Recent

Check Out Our Forum Tab!

Click On The "Forum" Tab Under The Logo For More Content!
If you are using your phone, click on the menu, then select forum. Make sure you refresh the page!

The views of the poster, may not be the views of the website of "Minnesota Outdoorsman" therefore we are not liable for what our members post, they are solely responsible for what they post. They agreed to a user agreement when signing up to MNO.

Author Topic: Wolves?  (Read 13288 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline 22lex

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 926
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Photo-op
Beeker-

As Heston said, "From my cold, dead hands".  I wouldn't go that far as to that the govt. is using this as a way to take our guns.  Just my opinion.

Does anyone think we'll have a boom to bust cycle with wolves?  For example, wolves eat everything in sight.  Bird numbers drop, rabbit numbers drop, deer numbers drop, and the wolves move on or die off. 

I believe this in happening now in Yellowstone with the wolves being introduced to control the elk herd numbers.  That got screwed up and now the elk numbers in and around Yellowstone are almost gone.  Thoughts?

The herd of elk in and around yellowstone are just fine. I was just out there last year and we hunt north of yellowstone, and northwest around thirty miles. If anything the herd in montana on the outskirts of yellowstone park are flourishing. This is not 'cause of the wolves, just lack of success rates of hunters and mild winters.

As far as our state goes, I really don't see anything happening for a season or managing efforts in the near future because if I remember right, a little while after they de-listed the wolves in Minnesota they made them federally protected again.

I really hope they do come to terms about some form of management for MN.
Marry an outdoors woman. Then if you throw her out into the yard on a cold night, she can still survive.
-WC Fields

Offline JCAMERON

  • Xtreme Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 357
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • "Johnny Camo Jr."
I truly have never seen a wolf where I hunt. If decreasing deer numbers can be directly correlated to increasing numbers of wolves, I think some sort of controlled management should be implemented.
"Superior... never gives up her dead when the gales of November come early."

Offline beeker

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 1933
  • Karma: +0/-0
i don't think the gov is either. but people like their conspiracy theories.
 I thought there was a program where a farmer could submit for reimbursement when wolves hit their live stock? farmers help me with this one? maybe it was just in certain areas or something.
If science fiction has taught me anything, it's that you can never have enough guns and ammo when the zombies come back to life... "WS"

Offline stevejedlenski

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 614
  • Karma: +0/-0
farmers can kill wolves if they are an imediate threat. and they have to report it. also if its become a problem the gov will usually reduce the pack numbers in that area. as for reimbursment im not sure
my wife said it.... im OFFICIALLY ADDICTED to MNO!!

Offline 22lex

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 926
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Photo-op
farmers can kill wolves if they are an imediate threat. and they have to report it. also if its become a problem the gov will usually reduce the pack numbers in that area. as for reimbursment im not sure

Judge’s ruling puts wolves back on threatened species list (September 30, 2008)

"Minnesota’s wolves have returned to the federal threatened species list following a federal judge’s ruling Monday that rescinded a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2007 decision to delist the western Great Lakes population of gray wolves.

The gray wolf, commonly referred to as the timber wolf, was removed from the threatened species list in March 2007 and management of the wolf population became a state responsibility. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) managed wolves under the terms of a federally approved state wolf management plan.

The judge’s Sept. 29 ruling places wolves back under federal protection and management.

“As a result of this ruling, Minnesotans need to know there is no legal way for an individual to kill a wolf except in the defense of human life,” said Dan Stark, DNR wolf management specialist. “Taking wolves to protect domestic animals may only be done by agents of the government.

“This was a technical legal decision that focused on federal rule-making procedures and will require the federal government to revisit its processes,” Stark said. “The ruling had nothing to do with the status of Minnesota’s wolf population or the adequacy of state management.”

A survey last winter showed that an estimated 2,921 gray wolves live in Minnesota, which continues to rank second only to Alaska in wolf population among U. S. states. Minnesota’s wolf population surpasses the federal delisting goal of 1,251-1,400 wolves. The state has one of the highest wolf densities recorded anywhere, indicating that Minnesota’s wolf population is fully recovered, according to the DNR.

All wolf damage complaints should be reported to a local conservation officer, who will make appropriate contact with federal authorities. Only an authorized agent of the government is authorized to take wolves that cause damage." MNDNR



I am sure that if you document, take pictures, and call a CO a farmer will be reimbursed for their property via federal government in the same fashion they do out west. As for shooting them "only in defense of a human life" is a trivial statement as I would not watch my dog, or livestock get attacked without throwing some lead.
Marry an outdoors woman. Then if you throw her out into the yard on a cold night, she can still survive.
-WC Fields

Offline stevejedlenski

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 614
  • Karma: +0/-0
on page 27 and 28 as well as other places of the department of the interior fish and wildlife service they talk about the new law (FWS-R6-ES-2008-009) implementing that they do allow an owner to leathally take a wolf in the act of killing a hunting dog or livestock. except on some lands like national forests...
my wife said it.... im OFFICIALLY ADDICTED to MNO!!

Offline stevejedlenski

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 614
  • Karma: +0/-0
this actually answers a lot of questions, it wont allow you to copy it but heres the link, it explains the law and answers questions... some of you that dislike the wolves they have an answer in issue 5 bottom of page 28 and have an answer on 29... i dont want to read the whole thing but if someone else does ill give you $20 jk

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/EA_01182008/FR01242008.pdf
« Last Edit: November 11/26/08, 02:15:13 PM by stevejedlenski »
my wife said it.... im OFFICIALLY ADDICTED to MNO!!

Offline 22lex

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 926
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Photo-op
on page 27 and 28 as well as other places of the department of the interior fish and wildlife service they talk about the new law (FWS-R6-ES-2008-009) implementing that they do allow an owner to leathally take a wolf in the act of killing a hunting dog or livestock. except on some lands like national forests...

Why doesn't this get published? Weird, I keep tabs on the mndnr site for news releases and such, and nothing like this ever got into circulation. Never thought of checking the IFWS.

Kind of reminds me of state and county coordinating together! :rotflmao:
Marry an outdoors woman. Then if you throw her out into the yard on a cold night, she can still survive.
-WC Fields

Offline 22lex

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 926
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Photo-op
this actually answers a lot of questions, it wont allow you to copy it but heres the link, it explains the law and answers questions... some of you that dislike the wolves they have an answer in issue 5 bottom of page 28 and have an answer on 29... i dont want to read the whole thing but if someone else does ill give you $20 jk

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/EA_01182008/FR01242008.pdf

My two hours are worth more than 20 dollars! HOLY CRAP is that long!
Marry an outdoors woman. Then if you throw her out into the yard on a cold night, she can still survive.
-WC Fields

Offline stevejedlenski

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 614
  • Karma: +0/-0
thats the tough thing about laws is because you may be dealing with city, county, state, and then federal laws... and they WILL contradict eachother but the most restricting law is always the trump
my wife said it.... im OFFICIALLY ADDICTED to MNO!!

Offline thunderpout

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 2804
  • Karma: +0/-0
Steve... that was the case before the judges recent ruling which put the wolves back on the protected list again... now only the government is allowed to take out problem wolves.  The only way we can take a wolf is if its to protect a human life....... again.  Its confusing I know, most people cant keep up with the changes as they change because of legal flip-flopping day to day, month to month... I read an article in the tribune a month ago where a grouse hunter was up near Bemiji where I frequent, had a wolf go after his Brittany and he commented that the previous week he could have shot the wolf to protect his bird dog, but because of that judges recent overturning of the gov's ruling, he took on the wolf by "waving his hat" at him and his dog suffered minor injuries.... it must have been a tough hat, I'm guessing a Filson... ;) :whistling:

Offline dakids

  • MNO Moderator
  • Master Outdoorsman
  • *
  • Posts: 5070
  • Karma: +9/-6
  • 2013 MNO Fishing Challenge Champ!
While we were at deer camp in Cass county we heard from a guy that lives up there that the DNR had relocated 6-8 wolves into the state forest behind his home.  He was really pissed off!!  He started to see fewer and fewer deer and had only seen 2 deer in the last month on his land.  He didn't see a deer the first 2 weeks of the season.  He was told that the DNR had trapped the wolves from an area that had a lot of wolves killing livestock and moved them to an area that was intensive harvest.  I guess it was the DNR's way to lower the deer population in our area.
Anything that is free is worth saving up for.

Offline Moving2thecountry

  • Xtreme Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 263
  • Karma: +0/-0
But wolves are so cute.

[youtube]srv6AWySQPY[/youtube]

If a wolf came after my dog, it seems that my life would also be in danger, as I would be compelled to retrive my dog.  Indeed, my dog is so friendly she doesn't understand it when other dogs behave aggressively toward her, and in general follows my commands such as "come".  If the wolf followed what else could one reasonably assume but the wolf was going to attempt to kill me as well?



Emotions aside, they won't re-imburse me for the amount of money and time I put into training her.  They'd probably toss me $500 and tell me to buy another dog.

I am not sure why I can't protect my animal and reimburse the feds for the loss of a wolf.

That being said, a pack of wolves chasing a deer is alright by me.  That's the wolves' dayjob.

I do think the federal judge oversteped judicial authority in deciding to re-list the wolf.  I have no idea under what authrority a federal judge thinks he can overturn the administrative decision to delist certain populations.  The wolves don't have constitutional rights, the normal justification for judicial review.  It is sad that nobody is appealing the judge's ruling, as I think it would get overturned.

Meanwhile, it was the humane soceity among others who sued the Bush administration.  I hope nobody is donating money to them.

« Last Edit: November 11/26/08, 08:46:04 PM by Moving2thecountry »

Offline Moving2thecountry

  • Xtreme Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 263
  • Karma: +0/-0
Here is a more objective video:

[youtube]mGXWy3htXgQ[/youtube]

Offline deer slayer

  • Posts: 1
  • Karma: +0/-0
I deer hunt in northern minnesota and this year was slim pickings due to wolves. I have had an average of 20 different deer at my food plots  until october. I now get pictures of wolves going through my stand about every 2 nights. Something needs to be done to control the wolf population. I only saw 7 deer all season, lucky one big one came out on the last weekend.

Offline Mayfly

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 5689
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • MNO
I had an interesting chat woth a Northern Wisconsin hunter this evening. He was talking about this deer season and how he didn't see a single deer this year and this has been a trend over the years. About 10 Years ago they introduced about 15 wolves onto county land that borders his property. They have bred and spread but he still has a large pack that works over his land pretty good. The only deer he saw was two fresh kills done by wolves in the week he was there.

The numbers are a bit skewed but look at this:

Fact: In Minnesota, wolves kill the average equivalent of 15 to 20 adult-sized deer per wolf per year. Given the 2008 estimate of 2,922 wolves in Minnesota, that would equal about 43,800 to 58,500 deer killed by wolves. In comparison, hunters killed approximately 260,000 deer in the 2007 deer harvest. In addition, several thousand deer are killed during collisions with vehicles each year.

The reason I say that number is skewed is because you don't have wolves all over the state. If you have an area with an over-abundance of wolves then that area is alomst depleted of Deer.

Just like the guys area I talked with tonight. There are a lof of deer being killed right there. Another "Wolf Fact" site suggests that an adult wolf will kil approx. 35 deer per year. So what is the truth, 15 - 20 or is it 35? Change that number to 35 for the above figure and you have about 102k dead deer compared with 43-58k dead deer. And then is that estimated number of wolves even correct? How do they know that there is not more than that. It seems that the people seem to think there are more wolves than the dnr would like to admit.

It is an interesting subject.

Another interesting story he told me about was his neighbor who used to farm cattle. The dnr pays him not to raise cattle anymore. The agreement is that if he does continue to raise the cattle which he does, that they will not repay him anymore for lost cattle and he is not able to report the cattle deaths. He know of two farmers in the area that have this agreement with the Wisconisn DNR. Sounds pretty crooked to me.


 :scratch:

Offline The General

  • MNO Staff
  • Master Outdoorsman
  • *
  • Posts: 6782
  • Karma: +20/-27
  • Smackdown King
Crooked as a politician. :doah:
Eastwood v. Wayne Challenge Winner 2011

The Boogie Man may check his closet for John Wayne but John Wayne checks under his bed for Clint Eastwood

Offline jjcoffe

  • Minnow
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Karma: +0/-0
I hunt in north central Mn and the U.P. of Michigan,  I can't comment on the the MN Wolves because i have not seen any or heard of any around my land in MN But the deer numbers are way down in my area.  But for the U.P. of Michigan I know the Wolf numbers are way up I have seen many wolves just standing on side of the road, Damn things don't stay there long enough for me to get close with my truck  :rotflmao:  Like other people have said in years past i may see 15-20 deer a day at my bait pile in Michigan to this year having wolf tracks on my trails and tracks at my bait pile and not seeing a deer for the first 6 days of season.  I did have a wolf come within what i thought to be a 100 yards of my blind this year and howl.  I could not see him but it made the hair stand up on the back of my neck that's forsure.

I don't know about the Wolves in MN but alot of the wolves in Michigan have radio colars on the that send out a signal if the wolves die it's call a mortality alarm.  There is also alot of talk that the DNR up there is starting to use Microchips in the wolves that do the samething as the colars but you can not tell which ones have them.  Just something to think about if you plan on useing the three S's

Offline mnnate

  • Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 74
  • Karma: +0/-0
Quote
I don't know about the Wolves in MN but alot of the wolves in Michigan have radio colars on the that send out a signal if the wolves die it's call a mortality alarm.  There is also alot of talk that the DNR up there is starting to use Microchips in the wolves that do the samething as the colars but you can not tell which ones have them.  Just something to think about if you plan on useing the three S's
I have also heard to where the dnr is using microchips. I believe they have been implementing them over the past couple years into wolves they trap in problem areas and release into areas with few or no wolves and numerous deer. Although they make me shy away form the 3 S's there is always the good 'ol gut shoot and let them die later. :whistling:
There are more and more wolves near our cabin by Isabella. As the deer herd on and near our property increases so have the wolves.(makes sense) Near our farm south of Brainerd there has been a pair roaming the area all summer and fall. Our section went from a managed area to a lottery area this year!? How many more wolves have they introduced? I don't know but may get a better number once we start banging after some more 'yotes. I for one would not think twice about defending a pet/hunting dog or any livestock for that matter if a wolf/wolves were even about to attack.

Offline Mayfly

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 5689
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • MNO
As far as handling the problem on your own the Wisconsin farmer I spoke with suggested a slug to the belly. Just passing along what I heard....


Offline GRIZ

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 1793
  • Karma: +0/-0
I don't know but I thought you had the right to protect yourself and property, including cattle. Evidently not but that is just wrong. Changing that in itself would put check and balances back in place.

Ever since people moved to this land we(people) and wolves have been fighting over the same food source. Wheather it be deer or livestock. We as people have choices and they do not. They are just filling their niche.

It just seems that most here are in complaint against the wolf because of the poorer deer hunting. Now that is a valid arguement provided that you don't have the opportunity of going to the meat market and picking up some food. Also you can choose to go else where and deer hunt. There are a few that do not have that opportunity but they need yet to speak here.

My point is every animal has it's niche. Nature has it's check and balances. Wolves and people will never get along both being at the top of the food chain. Problem is we(people) have found a way to elude check and balance on ourselves. We have over populated ourselves to the point that we can't get what we want. Not all natures creatures can live with us if we get what we want.
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
~Thomas Jefferson

Offline TNT

  • Xtreme Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 122
  • Karma: +0/-0
griz,
now that they have been "re-listed" on the endangered species list, they can only be put down if threatening human life, a rancher could catch them in the act of pulling down livestock, and even then can't "legally" shoot them, but i would guess most would do what they have to regardless what the law states.

Offline GRIZ

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 1793
  • Karma: +0/-0
griz,
now that they have been "re-listed" on the endangered species list, they can only be put down if threatening human life, a rancher could catch them in the act of pulling down livestock, and even then can't "legally" shoot them, but i would guess most would do what they have to regardless what the law states.

Exactly they do it anyway and should be able to do it. Guess not though. They would do more of it though if it were legal for them to do so.
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
~Thomas Jefferson

Offline guythathunts

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 836
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • The brothers with my 2006 buck.
It sounds as if there are people that feel strongly that we need to give to the wolves. What do the wolves give to us? I know we give a ton to deer, ducks, pheasants, but they all give back. The wolves provide no resource. They are no different than rats, or snakes here in Minnesota. It's just one way to look at it. I know they look cool and they make for some decent entertainment, but beyond that... I'm not so sure they are that important to us.
Find a bird Duke... find a bird... ROOSTER!!! BANG! Bring it here boy. GOOD BOY DUKE, GOOD BOY!!!

Offline Go Big Red!

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 1761
  • Karma: +0/-0
Anyone out there running a trail camera or two that has captured wolf pictures?  Post them if you do.
Take a kid hunting and fishing... It'll be the best thing for generations to come.

Offline Jeremy (Yeti)

  • Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 40
  • Karma: +0/-0
Holyoke, MN

[attachment deleted by admin]
There's nothing like a day in the stand.

Offline Go Big Red!

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 1761
  • Karma: +0/-0
Thanks for the photo.  Anyone else?  And please tell us where it was photographed.
Take a kid hunting and fishing... It'll be the best thing for generations to come.

Offline stevejedlenski

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 614
  • Karma: +0/-0
all you belly acheing may have paid off. i read in the paper today that usfws is proposing to take the wolves off the list for the rockys and western great lakes areas. but there are activists and people from the humane society that are already asking obama and his party to stop this and said they will go back to court... good luck, maybe you should voice your opinions as well. and dont say you will wipe them out but follow any management plan the state has, etc
my wife said it.... im OFFICIALLY ADDICTED to MNO!!

Offline GRIZ

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 1793
  • Karma: +0/-0
Here is something

Gray wolf removed from endangered species list (AP)‏

Sent: January 15, 2009 3:46:14 PM


Chicago Tribune
Government makes decision on gray wolf protection
By MATTHEW BROWN and JOHN FLESHER | Associated Press Writers
4:51 PM CST, January 14, 2009

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-mt-graywolf-endanger,0,5429386.story

BILLINGS, Mont. - Gray wolves in the western Great Lakes and Northern
Rockies will be removed from the federal endangered species list by
late February under a plan announced Wednesday by the Bush
administration.

Left out of the plan were wolves in Wyoming, where state officials
sought a "predator zone" across most of the state within which the
animals could be shot on sight. Federal officials said Wyoming law
would have to change before wolves there could be taken off the
endangered list.

Beyond that exception, Wednesday's move was largely a repeat of the
administration's previous attempts to turn over control of wolves to
state wildlife agencies. Those prior efforts were overruled by courts.

The incoming Obama administration will get a chance to review the
latest attempt, but it was not immediately clear if a change in course
is likely.

Department of Interior officials trumpeted their decision as a
watershed moment for an iconic species first listed as endangered in
1974.

"Returning this essential part of our national heritage to so much of
our natural landscape ranks among our greatest conservation
achievements," Deputy Interior Secretary Lynn Scarlett said.

Environmental and animal rights groups derided the move as a
last-minute effort by the Bush administration to strip protections
from an animal they say remains at risk. They promised Wednesday to
return to court with another round of lawsuits.

"These guys have been trying for eight years to explain how it could
be possible for them to delist the wolves," said Jonathan Lovvorn, a
vice president of the Humane Society of the United States. "It's time
for them to throw in the towel."

In the Northern Rockies, a spike in livestock killings caused by
expanding wolf populations has brought intense pressure to allow
public hunting of the predators.

"We're the people that have to live with it," said Eric Svenson of
Reed Point, Mont., where officials say a pair of rogue wolves killed
two dozen sheep and goats on the Svenson Ranch over the last several
months.

"People don't see the damage or hardships that we have to go through
when something like this moves in," Svenson added. "Maybe hunting will
keep their population in check."

Idaho and Montana already have crafted plans for public hunts. Federal
biologist Ed Bangs said those plans entailed killing at most 300
wolves in the first year.

There are no immediate plans for hunts in the western Great Lakes.

Last September, U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman in Washington sided
with animal-rights groups that accused the government of misapplying
the law when it lifted protections for about 4,000 wolves in Michigan,
Minnesota and Wisconsin in 2007.

About 1,500 wolves in the Northern Rockies were taken off the list in
February 2008. But U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy of Missoula,
Mont., nullified the move in July, saying state management plans could
not guarantee their recovery was sustainable.

Those actions followed the 2003 downgrading of the species from
endangered to threatened across the lower 48 states. That action was
overturned by the courts in 2005.

The northern Rocky Mountain wolf segment includes all of Montana,
Idaho and Wyoming, the eastern one-third of Washington and Oregon, and
a small part of north-central Utah.

Gray wolves previously were listed as endangered in the lower 48
states, except in Minnesota, where they were listed as threatened. A
small population of Mexican Gray wolves in the Southwest were not
affected by Wednesday's announcement.

The federal government has approved wolf management plans in Montana
and Idaho, but says Wyoming's state law and wolf management plan fall
short of providing needed protections. The federal recovery goal seeks
a population of 300 wolves in Wyoming.

Federal officials said the decision to leave out Wyoming was in
response to its "predator zone" covering almost 90 percent of the
state. The only limits on hunting would be within a "trophy management
area" in the northwestern corner of the state around Yellowstone
National Park.

Wyoming Attorney General Bruce Salzburg said a lawsuit challenging the
federal plan was "probable." He pointed out that the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service had approved the state's proposal in 2007.

The level of animosity over wolves seen in the Northern Rockies has
been largely absent in the western Great Lakes. Minnesota, Michigan
and Wisconsin also have crafted management plans approved by the
government.

"This is a textbook example of how the Endangered Species Act is
supposed to work," said Marvin Roberson, a Sierra Club policy
specialist in Michigan who supports removing Great Lakes wolves from
the federal endangered list.

The Interior Department's decision will take effect 30 days after its
publication in the Federal Register, which officials said could happen
within the next two weeks.

Deputy Interior Secretary Scarlett insisted the wolf decision was
based on science, not politics. That assertion was backed up by David
Mech, a leading wolf expert and senior research scientist with the
U.S. Geological Survey.

"I'm satisfied, and most wolf biologists I know are satisfied, that
wolf populations in both regions have been biologically recovered for
the last five years," Mech said.

Nevertheless, the decision could be reversed by President-elect Barack
Obama's administration after he is sworn in Tuesday.

Obama spokesman Nick Shapiro said the matter would be reviewed but
offered no other details.

"President-elect Obama will review all eleventh-hour regulations and
will address them once he is President," Shapiro said.
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
~Thomas Jefferson

Offline Go Big Red!

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 1761
  • Karma: +0/-0
A wolf season in the near future?  Drawing a tag by lottery seems like a great way to start.
Take a kid hunting and fishing... It'll be the best thing for generations to come.