of Michigan mostly in part due to the exploding deer herd in the state. With Federal protection, they have no other natural(or legal) predators. There's been a viable number of them in the state for thirty five years, so if you were kickin' deer outta every brush pile just ten years ago, there must be more to it........and there is. Like an exploding bear population. Estimates are that bear get 40% of the fawns born in northern Wisconsin. Hard winters took their toll too. Greedy hunters in the years of limitless antlerless tags, screamin' "if it's brown it's down!" didn't help either. 200 years ago there were 6 times as many wolves in the state, but it wasn't them that wiped out our elk and exterminated the native wild turkeys. It was us. Oh, I know that the barstool experts claim that the DNR has a hidden agenda and the wolves are part of their conspiracy, like CWD and Bear ticks to thin the deer herd so we don't have to, but intelligent folks know better.

Wolves are here to stay folks....get over it. If you didn't get a deer last year, don't blame the wolves, blame yourself. If the wolves are there....so are the deer. What we need to do is to support the federal effort to delist the wolf as an endangered species. That way each state can control the populations within it borders using it own discretion. Control would be mainly by hunting, which not only would keep populations in control, but would also train wolves to once again fear humans. I know the state of Wisconsin already has developed a plan for when Federal protection is lifted. Will it make all the Little Red Riding Hoods in the state happy......probably not. But as far as danger to us humans from wolves....odds are greater that you'll be mauled and killed by your neighbor's dog than by a true wild wolf. Just to be safe, maybe we need to gut shoot them all too. Only good neighbors dog is a dead one, right?

 

[shaggy430]

I don't see the logic of introducing a new species and then not managing it when numbers get out of control or they become detrimental to the ecosystem. When they reintroduced the wolves in the Northwest, they set a number and when the wolves reached that number, then management of the species was supposed to take place. The wolves surpassed that number some time back.

My folks lived in Montana until recently. Back in '09, the state put out a quota of 75 wolves to be killed. Lots of people said, "There's no way they're ever going to get 75 wolves in the whole season." If I remember correctly, there were 73 killed in about a week or so. They cut the season short before the weekend so they wouldn't go over quota. The moral of the story, wolves are very abundant. My folks moved from Montana due to the decrease in elk due to the wolves.

The same people who don't want wolf hunting are the same people who don't want any hunting in any form or fashion of any other animal. This is just another way to attack hunting in general.

More wolves= less game animals= fewer hunters= win for anti's.

 

[ZeroJunk]

Other than some romantic notions the wolves are a useless destructive addition for hunters, ranchers, and the outfitters whose livlihood depends on elk. In the wilderness areas the bears, coyotes, and cats were doing fine controlling the elk poulation. I haven't heard any complaints ever about too many elk. Now the populations in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex are noticeably lower than 25 years ago regardless of what this or that agency may tell you depending on their agenda.

Who is going to come in to Montana and spend $4000 to hear a wolf ? I hear them all the time and don't find it the least bit exciting.

Why would anybody be dumb enough to handicap a large part of the Montana economy by protecting wolves?

 

[bad_aim_billy]

What do you think about wolf re-population in the Lower 48?

I think it was a horrible idea. Our forefathers would think our country has gone insane.

 

[Maple_City_Woodsman]

Some one mentioned the wolves will be okay, as long as they're kept under control... Deer and elk herds are being decimated. Keeping them under control is only accomplished by using a rifle! ...

It was I who said that. I also said the same thing about the wolves needing to be extensively hunted to keep their populations down, so I'm no sure which part you are calling "bull manure".

 

[Magoo]

Yeah, and many of our forefathers supported throwing small pox at the native human popluations. Manifest destiny- just take it all because you know better and your god says it should be so.

Not that you'd want to be associated with me, but thank you to buck460 for your response.

To any board members that have no respect and passion for wilderness, I've really got no reason to begin to try to converse with you on this subject, or really any other for that matter. I never joined to win the Mr. Popularity contest, and I assume I've just ruined my chances for ever entering. Poo.

 

[BikerRN]

Yeah, and many of our forefathers supported throwing small pox at the native human popluations.

So what's the problem?
I have no control over what my ancestors did, so I refuse to apologize for their actions. They were right in some of the things they did, and wrong in others. I happen to think eradicating the wolf was right.

BikerRN