# Two Wolf Attacks on Deer Hunters in Wisonsin this Fall



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

On two separate occasions hunters were forced to fire shots at wolves to fend them off. Even though the wolves would have likely ripped up those people had they not been armed, the authorities are calling them incidents and not attacks because no human blood was spilled. Two years ago my wife was returning to camp in the evening in low light conditions and she had a couple wolves sneak up on her and snarl at here. She took a shot at them and they ran off. I reported it to the DNR in Escanaba then next day and they filled out a form, but that's all they did. It's just a mater of time before someone gets killed by wolves in the Great Lakes Region, if it already hasn't happened. There have been cases of people disappearing in the woods with no trace of them ever being found, so who knows with those "incidents." We never go afield in the U.P. without being armed anymore as doing so would be foolhardy now-days. Here are links to the WI stories:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/outd...ith-friendship-man-b99591857z1-331183371.html

http://www.outdoornews.com/November-2015/Second-wolf-incident-reported-at-Colburn/


----------



## cakebaker (Sep 13, 2011)

Geez


----------



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

A CLASSIC !!

For the record, the DNR is not using the word “attack” to describe what happened to Nellessen because no one was injured. MacFarland explained the agency’s distinction during a phone interview.

Nellessen has a different view.

“Well, they weren’t trying to lick me to death,” he said.

“You do not have to be harmed to be attacked,” Nellessen said. “They can label it whatever they want to label it. I thought I was going to die and I had to defend myself. That first wolf’s teeth just missed my thigh.


----------



## bheary (Dec 29, 2010)

I walked an area in Chippewa county yesterday and found 3 separate piles of scat with deer hair and bone in them. I also know of 2 different areas with 3 miles where wolves were on camera or sign was evident. That pocket of deer will definetly be thinned out within the next year. I also fear that some bird dogs are going to take a hit next fall. I will also add that there is more sign this year than last year. Watch your self in the Munuscong SGA


----------



## NorthWoodsHunter (Feb 21, 2011)

This is an unfortunate, unnecessary, and scary reality that you guys have to deal with up there, that I'm afraid those of us in the northern lower are not far from dealing with as well. As the wolves become more bold and less afraid of humans, a sidearm will become a normal piece of hunting equipment.

I'm wondering how many more "incidents" have gone unreported.


----------



## bheary (Dec 29, 2010)

I will not/do not go into the woods up here without packing. Even trout fishing I've found kill sites. I know their are wolves from Barbeau to Detour. Saw 3 last winter on the ice in Raber Bay.


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

I have spent basically the majority of my life trampling the woods of the western yoop. I have never been scared or even thought about being attacked by anything. But I can see where someone would feel better packing. Its better to be prepared then to be a statistic or be known as " that guy ".


----------



## goodworkstractors (Aug 7, 2007)

"Fired a shot in the air"... Those bullets gotta come down somewhere don't they? Always thought this was quite irresponsible. 

If I'm about to be attacked by a wolf, my first shot is aimed right in his boiler room.


----------



## johnhunter247 (Mar 12, 2011)

cscott711 said:


> "Fired a shot in the air"... Those bullets gotta come down somewhere don't they? Always thought this was quite irresponsible.
> 
> If I'm about to be attacked by a wolf, my first shot is aimed right in his boiler room.


If wolves walked in front of me they would be taking a dirt nap even if they we're minding there own business!


----------



## meganddeg (Sep 29, 2010)

To put this in perspective, you need to realize that this didn't happen in the national forests of northern Wisconsin. I went to college in that area (Stevens Point). The area where these "incidents" occurred is about 30 miles southwest of Point. The terrain is very much like Central Michigan. When you consider latitude, this area is south of the Twin Cities, not much more than an hour north of Madison. 

Obviously these wolves migrated south in search of a place of to call their own. A similar thing could occur here in Michigan if a sustainable population of wolves gets established in the Lower Peninsula. There is quite a bit of forest between US-10 and the Mackinac Bridge.


----------



## bheary (Dec 29, 2010)

meganddeg said:


> To put this in perspective, you need to realize that this didn't happen in the national forests of northern Wisconsin. I went to college in that area (Stevens Point). The area where these "incidents" occurred is about 30 miles southwest of Point. The terrain is very much like Central Michigan. When you consider latitude, this area is south of the Twin Cities, not much more than an hour north of Madison.
> 
> Obviously these wolves migrated south in search of a place of to call their own. A similar thing could occur here in Michigan if a sustainable population of wolves gets established in the Lower Peninsula. There is quite a bit of forest between US-10 and the Mackinac Bridge.


They are established and I give it 8 yrs and they will have the northern lower covered. Once the elk are in jeopardy then there will be a hunt for wolves


----------



## meganddeg (Sep 29, 2010)

bheary said:


> They are established and I give it 8 yrs and they will have the northern lower covered. Once the elk are in jeopardy then there will be a hunt for wolves


I don't deny t that there are wolves in the LP. The question is whether they are reproducing and whether they can form a sustainable population.


----------



## augustus0603 (Oct 24, 2005)

johnhunter247 said:


> If wolves walked in front of me they would be taking a dirt nap even if they we're minding there own business![/QUOTE
> 
> Michigan's finest!


----------



## augustus0603 (Oct 24, 2005)

meganddeg said:


> I don't deny t that there are wolves in the LP. The question is whether they are reproducing and whether they can form a sustainable population.


LP wolves are much more sophisticated. They wear condoms.


----------



## GIDEON (Mar 28, 2008)

cscott711 said:


> "Fired a shot in the air"... Those bullets gotta come down somewhere don't they? Always thought this was quite irresponsible.
> 
> If I'm about to be attacked by a wolf, my first shot is aimed right in his boiler room.


 Firing a shot in their general direction is a lot more effective, beside them, over their heads


----------



## goodworkstractors (Aug 7, 2007)

GIDEON said:


> Firing a shot in their general direction is a lot more effective, beside them, over their heads


More effective than in the air, but much less effective than in their body. Sorry, I'm not waiting for a wolf to draw first blood. If I feel I'm in imminent danger, I'd rather be alive to sort out the details later.


----------



## ryan-b (Sep 18, 2009)

johnhunter247 said:


> If wolves walked in front of me they would be taking a dirt nap even if they we're minding there own business!





bheary said:


> They are established and I give it 8 yrs and they will have the northern lower covered. Once the elk are in jeopardy then there will be a hunt for wolves


I saw first hand what the wolves did to elk numbers in MT and ID. It will take a very, very short time for them to totally destroy our little elk herd once they get a hold of them.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

GIDEON said:


> Firing a shot in their general direction is a lot more effective, beside them, over their heads


You can fire over their head. I am going to aim center of mass just like they teach you in law enforcement.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Everyone has their own comfort zone, which I believe will be a factor very soon. If a wolf is 100 yards away and attacks you will have about 5 seconds to aim and fire. If a wolf walks to within 20 or 30 feet of you and attacks you have about 1 second to react. Shoot first and ask questions later.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

meganddeg said:


> I don't deny t that there are wolves in the LP. The question is whether they are reproducing and whether they can form a sustainable population.


Do the math, they have been in the UP for 30+ years and how many have escaped so far? I don't think that you have to worry too much. I know a few have either swam or took the ice bridge across not enough to eat up all of the deer or elk though. If they get too close to the elk I think that the DNR will quietly eliminate them. It could be what happened to the wolves that were there a few years ago. I had one in the headlights of my Jeep (stopped 10 feet away) near Freedom Road in Cheboygan County 3 years ago. No doubt that it was a wolf.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

My opinion but I would have to say obey the law first and foremost. If you do get an itchy finger while pointing a firearm in the direction of a wolf in self defense leave no evidence and lawyer up.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

triplelunger said:


> A dirty scumbag poacher is a dirty scumbag poacher whatever skirt they wear.


Skirts? Aren't those garments worn exclusively by wolf apologists?


----------



## Jimbos (Nov 21, 2000)

farmlegend said:


> Skirts? Aren't those garments worn exclusively by wolf apologists?


I work with one of these. The guy does not hunt, does not fish, spends next to zero time in the woods, does not shoot, but he is the epitome of save the wolves anti wolf hunting and all of this is made up hogwash by a few UP'ers.

I've tried to have a civil conversation with him but just can't do it.


----------



## meganddeg (Sep 29, 2010)

CHASINEYES said:


> http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet/circuit_executive/judcomplaint.htm
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification
> ...


If this is true then it is grounds for a formal appeal. Where is MUCC and the other groups who advocate for hunters? They should be looking into this.


----------



## Dawg (Jan 17, 2003)

What a testament to "sportsman" conservation and responsible gun ownership. 

If you're pushing SSS maybe look at that third one again.


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

Jimbos said:


> I work with one of these. The guy does not hunt, does not fish, spends next to zero time in the woods, does not shoot, but he is the epitome of save the wolves anti wolf hunting and all of this is made up hogwash by a few UP'ers.
> 
> I've tried to have a civil conversation with him but just can't do it.


I feel your pain...


----------



## topgun47 (Jan 17, 2014)

Jimbos said:


> I work with one of these. The guy does not hunt, does not fish, spends next to zero time in the woods, does not shoot, but he is the epitome of save the wolves anti wolf hunting and all of this is made up hogwash by a few UP'ers.
> 
> I've tried to have a civil conversation with him but just can't do it.


I've said this in other threads but it bears repeating it here once again.

The further you are, or live from a threat, the less that threat is perceived to be. That goes for most things, not just wolves.

Things are perceived differently by the person in the burbs who hardly ever spends time outdoors, then it is for a rustic camper, hunter or outdoors person out in the middle of the woods once or twice a week. Perceptions are also different of the big city for that same suburbanite who only visits Detroit between 9:00 am and 5:00 pm, who only visits the main tourist traps, then it would be for a guy who's car broke down at midnight on the near East side, without a cell phone, who has to walk somewhere to get help.

If you were to do any sort of simple research, and if you have any kind of reasoning capability, you'll quickly understand why the wolves almost became extinct many years ago. And for all you armchair suburbanites who may say "Well, we have coyotes running around without any problems". I'd like to remind you to do a little research on that too, because unlike wolves, coyotes will mainly go for small prey and are fairly shy of people. Wolves? A 1500 pound Elk is no match for a hungry pack. Shy of people? Not so much...........................

That old adage about if you fail to remember the past, you'll be doomed to repeat it, is as correct these days as it was way back when it was coined.

Fred Bear had it right when he told old Ted something to the effect of telling the "panty-wearing boys" that "hunting and getting close to a bear would put the fear of God in ya".


----------



## Jimbos (Nov 21, 2000)

topgun47 said:


> I've said this in other threads but it bears repeating it here once again.
> 
> The further you are, or live from a threat, the less that threat is perceived to be. That goes for most things, not just wolves.
> 
> ...


I hear ya, I'm a downstater by birth, but for the last 35 years have spent every possible moment in the north country and have a home and acreage outside Petoskey.

I hiked Isle Royale when the wolf/moose ratio was a lot tighter, seen the prints and heard them at night. I'm also convinced about 5 years ago that my dog and I were stalked by a wolf on my land, and caught a fleeting glimpse of the animal.

I understand the disgust up the UP'ers with the government interference and the downstaters who feel they have the right to dictate to others how this should be handled.

Just recognize we're not all like my co-worker who while a smart guy, has this close minded, uninformed opinion on the wolf topic.

For honesty sake here, I have asked others who deer hunt in the UP for their honest assessment of the deer numbers situation, what they believe is the cause of the reduced numbers, wolves was one factor for the reduction, with weather being another, I see countless whining posts about the deer UP numbers, and my first thought is, find another spot to hunt, and quit already with the complaining, it sounds like nothing more then sour grapes. Not all, but a couple here should just take a break from the keyboard, and band together to be more productive, you're not winning anyone over with the griping.
So I'm not 100% convinced yet that it's wolves alone affecting the deer herd but in the mean time I'd be writing everyone they can about the situation if it was me up there.
I am on the side of the UP'ers and always will be.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Jimbos said:


> I work with one of these. The guy does not hunt, does not fish, spends next to zero time in the woods, does not shoot, but he is the epitome of save the wolves anti wolf hunting and all of this is made up hogwash by a few UP'ers.
> 
> I've tried to have a civil conversation with him but just can't do it.


Jimbos introduce me to your anti buddy and I will take him on a midnight stroll through the heart of a large wolf pack he will be shaking in his boots when he makes it back to his car and he may just change his opinion.


----------



## Jimbos (Nov 21, 2000)

Robert Holmes said:


> Jimbos introduce me to your anti buddy and I will take him on a midnight stroll through the heart of a large wolf pack he will be shaking in his boots when he makes it back to his car and he may just change his opinion.


Oh Robert, you know buddy, I'd like to leave that tool at a road side along the Seney stretch.

He's actually not a bad guy except for this one locked in opinion on this one topic.


----------



## topgun47 (Jan 17, 2014)

Robert Holmes said:


> Jimbos introduce me to your anti buddy and I will take him on a midnight stroll through the heart of a large wolf pack he will be shaking in his boots when he makes it back to his car and he may just change his opinion.


Robert,
His buddy would probably have to change more than his opinion, he'd need to change his panties too.


----------



## northwoods whitetails (Jun 23, 2009)

Interesting reading fellas. I will add this....
Common sense up here tells you that you better be armed when stepping into the woods. It's gotten that serious. I know of many close calls with said loveable cuddly little wolf.
It's only a matter of time unfortunately.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

The pro wolf people do not understand that the wolf population cannot continue to grow unchecked. Sooner or later one or more will attack and injure or kill a person. That person could be in their back yard or visiting a tourist attraction.That person could also be a hunter, fisherman, or berry picker. That person could be a Yooper or a Troll. I have seen what they do to a deer and I would not want to be on the business end of their teeth. I know people who live up here that have to have a firearm when they let their dog out. The same people are armed when the kids play in their yard. You do what you have to do when you live here.


----------



## northwoods whitetails (Jun 23, 2009)

We need to set up sanctuary counties. Much like the sanctuary cities for illegal aliens. A sanctuary county will refuse to report any questionable activity concerning wolves.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

northwoods whitetails said:


> Interesting reading fellas. I will add this....
> Common sense up here tells you that you better be armed when stepping into the woods. It's gotten that serious. I know of many close calls with said loveable cuddly little wolf.
> It's only a matter of time unfortunately.


I always load and unload my gun at my vehicle. Over the years I have had a few uncomfortable brushes with America's most beloved predator. I have also looked at a few through the business end of a gun barrel.


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

Jimbos said:


> I hear ya, I'm a downstater by birth, but for the last 35 years have spent every possible moment in the north country and have a home and acreage outside Petoskey.
> 
> I hiked Isle Royale when the wolf/moose ratio was a lot tighter, seen the prints and heard them at night. I'm also convinced about 5 years ago that my dog and I were stalked by a wolf on my land, and caught a fleeting glimpse of the animal.
> 
> ...


I agree on the need to band together. Bitching on here won't solve anything but it does serve a purpose. It helps get the word out and helps relieve the stress ( minutely) of how f'd up this situation has become. I for one cannot stand what has happened to the Yoop. It's a dam shame when some pablum sucking wolf huggers ( that don't have to live with them and see first hand the destruction they cause ) can make the decision on how to manage them. Pure Michigan.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

northwoods whitetails said:


> We need to set up sanctuary counties. Much like the sanctuary cities for illegal aliens. A sanctuary county will refuse to report any questionable activity concerning wolves.


I think that the number of people who would report anything is decreasing but there is always that one person.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Robert Holmes said:


> Jimbos introduce me to your anti buddy and I will take him on a midnight stroll through the heart of a large wolf pack he will be shaking in his boots when he makes it back to his car and he may just change his opinion.


Why would you even bother bringing him back at all?


----------



## Tom (mich) (Jan 17, 2003)

I'll preface my ignorant question by clearing stating that I do not want to share my ground with wolves. 

Now having read this thread, recounting endless stories of close calls in MI, I have to ask. 

If wolves are becoming such a problem in this state, why weren't more killed and reported during the 2014 open season? Some on here would have you think there's one wolf for every citizen in the UP.


----------



## cdacker (Jan 10, 2011)

You guys are killing me. Your odds are better to contract and die of Lyme disease from a deer than get attacked by a wolf. I thought UP guys were tough.


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

Trophy Specialist said:


> I spend a lot of time in the U.P. boonies and have seen wolves every year for a long time. Some years I see lots of wolves, other years, like 2015, I saw very few. I have had many close calls with wolves, but the scariest one was when I didn't have a weapon with me. I used to guide ice fishermen on Little Bay De Noc and I stayed at my camp then. They don't plow my road so I had to walk in and out about one mile in the dark twice a day. One evening while returning to camp a lone wolf followed me (and my dog) and would not scare off. It did not attack, but it was sure thinking about it. That was the last time I have left myself vulnerable there. That same wolf followed me again the next evening and one shot at him sent him scampering away stopping that threat. My neighbor down the road later shot that wolf when it followed him once too many times. I've had two other scary encounters when I walked up on wolves on kills while bird hunting. On both of those occasions the wolves did not run off when they saw me. Luckily in both situations, I did not stumble onto them too close or I'm sure there would have been trouble. I have also run into wolves at close range bird hunting about a half dozen other times, but they were running away by the time my gun was up.


Anytime wild animals don't tuck tail and run when encountered by man, should be considered a show of aggression. I suppose some have higher tolerance levels for that aggression before they act, mine is zero..


----------



## TK81 (Mar 28, 2009)

Stubee said:


> I'm surprised by this thread. I've followed it and hesitated to post, but what the heck...I've spent a few hundred hours the past 14 years wandering around the bush of NW ONT completely unarmed except for my little folding pocketknife: scouting miles of property, looking for deer sign, cutting shooting lanes, all kinds of stuff. Wolves are very abundant up there. I've seen quite a few, heard countless packs howl & chase deer, and found several of their kills. They've been there forever.
> 
> They certainly kill deer and that includes big bucks; I've seen it. They also slow daylight deer activity to a crawl when they are running nearby. It bums me out when they move in to my spots during deer season. But to see a bunch of posts talking about them being a constant threat to us walking in the bush 'unarmed' just doesn't work for me. There are huge packs up there and if they were that bloodthirsty for human flesh I woulda been a goner about ten years ago. I'm far more concerned about bumping into a sow with cubs up there than a wolf pack.
> 
> I got no love for wolves, but having been around them quite a bit I don't see why guys are thinking we gotta be armed at all times in the woods where they roam? I don't get it at all.


Wolves are opportunistic, but generally not looking to eat people. I, too, have spent countless hours tracking through the NW Ontario bush unarmed (chasing pickeral and specks). My FIL, who guided and trapped around the Hawk Junction area back in the 60's and 70's has plenty of wolf stories. One wolf in particular who would follow him as he snow shoed his trap line. He would leave scraps for the wolf. The wolf would lay in the snow and watch him check and re-bait traps, but would never get closer than 75 yards or so. Of course my FIL was relatively handy with his 336 Marlin 350 Remington and says he never felt threatened. He said he carried it mainly for the cow moose as bears and wolves would run off when confronted.

However, as wolf populations begin to mingle more with humans that pose no threat, it is only natural that these wolves will lose respect and fear. I don't think it is fair to compare wolves from the isolated NW Ontario area my FIL trapped and hunted to the much more heavily populated NLP or even the UP. Food gets scarce...wolves will do what they gotta do to eat. I've got no use for them....especially a pack of them.


----------



## cdacker (Jan 10, 2011)

Trophy Specialist said:


> If you want to take foolish chances with your life, then that is your choice. I've also heard the same arguments form anti-gun liberals that say it is not necessary to own guns at all and that the police will protect us. They have also been proven wrong countless times too.


Foolish chances with his life? Really? Perhaps you can point us to all the stories of wolves attacking people in nw Ontario.


----------



## cdacker (Jan 10, 2011)

Stubee said:


> I'm surprised by this thread. I've followed it and hesitated to post, but what the heck...I've spent a few hundred hours the past 14 years wandering around the bush of NW ONT completely unarmed except for my little folding pocketknife: scouting miles of property, looking for deer sign, cutting shooting lanes, all kinds of stuff. Wolves are very abundant up there. I've seen quite a few, heard countless packs howl & chase deer, and found several of their kills. They've been there forever.
> 
> They certainly kill deer and that includes big bucks; I've seen it. They also slow daylight deer activity to a crawl when they are running nearby. It bums me out when they move in to my spots during deer season. But to see a bunch of posts talking about them being a constant threat to us walking in the bush 'unarmed' just doesn't work for me. There are huge packs up there and if they were that bloodthirsty for human flesh I woulda been a goner about ten years ago. I'm far more concerned about bumping into a sow with cubs up there than a wolf pack.
> 
> I got no love for wolves, but having been around them quite a bit I don't see why guys are thinking we gotta be armed at all times in the woods where they roam? I don't get it at all.


I've spent some time in the region hunting and I have talked to many guides and residents. Haven't talked with anyone that didn't hate wolves. Deer guides, especially, have good reason to hate them. But I'd be willing to bet they would get a good chuckle reading about all these guys that won't enter the bush without packing.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

I have witnessed first hand how a wolf kills its prey and in my opinion, being taken down by wolves would be the absolute worst way to die that I know of. The eating and killing process is one and the same. Once a wolf has you down, he just starts feeding on the biggest muscles in your legs and ass first. If your lucky he might hit an artery causing you to bleed to death, but that was not the case with the deer I saw get chomped. The eating/killing process there took four or five hours before death settled in and the deer was wide awake all through it feeling every bite, rip and tear. It would be much better to have ISIS cut your head off with a dull knife rather than having wolves involved with your death.


----------



## duxer (Jan 22, 2003)

I lived in N Ont back in the 70s .and spent a lot of time with a Canadian trapper friend on his line. He had trapping rights on 3 townships and his buddy had rights on 3 T Ss just north of his. helped him skin 6 wolves that season. We had one shot in the summer at the company town(big camp) where I lived . The general feeling in that region was the only good wolf was a dead one. This was in a remote area south of Chapleau Ont. I did on occasion cary my little mod 94 30 30 when wandering the bush and on one occasion did use it in self defense against a wild animal. I was sitting on a log(wilderness toilet) doing my business when about 25 yds in front of me was a skunk walking straight towards me..thank god my aim was true...But still I never had any fear of wolves while walking in to somewhat remote lakes unarmed. I still like dead wolves more than live ones and like live moose and deer more than food for wolves.


----------



## Tom (mich) (Jan 17, 2003)

Sorry in advance if this offends people, but the hyperbole contained in this thread precisely mirrors the strategy the anti's use regularly when attacking our rights to hunt and fish. Take an issue, and then exaggerate it to the point where the fence sitters begin to notice. Even the most ardent anti-wolf enthusiasts on this thread agree that the total population doesn't exceed 1,500 animals.

Do I believe that an increasing wolf population in MI is an issue? Yes
Do I believe that wolf predation adversely impacts the whitetail population? Yes

Do I believe that wolves represent a legitimate and consistent threat to human life? No, and it would be foolish to think otherwise.

If you're looking for a platform to oppose wolf expansion an d spread that message to the masses, stick the to impact on the whitetail herd and it's subsequent impact on the UP economy, etc. But no well-informed person is going to buy the argument that human life is endangered, supported by non-documented anecdotes of countless outdoorsman having "regular" threatening encounters with them.


----------



## topgun47 (Jan 17, 2014)

cdacker said:


> I've spent some time in the region hunting and I have talked to many guides and residents. Haven't talked with anyone that didn't hate wolves. Deer guides, especially, have good reason to hate them. But I'd be willing to bet they would get a good chuckle reading about all these guys that won't enter the bush without packing.


Personally, I don't think everyone should be so hard on old Stubee.

I believe he mentioned he was in Canada. Over there, it's against the law to protect yourself using any sort of effective method.

cdacker.................I suppose those deer guides chuckling about packing in the "bush" would fall off their chairs laughing at me, because I live in West Bloomfield, and wouldn't dream of leaving the "house" without packing.

It's just a personal choice though, it seems people on here are willing to take their chances, and we all know everyone is free to do as they please. It kind of reminds me though, of when Dirty Harry asked, "Do you feel lucky punk?"

Excuse me, because I'm the one chuckling now................


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Here's a link to some light reading that just might indicate that wolves can sometimes be danderous to humans:

http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Here is a photo essay of mine that Outdoor Life published a while back. Some interesting stuff there to document the encounter. 

http://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/photos/2008/11/eaten-alive-wolf-predation-captured-camera


----------



## Jimbos (Nov 21, 2000)

Trophy Specialist said:


> Here is a photo essay of mine that Outdoor Life published a while back. Some interesting stuff there to document the encounter.
> 
> http://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/photos/2008/11/eaten-alive-wolf-predation-captured-camera


Why did I just look at that? My day wouldn't of been worse off if I skipped it.

I'm going to possibly send this to my wolf loving co-worker.


----------



## northwoods whitetails (Jun 23, 2009)

Funny thing is the guides I know up here are all packing and telling clients to have something on them 
especially when tracking. Nobody in our circle tracks alone. I don't really care about anybody's else's opinions, especially those who don't live up here. Do what you like, walk in the woods anyway you like. More than likely it will be fine. But we see things differently.


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

Trophy Specialist said:


> Here is a photo essay of mine that Outdoor Life published a while back. Some interesting stuff there to document the encounter.
> 
> http://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/photos/2008/11/eaten-alive-wolf-predation-captured-camera


That was f'd up. This should be the poster for the call to manage them , or get rid of them altogether.


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

Trophy Specialist said:


> Here is a photo essay of mine that Outdoor Life published a while back. Some interesting stuff there to document the encounter.
> 
> http://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/photos/2008/11/eaten-alive-wolf-predation-captured-camera


Ooooooooh- aaaaaaaaaaah. What a majestic beast.

Cool that you were able to capture that. What a waste of a valuable resource. A resource being turned into piles of hair laden wolf ****. Never thought the fruitcakes in our society who endorse this vermins existence, would outnumber hunters. Only one way to take care of the problem, I'm still dumbfounded as to how hunters and landowners let it get this bad.


----------



## 2508speed (Jan 6, 2011)

Robert Holmes said:


> The pro wolf people do not understand that the wolf population cannot continue to grow unchecked. Sooner or later one or more will attack and injure or kill a person. That person could be in their back yard or visiting a tourist attraction.That person could also be a hunter, fisherman, or berry picker. That person could be a Yooper or a Troll. I have seen what they do to a deer and I would not want to be on the business end of their teeth. I know people who live up here that have to have a firearm when they let their dog out. The same people are armed when the kids play in their yard. You do what you have to do when you live here.


Sounds like The D is safer than the UP Mr. Holmes. You should move south if yer skered.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

2508speed said:


> Sounds like The D is safer than the UP Mr. Holmes. You should move south if yer skered.


If you are not a little bit scared then you are whole lot stupid. If you are a whole lot stupid then you leave yourself open to being attacked by a mountain lion, bear, wolf or whatever else is out there. It is no different than being the first person who takes a 4 wheeler out on thin ice. When you are wet and the 4 wheeler is at the bottom of the lake you say "gee that was stupid of me". Why do you think that bear hunters and bear guides carry bear spray? I am guessing there is a pucker factor involved.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

_“Why did I just look at that? My day wouldn't of been worse off if I skipped it.”_

_“That was f'd up. This should be the poster for the call to manage them , or get rid of them altogether.”_

_“Ooooooooh- aaaaaaaaaaah. What a majestic beast.
What a waste of a valuable resource. A resource being turned into piles of hair laden wolf ****. Never thought the fruitcakes in our society who endorse this vermins existence, would outnumber hunters. Only one way to take care of the problem,….” _

…………………………………………

I may be misinterpreting, but the above comments in response to the pics of wolf and the doe seem to indicate a lack of understanding on how predation really works in the wild. 

In the absence a handy stun gun, club, .30-.30, or even a rock……it seems to me that formidable teeth and strong jaws would be the weapons of choice ….. if I was a wolf. 

In my admittedly incomplete understanding of nature, those pics appear show how it happens in real life, 24/7/365 all over the world in all kind of predator/prey moments. Wolves, coyotes, owls, possums, turkeys, woodpeckers, alligators, cocker spaniels,…… none of them kill their prey by gently smothering ‘em with a pillow.

It is red in the fang & claw business.

Then too, I could imagine someone who is extremely anti-hunting….who could watch a pictorial essay of any one of us hunters ‘harvesting’ a deer …sometimes not cleanly, sometimes not quickly, not always painlessly……and saying: “What a waste of a valuable resource”; “Should be the poster to get rid of hunters altogether”; “Who endorses this vermin’s existence?”


----------



## triplelunger (Dec 21, 2009)

Stubee said:


> I'm surprised by this thread. I've followed it and hesitated to post, but what the heck...I've spent a few hundred hours the past 14 years wandering around the bush of NW ONT completely unarmed except for my little folding pocketknife: scouting miles of property, looking for deer sign, cutting shooting lanes, all kinds of stuff. Wolves are very abundant up there. I've seen quite a few, heard countless packs howl & chase deer, and found several of their kills. They've been there forever.
> 
> They certainly kill deer and that includes big bucks; I've seen it. They also slow daylight deer activity to a crawl when they are running nearby. It bums me out when they move in to my spots during deer season. But to see a bunch of posts talking about them being a constant threat to us walking in the bush 'unarmed' just doesn't work for me. There are huge packs up there and if they were that bloodthirsty for human flesh I woulda been a goner about ten years ago. I'm far more concerned about bumping into a sow with cubs up there than a wolf pack.
> 
> I got no love for wolves, but having been around them quite a bit I don't see why guys are thinking we gotta be armed at all times in the woods where they roam? I don't get it at all.


Looks like the first man card carrier has joined the conversation. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## NorthWoodsHunter (Feb 21, 2011)

fairfax1 said:


> Then too, I could imagine someone who is extremely anti-hunting….who could watch a pictorial essay of any one of us hunters ‘harvesting’ a deer …sometimes not cleanly, sometimes not quickly, not always painlessly……and saying: “What a waste of a valuable resource”; “Should be the poster to get rid of hunters altogether”; “Who endorses this vermin’s existence?”


I believe they already do use this sort of information against us. Remember the kid that shot the albino buck?" Those that love the wolves tend to skip over the reality of how their "majestic creatures" sustain their own existence.


----------



## johnhunter247 (Mar 12, 2011)

triplelunger said:


> Looks like the first man card carrier has joined the conversation.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


I have no man card! Kill them all! The wolves that is! You could throw in anti apr guys too if you want! Kidding....


----------



## triplelunger (Dec 21, 2009)

They are a majestic and intriguing creature that violently kills it's prey. This obviously scares some otherwise "tough" guys. These animals should be controlled through a hunting and trapping season.

I would be horribly embarrassed to be a human being if I ever see the intentional, arrogant, and ignorant decimation of a species during my lifetime. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

fairfax1 said:


> _“Why did I just look at that? My day wouldn't of been worse off if I skipped it.”_
> 
> _“That was f'd up. This should be the poster for the call to manage them , or get rid of them altogether.”_
> 
> ...


An anti views his very existence as vermin.


----------



## hitechman (Feb 25, 2002)

triplelunger said:


> They are a majestic and intriguing creature that violently kills it's prey. This obviously scares some otherwise "tough" guys. These animals should be controlled through a hunting and trapping season.
> 
> I would be horribly embarrassed to be a human being if I ever see the intentional, arrogant, and ignorant decimation of a species during my lifetime.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


I'm no wolf lover (despite my sig) nor am I a wolf hater, but in the grand scheme of things, the wolf existed(s) control the deer population by removing the inferior (sick, old, young) and thus natural selection leaves the strongest to survive and breed. The deer exist to control vegetation, and in the process, maintain a wolf population. The wolf that is "strong" enough to "catch" its food will survive, the others (weak) will perish--again, natural selection strengthening the population. Everything that exists in nature has a purpose and a reason for being.

Then man interferes, upsets the balance, and natural selection is replaced by artificial selection--a process to ensure that what man thinks is good (strong) survives, and to remove that which he considers competition and inferior (eugenics).

Man does not like the competition the wolf presents for the deer herd because of an inbreed selfish attitude--"the wolf has no right to take *my deer* and limit my opportunity".

Without the wolf, something else will take over to maintain "the balance"--a different predator, a disease, or overpopulation/starvation with possible extinction.

I do not, nor have I ever interacted with wolves.....I'm just a fudge sucking troll. I do realize that the current population of wolves is a problem. Hunting helps maintain a healthy deer herd at or below carrying capacity, but we do not "kill them all". I believe we should do the same for wolves.

One who frequents the woods and nature and sees "all things wild and free" can understand.............those who do not, have no idea. Cute and cuddly are not words found in mother natures vocabulary.

Steve


----------



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

hitechman said:


> I'm no wolf lover (despite my sig) nor am I a wolf hater, but in the grand scheme of things, the wolf existed(s) control the deer population by removing the inferior (sick, old, young) and thus natural selection leaves the strongest to survive and breed. The deer exist to control vegetation, and in the process, maintain a wolf population. The wolf that is "strong" enough to "catch" its food will survive, the others (weak) will perish--again, natural selection strengthening the population. Everything that exists in nature has a purpose and a reason for being.
> 
> Then man interferes, upsets the balance, and natural selection is replaced by artificial selection--a process to ensure that what man thinks is good (strong) survives, and to remove that which he considers competition and inferior (eugenics).
> 
> ...


Good post Steve. Just a little more mindful on that fluffy wolves kill the weak sick injured......

Wolves kill them all........It has much more to do with how many wolves engage a target rather than the condition of the target.........lots of reading done there [from experts].....and is my personal beliefs from what I see in the UP


----------



## topgun47 (Jan 17, 2014)

triplelunger said:


> Looks like the first *man card carrier* has joined the conversation.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


Well, Stubee may have been the first *"man card carrier"*, but I'm pretty sure that, had he got caught carrying that "sharp cutting implement" in his pocket, such as the "little folding pocket knife" he spoke of while in NW Ont,, he'd probably be charged, tried and convicted as a felon for carrying a dangerous weapon of mass destruction. After all, those darn little things can be be very sharp at times, and it's possible you might even actually cut yourself, especially if "big government" wasn't protecting you.


----------



## hitechman (Feb 25, 2002)

Robert Holmes said:


> s do not attack the young, old, weak, sick, and injured deer. This is a myth that the DNR was using back inSteve let me help you out a bit. Wolve the 1990's to get people to accept them. They take whatever they can stick their teeth into and rip it to shreds. When they go into a deer yard they kill as many as they can. I won't deny that they may eat a deer but they are known to waste several of them in the process. A wolf is a lean green killing machine and they don't sort out what they kill by its ability to fight back.


I have no idea where you come up with the statement that this is a DNR myth. It's a basic predator-prey relationship that has been demonstrated over and over again in the last century. How do you arrive at the conclusion that wolves do not kill the dumbest, weak, injured, starving, an old deer?

I have no doubt that they will take whatever they can sink their teeth in, and never said deer fight back--they flee, and scatter to confuse "the enemy". They can only sink their teeth into what they can catch. You make it sound like they can do that to any individual deer they desire, and that is not true if they can't "catch" them. Just like three guys running from a hungry bear......ya don't want to be the slowest runner!

No doubt that, for example, deep snow may give advantage to the predator (sometime the prey), but the wolves, when on the attack, target a single animal. It is not to their advantage to target numerous individuals at the same time. Many against 1 usually insures success, many against many usually results in failure--basic biology. 

In a "bad winter" in the deer yards, there is over-browsing (in that situation the carrying capacity is lower than the population), and starvation will occur--the deer are dead whether the wolf killed them or not. Who's to say that what the wolves killed were only those that would have starved any way?

If a study could be done where there was no deer hunting in the UP for 20 years, I'd bet my left one that at the end of that 20 years, there would still be deer and wolves.

Anyhow, I'm not against hunting/controlling the wolf population, but do feel they should not be exterminated.

Steve


----------



## cdacker (Jan 10, 2011)

hitechman said:


> I have no idea where you come up with the statement that this is a DNR myth. It's a basic predator-prey relationship that has been demonstrated over and over again in the last century. How do you arrive at the conclusion that wolves do not kill the dumbest, weak, injured, starving, an old deer?
> 
> I have no doubt that they will take whatever they can sink their teeth in, and never said deer fight back--they flee, and scatter to confuse "the enemy". They can only sink their teeth into what they can catch. You make it sound like they can do that to any individual deer they desire, and that is not true if they can't "catch" them. Just like three guys running from a hungry bear......ya don't want to be the slowest runner!
> 
> ...


Not sure about a "DNR myth", but it is a myth that wolves target prey that is at a disadvantage, whether it be injury, size, intelligence, etc. Wolves will kill for the fun of killing - whatever animal they chose. Old, young, strong, weak ... no deer is more or less susceptible to a wolf attack. Humans on the other hand ... you guys will be just fine.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

hitechman said:


> I have no idea where you come up with the statement that this is a DNR myth. It's a basic predator-prey relationship that has been demonstrated over and over again in the last century. How do you arrive at the conclusion that wolves do not kill the dumbest, weak, injured, starving, an old deer?
> 
> I have no doubt that they will take whatever they can sink their teeth in, and never said deer fight back--they flee, and scatter to confuse "the enemy". They can only sink their teeth into what they can catch. You make it sound like they can do that to any individual deer they desire, and that is not true if they can't "catch" them. Just like three guys running from a hungry bear......ya don't want to be the slowest runner!
> 
> ...



I applaud the effort but save your breath here. No way you are ever going to convince Robert or Midalake that wolves eat the weak. They will start in on thrill kills here in a minute.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Interesting post techman. Back in the 1995 the DNR wolf biologist told me that the wolves only attacked the weak, sick, and injured deer. He claimed that the more wolves that Michigan had the better the deer hunting would be. I laughed at him and said we will compare the 1995 bridge count with the 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015 bridge count and see if the deer hunting will get better. As the wolf population increased the deer herd decreased. Deer for the most part are stupid animals. In a deer yard situation wolves lie in wait the deer come in to eat and the wolves kill a couple of them. The process is repeated over and over and over. Even if the deer wins it still comes back. There is no chase involved. When a pack of wolves attacks several deer may be brought down at or near the same time. That is why it is called a "thrill kill"
If wolves targeted the young, weak, old, and slow animals I would think that tourists would be a prime target. Humans in general are about the slowest and most defenseless animals in the woods. I think that our day will come shortly.


----------



## hitechman (Feb 25, 2002)

cdacker said:


> Not sure about a "DNR myth", but it is a myth that wolves target prey that is at a disadvantage, whether it be injury, size, intelligence, etc. *Wolves will kill for the fun of killing - whatever animal they chose*. Old, young, strong, weak ... no deer is more or less susceptible to a wolf attack. Humans on the other hand ... you guys will be just fine.


Prove it too me, and I'll be on your side for life. So far, all the evidence I have seen indicates that this statement is an exaggerated falsehood.








​Steve


----------



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

DirtySteve said:


> I applaud the effort but save your breath here. No way you are ever going to convince Robert or Midalake that wolves eat the weak. They will start in on thrill kills here in a minute.


Here are my sources where are yours?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_wolf
On bare paths, a wolf can quickly achieve speeds of 50–60 km/h. The gray wolf has a running gait of 55 to 70 km/h, can leap 5 metres horizontally in a single bound, and can maintain rapid pursuit for at least 20 minutes.[93] 34.1754 To 43.496 MPH

Coyote 43.00 mph

White-tailed deer 30.00 MPH

Like I said....has more to do with the number of wolves that engage the target.

WOLVES KILL THEM ALL


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

DirtySteve said:


> I applaud the effort but save your breath here. No way you are ever going to convince Robert or Midalake that wolves eat the weak. They will start in on thrill kills here in a minute.


Okay Dirt Steve I will take my 35 years of trapping, hunting, and fishing in the UP and throw it out the window so that some pavement hugging troll who makes an annual trip to the UP to catch a brook trout on the outskirts of Marquette can tell me all about wolves. You wolf know- it- alls probably have a Toyota Prius in your driveway. That will get you what about a 100 yards down the two track in wolf country before it is buried. Wolves just eat the weak and I suppose that is the reason for the OP. It is a good thing that those guys were armed and shot at the wolves.


----------



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

hitechman said:


> Prove it too me, and I'll be on your side for life. So far, all the evidence I have seen indicates that this statement is an exaggerated falsehood.
> View attachment 199929





hitechman said:


> Steve


Google is your friend do not make us do this crap for you........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing

*Surplus killing* is a common behavior exhibited by predators, in which they kill more prey than they can immediately eat and then cache or abandon the remainder. For example, researchers in Canada's Northwest Territories once found the bodies of 34 neonatal caribou calves that had been killed by wolves and scattered, some half-eaten and some completely untouched, over three square kilometres.[1]

GO AND READ...............

PS since killing is their business, my guess it is thrilling for them.........I cannot picture a group of 7 wolves laying tits-up in the woods thinking it is a thrilling day........


----------



## hitechman (Feb 25, 2002)

Robert Holmes said:


> Interesting post techman. Back in the 1995 the DNR wolf biologist told me that the wolves only attacked the weak, sick, and injured deer. He claimed that the more wolves that Michigan had the better the deer hunting would be. I laughed at him and said we will compare the 1995 bridge count with the 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015 bridge count and see if the deer hunting will get better. As the wolf population increased the deer herd decreased. Deer for the most part are stupid animals. In a deer yard situation wolves lie in wait the deer come in to eat and the wolves kill a couple of them. The process is repeated over and over and over. Even if the deer wins it still comes back. There is no chase involved. When a pack of wolves attacks several deer may be brought down at or near the same time. That is why it is called a "thrill kill"
> If wolves targeted the young, weak, old, and slow animals I would think that tourists would be a prime target. Humans in general are about the slowest and most defenseless animals in the woods. I think that our day will come shortly.


Interesting that you attribute the deer decline in the UP totally towards wolf depredation. Interesting that the wildlife professionals working for the DNR have no idea about the deer and wolf populations. Interesting that my 2 degrees in biology make me a scientific inferior. Interesting that you are now the "guy in the know" about the problems, cures and biology of the wolf-deer problem. Interesting that you know that wild animals don't have an "instinctive" fear of human.

Reminds me of the time I got attacked and bitten by a fox squirrel. Silly me!

Here's your award plaque,,,,,,,,,,,,,,










Steve


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

hitechman said:


> Interesting that you attribute the deer decline in the UP totally towards wolf depredation. Interesting that the wildlife professionals working for the DNR have no idea about the deer and wolf populations. Interesting that my 2 degrees in biology make me a scientific inferior. Interesting that you are now the "guy in the know" about the problems, cures and biology of the wolf-deer problem. Interesting that you know that wild animals don't have an "instinctive" fear of human.
> 
> Reminds me of the time I got attacked and bitten by a fox squirrel. Silly me!
> 
> ...


Good for your college degrees. I also have two college degrees and a whole lot of experience tromping around in the woods in the UP. Sometimes it is not about the paper and I will be the first to say I did not learn anything in college. What has changed in the last 25 years in the UP that has caused a significant crash in the deer population? The only thing that has changed is the wolf population has increased from about 50 animals to the present number of about 1000 animals. Everything else has stayed pretty much the same. Try to convince me otherwise.


----------



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

hitechman said:


> Interesting that you attribute the deer decline in the UP totally towards wolf depredation. Interesting that the wildlife professionals working for the DNR have no idea about the deer and wolf populations. Interesting that my 2 degrees in biology make me a scientific inferior. Interesting that you are now the "guy in the know" about the problems, cures and biology of the wolf-deer problem. Interesting that you know that wild animals don't have an "instinctive" fear of human.Reminds me of the time I got attacked and bitten by a fox squirrel. Silly me!
> Here's your award plaque,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> View attachment 199933
> Steve


Well since the yes answers are in red...........


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

Midalake said:


> Here are my sources where are yours?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_wolf
> On bare paths, a wolf can quickly achieve speeds of 50–60 km/h. The gray wolf has a running gait of 55 to 70 km/h, can leap 5 metres horizontally in a single bound, and can maintain rapid pursuit for at least 20 minutes.[93] 34.1754 To 43.496 MPH
> 
> ...


Interesting. Not sure on accuracy, but I've always been told that dogs are hard on deer as deer can only run full out for 1/4 of a mile. They cover that ground quickly or in about 15 seconds. After a 1/4 mile burst, it isn't long and they are extremely fatigued, tongue hanging out.. That's a healthy deer. A wolf is just getting warmed up and at a trot.

In the midst of a tough winter, deer are pretty lethargic, even around here where winter severity doesn't even come close in comparison to the U.P.


----------



## hitechman (Feb 25, 2002)

Midalake said:


> Google is your friend do not make us do this crap for you........
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing
> 
> ...


Surplus killing is not "thrill killing".

Wolf behavior is often confused with human experience. It's our nature to impose our attitudes, behaviors, and characteristics to wolves and for good reason. They are like us in many ways. One distinct difference, however, is the idea that wolves kill for 'fun' as has been portrayed by many. There is no evidence of that and an area of activity humans share with wolves is often confused as that. While it is impossible to identify motive to wolf behavior, we do know that a behavior in common is found in 'surplus killing', the act of killing more prey than immediately required, caching it, and returning to it later. Since wolves do not know when another rare opportunity will present itself, they stock up sometimes when prey is abundant. 

*They just don't put the antlers on the wall of their den.*

*Wisconsin man suspected of slaughtering 100 deer in ‘thrill kill’*

And right back at ya....................http://isleroyalewolf.org/node/42

Steve


----------



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

"While it is impossible to identify motive to wolf behavior, we do know that a behavior in common is found in 'surplus killing', the act of killing more prey than immediately required,"

Hope you do not find it too inconvenient that I go with thrill killing

Since it is in my backyard.........literally


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

The thrill kill is when adult wolves teach their young how to hunt. Very little of the meat is eaten and for whatever reason they will return to the kill site but it is not to eat.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

hitechman said:


> Me too!
> 
> Do I have to choose between my 7 years of college biology and my 43 years of experience in applying it, and beings in the woods (2 of which were working for the DNR)?
> 
> Steve


Did you work with kirkland warblers or did you work with wolves?


----------



## cdacker (Jan 10, 2011)

Robert Holmes said:


> I will be happy to provide you with an answer. Be wise in your decision on where you go when you are outside. There are places in the UP that I no longer fish because of a high concentration of wolves. Carrying a firearm or weapon to defend yourself is not a bad idea. As long as there is no season on wolves the deer population will continue to decrease and the wolf population will increase. Once the deer population reaches a critical point I believe the *wolves will attack people more frequently*. I think that is the case in Wisconsin where the two hunters were attacked. My brother hunted a lease about 30 miles from where the hunters were attacked. He claimed that there were not many deer at all in the area.
> It is likely that the wolves that attacked the hunters could have been defending a kill. Scary thought if you should happen to walk up on some wolves feeding on a freshly killed animal in the woods. I guess that you have to take things the way they are. There is about 1000 wolves in the UP, the OP claims that there were two incidents in Wisconsin (attacks) on hunters. Is Michigan any different? Without a season the numbers of wolves will increase and so will the odds of a person being injured or killed. Scared or not use a little common sense and carry something to defend yourself even if it is a knife or a stick.


You believe the wolves will attack people in the UP_ more_ frequently?


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

cdacker said:


> You believe the wolves will attack people in the UP_ more_ frequently?


I believe that it will happen on a more frequent basis in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. They have no reason to fear humans (no hunting) if there is less food they have every reason to attack.


----------



## cdacker (Jan 10, 2011)

Robert Holmes said:


> I will be happy to provide you with an answer. Be wise in your decision on where you go when you are outside. *There are places in the UP that I no longer fish because of a high concentration of wolves*. Carrying a firearm or weapon to defend yourself is not a bad idea.


You seriously should have guided during the 2103 wolf hunt. 1200 hunters killed 22 wolves, but you have fishing holes that are so infested with wolves you're scared to fish there?


----------



## cdacker (Jan 10, 2011)

Robert Holmes said:


> I believe that it will happen on a more frequent basis in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. They have no reason to fear humans (no hunting) if there is less food they have every reason to attack.


why would they have no reason to fear humans when it sounds like most UP residents are going going to SSS?


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

Robert Holmes said:


> I believe that it will happen on a more frequent basis in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. They have no reason to fear humans (no hunting) if there is less food they have every reason to attack.


You are right , they are not going to go hungry for long.


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

cdacker said:


> why would they have no reason to fear humans when it sounds like most UP residents are going going to SSS?


What other option do they have ?


----------



## cdacker (Jan 10, 2011)

stickbow shooter said:


> What other option do they have ?


None. I'm just not buying that they will have no fear of humans when they will be getting shot at on a regular basis.


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

How would people down state react to , let say several packs of Pitts running around killing ( surviving).Should they just put up with this or take the matter in there own hands ?


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

cdacker said:


> why would they have no reason to fear humans when it sounds like most UP residents are going going to SSS?


SSS is all talk little if any action. Even a dedicated person with nothing but time on their hands to hunt wolves might kill a couple of them a year. They are not the easiest animal to hunt.


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

It's true very few do get killed. They can be here today and miles away twomarro.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Robert Holmes said:


> SSS is all talk little if any action. Even a dedicated person with nothing but time on their hands to hunt wolves might kill a couple of them a year. They are not the easiest animal to hunt.


Indeed. Much harder to kill than a deer. It would have to be done opportunistically, much the same way as canines prey.

Trapping is more effective. Using all available tools is best.


----------



## cdacker (Jan 10, 2011)

farmlegend said:


> Indeed. Much harder to kill than a deer. It would have to be done opportunistically, much the same way as canines prey.


after reading about some of the locals' fears of being attacked, I thought it may be easier. Just go hang out at the local fishing hole, wait until they close in all around you, then blast away as they move in for the attack.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

Captain of the 4-C's said:


> You honestly believe that wolves have the ability to cognitively think in this manner? I am pretty sure that wolves brains do not function in a manner anywhere near to the ability of humans. Prove your statement to me!


Cognitively no.....instinctively yes.

Do you really believe that in the dead of winter when conserving energy is key to survival a wolf is going to chase a deer when he carcasses cached away? Lots of predators store their kill for later consumption.


----------



## Johnnydeerhunt (Apr 27, 2005)

Robert Holmes said:


> I will be the first to say I did not learn anything in college.


I do not think anyone is surprised by this. I assume you knew more than all of your professors put together?


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Johnnydeerhunt said:


> I do not think anyone is surprised by this. I assume you knew more than all of your professors put together?


No 4.0 here but I did have a 3.0 I was one of a few that had to work my way through college.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

I see this metric tossed about: _*"there is about 1000 wolves in the UP"*_

How is that number sourced?

I saw a long article in the GRapids Press the other day ...... (http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/12/great_lakes_wolves_delisting_d.html .....where, the number of Michigan wolves is determined to be approximately 630. 

And then I read on the MS forums much higher population figures offered up fairly often by the 'anti-wolf' faction.

So which is it......MI DNR's figures or figures from the anti-wolf group? Who has the most rigorous protocol for arriving at population numbers?

Note: The MI-DNR wants state control for regulating wolves......so would they have a motive to minimize their estimates? 

Conversely, would the anti-wolvers have a motive to inflate their numbers?


----------



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

I am going to give our resident biologist* hitechman *1 chance here to give us any information other than his word [lip service] on how wolves are or are not damaging a tradition of over a century. Since you keep throwing "Ontario" at us.
Please explain?

Can you tell us how successful the hunters are in the forested wolf areas of Ontario?

Can you tell us how many hunters there are per Sq mile in the forested wolf areas of Ontario?

Can you take these two simple questions and apply them to current UP conditions.

THEN ask us where we would rather hunt.......of course all of the information applies to an area that has had a wolf season for a VERY long time.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

DirtySteve said:


> Cognitively no.....instinctively yes.
> 
> Do you really believe that in the dead of winter when conserving energy is key to survival a wolf is going to chase a deer when he carcasses cached away? Lots of predators store their kill for later consumption.


Do you think that they actually chase deer in the winter? They hunt by opportunity in the winter sit in a yard and wait for the deer to come to them.


----------



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

fairfax1 said:


> I see this metric tossed about: _*"there is about 1000 wolves in the UP"*_
> How is that number sourced?
> I saw a long article in the GRapids Press the other day ...... (http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/12/great_lakes_wolves_delisting_d.html .....where, the number of Michigan wolves is determined to be approximately 630. And then I read on the MS forums much higher population figures offered up fairly often by the 'anti-wolf' faction.So which is it......MI DNR's figures or figures from the anti-wolf group? Who has the most rigorous protocol for arriving at population numbers?
> Note: The MI-DNR wants state control for regulating wolves......so would they have a motive to minimize their estimates? Conversely, would the anti-wolvers have a motive to inflate their numbers?


The DNR's number of 630 is counted unique animals. In their statement is it states the population can could would and is possibly higher. I actually think it is closer to 1200.......... roughly 1 per every 22sq miles. Have a nice day...... In fact my area is over this 22sq mile formula.......and according to the DNR there are not supposed to be wolves [by me] Unique counted animals btw.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

DirtySteve said:


> Sorry what was I thinking... a deer would never run from danger.


I quit using bait for deer hunting 15 years ago because wolves work a deer trail to your bait and they hunt your bait just like you do. They sit and wait for the opportunity to jump a deer. Deer do run but they seldom get very far.


----------



## hitechman (Feb 25, 2002)

Robert Holmes said:


> SSS is all talk little if any action. Even a dedicated person with nothing but time on their hands to hunt wolves might kill a couple of them a year. They are not the easiest animal to hunt.


They would be if there was more of them!

Steve


----------



## Biggbear (Aug 14, 2001)

Robert Holmes said:


> The native americans hunted and trapped for fur as well as meat. *Wolves were a valuable fur as were other predators.* In prior years wolf populations were managed without all of the politics.


Like many things that you post on here that are opinion, but stated as fact, this statement isn't accurate. Wolves were, and still are, Sacred to the Tribes of the eastern UP and were not hunted. I cant speak for the other Tribes of Michigan, only the one that I belong to, but my understanding is that many of them held the wolf as Sacred as well.


----------



## hitechman (Feb 25, 2002)

Robert Holmes said:


> Did you work with kirkland warblers or did you work with wolves?


Nothing with the warblers, but did spend 2 full summers, and a portion of 4 others on Isle Royale in the 1980's, and had plenty of opportunity to observe the wolf-moose relationship..........does that count? 

Had this made because of my intense interest in and commemoration of the above and another sport I enjoy that encompassed hundreds of hours in the wilds of the UP.......



















Steve


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

hitechman said:


> They would be if there was more of them!
> 
> Steve


Okay there biologist how many do we need? What is the threshold? You want to know what will happen when the UP gets too many wolves? The USFWS will start trapping them and relocating them in the LP. Read the MIDNR wolf management plan it calls for 400 in the NLP. How do you think that they will get there? Could this be the reason why the Michigan DNR is keeping the UP wolf population at a constant 630 animals?


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

Robert Holmes said:


> Why has the DNR estimate remained pretty stable for the last for the last 10 or so years? I will give credit for migration and mortality. There had to be some off spring that survived and I would assume that more migrated east than what migrated out of the state. I tend to think that the DNR is keeping the numbers stagnant for a reason. I think that 1200 would be on the higher end of things on the other hand 800 to 1000 is not unreasonable. In the EUP I think one wolf per every 22 square miles is pretty accurate if not low.



It went up until the last 3 yrs where it has actually dropped. As many have stared it is not an estimate. It is a counted number of uniquely identified animals. That doesn't mean there aren't more than that number that is how many are counted. It has dropped slightly in recently yrs. There are many reasons that could play into this. One is the food source has dropped. One is that they have reached the capacity of the land. Another is that the winter severity index affect them the last two yrs the same as it did every other animal in the UP. 

Funny how many can believe that the bridge count is a rock solid number to describe deer herd even though there are many factors that can alter the count......but a process like the wolf count is crap even though it is done with some process of consistency on a yearly basis.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Biggbear said:


> Like many things that you post on here that are opinion, but stated as fact, this statement isny r the other Tribes of Michigan, only the one that I belong to, but my understanding is that many of them held the wolf as Sacred as well.


I have heard both sides. Many of the Sault Tribe members including my wife claim that they were not so sacred. My father in law is from Canada and the EUP he claims that they competed with the tribal members for meat. In the 1800's and early 1900's they had no issues with killing wolves. He claims that they killed wolves for their fur as well as to keep their numbers down. If they are so sacred why do I not have to look to far to find tribal members and tribal elders that hate them?


----------



## Buddwiser (Dec 14, 2003)

Dang........."North Woods Wilderness......1931. I thought I was old.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

farmlegend said:


> Their accounts of their encounters with wolves were the real stuff, not the Disney crap. Nasty creatures.


Eh... not half as nasty as humans.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

pescadero said:


> Eh... not half as nasty as humans.


Key difference - we gots dominion, they don't. Genesis 1:26
I didn't make the rules.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

farmlegend said:


> When (not if) yoopers start getting killed by wolves, expect relatively little media coverage. Public opinion will move a few ticks, but not by a lot. I wouldn't expect much to change. The yuppie women, the welfare mommas, the Ann Arbor/Lansing crowd, and the media will continue to value those cuddly wolves over human beings. They tend to be somewhere between indifferent and contemptuous of those who live in rural areas anyway.


Humans killed since 2010 in the USA:

Domestic dogs: 132
Venomous snakes: 10
Bears: 7
Sharks: 6
Alligator: 3
Wolf: 1


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

As for the wolf count it would be easy to assume that many wolves are not counted and a few are counted twice. As for the bridge count I agree with you but it shows a trend. This fall I did not deer hunt but I spent many hours fishing steelhead in the UP. During the firearm deer season I heard a grand total of 1 gunshot. I have deer hunted in the same area in the 1990's and you heard over a dozen shots in the first hour of the opening day. I somehow doubt that I am hearing less gunshots because wolves are killing the sick deer allowing the strong to survive. Because of this there is more stronger trophy class bucks out there. Then there should be more hunters and more gunshots. The weather was pretty fair so hunters should have spent more hours in the woods seeing nothing. The three camps in Mackinac County that I get reports from went like this camp 1 had 9 hunters and got one 8 point buck, camp 2 had 7 hunters and got a 4 point buck, camp 3 had 6 hunters and got a 9 point and a 6 point buck.


----------



## Biggbear (Aug 14, 2001)

Robert Holmes said:


> I have heard both sides. Many of the Sault Tribe members including my wife claim that they were not so sacred. My father in law is from Canada and the EUP he claims that they competed with the tribal members for meat. In the 1800's and early 1900's they had no issues with killing wolves. He claims that they killed wolves for their fur as well as to keep their numbers down. If they are so sacred why do I not have to look to far to find tribal members and tribal elders that hate them?


Your post I quoted said they were hunted for fur, and had a value in the fur trade. Now your post above says that your FIL says they were hunted because they were competition. And then with no reference as to your source, supposedly Tribe Members had no issue with killing them in the 1800's. You're really all over the map with this arent you.

This is a fact, and if your Wife is a Sault Tribe Member she may know, the wolf is a Sacred animal to the Tribe, and this is the Cliffnotes version of why. The Creator put the first man on the Earth, and gave him the job of naming every creature on the earth. The Creator saw that the first Man was lonely, so he gave him a Brother to travel with, the Wolf. When the job was done, the Creator seperated Man and the wolf, and told them that each will fear the for eternity. According to that story, that's why the wolf howls, he cries for his lost brother. That's why the Tribe was involved in the fight against the wolf hunt, to them its Sacred.

Is it sacred to every member of the Tribe in 2015, obviously not. But the post I quoted you on wasnt in reference to 2015. Do the vast majority of Tribe Members live a traditiional lifestyle, again obviously not. But I know alot of Catholics that don't exactly follow a hard line either.

I don't live a traditional lifestyle, and don't profess to. I completely understand that for the wolf to exist in this State, they will have to be managed. To some members of the Tribe, killing even one, would be like killing the Pope.

The point to my quoting you was that you take your opinion and some anecdotal evidence, and present it as fact. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but in many of the posts you put on here regarding wolves, your facts are way, way off.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

DirtySteve said:


> While we are being perfectly clear.....this judge in particular has a clear biased agenda. The judges spouse is a producer for National Geographic and has produced some very biased "Documentaries" on wolves.


List them.

Looking at his entire production history (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0742556/) - there are only two pieces that even relate to wolves... out of about 100 different credits.

White Wolf (1986) and Return of the Wolf (2000).

White Wolf he was a writer on - and it's a pretty standard biologist goes to the arctic and studies wolves story.

Return of the Wolf he had nothing to do with writing the content, and the content was a pretty straightforward telling of the story of the wolf re-introduction in Yellowstone.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

Robert Holmes said:


> Based on that the great lakes states should band together and file a motion to have the wolves removed from the endangered species list so we can better manage wildlife.



Ummm... you do realize the battle is already between the federal government and the federal judiciary, right? 

The federal government (under the Obama administration) are the folks pushing to get the wolves de-listed. A federal judge says the federal government and the states have failed to meet the terms of the ESA.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Big Bear for those that know me and my wife there is no doubt that she is tribal and very much so (Sault Tribe). She claims that for some clans the wolf is very sacred and I respect that. For other clans another animal was sacred hers is the bear clan. So I am not a bear hunter. Although she relishes the ability to see a wolf from time to time she agrees that they should be managed.I know that there are tribal members out there that don't have any problem hunting or eating bears. The Sault Tribe Chairman spoke on behalf of all tribal members that they were in favor of never having a hunt and that was wrong because all tribal members did not feel that way. 
Properly managing the wolf population will be good for both the wolves and other animals. Some people on this site don't see it that way. The Endangered Species Act was written so that an endangered species could be protected. It was not written so that a species can populate to the point that it is a threat to itself and its primary food source.


----------



## NorthWoodsHunter (Feb 21, 2011)

This thread is the perfect example of why we as sportsman will lose EVERY time one of these issues goes to vote. As hunters with a "horse in the race" so to speak we cannot even agree and unite to protect what we have all invested countless dollars and time into building. As long as it's in someone else's backyard - the UP for now, the NLP later - it is someone else's problem. Wolves are affecting "your" deer hunting, you don't hunt doves, whatever the species or reason, as hunters we are all in this together. Indifference is not going to win.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

Trophy Specialist said:


> HSUS simply shopped around until they found a judge that would be sympathetic to them and then filed the law suit in that jurisdiction. Why else would they file in Washington DC? That kind of "judge shopping" practice should be banned. Suits should have to be filed in the jurisdiction or origin.



You really might want to read up on how courts actually work.

"Suits should have to be filed in the jurisdiction or origin"

They do.

There is this interesting thing though (and you'll see it with the DC circuit on the regular) - Congress regularly gives the D.C. Circuit exclusive jurisdiction over the review of administrative rulemaking.

Basically - "rules" and "regulations" (the gory details) of administrative laws are exclusively the jurisdiction of the DC Circuit. The ESA is one such law. The legality of rules made under the ESA is the exclusive jurisdiction of the DC Circuit.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

pescadero said:


> Ummm... you do realize the battle is already between the federal government and the federal judiciary, right?
> 
> The federal government (under the Obama administration) are the folks pushing to get the wolves de-listed. A federal judge says the federal government and the states have failed to meet the terms of the ESA.


Hmmmm. The federal judge wants to have a wolf population in every state that had wolves dating back to the 1800's. I would assume that the USFWS had better start trapping them in the UP and relocating them elsewhere. I have no issues with that, bring it on the sooner the better. I would volunteer to help them out. Hook a trailer up to my Jeep and I will drive a bunch of them where ever you want to cut em loose. 
There is one issue and that is that there is no rock solid proof that the "Western Grey Wolf" existed in many of the states where the federal judge wants them to exist. I doubt that it ever existed in the great lake states.


----------



## hitechman (Feb 25, 2002)

Robert Holmes said:


> Big Bear for those that know me and my wife there is no doubt that she is tribal and very much so (Sault Tribe). She claims that for some clans the wolf is very sacred and I respect that. For other clans another animal was sacred hers is the bear clan. So I am not a bear hunter. Although she relishes the ability to see a wolf from time to time she agrees that they should be managed.I know that there are tribal members out there that don't have any problem hunting or eating bears. The Sault Tribe Chairman spoke on behalf of all tribal members that they were in favor of never having a hunt and that was wrong because all tribal members did not feel that way.
> *Properly managing the wolf population will be good for both the wolves and other animals.* Some people on this site don't see it that way. The Endangered Species Act was written so that an endangered species could be protected. It was not written so that a species can populate to the point that it is a threat to itself and its primary food source.


And I whole-heartedly agree with that statement 100%, and have stated so in some of my posts (which it appears you may have overlooked). My point all along was that I agree they need to be managed, but not exterminated.

The problem in this thread appears to lie with ones definition of *properly*.

Steve


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

cdacker said:


> Not sure you can draw that conclusion. Anyone that has witnessed a lab retrieving a stick for hours on end with a constantly wagging tail has almost certainly witnessed a canine experiencing "thrill"


Pure anthropomorphism.


----------



## cdacker (Jan 10, 2011)

pescadero said:


> Pure anthropomorphism.


gotcha .... what is that lab experiencing then?


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

pescadero said:


> Well - everything ever done by humans is biased... so that is a bit of a silly metric.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The aspen decline was studied for yrs by Charles Kay long before the wolf reintroduction . The issue was a man made problem. Yellowstone National Park was created. Hunting and trapping were eliminated. Supplemental feeding to boost elk populations high for viewing purposes. Numbers were artificially boosted into 10s of thousands.

In the last 20 yrs those numbers declined to a couple thousand. The documentary will make you believe that wolf's are the reason. For every piece of research you give me to prove wolves were the solution there is another debunking that theory. There are many biologists who think the wolves played a small role in the landscape change.

http://discovermagazine.com/2014/may/16-elk-vanishing-act


----------



## NonTypicalCPA (Feb 16, 2007)

pescadero said:


> It sure is nice that humans can make up stories that give them dominion.


That made up story - I hope you realize that if you're wrong on that your eternal future won't be too rosy.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

cdacker said:


> gotcha .... what is that lab experiencing then?


We do not, and cannot, know.

It isn't _human _emotion though.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

DirtySteve said:


> The aspen decline was studied for yrs by Charles Kay long before the wolf reintroduction . The issue was a man made problem.


Yes - a prime mover was that man killed off all the natural predators, allowing massive overpopulation of elk.




DirtySteve said:


> In the last 20 yrs those numbers declined to a couple thousand. The documentary will make you believe that wolf's are the reason.


Wolves were A reason.

There are a number of other things that also led to the population declining to more appropriate levels.



DirtySteve said:


> For every piece of research you give me to prove wolves were the solution there is another debunking that theory. There are many biologists who think the wolves played a small role in the landscape change.


There is good evidence that wolves played a strong role in the landscape changes at rivers edge - outside that area, the prime driver is just reduced population - of which wolves have played only a part.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

NonTypicalCPA said:


> That made up story - I hope you realize that if you're wrong on that your eternal future won't be too rosy.


Eh... there are 4,200 or so religions in the world. You're betting your pick of one of them is right.

I hope you realize that if you're wrong on that your eternal future won't be too rosy.


----------



## NonTypicalCPA (Feb 16, 2007)

cdacker said:


> gotcha .... what is that lab experiencing then?


I happen to have a lab that loves to hunt field mice. Just yesterday she discovered a rotten stump that had more than a few mice in it. She would grab one, take it out to the road and play with it until it was dead, leave it, and go get another one. She repeated this until I grabbed her and forced her to continue our walk. I've seen her do this on more than one occasion. I would call that thrill killing.

Pescadero do you own a dog? I would argue that my three labs that I've had over the years had something very, very similar to human emotion.


----------



## NonTypicalCPA (Feb 16, 2007)

pescadero said:


> Eh... there are 4,200 or so religions in the world. You're betting your pick of one of them is right.
> 
> I hope you realize that if you're wrong on that your eternal future won't be too rosy.


I know that If I'm wrong I'm just dead when I die. What happens to you if you're wrong?


----------



## cdacker (Jan 10, 2011)

pescadero said:


> We do not, and cannot, know.
> 
> It isn't _human _emotion though.


I'm with you. But would you agree he's enjoying fetching the stick? And, is the dog that cowers and tucks his tail right before he's about to get beat by some a-hole not feeling the opposite dog emotion, whatever that may be?
I recently finished a book in which the book's subject, Frank Glaser, described some wolves' preferred method for killing caribou. The wolves would run beside the caribou, slashing teeth into the caribou's belly, ripping open a gash and spilling the intestines onto the ground. Some caribou would trip on their own intestines and fall to the ground. The wolf or wolves would then continue to the next caribou and repeat the process. The caribou were not usually eaten with this type of killing. Frank speculated they were doing this for fun.


----------



## NonTypicalCPA (Feb 16, 2007)

I would say to those in the UP, you'd be better served by relocated those wolves to the lower rather than killing them. You're deserved managed hunt would happen quicker that way.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

NonTypicalCPA said:


> I know that If I'm wrong I'm just dead when I die. What happens to you if you're wrong?



No, you don't.

If you're wrong and atheists are right - you're just dead when you die.

...but what if you're wrong and Mayans were right? What if the Egyptians were right? What if the Zoroastrians are right?

If you're wrong and atheists are wrong - you might be in for a long and painful afterlife of having your heart devoured by Ammut.

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen F Roberts


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

NonTypicalCPA said:


> Pescadero do you own a dog? I would argue that my three labs that I've had over the years had something very, very similar to human emotion.


I own a dog and have owned them my entire life.

I would argue that humans regularly believe that animals (and especially pets) have something very, very similar to human emotion - and that it's purely anthropomorphism. It's humans, in an attempt to understand what we cannot (see our evolved ability to read body language and facial expression in humans) trying to label something un-human with a human quality.

Much like we see optical illusions, hear auditory illusions, and have a supreme tendency to find patterns (even when none exist).


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

cdacker said:


> I'm with you. But would you agree he's enjoying fetching the stick? And, is the dog that cowers and tucks his tail right before he's about to get beat by some a-hole not feeling the opposite dog emotion, whatever that may be?


No.

That is a human mapping of human emotion onto a non-human.





cdacker said:


> I recently finished a book in which the book's subject, Frank Glaser, described some wolves' preferred method for killing caribou. The wolves would run beside the caribou, slashing teeth into the caribou's belly, ripping open a gash and spilling the intestines onto the ground. Some caribou would trip on their own intestines and fall to the ground. The wolf or wolves would then continue to the next caribou and repeat the process. The caribou were not usually eaten with this type of killing.


Much more likely the caribou were not eaten immediately. 

They were probably come back to at a later date.


----------



## cdacker (Jan 10, 2011)

pescadero said:


> Much more likely the caribou were not eaten immediately.
> 
> They were probably come back to at a later date.


Nope .... not eaten at all. Wolves often kill just to kill. Animals though ... not humans


----------



## hitechman (Feb 25, 2002)

farmlegend said:


> I'm thinking the possibility that eradicating wolves from places humans live is entirely a responsible thing may not have occurred to you.
> 
> Sure seems to me that a bunch of comfortable suburbanites imposing dictates which shred the liberty of those living amongst wolves is pretty much the pinnacle of arrogance.


I think I could agree with your first statement, but only under the conditions that humans be prohibited from occupying places (where they currently do not) now inhabited by wolves. Seems fair.

Steve


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

hitechman said:


> I think I could agree with your first statement, but only under the conditions that humans be prohibited from occupying places (where they currently do not) now inhabited by wolves. Seems fair.
> 
> Steve


And truck all of the wolves back to Canada that were brought here on a truck. I think that Canada was only too happy to get rid of them.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

pescadero said:


> Yes - a prime mover was that man killed off all the natural predators, allowing massive overpopulation of elk.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Man did kill off predators. But they also supplimented the growth of the elk herd at the same time in yellowstone. I agree with you that wolves played a part in the elk decline later. There are alot of theories for elk decline as with most things in life all of them are probably responsible in part. The movie will lead you to believe that the wolves were they key to the landscape change. My opinion is that the movie is very biased in that regard and very pro wolf. 

That was the point of this debate wasn't it? I stated that the producer and his wife are biased wolf lovers. He produced two documentaries that are pro wolf. I stand by my statement. 

This is why the wolf organizations filed their claim in the district that they did where there are no wolves.......they hand picked a biased wolf loving judge. Very much like the pro/anti abortion sides choose their battles in states where they know they have an advantage to get to a higher court that will favor their side.


----------



## Rasputin (Jan 13, 2009)

I applaud our forefathers on their efforts to rid us of vermin. Nonsensical that we cultivate vermin.

Regarding being armed - if you can be, why wouldn't you be?

Regarding majority rule - We need to devise a voting test that measures emotion. If you score too high, you are not allowed to vote.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

DirtySteve said:


> Man did kill off predators. But they also supplimented the growth of the elk herd at the same time in yellowstone.


Supplemental feeding of elk in Yellowstone stopped in 1937.

The elk herd has been small a number of times since that point - reaching a low similar to todays numbers in the late 1960s.

But even with a sub 5,000 herd in the late 1960s - they had little to no aspen regeneration. So it's obviously not purely a population game.













DirtySteve said:


> The movie will lead you to believe that the wolves were they key to the landscape change.


There is good evidence that they are key to the landscape changes, in particular along rive/stream banks.



DirtySteve said:


> My opinion is that the movie is very biased in that regard and very pro wolf.


WHY is it biased?

Being pro wolf, where the facts support wolves being a positive environmental influence, is not a bias.

Bias is very specifically a unfair prejudice for or against someone or something.

Prejudice: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.



DirtySteve said:


> This is why the wolf organizations filed their claim in the district that they did where there are no wolves.......they hand picked a biased wolf loving judge.


No, they didn't. You apparently have no idea how this works.

They don't pick the jurisdiction, and they don't pick the judge. ALL ESA cases are heard exclusively by the DC Circuit. ESA case about wolves in Vermont? DC Circuit. ESA case about wolves in Wyoming? DC Circuit. ESA case about panthers in Florida? DC Circuit.

*Congress *regularly gives the D.C. Circuit_* exclusive jurisdiction*_ over the review of _*administrative rule making*_.

Basically - "rules" and "regulations" (the gory details) of administrative laws are exclusively the jurisdiction of the DC Circuit. The ESA is one such law. The legality of rules made under the ESA is the exclusive jurisdiction of the DC Circuit.

Congress passed the ESA minus lots of details (typical of laws). The USFWS gets to make up the details to fulfill the law. The DC Circuit court is charged with determining whether or not those details are legal and fulfill the law.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

pescadero said:


> So exactly what, in her decision, disagrees with the letter of the law or past precedent?
> 
> ...because those are the things judges are supposed to use in deciding these cases.


Funny because I read the ruling and couldn't understand what exactly the USFWS did to violate the law. The judge was never real clear exactly how the agency violated the endangered species act. I felt through the entire ruling her wording was condescending and biased. She actually stated that the wolves shouldn't be delisted until they are present in their entire original range.

The judges words to the usfws....

"At times, a court must lean forward from the bench to let an agency know, in no uncertain terms, that enough is enough. This case is one of those times."


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

pescadero said:


> Nope.
> 
> The DNR ATTEMPTED (and failed) to re-introduce wolves in 1974, and all were poached.



Isn't that what I just said?


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

From a post above: _“I don't see it as "poaching". They didn't want the damn things, so they took care of it.”_
A remarkable interpretations of what is NOT poaching….most especially on a “sportsman’s” website.

If one was to extrapolate that thinking to say, a Menominee county dairy farmer’s disdain for whitetail deer and their depredations on his alfalfa, corn, potatoes……well, he could, under the above poster’s approach, simply kill every one he saw anytime he saw it? 

After all, he simply doesn’t “_want the damn things_”.

…………………………………………………


The above is simply an ‘observation’. Not really an opinion.

However, this is:
In my view the pushback we are seeing in this thread is NOT because there are ‘wolf-huggers’, or wolf’ lovers’ advocating a complete protectionist agenda.

Nope. What we are seeing is a reaction---a pushback---- to the over-reaction of the anti-wolf partisans and their vitriol towards wolves seen time and time again as an expressed desire for complete extermination, with a ‘kill ‘em all’ attitude….with hate.

Personally, that is what I object to and why I come on this sportsmen venue and attempt to poke at what I see as faulty logic, misinterpreted concepts, or ill-informed anger. 

I think wolves can be and should be in the UP…and other suitable parts of their range. I firmly believe the best governmental mechanism to ensure suitable populations and orderly harvest is MDNR oversight with regulated hunting & trapping. 

It has been shown too many times to enumerate here that once sportsmen become the financial-angels for a particular wildlife species (via licensing, via Pittman equipment taxes) …..that a species’ prospect for a sustainable existence is greatly improved. Regulated sport hunting/trapping ensures longevity of the species.

But, one of the obstacles to that hoped-for eventual step is overcoming the understandable concerns of regulators that hate-filled gunmen/poisoners threaten the very existence of the whole species. The result is we have a slow, very conservative, very cautious approach to regulating the population by 'civilian' harvesting. 

The more vitriol spewed out by the haters….well, the longer it will be before reasonable state regulated hunting/trapping will be allowed to proceed.

Mele Kalikimaka


----------



## wyandot (Dec 5, 2013)

Just like windmills or nuke plants. They're GRRRReat until someone dumps one in your back yard.


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

fairfax1 said:


> From a post above: _“I don't see it as "poaching". They didn't want the damn things, so they took care of it.”_
> A remarkable interpretations of what is NOT poaching….most especially on a “sportsman’s” website.
> 
> If one was to extrapolate that thinking to say, a Menominee county dairy farmer’s disdain for whitetail deer and their depredations on his alfalfa, corn, potatoes……well, he could, under the above poster’s approach, simply kill every one he saw anytime he saw it?
> ...


So then, you agree the deck is being stacked against meaningful management of wolves? My take from your post- management is being denied, not by science, but by emotion? 

When will all sportsmen realize, those who have been blocking management of wolves don't give a ratsazz if you or I have game to hunt. Actually, a large percentage of these protectors of wolves would be content with zero human interventions in nature. They tinkle themselves just thinking about such a scenario.


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

Four wolves attacked by hunters in Michigan's upper peninsula, one bitten severely.


----------



## Scout 2 (Dec 31, 2004)

This is a little off topic but what year did they plant the moose in the UP. I heard a story a while back and it has to do with the wolves


----------



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

Scout 2 said:


> This is a little off topic but what year did they plant the moose in the UP. I heard a story a while back and it has to do with the wolves


I cannot get you a date right now, but moose were established and flourishing before anyone started to slam wolves down our throats...if that helps.....


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Scout 2 said:


> This is a little off topic but what year did they plant the moose in the UP. I heard a story a while back and it has to do with the wolves


http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10370_12145_58476-256178--,00.html


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

I think there should be a representative group elected by citizens who live in the effected area that work jointly with the DNR and Feds to determine appropriate guidelines and actions.


----------



## mbrewer (Aug 16, 2014)

swampbuck said:


> I am not a fan of wolves, I have no doubt that they are in our future in the NLP.
> 
> That said, as a sportsman I think all of the talk of illegal killing is a detriment to future meaningful control of the problem.
> 
> ...


A thoughtful intelligent response.


----------



## mbrewer (Aug 16, 2014)

farmlegend said:


> What we have with respect to the wolf problem is a splendid illustration of the tyranny of the majority, and emblematic of why I oppose universal suffrage democracy. The majority of humans, stakeholders in the matter or not, want wolves protected, at the expense of the liberty of those who live amongst these beasts.
> 
> Gentlemen, I submit that there will be *zero* help forthcoming from a government, elected by the masses, to deal with the wolf problem, whether at the state of federal level. Lobby all you want, write all the letters you want, attend every NRC meeting with a bunch of your cohorts, put referendums on the ballot, whatever....it won't work and you will lose. Your liberty to live your lives of quiet enjoyment of the outdoors and your property has been sacrificed at the corrupt altar of one human-one vote. Expect no real help, or, at best, lukewarm ineffective measures intended only to pacify you(like allowing occasional shooting of specific wolves that kill a few sheep, or small limited culls).
> 
> ...


OMG, who wants to bet me that this guy does not dream in technicolor calligraphy. Anyone?


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

mbrewer said:


> OMG, who wants to bet me that this guy does not dream in technicolor calligraphy. Anyone?


At the very least, original. A google character string search of the phrase "technicolor calligraphy" yielded a whopping 18 hits, the 9th of which was the quoted post.
How much would a sane man be willing to wager upon a phrase that has been used, up until today, a whopping 17 times in the history of the internet?


----------



## mbrewer (Aug 16, 2014)

northwoods whitetails said:


> People laugh at the concern about
> ALIEN attacks because it hasn't happened yet. I have talked to many people who have had close calls and had to run or climb a tree or stay in their stand because the ALIENS wouldn't leave. Those of us who actually live up here and are knee deep in it all agree, it's a matter of time.


----------



## RMH (Jan 17, 2009)

mbrewer said:


> A thoughtful intelligent response.



Very PC 2015ish I thought.


----------



## mbrewer (Aug 16, 2014)

farmlegend said:


> At the very least, original. A google character string search of the phrase "technicolor calligraphy" yielded a whopping 18 hits, the 9th of which was the quoted post. How much would a sane man be willing to wager upon a phrase that has been coined, up until today, a whopping 17 times in the history of the internet?


I make a living noticing things. 

I also notice this entire thread is a resounding affirmation of the Donald Trump candidacy. Those who say he doesn't have staying power need look no father than here. Pick a page, any page.


----------



## mbrewer (Aug 16, 2014)

CHASINEYES said:


> Anytime wild animals don't tuck tail and run when encountered by man, should be considered a show of aggression. I suppose some have higher tolerance levels for that aggression before they act, mine is zero..


I had a button buck sniff me out and follow that up with a very intense stare down. I was shaking so bad I almost fell out of the tree I was in. It's only a matter of time before this happens to someone not as prepared to deal with it as I was. 

I chose to not shoot him understanding full well that I may have to face him again next year. In anticipation of the increased threat, I will raise all my stands a few more inches higher, I owe it to my family to not get jerked out of a tree and stomped by a rogue deer.


----------



## mbrewer (Aug 16, 2014)

hitechman said:


> Me too!
> 
> Do I have to choose between my 7 years of college biology and my 43 years of experience in applying it, and being in the woods (2 of which were working for the DNR)?
> 
> Steve


Enough evidence exists in that single post for you to consider yourself fortunate you haven't been tarred and feathered and run on of town on a keyboard.


----------



## hitechman (Feb 25, 2002)

mbrewer said:


> Enough evidence exists in that single post for you to consider yourself fortunate you haven't been tarred and feathered and run on of town on a keyboard.


I'm not self-centered.......I'm just awesome.

The more the knowledge the lesser the ego...............the lesser the knowledge the greater the ego, and egotism dulls the pain of ignorance!

You have demonstrated that you have very little interest in science and fact. Your world revolves only around you and what you perceive.

You pick 1 post to judge me................read all of my posts in this thread instead of picking and choosing. You have me wrongly pegged. I actually agree with most of what you have said, but I still believe the wolf has a place in the ecosystem and should be managed, but not exterminated.

I have never "interacted" with a wolf, but I have many hours of observation (I watched them and they were unaware of my presence) under my belt. I've actually observed 3 wolf attacks (on moose) and the resulting kill on 2 of them (an unsuccessful 3rd attack).

Steve


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

mbrewer said:


> I had a button buck sniff me out and follow that up with a very intense stare down. I was shaking so bad I almost fell out of the tree I was in. It's only a matter of time before this happens to someone not as prepared to deal with it as I was.
> 
> I chose to not shoot him understanding full well that I may have to face him again next year. In anticipation of the increased threat, I will raise all my stands a few more inches higher, I owe it to my family to not get jerked out of a tree and stomped by a rogue deer.


Fair enough. In my post, replace wild animal with large predator...would you have reacted the same with a mountain line or wolf?


----------



## mbrewer (Aug 16, 2014)

CHASINEYES said:


> Fair enough. In my post, replace wild animal with large predator...would you have reacted the same with a mountain line or wolf?


There is no correct answer. I could only do as anyone else would, respond according to my individual interpretation of whatever visual cues exist. 

For the most part I'm not qualified to deal in absolutes.


----------



## northwoods whitetails (Jun 23, 2009)

Mbrewer 
Pretty sure I never mentioned aliens.
I quit following this thread days ago, but got a message I was still being quoted. 
Let it go.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

pescadero said:


> Shooting a deer out of season, shooting an endangered species, keeping an overlimit of fish, or loading your gun before shooting light are all poaching.
> 
> Call it whatever you like, but it doesn't change reality.


I don't know where or if you hunt but in the UP we go into the woods with loaded guns and come out of the woods with loaded guns. It is not about poaching either. Read the original post I am sure that those guys are pretty happy their guns were loaded. Most of the hunters and fishermen that I know are now carrying sidearms. Twenty years ago I would load and unload at my hunting spot, not anymore.


----------

