wolves sport killing

[6mm Remington]

Wolves Sport Killing

I thought I would post this up here for discussion as this effects all of this. I do not feel that wolves need to be eliminated, but their numbers need to be kept in balance with other species. That does include trapping and hunting them. These decisions need to be made by wildlife biologists who know what they are doing and not some clown sitting behind a keyboard in a cushy office that claims to know about everything wild.

David

Recently in Wyoming.

http://county10.com/162711069255532...k-near-bondurant-in-suspected-surplus-killing

A while back here in Montana.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/aug/28/wolves-kill-120-sheep-near-dillon-mont/

 

[Bubblehide]

There are plenty of ranchers that have experienced wolfs killing more than they can eat.

 

[flyinsquirel]

The only thing surprising about those stories is the WGFD regional supervisor claiming this kind of thing is a rare event.

 

[elkguide]

Say it ain't so!!!! Those cute, loveables didn't really do that. I've been told that a smart animal like the wolf only kills what and when they need to and that they really only kill the over populating ground mice.

It's too bad when reality hits the na-na land that these idealists live in.

 

[VernAK]

Unfortunately, decisions regarding wolf management are often made by a liberal judge rather than a wildlife biologist ala Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Yes....they will kill more than they can eat as they enjoy the chase. My dog will hunt more birds than he can eat and stray dogs in a chicken yard kill all they can for the fun of it.

 

[wapitibob]

Wyoming's wolf problem is their own doing. They chose not to join MT and ID on the Simpson Tester Rider and now they're living with the consequences.

 

[Cledus]

122 sheep! I didn't see a time frame, but I assume it couldn't have been one night like the other story where 19 were killed in a night. Either way, that is pretty crazy.

 

[Kevin Dill]

For the sake of explanation and not at all argumentative:

It's generally known as 'prey drive' in carnivores and especially in canines. My two drahthaars have incredible prey drive. It's a bred-in thing and it is exactly the essence of what makes any carnivore a hunter. When 'prey' is there, the 'drive' to hunt and/or kill is likely to be irresistible. It's not 100% in all carnivores, but enough that it's well understood. Obviously wolves have it. Give them 20 helpless prey animals and they will be unable to NOT kill them generally. I guess you can call it sport or fun or whatever. The truth is it's a genetic trait common to most canine species unless it has been bred out of them (hello Trixie). I don't hate the wolf for being a wolf, even if I will kill him some day. I look at them as a carnivore which follows its internal genetic code, and because of that must be managed accordingly to coexist with humans on this continent.

 

[elkguide]

Absolutely correct Kevin Dill. That is the true issue as to whether humans have the ability to control our living situation or whether we have to succumb to the wild life that has been newly introduced to the places that we call home. (and yes the wolves in the Rockies of the lower 48, are a new species, not native to that area.) That is what the debate should be not whether or not that the wolves should be here and that we humans should learn to accept them and adjust our way of life to accommodate them.

 

[Logan T]

"These decisions need to be made by wildlife biologists who know what they are doing and not some clown sitting behind a keyboard in a cushy office that claims to know about everything wild."

Couldn't get the computer to reply with quote........ But this sentence sounds good but is actually part of the problem. There are a couple biologists, one in particular I have dealt with a lot, that are a huge part of the problem in southwest/south-central Montana. They completely ignore true data and fabricate numbers that suit their agenda- particularly with elk- and present false numbers to the public.

If there was any way to get an independent group/individual/company/organization to actually study the data on wolves and elk that has no agenda or bias- in either direction, that would be a start. Just for wolf numbers, just for elk numbers, and then the impact the wolves truly have on elk and other game. But that will never happen.

 

[Kevin Dill]

As bad as it smells....

We all should probably remind ourselves that the wolf is a very popular iconic animal for many people who don't hunt but do enjoy nature. Right or wrong doesn't figure...they value a wolf's life more than an elk's life. If they happen to not like the hunting sports then I'd say they might be even more favoring of the wolf vs its prey species. I never like saying this piece of truth, but it's the truth: a non-hunting urban high-rise subway-riding spit-and-polish person has as much vote and voice in matters of wildlife management as any other state resident...if they choose to use their voice. Hunters (self included) sometimes disagree with that, but even I will admit that my opinions on wildlife management are biased by my desire to hunt and fish. So maybe my vote for more elk is cancelled out by a vote for more wolves...figuratively speaking. In the end, all states have to reach some degree of compromise with how wildlife is managed and how competing interests can all have a seat at the table. I'm glad it's not my job.

I believe most jobs in wildlife biology (state management focus) can be viewed as an extension of the governor's appointee...the state wildlife commissioner or whatever title is given. Politics are absolutely a serious component of that structure, and the influence extends all the way to biologists whether they recognize or acknowledge it. They aren't independent and capable to acting on their personal viewpoints or politics generally. There will never be unbiased state biologists, until someone can write the code and software that allows a computer to crunch all the data and render a decision which calculates the "right" number of wolves, prey species....and gives all interested parties an equal slice of that pie. Anyone care to guess how loud we would yell when THAT recommendation came off the printer?

 

[Lil dude]

I find the presence of wolves to be the sole cause of a bunch of shitty ass hunters not getting an elk every year. In reality these guys didn't get elk before wolves came either. In reality only 7-15% of hunters in Montana annually harvest elk.....that is not many. "Wolves" easily fill the reason why the other 85%-92% did not get wolves.

Now as a resident of Montana who hunts in heavy wolf districts I can still manage to find elk most every year. Do I like elk...yeah, do I like wolves....yeah and even grizzlies.

I will admit that certain populations have taken an excessive toll. But population stocking levels as in the northern Yellowstone herd pre-wolves were not exactly healthy.

Oh and no mention of the pathetic Wyoming feedlots........hmmmm how easy for wolves to find large groups of half tame elk milling about at all hours of the day...can we blame them?

 

[elkguide]

Good points Kevin Dill.

One person - one vote is the foundation of our government..... to a point. That in it's purest form is democracy. However, we are actually a representative democracy, in that elected representatives make laws and when the electorate disagree, those elected officials are un-elected.

The famous unattributable quote comes to mind when describing democracy........
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch." And the retort........ "Freedom is a well armed sheep."

In California the last times that having a mountain lion season has been voted on, it has overwhelmingly won EXCEPT in Los Angeles and San Diego where in the urban view, that would be a negative thing and thusly there is no cat hunting in California. During my time in the Cody, Wyoming area two T-shirts that were frequently seen were, "Introduce the Grizz to Washington D.C." and "Introduce the wolf to Central Park." Those living with/among the wildlife had a different view than those in urban areas.

It would be a wonderful world if we could somehow get opinions out of the way and work from a true scientific basis for all of our decisions. The complicating factor in all of the wildlife debates is how and where man fits in.

 

[Kevin Dill]

The complicating factor in all of the wildlife debates is how and where man fits in.

True words. We are the species which manages species...and look at what happens. I'm pretty sure the elk and wolves would sort this whole matter out in a few years on their own...left to their own tendencies and genetic codes. Nature is right. We try to adjust it with mixed outcomes.

 

[Jimbo V]

Wolves overkill elk got it. Go check some freezers and you'll find stockpiles of freezer burned meat from hunters over killing game animals. Difference is what hunters kill is managed by the respective state. How or what a wolf kills is irrelevant to me. I don't have any issues with wolves, what I do have an issue with is this ideology that they need to be protected to the maximum extent and can't be managed like every other animal. When we develop land and reside in places where animals used to roam we restrict their range therefore they need to be kept at healthy numbers to ensure balance through responsible management. Wolves should not be an exception regardless of how majestic they seem to be.

 

[Short on cache]

Just my 2 cents. I'm very hung on shooting wolves because I really do like learning about them. However, here in Alaska they are hunted and trapped and there are still way too many of them. Sustainable is an understatement. The biggest issue I have is that they kill for the sake of killing. Read some books on the matter. If suggest Alaskas Wolf Man. It's an outstanding read aside from educational. As far as your statement about people wasting meat, well they are just as wrong as the wolves.

 

[Josey D]

What happens when the wolves coming looking for your drahthaar.