# wolves yes or no



## fairfax1

Is there a credible citation for this assertion? 

_"These wolves are not the same species as the original gray wolf. These are as if you had a profession sports team play a high school team. They are bigger and badder....." _


----------



## plugger

I am not certain a population that becomes established in a predomiately grain or crop production agriculural area will be controlable. On the ag boards many farmers have gone from carying a rifle to plink at coyotes to protecting them as they feel the yotes help reduce deer numbers. Livestock producers will continue to oppose establishment of any predators. Pasturing of livestock in michigan has declined with most prduction being confinement. Much of the southern michigan ag base is becoming based on grain production. Grain producers would benifit from a healthy wolf population and may thwort efforts desinged to control predators. I hear some farmers joking they wish they could buy a pack of wolves and a dozen cougars.


----------



## WAUB-MUKWA

fairfax1 said:


> Is there a credible citation for this assertion?
> 
> _"These wolves are not the same species as the original gray wolf. These are as if you had a profession sports team play a high school team. They are bigger and badder....." _


They are a sub species, and are the larger Northern Canadian wolf. It is not the same breed that was once originally here 100 years ago.


----------



## WAUB-MUKWA

My thoughts, The wolf is here to stay. Let it come naturally and DO NOT TRANSPLANT IT any where else! These kook's who want to re-wild the lower 48 with wolves are fruit cases. Look at the cougar attacks out West since you cant trap or hunt them anymore, and the coyutes when you can't control them either. They killed plenty of little kids. 

The wolf will be delisted this fall, its a guarantee, The USF&W has done everything the goody two shoes do-gooders wanted. Even the last judge said it's time to move on. Their numbers have a long time to level off in the U.P. :woohoo1:


----------



## fairfax1

Is there a credible citation for this assertion?

_"They are a sub species, and are the larger Northern Canadian wolf. It is not the same breed that was once originally here 100 years ago."_


----------



## tommy-n

All I know is 48% of the voters don't want them no matter what breed they are


----------



## Nick Adams

Some claim that historically we never had anything other than Canis Lupus lycaon, a smaller subspecies found today in eastern Canada and historically along the eastern seaboard. 

We have Canis lupus nublis now. We had this same subspecies in the Upper Lake States historically as well.

I think the assertion fairfax is questioning gets traction because the subspecies debate is a hotter topic in the western US. 

-na


----------



## boehr

tommy-n said:


> All I know is 48% of the voters don't want them no matter what breed they are


I must have missed that vote. When did that vote take place? Does that mean 52% want them?


----------



## fairfax1

_"Does that mean 52% want them?"_

A bingo!

Ah, Boehr, you can be a helluva sharpshooter when you're in the mood.


----------



## tommy-n

boehr said:


> I must have missed that vote. When did that vote take place? Does that mean 52% want them?


Too funny, the 48% are taking care of business as we speak


----------



## boehr

tommy-n said:


> Too funny, the 48% are taking care of business as we speak


I don't know what that means either. Does that mean 48% taking care of business are poachers? Seems a little high to me but then I have no data to dispute it so if you say so. I'm still trying to figure out when this vote took place.


----------



## duxdog

To ask people if they want x number of wolves isn't a good idea IMO. the average joe has no idea what the correct number is. Just throwing a 500 or 1000 number isn't very good data. Maybe the poll should be chioce A or B, no wolves or wolves.


----------



## Nick Adams

duxdog said:


> Maybe the poll should be chioce A or B, no wolves or wolves.












http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/Wolf_White_Paper_178870_7.pdf

-na


----------



## tommy-n

Thanks for your post Nick, I think the numbers have probably changed some since 2005. I did enjoy looking it over

Boehr, Just so you knowI try to follow all the rules and laws. That would probably explain why I have never been in trouble. But it's safe to sat not everyone plays by the rules


----------



## itchn2fish

Managed pop of ~1000 lwr & upr


----------



## Nick Adams

tommy-n said:


> Thanks for your post Nick, I think the numbers have probably changed some since 2005.


Fortunately for both of us, none of the opinion polls has any bearing on whether or not Michigan hosts a resident population of wolves in the future. That is already settled as a matter of law.

The only question that remains is how well we manage this resource going forward.

-na


----------



## duxdog

LOL, we have been managing the resource in our area the last few years just fine.


----------



## Shlwego

Nick Adams said:


> Fortunately for both of us, none of the opinion polls has any bearing on whether or not Michigan hosts a resident population of wolves in the future. That is already settled as a matter of law.
> 
> The only question that remains is how well we manage this resource going forward.
> 
> -na


 
I'm not sure why it's "fortunate." Opinion polls should have bearing, and if opinions change so should laws. When the opinion of the majority wants something and it is contravined, some would call that tyranny.

Michigan may "host" a population of wolves, but "hosts" are things that carry parasites, and lots of people view wolves in Michigan that way: as parasites. Regardless of the fact that they came back to the state by themselves, it does not mean that they "belong" here anymore. Yes, you're correct, they're here and there is a "plan" for eastern timberwolf recovery. That doesn't mean it is a "good" plan or that it will work out AS planned. If it doesn't, then laws can be changed, "settled" or not. There was once a bounty paid out on wolves - it was "settled" law at the time, and that law changed. The law currently protecting wolves could also change, given time and a change in the public's perspective on the value of wolves.

I'm not sure what you mean when you call wolves a "resource." Resources are things to be used, so if wolves are a resource to be used, used for what? For re-enforcing the illusion that Michigan is a wilderness? As atonement for the sins of our forefathers who obviously didn't have a clue when they extirpated the wolves a century and a half ago? Bunk! Do you really think that a top level predator can be re-natived into an environment that it has NOT been a part of for over a century with any semblance of balance? Do you really want to try to return Michigan to the way it was 150+ years ago when we had native elk and moose, wolves and cougars? If so, then MUCH more would need to be done to truly achieve that while at the same time providing an acceptable degree of natural balance. What else would you have us change? We cant easily ask people to leave so that there is more open wilderness. The vast majority of the forests in the State were clear cut and the re-growth does not have the same bio-diversity that the original forests had. Most of the wetlands in the State have been tiled, drained, and diked for farmland; making their restoration virtually impossible. We had rivers that supported a native population of grayling, and all re-introduction efforts have failed. We have foolishly allowed scores of invasive species into our environment. I could go on, but my intent is to show that for better or worse Michigan is NOT the place it was in the 1800s when the wolves were extirpated, and that even if we wished to, we could not turn it BACK into that place. Taking all this into consideration it's a given that the grey wolf has come back into a drastically altered environment compared to what we had the last time wolves roamed wild in Michigan. Change is inevitable and change has happened. Since the environment has changed so drastically, do you really believe that having the wolf back can or will put things into some sort of balance that were currently lacking? If so, HOW exactly? My fear is that given our current environment, wolves will be yet another destabilizing factor. Can you tell me, with concrete examples please, why this would NOT be the case? 

Wolves will do what they do, and we can't blame them for doing it. However, when wolves become a serious problem - and they will - peoples opinions of them will begin to shift. The only question that remains is how long it's going to be until the idea of re-extirpation begins to be whispered within the general population. And how long after that it gains traction politically. Not if it gains traction, but when. When it does, it will only be a matter of time until the law changes. Is this really what we want for the species? Because it's where I believe we're headed. Wolves are indeed here for the forseeable future, but that does not mean that it is a *good *future for them or for Michigan. There are other places in North America where they are not in danger of extinction, and are not creating conflict with humans. Let's let them HAVE those places, but let's not try to make Michigan into the same thing, because frankly, we can't. That's my opinion. I know I am not alone in having it, and I'm guessing that more people will begin to feel that way as the wolf population grows.


----------



## Nick Adams

Shlwego said:


> I'm not sure what you mean when you call wolves a "resource." Resources are things to be used...


Resources are things that offer utility. Recreational consumption is only one form of utility. All of the wildlife in the state, game and non-game, are considered public resources.



Shlwego said:


> Do you really think that a top level predator can be re-natived into an environment that it has NOT been a part of for over a century with any semblance of balance? Do you really want to try to return Michigan to the way it was 150+ years ago when we had native elk and moose, wolves and cougars?


Some of our disagreement on this is a result of different perspectives based on living in significantly different portions of the state. The gap between the UP as it exists today and the UP of 100 or 150 years ago isn't nearly as wide as that same gap in the SLP. I do think the wolf is a useful addition to the environment here in the UP. I don't live or manage land below the bridge and am completely ambivalent over what the State decides to do with wolves in the NLP or SLP.

We have moose, cougars and wolves in the UP. Balance is simply a matter of time.



Shlwego said:


> If so, then MUCH more would need to be done to truly achieve that while at the same time providing an acceptable degree of natural balance. What else would you have us change? We can&#8217;t easily ask people to leave so that there is more open wilderness.


I'm not interested in a 1800's ecological museum. I'm interested in improving the ecosystem we have today.

There isn't as much human-wolf conflict as some here would have you believe at current population levels. And, in case you hadn't noticed, most of the counties in the UP have had consistently declining populations for the last 6 decades or so, ever since the end of mining in the area. People have been leaving for reasons that have nothing to do with wolves. The same demographic trend is true for many rural areas in the northern US (Maine, Minnesota, the Dakotas, Montana, etc). I'm not an advocate for that demographic trend, but it is what it is.



Shlwego said:


> The vast majority of the forests in the State were clear cut and the re-growth does not have the same bio-diversity that the original forests had.


I think you are overstating that. We have lost biodiversity due to introduced pests (Dutch Elm disease, Chestnut blight, Emerald Ash Borer). The early logging period and subsequent fires had very little effect on overall biodiversity over the long term (nothing that time wouldn't resolve) beyond shifting the species mix to less pine and more hardwood. 



Shlwego said:


> Most of the wetlands in the State have been tiled, drained, and diked for farmland; making their restoration virtually impossible.


Down by you. Not up here.



Shlwego said:


> We had rivers that supported a native population of grayling, and all re-introduction efforts have failed. We have foolishly allowed scores of invasive species into our environment. I could go on, but my intent is to show that for better or worse Michigan is NOT the place it was in the 1800s when the wolves were extirpated, and that even if we wished to, we could not turn it BACK into that place. Taking all this into consideration it's a given that the grey wolf has come back into a drastically altered environment compared to what we had the last time wolves roamed wild in Michigan. Change is inevitable and change has happened.


None of this is an argument that supports intentionally maintaining a lower level of biodiversity by writing off species that used to exist here, like moose or wolves. I don't care if it's never going to be exactly like the 1800's. That isn't the objective. The objective is to increase biodiversity and structure in the ecosystem of today by returning some of the components that were previously removed. 



Shlwego said:


> Since the environment has changed so drastically, do you really believe that having the wolf back can or will put things into some sort of balance that we&#8217;re currently lacking? If so, HOW exactly?


More large predators will help level out the spikes and crashes in the deer population, leading to better deer habitat, among other things. On a smaller scale more large predators keep the deer moving and reduce localized overbrowsing. 



Shlwego said:


> My fear is that given our current environment, wolves will be yet another destabilizing factor. Can you tell me, with concrete examples please, why this would NOT be the case?


Ecological stability (i.e. stasis) isn't the goal, ecological resiliance is. A more diverse, more structured ecosystem is better able to adapt to outside changes or disruptions without collapsing into a lower order, less utilitarian state. In exaggerated layman's terms, we are looking to avoid recreating the ecosystem of Wayne County across Alger county.



Shlwego said:


> when wolves become a serious problem - and they will - peoples opinions of them will begin to shift.


I honestly see the trend going the other way. The percentage of our population living in urban areas has been increasing for decades. The percentage engaged in farming has been on a long steady decline. The amount of livestock raised free range has been decreasing for decades. Grain farmers tend to be more concerned over deer than wolves. All of this is likely to lead to fewer human-wolf conflicts in the future rather than more.

Wolves have always existed in Northeastern Minnesota. There have been no cries for their eradication due to ever increasing "problems". It is a popular recreation area (Ely, BWCA, Gunflint Trail, etc) despite the presence of wolves. Large portions of the UP are very similar to NE Minnesota in terms of human population density, large, contiguous tracts of public land and minimal farming activity. 

I'm not seeing any evidence of your downward spiral in public support for wolves in the UP among the general population.

-na


----------



## S.NIEMI

Nick Adams said:


> I'm not seeing any evidence of your downward spiral in public support for wolves in the UP among the general population.
> 
> -na


 You live in your own little world. enjoy!


----------



## WAUB-MUKWA

2PawsRiver said:


> garygorham said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't we listen to the people that live with the wolves. Not only this state but all states . It seems to me that almost all the people that live around them have nothing good to say about them. Maybe the wildlife biologist and whoever makes a living off them want them and everyone else that lives by them do not want them. So all you people from zone 3 stay out of the debate,you have no right to open your mouth,so please* shut up your pie hole.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> 
> You would think a big strong internet tough guy would just whoop a wolf.:lol:
> 
> 
> 
> Open a big can. Made me laugh pretty good 2paws.
Click to expand...


----------



## Critter

They were all killed off for a reason, lets keep it that way.


----------



## bear50

Whit1 said:


> *"If you think that the MDNRE is not protecting them at all costs then why does a MDNRE Conservation Officer show up at the kill scene when a radio alarm goes off?"*
> 
> Because killing wolves is against the law and the MDNRE/COs are tasked with upholding the law.
> 
> *"Why does a MDNRE biologist show up when one gets caught in a coyote trap?Why does the MDNRE spend bookoo dollars of our license money chasing them around the UP?"*
> 
> I think we've been down this road before, but here goes again. In order to get the wolves OFF the endangered species list the MDNRE must have data to support their claims. Gathering data costs money.
> 
> *"Why does the MDNRE even have a wolf management plan?"*
> 
> See the above answer.
> 
> *"Just like IDAHO did Michigan can choose to protect the wildlife within its boarders and open a wolf season reguardless what the feds want to do. *
> 
> According to this article this would be news to Idahoans not to mention other states in the N. Rockies, but also the feds.
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101129/ap_on_re_us/us_wolves_salazar
> 
> Not only are you looking for simplistic answers you claim that the answers are already in place and, simply put, they aren't.


Why even argue with this guy ( Holmes ) ? Just reading his and Chumpawampa's post says everything. If my kids were this dumb I would be crushed. This just goes to show do not send your kids to a UP public school !!! These two remind me of the New York Jets by running their mouths all day but have no clue what is going on.


----------



## 2PawsRiver

bear50 said:


> Why even argue with this guy ( Holmes ) ? Just reading his and Chumpawampa's post says everything. If my kids were this dumb I would be crushed. This just goes to show do not send your kids to a UP public school !!! These two remind me of the New York Jets by running their mouths all day but have no clue what is going on.


Just like you, my opinion is different then theirs, but I don't think that justifies personal insults.


----------



## Fabner1

Critter said:


> They were all killed off for a reason, lets keep it that way.


Prezactly!

Fred


----------



## Sib

Critter said:


> They were all killed off for a reason, lets keep it that way.


Give it a bit more thought. "They" were also the same people that almost exterminated deer in this state by the late 1800s. Remember people are bitching about wolves, because of the current deer population in the UP, but "they" left you fewer deer than the wolves are. :lol:


----------



## Spartan88

Wolves are not protected in London at Trader Vics, why are they here?


----------



## MERGANZER

Wolves as many animal populations need to be managed accordingly. Do we have too many? By what I have heard over the past few years yes. What do we do? We manage them through a lottery system for tags. We need to keep numbers down so they do not eat themselves into extinction here in Michigan. To say kill em all is pretty ignorant and shows no knowledge of properly managed populations. The Wolf is a beautiful and powerful animal that we should be proud to have in the state but they need to be under control. Hunting/trapping tags could do this quite easily and efficiently in a short time while bringing much needed revenue to the DNR. Lets manage them and push the state to do that not kill them all off that would be the wrong approach.

Ganzer


----------



## Robert Holmes

bear50 said:


> Why even argue with this guy ( Holmes ) ? Just reading his and Chumpawampa's post says everything. If my kids were this dumb I would be crushed. This just goes to show do not send your kids to a UP public school !!! These two remind me of the New York Jets by running their mouths all day but have no clue what is going on.


 I need some entertainment there Bear 50. How many wolves have you encountered in the last 5 years? If you would like to have the opportunity to look one in the eyes feel free to come up and go ice fishing. I have already had the opportunity to see three of them in 2011 all three were winthin 100 yards of me. BTW I did not go to school in the UP.


----------



## 2PawsRiver

Robert Holmes said:


> I need some entertainment there Bear 50. How many wolves have you encountered in the last 5 years? If you would like to have the opportunity to look one in the eyes feel free to come up and go ice fishing. I have already had the opportunity to see three of them in 2011 all three were winthin 100 yards of me. BTW I did not go to school in the UP.


Any pictures.


----------



## Robert Holmes

No pictures, I am more interested in carrying weapons of self defense than a camera. At 75 to 100 yards out you will not get a quality picture anyway. One was black which it may have shown up on the picture, the other two were gray which would not show up against the ice background. You have to keep in mind when I am out ice fishing I have no trees to climb and nowhere to run if attacked plus add the weight of the winter clothes and heavy boots. I would have to fight it out and I am prepared to do so. I walk out so I do not have a snowmobile ot ATV that I can hop on either.


----------



## Spartan88

Robert Holmes said:


> I have already had the opportunity to see three of them in 2011 all three were winthin 100 yards of me.


Whas their hair perfect?


----------



## Robert Holmes

Spartan88 said:


> Whas their hair perfect?


They were headed across the lake when they arrive in NLP let me know:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Robert Holmes

Good post. I believe that if a child or for that matter an adult is harmed by one of these animals the UP residents will be setting off collar alarms at a very rapid pace.


----------



## Spartan88

Robert Holmes said:


> They were headed across the lake when they arrive in NLP let me know:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


[/COLOR] 
All joking aside, just wait till they start dining at the restaurant called The Pigeon, elk is on the menu there.


----------



## TrekJeff

Keep them and let nature take it's course. Man has altered the ecosystem in this country to much. Rather than voting with emotion take a scientific look at the reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone and other areas of the country, the benifits have out weight any archaic myth and fear. Google "Keystone species" and Wolves.


----------



## houndcrazy

:smile-mad


cedar said:


> Your poll is NOT SCIENTIFIC. In general, online polls are not a good measure of public sentiment. This poll is a good example of that; you are only obtaining the opinion of a small segment of the population (hard-core hunters.)
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the case, why is the wolf population in Michigan increasing? If wolf poaching is as widespread as you want us to believe it is, shouldn't the wolf population be declining?
> 
> i have 2 things to say. 1st of science is wat should be used. but the goverment wont use it, we NO DOUBT have a huntable populations of those mangy dogs. its all political, thats y we dont have season.
> #2 we dont have enough poaching to lower them to much. :smile-mad:help:


----------



## garygorham

How many people thats posted here recently are from the u.p.? Like I said if you do not live in the u.p. stay out of others people business. Read Proverbs26:17 He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears. In other words stay out of other peoples business like I said. That is not me just talking it is in the Word of God. Please read it yourself.


----------



## 2PawsRiver

I'll bet there are more people on this thread that are from the UP, then are people who are concerned with what you have to say. Conversely, I'll bet there are more people that think you might be a bit off, then there are people from the UP........spend a few days figuring that one out.

I would like to see a picture of a Michigan wolf. One of you guys should be able to take one in the morning and post it.

Will be back in the UP for a few days next month. Will bring my camera and should have a chance to see and photograph one myself.....assuming I make it back live I will post a picture.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## fairfax1

_"...... Like I said if you do not live in the u.p. stay out of others people business. .........That is not me just talking it is in the Word of God."_

Well now, so you're channeling God on this wolf issue? 
What did he tell you about moving the Firearm Opener?
What's his opinion on the possibility of a Moose Season?


----------



## garygorham

I am going to take my own advice and stay out of this as I am not from the u.p, I hope Mark will do the same.


----------



## garygorham

Fairfax , Do you believe in God I hope so? It has nothing to do with channeling if you would read it, that is what it says. As I said I will take my own advice and let the upers haggle this thing out. If you would like to know more about the book please pm me. Thanks.


----------



## 2PawsRiver

Mark is from the UP.....and it is always good to see someone that appreciates God's words.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## garygorham

Thanks for your kind words . I guess you have a dog in this fight. Sorry for butting in.


----------



## houndcrazy

im not from the yooper, im from NLP, but i bear hunt with hounds around houghton and baraga, and i am scared to take my dogs there, im afraid to lose one, losing even one would be the last straw....and if we get those wolves down here (i live and guide elk hunts right on the southern edge of the pigeon river country) we wont have many deer or elk left, just a buncha dog killing, stock theiving, mangy wolves.:rant::rant::help:


----------



## doogie mac

bear50 said:


> Why even argue with this guy ( Holmes ) ? Just reading his and Chumpawampa's post says everything. If my kids were this dumb I would be crushed. This just goes to show do not send your kids to a UP public school !!! These two remind me of the New York Jets by running their mouths all day but have no clue what is going on.


Typical moronic viewpoint. My wife really got a kick out of your comment about your "opinion" of upper penninsula school systems. Shes an administrator at a u.p. school district-shes also a native yooper with a doctorate degree. 
You really are an idiot,wolf topic or not!


----------



## 2PawsRiver

houndcrazy said:


> im not from the yooper, im from NLP, but i bear hunt with hounds around houghton and baraga, and i am scared to take my dogs there, im afraid to lose one, losing even one would be the last straw....and if we get those wolves down here (i live and guide elk hunts right on the southern edge of the pigeon river country) we wont have many deer or elk left, just a buncha dog killing, stock theiving, mangy wolves.:rant::rant::help:


Just mix a couple of these in and problem solved.


----------



## triplelunger

Spartan88 said:


> [/COLOR]
> All joking aside, just wait till they start dining at the restaurant called The Pigeon, elk is on the menu there.




I always thought they prefer beef chow mein.


----------



## bear50

doogie mac said:


> Typical moronic viewpoint. My wife really got a kick out of your comment about your "opinion" of upper penninsula school systems. Shes an administrator at a u.p. school district-shes also a native yooper with a doctorate degree.
> You really are an idiot,wolf topic or not!


Did you attend her school. It would be " she's " not shes. Idiot ( space ), (space ) wolf. Thanks for helping me prove my point :lol:. If you want to get deeper into the subject you can look up the Iowa and other tests scores and then tell me who the idiot is. The scores for the UP schools are scary. If I were a tax payer I would demand that the people running these schools be canned. Numbers don't lie !!


----------



## WAUB-MUKWA

bear50 said:


> Did you attend her school. It would be " she's " not shes. Idiot ( space ), (space ) wolf. Thanks for helping me prove my point :lol:. If you want to get deeper into the subject you can look up the Iowa and other tests scores and then tell me who the idiot is. The scores for the UP schools are scary. If I were a tax payer I would demand that the people running these schools be canned. Numbers don't lie !!


You are just burying yourself deeper.


----------



## WAUB-MUKWA

bear50 said:


> Did you attend her school. It would be " she's " not shes. Idiot ( space ), (space ) wolf. Thanks for helping me prove my point :lol:. If you want to get deeper into the subject you can look up the Iowa and other tests scores and then tell me who the idiot is. The scores for the UP schools are scary. If I were a tax payer I would demand that the people running these schools be canned. Numbers don't lie !!


Looking into your past 67 posts one has to wonder where you were educated.


----------



## doogie mac

bear50 said:


> Did you attend her school. It would be " she's " not shes. Idiot ( space ), (space ) wolf. Thanks for helping me prove my point :lol:. If you want to get deeper into the subject you can look up the Iowa and other tests scores and then tell me who the idiot is. The scores for the UP schools are scary. If I were a tax payer I would demand that the people running these schools be canned. Numbers don't lie !!


 Hey jackwagon,it's sposta go sumthin like dis---"Did you attend her school?" (umm....you forgot to put question mark at da end of da sentence)
Iowa testing hasnt been used for over ten years. 
Yer funny little man(oops!!!,i tink i spelled sumthin wrong). My advice to you would be get back on the topic of wolves,and also try to turn that frown upside down!!!! =


----------



## bear50

doogie mac said:


> Hey jackwagon,it's sposta go sumthin like dis---"Did you attend her school?" (umm....you forgot to put question mark at da end of da sentence)
> Iowa testing hasnt been used for over ten years.
> Yer funny little man(oops!!!,i tink i spelled sumthin wrong). My advice to you would be get back on the topic of wolves,and also try to turn that frown upside down!!!! =


Iowa tests are still used  , and hasnt is hasn't :lol: :SHOCKED::SHOCKED:


----------



## bear50

If Chimpa wimpa and Holmes see wolves everytime out then why have we not seen new pictures on a dily basis.


----------



## WAUB-MUKWA

bear50 said:


> If Chimpa wimpa and Holmes see wolves everytime out then why have we not seen new pictures on a dily basis.


You're not worth it, thats why.


----------



## FINNyooper

Really? Do you all really need to act like 13 year old girls? I cannot see how this thread is not deleted, I would be apt to make a real comment but some non YOOPER would then feel the desire to say I have a second rate education. Would it trouble you all to grow up?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## sbooy42

wow just wow.. thats all I can say about the direction this thread has gone..


----------



## doogie mac

sbooy42 said:


> wow just wow.. thats all I can say about the direction this thread has gone..


 Yep,Im done with this one. Ive got better things to do than to deal with this.


----------



## HUBBHUNTER

doogie mac said:


> Yep,Im done with this one. Ive got better things to do than to deal with this.


I have avoided this thread for the same reason as you but I did feel like popping in for a moment and was a bit suprised at the poll results. 48% of pollers don't want any wolves at all, ok I get that as we are michigan deer hunters and most are not happy with our hunting and the effects wolves have on hunting. I was also not suprised that 7% of pollers wanted no management of the wolf population at all seeing that most pollers are deer hunters. What I don't understand is how in the grand scheme of things how such a small number of people who don't want any managemnt of wolves at all are winning the fight? 

The numbers on this poll do not reflect the general public but I find it hard to believe that in the real world, ie Michigan, there would be more people for unlimited wolf numbers that say a managed balanced herd. 

All this just leads me to believe those pulling the strings in the DNRE as well as in Lansing and even Washington DC really do not have a firm grasp on reality and the UP deer and wolf numbers.

I would like to add that if you didn't already know this you have had your head in the sand way too long.

It's amazing this thread is still going...


----------



## thekoch

I voted none. Man took over the role of being the dominate predator. The wolves where necessary at one time in the history of this country. Now the wolves are not required because of man taking up the slack of managing the herd. There can be only one dominate predator. 
If people want to see wolves they can go to a zoo or Alaska/Canada where because of small human impact the wolves are required to keep nature in balance. But as far as here. Get rid of them all. You also have to think down the road with more rural areas being converted into livable areas the wolves have nowhere to go. I think its bad that we are trying to play God. Everything has changed with the wild places and it can never support the way it once was.
Ok I'm gunna stop there. I could go on for years about this. Biggest thing is people don't know or understand mans new role in nature. And that's y there will be issues until we do.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------

