Off endangered list, wolves face new pressure from hunters
- Thread starter funnybone
- Start date
- Status
RancidSumo
Member
This is from the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management plan.
From that same plan:
Seems to me animals starve rather than "regulate their reproduction."
Animals try to reproduce as much as possible; the environment then forces the weaker ones to die.
Personally, I'd prefer the more humane means of culling the packs (herds, flocks, murders, etc...) rather than let them die of starvation or disease.
Nature isn't this beautiful process where everything balances out perfectly. There are imbalances, droughts, starvation, overpopulation all WITHOUT man's help. Add man into the mix and it exascerbates these problems.
As such, I think we ought to have a plan and manage these animals.
As for those who complain about "slob hunters," would preventing legitimate hunting of these wolves stop "slob hunters" from poaching or will criminals break the law no matter because that's what criminals do?...
Edit: Forgot to list source: http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/pdf/WolfFinal2007WyomingGrayWolfManagementPlan.pdf
Last edited:
The Tourist
member
MakAttak said:
Do you lock your car? Does your home have secure doors and windows?
Of course. Robbers steal. Because that's what robbers do.
Slob hunters will be slobs until the day they die. The entire woods are their toilet, they feel game laws keep "their deer" away from them. If anything, I'd like to see fewer licenses, stronger qualifications and bigger fines.
All we're asking is for a person to either qualify, or take hunter safety courses, shoot what he'll eat according to his license, and quit committing crimes!
You're making it sound like I'm asking the impossible, like asking them to bathe, see a dentist or quit marrying their cousins..
Wolves are least likely to starve in Northwest or anywhere in Wyoming. The largest number of natural mortality has been from mange and a canine virus that stays in the soil for something like 5 years. But looking at the current population, wolves have been thriving.
RancidSumo
Member
The vast majority of hunters do eat what they shoot and most don't commit crimes. Almost everyone in the state has passed a hunters saftey course.
Vicious-Peanut
Member
Really? You eat wolves in Wyoming? I'm not saying most hunters aren't responsible, but there are FAR too many who aren't.
If the populations of wolves gets extremely out of hand then fine, allow qualified people who know which wolves to shoot (as to not leave 200 males to 20 females for example, and not disrupt breeding pairs) to get the population back into control, this doesn't mean shooting 80% of the population of Idaho as Otter wants to do. Especially since very few wolves actually feed on livestock and Idaho can support far more wolves than currently exist.
The Tourist
member
RancidSumo said:
Obviously they don't. That's why they're the good guys. Again, I directed my comments at the slob hunter problem we have in my area.
Most "good people" are not in the Mafia, or are gang bangers, or hookers, or drug dealers or hitmen. That doesn't mean our job is over in controlling crime.
See if you can google the "cement deer" program our DNR uses to catch slob hunters. You'll be amazed at just how stupid people can be. But there's a need for it, and it protects the good hunters you mention.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/802928/posts
Us Wyomingites will eat dang near anything...., but really, Wyoming has a pretty good bunch of hunters here. Slob hunters, from my experience, are a small minority.
VisciousP, I'm guessing you are not a rancher or herder, or farmer or even a bird hunter. You probably have little real experience in game management, and are speaking more from the heart. The reality is that limited hunting in the protected zone/Trophy zone will become necessary. And government guys are already shooting problem wolves on a fairly frequent basis.
VisciousP, I'm guessing you are not a rancher or herder, or farmer or even a bird hunter. You probably have little real experience in game management, and are speaking more from the heart. The reality is that limited hunting in the protected zone/Trophy zone will become necessary. And government guys are already shooting problem wolves on a fairly frequent basis.
Actually I'm comparing this to gun laws.
Cause really, all we're asking is that you register your guns. It's not hard, and besides, you're not a criminal, why should it matter?
My arguement is not that we shouldn't try to stop "slob hunters."
I have been arguing that wolf management should be taking place and that people talking about what "slob hunters" will do is irrelevant because they are already criminals and poachers!
Just like other criminals that will not care about the gun laws, these will not care about game laws.
As such, arguing that slob hunters will go and poach wolves is not an argument against legal hunting.
Vicious-Peanut
Member
Actually bearmgc, as I stated my grandfather owns a ranch. I believe above I said that limited hunting is fine as long as it is carefully regulated, you think that killing 80% of the wolf population in Idaho is 'limited hunting'?
But no I don't hunt, my family does and I have absolutely no qualms with it as long as you keep slob hunters and irresponsible people out of it. Do you own land bear? I doubt you do, as if you did you would notice more slob hunting.
Perhaps I am speaking from the heart, but be realistic. Anytime something becomes a nuisance we are supposed to start kill them all? I hardly see that as being a solution to anything. I guess we will have to wait and see how all of this pans out, hopefully people don't get carried away and turn limited hunting into a free-for-all.
But no I don't hunt, my family does and I have absolutely no qualms with it as long as you keep slob hunters and irresponsible people out of it. Do you own land bear? I doubt you do, as if you did you would notice more slob hunting.
Perhaps I am speaking from the heart, but be realistic. Anytime something becomes a nuisance we are supposed to start kill them all? I hardly see that as being a solution to anything. I guess we will have to wait and see how all of this pans out, hopefully people don't get carried away and turn limited hunting into a free-for-all.
Wow, did this discussion get legs. Aside from the raving about slob hunting a good forum. One item mentioned earlier was that hunting wolves would put some fear into them, which is not a bad thing. Without bear hunting in Wi can you imagine how much more destruction they would cause. I have a large boar living in my area, he never does a bit of damage, but he keeps the younger troublemakers out. I love hunting, but I have no desire to shoot a bear or a wolf, unless I was forced. We moved onto this continent for better or worst, and if we cannot manage a happy medium of prey and predator, we better get off and give America back to the native Americans. And my cousins are darn good looking, by the way.
Hunting has not become a "free for all". And the Wyoming wolf management plan was accepted by the Federal government. Nobody is going to kill all the wolves, not to worry. But wolves are predators and just do what wolves do. They don't respect the wolf managemnet plan zones, imagine that. female wolves will breed with more than one male, if the alpha is out of sight. Yes, I've heard about land damage by slob hunters in other places, yet Wyoming has not, in my experience, had as great an impact that maybe other states have had. I've seen some dirty areas, close to the road camping areas, but with so many tourist campers, that by the way, I HAVE seen throw things out the car windows, and so many nonresident hunters, establishing big Truck and ATV camps, in easy to reach areas, its hard to say where the trash comes from. I think we have to be careful about assigning blame in multi use areas. Have you been to the parking areas for popular snowmobilers? Some places can be pretty trashy. How about group campgrounds that attrack large family reunions? I am not a landowner, but I am a land steward.
Last edited:
Did you ever stop and ask yourself how many Moose starve to death in a "healthy" population? You have no way of knowing if that number is high or low without having something to compare it to. Also, I didn't see anything in there about the number of calves being born, which is what I was talking about. I bet if you check the data, you'll see less live births along with those increased mortality rates, which was my point. As you said, nature isn't always pretty. And lastly, what was causing that starvation? Was it from increased moose numbers, or a decrease in the food that was available to them, or what? This is complex stuff and requires looking at the bigger picture before jumping to conclusions.
You're ALWAYS going to have starvation and disease, so if you cull a bunch of healthy ones along with some of the weak, you are only hurting their chances because you're taking out a number of otherwise healthy animals. Animals reproduce as much as possible, yes...given the resources available to them. You are not going to get more animals than the environment allows.
If nature wasn't this perfect balancing force, life wouldn't exist. Life is nothing more than a biochemical balancing act that ultimately ends in failure, but I digress... When something in nature shifts on one side, the other balances out. If you have a drought, the populations shift accordingly. Imbalances balance out. I also notice that you seem to change your tune a bit by the end of that line. You flat out said that adding man to the mix makes things worse, but you also advocate man taking action to try and be the balancing force to keep nature in check. Which side are you backing? Trying to micromanage every little twist nature takes will only make things worse; you yourself agreed that adding man will only make it worse, so how can you advocate trying to mess with everything every time you observe a percieved imbalance? That being said, when an actual problem comes up, such as a radical overnight reduction in the deer population, a wolf cull might be in order if they are starving en masse and/or turning to beef as their dietary staple.
So distribute tags with this in mind, since most hunters aren't slob hunters, but one slob hunter can have the effect of 10+ good hunters.
Vicious-Peanut
Member
It is this that bothers me - "Outside northwest Wyoming, wolves will be considered predators and people will be able to kill them any time by any means and without a license." (jacksonholenews.com)
This thread is going no where but down, and people are getting quiet heated so I'm calling it quits.
I don't think that they will, but the above quote makes it seem like possibility.
This thread is going no where but down, and people are getting quiet heated so I'm calling it quits.
I don't advocate adding man into the mix. Man is ALREADY in the mix. Even if we are not hunting, our growing of crops, raising cattle, building cities, harvesting timber, flying airlines all will affect the populations.
As such, I am advocating that we also take it upon ourselves to help regulate the populations in BENEFICIAL ways as well.
You apparently believe mother nature gets everything right and we live in a world where everything survives except for the interference of EVIL MAN.
Hunting and game management are beneficial to animal populations.
Hunting and game management are beneficial to game populations.
Hunting and game management are beneficial to game populations.
Is that clear? Ignoring our responsibility within nature thinking that it is best left alone is foolish.
We are already a part of nature.
RancidSumo
Member
It is what we do with 'yotes and they are still all over the place.
viciousP,Wyoming folks are used to seeing wildlife, and most appreciate the wonders of wildlife in Wyoming. We have 2 major Indian Reservations in the outlying regions of the protected zone. Wildlife there IS ABUNDANT, and general respect for wildlife is very high. Additionally, only Native Americans can hunt on the reservation, and many areas are flat out illegal for non Natives to be in. You cannot appreciate the vast resources of land on these Reservations. It is less likely that residents will kill wolves unless a potential problem exists, and more likely, that a nonresident might try to shoot a wolf. However, with ranchers, herders, hikers, campers, there is always the potential for encounters, more likely if the person has a dog, since it would be considered a territorial threat to the wolf pack. Several family dogs have been attacked by wolves. Wolves do what predators do, with gusto. So, yes, they will probably be shot outside the zone, if a potential problem arrises. And several problems have frequently arrisen. But wolves are thriving, and they have lots of room to thrive. I don't see posters getting heated, and I think this thread still has some life, and lots of value. The issue with extrapolating on a topic with poeple who have had different experiences and different views, is that just because you believe it doesn't make it so. Other experiences may give a different reality. Wolf survival will be something to watch, for all of us who either have a stake in their survival, or who are affected by their predation, for the actual outcome.
When numbers get into the thousands and not just one thousand and a few hundred, hunting might be okay. Right now, however, the gene pool is how small for these wolves?
And since one species is somewhat surviving destruction, we should apply it to all species. Good idea.
In my opinion, Cosmoline was right one with what he said.
And since one species is somewhat surviving destruction, we should apply it to all species. Good idea.
In my opinion, Cosmoline was right one with what he said.
El Tejon
Member
I have long argued that packs of wolves and mountain lions should be set free in New York City.
The Tourist
member
MakAttak said:
The "carrot" in my state doesn't seem to be working. As much as I dislike the heavy boot of authority, this is one case where it's needed. The idea of wolf control is restraint, not war.
If we cannot even keep Toothless Clem from shining deer at night, on a road, outside deer season, then you're not going to get his compliance to a program where "management" is the goal, not the trophy.
These bubbas will shoot every wolf, coyote, gray dog and half of the gray cats because it is simply something to shoot at. Their idea of management is make sure private land doesn't get posted if that's their favorite area. Anyone with a fence is a "communist hippie."
Until their idiots can controll themselves, we are simply not a good candidate for responsible management.
Ranchers and farmers complain about predator populations such as wolves and coyotes then hunt them to the point the population is barely sustainable. Then ranchers and farmers complain about how the need to kill prairie dogs, rabbits, and voles because they are overpopulated due to the lack of predators. It seems their problems with the prairie dogs are self inflicted. Then again I live out east and have no clue.
RancidSumo
Member
No, we shoot the P. Dogs around here, we don't need wolves to do it.
- Status
Similar threads
