More On Wolves

[Art Eatman]

This is not about hunting; it's about the arguments over the environmental effects of predators and other factors which then affect our opportunities for successful hunts.

http://www.nature.com/news/rethinking-predators-legend-of-the-wolf-1.14841

"But several studies in recent years have raised questions about the top-predator rule in the high-profile cases of the wolf and the dingo. That has led some scientists to suggest that the field’s fascination with top predators stems not from their relative importance, but rather from society’s interest in the big, the dangerous and the vulnerable. “Predators can be important,” says Oswald Schmitz, an ecologist at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, “but they aren’t a panacea.”

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

One thing about the wolf debate: Almost everyone has a "dog in the race" and therefore, not a qualified handicapper.

I figure it's the arrogance of believing we ("experts" or not) know what is "normal", best, better or worse.

This story is a maze of dizzying "studies" and points of view.

Whether wolves affect at all - let alone to what degree - willows and aspens is God's own secret.

 

[tomrkba]

The return of wolves to Yellowstone had profound positive effects because the out of control elk population no longer ate everything in sight. The elk stopped going into many stream areas with few exits, which encouraged beaver to return due to foliage growth. Without the control, the beavers would not have the foliage. The trees now survive long enough to grow taller than ten feet. Who is right? I dunno--too many studies are flawed and passed off as correct.

I do want wolves around in the US. The ranchers can whine all they want. I really do not care. However, I do expect them to "shoot, shovel and shut-up." I am fine with that too since the wolves will learn humans are not to be messed with.

 

[Art Eatman]

Way back before "Wolf Madness", I saw a NatGeo TV deal which showed how beavers can change a local ecosystem. Damming a stream for a pond has an effect, and their tree-cutting also creates some changes. "Everything is tied to everything else," whether nature or economics.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

Way back before "Wolf Madness", I saw a NatGeo TV deal which showed how beavers can change a local ecosystem. Damming a stream for a pond has an effect, and their tree-cutting also creates some changes. "Everything is tied to everything else," whether nature or economics.

Yup, see - right there is an example of differences in perspectives. While one may say that beavers change the eco-system (I understand that POV but don't agree) I say the beavers are inherently OF the ecosystem even if they have recently moved in.

Are wolves bad? Are wolves good?


I say: Wolves are.

 

[ZeroJunk]

Yellowstone is not much of an example since hunting isn't allowed. What did they think was going to happen. I doubt there is a problem with elk deforestation anywhere else.

 

[buck460XVR]

Way back before "Wolf Madness", I saw a NatGeo TV deal which showed how beavers can change a local ecosystem. Damming a stream for a pond has an effect, and their tree-cutting also creates some changes. "Everything is tied to everything else," whether nature or economics.

All I see this article stating is what many folks have known for years, that Mother Earth is far more complex than most realize, and that many times small, trivial changes is it's balance can make for huge and misunderstood differences within it.

I was surprised by these studies that showed the close relationship between, elk/wolves/beavers and willows, that no where was there any mention that Beavers, when available, can and do make up for a large portion of the wolf's diet. Thus, not only does the wolf influence the willow population by influencing elk populations and areas that elk prefer to use, but they also influence willow growth, and stream quality by influencing beaver populations. I would have thought that to be an important factor, but it was not even touched on.

 

[Art Eatman]

True, Buck. "Complexity" is exactly why I posted the article, since many of the discussions here appear to me to be way too simplistic and often seem based solely on some emotional viewpoint.

 

[ZeroJunk]

Well, there are less elk and more wolves where I have been hunting for the past 30 years. That is a simple fact. People can piss on your leg and tell you it's raining from now on and it won't change that arithmetic.

Now, is there more to it than my simple interest in elk hunting ? Sure.

 

[Sol]

Nature always reaches equilibrium in time.

 

[mnhntr]

The ignorance of the wolf watchers, and the say they have, when they have no skin in the game pisses me off. If they want to watch wolves they need to buy a license that costs the same as we spend on hunting licenses. The moose population in MN was already on a decline and is now 100% worse due to high wolf numbers. All so a few hippies can maybe get a glimpse of one while hiking in to a forest to eat their granola bars and say they are outdoors people. I am totally against reintroduction of species to please people who do not have to suffer the impact.

 

[another pake]

mnhntr,

Respectfully; there are so many things to respond to in your post, and I will not try to start an argument here but being from Minnesota myself, having skin in the game as you say, being a hunter, not being a "hippie" yet eating granola from time to time, spending literally weeks at a time in the BWCAW several times a year including winters, I can say with 100% confidence that the moose population decline here is due to many, many factors including wolves.

 

[mnhntr]

I know my post was a little strong but it is absolutely moronic to introduce more problems (wolves) on a species (moose) already in the decline instead of trying to improve the problems already in existence.
Bottom line is the DNR listened to people who wanted the wolves here which MOST of them are not hunters and do not have to deal with them on a daily basis. MOST of the people who wanted the wolves here are from the metro area who vacation up here once or twice a year and they have no idea the problems they created.

 

[DM~]

the ignorance of the wolf watchers, and the say they have, when they have no skin in the game pisses me off. If they want to watch wolves they need to buy a license that costs the same as we spend on hunting licenses. The moose population in mn was already on a decline and is now 100% worse due to high wolf numbers. All so a few hippies can maybe get a glimpse of one while hiking in to a forest to eat their granola bars and say they are outdoors people. I am totally against reintroduction of species to please people who do not have to suffer the impact.

a huge +1

dm

 

[Bobson]

Nature always reaches equilibrium in time.

Nature only reaches equilibrium without the interference of man. X number of thousands of years ago, when humans played an active role via hunting as a means of survival, that was different. Most of today's hunters aren't hunting because that's their only means for survival, most of us hunt because it's fun, and fresh meat is a nice bonus.

I'm not at all bashing on today's hunters, I'm just saying we aren't exactly creating a balanced ecosystem through hunting. Rather, hunting (IAW regulations, of course) helps create the balance that mankind desires - which really isn't "balance" at all - not in a natural sense.

 

[buck460XVR]

I am totally against reintroduction of species to please people who do not have to suffer the impact.

I know my post was a little strong but it is absolutely moronic to introduce more problems (wolves) on a species (moose) already in the decline instead of trying to improve the problems already in existence.
Bottom line is the DNR listened to people who wanted the wolves here which MOST of them are not hunters and do not have to deal with them on a daily basis. MOST of the people who wanted the wolves here are from the metro area who vacation up here once or twice a year and they have no idea the problems they created.

I don't know where you get your information on wolves in Minnesota, but they were not introduced, nor were they reintroduced there. Minnesota held the last remaining native population of wild wolves in the lower 48. It was protection of these under the Federal Endangered Species Act which increased their population. It is YOUR native and always been there wolves that repopulated my state of Wisconsin with them by crossing the border when expanding their range. Wisconsin is another state where many incorrectly scream "reintroduced by the damn DNR!". Only after they were declassified, did your state DNR, or mine, have any say over the control of them. Your state, like mine, has done active measures since then to keep wolf populations in check and to keep the fear of humans in those animals. Give credit where due and blame where due. Base your opinions on fact and not emotion.

As for Minnesota Moose. They are in a substantial decline and experts are at a loss as to why. Still, even with the recent decline, there are 16 times more of them in the state than in the 1950s when the state's wolf population was close to historic lows. Hunters and wolves have been ruled out as primary causes; hunters kill a fraction of the dying moose, and numerous intact moose carcasses have been found with no evidence of wolf scavenging, much less attacking and killing. Researchers think that wolves cause fewer than 10 percent of adult moose deaths overall each year. Researchers feel that the warmer climate and the higher density of whitetail deer, makes for more stress and more Brain-worm. Both deadly for moose and probably more to do with the decline than wolves. But then those folks are just experts in their field......


Again, as Art tried to point out, there are no easy answers, altho unsuccessful hunters always seem to think there are.

 

[another pake]

I remember back in the late 70's, early 80's. Ely was at the center of the debate, "Wolves or no wolves?" An editorial, in the Trib I think, said we should protect the wolves in northern MN because the author wanted his children to have a chance to "see" a wolf in the wild. A friend of mine wrote a letter back to the paper and suggested that a moratorium on killing or trapping rats be enacted in the Cities because his children should have the same opportunity. 8^)

Anyway, I personally doubt that we'll ever again see the moose numbers that we'd all like too. The Minnesota moose population is simply at the southern end of it's North American range, and like it or not, and whether we can agree to it's primary causes, the climate is warming. That spells trouble for them. Any other negative input whether it be brain worms, winter tick infestations, predatory wolves or encroachment on habitat by humans just makes things worse. When they're heat stressed they don't eat. When they're full of winter ticks they rub more and don't eat. It seems like they can handle some ticks, some brain worms, some wolves...but the summer temps may be causing them to spend more time panting and not eating. Then they go into the winter low on reserves, a little weaker, a little less likely to make it.

I'm afraid we've seen the good old days. The moose may be going the way of the woodland caribou. I've been privileged to witness them in the wild too, but it was a lot farther north.

 

[mnhntr]

I don't know where you get your information on wolves in Minnesota, but they were not introduced, nor were they reintroduced there. Minnesota held the last remaining native population of wild wolves in the lower 48. It was protection of these under the Federal Endangered Species Act which increased their population. It is YOUR native and always been there wolves that repopulated my state of Wisconsin with them by crossing the border when expanding their range. Wisconsin is another state where many incorrectly scream "reintroduced by the damn DNR!". Only after they were declassified, did your state DNR, or mine, have any say over the control of them. Your state, like mine, has done active measures since then to keep wolf populations in check and to keep the fear of humans in those animals. Give credit where due and blame where due. Base your opinions on fact and not emotion.

You are correct but in the past they were rare as hens teeth and should have stayed that way. The DNR trapped and released them into areas around the northern half of the state and now they are all over in big numbers. There is a WMA in Ottertail County that used to hold some very large bucks and now it holds a dozen wolves and your lucky to see a deer. We used to rarely see a track around here and now I have caught one and seen several in the last two years. The deer herd is suffering and so are the other predators. We used to shoot dozens of coyotes a year and now you might as well sell your hounds. I am going to excuse myself from the rest of this conversation before I get banned.

 

[another pake]

mnhntr, don't leave. No doubt the deer herd is fluctuating. It always does. On my farm the local herd is doing well but is bothered some by those coyotes you're looking for. That gives me field time too.

By The Way, I live in Otter Tail County.

 

[toiville2feathers]

It seems to me that the million dollar question is; How many wolves is enough?
The cuddly wolf people got them put on the endangered species list, with a target population of around 2400. The target population was reached, but they used every imaginative way possible in he judiciary system to keep them on the list. Not until they had reached a population goal of 3 times the target population, along with a lot of problems being caused by a over population of wolves did we get them removed. Now that there is some form of control being implemented the cuddly wolf people are at it again. It don't take a thimbleful of common sense or reasoning to realize that all the money being wasted on greedy lawyers and frivolous law suits would go for a long ways in wolf research. I think it would be safe to say that not a single damn nickel has been donated by the cuddly wolf people. Add on top of that the money the state has had to spend in defending there position. All in all it mounts up to far large pile of money.
The hunter, who is considered to be the devil in this relationship, who buys a license is the only who is paying the freight for the benefit of wolf and sponsoring any research. Hell it was hunters money that paid for the wolf to be reintroduced in some of the areas.
I'm not advocating the annihilation the wolf, they have a purpose in the ecosystem,so does a fly and lice, but they don't deserve to be on an ivory pedestal either.
mnhnter was spot on when he made the statement that the people from the metro areas come to northern MN for there annual "let rough it one night tent camping trip" and they want to here the wolves howl at night and as there hiking down some state trail with there Iphone, eating there granola bar, and sucking on a go-gurt package washing it down with gourmet bottled water. They think they should see momma and papa wolf standing along side the trail with their litter of wolf pups so the can take a picture of them ,better yet, maybe even a selfie with the wolf family in the back ground.
I would like to have those urbanites there when I find a $1700 cow,damn near dead from exhaustion, to exhausted to stand, evidence shows she put up a hell of a fight, the calf was breech born and the half that was out was eaten the other half was still in her. When I came upon this situation, I saw the wolves run away. Those damn wolves didn't look very cuddly to me.
The wilderness is where the wolf belongs, not around people or domestic live stock. You have to be severely mentally challenged to think that a wolve is going to chase deer, moose, beaver and mice when young calves, sheep or other domestic animals are around. There just to easy to catch and they have no fear of human beings.
And as a added point, the MN DNR radio collared moose calves last spring, and the wolf killed the majority of them.
Some of you wolf people may want to claim that you put money towards wolf research by the enactment of the legacy amendment. You are correct, you do. But then why don't you propose a wolf watching permit that you would purchase to go look for wolves. Put a tax on the granola bars and gourmet water you buy, like the hunter does with the Pitman-Robertson act when we buy guns and ammunition. When you start doing that then you have earned a place at the table to discuss the controls that are put on the wolves.

 

[hartcreek]

I have wolves where I hunt. I am one of the few people that have seen them. I also am a hunter and I want the wolf as they cull the deer and elk that I hunt.

You want to eat a sickly moose go ahead Not me. Without wolves your game animals will be sickly. Yes there does need to be a limit on wolves in a given geographic area but very few hunters or ranchers have the cognitive ability to understand the full picture of inter species interactions that are involved.

 

[another pake]

toiville2feathers

It seems to me that the MN DNR has already answered the question of "how many?" Their wolf management plan called for a minimum number of 1600 and no maximum. Their figures for 2013 estimated 2200, down from 2900 a few years ago. They claim the reduction in numbers is consistent with the reduction in the wolves primary food sources in forested areas of the state.

There's no question that the wolves range is expanding in Minnesota. Ogema is just a few miles north of me. You've got em and we've got em too. My question though is this. The Management Plan allows land owners to remove predating wolves and guarantees compensation at fair market value for your losses. Have you taken advantage of this provision? Do you feel the plan offers any reasonable solutions?

 

[ZeroJunk]

Without wolves your game animals will be sickly.

BS. In most areas they went 50 to 75 years with no wolves. Coyotes and bear filled that void just fine. Matter of fact coyotes are much more likely to kill the sickly and wolves are much more likely to kill the healthy.

 

[hartcreek]

Well unless you are a hunderd n fifty years old zero junk how would you know? Now me I am authorized by my state to dispatch those sickly animals on sight. When the yote packs were running my area there were plenty of sickly deer now with a small wolf pack the yotes are thinner and the sickly deer are gone.

 

[Davek1977]

Without wolves your game animals will be sickly.

utter nonsense.....how do you explain the absence of sickly game in areas where they have no real natural predators? Aside from coyotes, which rarely kill adult deer, the bulk of South Dakota has no real predators of big game aside from humans, and I've harvested dozens of them without encountering any "sickly" ones. Wolves aren't necessary to have a balanced ecosystem, and in some areas, their reintroduction can have disastrous impact on big game numbers.