4 Canadian wolves air-dropped in US national park to deal with moose

[Muley_Stalker]

Wolves are not like hunters at all. They are present 24/7/365. They alter moose behavior in very different ways than humans, and that has impacts that we are only beginning to understand.

It's not about how many moose get killed, it's how they die. Control is not simply mortality. And moose are not moo$e. The DNR and feds are not supposed to be profiting from wildlife. That's not their mandate or mission. I don't understand why hunters have such a hard time understanding this.

I thought the problem was herd control? How are wolves a better choice than hunters? How do you control wolves? You do know that wolves don't always eat what they kill. They just enjoy killing. They also go after the young. What happens when the herd is where they want it. How do you stop the wolves from killing too many?

Hunters are a better choice when everything is considered. Why is that hard for you to understand?

I understand they want to add wolves to the wolf pack. I ask why? We have no wolves in Colorado and we're doing fine. It's much easier to control elk and moose than wolves, coyotes, and bears.

 

[onpoint]

"Hunters are a better choice when everything is considered".

Been a hunter since 1975 or so.
Killed more critters than most. 30+ years as a state wildlife mgmt. agency fish and wildlife tech. One example of the hunting and killing on my "resume" - 13 years assisting MT hunters "harvest" 1000's of elk during Gardiner MT late elk hunt.
Not a stranger to, killing, hunting, hunters, nor wildlife management. Nor public opinion(s) of hunting.
Not a fan of wolves. Don't hate em. Actually feel sorry for the critter itself. But would drop one in a second if it threatened my dogs while we are hunting where they live.
Just saying all the above to set up this.....

"....everything...."?

The bolded statement above, IMO, is one of many examples of short sighted, narrow minded, screw everybody (of which a vast majority are not hunters) else rhetoric that is a great help to "us" all.

Carry on.

 

[Muley_Stalker]

"Hunters are a better choice when everything is considered".

Been a hunter since 1975 or so.
Killed more critters than most. 30+ years as a state wildlife mgmt. agency fish and wildlife tech. One example of the hunting and killing on my "resume" - 13 years assisting MT hunters "harvest" 1000's of elk during Gardiner MT late elk hunt.
Not a stranger to, killing, hunting, hunters, nor wildlife management. Nor public opinion(s) of hunting.
Not a fan of wolves. Don't hate em. Actually feel sorry for the critter itself. But would drop one in a second if it threatened my dogs while we are hunting where they live.
Just saying all the above to set up this.....

"....everything...."?

The bolded statement above, IMO, is one of many examples of short sighted, narrow minded, screw everybody (of which a vast majority are not hunters) else rhetoric that is a great help to "us" all.

Carry on.

You don't think considering everything is important or is your way the only way? One of us is narrow minded but it's not me. Prove to me wolves are the best answer and you convinced me i'm wrong.

 

[Sytes]

Point, you missed his point. Carry on...

On the topic of wolves, I have a better understanding for their interest to use wolves - for the study of the adverse effects of inbreeding, as if there are any advantages. The use of these wolves as lab rats is for conservation efforts elsewhere, according to the lead scientist Rolf Peterson. I believe for an island to secure, excluding the ice bridge escapes ("Lost" TV humor again...) it's a good area to study the process towards deformity, same genes, etc... A good 40-60 years of study grants, and funding for Rolf and his research papers. In the mean time, it assists with the overpopulation of the moose.

On top of that, anyone that thinks hunters are not a quality use for conservation efforts has lost their marbles...

 

[onpoint]

You don't think considering everything is important or is your way the only way? One of us is narrow minded but it's not me. Prove to me wolves are the best answer and you convinced me i'm wrong.

I did not offer "a way" of any kind.
"Everything" is quite inclusive - including the fact that Isle Royale is a National Park. Not a public land entity managed with hunting in the mix. Who's to say hunting should be in the mix? (some, many) Hunters? Of course. Many, many other users of that particular land and resource(?) - who knows.
I have no interest in convincing you that you're wrong.
I do know that it's a bold statement - "hunters are better choice when everything is considered" - when "everything" is not actually considered.

I sincerely like your tag line - "....success.....become uninterested in.....compliments....." It's a good one.

 

[Panda Bear]

we have approx 15000/20000 just in the three Territories and I think B.C. has another 10000

please let us know if you want some more

 

[BrentD]

we have approx 15000/20000 just in the three Territories and I think B.C. has another 10000

please let us know if you want some more

You bet. Send 'em all

 

[JLS]

Prove to me wolves are the best answer and you convinced me i'm wrong.

Singular arguments rarely fit well into resource management.

Hunters are a better choice when everything is considered. Why is that hard for you to understand?

This is a definitive statement completely subject to your priorities and views of wildlife management. I'm with @onpoint, it's pretty hard to proclaim hunters are the way, the truth, and the light.

On top of that, anyone that thinks hunters are not a quality use for conservation efforts has lost their marbles...

Hunters are a large part of the equation, but they sure as hell don't own the sandbox.

 

[Muley_Stalker]

I only know Colorado. We don't use wolves to control game herds and it works fine using hunters.

I think some of the arguments are weak if you can't prove that wolves are the answer.

 

[Sytes]

Hunters are a large part of the equation, but they sure as hell don't own the sandbox.

Seems a given... We agree.
I know, if managed properly, quotas are a valuable tool for managing game populations from State fish/game, within the sandbox...

 

[FI460]

I only know Colorado. We don't use wolves to control game herds and it works fine using hunters.

I think some of the arguments are weak if you can't prove that wolves are the answer.

Wolves aren't the answer, they're the question. What most people are missing is this island is literally the textbook example for predator-prey relationships. This isn't just some exciting whataboutism for a wolf reintroduction, it's the perfect place to continue data collection on predator- prey dynamics and insulated wolf research.

It's a little more complicated than too many moose, therefore shoot moose.

 

[JLS]

I think some of the arguments are weak if you can't prove that wolves are the answer.

The answer to what?

The argument is weak to think hunter interests are the only thing that factor in to wildlife management. The North American Model gives every single one of use vested interest in wildlife management, whether one hunts or not.

Colorado will one day have wolves, and the world will not end.

 

[Muley_Stalker]

We won't stand for having wolves.

I had my say and i'm done in this thread.

 

[onpoint]

We won't stand for having wolves.

I had my say and i'm done in this thread.

There it is.

 

[JLS]

We won't stand for having wolves.

You (whomever "we" is) might not, but you'll have them anyway. Bank on it.

 

[tjones]

We won't stand for having wolves.

I had my say and i'm done in this thread.

Heard the same thing in Montana and we have them.
Heard the same thing in Idaho and they have them.
Heard the same thing in Wyoming and they have them
Heard the same thing in Washington and they have them
Heard the same thing in Oregon and they have them.

Colorado will be the same, the SSS crowd will live strong on the bar stools and the average elk hunter will adapt or struggle.

 

[mtmuley]

We won't stand for having wolves.

That's what all the guys like you in Montana said. Jones brat me to it. mtmuley

 

[onpoint]

You want hunting, warts and all??..............
Mid 1990's Gardiner MT.
We'd (MFWP, hunters, outfitters, the winter economy of Gardiner) been killing up to a couple thousand elk (majority+/- being pregnant cows) for a long time. Everybody happy.
Along comes the talk of wolves. No way. not here. It'll ruin us.
All that from the hunters, outfitters, town of Gardiner.......
More people than those relative few had a say in the goings on in YNP. So, yes , the wolves did come.
And MFWP kept right on issuing a buttload of late hunt permits as those wolves began putting their dent in the elk.
Hunters complained about the wolves hurting the population as did outfitters and assorted Gardiner business folk. And everybody kept on happily killing elk.
And then it ended. The hunt that is. MFWP finally called it quits. After all the additive mortality due to hunting at the same time the woofs were doing their damage.
Who was right, who was wrong.
I can be a selfish prick and say, "hell, it gave me a winter job and I got to do and see a lotta' spectacular (and some really very disturbing things) things. Great memories.
Or I can look at a little broader picture, and the reality....................................

But hey, hunters could be just the ticket for Isle Royale. Easy peasy. No broad picture. Say us hunters..............................................................

 

[The Hedgehog]

Doesn't Colorado have more elk and tree-huggers than anywhere in the US? It's pretty surprising that wolves weren't "introduced" there decades ago.

 

[Sytes]

Wolves aren't the answer, they're the question. What most people are missing is this island is literally the textbook example for predator-prey relationships. This isn't just some exciting whataboutism for a wolf reintroduction, it's the perfect place to continue data collection on predator- prey dynamics and insulated wolf research.

It's a little more complicated than too many moose, therefore shoot moose.

Not really accurate, well maybe for the wolf digestive biological examinations, if the inbreeding doesn't interfere with a common study.
Problem with pretending the predator/prey is a good study - it would be applicable to other islands of the same wolf territory and pack size.
Isle Royale is approx 53 miles...

Regionally, as learned earlier in this thread, the average pack size is between 4-7 for a span of 50-80 miles (varies between MI, WI, and MN.)
The re-introduction alone has already exceeded this qty for the average territory / wolf pack size.
Consider the litter size each year and it further spreads away from any reasonable study for comparative use.