Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Two dead wolves....

Just what I needed, another Libtard with his mass of estimations!!

and I wonder why that happened?

Keep in mind they also exterminated the deer in Iowa, the elk in Arizona, turkeys everywhere. All good right? They sure thought so, how about you?

Regional and Sportsmen's Group Surveys

Wolf supporters also outnumbered opponents in surveys of states and counties with reintroduction sites. While there is a tendency for wolf support to diminish in rural areas, polls show that, even in areas directly impacted by reintroduction, public opinion still largely favors the wolf.
Amazingly, these trends even hold in areas subjected to anti-wolf campaigns. In Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, for example, cattle and sheep interests financed a major education effort. Yet, even here in the heart of cattle country, the public saw through the propaganda and chose the wolf. Likewise, in North Carolina where an anti-wolf group was loud and persuasive enough to convince the state legislature to pass a law allowing wolf killing on private lands, over half the residents supported wolf recovery.
Although traditionally considered anti-wolf, big game hunters polled in separate surveys conducted in northwestern Montana and Michigan's Upper Peninsula expressed positive opinions toward wolves. In these studies, hunters who favor the return of viable populations of wolves outnumber those who do not.



The graph on this page depicts survey participants' responses (%) to attitudinal statements about wolves and wolf reintroduction. Survey figures were obtained from the following studies: USFWS (1993); Statewide Surveys of Montana and Idaho Resident Attitudes Toward Wolf Reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park, A. Bath & C. Phillips (1990); Statewide Survey of the Wyoming General Public Attitude Towards Wolf Reintroduction In Yellowstone National Park, A. Bath (1987); Colorado Residents' Attitudes and Perceptions Toward Reintroduction of the Gray Wolf into Colorado, M. Manfredo, et al. (1994); The Attitudes of Utah Residents Toward Gray Wolves, K. La Vine (1995); New Mexico Residents' Opinions Toward Mexican Wolf Reintroduction, M. Duda & K. Young (1995); Arizona Game and Fish Department (1990); Public Attitudes and Beliefs About the Red Wolf and its Recovery in North Carolina, P. K. Quintal (1995); Public Attitudes and Beliefs About the Wolf and Its Restoration in Michigan, S. Kellert (1990); Public Opinion on and Public Attitudes toward the reintroduction of the Eastern Timber Wolf to Adirondack Park. M. Duda (1996); America Wants Wolves to Stay!, Lauer, Lalley, Victoria Inc. (1998)


Also of note;
More than 48% of the land in Wyoming is owned by the U.S. Government, which ranks sixth in the US in total acres and fifth in percentage of a state's land owned by the Federal government.[7] This amounts to about 30,099,430 acres (121,808.1 km2) owned and managed by the U.S. Government. The state government owns an additional 6% of all Wyoming lands, or another 3,864,800 acres (15,640 km2).[7]

The vast majority of this government land is managed by the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service in numerous National Forests, a National Grassland, and a number of vast swaths of public land.
-----------------------------------------------------
Or 84% of the Wyoming land where the wolf problems are reported from.

You're right-widespread poisoning extirpated or practically extirpated most of the predators in the western US. But poisoning wasn't nearly as common in the upper midwest.




Been through this entire thread, don't remember anybody giving info on national polls. Can you show me?





Once the anti-wolf BS is confronted, the name calling BS starts flying--it's happened every time........





Start yer' own thread, this one is lively enough..........




Yeah, the extreme wolf haters and extreme wolf huggers make any kind of debate--much less discussion--generally impossible after a short time--they're two birds of a feather.

And that's the problem, most folks are in the middle, and their voices get crowded out--here or in the general public discussion.


Casey

Be careful Brad! You've been able to stay above the fray--you're gonna get flamed!..................

(Now watch them think about it for a while, and then come back with a new Red Herring).......

Either that, or your post will just kill this thread.


Casey

Looks like your data is a wee bit dated!

10-15yrs ago we didn't have the overpopulation and problems with wolves that we have now. Locals that once thought seeing a wolf was cool think differently today!

I doubt it.

where are YOUR data?

A WOLF AT THE DOOR

Wolves are dispersing to southern counties in Wisconsin. I snapped this picture in the winter of 2008-2009. The wolf was approximately 20 yards from the back door. Sent picture to DNR and their attitude was Ho-Hum...another wolf picture...Oh well, what do you want us to do? I replied...send a warden out and examine the tracks, because you probably think I took the picture in Northern Wisconsin. They replied...we will see if we can send someone out. No one showed.

When was the last time you were in northern WI, MI, or MN for any length of time? Go talk to the stakeholders there and you will get plenty of fresh data!

Do you support wolf reintroduction?
Yes 48%
No 48%
Who Cares 4%

This was the only non pro wolf poll I could find in a quick search. It's last update was today. Most were on web sites like "Defenders of Wild Life" etc.

If we the public had not been lied to.
If wolf populations were managed properly.
Had the Federal Government NOT forced this issue down our throats.
I suspect most of us against the wolf would see this entire issue in a completely different light.

Good post.

Folks see heavily edited nature programs and think wolves are just misunderstood wild dogs. Not nearly true, and typical of the ignorance of those who live in cities and don't like the idea of people hunting with guns, or otherwise. There's been some beautiful photography of wild wolves in recent years, but it doesn't change the fact they can be ugly to deal with.

One of Capstick's books dealt with man-eating animals, and on wolves he stated he'd never been able to find a documented case of a wolf attack on a human in North America. European wolves, on the other hand definitely do attack people. His theory was that man was a relative newcomer to North America, and wolves tend to regard us as competing predators, not as prey animals. I sure as heck don't plan to test that theory, and I wouldn't expect anyone else to do so. If a couple of coyotes can kill a person, I expect one wuf would have no problem with it, either.

The earlier post of the wolf killing several sheep, without eating any of them reminds me of the same problem with sea lions on the west coast. They commonly swim up the Sacramento river into fresh water, and have a field day eating fish with no predators around. I have personally seen them take one bite out of a catfish, and leave it flopping at the surface. They likely are partly responsible for the salmon decline, and there's too many of them, too. It may be even harder to get rid of them, than it is wolves.

I've got nothing against shooting wolves legally either, in fact I can't hardly wait until they open a bounty on them.

I am not aware of a single poll that suggests more people oppose the existence of wolves than support--and that was my point to all of those make the claim. I'm not just singling you out Archer.

See Jacques post.



Absolutely! Most state legislatures don't want wolves--even though most of their citizens do support wolves (just like other issues discussed here--illegal immigration anyone?) The Forest Service, the Park Service, BLM, and even the USFWS ain't too keen on wolves. Why? Because wolves are a big management challenge, and they don't want the headache. They don't want different sides screaming at them that they favor the other side and it's all a liberal/conservative/communist/terrorist/environmental/logging/mining/ranching/energy/big business conspiracy. Those guys get tired of it.

But government's purpose is not about making it easy on themselves--never has been.




Couldn't disagree more. Those that bash wolves on these hunting forums are a tiny, tiny minority--even in the west. And even in the rural west they are still a relative minority.




The same thing could be (and was) said about the restoration of elk, deer, bighorns, moose turkeys, native fish, etc, here in the Interior West--they've all had their controversy at one time or another. Wolves ain't much different, just a new generation of people get to fight the fight.

Besides, if the states chose, they could do it themselves--indeed, states are encouraged to do it themselves--indeed, if even the federal government doesn't want the states to restore a native species, the law is generally on the state's side.

Witness Colorado and Lynx--and they did it for pennies on the dollar compared to the Feds (the feds entirely approved in this case--they definitely didn't want that headache).

But if the states can't or won't do it, the federal government has the responsibility and right to do it if they so choose--that was decided in the mid 1800's............

And don't forget how much of the west is federal lands, this is something those outside of the interior west don't always understand.


Casey

I want to go wolf hunting too.

When I was stationed up in Alaska and went moose hunting, I decided to save my meager money and not buy a wolf (pelt?) license--sure enough, I had wolves standing in front of me 3 different times--and one was a fairly big male.


Casey

Put a hunting season on them!--I'll hang the sea lion "pelt" right next to my wolf pelt!......



Casey

One minor correction. That is something that those INSIDE the interior West don't understand.

Read that they were perhaps the highest quality leather coats made. Almost bought one from Northern Ontario a few years back. Then learned that the tanning methods used there the leather didn't do to well in a warmer climate of Idaho. So I passed but have always wanted a good seal skin coat.

Doesn't matter who commissions the survey. What matters is who did the survey. Was it a legitimate outfit, or was it some ad hoc faux survey with an offical sounding name that loads the questions to get the answer?--I've seen that little game played by both sides in the natural resource game. The logging companies have been especially suspect in the past.

I know who commissioned the survey that Jacques posted, and I know who they hired to do the survey.


Casey

Condescending diversion, who saw that coming?

Stay classy BrentD, stay classy.

To the original point I was responding to. You baited with the idea that we are possibly to thank the wolves for rising deer population in the past 3 decades in MN.

I however believe we are currently in a decline from where it seems we peaked out recently.

And I know all about a slump in NE MN even though I didn't originally post specifically about NE MN. (and yes, not far from hwy1)

Myself and most of my party failed to fill tags for a stretch from the mid 90�s into the 2000�s.

Poor hunting is poor hunting & I don�t know how much worse you can get than going several seasons on end without even seeing a deer while hunting. Unless you were hunting in 1971 when they canceled the season entirely, I guess that would be worse not even having the oportunity to try.

I don�t hunt with those guys in NE MN anymore but I understand they are starting to see some deer around there again now. It�s not good hunting but they are seeing some deer again now.

Where I have my camp now the hunting is simply terrible but it has little if anything to do with wolves. More to do with the bovine TB disaster.