Anyone else get an email from the nta about filling out the letter for wolf delisting? Maybe a helpful person could post a link so more folks could sign up.

Yes. I personalized my reply by adding: "Opposition to this measure is another emotional case of well intentioned city folks assuming wildlife management expertise they simply do not have."

The original Email says reply to Big Game Forever <info@biggameforever.org>

They sent me a thank you Email.

I did, I will share the link.


Link Here

Hunttrap, thanks for doing that sir. I thought this was already a done deal. I can't believe people aren't all over this.

Furver, thank you also.

I sent an email. Thanks for bringing this up.

Thank you rob, we need to keep this on the first page so it will gain traction.

Sent an email also, hope it helps.

While agree with delisting and allowing state management I don't agree that our big game (deer) has been hurt by wolves.
Yes, wolves kill deer in the northern 1/2, but the southern 1/2 for now is wolf free. And the southern 1/2 could use a reduction in deer herd as there are too many now.
Wolves are not the limiting factor in the northern 1/2.


I think that a better avenue for delisting should be developed. Its sounds like hunters are only concerned about the competition from wolves eating "their" deer.

isn't that reason enough dirtyd? its why wolves kill coyotes and coyotes kill fox. humans gotta eat also. why shouldn't carrying capacity be what humans decide it is? you think enough cattle are produced in areas without wolves that the guys who must live with them ought not care what happens when deer elk and moose are wiped out in wolf " recovery " areas?

Dirty d, I looked at your profile. What is trib fishing?

Send my email yesterday.

Good deal, we need to get as many people as people as possible get in on this.

Thanks for putting this on top.

Tributary fishing, fishing Rainbow (steelhead), brown, coho salmon and King salmon when they run up the tributaries of lake Michigan from Sept to May.

Sent Mine off, Thanks for posting!

Ok, i see, sounds fun

Trouble is politics not science is determining carrying capacity.
Do you set cap. at what the environment will support or what the environment will support without damage to environment?
2 different things completely. Science and good stewardship of land would dictate the latter.

Where have wolves "wiped out" deer, elk or moose populations? My mind is open, I'd love to read some studies that show this. I'm sure that they have had an negative effect on populations, but thats hardly "wiping them out". In fact that maybe a overall positive in many cases.
Population dynamics of wolves is such that as prey disappears then wolf populations will decline thru competition (biggest killer of wolves is other wolves) and replacement rates drop.

Like I said I'm all for delisting, I'm uncomfortable about the way they are making the argument.
Targeting and appealing to more people would make the passage more likely.
I don't like the argument when it comes across as Hunters don't want wolves because they eat my deer.

Email sent!

Brad

So when deer elk bison and moose numbers drop off to where wolves are going hungry they just start killing each other and not livestock?

Some studies of wolf effects on Deer

http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2016/01/predator-prey_study_wolves_not.html
Note the last paragraph.

https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/natural_resources/animals/mammals/wolves/delguidice_wolf_article.pdf

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=ewdcc4
Old study, but interesting. this study mentions 6% of the deer population ends up as wolf food.
In the study area (bearville) the wolf mortality was less than reproduction rate, But the human harvest/mortality from hunting/poaching and wounding loss was exceeding reproduction rate. Due to this the deer population was declining. Even without wolves the population in the study area would decline.

Of course I'm sure many of you will say the studies are all crap. But until you can show better info then I'll choose to go with science.


Another study that I read has bobcats as the biggest killer of fawns. This was a WI study.

There are tons of similar studies out there. I have not found one yet that says that wolves "wipe out" any prey base.
Again and again studies show that wolves are not the limiting factor in prey base. The habitat and weather come first.

Everyone needs to face the fact that wolves are here to stay. Delisting and managing pop. levels would be a good thing.
Wolves have an effect on game populations, they will eat livestock and pets. This will not change. Best to control the pop. levels so will be kept to a minimum. This is the best of all worlds for all involved.

Your last paragraph sums it up. Where did anyone state that wolves were completely wiping any animals out on this thread or even the link that was posted? We are talking the ability for population control, right now we have nothing and the population is well above what we were told they be held at.

I think any study can ultimately have the results swayed any way the folks doing the study want, so ya I think alot of them are inaccurate.

I read the first one you put up, when they said the wolves eating at a carcass dump and the coyotes were eating the deer, yeah right! Where are all these supposed carcasses coming from, you mean the farmers don't know how to raise cattle and there all dyeing off, please.
That's all I needed to read right there on that one.

Wisconsin and Kentucky got their elk at the same time from RMEF, Kentucky's herd has flourished ours have been struggling from day 1. It's my opinion the wolves are biggest part of that problem.

Ground Zero where the wolves were released in the river of no return wilderness area in Idaho the elk herd has been devastated compared to when I guided there in the eighties. I have been back several times sense then and you can't even hardly find an elk track let alone see one. I didn't think the wolves could do what they did but I seen it with my own eyes. That was enough to convince me they are killing machines and have to be controlled.

I could go on and on but I'm tired of pecking away at this stupid phone.

Done yesterday

Thanks to everyone who emailed.

Dirty d, back to your first link I talked about above, how did these college kids know the wolves were eating on carcasses? Did they have game cam pics, we're they in a blind, if so did they not have a camera? My point is why no pics? Maybe they were too stoned to run the camera or they forgot how to post pics. Maybe they just went by tracks, can they tell the difference?

Do you have pics or can you post pics to back up what your little yuppies seem to believe? If that first pathetic link is all you have then you ain't got nothing but bunch of garbage.

Go put your boots on and go for a walk in wolf country and see for yourself what is really going on then came back here and tell us what you have seen. Unbiased please

Like I said before, wolves are flat out killing machines and we have both hands tied behind our backs with no control whatsoever. Wolves are big and need to kill big game to keep fed.

If your mind is already made up and not willing to go see what's really going on than so be it.

Are you related to FlyinFinn?

D, I guess I'm struggling to follow your argument. You say you are for delisting. I'd be curious to hear more about your proposed strategy for getting them delisted.
If you want to see what it's like living with wolves, you only have to go as far north as Jackson County. While in Jackson Co, you will see what they are doing to the elk.
I don't think people are arguing that the sole reason we need a wolf season is because of the toll they take on deer. The wolf season we had was based on sound science. Talk to any DNR staffer and they agree we'd be better off if the state could manage wolves. They know how to do it, they just need the authority.

Does the state game commission have a report on how much revenue was lost since wolves were introduced?

They strongly argue wolves were not re-introduced. They came in to Wi on their own 4 legs, is was the state says.
But the state really wants the ability to manage them.
I'm not aware of a cost estimate on them.

I spent maybe 5 minutes after a search reading and adding the links for 3 studies in the GL states on wolves and deer.
I said and I understand you may not like the studies. OK, lets forget the 1st one, how about the 2nd and 3rd?
I can get lots more studies that show approx the same thing. Wolves are not the LIMITING factor in deer populations.

Danny Clifton in his 1st post in this thread said wolves are "wiping out" game populations.

I have walked in wolf country. I have seen few wolf tracks, never seen a wolf, seen lots of deer tracks and seen some deer.
So what does that prove?

One day I saw 8 deer. The next day I didn't see any. I guess that means the deer where all eaten by wolves before the second day.
Stupid statement but it pretty much sums it up.

The DNR spends lots of time studying wolves and deer population dynamics. How many studies have you done other than your walk in the woods or gossip down at the corner bar?

Again, Find me a study that shows that wolves are the LIMITING factor in deer population levels. There are none cause they are not the limiting factor. Weather is a bigger factor on deer population in Northern areas.
Read the 3rd study.

Until I see some thing other than "the wolves are killing machines" and "we used to have tons of deer now they are all gone cause of those dam wolves" I'll believe the scientific studies.

I agree with you. They should be delisted and they should be harvested (either hunted or trapped or both). I'm for the end goal of delisting, but the way they are going about it is all wrong. I'm a hunter and it turns me off. It comes across as "those dam wolves are eating our deer". Its a selfish push for their own benefit. It only appeals to a segment of hunters. That is where the group in the link in this thread is coming from.

I would think that a push for delisting based on several factors would appeal to a bigger group and therefore have a better chance. I'm no expert but I'd push a couple of angles.
1) The states are should be the controlling entity manage a sustainable wolf population as they have in the recent past. The Feds have no mechanism or system to monitor and manage a self sustaining population.
2) Wolf population should be monitored and studied to maintain a healthy population. Excessive populations can lead to stress and starvation of animals. Also human/wolf and livestock/wolf interactions need to be kept to an acceptable amount so as to avoid negative stereotypes and unwanted mortality caused by frustrated humans affected by high populations and sense of helplessness in dealing with interactions.

I could maybe come up with several more but I'm sure you get the gist of it.
You'll never convince the average Joe who has no stake in the wolf populations to join the battle if its even just adding a name to a list if all you can say is "they are eating my deer".
Don't say "we need to kill those dam wolves".
Tell them you want a "self-sustaining population that is managed". Which means we will kill wolves to keep them at a certain level but it sounds much better.
Tell them that too high a population has down sides like added stress and starvation to the population, Don't use exaggerations "Wolves will wipe out the deer". Show them that you care about ALL wildlife and not just the ones you shoot.

I hope you get where I'm coming from.

Ok, let's just agree on what this thread was started for, delisting and giving the individual states the power to permanently be able to control the population.

What do you mean when you say (self sustaining wolf population that is managed )? That statement is a bit contradictory. Do you think the population of wolves should be higher?

What do you suggest these wolves are eating if not venison?

A self sustaining population means that a species can reproduce at a pace so that it does not disappear. Populations may go up and down but as long as they are able to keep from disappearing.

Deer have a self sustaining population, there have been bigger amounts and there have been smaller amounts but they are able to not disappear without man introducing (releasing) more individuals in the wild to keep the population going.
You might be able to argue that Pheasants do not have self sustaining populations in many of the areas they are hunted in the fall. If Man was to stop stocking them they would probably disappear. So they can not self sustain themselves.

Wolves are able to reproduce in such numbers that they will not disappear. In fact they are increasing in numbers. Managing it means that the resource (wolves) will be hunted and or trapped.

Being self sustaining and being managed are not contradictions. Deer are self sustaining and they are managed (hunted).

Wolf populations, do I think they should be higher? Generally no. The sad situation we are in now is I think they are going to continue to increase in population and they will start to spread south. If I had to do an honest guess on what does the DNR wants, more wolves or less, I'd say there are some in the dept. that want more and they like to see them spread south.

I have no illusion that wolves don't eat deer. All the studies I read is they do not eat enough of them to be the one thing out there that controls the population. Humans are the limiting factor in the deer population in the north right now. Wolves take a slice of the pie but not as big a slice as you and I do. Weather is a big factor too. Deer may not die directly from the weather but they are beaten up to a point that they are easy prey during certain weather conditions (snow depth) and will reproduce less fawns and weaker fawns after a hard winter. Weaker fawns means they are easier prey for bobcats, coyotes, bear and wolves. Its not just the predators but the combination of weather and predators that really gives a one two punch. You don't have that problem in the Southern 1/2 of the state. If we have a really hard winter in the southern 1/2 the biggest fear deer would have is starvation.

So what do you think? Should all predators of deer be eliminated? No more bobcats, no more coyotes, no more bears, no more wolves??

Do you think wolves should be eliminated from the state? If so why?

I guess I thought self-sustainable meant that the population was kept in check without outide help. I see what you mean now. I don't think there is any question that wolves are self-sustainable. All the animals you stated that eat venison are controlled except the wolves. Again, that is the whole reason for this thread. Don't turn predators loose then tie our hands behind our backs with no way to control them. Because the number of wolves are far above the number they told us they would be held at. I don't know about you but I don't much care to be lied to. It's like the old saying, don't wiz down my back and tell me it's raining.

No I do not want the wolves gone, just controlled but what was the reason they were reintroduced?

Your third link/study states that (deer provided 79 to 98% of the biomass in their scat. That seems pretty high to me. And they weren't able to estimate the wolf-caused mortality of fawns younger than 6 months old.

An area i hunt used to be teaming with game. One day 15 yrs ago the wolves started howling. Numerous packs were heli shotin this area. Moose disappeared elk numbers serious decline.Wolves have no purpose on todays landscape. End of story

No expensive study needed

I have 0 confidence in a lot of "studies". They are nothing more than an attempt to stop humans from preying on animals.

In CO they have severely limited the number of cougars that can be killed. There is no spring bear season, no baiting bears, and no hound hunting them anymore. There is no coyote trapping except on private land with a permit. Bobcats can be cage trapped which helps keep them controlled. Now with the increase in all the animals that kill deer the dept. of wildlife can't figure out why deer numbers are declining. No more OTC sales of tags. They still sell OTC elk tags but only because elk are much harder to get too. Hunters are successful at a rate of only about 20% and a lot of those are elk that have essentially been bought from ranchers. The same ranchers tax dollars provide some relief to for elk damage.

I don't trust any wolf study done by a state agency. They will tell you anything to get you onboard with whatever the newest fad is.

When the first settlers started killing wolves they didn't put all that effort into it out of boredom. They had a tough time finding time to sleep there was so much work to do. yet they thought wolf killing was time that need spent. They were reintroduced because Disney fans don't want humans preying on wild animals.

Throw some money at me and I'll do a study, cherry-pick the data and sway it anyway you want. Is it possible to find people that can make an unbiased study on anything these days. Unfortunately I think I know what the answer is already.

Dirty D
I get where you are coming from but here is the story in Northern MN.

We have been way over the restoration goal for wolves for decades. Wolves have not "wiped out the deer herd", but they do in areas significantly deplete deer numbers. On the other hand, Moose have been in serious decline and really are in danger of being "wiped out". The fact that they we are no longer able to have a Moose season shows that wolves are in direct competition with hunters and in this case the wolf clearly won.

Back to deer though, from a preditor prey standpoint it would have been far better for the moose if the wolves had depleted the deer. As it is now, the deer are providing a prey buffer that keeps wolf density high even with a catistrophic decline in moose. With no decline in wolf abundance there is no predation relief for moose even at current low densities and they will continue to decline.

The reason folks distrust the "studies" is that MNDNR has for years been pointing to everything but wolves for the decline in moose, when there own data would suggest otherwise. It is only recently the some researchers are beginning to implicate high predation mortality on moose calves as the primary reason for the decline.

We have same biologist denial problem with pheasant restoration with uncontrolled avian predators in PA!

IT CAN'T POSSIBLY BE THE UNCONTROLLED PREDATORS!!!! Naw come on now!!!

Danny that reminds me of my college days many years ago. In an economics class at LSU Baton Rouge an economics professor said during summertime when school was out he travelled around the country doing feasibility studies for highway projects. He mentioned various economic factors he considered in each study. He said he added a factor in each study to get the result that state's legislature wanted. He said he had to do that in order to keep getting feasibility study jobs.

Stop to think about it, isn't that about the way USPS sets junk mail rates?

Anybody else remember when biologists were telling people coyotes don't prey on deer??????????????

Sent my e-mails, maybe we should start another thread to argue how we should manage them, but first we need them de-listed and managed by the individual States.

Your comment brings up an interesting point.
So the Moose Pop. is too small for human hunting. Wolves are eating a portion of the Moose population without doubt.
Do you truly care about the Moose population or do you care because you no longer can hunt Moose?
If the Moose population can stabilize and maybe slowly increase but there is never a Moose season again are you OK with that?
Just wondering what your true motivation is here. Is it all about you and your fun or do you really care about the Moose?



As far as Moose and deer, do you discount the Brainworm? Is that just made up by the MN DNR?
If its true then what % of the Moose that the wolves eat are weakened by the brainworm and are dying a slow death anyways?
Also if the brainworm is true would it be better for the Moose if the deer population in N. MN (where I've been told they are not native anyways by posters on this forum) to decline?
Or would you prefer the wolves be eliminated, Deer Populations increase and take your chances on the Moose coming back?

As far as eating calves, how about bears? don't they eat calves too?
They can be hunted right now, maybe we should have a open all year season, unlimited bag limits. After all they eat Moose calves too and we can do something about them.

All this predator/prey stuff is not so simple.

All of you with your Little Red Riding Hood mentalities better get used to it for your own sanity. I hear all the whining about wolves eating "your deer/Moose" and the "only good wolf is a dead wolf". There is nothing that can be done right now as far as wolves in the GL area. If or when they get delisted they will still remain. If the population of wolves declines too much after delisting the states will not allow harvesting. Wolves are here to stay. They have been here for thousands of years before and there is no reason they can't be here in the future. Get used to it.

Moose are native to Mn, in NE Mn there were moose and caribou, and few deer until the forests were logged and they followed the logging and new growth. There were two sustainable moose populations in N Mn until recently.

First moose I ever saw was off HWY1 in the early 80's

Dirty D can we please keep this thread on target and argue wolf management on the other thread I started. I will respond to you on that thread.

Danny I lived up in that neck of the woods in the mid 80's and it was a rare trip across hwy 1 without seeing at lease one moose, any time of the day.

Email sent

Settle down there Dirty D.

Did I say anything about wanting to hunt moose? I've never hunted moose and most likely never will. My point was that it is a management failure when an iconic big game species has declined to the point that it can no longer support a hunting season. It should be every conservationists goal to restore the moose population back to where there could be sustainable harvest again. I'm kind of wondering what your true motivation is on this topic.

Did I say anything to discount brainworm? Brainworm effects mature adult moose, and is one source of mortality for adult moose. Wolves do prey on adult moose and some of those have brainworm. No matter what the various sources of adult mortality are, populations decline when adult mortality exceeds the rate of replacement by new calves. Moose calves are not dying or weakend by brainworm.

Nowhere in anything I wrote did I suggest eliminating wolves. I only advocated for active management of wolves to assist in moose recovery. Where do you get the idea that any active management of wolf densities will result in eliminating wolves?

Did I say bears don't eat moose calves? Yes they do and they to can be managed reasonably with seasons and limits. Nobody is suggesting predators be eliminated.

And what is the point of the derogatory "Little Red Riding Hood" comment? Sounds to me like you're the one doing the whining. Yes when wolves get delisted they will still remain. That is the point of an active management program.

email also sent. We have a cabin 30 miles north of our home that is over run with wolves. My wife and I called in 5 of them calling for coyotes to 23 yards in front of us. It is nothing to take a ride and see wolf tracks. A few weeks ago we seen tracks and followed them on snowmobile and found a fawn with the ribcage eaten off and that is it. Are they killing for fun? Last night here at home my wife walked our black lab and found a fawn along the driveway that looked like the fawn we seen at the cabin. We are so paranoid about letting our dog outside alone that we have to babysit her. There is way to many wolves around here and with spring coming there will be a bunch more pups. They have to open a season soon.

I am an hour north of Madison the wolves are here.

I believe it. They are spreading.

They are most definitely spreading, and will continue until we are allowed to at least try to control the population. Thanks to everyone who emailed.

Hope you guys are able to control them soon

Talk seems to have fizzled. I haven't heard much about it. Paul Ryan doesn't seem overly enthused about such legislation. Our 2 Senators expressed interest, but maybe it was just cheap talk. Or maybe there's just not enough interest at the Federal level. Frustrating.

If the 5000 wolves in Mn aren't eating deer what are they eating? According to the locals my population estimate is closer than the state.

Buwahahahahahaha!!!

Somebody needs to get out in the woods. Like, EVER.

I've been stomping the SE, SC (South Central), Central, NE and NC WI woods since the 1970s. I remember when the WI DNR **INTRODUCED** wolves. The newspapers and DNR pamphlets cheered.

I remember the sizes of the herds, how they behaved, rearing success, etc. The post wolf introduction difference is NIGHT VS DAY.

The South wolf free?? Put down the crack pipe!

Ha!
Wolves have been wiped out before. And will be again. Get used to it.

Truth!

Ha!
Wolves have been wiped out before. And will be again. Get used to it. [/quote]

I truly don't want to wipe them out. They are established where I am from. They're just way overpopulated. I wouldn't mind having them here, but only if I have the opportunity to harvest them. They don't respect people. Hunting would provide a large economic boost to the areas with established populations, reduce the populations to a better level, and give them a respect for people.

Maybe "D" can try learning a bit of truth. He asks if we are upset the deer and moose are gone because that means poor or no hunting.

Yes. That is a big part of it. Now D who do you think saves the major game populations when they are in trouble? We hunters, sportsmans groups, SCI, Ducks Unlimited..... etc. How many game and fowl populations have been restored and rescued across America and other countries by we the outdoorsman? Who is first to step up to the plate when help for wild populations of game and fowl, we the sportsman. How many wild animal or fowl populations that have been brought back with we the sportsmans time and money were then hunted or trapped back into danger? Precious few if any. Of our goal.

So yes, we want the wolves delisted and controlled so our deer and moose populations can recover and we can have successful and enjoyable hunts again. I'd like those hunts to be there for future generations as well, maybe more so at my age. If you want to hug wolves why don't you put a big ol fence around your place and I bet a bunch of sportsman me included would be happy to donate money to have wolves live trapped and delivered to your enclosure in fine and fit shape. Enjoy the heck out of them, we're all pulling for you.

Osky

Uh...I believe D is all for the delisting. If I’m interpreting correctly, he’s simply going for a more pragmatic approach. If including a few other reasons, in addition to dwindling game numbers helps with the delisting, why not?