Deer Control: More Wolves in Parks?

Posted At : February 2, 2010 12:25 PM | Posted By : Mike Hanback
Related Categories: Big Deer Blog

Too Many Deer? Call in the Wolves, Scientists Say.

I just read that at AOL News and it bugged my eyes and sure got my attention. Excerpt (full story here):

A coalition of researchers has proposed trucking wolves into parks and other wild places to curb booming populations of deer and elk, which upset the natural order by mowing down native vegetation.

The researchers argue that even a small number of wolves living in a small park could do a lot of good. They say that fences, birth control and other methods could be used to keep the wolves from spreading outside the park boundaries and eating local sheep, cattle and pets.

Brother, get ready for the firestorm, especially from Western/Northern ranchers and hunters who are already dealing with growing wolf packs that are slaughtering their livestock and game.

Fences and birth control could stop wolves from eating sheep and pets? Really?

What do you think?

Comments (22) |

Print |

Send |

del.icio.us |

Digg It! |

Linking Blogs | 523 Views

Comments

[Add Comment]

Most of us do not live in and around wolves, but I have a friend and hunt outfitter up in Sask. who does. Anytime this
topic comes up he says flatly and w/glee, "Shoot every f@$%ing one of em!"

If u read further in that article one guys says this proposal may cause more hostility toward wolves and IMO hence more
30-06 wolf control

# Posted By hanback | 2/2/10 12:44 PM

Hahaha. Boy, will that get 'em riled up. There's a story in the Houston paper this morning about a subdivision to the north of us on Lake Conroe that has an overpopulation problem. Seems like they are trapping deer and taking them to a slaughterhouse to feed the poor. That's well and good but it is only reducing the population, what with breeding and all, by about 24 deer per year. Maybe a wolf pack operating in the subdivision woulld be just what these people need. LOL

Speaking of large predators: There was supposedly a lion sighting in a west Houston park over the weekend. Lots of controversy over whether that really happened or not. The sighter was a lawyer which raises all kinds of funny questions like why didn't the lion eat her. Was it professional courtesy? Or was the lawyer a couger too? There's about 8,000 acres of brush, jungle and bayou out there full of deer and lots and lots of hogs so I guess it's possible.

# Posted By Rodger | 2/2/10 12:56 PM

Seriously, that's about the stupidest idea I've ever heard. I'm all for wolves living and hunting in wilderness areas but parks? No, don't think so. Coyotes are a big enough problem in urban and suburban areas, let alone big bad timber wolves. Jeez, where do these people come from...California?

# Posted By Rodger | 2/2/10 1:01 PM

There is a disturbing trend that modern biologists, many of whom aren't hunters themselves, are looking more and more at predator (non-human) introduction (or, re-introduction) in order to curbe booming wildlife populations. The scary thing is that many "modern" biologists aren't necessarily Pro-Hunting, which should raise some eyebrows in the U.S.
We're all aware at what the wolves are doing to the mule deer, moose, and probably even whitetail, populations in some areas. Another disturbing trend is that the predators are being introduced to curb wildlife populations, but once the wolves become overpopulated, noone seems to want to control their numbers?

# Posted By Dean Weimer | 2/2/10 1:10 PM

Yeah, they seem to want to introduce predators, but then when they get out of control, they just shrug their shoulders. This reminds me of the kids' book I used to read when I was little: "The King, the Mice, and the Cheese". It should be required reading for all wildlife biologists. In short, the King has mice eating his cheese, so he brings in cats. The cats take over the place, so he brings in dogs, then lions, and finally elephants. The elephants got rid of the lions, but crashed his palace to pieces, so what was the solution? Bring back the mice. Maybe he should have just set a mouse trap.

After all of the methods they have tried to use to control deer populations, none is more cost-effective with less side effects than plain old hunting. Birth Control? Predators? Fences? Trapping and relocation? Your tax dollars at work.

# Posted By David in NC | 2/2/10 2:35 PM

Heck- wolves are deified now. Everyone wears wolf t shirts and sweat shirts. David is correct, hunting is the most effective method to control most populations. GA has controlled hunts in State Parks with overpopulated deer populations and it is working fine, thank you. You apply as with any limited hunter hunt. You can scout all year! I do not think I have spoken with any cattle rancher anywhere that believes wolves should be released, period.

# Posted By Mack | 2/2/10 2:57 PM

Let me start by saying at no time do I advocate breaking the laws and regulations that govern our passion for the outdoors. When it comes to poaching or taking game over the limits or any other thing that hurts your fellow hunter I am 100% against that. But I am not afraid to say that the poitics that govern deer and wolf populations are completely out of control. They do not have the hunter in mind, and they do not have or decimated deer herd in mind. SO, athough it may be against the law, I do push and prod all of you hunters that hate wolves or are even unsure how you feel about them to shoot every one see. I don't care if you drop them in their tracks or shoot them in the guts, because if you don't you and your children and the American tradition of hunting will pay dearly and there is nothing that anyone on capitol hill is going to do to help you! If you find one has a radio collar after you shoot it, cut it off, drive it to the nearest river and throw it in the drink. I know its radical, but it's really how I feel. If some regulations are that anti-hunter and that wacked out, it is up to us to change it. And if we can't change it through the federal governement sometimes you've got to take things into your own hands. Thanks!

# Posted By Dan Leffelman | 2/2/10 3:37 PM

It's all political BS. ("let's debate", "let's research", let's write a bill", let's vote on it") This is all money right out of our pockets. The politicians do this crap to keep employeed and taking our money. Just use some common sense and facts. HUNTERS WILL PAY TO DO IT. If you make open limits, over the counter licenses and give access, its easy to fix. All you have to do is use Wisconsin as an example. It two years they have culled the deer herd (maybe for the wrong reasons). Plus, hunters spend money (lodging, ammo, clothing, food, travel, all types of rentals, ect.) I don't work for NASA, and I don't think you have to, just use common sense.

# Posted By Silverback | 2/2/10 5:21 PM

Coyotes take enough deer where I grew up in MI. I can't imagine how many wolves would take. We would be out of a job, not to mention a dairy herd also.

# Posted By Lance | 2/2/10 5:38 PM

Fences and birth control? What biologist in his right mind would think up this cracker-jack plan? They're BIOLOGISTS! They study animals for cripes sake, they should know better!

# Posted By Hil | 2/2/10 6:08 PM

They need to do a pilot program in some of the " Welfare" neighborhoods first. I know of a few here in pittsburgh that we can put wolves to good use in. Another solution for deer control by people who have no F-ing clue.

# Posted By john mueller | 2/2/10 6:11 PM

Nobody ever said they were smart, just that they were Biologists.

# Posted By Rodger | 2/2/10 6:20 PM

Introduce them to the best deterent on the market.......lead poisoning! It does a body good!

# Posted By Curt | 2/2/10 6:37 PM

Birth control use for the control of animal populations should sound very, very familiar...

# Posted By Dean Weimer | 2/2/10 7:41 PM

My opinion is , biologists think they know everything that will help out the animals. But having the wolves in the parks is stupid. A hunter can go in and do the same job without dangering other animals. If the wolves are in parks other animals will get killed and the biologists will do another stupid thing to help them.

# Posted By Cheyenne | 2/2/10 11:57 PM

I have not met a wolf yet that could out run a 30-06 :>) SSS

# Posted By Big Daddy | 2/3/10 1:09 PM

30-06 or a 7mm Ultra, etc........

# Posted By Mack | 2/3/10 2:14 PM

A box full of rocks could have come up with a better plan!
Very indicative of many "greenie" plans, pay, pay, pay, then live with all the unintended consequences because the plan we paid for went horribly wrong in some way, that should have been obvious from the beginning.
I like the great line in Jurassic park when man fiddles with stuff he really can't control, "Nature finds a way."

Remember, Spey and neuter your wolves!

# Posted By TDHoward | 2/3/10 5:08 PM

i will shoot any wolf that crossed my path w/o hesitation on my land in shawano county just like coyotes better off dead and rotting

# Posted By ian in wisconsin | 2/4/10 2:03 AM

Are hunters the only sensible people on Earth when it comes to animal population control??? "Experts", huh?

# Posted By Brad B | 2/4/10 4:17 PM

Brad,
YES!

# Posted By Curt | 2/4/10 4:20 PM

Funny I don't recall anywhere that allows even limited draw bowhunting opportunities having population problems.? Or is it just me. What could be a financial gain in tags/permits, or even a foodpantry donation to the needy, or both..........should become a tax payers burden to fence an area and 'truck-in' wolves.? I'm sure that wouldn't cost much? Another bleeding-heart liberal great idea.

Life is tough - It's even tougher when you're stupid. John Wayne

# Posted By Sully | 2/9/10 2:19 AM

[Add Comment]