Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire National park's oldest wolf killed

"The current population includes 8 males and 7 females." Sounds like a recipe for conflict to me. Same as U.S. Navy ship crew boys to girls ratios nowadays, except the navy ratio is skewed way worse on the male side of the ratio.

this! over and over . just like the millions wasted for the salaries of the House. waste.

Alaska had a gov here, Tony Knowles, that unilaterally shut down predator control in the entire State and turned it into a predator pit virtually statewide. he was in office from '94 to '02 and it was late in his terms when he shut things down. We are still in the Good Old Days of AK Bear Hunting, but enough wolves and bears have been killed to make a huge difference. We went from good moose hunting to horrible moose hunting and back to decent hunting since he left.

Bear populations are still high, we see and hear lots of evidence of wolves every year, but they are not killing every calf anymore.

Need to send a pack of mountain dogs to Isle Royale...........

Hmmmm. My place here is a family place from 70 years ago. We always had wolves. Then with protections they exploded and first the moose suffered. We had plenty now their gone. Our deer herd in my area has been devastated. Too many wolves mean fawns and calves have little hope, with bears and cats in the mix as well.
As for that worthless rock out in that pond there isn’t a darn thing natural about it. Put moose on there and they eat themselves out of house and home and starve. Put wolves out there and they kill moose until none are left and the wolves starve out. Add some interbreeding just for laughs and and the wolves die off sooner. Then scientists add animals and do it all again looking for a different result.
Frustrating part is the increase in wolves on that rock knocks down the moose but in the rest of Minnesota it’s climate change that is to blame, but no climate chang on that rock? They need wolves?
It’s all a costly joke.

Osky

Spot-on, Osky....spot-on.

Osky, good synopsis but you are making way too much sense.

Thanks, I’m not often accused of that.

Osky

That's exactly the M.O. of the Nazi Park Circus and USF&W goons in Alaska.

I agree with Osky—its a worthless rock in the middle of nowhere—let the tree huggers have it.
I’ve been there a couple of times—went for the late trout fishing—i could still do that but find it unnecessary.
Nobody loves wolves more than me—they are fascinating animals—i would bet there are very few posters on here who have killed as many as i have.
I’ve learned a lot about wolves from that study—read the first paper on it by Mech in 1967. The new study being done in Voyagerous National Park is likewise fascinating. Ive read most of Giest’s work also—really good summations about wolf attacks.
Wolves have always existed in the Boreal forest—never in any danger of extinction there. Never in any danger of extinction in that part of Minnesota that is Boreal.
Wolves don’t belong in Wisconsin nor Montana nor on the Great Plains for the exact same reason they don’t belong in Central Park in NYC.

Wolves are part of things and we have had them here all my life. They have simply become too many in northern MN and done terrible damage to the deer and moose.
Putting the fear of man back in them will at least knock back the hours they feel comfortable hunting. All to often I see them crossing the lake here mid morning and later. There was a time here the wolves were heard and seldom seen. The moose and deer did just fine. They will never be exterminated in this bush without poison and will be here long after we all are gone much to the delight of the uninformed who will never see one in the wild or understand the damage an uncontrolled apex predator can do.

Osky

If you spend a week or two living out on a rock like that in the lake or for that matter out on a rock in Nipigon you might have a glimpse into the difference what climate change is all about. That's IS a whole different climate and will be one of those places in the middle of a continent like this to see and be changes by the climate that affects the rest of us. That "pond" is a huge amount of very cold water. Just like Nipigon. Pretending that the climate on those islands is not different goes beyond ignorant. Were you to try going naked on both the island and ashore on either Nipigon or Superior, you'd stand a good chance of death. Death would be by very different causes though depending on the time of year. Summertime, inland, the bugs are capable of more than just nuisance. Disease and just weakening due to blood loss are real inland. Out on the islands bugs just aren't a problem. I've weathered a blizzard out on Nipigon in June. Snowed so damn hard I couldn't see 50 feet, cold enough to make is out of spray. The same June in which the mosquitoes were so bad getting dressed to make the trip out onto the lake were so thick that swatting ten at a time on any exposed flesh was normal.

Isle Royale is a national park noted for specific attractions. Two of which are wolves and moose. No researcher has made the case that either of those two are representative of their species and their environments on the mainland. The moose on Isle Royale seem to mostly stay put. The wolves likewise most years. The moose in Nipigon freely travel more or less when they want, the wolves, not so much. They can't handle 35 degree water.

Moose decline in particular in Minnesota is neither atypical nor all that unusual. It's happened before and will happen again. Likewise for deer. Likewise for wolves, snowshoe hares, lynx, bobcats fox Etc.

If we are experiencing climate change, and it takes a whole 'nother level of ignorance to deny that is happening regardless of the cause, then species dependent on the "normal" climate and thus climate dictated environment is not part of what is going on.

Places like Isle Royale and the effects seen out there can teach us a lot about why some of what we see is happening if we are open to looking.