Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 48

Thread: Wolves: Controversial Conversation

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Oh, Dah Nord Minnersoda.
    Posts
    1,342
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)

    Wolves: Controversial Conversation

    So,

    Here in Minnesota, we have gone back and forth in regards to wolf hunting for a long time.

    Most recently, we had an image traversing facebook supporting legislation that would revoke snaring rights to hunters as they cause collateral damage to animals, unintended targets, and the "ever endangered" wolf species.

    I feel it's a statistical anomaly, and if it was my choice, Wolves would be open game at a hell of a premium for a license to be a controlled game just like it should be. Poachers will poach, and still do today illegally, but I wouldn't mind having a pelt and experiencing that hunt one day in a completely legal manner.

    What-say-you?

    Am I an evil person for deeming wolves a potentially dangerous species to the Natural Resources, as we know it today? Or am I one of the meat heads blocking "Natural Progression" even if it means I might not get the opportunity to get a deer or elk in a decade or two?

    I am moderately intrigued to see how our generally conservative board feels about this topic. Should Snaring be outlawed? Is there no valid use for Snaring? Or should it be left alone? Should wolves be added to the license registry?
    Last edited by HeruMew; 02-12-18 at 13:35.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,234
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by HeruMew View Post
    So,

    Here in Minnesota, we have gone back and forth in regards to wolf hunting for a long time.

    Most recently, we had an image traversing facebook supporting legislation that would revoke snaring rights to hunters as they cause collateral damage to animals, unintended targets, and the "ever endangered" wolf species.

    I feel it's a statistical anomaly, and if it was my choice, Wolves would be open game at a hell of a premium for a license to be a controlled game just like it should be. Poachers will poach, but I wouldn't mind having a pelt and experiencing that hunt one day in a completely legal manner.

    What-say-you?

    Am I an evil person for deeming wolves a potentially dangerous species to the Natural Resources, as we know it? Or am I one of the meat heads blocking "Natural Progression" even if it means I might not get the opportunity to get a deer or elk in a decade or two?

    I am moderately intrigued to see how our generally conservative board feels about this topic. Should Snaring be outlawed? Is there no valid use for Snaring? Or should it be left alone and animals added to the license registry?
    I would ban snares and leg traps.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    1,549
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)
    Wolves and other large predators are necessary for a healthy balance, IMO. Getting rid of wolves, bears, whatevers because some rancher lost a cow is probably why the mid-western states are over-run with unsustainably large deer populations. Enjoy that CWD.

    Of course you also need to maintain balance of predator populations, so managing with hunting should be allowed. Rifle only though.

    I hate trapping, so yes, snaring should be outlawed. All creatures deserve a clean and quick death. Snaring is neither. How would you like to be caught by your leg and left to either mutilate yourself in an attempt to escape or die of dehydration and exposure? Didn't think so...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Oh, Dah Nord Minnersoda.
    Posts
    1,342
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    I've never snared before, I haven't been fond of leg trapping due to ineffectiveness.

    The impression I have been given about snares, and small game, is that death is usually pretty quick for wire snares due to the force used in setting them off. But, alas, I have no formal experience.

    I am much less inclined to care about snares, and more about the persistence that killing off Coyotes is open season, no license required, but Wolves are treated in a different regard.

    I don't agree that all wolves need to be removed, but rifle hunting in a controlled manner would be my elective.

    Thanks for all the input thus far.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    9,904
    Feedback Score
    16 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by HeruMew View Post
    So,

    Here in Minnesota, we have gone back and forth in regards to wolf hunting for a long time.

    Most recently, we had an image traversing facebook supporting legislation that would revoke snaring rights to hunters as they cause collateral damage to animals, unintended targets, and the "ever endangered" wolf species.

    I feel it's a statistical anomaly, and if it was my choice, Wolves would be open game at a hell of a premium for a license to be a controlled game just like it should be. Poachers will poach, but I wouldn't mind having a pelt and experiencing that hunt one day in a completely legal manner.

    What-say-you?

    Am I an evil person for deeming wolves a potentially dangerous species to the Natural Resources, as we know it? Or am I one of the meat heads blocking "Natural Progression" even if it means I might not get the opportunity to get a deer or elk in a decade or two?

    I am moderately intrigued to see how our generally conservative board feels about this topic. Should Snaring be outlawed? Is there no valid use for Snaring? Or should it be left alone and animals added to the license registry?
    I'll be curious to see how may replies you get from people who've actually trapped. I grew up on a cattle ranch. My dad was a ranch hand for 28 years. We always had a roof over our heads and plenty of food to eat, but cash money was in short supply. We did lots of things to make extra cash, from cutting firewood to bucking hay bales. One of those things was running trap lines for furbearers in the winter. Mostly muskrats, raccoons and opossums, with the occasional beaver and yote if we were lucky, and skunks if we weren't. I used leg traps, snares and live traps.

    Anyone who's lived the full time ranching life knows that extra time is in short supply. There are gardens to be tended, animals to be fed and cared for, crops to sow and harvest, undergrowth to be cleared, repairs and improvements to be made and so forth. So sitting in a hide waiting for nuisance animals to show up for eradication isn't the best use of time. Better to set your traps and check them after all the other chores are done.

    From an ethical standpoint, I preferred live traps whenever possible. If I trapped a non-targeted species, I could simply release them and move on. It happened a lot.

    After live traps I preferred drown sets. That usually precluded most non-targeted species and made for a quicker end for the trapped animals. As a matter of fact, I don't ever remember taking a non-targeted species in a drown set.

    After that, locking neck snares. Again to effect a quicker end for the animals, with some taking of non targeted species. Mostly feral cats (no big loss, they devastate quail populations) and on a couple of occasions, dogs.

    While occasionally necessary due to circumstances, I really didn't like using leg traps in a non drown set. It always bothered me how long an animal suffers before being dispatched in a leg trap. I ran those twice daily at dusk and dawn.


    So on the topic of non-live traps for hunters? I think there are certain circumstances where they should be approved. But in most circumstances? No. There's just too much room for abuse and waste. Maybe I'm just a softie now that I'm older? It pisses me off when I find unattended (and usually unmarked) trotlines, limblines and juglines with hooks in the water. I'll take time out of my own fishing to remove them or at least make sure the hooks can't snag a fish to waste for days or weeks before death. It's just inhumane and utterly unnecessary. Take the time necessary to police and secure your traps and lines, or you aren't a sportsman, at all.

    As to predatory species and nature's balance? I guess it depends on just how many wolves per square mile you have in your area? If too many, you probably need a control program. But I'll bet more deer are sport killed by roving dog packs than wolves kill for survival. Just a guess, but it happens more than folks know.

    In my area, we have WAY too many hawks. They're all fat and don't even seem to mind human presence much anymore. I have two that roost in my back yard, much to the chagrin of the squirrels and rabbits. The big thing is how much they and feral cats diminish the rodent population, which pushes the abundant number of yotes to search out both deer and family pets in my area. But raptors are federally protected, so there's nothing that can be done there.
    What if this whole crusade's a charade?
    And behind it all there's a price to be paid
    For the blood which we dine
    Justified in the name of the holy and the divine…

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Inland Northwest
    Posts
    1,356
    Feedback Score
    30 (100%)
    Wolves are a hot-button topic where I live in the Inland NW (Eastern WA to Western MT, roughly speaking). They have had an undeniable impact on big game species since their reintroduction. Since they are, for better or worse, a native species to this area, my opinion is that they belong. Furthermore, I do not see how a responsible conservationist could argue otherwise. Fostering a natural environment as opposed to one artificially inflated with regard to certain species seems narrow-minded and short-sighted to me.

    My only real complaint with wolf reintroduction, in Idaho especially, was the fact that they were allowed to roam completely unchecked for so long. The number of proposed breeding pairs was exceeded very quickly due to no hunting or trapping. Idaho now has essentially year-round trapping and hunting seasons for wolves of which I try to take every advantage.

    In regards to trapping, I understand, and to some extent share, ethical reservations. That said, it remains one of the most effective tools available in controlling certain populations of animals- specifically predators given that they are relatively more difficult to hunt. The only snares allowed for wolves in Idaho are patterned after those used in Alaska and consist of braided aircraft cable suspended off of the ground. They are really ideally placed for an animal the size of an adult wolf, the most common bycatch being deer. I know a few very successful trappers who have reported catching nothing else. The snares are effective and quick killers as well. With regard to leg holds, while the animal is immobilized, it is not as gruesome as some make it out to be and the trappers that I know check their sets more often than the required minimum of 72 hours and ensure a quick kill when they are successful

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Oh, Dah Nord Minnersoda.
    Posts
    1,342
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by kerplode View Post
    Wolves and other large predators are necessary for a healthy balance, IMO. Getting rid of wolves, bears, whatevers because some rancher lost a cow is probably why the mid-western states are over-run with unsustainably large deer populations. Enjoy that CWD.

    Of course you also need to maintain balance of predator populations, so managing with hunting should be allowed. Rifle only though.

    I hate trapping, so yes, snaring should be outlawed. All creatures deserve a clean and quick death. Snaring is neither. How would you like to be caught by your leg and left to either mutilate yourself in an attempt to escape or die of dehydration and exposure? Didn't think so...
    That's why I asked if maybe my mentality is genuinely offset. I am not sure if it is a factor for CWD. Thankfully I am North Enough to Avoid it all. I am in area 182. That affords me 5 deer and one early antlerless. I normally pay the 109 for the Super Sports Combo, than 7 bucks for Early Antlerless. I missed out on both tags last year due to traveling for work, but even separate its 26 bucks for the single tag and 7 for the early season. I couldn't even imagine filling 5 tags, or spending 26 x 5 for 5 tags, but people do around here. I've seen many families sustained for a year in one season. It's crazy though, as I would be willing to give up my ability (even if I didn't use it that much) to allow less CWD spread. Not sure if that's been researched.

    I agree on your predator statement, especially pertaining to rifle.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,234
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by HeruMew View Post

    I am much less inclined to care about snares, and more about the persistence that killing off Coyotes is open season, no license required, but Wolves are treated in a different regard.

    I don't agree that all wolves need to be removed, but rifle hunting in a controlled manner would be my elective.
    I am under the impression wolves are endangered? Hence the difference in rules for coyotes vs wolves?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Oh, Dah Nord Minnersoda.
    Posts
    1,342
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by glocktogo View Post
    I'll be curious to see how may replies you get from people who've actually trapped. I grew up on a cattle ranch. My dad was a ranch hand for 28 years. We always had a roof over our heads and plenty of food to eat, but cash money was in short supply. We did lots of things to make extra cash, from cutting firewood to bucking hay bales. One of those things was running trap lines for furbearers in the winter. Mostly muskrats, raccoons and opossums, with the occasional beaver and yote if we were lucky, and skunks if we weren't. I used leg traps, snares and live traps.

    Anyone who's lived the full time ranching life knows that extra time is in short supply. There are gardens to be tended, animals to be fed and cared for, crops to sow and harvest, undergrowth to be cleared, repairs and improvements to be made and so forth. So sitting in a hide waiting for nuisance animals to show up for eradication isn't the best use of time. Better to set your traps and check them after all the other chores are done.

    From an ethical standpoint, I preferred live traps whenever possible. If I trapped a non-targeted species, I could simply release them and move on. It happened a lot.

    After live traps I preferred drown sets. That usually precluded most non-targeted species and made for a quicker end for the trapped animals. As a matter of fact, I don't ever remember taking a non-targeted species in a drown set.

    After that, locking neck snares. Again to effect a quicker end for the animals, with some taking of non targeted species. Mostly feral cats (no big loss, they devastate quail populations) and on a couple of occasions, dogs.

    While occasionally necessary due to circumstances, I really didn't like using leg traps in a non drown set. It always bothered me how long an animal suffers before being dispatched in a leg trap. I ran those twice daily at dusk and dawn.


    So on the topic of non-live traps for hunters? I think there are certain circumstances where they should be approved. But in most circumstances? No. There's just too much room for abuse and waste. Maybe I'm just a softie now that I'm older? It pisses me off when I find unattended (and usually unmarked) trotlines, limblines and juglines with hooks in the water. I'll take time out of my own fishing to remove them or at least make sure the hooks can't snag a fish to waste for days or weeks before death. It's just inhumane and utterly unnecessary. Take the time necessary to police and secure your traps and lines, or you aren't a sportsman, at all.

    As to predatory species and nature's balance? I guess it depends on just how many wolves per square mile you have in your area? If too many, you probably need a control program. But I'll bet more deer are sport killed by roving dog packs than wolves kill for survival. Just a guess, but it happens more than folks know.

    In my area, we have WAY too many hawks. They're all fat and don't even seem to mind human presence much anymore. I have two that roost in my back yard, much to the chagrin of the squirrels and rabbits. The big thing is how much they and feral cats diminish the rodent population, which pushes the abundant number of yotes to search out both deer and family pets in my area. But raptors are federally protected, so there's nothing that can be done there.
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnerblue View Post
    Wolves are a hot-button topic where I live in the Inland NW (Eastern WA to Western MT, roughly speaking). They have had an undeniable impact on big game species since their reintroduction. Since they are, for better or worse, a native species to this area, my opinion is that they belong. Furthermore, I do not see how a responsible conservationist could argue otherwise. Fostering a natural environment as opposed to one artificially inflated with regard to certain species seems narrow-minded and short-sighted to me.

    My only real complaint with wolf reintroduction, in Idaho especially, was the fact that they were allowed to roam completely unchecked for so long. The number of proposed breeding pairs was exceeded very quickly due to no hunting or trapping. Idaho now has essentially year-round trapping and hunting seasons for wolves of which I try to take every advantage.

    In regards to trapping, I understand, and to some extent share, ethical reservations. That said, it remains one of the most effective tools available in controlling certain populations of animals- specifically predators given that they are relatively more difficult to hunt. The only snares allowed for wolves in Idaho are patterned after those used in Alaska and consist of braided aircraft cable suspended off of the ground. They are really ideally placed for an animal the size of an adult wolf, the most common bycatch being deer. I know a few very successful trappers who have reported catching nothing else. The snares are effective and quick killers as well. With regard to leg holds, while the animal is immobilized, it is not as gruesome as some make it out to be and the trappers that I know check their sets more often than the required minimum of 72 hours and ensure a quick kill when they are successful
    Both of your posts are extremely eye opening and give a youngin' like me a lot more of a foundation to look to. Especially thanks for Glocktogo for the vivid explanation and utilization. It built a lot of good value into your rhetoric.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Oh, Dah Nord Minnersoda.
    Posts
    1,342
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    I am under the impression wolves are endangered? Hence the difference in rules for coyotes vs wolves?
    Taking a look at the statistics, it's not hard to deny. And, in my opinion, this topic is one of the most controversial.

    We have a lot of people saying that they are already getting out of hand; while others insist it's too early to do a population count and review.

    Looks like in 2014 they recorded about 2300 Wolves in Minnesota. I have heard the numbers, due to unpredictable breeding, has grown significantly since then.

    However, when Minnesota harvests about 4000 Coyotes a year, it's understandable that they will have significant population differences.

    I am more in the mindset of: We have a bear lottery up here that supports and builds habitats, why not perform a lottery that will do the same with the other predatory species.

    However, without truly accurate and, most importantly: current, count for the Wolf population in Minnesota, I will have to admit that I have no formal numbers to justify them not being deemed still endangered. Touche.

    No matter what, all-in-all, I do not believe Wolves should be eradicated. I do believe they have a natural place in our ecosystem as they were a part of it long before we were. I just don't want to give the wrong impression. I agree, it would be foolish to believe that removing something from it's system completely could do more good than harm. I also didn't have much of a position of snaring as I had only heard anecdotal remarks and systems in survival books, shows, etc. It's an art lost on most nowadays; I have always believed in good sportsmanship and making sure to be as ethical and humane as possible.
    Last edited by HeruMew; 02-12-18 at 14:05.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •