More wolves

[KGAINES]

http://www.azgfd.gov/artman/publish/article_559.shtml

 

I hope all these activist who beg and plead for these wolves and all the other stuff that is done with non-game animals actually remember that it is the hunters who are paying for the majority of this stuff, at least that it the way it looks to me.

[jamaro]

You might be interested in listening to this...

http://www.bowhuntingmag.com/radio/PBradio/

 

j-

[SilentButDeadly]

I think putting wolves out there is great, regardless of the game that they kill. It isn't a hunter's right to be able to go out into the woods and find a monster buck or bull and kill it, it is a privilege and it should be a challenge.

 

Aldo Leopold knew that wolves are part of the land, I think that most men have forgotten that today.

 

Sure, the last few years have been hard on the deer and elk, and their numbers are down. Hunting is more difficult and those who make their livelihood on taking rich men out into the woods are bound to complain. But in time the conditions will change, there will be more elk, and more deer - and there will be less voices being raised.

 

The aesthetic of hearing a wolf howl or seeing a large predator in the wild can be just as rewarding as hearing an elk bugle, bighorns spar, or seeing a big buck in his prime.

 

 

And when those wolves do get released, you can bet there will be one happy hunter who finds a big old bull or buck that they took down, leaving a nice 'pick up' rack for him to take home and tell his children and grandchildren about.

[r p coulter]

The romantic in me likes the idea of wolves back where they once were, I think they will add to the outdoor experience. I heard them once many moons ago in Alaska while camping, sent a chill up my spine but added much to the whole trip for me, my wife didn't seem that pleased though. As far as what damage they will do... it's hard to know what to believe, there are certainly "experts" on both sides of the debate who will streatch the truth to fit there own argument. Or interpret the facts to fit same. And certainly darn few media venues that will give equal time and attention to both sides of an issue, god forbid J. Q. Public should make up there own minds based on honest facts. Why, today gun control tomarrow wolf control and next we will be deciding how best to raise our own kids!!! But I digress. At any rate they are here and will spread and we will just have to make the best of it, personally I'd love to have a pelt hanging on my wall someday. They will certainly have some affect on deer and elk as well as other predators like coyotes but I'm willing to wait and see. Hopefully it will not go the way of the mt. lions in the north west were hunters sales taxes are going to pay government sharpsooters to controll the lion population, and put the fear of man back in them, rather than hunters paying for the privalige (sp?) in the first place. I think that is a clear example of the media convincing J.Q.Public that hunting with hounds is unfair or exeptionally cruel... or what ever. I guess the moral of my story is that we hunters need to get informed , be vocal and understand that we will not always agree but we should support and respect the oppinions of others (even if there opinion is rediculas (HA!)) O.K. somebody else take this soap box I'm getting dizzy up here.

[bobbyo]

I think putting wolves out there is great, regardless of the game that they kill. It isn't a hunter's right to be able to go out into the woods and find a monster buck or bull and kill it, it is a privilege and it should be a challenge.

 

The romantic in me likes the idea of wolves back where they once were, I think they will add to the outdoor experience

 

Where were you animal loving nature freaks last month when I needed you. Let me give you guys the readers digest version of the Wolf debate. First they are not wolves ,but mangy german shepards. They kill hundreds of cattle,elk deer, gophers and house pets(pretty good work for hybrids).The GOvt will not reimbuse you for your losses. All our hunting money either goes to feed the stupid mutts or to help prarie dogs screw. When man makes a sub species extinct they should stay extinct. Then a member named CHP offends nearly everyone on divergent topics ranging from, youth hunting to shooting condors. Where are you CHP? Did you get banned again? It has been boring without you. We need your talent to stir up a caustic debate. We need to get angry at your non- conformist anti-hunter rants(not anti-hunting). And we need more pictures of furry pistol handles.

Bob

[.270]

at least the dude in charge has a last name that fits the cause. Lark.

[hunt4horns]

This is a hunting forum not a petting zoo. The wolf re-introduction program was a poor decision and now they don't know how to get out of it. Besides like someone else mentioned, these are not wolves they are inbread hybrids that will follow you around on your 4 wheeler waiting to be fed until they run into the next vulnerable cow or calf. One day they will get ahold of a child or elderly person who don't know what to do and if someone helps them and hurts the poor little puppy your likely to get in trouble.

[.270]

i copied this off another real popular site. it's real long, but read it anyway. i mean it. i'm sure azpy and a few others will call me liar, but oh well, i do like to fish. read this real good and pay a lot of attention to the next to the last paragraph. if you like to hunt, you oughta think real hard about wolves. Lark.

 

 

 

 

T. R. Mader is Research Director for Abundant Wildlife Society of North America (AWS), a private wildlife research organization dedicated to the preservation of the Great North American Traditions of Hunting, Fishing and Trapping.

 

WOLVES AND HUNTING

By T. R. Mader, Research Director

Abundant Wildlife Society of North America

 

I'm convinced, based on several years of wolf research, hunters will bear the brunt of wolf recovery/protection regardless of location.

 

There is no language written in any wolf recovery plan 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) agreed 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 U.S. 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/hunt 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. Wolf 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 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 to 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 National 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 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 predators also carry other deadly diseases, 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 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 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, checked the moose out and went 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 population numbers. Wolves prey directly on the recruitment and reproductive segments of ungulate populations.

 

While doing research in British Colombia, a wolf biologist from the British Colombia 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 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 within 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) that could 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 seasons, 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, the hunter the loser.

 

A point which should be stressed is "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 of months later, the same Conservation Officer followed two wolves after a spring snow storm and found the wolves had killed 21 deer. Only two were partially eaten.

 

The snow gave the wolves the advantage. These deer were autopsied and many were found to be pregnant. The total number of deer killed in 2 days by these 2 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 E. 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 Colombia versus Sweden and Finland. Both areas have a comparable amount of moose habitat.

 

Dr. Kay stated, "During the 1980s in Sweden and Finland, the pre-calf or the wintering population of moose was approximately 400,000 animals and was increasing. While in British Colombia, it was 240,000 animals and decreasing.

 

"In British Colombia where they have a population of 240,000 animals and after a calving season they killed only 12,000 animals which 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 difference and other things, but the two main differences is that British Colombia 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 predation, especially wolf predation, can replace your privilege to hunt.

[peloncillo]

Every hunter should read this. Really spells it out in black and white.

 

Keven

[25-06]

Good readin for sure...Wolves are always a sore subject........But Az. aint got a single wolf in the state, but YET we spend a buncha $ on dogs that are welcome to do as they please............Just look at the 4 drag.......

[TLH]

Good readin for sure...Wolves are always a sore subject........But Az. aint got a single wolf in the state, but YET we spend a buncha $ on dogs that are welcome to do as they please............Just look at the 4 drag.......

 

 

Actually these wolves are 100% Mexican Grey Wolves--we had a meeting with the main WM in that unit in charge of this project and they have done DNA checks on all of the wolves in the wild. I thought they were hybrids too until i got to speak to the guy in charge. You don't have to take my word for it but that is the facts. He also said that the wolves are getting rid of the coyote's in the areas they are running in--that is a good thing in my opinion..

 

Now, all that said, i really am not a fan of the release of any other wolves in any other part of the state and the game and fish aren't either--but, there are groups out there that want to release them on the strip and north of the Colorado River--this is what we need to watch out for.

 

The WM stated that the objective is 100 wolves in those areas and in the White mountain Indian Reservation-The San Carlos Tribe has yet to agree that they let them loose on their land. The count right now is less than 60 wolves in that area.

 

The meeting was very interesting and very informative and i would encourage all of you to attend a meeting if there is one offered--in the mean time, if you want the WM's name and number

[fatfootdoc]

TLH,

 

How did they prove that the wolves were getting rid of the coyotes in the areas that they are in? Did the coyotes leave? Or were they eaten by the wolves? If you have ever gotten to see a pack in the wild, especially the smaller ones, they are like big stupid dogs and will walk right up to your truck and pee on the tires. They may be genetically pure wolves, but they must have bred out the brain very effectively. Wolves are all around bad for AZ and NM. AG

[TLH]

TLH,

 

How did they prove that the wolves were getting rid of the coyotes in the areas that they are in? Did the coyotes leave? Or were they eaten by the wolves? If you have ever gotten to see a pack in the wild, especially the smaller ones, they are like big stupid dogs and will walk right up to your truck and pee on the tires. They may be genetically pure wolves, but they must have bred out the brain very effectively. Wolves are all around bad for AZ and NM. AG

 

 

Didn't say if they were killing them or if they were just getting out of the area--i do have to say that these wolves have been bred so close to the line that they are very close to showing inbreeding characteristics.

 

Apparently they do not have more than a couple of wolf blood lines and that is what all of these have been bred into.

 

Another interesting thing the WM said is that they have actually bred with domestic dogs! They had to kill a litter of pups that had a domestic dog for their Daddy!! The WM also said that there are a lot of hybrids being released in that area by people that apparently do not want them any more and that they are doing their best to kill them when they see them--these are the Timber Wolf Bloodlines and can be a lot more aggressive than the Grey's.

 

As you all can see an hour of listening to the WM was a very interesting hour indeed.

[.270]

in the original documentation, buried deep, there is a paragraph that states that there are no mexican grey wolves that do not have dog dna. only reason i ever found it was because my daughter did a research paper in college on this very subject and an azgfd biologist showed it to her. i've had usfw and "wolf" people tell me they are all pure wolf too and when i showed em that paragraph they try real hard to change the subject. had one guy try to steal the info from me. he "mistakenly" shuffled it in with some other papers he had. i watched him do it, just to see if he would. i got one usfw guy at a meeting to admit, in front of other folks, that they all had dog dna. he swore and swore they were pure wolf until i told him i had in my hand usfw documents stating otherwise and he told him he had one more chance to tell the truth before i showed it to everyone else. he got redfaced and said they were pure wolf as far as the amount that was set by the usfw, but that they were all part dog. pure wolf and pure wolf as far as the usfw is concerned is two different things. a couple years after the first releases they had to gather up everyone one of, all of em, and give em parvo shots because parvo was wipin' em out. wolves don't get parvo. dogs do. and there have been many litters of pups that have been bred with domestic dogs, the one litter they destroyed and made news about doing it, they tried real hard to supress that also. anymore whenever they see one that they are sure is half dog, they whack it, but there are quite a few out there that are. they tried to blame it on people releasing wolf hybrids, like all the sudden that was a big problem. tried to spin it like this had been going on for a long time. remember one thing, you're not dealing with folks who tell the truth. in other words, liars. they spin, hide, manipulate, change and flat our lie about the true facts. some of the crap that Gary has dealt with at the 4 drag would blow your mind. Billy Marks has seen females trying to breed with his cowdogs in his yard before. this wolf deal, especially what we have going on in the southwest, is not good, for anyone except the guys that get off thinking they have screwed over someone who lives a lifestyle they don't agree with. and as far as wolfs running off coyotes, ya need to think that one over real good. that's sorta like sayin' that lung cancer cures smokin' or that dynamite does a good job at wart removal. at least with coyotes, when you see one you can shoot it. you can't even throw a rock at a "wolf". don't be drawn into the touchy feely part of this. it ain't about wolves. it's about doing away with hunting, fishing, trail riding, ranching, farming, etc. take calculator and use the usfw numbers for "wolf" recovery". their own statistics. there are not enough deer and elk or other game animals alive right now to sustain the number of "wolves" they want in the areas the have chosen. if and when they ever get the numbers there, who's gonna lose out? if there aren't enough deer and elk for hunters and "wolves", who's not gettin' a tag? think hard on this one boys. Lark.

[SilentButDeadly]

Just to make sure we are only spreading the 'truth' around here: Parvo is a canine virus, meaning it can affect dogs, coyotes, wolves and foxes, but will not affect cats or humans. (Wikipedia)

 

Citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parvovirus

 

As far as wolves and dogs being cross bred, "analysis of seven dog breeds and 26 gray wolf populations from different locations around the world has shown that the genotypes of dogs and wolves are either identical or differ by the loss or gain of only one or two restriction sites" (Wayne) there is less than a .2% difference in wolf and dog DNA (that means a chihuaha and a wolf are 99.9% the same beast).

 

Citation: 1. Wayne RK "Molecular evolution of the dog family" available at: http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne2.htm

2. Wayne, R.K., Lehman, N., Allard, M.W. an Honeycutt, R.L. (1992) Conserv. Biol. 6, 559 -- 56923

Templeton, A.R. (1989) in Speciation and its Consequences (Otte, D. and Endler, J.A., eds), pp. 3-27,

Sinauer Associates

 

As far as I am concerned, wolves having some dog DNA is semantic.

 

Why not allow hunting of wolves, a year round bow season, etc? Proper management begins with control of your predator populations.

 

I don't believe the hype that wolves wipe out all the game. But, as a scientist I'm trained to only accept empirical data. That means that I can't (or shouldn't ) believe what I hear when people only state things without giving evidence. Science that has been peer reviewed (read by other people who don't give a s%$# what your results are) is the best way of gaining knowledge of the universe that humanity has ever come up with.