Wolf in S.D.
- Thread starter SDbuckmaster
- Start date
I'm not talking about my logic, I'm asking about yours.
Who said anything about ignoring it for 20 years? Strawman?
I just dont understand your "waste of time" argument. Most things the government does is a waste of time. But when you have people getting paid to do that specific job, then why not let them investigate. Might as well stop counting all wildlife, it's a waste of time. They could make population estimates based on average percent winter kill, tags filled, etc. Boom, I just saved the state thousands of dollars, probably hundreds of thousands over 10 years.
jryoung
Well-known member
How valid are eyewitness reports in a court?
It's a waste of time to confirm an eyewitness reports because eyewitness reports are incredibly unreliable and biased. If they chased every eyewitness report they'd spend more time hunting ghosts than focusing on the work that is more important until better evidence exists.
It's a waste of time to confirm an eyewitness reports because eyewitness reports are incredibly unreliable and biased. If they chased every eyewitness report they'd spend more time hunting ghosts than focusing on the work that is more important until better evidence exists.
It seems all you want to do is present strawman arguments without ever answering my questions.
What specific benefit is there from investing time, money, and resources into confirming that there is indeed a wolf in the Black Hills?
Does the presence of one, or even a few wolves really change your wildlife management?
Where did I say they should stop counting wildlife?
Which is more important for season settings, the presences of one or several wolves, or your fawn to doe and buck to doe ratios both before and after the season?
Which is more beneficial, confirming one or several wolves, or doing habitat restoration and improvement?
Which benefits hunters more, confirming one or several wolves, or working to increase public access to wildlife on private land?
Note that I never said it had to be either or. But, when you consider this in the grand scheme of things, it's really worth nothing more than appeasing folks who for some reason or other think that GFP has some hidden agenda to deliberately deceive folks about the presence of wolves.
True, that makes sense. They have had numerous sightings in the last 10 years, I would have thought a warden or biologist would have seen them as well. The part I hate is that the way the game and fish reacts to the situation. Doesn't seem honest for a state agency.
I think you are thinking that because they saw ONE wolf I want a public apology and confirmation of ONE wolf from the game and fish. This is not true, their have been several wolf sightings over the last 10 years and I just wonder why the game and fish brushes it off every time? Why deny it? Clearly there is a trend that is worth looking into, but I guess some prefer half-a$$ wildlife management.
Several benefits as this would have a down stream effect with regard to wildlife management and future habitat improvements as you said. You can improve all of the habitat and increase access to private land all you want but there are few animals that stay in an area populated by wolves. I guess this is your game plan, use the wolves to push those elk and deer right to you.
The reason I would like to see some sort of investment from the SDGFP is that I like to be proactive, that's how I operate. The Black Hills is already struggling with their game populations. I want the game and fish to be PROACTIVE, not reactive. This will eventually be a problem, so they might as well start coming up with a game plan to combat the increased presence of wolves in the park. I'm not saying they need to start shooting them, but they can develop a plan before people start whining about how there aren't any elk left.
One, no, but several over the last 10 years, yes. The presence of a predator such as a wolf can have a huge impact on the number and location of game animals. Tag allocations could potentially be adjusted to compensate for the potential number of wolves in the area. Maybe a few less cow/calf tags in order to sustain the population.
Sorry, this was just speculation. It just seemed to be your general attitude towards wildlife management. I guess you didn't know that the game and fish studies wildlife populations to develop tag allocations for each year. It's a crazy concept. According to your viewpoint, the game and fish doesn't need to know about the predator population because it is a "waste of time", and again, speculation, won't have an effect on SDGFP wildlife management.
Wolf population and ratios are two parts to the equation. They both must be considered, if there is a growing wolf population, then how do you think your ratios are going to be in the long term. The game and fish would need to take the wolf population into account, this is an uncontrolled variable, but tag allocation is controlled. I don't know how many deer a wolf takes a year on average but they take the mountain lion population into consideration as they eat about 52 deer/year. I bet the game and fish takes their population into account!
This discussion is about several wolves over the last SEVERAL years. Not one wolf.
As a hunter, I am concerned about anything that affects habitat and access including access, do wolves just stay on public land?. There are many aspects to conservation of our game animals, which does include habitat improvement and restoration. That's all fine and dandy but when a wolf is introduced to the same region as elk and deer, do you think they just stay put? No, not only will wolves push the game off of your improved habitat, but they will also kill them. May not be many at first, but a few years go by and now you have a wolf problem. The damage has been done and the public is screaming about how there are too many wolves. This will lead to several years of "what do we do?, studies, etc and they will finally address the issue years after it actually became a problem. They will likely be so far behind that it will take ten times longer to control the problem and rebuild the game population, even with all of your wildlife habitat improvements.
I guess I would agree with you that it is "appeasing" the folks. God forbid they do their job that the TAXPAYERS pay them to do. I don't think there is some big conspiracy but why do they continue to dismiss their own citizen's claims over the course of several years. I feel they are putting off the problem.
To leave out wolves when managing wildlife leaves a part of the wildlife management equation empty. How can you effectively manage wildlife when you do not consider all aspects that affect them?
Sorry for liking deer and elk more than wolves, I want to be able to hunt and take my kids hunting for the next 50 years. However, opportunities are getting slimmer and slimmer. Being proactive can nip this in the butt before it becomes a problem. If you cannot see that, then I cannot offer you anything more other than my OPINION.
Wyopitz,
I perfectly understand wildlife management. I'll just agree to disagree with you.
I can guarantee you that if several wolves over several years alters your wildlife management to any great degree, there are bigger problems that need looked into.
Roadkill is more of a significant factor than several wolves over several years.
I perfectly understand wildlife management. I'll just agree to disagree with you.
I can guarantee you that if several wolves over several years alters your wildlife management to any great degree, there are bigger problems that need looked into.
Roadkill is more of a significant factor than several wolves over several years.
There are STILL people believing in the wolf Armegeddon. WyOpitz, betcha money my kids (already do) and grandkids will kill elk and deer here in Montana. In spite of wolves. Hell, I'll hunt them too. And have. And folks will in SD too. mtmuley
Similar threads
