I was hunting with a buddy in the North Georgia Mountains a few years ago. The buddy of mine swears he saw a wolf. I tried hard to get him off of a wolf. He was positive it wasn't a large coyote or a dog or coydog. I thought he was nuts. I didn't know about the wolves in NC at the time. He was so convincing that I did a little research. The Smokey Mountain area was less the 100 miles away. Now, I'm pretty convinced he did see a wolf.

I wish I would have seen it. A wild wolf is one of the few creatures that I haven't seen that I would really like to see.

 

they used to say that the mountain lions will never lose there fear of man and maybe they haven't, but look what is happening in calif and some other states where there numbers have grown. many people have been attacked and killed. i will go out on the limb with this one, no one was killed by a mountain lion when there numbers were down or non existant, and no livestock, dogs, or any other animals, domestic or not was killed by a wolf where there wern't any. we sportsman have worked hard and sacrificed to get the deer numbers back to being huntable. if the wolf is left unchecked, it won't be to long before there numbers are back to where they were in the 1940's where most states didn't even have a deer hunting season. for those who don't agree with me, that's ok, just my opinion. let's see how you if you ever loose a dog or worse yet, a child to a wolf or a mountain lion, god forbid, but it's going to happen to someone again, and i guess as long as it's not you, you can afford to have the opinion you have. me, i don't have to be carjacked to know that you just don't drive in some areas of the city at midnight. or have my kids kidnapped to learn to keep a better eye on them. the ecosystem was just fine before the re-introduction of wolves or mountain lions. wake up people, you wouldn't want a child molester living next door to you, would you? in theory, i don't see any difference.

 

"they used to say that the mountain lions will never lose there fear of man and maybe they haven't, but look what is happening in calif and some other states where there numbers have grown. many people have been attacked and killed"

Well, actually, 18 people have been killed since 1890. Are you still going to say that is "MANY"? Do you know how many people are out in the California wilderness and how many get attacked? Would you like to search the amount of domestic dog deaths during this time? Go aheard and do it, you'll like what you find


"we sportsman have worked hard and sacrificed to get the deer numbers back to being huntable"

What exactly have you done to work hard and sacrifice?? Do you mean wipe out all the predators because that is what You see fit? I notice not ONE time do you ever mention that humans have something to do with lower populations of deer. Do you seriously think that Wolves in the early 1900's wiped out all the deer?? If you don't think that is the case, then I won't try and understand someone who lives in "your" world of thought. Oh here by the way...feel free to go on the Wisconsin DNR website and go and see that deer numbers for the state are above goal. The normal pattern in fishing and hunting is always to blame the predator when things are different and never look in the mirror, some things never change

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/wil ... opgoal.htm


"wake up people, you wouldn't want a child molester living next door to you, would you? in theory, i don't see any difference."

I actually spend many days in the summer with these child molesters you speak of. Somehow ( and it has been tough and scary, believe me), I find the courage to walk outside of my cabin, and sometimes deep into the brush courageously to fish and hunt knowing at any time I Face death. Get real!! Do you also believe in Sasquatch?? There's a lot of rumors he lives in the area of Spooner, WI, better stay away from there my friend!

The bottom line, is some of us who still have some sanity left like to go out into the outdoors and get the same experience as it was back in the day before man came in and wiped out everything as he saw fit. And the bottom line is predators are a part of the ecosystem, and I don't think the "reintroduction" has been anywhere near as disastrous as you guys make it. But hey, luckily the people who make our decisions when it comes to these areas think a little outside of the pre-1950 state of thought. :lol:

 

20 pounder - the limb has broken and now they're smacking you on the head with it!!! LOL! Don't worry though, you've got a lot of people in your corner buddy...

 

thanks for the support, fishart. i don't claim to have all the facts on any issue. but i think the facts will support my position that since mountain have become a protected speices in calif. that attacks have increased as there numbers have grown. ya, and a lot of the prehystoric people were killed by sabre tooths, if you want to go back that far in time. how many have been killed lately by sabre tooths? i stand by my opinion. i'm not saying do away with mountain lions and wolves, but let's keep the numbers in check. and what have i done to help the deer numbers improve? i have planted food plots, picked up garbage along the roads and rivers, i've practiced selective harvest, i teach young people the importance of conservation and honor, i plant trees every year in southern il., and i'm a proud supporter of d. u. and many other sportmans assoc. and every dollar i spend on hunting and fishing helps to support our states conservation efforts. i don't care to have a p*ssing contest with anybody, but i will say, if you want your position to be respected and taken seriously, don't be so condecending. if you really feel that your position is correct foryou, than just knowing that should be enough. your not going to change anybodys opinion by attacking them, you just give them a reason to not even listen to what you have to say. your attacks say more about who you are, not if i'm right or wrong in your opinion. just my opinion.

 

I've done my part for helping the deer herd in Wisconsin. I MISSED one with my slug gun a couple years back - lol!

Thanks for putting things in perspective 20Pounder. Since there are no data out there concerning re-intoducing the wolves, it truly is ALL a matter of opinion on whetehr or not it will work out...

 

that's right, fishart. not enough scientific data yet, but, i do reconize some trends that have me concerned.

 

There's nothing wrong with sharing opinions and debating. For me personally, when you compared Wolves to Child molesters is when you lost me and respect in this argument, that's just plain senseless and a waste of space

 

Musky Thyme - if I'm not mistaken, it wasn't intended as a direct comparison - it was a philosophical comparison of the dangers both possess.

But, your "that's plain senseless" comment is EXACTLY what 20 Pounder is talking about. The condescending attitude. Stick to the facts and that wins debates. Once you veer from the facts and data supporting your argument, your opinion's (value) diminishes drastically.

And for the record, the only time I've EVER lost my patience with people on this website and veered from the topic is in self-defense. You two were the first to start the mud-slinging. M.S. and I started awhile back so much of our impatience towards each other is from past history. I think you and I may have had differences of opinion in the past where things got a little heated. But this topic was the first time I believe you directly insulted my career choice and my intelligence. And as 20 Pounder stated, when you start the personal attacks nobody is going to listen to you...

 

not a comparison, musky tyme, an example of a sad truth. just an analogy. i didn't mean that they were the same thing. if i made it sound that way, i didn't mean to. the point was, some truths are more obvious than others. i reread my wording in that post, and i guess i could have worded it differently. but my point remains the same, a trend may not be the whole truth, but it's all we have at this time. i'm not ready to jump in and defend the wolves with such strong language before all the facts are in. and one bad anagoly on my part shouldn't detract from the main issue of this thread. sorry!

 

" The normal pattern in fishing and hunting is always to blame the predator when things are different and never look in the mirror, some things never change

I was wondering how long the comparison to his muskies eating all the crappies would make it into this conversation.....jk.....I like to eat muskie too....lol...

MT you are very intelligent just maybe a little unexperienced.....I wonder if you have sat and listened to some of these people on this board and your older relatives.....are they all stupid or just wrong if you don't agree with them? You seem smart and maybe have too much schooling with little real life experience (not that there is such a thing, but old timers see it all the time in us yougsters..lol..), but the experiences of our elders are real and its important to listen and understand them.....I don't know who said "if you fail to learn from history, you are condemned to repeat it".....wolves were removed from the ecosystem by the true preditor.....us......as has been done forever.

You question about wolves removing all of the deer during the early 1900's? No the wolves weren't fully responsible....in fact whitetail deer had to be introduced to several areas that they now occupy....but the deer were stressed by them, and the states decided that they wanted the deer and money that the hunting has and will bring them.....so they reduced the number of wolves....not all.....we had a very active natural pack near Watersmeet Michigan (this pack was used for breeding and stocking by the way) we used to have to drive several miles off the paved roads and wait sometimes all night just to hear them.....very cool......that is wilderness....

Now when I go home (Marenisco, Michigan) I don't need to go very far from my families front porch in town.....and you should see all the deer come into town at night to get away from the wolves.....not very cool.....that is not wilderness.....

just my humble opinion......the reintroduction of wolf packs was ok......fully protected, free to roam and kill.....not ok......have you ever seen a winter deer yard desimated by a pack of wolves.....I have and its obvious they don't kill just to eat.....but because they are bred for it.....

 

great thread you started here, fishart! maybe some people will learn something from us old farts after all. not!!!!!!!! they won't change my opinion, and i dought if we will change theirs.

p.s. for all past and future post, i'm not the best speller in the world, but you should taste my anchovie marinated musky filets!

 

Fish Art...while I definetely disagree with you on this issue, I must clarify that by no means was I insulting your choice of career, rather I was suggesting that your location here in Chicago does not make you an expert in this topic. I was challenging you to tell me what your qualifications are for this particular issue, I do stand by that statement, to me there is nothing wrong with a little debate. However, I would never insult you for being a taxidermist.


Upland K...it is very obvious this is an argument that stems from people coming from very different age generations. I hope I don't come off as a Know-it-all, but I spend more time in the North woods a year then just about anyone I know of any age who does not live there already, my experiences have never matched some of these tales i hear on the internet and often asking people to back up their claims with factual information is an impossibility. Whether it is fair or unfair, My father and mostly his father and that generation went up North and pilaged the land of fish and wildlife at a rate like they grow on trees. With people reproducing at an ungodly rate, I don't want to see those mistakes made again, and needless to say they will not be made by me. Call me stupid, but there's a part of me that still enjoys that small chance of danger when you are out in the woods, eliminating the predators takes that away and that just would not feel the same to me.

My main problem with the wolf argument ( that I have been involved with with others many a time), is that I hear guys saying they don't want them eradicated, but deeper into their words I don't hear it. If you want them off the face of the earth, that's fine, just come out and say it. I think they should be controlled, checked, whatever. They have to be if they continue moving south at the rate they are, if anything else to control the livestock run ins. But if some smaller numbers migrate to areas maybe they didn't think they would get to, we don't need to take to the streets and panic like some are now doing in Wisconsin. I don't feel they are a threat to me, history backs that up, and until that changes I am not going to assume otherwise. And as for domestic dogs..I don't feel they belong out IN the Northwoods, if you decide to do that you take a risk, and if it fails you learn a tough lesson. God made fences for a reason...Just my .02

 

I don't feel they are a threat to me, history backs that up, and until that changes I am not going to assume otherwise. And as for domestic dogs..I don't feel they belong out IN the Northwoods, if you decide to do that you take a risk, and if it fails you learn a tough lesson. God made fences for a reason...Just my .02

A threat to you? Probably not.....yet.......if that changes and you must have first hand knowledge of it.....it might be to late for you to change your mind......


2nd.....you don't lke guys using dogs for hunting? What......come on now....hope that was a shot over my bow for poking fun at the muskie eaters.....lol.....

Guys have been using dogs for bears, lions, wild boars....etc...forever. Sure some lose some dogs to the wild animals....its an occupational hazard (even though the dogs don't interview for the job)....this article about the wolves attacking dogs is different....they were aggressive beyond this hunters belief....sounds like they might have been starving, which is what will happen if they over populate their areas.....

 

Thanks for the clarification MT. I think we both now can see how that comment could've been taken either way. Perhaps I need to re-read things again before I reply next time, sorry. As far as being qualified to be an expert on this subject, I certainly am NOT. I don't think anybody is.

We definitely disagree on whether or not man should be intervening this time around. I don't think they should be re-introducing them as you well know. From an economical standpoint alone, the initial financial cost for doing so is off the charts where I believe this money could be better spent elsewhere. Wisconsin's deer season alone directly or indirectly generates a BILLION dollars a year for their economy. And that's just one state.

Secondly, nobody knows what's going to happen for sure. Typically, anytime man introduces (or re-introduces) a species that has evolved it's way OUT of the area (whether natural or not) we are asking for trouble. Especially when it comes to the re-introduction of a predator. The wild turkey and the elk are two species off the top of my noggin that have been successful. BUT these two species are not predators AND the finances to support their re-introduction have come from HUNTERS. Since wolves (and coyotes) aren't the tastiest bunch, what happens when their numbers get too great? Meat hunters certainly aren't going to want to PAY for a license to hunt them. Their skins won't be worth much (like coyote skins are hardly worth a trapper's efforts now) because the market would be flooded with them and that old supply and demand thing will kick in.

And that's just looking at things from an economical standpoint. The DNR folks will most likely have a managerial nightmare on their hands! Look at the difficulty they currently have managing the delicate balance of our Lake Michigan fishery. Some of that we changed and some of that was changed by the invasive species.

Next would be the moral issue. Much like the Jurassic Park movies, even if we COULD bring back the dinosaurs, should we? Even though WE originally removed the wolves the human equation still is a part of the evolution process. Since they have not flourished and worked their way back into the lower 48 after 100+ years, I contend that nature has taken it's course.

Then you have the safety issue. Anytime you have any predator thriving amongst humans there's probably going to be some problems - I certainly will give you that. But again the big difference here is that while the DNR tries to get their numbers up they certainly don't want people hunting their investment. In the meantime, wolves get bolder and bolder and their natural fear of humans begins to taper off. Look at black bears - or any bear for instance. The first whiff of a human and they're gone. This is because of their natural insticts AND because they are hunted. They learn really quickly the first time a hunter shoots at them to avoid humans at all costs. Most, if nearly all of the dogs killed during Cougar or Bear hunting (where legal) has happened AFTER the bear was cornered and his escape routes have been exhausted. Human encounters with Cougars PRIOR to California banning Cougar Hunting (don't even get me going on those California weirdos!!! lol!) has been much more frequent than prior to that banning.

There's just too many reasons on too many levels of WHY they shouldn't be re-introducing these things. History has shown that our wildlife resources MUST have some economic value for them to flourish (sad, but true). I don't see wolves having much of an economic value in today's society. Unfortunately, we are doomed to repeat history here again. And the taxpayers will ultimately be the ones paying for these mistakes...

 

I think the perceived danger to humans is way out of proportion. Nearly 50,000 people die every year in car accidents. Someone said "what if it's your kid" Well there are a lot of kids in that 50,000. Nothing we do has zero risk, but the wolves present nearly zero risk. Even if they were massively overpopulated, they would have to kill a lot of people before the risk would no longer be effectively zero. This is just not an argument that holds anything other the emotional weight. In a country of 300,000,000 there will be people from time to time that are killed by deer, bear, dogs, bath tubs, ... Worry about the 50,000 before you were about the 1 or 2.

There are many other issues that I simply do not know any real data.

Wildlife - Deer, Elk, Turkeys, ... Everything will be effected, but how?

Livestock - What will the impact be?

One other point that is political or philosophical or whatever. The wolves do not have a right to be in any particular place. I believe in managing the environment for our benefit as decided by our ugly, messy, but best in the world political system. The environment is not sacred and we do not have to return it all back to Mother Nature to do with as she pleases. If we want more deer and less wolves, the wolves lose. If we want more carp and less muskies, well tough luck muskies.

This is usually the root debate in these issues. You have two camps. The first is the nature is sacred camp, which sounds and feels good, but really can't be followed through to it's logical conclusions. The second is the human's decide camp, which is really the only practical camp because we aren't going away and we will decide and argue like we are doing right now. The first camp tries to use the nature is sacred as an argument for their choice in how we manage nature. Sort of like using the Bible in a debate on making laws.

There are a lot of misconception about many things and far too often suburbanite in the east are making the decisions for the remote parts of our western states and Alaska. As far as the wolves in Idaho, let Idaho decide.

 

Well Spinnerman, it just depends on how you look at things. You're right, wolf encounters with humans are extremely rare. BUT (and this is a HUGE "but"), I believe the encounters are rare because the population densities where wolves live are considerably LESS than in our lower 48.

Let's just take that figure of ~300 million people that are currently thriving in the U.S. With the bulk of them in the lower 48. You could probably throw in another 50 miliion worth of illegal aliens too, but we won't add in that number! The lower 48 consists of 2,870,084 square miles. With 44,000 of those square miles consisting of concrete, paved roads, buildings and other manmade structures.

Canada on the otherhand has only ~33 million people. Yet there are 3,745,574 square miles of land. And I'm assuming considerably fewer manmade structures taking up a portion of that land. So, you're looking at 25%+ MORE land in Canada, yet they only have 1/10th of our population.

Just in the article I posted there was already an attack on that human being (and his dog saved him). The wolf population in the lower 48 - I would guestimate isn't even 1 percent of 1 percent of 1 percent of that (wolf population) in Canada. I'm no math-major, but statistically the data are telling me that we've already had FAR MORE encounters than the Canadians have with wolf encounters and that has to do with our population densities.

Just some food for thought. And (most of) these data can be found on the internet btw...

 

Stumbled upon an interesting read that can help you draw your own conclusions. However, I would take into account the source. I certainly wouldn't consider it to be an unbiased source by any means. But the data (facts) are interesting.



http://www.wolf.org/wolves/news/2005rel ... attack.asp

 

The fatality rate in Canada appears to be around 3,300 per year, which would be slightly lower than 1/10 of the U.S. so this number seems reasonable. If there were 100 wolf deaths per year, you would still be a 33 to 1 favorite to die from a car accident over a wolf attack. At one per year, you are a real long shot at 3,300 to 1. If compare "encounters" with accidents, the accident rate is 680,000 per year and obviously includes far more than 3,300 serious injuries.

My point is we must put worries in proper perspective if we wish to reduce the overall death rate from all causes and not focus excessively on the trivial ones. Another far more difficult challenge is to compare positive benefits with a small risk of harm. For example, I like to look at wolves, but I don't like being eaten by them.

I will concede if you are eaten by a wolf your are far more likely to make the front page of the local newspaper.


I hope this made sense because I had to write fast because I have to go.

FYI, the 300,000,000 number includes illegals.

 

Actually SM, you lost me - but then again I'm an ART MAJOR - lol!

We can crunch the numbers all we want. Unfortunately there aren't any data out there of good populations of wolves co-existing with the high densities of humans we have here in the United States.

And you beat me to the "I wouldn't want to be eaten by a wolf" comment. We certainly all face a certain amount of risk just by waking up every morning! BUT, I don't think comparing car accident fatalities is a fair comparison. This is a risk most of us have to take if we wish to get groceries, etc. Whereas introducing wolves into populated areas is a CHOICE that somebody else has made for me. I've always said that IF somebody gets mauled by a cougar in California, it better be a tree hugger that gets it - lol! I think just about every one of those 50,000 a year car accident victims would say they'd prefer hitting that telephone pole at 65 vs. getting eaten by a pack of wolves.

I think the best argument for NOT re-introducing them though are the economical reasons that I mentioned previously...

 

If people are not willing to make adjustments in the way they go about things, the problems will undoubtedly grow.

Adjustments being....stop feeding wild animals #1, forget wolves, other animals are a problem as well. A chicagoan near Ear Falls, Ontario a few years back is now 6 feet underground because he decided to feed a 400 lb black bear a bag of m&m's while standing 5 feet away, forgeting to take into account what would happen when the bag ran out. If people want to keep doing brilliant things like that, then these animals will undoubtedly lose fear of humans and you can bank on even more problems because of stupidity. If you notice in that article most problems with wolves deal with food sources provided to them by...humans.

Pets and Livestock may need adjustments in the way they are watched. To some this is an uneeded inconvenience, to others it requires very simple changes. I have no doubts that the people who refuse to alter these areas will be the first to cry wolf ( ) when things go wrong.

Upland, I hunt with my dog for pheasants out in the fields. It will be the day I bring him or any other dog into the Woods to hunt big predators. I personally think hound hunting is right up there with spearing, forget the animal being hunted I hate the thought of putting a dog in danger like that. I can honestly say I have zero sympathy for anyone who goes big game hunting with their dog and then is horrified when the dog doesnt come home. I know Wolves strike dogs in MN when they do this on Bear Hunts. Real simple solution there...don't do it, get out there yourself and bear bait, and you won't have to hold the head of your dog and spine like a Mortal Kombat video game.

 

I don't hunt big game with dogs either, but it sounded like you said dogs in general.

I think the common thread to our discussion is two items...

1.) Who does reintroducing wolves help....certainly not the deer hunters.

2.) We all agree that our chances of a wolf attack are very slim.....but I don't want to read about the first kid getting attacked.

Answers......the gov didn't ask me but.....I have an opinion and a rearend, and they smell the same way sometimes.

1. The environmentalist.....now don't get me wrong, all outdoors men are environmentalist to an extent just not to an extreme.....

2. I see a problem in the northwoods with a food source that is dwindling for the wolves....ok.....survival of the fittest. The wolves will die off and adjust their populations on there own....in time. The period in between is what worries me.

I have never been afraid of preditors in the woods. As a matter of fact, running bear baits for the flatlanders (put me in this group now) was a good after school job for me.....once I thought it would be a good idea to wear a bell so as not to sneak up and scare a bear off the piles......by about the third day of this a bear had followed in my footprints in the mud, and circled me and the pile with me in it......learned to fast for my comfort.......by the way, I have never shot a bear....seemed to easy to me.

 

If people are not willing to make adjustments in the way they go about things, the problems will undoubtedly grow.

Adjustments being....stop feeding wild animals #1, forget wolves, other animals are a problem as well. A chicagoan near Ear Falls, Ontario a few years back is now 6 feet underground because he decided to feed a 400 lb black bear a bag of m&m's while standing 5 feet away, forgeting to take into account what would happen when the bag ran out. If people want to keep doing brilliant things like that, then these animals will undoubtedly lose fear of humans and you can bank on even more problems because of stupidity. If you notice in that article most problems with wolves deal with food sources provided to them by...humans.

Pets and Livestock may need adjustments in the way they are watched. To some this is an uneeded inconvenience, to others it requires very simple changes. I have no doubts that the people who refuse to alter these areas will be the first to cry wolf ( ) when things go wrong.

Upland, I hunt with my dog for pheasants out in the fields. It will be the day I bring him or any other dog into the Woods to hunt big predators. I personally think hound hunting is right up there with spearing, forget the animal being hunted I hate the thought of putting a dog in danger like that. I can honestly say I have zero sympathy for anyone who goes big game hunting with their dog and then is horrified when the dog doesnt come home. I know Wolves strike dogs in MN when they do this on Bear Hunts. Real simple solution there...don't do it, get out there yourself and bear bait, and you won't have to hold the head of your dog and spine like a Mortal Kombat video game.

MT what about us guys that enjoy grouse hunting in the northwoods?? last time i checked the northwoods where you spend all this time happens to be around the Grouse Capital of the world... The grouse numbers are already low yeah yeah tis the low end of the cycle but still you throw in another predator to the area and now the grouse are gone plus its no longer safe to grouse hunt because of wolves... I'm curious how you feel about the dnr Stocking Northern in some of the Muskie Lakes up north?

 

In a perfect world MT, you might be able to control everybody and get them to stop feeding the animals. But, our world is far from perfect. Some people will continue to feed M&M's to the bears, thereby putting everybody else at risk.

It probably wouldn't be that much of an effort for most pet owners to watch their pets, but livestock??? Each and every farmer would have to put a 6'-8' cyclone fence around the perimeter of their property to keep the wolves out. And even then, they'd dig holes or find other ways to get in. And theoretically speaking, even if they could figure out a barrier that could work, who's going to pay for it? I don't see it happening. What will happen is the farmers will do what they're doing now where they can't legally shoot a wolf. And that is the S.S.S. method (Shoot, Shovel and Shut-up). But that will only be a temporary solution. The poison will eventually come out and that's a horrible death for any animal.

Quite frankly, I think this whole re-introduction thing has been an incredibly smart approach to eliminating hunters by the anti's. Once the deer, moose and elk are gone there will be nothing left to hunt and therefore no hunters. It has already happened in the U.P and other areas out west...

 

Bears are without a doubt an animal that needs to be hunted. You won't ever see me doing it, it's not challenging and I really don't know what I would do with it other then a rug...but...I have many multiple encounters with bears, I never felt in Danger THAT much, but they don't exactly bolt off into the woods if you are near a food source...or anytime sometimes for that matter. When bears don't get thinned and food gets scarce, they head straight to the nearest town and backyard and then you have problems. They cancelled the Ontario bear Hunt about 3-4 years ago, it is now very common to see bears at all times of the day, ehether on the road or on the lake, and I still get the creeps when I walk a portage trail with fresh tracks in front of me. Heck, last Thursday night, I had one 4 feet outside the door right where I was sleeping tipping over the garbage. These guys are heading more south little by little every year, I think people will find a much bigger problems with Bears then Wolves...