wolves

Status
Not open for further replies.
(Link) Everthing you want to know about a Grey wolf.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_wolf i.e. Hunting and feeding behaviors: is subject matter not many know about.

Given thought. The Grey wolf should be considered a opportunistic poacher long before predator.
My definition of Foolish Endeavor: Is one who delves into, and cause's interference in the Grand Scheme of Life. Especially so when it involves the poacher Canis lupus and its near extinction.
 
Originally posted by Art Eatman:
Face it: Links are hard to find which give accurate data about wolves' effect on deer harvest.
Click to expand...
Which is hard to believe, because as stated in the link given by Sure Shot Mc Gee
The gray wolf is one of the world's most well known and well researched animals, with probably more books written about it than any other wildlife species
Click to expand...

I think most folks ignore what it really known about the wolf and tend to continue to make their judgement subjectively based on personal feelings/experiences and ideals of their peers instead of the facts. I've found those that claim "libtards" wanting wolves are ignorant of the facts are just as ignorant. Judgement is not based on what is the best for the environment or area of habitat, but what is best for them as an individual. Wolves are put in the same boat as wildlife biologists when individual hunter success is not what they hope for. Has nuttin' to do with hunter skill, woodsmanship or time put into the endeavor. It's because the wolves ate too many or F&G doesn't know what they are doing.

Was a time when man and wolves competed against each other for survival. That was a different time and situation. For the most part, that isn't the case anymore. Most livestock damages are reimbursed and wild game is no longer what sustains human hunters. Wild game and wolves kept each other in a healthy check for eons before man came along and tilted it in their favor. At one time it was a necessary tilt. Now it's just preferred mostly outta human greed.


another good link............
http://www.hcn.org/wotr/the-truth-about-wolves-is-hard-to-find
 
My point is that a lay person can have problems browsing through the literature to find a pertinent article with data which is useful to the particular searcher.
 
I love when an article starts out "The Truth"

My truth is that there was no necessity to reintroduce the wolves to begin with. Existing predators were entirely capable of doing their job. It was some romantic, emotional, nostalgic feelings.
 
Call me a conspiracy theory wacko but I think introduction of non-native wolf species was a way to make it so hunters have nothing to hunt and therefore no reason to own hunting rifles.

I'm big on "shoot, shovel, and shut up" method of wolf and big cat control. Ever since the made it so you can't hunt big cats with dogs and bait bears, their numbers have skyrocketed. The only deer that are left in large numbers live in town...

Tony
 
Lots of Articles

http://www.nps.gov/yell/naturescience/wolfrest.htm

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/lessons/wolves-friend-or-foe/lesson/211/ . This one had a bunch of links.

http://www.missionwolf.org/page/trophic-cascade/

http://www.northernrockieswolves.org/wyoming/ranching.html

There are tons of these articles. These articles all pretty much said the same thing. Wolves were good for a more balanced ecosysytem. The wolves end up being good for the deer and elk. The livestock losses to ranches in Wyoming were pretty minimal as pointed out above. Disease and feed loss from the elk moving to private ground are also impacts on agriculture that are directly attributed to wolves.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2013/06/study-wolves-not-cause-wyoming-elk-decline. I though this one was the best article for this discussion or whatever.
http://www.wolf.org/wow/united-states/minnesota/prey-and-predation-2/
This seemed like a good one for deer, the original topic.

http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/wy-elk-numbers.htm - This article is kindof old, but here are the harvest reports numbers to look over.

http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/hunting-1001530.aspx

I don't think that there is any question that the animals in Yellowstone needed wolves to help manage the population of elk and bison for the sake of the aspens if nothing else. Elk have adapted to wolves by moving onto private land. There are a lot of factors like winter kill, disease, drought, and maybe cougars that are more influential than wolves on the deer and elk. That seems to be what most of these say.

I get stuck on stuff, but I had better quit on this before I get in trouble.
 
It really depends where you are talking about. Some areas are vastly over populated with Deer. A few wolves will not get rid of a ton of deer, and still make any decent hunting spot still very huntable in my opinion.
 
What was the question?

for those that have introduced wolves where they hunt: How has it affected the deer harvest?
Click to expand...

I am unaware of anyone on this forum that has introduced wolves into their area. Maybe the question should be asked of the US Dept of the Interior.

If the question is "Should wolfs be allowed in hunting areas that support deer or elk?" I am ambivalent on the topic, since they do not contribute to my or my family's survival or food supply. If a spices gets in the way of my survival, then they will become extinct, it's just that simple.

Jim
 
As actual hunting areas shrink in size across this State year after year. Due to the invasion of homes and farms into those wild areas. Why the US Dept of Interior re-introduce wolves here eludes me. The land will only support so many browsing deer. Especially so as those wild area's shrink in size. Its common knowledge Nature re-balance's her scales with disease and starvation. We always have had our fair share of yote's & fox to eat up the carrion. Why was Minnesota picked to be one of the States needing to save the so called extinction of the Grey Wolf?__ "I never got to vote on it!!"__ and neither did this States politicians in the very beginning.
I wonder what would have happen if farmer & cattlemen livestock lost to wind animal attacks went un-reinbursed here in MN? Strychnine and traps I suspect would of made a strong second debut in a century. No doubt about it. But!
Oh well. I guess we all have to be taken care occasionally. Citizen & wolf alike.
 
Originally posted bySure Shot Mc Gee:

Why was Minnesota picked to be one of the States needing to save the so called extinction of the Grey Wolf?__ "I never got to vote on it!!"__ and neither did this States politicians in the very beginning.
Click to expand...


Minnesota was the only state in the lower 48 whose Grey wolf population was not completely and deliberately exterminated by government control programs. Odds are the decision to save them from eradication(since there has always been a healthy population in Canada and Alaska, they really were never in fear of becoming totally extinct), was before any of the current law makers were in office and probably before you were old enough to vote. Minnesota did not "reintroduce" wolves to their state because they always had them. Ones that were not born there migrated there across the Canadian border. Just as Wisconsin never reintroduced them, we got ours from Minnesota and Michigan. Regardless, the conspiracy rumors of the DNR bringing them in at night by the truckloads still exists. A rumor almost as ridiculous as the one about wolves being introduced as a latent form of gun control....i.e. to eat all the wild game so hunters would have no excuse to own guns. :rolleyes:

Yes, for the longest time the states did not have control over the wolves there. I believe this was wrong, as folks sitting in Washington have no idea of what's going on in the mountains of Idaho or the woods of Minnesota. Just as I can't speak for what wolves are doing to the deer population in Montana from my home here in the Mid-west. But I know what their impact is here and I know much of what folks think they know about wolves is not correct. So many of the statements made here in this thread are evidence of that. Only thing more disturbing than the misinformation being spread is the advocation of illegal poaching in this thread. I consider TFL a class act, not a forum for supporting illegal activities. Seems ironic that moderators blank out a slang word for urinating, but allow folks to preach and promote poaching.
 
I have hunted the same areas of Montana for 30 years. This year a pack of wolves was camped out right in the middle of where I have always hunted.

I do not need a link or study to tell me why there were no elk or sign of elk compared to 30 years ago. Or, why there were wolves and sign of wolves everywhere compared to 30 years ago.
 
Wolves are a touchy subject with many who have to endure the Grey Wolf's behavior. In this State. Many were apposed to their recycling. Apparently there is perhaps an equal number that weren't apposed. I'll admit I'm in competition with the Grey wolf. You-bet-cha!! The cost to me every year to hunt and hopefully harvest a single deer off my property is substantial considering the the stay, travel, and the State property tax I pay on the land I own and hunt on. Seems kind of ironic how some other not a friend, neighbor, or relation can tell me I have to put up with such a animal ravaging my property at will of the wild animals I intentionally help to survive and foster their growth thru my lone generosity. I guess there will always be those with opposing views who feel entitled. Be fore warned though. Those that try. You can't come and hunt with me._:p
 
Originally posted by ZeroJunk:

I have hunted the same areas of Montana for 30 years. This year a pack of wolves was camped out right in the middle of where I have always hunted.

I do not need a link or study to tell me why there were no elk or sign of elk compared to 30 years ago. Or, why there were wolves and sign of wolves everywhere compared to 30 years ago.
Click to expand...


I wonder what that pack was feedin' on then....unsuccessful hunters maybe?

Regardless of ones personal feelings about wolves, they ain't gonna be in high numbers like you claim if there's no food source around. Unlike humans, they don't live in a area because it's what they own, have permission to be on or it's the only spot they know of. They live and hunt there because game is plentiful and easy to get......at least for them. If there are a lot of wolves in an area, there is plenty of game, somewhere, nearby. No game....no wolves, cause they move on. Quota areas, GMAs, fences and property boundaries mean nuttin' to them. If there is a plentiful food source and no real threat to them, it's home for a while. Wolves, while not eradicating game, do influence their behavior and habits. Them making game wary means hunters sometimes have to work harder, change tactics or find the area where the game has moved to. For many, finding another spot/area is not an viable option and this in itself can be cause for frustration, and understandably so. Kinda like hunting an Oak ridge on public land for 30 years with good success and finding it clear-cut and burned over a week before the next hunting season. Or having beavers build a dam and flood your favorite spot for woodcock the last ten years. 30 years is a long time. Most hunting spots I hunted 30 years ago are long gone. On private land ownership and accessibility has changed and on Public land, clear cuts that once held deer and grouse are now grown up and to open underneath. Trees I used to hang my stand on have grown old or succumbed to lightning, wind or chain saws. One thing I have discovered about hunting is that nuttin' stays the same. Many times we don't appreciate those good spots till they are gone.

Originally posted by g.willikers:
How much support for wolves is due to them looking so much like Rin Tin Tin and Lassie?
Click to expand...

Probably about as much as the hatred and fear of them was fueled because moms read their kids the story of Little Red Riding Hood.
 
Regardless of ones personal feelings about wolves
Click to expand...

That is the quote of the day.

Sure there is still game in the area, and yes it is harder to hunt. I'm not sure everybody understands what is involved in hunting elk that are 2000 feet above your camp and no motorized vehicles are allowed.

My point is why were they reintroduced. It is not like the Bob Marshall elk herd was over populating the habitat.

They were reintroduced because some people thought they are cool.

It is the same people who call it slaughter when you kill a wolf but don't even mention a wolf killing a new born calf. It's like they are vegetarians or something.

Everything was fine with them gone. And, then some moron decides to bring them back.

I am not for any wholesale removal of the wolves. The cat is out of the bag. I'm just not going back out there.

After spending around $100,000 in license and outfitter fees I am through with it.

Wonder how much wolf listeners are going to do for the economy of Montana.
 
censoring

I don't think honest and frank conversations about the truth should ever be stopped.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted bybcarver:

I don't think honest and frank conversations about the truth should ever be stopped. I will admit I shoot bobcats and raccoons because they kill turkeys. I only kill them where I hunt and I am not sure of the season or limit. This is the feeling of many where I hunt
Click to expand...

I have no problem with folks shooting predators as long as it's legal and ethical. 'ell, I shoot every 'yote that comes into range. Same goes for fox and raccoon. Just as I have no problem with the hunting of wolves within legal parameters. But I know the season dates and bag limits. The NWTF recommends the control of those predators that target turkeys as prey, but they also recommend one do so within legal parameters, not just because you can. Not knowing the season or bag limits does not make it right and I assume is the number one reply when confronted by a warden because of violating. Violation of game laws when one's life is not in immediate danger is poaching, plain and simple. No matter how one wants to justify it to themselves and to others. Same goes for condoning it to others. Hunting in an area of where many folks don't care about season dates or bag limits is not the area I would would want to have to hunt. Not caring myself and having a circle of friends that do not care about season dates or bags limits would tell me something about my own ethics. This is my honest and truthful conversation on that subject.
 
I will admit I shoot bobcats and raccoons because they kill turkeys. I only kill them where I hunt and I am not sure of the season or limit. This is the feeling of many where I hunt.
Click to expand...


So game management, seasnons, and bag limits should be left up to the judgement of each individual in the field?

I think we tried that the first century or so of our nation, and started the 2nd half of our nation nearly gameless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top