This is a must read for deer hunters.
The WI Hunters Rights Coalition is checking to validate this artical.
> *WOLVES AND HUNTING* > By T. R. Mader, Research Director > Abundant Wildlife Society of North America > > > I'm convinced, based on several years of wolf research, hunters will bear > the brunt of wolf recovery/protection regardless of location. > > There is no language written in any wolf recovery plan to protect the > hunter's privilege to hunt. Wolves are well known to cause wild game > population declines which are so drastic hunting is either eliminated or > severely curtailed. And there is no provision for recovery of wild game > populations for the purposes of hunting. It simply will not be allowed. > > Example: A few years ago, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) and the > Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) agreed the state should > take over the responsibility of wolf management. The DNR felt wolves were > impacting their deer populations and wanted to open a short trapping > season on the wolf. > > The environmentalists sued and won. The USFWS could not give wolf > management back to Minnesota in spite of a desire to do so. > > The problem with wolf recovery is that most people, especially hunters, > have not looked "beyond press releases and into the heart of the wolf > issue." > > It must be stated clearly that the wolf is the best tool for shutting down
> hunting. The anti-hunters know this. Most hunters don't. Thus, wolf > recovery is not opposed by the people who will be impacted most. > > In order to understand the impacts wolves have on hunting, let's look at > some biological factors of the wolf and compare some hunting facts. > > The wolf is an efficient predator of wild game and domestic livestock. Due
> to its ability as a predator, the wolf was removed from areas of the U.S. > where man settled. There is no such thing as peaceful coexistence between > man and wolf - one has to give to the other since both prey/hunt the same > wildlife/ungulate populations. > > Did the removal of the wolf cause it to become endangered? No, there are > 40,000 to 60,000 wolves on the North American continent. The animal is > doing quite well. During the years of wolf control, the wolf's territory > was eliminated throughout most of the lower 48 states. That factor is the > reason the wolf is on the Endangered Species Act (ESA). > > A wolf requires five to ten pounds of meat per day for survival, thus the > wolf requires a considerable amount of meat in one year - nearly a ton of > meat per year per wolf. A wolf is capable of consuming great quantities of
> meat, up to one fifth of its body weight, at one time. Thus, a wolf does > not have to kill each day to survive. > > Wolves hunt year around - 365 days a year. Wolf predation is not limited > to two weeks, one month or whatever a hunting season length may be, it is > year around. > > Wolves are opportunistic hunters, meaning they kill what is available and > convenient. For years, hunters have been fed the line, "Wolves kill only > the weak, sick and old." Worse yet, hunters have believed it. > > It is true, wolves do kill old animals, but so do hunters. Those are the > big bulls or bucks prized by many who hunt. In fact, biological studies > have shown wolves kill older male animals more than any other adult member
> of a wild game population. > > Regarding sick animals, there are not many sick wild animals today. > Hunters and trappers are directly responsible for healthy wild game herds > today. > > In the cyclic "balance of nature" of years past (no hunting by man), > ungulate populations would thrive until they overgrazed their habitat and > starved. This malnutrition made ungulate populations susceptible to > disease. Consequently, disease was more common. Lewis and Clark wrote of > such herds. (The other major factor contributing to the decline in > wildlife populations was predation.) > > Hunting controls this cycle so that herds are kept at proper levels for > habitat, preventing malnutrition and susceptibility to disease. Hunting > dollars went to habitat improvement and biological studies which, in turn,
> help maintain healthier herds of ungulates. > > Even agriculture plays a part in the dispersal of salt and other minerals > to domestic livestock. Wild animals access these nutrients as well. Thus, > disease is not as rampant as when nature regulates it naturally. It is > also interesting to note that where disease is a problem today, such as > Yellowstone National Park, hunting is not allowed. > > > Trapping completes the cycle of game management by controlling the > predator. The predator is to wildlife what weeds are to a garden. They > must be controlled or they will take over. Additionally, predators are > disease carriers. Some people are aware predators carry rabies since > reports of rabid animals or some person being bitten by a rabid animal are
> often in the news, but few realize predators also carry other deadly > diseases, i.e. raccoons carry a deadly fowl cholera. And finally, trapping
> benefits the predator by keeping their numbers in check. This keeps the > population healthy. If predators do overpopulate, they become more > susceptible to rabies, mange and other diseases. > > Wolves do not eat sick animals unless forced to do so. We have found this > true in many cases. > > Example: A Conservation Officer for the Minnesota Department of Natural > Resources (DNR) found a moose with brain worm. Brain worm completely > destroys an animal's instinctive and natural behavior. This moose had > wandered out on a frozen lake in winter and was slowly starving to death. > Wolves came by, checked the moose out and went their way. Tracks in the > snow verified it. They did not kill it even though it would have been > extremely easy to do so. > > Wolves do kill the weak. Weak animals are not sick animals, they are > simply the "less strong" of the herd. Wolves target these animals - the > young and pregnant - due to their inability to escape. This is an > important factor in limiting wildlife population numbers. Wolves prey > directly on the recruitment and reproductive segments of ungulate > populations. > > While doing research in British Colombia, a wolf biologist from the > British Colombia Ministry of Environment took the time to show me how > wolves could impact hunting so severely. Here's his example. > > > In this particular example he used a number of 300 females in a herd of > elk. In his region, wolf predation is often 90% on the young (100% > mortality rates due to predation are common in the north). If 300 females > gave birth in an area of wolves, the approximate loss would be about 270 > young calves killed during the summer months, leaving 30 yearlings to > serve as replacements. A regular die-off rate on such a herd is about 10%.
> So the 30 yearlings would balance out the regular mortality rate of the > female segment of the herd. > > But overall there is a decline in the elk herd due to the fact that the 30
> yearlings are usually sexually split in half (15 females and 15 males), > thus the reproductive segment of the herd declines although the numbers > appear to balance out. Without some form of wolf control, the rate of > decline will increase within a few years. > > > There were approximately 100 males in this herd of elk. Figuring the > regular mortality rate and compensating with the surviving young leaves 5 > animals (males only) that could be harvested by man. > > > Now if this herd of elk were in an area of no wolves, there would be > approximately 60 - 70% successful reproduction (calves making it to > yearlings) or 200 young. Half of those surviving young would be male (100 > animals). After figuring a 10% mortality rate, 90 older animals could be > harvested without impact to the overall herd numbers. In fact, the herd > would increase due to additional numbers of the reproductive segment > (females) of the herd. > > Now you have some insight of the impacts wolves can have on hunting. > > In spite of the negative publicity generated by the anti-hunting, > anti-trapping movements, hunting and trapping are some of the best > wildlife management tools. > > Hunters' harvest can be limited through numbers of licenses issued, bag > limits, length of seasons, and specification of sex of the animal > harvested. Thus, only the surplus of an ungulate population is generally > hunted. If the need arises that an ungulate population needs reduction, it
> is easily accomplished by allowing an "any sex" hunt and increasing > license numbers. Additionally, hunters will pay for the opportunity to > hunt which in turn pays for wildlife management. > > Wolves do none of the above. They simply kill to survive and for the sake > of killing. Studies have shown that ungulate populations cannot withstand > hunting by man and uncontrolled predation by wolves for any length of > time. One has to give to the other. In this day and age, the wolf will be > the winner, the hunter the loser. > > A point which should be stressed is "wolves kill for the sake of killing,"
> not just to survive. Many are convinced wolves kill only what they need to
> eat. That simply isn't true. > > Remember the moose with brain worm the wolves didn't eat? In the same > area, the same winter and only a couple of months later, the same > Conservation Officer followed two wolves after a spring snow storm and > found the wolves had killed 21 deer. Only two were partially eaten. > > The snow gave the wolves the advantage. These deer were autopsied and many
> were found to be pregnant. The total number of deer killed in 2 days by > these 2 wolves was 36. > > Such incidents of surplus killing are common. For example, Canadian > biologists came upon an area where a pack of wolves have killed 34 caribou
> calves in one area. Another example came from Alaska. In the Wrangell > Mountains, a pack of five wolves came upon 20 Dall rams crossing a > snow-covered plateau. All 20 rams were killed by the wolves. Only six were
> partially eaten by the wolves. > > Dr. Charles E. Kay, PH.D. has lectured on the impacts of wolf recovery. To
> illustrate the impacts of wolves on hunting, he did a comparison of moose > populations in British Colombia versus Sweden and Finland. Both areas have
> a comparable amount of moose habitat. > > Dr. Kay stated, "During the 1980s in Sweden and Finland, the pre-calf or > the wintering population of moose was approximately 400,000 animals and > was increasing. While in British Colombia, it was 240,000 animals and > decreasing. > > "In British Colombia where they have a population of 240,000 animals and > after a calving season they killed only 12,000 animals which is a 5% off > take. In Sweden and Finland, on the other hand, they have 400,000 moose > and guess how many they killed in the fall? They killed 240,000 moose in > the fall which is a 57% off take rate. > > "Now the two main differences, I don't want to imply that there's not > vegetation difference and other things, but the two main differences is > that British Colombia has somewhere between 5,000 and 6,000 wolves, all > sorts of bears, grizzly bears and black bears which are also important > predators, and mountain lions. Sweden and Finland have none of the above." > > Veteran wolf biologist, John Gunson, Alberta Ministry of Environment, > summed it up when he said, "Really, there isn't any room for harvest by > man if you have a healthy wolf population." > > Hunters, please understand the impacts of wolf recovery on hunting and the
> role wolf recovery plays in the anti-hunters' agenda. Natural predation, > especially wolf predation, can replace your privilege to hunt. > > **************************** > > > > Copyright 1991 - Permission granted copy this article in its entirety with
> proper credit given to the source. > > T. R. Mader is Research Director for Abundant Wildlife Society of North > America (AWS), a private wildlife research organization dedicated to the > preservation of the Great North American Traditions of Hunting, Fishing > and Trapping.
The only thing I seen in that article I know to be false. Is the statement about Sweden not having any bears. Good friend that comes to train with us almost every year now. Is a game keeper in Sweden, and hunts brown bears regularly there.
Thrill killing is well documented. Dont take it personal, but it is a bit naive to think otherwise. Almost like our DNR finally having to admit that there are Coywolves. But, it does not happen in WI. Denial because the most recent study done on it was in Maine. During the carnivore track training. I brought it up. Of course the denial and maine came up. I asked how do you explain 50-60lb coyotes? Oh, they dont get that big!! Really, let me you you some pictures right now. Here is a 42lb female! When I showed pictures of what I believe were coywolf pups. Was told they certainly did not appear right. That we may need to look into that more!!! NO KIDDING!!!
What I find to be interesting. Is that article is now 24yrs old!! There has been far more research since then, and documentation supporting all facets of it. Yet, we are still in a major fight over it.
Wolves rarely, and I mean rarely "thrill kill". We humans do all the time. BC
That right there sums it up.
I cant even understand how anyone that calls themselves a hunter would want them on the landscape. I guess as long as they are not in your backyard it is ok. saveelk.com has many pics of proof of this. Several facebook pages that post pics of it all the time as well. wolf hunting, trapping, snaring is one of them.
I have literally lost 10's of thousands of acres of land to hunt because of them. Not right in my eyes!!
You know just a few months ago in the UP. LEO's had a warning running on the TV6 news for a small town. Telling all to keep thier pets, and children in at night. As a pack of wolves was coming into town every night. The leos increased patrols to try to keep the town folk safe. Somewhere around ispeming. My buddy in trout creek could not recall the town name last night
He can't let his kids, or dogs out safely anymore there. Had to fence his yard in just to keep kids safe.
We got them coming into our towns up here all the time.
Why would anyone find this to be acceptable?
saveelk.com is another anti wolf website - another great source of wolf info I'm sure.
Living in town, in the UP, you have a lot more to fear than a few wolves coming for a visit. Let see, being struck by lighting, hit by a drunk driver, being attached by a rutting elk, to name a few. I don't mean to pick on you Steve, but come on... Wolf attacks on humans are few and far between, actually, very, very few and very, very far between.
Am I alone in this thinking? BC
The odds though of attacks to pets, livestock, etc, are much higher. When your pets are getting killed in your yards there is a problem. Not to mention the issues with hunting dogs.
When it comes to thrills think about this. Wolf kills in WI period are not very common to find. So with just feeding kills being found rarely. Does that mean they are not eating deer in WI? Or, that there are very few of them at all?
Naz 's Link
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/cougar.html
I just want to deer hunt,,,,, Its tough enough with poor forest management, then the wolves, it all adds up.....
BC tell me where you hunt
Our concerns are for the game, and safety of humans, pets, livestock.
When you see more wolves than deer. See more wolf tracks than deer tracks. Have pets being killed in backyards. Have wolves right in our towns. Are getting followed out of the woods. There is a growing problem.
It's going to get much worse before it gets better. In this process more will set up shop in the southern part of the state. As this happens the opinions of more hunters will change.
If you are currently hunting in the southern half of the state. Believe there is not a problem. Then start hunting up here. Huge amounts of land not being hunted anymore. Your going to have to hunt hard to find a buck. Even harder to find one that may make P&Y. Good luck finding one that will make B&C.
The man in charge, the state forester, and I forgot his name, was quoted as saying, " true tree huggers love chain saws..........
The state is doing a good job. Big timber you bet, the hardwood is being cut, but it is Federal Management issues out of Washington that is the problem........
With lots of personal friends in the actual logging business, I think I get good information.......
even with good new young forest, without good predator control, the deer herd will remain small,,,,, you have no idea........................
I would bet that most of the deer harvested up here are within the wagon wheel. That certainly discredits the harvest numbers being used to justify the wolf population.
30,000 deer spread across wolf country is a lot (probably a high number but I get your point). When you add in the "thrill kill" factor of at least 100 deer per wolf, now its 150,000 and that number will turn a lot more people against the wolf. Then you start talking out how the wolves are coming into towns and you better lock up your dogs and kids...even people that don't hunt will start to take notice. One of my favorite stories is the pack of 400 wolves in a huge pack in Russia. I think they were converging on towns and eating everything in site.
Guys, just because you see a bunch of logging trucks driving down the road does that mean its enough? Should there more? Should there be twice as many, should there be five times as many? I don't know, I'm just asking. From what I've read and from what a guy on this site who I think is in the know has posted, it's not enough. We need to be doing more logging.
As I've posted before, I hunt mainly Monroe and Marquette Counties, sometimes in Jackson County and Iron County - not that it makes a difference. As I've posted before as well, I think we need a season on the wolves here in Wisconsin and the overall population should be lowered.
It hard for both sides of the wolf debate to have an honest discussion. Passion overcomes the facts, again, on both sides. BC
Problem with these animals is that they are the ghosts of the woods. Even if they are crossing major roads regularly, and coming into our towns/backyards. They are just not seen very often by most people for a variety of reasons. So it is very easy to discount them as a factor. Especially if you don't live and hunt up here.
My wife is a perfect example. Been permant residents here for 22 yrs. Dragging her up for 4 years before that. She hunts, fishes, traps, helps a lot with the bear hunting. Saturday morning she calls on the way to work. She just seen her first wolf ever!!! Tells me its right by one of our baits we use every so often. I laughed, and asked what is the name of that bait. Oh, DUHHHHH, the north wolf bait! You would think she would have seen a few more. Just don't get to see them that much. GHOSTS!!!
Heck, even as much time as I spend in the woods. I only catch a glimpse of a handful a year. However, bet we can pull out of my drive, and find you a few tracks faster than Domino's delivers!!
Pretty quick here I need to start my official surveys. Only problem is that I have not heard one word from the DNR since taking the class. Makes me wonder why. Could it be they don't want guys like me doing the surveys? When I start will let you guys know the results. As my area does not get surveyed!! You would be surprised at how many areas dont get surveyed!!
>>>--arrow1-->'s Link
As for the article arrow, no doubt predators are having an impact. But hunters and winters in the Upper Midwest are much bigger factors.
“During the last half of the 20th century, the range of the coyote expanded dramatically,” Miller and his colleagues wrote.
Yes, and over the last half of the 20th century — including the last decade and the start of the 21st century — we saw record-size deer herds. The biggest difference since is aggressive herd reduction seasons in many states and some severe winters. For those who'd simply blame wolves and coyotes, I point to Iowa, where deer populations have dropped dramatically from aggressive doe harvests in the 00s. Wolves aren't the problem there.
“The point to be made here is that we’re not just talking about one predator,” says Dr. James C. Kroll, director of the Institute for White-tailed Deer Management & Research at Stephen F. Austin State University. “It’s an entire suite of predators.”
Yes doc, but you know as well as anyone that hunters and winters — in some cases exacerbated by past decimation of browse in historic wintering areas when populations were "too high" — kill far more deer than four-legged predators.
IMO the wdnr is also the fault based on your above post. The wdnr never took into account all the predators and the winters that would also influence our deer herd size in the North. They just kept killing the does even when many could see what was happening in the north. Some will say you can't stockpile the herd. But you can go into the winter with a sizeable herd to help off set the winter kill in the spring.
Here is part of an email I received from an forester yesterday.
" I have found 5 wolf/coyote kills since deer season. 2 in one day last week on the Camp K. Rd about about 2 miles apart. Wolves ran the deer down right in the town road.
A logger working on a timber sale (15 miles from the kills I found, Just west of the Turtle Flambeau Flowage) just told me today he found his 5th wolf kill on that sale since early December. This area has very few deer. One day in the first cold snap in January I counted 7 deer that had yarded up for winter, prior to the cold weather you rarely saw a deer track. Based on the lack of tracks I've seen all winter I would say there was not many more deer than those 7 to start the winter.
Referring to the article, its pretty apparent what impact the predators are having on the deer herd in southern Ashland County. ""
I do not see that happening..... USFS has no incentive or care about increase of deer herds.....
Shortage of any enforcement, and poaching is big in the north.......
Out of control youth hunts,,,,,,,, I would bet more than half of them deer are shot by a group hunt, that's too bad.....
Most have their heads in the sand to accept the fact of the predation problem...... Want to count wolves, well wolf tracking is pretty small potatoes, by concern citizens, you need quality wildlife guys in a helicopter, to know whats going on......
We are going to political science, instead of wildlife science.......
If anyone would be concerned about this you would think it would be the chamber of commerce and business associations, putting the ear, into Madison......
Now that some fat ass legislature guy, sitting in his desk in Madison, is going to make decisions, based on knowing nothing about the woods, or hunting in general,
Never hearing one peep in the media from the head of the DNR, giving out at least some info on where things stand or need to go, is frustrating..... sorry but the average joe, needs to hear something......
Personally I do not think anyone in Madison gives a rats behind about northern wis deer herd.......
Its sad. I hunt the north because I like big woods, but it could be so much better...........
Wisconsin has been so screwed up, for the longest time, since we have had nothing but far left goofs running things, now we have far right goofs running things, and what we have never had, in a long long time, is common sense.......+