Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

East Coast Aztec

Wolf Hunt Mismanagement Leads to Nearly a Doubling of Desired Takings

Recommended Posts

WI DNR Done Goofed Up...

Quote

Wisconsin’s recent wolf hunt, the state’s first in seven years, ended early on Wednesday after the state’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) determined that 69% of the state’s 119-wolf quota had been harvested in just two days. But hunters and trappers out in the field were allowed a grace period of 24-hours, effectively extending the hunt through the following afternoon.

As of 3 p.m. on Thursday, the Wisconsin DNR confirmed that quotas had been exceeded in all six hunting zones, for a total of 216 wolves taken — a number far exceeding the 119 limit originally set by the DNR.

Quote

Officials say fresh snowfall on the first few days of the hunt aided hunters in tracking the wolves, as did hunting dogs — which accompanied approximately 90% of the successful hunters. The special hunt was a desirable one for outdoor enthusiasts in the area, too. The DNR was reportedly flooded with over 27,151 applications, with only 2,380 permits available.

Quote

Meanwhile, Wisconsin’s hunting advocates and conservationists were at odds over the hunt, with the former arguing that the wolf population was decimating farmers’ livestock, and the latter worrying that the gray wolf’s relatively small numbers (officials estimate there are roughly 1000 in the state) were already too small.

This is a touchy subject for a lot of folks, especially in the areas where wolves are present.  That is 1/5th of the state's wolf population gone in 3 days.  The sport hunters and ranchers got what they want.  This is a bit more troubling since it's mating season and almost half killed were female, and could have been pregnant.  They don't have a good argument until waiting until November, and if we continue to have the government paying the ranchers for lost livestock, this will be a double dip and a huge problem to me.  And I personally disagree with sport hunting wolves, but that is my own thing, just seems like a waste of a gorgeous animal.  WI DNR needs to be lit up for this one.  They dropped the ball, at least they admitted to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, East Coast Aztec said:

WI DNR Done Goofed Up...

This is a touchy subject for a lot of folks, especially in the areas where wolves are present.  That is 1/5th of the state's wolf population gone in 3 days.  The sport hunters and ranchers got what they want.  This is a bit more troubling since it's mating season and almost half killed were female, and could have been pregnant.  They don't have a good argument until waiting until November, and if we continue to have the government paying the ranchers for lost livestock, this will be a double dip and a huge problem to me.  And I personally disagree with sport hunting wolves, but that is my own thing, just seems like a waste of a gorgeous animal.  WI DNR needs to be lit up for this one.  They dropped the ball, at least they admitted to it.

 

Agreed 100%.

I am fearful of what the numbers will look like in Idaho as they made wolf hunting a year round thing this year.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

Agreed 100%.

I am fearful of what the numbers will look like in Idaho as they made wolf hunting a year round thing this year.  

 

What are the wolf numbers in Idaho now? How many were originally introduced? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

Agreed 100%.

I am fearful of what the numbers will look like in Idaho as they made wolf hunting a year round thing this year.  

 

I do fear the overeagerness of people who just like to shoot shit, and now you get a mythical-like creature that is now available to shoot after so long.  I have no qualms with hunting wolves as a conservation tactic, but WI may just have shown what happens if DNR and F&G are not on their toes on this.  It's crazy to me that non-livestock holders want to hunt wolves, but people like to see how good they are with the dogs, similar to a cougar hunt.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, soupslam1 said:

What are the wolf numbers in Idaho now? How many were originally introduced? 

1,500 give or take.  Numbers introduced don't matter.  The were introduced to increase in population.  Historical populations of gray wolves in Idaho are about 5,000-7,000.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, East Coast Aztec said:

I do fear the overeagerness of people who just like to shoot shit, and now you get a mythical-like creature that is now available to shoot after so long.  I have no qualms with hunting wolves as a conservation tactic, but WI may just have shown what happens if DNR and F&G are not on their toes on this.  It's crazy to me that non-livestock holders want to hunt wolves, but people like to see how good they are with the dogs, similar to a cougar hunt.  

 

There are a lot of ignorant and lazy people who are mad they have to hike to shoot an elk now and can't just go the same spot off the road every year and shoot one.  People like @slappy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

There are a lot of ignorant and lazy people who are mad they have to hike to shoot an elk now and can't just go the same spot off the road every year and shoot one.  People like @slappy

This year will be my first hunting season in the PNW area.  After MN hunting where you drive to the side of the county road, sit in your tree and drop deer across a clearcut corn field, I cannot wait to do some hunting through the terrain.  People around here are spoiled in terms of opportunities for a challenging hunt.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

1,500 give or take.  Numbers introduced don't matter.  The were introduced to increase in population.  Historical populations of gray wolves in Idaho are about 5,000-7,000.

 

 

"“Of course, no one took a census back then, but we know that over a very short period of time—just a decade—over 100,000 wolves were turned in for bounty in Montana alone,” Stone said. “The native wolf population [in Idaho] was probably in the tens of thousands.”

https://www.mtexpress.com/news/environment/idaho-s-wild-wolves-a-look-back-at-the-history-of-wolf-reintroduction/article_0fac201e-f3bc-11ea-8388-ffec050da824.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

1,500 give or take.  Numbers introduced don't matter.  The were introduced to increase in population.  Historical populations of gray wolves in Idaho are about 5,000-7,000.

 

Did some googling and found that 15 wolves were originally reintroduced and 30 more a year later. If the number is currently 1500 that’s a pretty good success story. I can understand ranchers killing wolves that attack their herds, but to hunt and kill them for sport has little purpose unless they are significantly depleting the natural deer and elk population.  I’ve always felt the same about hunting big game to put a stuffed head on the wall.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, soupslam1 said:

Did some googling and found that 15 wolves were originally reintroduced and 30 more a year later. If the number is currently 1500 that’s a pretty good success story. I can understand ranchers killing wolves that attack their herds, but to hunt and kill them for sport has little purpose unless they are significantly depleting the natural deer and elk population.  I’ve always felt the same about hunting big game to put a stuffed head on the wall.  

 

Predation control is fine and needs to happen to some extent but year round hunting, especially in the late winter/early spring when they are pupping and breeding is really distasteful  to me.  You also have the "Judas" wolf thing that goes on here in Idaho and Montana, where you tag a wolf, release it near where you got it, wait for it  to get back to the pack than shoot the entire pack.  It's...gross to me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve never been a hunter so probably don’t understand the hunter mentality. I can see hunting for food purposes and for controlling overpopulation, but to do it for sport doesn’t register with me. To see animals in the wild is beautiful unless they’re trying to eat you.

Ive been hiking in grizzly bear country in Montana and I was sure to make a lot of noise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other myth around the reintroduction is that the wolves brought into Idaho are "different" than the wolves that were wiped out.  This is false.  They are not larger or more vicious than wolves that occupied similar areas in the state.

"As to whether the wolves imported from Canada are a different subspecies, evidence based on geography and other species doesn't support it.
From North Idaho, there's only a few hundred miles from where the transplanted wolves originated, and the farthest distance from the current population's original home would probably be fewer than 1,000 miles.
According to Mark Drew, veterinarian at Fish and Game's Wildlife Health Laboratory, a thousand miles is not enough distance to trigger what's known as Bergmann's rule. That's a widely accepted zoological principle that individual animals of a certain species tend to be larger at higher latitudes and colder climates than those closer to the equator and in warmer climates."

https://idfg.idaho.gov/question/there-difference-between-idaho-grey-wolf-and-northern-canadian-wolf

"F&G's recent harvest statistics show Idaho wolves killed by hunters average about 90 pounds for females and about 100 pounds for males."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

The other myth around the reintroduction is that the wolves brought into Idaho are "different" than the wolves that were wiped out.  This is false.  They are not larger or more vicious than wolves that occupied similar areas in the state.

"As to whether the wolves imported from Canada are a different subspecies, evidence based on geography and other species doesn't support it.
From North Idaho, there's only a few hundred miles from where the transplanted wolves originated, and the farthest distance from the current population's original home would probably be fewer than 1,000 miles.
According to Mark Drew, veterinarian at Fish and Game's Wildlife Health Laboratory, a thousand miles is not enough distance to trigger what's known as Bergmann's rule. That's a widely accepted zoological principle that individual animals of a certain species tend to be larger at higher latitudes and colder climates than those closer to the equator and in warmer climates."

https://idfg.idaho.gov/question/there-difference-between-idaho-grey-wolf-and-northern-canadian-wolf

"F&G's recent harvest statistics show Idaho wolves killed by hunters average about 90 pounds for females and about 100 pounds for males."

Huh, that's interesting. I knew they re-introduced with Canadian wolves, but I didn't know that people went around saying those wolves are bigger and more aggressive.

I've done some reading on the relationship between wolves and the functioning of the ecosystems where they function as apex predators. The role of fear in the health of those ecosystems, all the way down to the morphology of the waterways. The reintroduction of wolves in these western landscapes are in a lot of ways changing how science understands nature. Wild stuff.

One of the greatest thrills of my life was seeing a wolf pack in the wild. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, smltwnrckr said:

Huh, that's interesting. I knew they re-introduced with Canadian wolves, but I didn't know that people went around saying those wolves are bigger and more aggressive.

I've done some reading on the relationship between wolves and the functioning of the ecosystems where they function as apex predators. The role of fear in the health of those ecosystems, all the way down to the morphology of the waterways. The reintroduction of wolves in these western landscapes are in a lot of ways changing how science understands nature. Wild stuff.

One of the greatest thrills of my life was seeing a wolf pack in the wild. 

 

Yeah, they keep the ungulates moving and help disperse them to their more appropriate habitats.  The deer and elk can't just wallow near the river all day, destroying the riparian habitat that is critical to maintaining the health of the rivers and the fish and other species that rely on that cover.  Less erosion as well.  

Elk were out competing deer in areas that they historical would not, the reintroduction of the wolf has pretty much solved this.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

 

One of the greatest thrills of my life was seeing a wolf pack in the wild. 

Seeing them in the wild is a spiritual experience.  Only way to explain it.  What they add to the outdoor experience more than makes up for a little harder elk hunting.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, this is BS.

"A house panel on Tuesday introduced legislation allowing the use of snowmobiles, ATVs, powered parachutes and other methods to hunt and kill wolves year-round and with no limits in most of Idaho."

https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/local/capitol-watch/legislation-aims-to-drastically-reduce-idaho-wolf-population/277-9eaed63a-a90f-4867-ac61-379777a6d802

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Yeah, this is BS.

"A house panel on Tuesday introduced legislation allowing the use of snowmobiles, ATVs, powered parachutes and other methods to hunt and kill wolves year-round and with no limits in most of Idaho."

https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/local/capitol-watch/legislation-aims-to-drastically-reduce-idaho-wolf-population/277-9eaed63a-a90f-4867-ac61-379777a6d802

" powered parachutes" :facepalm:

that's just cheating

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

There are a lot of ignorant and lazy people who are mad they have to hike to shoot an elk now and can't just go the same spot off the road every year and shoot one.  People like @slappy

That’s a tad bit ignorant.  
 

I have a friend who was a backcountry outfitter outside of Jackson, only way to get there was via horseback or hike.  He’s been complaining about the wolf populations for years, and it’s been documented that the decline in elk populations is due to that.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, tailingpermit said:

That’s a tad bit ignorant.  
 

I have a friend who was a backcountry outfitter outside of Jackson, only way to get there was via horseback or hike.  He’s been complaining about the wolf populations for years, and it’s been documented that the decline in elk populations is due to that.  

This is the balancing act.  Wolves should be around and that will mean the good life of abundant elk because that type of predator was essentially wiped out will be lessened.  How many wolves and how much protection they receive at X number is what DNR and F&G/F&W need to determine.  Of course people who used to and will continue to want to have the least path of resistance to success in a wolf's natural habitat (an extremely dwindled amount) are complaining about them and/or support the continued absence of them.  Humans are a cancer to the wilderness, it's just a matter of how cognizant we are of our effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, East Coast Aztec said:

This is the balancing act.  Wolves should be around and that will mean the good life of abundant elk because that type of predator was essentially wiped out will be lessened.  How many wolves and how much protection they receive at X number is what DNR and F&G/F&W need to determine.  Of course people who used to and will continue to want to have the least path of resistance to success in a wolf's natural habitat (an extremely dwindled amount) are complaining about them and/or support the continued absence of them.  Humans are a cancer to the wilderness, it's just a matter of how cognizant we are of our effects.

Well, here’s the numbers in decline over the years and the last number I saw for the Jackson herd was at 11k.  Definitely on a downward trend, should that be called mismanagement?

EA61D709-60BE-458A-A2E4-58E57835DB1D.jpeg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...