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.
-
The SH Membership has gone live. Only SH Members have access to post in the classifieds. All members can view the classifieds. Starting in 2020 only SH Members will be admitted to the annual hunting contest. Current members will need to follow these steps to upgrade: 1. Click on your username 2. Click on Account upgrades 3. Choose SH Member and purchase.
-
We've been working hard the past few weeks to come up with some big changes to our vendor policies to meet the changing needs of our community. Please see the new vendor rules here: Vendor Access Area Rules
Good read from outdoor life: hunters no longer needed
- Thread starter Exhumis
- Start date
@GCTerpfan, I apologize in advance for the book, but I want to be thorough and take it point-by-point.
So I find this statement interesting. I actually haven't seen you adequately refute a single argument. You have asked @BTaylor for statistics then dismissed those statistics by simply enlarging the sample size to a point that the impacts are hidden. When I pointed out that looking at data at the State level was too broad to tell the story, you changed the statistics you were referencing to nation wide.
I guess I have to ask at what level do you think it's appropriate to look at the data. On a small scale, a handful of farmers are suffering big losses. On a broader scale, farmers in a region adjacent to wolves are suffering somewhat smaller losses, but still substantial. On a state scale, the provable losses are less than 1%. On a national scale, the losses are greater than 0 but inconsequential. You and btaylor think I'm looking at it too macro I guess, and I think y'all are looking at it very narrowly. Your analysis fits your side of the argument, and mine fits my own, but who's right?
At the risk of being accused of changing the subject, let's look at this:
www.moneygeek.com
.
1.5 million car crashes a year due to deer, about 175 fatalities, and over a billion in damages. To say nothing of substantial agricultural impact they have, negative effects of overbrowsing in sensitive ecosystems, or the specter of CWD possibly affecting human health. Sportsmen's Alliance estimates deer hunters spend $23 billion a year, and there are undeniable advantages to keeping deer around, but is that worth 175 lives plus injuries and damages in the billions?
On what level do we analyze deer fatalities vs the benefits of having deer around? Is a fatal deer crash an intolerable tragedy, or an acceptable cost given the benefits. Where do you want to stand looking at the data? For rural families who are hit harder, it can look pretty rough (I've hit 3 deer in 7 years, my dad has hit 2-3, and my grandmother who commutes 2 hours twice a week in a rural area to visit family usually hits one every other year), but city dwellers bare no cost (my sisters who are more urban have never hit a deer between the 2 of them).
It's been a pretty rapid-fire debate, typical of internet forums, so I guess if we were going to be thorough we'd have to back up and really nail down the level you want to look at it. Everything has a cost. I think we all agree it's cool to have wolves around. We're just arguing over that cost and who bears it.
The framing of the argument as 4% vs 96% is so misleading it has to be intentional. I would wager predator reintroduction isn't even on the radar for the vast majority of the US. This is a 4% vs 4% issue and I would be willing to bet that the 4% of hunters are much more willing to accept reintroduction of predators to target population goals with control via hunting than the other side is willing to accept hunting of any kind.
I agree that that it's not 4% vs 96% on wolves vs no wolves. I don't think I ever said that, but I'm not re-reading 6 pages to check. There's a second argument running through this thread regarding how much control hunters have had, currently have, and will have concerning wildlife management policy. I think that in a very major way hunters have (right and wrong) had a disproportionate voice in wildlife management, especially at the state level since state agencies are funded by PR funds, and they're loathe to give it up. That's (if i remember) what I was referring to with the 4% vs 96%, You're right to state that it's a vocal minority against a vocal minority dominating most of the dialogue on wolves, and most of the people are somewhere in-between. I think we have more misunderstanding (for which I'll accept blame) than disagreement here.
You have avoided every tough question that @BTaylor has asked and completely ignored the gorilla in the room of predator populations growing to multiple times the reintroduction goals because science was overruled by political pressure in almost every reintroduction effort.
You'd have to specify which tough questions I've missed. The one you referenced I hadn't commented on, but will now.
What is so magical about the initial reintroduction number? How was it arrived at? How much of it was science vs political compromise? Are other species aggressively and exactingly managed to a number like that? Deer? Elk? Turkey? Tell me that, and I'll tell you what I think of the population exceeding those bounds.
Finally, I am also a little disappointed in you dismissing the arguments of the people who disagree with you as tribal thinking while simply repeating the arguments of a different tribe on topic you admittedly knew nothing about 24 hours ago.
Apologies if anybody who gave a good-faith argument included themselves in my commentary about tribal thinking. I was referring to gems such as these:
"No doubt hippies from San Francisco and other cities have a thing or two to teach us about the outdoors. Just look at the pristine beauty of their cities of origin."
"If the city folk like the idea of predators I'm sure there are quite a few serial killers on death row around the country who would like to breath some fresh air. Couldn't hurt, could it?"
"There are a bunch of folks that think men can get pregnant. That doesnt mean it is reality."
Those aren't arguments, they're tribal rhetoric. Spade's a spade.
I would really like to know your thoughts on the specifics of post #79 and #83.
I think @sweats pretty much summed up my thoughts on #79, but here goes.
"I will re-phrase, when a species of predator is annually responsible for more kills that all gun hunters in the same area, to me that is a statistically significant amount. Would you agree? What is "statistically significant?" Is it a big number? In that case, sure, it's statistically significant. Is it worrisome? Not necessarily. Would you agree that there is an issue if a predator species population grows to more than 5 times the desired number? As I said, how was the number arrived at, how magic is it, and is there a real problem with it being exceeded. Heck, IS it being exceeded, because in Wisconsin's case specifically it looks like the last wolf season took out more wolves than projected. Would you agree that it is fiscally disadvantageous to management agencies to repeatedly incur significant litigation cost directly related to said predator species or that it might also impact funds that might otherwise been used to enhance other game and/or non-game species? Sure. It costs money. Everything costs money. The question is, is the money well-spent? We have a HUGE defense budget and people living in boxes. Is it "worth it?" Would you agree the ensuing PR battle with anti's is in no way beneficial in garnering support within the middle populace? Yes, it's dumb to make enemies when you could make friends or at the very least, not make enemies. I think this is a weird hill to die on. Show me a way to ensure that population management will remain solely in the hands of game and fish so that populations are properly managed and I would not object to a reintroduction. As I've mentioned, hunters like state control because they have more sway, and dislike federal control because they have less sway. I am not automatically anti-fed. And...I haven't seen an example of state input being entirely dismissed."
As far as #83, I quoted directly from the Wisconsin Wolf Facts front page. Here it is again, "Wisconsin Wolf Facts strives to sift through the propaganda, misinformation, and myths propagated by a deliberate, well-funded campaign to hoodwink the American people." I don't take them seriously. In my experience it's rare that conspiracy theorists are worth taking seriously. Read through their site and tell me otherwise. But let's look at their timeline. I'll strip it down a little since a lot of it is extraneous.
HISTORY OF WOLVES IN WISCONSIN:
1999: Wisconsin DNR unveils management plan that calls for a population goal of 250 wolves. Plan includes a provision for delisting wolves once this number is reached.
2003: Federal government reclassifies wolves from endangered to threatened in Wisconsin.
2004: Wisconsin’s wolf population reaches 373 animals. Wolves are removed from the state’s list of threatened species.
2004: Two anti-hunting organizations file a federal lawsuit that challenges Wisconsin’s delisting of wolves.
2005: Federal judge sides with anti-hunting organizations and reclassifies Wisconsin’s wolves as threatened.
2011: More than 200 packs of wolves roam Wisconsin, with an estimated population of 825 animals.
2012: Wolves delisted in Wisconsin. Wisconsin DNR drafts framework for a hunting and trapping season aimed to reduce the population by 14% (about 200). Tribal members are awarded 42% of the overall tags. The state issues 1,160 wolf hunting/trapping licenses to the general public, as biologists estimate a 10% success rate among the general public.
2012-2013: Hunters and trappers harvest 243 animals during Wisconsin’s first wolf season. The total harvest is comprised of 59% males and 41% females. Trappers account for 52% of the total harvest.
2013: The state sells applications to 16,672 hunters/trappers and awards 2,510 permits. The statewide quota is 275 wolves, with 251 of these tags available to state license holders.
2013: Wisconsin hunters and trappers harvest 257 wolves in the state’s second wolf season. Of the animals taken, 134 were males, 123 females. Trappers account for 70% of the harvest (180 animals).
2014: Anti-hunters file anohter federal lawsuit, calling for Wisconsin wolves to be placed back on the endangered list. Federal judge sides with anti-hunters and grants the protection. David Mech, a wolf expert for the U.S. Geological Survey, told the Star Tribune he was perplexed by the court ruling because it runs against ample scientific evidence that wolves are not endangered in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. “It sure is going to surprise a lot of people, especially wolf biologists,’’ said Mech, who has studied wolves for 56 years and provided testimony the last time wolves in the region were removed from Endangered Species Act protections.
2018: Wisconsin’s wolf population is estimated at 978 animals.
2019: Wolves kill more deer than do gun-deer hunters in four Wisconsin counties. Wolves are also responsible for more than 31% of the white-tailed deer (15,280) killed in the 17 counties that comprise Wisconsin’s “North Woods.”
Now, lets continue the timeline.
2020 - Grey wolf removed from endangered species list.
2021 - Hunters exceed wolf quota by 53%. (https://www.mprnews.org/story/2021/...nt-overshoots-quota-worrying-conservationists).
2022 - Grey wolf added back to endangered species list. Population between 812 and 1,193 per Wisconsin DNR.
Worth noting is that when I looked it up, I found the initial target population goal for grey wolves to be 350, not 250 as listed, cementing my suspicions about WWF's credibility. Right out the gate, we've gone from 5x the population to 3x the population, just by correcting their number and looking at the newest data. Also as an aside, the county-by-county spreadsheet they made inflates the kills. First, they multiply each wolf pack in a county (a number given by the state DNR) by 4. If you read into it, the state estimates something like 3.2-3.8 wolves per pack. Then, they take that inflated number and inflate it again by assuming each wolf in the pack kills 20 deer. If you look around a little, it's estimated that an adult wolf will kill between 15-20 wolves a year. So they're assuming every wolf is an adult wolf in good shape killing the high-side of the estimate in a year. Biased much?
Wisconsin has a state law obligating DNR to conduct a wolf season provided it's not federally protected that year. The animal has been listed and delisted something like 5x in 20 years. Policy changes every year. To me, it looks like micromanagement of a population that seems borderline too small to effectively manage. Folks like @BTaylor ask what it looks like if the feds control the management. I'll counter and ask what happens to those wolves if the feds pull out? It seems to me reasonable to assume that given the attitude hunters and farmers seem to have, their numbers will drop pretty severely. I believe that's what one side wants; 350 wolves or less. To me, that hardly sounds like a stable, manageable population, but I'm not a wolf biologist. I'm open to being shown why that's a good number.
You've made some references to studies that show predators enrich their ecosystems. I have read some studies in the past that have shown some positive impacts to ecosystems with the addition of predators, mainly that overpopulated prey species have been brought into balance which has had downstream effects that have improved biodiversity. The catch is most of these studies have been performed in places like Yellowstone where populations aren't being controlled by hunters.
That's a whole 'nuther can'o'worms.
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, so we start making those nasty compromises.
Those Wisconsin counties that had a greater wolf harvest than hunter harvest are relatively unpopulated. Below are the numbers:
Iron County - 3rd least populated with 6178 people
Forest County - 5th least populated with 9,258 people
Ashland County - 11th least populated with 16,107 people
Douglas County - 39th least populated with 44,203 people
I'm not sure what the acreage or hunter population is, but at first blush it'd seem that they put wolves where people weren't, which is what I think we all agree is the right approach. The thing about that is...when you put wolves where people aren't, they're logically going to kill more deer than hunters. I'm open to discussing if they killed too many, but I'd want to discuss that with the current and target goal for each county in hand. I did find this:
www.wpr.org
Bet wolves can help with that.
I need a beer now.
Thanks again for everybody that keeps it civil and tries. Please don't mistake my general disagreeableness for general hostility, and forgive me if I do a stupid or get snappy here and there. Sorry for hurt feelings.
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?
So I find this statement interesting. I actually haven't seen you adequately refute a single argument. You have asked @BTaylor for statistics then dismissed those statistics by simply enlarging the sample size to a point that the impacts are hidden. When I pointed out that looking at data at the State level was too broad to tell the story, you changed the statistics you were referencing to nation wide.
I guess I have to ask at what level do you think it's appropriate to look at the data. On a small scale, a handful of farmers are suffering big losses. On a broader scale, farmers in a region adjacent to wolves are suffering somewhat smaller losses, but still substantial. On a state scale, the provable losses are less than 1%. On a national scale, the losses are greater than 0 but inconsequential. You and btaylor think I'm looking at it too macro I guess, and I think y'all are looking at it very narrowly. Your analysis fits your side of the argument, and mine fits my own, but who's right?
At the risk of being accused of changing the subject, let's look at this:
Deer Auto Collisions By the Numbers
Millions of drivers in the U.S. experience deer-car accidents every year. Learn more about the statistics, auto insurance coverage and safety tips to prevent these accidents.
www.moneygeek.com
1.5 million car crashes a year due to deer, about 175 fatalities, and over a billion in damages. To say nothing of substantial agricultural impact they have, negative effects of overbrowsing in sensitive ecosystems, or the specter of CWD possibly affecting human health. Sportsmen's Alliance estimates deer hunters spend $23 billion a year, and there are undeniable advantages to keeping deer around, but is that worth 175 lives plus injuries and damages in the billions?
On what level do we analyze deer fatalities vs the benefits of having deer around? Is a fatal deer crash an intolerable tragedy, or an acceptable cost given the benefits. Where do you want to stand looking at the data? For rural families who are hit harder, it can look pretty rough (I've hit 3 deer in 7 years, my dad has hit 2-3, and my grandmother who commutes 2 hours twice a week in a rural area to visit family usually hits one every other year), but city dwellers bare no cost (my sisters who are more urban have never hit a deer between the 2 of them).
It's been a pretty rapid-fire debate, typical of internet forums, so I guess if we were going to be thorough we'd have to back up and really nail down the level you want to look at it. Everything has a cost. I think we all agree it's cool to have wolves around. We're just arguing over that cost and who bears it.
The framing of the argument as 4% vs 96% is so misleading it has to be intentional. I would wager predator reintroduction isn't even on the radar for the vast majority of the US. This is a 4% vs 4% issue and I would be willing to bet that the 4% of hunters are much more willing to accept reintroduction of predators to target population goals with control via hunting than the other side is willing to accept hunting of any kind.
I agree that that it's not 4% vs 96% on wolves vs no wolves. I don't think I ever said that, but I'm not re-reading 6 pages to check. There's a second argument running through this thread regarding how much control hunters have had, currently have, and will have concerning wildlife management policy. I think that in a very major way hunters have (right and wrong) had a disproportionate voice in wildlife management, especially at the state level since state agencies are funded by PR funds, and they're loathe to give it up. That's (if i remember) what I was referring to with the 4% vs 96%, You're right to state that it's a vocal minority against a vocal minority dominating most of the dialogue on wolves, and most of the people are somewhere in-between. I think we have more misunderstanding (for which I'll accept blame) than disagreement here.
You have avoided every tough question that @BTaylor has asked and completely ignored the gorilla in the room of predator populations growing to multiple times the reintroduction goals because science was overruled by political pressure in almost every reintroduction effort.
You'd have to specify which tough questions I've missed. The one you referenced I hadn't commented on, but will now.
What is so magical about the initial reintroduction number? How was it arrived at? How much of it was science vs political compromise? Are other species aggressively and exactingly managed to a number like that? Deer? Elk? Turkey? Tell me that, and I'll tell you what I think of the population exceeding those bounds.
Finally, I am also a little disappointed in you dismissing the arguments of the people who disagree with you as tribal thinking while simply repeating the arguments of a different tribe on topic you admittedly knew nothing about 24 hours ago.
Apologies if anybody who gave a good-faith argument included themselves in my commentary about tribal thinking. I was referring to gems such as these:
"No doubt hippies from San Francisco and other cities have a thing or two to teach us about the outdoors. Just look at the pristine beauty of their cities of origin."
"If the city folk like the idea of predators I'm sure there are quite a few serial killers on death row around the country who would like to breath some fresh air. Couldn't hurt, could it?"
"There are a bunch of folks that think men can get pregnant. That doesnt mean it is reality."
Those aren't arguments, they're tribal rhetoric. Spade's a spade.
I would really like to know your thoughts on the specifics of post #79 and #83.
I think @sweats pretty much summed up my thoughts on #79, but here goes.
"I will re-phrase, when a species of predator is annually responsible for more kills that all gun hunters in the same area, to me that is a statistically significant amount. Would you agree? What is "statistically significant?" Is it a big number? In that case, sure, it's statistically significant. Is it worrisome? Not necessarily. Would you agree that there is an issue if a predator species population grows to more than 5 times the desired number? As I said, how was the number arrived at, how magic is it, and is there a real problem with it being exceeded. Heck, IS it being exceeded, because in Wisconsin's case specifically it looks like the last wolf season took out more wolves than projected. Would you agree that it is fiscally disadvantageous to management agencies to repeatedly incur significant litigation cost directly related to said predator species or that it might also impact funds that might otherwise been used to enhance other game and/or non-game species? Sure. It costs money. Everything costs money. The question is, is the money well-spent? We have a HUGE defense budget and people living in boxes. Is it "worth it?" Would you agree the ensuing PR battle with anti's is in no way beneficial in garnering support within the middle populace? Yes, it's dumb to make enemies when you could make friends or at the very least, not make enemies. I think this is a weird hill to die on. Show me a way to ensure that population management will remain solely in the hands of game and fish so that populations are properly managed and I would not object to a reintroduction. As I've mentioned, hunters like state control because they have more sway, and dislike federal control because they have less sway. I am not automatically anti-fed. And...I haven't seen an example of state input being entirely dismissed."
As far as #83, I quoted directly from the Wisconsin Wolf Facts front page. Here it is again, "Wisconsin Wolf Facts strives to sift through the propaganda, misinformation, and myths propagated by a deliberate, well-funded campaign to hoodwink the American people." I don't take them seriously. In my experience it's rare that conspiracy theorists are worth taking seriously. Read through their site and tell me otherwise. But let's look at their timeline. I'll strip it down a little since a lot of it is extraneous.
HISTORY OF WOLVES IN WISCONSIN:
1999: Wisconsin DNR unveils management plan that calls for a population goal of 250 wolves. Plan includes a provision for delisting wolves once this number is reached.
2003: Federal government reclassifies wolves from endangered to threatened in Wisconsin.
2004: Wisconsin’s wolf population reaches 373 animals. Wolves are removed from the state’s list of threatened species.
2004: Two anti-hunting organizations file a federal lawsuit that challenges Wisconsin’s delisting of wolves.
2005: Federal judge sides with anti-hunting organizations and reclassifies Wisconsin’s wolves as threatened.
2011: More than 200 packs of wolves roam Wisconsin, with an estimated population of 825 animals.
2012: Wolves delisted in Wisconsin. Wisconsin DNR drafts framework for a hunting and trapping season aimed to reduce the population by 14% (about 200). Tribal members are awarded 42% of the overall tags. The state issues 1,160 wolf hunting/trapping licenses to the general public, as biologists estimate a 10% success rate among the general public.
2012-2013: Hunters and trappers harvest 243 animals during Wisconsin’s first wolf season. The total harvest is comprised of 59% males and 41% females. Trappers account for 52% of the total harvest.
2013: The state sells applications to 16,672 hunters/trappers and awards 2,510 permits. The statewide quota is 275 wolves, with 251 of these tags available to state license holders.
2013: Wisconsin hunters and trappers harvest 257 wolves in the state’s second wolf season. Of the animals taken, 134 were males, 123 females. Trappers account for 70% of the harvest (180 animals).
2014: Anti-hunters file anohter federal lawsuit, calling for Wisconsin wolves to be placed back on the endangered list. Federal judge sides with anti-hunters and grants the protection. David Mech, a wolf expert for the U.S. Geological Survey, told the Star Tribune he was perplexed by the court ruling because it runs against ample scientific evidence that wolves are not endangered in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. “It sure is going to surprise a lot of people, especially wolf biologists,’’ said Mech, who has studied wolves for 56 years and provided testimony the last time wolves in the region were removed from Endangered Species Act protections.
2018: Wisconsin’s wolf population is estimated at 978 animals.
2019: Wolves kill more deer than do gun-deer hunters in four Wisconsin counties. Wolves are also responsible for more than 31% of the white-tailed deer (15,280) killed in the 17 counties that comprise Wisconsin’s “North Woods.”
Now, lets continue the timeline.
2020 - Grey wolf removed from endangered species list.
2021 - Hunters exceed wolf quota by 53%. (https://www.mprnews.org/story/2021/...nt-overshoots-quota-worrying-conservationists).
2022 - Grey wolf added back to endangered species list. Population between 812 and 1,193 per Wisconsin DNR.
Worth noting is that when I looked it up, I found the initial target population goal for grey wolves to be 350, not 250 as listed, cementing my suspicions about WWF's credibility. Right out the gate, we've gone from 5x the population to 3x the population, just by correcting their number and looking at the newest data. Also as an aside, the county-by-county spreadsheet they made inflates the kills. First, they multiply each wolf pack in a county (a number given by the state DNR) by 4. If you read into it, the state estimates something like 3.2-3.8 wolves per pack. Then, they take that inflated number and inflate it again by assuming each wolf in the pack kills 20 deer. If you look around a little, it's estimated that an adult wolf will kill between 15-20 wolves a year. So they're assuming every wolf is an adult wolf in good shape killing the high-side of the estimate in a year. Biased much?
Wisconsin has a state law obligating DNR to conduct a wolf season provided it's not federally protected that year. The animal has been listed and delisted something like 5x in 20 years. Policy changes every year. To me, it looks like micromanagement of a population that seems borderline too small to effectively manage. Folks like @BTaylor ask what it looks like if the feds control the management. I'll counter and ask what happens to those wolves if the feds pull out? It seems to me reasonable to assume that given the attitude hunters and farmers seem to have, their numbers will drop pretty severely. I believe that's what one side wants; 350 wolves or less. To me, that hardly sounds like a stable, manageable population, but I'm not a wolf biologist. I'm open to being shown why that's a good number.
You've made some references to studies that show predators enrich their ecosystems. I have read some studies in the past that have shown some positive impacts to ecosystems with the addition of predators, mainly that overpopulated prey species have been brought into balance which has had downstream effects that have improved biodiversity. The catch is most of these studies have been performed in places like Yellowstone where populations aren't being controlled by hunters.
That's a whole 'nuther can'o'worms.
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, so we start making those nasty compromises.
Those Wisconsin counties that had a greater wolf harvest than hunter harvest are relatively unpopulated. Below are the numbers:
Iron County - 3rd least populated with 6178 people
Forest County - 5th least populated with 9,258 people
Ashland County - 11th least populated with 16,107 people
Douglas County - 39th least populated with 44,203 people
I'm not sure what the acreage or hunter population is, but at first blush it'd seem that they put wolves where people weren't, which is what I think we all agree is the right approach. The thing about that is...when you put wolves where people aren't, they're logically going to kill more deer than hunters. I'm open to discussing if they killed too many, but I'd want to discuss that with the current and target goal for each county in hand. I did find this:
Wisconsin’s deer population is at a critical high
Wisconsin's deer population is the highest it's been in decades, which scientists say is taking a toll on the health of habitats and deer themselves. But there are steps the state can take to control the population; and hunters, scientists and legislators all play a role.
Bet wolves can help with that.
I need a beer now.
Thanks again for everybody that keeps it civil and tries. Please don't mistake my general disagreeableness for general hostility, and forgive me if I do a stupid or get snappy here and there. Sorry for hurt feelings.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?
Just 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.
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.
Last edited:
I know how to fix everything....who's with me?
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 much
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.
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.
Mitchellfarmer1982
Well-Known Member
I live in Arkansas and really have no dog in the fight, but I think both sides are right to a degree. I think it all boils down to miss management from "Authorities" whom ever is currently residing over it. With no trust in governments whatsoever I think it should be completely separate but with no clear path to that it's what we are stuck with. (But we need to civilly show our support for what we want) I have read these 6 pages and gotten aggravated at times with some comments as they are too extreme one way or the other. Practices should be in place for a balance for both sides. Predators are ok when managed which includes us. I think the vehicle accident records was interesting bc I have always thought that the landowners of the property around said accident should share a bit of responsibility if they are not managing their lands and able to show atleast an effort to manage it.
Fair points.
I think we've moved from this:
- wolves decimate deer herds
- wolves are bad for live stock
- wolves can't be managed well because of federal interference at the behest of special-interest groups
- some deer herds may be adversely affected by wolves
- wolf reintroduction necessitates dealing with livestock predation
- wolves can't be managed well because of federal interference at the behest of special-interest groups
I'll join you in admitting I don't know enough about wolves in Wisconsin to say if 350 or 1,000 is the right number. I also don't know enough about the 2 lawsuits right now to tell you if I think they were warranted or not.
having read through all of this, i have some somwhat updated thoughts - i have no idea how many wolves are the "right" number, if restoring them to historical humbers makes sense or not, etc. i also have no idea what "right" is, and therefore try to take this from more of a theoretical/ 30,000 foot view, not directly telling people what to do.
it doesn't matter where you live, we live and farm in areas that used to be wild at some point and no longer are, part of the human existence has always been scratching out a living, however in my opinion lines between surviving and making money are wildly blurred these days it's also pretty much imposible to use a historical data point and force it into the modern world. it shows up in lots of areas of life, predators in town, stormwater management, etc. all over the place. we could be arguing about water in california and comparing downstream salmon and tribal interests vs upstream rancher interests, there's lots of versions of this no right answers debate unfortunately.
the biggest "harm" seems to me be the flip-flopping legislatively. at some point we gotta pick a path and stick with it, or make adjustments in a planned way, this protected/ not protected hunt/ dont hunt flip flopping is a big part of the problem. People don't like CHANGE, but i'd bet if the wolf management rules stayed stable for a decade or two we'd hear less about it and a balance would be struck, unclear if it'd be pro wolf, pro rancher, pro both, or neither. possibly no balance is struck, evidence that the rules need to be changed, but not flipped every year or so depeding on the most recent loudest voice. of course then there's the isue of competing human interests and environmental interests, which is a whole different can of worms that gets people triggered.
and yeah, ultimately, i don't know anything about wildlife management, ranching, or wolves so i don't think i personally should make any of the rules. the problems have different solutions perahaps, and we need to figure out a way to "trust the experts" and also have a process to ensure we have experts we can actually trust, with no vested personal interests, political, monetary, or otherwise.
thanks for the novels from all, ive apprecaited reading and laughed out loud at that coworker comment
it doesn't matter where you live, we live and farm in areas that used to be wild at some point and no longer are, part of the human existence has always been scratching out a living, however in my opinion lines between surviving and making money are wildly blurred these days it's also pretty much imposible to use a historical data point and force it into the modern world. it shows up in lots of areas of life, predators in town, stormwater management, etc. all over the place. we could be arguing about water in california and comparing downstream salmon and tribal interests vs upstream rancher interests, there's lots of versions of this no right answers debate unfortunately.
the biggest "harm" seems to me be the flip-flopping legislatively. at some point we gotta pick a path and stick with it, or make adjustments in a planned way, this protected/ not protected hunt/ dont hunt flip flopping is a big part of the problem. People don't like CHANGE, but i'd bet if the wolf management rules stayed stable for a decade or two we'd hear less about it and a balance would be struck, unclear if it'd be pro wolf, pro rancher, pro both, or neither. possibly no balance is struck, evidence that the rules need to be changed, but not flipped every year or so depeding on the most recent loudest voice. of course then there's the isue of competing human interests and environmental interests, which is a whole different can of worms that gets people triggered.
and yeah, ultimately, i don't know anything about wildlife management, ranching, or wolves so i don't think i personally should make any of the rules. the problems have different solutions perahaps, and we need to figure out a way to "trust the experts" and also have a process to ensure we have experts we can actually trust, with no vested personal interests, political, monetary, or otherwise.
thanks for the novels from all, ive apprecaited reading and laughed out loud at that coworker comment
Last edited:
@Nutterbuster said:
"Those Wisconsin counties that had a greater wolf harvest than hunter harvest are relatively unpopulated. Below are the numbers:
Iron County - 3rd least populated with 6178 people
Forest County - 5th least populated with 9,258 people
Ashland County - 11th least populated with 16,107 people
Douglas County - 39th least populated with 44,203 people
I'm not sure what the acreage or hunter population is, but at first blush it'd seem that they put wolves where people weren't, which is what I think we all agree is the right approach. The thing about that is...when you put wolves where people aren't, they're logically going to kill more deer than hunters. I'm open to discussing if they killed too many, but I'd want to discuss that with the current and target goal for each county in hand."
When you read a few facts without knowing the whole story you make false assumptions. While these counties have a low human population density, they have vast amounts (for Wisconsin) of public land and are traditional hunting destinations for people living further South in the state; also for people living in Eastern Minnesota and Northern Illinois. These counties have had low enough deer populations in recent times that public-land doe tags are difficult to get.
Finally, if you understood wolf dynamics in Wisconsin you would know that no-one put those wolves there--they repopulated naturally, mostly via migration from Minnesota and Michigan's UP. If you want to argue based on Wisconsin's wolf dynamics, please do more research than a rudimentary reading of Wisconsin's DNR website.
I apologize for sounding harsh, I don't know how else to get through.
"Those Wisconsin counties that had a greater wolf harvest than hunter harvest are relatively unpopulated. Below are the numbers:
Iron County - 3rd least populated with 6178 people
Forest County - 5th least populated with 9,258 people
Ashland County - 11th least populated with 16,107 people
Douglas County - 39th least populated with 44,203 people
I'm not sure what the acreage or hunter population is, but at first blush it'd seem that they put wolves where people weren't, which is what I think we all agree is the right approach. The thing about that is...when you put wolves where people aren't, they're logically going to kill more deer than hunters. I'm open to discussing if they killed too many, but I'd want to discuss that with the current and target goal for each county in hand."
When you read a few facts without knowing the whole story you make false assumptions. While these counties have a low human population density, they have vast amounts (for Wisconsin) of public land and are traditional hunting destinations for people living further South in the state; also for people living in Eastern Minnesota and Northern Illinois. These counties have had low enough deer populations in recent times that public-land doe tags are difficult to get.
Finally, if you understood wolf dynamics in Wisconsin you would know that no-one put those wolves there--they repopulated naturally, mostly via migration from Minnesota and Michigan's UP. If you want to argue based on Wisconsin's wolf dynamics, please do more research than a rudimentary reading of Wisconsin's DNR website.
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?
Try this:
Wisconsin's Deer Metrics
dnr.wi.gov
Keep in mind that until about 8 (guess) years ago, management units were not by county.
@Nutterbuster if you want to look at what a successful predator reintroduction can look like, read up a little on the reintroduction of black bears in Arkansas. It was state controlled and management has been controlled by AGFC. You know we sort of followed sound conservation principles including the use of managed hunting to control and maintain a now thriving population. As @GCTerpfan pointed to when we keep control in the hands of the state agencies responsible for wildlife species great things can happen. When the courts or the ballot box get involved and take over control of conservation and management decisions nothing good seems to come from it, at least that I am aware of.
PancreasBroke
Active Member
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.
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.
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.
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'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've met quite a few I'll build ya a profile. City folk, in touch with the cartoonish version of nature a la that cat-lady from that tiger king show. Strong notes of Karen-style mad at the world resentments, often proud feminists and I suspect the masculinity of hunting makes it a target as much as anything else. Seem to disproportionately find work at nonprofits and truly believe deep down their virtues are out to make the world a better place and this is what I would say makes them most dangerous because passion can go far. I've known a couple pretty well that I didn't dislike or classify as bad people, but it's just their manifestation of tribalism.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
If every hunter positively influences one non-hunter, it really matters.