# L.P. Breeding Wolf Pair - Smell the coffee "boyz"



## Nick Adams

duxdog said:


> What does that do for this state and the economy of the state??????


Public resource management has little or nothing to do with short term profit. The long term objective is to manage and use the resources in a manner that does not compromise their enjoyment by future generations. The existence of wolves is consistent with those long term objectives. Allowing deer numbers to exceed the carrying capacity of the habitat in the name of hunter satisfaction is not.



duxdog said:


> I have hunted the WUP for a long time. I still do but am thinking of not even buying a license this year. We use to have 3 or 4 different camps with 8-10 hunters in each camp. They would all go up several times a year to bow hunt, bird hunt and get hunting spots ready because they would have a good hunting experience and know they would see some deer. Now we are down to 1 camp with 5 guys who usually only go up for one trip for a few days.


I don't consider the hunting satisfaction of you and your friends to be relevant to the discussion of wolf populations in the UP. If you no longer enjoy hunting up here you are welcome to go hunt elsewhere instead. You can quit hunting for all I care. We won't miss your money. You don't add as much to the local economy as you think you do.

-na


----------



## duxdog

Nick Adams said:


> Public resource management has little or nothing to do with short term profit. The long term objective is to manage and use the resources in a manner that does not compromise their enjoyment by future generations. The existence of wolves is consistent with those long term objectives. Allowing deer numbers to exceed the carrying capacity of the habitat in the name of hunter satisfaction is not.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't consider the hunting satisfaction of you and your friends to be relevant to the discussion of wolf populations in the UP. If you no longer enjoy hunting up here you are welcome to go hunt elsewhere instead. You can quit hunting for all I care. We won't miss your money. You don't add as much to the local economy as you think you do.
> 
> -na


Who do you mean by "we"? I think you are kidding yourself if you think the UP doesn't need income from hunters.

My hunting satisfaction is directly related to wolves almost completely eliminating the deer herd in the WUP so in fact it is related to this topic.

I have no interest in "canned" hunts. I have never hired a guide and I never will. I always do everything myself. I have basically quite hunting in MI because I can go into basically any other state but Mi and have a great hunting experience and almost 100% of the time shoot or have the opportunity to shoot a record class buck with my bow. So yep, I continue to spend lots of money in other states.


----------



## swampbuck

triplelunger said:


> Might need some clarification on this one.


On isle royale the wolf and moose populations go through alternating population cycles best described as extreme. Sometimes reaching near eradication of one or the other........There is no control or stabiity.


----------



## tommy-n

Quote,
I don't consider the hunting satisfaction of you and your friends to be relevant to the discussion of wolf populations in the UP. If you no longer enjoy hunting up here you are welcome to go hunt elsewhere instead. You can quit hunting for all I care. We won't miss your money. You don't add as much to the local economy as you think you do.


It's because of attitudes like this that so many quit hunting or spend their money in other states:sad: By the way duxdogs response is pretty much the same thing the op was saying if I'm not mistaken


----------



## Nick Adams

tommy-n said:


> duxdogs response is pretty much the same thing the op was saying if I'm not mistaken


It was and the OP was flat out wrong on the subject as well. Public resource management isn't about you, about me, or about either of our chances at shooting a deer next year. It's about leaving healthy, good quality natural resources to our grandchildren and their grandchildren.

It is attitudes like duxdogs ("If I see one I shoot it. Simple.") and earlybugle's (take the issue to the courts on a 10th amendment challenge) that's going to keep the gray wolf on the federal list for a good long time to come. It's no different than the approach the State of Wyoming has taken. 

I'd like to see the State assume control of wolf management sooner rather than later. duxdogs and earlybugle are just using the issue as an excuse to piss and moan over what they consider to be poor hunting opportunities. 

-na


----------



## tommy-n

Nick, I can see your point and respect that. The op has a legitimate concern also, maybe a little to radical with some spin. Fighting amongst our selves will get nothing accomplished. Hopefully there will be some type of management plan in the near future to keep the wolf populations in check. Maybe someday I will get the opportunity to see one


----------



## duxdog

tommy-n said:


> Nick, I can see your point and respect that. The op has a legitimate concern also, maybe a little to radical with some spin. Fighting amongst our selves will get nothing accomplished. Hopefully there will be some type of management plan in the near future to keep the wolf populations in check. Maybe someday I will get the opportunity to see one


Good post Tommy. This is exactly the problem. We as hunters/outdoorsman are fighting about issues when we should be united in our efforts to controll the population. Wheather or not a guy shoots a wolf has nothing to do with when and how the Feds will de-reg wolfs. It is the animal rights people that are the issue. Wolves will be managed later rather than sooner. Sportsman dollars are what fund alot of the hunting and fishing and non-hunting and fishing opportunities in the state. So the DNR better start listening.


And by the way, Wolves are awesome creatures. They just do not belong in this state in the capacity that they are right now. This is why so many are frustrated with the situation.


----------



## earlybugle

Nick Adams said:


> ........
> 
> It is attitudes like duxdogs ("If I see one I shoot it. Simple.") and earlybugle's (take the issue to the courts on a 10th amendment challenge) that's going to keep the gray wolf on the federal list for a good long time to come. It's no different than the approach the State of Wyoming has taken.
> 
> I'd like to see the State assume control of wolf management sooner rather than later. duxdogs and earlybugle are just using the issue as an excuse to piss and moan over what they consider to be poor hunting opportunities.
> 
> -na


I am baffled how I could have been misundersood by Nick (and others). My ENTIRE point is that if we do nothing, we WILL experience a repeat of what three other states have already experienced. And after 10 years they STILL are in a very bad place with limited options and poor prospects. Further, I propose being proactive and to drive the inevitable legal battle to a speedier conclusion that offers us the greatest likelihood for a large and lasting success. (i.e. leverage the 10th Amendment - which is NOT what has been done out west!)

I have not complained about poor deer hunting opportunities. I own a large track of private ground and do not hunt on public land. We practice QDM and I have a harvest rate well above the state average. Over my 50+ years I have been blessed to have harvested well more than I deserve of many species. Nick, I'm afraid you either misunderstood me, guessed wrong, or wanted me to be something I simply am not. 

I honestly fear, and am deeply concerned that by preventing the proper management of the Gray Wolf, through endless legal actions the anti-hunting gang are likely to significantly reduce the number of active hunters. And with such a drop, they will have an open door to significantly alter the hunting privledges we know today. - EB


----------



## Nick Adams

earlybugle said:


> ...if we do nothing, we WILL experience a repeat of what three other states have already experienced. And after 10 years they STILL are in a very bad place with limited options and poor prospects.


Montana/Idaho: Played ball with the Feds. Came up with reasonable state management plans. Wolves were delisted. State manages wolf population via a hunting season. I can live with a repeat of this.

Wyoming: Took a very anti-wolf stance. Didn't come up with a reasonable management plan. Wolves still listed. This is the path you are on.

-na


----------



## Crow Buster

Nick Adams said:


> Montana/Idaho: Played ball with the Feds. Came up with reasonable state management plans. Wolves were delisted. State manages wolf population via a hunting season. I can live with a repeat of this.


 
Not anymore.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/08/06/1293751/judge-ends-idaho-montana-wolf.html


CB


----------



## Nick Adams

Crow Buster said:


> Not anymore.
> 
> http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/08/06/1293751/judge-ends-idaho-montana-wolf.html
> CB


They weren't shut down on the basis of their state plans or their management activity. They were shut down because Wyoming refuses to participate in a regional recovery plan.

-na


----------



## Wildcatdad

Bottom line they were shut down. Wolves did not live in Michigan for the last how many years? At this point they are an invasive species.
I did a search of wolves out west. Tree huggers are real happy with having the wolves and would rather not have hunters, all hunters. I couldn't find any sportsmans groups that were happy with the wolves. How is this going to be any different in Michigan?


----------



## Nick Adams

Wildcatdad said:


> I did a search of wolves out west. Tree huggers are real happy with having the wolves and would rather not have hunters, all hunters. I couldn't find any sportsmans groups that were happy with the wolves. How is this going to be any different in Michigan?


Learn to live with them. There is room for both wolves and deer hunters.

If we (or Wisconsin or Minnesota) adopt an approach similar to Wyoming's then I don't expect the de-listing to play out any differently here than it has out west. 

-na


----------



## Swamp Monster

Nick is correct. Wyoming needs to get their act together and then a plan can be put into place. 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gray_wolf_endangered


----------



## stagliano

Nick Adams said:


> Wyoming: Took a very anti-wolf stance. Didn't come up with a reasonable management plan. Wolves still listed. This is the path you are on.
> 
> -na


I am in total agreement with everything you have said Nick except for this comment. I believe that the state has a viable management plan for the wolves but one of the major hurdles is individual attitudes in this state toward wolves. Many people fail to realize that by promoting illegal killing of a listed endangered species, they are only giving fuel to the individuals and groups that would like to see wolves listed forever. Michigan has a viable and reasonable wolf management plan ready to go but they have to be delisted first.


----------



## earlybugle

Nick and Swamp' - 
Tell us if I accurately captured your analysis and current position; I understand you to say that if we play ball according to the rules as demanded by the anti's, everything will go smoother for us and and we'll achieve a satsifactory situation with wolves in our state. (I think you even indicated that's what Idaho and Montanna has done.)

Not only is that absolutely NOT what they did, but hmmm, ... let's see... what's wrong with starting a conflict/negotiation by first embrassing your adversary's position when your adversary is committed to your complete demise?

Guys, please do some more research 'cause the way you represented the approach and negotiations by the states is far far from reality. Idahoans have been mad as hell at the Idaho Fish and Game (IF&G or as commonly referred, the I-effin'-G) for capitulating with the anti's GOING-IN to the negotiations, then loosing even more ground during the negotiations, and then getting lied to when it came to the pro-wolf side not living up to their prior agreement. What has resulted is millions of dollars in legal fees (aka tax and sportsmen's dollars), and now another injunction to halt their previously agreed to authority to have a hunting season. 

From the recent Idaho Statesman article referenced above, the current governor, Butch Otter vowed to appeal and said, "I don't know why any state would ever allow another reintroduction of a species because the federal government and radical environmentalists simply cannot live up to their word and allow state management."
His political opponent said, "Idaho can and should manage its own wolf population." 

Doesn't sound like anyone in the state (conservative or liberal) believes their approach or results are acceptable. 

Q.E.D.


​


----------



## WAUB-MUKWA

swampbuck said:


> On isle royale the wolf and moose populations go through alternating population cycles best described as extreme. Sometimes reaching near eradication of one or the other........There is no control or stabiity.


Isle Royale is under the U.N.'s Biosphere program and no intervention by man is allowed to help the wolf or moose. Like you say very drastic cycles for them both.


----------



## Nick Adams

earlybugle said:


> I understand you to say that if we play ball according to the rules as demanded by the anti's, everything will go smoother for us and and we'll achieve a satsifactory situation with wolves in our state.


This isn't a hunting vs anti-hunting issue. A much wider array of interested parties are involved. 

The rules we have to abide by are not the "anti's" rules, they are federal law. Some pro-wolf groups are dragging out the process in the courts via legal challenges and appeals. That's just the nature of settling something in court. Eventually those legal challenges and appeals will be exhausted, the wolf will be de-listed and the state will take over management. 

Insisting on taking matters into our own hands now (ala duxdog) simply adds fuel to the pro-wolf legal challenges, forces the state to spend money on investigating the illegal kills and and calls into question (in court) the state's ability to manage wolf numbers in an orderly fashion. Your idea of mounting a pro-hunting legal challenge is going to extend the legal process out several years longer, during which the wolf will remain listed, and you will ultimately lose.

I define a satisfactory outcome as wolves managed by the state of Michigan. You may define it differently. If you define it as eradicating wolves in Michigan altogether there will never be a satisfactory outcome.

While I consider State management of wolves to be the best outcome, I'm a UP deer hunter who isn't losing any sleep over the number of wolves here. Leaving the wolf listed isn't going to cause me any heartburn. If you think you have a better way of addressing the issue in the courts, have at it. If nothing else it will be entertaining.

-na


----------



## Wildcatdad

I went to Wyoming's website. They have a plan. It is for 25 wolves then the season ends. This is statewide. The articles, I have read, that say Wyoming is being hard to deal with and that they have a bad plan, are questionable sources. Who is saying that they are being hard to deal with? Antis?
I am sure all sources out there are pro-hunting


----------



## duxdog

So Nick, what part of the WUP do you frequent? I have become friends with many folks in the WUP over the last 24 years. I spend alot of time with them while I am in the UP. I have never herd any "local" tell me they are ok with the wolves being there.


----------



## WAUB-MUKWA

Mitchell Ulrich said:


> _CO Brett Gustafson responded to a wolf complaint where two calves were killed by wolves in Ontonagon County. CO Gustafson spent that night and part of the next day hazing them with cracker shells to get them to leave the farm._
> 
> You can read this quote directly from the DNR's biweekly reports for yourself by clicking on this link.
> 
> http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-42199_50569---,00.html
> 
> Here's why I feel the way I do.
> 
> This CO spent all night and all morning trying to make things right for this one local farmer. What was accomplished? The CO kept the wolves out of sight for one night, but not until after the damage was done. Who knows where the pack went after that. Hopefully not to a neighboring farm. The CO and the Farmer both know those same wolves are going to come back looking for whats left of that easy meal.
> 
> Then what?
> 
> The DNR does not have the manpower to keep sending out officers to every wolf complaint.
> 
> The Farmer knows from talking with his neighbors the State is balking on it's promise for repayment for Wolf depredation.
> 
> Farmers are smart, self reliant, hard working problem solvers. What's his next option likely to be when going through the proper channels and trying to do the right thing doesn't work?
> 
> What would you do?
> 
> It's not the Farmers fault.
> It's not the Wolf's fault.
> It's not the DNR's fault.
> 
> It's is however:
> 
> The Farmers problem.
> The Sportsman's problem.
> The Locals problem.
> It's a growing problem.
> Now it's the Lower peninsula's problem.
> And it's a problem the DNR has to deal with.
> 
> We're all are tired of dealing with this and want the problem solved, but since it's the Federal Governments mandated policy, nothing is being done!
> 
> One of our members said .."Name one good thing the Wolf has done..."
> 
> Well, it has reduced the chance of CWD and other deceases from entering Michigan via Wisconsin by drastically reducing the Deer herd in the UP.
> If the Wolf is allowed to grow unchecked in the Lower as it has in the Upper, then I'd guess given enough time, the TB problem will be eradicated as well. Eradicating TB would be a good thing. So I guess there would be two good things the Wolf can do.
> 
> Before anyone tries to put more words in my mouth that I never said. I'm NOT saying the DNR planted the Wolf in Michigan. I know some of you cynics were thinking of going there.
> 
> Now you know why I feel the way I do and I've said all that I'm going to on this topic.
> 
> Mitch


And later that week the wolf director from Marquette came out and put cute little flashing yellow construction lights along the fencelines thinking these 6 volt, 5 watt flashing lights would deter the wolf. He finally told that farmer he would be reimbursed for his 30 calves killed this year after almost 10 years of lies and promises to pay the farmer for over 100 lost calves, cows, bulls, steers. 
The farmer 2 weeks later bought 2 donkeys from a defunct elk ranch and they now patrol the 2 sections of pastures. Maybe they will kick the living [email protected] out of these pests that 68% of sportsmen polled wanted to begin with. 
We can count on Bret to help, the other CO in Ironwood still thinks the wolf in the paper is a husky as he searches for that bullet in the haystack.


----------



## omega58

Dale87 said:


> Not arguing with you or anything but how come they couldn't get a few big live stock protection dogs or would that not work?


Big livestock protection dog = wolf food. 

A domestic dog may be able to take coyotes, but stand zero chance at a wolf pack or verry little surviving a lone wolf. Check out the links I posted. . .wolves kill bear dogs.

Also, look up some of the history of hunting wolves with dogs. . . .some of those dogs no longer exist, some require a pack of 20-30 dogs.


----------



## Dale87

omega58 said:


> Big livestock protection dog = wolf food.
> 
> A domestic dog may be able to take coyotes, but stand zero chance at a wolf pack or verry little surviving a lone wolf. Check out the links I posted. . .wolves kill bear dogs.
> 
> Also, look up some of the history of hunting wolves with dogs. . . .some of those dogs no longer exist, some require a pack of 20-30 dogs.


I can understand where a hound wouldn't be strong enough to take wolves just due to the fact they are more meant for running then guarding so I would think they wouldn't be as strongly built. However wolves only weigh about a 100 and something pounds. Where as a species of dog such as Caucasian Ovcharka weigh upwards of 200+ lbs and are extremely aggressive towards predators. 

I don't really know the capability of wolves, but I would think a few dogs that big could take a pack of wolves, or at least deter them? Again not trying to argue i'm just curious.


----------



## Luv2hunteup

Sorry Nick Adams for confusing you with a similar named member.


----------



## omega58

Dale87 said:


> I can understand where a hound wouldn't be strong enough to take wolves just due to the fact they are more meant for running then guarding so I would think they wouldn't be as strongly built. However wolves only weigh about a 100 and something pounds. Where as a species of dog such as Caucasian Ovcharka weigh upwards of 200+ lbs and are extremely aggressive towards predators.
> 
> I don't really know the capability of wolves, but I would think a few dogs that big could take a pack of wolves, or at least deter them? Again not trying to argue i'm just curious.


Big dogs may deter wolves, but they would not "match up" well against wild predators. If a pack wanted to attack and kill dogs, they will. Wolves have stronger jaws and larger teeth and will fight differently than a domesticated dog. 

And bigger doesn't mean tougher. . .just look at dogs. 

I think the only dog that could take a wolf on and kill it one on one, was the Irish Wolfhound. I think one of the English kings had that strand killed off. Irish Wolfhound of today is different. . as are a ton of domestic dogs.


----------



## WAUB-MUKWA

omega58 said:


> Big livestock protection dog = wolf food.
> 
> A domestic dog may be able to take coyotes, but stand zero chance at a wolf pack or verry little surviving a lone wolf. Check out the links I posted. . .wolves kill bear dogs.
> 
> Also, look up some of the history of hunting wolves with dogs. . . .some of those dogs no longer exist, some require a pack of 20-30 dogs.


Great Pryenees are the wolf killers. I've had 2. They are about the only dog that can stand up to wolves. A couple could kill a pack easily. They have double fur and their only vulnerable part is their face. One was just killed in Utah. Probably a female because it was 100 lbs. The male might have been elsewhere. They are one of the most loyal dogs known to man.


----------



## sourdough44

Do you guys need to be reminded that the net is full of utter foolishness??


----------



## ryan-b

I know some folks out west who use some of these breed to defend against wolves. they are very expensive though.


Anatolian, Akbash, and Kangal dogs 
Great Pyrenees
Komondor
Kuvasz
Tibetan Mastiff
Maremma
Tatra Sheepdog
Slovak Tchouvatch
Caucasian Ovcharka
Castro Laboriero


----------



## earlybugle

Yesterday the Federal Court decided that Idaho should not be allowed to go forward with their planned wolf season this fall. The reason he gave was that recent research indicated that the population of the entire contiguous range should meet the criteria for delisting before any portion (i.e. the State of Idaho) of the specie's range is "delisted". And since the Endangered Species Act requires the application of the best available research, he was obligated to hald the planned hunt.

Here is the published statement from Idaho Fish & Game Deputy Director Jim Unsworth, late last week;
*********************

We are very disappointed by District Judge Donald Molloy's ruling, returning gray wolves to endangered species protection."This is a major setback for responsible wildlife management in Idaho. We have demonstrated our ability to conduct a hunting season in an orderly fashion," Idaho Fish and Game Commission Chairman Dr. Wayn 
Wright. "It's a shame when legal twists can trump wildlife management. 
This is not how the Endangered Species Act should work." 

We don't know yet what this means for the upcoming wolf season. But for the time being we have suspended wolf tag sales until we've had a chance to further review the decision. 

"We're frustrated; we're angry; we're disappointed," Idaho Fish and Game Deputy Director Jim Unsworth said. "We've played by the rules, but his decision allows procedural technicalities to overcome sound science and common sense." 

Wolves south of Interstate 90 have reverted to management under a section of the Endangered Species Act known as the 10(j) rule, allowing some flexibility to respond to livestock depredation and impacts on big game. The rule also allows individuals on private or public land to kill a wolf that is in the act of attacking their stock animals or dogs. Wolf north of Interstate 90 in Idaho are fully protected under the Endangered Species Act. 

Idaho still must follow the rule of law, and we will look at all legal 
options to see what's the best way out of this mess. Fish and Game still will work to resolve conflicts between wolves and other game animals, including proposals to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for wolf control actions to protect dwindling game herds and reduce livestock predation. 

****************

Jeez, seems like this is a good re-cap of how I started this threat. Yep, clearly 'ol Earlybugle (and others) is over reacting and off in left field yet again! 

With each court decision the wolf population there continues to expand, only effectively limited by the carrying capacity of their continually expanding habitat. 

Note the F&G Deputy Director used the words "dwindling herd" - not impacted, damaged or even reduced. 

Dwindling.... hmmm, where have I see words like that used in this thread before? 

Wolves are here in Michigan and they're not likely to ever be removed again by man. Whether you/we/I think that's good, bad or indifferent - it doesn't matter right now. The more important and urgent question right now is who should be managing wildlife on State and private lands in Michigan? If you think it should NOT be the feds, and it seems nearly all here agree it should NOT, then we must find a way to reallocate the authority ASAP. It seems most here also agree that the authority should go the state(s). If we don't make that very thing happen ASAP, then why on earth would anyone be confident that we won't repeat the same insane merry-go-round that has been occuring for nearly a decade in the Federal Courts out west? 

EB


----------



## sourdough44

I agree, MEANINGFUL(legal) control is a long,long way off. It may never be possible.


----------



## duxdog

Yep, If we wait for all of the legal jockeying we will never see anything done in our lifetime. It amazes me when fellow hunters/sportsman back the protection of wolves. The animal rights people are having a field day with us.


----------



## 7MM Magnum

Well I for one tend to side with *earlybugles'* comments,.. I have been out to his old state stomping grounds twice to hunt elk once in 2005 and again in 2007 and from MY personal observations in just that small period of time the elk herd had been diminished. In 2005 there were plenty of elk seen while hunting the hills. Our hunting camp had 15-17 people in it and every night during our dinner time we would discuss how many and where we saw elk while out for the day and where they looked to be traveling to and from.

A mere 2 years later in 2007 we had a smaller camp 8-10 hunters and the amounts of elk seen were minimal at best. After talking with the Idaho "Fur n' Feathers" (LEO's) who always payed our camp a visit to every year to see how things were going and have a bit to eat while there told us that the elk herd had been a good 35-40% less than previous years for 2 reasons. 1. The winter in the hills was a pretty good one limiting their normal travel routes. 2. With the heavy snowfalls they had experienced, their movements were limited and the new wolf populations in the areas had their way with most of the new elk calves and some of the weaker mature elk that were suffering from lack of normal food sources. I had made the decision at that point in time my next elk hunt was to be in Wyoming in 2009 instead of Idaho. 

We hunt in the Clearwater Region and it's beautiful elk country up in those hills,.. they have "burns" every season and it provides those succulent new green's that all elk love to munch on,.. but you have to have the elk in order to hunt them. I keep abreast of most of the current info for the area through 4-5 residents of the state that we hunt with. Things are still not back to normal and apparently from what I have been told by them the further north you go in the state (close to the Canadian borders) the better the hunting can get as the majority seem to be relocating in that general direction. (what seem to be left of them) :sad:

It's a DAMN shame,..all because the re-introduction of the wolf to the areas. They aren't even the actual breed that WAS indigenous to the area back when wolfs originally populated the area. :rant:


----------



## Shlwego

I've said this in another thread and I'll say it again here: If wolf/human interaction happens in increasingly negative ways causing large numbers of people to want the wolves gone; and if those people begin to feel that they must take matters into their own hands; and more importantly, if they feel _morally justified_ in doing so regardless of the charge of "poaching," then eventually I hope that even the Federal Government will bow to the will of the people. 

Based on what's happening out west, and on what people here in Michigan are experiencing and even voicing in this thread, the people are beginning to wake up. People talk as if the elimination of wolves by our forefathers was a bad thing; but perhaps they knew what they were doing. Regardless, wolves need to be managed. If the government fails to do so, do not think that it won't happen anyway. Will that be right? I guess that depends on how you define "right."

I'm saying this as someone who has no personal interest AT ALL in deer hunting, so don't tell me that I need to learn to hunt. I just don't see the wolf bringing anything of value to Michigan, and I believe that among other things they will negatively impact the economy of the State in places where hunters are the lifeblood. That may not matter to those of you who are pro-wolf, but it matters to me. The "illusion of wilderness" that the return of the wolf has brought to Michigan is not enough to make me want to have them here. The lower peninsula will never again be true wilderness, so let's not kid ourselves. Michigan is NOT the same place it was when the wolf was extirpated, and it was a different wolf sub-species that was once native here anyway. Wolves are not "majestic creatures," they are merely another invasive species that we need to reckon with. That reckoning _will happen_ someday, it remains to be seen whether the government sanctions it or not. The government is NOT always right, nor are laws and regulations always just. As Americans, we have a history of sorting these things out.... let's hope we haven't forgotten how.


----------



## Luv2hunteup

Russ Mason says:


> the current recovery population of the gray wolf is presently 12 times more than the number established as a viable population.


I guess that should mean the DNR would be happy with 1/12th of the number of wolves that we have now. It's a win-win situation at this point.


----------



## kingfisher 11

Shlwego said:


> I've said this in another thread and I'll say it again here: If wolf/human interaction happens in increasingly negative ways causing large numbers of people to want the wolves gone; and if those people begin to feel that they must take matters into their own hands; and more importantly, if they feel _morally justified_ in doing so regardless of the charge of "poaching," then eventually I hope that even the Federal Government will bow to the will of the people.
> 
> Based on what's happening out west, and on what people here in Michigan are experiencing and even voicing in this thread, the people are beginning to wake up. People talk as if the elimination of wolves by our forefathers was a bad thing; but perhaps they knew what they were doing. Regardless, wolves need to be managed. If the government fails to do so, do not think that it won't happen anyway. Will that be right? I guess that depends on how you define "right."
> 
> I'm saying this as someone who has no personal interest AT ALL in deer hunting, so don't tell me that I need to learn to hunt. I just don't see the wolf bringing anything of value to Michigan, and I believe that among other things they will negatively impact the economy of the State in places where hunters are the lifeblood. That may not matter to those of you who are pro-wolf, but it matters to me. The "illusion of wilderness" that the return of the wolf has brought to Michigan is not enough to make me want to have them here. The lower peninsula will never again be true wilderness, so let's not kid ourselves. Michigan is NOT the same place it was when the wolf was extirpated, and it was a different wolf sub-species that was once native here anyway. Wolves are not "majestic creatures," they are merely another invasive species that we need to reckon with. That reckoning _will happen_ someday, it remains to be seen whether the government sanctions it or not. The government is NOT always right, nor are laws and regulations always just. As Americans, we have a history of sorting these things out.... let's hope we haven't forgotten how.


Nice post

I have hunted all over North America for many years. Wolves have effected a good many of my hunts. Those that live to deer and big game hunt. This is going to be a game changer for a long time. Why, because we are not smart enough to deal with things in a timely fashion. We are a society that waits for the pendulum to swing to the extreme side before we do anything. Instead of using common sense control. We wait until it gets so bad, there will be a movement to eradicate them to extinction. By then... the herds will be greatly changed and take years to recover. Sad thing is, the western states already have years of study to detemine the effect of the wolf. It's almost like everyone is trying to find a reason not to blame them. Only one change has occured in the west since the the elk herds have greatly declined. Ask yourself what that is?


----------



## Nick Adams

kingfisher 11 said:


> Only one change has occured in the west since the the elk herds have greatly declined. Ask yourself what that is?


All kinds of things are starting to grow back in Yellowstone that couldn't when they were carrying excessive numbers of Elk. The habitat is beginning to recover.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/weekinreview/05basic.html
http://www.cyberwest.com/wolves/wolves-aspen-recovery-yellowstone-national-park.shtml

The number of animals that hunters want to see is not the standard for wildlife population levels. There are places that do that for a fee. They call them high fence game farms. The desirable number of animals on public lands, from a societal point of view, is the number required for healthy habitat.

-na


----------



## earlybugle

The number of animals that hunters want to see is not the standard for wildlife population levels. There are places that do that for a fee. They call them high fence game farms. The desirable number of animals on public lands, from a societal point of view, is the number required for healthy habitat.

-na[/QUOTE]
I suspect I'm not the only one tiring of the same inaccurate, naive and grossly simplified repesentations of wolf management opinions that differ from your preferred "natural laissez-faire". (Between us guys - You're just trolling to get a rise out of us, right? No? Ok, I didn't think so.)

Knowing that I am voilating one of my personal principles, I'll go ahead and try one more time to point out to you Nick that everything comes with a fee or cost. Everything. We enjoy the wildlife and wild places we have today because of sportsmen and what they hold as valuable and of interest TO THEM. If sportsmen don't pay the fee, who will and what will we end up with instead? 

If it weren't for sportsmen, the only non-governmental funding would be from non-consumptive organizations like the Sierra Club, WWF, The Nature Conservency, et al. Put sportsman funds that support wildlife on one side of the balance and all the non-sportsman funding on the other and it wouldn't even be close to even. 

There, I've gone and voilated the personal principle but won't again on this subject. That principle? - Never try to teach someone something if they already know everything. 

I hope ... no, I pray this thread has been educational to most here. - EB


----------



## cedar

duxdog said:


> Can someone who is pro-wolf give me one good thing that having wolves in our state does for the state? I would appreciate it. Because I can't come up with any good reason why they should be here. Also, does anybody know who the Bozo is who decided to bring wolves into our state? Oh, and I am all for forming an organization to combat wolves in this state.


Short answer:

1) Wolves were an essential part of Michigan's ecosystem in the past. They kept the populations of deer, elk, coyotes, bears, etc. in check.

2) Nobody "brought" wolves to Michigan. They are native to the state. They were here long before Europeans arrived.

3) There are plenty of people, including me, who will form organizations to combat yours & ensure that wolves remain in this state for the forseeible future. 

Long answer: 

Wild animals do not exist solely to provide economic benefit to humans. Wolves were an essential part of Michigan&#8217;s ecosystem long before the invasive, non-native, destructive species (European humans) extirpated them. They played an essential role in managing the populations of deer, elk, coyotes, bears, etc. 

We, as human beings, share a planet with many other species of animals. We do not need to &#8220;play God&#8221; & decide what species deserve to exist &#8211; or &#8220;manage&#8221; the numbers of other species (when we can&#8217;t even manage our own numbers & have allowed ourselves to become overpopulated.) Nature has a way of finding the right balance between predators & their prey. Wolves & deer co-existed in Michigan for centuries before European humans arrived & extirpated wolves. In other words - there is no chance of wolves &#8220;killing off&#8221; deer & elk herds in Michigan. They may slightly reduce hunting opportunities in Michigan, but responsible wildlife &#8220;management&#8221; (if we insist on it) is not about artificially boosting the populations of big game animals in order to create better hunting opportunities. 

I am always amazed by the lack of tolerance some human beings show for other species of animals. It&#8217;s as if these humans resent other species for existing for purposes other than benefiting humans. There are a mere 500 wolves inhabiting Michigan & 3,000 wolves inhabiting the Great Lakes region. Wolves are estimated to kill about 60,000 deer (annually) throughout the region. That is a small number compared to the number of deer killed by hunters, car accidents, disease, etc. As for livestock predation, coyotes kill more livestock than wolves (although the anti-wolf folks don&#8217;t make any noise about coyote killings.) The intolerance for wolves is astounding, given their small population numbers & small impact on big game herds. 

The animal rights community will not allow wolves to be pushed towards the brink of extinction in the continental US again. We will not stand for states &#8220;managing&#8221; wolf numbers down to populations that will not allow the species to survive long-term. Wolves must be allowed to have sufficient population numbers in order to maintain the genetic diversity needed for the species to survive in the long-term. Wolves are once again being targeted by the hunting & animal agriculture industries. State DNR&#8217;s are controlled by those two industries & cannot be trusted to &#8220;manage&#8221; wolf populations. That is why the HSUS & Defenders of Wildlife continue to sue to prevent wolves being removed from the endangered species list. The animal rights community will not give up this fight until states agree to allow a sufficient number of wolves to live in their states. 

(I am obviously an anti-hunter, so a moderator can ban me if those who hold opposing views are not allowed to post on this forum.)


----------



## Shlwego

And that, right there, is why Earlybugle's idea about a 10th ammendment challenge is a good idea. This is not so much a battle about wolves, it is a battle of ideas. Here we have someone who does not see value in managing a species, who sees humans (or at least "European" humans) as evil, and who feels that we as humans have no part in the natural order. Talk of predator and prey is OK as long as the human is not the predator. This is exactly the kind of person who would see no value in an economy that draws a significant part of its income from hunting. If people lose out because hunting is limited, hey, no big deal, because humans are evil. Suffice it to say that this type of opinion is behind what is driving the legal challenges to the wolf PROBLEM in the west, and as has just been stated, will contribute mightily to the pending PROBLEM with wolves here. 

While some of the opinions and ideas that Cedar puts forth are clearly not based on a solid understanding of our current environment and how wolves behave, the fact that he or she believes them should make all of us who believe differently wake up to the idea that IF we believe that wolves are going to require management, we'd better get on the same page and work to make that happen in a manner that negates the impact of people who think like Cedar. Enough said.


----------



## sourdough44

So is it wrong for the orchard owner to battle the codling moth or the apple maggot? These pests have been around for ever, naturally. Nature should be allowed to 'takes it's course' with the apples.

Now we are back to the start, in court.


----------



## WAUB-MUKWA

cedar said:


> Short answer:
> 
> 1) Wolves were an essential part of Michigan's ecosystem in the past. They kept the populations of deer, elk, coyotes, bears, etc. in check.
> 
> 2) Nobody "brought" wolves to Michigan. They are native to the state. They were here long before Europeans arrived.
> 
> 3) There are plenty of people, including me, who will form organizations to combat yours & ensure that wolves remain in this state for the forseeible future.
> 
> Long answer:
> 
> Wild animals do not exist solely to provide economic benefit to humans. Wolves were an essential part of Michigans ecosystem long before the invasive, non-native, destructive species (European humans) extirpated them. They played an essential role in managing the populations of deer, elk, coyotes, bears, etc.
> 
> We, as human beings, share a planet with many other species of animals. We do not need to play God & decide what species deserve to exist  or manage the numbers of other species (when we cant even manage our own numbers & have allowed ourselves to become overpopulated.) Nature has a way of finding the right balance between predators & their prey. Wolves & deer co-existed in Michigan for centuries before European humans arrived & extirpated wolves. In other words - there is no chance of wolves killing off deer & elk herds in Michigan. They may slightly reduce hunting opportunities in Michigan, but responsible wildlife management (if we insist on it) is not about artificially boosting the populations of big game animals in order to create better hunting opportunities.
> 
> I am always amazed by the lack of tolerance some human beings show for other species of animals. Its as if these humans resent other species for existing for purposes other than benefiting humans. There are a mere 500 wolves inhabiting Michigan & 3,000 wolves inhabiting the Great Lakes region. Wolves are estimated to kill about 60,000 deer (annually) throughout the region. That is a small number compared to the number of deer killed by hunters, car accidents, disease, etc. As for livestock predation, coyotes kill more livestock than wolves (although the anti-wolf folks dont make any noise about coyote killings.) The intolerance for wolves is astounding, given their small population numbers & small impact on big game herds.
> 
> The animal rights community will not allow wolves to be pushed towards the brink of extinction in the continental US again. We will not stand for states managing wolf numbers down to populations that will not allow the species to survive long-term. Wolves must be allowed to have sufficient population numbers in order to maintain the genetic diversity needed for the species to survive in the long-term. Wolves are once again being targeted by the hunting & animal agriculture industries. State DNRs are controlled by those two industries & cannot be trusted to manage wolf populations. That is why the HSUS & Defenders of Wildlife continue to sue to prevent wolves being removed from the endangered species list. The animal rights community will not give up this fight until states agree to allow a sufficient number of wolves to live in their states.
> 
> (I am obviously an anti-hunter, so a moderator can ban me if those who hold opposing views are not allowed to post on this forum.)


I see no reason for you to be banned. We always enjoy a great laugh, and luckily your kind are the minority. It's great to prove most of what you say about HSUS and DOW is wrong, and how those two organizations manipulate the public. But, the good thing is people are waking up to these two org's. They will not be able to continue their efforts to "Re-wild" the lower 48 unless places like LA, NYC, Miami, Houston are included. The courts are tiring and the past judgements were from a couple little slip ups in procedure by the USF&W. Judgements in the future will turn more towards conservation efforts instead of emotions and false science.


----------



## Mitchell Ulrich

*In the interest of clarity for all of my fellow...**"invasive, non-native, destructive species (European humans)..."I proclaim the following!*
*[/COLOR]* 
*My "Shovel" shall no longer be refered to as a "Shovel".*

*Instead, it shall now be known as my "Cedar"!* 

*In future posts,... when you read where I have been,.. "Bending the Cedar"... you will understand that I have been digging a hole!*

*September 15th is the start of the Night Time hunting season.*

*My "Cedar" and I are counting down the minuets!!!!*


----------



## GettinBucky

Two words for Cedar...... FRUIT CAKE!!!!!

Now where do I send my $$$ to help combat against irrational thinkers like this person?


----------



## tommy-n

The anti's are no different than terrorists, they are cowards that won't fight you to your face. They always hide behind something or somewhere. You picked the wrong place to come, we may bicker back and forth and I'm sure you enjoy every minute of it. But, when the time comes we will unite together and be a very powerful voice. Your wasting your time here my friend.


----------



## boehr

Well....I'm not an anti-hunter but the blue are items that I can agree with in the post. Red I disagree with.



cedar said:


> Short answer:
> 
> 1) Wolves were an essential part of Michigan's ecosystem in the past. They kept the populations of deer, elk, coyotes, bears, etc. in check.
> 
> 2) Nobody "brought" wolves to Michigan. They are native to the state. They were here long before Europeans arrived.
> 
> 3) There are plenty of people, including me, who will form organizations to combat yours & ensure that wolves remain in this state for the forseeible future.
> 
> Long answer:
> 
> Wild animals do not exist solely to provide economic benefit to humans. Wolves were an essential part of Michigans ecosystem long before the invasive, non-native, destructive species (European humans) extirpated them. They played an essential role in managing the populations of deer, elk, coyotes, bears, etc.
> 
> We, as human beings, share a planet with many other species of animals. We do not need to play God & decide what species deserve to exist  or manage the numbers of other species (when we cant even manage our own numbers & have allowed ourselves to become overpopulated.) Nature has a way of finding the right balance between predators & their prey. Wolves & deer co-existed in Michigan for centuries before European humans arrived & extirpated wolves. In other words - there is no chance of wolves killing off deer & elk herds in Michigan. They may slightly reduce hunting opportunities in Michigan, but responsible wildlife management (if we insist on it) is not about *artificially* boosting the populations of big game animals in order to create better hunting opportunities.
> 
> I am always amazed by the lack of tolerance some human beings show for other species of animals. Its as if these humans resent other species for existing for purposes other than benefiting humans.There are a mere 500 wolves inhabiting Michigan & 3,000 wolves inhabiting the Great Lakes region. Wolves are estimated to kill about 60,000 deer (annually) throughout the region. That is a small number compared to the number of deer killed by hunters, car accidents, disease, etc. As for livestock predation, coyotes kill more livestock than wolves (although the anti-wolf folks dont make any noise about coyote killings.) The intolerance for wolves is astounding, given their small population numbers & small impact on big game herds.
> 
> The animal rights community will not allow wolves to be pushed towards the brink of extinction in the continental US again. We will not stand for states managing wolf numbers down to populations that will not allow the species to survive long-term. Wolves must be allowed to have sufficient population numbers in order to maintain the genetic diversity needed for the species to survive in the long-term. Wolves are once again being targeted by the hunting & animal agriculture industries. State DNRs are controlled by those two industries & cannot be trusted to manage wolf populations. That is why the HSUS & Defenders of Wildlife continue to sue to prevent wolves being removed from the endangered species list. The animal rights community will not give up this fight until states agree to allow a sufficient number of wolves to live in their states.
> 
> (I am obviously an anti-hunter, so a moderator can ban me if those who hold opposing views are not allowed to post on this forum.)


Of course I could also go through all these posts and see where some that call themselves sportsmen sure do support poaching too. Is a poacher any better than an anti-hunter? Not in my book.


----------



## tommy-n

is not about artificially boosting the populations of big game animals in order to create better hunting opportunities. {quote}

Is that not the same thing there doing with the wolf population. As it was already pointed out it's 12 times higher already.


----------



## Shlwego

boehr said:


> Of course I could also go through all these posts and see where some that call themselves sportsmen sure do support poaching too. Is a poacher any better than an anti-hunter? Not in my book.


I guess it all depends on how you define "poaching." A farmer who defends his livestock by "illegally" killing wolves is NOT a poacher in *my* book, while someone who shoots a wolf for a pelt IS a poacher. I'm not ready to say that because wolves are "prohibited" animals, ANY unauthorized control of them constitutes poaching - particlualry when there is NO authorized control. Merely because there is a law does not make it right or just. Should we work to change the law? Absolutely, but in the meantime if individuals feel they are protecting their livelihoods by taking matters into their own hands, I'm willing to look the other way. I'm sure you will make the point that laws need to be obeyed regardless of whether or not we feel they're "right," and my response to that is that our country was founded by people who DIDN'T feel that way. So I guess we're just going to disagree on this.


----------



## Nick Adams

tommy-n said:


> The anti's are no different than terrorists, they are cowards that won't fight you to your face. They always hide behind something or somewhere.


They seem to be putting up a pretty good fight in the Federal court system. It would seem to me that in a nation based on the rule of law that would be the appropriate venue to hash out public policy issues. What venue did you have in mind?



tommy-n said:


> ...when the time comes we will unite together and be a very powerful voice.


According to earlybugle the principle of "whats in it for me?" applies here. You don't have to spend much time reading the M-S forums to see how well that is working out among sportsmen as far as unity of purpose is concerned.

There will be no unity until a majority of us get past the short-term "whats in it for me attitude" and arrive at an understanding that public resource management isn't about you and me but about the long-term issue of having good quality habitat necessary to support the game and non-game animals we desire. 

-na


----------



## tommy-n

I can't disagree with what you said Nick, but I honestly think when things get bad enough(probably rock bottom) We will come together and put personal feelings aside. Not a whole lot different than 9/11 But I guess it take something that drastic before we wake up and smell the coffee, sadly.


----------



## MIKE KOVICH

To those of you who doubt the man from idaho look this up. 
Dillon mt sheep wolf.
Nice group of just three adult wolfs kill 120 adult male sheep in one night 8/20/09 in 2008 they only were able to kill 111 sheep in one night, keep in mind this was a pac of three wolves.


----------



## boehr

Shlwego said:


> I guess it all depends on how you define "poaching." A farmer who defends his livestock by "illegally" killing wolves is NOT a poacher in *my* book, while someone who shoots a wolf for a pelt IS a poacher. I'm not ready to say that because wolves are "prohibited" animals, ANY unauthorized control of them constitutes poaching - particlualry when there is NO authorized control. Merely because there is a law does not make it right or just. Should we work to change the law? Absolutely, but in the meantime if individuals feel they are protecting their livelihoods by taking matters into their own hands, I'm willing to look the other way. I'm sure you will make the point that laws need to be obeyed regardless of whether or not we feel they're "right," and my response to that is that our country was founded by people who DIDN'T feel that way. So I guess we're just going to disagree on this.


So then it would be your opinion that a farmer who shoots deer eating his crops without a permit would also not be poaching or doing anything wrong in "your" book.

There is a big difference between control and killing. There are methods that need to be attempted before you can detirmine killing is the "only" way, many if not all those who have killed a wolf illegally did not attempt any type of control. If your choice is to look the other way then you are part of the problem and not the solution. If you believe that purposely breaking the law is right then I will agree to disagree with you and will never defend your particular opinion on this topic but will likely fight against you. You need to learn about the histroy of our country because that is exactly what took place to make out country what it is, a country of laws and methods to change laws if needed and not to just ignore the laws because of a person's particular belief if a law is right or wrong but what the majority believe is right or wrong. If the majority believe it is wrong the law will be changed.


----------



## gawelg

An interesting conversation about wolves. Now that we have a confirmed breeding pair in the LP they will multiply and expand their range. I find it interesting that the majority of posters that are all for the wolves live south of M-57, I'm sure they won't have to contend with them for quite a few years. I am also quite sure that in the not too distant future those of us that live in the northern LP will be contending with the loss of hunting dogs, pets, and livestock due to wolves.

I am don't condone poaching, but don't most all of us at one time or another make a decision as to what laws we will obey and which ones we will ignore (speeding, rolling stops, etc)? Coming home from down state last Sunday saw three accidents on I-75 between Flint and Bay City. From the amount of traffic passing me quite likely speeding was a factor, not sure if the farmer defending his livestock (property) is any more of a criminal than the speeder that has the potential of killing someone on the highway.

Gary


----------



## duxdog

boehr said:


> So then it would be your opinion that a farmer who shoots deer eating his crops without a permit would also not be poaching or doing anything wrong in "your" book.
> 
> There is a big difference between control and killing. There are methods that need to be attempted before you can detirmine killing is the "only" way, many if not all those who have killed a wolf illegally did not attempt any type of control. If your choice is to look the other way then you are part of the problem and not the solution. If you believe that purposely breaking the law is right then I will agree to disagree with you and will never defend your particular opinion on this topic but will likely fight against you. You need to learn about the histroy of our country because that is exactly what took place to make out country what it is, a country of laws and methods to change laws if needed and not to just ignore the laws because of a person's particular belief if a law is right or wrong but what the majority believe is right or wrong. If the majority believe it is wrong the law will be changed.[/QUOT
> 
> 
> 
> You need to come off of your soap box once in a while Boehr. You preach the law as an absolute but the DNRE isn't always playing by the rules either. I KNOW FOR A FACT that wolves have been released BY THE DNRE in the upper AND LOWER penninsula. I would be willing to bet you that not one single person that works for the DNR would go on record and say that. So lets just call spades spades. If you would like me to throw a couple of DNR people under the bus I will.I might even have pics of the wolf releases that took place near Roger city a few years ago. Sometimes the people who write the laws have their heads up their @#$#$s. As do the poeple who write the tickets.


----------



## tommy-n

:lol::lol::lol:

HEEEEE HAWWWW giddy up


----------



## griffondog

You need to come off of your soap box once in a while Boehr. You preach the law as an absolute but the DNRE isn't always playing by the rules either. I KNOW FOR A FACT that wolves have been released BY THE DNRE in the upper AND LOWER penninsula. I would be willing to bet you that not one single person that works for the DNR would go on record and say that. So lets just call spades spades. If you would like me to throw a couple of DNR people under the bus I will.I might even have pics of the wolf releases that took place near Roger city a few years ago. Sometimes the people who write the laws have their heads up their @#$#$s. As do the poeple who write the tickets. 

Duxdog

Please throw these people under the bus and I need these pictures. You can always PM them to me.

Griff


----------



## boehr

duxdog said:


> You need to come off of your soap box once in a while Boehr. You preach the law as an absolute but the DNRE isn't always playing by the rules either. I KNOW FOR A FACT that wolves have been released BY THE DNRE in the upper AND LOWER penninsula. I would be willing to bet you that not one single person that works for the DNR would go on record and say that. So lets just call spades spades. If you would like me to throw a couple of DNR people under the bus I will.I might even have pics of the wolf releases that took place near Roger city a few years ago. Sometimes the people who write the laws have their heads up their @#$#$s. As do the poeple who write the tickets.


And sometimes people post completely false information that also have their heads so far up they never see the light of day. :lol: Sorry but, your fact that any current wolf in Michigan was brought to Michigan from someplace else and released is a display of ignorance on your part. And there is no sense in having a discussion on this topic with you if you are sold and selling complete lies.

Watch out for the black choppers, thats where the cougars come from.:coolgleam


----------



## boehr

gawelg said:


> I am don't condone poaching, but don't most all of us at one time or another make a decision as to what laws we will obey and which ones we will ignore (speeding, rolling stops, etc)? Coming home from down state last Sunday saw three accidents on I-75 between Flint and Bay City. From the amount of traffic passing me quite likely speeding was a factor, not sure if the farmer defending his livestock (property) is any more of a criminal than the speeder that has the potential of killing someone on the highway.
> 
> Gary


You are very correct but regardless if you break or ignore the law it is still wrong and if you get caught then you have nothing to complain about. Any example you gave still says its wrong.


----------



## Shlwego

boehr said:


> So then it would be your opinion that a farmer who shoots deer eating his crops without a permit would also not be poaching or doing anything wrong in "your" book.


I'm going to come at this a different way than telling you to get off your soapbox. In the example you mention the key word for me is "permit," because I think a farmer has the ability to get a depredation permit for deer. If no depredation permit is issued, and his livelihood is being compromised, well, I just think people matter more than deer, so NO I would not have a problem with him shooting deer. With wolf depredation, there is NO permit process even available.



boehr said:


> There is a big difference between control and killing.


True enough. Wolves don't control sheep and cattle, they KILL them. 



boehr said:


> There are methods that need to be attempted before you can detirmine killing is the "only" way, many if not all those who have killed a wolf illegally did not attempt any type of control.


Oh wait, you meant control of wolves, didn't you? Well if you look at what the ranchers out west are saying, it appears that your "other methods" of control aren't working. Many of them DID attempt other types of control. Now most practice the SSS method. Why? Because they believe a law that does not allow them to protect their livelihood is an unjust law.



boehr said:


> If your choice is to look the other way then you are part of the problem and not the solution. If you believe that purposely breaking the law is right then I will agree to disagree with you and will never defend your particular opinion on this topic but will likely fight against you. You need to learn about the histroy of our country because that is exactly what took place to make our country what it is...


Our country was founded by people who believed that unjust taxation laws deserved to be ignored, that laws that forced them to house and feed occupying soldiers were unjust, and that disregarding or as you put it "breaking" those and other unjust laws was the RIGHT thing to do, though for many it meant great hardship.



boehr said:


> ....a country of laws and methods to change laws if needed and not to just ignore the laws because of a person's particular belief if a law is right or wrong but what the majority believe is right or wrong. If the majority believe it is wrong the law will be changed.


I've got news for you. Merely because the majority believe something is right or wrong does not mean that laws will be changed or implemented to support the majority belief. Case in point right now is what's happening in the Federal Courts with Prop 8 in Kalifornia. Go do some research on what the majority wanted, and what they got. We live in a republic where the desires of the majority are often thwarted for the sake of minority rights or participation. You are correct that we are a nation of laws. But it doesn't make a shred of difference whether either the majority or the minority want a particular law. The question is whether it is a just law. Each person has to work that out for themselves. Sometimes they will run into problems with the judicial system for their beliefs. This does not, however, mean that they were necessarily ethically wrong. It could mean, that like some of our founding fathers, they will go through great hardship for taking a stand against an unjust law. Should we work to change bad laws? Absolutely. But that does not necessarily mean we should abide by those laws until they are changed, because they might never be, and at some point a person has to decide to do what's right. Or not.


----------



## Whit1

duxdog said:


> I KNOW FOR A FACT that wolves have been released BY THE DNRE in the upper AND LOWER penninsula. I would be willing to bet you that not one single person that works for the DNR would go on record and say that. So lets just call spades spades. If you would like me to throw a couple of DNR people under the bus I will.I might even have pics of the wolf releases that took place near Roger city a few years ago. Sometimes the people who write the laws have their heads up their @#$#$s. As do the poeple who write the tickets.


Present your evidence that proves the facts in a new thread in this forum. Go ahead and show the photos and use them to prove that the MDNR has released wolf in either penninsula.

*On Another Point*

This thread is stepping towards going over the edge as far as civility goes and will be closed down and action taken with those that tip it into the direction of closure. Cedar and other anti-hunting advocates must be drooling when they read these posts where hunters argue with hunters. I would suspect they nod their heads in glee when reading how divisive we are amongst ourselves.


----------



## WAUB-MUKWA

I see Russ Mason bowed to the pressure and will not go against the Federal Government in forcing them to let them control the wolves. Wisconsin and Minnesota did this. :sad: A double standard?


----------



## fairfax1

This is slipping a tad away from the Wolf vs. children vs. elk vs. deer. vs. sheep debateso patience please. 

There is a line of reasoning that has been presented in this thread and in other threads with contentious issues that goes like this: Some violations of wildlife law ( shooting wolves, deer baiting, trout chumming, salmon snagging, etc) are like traffic speeding.that is, it is a category of law that we all break at one time or another as we each decide on what laws we will obey and which ones we will ignore. Its not really a big deal. 

Ive categorized this line as the _minimizer argument_.. an attempt to view some poaching behaviors in the most benign light in order to create the impression that the offense is really not harmful to society or wildlife. It is after all..just a rolling stop. Not that serious.

Well, I suppose an ethicist could gut & skin that argument in a nano second. I cant do it with such dispatch. However, I can argue that that reasoning is morally bankrupt with the slippery slope slipping directly into every criminal abuse a society can fear.

So which abuses get minimized? Who gets to do the minimizing-- the perpetrator? or the victims? And how far reaching is the precedent?.....if you violate cant we all? My violations should not be treated any different than yours. And you feel yours is minimal..then so are mine.

The comparison of the rolling stop for illegally killing a federally protected species or any protected wildlife is a comparison that ill serves us sportsmen. Myself, as one outdoorsman, surely wants to avoid being compared to any other outdoorsman who willfully violates wildlife laws simply because it is a category of law or a quality of law he alone decides needn't be obeyed.

I'll take Boehr's sentiments expressed in #145 a step farther: Gimme an animal rights protectionist over such 'sportsmen'-violators any day of the week.

At least with the protectionists I could feel assured there would be wildlife around to be at least viewed by my grandchildren and their grandchildren.


----------



## Sib

I'm still waiting on the facts of the wolves being released. I thought for sure that someone would have had a UPS shipping receipt by now. :lol: Only fact I've seen so far is the fact that some people will believe whatever is told to them at the local watering hole. :lol:

I think this is a clear case of mistaking the label on Canadian Hunter as an actual event. :lol:


----------



## Shlwego

boehr said:


> Most of your post makes little sense in regards to the topic but just for enjoyment purposes........
> 
> But do they all get permits? And when they are denied and still do it, then what? How about the complaints of some gut shooting which even is heard on this web site?


Again, people's livelihoods matter more than deer. Gut shooting doesn't factor into the equation. I'm not sure where you're headed with that....



boehr said:


> and when they get caught, what happens?


Then they pay the price. Was it worth the risk? I guess you'd have to ask them.



boehr said:


> I doubt that very many people in todays world have the intestinal fortitude to go through that "great" hardship. Besides you are talking about two completely different topics that don't even belong together. Heck, most people in todays world couldn't survive in the times you are talking about.


If we're talking about "just" laws, perhaps they aren't two different topics. If people continue to believe wolves should be controlled and they get nowhere trying to get relief from the government, then perhaps they have to consider controlling wolves on their own. There is a long history in this country of people who are willing to break laws they feel are unjust. If the revolutionary period is too far back for you, then how about the Civil Rights Era. Certainly the sheriff in Selma was enforcing the law, was he not? And those who marched were breaking it, were they not? These are not completely different topics. If the law is unjust, there is plenty of history in this country to show that people will confront that law by breaking it. If wolves get out of control to the point that people feel they must act because the government is NOT acting, they will; and they will feel as morally justified in doing so as did MLK or Rosa Parks. The ranchers out west are not "poachers" in the sense of taking at the expense of others. They did not shoot animals for no reason before the wolf came along, and they have reasons for taking care of the wolf problem that exists now. And they're certainly not trying to deprive anybody's grandchildren or great-grandchildren of the opportunity of seeing animals in nature. They're trying to preserve a livelihood to pass along to their children. They don't necessarily want the wolves gone, they want them controlled. This is not happening, so they have their own methods of control. Plain and simple.



boehr said:


> Again two different topics but you gave the answer, going through the courts so by far not a dead issue.


Not two different topics. You were the one who said that the majority gets what it wants, and I merely illustrated the fact that that idea is patently un-true. We'll see how the wolf management plan fairs in the courts, so yes there is hope there. If the states involved are NOT given the ability to control their wolf populations, then the question will be (as it is NOW for some people) is this a JUST law? If the law is un-just, then no charge of poaching will deter those who seek to control the wolves.


----------



## Shlwego

Would I ever shoot a wolf? No. Unless it was immediately and directly endangering me or another person. However, I'll say this one more time and then I'm done with this thread: If wolf/human interaction happens in increasingly negative ways causing large numbers of people to want the wolves gone; and if those people begin to feel that (due to governmental inaction) they must take matters into their own hands; and more importantly, if they feel _morally justified_ in doing so regardless of the charge of "poaching," then wolves WILL be controlled. Do not be surprised if this scenario plays out here in the next few years. If it does, then eventually I hope even the Federal Government will bow to the will of the people. But I'm not holding my breath....


----------



## tommy-n

fairfax1 said:


> This is slipping a tad away from the Wolf vs. children vs. elk vs. deer. vs. sheep debateso patience please.
> 
> There is a line of reasoning that has been presented in this thread and in other threads with contentious issues that goes like this: Some violations of wildlife law ( shooting wolves, deer baiting, trout chumming, salmon snagging, etc) are like traffic speeding.that is, it is a category of law that we all break at one time or another as we each decide on what laws we will obey and which ones we will ignore. Its not really a big deal.
> 
> Ive categorized this line as the _minimizer argument_.. an attempt to view some poaching behaviors in the most benign light in order to create the impression that the offense is really not harmful to society or wildlife. It is after all..just a rolling stop. Not that serious.
> 
> Well, I suppose an ethicist could gut & skin that argument in a nano second. I cant do it with such dispatch. However, I can argue that that reasoning is morally bankrupt with the slippery slope slipping directly into every criminal abuse a society can fear.
> 
> So which abuses get minimized? Who gets to do the minimizing-- the perpetrator? or the victims? And how far reaching is the precedent?.....if you violate cant we all? My violations should not be treated any different than yours. And you feel yours is minimal..then so are mine.
> 
> The comparison of the rolling stop for illegally killing a federally protected species or any protected wildlife is a comparison that ill serves us sportsmen. Myself, as one outdoorsman, surely wants to avoid being compared to any other outdoorsman who willfully violates wildlife laws simply because it is a category of law or a quality of law he alone decides needn't be obeyed.
> 
> I'll take Boehr's sentiments expressed in #145 a step farther: Gimme an animal rights protectionist over such 'sportsmen'-violators any day of the week.
> 
> At least with the protectionists I could feel assured there would be wildlife around to be at least viewed by my grandchildren and their grandchildren.


Damn fairfax, the more of your post I read the more I like ya. AWESOME post


----------



## triplelunger

> Myself, as one outdoorsman, surely wants to avoid being compared to any other outdoorsman who willfully violates wildlife laws simply because it is a category of law or a quality of law he alone decides needn't be obeyed.


Make that two. Well said.


----------



## cedar

Shlwego said:


> Would I ever shoot a wolf? No. Unless it was immediately and directly endangering me or another person. However, I'll say this one more time and then I'm done with this thread: If wolf/human interaction happens in increasingly negative ways causing large numbers of people to want the wolves gone; and if those people begin to feel that (due to governmental inaction) they must take matters into their own hands; and more importantly, if they feel _morally justified_ in doing so regardless of the charge of "poaching," then wolves WILL be controlled. Do not be surprised if this scenario plays out here in the next few years. If it does, then eventually I hope even the Federal Government will bow to the will of the people. But I'm not holding my breath....


Where is the evidence that the majority of people in the state of Michigan wants wolves eradicated from the state? I think you are overstating the number of people in Michigan who dislike wolves. While my strong favorable view of wolves may be in the minority, I think the same is true of your strong negative view of wolves. I think the general public's views of wolves are much more moderate (especially since most people in this state live in fairly large cities & will never come into contact with wolves.) Someone on this forum posted that less than 15% of people in this state are hunters, and those tend to be the people who dislike wolves. 

I don't understand the anti-wolf scaremongering. We have other predators in the state (cougars, bobcats, etc.) Those predators kill game animals & livestock, but nobody is complaining about the presence of those animals in the state. What makes the wolves any different? Do hunters oppose them because the presence of an apex predator threatens their place at the top of the food chain? I tend to think that is the case. 

BTW, there is a great documentary about wolves (uploaded to YouTube.) It's called "Living with Wolves." It gives you an inside view of the social structure of wolf packs. I find wolves to be majestic, fascinating & intelligent animals. Every wolf has its own role in the pack; only the alpha male & female mate (for life), but the whole pack takes part in raising the pups; they mourn dead members of the pack; they are loyal, affectionate & vocal with members of their pack. There are so many lies being spread about wolves (such as the lie that they kill for sport, as if hunters, especially trophy hunters, don't) that it was nice to see an accurate portrayal of them.


----------



## tommy-n

cedar, check out my poll. Feel free to comment if you wish, I respect everyone opinion


----------



## Mitchell Ulrich

Am I the only one who thinks that Cedar just happened to stumble into our web site, just when the whole Wolf issue is at it's peak, just a little to coincidental?

It couldn't be a current member just _posing _as Cedar now could it? 

Noooo, that would never happen. 

I know when I have some free time, I'm _all over_ the PETA forums! Aren't you guys? 

I mean, I'd rather be hanging out over there with the people who I despise, and despise me, then over here with my hunting buddy's.

I'm sure our web site is just full of anti's and we don't even know it.

Surprising how fast a few of our hard core hunters have taken up with an anti so fast isn't it?

Naw, I must be mistaken...never mind!


----------



## triplelunger

Mitchell Ulrich said:


> It couldn't be a current member just _posing _as Cedar now could it?


Are you saying _your_ Cedar?


----------



## boehr

fairfax1 said:


> This is slipping a tad away from the Wolf vs. children vs. elk vs. deer. vs. sheep debate&#8230;so patience please.
> 
> There is a line of reasoning that has been presented in this thread and in other threads with contentious issues that goes like this: Some violations of wildlife law ( shooting wolves, deer baiting, trout chumming, salmon snagging, etc) are like traffic speeding&#8230;.that is, it is a category of law that we all break at one time or another as we each decide on what laws we will obey and which ones we will ignore. It&#8217;s not really a big deal.
> 
> I&#8217;ve categorized this line as the &#8216;_minimizer argument&#8217;_&#8230;.. an attempt to view some poaching behaviors in the most benign light in order to create the impression that the offense is really not harmful to society or wildlife. It is after all&#8230;&#8230;..just a &#8220;rolling stop&#8221;. Not that serious.
> 
> Well, I suppose an ethicist could gut & skin that argument in a nano second. I can&#8217;t do it with such dispatch. However, I can argue that that reasoning is morally bankrupt with the slippery slope slipping directly into every criminal abuse a society can fear.
> 
> So which abuses get minimized? Who gets to do the minimizing-- the perpetrator? or the victims? And how far reaching is the precedent?.....if you violate can&#8217;t we all? My violations should not be treated any different than yours. And you feel yours is minimal&#8230;..then so are mine.
> 
> The comparison of the &#8216;rolling stop&#8217; for illegally killing a federally protected species or any protected wildlife is a comparison that ill serves us sportsmen. Myself, as one outdoorsman, surely wants to avoid being compared to any other outdoorsman who willfully violates wildlife laws simply because it is a category of law or a quality of law he alone decides needn't be obeyed.
> 
> I'll take Boehr's sentiments expressed in #145 a step farther: Gimme an animal rights protectionist over such 'sportsmen'-violators any day of the week.
> 
> At least with the protectionists I could feel assured there would be wildlife around to be at least viewed by my grandchildren and their grandchildren.


I agree, good post.

Don't mistake my opinion which is I'm not saying that wolves should never be regulated and managed to stay within a specific population. What that number should be would be nothing but a guess on my part. But also don't mistake my opinion to be anything in support of a poacher's actions or anyone that supports (or brags) about the actions of some poacher. I simply dislike people that intentionally poach and 9 times out of 10 it is greed that takes them to that action. All poachers have an excuse and I can say I probably have heard just about all of them. I will always turn in a poacher without fear of retaliation or because they might not like me or any other reason simply because they have a negative effect on the honest hunter.


----------



## Whit1

Mitchell Ulrich said:


> Am I the only one who thinks that Cedar just happened to stumble into our web site, just when the whole Wolf issue is at it's peak, just a little to coincidental?
> 
> It couldn't be a current member just _posing _as Cedar now could it?
> 
> Noooo, that would never happen.
> 
> I know when I have some free time, I'm _all over_ the PETA forums! Aren't you guys?
> 
> I mean, I'd rather be hanging out over there with the people who I despise, and despise me, then over here with my hunting buddy's.
> 
> I'm sure our web site is just full of anti's and we don't even know it.
> 
> Surprising how fast a few of our hard core hunters have taken up with an anti so fast isn't it?
> 
> Naw, I must be mistaken...never mind!


There is no IP# match, but that is easy to get around.

MS has been monitered by anti hunting/fishing types for many years. The mods are very aware of this and we've also warned our members NOT to get into a tit-for-tat with those types especially in their sites.


----------



## shell waster

When the wolves mop up the deer I will just convert to waterfowling... say in 3 years. Also can someone enlight me, I have heard rumours that Native Americans can shoot wolves??

As a side note I have been hunting for about 15 years with a family out of Curtis Mi over thanksgiving. Good guys, spend a lot of money locally (dinning out, gas, etc.), some nice deer taken. Over the past 3 years, the hunting has really declined, we saw a pretty big pack of wolves last year. So, it was decided that we are not returning, kinda sucks for the local economy. I was bummed out too, it was a tradition for me but if there is no deer, there is no deer. Thanks Federal government.


----------



## triplelunger

shell waster said:


> When the wolves mop up the deer I will just convert to waterfowling... say in 3 years.


Apparently there's no time to waste!
That 3 year time frame is based on a scientifically conducted survey, right?


----------



## duxdog

cedar said:


> Where is the evidence that the majority of people in the state of Michigan wants wolves eradicated from the state? I think you are overstating the number of people in Michigan who dislike wolves. While my strong favorable view of wolves may be in the minority, I think the same is true of your strong negative view of wolves. I think the general public's views of wolves are much more moderate (especially since most people in this state live in fairly large cities & will never come into contact with wolves.) Someone on this forum posted that less than 15% of people in this state are hunters, and those tend to be the people who dislike wolves.
> 
> LMAO, you just made a very valid point. Most humans that are in favor of wolves in this state live in large cities and will never come in contact with them. Doesn't it make alot more sense to have the poeple who are affected by the wolf population be the determining factors.
> 
> I don't understand the anti-wolf scaremongering. We have other predators in the state (cougars, bobcats, etc.) Those predators kill game animals & livestock, but nobody is complaining about the presence of those animals in the state. What makes the wolves any different? Do hunters oppose them because the presence of an apex predator threatens their place at the top of the food chain? I tend to think that is the case.
> 
> Yes people are complaining about cougars BUT the DNR has LOL(had) taken a stance that there were no cougars here so these people were not credible.
> 
> BTW, there is a great documentary about wolves (uploaded to YouTube.) It's called "Living with Wolves." It gives you an inside view of the social structure of wolf packs. I find wolves to be majestic, fascinating & intelligent animals. Every wolf has its own role in the pack; only the alpha male & female mate (for life), but the whole pack takes part in raising the pups; they mourn dead members of the pack; they are loyal, affectionate & vocal with members of their pack. There are so many lies being spread about wolves (such as the lie that they kill for sport, as if hunters, especially trophy hunters, don't) that it was nice to see an accurate portrayal of them.


You need to get your facts straight. It is well documented that wolves kill for sport also.

Next?


----------



## shell waster

triplelunger said:


> Apparently there's no time to waste!
> That 3 year time frame is based on a scientifically conducted survey, right?


You are correct just an opinion. A career (60 + years) trapper form Ontario (maynooth) told my brother and I that it will take 3 years for a pack of wolves to thin a deer herd out before moving on. When the pack moved into our area around Curtiss this 3 year opinion seemed to hold true. I have no problem with wolves as long as they can be surveyed and managed.

(Edit) I would like to see a study from the UP, that shows it does not take 3 years for a wolf pack to thin the deer out before moving on. My internet search skills are lacking because I could not find such study, but if someone could find one please send it to me, thank you.


----------



## kingfishcam

Well this has been some interesting reading.

The one thing that stands out after reading 14 pages is that most agree Michigan should be managing the wolf population. I believe the thread originated by trying to encourage a pro-active mindset on this topic.

So why all the fuss? Band together and let the sportsman voice be heard.


----------



## tommy-n

My poll will show the true results. I thought michigan hunters would be split between no wolves at all and some type of management plan to a have population but keep them in check.


----------

