Wolves are bad???

[eyeguy]

Wolves are bad???? easy YES

 

[Blowdowner]

Much of the destruction that was done to the natural world and resources of this continent was done with little oversight or forward thinking for future generations at the time. Now, subsequent generations are feeling the effects of industrialization and settlement decades and even centuries later. The comment didn’t mean to imply any monetary payment due to those actions although they certainly have at times cast pretty significant financial burden.

Yes but killing almost every wolf was one of our greatest accomplishments.

 

[7RemMag]

Yes but killing almost every wolf was one of our greatest accomplishments.

I’m really unclear if this is a troll comment or if you genuinely think that way. If wanton destruction/devastation of the natural world and ecology is your idea of an “accomplishment” I truly don’t know what more to say to you.

Prior to “European contact” this nation was plentiful with game of all kinds, and the ranges of many species spanned far broader than they do now such as the case with American Bison. Even whitetails are estimated to have had a significantly higher population density than we currently see. This was all possible with predators such as wolves spanning broader ranges as well. Grizzlies and wolves were no different. Now, the ecological structure of this country post-industrialization and Western Expansion is obviously very different than before, but it is my belief that had the same foresight we apply to game management today been applied to the 1800s and early 1900s, we would likely be much better off.

We didn’t know then what we do now. We’ve come a long way in righting some of the old wrongs and mending some of the damages made, but much of the damage can’t be undone. I suppose it’s possible that hunting so many species to near eradication or extinction was the right move, but I certainly wouldn’t think so.

 

[Blowdowner]

I’m really unclear if this is a troll comment or if you genuinely think that way. If wanton destruction/devastation of the natural world and ecology is your idea of an “accomplishment” I truly don’t know what more to say to you.

Prior to “European contact” this nation was plentiful with game of all kinds, and the ranges of many species spanned far broader than they do now such as the case with American Bison. Even whitetails are estimated to have had a significantly higher population density than we currently see. This was all possible with predators such as wolves spanning broader ranges as well. Grizzlies and wolves were no different. Now, the ecological structure of this country post-industrialization and Western Expansion is obviously very different than before, but it is my belief that had the same foresight we apply to game management today been applied to the 1800s and early 1900s, we would likely be much better off.

We didn’t know then what we do now. We’ve come a long way in righting some of the old wrongs and mending

I also can not tell if you are trolling. Perhaps during the extermination process the wolves should have been eaten and a small population kept for refreshing domesticated dog genetics.

I agree 100% that we need to repair a lot of of the wrongs made. Made to herbivores, birds, fish, trees, wetlands. But these innocent victims are having wolves thrown at them when another hundred years of restoration should've happened first. You obviously know this.

Side note - in order to right the wrongs done to the cute and delicious animals of the world, people need to get to see term and love them and the environments they live in. There's no better way to do that than keep those places be free of dangerous predators and allow children to roam freely there at a young age (as I was able to do thanks to the extermination of predators in my area).

 

[7RemMag]

I also can not tell if you are trolling. Perhaps during the extermination process the wolves should have been eaten and a small population kept for refreshing domesticated dog genetics.

I agree 100% that we need to repair a lot of of the wrongs made. Made to herbivores, birds, fish, trees, wetlands. But these innocent victims are having wolves thrown at them when another hundred years of restoration should've happened first. You obviously know this.

Side note - in order to right the wrongs done to the cute and delicious animals of the world, people need to get to see term and love them and the environments they live in. There's no better way to do that than keep those places be free of dangerous predators and allow children to roam freely there at a young age (as I was able to do thanks to the extermination of predators in my area).

The predators whose “eradication” you celebrate have as much purpose as the “cute and cuddly” critters that are good to eat. When necessary, or population numbers deem it feasible, they should absolutely be hunted, trapped, and utilized recreationally or as a natural resource.

To say that we should right wrongs made to herbivores, but should seek the eradication of predators is incredibly short sighted and even a little bit hypocritical.

The natural world is inherently dangerous. Predators such as grizzlies and wolves contribute to that-and they ought to. I’d love to have a well-managed population of both in my hunting grounds-even if it meant that it could contribute to my demise some day. That is the way it was intended to be.

Is it wise to have grizzlies walking down the streets of downtown? Probably not, but that is all the more reason to hunt them. They can’t be hunted if they’re eradicated, can they?

 

[Gila]

Wolves aren’t bad….people are! Wolves are opportunists.

Contacted my local Senators via HOWL to vote for H.R. 845 when the bill gets to the Senate. One replied that the ESA was saving wolves from extinction…Well the Gray wolves have never been in danger of extinction. They never needed protection in the first place. They were pushed up into the Northern states when their habitat became fragmented. They have been doing well in the Northern cold climate pine forests and remote areas in the mountains.

Looks like BHA is sitting this one out which comes as no surprise since they support American Prairie. Shawn Gerrity’s vision has always been to provide a place for Wolves and Grizzlies. So what do you Montanans think is going to happen to your breaks hunting once the Grizzlies and the Wolves show up?
The Buffalo Commons is a real, dangerous movement where wolves, grizzlies and buffalo replace people and agriculture. Hunting groups need to come together to scientifically manage the resources. Replacing farming and cattle ranching by taking away private property rights is not the answer. The wolves’ habitat is gone and nothing can bring it back.

 

[Blowdowner]

I’d love to have a well-managed population of both in my hunting grounds-even if it meant that it could contribute to my demise some day. That is the way it was intended to be.

Is it wise to have grizzlies walking down the streets of downtown? Probably not, but that is all the more reason to hunt them. They can’t be hunted if they’re eradicated, can they?

We're actually very close to agreeing but it's a knife edge under a microscope and you're on one side and I'm on the other. I guess I'm fine with them existing in Alaska. Maybe you could agree to eradicating them in areas where public land is all broken up into small parcels and super annoying to hunt and recreate in and there's people living all amongst it.

 

[7RemMag]

We're actually very close to agreeing but it's a knife edge under a microscope and you're on one side and I'm on the other. I guess I'm fine with them existing in Alaska. Maybe you could agree to eradicating them in areas where public land is all broken up into small parcels and super annoying to hunt and recreate in and there's people living all amongst it.

I don’t disagree that there are places where having these predators is going to be problematic. If livestock predation is an issue, hunt and/or eliminate problem animals, just as should be done with any species. You can’t dictate where animals go, particularly something like wolves. In Wyoming, there are dedicated “zones” for wolves where tags are required, and outside of these zones they’re fair game. Due to their nature, they’re not eradicated from these zones where it’s anything goes. That is as it should be.

These species should be allowed to expand so long as excessive human conflict or public risk don’t deem it impractical. If they were more widespread, it stands to reason more people would be inclined to hunting them. I agree that we are likely far closer in line of thinking than I originally thought, but rather than eradication, why not tightly manage them? Control the hunting and numbers such that for the most part, they’ll only exist in places where you want them and human conflict is minimal?

 

[NRA4LIFE]

Just out of curiosity what part? Im near the border of Rusk and Sawyer county and deer have been lower the last couple years and wolves are as high as I have ever seen them but I have yet to go to any area of NW WI that is anywhere close to devoid of deer. It does tend to feel that way during rifle season but Im up there full time all fall and half time all summer and there are lots of them around in my area.

Price county. I cannot blame wolves alone, there a also a sickly number of bears around but it takes too many years to draw a tag. I don't put in anymore as I can buy multiple tags here for next to nothing, OTC.

 

[Pilsner]

Wolves aren’t bad….people are! Wolves are opportunists.

Contacted my local Senators via HOWL to vote for H.R. 845 when the bill gets to the Senate. One replied that the ESA was saving wolves from extinction…Well the Gray wolves have never been in danger of extinction. They never needed protection in the first place. They were pushed up into the Northern states when their habitat became fragmented. They have been doing well in the Northern cold climate pine forests and remote areas in the mountains.

Looks like BHA is sitting this one out which comes as no surprise since they support American Prairie. Shawn Gerrity’s vision has always been to provide a place for Wolves and Grizzlies. So what do you Montanans think is going to happen to your breaks hunting once the Grizzlies and the Wolves show up?
The Buffalo Commons is a real, dangerous movement where wolves, grizzlies and buffalo replace people and agriculture. Hunting groups need to come together to scientifically manage the resources. Replacing farming and cattle ranching by taking away private property rights is not the answer. The wolves’ habitat is gone and nothing can bring it back.

To my, admittedly limited, knowledge all of the Prairie Project has been willing buyer/willing seller. At what point does that involve taking away private property rights?


As an aside, I think that Colorado should have focused the wolf reintroduction efforts on the exact same zip codes as where the votes and petition signatures to reintroduce them came from. However, that is just me being... well, me.

 

[Speaks]

Price county. I cannot blame wolves alone, there a also a sickly number of bears around but it takes too many years to draw a tag. I don't put in anymore as I can buy multiple tags here for next to nothing, OTC.

Ok so yea we are same general area. Yea I feel like they could sell a lot more bear tags. I should really get a tag this year, Ive got the points but my schedule will be tough this fall.

 

[Gila]

To my, admittedly limited, knowledge all of the Prairie Project has been willing buyer/willing seller. At what point does that involve taking away private property rights?

WIKI: “In the United States, a conservation easement is a power invested in a nonprofit organization called a land trust, or a governmental entity to restrict, as to a specified land area, the exercise of rights otherwise held by a landowner so as to achieve certain conservation purposes. It is an interest in real property established by agreement between a landowner and land trust or unit of government. The conservation easement "runs with the land", meaning it is applicable to both present and future owners of the land”

In some cases public access for hunting, fishing and other uses of the land are prohibited….indefinitely! Not to confuse with CRP (Conservation Reserve Program). I bought a property that had several acres of woods and a marsh in CRP which had several years to go on the 15 year contract. CRP is a really good thing for wildlife, hunting, fishing and the landowner.

But as far as the sale of family ranch or farmland is concerned, it is almost always because of an estate sales upon death of the owners. Local ranchers/farmers determine their own economy. It’s been this way since the beginning. Real estate agents and auctioneers are bound to get the highest price for the land. If the seller refuses the offer under certain circumstances, they may be required to pay lost RE commissions/fees. Foreign organizations are paying top dollar for cropland and ranch land. The locals lease each other land and/or water rights all of the time. If this land is taken out of the local economy the entire region (multiple counties) can be adversely affected. That’s how AP came to be. Red China owns most of the hog farms in this country and they also bought Smithfield foods. The Chinese set the hog market. But it doesn’t stop there.

To thwart this “outsider” threat against our family owned agricultural areas many Ag states have come up with laws that do not require an estate sale of agricultural property that is family owned. In addition, the local ranchers have a local attorney conduct a private auction. The auction notice is only given in the local newspaper. The locals need to continue to own the land as it should be.