Discussion in 'Northwest Hunting' started by daiello91, May 25, 2011.
Portland Rose Quarter Memorial Colisem - Georgia Pacific Room
Saturday, June 4th 1pm - 5pm
As in hunting wolves? Any reason for hunting wolves?
Yes, the species that has been reintroduced in Idaho and Montana that has migrated into Oregon IS NOT a native species to Oregon and as such should be considered invasive. It is a species of Canadian timber wolf that is approx. 70 lbs. larger than its sub species cousin that was indigenous to this area, and given that all prey animals in an ecosystem evolve to survive native predators, they are not genetically prepared to out run, elude and survive an invasion of a species of such size and mass. Look at Australia, New Zealand or Hawaii for your answer to your question as to what happens when a non-native species is thrown into the mix. Having read your posts on other articles, I believe you already know this.
1bigfoot, Don't fed the troll. :fishing:
I am against the killing the wolf's. You guys feel that it is ok to come in and destroy a native species and feel no remorse or concern for that - yet when a species ( not a subspieces specific ) is brought back in and reintroduced then its wrong. The long and short of this is it may just get in the way of your hunting - by the way - hunting is not a right - though I wish it was.
The wildlife belong to no inidividual - they belong to the public - you are entitled to your opinion but by no means is that opinion the law. I for one want the few wolfs left alone and I do hunt.
By the way the word troll should not used just because others disagree with anothers opinion, that is a form of censorship and goes against our 1st amendment rights. If I have been given permission to post here then I have also been given permission to voice my opinion.
Just like I do.
James, sometimes you have to sacrifice one to save many. Adult wolves eat between 15-30 hooved animals a year, they also KILL FOR SPORT about the same number, yes, kill for sport. Sometimes to preserve other native species, one species needs to be "managed". In time, this NON-native species of wolves could damage populations of native wildlife that would take many years to recover, some may never recover, and by that time it would be too late to "manage" the wolf population. Look at how the dams have dwindled or extinct some runs of Salmon, and how now that we know what the damage is, it is to late for many.
Wildlife Managment, is just that.
I would like to know how all you wolf defenders can, with a straight face, defend the "endangered/threatened species" status of the re-introduced wolf.
As a species, there are thousands-tens of thousands of them all over Canada and the northern midwest. By definition this animal never qualified for protection under the endangered species act.
The protected classification was a farce perpetrated on the western farmer/rancher and hunter from the start of this fiasco, and it was done by animal rights groups, with the cooperation of the USFWS.
There were wolves in Oregon before man killed the species off - wolves belong here in Oregon - pertty simple - I do not necessarily classifiy them as endangered. I do feel that the primary reason why the people do not want them here is because it might get in the way of thier hunting. Hunting is not a right - hunting is a sport in todays world - one that I enjoy myself. There are not that many wolf in Oregon. Get over it.
" I would like this statement verified "they also KILL FOR SPORT about the same number, yes, kill for sport. " as I do not beleive it. Even if it is true no animal kills more for sport than a human now days.
"Kill for sport" may or may not be an accurate term for the indisputable fact that wolves (and coyotes) will continue to kill prey animal after prey animal (often livestock) far beyond their need or usage during an instance where such opportunity presents itself. Yes, they do appear to be enjoying it, as it is satisfaction of their instinctive drive. Whether or not what goes on in their mind can be anthropomorphised (equating to human) as "sport" is not certain. Such instances are frequently and repeatedly documented, either in photographs of the aftermath, or actual film during the occurrence. Of course, after viewing such, each of us is certainly entitled to believe it happens or it doesn't. I tend to allow such documentations to influence me toward the firm knowledge that it does happen. Wolves cannot be allowed to populate without strict control for one reason: they destroy things that people need.
I feel that we have a much larger problems with our cougars in Oregon - yet we still cannot hunt them with dogs legally. To me in compariosn to the cougar problems - the wolves are pretty small imapct.
Spitpatch - I appreciate your intelligent response - thank you - but I still feel that the wolves need to be here. Wolves were here originally and the same type should be here in oregon. We get back to how the ODFW screws things up once again. Kind of like having Pike in a pond - killing that species off and transplanting Tiger Musky and the complaing that the pond can no longer support that species.
Does anyone or can anyone provide actual statistics on the damage done to the wild life by wolves or maybe even compare that to the amount of damage that cougars do in comparison.
Wolves were killed off for a reason. Now they are being forced back on us. By animal rights organizations with giant neverending bankrolls. Now if we are going to be forced to accept this, the ranchers need to have the freedom to protect their livestock. Predators need strict management.
Just because the city folk want to see them on their little forays into the country, is not a good reason to let them run rampant. I understand the game population belongs to the state. The state will suffer when the revenues drop, cause game numbers are down.
But the question is, will you reimburse the ranchers every time they lose a cow, sheep, pig, whatever, to the wolves? Because it costs them their livelihood, everytime one of these "protected predators" kills their animals.
That meat in the little styrofoam containers at the grocery store, doesn't just magically appear out of nowhere. :winkkiss:
Hunting may be a sport to the rich dudes, that pay $5-$10K for a trophy animal. But for most people, it's a source of damn fine meat. Nothin better than venison, and you know where it came from and how it was handled. Can't say that about the store bought meat,,,
DO I even have to say that wolves were here first? people do fine with or without wolves. Wolves really depend on us to not exterminate them for whatever reasons you've come up with. Ranchers losing a tiny amount of stock and hunters losing a tiny amount of game isnt a good reason to displace one of our few big predators.
For JGRuby, and the Swamp Donkey: I speak not from speculation, but from some moderate experience, and I, for one would not want wolves eradicated from the lower 48, and I actually believe it is pretty darned cool they made it to Oregon on their own without being planted here.
From the age of 12, I slept in my bed with an Alaska Timber Wolf rug above me, and it measured 8foot 4 inches long. Persons seeing it for the first time knew it was a grizzly bear, till I directed their attention to its tail. My father took that wolf near Ophir, Alaska. I have been fortunate enough to chase Caribou and Dall's Sheep in Alaska (self-guided hunts), and on more than one occasion was priveleged enough to see wolves in the wild, and was serenaded to sleep by them. Hunting in the Bob Marshal Wilderness in Montana since the age of 13, I have watched the recent effect of uncontrolled wolf populations on the elk herd there (NOT a "tiny amount'). I have witnessed the destruction of the base economy for the town of Lincoln, and one of our dear family friends closed shop on her guide business at the age of 74 after 50 years of hunting there. I also have had the honor of seeing a wolf in the wild in Montana.
One of my very favorite books is "Never Cry Wolf", and not because it makes a case for wolf preservation, but because it teaches very much about the social lives of wolves. I also like it because I like the author's (Farley Mowat) style of writing, just as I like his treatise on his experiences in the Spanish Civil War: "And No Birds Sang". Farley Mowat's wolf book is more a commentary on the stupidity of government bureaucracy than it is about wolf preservation. The movie did not represent this well.
I like wolves. I like seeing them. I believe they are an essential part of anything we might call the wild. But I know the hard facts and realities that they cannot exist in proximity to vigorous human constructive activity (ranching, hunting-based economies), and neither can they exist, populations unchecked, where people want to allow their pets and children in the outdoors unsupervised and undefended. These realities are not debatable. They are true.
Ideally, I would like to see a wolf population that is closely watched, strictly controlled, and yet offers a moderate opportunity for those who want to view and photograph them as well as those who might want the challenge of a hunt for one. This ideal is very hard to achieve, and it is only when the people who love wolves (as I do) join with the people that hunt (as I do), and the livestock owners (as I am), combining their financial and work resources to find a place for the wolves where they do not destroy livelihoods and economies, or present danger to human activity.
You appreciate intelligent responses, yet you won't do the work yourself to prove YOUR case. If you believe you're right, then do the legwork and find your own statistics to make your point. Bugeye is annoying as ****, but he still makes the effort to back up his words with facts, regardless of the political/ethical leanings of said facts' source.
Separate names with a comma.