Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All the lawsuits by animal rights activists based not on science but their opposition to any killing of wolves did the wolves no real favor, since the fiasco the reintroduction out west turned into has essentially doomed any chances of an eastern reintroduction in states like NY, VT, NH and ME where suitable habitat exists.
I agree 100%.
People tend to rally around a species for superficial reasons, because it's "cute," "beautiful," or - in this case - reminds them of their own household pet. If the gray wolf had been ugly and not resembled a Fido, I don't think it would have had the same level of support.
I like wolves. More importantly, I recognize the value of their place in the ecosystem. That said, when their population gets large enough that it begins to affect other species, it needs to be managed, just like anything else.
Here in MN, we have a climbing wolf population, despite two years of legal wolf hunts. Simultaneously, we have a decline in both the deer and moose populations, some of which was arguably attributed to the wolves, themselves.
Now, the decision has been made that wolves should be protected until they're "restored across their natural range..." in the U.S. My question for this judge would be: how many wolves will we have in Northern MN before there are wolves in places like Vermont?
In his decision, the judge also said something about the fact that wolves need to be protected because they're disliked so much. The problem with that rationale is that when we had legal hunting seasons, many folks who had traditionally hated wolves had finally started to see some value in them. Yes, it was as a trophy animal, but I have to think that - given time - it might have kept a lot of would-be illegal wolf killings from occurring. Now, we're back to these people viewing the wolf simply as an evil creature bent on taking away their chance at a trophy deer, so the value factor is gone.
For MN at least, I think his decision - though well-intentioned - will do more harm for the wolf than good.
Now, the decision has been made that wolves should be protected until they're "restored across their natural range..." in the U.S. My question for this judge would be: how many wolves will we have in Northern MN before there are wolves in places like Vermont?
Once those who live in heavily settled rural areas close to northeastern cities deal with the realities of wolf kills, policies may change rapidly. Nature isn't a Disney film.
Baiting is good because it gives the shooter more time to look at what they are shooting.....making sure they have a license for that kill.
Then we will simply disagree on this issue. To me, baiting is unsporting and for lazy people...and it gives hunters a bad name. Shooting an animal over a bait pile is not "hunting".
That was an excellent article. I remember reading it when it was first published in 2001 (since I happened to know some of the people involved).
For those who don't take the time to read it, the article confirms that Michigan's wolf population is due to natural recovery--not to any reintroduction program. Early on, there was an attempt to re-introduce four wolves to the U.P. from Minnesota, but that effort was unsuccessful. Backwards myths about wolves were largely responsibly for the negative reaction that those wolves received at the time. A lot of progress has subsequently been made about our understanding of wolves...but, unfortunately, we seem to be backsliding again.
You do now people buy licenses from the state to kill bear......right???
The state does this to manage wild life.
Dog management is another subject........and our dogs are not strays.
Yes, people buy licenses to harvest animals as part of a given state's wildlife management efforts, but the method in which they do it is another matter.
Yes, people buy licenses to harvest animals as part of a given state's wildlife management efforts, but the method in which they do it is another matter.
Not to the state of Michigan.
Hunting with dogs is legal.
We even have a training season.....that also requires a license.
Are Gray Wolves endangered worldwide or just the USA?
They're not endangered in Alaska. The European wolves have been extirpated from several countries. How many wolves are in the UK? For example.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
