TrapperJack's Link
TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (AP) -- A federal judge has overturned an Obama administration decision to remove the gray wolf population in the western Great Lakes region from the endangered species list.
The order affects wolves in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed federal protections from those wolves in 2012 and handed over management to the states. In an order Friday, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that the removal was "arbitrary and capricious" and violates the federal Endangered Species Act.
Good grief, we loose control of these predators, we will have real trouble.......
All though I am always for law and order, and will always be on the right side of the law, they are going to force on alot of people, to be law breakers, because I can assure you, alot of people will handle the problem, which is not what we want......
Regardless of deer or wolves, I want managment by real science, not political science
Here's a news release from MN:
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources header DNR NEWS – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Dec. 19, 2014
Ruling classifies Minnesota wolves as threatened
Effective immediately, Minnesotans can no longer legally kill a wolf except in the defense of human life.
A federal judge’s decision to immediately reinstate Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan place the animals under protection of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Wolves now revert to the federal protection status they had prior to being removed from the endangered species list in the Great Lakes region in January 2012. That means wolves now are federally classified as threatened in Minnesota and endangered elsewhere in the Great Lakes region.
Only agents of the government are authorized to take wolves if depredation occurs.
-30-
I'm no wolf lover but what a stupid thing to say. Good job representing hunters....
Really nice! I don't care for the wolves but the individual wolf deserves better than being intentioanly gut shot as does any animal. I won't even use a glue board on a mouse because it's a terrible way to die.
However they need tight controls. I would have loved to trapped one. Maybe in the future it will come...
Once again we manage by political science
In response to a lawsuit brought against the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia has vacated a 2012 decision, which delisted wolves as an endangered species.
This decision returns wolves in the Great Lakes Region, including Wisconsin, to the Federal Endangered Species List.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and Department of Justice legal staff are reviewing the decision to determine how it will impact Wisconsin’s wolf management program. Further information will be available following this review.
Immediate implications of this ruling include the following:
* Permits which allow lethal removal of wolves issued to landowners experiencing wolf conflicts are no longer valid. The department will contact permit holders to alert them.
* The department is not authorized to use lethal control as part of its conflict management program. Non-lethal tools and depredation compensation remain available. Those experiencing conflicts with wolves should contact the United States Department of Agriculture – Wildlife Service for conflict investigation and management assistance. USDA Wildlife Services can be reached at 800-228-1368 in northern Wisconsin or 800-433-0663 in southern Wisconsin.
* Wisconsin’s law allowing landowners or occupants of the land to shoot wolves that are in the act of depredating domestic animals on private property is no longer in force. Landowners may not kill wolves in the act of attacking domestic animals.
* Under Federal Law, you cannot use dogs to track and train on wolves.
* Wisconsin is not authorized to implement a wolf harvest season.
While the department is disappointed by this decision, we will continue to support USFWS and their original decision to delist and remain confident in the State of Wisconsin’s ability to manage our wolf population.
In any event, I hope the department continues with their wolf program as this will most likely be overturned in appeal.
Naz, I think you are correct in that they shopped around to find the right judge. That has happened in this state with other matters in the recent past. Definitely not a new tactic of the left but certainly one they use pretty effectively.
June 7, 2013 NY Times
By FELICITY BARRINGER
Gray wolves, whose packs now prowl through the northern Rockies and the forests along the Great Lakes, no longer need endangered-species protection to prevent their extinction, the Obama administration said Friday.
The Fish and Wildlife Service unveiled a proposal to eliminate the remaining restrictions across the country, saying wolves are flourishing again. The only populations to have protection, under the proposal, would be Mexican wolves in southern Arizona and New Mexico and a small experimental population in North Carolina.
The announcement by Daniel M. Ashe, the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, marked the imminent end of 50 years of controversial efforts to bring back a predator that once roamed the continent but had been all but exterminated in the United States by the mid-20th century.
“Wolves are recovered and they are now in good hands,” Mr. Ashe told reporters on a conference call. “States are the most competent people to make the decisions in the future about how many wolves” there should be and “where wolves can add value to the landscape in the years ahead,” he said.
States like California, Colorado and Utah have few, if any, packs now. It is unclear, if the proposal is made final, whether migrating wolves from the Rockies could flourish there.
Environmental groups were quick to criticize the decision, saying that it reflected a parsimonious view of the Endangered Species Act and would hinder the further expansion of the wolves’ current range. Protections have already been lifted for the largest populations of wolves in the Midwest and northern Rockies.
Kieran Suckling, the president of the Arizona-based Center for Biological Diversity, said, “What this is really about is the agency saying: We’re closing the door on the recovery of wolves, new wolf populations in new areas. We’re going to be satisfied with a northern Rockies population, a Great Lakes population and a Southwest population.”
The protections available for wolf populations in the northern Midwest have been largely uncontroversial, as was the removal of these populations from the endangered species list in 2011. But in Montana and Idaho, where wolves were reintroduced a generation ago, they were a magnet for bitter controversy, pitting ranchers and hunters against groups dedicated to helping transplanted populations thrive.
Gray wolves in Wyoming had some protections until last year.
The most obvious result of the loss of protections was state-authorized wolf hunts. Because some of the wolves hunted and killed were favorites of tourists in Yellowstone National Park or collared animals being tracked by wildlife biologists, the news of their deaths left raw emotions among conservation advocates.
Friday’s announcement of the proposal to leave management of wolves to state wildlife officials was expected; a version of the proposal had been reported by The Los Angeles Times. But that did not make it any more palatable to environmental groups.
“This proposal is really an unfortunate low bar for endangered-species recovery in the United States,” said Jamie Rappaport Clark, the president of Defenders of Wildlife. “I’m not saying we have to restore them to their whole historic range, but this cuts off wolf recovery in the middle of the movie.”
“We didn’t do this with bald eagles,” she added. “Grizzlies and wolves, the top predators, need the cover of the law. The social tolerance for predators in the West is very low. There is concern that states will follow the race to the bottom. We’re talking about a predator that people are very emotional about to begin with.”
Mr. Ashe, in his news conference, said, “The recovery of the gray wolf is one of the most remarkable successes in the history of conservation.”
He stoutly defended the state agencies, saying: “We need to be dependent on the states to carry out wildlife management on a broad scale. And states are very competent to do that.”
Do we have some great years of deer hunting coming in the decimated 19.. where can I buy some more land with crappy deer hunting??? LOL
Boycott anyone??? 24K this year .. let's make it 50 or 75K next year.. only one way to send a message to idiot deer managers... hit them in the wallet.
Naz 's Link
This is my column for today's Door County Advocate, which also runs online. It's not listed here as opinion, but that's what columns can be. This is a mix of mostly facts and a little opinion. I'm sure I'll hear from the wolf experts, past and present, that question the "2-4x" comment. But those are the numbers almost every person who lives, hunts or traps in wolf country say when I ask how many wolves they believe are in the state.
How about you? What's your prediction for the number of wolves the pro-wolf counters will come up with this year, vs. what you believe is actually out there?
I'll say 550-600 is what they'll come up with on estimate.
3.9 Billion dollars to the Wisconsin economy says a representative 150 wolves is more than enough. If the Feds. are unwilling to show common sense, then each state has to flip the bird to the Feds. and take matters into their own hands.
There has to be a good old fashion march on Madison on this. Time is ripe for the pumpkins, farmers and camo clad to come out of the woods and rattle the cage of government leaders. We sit back and just take it, we have nothing to bitch about.
We should take a page from the Black community, you don't like how your thugs, murders, drug dealers, and common criminals are being treated by the police, march and protest. We can be more effective, we won't burn and run down the street with TV sets under our arms. What impact would 900,000 RV's, ATV, UTV, pickup trucks, Vans, Old station wagons, Tractors have on the state capital? One thing for sure it would be funny as hell.
DNR ecologist didn't like his response, but did say after a few years of harvest possibly they would estimate a population.
But then again if its not a high number who would believe it. Hope this is a short term setback and not more years of fighting to get a harvest season running again.
We have been in a slow degradation of morals and education for years. "The dumb down effect". Make it easier for all so things are fair or I will get a lawyer.
Going to call Wisconsin a wolf food plot!
The Wolf team the DNR has is out of touch, out of control, and could care less what we think, they just love them wolves.......
AW does make a point on you guys who are pro baiters. One thing I learned, in the short time I have been up north full time, is those baits, are nothing but feed stations for those wolves. They eat off of them, and the deer that come into them...
Now we have to spend more money going back into the courts. I knew when they brought them in, it was a mistake................
I know the elk herd will never be huntable in this state with the predation that is allowed. I am sure those involved did alot of hard work, trying to bring them back, its a darn shame.......
I may be wrong but I think they are also back on the list in Wyoming, but I am not sure
Ive met Governor Walker several times and he is a genuinely nice person who cares about Wisconsin.
Can you imagine wolves coming in heavy to Buffalo County, I would bet you, the problem would be addressed quick......... Big time money and buisness there...........
Keep in mind it was USFWS/this administration that delisted wolves. It was a judge, not the feds, who overturned. Now we need to hold DNR/USFWS feet to the fire and get them to stick to their guns that state management is indeed what's best for the wolves and find another judge to hear the appeal. The feds spent a decade "getting this right" so it could withstand suits from HSUS, yet here we are.
Agree with razor telling them to get real with the population estimates, but part of that could be not enough interest "on our part" to get those for managing wolves out in the field to take part in the count. There's absolutely no way the wolf loving crowd can accurately estimate hundreds of thousands of square miles of wolf habitat. If I were DNR wildlife staff, I'd go to bat for deer hunters and others up north right now, big time. If there is a way of doubling manpower this winter for the count, I'm all for it. Find every possible wolf track and wolf, and don't automatically just subtract wolves killed this season for a new total. If they doubled the effort, I'd bet they'd find double the wolves. Wouldn't that be an eye-opener for the antis?
Meanwhile, hunters and trappers could do the herd a favor by shooting coyotes …. legal year-round.
Dam straight NAZ, Coronado has an ulterior motive.
Here is the problem with the DNR. Most of them come through Stevens Point University at one time or another. My Nephew went there to study whitetail ecology and management, they so changed his view of wildlife management, pushed him so far left, that they radicalized him as they do many of the students. Stevens Point is far from a center focussed University. He is a smart kid, and could have done a lot of good here in Wisconsin for Sportsmen but, they changed him. He views the Wisconsin DNR as too far right, and just about every kid that came through the program with him was pushed in that same direction. He worked as a student on the wolf program, and they made him as far left as they could with his view on wolves. That is a serious problem for this state, WDNR and hunters. Our own educational institution has a hidden agenda against what hunters want in this state. Until that changes, you will not see a major shift in policy.
Our DNR can't count a thing right in this state. They highball the deer herd and lowball the wolves and bears. Luckily the WBHA took matters into their own hands on the bear population process and got the study that was needed. The DNR's estimate was only off like 200%.
We'll see now if anyone with power has a sack in this state. I don't see the Governor doing it because there are more pro-wolf people than hunters and he still wants his votes. I see him steering wide of this topic as any politician would do.
Now that them Republicans rule the roost in Madison, we will see how many get off their a...., and attempt to do something.......
Cathy Stepp needs to make a statement, and needs to address the needs for the northern deer herd, and what direction she intends to take our DNR.....
I hope its a postive direction, ,,,,,,,,
They are already loseing the northern deer hunter, and things do not look bright for the future, as far as the concern by the state, I just do not see it....
Or, am I completely full of crap on that?
What does this all prove?
- there are more wolfs than the state thinks
- there were way too many tags issued
- hunters and trappers are serious about getting after the wolfs
- the anti's were not able to do much to prevent the quota from being met
- the state is afraid of the power of the anti's as proven by closing zone 3 with 10 wolfs left in the quota.
- the quota by zone means nothing if the state closes some zones too soon before the zone's quota is met. Also when tags can be used in any zone why even have zones? This is certainly a lot of the reason why zones 1 and 2 closed so fast. Hunters/trappers from all over the state focused there early.
Rather than providing a quality hunt the state seems to be focused on the revenue that selling 1500 wolf licenses brings in. $49 for residents and $251 for non-residents.
Plus the $10 application fee from tens of thousands of applicants. In 2012 the state had 7150 resident and 136 non-resident applications processed in the first 6 days.
All this interest by hunters and trappers to get a wolf, the drag race and quick filling of quotas has the anti's worried that their sacred pet wolfs get might all get killed off.
First the state should quit setting the quota as a state total. Set zone quotas based on the population in the zone and socially acceptance goals.
So, if the state would issue far fewer total tags and issue them by zone it would level off the kill over the season. Zones like 3 that take have proven to take a while to fill should have more tags issued per wolf quota. Zones like 1 and 2 there should be less tags per wolf in the quota. This will help the state close the season for a particular zone at a more appropriate time without being much over or under the quota for that zone. This might even allow giving hunters more time to hunt after closure notice is posted.
The state has sent me a survey form to fill out. Maybe they did this every year or maybe they are now at least trying to make it look like they care about managing toward a quality hunt.
So why did I say: "Maybe this decision is good in a way". Well, because it just might force the state to think about providing a slower and consequently more quality hunt for those that are lucky enough to get a tag in the future.
As for this court ruling. It is bull, cherry pick a judge and you probably going to get what you asked for.
I am glad I am in NE Wis and UP, wolves there but not like northwest Wis.....
As I am bored here in rehab, I am going over maps in Nebraska and South Dakota. Going out west for 2 weeks, to chase deer on the praire.......
Ryan couldn't carry wisconsin as a vp last time. When has 2 guys on a potus ticket ever came from 1 state let alone a fly over state?
I am probably giving the state too much credit to ever do this hunt the right way.
The state really did rip us off by selling too many licenses. The 5 days I was able to trap cost me about $1600. Fuel going to the trapping class, scouting, and trapping about $200, license $250, purchasing 12 traps, fitting them with swivels, stakes, drags, fuel to boil them, dye them, scents and lures and other trapping supplies about $1200. (all of which I may never get to use or be able to sell) I shouldn't have needed 12 traps but knowing the season would not last long in zone 1 I wanted to do everything I could to succeed in harvesting a wolf.
One more point, the state says that overall the wolf quota was exceeded but that is NOT true. If you count the tribal allocation that was not used we were likely under quota.
"David Mech, a wolf expert for the US Geological Survey, said he is perplexed by Friday's court ruling because it runs against ample scientific evidence that wolves are not endangered in MI, MN and WI.
"It sure is going to surprise a lot of people, especially wolf biologists," said Mech, who has studied wolves for 56 years and provided testimony the last time wolves in the region were removed from the ESA protections.
Mech said halting the wolf hunt shouldn't have much effect on other animals in MN, such as deer and moose, because the wolf harvest has not been drastic. Far move wolves are born each year than were being killed by hunters, Mech said."
MNs hunt killed 272 wolves of 2423 estimated.
I see 2 arguments in the paper that Howell mentioned:
"Howell called the hunts in the Great Lakes region "virtually unregulated" and said that wolves do not yet inhabit all of their historic range and therefore need protections."
It should be easy to overturn the 'unregulated' argument. Just ask the hunters who had to apply for a lottery and then the 90% who were unsuccessful. Along with the biologists that study them the rest of the year to monitor the packs and the effects of the hunt on the existing population.
The second argument can be applied to states that don't have wolves, but those that have them in numbers above the automatic minimum federal control should have the ability to regulate them. I don't know what % WI and MI had killed, but MN has kept the kill ~10% of the population.
On another note....what about the coyote epidemic throughout the state? I agree 100% we need to manage the wolves, but let's not forget about the mangy mutts that are also puttin' a beating on the deer.
Naz 's Link
November, as for Ryan, it wasn't he running … it was Romney. Lost 1.6-1.4 million in WI. Don't want to make excuses, but right or wrong, I don't think enough Wisconsinites wanted a president who was Mormon. Forgive the pun, but Catholics were the least forgiving group nationwide, with polls finding 50 percent of Catholics voting Obama to 48 percent Romney.
Ryan is a Catholic; Walker attends nondenominational evangelical church. Big difference vs. Romney, and likely would fare well with many church-goers here. But, I don't know if Ryan would even be interested. Probably would make more sense to grab someone with a college degree who folks here know less about. If not asked to join Ryan or another leading candidate for president, I'm betting Walker will stick to the governor post. It's not a bad gig, esp. when you can be a big dog in a small state and travel all over the country at taxpayer's expense (like all governors do; I'm not picking on him).
One way to help reduce the yote population (at least a little) might be to make hunting and trapping them more affordable to non residents. I would hunt that pack if it wasn't going to cost me $150 for a furbearers license, or trap them if the state would even allow me to get a trapping license. But even then I probably wouldn't pay the $150 for a trapping license. The state should allow non residents to buy a coyote only license (good to hunt and trap them) for the price of a residents general small game or trapping license. $20
The pic is from the property where that dead doe was, the yote in the background is sniffing a scrape.
Back to wolfs, I doubt the 150 that is being harvested in Wisconsin is even a quarter of the pups being borne every year.
If there are areas that need wolfs and other areas where there are too many then there should be a huge effort to relocate a bunch of them. We really need wolf packs across more territory (Dane county comes to mind) to get more landowners and farmers mad and consequently putting pressure on the dnr, fws, courts and media to keep these wolf lovers on the defensive instead of the offensive.
I'm not pro-wolf. But I also know that there are far more wolves in Canada and northern MN, and they haven't said goodbye to their deer. Saw plenty of whitetails in both places decades ago, and on two occasions heard wolves howl (sounded very close to my stand, definitely within a quarter-mile and possibly less).
Agree with South Farm, always has been and always will be locals that take out some critters. BUT, IMO, they won't get as many as a regulated season would unless they're trapping. The occasional wolf poached by someone "lucky" enough to see one is just one less wolf. The past three years, more than 500 were taken legally (in addition to those taken in depredation situations, poached, roadkills, etc.). You may see a spike in poisonings, but it appears the last guys who tried that killed far more other non-target wildlife and got big fines to boot.
They eat on the baits and feed off of the baits.........
I know hunting the north is tough, I still love it.....
However this year, besides going west, I am also going down into Richland County
Naz, Good deer population in northern Minnesota? Not according to some friends of mine that hunt near Big Fork. (as I did years ago until the wolf destroyed hunting there) Anyway six of them still hunt there and this year they saw 1 deer total during the first week of gun season. Wolfs have been BAD there for a long time. Seen more wolf there years ago while hunting and baiting for bear than anyone would believe. If we had used game cameras on the baits back then we would have had lots of pictures.
As you know, though one year is not a trend and one area is not the entire north. I hear you, but the most severe winter on record in northern WI (on the heels of one of the "latest springs" in decades) certainly took its toll in all northern deer range (and I'd imagine it was the same in MN). Preliminary info shows that Michigan's U.P. deer harvest, regardless of whether it was a county with the most wolves or the fewest, dropped significantly this season.
"If harsh winters were the reason for fewer deer Canada should not have any."
If that's fair, then so is this: If wolves were the reason for fewer deer, Canada should not have any.
I/we stopped hunting there because the deer population crashed. I don't know if it was because of severe winters or due to wolves.
The simple fact that Ontario has so many wolves and still had a good sized deer herd makes me optimistic that the northern WI deer herd can rebound, however we need to stop shooting does and we need some mild winters. Where we hunted in Ontario, the antlerless harvest was restricted and Non-Residents weren't allowed to shoot antlerless deer.
At least there's intelligent life on Earth in a few places yet.
GOOD ONE!
We will have a season in 15'
"The federal court decision is surprising and disappointing. Wolves in Michigan have exceeded recovery goals for 15 years and have no business being on the endangered species list, which is designed to help fragile populations recover - not to halt the use of effective wildlife management techniques."
MN officials have been quoted in news stories, too, and federal wolf expert David Mech from the International Wolf Center in Ely said hunting and trapping did not threaten wolves in WI, MN or MI.
A season in '15 is not likely unless the states can get Congress to act, IMO. These things tend to drag on forever in court. Wayne Pacelle of HSUS is bragging that USFWS is now "0-for-4" trying to get wolves permanently delisted.
I am not a lawyer and am still trying to work through the language of the ruling. I will write with what I have found in there but there are no guarantees that it is correct (because the language is so obtuse).
I will write more about the main part of the ruling when I can figure out what the hell they are talking about, but I found out what the judge meant by 'Howell called the hunts in the Great Lakes region "virtually unregulated"'
For the 2012 ruling, I believe the FWS said the Western Great Lakes wolf range consisted of all or part of 9 states (MN, WI, MI, ND, SD, IA, IL, IN, OH) and that population was genetically distinct from the Northern Rocky Mountain region. Most of the ruling is arguing whether creating this grouping is allowed in the ESA and whether you need another waiting period when you create this new grouping.
The 'virtually unregulated' statement is related to the states that are part of the Western Great Lakes wolf population. Four of the states have management plans for wolves - the 3 states that have wolves and IL. Five of the states don't have a management plan - most likely because they don't have wolves and don't have suitable habitat to support them. So, the judge ruled that wolves here are "virtually unregulated" because 5 of 9 states don't have a management plan and that is a threat to the survivability of the species.
This argument seems disingenuous at best to me. The states that have 100% of the wolves in the region have plans and the remaining states don't have wolves (nor the long-term ability to support them because of lack of suitable habitat). I am not sure if this was a mistake by the FWS when drafting the 2012 plan.
Have really seen the true colors of some folks with this. Hunters that that are complaining about the deer supporting wolves. Don't make sense at all to me.
Still hear from people saying there are no wolves in this area. REALLY??
Amoebus, you're onto something, but I also think the judge keyed in on distinct population segments (DPS) and used it against the USFWS and states. It was something they thought, IMO, that would stand the test, but the judge apparently found that FWS had authority to extend/add protections of DPS, but not remove protections.
According to the judge: "The FWS’s interpretation is unreasonable on two levels. First, the structure, history, and purpose of the ESA do not permit the designation of a DPS for the purpose of delisting the vertebrates that are members of the DPS. Second, the ESA does not allow the designation of a DPS made up of vertebrates already protected under the ESA at a more general taxonomic level."
She also noted that "even if the designation of the DPS were valid, the protections afforded the wolves encompassed by this DPS are controlled by the listing of the entire Canis lupus species and may not be reduced below that level through manipulation of the definition of "species" to treat the DPS’s members as if they were a different, unlisted species when they are not. This principle is inherent in the purpose and structure of the ESA."
The judge said the USFWS' final rule purposely avoided an evaluation of "this endangered species" throughout its historical range, focusing instead "on the viability of a single population of gray wolves in only a part of that range."
It also raises a good point in my mind that you can never underestimate your enemy. The HSUS/etc obviously have some good lawyers working for them. It looks like the FWS needs to bone up on that aspect.
The ruling is also instructive if you just want the recent history of the wolf issue. It has the parts of the ESA related to the subject as well as the pertaining laws/rulings since the '60s.
Logically (in my mind) the argument should come down to "Can your state maintain a viable population of wolves?" The ruling overturns the state control, but doesn't really get to this question - it is more related to technicalities of the 2012 ruling (maybe this is the way that all of these go...)
Their is a reason HSUS has an office in Madison. they also have some, not alot, but they do have some allies in the WI DNR and the USFWS, I know I have talked to them.......
Walker can not do anything.... This guy is trying to get into another office or position anyway, his handlers are not going to touch this.... Not saying that is wrong, just the way it is.....
I would like to see a statement from Cathy Stepp on the ruling, but will not hold my breath........
I am in the woods alot, have not seen one wolf this year, and that is almost on a daily basis... I do have them on camera though... I have seen only 3 in the wild, they are not easy to hunt.......
What they need is 500 tags and let the trappers and dog hunters get at em, if you want to do something, but that is not going to happen.......
Vilas County must be happy, mostly filled with tree huggers and wolf lovers anyways.......
That said, it won't much matter when the wolves make it to Madison and start taking out people's pets, the WDNR will blame it on bobcats or a band of rabid chipmunks or something else anyway.
Jeff in MN's Link
I thought it only applied to individuals. Not organizations.
Its really just common sense if you think about it. Lets take a bird dog or a coyote dog or a bear dog, etc. They chase stuff, and they would kill it if they catch it..its what they do...do any of these dogs, "not run/chase" just after they have eaten? Do they only hunt when they are "hungry"? Of course not. Its the same with wolves....if they are presented with an opportunity they KILL. thats what they do. It doesn't matter if they have just eaten or not, if a deer crosses their path they will play with it, bite it in the ass a couple times until one of them grabs it by the neck and BOOM! if they're not hungry they just celebrate and walk away.
True, I did not take the wolf track class so I am not certified like Smokey. There is a "DNR Documented" pack right at this location but they would not do such a thing. DNR use to stand in this field and do howl counts. We should all listen to Smokey he has the education and background(told us many times)to spot these things from a picture like that. Thanks smokey I will let the farmer know all the wolves he has seen over the years were dogs and yotes.
Intelligent discussion is more productive but then you do not want anyone else to think but rather just listen.
If you can stop the childish response and have true open minded discussions please stay on this site; if not, then please leave so the rest of us can discuss issues.
Three wolves killed that deer. I do not know why they left it but they did. Since your a rank and file type of guy for the DNR would it help you to know a retired warden was with me and he saw the tracks as well. I know I know you were not there so it can't be true. A pack of German Shepherds i am sure. Now when you grow up a bit come on back here and have an intelligent conversation with me.
How did you get the handle Smokey? Find a field on the National forest somewhere?
Make up what you want. I have no problem when someone has a different opinion that me but you are the type that puts his childish spin on things and not able to use any intellect in responding.
My handle? What about you? You can't even post your real name in your profile!
Knowledge is power FIP. And you are very weak.
Ron your homosexual advances are not working.
"Knowledge is power FIP. And you are very weak."
Save us O great one. Smokey Einstein.
so does that mean it doesn't happen? I think the main reason you haven't seen it is location. you are in an area with a lower deer population. When they cross paths by you maybe they're hungry. In farm country with more deer their paths cross more frequently so more of a chance for a thrill kill. I don't know where FIPs picture is from (cause he won't say) but my guess is an area with a higher deer pop.
".... since I DOUBT wolf and likely dog or coyote." yeah that must be it because you've never seen evidence of a thrill kill, it must be dogs. they killed the deer and then howled and sounded just like wolves...or those darn thrill kill coyotes...they have learned how to howl with a deeper voice so they sound like wolves (SMH and RME)
Why do you think dogs or coyotes would kill it and leave it but not wolves?
Do you believe the DNR's wis. wolf population estimate?
350 was the number stated for recovery which has long since been exceeded. Actual number? I would say closer to DNR estimate since when I read people say things like 3500 I do not see the survey or method used to arrive at that number with the accept for WAG.
Because dogs have a bowl of food back at home that is why the will leave an partially eaten animal. Also, did the farmer really hear wolf howling or coyote howling? More than once people tell me they hear wolf when it is coyote when we were both at the same location. I have had people tell me the see a wolf when it is a coyote while we were looking at the same animal, same for people mistaking bobcats for cougar.
I do doubt the Feds are going to rewrite either ESA or wolf recovery plan. Unless we all get involved and pressure them enough to do so.
I interpret this as you saying you need a survey or some method (study) by the government to determine how bad the problem is.(how high the population is). Im saying we dont need any more surveys, studies, assessments etc... by any employee of any agency. No need to call Dr. Deer either.
He heard wolves but that really does not matter. I verified the tracks and they were wolves 3 of them. Smokey remarks about doubting the photo was wolves probably dogs or yotes implied I was not capable of determining that. So I fired back at him and you cant do that to Smokey Joe:^)
"I have had people tell me the see a wolf when it is a coyote while we were looking at the same animal"
Did it ever cross your mind they were right and you were wrong? No way not the master! Let me guess the guy next to you was a WI wolf biologist?
Why not Walker? He and the legislature can enact state law and shove it right up the a$$es of the feds. He can make a huge statement here but I doubt he will. I hope he shows sportsmen he means business. That would be a huge makeup call for the DTR debacle. Seems strange to me giving the state powers-of-being a free ride while expecting solutions in WI from the President.
"Full court press on the wolf issue including having walker grow a spine and go idaho on the feds. If states can legalize pot and ignore immigration law, ignoring the feds wolf desires sb a no brainer. "
+1 November
Wolf program alot of wasted money........ You know what, if you lose livestock to them wolves you can not touch them........ Well if they were on my farm, I can assure you, they would be touched.....
Neat to see but very scary that it was that close to a home.
With the wolf being relisted if it's attacking your family pet can they be put down?
