Wolves poisoned in Oregon

Status
Not open for further replies.
CMON, no carnivore is going to waste nutrition like that. This is just a bunch of sensationalist ******** like saying everyone that doesn't subscribe to your flavor of politics is a pedophile.
And that is exactly what many on here believe. The only information based in reality on this site pertains to reloading.
I agree that the use of such things should be done with care and not just willy nilly. The use of poison type traps for predators is fairly common by control workers in the west. Obvoiusly someones house pet is not the intended target for any type of trap but on the same token, if someones house pet is in the same area unattended, it is the pet owners responsiblity or lack thereof not the trapper.
Define "unattended". You mean to tell me that you have complete control and your dog never picks up or eats anything that you don't inspect and approve of while out and about? Your dog doesn't eat elk kibbles?
The responsibility is on the person deploying the poison or the trap. For their own well being, they should make darn sure they're nowhere close to anywhere that people recreate with their pets.
 
Here is the historic range of the Mexican Gray Wolf. Without other predators (Gray wolf) to keep the reintroduced MGW in check, how far will the Fed allow these animals to expand?
These are being seen in Flagstaff and there is the entire Coconino Plateau to expand into up to the South Rim of the Grand Canyon. If these expand around to the North Rim ( naturally or by transport), that's where the world famous Kaibab deer population exists. Not to mention Kanab, Utah herds which move from and to Kaibab.
We're still in an extended drought here and big game numbers are struggling. It won't take much to tip the scales permanently negative.
Like the old TV commercial: It's not nice to fool with mother nature. We can't erase the past bad decisions, but we can screw up the future, too easily.
 

Attachments

  • mexican_historic.jpg
    mexican_historic.jpg
    17.9 KB · Views: 93
Wyoming had wolves on the south east side of union pass more than 20 years ago. There was a rancher complaining to the DNR about cattle kills the DNR claimed the wolves where not in the Dunoir station area when he told them he had a gun and a backhoe they came and found out they indeed made it that far my son and I almost hit two while going up the pass and this was more than 20 years ago
Why did you miss it? "Almost" doesn't count, that could have been a "double"!
 
And that is exactly what many on here believe. The only information based in reality on this site pertains to reloading.

Define "unattended". You mean to tell me that you have complete control and your dog never picks up or eats anything that you don't inspect and approve of while out and about? Your dog doesn't eat elk kibbles?
The responsibility is on the person deploying the poison or the trap. For their own well being, they should make darn sure they're nowhere close to anywhere that people recreate with their pets.
Like I said before, care should be taken when the use of such methods are done. But sorry to tell you but you are wrong on where the responsablity lies. The law is on the landowner and trappers side on these matters. Yes I have dogs and yes the eat all sorts of crap, they don't discriminate and yes I spray for bugs and put rat bait in the sheds. If someones dog comes on my land and gets in a shed and gets sick it's not my responsablity.
 
I would submit for consideration that we do not have a 'wolf' problem any more than we have a wild horse problem here in the US. Wolves kill. It is a big part of what they do and they are good at it. Horses eat and they are very good at what they do. The problem stems from having or allowing unregulated growth of some animal populations in an ecosystem where the growth of other animal species is heavily regulated. Too many horses or wolves can shift the balance in the ecosystem to the detriment of the other species. Different people or groups desire different things from nature and our wild lands. Finding a compromise is key to finding that new balance. As hunters and conservationists, we agreed upon a compromise with the reintroduction of wolves and what we were willing to sacrifice. When those objectives were reached, the other side (pro-wolf coalition? - not sure what to call them) suddenly decided to try and force a new compromise with us by hauling everyone back into court and starting the negotiations all over again. To my mind, the other side was negotiating in bad faith. Hence, the people problem. The wolves are simply stuck in the middle - doing what they always do. Predators kill. I have no problem with any of them. However, I do have a problem with them when their numbers are allowed to go uncheked.

Regarding the poisoning of wolves, I must admit that it troubles me. From what little I know about poison, it is a painful, terrible way to die. Shooting them would probably be more humane. But if we embrace such ideas, then just like poisoning, we find ourselves advocating for taking action outside of the law. We cannot condemn so-called animal rights activists for doing illegal things (examples: liberating animals from lab facilities or interrupting legal hunts) and then grin and pat ourselves on the back for doing the same - feeling that our actions are justified and theirs are not. In the public eye (which this forum is), we need to rise above such conduct by supporting the laws of the land. If we disagree with the law, then we work to change it. It is painful for me to watch how slowly the wheels of justice turn and how the pro-wolf coalition uses the courts to tie up state governments from carrying out good game management programs. But it is the system I have agreed to live under.

At the turn of the last century (1900's), my great-grandfather was a forest ranger living in eastern AZ with his family. Hunting was simply a part of life for them. It's what you did to feed the family. Part of his duties as a forest ranger included assisting/hosting workers from other government agencies coming to that part of the country. His son (my grandfather) was a pre-teenager when a young man came to stay with them. This man's job was to remove the last of the wolves left in AZ. He was very good at his job and my grandfather was very taken with him. His knowledge of nature seemed to be encyclopedic. The name of the contract wolf killer was Aldo Leupold. Through the years, my grandfather followed his career from contract killer, to associate member of the Boone & Crocket Club to professor of Game Management at the University of Wisconsin. Because of his dealings with Aldo, my grandfather came to understand that being a conservationist and a hunter were not mutually exclusive. In turn, he taught me that everything has it's place and removing or adding anything to the ecosystem upsets a delicate balance.

I believe we need wolves, coyotes, grizzly bears and wild horses. The only real question is where and how many. That determination must be made by people. Hence, we have a people problem. A conflict among humans. Let's keep the blame with us (or the other side - depending on your point of view) and not direct our vitriol and anger at the poor animals that seem to get caught up in the middle for being nothing more than what God made them.
 
Shoot em' on sight, poisoning them on the other hand is about as COWARDLY as it gets. That poison goes back into the circle of life and kills off other creatures that we want to keep around. Eagles, Hawks, Owls, etc. I hope that whoever is behind this gets caught and that the Fed's & State throw the BOOK at em'!

This type of attitude & behavior towards wildlife is completely unacceptable. CRUCIFY me if you want, heck it's Easter Weekend…."He Has Risen" & I'll gladly go down with Jesus when it is my TIME.
 
I would submit for consideration that we do not have a 'wolf' problem any more than we have a wild horse problem here in the US. Wolves kill. It is a big part of what they do and they are good at it. Horses eat and they are very good at what they do. The problem stems from having or allowing unregulated growth of some animal populations in an ecosystem where the growth of other animal species is heavily regulated. Too many horses or wolves can shift the balance in the ecosystem to the detriment of the other species. Different people or groups desire different things from nature and our wild lands. Finding a compromise is key to finding that new balance. As hunters and conservationists, we agreed upon a compromise with the reintroduction of wolves and what we were willing to sacrifice. When those objectives were reached, the other side (pro-wolf coalition? - not sure what to call them) suddenly decided to try and force a new compromise with us by hauling everyone back into court and starting the negotiations all over again. To my mind, the other side was negotiating in bad faith. Hence, the people problem. The wolves are simply stuck in the middle - doing what they always do. Predators kill. I have no problem with any of them. However, I do have a problem with them when their numbers are allowed to go uncheked.

Regarding the poisoning of wolves, I must admit that it troubles me. From what little I know about poison, it is a painful, terrible way to die. Shooting them would probably be more humane. But if we embrace such ideas, then just like poisoning, we find ourselves advocating for taking action outside of the law. We cannot condemn so-called animal rights activists for doing illegal things (examples: liberating animals from lab facilities or interrupting legal hunts) and then grin and pat ourselves on the back for doing the same - feeling that our actions are justified and theirs are not. In the public eye (which this forum is), we need to rise above such conduct by supporting the laws of the land. If we disagree with the law, then we work to change it. It is painful for me to watch how slowly the wheels of justice turn and how the pro-wolf coalition uses the courts to tie up state governments from carrying out good game management programs. But it is the system I have agreed to live under.

At the turn of the last century (1900's), my great-grandfather was a forest ranger living in eastern AZ with his family. Hunting was simply a part of life for them. It's what you did to feed the family. Part of his duties as a forest ranger included assisting/hosting workers from other government agencies coming to that part of the country. His son (my grandfather) was a pre-teenager when a young man came to stay with them. This man's job was to remove the last of the wolves left in AZ. He was very good at his job and my grandfather was very taken with him. His knowledge of nature seemed to be encyclopedic. The name of the contract wolf killer was Aldo Leupold. Through the years, my grandfather followed his career from contract killer, to associate member of the Boone & Crocket Club to professor of Game Management at the University of Wisconsin. Because of his dealings with Aldo, my grandfather came to understand that being a conservationist and a hunter were not mutually exclusive. In turn, he taught me that everything has it's place and removing or adding anything to the ecosystem upsets a delicate balance.

I believe we need wolves, coyotes, grizzly bears and wild horses. The only real question is where and how many. That determination must be made by people. Hence, we have a people problem. A conflict among humans. Let's keep the blame with us (or the other side - depending on your point of view) and not direct our vitriol and anger at the poor animals that seem to get caught up in the middle for being nothing more than what God made them.
Now do prairie dogs.
 
I had a wolf in my yard, the wolf had my dog backed up and my fog was scared shitless. The choices were few for me as shooting a wolf was against the law…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Recent Posts

Top