Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Wolves

First of all, again, my condolences to the man who lost his dogs to the wolves in Idaho. Losing a dog is NEVER easy. BT/DT.

Wolves.

Few words get such an immediate response as that one.

What I�m gonna say is not going to be popular with some folks, and some folks just won�t understand it at all. And, in response the expected knee jerk reaction, sure, go right ahead and reintroduce �em to the areas that I live and hunt. I�m fine with that. Eradicating them in the first place was wrong ecologically. That�s a fact. Fixing a mistake is often more difficult and more painful than not making it in the first place, but fixing a mistake is almost always the best option if it is available. With wolves, just like with grizzlies, and bison, and whitetail deer (in most of their range), and wild turkeys (just about everywhere), re-establishing the populations IS the right thing to do.

That said, I am not one of the people who thinks that the reintroduced wolves ought to be off limits from hunting. Absolutely not. In fact, they should be managed and hunted just like any other game species. Let them pay their own way, because the fastest, best, and most effective way to manage any species is to put it on the list of hunted game animals. Africa is modern day proof of that.

But, some folks will continue to say that any one wolf is one wolf too many. �Just kill �em all�. Sure, go right ahead; it was done once before, and to do it again, you�ll have to do it exactly the same way. Here�s how:

Get the federal government involved (again). Have them put a bounty on every wolf. Have them hire (at taxpayer expense) trappers and hunters to kill every wolf out there. But, as before, that won�t be enough. You�ll also have to decimate the prey populations as well. Take out a majority of your deer, elk, moose, and small game so that there is no food source for the shrinking, but increasingly wary wolf population. If you want them gone, that�s how to do it.

Of course, that would be a bit self-defeating, as the game we like to hunt would also suffer due to the prey population reductions that would be necessary.

Predator-prey populations do reach, and maintain, population balance levels. It happens with predators and prey at and of all levels, and it has, and continues to happen with wolf/prey populations in Alaska and Canada. Those areas have wolves, and they have viable populations of deer, caribou, elk, moose, and other game animals. It can/will happen in the lower 48. When it happens, and wolves do (as they should) start being hunted, the system can and will work. Of course, keeping wolves mistakenly protected in areas where they are a viable, huntable population is stupid. Like keeping cougars protected in the PRK; it�s just stupid politics and very poor, nonexistent science.

So, what�s the solution?

Get the wolf population to a self-sustaining, viable, HUNTABLE level, and put them on the game animal rolls. Manage them just like any other game species, with no other special protections. Will that cure problems like the dog attack documented here? No. Then again, why should it? Hunting predators (like bears, cougars, or wolves) with dogs is a potentially dangerous occupation, and potentially lethal for the dogs. It is terrible when a dog dies in these hunts, but it�s part of the hunt. Always has been; always will be.

I didn�t make this post and my position as clear as I�d hoped, but it�s about all I have for right now.

I expect that this one will get followed up on, as it needs to.

VAnimrod,

You make some good points, and in the main, I agree. There are a couple of misconceptions in there, though. I'd disagree with the idea that the wolves are reintroduced. They are, ecologically speaking, an introduced exotic predator. Now that you've swallowed your chew <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />, think about the difference between the West of 1900 and the West of 2000. The prey has lived for a century in the absence of large canid predators in a landscape that looks little, if at all, like the West of the 1900s. Instead of a landscape governed by natural events, such as fire, the landscape is coated by (mis)managed forests, intersected by roads, and the habitat is fragmented such that the movement corridors are gone.

The balance between prey and predator that you speak of probably never existed. The indians that set the fires that kept the forests in early successional stages have been replaced by a much more technologically advanced group of far more numerous folk, and the competition that exists between people and other predators for the limited stocks of game is far more intense.

I agree that we've got the wolf in the mix now, and there is no socially acceptable way of gettiing rid of them. We're going to have to live with it even if we don't like it one bit. I also agree that we're not going to be able to do that unless the wolves are managed just like other game species - and that means that the absolute protection that they are afforded must end. I hope it ends sensibly, rather than a second eradication effort based on losses of pets and people forcing a full-blown eradication effort. It is the long story of ecologically sensible conservation rather than disneyite preservation.

VaNimrod, Thoughtful post...
Concerning your thots RupertBear on the wolf being not re-introduced as an original predator which had been eradicated in another time.....I kinda agree.
Times have changed for both man and wolf.
I seriously doubt that the wolf or griz was absolutely exterminated from the lower 48 anyhow..
So much country, so few who have the ability, money to monitor those predators who 'went underground' so to speak.
Those who may have encountered them in the last century

( or this one) either were dissed because they were not credible-knowlegeable, or they just kept quiet and enjoyed the 'extinct' predators..or did the SSS number on them.jim

VA:

I don't want to cause grief for the gentleman who lost his dogs to wolves, either. I'm a dog lover. It would tear me up to see my dog killed by wolves.

But living in Florida gives me a different perspective on this. Fact is, a lot of people hunt with dogs in Florida, and some of those dogs are taken by alligators every year.

Don't have any numbers handy, though they might be available somewhere on the Net. But hunters run dogs in swampy areas here, because dogs are useful for moving deer out of swampy areas, and that's where the gators are. A lot of non-hunting dogs are taken every year, too. Sometimes right off the end of a leash with a frantic owner at the other end.

What's my point? I guess it's this: When you live in, or at least next to, wild areas populated with wild critters, I think a dog-owner assumes some risk. Risk that his dogs are going to be taken as prey by something with bigger teeth. Just my opinion.

By the way, you don't EVER want to go swimming with your dogs on Florida's Gulf shore. Sharks, like alligators, will snap them right up. Like candy.

Alligators were nearly hunted out in Florida some years ago, and a lot of people resisted when strict conservation measures were taken. Gator numbers have shot up at the same time Florida's human population has expanded. That means more dogs coming into contact with more gators.

You might think a lot of Floridians would now be calling for their extermination, but no. There's hardly any support for it. Gators ARE being hunted, but only to manage the populations. Not eliminate them.

There might be a perverse kind of pride in this among the people who live here. It's a screwy state in a lot of ways. But people seem to think there's something kind of unique or special about sharing your living space with large carnivores.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if more dogs in Florida aren't killed by other dogs than by gators and sharks combined.

My take on it is, if I can live comfortably with a population of alligators within the city limits where I live - and I'm not exaggerating about that - I think I could live comfortably in a part of the country where wolves existed. Managed, of course. (And I understand that wolves are more likely to prey on sheep and cattle than alligators.) Hunted, too. But not exterminated.

So I guess I'm with you on this. Despite the risk, wolves make life more interesting.

- TJM

About the only good thing about wolves, is they keep coyotes in check.

I also notice that most of the people who are "pro wolf" live in cities and don't own livestock.

RO

RiverOtter:

Quite right. Don't own any livestock, and have none to lose. I'm not insensitive to that. And if a stockman is losing calves or sheep to wolves, then I would say some increased management is called for. Hunting, in other words.

BTW, and I'm not referring to you or any other specific member on the 'fire, but I'm struck by the number of people who post here, saying they would love to go to Africa someday, and hunt some dangerous game.

Are we really so risk-averse a society that we can't tolerate any dangerous game in our own country?

Except bears, of course. Everybody seems to be okay with keeping a population of bears to hunt.

(Sorry, you didn't say wolf-lover, you said pro-wolf).

- TJM

The people who put the wolves back in places like Idaho don't live there either. They just think they know more than the people who live there since they have a piece of paper. It's easy for people to sit back and talk when they don't have to live with it.

It's different if you move to an area that has predators and then complain but if the predators are planted all around you after you lived there for 20 years and you get no say in the matter that is BS.

Ken:

I hope you'll believe me when I say I don't intend to rub salt into the wounds of anyone who's sustained the loss of dogs or livestock to reintroduced wolves.

I didn't have a say in putting the wolves back there, either. If anybody had asked me, I might have said no, don't do it. But I wasn't there, and I wasn't asked. And for what it's worth, I won't have any say in the matter if the wolves are taken back out.

- TJM

Wolves have been the biggest FUBAR in wildlife history.

We the sportsman brought back the elk/sheep/moose herds to the high levels pre wolf re-introduction.That gave Man (the apex predator) a high level of a renewable resource.

Anti hunters thought the wolf re-intro up.To limit your role
as apex predator.

So instead of people using the resource the wolves have decimated it.And are moving into new areas and expanding
thier menu.....

Of all the BS we were fed about the wolf re-intro,what was
actually true?They were not suppose to leave Yellowstone.
There were supposed to be a limited number of packs.
Domestic predation was suppose to be minimal.


Wolves have a place....on a coat rack.

Amen. Same thing is happening with the Mexican Wolves in AZ. They just won't stay in the area they are supposed to... and keep eating stuff they aren't supposed to.

Wolves have no place in the current ecosystem of the lower 48. The sheer number of open acres just aren't there. It took a hundred years to get rid of the damn things... and we should never have put them back.

We've got them in northern Wi also. Minnesota and Michigan's UP have them also. They are an out of control problem. Wi dnr wanted about 300 as a recovery number. Now we have 500plus. There is a fund to pay for livestock kills, but it is bankrupt way before the end of the year. They also kill a few bear hounds every year.I would like one though..... as a hide hanging on my wall.

Wolves killing hunting dogs in the NW part of the country, has not been unheard for the past 30 yrs, that I'm aware of. Suspect this probably also took plac during the time the wolf was "wiped out" of the Northwest. I'm somewhat astonished that the guy who recently lost his dogs to wolves had not heard, or was not aware of this. This was going on even when the wolves were supposedly "extinct" from that area, according to authorities. The fact is the wolves would have recently "reintroduced" theirselves without any help from man. The habitat was "ripe" for it, and they were protected being on the endangered list. Probably the ""best" reintroduction policy would have been for the Feds to ignore the SSS method. This would have tended to keep them in the "backcountry", and would have allowed those with a problem to take care of it theirselves. It also would have a tendency to keep the wolves FEARFUL OF MAN AND HIS CORE HABITAT. Something they need to practice with cougar, in many areas.

What many don't realize, is most of the funding and finances for these "re-introductions" are coming from private groups and individuals. They work to get an "authority" person and agency as a talking had, then micro-manage or outright manage the talking head. This done through their volunteering, donations, etc.

I think most of can guess where a lot of this is coming from.

Remseven,

"I'm somewhat astonished that the guy who recently lost his dogs to wolves had not heard, or was not aware of this. This was going on even when the wolves were supposedly "extinct" from that area, according to authorities."

So am I.
Experienced hound hunter in an area for 17 years. An area documented to have wolves for over 30 years?
Carrying no weapon, nor the tracking device.
Stuff left in the truck during what apparently was just another routine training exercise for the hounds...in bear, lion and wolf pack country par excellance.

All I will say is this:
anyone who continues to work his Labradow retrievers in alligator infested areas has put his own hunting dogs at risk.

Just a matter of time before the big black water dog(who does what he has been trained to do and loves the master) becomes chum for a big reptile.
The dog handler-hound man is responsible for his dogs..jim

Ramseven,

I hate to burst your bubble, but the introductions of the wolves were planned and conducted with money from two sources. One was the "public treasury" and the other was from hunter's pockets, in the form of P-R money. This disaster was inspired by private individuals and groups with no serious ties to reality, but the funding sure didn't come out of their pockets.

Oh Hell,

I'll jump in too.

I think both you guys are right about funding. The implementation $$$ may have come from P-R funds but the Public Relations money and political pressure came from PETA and the rest of the animal activists and agitators.

As has been noted in past discussions, they made one major error. They should have been reintroduced in the order of where that $$$ and pressure was coming from. Like San Francisco area, Barbra Streisand's estate, first; New York City's Central Park second; Washington, D.C. area third, and so on. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Yes PR funds AND Dingell/Johnson funds were used, but check into where all the monitoring equipment, veghicles, radios, facilities expenses, are coming from. Also, check designated non-game funds many state agencies have set up.

Right or wrong, check into where the big bucks for the lobbying of various state and federal agencies are coming from. I'm talking fancy equipment, outdoor clothing, boots, coats, backpack gear, telemetry equipment, you name it. The bulk of it sure isn't coming from USFW, and P-R; D-J funds, or State DNR's, whom many can't even afford to give their trained personnel cost of living wages.

I'm talking Audubon, Sierra, Greenpeace, USPCA, Nature Conservacy, National Wildlife Federation, so on so forth. There are also many super rich who are funding some of this stuff. Check out the various websites for bear, wolves, cougar and yeah, even Bigfoot.

How many people in the city NYC think wolves have a right to exist on YOUR property, but can't even stand the thought of a couple of coyotes in Central Park, for fear of getting their "doggies" eaten.

Please understand, I'm not saying it is all bad, just that there is a lot of "behind the scene agenda" and crap going along with a lot of it.

We are running out of ROOM on this planet, and we need to tackle this problem head on with an agenda that will work, and not let the doomsayers, and naysayers from the fringe point the direction. Too many of the "fringe" get caught up in their dogma of "accomplishing" the task, and it becomes a career, entirely different than the initial goal, and not always for the better of the animal, land, or wildlife, and ecosystem.

Many wildlife species will surprise you with their ability to adapt to the encroachment of man, but doesn't man have just as much right to the ecosystem as any other animal. Whether you and anyone believe Man has that right or not, then why do they think you do or do not, have the right to protect what is yours, and in many instances impose restrictions on what you can do about a threatening situation.

Remember the small girlchild killed by the mountain lion in CA some few years ago. I'm thinking where the people started a fund to help with the funeral expenses for the child, but the orphan cub fund got beaucoup more donation than the fund for the child. To me that mindset is just SICK!

AMEN It's about time somebody told the truth of the matter that these people want to use the wolves and the bears to balance nature and keep hunters out. they want to return the wilderness to some idyllic plan of what they think it was before we came here and not what it was. It will NEVER be the same and wolves and bears don't have the brains to manage anything. They only know how to kill and often times do so for fun.

From: http://www.onrc.washington.edu/research/onrc/wolf/wolfreintrotoOlyPen.pdf

�Congressman Norm Dicks (D, Washington) and Defenders of Wildlife, a nongovernmental organization, have taken the lead in promoting consideration of the reintroduction of gray wolves (Canis lupus) into Olympic National Park and
surrounding lands. Congress has responded by appropriating funds for an
assessment that will include a feasibility study, a prey base study, and a public
opinion study. The results of these studies will provide Congress with information
on which to base further funding decisions. While consideration of the idea
has garnered proponents and opponents, a government decision whether
or not to officially propose reintroduction will be based upon the results of
the assessment, which will be completed in 1999. At that time Congress will
control the process by either funding additional development of the idea,
including a possible Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), or by choosing not to
fund further study of the idea.�

Note that the bulk of the funding mentioned here all comes from the Feds, not private or NGO sources. By the bye, an EIS is normally a million bucks and more.


To their credit the Defenders of Wildlife (http://www.defenders.org/an04.html) did pony up some money. �In a historic initiative, we began compensating northern Montana ranchers in 1987 for livestock losses to wolves, a practice that led to the 1990 establishment of our $100,000 Wolf Compensation Fund and a significant reduction in rancher opposition to wolves. The fund provided the pivotal argument in favor of wolves in the final months of the reintroduction process. We established a summertime wolf education booth in Yellowstone Park and collected more than 70,000 signatures from park visitors, all but 2,000 pro-wolf. And we created a Wolf Reward Fund to pay landowners for allowing wolves to den on their property undisturbed. Throughout we pushed for federal funding and support.
In January, 1995, the efforts of Defenders and our allies paid off. Amid much fanfare, 14 Canadian wolves were brought to Yellowstone National Park and another 15 were released in the wilderness of central Idaho. The following year, Defenders helped pay for the capture of 30 more Canadian wolves for release in the two areas. The wolves have now formed packs and had pups while causing few conflicts with landowners. There are approximately 40 wolves in each area, with more pups on the way this spring. The reintroduction has won wide praise from conservationists as a notable success.�
I do vehemently disagree with their last statement though. Praise from Preservationists, maybe, but not conservationists.

The bulk of the funding continues to be public money. From the Forest Service (http://fhm.fs.fed.us/em/funded/06/int-em-06-01.pdf) comes an attempt to prove that decreases in deer caused by wolves helps aspens flourish.

�INT-EM-06-01 The Influence of Wolves on Decline in Aspen Communities in Northeastern Arizona.
LOCATION: Northern Arizona
DURATION: Year 1 of 2-year project FUNDING SOURCE: Base �
Base, in this case means federal funds to the tune of about $30,000


Although they claim to have donated �significant funding� to DoW�s compensation program PAWS (http://www.timberwolfinformation.org/info/world/paws.htm) doesn�t tell us just how much �significant� is. They do say, though, that public money in amounts that seem �significant� to me, is being used in AZ for the Mexican Wolf introductions. �TAXPAYER COSTS ABE REASONABLE

Wolf advocates believe reintroduction of wolves is a worthy taxpayer item. Opponents claim reintroduction costs to taxpayers are unreasonably high. Even if USFWS received the projected $542,000 per year needed for implementation of Mexican Wolf reintroduction it would be trivial compared to the staggering costs of subsidizing industries which unlike wolves can devastate public lands. The current federal appropriation for Mexican wolves is under $500,000�


According to the Fish & Wildlife Service (http://www.fws.gov/ifw2es/mexicanwolf/pdf/MW_FYR_Administrative.pdf) there�ll be over 7 million dollars of public money, of which $634,000 will come out of Arizona Game and Fish department funds - that�s hunter�s money - for Mexican Wolf introductions.

So, Ramseven, some private money is going into the wolf mess, but I do believe that the data I�ve seen shows that the majority of it comes out of the public pocket.

We are being screwed royally and not even being kissed.

Remseven;

I don't know where you got some of your information, but I can personally attest to a good bit of it being wrong.

I have previously worked for The Nature Conservancy, and have many close friends still there, and in a couple other organizations you listed (Audubon, Sierra Club, and others).

Their money does not go anywhere near the programs you listed.

The can, except for TNC, and have, again, except for TNC, used money to have their members call representatives and senators, submit letters to editors, etc., just like anti-wolf groups have done. But, that's it. There is no vast left-wing agenda such as you seem to indicate.

The $$$, the manpower, and the authority come from the feds. Period.

I agree with you we are being screwed, but I would rather use the word mislead. I am sure there are "official" monies involved to a great extent, not arguing that at all.

Think I haven't made myself clear enough. I'm talking about over all expenses for a program. Not always, but when have had the opportunity to check many of these re-introduction programs, it has been a real eye opener to find where the push, influence, finances are coming from. And, when had the chance to do so, have found and been surprised how these influences effect, where, when, who, and WHY of the outcome. You mentioned public money, I want to know (for myself) what kind of lobbying did DOW finance. Also, what else did they do to "influence". Also, please bear in mind EIS is one of the ways they eat into the so called "public funds", that could be put to better use. I can recall one instance where the existence of one animal of a species, existed on an island and a "influential" group managed to garner enough political influence to have the island declared off limits to other uses (hunting of another species). Someone finally got smart, and began to question as why the other "invasive" species has not been removed, and it backfired on the original group. But the original group hasn't given up yet, as I see they are still at it again this year. I don't know the answer, unless searching for these other costs which in some instances are hidden. Another question comes to mind, how much of the public money will be used for the EIS you mentioned, will there be only one EIS needed over the long term to settle an issue. Will or will not, any of that result in court time or legal proceedings. These are also recources best used elsewhere. There is a good deal of this kind of thing going on right now with one of the states and the Federal attempt at de-listing the wolf as endangered. Where did that opposition come from, what is that costing in public money and other monies, hidden or not? These are all resources that could be well used for conservation and management of ecosystems that is wasted due to the politics. It is just another way that the "fringe" element eats into the finances for these programs. And, no doubt we all are getting screwed here. While these costs are directly obvious, the so called "agenda" as to purpose is hidden. While programs such as livestock depradation program is a smart one on their part, why if it was only going to cost them $100,000 did they not offer it to begin with, but only as a "last ditch" effort for cooperation.

I know there are well meaning people no doubt in all these groups. But there is also the fringe for lack of a better word, that becomes dogmatic in their approach as long as it suits their personal agenda. I am not against wolf re-introduction, as a hunter it is nice to know there are still wild places that exist. And, it is also nice to know there is flora and fauna to fill those areas.

There happens to be a wolf study right now, that is rehabilitating wolves, that are not born in the wild, but are born in captivity. Why and what are they rehabilitating for? The scientific explanation given to me certainly seems to be valid on the surface. At this point it appears to me eventually politics will determine the outcome of this project, not science or biology data. At this point, it seems that politics will determine the "best" use of these excess wolves when the time comes.

I have some involvement with a "group" who has been, and will be for the rest of the year (short term hope) getting the i's dotted and t's crossed for presentation of a de-listing. Why?
The answer is because they know it will be challenged, and it is their hope to head off much of the controversy with "good" data, so that the courts will let them get on with their careers, and other projects sorely needed. So in this case, another year "wasted" by not allowing them to get on with scheduled programs in waiting, extra expense again, and even more expense when finally getting to the next program due to rising costs. Sort of a Catch 22, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

It is not always a case of donated vehicles, telemetry equipment, facilities, etc. Sometimes, it is a matter of hidden expense, some of them not even anticipated, because it shouldn't have been needed.

I believe sometimes it is best left to local communities and /or States to decide how to handle some of these issues. I also think it best to let the professionals in the field to develop and present the scenario in order to work out the differences for or against an issue.

Hope I've been able to make myself a little bit clearer. Complex issue to address, and difficult to do unless given plenty of time to form thought and address the questions involved.