# Wolf hunting allowed ?



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

I didn't know the population was up to where they are allowing hunting. I have been hearing of farmers losing sheep to them though. Either way it's an interesting article. Maybe those who are in those states and are having difficulty with predators can get a permit. 
I especially like the sentence at the end of the article. ""A chance of a vicious attack," Anderson said, "is quite high and absent regulation it will be hard for hunters to know what to do (to prevent them)." Like the hunter doesn't know there could be violence involved, or like there isn't violence involved when wolves are killing livestock.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...lf-hunt-in-wisconsin-20120831,0,3150445.story


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

They are always bothering stock here, always, so its always open season. Or they go after children. More coyote, coy/dog and coy wolves here. Could be coy/killer whales if knocking off whale regulations get in the way!


----------



## Squeaky McMurdo (Apr 19, 2012)

We have "Big coyotes" here in Wyoming where wolves are still protected.

*rant on* Despite what everyone was saying, there WERE wolves in Wyoming before the Yellowstone re-introduction. There had been a pack of 20-50 in the mountains behind my in-law's house since the 80s. I'm sure there were more packs in the Targee national forest. And no, they weren't coyotes they were bigger. But not nearly as big as the huge Canadian wolves they brought in that quickly wiped out the native packs.

So because we were told that all we were seeing was big coyotes we just shoot the big coyotes they brought in when they cause damage.*rant off*


----------



## JasoninMN (Feb 24, 2006)

I think Minnesota is actually conducting a legit hunt this fall we have the population for it. However, 80% of Minnesotans are not in favor of it but thats a whole nother topic. Wisconsin, Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho are all just "crying wolf" and doing what they can to get rid of the species in its entirety. They will keep the population at the bare minimum required and they will soon be back on the ESL in those states. Then the government will being paying millions to save the remaining few and history repeats. With populations as small as a few hundred they can easily be wiped out by parvo or distemper and other diseases. Most of the anti wolf stuff is so blown out of proportion its ridiculous, but people eat it up since there has to be a scape goat somewhere. Everything thats killed is killed by a wolf in most peoples minds, even if it was the neighbors dog who did it. I bet over 75% of the people crying about wolves have never seen one or have even had a problem with them but follow the no wolf hype. 

By now everyone who reads the forums often knows I have had dogs attacked by wolves. They have never touched by livestock and I try to remain neutral on the subject. I don't hate them for doing it or being wolves nor do I fear them. They have their place in the world too. I do believe farmers/ranchers and pet owners should be able to protect their animals. As far as hunting wolves with dogs, it saved some unnecessary dog deaths. I doubt many would have hunted with hounds and even fewer would be successful. Wolves are already eating bear and cat hounds in WI so I am curious what they through they would run them with. Scent hounds wouldn't last long since the baying seems to attract wolves.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

JasoninMN said:


> I think Minnesota is actually conducting a legit hunt this fall we have the population for it. However, 80% of Minnesotans are not in favor of it but thats a whole nother topic. Wisconsin, Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho are all just "crying wolf" and doing what they can to get rid of the species in its entirety. They will keep the population at the bare minimum required and they will soon be back on the ESL in those states. Then the government will being paying millions to save the remaining few and history repeats. With populations as small as a few hundred they can easily be wiped out by parvo or distemper and other diseases. Most of the anti wolf stuff is so blown out of proportion its ridiculous, but people eat it up since there has to be a scape goat somewhere. Everything thats killed is killed by a wolf in most peoples minds, even if it was the neighbors dog who did it. I bet over 75% of the people crying about wolves have never seen one or have even had a problem with them but follow the no wolf hype.
> 
> By now everyone who reads the forums often knows I have had dogs attacked by wolves. They have never touched by livestock and I try to remain neutral on the subject. I don't hate them for doing it or being wolves nor do I fear them. They have their place in the world too. I do believe farmers/ranchers and pet owners should be able to protect their animals. As far as hunting wolves with dogs, it saved some unnecessary dog deaths. I doubt many would have hunted with hounds and even fewer would be successful. Wolves are already eating bear and cat hounds in WI so I am curious what they through they would run them with. Scent hounds wouldn't last long since the baying seems to attract wolves.


Jason, most hound breeds are trailers, not killers. If you hunt wolves with dogs you do it with breeds made to fight and kill. Like hunting hogs, you just need the right dogs. Where do you think wolfhounds came from?


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

tinknal
the irish wolfhound is a "recreated" breed made up of scottish deerhound and great dane. the breed as awhole was never a wolf killer.
the russian was bred for killing the steppe wolf and in central asian countries they still do. however this wolf is a small to medium sized subspecies and the russian wolfhounds out weigh the biggest steppe wolves by 20+ pounds and attack as a trio or pair at minimum.
developing a dog that can take the large canadian greys is a process that hasn't even really begun yet. the ONLY guy i know working on it is using LGDXstaghounds as the base breed.


----------



## JasoninMN (Feb 24, 2006)

Ditto what pops said.


----------



## Grazer (Dec 23, 2011)

I agree with JasoninMN's post, most of the anti wolf stuff is really blown out of proportion.
According to the May 2011 USDA cattle death report, of the nearly 4,000,000 cattle and calf deaths in the US in 2010, predators caused only 5% and of that, wolves caused a meager 0.2%.
A single Montana storm in the spring of 2009 killed 2,260 sheep and calves. In all of the preceding year, 188 were lost to wolves

This website here explains really well how wolves are misunderstood and has good facts: Wolves - Misunderstood &mdash; Oregon Wild

And to quote WHY WE SHOULD PROTECT OUR WOLVES Â« Northernlightswolf&#8217;s Weblog : "Imagine the wolf as an umbrella. They are a large predator who sits at the very top of our food chain. When something happens at the top, there is a cascade effect that influences every level of the food chain, right down to the insects and plants&#8230; basically, everything under the umbrella.

Consider these things: Wolves live in packs. They hunt all year long in order to feed their big families. They often take the weak and sick, and leave behind the strong and healthy. They feed others, because there are often lots of leftovers from their feasts. They control the numbers of their prey, so huge population explosions don&#8217;t happen, and that means there is enough food energy to go around (that&#8217;s the &#8220;carrying capacity&#8221; of the land)."


----------



## SFM in KY (May 11, 2002)

Wyoming just recently passed legislation that will permit wolf hunting in that state, the last state, I understand, to do so.

The wolf populations (since the re-introduction many years ago) have increased well past the numbers wildlife experts have determined to be necessary to maintain a healthy 'local' population.

The packs in Yellowstone Park, for instance, are now over capacity to maintain themselves on the available prey animals, which is why you see so many 'new' packs established throughout the Rocky Mountain ranges in ID, MT, WY and CO. They establish new packs and go elsewhere to hunt. The fact is, when wildlife is not available, wolves will range further and they will go for livestock. They are also opportunistic ... they cull the elk herds of the weak and sickly and when the big bulls defend successfully, they take sheep and cattle, an easier prey.

The official numbers published by various government agencies is based on the number of animals ranchers are reimbursed for losses deemed to be wolf kills. Those numbers are a basis for a lot of controversy as so many of the kills are not found and examined until there isn't enough left to meet the criteria for the reimbursement. When cattle are ranging over thousands of acres, a kill site may not be found for several days or weeks. With a few bones and some hide all that is left, the officials will not validate it as a wolf kill. It may or may not be a wolf kill, but there are definitely wolf kills that go undocumented. Ranchers in these areas say that the actual numbers are much higher than the official figures because of this.

I agree that wolves are beautiful animals, but I am also the third generation of a ranching family and I'd much prefer to see them in Yellowstone Park than on a privately owned cattle or sheep ranch.


----------



## paddler (May 13, 2010)

the wolf hunt is quite a hot topic around here in the northeast part of the state. everyone has an opinion thats for sure! to be honest, im not sure where i stand. every other fur bearer and grazer in the area has a state regulated hunting season. why not the wolf? it certainly has a very large population base, it is far from endangered. i see wolves, hear wolves, and see sign on a very regular basis. there truly is no shortage of them around. its my opinion that the ever increasing deer herd in this part of the state supports a very large wolf population that is sustained by the deer herd. During the moose calving season, this very large population of wolves preys on moose calves to a very large degree. They are the easiest prey in the woods. there are a lot of factors (ticks, disease, changing forests and climates, deer) but i believe that wolves are a factor for why moose calves arent makign it to adulthood. 

i also believe that hunters are going to find it very difficult to shoot wolves during a season. im guessing that most of the harvest will be during the trapping season.


----------



## JasoninMN (Feb 24, 2006)

Paddler, on my rounds in the arrowhead region, Cook and Lake Counties, nearly ever wolf I have seen has mange to some degree. Has that been your experience too? I agree that trappers will be more successful then hunters but I doubt their pelts will be worth much. I have seen some interesting wolf recipes though.


----------



## nancy237 (May 29, 2008)

Just read The Loop by Nicholas Evans...
Its about a town divided by the ranchers & wolf protectors..

Curious about how many of the wolf facts are accurate..
I think I learned a lot but wonder if it was "real" wolf facts..

Good book...


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

culling the sick & weak is a myth, wolves are opportunistic & regularly take down big healthy bull elk & moose. they also do not just kill what they need, there are numerous documented accounts of rampages or killing sprees where they kill several (sometimes double digits) moose or elk ina day or two and only feed off one kill.
that said they are not the monsters some would like us to believe, they are not going to run down to Miami & eat your grandma just to cause you personal suffering.
what they are in the northern rockies is a NONNATIVE invasive introduced predator that is under harvested, overprotected & causing tremendous damage to wildlife populations. the native wolves of the region was a MEDIUM subspecies of grey. the introduced wolves are a LARGE subspecies and so MUST consume more prey just to exist. further the introduced wolves exterminated the remaining rocky mountain timberwolves in yellowstone. the best resolution would be to exterminate the introduced wolves and seek a medium subspecies to introduce to the area, perhaps any rocky mountain timbers that may be held in zoos or mexican greys. that way you benefit a species in need w/o excessively damaging the native wildlife.


----------



## paddler (May 13, 2010)

yeah, mange was real common several years ago. nearly every wolf that we caught (i work as a biology tech, we live trap them) had mange to some degree. it seems to be better the last couple of years but you still see a real scraggly one every now and then. 

i also agree that the pelts wont be worth much. our wolves are pretty small compared to the big canadian timber wolves. a big wolf for us is 80 pounds.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

We have wolves in eastern WA as well. The state has been eliminating a pack in the county north of us because they have been killing so much livestock. There is plenty of game but the livestock is easier prey. I believe these wolves have come from the Yellowstone packs that were pushed out. I would guess it's only a matter of time until they make it across the state. They have been spotted in our area as well. We don't see many elk any more and the moose numbers appear down too. No one is trying to figure out why the elk/moose numbers are down, but until the livestock killing got out of hand, officially there were no wolves in our area.

There are problems with wolves killing livestock in eastern OR as well.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

At least farmers will be able to legally hunt those wolves killing their stock. I wasn't sure if they were allowed to do that before with them being endangered. I suspect coyotes are a little more adaptable and seem to survive in more areas, but hunting sure hasn't hurt their numbers around here.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

paddler said:


> yeah, mange was real common several years ago. nearly every wolf that we caught (i work as a biology tech, we live trap them) had mange to some degree. it seems to be better the last couple of years but you still see a real scraggly one every now and then.
> 
> i also agree that the pelts wont be worth much. our wolves are pretty small compared to the big canadian timber wolves. a big wolf for us is 80 pounds.


I was wondering what our wolves weigh.

That's why I won't be selling any of my 4 1/2 Newhouse in MN. I don't want any knucklehead setting them for wolves and catching dogs.


----------



## JasoninMN (Feb 24, 2006)

wendle said:


> At least farmers will be able to legally hunt those wolves killing their stock. I wasn't sure if they were allowed to do that before with them being endangered. I suspect coyotes are a little more adaptable and seem to survive in more areas, but hunting sure hasn't hurt their numbers around here.


You could not legally kill them even if caught in the act of killing. However you could have a federal trapper remove them in a depredation situation. Now that they are off the endangered species list you can kill them if they are in the act of killing your livestock. In the past livestock loses and hounds were compensated, pets were not. In the near future there will probably be no compensation.


----------



## JasoninMN (Feb 24, 2006)

fishhead said:


> I was wondering what our wolves weigh.
> 
> That's why I won't be selling any of my 4 1/2 Newhouse in MN. I don't want any knucklehead setting them for wolves and catching dogs.


My dog has already been caught in one illegally set for wolves a few years ago.
I bet with your group raising awareness there will be a lot more reports this year.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

fishhead said:


> I was wondering what our wolves weigh.
> 
> That's why I won't be selling any of my 4 1/2 Newhouse in MN. I don't want any knucklehead setting them for wolves and catching dogs.


Better a trapper should use your newhouse than a conibear. This is exactly the trap you should use if you are concerned about pets. A pet can be released alive from this trap. With a body gripper or snare, not so much.


----------



## SFM in KY (May 11, 2002)

JasoninMN said:


> In the past livestock loses and hounds were compensated, pets were not. In the near future there will probably be no compensation.


And the problem with that was that the 'kill' had to be verified as a wolf kill. Many of the kills were either not found (just missing cattle or sheep) or so old there was nothing specific to identify it as a wolf kill, so the rancher would not be compensated for the loss.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

SFM in KY said:


> And the problem with that was that the 'kill' had to be verified as a wolf kill. Many of the kills were either not found (just missing cattle or sheep) or so old there was nothing specific to identify it as a wolf kill, so the rancher would not be compensated for the loss.


In the 1970s my dad and his partner lost 35 newborn calves to wolves. We were in an area of the state where wolves usually did not live but a drought followed by a severe winter drove them south. We found the mostly eaten remains of one calf. The rest simply disappeared. When we went to the DNR about it they just said "there are no wolves there (but don't kill them)"


----------



## JasoninMN (Feb 24, 2006)

SFM in KY said:


> And the problem with that was that the 'kill' had to be verified as a wolf kill. Many of the kills were either not found (just missing cattle or sheep) or so old there was nothing specific to identify it as a wolf kill, so the rancher would not be compensated for the loss.


That is not true entirely true, missing calves are/were compensated for. Don't think that some ranchers haven't taken advantage of that either.  You can rest assured compensation was given on "kills" that were not wolf related.


----------



## JasoninMN (Feb 24, 2006)

tinknal said:


> Better a trapper should use your newhouse than a conibear. This is exactly the trap you should use if you are concerned about pets. A pet can be released alive from this trap. With a body gripper or snare, not so much.



That is true, my dog yelped and was fine otherwise. More startled then anything.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

I agree that footholds are the traps that should be used. My comment was targeted at the 4 1/2 Newhouse specifically. The trap weighs about 8 lbs and even at 185 lbs I don't weigh enough to set it without a special technique I've developed. It is too big for our size wolves.

Most hunters wouldn't be able to release their dog without clamps from that particular trap and would have to leave it in the trap until they could find the proper tool. Left in the woods it might turn into dinner before they could return.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

actually same as a connibear, you can use your dog's leash for leverage to compress the spring(s) and open the trap.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

fishhead said:


> Most hunters wouldn't be able to release their dog without clamps from that particular trap and would have to leave it in the trap until they could find the proper tool. Left in the woods it might turn into dinner before they could return.


You can leave it in the trap without leaving it in the woods...................


----------



## SFM in KY (May 11, 2002)

JasoninMN said:


> That is not true entirely true, missing calves are/were compensated for. Don't think that some ranchers haven't taken advantage of that either.  You can rest assured compensation was given on "kills" that were not wolf related.


I imagine there were inequities on both sides, going to happen with any program like this.

Incidentally, found this video clip posted that is pretty interesting as far as wolves and wolf-pack hunting goes.

http://img.izifunny.com/pics/20120706/original/izifunny-gifdump-15-gifs_3.gif


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

tinknal said:


> You can leave it in the trap without leaving it in the woods...................


It would be very difficult to carry the dog out of the woods and possibly for miles with an 8 lb double longspring trap hanging from the foot without risking injury. Also, it could be staked solid.

Hopefully people will use common sense and stay with footholds that aren't overkill. We've also got to be concerned about "power snares".


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Pops2 said:


> actually same as a connibear, you can use your dog's leash for leverage to compress the spring(s) and open the trap.


That works with one spring but unless you have a clip it won't work for both.


----------



## Barn Yarns (Oct 7, 2012)

Our MN wolf hunt is going to be a farce to say the least. up here many kill wolves and they are just left in the woods. Trapping will be the way to go for sure. No tags in our neighborhood tho. =( 

hides btw are expected to bring between $250 and $400. mind you of course they are shot up. Ive talked to several people who didnt get chosen in the lottery and would like nothing better than to have one hanging on the wall.

The only good that the wolf hunt will do, is bring extra money to the taxidermists. they will be sewing up all those 30-06 and 300 mag holes! 

It will take them a while tho to get the 400 they want, and that wont be enough to even put a dent in the heard. Our wolfs have been at a healthy population since the mid 70s.


----------



## Farmer2B (Oct 20, 2011)

As far as Wyoming goes, it seems to me that what I'm hearing is the canadian wolves are causing terror. If you read literature about the American West from the 1800's or so, they are always mentioned as Prairie Wolves. More like coyotes than wolves. The candian wolves adapted to hunting moose, and are stronger. I find that photos and descriptions of wolves in Wyoming prove they were not as heavy, and more agile. Possibly to hunt elk and the vanishing buffalo?

Anyway, what I am trying to say is that obviously there are various subspecies of wolf. Mexican wolves, prairie wolves, mountain wolves, timber/canadian wolves, and Yellowstone's so called reintroduction of them was not only a waste of money for buying them, but for the compensations that need paying. I know they pack guns out in Wyoming, especially when they calve.


----------

