Wolf Delisting

[CRAZYEYES]

I dont see whats wrong with saying I kill them for fun. Most of us on here kill lots of stuff for fun. We do it in a respectable way and dont waste but we do it for enjoyment. I bet wolf hunting is fun.

[Steve Foss]

As Bruledrifter pointed out, the ESA has accomplished its goal with Upper Midwest wolf populations. It's not the USFWS dragging its feet. The wolf was already de-listed, but the de-listing was blocked by lawsuit(s) filed by animal rights groups.

The de-listing should be allowed to reach completion, for the simple reason that the goals set out for the wolf by listing it under the ESA have been accomplished. Time to move on.

Then all the fine residents of the state of Minnesota, some backed by big dollars from outside groups, some not, can pressure the Minnesota DNR/Legislature. It'll be a ****storm for sure, but at least Big Brother's nose will be out of it, and it'll be our own ****storm.

Now, this is aside from the list/de-list debate, and moves on to what to do about it after the species eventually is back under state control. I had a different opinion 10 years ago, but living in wolf country since then and seeing how emboldened they've become (I could list examples, but their numbers are legion), I believe there should be a limited hunting/trapping season on them, for the simple reason that killing some of them is what it will take to put fear of man back in them.

Think the argument over what to do with the species is a ****storm? Wait until a healthy, habituated/bold wild wolf kills someone in Minnesota. That'll be a ****storm the likes of which hasn't been seen in a long time.

Warier wolves will certainly make my job as a wildlife photographer more of a challenge, but I believe it's worth it. Holding a great love and respect for wolves, which I do, doesn't mean we have to blind ourselves to a balanced look at the issue.

BTW, I doubt opening a limited hunting season on wolves will bring a lot more dollars into the state from visiting hunters. Tag numbers will be fairly low, I'd imagine, and non-residents will only likely get a small portion of them, so it's not going to be anywhere near the economic impact this state receives annually when thousands and thousands of people who want to see or be near wolves come to Minnesota as tourists interested in a non-lethal encounter.

[JBar]

IMO I think this is a great thing. The wolf population in many northern Minnesota area's has greatly improved and I personally think have came to an overpopulation. I also agree with Kelly P. As I grew up close to the same area, these past few years wolves have been getting braver and moving their home ranges closer and closer to people as I've noticed with the deer population the deer have been moving out of their old area's of less population and vastness to next to people and human activity in my thought to keep the predators at bay. If you want to manage the deer population in northern Minnesota you have to manage the main predator of the deer in nortern Minnesota. I also think that as a quote of the wolves are taking livestock. IS NOT, B.S. this is a true statement and if your lively hood was at stake you would want to do something about it. Nobody like's a pay cut. If you could help stop a pay cut would you? I know, I would. This subject has been going round for a long time up here and most I have discussed with all have the same opinion something needs to be done.

[JimmyJames]

Man you really twisted what i said to make us all look like hillbilys that like to just kill things. There are a number of reason i would like to see a season on them the main ones are population control, we have all seen how the population has increased from year to year. Money, i really think that opening up a wolf season could bring really good money to the state. Having a draw system like the elk tag and only giving out a small number for population control i think would draw good money.

I agree, population control is the key. A money maker for the state? , that on the other hand is a joke.

[ac777]

Maybe JJ's A Troll Troll? I'd love to see a hunting season for wolves, and if one was attacking livestock, if I had any, I would want to get rid of it, when they do that they're called a Varmint!

[jjjohnson]

Maybe as777 is a troll?

[hockeybc69]

Thats a stellar comeback JJ.....

[matchset]

finally!

[ac777]

Maybe as777 is a troll?

Nope, and you probably aren't either, although a couple of your posts had me wondering, anyways back to the wolves...

[half-dutch]

You all need to be aware that wolf packs set up a natural density control. They actually kill each other defending pack boundries. The real key to understanding wolf populations is whether or not there is any spread, which is what excess wolves actually do rather than over crowd their territories. It is not quite that simple of course, but the dangerous wolves are very often those that have been kicked out, chased out or just plain wandered out of the pack territories they were born into. They are often on mating runs, which is where a lot of killing sprees happen and when they are at their most dangerous.

All other factors being equal, established pack territories will generally have pretty well stabilized local populations. Rather than really over populating what will happen is that major natural mortality will come to be other wolves in fights over pack boundaries, and that balances out for the most part. It is the dispersers that indicate how the populations are growing. If you are going to hunt wolves to control the population you need to hunt the fringes and take care of specific problem animals. In the core of the territory wolves will more or less control themselves.

There should be no question that any adult carnivore that poses a potential threat to humans, especially children, small pets, and livestock, needs to be "permanently controlled". There should also be no question that trying to keep large carnivores as personal pets should also be outlawed. They are dangerous and there is no place that will take them if they outgrow control, which most of them will eventually.

I think we have a bigger problem with black bears, which are larger, stronger, far more numerous and spreading more rapidly, than with timber wolves.

[Steve Foss]

Some good info there, half-dutch, and you are right, understanding wolf population is not a simple matter.

IMO, the largest danger to people are those wolves habituated to being regularly fed near/by people. In the studies I've read, most of the verified aggressive encounters/attacks from healthy wolves on people were by wolves habituated in that way.

These habituations can happen in/near parks, where lots of people leave food out or actually feed wolves directly, or they can happen anywhere people and wolves live together.

Habituations happen quite often with established packs, not individual animals that have moved away because of population expansion. I know personally of two people feeding separate wolf packs near Ely from their wooded back yards. One of these packs is quite well known locally as being very tolerant of people. They are habituated. That's bad. Wolves eating garbage in people's back yards, even if the intent is not there, are habituated. That's bad. Same thing at campgrounds and parks all over wolf country.

Wolves eating dogs is a different matter, and a wolf does not need to be habituated to kill and eat a dog. More such reports have emerged in the last few years, which I don't necessarily believe implies that wolves are becoming more bold as a species. Partly it certainly may be that, but with wolves expanding their ranges, they are coming in contact with more people and pets in what hasn't been wolf country for 50 or more years. Up here by Ely, where it was still wolf country even during the nadir of wolf populations in the 60s and 70s, there were always cases of wolves eating dogs left out unattended overnight. People up here learned not to do that. People in "new" wolf country are now learning that same lesson.

In cases where wolves attack dogs right in front of people, that, to me, does speak of a boldness of attitude that needs to be curtailed.

Also, while there definitely are natural, self-imposed controls on wolf populations, they may lag population swings in prey animals. If, for example, several mild winters dramatically increase the deer population, wolf population tends to follow the trend in prey numbers. It's a natural process. Then you get a couple stiff winters and the deer population drops, but it takes a couple years for disease/starvation/self-controlled litter sizes to kick in and bring the wolf population back down, so the woods seem full of wolves and empty of deer. That's what we're seeing right now, and that's what's leading ill-informed deer hunters to complain so long and so loud about wolves eating all the deer.

That's as I understand things to this point after a lot of reading and talking with wolf biologists. And nearly 10 years living in wolf country and being out in the woods a lot as a hunter, naturalist and photographer.

And as always, our understanding of any animal species is never complete. We're always learning, as we should. No doubt there are plenty of people who disagree with the way I look at this, and some of them are at least as well informed than I am, and some more well informed. They're just as likely to be right as I am.

You've probably guessed by now that I have a hard time staying out of wolf discussions.

[Duffman]

And don't forget that a persons odds of being killed by a pack of mans best friends are much higher than being killed by a pack of wolves.

Quote:

Authorities: Man mauled to death by wild dogs, body found 'severely ravaged' in rural NM

Associated Press

Last update: December 12, 2010 - 2:37 PM

GALLUP, N.M. - Authorities say a 55-year-old old man was attacked and mauled to death by a pack of wild dogs in a rural part of New Mexico.

McKinley County Sheriff's Lt. Thomas Mumford described the man as "severely ravaged." The man was taken by ambulance to Gallup Indian Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead.

Sherrif's investigators, the Navajo Nation police and the FBI are trying to determine what happened Wednesday in the rural area east of Gallup.

No identification has been released as authorities try to notify relatives.

[Steve Foss]

And don't forget that a persons odds of being killed by a pack of mans best friends are much higher than being killed by a pack of wolves.

Now, Duffy, don't MAKE me come over there!

Seriously, dogs live everywhere people do in this country and FAR outpopulate wolves. Wolves only live in a few areas with people. So of course our odds of being killed by dogs are better than the odds of being killed by wolves.

Sorry bud, couldn't resist. Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.

[Duffman]

I'm just trying to help out the folks that were raised on Little Red Riding Hood.

I'm glad to see the wolf de-listed, for no other reason than it won't cost me as much to pop a wolf attacking my dog now, cause it would've gotten popped either way.

My views on the wolf has always reflected the likes of yours, casey's, etc... It's an animal to be respected and at times controlled, but never (almost never) feared.

[Steve Foss]

You're a good sport, Duffman.

[DIESELDAN]

I think delisting is great any wolf near me or my dog is as good as dead wether its delisted or not. I think if people started killing wolves that were near them there dog or livestock would be a good thing because those are the bold wolves which should be taken out of the gene pool anyway. I think wolves should run the other way as fast as they can if they think a man is anywere near them. I don't know why so many people defend wolves so much all they are is a bigger more deadly coyote and you don't see many people putting up such a fuss about coyote hunting.

[CrappieDays]

What irritates me is that any wolf trapping and hunting seasons that I have seen proposed would likely be in their fringe territories like Half Dutch suggested. This leaves core populations protected. In my humble opinion, even if wolves do self regulate their numbers as suggested there are already too many here. As someone who grew up, lives, and hunts in the heart of wolf country I would like to know why we should have to put up with them while most of the rest of the state is practically wolf free. If all of these people want to keep wolves around lets spread them out so everyone can have the "pleasure" of wolves in their back yard.

[ANYFISH2]

Crappiedays, you choose to continue to live in the heart of wolf country. So that isn't much of a complaint. They been there the whole time.

I think the hunt would be range wide with the most focus on the fringes (marginal habitat). Remember the hunt will not be instituted to reduce populations just maintain level from my understanding. There is a lot of time for everything to change though.

[BRULEDRIFTER]

trying to post a link and it failed.... let me try this again.

D. Mech:Consideration for wolf harvest

Click on the D. Mech article. Good perspective of what a wolf hunt would amount to.

[CrappieDays]

I suppose I could leave the place that I was born and raised. And you are right that wolves have been here the whole time. But I do not want to leave and as long as I can remember I have never seen wolves in the numbers I see now. There are days while deer hunting that I see more wolves than deer (if I see deer). Wolves are pretty but don't make good jerky. My point is that there are so many in this area now because the rest of the state, and the country for that matter, has decided that THEY want them here. And as for your other statement I have not heard any proposed hunting or trapping season that would be range wide. All that I am trying to say is that if EVERYONE wants wolves then EVERYONE should have to deal with them.

[ANYFISH2]

I can fully understand your stance. My area north is now the primary wolf country. Some areas deffinatly have seemingly high densities of wolves, as your area may have. We will all have to hope and have faith in our state to have a quality managment plan for when and if they take over managment of wolves.

Unfortunatly habitat just doesn't lend to sustained populations south and west of hear.

[jeffreyd]

I live in arizona, and reading the posts on here are naturally geared at the minnesota wolf population. Wolves have not existed in every state, it is not their natural habitat to live in all of the lower 48. with that in mind, we have approx 100 mexican grey wolves here in az on the blue ridge. the FWS and some other groups have introduced to the az game dept a project that would release wolves from the se part of the state to the nw corner. so basically they want to run them along the center of the state. Mexico is in the process of doing a release of the grey wolf along the border. Since it is a wolf from Mexico, the FWS nor game and fish dept have any rights over this release.

So there needs to be a better handle on the whole management of wolves nation wide vs minnesota. I think that the delisting will give the individual state the needed tools to maintain and regulate the population as set out by the ESA guidelines. I say do more research, i applaud the folks that have and contact your senators to vote for and or co sponsor this bill. It is S3919 and is suppose to go up for vote this week.

[caseymcq]

... I have zero interest in hunting one, but I would it would be nice to be able to defend my dog if need be and not be a federal criminal in doing so. ...

You would be well within the law as it is right now to defend your dog if need be.

Some of what is included in the ESA as to the circumstances in which you could legally kill a wolf:

...posing an immediate threat on any property, as long as the owner is supervising the pet.

Then it just has to be reported to a CO within 48 hours and "evidence" has to be preserved including surrendering the carcass to the CO.

It has already been said but I would reiterate that the US F&WS has tried to delist the wolf but it was impeded by interest groups and the judicial system.

Don't get too terribly excited about a hunting season as soon as the wolf is delisted. Under the state plan it will be five years after delisting until a sesaon would be considered. That was the plan the MN legislature came up with...

[Steve Foss]

D. Mech:Consideration for wolf harvest

Click on the D. Mech article. Good perspective of what a wolf hunt would amount to.

Thanks for the link. Hadn't read that one yet.

[half-dutch]

The Feds took over because the individual states seemed to generally have one purpose which was to as completely exterminate the wolf as possible. I sorta doubt that all that many states have changed that attitude all that much. There certainly are a whole lot of influential people in a lot of places that would still like to wipe out the wolves.

When it comes to dogs, from what I read wolves don't see a difference between themselves, coyotes and dogs. They are inherently hostile to all other "wolves" that are not in their own packs, unless dispersing. Wolves are probably the best coyote control there is and seem to clean them out when poisons, guns, and traps can't get 'er done. That seems to be what has happened in Yellowstone Park. That means that a dog is an immediate enemy generally, too, which is why wolves attack them just like they would generally attack any wolf from another pack.