Off endangered list, wolves face new pressure from hunters

[cracked butt]

You realize what you've just done, don't you? You've come up with a realistic plan based on hard numbers and true predation protection.

Hang onto your cheesehead, you've just injected "sanity" into the wolf debate.

Its not anything new that I brought to the table, its how wildlife management is supposed to be done. Population counts, projections, and 'herd management.' I don't remember all of the details, its been 15 years since I last took a wildlife management course or participated in a population survey.

 

[The Tourist]

Cracked Butt,

We agree. And with that, I take my leave. Pick a new topic for next week.

 

[eliphalet]

Hang onto your cheesehead, you've just injected "sanity" into the wolf debate.

"Sanity" was lost at the introduction.

 

[sixgunner455]

The hunting dog losses refered to were from mountain lion and bear hunters.

Bird dogs, too. Labs, pointers, GSPs, Brittany, etc.

 

[Wildfire]

Wow again

Hey there.
Thank You . Now ya'all got it back to a reasonable and logical discussion.
With some very good ideas. KEEP tHINKING.

 

[Pat McCoy]

Responsible "culling" is being detemined by each state in which the wolves reside (inhabit?). Idaho and Montana have taken the attitude that all wolves will be game animals hunted only under license. Wyoming has taken the same route with those wolves within the "recovery area" (basically the area around Yellowstone Park), and is going to guarantee maintanance of a certain number of packs and breeding pairs in accordance with the agreement with the US government. Wyoming and the US government have also concluded in the same agreement that wolves outside the "recovery area" are not required to maintain a genetically diverse breeding population, and may be hunted as predators. States should have the right to determine how animals within their boundarys can be controlled, as well as the duty to

 

[MakAttak]

I'll post the numbers again.

According to Pat McCoy (see post #80 above), there is an expected increase of 500 wolves per year.

In the article, 37 had been killed in the past month.

37x12= 444.

So, for all the whining about them being hunted into extinction and wiping out the population, the current rules seem to indicate that the wolf population will continue to grow, but at a much slower rate.

Unless there is a serious upswing in the number of wolves killed under the current rules, this does appear to be the correct means of controlling them.

For all those whining about irresponsible culling, I will post the numbers again that you have ignored.

I will further note that the article indicates that because of a harsh winter, these numbers are inflated as the wolves have been driven to lower elevations.

Where's your evidence?

 

[Art Eatman]

Just offhand, I don't see where the 37 number is an average. For all I know, it might be a peak high.

What does stand out is that the data seems to show many more wolves than the Wildlife folks had stated to be "adequate numbers" for a viable population.

Which carries us back to the desirability of letting field data, the scientific knowledge of the state wildlife biologists have control over how the wolf population is managed.

And push the "Hold" button on emotions...

, Art

 

[The Tourist]

And push the "Hold" button on emotions...

And I'd like one more chance to demonstrate to the rest of the country the problems we face in my area.

Please consider them as a sincere explanation on this issue.

I would ask you to go to the "Opinion Section" of today's (May, 1, 2008) issue of The Wisconsin State Journal.

What you may not know is that there is a groundswell of people who justifiably feel that Wisconsin has a horrible alcohol problem. Locally we cannot even armwrestle our common cousel to even restrict the number of tavern licenses.

We lead the nation in consumption, and don't do anything about it.

One letter on our opinion page clearly states the policy here. We simply fine the drunks, little else. In fact, we don't even assign jail time or major penalties until the fifth or sixth time people drive drunk.

Many don't even comply then--they simply drive without a license. In my entire life of 58 years I can only remember two drivers who were actually sentenced to prison--and that was after they killed somebody.

My problem is that these same "good ol' boys" also take this attitude with them into the woods when they hunt. Many of my firends don't even hunt on public land for fear of a drunk shooting them. And I have also mentioned how one farmer paints the letters C O W on his cattle.

Now, I can understand how you might feel I am being too harsh on hunters based on the conditions in your state. And I can assure you that conditions here differ.

I've sat behind a gun counter at 2:00PM in the afternoon and smelled booze. I have had one hunter disqualified by the Lautenburg Act try to buy the same rifle three times. The phrase "deer camp' has come to mean "nine days without the wife playing cards."

So I entered this thread. Wisconsin cannot hold its liquor. We cannot enforce compliance on the road, and we certainly do not even stem the tide in the woods. Until hunters in my state start acting like adults I see no reason to give them another chance to abuse safety issues.

In fact, when I hear "the new great hunting story," sometimes I'm embarrassed.

That's the sincere reason I responded to this thread.

 

[MakAttak]

One letter on our opinion page clearly states the policy here. We simply fine the drunks, little else. In fact, we don't even assign jail time or major penalties until the fifth or sixth time people drive drunk.

Many don't even comply then--they simply drive without a license. In my entire life of 58 years I can only remember two drivers who were actually sentenced to prison--and that was after they killed somebody.

...

My problem is that these same "good ol' boys" also take this attitude with them into the woods when they hunt. Many of my firends don't even hunt on public land for fear of a drunk shooting them. And I have also mentioned how one farmer paints the letters C O W on his cattle.

Now, I can understand how you might feel I am being too harsh on hunters based on the conditions in your state. And I can assure you that conditions here differ.

This seems to be not a problem with hunters in your state but a problem with drunkenness.

Perhaps you should work towards changing the laws dealing with alcohol rather than the laws dealing with hunting.

Never attack a symptom when you can clearly address the cause.

 

[cracked butt]

We lead the nation in consumption, and don't do anything about it.

It doesn't help that we have had government officials like the former AG Peg 'Goldschlager' Lautenschlager crash multiple state owned cars while under the influence, or the former Sheboygan county Sheriff getting pulled over for OWI while holding that office, its even worse when the biggest punishment that they get is that they lose their office on the next election day.

Ok, enough thread drift....

 

[The Tourist]

This seems to be not a problem with hunters in your state but a problem with drunkenness.

And you might assuming that these bubbas suddenly sober up during our nine day deer season.

In dealing with recalcitrant teenagers, you withhold the privilege that they value the most--their drivers license. To that end, let's begin a responsible and fair cull of wolves to protect farmers and ranchers. I think we can all get behind that issue. Heck, I don't want to see a farmer go bankrupt anymore than anyone else. Go to an auction for a farmer that has just lost his home and you'll know why.

However, Wisconsin does have a drunken bubba problem, and the fine doesn't seem to be working. Heck, they take his rifle, his car and about 2,400 bucks in fines and he still thinks the DNR is a joke.

On one occasion, a friend of mine got into some trouble and lost his right to hunt. It took him five years to get the issue straightened out. Trust me, that smug grin disappeared.

Do the same in Wisconsin. You get drunk and arrested for driving (and property damage--we seem to smash into a lot of houses), assault, poaching, and firearms violations, then adjudicate the felon for whom he is and jerk his hunting licenses.

Oh, I suppose he can poach, but prison time for a felony is a big price for venison, and either way he's off the street.

The rancher is protected, the scientists get their data, the environmentalists get to appreciate a beautiful species, the drunks grumble in their double-wides but provide no danger to citizens or our reputation. Win/win/win.

Why should the reputations of honest and ethical hunters and sportsman be damaged by Gomer and his Thirty Point Buck?

 

[Pat McCoy]

Art: I suspect you are correct about the 37 killed wolves (now 59) not being an aaverage. As they re-learn that man is a predator they should be much harder to kill, and the numbers will probably decrease.

The Tourist: This thread was about pressure from hunters on the wolves, but you have turned it into a discussion on "slob hunters" rather than hunters.
I'm sure we would all have horror stories to add if you started a thread on "slob hunters".

See: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt07/index.html

for the statistics on the wolf recovery, and the numbers (1532) they found (including 107 breeding pairs). Dogs usually have 4 to 8 pups, so I think the 500 new wolves per year is probably low, and bodes well for those who wish to have a wolf pelt on their wall.

 

[Karl Hungus]

Peg "Goldschlager" - that's funny. I called her that when she got busted right before the last election.

I think the discussion on "slob hunters" is legitimate. There are two groups of hunters who don't like the wolves here in N WI: bear hunters who use dogs - they don't want wolves killing their dogs (here's a hint - don't run dogs after bears) and "slob hunters" who think the wolves are killing all the deer because they can no longer go dump 50 lbs of apples 20 feet off a logging road and be gauranteed of shooting a deer opening day. Now you and I know the difference between real hunters and drunks who dress up like real hunters and go sit in the woods for a few hours, but the general public (at least here in WI) doesn't. To them we're all just hunters. They represent a PR nightmare to those of us who actually know what we're doing. It's bad enough that N WI resembles the Iron Triangle in late November, but now these guys want to kill all the wolves so they can go back to "hunting" stupid complacent deer? It makes us all look bad. I've lived in Montana and Utah and the slob hunter problem is nowhere near as bad as WI. Not only is it easier to do here, but it's tradition. I'd much rather see packs of wolves in the woods than these guys.

 

[SpeedAKL]

I'm in a non-wolf state and would welcome them back with open arms as a way to get our deer population under control. We have 4 million deer here in Virginia, many of them hanging out in suburbia due to a mix of human expansion and uncontrolled deer population growth. What's more, the amount of sickly individuals and doe/buck ratio are becoming a problem.

 

[MakAttak]

Dogs usually have 4 to 8 pups, so I think the 500 new wolves per year is probably low, and bodes well for those who wish to have a wolf pelt on their wall.

I have no desire to have a wolf pelt on my wall.


I'd prefer floor or bed.

 

[eliphalet]

I have no desire to have a wolf pelt on my wall.
I'd prefer floor or bed.

me too, then you can sell the next ones. Pelt's are selling for two to three hundred apiece. Help with hunting/shooting costs besides the inner rewards. Coyote pelts aren't worth a lot, but a wolf hide is bringing a pretty good price on Ebay.

Back in the mid 80's when a coyote hide was bringing $50 I knew a guy that made $6000 one winter.