Do you agree Wolves should be hunted? Poll

[Herman Melville]

Do you agree people should be allowed to hunt wolves? They used to be federally protected, they are not anymore, aparently their numbers are high enough. I still don't really like the idea.

The sportsman in me says, maybe put a few licenses out there in the lottery system. But don't open it up willy nilly. Who the hell wants to hunt a dog anyway?

[AvgGuyIA]

To extinction. Wolves kill people and they're scary to hear when they howl.

[Ballygrl]

I can't answer that. I'm a huge animal lover, but then I realize that you have to cut some of their numbers back if they're a danger to other animals, then I go back to being an animal lover again and say no.

[RWReaganfan]

Nope.

[Herman Melville]

Darn Hampsters ate my Poll. :( 5 minute rule grumble...

Anyway, I know a guy who lives in Great Falls, MT and he says the ranchers shoot them sometimes but they try not to. Some of them. They don't really do anything to herds except cull the sick ones therefore keeping the herd itself healthy. Some ranchers respect that, others don't...they open their land to license hunting and take huge kickbacks.

[SFC(R)L]

To extinction. Wolves kill people and they're scary to hear when they howl.

now...

[Silk]

If the numbers are healthy enough to support a hunt I have no issue with it. I too would rather see it as a lottery system, like bear and moose in my state. Most big predator species cannot sustain an open hunting season like deer.

[ThinkingMan]

Only if you think wildlife should be managed.

[Silk]

Only if you think wildlife should be managed.

my answer would be: yes

[ThinkingMan]

my answer would be: yes


Me too. For management's sake.

[avergbear]

Do you agree people should be allowed to hunt wolves? They used to be federally protected, they are not anymore, aparently their numbers are high enough. I still don't really like the idea.

The sportsman in me says, maybe put a few licenses out there in the lottery system. But don't open it up willy nilly. Who the hell wants to hunt a dog anyway?

If it ****es off whacko liberal environmentalists, then I’m all for it!

[James Juno]

I don't see the poll. Hell no, wolves shouldn't be hunted.

[Hellsbane]

Do you agree people should be allowed to hunt wolves? They used to be federally protected, they are not anymore, aparently their numbers are high enough. I still don't really like the idea.

The sportsman in me says, maybe put a few licenses out there in the lottery system. But don't open it up willy nilly. Who the hell wants to hunt a dog anyway?

I would rather they open up hunting for gators and bears........ toss in poisonous snakes too. I see no use for keeping these dangerous animals around. They serve no role in nature that can't be filled by other, less dangerous, creatures.

[rckirby]

Isn't it sad that at one time nature was balanced by virtue of natural selection.

Animals were hunted to feed/clothe us.

Then modern technology came along and clothing was made of plants (cotton)....and then artificial man-made products (nylon, faux leather)

We used to hunt for our meals.....not anymore....we go to the grocery store for fake food.

[avergbear]

I would rather they open up hunting for gators and bears........ toss in poisonous snakes too. I see no use for keeping these dangerous animals around. They serve no role in nature that can't be filled by other, less dangerous, creatures.

I’m against hunting bear.

[ScarlettOhara]

All dogs -- even this chihuahua -- are actually domesticated wolves. Photo: Flickr user naGEEK
http://www.earthsky.org/kids/49912/are-dogs-and-wolves-releated
To boost my chihuahua's self esteem, I often remind her that she is the descendant of mighty beasts. :)
I'd rather they use other methods to control the wolf population where it is necessary.

[James Juno]

I’m against hunting bear.

I'm not for killing any carnivores nor omnivores. Too important to the ecology and not enough of them to go around. Ungulates, on the other hand --- I have a particular fondness for moose steak. I've never had bad elk meat, either.

[ImNewHere]

They're nice doggies.

[jungulator]

To extinction. Wolves kill people and they're scary to hear when they howl.

I say that people kill more people than the wolves ever did. So by that measure, would you support hunting humans to extinction?

[Samm]

Do you agree people should be allowed to hunt wolves? They used to be federally protected, they are not anymore, aparently their numbers are high enough. I still don't really like the idea.

The sportsman in me says, maybe put a few licenses out there in the lottery system. But don't open it up willy nilly. Who the hell wants to hunt a dog anyway?

Absolutely not! Any time there is a surplus of wolves in an area for the healthy maintenance of the prey population, they should be captured and shipped to Connecticut c/o Priscilla Ferrel, Friends of Animals, 777 Post Road, Suite 205 Darien CT 06820 203-656-1522 ...

[Samm]

I'm not for killing any carnivores nor omnivores. Too important to the ecology and not enough of them to go around. Ungulates, on the other hand --- I have a particular fondness for moose steak. I've never had bad elk meat, either.

For a fellow who says he likes moose meat, perhaps you were unaware that when the moose populations are healthy that predators take about 80% of the animals annually and hunters only take 3-5%. When the populations are unhealthy (signified by low calf survival) hunters take next to nothing and the predators take as many as 95%.

Controlling wolves and bear populations not only increases the number of prey animals, in the long run it increases the number of wolves and bear.

[Samm]

I’m against hunting bear.

I can understand that. ;)

But how about it if only the below average bears were hunted? :D

[sgtmac_46]

Do you agree people should be allowed to hunt wolves? They used to be federally protected, they are not anymore, aparently their numbers are high enough. I still don't really like the idea.

The sportsman in me says, maybe put a few licenses out there in the lottery system. But don't open it up willy nilly. Who the hell wants to hunt a dog anyway?

I've hunted plenty of coyotes. Predator hunting is a unique sport of it's own. I agree, though, at this point put a few licenses out there.

The bottom line is that you aren't going to get a flood of hunters going after wolves.......it's not like White Tail deer where everyone wants to stock their fridge. You'll get a few die-hard hunters, who will pay the licensing fees, and there's nothing wrong with that.

[sgtmac_46]

I can understand that. ;)

But how about it if only the below average bears were hunted? :D

:))

[sgtmac_46]

If the numbers are healthy enough to support a hunt I have no issue with it. I too would rather see it as a lottery system, like bear and moose in my state. Most big predator species cannot sustain an open hunting season like deer.
Nor would you ever get a turnout like you would with deer, which is mainly driven by hunting for meat, with trophy hunting as a secondary consideration.

The lottery system would be the best way to go.

[sgtmac_46]

Isn't it sad that at one time nature was balanced by virtue of natural selection.

Animals were hunted to feed/clothe us.

Then modern technology came along and clothing was made of plants (cotton)....and then artificial man-made products (nylon, faux leather)

We used to hunt for our meals.....not anymore....we go to the grocery store for fake food.

Yes, from Hunter-Gatherers to Consumers.

[sgtmac_46]

Absolutely not! Any time there is a surplus of wolves in an area for the healthy maintenance of the prey population, they should be captured and shipped to Connecticut c/o Priscilla Ferrel, Friends of Animals, 777 Post Road, Suite 205 Darien CT 06820 203-656-1522 ... :))

Touche! :))

[sgtmac_46]

For a fellow who says he likes moose meat, perhaps you were unaware that when the moose populations are healthy that predators take about 80% of the animals annually and hunters only take 3-5%. When the populations are unhealthy (signified by low calf survival) hunters take next to nothing and the predators take as many as 95%.

Controlling wolves and bear populations not only increases the number of prey animals, in the long run it increases the number of wolves and bear.

Exactly......and LICENSING FEES go toward maintaining habitat and further management.

Controlled and well-managed hunting is a WIN-WIN.

[waynevan]

Yes, from Hunter-Gatherers to Consumers.

I think some people want us to GO BACK to hunter-gatherer life.

[sgtmac_46]

I think some people want us to GO BACK to hunter-gatherer life. They do and they don't........they want us to go back to the 'gatherer' part, and live off tree-bark like the North Koreans.

"Good Friends, a Buddhist human-rights group in South Korea, says that in rural areas families are again adding tree-bark and grass to their diet, and foraging for food in the wild. It says that in South Pyongan province in west-central North Korea, people are already dying of starvation, while listless farmers ignore officials' calls to plant this year's rice. Last month the World Food Programme (WFP) called for urgent help to avert a “serious tragedy”." http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11332771

[waynevan]

They do and they don't........they want us to go back to the 'gatherer' part, and live off tree-bark like the North Koreans.

Well, tree bark is probbly better than tofu............

[LouC]

Do you agree people should be allowed to hunt wolves? They used to be federally protected, they are not anymore, aparently their numbers are high enough. I still don't really like the idea.

The sportsman in me says, maybe put a few licenses out there in the lottery system. But don't open it up willy nilly. Who the hell wants to hunt a dog anyway?

:think:

So conservationists work to get wolves protected from men with guns and reintroduced into our wildernesses areas, this plan works, but it works so well the overpopulation of wolves bleeds over and becomes a "too many wolves" problem so people are now considering allowing men with guns to help remove the wolf over population.

Is this a basic grasp of the issue?

Ranchers should be allowed to protect their herds on their own lands, even the sickly critters if, they so choose.

They should be able to allow, and charge access fees, to private (legal) hunters on their land.

But any wolves taken should be required to be reported to the proper authorities.

If culling on public land is to be done I say do it with a 'buy in' lottery and special licensing with the fees going back to the wolf conservancy programs.

That is my opinion.

[curtis123]

Do you agree people should be allowed to hunt wolves? They used to be federally protected, they are not anymore, aparently their numbers are high enough. I still don't really like the idea.

The sportsman in me says, maybe put a few licenses out there in the lottery system. But don't open it up willy nilly. Who the hell wants to hunt a dog anyway?

You've never been coyote hunting, obviously. They're smart, wary and very hard to hunt.

If the population is sustainable, sure, but yes, it should be strictly controlled. I don't know of your state, but in my state the game and fish department is fantastic, and is very successful at game and wildlife management.

[Lady Liberty]

Do you agree people should be allowed to hunt wolves? They used to be federally protected, they are not anymore, aparently their numbers are high enough. I still don't really like the idea.

The sportsman in me says, maybe put a few licenses out there in the lottery system. But don't open it up willy nilly. Who the hell wants to hunt a dog anyway?


My sister lives in Idaho and tells me that wolves have been released again up there... and the first week their neighbor had 17 calves killed. The wolves shred their prey's noses/faces and leave them to bleed to death. Right now this animal is protected. I'd like to know how ranchers are expected to live alongside this animal and NOT be able to shoot one to protect their herds.
~

[waynevan]

:think:

So conservationists work to get wolves protected from men with guns and reintroduced into our wildernesses areas, this plan works, but it works so well the overpopulation of wolves bleeds over and becomes a "too many wolves" problem so people are now considering allowing men with guns to help remove the wolf over population.

Is this a basic grasp of the issue?

Ranchers should be allowed to protect their herds on their own lands, even the sickly critters if, they so choose.

They should be able to allow, and charge access fees, to private (legal) hunters on their land.

But any wolves taken should be required to be reported to the proper authorities.

If culling on public land is to be done I say do it with a 'buy in' lottery and special licensing with the fees going back to the wolf conservancy programs.

That is my opinion.

And they sure as hell won't be hunted into oblivion again by the simple act of ranchers protecting their valuable herd stocks, nor by a limited public hunt through a lottery. The only people who want to stop this are bleeding hearts who think it is "just wrong" to shoot a wolf. Well, it is "just wrong" to think that way in regards to wild animals, especially given our capacity to so radically alter the natural balance with over or under hunting. We screwed it up and for us to now help return and maintain some semblence of a natural balance is a good thing.

[James Juno]

For a fellow who says he likes moose meat, perhaps you were unaware that when the moose populations are healthy that predators take about 80% of the animals annually and hunters only take 3-5%. When the populations are unhealthy (signified by low calf survival) hunters take next to nothing and the predators take as many as 95%.

Controlling wolves and bear populations not only increases the number of prey animals, in the long run it increases the number of wolves and bear.

Whenever I see figures that try to integrate human hunters/sportsmen levels into the equation of a natural ecological system of predator/prey ratios that took millions of years to reach equilibrium, I become suspicious. You are probably correct, but this "imbalance" hasn't always been there. Natural predators were around a helluva lot longer than us rifle-toting humans (I am NOT anti-hunter btw).

We've added ourselves to the mix and jacked the system. Sometimes in ways that make it convenient for us to hunt anything we are compelled to hunt.

Besides, I like wolves. ;)

[Herman Melville]

My sister lives in Idaho and tells me that wolves have been released again up there... and the first week their neighbor had 17 calves killed. The wolves shred their prey's noses/faces and leave them to bleed to death. Right now this animal is protected. I'd like to know how ranchers are expected to live alongside this animal and NOT be able to shoot one to protect their herds.
~
The numbers just don't add up. Ranchers in Montana, Idaho, Saskatchewan and others have herds of 10,000+ head of cattle each. A group of 10-15 wolves will not make even a percentage of damage on these large herds. We hunted them to near extinction and now will open the hunt up yet again. This time not so willy nilly. I wouldn't want people to have the wrong impression of hunting wolves to have a herd of cattle...thats not why they would be opened up hunt.

[RTchoke]

Yes.

Until you live with them, you have no idea what it's like. They are decimating the elk herds. They are stalking people (hunters) and I have had plenty of friends lose their hunting dogs and almost their lives. F&G are also fudging the numbers and where they are located. They will swear there are no wolves in an area even when they are shown pictures and other proof because it doesn't fit the agenda.

You think they are cute and cuddly. They are predators. That is all they do.

These are graphic pictures of verified wolf kills. WARNING Do not click on this link if you do not want to see them.

http://www.saveelk.com/wolf_002.htm

[James Juno]

Yes.

Until you live with them, you have no idea what it's like. They are decimating the elk herds. They are stalking people (hunters) and I have had plenty of friends lose their hunting dogs and almost their lives. F&G are also fudging the numbers and where they are located. They will swear there are no wolves in an area even when they are shown pictures and other proof because it doesn't fit the agenda.

You think they are cute and cuddly. They are predators. That is all they do.

These are graphic pictures of verified wolf kills. WARNING Do not click on this link if you do not want to see them.

http://www.saveelk.com/wolf_002.htm

Anyone who thinks wolves are cute and cuddly needs to avoid the Disney channels for awhile. I have a friend with a half-wolf and that "dog" scares the hell out of me.

Wolves do what wolves have done for millenia. They aren't feral dogs. They are majestic animals deserving of our respect and protection. We hold the cards. Do wolves need culling on occassion? Sure. Unfortunately, they must fit into the scheme was have built around them. Still, there's no need to use FUD as an excuse to drive them straight into extinction.

[NascarGirl2448]

To extinction. Wolves kill people and they're scary to hear when they howl.

Wolves can make terrific pets, if you train them right. My mom rescued a wolf in Alaska years ago and not only was he one of the most loyal, smart, and wonderful animals she ever had, but he was a darn good security system!!! Everyone in my grandparents' neighborhood in Miami knew not to mess with their house because the wolf would make sure no one got into the yard, over the fence anyway. If someone came in the front door, he knew they were ok, so he'd leave them alone. But if anyone tried to break in, he'd be on them in a NY minute!

[RTchoke]

Anyone who thinks wolves are cute and cuddly needs to avoid the Disney channels for awhile. I have a friend with a half-wolf and that "dog" scares the hell out of me.

Wolves do what wolves have done for millenia. They aren't feral dogs. They are majestic animals deserving of our respect and protection. We hold the cards. Do wolves need culling on occassion? Sure. Unfortunately, they must fit into the scheme was have built around them. Still, there's no need to use FUD as an excuse to drive them straight into extinction.

Don't tell me.........you think they stay within the little circles drawn on the map by the .gov and never stray from their boundaries and never have any more than the approved number of pups.

Sorry, but when they are within shouting distance of your children's school, where they are seen by people but the F&G will tell you they aren't there because that's not where the little line on the map is, we can talk about how they need to know "their place".

[Darkblade]

the issue is that since prey animals (such as deer and others ) numbers have been artificially increased to gigantic proportions the natural population limits of such predators has been destroyed. in the natural unmucked with by stupid people world wolf population would only be sustain at a low levels by the availability of prey. the population would be stable at sustainable levels. but the prey population is out of control. therefore the predator population will continue to expand as well. in the unnatural world we have made law hunting is the only way to keep the predators in check.

[James Juno]

Don't tell me.........you think they stay within the little circles drawn on the map by the .gov and never stray from their boundaries and never have any more than the approved number of pups.

Sorry, but when they are within shouting distance of your children's school, where they are seen by people but the F&G will tell you they aren't there because that's not where the little line on the map is, we can talk about how they need to know "their place".

I "think they stay within the little circles drawn on the map by the .gov and never stray from their boundaries and never have any more than the approved number of pups." Show me where I said that.

I'm not as stupid as you seem to think. I've said what I believe and you can have your fun interpreting it in whatever way suits your agenda. Knock yourself out.

[FidelisAdMortem]

Unless they are presenting harm to you or a child as stated near a schoolground, backyard, etc and you fear for your life or someone elses, I do not think merely hunting of these animals should be legal.

[RTchoke]

I "think they stay within the little circles drawn on the map by the .gov and never stray from their boundaries and never have any more than the approved number of pups." Show me where I said that.

I'm not as stupid as you seem to think. I've said what I believe and you can have your fun interpreting it in whatever way suits your agenda. Knock yourself out.

I never said you are stupid, nor do I believe you are. If I interpreted your statements wrong, then I am sorry for that.

Your sentence stating that wolves need to fit into the scheme built around them, led me to believe you think they will follow protocols set up for them like the ones I mentioned. You may not be one of theses people, but there ARE people who believe that they will stay within certain little lines on a map because that's where they want them to be. They refuse to understand that they are animals. Predators. They will go and do as they wish regardless of what our plans are for them.

I really do not enjoy officials telling me and others who have seen first hand where they are that we didn't see what we saw because they don't like the information because it goes against their preconceived idea or program.

The children are now not supposed to play too close to a certain area because of the possible danger with wolves so near (a small section of woods borders one side of the school) but ask a F&G person and they will tell you they aren't there. Doesn't matter how many people see them.

[James Juno]

I never said you are stupid, nor do I believe you are. If I interpreted your statements wrong, then I am sorry for that.

Your sentence stating that wolves need to fit into the scheme built around them, led me to believe you think they will follow protocols set up for them like the ones I mentioned. You may not be one of theses people, but there ARE people who believe that they will stay within certain little lines on a map because that's where they want them to be. They refuse to understand that they are animals. Predators. They will go and do as they wish regardless of what our plans are for them.

I really do not enjoy officials telling me and others who have seen first hand where they are that we didn't see what we saw because they don't like the information because it goes against their preconceived idea or program.

The children are now not supposed to play too close to a certain area because of the possible danger with wolves so near (a small section of woods borders one side of the school) but ask a F&G person and they will tell you they aren't there. Doesn't matter how many people see them.

I didn't mean to imply it was the wolves' onus to follow our scheme. Of course we're the ones with the big brains, we have to enforce it ourselves. If wolves pose a danger to a community, then of course, they need to be moved or removed --- just as would be the case with any predator. But I don't believe labelling the wolves as blood-thirsty killing machines serves any purpose other than to create a knee-jerk, "guns-a-blazing" reaction from those seeking their destruction. Wolves can be, and should be, protected in a sensible manner.

[Herman Melville]

Yes.

Until you live with them, you have no idea what it's like. They are decimating the elk herds. They are stalking people (hunters) and I have had plenty of friends lose their hunting dogs and almost their lives. F&G are also fudging the numbers and where they are located. They will swear there are no wolves in an area even when they are shown pictures and other proof because it doesn't fit the agenda.

You think they are cute and cuddly. They are predators. That is all they do.

These are graphic pictures of verified wolf kills. WARNING Do not click on this link if you do not want to see them.

http://www.saveelk.com/wolf_002.htm
Hog Wash, having spent a number of years in living in Bozeman with friends and family in Livingston, hiking and camping in and out of northern Idaho Wolves are not, NOT stalking people or decimating elk herds. Here is a Cite (http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005113772)for you. I don't mind talking about hunting these animals or not, but I'd prefer it done with credible cites and facts, not with misinformation.

As for boundary issues, F&G in every state I have ever lived thinks they have the right information, it's proven year after year they are FOS. I had F&G up to our house to get a Fisher I shot, they said that they are not in PA...I said come up and get the one I shot attacking our dog - in PA! Quick mean little bastard.

[TinCan]

My two cents, for what it's worth.
For all of the large predators, before we resort to open hunting, we should trap and relocate to areas that still need them and then when the hunting is opened up, it should be by lottery and the funds should go back into a "large predator fund." Once all of the areas are populated with sufficient numbers and an outbreak ensues then the areas affected can open up the lottery hunts again.

[RTchoke]

Hog Wash, having spent a number of years in living in Bozeman with friends and family in Livingston, hiking and camping in and out of northern Idaho Wolves are not, NOT stalking people or decimating elk herds. Here is a Cite (http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005113772)for you. I don't mind talking about hunting these animals or not, but I'd prefer it done with credible cites and facts, not with misinformation.

As for boundary issues, F&G in every state I have ever lived thinks they have the right information, it's proven year after year they are FOS. I had F&G up to our house to get a Fisher I shot, they said that they are not in PA...I said come up and get the one I shot attacking our dog - in PA! Quick mean little bastard.

Believe it or not, I do not care. Those of us that live here see it and live it. We know people who have had their rifles up and aimed on a wolf sneaking up on their friend or partner who is unaware they are even behind them. Just because YOU didn't have it happen doesn't mean in never does.

Your information is 2 years old. Things have changed.

Idaho F&G Announces Wolves Major Cause Of Elk Kills

November 28, 2008
Reports coming out of Northern Idaho say that Fish and Game Deputy Director Jim Unsworth is blaming the gray wolf as the main reason for a 13% per year reduction in cow elk in the Lolo Hunting Zone. Another F&G biologist, George Pauley, states that at least 87% of the elk in this region needs to survive each year in order to sustain an elk herd. At present that survival rate is estimated at 75%.

http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2008/11/28/idaho-fg-announces-wolves-major-cause-of-elk-kills/

Also, they do stalk people. There are plenty of incidents documented. Some you may see reported, some you may not. When you learn that F&G could care less you tend to not even bother with them.

Here’s another factor to consider about managing wolves. Many are not afraid of people. Hunters in the Madison Valley of Montana near Yellowstone, where wolves were reintroduced a decade ago, reported a wolf stalking them.

“It was approaching us with the wind right in its face — we were standing around the (pack) animals, but he was focused on us,” Jack Atcheson Jr., a hunting guide, told the Associated Press.

http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/wolves/fearman031606.htm

CHALLIS, Idaho (AP) -- A Challis man out searching for shed antlers said two black wolves stalked him, tried to get behind him, and bared their teeth at him before he was able to retreat to his vehicle.

"They had full intentions of coming in to get me," Daniel Woodbridge told the Idaho State Journal about Wednesday's encounter. "They were just waiting for the right time."

It's the second time in two weeks that a person looking for shed antlers in central Idaho has reported being stalked by wolves.

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2006/04/04/news/regional/01531f258b8041ac87257145006cea0e.txt

Other accounts and pictures:

http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/endangered/wolf_pics.htm

http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/wolves/fearman031606.htm

[URL="http://westinstenv.org/wp-content/NFClearwater_WolfKill_0408.pdf (http://westinstenv.org/wp-content/NFClearwater_WolfKill_0408.pdf)[/URL]

[Samm]

I've hunted plenty of coyotes. Predator hunting is a unique sport of it's own. I agree, though, at this point put a few licenses out there.

The bottom line is that you aren't going to get a flood of hunters going after wolves.......it's not like White Tail deer where everyone wants to stock their fridge. You'll get a few die-hard hunters, who will pay the licensing fees, and there's nothing wrong with that.

There is a distinction between hunting predators and controlling predators. Predator hunting follows all of the ethics and bag limits, etc. traditionally applied to hunting, but controlling predators is "business" done strictly to reduce number of predators to maintain a healthy predator/prey ratio when hunting is not achieving the desired result. Hunting is an inefficient means of removing a significant number of predators from an area when there is a serious imbalance. More direct measures are the only way to restore the balance before a long term depletion of prey can occur.

[Greyclouds]

I would rather they open up hunting for gators and bears........ toss in poisonous snakes too. I see no use for keeping these dangerous animals around. They serve no role in nature that can't be filled by other, less dangerous, creatures.

Not really.

Ecosystems are not as simple as you make it out.


Having said that, I'd be all for reasonable limited hunt of wolves, should their populations increase to unacceptable levels. Wildlife management.

[Samm]

Whenever I see figures that try to integrate human hunters/sportsmen levels into the equation of a natural ecological system of predator/prey ratios that took millions of years to reach equilibrium, I become suspicious. You are probably correct, but this "imbalance" hasn't always been there. Natural predators were around a helluva lot longer than us rifle-toting humans (I am NOT anti-hunter btw).

We've added ourselves to the mix and jacked the system. Sometimes in ways that make it convenient for us to hunt anything we are compelled to hunt.

Besides, I like wolves. ;)
The balance of nature is a myth. Predators flourish when prey are plentiful. As their population grows (which is a direct result of the ability of the pack to feed young) at some point they diminish the ability of the ungulates to reproduce. (Contrary to bleeding heart opinion... wolves and bear predate primarily on the newborn calves, not the "old, weak and injured." ) When that happens, the prey population crashes and soon after, so does the predator population. It can take more than a decade for recovery of the ungulates to take hold and start the cycle over again. The so-called "balance of nature" is one of boom-bust.

I like wolves too... they are magnificent creatures... but that does not mean their numbers should not be managed to maintain both a healthy (meaning steady... where sufficient young mature to reproductive age) populations of both wolves and prey. As I said... managing predators removes the high and low extremes of both predator and prey populations, and generally results in a average population of each that is greater then the average of the natural cycle.

If you really like wolves, you should be in favor of that.

[Samm]

My two cents, for what it's worth.
For all of the large predators, before we resort to open hunting, we should trap and relocate to areas that still need them and then when the hunting is opened up, it should be by lottery and the funds should go back into a "large predator fund." Once all of the areas are populated with sufficient numbers and an outbreak ensues then the areas affected can open up the lottery hunts again.

I agree... that idea is worth about two cents. :razz: