Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Alaska Wolves Kill, Eat Human

Bingo! YOu just hit the head of the nail.Encroachment of humans is the problem with most predator issue!

We too often want to kill because we can rather than because we need to. I just don't buy the kill them all stand taht som many of us take and the Macho bone heads drive me nuts!

I have only hunted wolves incidentally, but know plenty of fellows who do it more seriously. I will say that wolf hunting (and trapping) is not a gimmee by any means. I can also say with some certainty that hunting the Northwest Arctic caribou herd can, at times, be almost as difficult as shooting cattle. I think it would be fair to say that shooting wolves from an airplane equates to hunting more readily than does a caribou hunt that equivocates to shooting domestic livestock.

I do not think that we should, by any means, seek to eliminate wolves in places which are indeed wild. Alaska is not the only such place either. However, they are not "pure and innocent" creatures any more than other wildlife. They have a job and they do it well. As with anything so well adapted, sometimes they do the job too well - at least if you happen to be an ungulate. If it takes an airplane to make the equation somewhat more similar to hunting NWA caribou, (when the need to reduce or control the population is necessary), then by all means do it IMO.

Kliktarik:

Ok you lost me some where around the cows and the airplane.. Where are you going with the wild swing from shoot cattle and airplanes??

I know lots of guy who hunt and trap wolves and I have no problem with that but once again what with the cows and shooting from an airplane?? This discussion is not a personal one and this silliness is why I kick myself for getting involved with this type of debate. Some one always takes it personally and get a little sideways!

If there is any way to keep the discussion from becoming personal let me know, until then I will pull back and just watch for a while. There is room for all of out opinions here I think. And what in the hell is the cows thing?

Walt
www.northwestalaska.com

I guess it just depends on where your at in the state.

Our bear camp has been going for 18 years or so and we have never had a dog problem, except for the last 3 years. the numbers are getting crazy or something. we have dogs at the cabin, chasing moose and going after the waterfowl. Things we havent seen before.

I do live in anchorage but I hunt along the taylor (the 7 hour dive sucks but its worth it) but I have had bio's tell me to just shoot them.

We can never elimiate the wolf. I forone do not want to. they have there part in the system, but there has to be a balance.

1) I almost don't know where to start with that nearly incoherent ramble!

2) If I'm a "valley guy" it'd be the Kenai River valley. Time to get out your gazeteer Walt, and look it up - it ain't in Palmer nor Wasilla.

3) The wolf kill program is not about reducing wolf-human contact, it about reducing wolf-moose contact.

4) Poisoning is a bad way to go as it is not a discriminating method. In this case discrimination is very good.

5) Wolves are targeted because wolves are causing the problem in "some" areas.

6) Lets stick to the topic - wolves - and leave the brown bears to another thread. Yeah, there are too many of them here too.

7) If a man wants to eat a snowshoe hare, that's fine with me too.

Other than that, it was an extremely erudite and well written post.

Ironbender
Sorry about the Valley refrence, I was talking to Smitty up in Wasilla.

I don't think poisoning is an option either and I was hoping the
Sarcasm would sneak out some where in that Ramble. I just a Rambling kind of Guy! But thats ok because your rant is ok wit me i enjoy your incite, really!

Walt

Them was fightin' words! Like when I refer to friends who do live in the valley as "them Anchorage boys". Hoppin' mad!

I like it when you hop!

It just suits you and you cover more ground thataway. (grin)

I'd be pissed to. I live in anchorage and hate being refered to as anchorage boys (sometimes the truth hurts and I hate it).

Joel,

Take a look at Ironbender's statement and re-read it. I think he and you said da same thing...he just took fewer words.

bhtr

I know I was just re-iterating my frustration from loving this close to AK. It was sarcasm.

Mr. Northwester:
As you�ve pointed out, poison isn�t the most productive way of killing ONLY wolves.

No-one, but you, has suggested that we should reduce the wolf population solely, because of wolf attacks. It�s to increase the population of them �ungulate� critters.

As you�ve also pointed out, we could easier justify killing bears for for both reasons.

I have witnessed, a �Man eating Snow Shoe Hare� before. It isn't that uncommon. I�ve done it a time or two myself.

I�m sorry, but I agree that you have entered the �stupid side of this debate�.

And, the characterization should be �VALLEY TRASH�, but I prefer to be called a "Mountain Man".

Smitty of the North

Cheechako,

THAT has been illegal for years! There is no law that allows for hunting from an airplane. Fair chase doesn't even come into play. It's simply men hired by the state to perform predator control that would cost the state huge sums of money in manpower and resources otherwise. The biology IS THERE. It's somewhat working. Who brainwashed you into believing that this was hunting? I wouldn't have taken you for being so simple...




Aerial predator control IS the most acceptable, productive measure in reducing wolf numbers. That's why it was chosen. By the way Cheechako...no one was poisioning wolves with the government's blessing 50 years ago. Get your facts straight.As to your attempt at humor, I think your tongue has froze to the inside of your cheek. Much like the youngster that, when faced with a dare, sticks his on a pipe in the winter in Northway... the only sound that comes out is garbled...




It most certainly is. Aerial predator control is about killing. It's not about dating or ordering take out!




Cheechako, take the "WE are" out of the last sentence of this quote and replace it with the words: "I am"...it will read more truthfully. And do another favor for all of us please Cheechako? Refrain from using the word "WE" and replace with "I" or "you" as I doubt seriously any other here will accept your speaking for them. Thanks.

bhtr

Joel,

My bad
I'm the slow one

bhtr

Okay. You said:

I said:



Which means that in spite of the occasional easy wolf or pack of wolves that gets taken, wolves do tend to be very hard-won quarry and involve considerable good luck.



Imagine shooting cattle if you will. If you can't, think about hunting the herd of caribou that drifts around your part of the state with great regularity. Now, assuming you have much experience hunting those animals, think about all the times when they have either stood there and stared - a whole herd of animals standing mostly broadside and within easy rifle shot. That's what shooting cattle would be like. And you and I both know that shooting caribou is sometimes just like that. Other people reading this may not, so I included the cattle thing to give them a picture as well.



If shooting wolves from a plane - let's just go with the thought that it is not hunting at all- is a bad method of reducing wolf numbers, then shooting "virtual domestic cattle" and calling that hunting is wrong also. All that is is "shooting" them. I would question if that should be done either unless the numbers are too great for the range. (Personally, I would like to see you "Kotz guys" stop shooting caribou. Go ahead and hunt them when they allow themselves to be taken in a sporting manner. Otherwise, let the population grow. We all know that increases the likelyhood that they will range further in their search for food which, in turn, means that more people can "hunt" them over a wider area.)

Klik,

You are a gentleman. As such, there is no need to clarify anything that you wrote. This pretender/cheechako is not gonna do anything that will conflict his "righthand" from taking the money from the "lefthand" of those that pay his way. I would be suprised if he wasn't so steeped in "greendome" that he is simply taking a break from his Pricillia Feral worship to cause just a little consternation among the right (meaning correct!) thinking crowd.

Tried kid gloves and they didn't work. I threw out a debate point or two and he ignored them. A spade is a spade...a hoe is a hoe...and a cheechako will always be a cheechako until they learn generosity, a conservative balance of the land, and a desire to improve it rather than rape it for dollars. My guess is he has a ways to go...

You've got the choir singing pretty...don't bother bringing in a self-proclaimed "ringer" that can't possibly carry a tune cuz they're tone deaf...

best,
bhtr

You guys aren't kidding about the whole "Alaska... the Last Frontier" thing, are you? :-) It'll be sixguns at the OK Corral here soon...

I think the clearest way to express THIS outsiders viewpoint on it, and I'll say up front that this is not my geographical region and not a problem I've ever personally dealt with, and those things matter, so my opinion is just that... anyway, my opinion is that I love the idea of intact, functioning ecosystems with all the pieces and parts. Alaska has some of the few remaining ones of those in America if I understand things right. As such, I think the needs of the wolf should trump the needs of recreational hunters, within reason (therin lies the rub!).

Again, that's just my casual opinion. I sure do know that things are waaay different when you are there, "on the ground", than they oftentimes look from the outside looking in. The flipside of that is that oftentimes those "on the ground" lack big-picture perspective. It's at least something to consider.

This is an interesting thread and I hope you guys can manage to keep it civil and shedding light, not heat, because it's obvious there's some very smart people tossing ideas around!

-jeff

Playing hall monitor again?

Jeff,

Please allow me to put this in perspective for you. There are between 7,000 and 12,000 wolves in Alaska...perhaps more. They are not in any danger of becoming extinct (up to 45% of their population could be taken out of the picture (by all means) and their population would remain constant.) The actual percentage taken is much lower. On the contrary, their numbers are growing. There are far more for-the-meat hunters than recreational hunters here...not that makes any difference to me in the slightest. I feel that all should be able to hunt. The problem arises when wolves become too numerous and start taking out pets, livestock, and the prey species that many people here (and elsewhere) are having problems with. There were two accounts of pet dogs killed by wolves in the paper just this morning.

Those that would do away with all hunting are throwing the mix in an uproar. Consequently, without a balance of prey and predator alike, the numbers of the first (prey) will drop beyond what the capacity can carry and will likely end up with a recovery cycle measured in decades rather than a couple of years. Then (though adaptable) the wolves will start to die off as their meal ticket shrinks. Who is the end looser? We are. Whether meat hunter or sport hunter, we will loose. THAT I submit, is not acceptable.

What many people cannot fathom is that ALL hunters to Alaska, and I submit elsewhere, are the only ones paying for the right-headed conservation of BOTH species. To NOT kill a few wolves could be just the worst thing that would ever happen to a system. The "I'm-gonna-sue-the-government, no-one-should-hunt crowd" spend millions of dollars each and every year that drain much of the monies earmarked for proper, biological conservation and protection of the species...both prey and predator. Not one cent of their bankroll EVER goes into the conservation of these animals. Ironic, isn't it, that those who purport to be the animal's savior may be causing the most damage to the critters? And there are flocks of people that keep sending their money in to these? Makes me sick.

No, wolves in Alaska will never be depleted unless the greenies/cheechako's who want NO HUNTING EVER have their way. That would be a shame for sure. The wolf will never be able to be "over hunted" in any way shape or form. But they might not survive the NO HUNTING crowd...

bhtr

Well done sir!