BigGameHunt.net Hunting Forums

[moderator]

September 2003 Poll:

Growing wolf populations are...

The modern hunter is by definition a conservationist. The last century has seen the rise of North American species that were near the brink of collapse or locally extinct in the late 1800's, the victims of habitat lose or over hunting. The hunters willingness to accept license fees and bag limits, for what had been previously considered a free commodity, setup an economic engine that produced hard cash for species rehabilitation. Some of the notable benefactors have been:

- Turkey
- Canadian Geese
- Southern and Eastern Whitetail
- Rocky Mountain Elk (reintroduction into several Midwestern and eastern states)
- Eastern Black Bear

North American big game are on the rise and the future looks bright, but with more game comes more predators and no predator draws more attention than the wolf.

When talk turns to wolves the otherwise conservationist hunter stumbles a bit and for good reason. Wolves compete with humans directly for the same game we covet, plus, like other big predators, wolves can be a threat to people living in proximity to packs. Furthermore in some circles, like the National Park System, wolves are usually considered a superior deer and elk population control method than people.

However, as fiendish as wolves may be, a true conservationist strives to obtain some balance in nature and there is no more critical balance than that of predator and prey. In other words, it is impossible to call oneself a conservationist without accepting that more prey requires more predators.

Do you, as a hunter, accept growing wolf populations in North American? If so, what are the limits to which you will accept wolves? Are there any (or all) situations where wolves are unacceptable? Or is the wolf debate just a lot of fuss over nothing?


[ This Message was edited by: moderator on 2003-09-05 14:41 ]

[Zippy240sx]

Well I personaly love wolves and I think that wolves should be everywhere they where before we killed them . But they should be managed like all the other game animals or we will not have them. Just like mountian lions wolves are a big part of nature to be loved and respected for what they are. I just hate to see things like when I was 8, my dad and I drove by some guys house off of a dirt road and he had over 100 coyote pelts nailed to a phone pole thats over doing it.

[chechatonga]

Only good wolf is a dead wolf. Period. If I can not see them ok, if I can, they are pelts.

[ This Message was edited by: chechatonga on 2003-09-08 23:10 ]

[chechatonga]

Quote:I drove by some guys house off of a dirt road and he had over 100 coyote pelts nailed to a phone pole thats over doing it I think the yotes were over doing it.

[bitmasher]

I find growing wolf populations acceptable with one condition. Locals living around packs have a majority say in how they are managed.

I think wolves have a place, but exactly what that place is and how extensive is an issue for states and counties to decide. That being said, if they are going to spend money and introduce wolves, they should at least make sustainable pack counts. If they are not going to do that, save everybody the money and hassle and don't reintroduce them at all.

[Captain_Obvious]

I've been reading reports of mountain lion sightings in various parts of Missouri, and personally, I'm glad to know they're around, because if a particular habitat is sustaining a top predator like that, then its doing well.

[Idahocityhunter]

I am only 15 years old, but before you let my age decide whether or not I have a legitimate and well thought opinion, I believe you should read what I have to say. I live in Idaho, where they are currently relocating wolves in the Bitteroot region. Now I have both traveled and hunted that region as well as my dad. We have both noticed a substantial drop in the elk and deer population. Not far from where I was hunting, a recent study conducted by a group of biologists, showed a 94% calf fatality rate among the elk herd. We all know that a fatality rate like that can completely wipe-out an elk herd. So with that, I believe that the wolves should not be introduced. If they disappeared from that region it's because something wasn't working out, so why waste money to try and do something that will just cause problems in the future? If you agree/disagree with me, please reply or write me back. The reason I am asking for you to reply is because I would like to know if you think I am right/wrong and I would also like to learn more on the subject and the other views/opinions of other hunters. Thank you and happy hunting. :smile:

[ This Message was edited by: Idahocityhunter on 2003-09-20 22:05 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Idahocityhunter on 2003-09-20 22:06 ]

[bitmasher]

Idahocityhunter, sure if the herd is that stressed already, I'd say introducing wolves is not a good idea. However the 94% may be in a small region and a one-time annual number (say from a hard winter, disease, famine).

[Idahocityhunter]

(re: Bitmasher)Yeah you could very well be correct, but if that is happening in the area regardless of the size, it will spread and undoubtedly cause problems in the near/distant future.

[ This Message was edited by: Idahocityhunter on 2003-09-21 17:06 ]

[Captain_Obvious]

Wolves and elk lived in the same areas long before we came along, and things were balanced. I'd say there's a lot more to the story than wolves killing elk, you have to figure the winterkill, disease, poaching, road-kill, all sorts of other stuff that influences the population is playing a much bigger role than the wolves alone.

[Idahocityhunter]

Thank you Captain_Obvious, I think you have a well suiting name. If you would have taken one minute to read bitmasher's reply, you would have used at least .5% of your brain and realize you just said exactly what bitmasher said.

[Darkhorse]

We are not "introducing" wolves to the yellowstone or other ecosystems, we are "reintroducing" wolves.
The reason we are "reintroducing" wolves is because they have all been killed off by a determined effort by our ancestors. I think time will show that they had good reasons for what they did.
Since the lower 48 was already basically devoid of the wolf depredation problem then I think they should have stayed free of these pests.
Like it or not, times have changed. The west is no longer the open, wild lands of 200 years ago. Any romantic ideals of free wolves are quickly shattered by the reality of their habits. They don't go down to McDonalds when they are hungry, they kill. They kill the very game animals we cherish and cattle and sheep raised by ranchers. Yet in the wisdom of their benefactors no controls are placed on their numbers or expansion.
I personally have a problem with a predator that hunts a single terrified animal in a pack. One that pulls the struggling fetus from its helpless mothers womb and rips it to pieces. This is a predator that hunts newborns and young who have not had a chance at life. Forget the talk about them only eating the old and sick.
This is the way of the wild. And as long as wolves are allowed to exist this is the way things must be.
I don't blame the wolf. I blame the heartless, nearsighted, so called conservationists who pushed for its reintroduction.
And, the day could very possibly come when hunting is no longer needed as population control. The wolves may be good enough at this without our help.

[Captain_Obvious]

''Thank you Captain_Obvious, I think you have a well suiting name. If you would have taken one minute to read bitmasher's reply, you would have used at least .5% of your brain and realize you just said exactly what bitmasher said.''


Oh, thanks for the advice, I was simply trying to use smaller words than he did so you'd have a better chance of understanding. I appreciate your concern for my brain.

[bitmasher]

For Pete's sake get a grip Idahocityhunter! 3 posts and your already insulting people....

So what if he had some similar statements to mine, I misspell, double post, and forget what I'm saying in mid sentence. You can't hang around any board and be perfect, if your expecting perfection your expecting too much.

If you so badly want others opinions here, why are you in such a rush to insult them? Chill out.

[ This Message was edited by: bitmasher on 2003-09-22 21:23 ]

[saskie]

Getting back to the topic...I think that wolf populations are acceptable, but I equally and absolutely believe that farmers/ranchers or anybody else for that matter has the right to defend and protect their property (ie: herds) on their land.

Wolves are smart - if they get shot at enough times they'll learn to stay away from cows. When our community pasture first opened (196?) my Dad was the manager and they had a real problem with wolves and coyotes the first couple years. So every day they carried a 30-30 and every time they saw a wolf inside the pasture they shot it or at least at it.

An interesting side note to this is many people would consider it immoral to hunt the wolf, that it was cruel, yet standing passively by watching and listening as it tears your calves to shreds is fine...but I'm getting off topic.

By the time I came along (1971), the wolves had figured it out. Rarely was one seen inside the pasture, but any night you wanted you could drive to the north fence and listen to them howl. Unfortunately they've moved even further north now as more land was cleared for farming, and the moose herd was pushed deeper into the bush.

As for game, well that's more of a grey area for me. Some areas and populations can support wolves, some can't. Even those that can will see severe impact at first until deer/elk/moose get used to the idea of having a new predator to contend with. And I believe Idaho when he talks about a 94% calf mortality, and I would say it's very likely that predation had a lot to do with it.

I guess the short answer to what turned out to be a rather long reply is that in GENERAL I think they are alright - as long as people have the right to shoot them (on their land) to defend their own livestock.