I've been hearing some info come out of MT regarding the use of sugar substitutes. Apparently, some certain (or all?) sugar substitutes wrecks havoc with their systems. Anyone else heard about this? Word has it there's a warden in the Missoula area that would like to 'arrest everyone that comes out of the store with that stuff' thinking they are trying to poison wolves.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1
"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?" Thomas Jefferson - Notes on the State of Virginia
Boys we are all a dying breed. What these wolf lovers don't realize is hunting will be brought to an end.
On average MN kills 200,000 deer a year. pretty low numbers for such a large state.
pre-high wolf densities, WI averaged 450,000 over about a 15 year period. Last 3 years it has been lower much lower, now nearing 290,000. Soon we will be in the MN numbers.
This is going to be a cause and effect relationship. in the next 20 years if things don't change your going to see many hunters leave the ranks, fathers will have little motivation to start there kids hunting. Regardless of what the eco-hippies say the majority of hunters, do it out of tradition and sustenance.
Our 600,000 WI hunters will turn to 500,000 than 400,000. and in 20 years we will have the anti-gun/anti-hunters asking why we even exist. because we are no longer effective.
The only way this will change is to get the wolf numbers inline with what the recovery plan called for. In WI that is 150 animals not 1500-2000.
swamphunter likes to stir the **** pot with bias and opinion, he can't find a link or post a fact, He has not rebutted a single question I have posted with anything relevant, I hardly believe a thing he says about himself, because of his lack of proof in anything he post.
I have said all I'm going to on this thread, I feel like His intellect, or lack of, will start rubbing off on me if I continue with this debate.
Yeah we have killed around 200,000 consistently for abou the last 20 years or so. Roughly 20% of the heard is killed during hunting season. Minnesota is a failry large state but not all of it is good deer habitat. The southwest only holds a few per square mile. Wisconsin kills consistently more deer per year.
Climate and habitat primarily and Minnesota has more wolves and whiel i am not sure I would think more bears which kill a lot of fawns.
The wolf was returned to state control last week in Minnesota Wisconsin and Michingan. That should mean hunting seasons for sure and Minnesota stated probably trapping as well.
As far as what I would call excess it would be whatever number is above that they have determined to enough to insure the survival of the species, in Minnesota that was said to be 1300 which was met in the mid 80's I don't know what it is in Wisc or Michigan.
Hunter numbers are declining all over the country mostly because of the urbanization of the population and the loss of available hunting land. When U was a kid we just hunted most anywhere we wanted, now everything that isn't state land is posted no hunting.
If we have a hunting season on wolves I will buy a license by the way.
So there are the numbers you kept telling me I wasn't providing.
There are also numbers for Montana Wyoming and Idaho but I did not include them since I don't know how much deer habitat is included in the wolf territories.
In 1999 the Minnesota Dept of Natural Resources began holding public information meetings to begin the process of delisting the wolf. I attended two of those meetings and it was well represented by hunters as well as animal rights people. The hunters were adamant that the wolf was wiping out the deer herd. And a lot of the wolf lovers called us killers, butchers etc etc, (if you have ever visited an animal rights site you will see they like to do the name calling thing) Dr Mech attended one of the meetings and stated that basically north of US highway 2 from Duluth and west to North Dakota (a rough line of the wolf habitat) that this area was saturated with wolves and that their territories were overlapping and they would kill each other in these areas. Some would spread south, and they have. In spite of this the deer harvest increased each year after the brutal winters of 95-96 and 96-97.
Then in 2003 people started complaining that there were to many deer.We'd had some of the mildest winters in the states history.We were able to start shooting multiple deer and in a large part of the state for the next few years were able to shoot 1 buck and up to five does. Now the population has come down some and those areas are fewer. Last year was a harsher winter than the previous years and there were more deer losses from weather and subsequently more than likely more wolf losses as well.
In my previous post I said that recovery in Minn was 1300 but have read it is 1600 http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/natural...lf_article.pdf
your linked article is completely biased lets look at a direct quote from a researcher who is discussing the reduction of deer in an area you hunt that has wolf sign.
"From 1991 to 2005, a total of only
7 of 677 female deer radio-monitored during the November
firearm seasons were killed by wolves; these occurred over six
of the fifteen firearm seasons. No deer were killed by wolves
during the other nine firearm seasons."
So we see that during the firearms season it appears wolf kills were relatively low.
The researcher dose not account for the fact that after day one there are over 50,000 gut piles for the wolves to scavenge, we also don't know what area the study was done in or the deer to wolf density. This would be relative as if the deer population ratio to collared deer was 1 collared to 1000 non collared we could extrapolate the number of kills from 7 deer to 70 deer. AND this is not a yearly total. This was for 1/24th of the yearly time period. These numbers if representative would now be 1687 deer per study. So now our number is much larger but we still don't know the size of the study area.
BUT we only sampled Female deer who during the Nov. time period are in the best shape of the year. It does not at all account for buck kills who are at there near worst shape of the year due to the rut/breeding cycle.
And by wolf expert testimony should be the animals being killed as wolves only kill the weak and the sick and the bucks fit that profile much better than the does.
Swamphunter. You need to start looking at things with an open mind and learn to read what an "expert" is not saying. His objection for writing that article is pure manipulation nothing else or he would have stated all the possible in-conclusions with his research.
Bayfield countys deer kill this year was 547 animals less than 1 deer per 4 square miles. What would wolf sign in that hunting area tell you????
If you were this researcher it would tell you the wolves have switched to eating rabbits and beaver. because there are not enough deer anymore. LOL
the first article was based off the second you posted which was done by; Contact: Dan Stark, Wolf Specialist
Division of Fish and Wildlife, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
The second author couldn't even relate the same numbers to his biased rag, taken from Don's work.
Don may know his **** but being the wolf specialist of course he would blame everything but the obvious.
If Don is so smart why does he not talk about increased winter kill on deer based on wolf harassment????, or the number of does aborting there fetuses due to added stress and lack of feed, due to wolf disruptions on deer yards???
Because he does not want to expose the truth
He discusses the age of tracked does as being very old up to 18 years old.
What does this tell anyone with NR knowledge, and old population is typical of an area that has: a very low hunter harvest, and has a high predatory numbers.
Contrary to the bad science they push, young animals are always weak, that's why most calf elk and deer fawns in high wolf ares are low to absent, this creates and older age structure. Older deer are also more adept at evading wolf depredation as a learned skill. Hunters in high harvest areas keep healthier heard, than predators as the age structure is lowered and the turnover of older non-fertile females is taken off the landscape by hunters to leave open area for productive females.
Wolf experts??? Don is a wolf environmentalist, promoting them at the detriment of other wildlife.
from the article;
The long-term MNDNR study concentrated on female deer (about 450 during the course of the
study), because there are more of them in the population, and due to their reproductive potential, they
have a greater impact on population dynamics than the males. During the 15-year study, the annual
mortality rate of female deer (not including newborns) attributable to wolf predation, ranged from 4% to
22%. The highest rate was observed in 1996 during the severe winter of 1995-1996, but most typically,
the mortality rate of does attributable to wolf predation was closer to 5-10%. Additionally, what the
data have shown is that the reason white-tailed deer can thrive, despite wolf predation and hunter
harvests, is their strong population performance (survival capacity and reproductive success). The
annual average age of females was 5.1 to 7.2 years old, and approximately 13% of the does were 10.5 to
18.5 years old. In the forest zone, on average, does live a lot longer than managers and researchers had
ever thought. Coupled with that, the pregnancy rates are very high, 90% in yearlings, and 95-100% in
does from 2.5 years old up to at least 15.5 years. Of the pregnant does, even the older ones, are mostly
still having twins. Interestingly, the median age of survival of these deer is 0.8 years old, but in most
cases, there is another fawn to add to the population.
Lets continue to quote studies that are in "wolf terms" ancient material, can we get an accurate study from 2005 or newer??
above is a link to some research on depredation...wolves vs elk
"May God bless our troops, and Hell welcome our enemies!"
"For those who fought for it, Freedom has a flavor the protected will never know!"
Assistant State Captain, Retired, Patriot Guard Riders, West Tennessee
As a fellow Minnesotan, who lives at least a 100 miles further south of swamphuner (Disclaimer: I don't know him ), I know there are 3 packs of wolves in the area I work. I work as a Police Officer in a rural area that covers 36 square miles. I would not have too much faith in the DNR as to where the wolves are at and their numbers. You need to talk to the local people in the area and find out. I asked a DNR Officer this summer if he knew about the wolves in the area and where they were at. He only said he knew there were wolves around but didn't know where.
The local butcher shop had over 300 deer brought in during this years firearms season. I would have to agree if you had 30 deer on one piece of property here in MN, "farmers" would be very upset to say the least. We don't have land barons in MN who own thousands of acres or more. Most farms are probably under 200 acres or less for sure and not in one big chunk of land. I grew up in a farming area and still hunt with my best friend and his dad who farm. That kinda deer numbers probably would be great in a heavily forested area.
I have personally seen the wolves and actually have one on in squad video. I have worked in this area for over five years now and this was the first year I have seen them. This wolf was walking out in the open, across a golf course at about 7pm in July of this year . It sounds to me the argument is to get rid of a wolf that was never here in the lower 48, but whose to say they never would have migrated south eventually and populated? FYI, where I hunt, which is north east of Alexandria, MN the deer harvest numbers were way down this year, I've never heard of any wolves being seen, but I know the coyotes are plentiful.
As far as this argument goes, at present it doesn't pertain to me, I have nothing to lose like you guys, I don't hunt out west (Can't afford too), I do understand why you're all so upset, but again whose to say they wouldn't eventually be here. Unless they stop at the Canadian Border and turn around on their travels (highy unlikely). They obviously need to be regulated with a season and a significant quota allowed.