Wolves!?

[CaptainMusky]

Obviously people are too lazy to even look, but google is a wonderful search utility. You should check it out some time.

Here is a nice read with recent reports of wolf attacks and kills.

http://www.wildsentry.org/WolfAttack.html

That was only the FIRST result from my search, there were many others, but I have a short attention span and this served my purpose.

Ok so curiosity killed the cat and I looked for more. Here is one from 2006. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/14/HOGCRGL75U1.DTL

[fishmon]

I am a dog owner and hunter to think that an armed hunter in the woods would not shoot to kill as soon as he felt his dog was threatened by a wolf is ridiculous. (imo) My dog is a part of my family, I will not yell, fire a warning shot, or invite the wolf for tea and cookies. I do not have a hatred or fear of wolves, nor do I feel they should be killed indiscriminately, but if the situation ever occurs (as doubtful as many of you feel this may or may not be)it's lights out wolf end of story.

[Duffman]

We're still dealing with only one confirmed kill in North America, and not a single one in the US.

Wolves have been killing folks in India for centuries, when your custom is to not bury your dead, wolves probably get a taste of human flesh, and our little ones are one of the most defenseless creatures on the planet.

Ditto with Europe and the many wars over the centuries, a lot of dead folks laying around, even top of the line predators will not pass up an easy meal.

[fishroger]

Ha! great website. It has a staged pic of a guy with wolf/dog jumping up on him. Right away that sends up a red flag. As far as recent attacks they talk about wolf hybrids in Europe in the mid 1700's. The other one states that a guy was apparently killed in northern canada for the first documented case in north america. Didnt see much about the upper midwest. Got to do better than that. Still say there are far more dangerous animals out there.

[CaptainMusky]

Ha! great website. It has a staged pic of a guy with wolf/dog jumping up on him. Right away that sends up a red flag. As far as recent attacks they talk about wolf hybrids in Europe in the mid 1700's. The other one states that a guy was apparently killed in northern canada for the first documented case in north america. Didnt see much about the upper midwest. Got to do better than that. Still say there are far more dangerous animals out there.

Did you even read the whole thing? There were many confirmed attacks, a few deaths all since 1996. It took me all of 5 seconds to find this, so I am quite sure that if someone were to dedicate some time they could find more.

As far as "more dangerous animals" possibly, but I would bet those animals are in far higher numbers so the likelihood of an attack would be much higher I would guess.

[fishroger]

just some more fodder for dicussion. In the recent Outdoor Newsin Cuffs and Collars where CO's describe their work. CO Tom Sutherland from Grand Rapids checked a complaint of a apparently rogue wolf taking farm animals and fighting witht area dogs. While investigating the complaint Sutherland got a glimpse of the so called rogue wolf in question and determined that it was actually a domestic dog resembling a husky. This is another example that most people dont have a clue about IDing animals and there are plenty of domestic dogs running loose around the state causing trouble.

[Recon]

Some of you should just stay out of the woods. It's a dangerous place with ticks, mountain lions and vicious packs of wolves all out for blood ! In fact we are in the most danger from another hunter who "did'nt know it was loaded or thought he was a deer and now oh, I thought he was a wolf !"

[Bear55]

Some of you should just stay out of the woods. It's a dangerous place with ticks, mountain lions and vicious packs of wolves all out for blood ! In fact we are in the most danger from another hunter who "did'nt know it was loaded or thought he was a deer and now oh, I thought he was a wolf !"

Well said Recon, there is a little too much panic in some of these posts. I would urge everyone to keep a close eye on your neighbors dog, they are about a million times more likely to attack you than these man-eater wolves.

[CaptainMusky]

Originally Posted By: Recon

Some of you should just stay out of the woods. It's a dangerous place with ticks, mountain lions and vicious packs of wolves all out for blood ! In fact we are in the most danger from another hunter who "did'nt know it was loaded or thought he was a deer and now oh, I thought he was a wolf !"

Well said Recon, there is a little too much panic in some of these posts. I would urge everyone to keep a close eye on your neighbors dog, they are about a million times more likely to attack you than these man-eater wolves.

Not sure where you get panic from, but all I see is awareness. I dont think many people realize just how many of these animals are in the areas we frequent. Will this change how and where I hunt? No way! But I think it is definitely important to know what is out there, some people just prefer to think they dont exist for some reason. That is fine I guess, but I would rather be at least aware of my surroundings before I go into them.

In my lifetime it has NEVER been a consideration that I could come into contact with a wolf or cougar simply because they are that few in number. Now, the numbers are increasing. Does it mean that I will run into one? Most likely NOT. I dont fear my life by any means, but I will tell you if I am in my stand on opening morning of rifle season and I hear a wolf howl or a pack pass my stand I am quite sure the hair will stand up on the back of my neck. They are majestic animals, it would be awesome to be able to watch them in their surroundings to see how they work, but that will likely never happen to me.

[DHanson]

Lions, tigers, and bears!!! Oh my!!!

Now wolves and cougars???

Like the cowardly lion in the 'wizard of oz', some of you could use some more courage. Being aware is one thing, but making this look like it's a bigger issue than it is seems unnecessary to me.

[Steve Foss]

I imagine if there's a season it won't involve a large number of tags, at least at first, for political reasons. And as tag numbers expand, if it becomes hard to fill them with resident hunters it can always be opened up to non-residents. Plenty of bear hunting opportunities in lots of U.S. states. Wolves, not so much.

The newspaper story quoted out of New Rockford is the same sort of breathlessly lurid stuff we see in today's National Enquirer. It's hard to believe the event even happened in the first place when there's so much sensationalism. Same kind of sensationalism we blame on much of today's media.

Del, as for the "because we could" comment, I don't see that as harsh, or at least not unnecessarily so. Economics was only one reason wolves were killed (one I understand, coming from a stock-raising family myself and marrying into a Colorado ranching family), and not the primary reason they were hunted nearly to extinction. We've been eliminating wolves from the landscape (I'm talking humans in general here, not just Americans) for many centuries, and I believe some of that goes back to when our ancestors made pretty good wolf food. And let's be honest. As the world's top predator, there are a lot of humans out there who kill just to be killing.

Our historical war on wolves has been all out of proportion to any economic threats to our livelihoods, and is rooted in many factors, among them the deep-seated fear already mentioned, the equation of wolves with evil within many religions, and the fact that a country historically is not considered "settled" (I'm including European countries here) until the wolves are eliminated.

That's all IMO, of course, though not really original thinking. The best I've ever seen at capturing the underpinnings of our relationships with the wolf is "Of Wolves and Men" by Barry Lopez. Now 30 years old and probably out of print, the book is still a telling combination of biology, natural history and the psychology of fear and hate. I've read it once a year or every-other-year since I discovered it in the late '70s, weighing Lopez' perspectives each time. Though I'm 30 years older than the first time I read it, I still find myself agreeing with almost everything he posits.

[Acemac]

Some of you should just stay out of the woods. It's a dangerous place with ticks, mountain lions and vicious packs of wolves all out for blood ! In fact we are in the most danger from another hunter who "did'nt know it was loaded or thought he was a deer and now oh, I thought he was a wolf !"

Right on the money recon! I am a McCulloch boy who has been hunting in your neck of the woods for generations. its sad to see so many uniformed outdoors men move into these areas and start complaining about all the nasty things that make it harder for them to Kill a deer.

its called deer hunting not deer shooting

wolves were here before you get over it!

[weeds]

I'm not real concerned. I don't want to pay any taxes for culling though.

I saw an eagle eying up a wiener dog. What are we gonna do about them?

[XRap]

I have read through all of the posts regarding wolves and cougars in Minnesota. There are many different angles people can take with these topics. Likely because we all have our own engrained impressions of what is right and what is wrong. And of course there are some people who just like to share their opinion sometimes without consideration for others perspectives and become angry insulting other posters...not cool!

I would like to share with you my perspective however unorthodox you may percieve it to be.

First off I would like to correct a post regarding the Bemidji cat. It was indeed a Male, not thought to be at first but was confirmed later as such.

I have lived in the North Country all of my life. I was attacked by a cougar in captivity as a young child but was not severely injured. I don't hold animosity towards this cat to this day. I have had the pleasure of seeing Fifteen Timber Wolves in the past three years and one Cougar less than two weeks ago. Almost every night around 11:00 p.m. late last fall I could step out on my front porch and hear the lonesome call of Timberwolves.

I have no fear of Bears, Cougars or Timberwolves. As history states fear leads to drastic and sometimes tragic results. It is good to educate yourself about those things that you fear. From experience it is also very important to respect animals that may harm you, your family or your property.

There were many talks of domestic dogs being more dangerous than the wild animals. Talk of dogs running deer etc. These issues have merit. As a self proclaimed dog trainer I have the tendancy to agree with those discussions around responsible dog owners to the point where if a dog is dangerous it is because of the owner not the dog. Personally if I ever had a dog that was a danger to my fellow man it would be put down, this would be an inherant trait that I could not work out of the dog and with the 15 dogs I have trained I have never run into this problem, this behavior is something I can not afford to tolerate.

This same mentality could be directed to the comments surrounding the statement: If you can't handle the wolves just move to cities and see how you handle the human animal. The metro's problem are inherantly the same in the fact that the family is broken and our children aren't being raised to understand what is acceptable (Right) and what is not (Wrong). Is it the kids fault? I would say that 95% of the problems you will find stem from the home not the kid!

I do agree with the concept of Federal Protection where necessary. With that protection comes responsibility not only from the public in assisting with that protection but from the bodies that have instituted that protection. Consideration must be given to a well thought out program for introducing, fostering and building population back to sustainable levels. Part of that consideration is human contact. As our populous grows the challenge grows, especially in growing populations of top predators.

Many people sitting in their offices ranting about the farmer that kills the wolf for preying on their livlihood. I believe that an individual has a right to protect his property, family and livestock from wild predators, domestic animals and humans. Consideration must be given in developing the plans to grow populations of animals or fish for that matter and I believe the original DNR plan for the Greywolf was well thought out.

The management of the wolf and the endangered species act relisting in MN is a result of a Federal lawsuit brought on by the Humane Society. www.fws.gov/Midwest/wolf/index.htm

The original population goal for the State of MN was 1,600 we have doubled that goal. It is not something that was proposed by the DNR, they were in favor of managemant providing the population was sustained, it was mandated by the Federal Government as a result of the lawsuit. Too bad they didn't post requests for public comment on Fishing MN?

I am a life long outdoorsman, conservationist and supporter of my hunting and fishing rights and heritage. There are many that feel we should allow animals to just exist without man interfering with their existance. Those wish that we should let our out state population migrate to the metro and let nature take its course. This is an incredible argument, nature is wonderful, bewildering, beautiful as well as harsh, unforgiving, cruel and merciless. Being that God put humans on this earth to reign, it is our responsibility to manage it responsibly as stewards. We don't own anything, we are only allowed by God to manage what he has given to us. We are starting to understand this concept now only after we are forced to look for renewable and sustainable energy as well as cleaning up the environment we live in.

The challenge we are faced with is in coming together to properly manage our natural resources. The animals were put on this earth for us, not us for them and they are part of our responsibility to manage. Not to exterminate this would be very poor management wouldn't you say? Healthy populations of all we have been given is critical to me as an outdoorsman. I want anyone to have the opportunity to see God's creation as he intended regardless of whether they watch wild life or hunt and fish it. The true sportsman is one who utilizes all that he harvests, supports the proper management and conservation of wild life and passionately respects the role as stewards of our environment.

[MN Shutterbug]

XRap, that was an excellent and well thought out post. Thanks for taking the time.

[CaptainMusky]

XRap, excellent post! I dont think your post is unorthodox in any way. Actually I share the same opinion with you, I probably wasnt nearly as effective at expressing it though. I am not afraid of wolves in the least and they definitely have their place to help control the population. The original intent of me posting this topic was really to strike up conversation about if others were feeling the numbers of wolves were far understated or not. Not to get into a bickering match about whether or not they should be there or if we were "afraid" of them.

Thanks again for the well thought out reply.

[DHanson]

XRap, great post.

[Riverratpete]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[XRap]

CaptainMusky,

Thanks for your reply. I guess I was a bit passionate regarding the subject but that passion wasn't inspired by your post it was more directed to express to others to keep an open mind (Walk a mile in my shoes)and to take a more pro-active v.s. reactive approach if you will. It was also meant to bring to light that it is too late to eliminate humans from the management equation. We have been "managing" wildlife in some manner since the dawn of time. Because we are the Top Predator and have been given the gift of reason and thought we are morally obligated and responsible for keeping a balance with all wild life.

Your question regarding understated numbers: I believe that we are at least 1,600 wolves over what we originally targeted as a sustainable population and should be managing more towards those numbers. The problems we are hearing regarding missing dogs and in some cases large reductions in deer populations are likely true indicators that management must be considered. Don't assume that I mean hunt them, although that makes perfect sense as we would gain revenue versus spending more tax pay dollars. We could trap up the 1,600 and drop them off at the Humane Society door step and let them locate them where they feel the population is still in jeopardy. My first thought would be to relocate a few packs to the suburbs to help control the massive metro deer problem?

[gulllakeguy]

[Steve Foss]

Well said, XRap!

[Xplorer]

XRap,

You have eloquently expressed how many here feel. On my 4 mile hunt yesterday with my dog I crossed no less than 4 sets of wolf tracks, and I was never more than 1.5 miles from my house outside Cloquet. I wonder why the states in the upper Midwest have not been given back State authority to manage the grey wolf population. Minnesota is 200% over its "managed" goal, while recently the WI DNR admitted that they likely have 500-600 wolves in the state when the goal was a sustained population of 300. Of Michigan I cannot speak, I havnt spent the time researching it.

I have had wolves come after my dog....15 years ago 2 wolves stalked my springer in the Canosia wildlife area north of Duluth a week before christmas while partridge hunting. All 4 of us lived to see another day. I believe that they will have a part of our outdoor existence for generations to come.

I respect their existence here, as the top line non-human predator in my area. With a 5 deer limit where I live, they have no reason to go elsewhere. In fact, if you read the last DNR disertation on the wolf study, they said that the range wolves inhabited had stayed the same, while the number of packs/wolves had increased. This indicated that due to the high deer numbers they needed less space to meet the packs primal needs.

I will continue to watch as the legal fight resumes. My opinion is that the States should have final say in management issues.

[XRap]

Xplorer,

If you really want to get that sensation of "standing hackles" just visit the HSUS site and review thier position. In one article they understate the population nationally with the population of MN wolves, amongst other erroneous data and rediculous presumptions.

www.hsus.org/wildlife/a_closer_look_at_wildlife/gray_wolf/

Parties to the lawsuit reinstating wolves to the ESA listing are as follows: Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, American Lands Alliance, Animal Protection Institute, Center for Biological Diversity, Forest Watch, Hell's Canyon Preservation Council, Help Our Wolves Live, The HSUS, Klamath Forest Alliance, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Minnesota Wolf Alliance, Oregon Natural Resources Council, RESTORE: The North Woods, Sinapu, and the Wildlands Project.

Most of the organizations represented here are very passionate about their positions. Some in fact have had followers engaged in eco-terrorism. These are just the people who take action to impose their will on others through unlawful and sometimes fatal acts. However they have managed a strong constituency, most of which are just empathasing with the cause derived from emotional compassion for an animal near extinction. Again this is really a problem related to educating the public. You or I as sportsmen would be one of the first ones to get on board to help wildlife in danger.

Here is a correction to my earlier statement on the "original" population goals for MN.

Source: USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service)

The original Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf and the 1992 revision of that plan established criteria to identify the point at which long-term population viability would be assured in the eastern United States. To achieve recovery, the plan called for maintaining and expanding the Minnesota wolf population and establishing at least one other viable gray wolf population. According to the plan, this second population needed to sustain at least 100 animals for five consecutive years if located within 100 miles of the Minnesota population. If the second population was more than 100 miles away, it needed to support at least 200 animals for five consecutive years.

These recovery criteria have been met and exceeded. The Minnesota population has steadily expanded; the latest count in 2003-2004 found about 3,020 animals, and data collected since then do not indicate a decline. An additional population is well-established in Michigan and Wisconsin, with numbers there of 434 (excluding Isle Royale) and 465 respectively. Wolf numbers in those two states have exceeded 100 for 13 years.

Another major requirement to achieve recovery in the Western Great Lakes DPS is to have protections in place to ensure the continued survival of the wolf population in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan after the DPS is delisted. Each of those states has developed a wolf management plan with the goal of ensuring future survival of the state’s wolf population. Those plans were signed by the head of the state’s Department of Natural Resources after input from wolf experts and extensive public involvement.

Do you know of a countersuit being filed?

Perhaps we could start a petition or contact Commissioner Holsten to find out what we need to do to make this happen?

Mark Holsten, Commissioner

Phone: 651-259-5555

Fax: 651-296-4799

I just read the bowser post regarding the Wolf attack on the families Yellow Lab, Cara...truly tragic.

The bowser family will be in my thoughts and prayers..

I'll make sure that I throw a few more dummies for my Labs tommorrow!

[CaptainMusky]

XRap, excellent information! Very interesting to see some real specifics.