I love wolves. Seriously.

[jackelope]

The moose looks like it is being eaten alive...Gotta love those wolves

Likely every wolf in that picture is now dead.

[Duckslayer89]

The moose looks like it is being eaten alive...Gotta love those wolves

Likely every wolf in that picture is now dead.

And every moose in pic as well

[jackelope]

The moose looks like it is being eaten alive...Gotta love those wolves

Likely every wolf in that picture is now dead.

And every moose in pic as well

Actually the moose population has rebounded exponentially, and all but 2 of the wolves on the island are dead as of this past winter.
(That's an old photo from Isle Royale on Lake Superior)
http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/sites/default/files/annual-report-pdf/Annual%20Report%202016-2017_0.pdf

[trophyhunt]

Isn't our moose population dropping due to wolves?  Just what I've heard anyway.

[WI to WA]

I hate to jump too far into this debate as there does not seem to be room to disagree with the “wolves don’t belong” crowd.  Those of us who don’t mind wolves sharing our forests are categorized as wrong and are pigeonholed as crazy environmentalists.  Hunters can be environmentalists and I would argue that hunters are (or should be) environmentalists.  Threads like this with some of the inflammatory comments seen here are used by the “crazy environmentalists” to belittle the entire group of hunters.  We need to work together – we’re on the same side.   

I have lived with wolves, been followed by them (both with and without meat on my shoulder), have scared them much more than I have been scared by them, and have watched them both while hunting and hiking in Wisconsin.  I have seen their effect on deer numbers in Northern Wisconsin and applaud their subtle management. 

The only issue I have with this discussion is the assertion that they are bad because they are “invasive.”  If you use that argument for wolves it should be used for other invasive species.  For example, use the same argument for the overabundance of “slow elk.”  Cattle are ridiculously overpopulated on our public lands; they are invasive in the truest sense as they do not occur naturally -- anywhere.  They do not belong on public land; feed lots are great.  Keeping our public lands rich in vegetation is important to our game animals; cattle destroy this.  I have come upon too many herds of burgers eating the vegetation that could be used to further support elk.  I have talked with cattlemen who believe they own our public lands because their meal ticket eats there.  If the argument was actually about wolves being invasive the same should apply to cattle.  As hunters and lovers of wild game on our tables, we should be arguing against any invasive animal that takes resources away from what we live to pursue.

I am not actually arguing against grazing on public lands (even though I hate cattle) but the argument can be applied to both wolves and cattle.  The only difference is that wolves have actually lived here before people; cows didn’t live anywhere.

[KFhunter]

I hate to jump too far into this debate as there does not seem to be room to disagree with the “wolves don’t belong” crowd.  Those of us who don’t mind wolves sharing our forests are categorized as wrong and are pigeonholed as crazy environmentalists.  Hunters can be environmentalists and I would argue that hunters are (or should be) environmentalists.  Threads like this with some of the inflammatory comments seen here are used by the “crazy environmentalists” to belittle the entire group of hunters.  We need to work together – we’re on the same side.   

I have lived with wolves, been followed by them (both with and without meat on my shoulder), have scared them much more than I have been scared by them, and have watched them both while hunting and hiking in Wisconsin.  I have seen their effect on deer numbers in Northern Wisconsin and applaud their subtle management. 

The only issue I have with this discussion is the assertion that they are bad because they are “invasive.”  If you use that argument for wolves it should be used for other invasive species.  For example, use the same argument for the overabundance of “slow elk.”  Cattle are ridiculously overpopulated on our public lands; they are invasive in the truest sense as they do not occur naturally -- anywhere.  They do not belong on public land; feed lots are great.  Keeping our public lands rich in vegetation is important to our game animals; cattle destroy this.  I have come upon too many herds of burgers eating the vegetation that could be used to further support elk.  I have talked with cattlemen who believe they own our public lands because their meal ticket eats there.  If the argument was actually about wolves being invasive the same should apply to cattle.  As hunters and lovers of wild game on our tables, we should be arguing against any invasive animal that takes resources away from what we live to pursue.

I am not actually arguing against grazing on public lands (even though I hate cattle) but the argument can be applied to both wolves and cattle.  The only difference is that wolves have actually lived here before people; cows didn’t live anywhere.

You correctly label yourself an "environmentalist"


see definition:

Environmentalism or environmental rights is a broad philosophy, ideology, and social movement regarding concerns for environmental protection and improvement of the health of the environment, particularly as the measure for this health seeks to incorporate the concerns of non-human elements. While environmentalism focuses more on the environmental and nature-related aspects of green ideology and politics

I prefer to be labeled as a conservationist. Notice the absence of political ideology and addition of "who works to protect it"  Environmentalists do not need to go in the woods ever, they don't need to pick up trash nor vote for a certain political candidate nor do they hold to non-human elements.

see definition:

A conservationist is someone who cares very much about the conservation of the environment and who works to protect it.

As for the grazing issue you're woefully uneducated and dangerous in your ignorance of what actually goes on (ignorance and dangerous go hand in hand with environmentalists)
responsible grazing improves habitat for Elk and other ungulates.  They keep the grasses refreshed and full of nutrients instead of tall dead and lacking nutrients.

Do yourself and all other hunters a favor and get educated.

[WAcoyotehunter]

I hate to jump too far into this debate as there does not seem to be room to disagree with the “wolves don’t belong” crowd.  Those of us who don’t mind wolves sharing our forests are categorized as wrong and are pigeonholed as crazy environmentalists.  Hunters can be environmentalists and I would argue that hunters are (or should be) environmentalists.  Threads like this with some of the inflammatory comments seen here are used by the “crazy environmentalists” to belittle the entire group of hunters.  We need to work together – we’re on the same side.   

I have lived with wolves, been followed by them (both with and without meat on my shoulder), have scared them much more than I have been scared by them, and have watched them both while hunting and hiking in Wisconsin.  I have seen their effect on deer numbers in Northern Wisconsin and applaud their subtle management. 

The only issue I have with this discussion is the assertion that they are bad because they are “invasive.”  If you use that argument for wolves it should be used for other invasive species.  For example, use the same argument for the overabundance of “slow elk.”  Cattle are ridiculously overpopulated on our public lands; they are invasive in the truest sense as they do not occur naturally -- anywhere.  They do not belong on public land; feed lots are great.  Keeping our public lands rich in vegetation is important to our game animals; cattle destroy this.  I have come upon too many herds of burgers eating the vegetation that could be used to further support elk.  I have talked with cattlemen who believe they own our public lands because their meal ticket eats there.  If the argument was actually about wolves being invasive the same should apply to cattle.  As hunters and lovers of wild game on our tables, we should be arguing against any invasive animal that takes resources away from what we live to pursue.

I am not actually arguing against grazing on public lands (even though I hate cattle) but the argument can be applied to both wolves and cattle.  The only difference is that wolves have actually lived here before people; cows didn’t live anywhere.

You correctly label yourself an "environmentalist"


see definition:

Environmentalism or environmental rights is a broad philosophy, ideology, and social movement regarding concerns for environmental protection and improvement of the health of the environment, particularly as the measure for this health seeks to incorporate the concerns of non-human elements. While environmentalism focuses more on the environmental and nature-related aspects of green ideology and politics

I prefer to be labeled as a conservationist. Notice the absence of political ideology and addition of "who works to protect it"  Environmentalists do not need to go in the woods ever, they don't need to pick up trash nor vote for a certain political candidate nor do they hold to non-human elements.

see definition:

A conservationist is someone who cares very much about the conservation of the environment and who works to protect it.

As for the grazing issue you're woefully uneducated and dangerous in your ignorance of what actually goes on (ignorance and dangerous go hand in hand with environmentalists)
responsible grazing improves habitat for Elk and other ungulates.  They keep the grasses refreshed and full of nutrients instead of tall dead and lacking nutrients.

Do yourself and all other hunters a favor and get educated.

KFHunter that's a pretty strong position on the habitat improvements made by cattle.  There are some times/places that cattle can improve habitat for wild undulates, but that broad statement you made is false.  Overall, in terms of habitat, cattle are a detriment.

I agree with you that there is a subtle, but important difference in the meaning of the terms "Environmentalist" and "Conservationist".  There is a difference, and hunters generally belong in the Conservationist 'camp'. However, there are lots of environmentalist hunters (I know plenty), and there are lots of hunters who are not conservationists at all. 

If the spirit of this forum is to "inform hunters", there should also be a spirit of conservation.

[WI to WA]

As for the grazing issue you're woefully uneducated and dangerous in your ignorance of what actually goes on (ignorance and dangerous go hand in hand with environmentalists)
responsible grazing improves habitat for Elk and other ungulates.  They keep the grasses refreshed and full of nutrients instead of tall dead and lacking nutrients.

Do yourself and all other hunters a favor and get educated.

First, my comments were meant to illustrate a potential argument about wolves as invasive species, not necessarily my own beliefs (my last line illustrates this).  I do not believe my comments warrant your polemic stance toward me.  But, like I wrote, there is no room here for those of us who do not wish to demonize wolves, even if we are in favor of management.  Secondly, I am pretty sure elk have been around longer than cattle and they miraculously survived before the cattle industry stepped in to apparently save the grass  -- even with wolves. 

Am I correct to assume that you are trying to insult me by labeling me an environmentalist based upon the Wikipedia definition you googled?  Anyone fighting for conservation should be on the same side; there is a middle ground (where arguments generally end up as there is truth in both camps).  While there is a large divide between some environmentalists and conservationists, this does not need to be the case.  For those of us who walk between the two groups, name calling on both sides is damaging to each group, and each group is equally at fault for this.  I would argue that labeling people, "woefully uneducated and dangerous in your ignorance of what actually goes on," is not actually in the interest of conservation as it only widens the divide as it is an argument levied by people on both ends of the spectrum.  I work to educate my non-hunting friends (some of whom you would call "crazy environmentalists) every chance I get about the benefits of proper game pursuit and management.  Before you ask, yes, the need for wolf management is often a part of this.

This forum & thread specifically, is a great example of a place where people who are passionate about hunting can come together to civilly make this divide smaller by discussing the areas where we have disagreement.  It is through discussion that we find common ground.  I welcome the discussion.

[KFhunter]

I disagree that cattle as a whole are a detriment, they can be if done irresponsibly, but responsible grazing includes things such as habitat improvement.  I've looked at numerous public lands grazing contracts and all of them include things like taking cattle off range if the grasses are grazed to a height of 5-7 inches, erosion controls, wetland protection and whatever else is written into that particular contract. 

Actually grazing issues deserves its own thread, not to hijack this one.  We could go on and on.

[KFhunter]

Cattle are not an invasive or introduced species, they don't live in the woods year around seeking their own survival and propagation.  They are a forest use item, like ATVs, fishing, logging and hunting. 

[jackelope]

Cattle are not an invasive or introduced species, they don't live in the woods year around seeking their own survival and propagation.  They are a forest use item, like ATVs, fishing, logging and hunting. 

So they're native?

[KFhunter]

Cattle are not an invasive or introduced species, they don't live in the woods year around seeking their own survival and propagation.  They are a forest use item, like ATVs, fishing, logging and hunting. 

So they're native?

They're about as native as a Sthil, Caterpillar or a Remington rifle and fit within that classification.  I think you miss my point, they're not there year around, they're not classified as wildlife, they are a user group using a forest product (grasses and certain shrubs) that have no other resale value.  There are public lands leased to farmers that do grow crops on public lands.

I contend that cattle can and do improve habitat, there are not enough Elk, Deer or other animals utilizing the grasses and shrubs to keep things refreshed.  If we ever reach those numbers -where ungulates are over grazing/browsing- then let's have this conversation again and see if Cattle should continue to keep grazing public lands. 

Until then, there is room for both.

[Gringo31]

I'd argue too many folks push preservation vs conservation.



As far as cattle not being native and therefore invasive.....

I'd have to question most of the crops grown in this country......if you wanted to go there.



I'd like to hear how wolves being re-introduced into the lower 48 is a good/smart/educated move in the step towards conservation. 

[Gringo31]

I'll also add this...


It seems when we go down roads like this the only real solution is to all get back on the boat and go back to Europe? 

It's for this reason that folks get sideways on certain "environmentalists".

[WAcoyotehunter]

It seems when we go down roads like this the only real solution is to all get back on the boat and go back to Europe? 

It's for this reason that folks get sideways on certain "environmentalists".

I'm not sure I follow...?

I don't think anyone (right minded) would disagree that we live in an altered landscape.  That doesn't mean that we can't try to rebuild and reconnect systems when possible. I think we should be trying to restore landscapes to at least ecologically functional systems whenever possible