# Wolf Thread



## Shotgun Kennel (Feb 9, 2007)

No lecture needed, I think anyone here understands the risks but thankfully now a hunter or farmer does not have to worry about becoming a criminal because they are protecting their dogs or livestock.


----------



## WestCoastHunter (Apr 3, 2008)

Shotgun Kennel said:


> No lecture needed, I think anyone here understands the risks but thankfully now a hunter or farmer does not have to worry about becoming a criminal because they are protecting their dogs or livestock.


Agreed

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## boomer_x7 (Dec 19, 2008)

WestCoastHunter said:


> No, but their owner(s) chose to put them into risky positions. Or rather, they gambled and lost when the big bad wolf called their bluffs.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


 
exactly -take out the wolf take out the risk-


----------



## k9wernet (Oct 15, 2007)

WestCoastHunter said:


> Accept it and assume responsibility if something bad happens to your dog or don't get into grouse hunting


Jarl, you keep saying this and I guess I'm not sure I know what you mean.

Can you elaborate on who's being irresponsible in your view and how/why?

KW


----------



## griffondog (Dec 27, 2005)

Shotgun Kennel said:


> There have been ten wolves killed in the UP in the past few months. Two by a farmer with a permit and 8 by wildlife officials which were getting to close to people according to a Michigan Outdoor News Story



Over 70 as of 10:00 am this morning.

Griff


----------



## Linda G. (Mar 28, 2002)

No, but I've only hunted in wolf country a couple of times in recent years. 

I have never had a problem with black bears, and I am surrounded by an excellent, and still growing, population of them. I see sign all the time. I just make enough noise when running/hunting the dog when we first get started in an area that they have plenty of warning ahead of time. I have seen bears at a distance several times. 

I've had a number of encounters in several different states with coyotes, including being stalked by a pack a couple of different times, and like someone else said, that frightened me more than anything else. 

I have never hunted with dogs in mountain lion country, and probably never will. 

"If you choose to put a dog into the woods, you roll the dice. Sticks, cliffs, broken glass, wolves, bear, cougar, snakes, porkies, cars...the life of a hunting dog is a risky one. Accept it and assume responsibility if something bad happens to your dog or don't get into grouse hunting."

Absolutely true, but I also do what I can to prevent problems-porky training, not hunting in areas with trash, etc. I don't ever try to buy trouble, particularly when I'm hunting alone.


----------



## griffondog (Dec 27, 2005)

Linda G. said:


> No, but I've only hunted in wolf country a couple of times in recent years.
> 
> I have never had a problem with black bears, and I am surrounded by an excellent, and still growing, population of them. I see sign all the time. I just make enough noise when running/hunting the dog when we first get started in an area that they have plenty of warning ahead of time. I have seen bears at a distance several times.
> 
> I've had a number of encounters in several different states with coyotes, including being stalked by a pack a couple of different times, and like someone else said, that frightened me more than anything else.


Linda In Michigan ,Wisconsin or Minnesota which I have seen the data for, hunting dogs killed by bear just doesn't happen very often. Wolves kill at least 40 to 1. Coyote's will work a dog just like wolves do and it is a fun way to hunt them with a decoy dog. At a third the weight of a adult wolf, a dog can hold his own till he figures out not to roll around with them.

Griff


----------



## 2ESRGR8 (Dec 16, 2004)

To my knowledge the most danger my dog has ever been in was from a doe with a bedded fawn while woodcock banding. 
That was a close call.


I don't think birddogs get killed or attacked by wolves much it is usually beagles or hounds from what I've read. 
Birddog attacks are actually quite rare.


----------



## WeimsRus (Oct 30, 2007)

You guys are comparing apples to oranges by comparing Black Bears to Wolves and Yotes. Your basic Black Bear is an omnivore where Wolves and Yotes are more carnivores. While the Black Bear is more than happy wandering around feeding on berries and other things like this, with an occasional opportunity meat meal. Wolves and Yotes would rather seek and kill meat. They can and do eat berries and other things like this, but would rather eat meat. When was the last time you heard of a "pack of Black Bears" hunting. Myself, never. The only time you have an issue with one is if you surprise it or if it views your dog as a threat to itself or it's Cubs. The reproduction of these two animals is also very different. Black Bear one or two offspring every one or two years three is unusual, versus a possible two litters a year of four or more. Come on, you do the math. Without proper control, the population will get out of control. Now you have many packs of hungry animals, when the population out grows the food supply. This is what is happening where it was mentioned about the section of the UP where packs are fighting. This is simple, control the population and control the issue. Or argue about it and suffer the results.


----------



## kgpcr (Apr 25, 2012)

We have lots of Wolves her in MN. I am not the least bit afraid of them but they NEED to be thinned out a bit. The deer heard in some areas has been decimated. Also some farmers are loosing animals to them and the are getting less and less afraid of people all the time. I would have no problem cutting their numbers. I am in no way calling for them to be exterminated!! Just a little thinning is all.


----------



## WestCoastHunter (Apr 3, 2008)

k9wernet said:


> Jarl, you keep saying this and I guess I'm not sure I know what you mean.
> 
> Can you elaborate on who's being irresponsible in your view and how/why?
> 
> KW


I said my piece. You hunt in wolf country in areas known to have active packs or better still at a time of year when they are denning you are just asking for it. Don't blame the wolf for your bad decision.

Keeping their numbers in check is reasonable. Playing the fear card and demonizing the things because someone was a dumb ass or just plain unlucky enough to have an encounter is not. 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## WestCoastHunter (Apr 3, 2008)

WeimsRus said:


> You guys are comparing apples to oranges by comparing Black Bears to Wolves and Yotes. Your basic Black Bear is an omnivore where Wolves and Yotes are more carnivores. While the Black Bear is more than happy wandering around feeding on berries and other things like this, with an occasional opportunity meat meal. Wolves and Yotes would rather seek and kill meat. They can and do eat berries and other things like this, but would rather eat meat. When was the last time you heard of a "pack of Black Bears" hunting. Myself, never. The only time you have an issue with one is if you surprise it or if it views your dog as a threat to itself or it's Cubs. The reproduction of these two animals is also very different. Black Bear one or two offspring every one or two years three is unusual, versus a possible two litters a year of four or more. Come on, you do the math. Without proper control, the population will get out of control. Now you have many packs of hungry animals, when the population out grows the food supply. This is what is happening where it was mentioned about the section of the UP where packs are fighting. This is simple, control the population and control the issue. Or argue about it and suffer the results.


Maybe US News and World Report got the findings wrong?

http://health.usnews.com/health-new...5/29/fatal-black-bear-attacks-rare-but-rising

According to them most fatal black bear attacks are predatory in nature and done by males. 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## WeimsRus (Oct 30, 2007)

WestCoastHunter said:


> Maybe US News and World Report got the findings wrong?
> 
> http://health.usnews.com/health-new...5/29/fatal-black-bear-attacks-rare-but-rising
> 
> ...


Not so much proving a point. "Rare but on the rise". 

"We didn't demonstrate why population growth is correlated with more bear attacks but we suspect it is because there are more people pursuing recreational and commercial activities in black bear habitat," noted Herrero. "Similarly, we don't know exactly why there have been more attacks in Canada and Alaska, but we speculate that it could be because bears in those areas are living in less productive habitat with periodic food stress, which may predispose some bears to consider people as prey."

Come on you can do better than a weak news article that is refering to 63 deaths from 1900 to 2009 from Black Bear attacks in "Canada, Alaska and the lower 48 states.


----------



## WestCoastHunter (Apr 3, 2008)

WeimsRus said:


> Not so much proving a point. "Rare but on the rise".
> 
> "We didn't demonstrate why population growth is correlated with more bear attacks but we suspect it is because there are more people pursuing recreational and commercial activities in black bear habitat," noted Herrero. "Similarly, we don't know exactly why there have been more attacks in Canada and Alaska, but we speculate that it could be because bears in those areas are living in less productive habitat with periodic food stress, which may predispose some bears to consider people as prey."
> 
> Come on you can do better than a weak news article that is refering to 63 deaths from 1900 to 2009 from Black Bear attacks in "Canada, Alaska and the lower 48 states.


You stated that the only time a person has a problem with a black bear is when they or their dog surprises them or gets in between them and their cubs. Apparently that not true, or at least I'm assuming the study US News referred to was done by people who looked at reports from Fish and Game people who likely put down the culprit bears and noted their sex. 

Besides, when was the last time you saw Cabela's selling wolf repellent? Maybe they should...

There is a legitimate and well thought out reason to keep wolf numbers down to a reasonable level in certain areas. If they out eat their food source they go looking elsewhere (farms, towns). Conventional wisdom would say that mother nature would starve a number of them out and things would rebalance and in a state like Alaska that might work a little. But here...

I get it. But don't come crying to me about encounters in the woods with the things while hunting and don't try to use that as a good reason to exterminate them or cut their numbers down to near nothing. Bad stuff can and does happen out there, wolf or no wolf, if you're not careful. Get over it.

Don't want a potential wolf encounter while hunting? Use your brain and don't hunt where they are. Otherwise assume some responsibility for your decision if things go bad.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## k9wernet (Oct 15, 2007)

griffondog said:


> Over 70 as of 10:00 am this morning.
> 
> Griff


link?


----------



## k9wernet (Oct 15, 2007)

WestCoastHunter said:


> Don't want a potential wolf encounter while hunting? Use your brain and don't hunt where they are. Otherwise assume some responsibility for your decision if things go bad.


To imply (or state outright) that someone is stupid or irresponsible for grouse hunting where there MIGHT be a wolf encounter is rude bordering on ignorant.

Undoubtedly there are all kinds of dangers inherent to running dogs in the grouse woods, but inherent danger is everywhere.

Jarl, you put yourself and your dog in a potentially lethal situation every time you jump on your bike with him. Every time you go to the dog park, there's a very real possibility that a pit bull will decide to give Juno a few new neck holes. Both decisions seem pretty stupid and irresponsible on the surface -- especially after something goes wrong -- but I assume you do everything you can to mitigate potential danger and make an intelligent decision. Taking a dog to the woods is no different.

If what you're talking about is accepting the consequences for those decisions, then I tend to agree for the most part. I hold that my dogs have lived better lives than 99% of the house dogs out there, due to the fact that they have had the opportunity do what they were bred to do. They stretch their legs, explore the wilderness, and every once in a while get a few feathers in their mouths. The scratches, gashes, thorns, impalements, ticks, and run-ins with wildlife are all a trade-off, but IMO the benefit is well worth the risk. That's part of the experience, and you deal with it and move on. I'm comfortable knowing that I've weighed the information, taken preventative steps, and made an intelligent decision. My decision might not be the same as yours, but does that make one of us stupid? I don't think so.

I'm all for accepting consequences in general, but with wolves a little indignation is understandable IMO simply due to the politics involved. 

The Great Lakes region has been politically stonewalled from doing any kind of wolf management for decades. People are fed up with the courts and the activists and they're taking it out on the wolves. Not fair to the wolves, but when the population is 10x the management goal in this region, something needs to be done.

A more logical argument is that it wasn't fair to the wolves to let the population get so out of hand. Again, I don't think we need to exterminate every last one of them (the activists on the other hand...), but I do think as management gets underway, the demonization will subside.

That said, ANY animal instigating a showdown with my dogs would be very fortunate to receive a warning shot.

That's my piece.

KW


----------



## Linda G. (Mar 28, 2002)

"Linda In Michigan ,Wisconsin or Minnesota which I have seen the data for, hunting dogs killed by bear just doesn't happen very often. Wolves kill at least 40 to 1. Coyote's will work a dog just like wolves do and it is a fun way to hunt them with a decoy dog. At a third the weight of a adult wolf, a dog can hold his own till he figures out not to roll around with them."

Thanks, I knew that. I have never been concerned about bears for that reason, but I have seen dogs killed by bears on several occasions-bear dogs that got too close to a cornered bear that refused to tree. Unfortunately, that's what the bear dog's owners, although heartbroken at their loss, called survival of the fittest...and it was. Only the bear dogs that get smart, learning to stay at least a bear's arms length away, survive long enought to breed. 

All the wolf stories, and the real existence of way too many deer ticks, are why I don't kill myself to get to the UP anymore, frankly. I don't know how many of the stories are true or not, and I don't want to find out...wolves slow me down, so do ticks...just as much. 

I've been stalked by single coyotes, but they only seemed curious. I have no doubt even a single coyote could kill my English Setter-a breed not exactly known for their ferocity...LOL...but only when I have had an entire pack behind me, which has happened on several occasions, did I call the dog into heel and make sure the shotgun was fully loaded.


----------



## WeimsRus (Oct 30, 2007)

"You stated that the only time a person has a problem with a black bear is when they or their dog surprises them or gets in between them and their cubs. Apparently that not true, or at least I'm assuming the study US News referred to was done by people who looked at reports from Fish and Game people who likely put down the culprit bears and noted their sex."

My bad, should have said. I my 30+ years of hunting, the only time I have personally known this to happen is when you surprise one. By personally, I also will say this is someone who I do know and have hunted with. My personal encounters with them when hunting, the Black Bears only wanted to move away from my dogs and me because there was no threat to them. To *assume *that article by the US News is about as good as to *assume *the Fish and Game people are really up on the population. They have disputed a Wolf population for years, until it started to get out of control and then... Poof, they were taken off the endangered list. 
*[/COLOR]* 
Besides, when was the last time you saw Cabela's selling wolf repellent? Maybe they should...

Sold everyday at Cabela's, is called ammunition. The Bear spray will work on Wolves too. If you want them that close. 

There is a legitimate and well thought out reason to keep wolf numbers down to a reasonable level in certain areas. If they out eat their food source they go looking elsewhere (farms, towns). Conventional wisdom would say that mother nature would starve a number of them out and things would rebalance and in a state like Alaska that might work a little. But here...

Conventional wisdom would make you think about the difference in size and population of Michigan and Alaska. Not so much a good referance.

I get it. But don't come crying to me about encounters in the woods with the things while hunting and don't try to use that as a good reason to exterminate them or cut their numbers down to near nothing. Bad stuff can and does happen out there, wolf or no wolf, if you're not careful. Get over it.

Not crying to you or anyone, didn't see where anyone wanted exterminate but maybe start controling the population. I also will and have hunted where I darn well please. I am well aware of the fact that I can lose dogs or be injured myself, and have already lost some dogs when I was younger. This isn't saying I want to lose more because of Tree Kissers crying, "Oh, don't kill them they are only doing what is Natural." 

Don't want a potential wolf encounter while hunting? Use your brain and don't hunt where they are. Otherwise assume some responsibility for your decision if things go bad.

There is that *assume *word again, guess I am *ASSUMING *you are more the bird preserve type of hunter and have had no experiance hunting wild animals in remote locations. Have had no experiance with Pack Animals luring your dogs out for the kill, or have even been hunting and just heard a "Yip". Never to see your hunting partner again. Let the population of these animal get more out of control and you too will discover the feeling of the long ride home alone that I did when I was 17.


----------



## Jim58 (Jan 16, 2010)

http://youtu.be/IlyMUOfW6Ko


----------

