03 January 2004, 04:03
<boreal>To RMK and your imaginary friends,
I have a MS in Aquatic Biology.
Lived in N MN for 50 years.
Lived in the Arrowhead for the past 13 years.
What are your qualifications? Let me guess!
Evil little trolls that live to spew your filth and bile toward anyone who disagreers with you. Living in your primordial-ooze pit mumbling to yourselves. Rolling in your filth. You have no class.
If RMK and his ilk would clean up their presentation style, I would gladly reply to their theories, no matter how misguided they are. If what Rocky Mountain residents want are game farms in the west, then go for it. Pay the money, go shoot some placid elk and go home. Quite an adventure, huh? For, of course because we know how to "manage game better", we can get rid of the wolf, the coyote, the bear, the fox, the harrier, the owl, the songbird that preys upon the insects that destroy our crops. Heck, lets get rid of all the predators except us. Then we can take our two weeks off every year, travel to the great western plains, where we can shoot some moo-moos in their pens, then go back home to our dreary little office. Not me!
Despite the fact that I feel wolves belong in a few places in the west, I really don't care that much. The west is pretty much domesticated anyway and I already live in relative wild. I do know, however, that the die is cast, and you rabid anti-wolf types are in the stranglehold of the whim of the masses.
I can understand why Brent does not post on this forum about this, as he probably gets the same welcome as I have. I thought he was from Iowa or something.
The rest of you fellers seem pretty centered to me. I hope we can disagree about a small part of this stuff. I hope you have not fallen to RMK's belief that everyone who is for the wolf introductions is a queer, animal rights activist, raisin gobblin', tofu eatin', whatever.
This discussion has pushed me even further into my beliefs. I have learned how evil and vile some of the anti-wilderness people are!
I leave you all and this forum with a little classiness from Theodore Roosevelt's book; THE WILDERNESS HUNTER. Now THIS sounds like jolly good adventure!!!
"The true way to kill wolves, however, is to hunt them with greyhounds on the great plains. Nothing more exciting than this sport can possibly be imagined."......."Prize-winning dogs of high pedigree often prove useless for the purposes. If by careful choice, however, a ranchman can get together a pack composed of both the smooth-haired greyhound and the rough-haired Scotch deer-hound, he can have excellent sport. The greyhounds sometimes do best if they have a slight cross of bulldog in their veins; but this is not necessary. If once a greyhound can be fully entered to the sport and aquires confidence, then its wonderful agility, its sinewy strength and speed, and the terrible snap with which its jaws come together, render it a most formidable assailant. Nothing can possibly exceed the gallantry with which good greyhounds, when their blood is up, fling themselves on a wolf or any other foe. There does not exist, and there never has existed on the wide earth, a more perfect type of dauntless courage than such a hound. Not Cushing when he steered his little launch through the black night against the great ram Albemarle, not Custer dashing into the Rosebud to die with all his men, not Farragut himself lashed in the rigging of the Hartford as she forged past the forts to encounter her iron-clad foe, can stand as the more perfect type of dauntless valor."
Bye
04 January 2004, 03:44
<boreal>I was not going to return to this forum because its apparently a total waste of time. I've got better things to do (coyote hunting today). But I "got to wondering" how many of the "filth and lie" crowd here really are ignorant and lacking in reading comprehension and how many are just one or two posters under several names that use the style and back each other. kudu likes to open with agressive profanity, then writes his opinion, then ends with more disgusting profanity. That way I won't answer him and his argument will then stand, unchallenged. Its an old ploy that many fall for. Some may think that I simply don't have an argument for his opinion, when in reality his presentation destroys his credibility and is not worth an answer. It is effective, however, and many fall for the ploy.
Another example;
akpls writes with disdain;
"Maybe you would like to sell this theory to the people of McGrath and other villages that don't have the luxury of going down to the local Safeway for their dinner."
Well, akpls- maybe I wouldn't. Fistly, the quote you used is not a "theory" it is simply how I feel about allowing room for predators. Maximum sustained yeild (MSY) is an old but often effective management practice (not a theory) that managers are moving away from in many cases. The problem with MSY, is that the yeild is often overestimated at the cost of soil loss, spoiled watersheds, unbalanced bios, etc. Other things not quoted which I have talked about are biological fact, not theory.
Where in all or any of my postings have I said or implied that I wanted the good people of McGrath to go hungry. I SUPPORT the management of wildlife by Alaskans. I support the efforts of the McGrathians. I even offered to write the Governor of Alaska! I'm a good letter writer and can often get results. Of course kudu56 (the guy who "wants support" from hunters) opened his filthy mouth at me and ruined any chances of me supporting him. And, the hunt is on and letter writing is likely moot anyway.
I have only written that I support wolf introduction into a few places like Yellowstone. What has that got to do with Alaska?
The second possibility is that akpls is trying to get everyone to beleive I said what he said I said because that is an effective political ploy. Is he trying to make me look like a bad boy by making it look like I don't care about the poor McGrathians and I'm so horrible for it? I must hate the poor subsitence hunters who will starve because akpls says I want to hug and protect the predators? I am ignorant because I'm just a city boy who buys his food at Safeway and has no concept of the poor subsistence hunters?
Again, I support the management efforts in Alaska.
I know some of you don't like facts, but lets look at the facts again, just one more time before I completely recuse myself from this disscusion:
The largest town within 80 miles of my house has a population of 1,000. It has one stoplight and two grocery stores; no Safeways.
McGrath is a town of 401. It is about half white and half Indian and mixed race. The median household income is $43,000 (more than I make) and the average house value is $86,000 (as much as my house is worth). It has a primary and middle school (grades: PK-12) with 94 students. The "length of stay since moving in" is above the state average. It does not sound too bad to me!
Again, I support the McGrathians, so don't try to make me out as the bad guy for beating up on the poor McGrathians. Firstly, because I do support them, and secondly because your implication that I don't care about them is contrived.
Is it a political ploy, or is it truly poor reading comprehension by akpls?
MILO,
I see you have some disdain for me too. You even try to link me with the "unabomber." Are you also one of RMK's imaginary friends, or are you just using the same tactics? What I don't "really care" that much about is whether or not the west has wolves. I think they belong there and there are a few places left where they could get along ok without bothering livestock and such, but its not real important to me. I've long grown tired of hunting and fishing Montana (except I still like chasing deer and antelope on the eastern ranches), Wyoming, Idaho, and Colorado because its getting too much like a pay-as-you-go game park for my liking. I look at the timber wolf as a magnificent game animal. Nothing more or less. I won't be going to the western states to hunt or see wolves, so I "really don't care" THAT much whether wolves are residents there! My point was they could be there, there is room for them, and they ARE THERE, not depending on your acceptance. Whether I don't really care or you really care or whatever, doesn't matter, as others have already made the decision for us. What got me going was the fact that some were spewing biological garbage about wolves, I was disgusted and thought of those who are here trying to learn, and possibly actually thinking that hunters and shooters all think like those posters. I corrected the biological facts and replied to differing opinions and questions from those who respectfully addressed me. I did type a lot. This will be my last post. You need not read me any more.
Ray,
Darn if I can find it right now, but I think I read the article too! Is it the one with the maps showing where the wolf packs are located? It seemed to me the wolves are spreading too wide also. Maybe too far north of Yellowstone? They could probably use a little hunting. I was a little disapointed in the author for his one-sided portrayal. Seemed like he sort of dismissed the professional biologists and only listened to some of the guides. The guides have a financial interest in large numbers of elk, including the migrating elk from Yellowstone. They want lots of slickers to come out, pay big bucks for a horsey ride up the mountains where they can kill an elk that the guide found for them. What do you think the guides are gonna say? Do you actually think the guides can be impartial?
Have any of you folks ever hunted elk outside the park during the late season? It was way too regulated for my liking. I did it once. I drove south toward Yellowstone, up the Madison River, through the Beaverhead National Forest, looking for my "wilderness entry point" as I passed hundreds of elk behind barb-wire fences on private land. At the "entry point" the west side is motorized, and the east side non-motorized where the steady procession of city-fat "hunters" precariously ride the guide's horses up the trail, hoping that the guide will point out a good one that they can shoot. Yah, sure, Wilderness hunting! If you want to pay a few grand to a rancher, you can shoot one of the hundreds of elk you can see from the road behind the fences. While I was there, several of the "guides" were accused of herding the elk with snowmobiles, to keep them on the target ranch. I faithfully walked up the mountains into the "wilderness" for 5-8 miles each day, where I hunted a mix of nice mountainsides and summer cattle pasture. I saw some elk and mule deer, but nothing big. It was beautiful, and a pretty good time, but it was not much of a wilderness adventure. While I was in the area, I stopped at my favorite bar in the world; the Old Saloon in Emigrant. I was totally disgusted that a shiny new Espresso Bar had been built alongside it. I asked the big, American Indian bartender about it and he just shook his head. An old, rough-looking cowboy with a callused handshake helped me make fun of a chubby, soft-handed, newly-clothed "outfitter" that was trying to get me to hire him.
I wondered "What has this world come to?"
Ok, I'm all done now fellas. You can forget about me. I won't bother you again.
04 January 2004, 06:23
kudu56WOLVES AND HUNTING
>
> By T.R. Mader, Research Director
> Abundant Wildlife Society of North America
>
> I'm convinced, based on several years of wolf research, that hunters
> will bear the brunt of wolf recovery/protection regardless of
> location.
>
> There is no language written in any wolf recovery pan to protect the
> hunter's privilege to hunt. Wolves are well known to cause wild game
> population declines which are so drastic hunting is either eliminated
> or severely curtailed. And there is no provision for recovery of wild
> game populations for the purposes of hunting. It simply will not be
> allowed.
>
> Example: A few years ago the US Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) and the
> Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) agreed that the state
> should take over the responsibility of wolf management. The DNR felt
> wolves were impacting their deer populations and wanted to open a
> short trapping season on the wolf.
>
> The environmentalists sued and won. The USFWS could not give wolf
> management back to Minnesota in spite of a desire to do so.
>
> The problem with wolf recovery is that most people, especially
> hunters, have not looked "beyond press releases and into the heart of
> the wolf issue."
>
> It must be stated clearly that the wolf is the best tool for shutting
> down hunting. The anti-hunters know this. Most hunters don't. Thus,
> wolf recovery is not opposed by the people who will be impacted most.
>
> In order to understand the impacts wolves have on hunting, let's look
> at some biological factors of the wolf and compare some hunting facts.
>
> The wolf is an efficient predator of wild game and domestic
> livestock. Due to its ability as a predator, the wolf was removed
> from areas of the US where man settled. There is no such thing as
> peaceful coexistence between man and wolf - one has to give to the
> other since both prey on the same wildlife/ungulate populations.
>
> Did the removal of the wolf cause it to become endangered? No, there
> are 40,000 to 60,000 wolves on the North American continent. The
> animal is doing quite well. During the years of wolf control, the
> wolf's territory was eliminated throughout most of the lower 48
> states. That factor is the reason the wolf is on the Endangered
> Species Act (ESA).
>
> A wolf requires five to ten pounds of meat per day for survival, thus
> the wolf requires a considerable amount of meat in one year - nearly a
> ton of meat per year per wolf. A wolf is capable of consuming great
> quantities of meat, up to one fifth of its body weight, at one time.
> Thus, a wolf does not have to kill each day to survive.
>
> Wolves hunt year around - 365 days a year. That means predation is
> not limited to two weeks, one month or whatever a hunting season
> length may be, it is year around.
>
> Wolves are opportunistic hunters, meaning they kill what is available
> and convenient. For years, hunters have been fed the line, "Wolves
> kill only the weak, sick and old." Worse yet, hunters have believed
> it.
>
> It is true, wolves do kill old animals, but so do hunters. Those are
> the big bulls or bucks prized by many who hunt. In fact, biological
> studies have shown wolves kill older male animals more than any other
> adult member of a wild game population.
>
> Regarding sick animals, there are not many sick wild animals today.
> Hunters and trappers are directly responsible for healthy wild game
> herds today.
>
> In the cyclic "balance of nature" of years past (no hunting by man),
> ungulate populations would thrive until they overgrazed their habitat
> and starved. This malnutrition made the ungulate populations
> susceptible to disease. Consequently, disease was more common. Lewis
> and Clark wrote of such herds. (The other major factor contributing to
> the decline in wildlife populations was predation.)
>
> Hunting controls this cycle so that herds are kept at proper levels
> for habitat, preventing malnutrition and susceptibility to disease.
> Hunting dollars went into habitat improvement and biological studies
> which, in turn, help maintain healthier herds of ungulates.
>
> Even agriculture plays a part in the dispersal of salt and other
> minerals to domestic livestock. Wild animals access these nutrients as
> well. Thus, disease is not as rampant as when nature regulates it
> naturally. It is also interesting to note that where disease is a
> problem today, such as Yellowstone Park, hunting is not allowed.
>
> Trapping completes the cycle of game management by controlling the
> predator. The predator is to wildlife what weeds are to a garden.
> They must be controlled or they will take over. Additionally,
> predators are disease carriers. Some people are aware that predators
> carry rabies since reports of rabid animals or some person being
> bitten by a rabid animal are often in the news, but few realize that
> predators also carry deadly diseases to other wild animals, i.e.
> raccoons carry a deadly fowl cholera. And finally, trapping benefits
> the predator by keeping their numbers in check. This keeps the
> population healthy. If predators do overpopulate, they become more
> susceptible to rabies, mange and other diseases.
>
> Wolves do not not eat sick animals unless forced to do so. We have
> found this true in many cases.
>
> Example: A Conservation Officer for the Minnesota Department of
> Natural Resources (DNR) found a moose with a brain worm. Brain worm
> completely destroys an animal's instinctive and natural behavior.
> This moose had wandered out on a frozen lake in winter and was slowly
> starving to death. Wolves came by, check the moose out and went on
> their way. Tracks in the snow verified it. They did not kill it even
> though it would have been extremely easy to do so.
>
> Wolves do kill the weak. Weak animals are not sick animals, they are
> simply the "less strong" of the herd. Wolves target these animals -
> the young and pregnant - due to their inability to escape. This is an
> important factor in limiting wildlife numbers. Wolves prey directly
> on the recruitment and reproductive segments of ungulate populations.
>
> While doing research in British Columbia, a wolf biologist from the
> British Columbian Ministry of Environment took the time to show me how
> wolves could impact hunting so severely. Here's his example.
>
> In this particular example he used a number of 300 females in a herd
> of elk. In his region wolf predation is often 90% on the young (100%
> mortality rates due to predation are common in the north). If 300
> females gave birth in an area of wolves, the approximate loss would be
> about 270 young calves killed during the summer months, leaving the 30
> yearlings to serve as replacements. A regular die-off rate on such a
> herd is about 10%. So the 30 yearlings would balance out the regular
> mortality rate of the female segment of the herd.
>
> But overall there is a decline in the elk herd due to the fact that
> the 30 yearlings are usually sexually split in half (15 females and 15
> males), thus the reproductive segment of the herd declines although
> the numbers appear to balance out. Without some form of wolf control,
> the rate of decline will increase with a few years.
>
> There were approximately 100 males in this herd of elk. Figuring the
> regular mortality rate and compensating with the surviving young
> leaves 5 animals (males only), which may be harvested by man.
>
> Now if this herd of elk were in an area of no wolves, there would be
> approximately 60 - 70% successful reproduction (calves making it to
> yearlings) or 200 young. Half of those surviving young would be male
> (100 animals). After figuring a 10% mortality rate, 90 older animals
> could be harvested without impact to the overall herd numbers. In
> fact, the herd would increase due to additional numbers of the
> reproductive segment (females) of the herd.
>
> Now you have some insight of the impacts wolves can have on hunting.
>
> In spite of the negative publicity generated by the anti-hunting,
> anti-trapping movements, hunting and trapping are some of the best
> wildlife management tools.
>
> Hunters' harvest can be limited through numbers of licenses issued,
> bag limits, length of season, and specification of sex of the animal
> harvested. Thus, only the surplus of an ungulate population is
> generally hunted. If the need arises that an ungulate population needs
> reduction, it is easily accomplished by allowing an "any sex" hunt and
> increasing license numbers. Additionally, hunters will pay for the
> opportunity to hunt which in turn pays for wildlife management.
>
> Wolves do none of the above. They simply kill to survive and for the
> sake of killing. Studies have shown that ungulate populations cannot
> withstand hunting by man and uncontrolled predation by wolves for any
> length of time. One has to give to the other. In this day and age,
> the wolf will be the winner and the hunter the loser.
>
> A point which should be stressed is that wolves kill for the sake of
> killing, not just to survive. Many are convinced wolves kill only
> what they need to eat. That simply isn't true.
>
> Remember the moose with brain worm the wolves didn't eat? In the same
> area, the same winter and only a couple months later, the same
> Conservation Officer followed two wolves after a spring snow storm and
> found that the wolves had killed 21 deer. Only two were eaten upon.
>
> The snow gave the wolves advantage. These deer were autopsied and
> many were found to be pregnant. The total number of deer killed in 2
> days by these wolves was 36.
>
> Such incidents of surplus killing are common. For example, Canadian
> biologists came upon an area where a pack of wolves have killed 34
> caribou calves in one area. Another example came from Alaska. In the
> Wrangell Mountains, a pack of five wolves came upon 20 Dall rams
> crossing a snow-covered plateau. All 20 rams were killed by the
> wolves. Only six were partially eaten by the wolves.
>
> Dr. Charles Kay, PH.D has lectured on the impacts of wolf recovery.
> To illustrate the impacts of wolves on hunting, he did a comparison of
> moose populations in British Columbia versus Sweden and Finland. Both
> areas have comparable amount of moose habitat.
>
> Dr. Kay stated, "During the 1980's in Sweden and Finland, the pre-calf
> or the wintering population of moose was approximately 400,000 animals
> and was increasing. While in British Columbia, it was 240,000 animals
> and decreasing."
>
> "In British Columbia where they have a population of 240,000 animals
> and after calving season they killed only 12,000 animals whish is a 5%
> off take. In Sweden and Finland on the other hand, they have 400,000
> moose and guess how many they killed in the fall? They killed 240,000
> moose in the fall which is a 57% off take rate."
>
> "Now the two main differences. I don't want to imply that there's not
> vegetation differences and other things, but the two main differences
> is that British Columbia has somewhere between 5,000 and 6,000 wolves,
> all sorts of bears, grizzly bears and black bears which are also
> important predators, and mountain lions. Sweden and Finland have none
> of the above."
>
> Veteran wolf biologist John Gunson, Alberta Ministry of Environment,
> summed it up when he said, "Really, there isn't any room for harvest
> by man if you have a healthy wolf population."
>
> Hunters. please understand the impacts of wolf recovery on hunting and
> the role wolf recovery plays in the anti-hunters' agenda. Natural
> predations, especially wolf predation, can replace your hunting
> rights.
>
> � Copyright 1991
>
> Troy R. Mader is Research Director for Abundant Wildlife Society of
> North America (AWS), an International Wildlife Organization dedicated
> to the preservation of the Great North American Traditions of Hunting,
> Fishing, and Trapping. For more information write:
>
> Abundant Wildlife Society of North America
> P. O. Box 2
> Beresford, SD 57004
> Phone: 605-751-0979
