Six Wolves Found Dead in Wisconsin

[Jawbone]

Six isn't enough!!!!!!!!!!![:@]

[buckhunter21]

Yea, I don't say someone should shoot wolves since they are on the endangered species list, and it's illegal, but I can see on onslaught of this happening now due to how downgrade of the deer herd and the upgrade of the wolf population.  Time will tell.

[bigwisconsinbucks]

I think some hunters will continue to shoot wolves because of either they think it's a coyote or because it's a wolf and they don't want them in their area. The hunters that do this are taking a big risk.

[Gafrage]

I'm not supporting the "illegal" shooting of wolves, but this is obviously something they need to look into.  I don't know if any of you were watching VS. last night, but Tred Barta sure had something to say about the wolves, and how they belong in Canada and Alaska, not in the lower 48.  I'll try to look for a link, but he couldn't have said it any better.  Obviously man is the top predator in the world, but when the 2nd top predator is protected, it puts a major damper on the total population of "vegetarians".  He said something very similar to:  Have you been to Yellowstone National Park lately?  How many Elk, deer and bison have you seen?  It doesn't matter how much food is available for the wolves, if they are protected, they are going to spread, and do lots of damage to the herds, which we have full control over.  Yet, it's often overlooked as we don't take into account the wolves, bears and cougars (out west at least).


Edit:  I have been there in the last 365 days, and now that I think of it, I hardly saw any of those species.  The first time I went there was when I have very very young.  The only thing I remember from that, was having to go to the bathroom and a bison blocking the road.  So we couldn't go anywhere.  I did take a look at some of the pictures our family took, and there sure were a lot of animals then, and that was not long after a fire they had, back in the 80's. 

[lawdog]

everyone; you must read this article by Judd Cooney.  it says it all.
 
http://www.predatorxtreme.com/ArticleContent/9/2008/68/Wolf-hunting-problem
 
 

[stumpsitter66]

Most of you will probably laugh me out of this forum but here goes. Did the game department reintroduce wolves because they knew that at some point they would need additional means of controlling the state's deer population? Get my idea...hunter numbers keep dwindling and they were trying to stay ahead of the game? A thousand wolves could kill 20,000 deer a year. Not a huge number but a good start at controlling the population. Get my drift?

[Fish]

I don't believe the introduced them to control the herd.  We have enough bear and coyotee to do that, not to forget free tags for everyone.  In fact, coyotee and wolves really don't co-exist very well.
 
I believe the only reason to reintroduce the wolves was for viewing pleasures and to say we have them.  Much like our elk population.  The treehuggers/liberals find some sort of gratification in introducing new species to our ecosystem that hinder certain reproduction of others.  I.e. gobies, zebra mussels and crab lice.
 
(I think gobie are the thing killing the perch up in Door Cty.)

[Gafrage]

nah, the DNR's mis-judgment of the population up there is what hurt the perch population.  I used to fish that for perch.  It was a blast.  Lots of perch over 11 inches, some up to 14.  The DNR assumed there were more than there were when they had one bad breeding season.  Thus, they still gave out the permits to Commercially fish them they kept the daily bag limits extremely liberal, and since the Perch have gone down in population, the exotic species have flourished. 


As far as the wolves, check out this video on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2m2_NlWwMs&feature=related

What people don't realize, is the fact that wolves aren't dogs that are running around wild.  Dogs are wolves that have been bred over time to become domesticated.  The quote that starts off on this video is hilarious.  "Here Boy".  The best quote of all of them is, "I can't believe we were that stupid." 

Then on top of that, when the wolf goes away from them, after being injured by a car, they tell it to "Come on" and start making noises that would get the attention of domesticated dogs.  I've heard of dogs attacking their own owner after being hit by a car.  Those are domesticated dogs that have been in direct contact with humans their whole life.  People don't understand what wolves can do to humans, pets other species, as well as Coyotes.  Speaking of which, here is another video of what they often enough do. 

This one is a bit more graphic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAoszVLRP6U


Now, speaking from experience, all of you wolves without control people, take a good look at the last 5 seconds of that video shows, slow it down, and picture your pet that way...or at least the Greenie's who were all about putting them back on the endangered species list.  That's mearly a glimpse of what I had to see when 5 wolves attacked my friends dog while we were ice fishing in Northern WI, yes, ICE FISHING.  If we killed any of the wolves, to protect his dog, we would have been fined.  The rules state, unless a wolf is making an attempt to endanger a human's life, they can not be killed.


I'm no environmentalist, I am a conservationist.  Difference is pretty simple, I go out in the woods, and do something about it.  I don't sit at home, see something on Nat Geo and think it would be good to see that here too!  I think with my brain, and think long term for the better of the state/country.  I don't speak without doing research of the topic on hand.  The fact about Elk, we're too far behind on that situation.  If Wisconsin really wanted Elk back, they should have put them here in good numbers prior to the wolves. 

There are lots of people who make a living in Northern WI, their jobs are there, their families are there, their way of life is there.  To put those people through pain and suffering, or the fear that they need to carry a side arm with them.


Here is a direct quote from the Wisconsin DNR about Wolves.

"Each wolf kills about 18 deer per year. Multiply this by the number of wolves found in Wisconsin in recent years (330), and approximately 5940 deer may be consumed by wolves annually. This appears as a fairly low when compared to over 40,000 deer hit by cars each year, and about 450,000 deer shot annually by hunters." 

How many deer were hit by cars this year, and how many were shot by hunters?  I bet you not as many mentioned here in their statement, and there are more wolves in WI than the DNR predicts anyway.

source:  http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/factsheets/mammals/wolf.htm#Misconceptions%20and%20Controversies

Human is the greatest predator, there is no doubt about that.  However, when the DNR tells us what we have to shoot, and protects the animals that are going to do damage to both the Elk and Deer herds, they will move south and find greener pastures.  The longer they do not fear man, the more incidents will be reported in WI.  You could load up WI with 50,000 elk near Clam lake and Black river Falls.  Most of those Elk are going to die, unless something is done about the Wolf population control.

I hear people saying that Wolves don't do any more damage to the deer herd than Bear's, coyotes, and bobcats.  Keep in mind here, Wolves hunt as groups, large groups, and aren't scavangers like Coyotes especially.  Bears are omnivores, so to the people who are biologically challenged, they eat both meat and plants.  They are opportunistic.  Coyotes are opportunistic.  They feed on animals that are smaller than them, and also eat animals that are in their death bed or already dead. 

So as I sit here in type, I hope some of you people have a good chance to look at those youtube videos, and see exactly what the wolves do to animals because they are in "their" territory.  Wolves have now invaded MY taxpaying territory in WI, and without control, they are losing fear of man.

A fine for killing a wolf that is attacking your dog, can run up to $5,000.  The compensation for sitting there, and not being able to do anything because they are protected is whatever you paid for your pet.  Seems to me, that because wolves are "endangered" they are worth more than your pet, who wags it's tail everytime you come home from work, the grocery store, or just going out to get the mail, or simply because you haven't given it attention in the past 5 minutes because the Packers were in their 2 minute drill and getting close to score.

It is illegal to kill a wolf attacking livestock or a pet on private/public lands.  Granted the people who kill wolves illegally don't help in this situation at all.


"License fees from hunting, fishing or trapping will be used for wolf management only if the species is open for public harvest."

Guess where the money is coming from?  Your tax payers pockets.  At least it is right now, who's to say when they were delisted for the short period of time they were, that the money used to do the control wasn't from our hunting licenses. 


"Full reimbursement should be made to owners who have lost pets or livestock to wolves; normal costs are estimated at $20,000 to $40,000 per year when wolves have reached management goals."

Wolves have reached management goals according to the WDNR, how about the Federal Gov't?  Full reimbursement = whatever you paid to purchase that animal, not the money you put into it, food, shots, etc.  This money is also coming out of your wallets.  PETA and HSUS, etc are only spending the money on protecting their species.  There is no proof anywhere that I have been able to find that they support or reimburse ANY state DNR with their own money, to people who lose livestock or pets.  So once again, all of the money being spent to fight us, is going directly to Washington for good lawyers, while we spend the money to fight them, and then once we lose because of the lack of common sense, we end up paying more in taxes to compensate those who are on the same boat. 

source:  http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/publications/wolfplan/exec_summary.htm


So basically since I tried to break this all down, before we do anything for the rest of the big game species in WI, we need to control the situation that is getting out of control.  Just because a few people who live in a big city, who are not conservationist want to see a wolf in the wild, does not mean that we can't control this situation.  Like I said before, there are a lot of people who make their living in Northern WI.  This has become a favoritism vote to protect the people who live in a big city, as opposed to those who don't live in the big city, and not only make their living in the Northern part of WI, but that lifestyle also provides food for them.  Most of the people on here will agree with almost everything I've said so far, however, there will be a few people who think that providing more food to these endangered species is a good idea, yet it will only give these species a bigger jumpstart allowing them to flourish more, with our money/donated money.  Want Elk back in WI, great, get the Wolves down to a respectible number, and I'll jump on your band wagon, even though I'll never be able to hunt them in my lifetime.  Even if they go to a huntable species, it'll still take several years for me to draw a tag.  I might as well go out to Colorado or Montana.

[Fish]

Gafrage, I think you just about closed this thread.  I absolutely agree with you on all points and I have nothing more to add.
 
As for the perch, it was nothing more than a "tongue in cheek" statement.  I used to love perch fishing with my grandfather back in the day, but that for a thread on "Perch and Perch Fishing".