Lots of good stuff to read, I've come back to mainly say thanks, assigning myself some reading, and attempting to be less of a opinionated know-it-all. That last bit is a struggle.
I would be curious as to the reason on the refusals/support. If you market wolves as something they'd be able to harvest, a large segment would support it. Likewise for farmers, if they're crop farmers they'd love big predators to control deer. Livestock farmers, not so muchJust found this:
Plan was to delist at 250, and recommended population goal 23 years ago was 350. So...perhaps WWF was not willfully misleading, but just wrong.
I've just skimmed the document, but mentioned right out the gate is reimbursement for pets and livestock and plans for a hunting season. Also mentions that only 20% of Wisconsin hunters opposed reintroduction, but 50% of farmers did. It seems to me that across the board there's more issue with the idea of wolves eating livestock than deer, and we're probably looking at a very small percentage of the population worried about the impact of the deer herd.
I guess I have to ask at what level do you think it's appropriate to look at the data.
1.5 million car crashes a year due to deer, about 175 fatalities, and over a billion in damages
What is so magical about the initial reintroduction number? How was it arrived at?
350 wolves or less. To me, that hardly sounds like a stable, manageable population, but I'm not a wolf biologist.
I think we all agree the best place for wolves is large tracts of wilderness with few people and lots of deer. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of those left
I'll end with this. If you and other hunters aren't against wolf populations, but you disagree with the way the reintroduction is being handled, what does a good solution look like to you? Where do they get to live, and how many get to live there?
Fair points.I've already been asked by a coworker today if I was writing a book so I will try to keep this short.
At a national level is irrelevant when looking at impacts from reintroduction . I believe a combination of State/County/Local data could paint an accurate picture but, none of them by themselves tell the whole story.
Interesting argument that I would have to ponder more. I do believe there is a distinction between maintaining the status quo (existing populations) and changing the status quo (reintroduction).
We are bumping up against the limit of my knowledge here (maybe we've surpassed it) but, I have always assumed these numbers were set by biologists/state game agencies based on carrying capacity of the habitat. If that is not the case, I may need to rethink some of my positions.
This is really the root of my position. I have assumed (and in the absence of information otherwise will continue to assume 350 was set by wolf biologist as a stable, manageable population. Assuming that is the case then repeated listing/delisting and numbers potentially exceeding 1,000 is the problem.
Agree but, I mostly think this is were your sentence should have stopped.
I don't think your asking the right question. The question is how can we manage wolf populations in small areas where impacts are negligible without the constant court battles and continuous listing/delisting based on political pressures that result in populations being significantly higher than the population goals set by biologists? I don't see a realistic solution to this, especially at the Federal level.
And I now have exhausted my knowledge on the subject so I'm probably done. Everyone else play nice.
No worries. I remember reading Wisconsin's population repopulated itself, but it slipped my mind and we've been talking about reintroduction in 2 other states.I apologize for sounding harsh, I don't know how else to get through.
No worries. I remember reading Wisconsin's population repopulated itself, but it slipped my mind and we've been talking about reintroduction in 2 other states.
If you're a local, do you know where to find historic county-by-county deer harvest/population information or any numbers on target deer herd for areas?
I always want to ask vegans when they intend to have their dentist pull their canine teeth since they dont need them? The difference between your friend and staunch anti's is the anti's are not interested in any narrative that doesnt directly support their mission to end hunting. They do not care about the truth and they do not care about conservation. The only dialog they are concerned with is screaming over the top of anything counter to their opinion. I have had similar conversations to yours with lots of friends that are non-hunters. I just will not engage with an anti normally.My problem with all of it is it is emotionally driven for the most part. History is clear human have and always will be hunters. But we drove many species to extinction because of our superior advantages over wildlife. This has happened over 1,000s of years. I don’t think hunting is always the answer to managing wildlife, wildlife will manage itself, but we want to hunt just as much as non hunters want to take a walk in the woods. What sucks is the non hunting like to pretend they have no impact in wildlife when they of course do. Development and even just walking through woods impacts wildlife. The whole vegan movement destroys habitat to supply protien via soy beans. We are meat eaters, as we all know, we need meat. But I think we should seek to work with these groups for each of us to understand each other. We all should be afforded fair access to all outdoor activities that are managed by a scientific body.
I have a good friend who is vegan as is her whole family. She knows I hunt and we talk about wildlife often. She’s always blown away by how much knowledge I have about wildlife that she never knew. But because i didnt disrespect her beliefs and was supportive if her decision, she in turns understands me and mine decisions and doesn't go around blasting hunters.
Only slightly related:
I've never met an "anti". I've met people who don't hunt. I've met vegetarians and vegans. I've met people who eat meat and have no clue how it ends up on their plate out of ignorance(intended or accidental) or stupidity. But I've never met a person who's identity is wrapped up enough in their views on "hunting" or "animal cruelty", that they take significant action in their personal or professional lives to the point that they cross my radar as an "anti".
Where do you guys encounter people like this? They have to exist, right?
I have run into a few, high school, college and since. The common thread has been they were all female, all ultra liberal, all extreme in all their views and all 100% metro contained having never experienced nature first hand.Only slightly related:
I've never met an "anti". I've met people who don't hunt. I've met vegetarians and vegans. I've met people who eat meat and have no clue how it ends up on their plate out of ignorance(intended or accidental) or stupidity. But I've never met a person who's identity is wrapped up enough in their views on "hunting" or "animal cruelty", that they take significant action in their personal or professional lives to the point that they cross my radar as an "anti".
Where do you guys encounter people like this? They have to exist, right?
If every hunter positively influences one non-hunter, it really matters.I have a lot of people in my circles that many of you would likely label anti-hunter. Some of them are, most just don't care and want me to shut up about my hobby so they can go back to whatever dumb thing they care about instead of the db things I care about. Many of the ones with an opinion actively give me crap for killing deer, and I in turn call them idiots for not knowing where their factory farmed meats come from. Can 100% reinforce(anecdotally) that a gentle ribbing or a curious conversation between friends goes a lot longer way than animosity and tribalism. I've tried both on multiple occasions. Sometimes on here! Lol. One of the most vehement anti-hunters I ran in to is now "ok with hunting" after our conversations. She doesn't want to see it happen, but understands that she can't judge me between hamburger bites. I now believe that she wouldn't vote against my hobby where a few years ago she would have. Had I written her off like it seems some of you are writing people off, she'd just be another anti. Again, anecdotal.
Not trying to toot my own horn or act like changing one person's opinion really matters, but it did a heck of a lot more than assuming we'd never get to common ground. Most of what I've said in this thread is to try to encourage you to do the same, though I bet it sounds preachy at times.