More deer killed by wolves than hunters in some Wisconsin counties

[Deleted member 20812]

So, why don't we call them "super wolves"??

ClearCreek

They’re probably going to start using drones to scout.

 

[BuzzH]

If wolves result in fewer cervid harvests, more commercially raised meat will be eaten, and thus more will be raised. The only assumption is that hunters without tags will not go vegan for the year.

I’m not suggestion shooting wolves so that there will be MORE cervids. I’m suggesting that we limit cervid population reduction due to wolves. It should be one of the wolf management criteria.

You cannot say from one side of your mouth that beef production is unsustainable, and from the other side of your mouth that reducing harvest of cervids doesn’t make that situation worse.

Idaho, Montana, and wyoming are managing wolves...enough already.

 

[SAJ-99]

If wolves result in fewer cervid harvests, more commercially raised meat will be eaten, and thus more will be raised. The only assumption is that hunters without tags will not go vegan for the year.

I’m not suggestion shooting wolves so that there will be MORE cervids. I’m suggesting that we limit cervid population reduction due to wolves. It should be one of the wolf management criteria.

You cannot say from one side of your mouth that beef production is unsustainable, and from the other side of your mouth that reducing harvest of cervids doesn’t make that situation worse.

I never used the word unsustainable. You assume more cervids would be better (there are more stakeholders than just hunters) and you assume that the meat consumption of successful hunters would make a meaningful impact on beef consumption if harvest changed at the margin.

 

[ImBillT]

I never used the word unsustainable. You assume more cervids would be better (there are more stakeholders than just hunters) and you assume that the meat consumption of successful hunters would make a meaningful impact on beef consumption if harvest changed at the margin.

You said less sustainable. Sorry. Now I’ve done it to you. That said, I’m not sure what less sustainable means. Something can either be sustained or it cannot. Where is the middle ground? Are you saying that commercial cattle production is sustainable, just difficult? Or unsustainable but will be sustained for a very long while?

It a pretty safe assumption that people in this country are going to eat a certain amount of meat at a minimum. If they fill some tags, some or all of that meat will be game meat. If they don’t kill anything, then that meat has to come from somewhere else. Do you know any hunters who went vegan for the year after not filling any tags? Know any hunters that killed one whitetail and went the year without eating any meat from anywhere else? They will get the meat from somewhere else. If it comes from another hunter, then the other hunter will also have to replace the meat he shared. In the end, less wild meat harvested by hunters means more commercially raised meat will be eaten. It won’t all be beef, cervids are red meat, and a reasonably high percentage of the replacement will be red meat.

More cervids is not a good thing in every place and every situation. I think of you reread some of my posts you’ll see that I’m usually arguing against allowing wolves to be the reason for less cervids. If we need to reduce cervid populations, I’d like to see hunters do it when possible. That’s not always possible. Unfortunately, wolves don’t stay where we put them, at the population level we want them at, or stop killing when the elk are at objective. Hunters do all of those things. If wolves are to do those things, their management must be quite intensive. Folks in this thread are against using aerial gunning to get the wolf population down to objective. Wolves are in CO now. They’ll likely expand from there as well. As far as I know, the ESA would not allow CO
to manage wolves at this point. What if TX decided they didn’t want any wolves? As far as know, they don’t actually have that choice.

I’ll say it again. If anyone in this thread is fine with reduced tag numbers as a result of wolves, they should be the first to give up their tags this year. Someone in this thread said that we should share with wolves. He should leave his harvest in the ground for the wolves this year. It isn’t sharing if you don’t actually give something up. When a resident that can buy a tag over the counter says they don’t mind tags being cut, what do they actually mean? Are they loosing tags? If not, they’re just saying that they are ok with someone else paying the price for wolves.

 

[ImBillT]

Idaho, Montana, and wyoming are managing wolves...enough already.

You could have said that A LONG TIME AGO.

Next, are they keeping them in MT, ID, and WY? Nope. If CO wanted to keep them out would it be allowed? Not as far as I’m aware.

 

[BuzzH]

You could have said that A LONG TIME AGO.

Next, are they keeping them in MT, ID, and WY? Nope. If CO wanted to keep them out would it be allowed? Not as far as I’m aware.

Maybe try knowing what you're talking/whining about before spouting off...

Read the ESA, state management plans, educate yourself.

MT, ID, and WY are not required to keep wolves within the state boundary, same as elk, deer, pronghorn, moose, sheep, goats, bears, lions, upland birds, furbearers, waterfowl, fish, songbirds, you name it. Wildlife is transient.

No, states are not allowed to keep endangered animals out of their state for your convenience. They fall under the jurisdiction and control of the Federal government, again, read the ESA. The Feds provide funding and cooperate with the states in managing endangered species, via an Act of congress.

What Colorado should be doing is drafting a wolf management plan with regard to wolf recovery goals, delisting numbers, making sure wolf hunting is part of the plan, etc. etc. etc. when/if wolves are delisted in their state.

Another thing you need to get straight...if the Citizens of Colorado or Wyoming want to totally eliminate NR licenses they can and they don't owe you an explanation for why. What you're entitled to, is the right to sing the blues if we decide to feed, what you falsely assume is your share, of our deer and elk to wolves.

The wildlife is held in trust for the citizens of the States it resides in and you hunt as a NR at the pleasure of the Residents.

 

[ImBillT]

Maybe try knowing what you're talking/whining about before spouting off...

Read the ESA, state management plans, educate yourself.

MT, ID, and WY are not required to keep wolves within the state boundary, same as elk, deer, pronghorn, moose, sheep, goats, bears, lions, upland birds, furbearers, waterfowl, fish, songbirds, you name it. Wildlife is transient.

No, states are not allowed to keep endangered animals out of their state for your convenience. They fall under the jurisdiction and control of the Federal government, again, read the ESA. The Feds provide funding and cooperate with the states in managing endangered species, via an Act of congress.

What Colorado should be doing is drafting a wolf management plan with regard to wolf recovery goals, delisting numbers, making sure wolf hunting is part of the plan, etc. etc. etc. when/if wolves are delisted in their state.

Another thing you need to get straight...if the Citizens of Colorado or Wyoming want to totally eliminate NR licenses they can and they don't owe you an explanation for why. What you're entitled to, is the right to sing the blues if we decide to feed, what you falsely assume is your share, of our deer and elk to wolves.

The wildlife is held in trust for the citizens of the States it resides in and you hunt as a NR at the pleasure of the Residents.

I know all of that Buzz. I know ID, WY, and MT are not required to keep wolves in their state. I was 99% sure other states wouldn’t be allowed to keep them out and now I’m 100% sure. I know you don’t have to let me hunt in WY. I also know that when someone in a state like WY says the don’t mind wolves reducing tags, that 99% of them aren’t talking about giving up THEIR tag.

 

[BuzzH]

I know all of that Buzz. I know ID, WY, and MT are not required to keep wolves in their state. I was 99% sure other states wouldn’t be allowed to keep them out and now I’m 100% sure. I know you don’t have to let me hunt in WY. I also know that when someone in a state like WY says the don’t mind wolves reducing tags, that 99% of them aren’t talking about giving up THEIR tag.

Except for the simple fact that since wolf reintroduction, nobody, R or NR has given up a tag in Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming.

Fact is, in all those States you can shoot 2-3 elk a year per hunter. When I started hunting elk in Montana in 1979, it was ONE elk per hunter and cow permits were draw only. Now there are places with season long brow-tined or antlerless elk, OTC cow b-tags (second elk), and now talk of allowing 3 elk a year per hunter. Wyoming has increased elk tags to 3 per year per hunter, and I have no idea how long its been 2 per hunter per year, a long time (edit since 2000, 5 years after wolf reintroduction). Idaho has areas with 2 tags as an option, including 2 bulls. In the case of WY and MT, multiple deer b-tag, reduced price doe/fawn deer tags.

I'm not seeing your complaint or argument of "giving up tags" to wolves as anything valid...

Where is this happening? Fantasyland?

 

[ImBillT]

Except for the simple fact that since wolf reintroduction, nobody, R or NR has given up a tag in Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming.

Fact is, in all those States you can shoot 2-3 elk a year per hunter. When I started hunting elk in Montana in 1979, it was ONE elk per hunter and cow permits were draw only. Now there are places with season long brow-tined or antlerless elk, OTC cow b-tags (second elk), and now talk of allowing 3 elk a year per hunter. Wyoming has increased elk tags to 3 per year per hunter, and I have no idea how long its been 2 per hunter per year, a long time (edit since 2000, 5 years after wolf reintroduction). Idaho has areas with 2 tags as an option, including 2 bulls. In the case of WY and MT, multiple deer b-tag, reduced price doe/fawn deer tags.

I'm not seeing your complaint or argument of "giving up tags" to wolves as anything valid...

Where is this happening? Fantasyland?

Im pretty sure my posts said game populations should be ONE of the management criteria. I’m pretty sure my posts have said IF wolves cause a reduction in tags. Find the post I made that claims wolves have already reduced tag numbers. If you can, I’ll take it back and apologize for my inaccuracy. My posts referencing tags were in response to a poster here who claimed that he was okay with the possibility of wolves reducing tag numbers. I almost certainly quoted him in that post.

IIRC my two initial posts in this thread were A) Responding to someone who claimed not to mind giving up tags to wolves, and I suggested that it should be that person’s tag that goes away first(after all, he says he doesn’t mind), and B) a person who said the only management tool should be hunters and seasons, and that if wolves continue to grow in spite of that, so be it. I responded that the management criteria should matter, should include game population, and that the tools used to manage them, in addition to hunting, should not matter as much as the actual management criteria.

 

[westbranch]

Last year we found out wolves were eating suckers and now it looks like we are going to run out of blueberries in MN. That's what happens with no deer left. Maybe I have to think about my huckleberry spots as potential wolf hunting spots in North Idaho.

Video captures wolves in northern Minnesota eating blueberries

The footage, which was taken at Voyageurs National Park, is possibly the first of its kind, said Thomas Gable, project lead for the Voyageurs Wolf Project.

www.duluthnewstribune.com

 

[Northwoods Labs]

I am just thanking my lucky stars I was able to fill some deer tags with all these damn wolves running around. Thank heavens, no beef for me!!!!!