Ted Fucking Nugent. I know he lives in Texas, but he goes up there once a year, probably to kill furry things.

Have you ever seen what two wolves can do to a pack of dogs? Utter destruction in a matter of seconds. I feel sorry for any dog someone is dumb enough to have track a wolf.

as long as they are ramming the vehicle into reverse..

Last edited Wed Jan 1, 2014, 10:00 PM - Edit history (1)

I hope each one of those hunters is plagued with nightmares and when their time on this plane is done and they face their deity, they see all the wolves they have killed sitting there, waiting to drag them to whatever hell they believe in.


Freya, look after our brothers and sisters as they cross the BriFrost to join our ancestors in the Wild Hunt.

Those bastards in Lansing who voted to override the will of the people all deserve to burn in hell. So sorry about your migraine. I've had them for 40 years.

with your "brothers" murdering peoples pets and farmers stock? The vote in Lansing put the management of this species in the hands of the Natural Resources Commission, which is where it should be. Wildlife management left in "the hands of the people" or by popular referendum would be a disaster.

since you brought it up.

to the Michigan DNR, there have been 218 farm animals or dogs attacked by wolves in the past three years. What number should we consider an acceptable threshhold before some kind of management action occurs?

are compensated for 100 percent of the estimated value of the livestock, except for dogs in Michigan,

http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/wow/regions/United_States_Subpages/Depredation2.asp

I don't buy bullshit "livestock" excuses. Have them get a dog to protect their herds like they do in Africa with cheetahs. And how much livestock & pets have they killed anyway?

who's testimony I listened to when they spoke in front of the NRC, enough that it's an issue for them. This is not big ag, these are small, family owned farms and losing even a couple of animals to wolf depridation can have a big impact. Comparing wolves in the UP to cheetahs in Africa is a bit of a stretch.

They just don't want wolves, any wolves at all, near their property. Also a lot of these "family owned farms" who complain, are hunters. who want to be able to go out and kill wolves and try to find any excuse to make it look they like are helping things by killing wolves.



The DNR submits a wolf management plan that cites wolf attacks on livestock as a justification for why the wolf hunt was needed in Wolf Management Unit B in Ontonagon and Houghton Counties.
(Source: MLive)


More than 60% of all verified wolf attacks on livestock in the Upper Peninsula, and 80% of wolf livestock attacks in Wolf Management Unit B, have happened on a farm owned by John Koski in Ontonagon County. Koski left dead cattle to decompose in fields on his farm, and illegally used deer carcasses to bait and attract predators. The DNR provided nearly $3,000 worth of fencing and guard donkeys to Koski to protect his cattle, but later found that the fencing had not been put up and had disappeared, and that two of the donkeys had died and the third had to be removed from the farm because of severe neglect.

http://keepwolvesprotected.com/fiction



http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2013/08/crying-wolf-and-pocketing-the-cash.html

that the losses suffered by farmers are insignificant, the farmers that owned the 30+ animals attacked during an 8 month period last year may not agree with it, though. Do you live in the UP? Do you farm? If this discussion was dealing with a chicken farmer that was suffering losses from coyotes, would you deem their losses to be insignificant and be opposed some coyotes being shot to deal with the problem?

I am not anti-wolf, nor am I in favor of them being eradicated but their population should be maintained at levels that result in minimal negative impact with humans. The wolf hunt is one means of accomplishing that goal in a cost effective and humane way. It beats the hell out of alternatives such as trapping, poison or shooting them from airplanes, in my humble opinion.

What were the circumstances of these animal attacks. What kind of animals. What kind of deterrents were used if any. My father was a farmer, my grandfather was a farmer, my uncle and cousins are farmers, and other than my father, they did not care at all about wildlife. So if that is the attitude of these farmers, then I do have a problem with that. Wildlife has its own rights and values, which should not be dictated by someone who does not like wildlife or try to coexist with it.

As far as keeping populations of wolves down by killing them, that is questionable too. If you have a stable family of wolves, they will monitor their own population and not breed out of control to their environment and what the environment supports. If you kill part of a wolf family, it becomes unstable. If you kill off wolves, and create a vacuum, they may overbreed to compensate.

The same for coyotes, a stable coyote in a territory, will defend that territory from transient coyotes. If you kill it, you open up the area to more foreign coyotes invading and overbreeding. There are ways to deter coyotes other than killing them.

I said that those farmers might disagree with your assertion that such attacks are insignificant. My opinion is that game and wildlife management is best left to professional wildlife managers in the state wildlife agencies. In the case of wolves in Michigan, that agency has taken a look at the situation and decided that a wolf hunt based on certain parameters posed no threat to the viability of that population and that it could contribute to a decrease in frequency of negative interactions that occur between wolves and humans in three specific areas of the UP. Less then 4% of the wolves were killed in that hunt. I don't have a problem with how this was handled. Wildlife management by the mob is a recipe for disaster.

when the alpha is killed for instance? I don't think you know a lot about wolves.
Science does not support your arguments, and "professional wildlife managers" listen to ranchers, hunters and politicians before anything else.

are you suggesting that removing less then 5% of a population poses a substantive threat to the viability of that population? Are you suggesting that there should be no limitations placed on wolf populations? Believe it or not, Alpha males die from mortality unrelated to hunting. They are replaced by another subordinate male who is next in line in the hierarchy.

but I'll post some articles that speak to why wolves should remain on the endangered list tomorrow.

I did volunteer at a wolf rescue at one time, but I do not think of myself as an expert by any means. Everything I have read leads me to agree with many that science has not been given a proper role in the de-listing of Gray Wolves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/opinion/the-world-needs-wolves.html

Why the Beaver Should Thank the Wolf
By MARY ELLEN HANNIBAL
Published: September 28, 2012

<>

Many Americans, even as they view the extermination of a species as morally anathema, struggle to grasp the tangible effects of the loss of wolves. It turns out that, far from being freeloaders on the top of the food chain, wolves have a powerful effect on the well-being of the ecosystems around them — from the survival of trees and riverbank vegetation to, perhaps surprisingly, the health of the populations of their prey.

An example of this can be found in Wyoming’s Yellowstone National Park, where wolves were virtually wiped out in the 1920s and reintroduced in the ’90s. Since the wolves have come back, scientists have noted an unexpected improvement in many of the park’s degraded stream areas.

<>

```
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/opinion/dont-forsake-the-gray-wolf.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=1&

Don’t Forsake the Gray Wolf

By JIM DUTCHER, JAMIE DUTCHER and GARRICK DUTCHER
Published: June 7, 2013

KETCHUM, Idaho — IT has been celebrated as one of the great victories of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. After several decades of federal protection, gray wolves — once nearly wiped out in the continental United States — have reached a population of roughly 6,100 across three Great Lakes states and seven Western states.

But this success has been only partial. The centuries-old war against wolves continues to rage, particularly in states where the species has lost federal protection in recent years, as management of wolf populations was turned over to the states.

On Friday, the federal Fish and Wildlife Service put forward a proposal that would make matters even worse. It proposed stripping the remaining federal protections for the gray wolf in the rest of the United States (with the exception of the extremely rare Mexican gray wolf in Arizona and New Mexico). Removing gray wolves from the national endangered species list in the areas where they are still protected would be a mistake. The protections should remain, so that the species can continue its recovery and expand its range, just as the bald eagle and the alligator were allowed to do.

The new proposal, which will be open for a 90-day public comment period, is the latest step in the federal government’s effort to turn wolf management entirely over to the states and wash its hands of the animal, which has long been in the cross hairs of powerful hunting and livestock interests.

~~~

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-steiner/wolves-should-remain-on-e_b_4145558.html

Wolves Should Remain on Endangered Species List
Posted: 10/23/2013 12:10 pm
Richard SteinerProfessor and conservation biologist

As people tend to fear and hate that which they don't understand, it isn't too surprising (although disappointing) that this irrational hatred and mismanagement of wolves (and their habitat) continues today in much of the American west. Many people, including some wildlife managers, still do not understand wolves.

But legendary wolf biologist Dr. Gordon Haber, who studied wolves for 43 years in Alaska, knew wolves. Prior to his death in a 2009 plane crash in Denali National Park while tracking wolves, Haber spent more time with wolves in the wild than any other biologist in history. His remarkable story is chronicled in a new book written by Alaska author Marybeth Holleman and (posthumously) Haber himself.

<>

Haber was the old-school type of field biologist that is now virtually a thing of the past. He was tough, determined, methodical, and relentless in his quest to understand the real lives of wolves in the wild. He spent four decades studying Alaska's wolves, with boots-on-the-ground even at 50 below zero in the bitter Alaska winter. Few modern biologists have such authentic experiential authority regarding their research subjects. And this hard-won, close-up and personal understanding of wolves led him to dedicate his life to their protection.

Haber's conclusions in Among Wolves expose the current flawed thinking behind the current proposal to delist wolves across the lower 48. Most notably, he concluded that we can't just count the number of wolves in an area and conclude that it's a "healthy" or "sustainable" population, because the functional unit of wolves is the family. That x number of wolves inhabit y square miles of territory is irrelevant. Haber writes:

"Wolves are perhaps the most social of all nonhuman vertebrates. A 'pack' of wolves is not a snarling aggregation of fighting beasts, each bent on fending only for itself, but a highly organized, well-disciplined group of related individuals or family units, all working together in a remarkably amiable, efficient manner."

Left unexploited -- that is, not killed -- by humans, wolves develop societies that are intricate, complex and beautifully adapted to their environment. Unexploited family groups develop unique and cooperative pup rearing and hunting techniques, amounting in essence to cultural traditions. These take generations to develop, and can be lost forever if the family disintegrates.

But unfortunately today there are few, if any, unexploited wolf family groups left anywhere in the U.S. Even those in our national parks are hunted and trapped when they cross invisible boundaries, leading to the disintegration of family groups. And ignorant wildlife policies of western state governments continue to sanction the indiscriminate wolf killing that symbolized the wild west of the 19th century.

Haber found that hunting and trapping tend to take older, experienced wolves which sustain the family group through their knowledge of territory, prey movements, hunting techniques, den sites, and raising pups. These are the reproductive members of the group, and their loss from hunting or trapping can be catastrophic to the family group. If the federal delisting proposal is enacted, many more family groups will be torn apart by such indiscriminate killing.

~~~

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6310211.stm

Wild wolves 'good for ecosystems'

~~~

in the context of the Wolf hunt in Michigan, which is the topic of this thread. The links you provided make for some entertaining reading but they largely deal with whether wolves should be treated as an endangered species. Wolves don't meet the criteria for that in Michigan, which is why they were de-listed. Frankly, whether they should be reintroduced in the Scottish Highlands or what has occurred in Alaska or Yellowstone is not really germane to this discussion, other than for mild curiosity.

The question is should wolves be managed as other wildlife populations are managed and if the answer to that question is yes, then the next question is who should be responsible for managing that population.

In Michigan, the legislature has decided that the Natural Resources Commission should be the ones who have jurisdiction over managing wolves as a population. The NRC looked at the negative interaction that has occurred and came up with a plan that could reduce that negative interaction in 3 specific areas of the UP, while at the same time posing no threat to the sustainability or viability of the Wolf population in the UP. That plan set a quota for removing just over 5% of the Wolf population and resulted in around 3% of the existing population being removed. I understand that some people want zero Wolves to be killed, just like some people want zero deer to be killed or zero Cows to be turned into Big Macs and they will never be willing to accept anything but total protection an allowing the population to expand indefinitely, regardless of any potentially negative consequences. But part of responsible Wildlife management is to evaluate populations and set reasonable limits for their maintenance. That is essentially what has occurred in Michigan.

"Wolves are perhaps the most social of all nonhuman vertebrates. A 'pack' of wolves is not a snarling aggregation of fighting beasts, each bent on fending only for itself, but a highly organized, well-disciplined group of related individuals or family units, all working together in a remarkably amiable, efficient manner."

Left unexploited -- that is, not killed -- by humans, wolves develop societies that are intricate, complex and beautifully adapted to their environment. Unexploited family groups develop unique and cooperative pup rearing and hunting techniques, amounting in essence to cultural traditions. These take generations to develop, and can be lost forever if the family disintegrates.

But unfortunately today there are few, if any, unexploited wolf family groups left anywhere in the U.S. Even those in our national parks are hunted and trapped when they cross invisible boundaries, leading to the disintegration of family groups. And ignorant wildlife policies of western state governments continue to sanction the indiscriminate wolf killing that symbolized the wild west of the 19th century.

Haber found that hunting and trapping tend to take older, experienced wolves which sustain the family group through their knowledge of territory, prey movements, hunting techniques, den sites, and raising pups. These are the reproductive members of the group, and their loss from hunting or trapping can be catastrophic to the family group. If the federal delisting proposal is enacted, many more family groups will be torn apart by such indiscriminate killing."

The Huffpo link was long on speculation and emotion and short on any kind of science. Habers observations might be mildly interesting but mean very little unless they are backed up with some kind of peer reviewed, published data. He claims that eliminating Alpha's can be "catastrophic" to the family structure. Catastrophic in what way? Does it result in increased overall mortality of the remaining pack members? Does it impact reproductive rates or pack viability? We don't know, he simply says that it's catastrophic. What then happens when the Alpha succumbs to natural mortality, does that have an equally catastrophic impact on the pack? Kind of doubtful that nature would create such a scenario.

Again, the discussion of this thread concerned the Wolf hunt that took place in Michigan this year. It resulted in less then 3% of the total wolf population being eliminated. Do you seriously think that such a hunt threatens the viability of the wolf population in Michigan? Just curious, what do you think the annual natural mortality of that population is?

Who exactly are they and who dictates what they do. In the case of state wildlife agencies, they work hand in glove with hunters and as GJ says, ranchers and farmers. Oftentimes the director of the wildlife agency is an avid hunter and fisher and usually says so in his bio.

I am not suggesting wildlife management by the mob. Wildlife management should by experts who represent the whole population who all have a right to have a say in wildlife management.

the head of the DNR's wildlife division has a Phd. in Biology, as does the head of the DNR's deer management group. As far as the DNR working with hunters, since hunters provide the majority of the funding for those state agencies, it's not particularly surprising that they would be interested in how they feel. I agree that wildlife management should be left in the hands of experts who employ sound science as the basis for the development of public policy. That does not occur through public referendums, which tend to be largely based on emotion, instead of science.

They want to kill something with their guns for sport. They creep me out. Who knows what these types will graduate on to. They do not consider animals sentient beings, but chattel given to them by a mysterious skygod to sadistically treat, torture and murder.

which band it is that you are a member? One of my father's good friends is a member of the White Earth Band.

White Earth is in Minnesota?

used as a collective when referring to the Ojibwe tribes in Minnesota, now I know it is used as a referrence to othee native peoples as well.

We own some land in northern Minnesota and there is a wolf pack in the area. I saw one once and have occasionally heard them howling.

Three Fires (Odawa, Ojibwe, Pottawatomie) we refer to as Anishinaabe.

Humans have gone out of their way to kill wolves for generations and when a majority finally starts to see that it is wrong, those in power still continue to go after the wolves. I haven't been active in conservation in a while (thanks to the migraines - haven't had a migraine free day in over 15 yrs, but that is another story) so I'll have to go read up on exactly what happened in Lansing. I knew it had happened, but I'm curious as to which groups got involved and how.

It always amazes me how old fears can continue into the modern world. I've had 'conversations' (being polite in calling them that) with ranchers and hunting guides and I hate how the old arguments still surface like: "Wolves are too dangerous, they will hurt or kill our children" and "They will destroy all my livestock" along with all the many variations of those themes.

I recall talking to one hunting guide that finally admitted, after I called him out on everything he tried to use as arguments for his position, that his real reason for wanting to get rid of the wolves was that it made his job harder. He just couldn't stand the fact that in areas with wolf packs the deer/elk/etc. would revert to their normal behaviors, which simply meant that they weren't as easy to find and hunt. He didn't like that he couldn't 'guarantee' a good deer hunt to his high paying customers. (The good hunt to them was of course to be shown where the deer are and to bag something with a giant rack with as little effort as possible).

There was one rancher I knew that got pissed at me because she ended up getting 'kicked out' of her little clique of ranching buddies. The reason being that I finally convinced her that all the crap they had feed her about wolves and other predators was just that, crap.


sorry for rambling on and sorry to hear that you too have the great curse of the head pains from hell. I'll be hitting the big 40 in a year or two and it is hard to believe that my first memories are of migraine pain.

There certainly more deer than dogs hunted. Not sure it makes a difference in the end.

Dogs are eternal puppies that never grow up. Wolves are the real thing, the 'Adults' if you will.

22 wolves killed out of a quota of 43. That's based on a population of around 700 - 800 wolves. Not exactly sure what the concern here is. Wildlife populations are managed and one of the most effective tools available to manage wildlife are hunters. Would those 22 wolves be less dead had they been trapped or poisoned or shot by DNR sharpshooters? Wolves are not an endangered species in Michigan and the wolf hunt poses no threat to their viability, it simply helps to manage their numbers at a reasonable level. That is how modern wildlife management works.

DNRs end up managing the wildlife for the hunters. They want to keep deer and elk populations high for their own hunting purposes. They don't want competition from predators. Wildlife management should be in the hands of the general public who elects knowlegeable people who come from biology and ecology backgrounds, not hunting backgrounds.

Virtually all state wildlife agencies employ biologists who play a key role in formulating management policy. I'd suggest you actually do some research on deer and elk populations in many mid-western states. I'll speak primarily of Michigan, as that is where I live but the deer population has fallen from around 2.2 million deer in 1998 to around 1.6 million this year. That is the result of a long term, focused plan by the Michigan DNR to reduce deer populations to well below biological carrying capacity. Hunters have been the primary tool used to accomplish that goal. Similar reductions have occurred in Pennsylvania, Minnesota and many other states and for the most part hunters have been fully supportive of such efforts. It's not even arguable that hunting is the most effective management tool that professional wildlife managers possess to control populations from getting out of control.

bring reduced all around the country, if your claim that wildlife management agencies merely cater to hunters is true? Let's look at Pennsylvania, since you brought it up. The deer population there has been reduced by about 40% in the last decade there. That was not by mistake, it was intentional and was due to the toll that an overpopulated deer herd was having on forest regeneration in many parts of the state. The PA game commission has not scrapped that plan and deer populations remain much lower then they were previously. So much for the revolt by hunters that you claim took place, obviously the wildlife professionals there are managing the herd independantly of what hunters want.

The deer population in PA in 2001 was 1.5 million. The deer population in PA today is 1.6 million.

"The Pennsylvania Game Commission is tracking deer populations as stable or increasing in nearly all of the state’s 23 wildlife-management units."

I am not opposed to reduction in deer populations in PA, but I am opposed to a statement that is so far from fact. There has been no 40% reduction in the last decade. And the hunters do hold sway here.

evidence supporting your claim that the current deer population in PA is 1.6 million? I don't believe that to be the case. The deer population in PA Peaked around 2001 - 2002 and in 2003 regulation modifications were introduced that resulted in a substantial increase in the number of antlerless deer harvested every year, which in turn has reduced the population considerably. In the last 5 years the Game Commission has reduced the availability of antlerless permits and the population has stabilized but at a much lower number then it was in 2001. Since the Game Commission no longer publishes population estimates, I'd be interested to see where you got your number. Harvest numbers generally reflect population trends and the 2012 harvest was down by roughly 40% compared to 2002.

But that was a high point and the deer population was too high and unsustainable. In the 1986-87 season, there were fewer deer harvested than in 2012-13. That does not mean that the deer population was crashing in 1986, it means that the deer population exploded by 2002.

but I didn't see anything in your link that supported your claim that the current deer population in PA is 1.6 million, if I missed it, please point it out.

Yes there are fewer hunters in PA then there were in 2002, prior to APR's and concurrent antlerless seasons but that does not account for all of the decreased harvest. The fact is that the increased antlerless harvest that was generated by Gary Alt, starting in 2003, had a huge impact on the deer population and it was reduced substantially over the next several years. It has recently been stabilized at a significantly lower level than was present in 2001 - 2002. PA is not the only state that has seen reductions in their deer populations in the last decade. Michigan. Maine, Minnesota and other states have also seen significant reductions, primarily due to the management plans put in place by the wildlife agencies in those states.

that there is no source that would be acceptable to you on deer populations, since the Game Commission does not release those numbers. So I would post another source, and you would ridicule it.

I simply asked for some supporting evidence. Apparently you don't have any and were merely offering an opinion.

In the absence of any population data from the game commission, the alternative is to look at what proxy data is available. Harvest data is one type of proxy and it indicates that the annual harvest is down around 40% from 2002. You claim that reduction is due to fewer hunters but that claim does not account for the bulk of the harvest reduction. There are about a 100,000 fewer hunters then there were in 2002. PA hunters had a 26% success rate last year. That would account for about 26,000 fewer deer being harvested annually due to hunter loss. The harvest was down about 200,000 deer compared to 2002, though, so clearly some other factor is driving harvest reductions. The obvious cause is that there are a lot fewer deer available to be harvested and that is due to the management policies that were put in place by the PA game commission.

Maybe there is a God after all. Dirty bastards. This makes me livid. After all the work we did with the successful petition drive then they do an end run. Sick bastards.

2013-2014 Wolf Slaughter
Idaho Hunting 146
Idaho Trapping 41
Idaho Illegal 9
Idaho Control-IDFG 7
Idaho Control-WS 73
Idaho IDFG-authorized 3
Idaho Legal take 3
Idaho Unknown 5
Idaho Vehicle 3
Montana Hunting 111
Montana Trapping 20
Montana "other" 93
Wyoming Hunting 61
Wyoming "other" 25
Wisconsin 257
Minnesota 237
Michigan 22
TOTAL 1116

Spreadsheet data: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-Uve8oQMRoAaTBLbjhfQzk1NWc/edit?pli=1

Source website: http://www.thewildlifenews.com/

these links or stats are posted on Wildlife News? Thanks.

go the the home page and scroll down a little, you'll find all that info in the far left column links and all. It starts directly below the list of categories.

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/

bigger menace than the wolves. That upsets me too. Some of my happiest memories are of camping with my husband in the Lolo wilderness of Montana and listening to the wolf pack howling at night. It's surprisingly magical and moving.

I would run but I haven't ever been on anybody's popularity lists and fundraising is a foreign activity in my life... probably why I've been poor for a long time now. But then, I may not be popular because I'm only willing to speak in truth and that seems to be an anti-social sort of behavior when nobody wants to have to think about such things.

even in non political venues.

I get the feeling I wouldn't have to...

I wish the assholes who participate in this shit. Could experience what it's like running and hiding trying to survive while a larger predator tries to fucking kill them for no other reason but they can.

for starters... maybe that the thrill they're really looking to have.

Never gonna happen.

Americans care for naught.

Hauntingly beautiful.