Wolves you can have them

[Buckshot1]

All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Understanding the agenda.
Federal wildlife biologists have in the recent past commission-falsifying lynx evidence where there were no lynx. If there was real lynx then the agenda was to close off the land to people. Ahh, here is real goal. Remember under the socialist system we the people have no rights only the animals do. But this is proof that biologist do lie to farther their goals.

Wolves what a subject and for those that love them they can do no wrong. Wolves are wiping out the deer herd in Upper Michigan this is self evident to most real hunters. Why did the truth finally come out in 2004? In order to understand this first you must look at some facts. The pro wolf people are normal elitist and love to shove their views down other people throat. This is how the wolf re-introduction program works. First the animal is listed as Endangered species and fall under Federal protection giving the animal more rights then an American citizen. There is tons of stories proving this fact if you do a little research of people being arrested for killing a wolf that was attacking their livestock or children. Oh, yes the biggest lie told by these people is there is no documented wolf attacks. But there is over 80 document attack on people. Livestock attacks are in the thousands, and so are pets.

A perfect example of this happen Oct 2004 in Topaz, Michigan. A family pet dog is being attack by a wolf. The dog retreats under the Mobile home. The family calls the DNR 7:30 am the DNR shows up at 1:30 PM that is right 6 hours later. Great response time sure glad it wasn't a child being killed. For the record I don't if their was a child in the home or not. Can you imagine your child looking up at you tearing streaming down their faces Daddy please save my dog?? But you know you can't because the wolf has more rights then you and your dog is sacrifice for the socialist goal of people (peasants) are not important. The wolf is under the mobile home eating the dog. Is the wolf killed so he can never kill another child's favorite dog? No, of course not because the wolf has special rights above humans and pets. The DNR uses a tranquilizer gun and relocates the wolf to a new area so that the wolf is free once again to kill another child favorite dog.

The DNR claims for the last 5 years that Michigan has around 350 wolves of which there is 80 breeding pairs. But wait in this fantasy world of the DNR the wolves don't breed and each year the population of wolves stay at 350. Oh sorry for bringing to light another lie from the DNR about their pet project . 80 breeding pairs of wolves is going to have on the average 5 pups a year which equals 400 new wolves a year. Even if only half the pups survive that is 200 new wolves a year times 5 years is 1000 new wolves bringing the total of wolves to 1360 for the U.P. Our ancestors understood long ago that the wolf is a killing machine. Alaskan studies reveal wolf population increases of 34% each and every year, and Alaska allows hunting of wolves. Data from the first few years of our Tri-state wolf experiment also verify this same 34% annual increase. Ahh once again with a little research we find that wolves increase a 1000% in population size every 8 years! That right boys and girls 1000% soon our wolf population will be 3500. Even using the own DNR 10 deer per year for each wolf that is 35,000 deer a year.


Western biologist are reporting far greater kill rate on prey species then our DNR. Wonder why that is?? Michigan DNR reports a pack of 6 wolves only eat 50-60 deer a year. I figure out how Michigan came up with this number. The wolves are wiping out the fawn population. This is how predator work they kill the small ones easy to catch first. Fawns weight in around 30 pounds. So to equal 1 whole deer of an average weight of 150 pounds fawn only count for 1/5 of deer. Meaning it takes 5 dead fawns to equal 1 adult deer. I don't know if the DNR is doing this but it sure fits. If the wolf pack only eats fawns then you have the wolf pack of 6 killing 250-300 deer a year. That sounds a little more realistic to facts. So lets be conservative and say there is only 1200 wolves in the U.P. that is 200 packs of 6 killing on the average 275 deer a year total deer kill by wolves 55,000. As many hunters will tell you this was the worst deer season in decades but of course the DNR will find every excuse in the book to blame the decline of deer on anything but their precious wolves. Let us say I am half right that is 27,000 deer being wipe out a year. But what if all the wolf pups survive then the U.P. has 2360 wolves killing 110,000 deer a year. Now what would make me say this about the fawns (Kunkel et al., 1999) wolves consume the entire fawn carcass. Fawns kill are very hard to define since the wolves are a pet project of the DNR the fawn kill ratio will be buried.

Crying Wolf Again - The Federal Cover-Up
By Montana State Rep. Joe Balyeat
http://www.natureswolves.com/fraud/coverup.htm

Beginning in 1997, Carrie Schaefer did a study of Yellowstone wolf/elk interaction entitled "Spatial and Temporal Variation in Wintering Elk Abundance and Composition, and Wolf Response." Amongst other things, her study revealed that areas of high wolf concentration inside Yellowstone had calf ratios dropping precipitously - 0 to 10 calves per 100, even while the ratio outside high wolf concentration areas remained at 46 calves per 100! A 30 calf ratio IS needed to sustain herd viability.

What does this mean? In order for the elk to survive the herd must produce 30 calves per 100 cows each and every year. The study clearly shows the facts with the wolves wiping out most of the calves each and every year the elk will become the Endangered species.


With the fawns here in Michigan being wiped out at alarming rates each year the deer hunting in the U.P. is going to get worst and worst. One day the sportsmen and women WILL WAKE UP and take off their rose color Disney glass and demand the DNR stop bringing predators into the state. Open a hunting season on wolves before the deer in the U.P. are listed under the Endangered species. Sooner or later children will be attack by wolves. Thank you DNR for bringing another disaster to the sportsmen and women with your hug a predator program. I am sure the local economy will like to thank you too because each year less and less hunters will come to the U.P., people will lose jobs and small business may go under but being a normal elitist you don't care about people, pets, livestock or jobs just as long as your precious wolves are free to wipe out the deer herd you are happy.

For all you arm chair experts downstate please howl to the DNR and beg them to plant wolves in your backyards instead of in mine. :bash:

I am sure the 3 stages of truth about this article will come out in the following days

[Buddy Lee]

The facts: http://www.mucc.org/documents/WolvesandDeerinMichiganlowresolution.pdf

Sorry the facts don't conform to your opinion Buckshot.

[Buckshot1]

But quoting Michigan DNR is FACTS> :lol:
You're right the western biologist must be the ones lying.
You're right the fawn kill must be wrong. Of course I should have seen that but after living in U.P. for 15 yrs and seeing the worst deer season this year. You are right Michigan DNR is the one telling the truth. Oh just don't worry about ALL the pets and livestock attacks oh who cares that is just those people in the U.P. they don't count the precious wolf is all that matters. :bash:

[kingfisher 11]

I am not going to get into this debate. I have my own opinions. I have in the last two days seen two items either on TV or a news letter that made me do more thinking.

The first was a PBS show I saw last night. It was about a guy who lived in the wilderness, I think Alaska? I am sure others here saw the same show about the guy who lived there until he was in his 80's? In the show last night he came across a moose calf that had been kiled by wolves. It was almost completely whole. Very litte had been eaten off it. His words were something like..... it looks like the wolf killed for sport....my views of the wolf are changing.

The second was an article from a booking agent for hunts all over the world. In the center he wrote an article that stated "the truth about wolves". He claims the wolves are having devastating effects on the elk and deer herd around Yellowstone. To the point many outfitters are selling out. He stated he had to be honest to his clients.

Now these are just some of the things I have read recently.

I am no arm chair downstater who has no experience. I have been hunting in SK for 5 years with people who live with the wolves. They do not like them. Like most they don't want them completley wiped out. Just controlled to keep the numbers manageable. Most here don't have any experience other then maybe what they read from a book or a trip to the UP. Even I am no expert but once you get around people who have to live around them and there living depends on wildlife. You will see no one wants the numbers we may end up with in the UP.

[Bow Hunter Brandon]

:
. for 15 yrs and seeing the worst deer season this year. :bash:

Ah the truth. I had a bad season so it must be the wolves. Im sure the warm up had nothing to do with it.

Another fact the DNR states there are Atlest 360 wolves in the UP not "about" its funny how changing that word can make such a difference. About would lead you to beleive that true number is close to that one. Atleast would lead you to beleive there are no less then 360.

[kingfisher 11]

Actually instead of reducing the wolf numbers........ how about reducing about 250,000 hunters? While I am dreaming can we take the slobs off the top first? This would help the deer numbers much quicker.

Weather did play a roll in it but the numbers are down all over the state except southern MI.

[Buckshot1]

You are right ignore the FACTS: yep we have magically wolves in Michigan that don't breed. But the wolves everywhere else in the world breed and increase 1000% every 8 years base on facts. But I forgot we are in fantasy land of Michigan and the wolves don't breed and there is 350 wolves each and every year. Yep who care's about people living in the U.P. there are all slobs who cares about their pets and livestock being ripped to pieces. Who cares that around Yellowstone Guides and Outfitters are going out of business in record numbers. But thank God we are bring the wolves back they are better then any person, deer, pet, livestock and even people. I believe we have magical wolves here in Michigan that don't breed only kill a few deer. Yep how in the world did I miss that the tooth fairy is real Santa Claus is coming and the DNR is telling the truth. Oh look Disney is coming on maybe you can get somemore ideas of how to ruin the U.P. Oh look the DNR says we have 1.8 million deer at the beginning of the season that sure was the truth. Oh they are ghost deer only the DNR can see them us hunters can never ever see them but buy more licenses so we can ruin your hunting some more. Who knows maybe the DNR will read this and say oh look our wolves must be defective they are not breeding right let us import another 300 maybe these wolves will work. Next year all the armchair experts will say oh there is plenty of deer and we only have 350 wolves the next year worst hunting yet all the armchair experts will say oh there is plenty of deer and we only have 350 wolves the next year worst hunting yet all the armchair experts will say oh there is plenty of deer and we only have 350 wolves the next year worst hunting yet all the armchair experts will say oh there is plenty of deer and we only have 350 wolves the next year worst hunting yet all the armchair experts will say oh there is plenty of deer and we only have 350 wolves the next year worst hunting yet. Yep those magical wolves never increase in population and the deer herd is disappearing but it just can't be the wolves. Oh look The Easter bunny is coming down the bunny trail.

[Buddy Lee]

You are right ignore the FACTS: yep we have magically wolves in Michigan that don't breed. But the wolves everywhere else in the world breed and increase 1000% every 8 years base on facts. But I forgot we are in fantasy land of Michigan and the wolves don't breed and there is 350 wolves each and every year. Yep who care's about people living in the U.P. there are all slobs who cares about their pets and livestock being ripped to pieces. Who cares that around Yellowstone Guides and Outfitters are going out of business in record numbers. But thank God we are bring the wolves back they are better then any person, deer, pet, livestock and even people. I believe we have magical wolves here in Michigan that don't breed only kill a few deer. Yep how in the world did I miss that the tooth fairy is real Santa Claus is coming and the DNR is telling the truth. Oh look Disney is coming on maybe you can get somemore ideas of how to ruin the U.P. Oh look the DNR says we have 1.8 million deer at the beginning of the season that sure was the truth. Oh they are ghost deer only the DNR can see them us hunters can never ever see them but buy more licenses so we can ruin your hunting some more. Who knows maybe the DNR will read this and say oh look our wolves must be defective they are not breeding right let us import another 300 maybe these wolves will work. Next year all the armchair experts will say oh there is plenty of deer and we only have 350 wolves the next year worst hunting yet all the armchair experts will say oh there is plenty of deer and we only have 350 wolves the next year worst hunting yet all the armchair experts will say oh there is plenty of deer and we only have 350 wolves the next year worst hunting yet all the armchair experts will say oh there is plenty of deer and we only have 350 wolves the next year worst hunting yet all the armchair experts will say oh there is plenty of deer and we only have 350 wolves the next year worst hunting yet. Yep those magical wolves never increase in population and the deer herd is disappearing but it just can't be the wolves. Oh look The Easter bunny is coming down the bunny trail.

I normally don't make fun of people's writing skills, but.... :lol: :lol: :lol:

[SteveS]

Re-introducing the wolf makes for a more healthy ecosystem. As much as I enjoy hunting, I don't believe my pleasure and desires should override what is actually better for the natural environment.

--
Aaron


I don't have a strong opinion on this topic because I am still trying to figure it out myself. You raise a good point, but it begs the question. What is the best natural environment? Do we need to have wolves to achieve this?

[ESOX]

Holy smokes, I am agreeing with Arborgman???
Will wonders never cease.;)

[Ranger Ray]

Holy smokes, I am agreeing with Arborgman???
Will wonders never cease.;)Now you went and did it! Hell is going to freeze! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Sib]

Buckshot1, you seem to have a problem with facts, you've presented opinion and tried to pass it off as fact, but you do yourself a disservice by not checking to see if what you claim is fact. You make your errors early on in your diatribe and continue throughout. Of course, after those initial errors the rest of your post just slips away.

The reintroduction of wolves failed in the 70's all four animals were killed (this is a varifiable fact). In addition, the current population of wolves we not introduced, they migrated to Michigan without any help from humans.

Then there's that whole Endangered species status, which again is not fact. Wolves are not an endangered species in Michigan and haven't been for a couple years.

My comments only adress the 1st three paragraphs of your post, I don't really have the time to address the other 6 or 7.

Wolves may become a problem, but hopefully science will address the issue and not people willing to use false data to get their agenda.

[fishin' fin]

Now you went and did it! Hell is going to freeze! :lol: :lol: :lol:
RR I hope you are right cause we need ICE!!! Wolves have a place, but not in these numbers. They need to be controlled! :smile-mad

[Ogre]

I had a breading pack of wolves on or about my property for an approximate nine month period several years ago in the northern lower. This was during the time when no wolves were in the lower and there were only 350 in the upper. I left them alone the whole time and let nature take it's course. They totally depleted the food supply of the area and left for what we now know is the more southern townships in Presque Isle County. When the wolves left there was not a bird, squirrel, rabbit, deer, or anything left. The animals have all since returned with the exception of the deer. I did what I considered proper which was to leave the animals alone but now that I am convinced that the wolf is no longer endangered or harmless then all bets are off. My personal experience is that you have to be careful what you wish for as the wolf is not a soft cuddly puppy dog but a voracious killer. I can almost guarantee that all those that applaud the wolf today will not tomorrow if the pack was in their back yard. It's one thing to like mother nature but it's another to see nothing while in the woods, no animals, no birds, nothing but occasional wolf tracks. I guess that I would have to say that I'm all for ecological balance in your back yard. I'm happy with my back yard just the way it is with the wolves gone.

[fishin' fin]

I own a chunk of land in presque isle co. I didn't know we had wolves there?? I'm from bessemer in w. u.p. Where thankfully they are taking the law in to there own hands. Iv'e never been politicly correct, so to all you jane fonda sheep out there, good luck with your save the wolf/whale agenda. :smile-mad

[Ranger Ray]

I believe the best natural environment is the most native/original natural environment. Do we need wolves? If it was part of their historic range, I would say yes.

We already farm, urbanize/settle, and otherwise "civilize" enough natural areas. Our national/state forest lands should be kept as "original" as possible from a pragmatic scientific viewpoint.

--
AaronThe problem here is there is no historic range left. Little pieces here and there in our parks but the territories needed by these animals is vast. We now have concentrated herds of elk and deer, throw in a pack of wolves and it doesn’t take very many years for their numbers to wreak havoc on the concentrated herds. We as humans have totally screwed up the balance of nature by our cities, farms, malls, etc… so it will never be the same. Mans manipulation has changed the balance for good and because of this we now need to manipulate wildlife in some cases because if we didn’t extinction would be imminent. Natures balance for some wildlife is gone forever, sad.

[Bow Hunter Brandon]

The problem here is there is no historic range left. Little pieces here and there in our parks but the territories needed by these animals is vast. We now have concentrated herds of elk and deer, throw in a pack of wolves and it doesn’t take very many years for their numbers to wreak havoc on the concentrated herds. We as humans have totally screwed up the balance of nature by our cities, farms, malls, etc… so it will never be the same. Mans manipulation has changed the balance for good and because of this we now need to manipulate wildlife in some cases because if we didn’t extinction would be imminent. Natures balance for some wildlife is gone forever, sad.

Ranger Ray although I agree with your opinion as it would pertain to suberbia I dont think it would hold water if all of the federal and state lands in the UP were left to nature to balance. I do believe that nature can and would balance iteself in the UP without the extinction coming into play.

Disclaimer: I am in no way saying I think the UP should be left to balance itself. Just pointing out there are chunks of land that are large enough for nature to balance them.

[Buddy Lee]

I own a chunk of land in presque isle co. I didn't know we had wolves there?? I'm from bessemer in w. u.p. Where thankfully they are taking the law in to there own hands. Iv'e never been politicly correct, so to all you jane fonda sheep out there, good luck with your save the wolf/whale agenda. :smile-mad

Where thankfully they are taking the law into their own hands?? :lol:

Jane Fonda sheep??

Come back with more facts, and less ignorant rhetoric so I can hand you your ass in a legitimate debate.

[fishin' fin]

Well. I didn't mean to get your liberal panties in a bunch! I specialize in ignorant rhetoric so get your hands off my *ss. I am not an authority on the wolf problem. I am a mere voice. I have studied enough biology and science to know you can keep your long haired theories about the wolf in the same category as the farm bureau has on deer. Our natural resources can only withstand so much predation before it is a non resource. I am not privy to another predator in our minimal resources environment :)

[Ranger Ray]

Ranger Ray although I agree with your opinion as it would pertain to suberbia I dont think it would hold water if all of the federal and state lands in the UP were left to nature to balance. I do believe that nature can and would balance iteself in the UP without the extinction coming into play.

Disclaimer: I am in no way saying I think the UP should be left to balance itself. Just pointing out there are chunks of land that are large enough for nature to balance them.If you take the mass feeding stations out of the U.P. and Montana, what do you think would happen to the deer and elk populations? You see even the herds they feed upon are only there in numbers because of human intervention. And most of these bring the animals into populated areas causing further wolf confrontations. Hate to say it Brandon but we basically have numbers sustainable only by human intervention, so the outfitters and states can get our money. Take away the feeding stations and food plots and crash olla. ;)

[Bow Hunter Brandon]

If you take the mass feeding stations out of the U.P. and Montana, what do you think would happen to the deer and elk populations? You see even the herds they feed upon are only there in numbers because of human intervention. And most of these bring the animals into populated areas causing further wolf confrontations. Hate to say it Brandon but we basically have numbers sustainable only by human intervention, so the outfitters and states can get our money. Take away the feeding stations and food plots and crash olla. ;)


Oh I agree on the feeding stations. Have you walked through a deer yard recently. There isnt a hemlock sapling to be found. Leting nature balance things out would be the best think to happen to the deer in the UP. Of course not in the near future Im talking long term.

[fishin' fin]

RR. Avatar???? Please sir!!! :help:

[Ranger Ray]

RR. Avatar???? Please sir!!! :help:It irritates me every time I see it. :lol:

[Bwana]

I believe the best natural environment is the most native/original natural environment. Do we need wolves? If it was part of their historic range, I would say yes.

We already farm, urbanize/settle, and otherwise "civilize" enough natural areas. Our national/state forest lands should be kept as "original" as possible from a pragmatic scientific viewpoint.

--
AaronThere is nothing wrong with management as long as it is not taken too far. Logging is an example that helps the wildlife provided pine plantations are not planted afterwards to maximize lumber Boardfeet. We just need to keep it balanced. Too much old growth leads to reductions in several types of wildlife....ones that we like to hunt:D .

Just think, if we were to improve the habitat in the U.P. there would be enough deer to for hunters and wolves...we could exist in harmony with the wolf:lol:

[Bwana]

It irritates me every time I see it. :lol:I ythink it is irritateing more people than you. Maybe i should change my Avatar to the UN Flag...nahhhh:evil:

[fishin' fin]

we could exist in harmony with the wolf:lol:
Excuse me while I puke. Spit hack spit ralph!! :dizzy:

[Bwana]

Excuse me while I puke. Spit hack spit ralph!! :dizzy:
Talk about useing only selective words when quoteing someone. I was joking while useing Dali Lama'esq words. But, all joking aside, if we can strike a balance some guys (me included) will hunt wolves when they are delisted. They will be yet another opportunity for hunting in our great state. Besides, if we increase the deer herd without improveing the habitat then we would be making the same mistake we made in the late 80's. If we improve the habitat there will be more deer for us and the wolves and we could have a wolf hunt as well. granted, it will be the mother of all political fights but it is possible.

[AKBuckbuster]

A man who sees the light! I live around wolves. I can hear them at night. Last winter we had 8 dogs in our area that were eaten by wolves (in a 5 mile strech of road). People thought it was another dog who wanted to play and then...Snap. One dead dog. Meat on a chain.

Many of you so called predator bleeding hearts need to be put on notice that people like me want a deer hunting season and if the current course continues hunters will be cut back not predator populations. You just have not seen the next chapter in Michigan hunting. Called, "hunting without game." Just a little insight to the future.

[Dave Lyons]

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, that hunters will bear the brunt of wolf recovery/protection regardless of location.

There is no language written in any wolf recovery pan 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 US Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) agreed that 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 US 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 on 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. That means 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 the 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 into 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 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 that 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 that predators also carry deadly diseases to other wild animals, 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 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 a 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, check the moose out and went on 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 numbers. Wolves prey directly on the recruitment and reproductive segments of ungulate populations.

While doing research in British Columbia, a wolf biologist from the British Columbian 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 the 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 with 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), which may 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 season, 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 and the hunter the loser.

A point which should be stressed is that 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 months later, the same Conservation Officer followed two wolves after a spring snow storm and found that the wolves had killed 21 deer. Only two were eaten upon.

The snow gave the wolves advantage. These deer were autopsied and many were found to be pregnant. The total number of deer killed in 2 days by these 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 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 Columbia versus Sweden and Finland. Both areas have comparable amount of moose habitat.

Dr. Kay stated, "During the 1980's in Sweden and Finland, the pre-calf or the wintering population of moose was approximately 400,000 animals and was increasing. While in British Columbia, it was 240,000 animals and decreasing."

"In British Columbia where they have a population of 240,000 animals and after calving season they killed only 12,000 animals whish 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 differences and other things, but the two main differences is that British Columbia 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 predations, especially wolf predation, can replace your hunting rights.

© Copyright 1991

Troy R. Mader is Research Director for Abundant Wildlife Society of North America (AWS), an International Wildlife Organization dedicated to the preservation of the Great North American Traditions of Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping. For more information write:

[Dave Lyons]

http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/range456/hot-topics/wolves-cattle.htm

[Dave Lyons]

http://www3.gov.ab.ca/srd/fw/wolves/evol.html

[Dave Lyons]

The Howling - Reflections on the Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Program and the Implications for Non-migratory Caribou and Elk

March 1, 2004
By Steven M. Busch

http://www.eco.freedom.org

To submit a Letter to the Editor: editor@eco.freedom.org

Caribou used to inhabit much of the northern border area between the United States and Canada, and as recently as the 1950s, were seen as far south as the Salmon River drainage in Idaho. All caribou are genetically identical. The woodland/mountain caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) are distinguished from their barren ground cousins solely by their choice of habitat.

While caribou are numerous throughout many parts of the world, the mountain, or woodland caribou, is protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act and is considered the "most threatened" of any large mammal species within the contiguous United States. The Selkirk Mountains, on the border between Washington State and north Idaho, are home to the last remaining herd of woodland/mountain caribou in the lower forty-eight states. The 2003 caribou census counted only 41 caribou in the Selkirk herd.

British Columbia is home to 98% of all remaining mountain caribou. The British Columbia Wildlife Branch reported that mountain caribou numbers plummeted from 2,450 in 1997 to 2,300 in 2000, and were down to just 1,850 animals in 2002. In the southern Purcell Mountains, the caribou population is comprised of just 18 individuals.

Why are these caribou numbers rapidly declining, despite intense management efforts from Canadian and U.S. authorities? The Selkirk caribou herd must maintain a population between 200 and 400 animals, to be considered viable. Some 113 caribou were imported from Canada to bolster the Idaho Selkirk herd between 1987 and 1998. Dozens more caribou have been transplanted over the last few years, in further attempts to strengthen the dwindling herd.

Preservationist organizations touting their own agenda like to put the blame on heli-skiers, snowmobile users, mining activities, old growth logging, etc. Yet, none of these activities have been shown to have a significant impact on caribou mortality.

During the 1990s a significant increase in the cougar population in the Selkirk mountains was noted by wildlife managers. Cougars were documented as inflicting a higher than sustainable mortality rate on the local Selkirk caribou herd. Idaho Department of Fish and Game wildlife managers enacted a "cougar reduction program" in an effort to reduce predation on the caribou. The strategy was considered somewhat successful, as the local caribou herd mortality rate declined while more new transplants were added to the herd.

In British Columbia the woodland/mountain caribou have been severely depressed, primarily by wolf predation. Caribou/wolf population dynamics have been well documented by Canadian biologists. In Canada, wildlife managers are using a variety of control strategies to reduce wolf predation. The Forty Mile Caribou Herd Management Team Wolf Predation Control Implementation Plan outlines "acceptable" non-lethal techniques:

"Males will be vasectomized using either surgical or chemical techniques; females will be tubally ligated if ongoing studies in the Yukon indicate this is feasible and safe; surgical sterilization will be conducted by a qualified veterinary surgeon; and other techniques proven to be more effective and humane may be used after review by the Fortymile Caribou Management Team and approval."

This very expensive, labor intensive approach has not been shown to be effective in the field. Caribou numbers continue to decline rapidly. Canadian predator control programs continue to eat up a large percentage of the wildlife management budget. Wildlife managers, on both sides of the border, know full well the devastating effects predators, particularly wolves, can have on a static non-migratory ungulate herd.

Gray wolves coming across the U.S. border into the Cascade and Selkirk mountain ranges, as well as wolves moving into the area from packs established in Montana, are under Federal protection. U.S. wildlife managers can do nothing but watch helplessly as wolves are clearly decimating non-migratory populations of ungulates (elk, moose, caribou) on this side of the border.

Meanwhile, so-called "wolf experts" here in the states have testified that elk, like caribou, are genetically well adapted to wolf predation, and that the natural prey/predator cycle should be allowed to run its course. They argue that "historically" caribou and elk populations have rebounded quite well, even under continual predation pressure by wolves. Ed Bangs, the USFWS Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Coordinator, stated in a recent Field and Stream magazine interview that "if wolves were going to wipe out the elk, they would have done so 10,000 years ago."

My question for Mr. Bangs is this: If caribou and elk are genetically equipped to survive wolf predation, then what went wrong in north Idaho, and what is going wrong in various parts of Canada? What does this mean for the elk population in central Idaho, where wolves are now reproducing and devouring elk at an astonishing rate?

The cold hard facts are spelled out by the caribou experts at the Columbia Mountains Institute of Applied Ecology in Revelstoke, British Columbia:

"Caribou migrations that spatially separate caribou from wolves allow relatively high densities of caribou to survive. Non-migratory caribou that live in areas where wolf populations are sustained by alternate prey can be eliminated by wolf predation."

Translation: Caribou herds that migrate and disperse to remote areas can effectively survive wolf predation. The isolated Selkirk caribou herd is an example of a herd that simply cannot "spatially separate" itself enough from predators to insure its continued survival.

The Selkirk Caribou herd did, in fact, respond to genetic cues and move up to higher elevations during winter to escape predation. However, predators (cougars and wolves) were able to stay in the area, subsisting on alternate prey (moose and deer) which they found in sufficient numbers in the lower valleys, until they could once again access the caribou.

Few elk historically winter in Yellowstone, or in the higher elevations, where deep snow and severe winters make foraging difficult. Don Cushman of the Fish and Wildlife Service at the National Elk Refuge in Jackson, Wyoming, explains that vast herds of elk historically migrated down off of the Yellowstone Plateau and the surrounding mountains and headed south at least 250 miles to winter in the high plains near Rock Springs, Wyoming.

Again, historically speaking, by migrating long distances, the elk herds, like their cousins the caribou, were able to "spatially separate" themselves for significant periods of time from their main predator, the wolf. Some wolves undoubtedly followed the elk herds on their migrations, but most stayed in their home territories and began preying on alternate species. When faced with wolf predation, migration is really the only genetic factor in the elk (or caribou's) favor.

In the United States, migration onto the plains is restricted by cattle ranching, agriculture, highways, and both rural and urban development. Elk herds are, in effect, living year round on millions of acres of well protected summer range. The wolf was removed as a predator from these ranges, in part, to protect the integrity of what are, essentially, non-migratory herds.

The National Elk Refuge in Jackson, Wyoming, was developed to assist the elk in surviving without migration, primarily by offering late winter feed in a protected area on their historic summer range. This is the same rationale behind the numerous elk winter feeding stations in Idaho and elsewhere. Without these winter feeding stations and protected habitats, elk populations would certainly decline, even without wolf predation.

The bottom line is that wolf packs re-introduced into Yellowstone and Idaho prey on elk that have limited migration capabilities or opportunities. For the wolf, it is like shooting fish in a barrel, especially during winter.

Wildlife managers expect a rapid decline in ungulate herds, and lament they have no definitive answers. In fact, they understand that all other predators (except wolves) will need to be reduced or eliminated, or else the ungulate population (elk, deer, and moose) is in serious jeopardy.

The likely scenario would be maintaining elk herds by managing hunters and predators other than wolves, which are protected under the Endangered Species Act. We have to compensate by managing those other species. Adjusting populations of lions, bears, and elk hunters will allow us to compensate for wolf impacts in some units.

The idea of eliminating all other predators to make up for wolf predation on elk (or caribou) populations contains serious flaws, and does not solve the problem. To continue to deny that there is a serious problem at all flies in the face of all the evidence.

This is an artificially manufactured crisis engineered by environmentalist extremists actively lobbying and working through our federal government. They do, in fact, have a solution already mapped out. The logic behind the wolf re-introduction plan, and all other native species legislation, is spelled out in a long term ecosystem-centered management plan called the "Wildlands Project".

In order to insure that ungulate populations survive the onslaught of the re-introduction of wolves into our western states, it will soon be very clear to all concerned, that "connecting corridors" must be established in order to facilitate migration between historic summer and winter ranges. New vast winter ranges must be made available in order to allow the full migratory habits of elk (also caribou and buffalo) to be reconstituted.

President Bush's 2004 budget proposal calls for 1.3 billion dollars for the USFWS. This budget includes huge increases for continued "native species recovery" efforts and law enforcement. Huge new wilderness bills are waiting for Congressional approval. If you own a ranch, or a farm, or even a business that is near a wolf re-introduction zone, or is in the way of some wildlife "connecting corridor," you are an endangered species.

[AceMcbanon]

I live in marquette county and previosly in hancock, and probably bird hunt every day that i can, I deer hunt when i can. I haven't noticed a decrease in anything other then year to year based on the winter. Everytime i have come across a wolf or wolf tracks i just get plain excited. They are an awesome creature which really relate to nature. I feel the same way about bears but i have more respect for wolves. I can't wait till the day i can hunt a wolf when a management program starts and have one of the most lethal smart predators stuffed in my room.

I remember the first time i saw a wolf, was the opener of trout season, i fished the misery river in the wilderness and crossed over a former flooded area, on my way back i found wolf tracks next to mine from a few hours earlier, Up the trail where i had found a dead deer in a log jam of the river i saw the wolf on the log jam and eating the deer. A sight i will never forget, and he took off as fast as he could after hearing me. I will never forget it, and although catching trout in april here is immpossible it made the trip back there worth it.

I think a lot of people just cry wolf when their season isin't as big of a success they hoped for it's ridiclous

[Buddy Lee]

http://www3.gov.ab.ca/srd/fw/wolves/evol.html

I found this picture and caption from that article to be particularly interesting...

http://www3.gov.ab.ca/srd/fw/wolves/images/prey.jpg

When deer are the primary prey, a pack of 8 or 9 wolves will make a kill every two or three days. Deer have expanded their range in northern Alberta despite wolf predation.

There isn't anyone here that says we shouldn't manage the wolves at some acceptable level. It would be great if we could have a limited wolf hunt in Michigan someday.

The problem is that 99% of the anti-wolf people on this site post emotional BS about wolves that simply isn't true...I can't imagine what it's like to hate an animal so much.

[Bow Hunter Brandon]

Buddy you mean like this emotional BS about wolves ?

All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

For the record I don't if their was a child in the home or not. Can you imagine your child looking up at you tearing streaming down their faces Daddy please save my dog??



The origional stats about wolves in michigan bothered me so I spent a few minutes looking up the facts for anyone that cares.



The DNR claims for the last 5 years that Michigan has around 350 wolves of which there is 80 breeding pairs. But wait in this fantasy world of the DNR the wolves don't breed and each year the population of wolves stay at 350. Oh sorry for bringing to light another lie from the DNR about their pet project .



Estimated at 20 animals in 1992, Michigan’s gray wolf population has grown to 278 animals in 2002, and the 2002-2003 winter count is expected to be even higher.

May 29, 2003
State Department of Natural Resources officials today announced results of the most recent wolf survey, which indicates at least 321 wolves now roaming Michigan's Upper Peninsula.

May 6, 2004
Michigan Department of Natural Resources officials today announced results of the most recent wolf survey, which indicates at least 360 wolves are now roaming Michigan's Upper Peninsula. The wolf population grew approximately 12 percent from the 321 animals counted last year.

Source is www.michigan.gov/dnr



David Lyons is someone I respect and a very informed traper and the information he posted was a bit long so I need to read through it all again.

[Dave Lyons]

Guys in everything I post I didn't say elliminate the wolf.

But this statement that was at the end of a research report I added in very interesting.

Scientists postulate that natural wolf-ungulate systems tend to stabilize at low numbers.

Dave

[Sib]

Guys in everything I post I didn't say elliminate the wolf. Dave
And you supported your views with links and obstained from insulting comments like Jane Fonda references, which gives your posts much more credibility than some of the emotional, ignorant posts in this thread. :)

I haven't read a post in this thread that advocates letting the wolves decimate the deer population, only folks wanting whatever remedy is chosen to be based on science. Can't examine low deer numbers without examining the 'brown it's down' mentality commonly heard throught the region, either.

[Dave Lyons]

In the first report the researcher stated that wolves do kill for sport with examples to back that also. Now throw in another predator in the bunch COYOTES!!!!

I have seen this first hand.

In fact there was study done in PA on coyotes and the effects on Deer.

The study stated that coyotes will kill 80% of the fawns, of those 80%, 80% will be Buck fawns. In the report the researcher stated the reason being is the buck fawns are naturally smaller then does fawns because of the extra growth the bucks have (Antlers) and also that the buck fawns give off more scent then doe fawns because of the glands are much higher in a buck then in a doe.

I will try and find that study again and post it.

Not trying to change the subject but there is more then one predator in this whole effect on the deer herd. Beside the brown its down thought process.

Dave

[Bwana]

In the first report the researcher stated that wolves do kill for sport with examples to back that also. Now throw in another predator in the bunch COYOTES!!!!

I have seen this first hand.

In fact there was study done in PA on coyotes and the effects on Deer.

The study stated that coyotes will kill 80% of the fawns, of those 80%, 80% will be Buck fawns. In the report the researcher stated the reason being is the buck fawns are naturally smaller then does fawns because of the extra growth the bucks have (Antlers) and also that the buck fawns give off more scent then doe fawns because of the glands are much higher in a buck then in a doe.
I am a Coyote hunter. I started hunting coyotes due to the reduction in my area in the deer herd. If more deer hunters started hunting coyotes they would lessen the blow to the deer herd by a significant margin.

I have actually found Coyote Hunting to be more enjoyable as it is more difficult. Anyone who wants to help their local deer herd should consider taking up Coyote Hunting as well. It is very fun and you will definately enjoy the woods during January to March as you are basically alone; very refreshing.

[Skibum]

"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."

Exactly. Hunters who do not realize this have their heads in the sand.

Jeff

[Tecumseh]

That last article you posted was very interesting Dave. It makes sense that isolated populations can be devastated by specific predator groups, such as wolves. In the case of the caribou mentioned in the article it would appear that the local wolf population is doing just that. Sounds like the old shooting fish in a barrel example. I would like to look into it further and see how isolated those herds are and what other factors limit their expansion, in addition to wolves. My question would be 'who is at fault for the small and isolated populations of these animals to begin with?' If it is largely because of past overhunting and development by humans then it would seem that we just stacked the odds overwhelmingly in favor of predators, such as wolves, in these areas.

[Bow Hunter Brandon]

Dave, I got a change to read your articles. They were really interesting thanks for sharing.

for the record Im not against hunting / trapping wolves at some point. I am against the ignorance that wolves are terible creatures and we should be killing everyone we see.

"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."

If you believe that to be true dont go around showing your hatred for the wolf to other hunters or worse none hunters. Arm yourself with FACTS and start a conversation with people. Buckshots post was filled with miss information and thats what most people that objected to it on this board were offended by. IMHO.

Oh and to those pushing the Shot Shovel Shut up, mentality your no different then people who go out and shine with a 22 for deer. Its against the law, damages the sportsmans image in the public and is poaching.

OK enough ranting for me :)

[Dave Lyons]

aborgman,

Yes your right but then there is the FOX. The fox is a very effective killer. They kill everything from Sheep to insects. In fact if you have a bunch of fox then there goes your rabbit population they are also very effective nest raiders. So you do the math Wolves equal less coyotes which eqauls less deer plus more fox which equals less smallgame. It not hard to figure out.

And I am only getting started at understanding predators in the state of MI. I have more research stuff on predator but it doesn't pretain to wolves or coyotes but redfox, raccoons,and skunks. And one of them was done right here in MI on the piping plover (Spelling) but it is a shore bird.

I know many a trapper that is even more educated then myself. But then again it is our job to understand all of this also.

Dave

[Dave Lyons]

Guys just for the record I am not trying to come across as a know it all. I have done the research. I have read many studies and I have many studies that this info comes from. IF you want to see the ones on fox I would post them also.

Dave

[Bow Hunter Brandon]

Guys just for the record I am not trying to come across as a know it all. I have done the research. I have read many studies and I have many studies that this info comes from. IF you want to see the ones on fox I would post them also.

Dave


please do.

[Skibum]

One caution on wolves and that is the issue of management. From a political standpoint, hypothetically speaking, what do you think the odds of Michigan ever passing a wolf season are, no matter how big the population? Excuse me folks but look how tough it was getting a dove season through. Wolves are the poster children for the greenies. I don't hate wolves. I understand their role in nature. The scary thing about them is the management issue. Without a management program there is potential for problems and politically I don't see a lot of sympathy from SE Michigan for a wolf season.

Jeff

[kingfisher 11]

skibum....exactly

I don't think many here want a complete eradication of wolves, just control.

When it really gets bad we are not going to be able to do a legal thing about it.

One thing I do hate is for us guys below the bridge forcing the folks in the UP to live with it. Even though many of the acres are federal land. It is no different then what the folks in the west/Yellowstone go through everytime one of the groups for animal rights in the east help force feed federal policies.

I respect more of there choice then someone who only lives with it a couple weeks a year.

[Dave Lyons]

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1999/symabs/island.htm

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1999/symabs/skunk.htm

[kingfisher 11]

Could you not reduce the elk numbers by extending hunting oportunities? That way to you discontinue permits when you real a certain goal? How do you turn the wolves off once you reach that goal on elk?

[Buddy Lee]

My question is - why should we manage for the benefit of some game animals at the expense of other game and non-game animals and the ecosystem?

--
Aaron

I'll cut to the chase and answer this question for you.

1. Hunters are greedy. We need to see deer. We need to harvest deer. Lots of deer. Any animal that may come between us and OUR deer must be eliminated.

2. Other people are greedy. Less deer = less $$. Less license $, less tourism $, etc.

The health of the ecosystem be damned, I didn't get my deer this year, I'm angry as hell, and I need to blame someone/something.

[spuds]

I have been reading a lot about what both sides had to say about the wolves and after seeing a wolf about 75 feet from the door of my camp at 1:30 in the afternoon in the Crystal Falls area just after taking my basset hound inside. It didn't take long for me to decide. This was in the first week of deer season and not many deer around either.

[Tecumseh]

I have been reading a lot about what both sides had to say about the wolves and after seeing a wolf about 75 feet from the door of my camp at 1:30 in the afternoon in the Crystal Falls area just after taking my basset hound inside. It didn't take long for me to decide. This was in the first week of deer season and not many deer around either.
I think it is more eerie seeing wolves in the daytime than at night, with the exception of being woken up in the middle of the night while camping alone in the deep woods. The first time I saw a U.P. wolf in the daytime was near Kenton. A big boy stopped right in the middle of the road in front of me. I stopped completely and while he stared me down a few of his buddies crossed too. Then he proceeded to lope over to a big spruce and empty his bladder, never taking his eyes of me. The sequence took so long that my [now ex] had time to find the video camera and get some of it on tape. It was cool at first but then it hit me what he was doing. He was basically telling me 'screw off, this is my area and you can't touch me'. Since then I can't even count how many wolves I have seen in the western U.P. There are definitely a lot of them now.
I see a lot of talk about wolves and deer numbers but does anyone know about beaver numbers in the U.P? I have always read that wolves love beaver and I am curious to know if any trappers have noticed any drop in beaver numbers with all the wolves up there.

[kingfisher 11]

My Sask guides planned on doing some wolf thinning this year and they are using Beaver carcass's. They trap the beavers and like stated they like the beaver.

[Skibum]

I'll cut to the chase and answer this question for you.

1. Hunters are greedy. We need to see deer. We need to harvest deer. Lots of deer. Any animal that may come between us and OUR deer must be eliminated.

2. Other people are greedy. Less deer = less $$. Less license $, less tourism $, etc.

The health of the ecosystem be damned, I didn't get my deer this year, I'm angry as hell, and I need to blame someone/something.

BS. How about hunters have been the backbone of conservation and wildlife management for the last 100 years. Am I being a little selfish that I prefer wildlife management be somewhat skewed toward game animals? Maybe, so what? I'm a hunter. I've been the one footing the bill all along and I resent the hell out of a few granola crunchers that want to take that away from me.

Jeff

[Skibum]

There is the crux of the matter. I'm a hunter, I've been footing the bill, and I want the most natural environment possible even if that means a reduction in hunting opportunity for me.

Humans have shown no ability to effectively manage wildlife, and that "skewed somewhat" always ends up being "skewed heavily towards the money"

--
Aaron

Aaron, I disagree with you on a couple of points. You say that humans have shown no ability to manage wildlife? I thouroughly disagree and would point to the past 100 years or so of conservation efforts, most of which were pushed for and financed by hunters. Sure it's skewed toward the money. So what? Keeping hunters interested keeps the money coming in which benefits game animals and non-game animals alike. Like it or not humans have to be part of the equation. It's a grand notion that we have all this wilderness, where people play no role and nature goes it's natural way. That is not realistic.

Jeff

[Buddy Lee]

So what? Keeping hunters interested keeps the money coming in which benefits game animals and non-game animals alike.

Until the wrong animal (wolf) comes along. Then we think we should play God and decide whether or not the wolf should live here...despite the fact that the wolf coming back to the UP was literally an act of God...despite popular opinion around here they were NOT introduced.

We currently manage wildlife for the benefit of hunters, and any other benefit to other wildlife species is ancillary. We need to start managing for the health of the ecosystem as a whole, and not our greedy wants and desires.

[Skibum]

Until the wrong animal (wolf) comes along. Then we think we should play God and decide whether or not the wolf should live here...despite the fact that the wolf coming back to the UP was literally an act of God...despite popular opinion around here they were NOT introduced.

We currently manage wildlife for the benefit of hunters, and any other benefit to other wildlife species is ancillary. We need to start managing for the health of the ecosystem as a whole, and not our greedy wants and desires.

If you are going to bring God into it it seems to me that in Genesis God gave man dominion over all the creatures of the earth :)

Please give me your definition of this idealized healthy ecosystem.

Jeff

[Dave Lyons]

Guys the thing that you are missing. IS the fact that your tax dollar is paying for a wolf trapper or relocater in the U.P. that is a fact. In my opinion this is bull. There are enough private control operaters in the state to handle this problem in the state. Another thing about the wolves. These came here naturally so it should be left up to the USFW or Wildlife Services of the USDA to handle this problem wasting my tax dollar. So since they came naturally and are off the Threated list it is time for the MiDNR with assistance from the USFWS to step up and let the trappers and hunters of MI to manage the herd NOT MY TAX DOLLAR.

Dave

[Dave Lyons]

Take and look who much of your tax dollars are being used by WS in this state. This is bull

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/pdf/michigan.pdf

[Buddy Lee]

If you are going to bring God into it it seems to me that in Genesis God gave man dominion over all the creatures of the earth :)

Please give me your definition of this idealized healthy ecosystem.

Jeff

Indeed he did.

An ecosystem cannot be totally healthy without a predator....and don't tell me that predators can be replaced by man, because that's bull.

[Buddy Lee]

Take and look who much of your tax dollars are being used by WS in this state. This is bull

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/pdf/michigan.pdf

What's wrong with that program? Looks like a good use of tax dollars to me. Look at the actual cost....it's miniscule.

[Dave Lyons]

Buddy why should my tax dollar be doing this when my lic. and app. money could be used and the scientist could still use the info that is needed.

Dave

[Alibi]

Buddy why should my tax dollar be doing this when my lic. and app. money could be used and the scientist could still use the info that is needed.
DaveIsn't license and application monies, kind of just like tax money? The difference in my mind is license and application monies should be used to benefit, in this case, the hunter. Does wildlife, it this particular situation that is being discussed, only effect the hunter or does it effect the general population, farmers etc? Isn't tax money from the general population? If the answer in this case is yes, it does or even can effect the general population, then it should be tax money from the general population that pays for it. That is part of the problem that sportsmen face is we pay for too many things that non-hunters benefit from and we end up always paying for it simply because we always have.

[Dave Lyons]

Alibi,

Yes a lic. fee is a tax. But it is a tax that none of us care to spent our money on and in my opinion we pay to little but then again that is my opinion.

Dave

[Dave Lyons]

One more thing now if it was MY TAX dollar that brought the wolves into Mich. then I would agree have Wildlife Services deal there the problem but in this case they just walked into Mich not reintroduced. So that is why I believe it should be up to US to manage the Wolves. MiDNR and the hunters and trappers of MI with the assistance of USF&WS could make this happen and it could be done right. Theproblem is USF&WS is in bed with the special interest groups and that is a bad thing.

Dave

[Bwana]

Lets just hunt them[sic] wolves. Aborgman, we humans are at the top of the food chain....start acting like it. :)

All joking aside, when nature is left to her own devices she encourages low numbers. We should manage the forests to suit our interests....period. I do think having the wolf and every apex predator for that matter, is in our best interest but the forest is a resource that we should actively manage; includeing predators and prey. In this case we can manage for ourselves and the animals as well.

I find it interesting that everyone is complaining about the wolf out West (here too) but thr Grizzly Bear has made a tremendous comeback in the Western lower 48 and kills and maims(sp?) more humans. They have actually expanded their range into the grass lands in Montana. There is just a stigma surrounding the wolf I guess. And in reality, badgers cause the loss of more cattle in the West than the Wolf but they are not really hated by the ranchers (the cattle step into the Badger Holes and break their legs). Anyway, I better stop discussing Grizzly Bear population growth and range expansion or it might cause some Grizzly sightings in Iron County :lol: .

[Dave Lyons]

Bwana,

I don't want to come across as being a jerk. But how do you know the ranchers don't care about the badger. I know for a fact there are several real good trappers that go west to catch fox and coyotes that in fact have to catch badgers also. A buddy of mine from Indiana that goes west trapping every year about 2-4 times a year in fact kill a lot of badgers for the ranchers. They are the woodchuck of the west. Also the ranchers are having problems with the bears in Montana and they are doing things about it. The thing about this whole wolf thing is the wolf. People don't think the bears are all that great there are problem all over the U.S. with bears (YEs I know most are Black Bears) But a lot of people have seen he effects of bears. All T.V. and the great news anchors of our very liberal T.V. is they haven't seen a wolf and think they are the greatest thing in the world. That is why in my opinion the wolf gets most of the news highlights.

Dave

[Dave Lyons]

I addressed the question of the wolves to a guy I know that has had first hand knowledge of wolves and once worked with FWS and he was in office during the Rocky Mount. reitroduction of the wolves and here is what he had to say.


posted 12-16-2004 08:33 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete,
I don't disagree with anything in your last post. In fact I argued those points and predicted the problems that would be created during the lead-up to the reintroduction into the Northern Rockies. I was the liaison between the Office of Endangered Species and the Denver Regional Office during that period. The decision was made at the Departmental level consistent with political correctness and a liberal interpretation of the recovery planning and implementation requirements of the ESA.

Dave,
White 17 gave you one estimate of total biomass consumption per wolf in AK. The number of deer taken in the Lake States will vary according to the availability of alternate food sources such as beaver, other small mammals, carrion, etc. Of course the principal prey of wolves is always going to be the predominant ungulate species occuring in the area.

The FWS is moving forward with the delisting of the wolf in the eastern U.S. See:http://midwest.fws.gov/wolf/
Until that is final the ESA will continue to trump State law.

Larry

[Dave Lyons]

Here is another post from a guy from AK. He has to deal with Wolves everyday and he is also a Wolf trapper in AK. And here is what the study that has been done in AK said .

The ADF&G research indicates that one wolf will kill and eat the equivalent of one moose per month in biomass. That could be all moose, or voles, caribou, rabbits etc. Anyway you slice it its a drain on the ungulate population.

If you have 250 wolves and each one is using lets say 800 pounds (cow moose ) per month, that is 2.4 million pounds per year. Thats a lot of deer and other stuff

He is stating in mosse because that is the wolf normal prey in AK.

Dave

[Robert W. McCoy Jr]

I personnally feal there just isn't enough room for them in the LP.

[Bwana]

I don't want to come across as being a jerk. But how do you know the ranchers don't care about the badger.
I didn't say the Ranchers don't care about the Badger. I said they don't hate the Badger. A very big difference. I hope this was an honest mistake and not an attempt to instigate.

The badger is considered merely a pest when they move into the area. The Badger costs the Ranchers more money than the wolf but when a wolf gets into the area "the sky is falling" but yet the badger is considered a mere pest. It is irrational at best and obtuse at worst. If business operated like this they would be out of business. Prioritize.

Also the ranchers are having problems with the bears in Montana and they are doing things about it. The thing about this whole wolf thing is the wolf.
What are these Ranchers doing about the Grizzly Bear? What are these "things" you are referencing? Attach a link detailing these "things" to back up this claim.

It seems that you think the reemergence of the Grizzly population is a bad thing as well. So should we eradicate the Grizzly too...or try again? There is already rumblings of renewed Grizzly Bear Hunting in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho in the nest 5 to 10 years. Is this not a good thing? Or is it only worth hunting if it has a rack.



People don't think the bears are all that great there are problem all over the U.S. with bears (YEs I know most are Black Bears) But a lot of people have seen he effects of bears. All T.V. and the great news anchors of our very liberal T.V. is they haven't seen a wolf and think they are the greatest thing in the world. Dave
That is becasue there are idiots that are opposed to their hunting. When a nuisence bear get's in their area then maybe they will see the light.

Look, it is obvious we don't agree on Predators but they have a legitimate place in the U.S.; regardless of the Ranchers or the farm Bureaus opinions I have hunted a Wolf in Canada; it is very challenging. Maybe some day we can start hunting them when their populations have grown and stabalized in our own state. Additionally, I hope to hunt an Interior Grizzly as well in my lifetime.

[pacer88220]

If you are going to bring God into it it seems to me that in Genesis God gave man dominion over all the creatures of the earth :)

Please give me your definition of this idealized healthy ecosystem.

JeffSO what you are essentially saying is that no matter what we should KILL them off so you can enjoy a sport of hunting.
I have a pack in the l.p by grayling that has not affected my hunting ability at all. What has effected it is alot of late nite hunting affairs that has taken it's toll on the deer herd.
I personally enjoy seeing the wolves in the area. Hell the coyote's have ruled the small game well b-4 the wolve got here.
As true hunter's we are bound to follow laws and ethic's. Nothing else nothing more.

[pacer88220]

As far as hunting dollars paying the bill on the wolves and other species thats the way it has been and always will be. If for some reason they cant get the dollar because of everyone not hunting well guess what? Raise taxes.
Wildlife does need to be managed but is it our choice as to what gets managed, or the government's?
In the n lp the deer herd is managing to see deer numbers drop. Reason being the t.b issue has grown way out of control. Hell it took years for 452's herd to drop thru hunters effort's. Maybe the wolf just took to long to come home!!!
Anyone ever try to get permission to hunt 452 b-4 the t.b took affect? I did alot of knocking and came up empty handed state land there was overpopulated with orange. Seems funny out previous govenor had once considered sending the national guard a few years back but animal activist's ruled that out.
Maybe we could have sent a few good wolves.:lol: :lol:
With that being said did we manage the herd effectively to keep it disease free and end up with Texas as the only outside buyer of our beef. So they can remarket it?
Dont get on the band wagon we are the rulers of the animal species because hey we managed to kill off damn near every creature in one shape or form by mis-management. Look at how long the herd in michigan took to restructure it after the early 1900's, and that of the pheasant of today.
The wolf is also an example given, and hey it was even stupid enough to move back.
With that I say welcome home, and good luck because some jackass is going to take it upon himself and illegally kill you to make himself feel better about managing his wildlife. Not your's. So he can get that rack.
Shame on you mr wolf for comming home. We have no room for you due to our ego's and poor hunting abilities to start with. Let alone management.:sad:

[Skibum]

Name me one management program where the management was geared toward improving the health of the entire ecosystem.


Why isn't it realistic? Why can't we allow our state and federal forest lands to operate naturally? Allow forest fires to burn, predator-prey cycles to fluctuate and quit pushing the the silly notion that we even understand the amazingly complex systems we're meddling with, much less are able to effectively manage them.

--
Aaron

So you are suggesting that humans have no place in this idealized ecosystem? No human activity should be allowed on public lands including hunting?

Jeff

[Skibum]

Human activity should be allowed (including hunting) within limits. I have no problem with them being roadless areas, and hunting would be limited to culling overpopulation of a species where the predator-prey cycle was out of balance with the habitats ability to support it.

--
Aaron

Whoa!!! You can't have it both ways. Either you manage or you don't. Your earlier post says you want our public lands to operate naturally. Now you are suggesting culling? Oh, and by making all these areas roadless you expect the American taxpayer to support places many of them can never go?

Jeff

[Skibum]

I suggest culling because it is necessary due to how badly we have hosed the environment.


Why can't they go there? People go into roadless areas all the time.

--
Aaron

Forget the roadless area point for the moment because it is a digression. Having spent a lot of time in wilderness areas I'm willing to discuss it but for the sake of this discussion lets focus on the culling. As I said before you either are for management or not. Period. Either you allow the ecosystem to go whatever way nature takes it or you allow man to have influence. If you say under any circumstances, such as hunting, that you allow man to have influence then you are saying you believe in management. Beyond that it is only a matter of degree and what your goal is.

Jeff

[Bwana]

Human activity should be allowed (including hunting) within limits. I have no problem with them being roadless areas, and hunting would be limited to culling overpopulation of a species where the predator-prey cycle was out of balance with the habitats ability to support it.

--
Aaron
And this is where our agreement on Wolves ends. The forest is big enough for wolves and humans....period. The forest is an asset that needs management. In that management plan there should be a place for wolves and other predators but we should utilize mazimize the use of the forest for non destructive human activities and only allow destructive uses (mining, oil drilling and such) on a limited basis.

[Bwana]

I have a deal for the ranchers in the west. They can kill any wolf/bear that is on their property, regardless of whether it is bothering livestock. In return they need to keep their livestock off all state forest, national forest, and BLM lands.

--
Aaron
I do like where you are going with this however.;)

[Dave Lyons]

Well I am done. Until someone actually comes up with something other then there opinion. I am done. It seems I am the only one bring stuff to the plate.

You great wildlife managers without any thing other then opinions or beliefs.

Dave

[Tecumseh]

Well I am done. Until someone actually comes up with something other then there opinion. I am done. It seems I am the only one bring stuff to the plate.

You great wildlife managers without any thing other then opinions or beliefs.

Dave
Would that be a plate of VENISON? :corkysm55
Sorry, I just could not help myself. :lol:

[WAUB-MUKWA]

Good job buckshot1 and dave lyons. Great and factual info. Don't worry there won't be a QDM agenda in michigan in a year or two the wolves are already working on it for you and then there will be hard restrictions and most of you won't even get a deer license to hunt what deer will be left.
Oh and the beaver are going away too for those who asked. They taste just great to a wolf. Right up there with fawns and wore out monster bucks you been trying to get all those years to fascinate yourself silly. :gaga: :bash:
Can't wait for the ice bridge to form again this winter. Here wolfy, wolfy. :yikes:
Taking donations for the gas fund to help transport them be reintroduced in the loper.

[Tecumseh]

Can't wait for the ice bridge to form again this winter. Here wolfy, wolfy. :yikes:
Taking donations for the gas fund to help transport them be reintroduced in the loper.
Maybe that is the solution to everyones worries. Get the wolves to spread all across their historic range and then EVERYONE will have to deal with them-- including antis, country suburbanites, more livestock farmers, everyone. When the masses begin crying wolf then things will change. We should all embrace the return of the wolf and hope they spread quickly and get it over with. I am positive the antis love all of the hunters complaining about the new competition but let them live with the wolves for a while and it won't be long before hunters can finally do something about it. I know it sounds like a different approach but that is probably how it will happen. Maybe for the people who really really hate wolves, their best course of action would be to bait them across any ice bridges and get them down in the lower more quickly. They are here in the lower already but are still too few in number to make a difference. Bring 'em down.

[kingfisher 11]

I think you are right. Now its neat that they are up there and the weekend warriors can hear them once in a while. Wait until they are in there back yards steeling dogs. Then maybe some will get there undies in a bunch. I still don't have any problems with this. I think a few around is nice. What I will have a problem with is once we want to control them and need a hunting season you are going to have the anti's from as far away as New York and California funding the fight to stop it.

Now theory of letting nature take the course and we don't need to hunt predators is the natural way of cycles. Then I need someone to explain why we need to hunt coyotes? Heck...... leave them alone nature will eventually balance them. Problem is, nature moves alot slower then some of our life cycles. Even the DNR has suggested for us to keep the coyote pops down.

[Buckshot1]

Texas Trophy Deer Hunts
Hunt Large Acreage with Big Bucks A Cabelas Endorsed Outfitter
Hunt Kansas Whitetail
Trophy Deer on >25000 private acres Join us for your 2004 KS adventure
Learn Ages Of Whitetails
When you Really need to know the Actual age of Your Trophy Whitetail
Signature Hunts of Kansas
Premier Hunting Guides for Kansas 170 + B.C. deer, quail & turkey hun

Guess what?? no wolves in these states. Kind of funny they were listed on the bottom of the page.

[fishin' fin]

Any good recipes for wolf? Should be a lot like veal. How about commorant? They should taste a lot like perch and walleye? :evil:

[andyotto]

First off I would enjoy haveing the opportunity to see wolves in Mi (on a limited basis.
However this notion of haveing "nature" without influence of man seems silly. Man is part of nature. We are inextricably tied to nature. Our homes, work and play areas are all part of nature. Sure we alter the earth that we live on and we need to take care of it. Thats why management is essential to our entire ecosystem. There are many creatures that alter the earth (in fact all do) and we are one of them. If you are against management than you logically have to be against hunting or any other human activity. Tell me where on the map does nature end and man's domain begin.
Great points on this thread. Its always fun to philosophize and have freindly arguments. :)

[Dick Graves]

Although I have not read all of the threads on this post, which I find interesting, the post by Dave Lyons and the article by Jay Smith caught my eye.

It appears that the Feds have created a new way to spend tax dollars with this issue. Smiths article spells it out, beginning in 1997 they spent about $20,000 dollars investigating damge caused by wolves, as the years have come and gone, it appears that the money spent on this has increased about 48% per year through the year 2001. The figures are as follows:

1997 20K
1998 36.8 K
1999 77 K
2000 135 K
2001 158 K

I sympathize with the farmers in the U.P. along with the other residents who are losing livestock, pets, etc. Thankfully no humans have been lost yet :yikes: If they continue to protect these predators, leaving them unchecked, it is just a matter of time.

My point is simple, why are the feds even involved in this mess, this should be a state issue resolved by the citizens of Michigan. Put the heat on Lansing to stop this problem before it gets out of hand. :dizzy:

I see no value in having a wolf population in Michigan. :bash: If I want to see a wolf, I can go to a zoo, an even more evil thought, just go spend a weekend in Washington D.C., where I can view Americas true predators in their own environment, meaning those who where a suit and tie to "work"

As an after thought it should cost about 1 million a year to investigate and resolve wolf sightings and the loss to farmers by 2006. Another brilliant Federal program where experience tells us that tax money spent on this mess will double about every two years, once it reaches a million bucks. :sad:

Simple thougts from a simple mind :help:

[andyotto]

Land in the west is 75% public or more in many states. The government set it up that way to allow the people there the use of the limited water and grass land resources. That way not just one rancher would control all the resources. I think that if you put the your predator harvest plan into effect than there also should be a land sale that accompanies it. ;)

[Moron]

Although I have not read all of the threads on this post, which I find interesting, the post by Dave Lyons and the article by Jay Smith caught my eye.

It appears that the Feds have created a new way to spend tax dollars with this issue. Smiths article spells it out, beginning in 1997 they spent about $20,000 dollars investigating damge caused by wolves, as the years have come and gone, it appears that the money spent on this has increased about 48% per year through the year 2001. The figures are as follows:

1997 20K
1998 36.8 K
1999 77 K
2000 135 K
2001 158 K

I sympathize with the farmers in the U.P. along with the other residents who are losing livestock, pets, etc. Thankfully no humans have been lost yet :yikes: If they continue to protect these predators, leaving them unchecked, it is just a matter of time.

My point is simple, why are the feds even involved in this mess, this should be a state issue resolved by the citizens of Michigan. Put the heat on Lansing to stop this problem before it gets out of hand. :dizzy:

I see no value in having a wolf population in Michigan. :bash: If I want to see a wolf, I can go to a zoo, an even more evil thought, just go spend a weekend in Washington D.C., where I can view Americas true predators in their own environment, meaning those who where a suit and tie to "work"

As an after thought it should cost about 1 million a year to investigate and resolve wolf sightings and the loss to farmers by 2006. Another brilliant Federal program where experience tells us that tax money spent on this mess will double about every two years, once it reaches a million bucks. :sad:

Simple thougts from a simple mind :help:

I agree Dick, simple solutions are often the most practical.
We can get man to honor management programs regarding boundaries but how do you get wolves to stop at these boundaries or restrict their menus to game verses livestock or our children when hunger pains tell them they should eat and their natural food supply isn't there. Culling them is the best solution. Though relocating them to Washington DC with their brethern sounds like a viable alternative also. ;)

[andyotto]

Please tell me then what is the role of government. The government's role is what the citizens say it is or what the citizens put up with until they overthrow it. There is no "God given" definition of what the role of government is.

I'm only telling you the original purpose of keeping the land public in the west.

Whoops I misread what you said. Not our government's role. I would tend to agree with you on that. However, my point is that the system in the west is vastly different from that in Michigan where we have both a mix of private and public land. The government intentionally put land away for the use of the public for those resources. It was not put aside to be natural areas that are "pristine" and devode of humans.

Please keep in mind that I would like to see wolves in Mi. I do think they are cool as I do many other species of wildlife. I just don't believe that humans should have no or even little impact on much of the public land in the US. They are there so I say conserve them but use them. I guess it comes down to conservation verses enviromentalism. Just different philosophies. :D

[Buddy Lee]

Please keep in mind that I would like to see wolves in Mi. I do think they are cool as I do many other species of wildlife. I just don't believe that humans should have no or even little impact on much of the public land in the US. They are there so I say conserve them but use them. I guess it comes down to conservation verses enviromentalism. Just different philosophies. :D

I don't think there's anyone here saying we shouldn't manage wolves. Hell, I think they should eventually be a big-game species in MI, just like deer and bear.

I just see a lot of hate, fear, and general misinformation about the wolf that needs to be corrected.

[wyle_e_coyote]

I don't think there's anyone here saying we shouldn't manage wolves. Hell, I think they should eventually be a big-game species in MI, just like deer and bear.

I just see a lot of hate, fear, and general misinformation about the wolf that needs to be corrected.That is true, but the problem that we are all missing is, what is a healthy population of wolves for the habitat? Minnisota has over 2000 and they still do not have a season of any kind. I do not see MI ever opening a season on wolves. If they do it will be way beyond the carring capacity before anyone finaly says ..uhh ok we have a problem. In Ontario for $50us you can shoot a wolf a day. I will see if they post a population est. some where, and post it here.
I think 2500 wolves in MI seems like it would be alot to carry with out problem. Maybe someone has an opinion on why I am wrong, please post. I want to know when we will start to control?

Found this, It is from a Pro wolf website, so it may be a little on the low side.
Currently there are thought to be 7,000-9,000 wolves in Ontario, though no reliable survey method has been employed.

[andyotto]

Who said anything about destroy. I said use. Haveing an impact and destroying are two different things. If I walk in the woods I have an impact If I live and breath I have an impact. Are there things that need to kept in check like logging? Sure. Should logging on public land be banned. I would say no. Like you, I also have just as much say on that land and I say logging if done right can have a benefit. Do I want all the forest wiped out all at once? No way? I guess the biggest issue that I have is that it sounds like your saying that poeple have very little opportunity to use the lands resources. By your reasoning hunters should not be allowed to take resources from the public land either. What's the difference between taking a grouse and taking a tree.(again not all of the trees or all the grouse) I think there needs to be a balance between public use and the environment.

ps. Again I want to say that I don't think that we are that far apart in terms of what we want for our public land. I agree that there has been some huge mismanagement. Youre right that some companies are being subsidized by the American government at the cost of the tax payer and I think thats wrong. But if a company can make it work on a limited basis without government help than so be.

[Buddy Lee]

That is true, but the problem that we are all missing is, what is a healthy population of wolves for the habitat? Minnisota has over 2000 and they still do not have a season of any kind. I do not see MI ever opening a season on wolves. If they do it will be way beyond the carring capacity before anyone finaly says ..uhh ok we have a problem. In Ontario for $50us you can shoot a wolf a day. I will see if they post a population est. some where, and post it here.
I think 2500 wolves in MI seems like it would be alot to carry with out problem. Maybe someone has an opinion on why I am wrong, please post. I want to know when we will start to control?

Found this, It is from a Pro wolf website, so it may be a little on the low side.
Currently there are thought to be 7,000-9,000 wolves in Ontario, though no reliable survey method has been employed.

I don't know anything about Ontario or Minnesota, other than they probably have many more square miles of available wolf habitat than MI does. Thus, they could support a higher wolf population. I don't see any reason why we can't settle on a population goal, and then manage for that number via a permit system like we do for bear and elk. The wolf is a great animal, and would be a trophy to be proud of.