Conference vmsnet::hunting$note:hunting

    IMHO, I believe that the anti's want to re-introduce the wolves so they
    can take that one step forward to eliminate hunting. Say in about 10
    years after the wolf has been re-introduced the anti's will step
    forward and say "There is no need for hunting anymore, Mother Nature
    has everything under control!" There is talk of wolf re-introduction
    into New Hampshire and Maine going around here now. I believe that
    Friends of Animals is behind all of this. It wouldn't suprise me that
    they might be going through some kind of other organization just to
    keep them out of the picture until the "right" time. Maybe I'm just
    being a little paranoid here but with all of these organizations around
    that are anti-gun and anti-hunting I wouln't be the least bit
    surprised. Just look at how these people try to slide certain bills
    through Congress that have these fine print laws at the very end that
    are anti everything (hunting and firearms) that have absolutely nothing
    to do with the original bill itself. IMHO of course, and also
    FLAME_OFF.
    							:^(    Bret

    Man has replaced the wolf, without a doubt.  I would like to force any
    anti hunter who thinks this is better form of game population control
    to watch the wolf pull down and devour a fawn or doe while it is still
    living.  If they can promote that as superior to a 150gr bullet then
    they are really sick.
    
    As long as man can hunt, there is no need for large predators to
    control game.  I could support minimal numbers required to maintain the
    species viable, but the rest should be drawn down by lotto like they do
    in the Wilderness area of Montana (25 bear deaths by all means which
    includes cars and old age)
    
    In Michigan, we have a program to support the grey wolf.  It is still
    relatively rare.  I have seen one in Delta County in the U.P. and came
    across tracks of another in Gogebic County.  I am not too excited by the
    idea of a comeback.  Deer hunting is relatively good up there now, but
    you get the idea that the abundant population is somewhat fragile.
    
    /bob
    

    
    I read an atrilce the other day about the Quabbin deer hunt and how
    some anti's think that re-introducing wolves to the quabbin would
    be better than having an annual deer hunt. What a crock. There's no
    way to contain the wolves and the surrounding farms would lose lots
    of livestock. I bet the dummies that thought of this dont live anywhere
    near the Quabbin.
    
    Walt

 I think the idea of reintroducing wolves to northen NH and Maine is a good one.

>>          <<< Note 1283.4 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "the insatiable fire" >>>
>>
>> I think the idea of reintroducing wolves to northen NH and Maine is a good one.

What if this is done with the caveat that hunting of wolves, regardless
of their population, will never be allowed?  Or that control of wolf
populations will only be done by department of wildlife personnel,
and only by humane methods (live traps, maybe)?

I don't have any problems with having a small wolf population as long
as I know that there are workable plans in place to keep that population
under control.  My main concern is that public opinion will make this
extremely difficult until too much damage is done by predation.

Jerry

re:

"I think the idea of reintroducing wolves to northern NH and maine is a good one."

why??? 

It's great till a few small children get carried off into the woods... this did, 
does, and will happen...  people love to see deer till they become a nuisance...
was it chelmsford where they had a trapping ban, then several years later had their
town water supply put in jeopardy due to the population boom of beavers... everyone's
a nature lover till it comes back and bites em in the ass.

wondering,  Fra

    Not to nit pick...... but, I had always heard that there are no
    documented cases of wolves killing a human.  Im not sure what I think
    of re-introducing wolves into remote areas.
    
    Jeff

re: .6

>> It's great till a few small children get carried off into the woods... this
>> did,  does, and will happen...

Where can one find documentation that this has occurred?  Last I heard,
there has never been documented proof of a wolf attack on a human.
(They have better taste).

Bring on the wolves, they were here before we were!

Jerry

    
    I have a hard time believing that wolves never attacked man.  We know
    that black bears will and do without warning.  It's not common, it does
    happen.
    
    Gary

 Wolves do not pose a particularly great menace to people; certainly it's far
less an issue than grizzlies, predatory felines, and the like. In aggregate,
the total number of human-predator interactions over the course of a year
is a very small number. Quite frankly, the notion that wolves will rapidly
overpopulate and begin dragging children off into the woods is not based upon
biological or zoological fact, but fear and emotion. There just isn't that much
suitable habitat for wolves out there. Wolves are far more intolerant of humans
than coyotes are.

 Wolves are the only natural predators of moose native to this part of the 
country. The sole biological checks remaining are 1) hunting, 2) automobile
collisions and 3) a parasite which is passed through deer feces and which
infects the moose's brain. The increasing herd of moose needs a greater
biological check than is currently provided. This is why the number of
moose permits has been increasing on a yearly basis.

 I don't see a problem with reintroducing predators such as the wolf to the
northern tier of NH, Vermont and Maine which has the only habitat suitable 
for such fauna and which has a low population density. I believe that opponents
vastly overestimate the danger in doing so.

 The Doctah

    
    
    The problem with introducing wolves into "NORTHERN MAINE,NH..." is that
    they are unlikely to stay there just because we want them to.  I can
    tell you that a lot of cattle and sheep farmers are having a hard
    enough time with coyotes.  They certainly don't need any more large
    dogs running around the woods just because somebody thinks they would
    be kind of neat.
    
      I mean what is the real reason to re-introduce them anyway?  Are they
    in danger of becomming extinct where they are?
    
      If they don't really need the Maine woods we don't really need them. 
    Lets spend our money on something we won't have to clean up later.
    
    (My personal opinions)
    Chuck

>    tell you that a lot of cattle and sheep farmers are having a hard
>    enough time with coyotes.

 Farmers in areas where wolves are currently existant are subject to
reimbursement for lost livestock. The number of actual reimbursements
is surprisingly small, and the farmers there are quite satisfied with
the program. The spectre of huge losses to predation is another scare
tactic proferred by the less informed who prefer the status quo to
any change.

    First, just about every farmer in Northern N.H. has gone record about
    NOT wanting wolves reintroduced into their area. Second, we don't
    really need another way of spending tax payers money, we have plenty
    right now. Coyotes take quite a bit of sheep and other small domestic
    raised farm animals. I for one do not think there is enough area left
    in Northern N.H. to support a wolf pack. To me it is just another way
    of anti-hunters to stop hunting. 
    							Bret

    	One thing nobody has mentioned, is when we did have wolves
    around New England, how much more undeveloped land did we have then
    compared to now? I don't know if there were or were not any wolf
    attacks but it wolves are re-introduced into the area, there will be
    more wolf-human confrontations and common sense will tell you what
    will happen. With the hunting ban on Mountain Lions, there was a big
    jump in complaints as well as attacks. $.02...
    
    
    							Butch

This is turning into a real soapbox type discussion.  By that, I mean
that several contributors are throwing facts and such around as if
they are undisputed without citing sources or how you know these
things to be true.  Someone claims that wolves will kill livestock
and that the farmers/ranchers in the area are already suffering
predation due to coyotes.  Someone else says that the farmers get
reimbursed by the government for their losses and that the farmers
are happy with that.  No one is really backing up their claims.  It
would be nice if you would cite your references.  There are some, such
as myself, who are hoping to learn some factual information from this.

Now, having said that, I have some observations of the current dialogue.
First of all, I don't see a lot of reason to re-introduce wolves into
an area if this means that tax payer money will be spent to pay for
damages caused by the wolves, or to control the damage.  Seems like
there's already enough demand on the tax dollar without adding to it.

I can also appreciate that the wolves were here first, and that we have some
moral, ethical or aesthetic obligation to put them back, but I think
we need more reason than that.  Why were the wolves eliminated in the
first place?  Did we just push them out by our mere presence, or were
they killed out because of the damage that they did?  If it was damage,
was it real or just perceived?  I have no doubt that wolves will kill
livestock and game animals, but I don't know how significant the
predation is.  I also don't know if wolves have really been known to
kill people, but there's certainly a lot of legend and lore to back
this claim up.  Maybe it's rare, but I'll bet it's happened.

There seems to be a lot of mis-information and half-truths floating
around, much of it propigated by those who have strong opinions one
way or the other.  Those who favor re-introduction tend to zero in
on a different set of statistics than those who oppose such, and we
all know what you can do with statistics.

Let me finish by posing a moral question.  If wolves are introduced into
your favorite hunting grounds, and the result is much poorer hunting for
you, is it ok?  After all, the wolves were there first, and they're just
doing what wolves do.  On the other hand, you either have to put up with
poorer hunting opportunities or find some place else to hunt.  And if
hunters desert an area, what will this do a the local economy?  After
all, hunters pay for the privilege (in more ways than one), but the
wolves don't.  And it's hunter's money that finance a lot of game
management activities.

Jerry

    
    
    Well if yoou want to know my sources .15.  The farm next to my
    fathers place (I grew up around and worked on this farm) lost 9 calves
    (Milk cattle) one spring alone due to coyotes.  This farmer had not
    lost calves other than the occasional one before coyotes moved into the
    area ( I myself shot one of a pair that was at the time IN this farmers
    pasture).  
    
      RE:.13 (I think)  The farmers you are referring to I would guess have
    herds that number in the thousands not dozens as is common around here. 
    So loosing a few wouldn't be as significant a loss.
    
    I BELIEVE that wolves would be a mistake.
    
    Chuck

    There was a couple of articles so far this year in the Manchester Union
    Leader and the N.H. Sunday News that had some interviews with farmers
    that surround the White Mtn Nat'l Forest and they expressed their
    feelings about not wanting wolves reintroduced. And as a previously
    reply had mentioned, most farmers and/or ranchers are small compaired
    in other areas. One kill would be devasting to them never mind dozens.
    Only a couple of replies in these articles, compared to the many
    against, were for wolf reintroduction. The last 2 wolves were killed in
    N.H. in 1901. Since then game populations have rose significantly. 
    							Bret

    We don't have any wolves in Or. that I know of, but it seems we are
    having a population explosion of mountain lions.  They just shot one
    yesterday on the outskirts of town.  They've been after him for a
    couple of months.  He killed a couple of dogs and scared the h*ll out
    of some people.  The county hired a professional hunter and he finally
    got him.  The cat had just killed 4 calves from a nearby farm.
    
    Ken

 Coyotes only natural predator is, you guessed it, the wolf.

    re: 1283.19 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE
    
    >Coyotes only natural predator is, you guessed it, the wolf.
    
     and man! I know I ain't no alien to planet earth.  :^)
    
    chuck