# De-list Wolves?



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

After evaluating two recent petitions asking the Service to remove the
northern Rocky Mountain population of the gray wolf from the Federal list
of threatened and endangered species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
has concluded that substantial information exists indicating that delisting
of this population may be warranted.

Today's finding is made in response to two petitions - a 2001 petition from
the Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd , Inc., and a July 19,
2005 petition from the Office of the Governor of the State of Wyoming and
the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission.

The Service's positive 90-day finding will be followed by a more complete
12-month status review of all available data on the Rocky Mountain
population of the gray wolf. The review will consider whether the
population meets the criteria for delisting as a Distinct Population
Segment under the Endangered Species Act.

This finding does not alter the Service's 2003 conclusion that the State of
Wyoming's existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect the gray
wolf population within its borders in the event that the wolf is delisted.
The Service will review this issue during the 12-month status review and
continue to work with the State of Wyoming to ensure that the State's
statutes and wolf management plan contain adequate post-delisting
protections for the gray wolf.

Today's finding was not affected by recent litigation involving challenges
to the Service's 2003 reclassification of gray wolf populations from
endangered to threatened throughout much of the species' current range in
the United States, including the northern Rocky Mountains. The Service is
still evaluating its legal options after recent lower court decisions
invalidated that reclassification. No decision has been made on whether to
appeal those rulings.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal federal agency
responsible for conserving, protecting and enhancing fish, wildlife and
plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American
people. The Service manages the nearly 100-million-acre National Wildlife
Refuge System, which encompasses 545 national wildlife refuges, thousands
of small wetlands and other special management areas. It also operates 69
national fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resources offices and 81 ecological
services field stations. The agency enforces federal wildlife laws,
administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird populations,
restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife
habitat such as wetlands, and helps foreign and Native American tribal
governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal
Assistance program, which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in
excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife
agencies.

-FWS-


----------



## 250Savage (Jun 24, 2005)

If they every try to bring the wolves into ND fight those liars tooth and nail. One of the reason I am leaving Michigan is the wolves and all the lies from the pro wolf folks.
Like No documented wolf attack on people. Big lie Alaska study has over 80 document attacks on people.
MI DNR a pack of wolves (6) only kill eat 50-60 deer a year. Another lie Alaska fish and game study found in winter months each adult wolf can kill a deer a day.
Wolves rarely attack livestock. This one is very laughable. All kinds of livestock has been slaughter by wolves and the re payment can take months with tons of red tape.
The biggest one sportsman should know is when they are on the ESA list and your dog is being ripped apart you do not have the right to shoot the wolf. :sniper: Yep the wolf has more rights then you do. I could go on more but that is the main points.


----------



## fishless (Aug 2, 2005)

After living in wi the last 6 years I can tell you that every year hunting deer in northern wi I see more and more wolf sign in the woods and less and less deer sign every year I guess the wolves got to eat too. Im sure there is a place for the wolves but also I think the settlers got rid of them for a reason.


----------



## frosty (Dec 6, 2002)

"One of the reason I am leaving Michigan is the wolves and all the lies from the pro wolf folks."

I find that hard to believe.

I never quite understand the hatred from some sportsmen when it comes to large predators.

You can't like wildlife without liking predators. They are a valuable part of the outdoors which actually make our deer herds stronger and healthier and very strong genetically over the long term.

I do agree that wolves need to be managed just as everything else does, but to say wolves have no place in our environment is silly.


----------



## 250Savage (Jun 24, 2005)

I don't like being lie to. Really ticks me off. I don't like the fact that a wolf can kill my dog right in from of me and I can't do anything to the wolf. Tired of watching small family farms going out of business.

Michigan did great for almost 80 years without the wolves don't need them if you want them you are more then welcome to move here. In fact I even have a house I will sell you. You are reading in to what I am saying I never said I hated them but the coyotes and bobcat keep the deer herd plenty healthy.

I have a great article I wrote about predator control base on facts. You know like the Delta duck study done in ND!!! Predators are no different then any other animal their numbers need to be controlled. What is silly is giving certain animals more rights then people. But I am sure the TV educated wolf lovers know best.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

If you are talking about the study done by Marv Hagedorn and John Nelson, their study was about wolf/human encounters in Alaska/Canada in which they list 80 accounts. However these were either second and third information interviews or written historical accounts. Still today there is no singe official documented account of a wolf attacking a human in North America. Doesn't mean they never have but doesn't mean they have either. The thing about mother nature is she has the unique ability to balance out predator and prey. It is only when man comes along and wants to adjust the scale that things get out of whack.


----------



## 250Savage (Jun 24, 2005)

I love it no document attacks is so laughable about wolves. Last year there was a logger walking home from the bar at night attack by a lone wolf in Canada. He would have been dead if a bus didn't stop and run off the wolf. The newspaper interview him in the hospital. But I guess because someone who documents wolf attacks forgot to put this in the for sure really happen attack, it still reads no document wolf attacks. Sure right want to buy London bridge. Man has interfer with nature from the time the first caveman that pick up a club and killed his dinner. What is un natural is when man is removed from harvesting game or predators. What is wrong with how America has ran the wildlife programs here. We have game to hunt, 40 times more whitetail deer today compare to when Columbus arrived, elk, turkeys all made great comebacks. How come when people make blanket statements that man has screw up everything they forget to point out all the true success?


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Why the hostility? No one here said there have never been wolf attacks in North America, only that ther is no official documented attacks and the study you cited was not really a study at all but a collection of reported accounts. Even then the majority of those were in Canada, not Alaska. Even the logger you mention seems suspect and strange with no biologist, game & fish expert or anyone but a news paper reporter checking things out. Not saying it didn't happen but I sure wouldn't put much stock in it with just that information. And no one said F&G hasn't done a great job of game management but that has nothing to do with nature...... simply returning the game population back to a balance and if you want to credit them for the great job they have done on deer, turkey, and so on then you have to accept that they know what they are doing when returning a controllable population of wolves back to their home territory. You can't have it both ways.

Read the Q&A of the site listed below, which seems pretty well balanced and you will see the picture being painted about wolves is not as bleak as some would want you to believe and it certainly hasn't hurt the deer population in MN where they reported over 2,400 wolves as there are now more deer than ever before despite all the wolves. Interesting is that a single wolf will take from 10 to 15 deer a year. A wolf pack will consist of 6 to 10 animals that have a home territory of about 120 square miles and they do not share territory with other packs. That's at the most 150 deer in a 120 square mile area removed each year. If that is enough to damage hunting in Michigan then Michigan has no hunt-able deer population and the deer should be on the endangered list. BTW Michigan has a goal of 800 wolves as maximum allowed for the state to control. Deer hunting is important in my life but the thought of wolves in my hunting area is of no bother to me as it is usually the old, sick and injured that are killed by wolves. Lets get real here, the boogie man is not knocking at the door. I'm not arguing with you but I think you are getting upset by something that is not as drastic as you have been led to believe. ...........

http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/interm ... gmt.asp#13


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think man has had such an impact that nature can no longer balance itself. Look at the percentage of North Dakota that has been turned from native prairie to fields. Also, nature when it does balance itself is often boom, and bust. The predator populations sometimes are only reduced when they starve to death. Unfortunately it is after they have eaten everything available. The wolves die of, and the deer and or elk increase. The deer increase, the wolves increase, and the deer crash. The deer crash, and the wolves starve, and on and on. I just don't want the deer and elk to crash.

I like a few predators around. The problem is people like PETA take the government to court and stop any season that will control the population. Many groups agreed to open season when Minnesota reached pre determined goals. After they far surpassed those goals many of the animal rights types that wanted the restoration reneged on the agreement. What a surprise.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Plainsman, you put your finger right on the problem. Nature is having a hard time in the balance act but in my opinion it is the encroachment of man that has created that problem more than anything else. You mentioned the areas of North Dakota that has been turned from native prairie to fields. Now when there is a population explosion of a species there is no place for them to expand or migrate in order to sustain their population. The floods in New Orleans are another good example of the wet lands and marsh being destroyed with disastrous consequences.. But I think it would really be sad when the day comes that we eliminate one animal so we can have a over abundance of another animal for simply our own enjoyment. It may be difficult with groups such a peta around but I think we must continue to try to have a balance of all species for everyone to enjoy.


----------



## KRAKMT (Oct 24, 2005)

Plainsman

Very intellegent post. The problem comes in from people that have a doe eyed view of mother nature and that if man wasn't around everything would be paradise. The Disney syndrome- little fuzzy creaters frollicking with pointy teethed creatures without dirty man around. 
What too many people fail to realize is mum is a mean nasty *itch that lives for boom and bust conditions. Boom and bust conditions only work if the species has sufficient diversity and range for reestablishment. With todays society the majority of species lack the room to survive mothernatures extremes. 
There are many examples of reintroduction "miscalculations" but alas we are still shocked when mothernature kills off the fuzzy creatures rather than playing nice.
The impact of the wolves in Yellowstone has been devistating on the elk rather than the tougher bison. (As for lies- the reimbursement programs for livestock are being phased out because it has become too expensive for environmental groups).
Was it not Michigan's reintroduction of wolfs onto a penisula or island in the north that lead to the near total distruction of the moose there?
How about California's reintroduction of mountian lions that decimated the population of Dall/Bighorn sheep. 
Mother nature has made more animals extinct than man has ever thought about.(never mind that man is an animal within nature).
I better stop. Now.*


----------



## Nolte (Oct 6, 2004)

Gohon

I see you reside from the wolf infested parts of Oklahoma with lots of hands on experience. Most of the people that complain about this stuff in WI, do it because it has negatively effected them in some way. They are not doing the sky is falling routine.

Here is what I've seen from wolves in WI. They eat more than the 10 -15 deer a year( or about 1 a month). I've seen the rezdevous sites with tons of bones scattered all over the place. You said that a pack's range is on average 120 sq miles or about 10mi X 12 mi and they only consisist of 6- 10 animals. If you walk into any hunter bar in Northern WI and tell them there are only 10 wolves in 120 sq miles they will laugh you out of the place. Ask a logger about it and see what they think.

I don't believe we should eradicate them from the planet, but I firmly believe they need to be managed. Right now they are not in any form and it would be in our best interest to start doing it. The first plan was to have 350 wolves in WI (highest number). At the spring census (before pup recruitment) there were over 400. But nothing can be done because they aren't delisted. So the numbers will keep rising until all the red tape clears and by then we will probably have a really big problem.

I just don't like peta types from areas outside of wolf territory making decisions on wolves or restricting any form of mangament when it is needed. Alaska has had to deal with wolves forever, and the people there realize that you need to manage them(or at least attempt) just like any other animal.

Also, don't believe the theory that wolves only eat the sick and old animals and make the herd stronger. That generalized assumption is a huge bunch of bull. They go after anything that is available. Many times this is the young. Not great for fawn recruitment.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Nolte, since you failed to provide credentials on your wolf expertise I can only assume you know no more than I do about wolves. BTW, my part of the country is not infested by wolves but we do have a few. Now, back to the subject. Had you even bothered to read the link I posted http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/interm ... gmt.asp#13 you would have seen the information provided was balanced both pro and con. I assure you the folks studying the situation didn't rely on a bunch of people in a bar for their study, and personally neither do I. As for peta types outside wolf territory, who and where would that be? Certainly not here on this forum as we are all hunters and shooters here. I saw not a single post from anyone that said anything close to indicating that wolves should not be managed, actually just the opposite. You want to throw out studies done by the Fish and Game people and other conservation experts and rely on the good old boys down at your local watering hole then fine, do so. I'll listen to the experts thank you....................


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

Yo ol' squidly,

Hey TC and I were talking. We figured that you had to be on some type of medication or something. You have been quite......aaaahhhh.....how can I say this......cordial??? Did your prescription run out???? You know a man of your age should have somebody too remind him of such tasks. :wink: You sound mad here man. Whats up???

I am just giving yah crap... :beer: Go take another nitro pill.... :lol:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

You and TC were talking huh? I'd like to have been a fly on the wall for that conversation. Actually Jiffy I've been pretty fortunate in that other than synthroid for a nuked thyroid gland I never have to take any medication. I guess I just get tired and frustrated when people take things someone says and spins so far out of context in a attempt to build up their own post. Take Nolte for example, he talks about tons of bones, that's tons now, takes a lot of deer to do that, things that are laughable and what the boys said down at the local pub, now there is a reliable source huh. But skips completely around what was actually said. Oh well, gonna slip out on the lower forty tomorrow morning to bag some bushytails so maybe that will make me feel better.


----------



## Nolte (Oct 6, 2004)

Gohon

I have had this de list wolves debate dozens of times. By stating the logger and bar referenc, I was simply infering to that fact that it would be advisable to take these people's experiences into consideration. I don't believe much I hear in a bar, but I also don't read a study done by a biologist or "expert" and simply take their findings as the gospel. Especially when the things that I see for myself do not correspond to their findings. If you want I can give you multiple other sites on these wolf issues if you want. But I can save you the trouble of looking through all of them by stating that they don't all agree. Some are Save them All at all costs, others are Kill them all, and it's real easy to find out why when you see who pays for the site or study.

Here are a couple of numbers I just want to throw out from the WI DNR website. These are from WI wolf biologists. 
The minimum count for the wolf population in winter 2001-2002 was 323-339 wolves in 81 packs,
"The minimum count for the wolf population in winter 2002-2003 was 335 to 353 wolves in 94 packs""
"The minimum count for the wolf population in winter 2003-2004 was 373 to 410 wolves in 108 packs."
The minimum count for the wolf population in winter 2004-2005 was 425 to 455 wolves

This is an excerpt from the wolf managment plan also from WI DNR
This plan will delist the wolf from state threatened to a nonlisted, nongame species when the wolf population reaches 250 animals based on late winter count across the state in areas outside Indian reservations. A management goal of 350 is recommended.

So what would happen at your job if you came up at 20% over budget. ie 75 wolves(at the lowest count) over the management goal of 350.

This is the problem I have. They are over managment goals now and a federal judge in Oregon ruled that they can't be delisted. So with that decision all the planning and work involved got tossed out the window to be done again. Sounds smart doesn't it, Having a Fed Judge in Oregon (who prob has never seen a wolf in WI) make a cruical decision on Wolf management in WI, MN, MI. That is the problem with wolves, they are viewed as an wildnerness image symbol and virtually untouchable, because anti-hunting groups will bog down any attempt to control them. And use any propaganda to do so.

On my own wolf experites I'm not a wolf biologist, but I have seen 12 in the last two years. One alpha male carrying a newborn fawn. Hundreds of tracks and could easily bring you to an overnight fresh track any day you want. I could also find even more with snow on the ground. I've found two rezdevous sights where they raise their young. That weren't there five years ago and aren't in prime wolf habitat. I could also show you the spots where the DNR trapped and collared wolves. I could also put you in contact with hunters who had their dogs ripped apart and eaten by wolves.


----------



## frosty (Dec 6, 2002)

This info was taken from the Wis DNR website:

Other interesting facts biologists found from reviewing the first 11,000 or so registration stubs submitted by registration stations across the state is that hunters are shooting on average 1.7 antlerless deer for each buck taken or about a 63 percent antlerless harvest so far.

"That's very good news," says Warnke, who along with the rest of the state's wildlife managers has been strongly encouraging hunters to shoot more antlerless deer in order to bring deer populations down to levels set in state law.

If Wisconsin DNR is using this system and the state's deer population is still higher than where wildlife managers would like, it doesn't appear to me that wolves are having that devastating of an impact on deer numbers.


----------



## Nolte (Oct 6, 2004)

The first is the Deer Management Unit Zones, second is Wolf Distribution Zones. Notice any similarities. The zones that are Tzone designated that give away multiple antlerless deer tags (because the population is high) are not in wolf zones, except for the four up by the Lake. And after being in those zones I'm not sure why they are Tzone designated. They must have miscounted on a few droppings in those. I also do not believe that this wolf map accurately portrays the ranges of wolves. I have seen multiple animals outside of the zones they say are in.

The people that I know with deer shacks in the north aren't seeing as many deer as they have before. Not even close. We haven't had a tough winter for a while either. If we get a lot of snow and the deer really yard up, they will take a bunch of them. And I bet it won't just be the sick and old.

Frost, you need to remember that the bulk of our deer population resides in the lower 2/3 of the state, which isn't habitat that harbors a large number of wolves. But if the numbers keep rising they will keep moving down looking for more territory.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Nolte, you're not saying anything that I didn't say. I'm for delisting wolves. I'm for returning them to their original home range but strictly managed by hunting. The figures you show don't make sense to me as far as number of packs and wolves in them. By your post there are about 3.5 wolves per pack. We both know that can't be correct and that 6-8 is far more accurate. As for the hunters up north that aren't seeing as many deer, it is very common when wolves or coyotes move into a area the deer will change their habits. Maybe the hunters need to change their habits to sight more deer. I really don't see where we differ that much here except I don't appreciate the insinuation from you that I may be a peta type person. Please don't read into my post that which I did not say.........


----------



## Nolte (Oct 6, 2004)

Gohon

I went back and reread my post and I see where I didn't make it real clear in that part. I wasn't trying to call you a peta/anti-hunting type. Most of these types of people wouldn't be on a pro-hunting website. I apologize for my poor wording.

I was trying to imply that I don't like these types that mainly reside in urban areas like Milwauke, Madison, Twin Cities, almost anywhere in Kalifornia trying to push their absolute Pro Wolf everthing agenda down the throats of the people that actually live in wolf country. I got in to a big hubbub with a guy in TX telling me all about wolves, cause he read all about them. He even tried to tell me they don't normally prey on livestock. I thought that was humerous since our neighbor that has a large cattle ranch lost at least a dozen calves last spring(which were documented by the DNR).

I agree the normal pack size is 6-8, but our DNR lists every breeding pair as a pack and that is how they get to 108 packs. So you have the normal sized packs and then also these transient juvenile pairs that are looking for territory which are also considered a pack.


----------



## 250Savage (Jun 24, 2005)

http://www.eco.freedom.org/el/20050501/mader.shtml

I am not just talking. I have seen what happens as the wolf population increases. Guess what deer population are dropping like I have never seen in my life. I love the people who always believe the pro wolf stance. Read the above article someone telling the truth. Every talk with a farmer that had a 100 pound calf ripped to shreds by a wolf? I have!!!!!!! As if the ranchers and farmer don't have it hard enough problems, lets bring in a big old predator so the small family farm can lose more money. But the city folks will feel less guilt. Believe what every you want I saw for a fact what happen in my area from wolves. I you want and love them so much put your money where your mouth is move up and let your kids camp in the woods. Don't worry because all the documented wolf attacks are not true. :******:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

When I posted this article, I knew emotions would mix with fact and the topic would probably be hotly debated.

There is little doubt that Wolves have received a bad rap, much more than is really deserved. That, however, does not mean that there should not be some balance instilled into the system. The only predators that can control something this high on the food chain are larger carnivores/omnivores, predatory diseases (viruses' etc.), old age and humans. They will if left un-checked eat themselves out of their environment and it is a documented fact where the packs thrive without any natural or predatory control. The Government in their ill conceived wisdom that has been slanted by the everything is warm and fuzzy crowd, has taken a stance against the big bad wolf folks and not taken the initiative to control these populations until the situation reaches a boiling point. Typical Government reaction. Now throw in the legal industry with the "everything is warm and fuzzy crowd" and the government is forced to tread lightly despite objections from affected farmers, ranchers, and sportsmen. We end up with a predator population nearing the out of control point simply because the "everything is warm and fuzzy" crowd has more organization and funds to further their point than the Farmers, Ranchers and sportsmen. Wildlife should not be managed in this way. It is cruel to all entities involved except the "everything is warm and fuzzy" crowd who can all get together and sing their praises to each other over their Martini's.

Political will by organizations based on emotion instead of facts is a nation-wide problem. We see it in ND and everywhere else that issues bring forth emotions.

Facts say that wolves will need to be controlled unless we all agree to give them free range and accept the consequences. Human nature will not allow this as we always force nature to conform to our will.

De-list the wolves, issue harvest quotas, enforce them, and help nature balance herself. It is the least we can do as humans are the ones that screwed the balance up in the first place.

Or should we re-introduce Grizzlies in northern WI 

Bob


----------



## 250Savage (Jun 24, 2005)

Excellent reply Bob, Plainsman and most other here get it. Here is one of the best article written on the subject http://www.libertymatters.org/wolfreintro-myths.htm

This article and last one 2 post above every sportsman in America needs to read. Here is the quote every hunter needs to understand.

Annual Reports of Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey in 1922, "It has been estimated after careful investigation that not less than 10,000 deer are killed annually by predatory animals in that state (Michigan). Timber wolves, coyotes, wild cats, and foxes all join in game destruction, the kill being heaviest in winter, when snow is deep, and especially in the early spring, after the snow becomes crusted. At this period wolves and coyotes often appear to kill for no apparent reason other than for amusement or sheer lust of killing.

I have seen first hand on the radical drop in deer and other animals. I put my money where my mouth is. North Dakota will benifit from my move and Michigan will lose.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Excellent reply Bob, Plainsman and most other here get it


And you will notice that they both as well as everyone else here including myself do not have a problem with wolves as long as they are properly managed and controlled. The only problem at hand now is how to go about the proper management and control. You seem to be the only one that is calling for the extermination of all wolves. Better take another look sport, you're in a boat by yourself. Maybe you should consider just staying out of the woods since you are convinced you're going to be attacked by a wolf....

I don't understand why you posted a survey from 1922....what does that have to do with today. Even using those numbers of 10,000 deer killed every year by predators, what do you think that amounts to as far the deer population goes. You do know what the deer population is in your own state don't you? Well, in case you don't it is 1.6 to 1.7 million. Now do the math and tell me that 10,000 deer a year means anything.

Oh BTW, be careful up there in ND when you move. They have discovered they have some wolves there. http://espn.go.com/outdoors/conservatio ... 59656.html
:lol:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*250Savage wrote*



> At this period wolves and coyotes often appear to kill for no apparent reason other than for amusement or sheer lust of killing.


Some that call themselves hunters/sportsmen exhibit the same behavior!

Bob


----------



## 250Savage (Jun 24, 2005)

Gohon never once did I say kill all the wolves. But you being a typical armchair expert you a$$-U-ME that is what I mean, sport. But if you bother to read the truth about what is really going on you would find out that what the 2 links I provide is happening here in Michigan. I saw it for the last 5 years sport but I guess you being in the wolf invested state and being an keyboard expert can tell everything I witness is a lie. The pro wolf folks have put out a pack of lies but you defend them. So sport come up I will even show you where to get on thousands of arces of land of free hunting. Last year a deer hunter call into a AM radio station and said this " I have hunted up here for 20 years and this is the worst year every I saw more wolves then deer. I won't be back so let the local folks who depend on hunters know the wolf is going to put them out of business." His words not mind sport but I guess he was lying too. As normal keyboard experts like yourself never put their money where their month is. Move up here and you too can enjoy seeing more wolves then deer. I see the writing on the wall sport but I don't need some pro wolf site to tell me how to think. I bring up wolf attacks on people because it is the biggest LIE the pro wolf put out, the next being very little deer lost, the next being very little livestock lost. BTW armchair expert show me where in any of my replies did I said wipe out the wolves?????? You can't?? Nor have you seen a wolf attack calf sport but I guess that is ok too with you to put small farmers out of business. If you read the links I provide you would see the joke of livestock pay back is. I am done with this thread. I am done telling the truth about wolves to people who have not live with it. I am done with folks that sit on a computer with their Dinseyland wildlife diploma. You choice to believe whatever you want ignore the facts, ignore the truth, and laugh at the farmers going out of business.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Look, it is very apparent you have a deep fear of the wolf and though I don't understand why I can respect that. You commented 10,000 deer are killed by predators every year but when it is pointed out that your State has 1.6 to 1.7 million deer you simply ignore that. Why? Because it is less than .6% of the deer population killed which means very little if nothing. You make a claim that it has been documented that 80 people have been attacked in Alaska. It is pointed out to you that it was not just Alaska but Canada as well and these were not documented attacks but third hand party reports and even who the authors and again you simply ignore this. Now you claim there are more wolves in your state than deer...... 1.7 million plus wolves is a lot of wolves. What is the only solution you have offered so far????..... "don't let them into your state". You even claim one of the reasons you are leaving Michigan is because of wolves......hog wash. If all that wasn't enough you warn me not to let my kids camp in the woods in Michigan. Get real for Christ's sake. My Daughter and two grandchildren live in Sterling Heights Michigan and they camp, hike and hunt all over Michigan. Not only have none of them been eaten by a big bad wolf but I've never heard them even mention seeing one. You going to tell us next that kids are disappearing in Michigan when they venture out in the woods or that folk won't let their kids go camping in the woods of Michigan. Without question there are extremes on both sides of any issue but I haven't seen anyone here venture into those areas except you.

Arm chair expert?..... in case you haven't kept up to date there is this invention called the Internet and it allows all of us to quickly search and check wild stories such as the one you offer. No longer do people have to wonder if they are hearing the truth or not or accept wild claims made by someone. Consequently we have all been able to become arm chair experts in the field of sorting out bs. A little research before making wild claims would go a long ways.

No I'm certainly not a wolf expert but I know a half baked story when I hear it. Get a grip on yourself and you will find out Little Red Riding Hood was saved and the Three little pigs are still merrily oinking away.


----------



## fishless (Aug 2, 2005)

Settle down everyone yes theres a place for the wolf and yes it needs to be controlled, but hey Bob please know griz in n. wi untill I move back to ND I almost stepped on a black bear last year and hope not to do the same bowhunting this weekend :beer:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

:laugh: :laugh: :rollin: :rollin: Fish, I will call the boys and tell them to take the Griz back and let it go again. That was close man!!! :beer:

On a serious note I have been in wolf country many times. I vacation in Minnesotas Boundry Waters every fall for a week. Wolf sign is ever present the deeper you get but I have to admit we have watched many deer water in the mornings and feed in the meadows in the evening. In 15+ years of visits our only encounter was with a FAT black bear that waited until we had the canoe packed with food (he had a plan) He then decided to go and help himself. The SOB knocked the canoe loose and we ended up hiking about 3 miles until the darn thing beached itself. We tried all of the yelling and makin racket and he turned around and looked at us like F--- You and continued to shred the cooler. We ate a lot of fish for the next two days. Any given evening you can hear the wolves howl at night. I have to admit I have never felt threatened by a wolf. their howl will send chills up your spine the sound has a resonance that echos through the woods.

250 savage I have only been to N. WI once. I am not saying you are wrong but I know from talking to wardens in Northern Minnesota that if there is a problem wolf or pack they act quickly to do what is necessary to stop the problem and from what I have been told a fair number of problem wolves have been harvested. If it is as bad as you say it is then the WI DNR is not watching the store.

Just so you know where I am coming from I am one of the first people to donate money to the International Wolf Center in Ely Minnesota. If you ever get a chance it is a worth while visit. they track almost every pack in the arrowhead region of Minnesota and they have for years. I continue to donate to it because I respect Nature and all of the creatures she embraces, Wolves are just one of them. Why? Because there is not a single creature out there that has had its own fate totally in its own hands, paws, Hooves, feet etc. since humans began to walk upright. I am a hunter that belives that we can not expect nature to totally fix what we have often times screwed up. Like I said in my previous post, WI should create a management plan issue quotas and allow a harvest to bring the population under control to meet their expectations based on FACTS from THEIR studies, Not Canadas, Alaskas, Minnesotas or Wyomings.

Peace!! 

Bob


----------



## Nolte (Oct 6, 2004)

Gohon

You need to pick a few less generalized numbers to support your ideas. Your first number of the deer herd size of 1.7 million animals is correct but not even close to the right proportion in for the number that reside in wolf territory and the areas that don't have wolves. From a quick breakdown of total deer herd size and deer kill registrations from 2004, My best estimate would be around 400,000 deer that reside in wolf country. This includes areas that are very marginal wolf habitat. It also does not take into effect that the amount of public land in the north, (wolf habitat) is much larger so the kill to actual deer population is a higher ration than in the the lower part of the state. So my 400,000 number is likely overestimated on the high side. Wolves are very adapt at killing deer, and if they take residence on your 160 acres(which is probably very high for most hunting groups), they can easily put a dent in the population. So do you tell these people, hey sorry the wolf moved in and tough luck. But hey there are 1.7 million deer, go down South where there is very little public land and get permission to hunt on opening day. Good luck with that one. I think these people have a right to complain a little about it.

Also, you example of family in MI would only be relevent if your family camped and were in the UP of MI. There are possilby only a handfull of wolves that reside in Lower MI.

Most of the stories of mine come from personal friends. I don't need to check the validity of them. Things like having wolves around their bowstand at dark, hanging around their skidder and acting like they weren't going to let them leave, or having a wolf come across the pond by their house and backing their dog back into it's dog house. It's stuff like that, that really heightens your awareness a bit to being prepared. I don't think Savage is trying to refer that he is afraid, it's just that he probably doesn't want to have to worry about how he is going to defend himself if something does happen. People like to have the big tough hunter image, but it's a bit different when you are miles away from anything, or your truck and you know you have the possibility of a wolf encounter. I really don't want to have to carry a gun every time I step in the woods, and I am a firm believer that our wolves are losing their "fear" of humans because they are untouchable.

Bob
I agree with you completely that humans have messed up badly numerous times in our game management attempts. So much for the so called higher intelligence, huh. Also, you can keep the Griz, unless I can hunt em. But we both know the slim chances of that ever happening.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

There was an excellent series in the Rocky Mountain Elk Federation "BUGLE" the past 3 issues! It was a non slanted very objective discussion of wolves, their reintroduction particularly with the Yellowstone herd and its effect on humans, guides and hunters, too. Talked a bit about wolves in Minnesota and Wisconsin, too. An excellent series unbiased articles. If you are not a member of RMEF (and you should be!! Ha!) join or borrow or steal those back issues from a member. Fascinating research going on. And all the answers aren't in yet. The whole scenario involving elk, ;wolves, deer, cattle, etc. keeps changing and always will.
As Gohan and others have pointed out, wolves need to be managed like every other species. Mother Nature can't balance because of the tremendous influence of the human speicies who keep screwing things up. 
Actually 120 square miles is not a very large area! Only 10 by 12 miles. Bar stool biologists tend to have innacurate information and tend to believe what they want to believe. Lets leave numbers up to the professionals, who aren't always correct, either, but have more accurate information than most.
What's a few deer in Wisconsin, or other state, for that matter? Even ND has thousands of unbought tags just days before the season starts. Many other states, a lot with wolves, are the same. Perhaps if Wisconsin had more wolves (and doe shooters) they wouldn't have the problem with CWD now.


----------



## frosty (Dec 6, 2002)

quoting 250savage "The biggest one sportsman should know is when they are on the ESA list and your dog is being ripped apart you do not have the right to shoot the wolf."

Next time you start talking about a subject, you might want to know what you are talking about first. It usually helps.

"But the law provides exceptions if a person or his property is endangered. A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman said the agency handles such incidents on a case-by-case basis."

It appears this gentlemen will not be serving a life sentence for his wolf encounter as some would have you believe.

The wilderness gets a bit wild
A ruffed grouse hunt turned into a fight for life for Buck,a Brittany spaniel, when a pack of wolves attacked. The dog wound up with 20 stitches. 
Doug Smith, Star Tribune 
Last update: October 30, 2005 at 10:42 AM
Printer friendly E-mail this story 
Marv Sherva and Buck

David Joles

Star Tribune
Outdoors
Dad got his deer the hard way -- bare-handed

Fur trapper charged after Internet sting

Environmentalists blast new policy on off-road vehicles

Man kills deer with bare hands
A lifelong hunter, Marv Sherva has spent lots of time in the woods all over North America. He's seen a few wolves in his day.

But never eyeball to eyeball.

Not until last weekend, when Sherva, 59, of **** Rapids, was hunting ruffed grouse in the woods near his cabin about 17 miles southwest of Hibbing in northern Minnesota. Toting a 12-gauge shotgun, Sherva was walking a deer trail with Buck, his 7-year-old Brittany, when the pair encountered a pack of wolves.

Buck almost became breakfast.

"He was maybe 40 yards ahead of me, and he went up over this little rise, and a heck of a fight broke out," Sherva said. "It sounded like a bobcat at first. I ran up there and could see it was wolves."

There were three or four of them, he said. And they had Buck, who weighs 51 pounds, on the ground.

"There was one black and silver, and I shot twice at it," Sherva said. "And off to the left one came running right at me. I pulled the trigger and nothing happened."

His gun momentarily jammed, but Sherva managed to get off one more shot. Sherva said he hit the wolf, but he doesn't think he killed it because it ran off with the others. The entire encounter lasted perhaps 15 seconds, he said.

He went back later, found his empty shotgun shells and determined the last wolf was only 30 feet away when he fired.

"I'll never forget those gold eyes coming at me, I'll tell you that," he said. "It was unnerving."

But, Sherva said, he was more concerned about Buck, who escaped from the wolves when the gunshots were fired.

"Another five seconds and it would have been over for him," he said. "He was kind of beat up, but I didn't know how bad it was until I got back to the cabin."

Sherva took Buck to a veterinarian in Hibbing, who used 20 stitches to close wounds on Buck's hip, front leg, neck and face.

"He's one very lucky dog," Sherva said. "He seems to be fine now."

Sherva reported the incident to the Department of Natural Resources. Wolves, of course, are protected in Minnesota under the federal Endangered Species Act. A person who kills one could face a year in prison or fines up to $100,000. But the law provides exceptions if a person or his property is endangered. A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman said the agency handles such incidents on a case-by-case basis.

Sherva said he has no hard feelings toward the wolves.

"I know it's a wolf's job to kill and eat," he said. And he knows such encounters are extremely rare. "It's just one of those freak deals," he said.

The incident won't keep him out of the woods. He plans to spend a week up north hunting when the deer season opens.


----------



## Nolte (Oct 6, 2004)

Frost

I think maybe you should look into this a bit more. Here is a link from the USFW service. It says nothing about protecting your property only human life. I don't care what an article or spokesperson says on it, if it's writtten in the federal or state statues they could throw the book at you. One guy got fined over $1000 bucks for shooting one in deer season, but the fines can reach to $25,000. That's more than I want to chance that an article is correct.

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/edps/edps-4(d)sum.htm

How the Reclassification from Endangered to Threatened Affects People in the Eastern DPS
The Endangered Species Act allows anyone to kill an endangered or threatened wolf in self-defense or to defend the life of another person. In addition, any State or Tribal wildlife management agency, or any Federal land management agency can kill a wolf that is a non-immediate threat to human safety. These provisions continue to apply now that wolves are listed as threatened.

A "section 4(d) Special Regulation" that allows State, Tribal, or Federal agents to kill or capture wolves that depredate on livestock and other domestic animals was enacted at the same time that the wolf was reclassified from endangered to threatened. (The 4(d) Special Regulation is described in the previous section). If you are having problems or expect problems, use the numbers below to contact U.S.D.A. APHIS/Wildlife Services, the State natural resources agency, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for help. If on Tribal land, the appropriate Tribal agency should be contacted. This previously was allowed only for wolves in most of Minnesota, but it now applies throughout most of the Eastern DPS. This provision does not apply to the northeastern corner of Minnesota, nor to the Northeastern states


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Jerry said:... My Daughter and two grandchildren live in Sterling Heights Michigan and they camp, hike and hunt all over Michigan





> Nolte said:... Also, you example of family in MI would only be relevent if your family camped and were in the UP of MI. There are possilby only a handfull of wolves that reside in Lower MI.


Which part of *ALL* over Michigan escaped you??????



> Nolte said:... Your first number of the deer herd size of 1.7 million animals is correct but not even close to the right proportion in for the number that reside in wolf territory and the areas that don't have wolves. From a quick breakdown of total deer herd size and deer kill registrations from 2004, My best estimate would be around 400,000 deer that reside in wolf country.


Your best estimate? So in other words all this is just your opinion and guess work with no supporting documentation for anyone to read. Thanks.... I kind of suspected that.


----------



## Nolte (Oct 6, 2004)

Gohon

Before you get all riled up. Sterling Heights MI is right by Detroit in the Lower Part, which is a good 300 miles away from the UP. Also, does camping a few weekends (prob in the summer) give someone enough credability to talk about the population of wolves. I was in Alaska camping in campgrounds *ALL OVER ALASKA* and never saw or heard one. So they must not be there and don't impact any of the game populations, by your logic.

I thought my population break down was easy enough to follow that I didn't need to give out the exact way to calculate. But I will. Your given number of the deer population is 1.7 mill, the total deer harvest for the state is 517,000 for all units in all seasons. After looking at all the deer units and and adding up the total deer havested in those areas that actually have wolves I got a harvest of 121,000. A simple ratio would yield a total deer population in those units of around 400,000. You can check my math if you want. I don't have the capability to census every deer that resides in wolf territory, but I thought that would be a fairly quick and accurate example of the numbers. If you have any better numbers offer them up, cause I can guarantee that there are not 1.7 million deer that live in wolf territory.

I find it amusing that you need to prove your side of the debate, and do so without really knowing about WI. You can pull some numbers off a website, but to me that doesn't give an accurate portrayal of the situation. I have friends all around the state and the guys in wolf territory see around 5-10 deer on a real good day if they are lucky. The guys in farm country see 20+ consistently. Of course this all depends on private vs public land and other factors, but I do know that the guys in wolf country don't have 25 deer days, unless we get big snows with yarding situations.


----------



## Mr. B (Mar 16, 2004)

I checked with the Minnesota DNR on what the laws are in Minnesota. Here is the question I asked:

I was reading a Star Tribune article about a Grouse hunter that defended himself and his Brittany Spaniel from a pack of wolves. I am under the impression that you can only defend yourself or another person since wolves are protected. Am I mistaken?

There has been a lot of discussion between the guys I hunt with about what effect the wolf has on wildlife populations. I personally think the wolf should be in Minnesota. I am just curious how one can and should deal with an encounter with one.

And the response:

You are technically correct; current Federal law allows a person to take a gray wolf only in defense of a person's life; it does not authorize taking to protect domestic animals. However, when a person is accompanied by a dog, and wolves attack the dog, determination of any concurrent threat to the person is subject to interpretation on a case by case basis.

Minnesota laws are more permissive; they allow a person to take a wolf that poses an immediate threat to a domestic animal. However, state laws are currently superseded by Federal regulations, and will not be in effect until the gray wolf is removed from the protection of the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973.

I have no idea what the laws in ND, WI and MI are. But this is what I am going to go by in Minnesota if I have a run in with a wolf.

I have only seen a hand full of wolves. One in Minnesota and four in Alaska. I personally think that these pedators should be in their natuaral habitat (Northern Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan). If they need to be managed then it is time to hunt them.


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

The wolves in Minnesota have made a great rebound/recovery.
I got to witness some of the 1st wolves released in the wild
back in the early 80's. In that area the wolves have few
problems with the local human population.. One reason
why, when the wolf/wolves get out of hand, they are 
destroyed and no one says anything. The problem, wolves
are territorial and new packs get started and move to new
locations that have a higher human population per sq mile.

Speaking of experience, I have witness deer kills, all for 
teaching the young pups how to make a successful kill.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Nolte, I'm not riled up about anything but in every post just like your last one you simply throw out assumptions and opinions and expect to pass them off as facts. You don't know where my family has camped, hiked and hunted in Michigan. You don't know how many times they have done same which for your information is through out most of the year. I think they spend more time in the woods than they do in their own home. And I'm very well aware where they live and what it is close to. But, that hasn't stopped you from just throwing out assumptions and pretending they are somehow facts. I didn't just pull numbers from any old web site..... they came from the department of fish and game for Michigan.... you know them right, the people that manage fish and game. I don't need to prove my side of anything because as far as I'm concerned I haven't been debating for a particular side of anything. Look........ just taking your numbers of 121,000 deer harvested in a area that you deem wolf country proves what? It proves only one thing....that 121,000 deer were harvested in those areas and nothing else. It proves nothing except you want to tie it to something with no base. Stop assuming you know things you have no way of knowing, stop reading what you want to read and read what is written and then maybe, just maybe the real picture will emerge.


----------



## Nolte (Oct 6, 2004)

Gohon

You're right I have no idea where your family has camped, but you have failed to enlighten us on the approx locations, or number of times. I'm sure they spend alot of times outdoors and enjoy it thoroughly. I was just trying to imply it wasn't a fair comparison towards Savage(who prob lives in the UP), to your families experiences camping in MI. You were the one who took a stab at him being afraid of venturing out in the woods in MI, not me. I assumed that the vast majority of people who camp in general do so in summer months. So please correct me that your family does in fact camp in the Fall thru Spring(when the temps are not favorable). I've been waiting for you to tell me how wrong I actually am on this.

Also, I am aware who department of fish and game is in MI, because I have purchased hunting licenses from them in the past. I'm guessing they are pretty similiar to the WI DNR. Are you aware that when these departments do their deer population estimates that they use the deer registration numbers as a basis. It is a system called (SAK) which stands for Sex Age KILL method. So there must be some validity to those numbers. As soon as you offer up a better logical alternative to the actual population in wolf country I'll use it, until then I'll stick with mine. I know my number probably isn't correct, but it's a boatload closer than your 1.7 million number.

The real picture has been apparent for some time. You don't have an actual grasp on this issue. No matter what numbers you pull from a website, its not going to change the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. So until you live in wolf country and their presence effects your choices and activities, Don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

There you go again. You simply refuse to accurately quote anything said. Why do you insist in trying to fool others with spinning words people never said? I said ..


> "You do know what the deer population is in your own state don't you? Well, in case you don't it is 1.6 to 1.7 million"


.

You turn around a say ..


> "As soon as you offer up a better logical alternative to the actual population in wolf country I'll use it, until then I'll stick with mine. I know my number probably isn't correct, but it's a boatload closer than your 1.7 million number"


 Now please point out to me where you come up with my stating there were 1.7 million deer in wolf country. I said the entire state......... and that is the official 2004 government game survey report from the state of Michigan.......... not my opinion but experts that work in the field. As pointed out by another poster these reports should certainly carry more weight than your or my opinion. Your made up numbers ( your opinion and guess) aren't even in the same boat, much less closer. What's the point in trying to discuss something if you constantly misquote other posters which seems on the surface to be a attempt to bolster a point you want to make but can't without rewriting a post . If you can't stay on track what's the use. Challenge anything I say if you wish but at least get what I said right.

BTW, 250Savage is the one that gave the warning about letting your kids camp in the woods as if they were crawling with man eating wolves. Doesn't that strike you as a little on the extreme side of fear as far as wolves go? I do.............

Here is one for you...says the deer population is higher than before in the area you claim it is down. Gee, how could that be? It's only a commentary but apparently someone in Michigan doesn't agree with you. http://www.inmetrodetroit.com/Outdoors/ ... unting.htm


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

If you look at thae number of fatalities in Wis while hunting its crazy humans that you have to worry about, just look at the thread "hunting accident" below this one


----------



## Nolte (Oct 6, 2004)

Gohon said:


> You commented 10,000 deer are killed by predators every year but when it is pointed out that your State has 1.6 to 1.7 million deer you simply ignore that. Why? Because it is less than .6% of the deer population killed which means very little if nothing.


Gohon, now please tell me how I am misquoting you on this. 10,000 deer killed by predators out of a population of 1.7 million, which is .6%. This would only be accurate if the wolves shared the same habitat as all the deer in the state. Which is not accurate for MI, WI, MN or any other state that has wolves. If you lived there you would realize that. 10,000 deer out of 400,000 is 2.5%.

The problem is that you fail to realize that the wolf issues reside on a micro level. Meaning they are very pertinent in certain areas and meaningless in others. They can not be looked at large scale. When you do that it totally throws off the actual issues. That is why they were not delisted in the first place. The wolves in WI, MN, MI were all linked in the same pile as wolves in the NorthEast. Look at the USFWS website about wolves.

The other factors which I have eluded to but have not been discussed, is that we have not had a hard winter yet when the wolf population has been high. When we do have one again with high winter severities, the wolves will really take it out on the deer herd. Because it is easy pickens for them, and they are a hunter of opportunity. Wolves also have more of an impact than just killing the deer, they also can stress out the pregnant mothers which results in lower fawn recruitment. It is hard enough for for does to have healthy fawns when we have a tough winter.

Bob
I saw that article a little while back. Part of the story that isn't mentioned that I read is that the kid who shot the other kid is mentally challenged. I'm not sure to what degree, but it was a factor. I just don't know how he was able to obtain a gun. What a terribly unfortunate event.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Gohon, now please tell me how I am misquoting you on this. 10,000 deer killed by predators out of a population of 1.7 million, which is .6%. This would only be accurate if the wolves shared the same habitat as all the deer in the state. Which is not accurate for MI, WI, MN or any other state that has wolves. If you lived there you would realize that. 10,000 deer out of 400,000 is 2.5%.
> 
> The problem is that you fail to realize that the wolf issues reside on a micro level.


And your problem is you are still trying to adjust numbers in your own mind to make a point that doesn't exist. What does any state other than Michigan have to do with the 1.7 million deer population. Where are you getting the 400,000 figure. Got a source that says the population in Michigan was really 400,000 and not 1.7 million? Stop changing numbers to support yourself. Look at what you are saying above........ look real hard. Now you are trying to inject new figures by declaring that the wolf is the only predator in the state or that all predators are located in what you have declared wolf habitat. The key word in my comment is predator, not wolf, which means that the wolf is not responsible for the entire 10,000. You can't keep changing the numbers and habitat location of deer and wolves to suit your needs and then attempt to declare the issue is on a micro level when you have no facts, support or base to support such a statement. The numbers I have use so far are documented and public for anyone to look at but then you did say there was fault in the way these numbers were collected by professionals so maybe I should just ignore them and accept your fabricated numbers.

The numbers you have used so far are simply from you own opinion and fabricated to suit what ever point you thought relevant. If you can cite something that supports your claims I would really be interested in reading it. If not, then I have no need to continue reading figures you simply make up for your own use........


----------



## Nolte (Oct 6, 2004)

Gohon

Let me try and really simplify this for you, I thought it was clear from my other dozen posts. I don't know the actual deer population in Wolf country in WI, MN, or MI. But your generalized total deer population of 1.7 million is not accurate to use in any conversation about wolves for WI or MI (coincidentally they have a total deer population that is close to the same).

I'm not saying that my number is precisely accurate. MY POINT is that your number of 1.7 million IS NOT an accurate figure to use in any sort of numbers break down. That's it.

If wolves are so great for deer management, why don't we box a few up and bring them down to the ranches of TX. Let's see how welcome they are there. I'm guessing they would be met with a little bit of resistance.

For your information my number comes from taking the deer harvest in deer management areas (roughly units 1-50 in WI)with known wolf populations divided by total deer kill and then multiplied by total deer population. This gives a ball park figure, nothing more.

Here is a link with some other figures for you. The calf depredations in 1997 and 1998 are from about 1 mile away from my doorstep. Ask them about all the red tape and hassles they had to go through to be compensated. Which was much less than would have been fair. It's a flawed system that is bogged down by groups with a very pro-wolf agenda.

http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/publicati ... ndix_a.htm

The one thing that bothers me is that people from outside where wolves have an impact, have this huge opinion on what should be done. If this thread would have started about eurasian milfoil, asian beatles, or reestablishing elk herds in WI, nobody would have gave a crap. Talk wolves and everybody is an expert.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> MY POINT is that your number of 1.7 million IS NOT an accurate figure to use in any sort of numbers break down.


How so? Michigan which is where 250Savage and I were speaking about has a estimated population of 1.6-1.7 million deer......



> For your information my number comes from taking the deer harvest in deer management areas (roughly units 1-50 in WI)


Why? MI was the discussion not WI. Should I challenge your numbers using WA?



> If wolves are so great for deer management, why don't we box a few up and bring them down to the ranches of TX. Let's see how welcome they are there.


Go ahead........ don't know what they would say down there. Can't speak for a state I'm not living in. You seem to have a problem keeping states straight.

You see Nolte, the discussion back and forth between 250Savage and I was about all the wolves in Michigan. Not WI or MN but you want to take some numbers from one state, apply them to numbers in another state and somehow think you have pointed out something to someone that is fact. Sorry but that is only la la land. You want to talk about wolves in WI or MN or the entire USA just say so and I'll start looking up figures for those area's. Until then, at least in my case I'm still discussing Michigan, or at least trying to. If you have a problem with the deer herd in Michigan being as much as 1.7 million or the annual predator kill being 10,000 deer which assume is fact since 250Savage posted it, then the problem is yours, not mine but you are in no position to flatly state those numbers are incorrect just because you don't like them. Sorry but the figures from trained professionals of that state far out weigh anything you might post. Now name the state you wish to discuss and if you can stick with the state you name and not go off on some number spinning witch hunt I'll try to discuss it with you......

Another point of view.....are they right, wrong, partly right, or partly wrong. Are they using facts or opinions? You be the judge.

Myth vs. Fact

Myth: There are too many wolves in Minnesota and will soon overpopulate the state.

Fact: There have been no scientific studies since 1971 of Minnesota's wolf population. The most recentestimate of
wolves in the state is 2,000-2,300; based on questionable estimates of average pack sizes and a survey of wildlife
managers in northern Minnesota which asked them how many wolves they thought were living in their area! Wolves are
territorial, so by nature they limit their own numbers. A pack occupies a territory of 30 to 100 square miles and will kill
any lone wolves, coyotes, or domestic dogs within that territory. There is a finite limit to the total number of wolves that
will ever live in Minnesota.

Myth: It's only a matter of time before a wolf attacks a human.

Fact: No person has ever been attacked or killed by a wolf in Minnesota, or anywhere in the United States in all our
recorded history or in the Native American oral traditions. The media has reported on a incident in in Canada, however
in speaking with the Canadian authorities they did not consider this a wolf attack -- a lone wolf that had been hanging
around a campground and acting strangely, getting into peoples equipment, and so on, tried to drag a sleeping bag in
which a child was sleeping. When the wolf could not move the bag from the foot end, it pulled at the head end and
injured the child. However, this is an isolated case and one in which the wolf clearly was not behaving normally -- such
an animal should have been removed and/or destroyed much earlier by authorities.

Myth: Wolves are losing their fear of humans.

Fact: There is no evidence that wolves were ever "afraid" of humans. Native American oral traditions do not indicate
either that wolves feared, nor that they feared. As both human and wolf populations increase, encounters between
wolves and humans are bound to increase, but this does not mean wolves are threatening us. Nor would a hunting
season make wolves more afraid of us. As many as one in every five wolves are killed, legally and illegally in Minnesota
annually, without generating this "fear" response. There have been recent, unconfirmed reports by hunters that wolves
have approached them in the woods and that they were not easily chased away. The hunters conceded that they were
wearing camouflage or deer scent to mask their own human scent or they were standing next to a freshly killed deer. In
a few cases, the hunters ran and the wolves chased them. In no case did the wolves actually attack the hunters, despite
the fact that the hunters smelled and acted as a deer would (ie. running).

Myth: Wolf attacks on pet dogs indicate wolves don't fear us.

Fact: Most of the dogs killed by wolves were either roaming freely or left in a yard overnight. An unattended dog is
perceived by a wolf as another canine competitor within the pack's territory, which has nothing to do with how wolves
perceive humans. Pet owners need to understand this very basic element of wolf behavior and be responsible for
protecting their animals.

Myth: A hunting/trapping season is the only way to prevent a wolf attack on a "human."

Fact: People in "wolf country" need to take common-sense precautions to protect their families around wolves and the
DNR needs to provide information to the public about wolf behavior and how to react to a wolf encounter. Also, the
threat from wolves must be put into perspective. Every year 4.5 million people are bitten by dogs; thousands more
attacked by wild animals, even some thought to be "friendly" to humans such as whales and dolphins; but instead to
educate the public how to behave around these animals and remove the animal that caused the problems.

Myth: We need to hunt wolves to control livestock depredation.


Fact: Less than 2 percent of farms within wolf range are subject to livestock attacks by wolves and there is a federal
trapping and state compensation program to provide relief to the farmers. The federal trapping program selectively
removes pack members known to prey on livestock. A sport hunting and trapping season would indiscriminately remove
wolves, regardless of whether they prey on livestock or not. Such a season would almost certainly occur in the winter
when wolf pelts are their thickest, and therefore most valuable, not in the summer and fall when most livestock
depredation occurs.
The federal trapping program kills roughly 120 to 200 out of the estimated 2,000 wolves living in Minnesota. Even if we
accept the estimated number that means every year, about five percent, or one out of everyone 10 to 20 wolves in the
state are legally killed under the program. The DNR estimates that another 100 to 200 wolves are killed illegally every
year, but there is evidence to suggest the numbers are as high as 400 every year. So the total number of wolves killed
in Minnesota every year equals roughly 220 to 400, or around one out of every 5 to 10 wolves. (For context, wolves kill
about 1,700 out of 47 million turkeys raised in Minnesota annually, or about one out of thirty-thousand.)

Myth: Wolf attacks on livestock are increasing.

Fact: According to annual reports from the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA), the number of livestock killed by wolves
fluctuates annually, but has actually been higher in past years, even when the wolf population was not as large as it is
today. For example, according to numbers from USDA, the numbers of turkey and other livestock killed in the years of
1987 and 1989 were very similar to, and in some other cases larger, than what has been observed in 1996 and 1997
(see table below), but in 1994, the numbers were very much smaller. This tells us livestock kills by wolves are not
dramatically increasing through time, and are not directly correlated to the number of wolves (clearly, there were more
wolves in MN in 1994 than in 1997).

Myth: Wolves are killing all the whitetail deer in Minnesota.

Fact: Recent declines in the deer populations have more to do with several consecutive harsh winters than with wolf
depredation. In fact, wolves improve the deer herd and do not compete for the same deer that hunters want. A 1971
study conducted in Minnesota by the US Forest Service found that vast majority of deer killed by wolves were at least 5
years old and in poor health, while the majority of deer were killed by hunters were 2 years old or less and in good
health. In addition, predator species populations are delicately balanced with their prey species. When deer populations
decline, the wolf population declines soon after.

Myth: Because wolves are just another animal, there's no reason not to hunt them.

Fact: This is a matter of values. Everyday, we make unscientific distinctions between animals based only on social
norms and values. We eat cows, but not dogs or cats. In India and much of Asia, the exact opposite is true. There's no
real reason -- they're all animals -- it's just the values and norms of our societies. If our society says wolves are different,
because that's the way we feel about them, that is not inherently wrong. For many people, particularly traditional Native
Americans, the wolf has spiritual and symbolic values. For them, that is sufficient justification to not hunt wolves.

Myth: Wolf delisting is a Minnesota-only issue.

Fact: Delisting of any federally protected species is of nationwide significance. In addition, it can hardly be said that
the wolf has recovered throughout its historic range. Any delisting decision in Minnesota could have serious
consequences for continued recovery of the wolf in other areas, particularly the upper Midwest. In part, the wolf
populations of North Dakota, and northern Wisconsin and Michigan are begin supplemented by wolves emigrating from
Minnesota.

http://www.nighthowls7.com/mythvsfact.html

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/ar ... bzbigs.txt


----------



## Nolte (Oct 6, 2004)

Gohon

I thought it was pretty clear that my example was fairly universal for MI or WI. I'll try one more time. If there are 1.7 million deer in a state and wolves only occupy 1/3 of that state or less. It is very hard to use that number of 1.7 mil, and for anyone to take you serious.

Show me any sort of state agency, (heck I'll even take some half-crazy liberal scientist) that says there are 1.7 million deer in the UP and then we can have a discussion with numbers. Until then can you quit bringing that number up and saying it has any relevence to a wolf discussion. Once again wolves only live in the UP of MI.

I really liked your Myth and Fact sheet. I see you were extremely critical when you picked out the source. Do you really think a group that raises and breeds domestics wolves and has website dedicated to it would have any sort of information that casts a negative light on wolves. I'm guessing they would filter that stuff out before it made it for the public to view. I would venture to guess that these typs of people would belong to the "warm and fuzzy" crowd that Bob talked about. I bet Peta or the HSUS (or a group funded by them) might have a simliar fact sheet, you should have used theirs.

This site has a fact sheet as well, and it differs from yours. http://www.usa4id.com/ciwc/

Gohon, you believe what you want, but I really am critical on the stuff I read on wolve issues. Some are Pro-wolf, some are complete Anti-wolf and the information they post favors their side. I'll keep my thoughts more in the middle slanting towards anti-wolf and believe the stuff that I see for myself.

So the next time I'm on my bowstand in wolf country and see one, a long ways from my truck and then get to walk out in the dark, I'll feel safe in knowing that pro-wolf groups say there has never been a documented attack.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> I thought it was pretty clear that my example was fairly universal for MI or WI. I'll try one more time. If there are 1.7 million deer in a state and wolves only occupy 1/3 of that state or less. It is very hard to use that number of 1.7 mil, and for anyone to take you serious.


No don't try one more time.... all you do is attempt to spin bs with little meaning and absolutely no facts. You don't know that all wolves are only in the upper 1/3 of the state. As a matter of fact, according to the state government that is not the case. You don't know where the 1.7 million deer are mostly distributed. This is nothing but more guess work on your part. Only person not taken serious is you.



> Show me any sort of state agency, (heck I'll even take some half-crazy liberal scientist) that says there are 1.7 million wolves in the UP and then we can have a discussion with numbers. Until then can you quit bringing that number up and saying it has any relevence to a wolf discussion. Once again wolves only live in the UP of MI.


What in the hell are you blabbering about? Who claimed there were 1.7 million wolves in MI? Oh wait..... you talking about this from me...." 1.7 million plus wolves is a lot of wolves". Is that it? Did you accidentally fail to read the entire sentence or is this just more of your out of context spin attempts again.....here is the complete sentence....."Now you claim there are more wolves in your state than deer...... 1.7 million plus wolves is a lot of wolves". Damn those archived threads..... they get you every time....nice try spin master.



> I really liked your Myth and Fact sheet. I see you were extremely critical when you picked out the source.


And I see reading comprehension is still difficult for you. What part about *"Another point of view.....are they right, wrong, partly right, or partly wrong"* did you not understand. Without question if you read that site you quickly realize they are strictly pro wolf. Does that mean you throw out everything they say or do you digest it and mix it in with other point of views.



> Gohon, you believe what you want, but I really am critical on the stuff I read on wolve issues. Some are Pro-wolf, some are complete Anti-wolf and the information they post favors their side. I'll keep my thoughts more in the middle slanting towards anti-wolf and believe the stuff that I see for myself.


Give me a break.............. you haven't been in the middle of anything in this thread. You take everything out of context. You can't understand what you read. You mix data from one state with another in attempts to muddy the water and then you simply ignore the issue when you are caught do so.



> So the next time I'm on my bowstand in wolf country and see one, a long ways from my truck and then get to walk out in the dark, I'll feel safe in knowing that pro-wolf groups say there has never been a documented attack.


Well, why don't you just show us all one of these documented attacks that you claim exist. You should be able to do that, after all you are the wolf expert. I can find all kinds of reports where a hiker or jogger was attacked and eaten by a mountain lion. Ditto for bear attacks that killed people. Alligators, snakes, and even coyotes. Funny though, can't find one single article about a wolf stalking, attacking, and killing or injuring a human in the USA. Can You? I don't think you can. Even the account in another forum title "Close Call With Wolf" or something like that, was attempted to be turned into a wolf attack by someone. Turns out the guys dog ran over a hill smack into a pack of wolves, or a group of three wolves I think. What do the wolves do....just what you would expect them to do, they attack the dog. Man runs over hill, sees dog getting butt kicked. Man fires shotgun at wolves, one wolf turns and run towards man, man fires at wolf, wolves run away. Even the hunter stated it was just one of those freak things. But I'm sure just like 250Savage who thought he had stumbled on something, you will allow the newspaper headlines convince you that "Wolves Attack Man. Got a shocker for you....wolves in the woods are the least of your worries at night.

This thread has done nothing but run in circles with pointless spin and bs so if you don't mind I think I'll just let you play by yourself.


----------



## Nolte (Oct 6, 2004)

Gohon

The 1.7 wolves was a misprint by me it has been changed, It was meant to be 1.7 million deer in the UP. But since you are an all out expert on MI I thought you could would catch that. It would be hard for there to be 1.7 million wolves in MI, when there aren't more than 100,000 wolves on the entire continent. Also in my last reply it was all dealing with MI, I'm not trying to spin anything.

As for you opinion on no wolves in the Lower part of MI.

"There's no solid evidence that wolves have returned to the Lower Peninsula, despite occasional reports of them crossing the frozen Straits of Mackinac in winter, said Pat Lederle, coordinator of the DNR's endangered species program. "

Here is est deer pop for the UP in MI, taken from the MI DNR
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Deer_ ... 1443_7.pdf

I don't throw out everything I read on sites like you posted, but I do look at them very carefully. Most of it will fit their agenda.

Here are the links for you for wolf attacks. Also do you know the criteria for a documented attack. If you look at them it makes it fairly hard to have a documented attack. It heavily favors the Pro-Wolf crowd.

The wolf has to be killed, examined and found to be healthy.

It must be proven that the wolf was never kept in captivity in its entire life.

There must be eyewitnesses to the attack.

The person must die from their wounds (bites are generally not attacks according to the biologists)

ttp://www.usa4id.com/Documents/Document ... ttacks.htm
http://www.natureswolves.com/human/aws_wolfattacks.htm


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

At least everybody feels that there are enough wolves to have them delisted and managed by hunting. The "kill all the wolves" guys have to realize that eliminating the wolves like they did in the last century is not going to happen and agree or not, with proper management there is lots of room and game for everyone, both humans and wolves. So it's time to delist them and turn management back to the states. The USFW would LOVE to get rid this hot potato and hand it back to the individual states, assuming they come up with a reasonable management plan. 
As I understand it the state of Wyoming is holding this up as they refuse to come up with a reasonable management plan for wolves once they do get delisted! So all you Wyominites out there - contact your state representatives and urge them to come up with a similar plan as all the other surrounding states and come out of the 19th century! Your stubborness is holding everybody else up!


----------



## Nolte (Oct 6, 2004)

Hunt

I agree totally.


----------



## Cap'n Jon (Oct 21, 2005)

Actually the fact that most people don't know 'cause the're 2,000 to 3,000+ miles away is that the terrain of the U.P. and the "North-Woods" of Wisconsin or the "North-Lands" of Minnesota are so identical that they are really the same "State" and are only different by boundary lines...

The last TRUE wilderness of the lower 48 States ARE These 3 States...The East Coast or the Rocky Mt's. don't even come close because of the population explosion of left wing wacko "Thilly-Guy's" (sic) from San Fransisco :withstupid: or other places.

The hardest part for ANYONE who resides in these 3 states is from the ones who think they know best, but who don't live here, AND think they can control us or control what lives here...

To the Judge out West who stopped the controled killing of 12 wolves each year here in Michigan and Wisconsin out of the 600 plus that the Mi. DNR has admitted that live here I will be taking donations for gas $$ so we can load up a few of these "big-dog's" to release in his back yard and down to the capitol bldg in Lansing! :beer: ![/i]


----------



## Cap'n Jon (Oct 21, 2005)

Nolte...You from the old Wisconsin Outdoors New's forum?? If so drop me an e-mail or PM...I was there too before they dropped all their forums...Cap'n Jon...I now run the Yooper Sportsman site and been looking for you'se guy's, eh?! :beer: :wink:


----------



## tjay (Oct 25, 2005)

I guess I see it real simple... I have no problem if they don't give me one. This also includes the dog. I just don't think I could stand by and watch wolf take apart my dog while out hunting.


----------



## 250Savage (Jun 24, 2005)

In the end it doesn't matter some people believe the MIDNR and then those of us that live up here laugh in their face about deer numbers.
Gohen what is too you on Wolves? What animal rights group or wolf huggers group do you belong too???

14% LESS license sold this year you want to know why? Because Mr. Downstater calls his friend living in the UP how is the deer herd? Joe in the UP don't waste your time worst deer I seen in 40 years. But the DNR says their 1.7 million deer. Joe well I am telling you I have hunted up here since 1965 and this is the worst year I can remember.

The truth is the MIDNR does not have an accurate account of the wolves or the deer and it is an ESTIMATED. The wolves I would say have knock the deer herd back 70% of what it used to be. Believe what every you want because in the end it doesn't matter. License sale will prove me right, less deer equal less license sold.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Wow........... you just won't let it go will you. Of course the MIDNR does estimations....... on collected data. But I guess you went out and made a accurate head count. Do you have a clue how foolish you are looking, running all over this board crying about wolves when you can't even comprehend what so many people have said on here. Go back to school or take a home study course if need be, but learn to comprehend what the hell you are reading. Do you think if I belonged to a animal rights group I would be advocating hunting wolves..... The wolves don't mean a damn thing to me except that they are part of the natural environment and to keep then completely out of that environment because some yoyo is sadly misinformed about his personal hunting pleasure is plain stupid. Why don't you give MIDNR a call and give them all the facts you think you possess.......... unbelievable.


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Gohon, thanks for the info on this thread.

Got to see my 1st wolf this last Saturday,
actual was 3. The bad thing, I left the 
digital camera in my bag, which in turn
was in the vehicle. Bad me!

They are just amazing to watch in the wild!

This is the 1st time I have seen a coal colored
wolf.

Oh, yes, they were deer hunting, they were 
on the trail of two fawns I passed up.


----------



## 250Savage (Jun 24, 2005)

Gohen no where did I ever say wipe out the wolves. So read that twice so you can comprehend what I am saying. You are 1000 miles away and you won't let it go. You are clueless of the facts. But for some reason you just have to believe everything you read about wolves. Try going back to school I have repeatedly stated in plain English that any 6th grader can comprehend turn the wolves back over for state control and get the feds out of it. Read that again.

Even you can count deer trail in the snow? Come on when see a 90% drop in deer trial there is one heck of a lot of deer missing. Unbelievable some
self proclaim wolf expert can tell me I don't know how to count deer trails.
Your keyboard commando chair must be connected to Miss Cleo hotline. As I clearly stated before believe what ever you want the deer license sales will prove me correct. 14% drop in license sales tell a huge story that you choose to ignore.

What is really unbelievable to me. Is you attacked me right off the bat. I gave you a first hand hunters look of the area. You attack even though my guess you never been here. You didn't see the deer population radically drop in 10 years like I witness first hand but you can sit there day after day after day and pound the keyboard about how correct you are. That is truly unbelievable. I guess you can go back to school too and learn how to ignore eye witness. The really funny part is I am not alone there is several hunters in the TriStates putting out the same information I am.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

250Savage, first of all, your purposely misspelling my last name in your last two posts just shows how childish you are. Second, you have never provided anything, not one single documented piece of information other than your own opinion. Third and probable more to the problem is you are most likely just a lousy hunter to start with, and your real ***** is the wolves have changed the habit of the deer in your area, and you can no longer just sit on you fat rump and wait for the deer to come to you. You just may have to start really hunting for a change. You put out bad information when you started this thread and you're now mad because you were called on it. No one agreed with you, and you got ****** and declared you were through with this thread and out of here. But you are back, which is no surprise........... then you go to another forum and start a new thread, same subject...... no one would talk to you so you followed your own post with another of your own until finally someone responded and again you were proved wrong and no one agreed with you there. So, here you are again.............. No one has to be there in your back yard to know what is going on or to be able recognize when someone is simply wrong in their opinion.. A wolf is a wolf, they act the same in all states. If I want the wolf de-listed, you want the wolf de-listed, I want the wolf hunted, you want the wolf hunted, then what is your problem. You're still attempting to make a mountain out of a mole hill and your attempts at starting a pissing match is not going to make you right.
Get over it and move on&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;

P.S. Just so you know I wouldn't even have bothered to answer you here in your round two of rambling after 21 days of my avoiding the thread except you singled me out by name. Now why did you do that......hmmmmmm


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Wisconsin regional deer hunt totals
Associated Press 
Last update: November 29, 2005 at 5:11 PM

A regional breakdown of the 312,519 whitetail deer that hunters registered with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources following the nine-day hunt, according to a preliminary count:

-15-county northeast region: 70,405, up from 64,656 deer last year.

-18-county northern region: 88,788, down from 88,841 deer last year.

-19-county west-central region: 116,825, up from 109,946 deer last year.

-11-county south-central region: 30,522, down from 34,351 deer last year.

-8-county southeast region: 5,979, up from 5,368 deer last year.

The totals this fall include 137,955 bucks and 174,564 antlerless deer, compared with 123,500 bucks and 179,662 antlerless deer a year ago. Wildlife officials say the number of antlerless deer is important because it includes does, and killing them is a way to reduce the deer herd in overpopulated areas.

250Savage wrote


> Even you can count deer trail in the snow? Come on when see a 90% drop in deer trial there is one heck of a lot of deer missing.


Where is the drastic drop in deer numbers?


----------



## Lil Sand Bay (Feb 2, 2005)

Bob:
Thanks for running the Wisconsin Deer season numbers... I was going to do the very same thing this morning. As you know, I live in the northernmost home in the entire state of Wisconsin. As such I can be considered to be in the heart of our resident wolf population. I see their tracks, hear 'em upon occasion, and get a look at 'em every now and then. Simply put the wolves have an insignificant impact upon the overall health or population of the herd. We've put our rifles away for another year... and we still have way to many deer around! 
Early deep snow and sustained sub zero temps 'til spring will be the only thing to bring the herd into reasonable management numbers, an event which hasn't happened in the past five years. Got to run now and put my auto collision insurance payment in the mail!


----------

