|
Post by barton174 on Mar 28, 2010 10:49:50 GMT -5
what about mice in the house, are they not native to IN? 1. I didn't say I wanted wolves in my house, spreading disease. 2. Wolves usually stay away from people, and mice are parasites of human existance. The wolves that don't stay away from people are the ones to be killed, same as bears and cougars are in other places. 3. No, mice aren't native to the US at all... They are from Europe and Asia, mainly in the mediterranean area, and came over on ships with the settlers. Same with Norway Rats that are native to... Norway... __________________________ I'm also not saying to let wolves take over, either... What a lot of people on here apparently don't get is; there's a difference between keeping a population in check and wiping it out... Lots of people in this thread talking about killing every one they see to "keep the population under control"... Sorry, that's genoside, not population control. However, in Montana and CO, they let them go too long and let the numbers get too high before they started allowing people hunting them, which was a mistake. Mike
|
|
|
Post by joen on Mar 28, 2010 15:47:40 GMT -5
I live in the country and I dont want to take off work and stand guard over the kids in mt back yard on snow days when they want to go outside on cancelled school days. I have hunted in colorado and wyoming and they have alot more wide open areas for them kind of critters.
|
|
|
Post by barton174 on Mar 28, 2010 18:22:19 GMT -5
I live in the country and I dont want to take off work and stand guard over the kids in mt back yard on snow days when they want to go outside on cancelled school days. I have hunted in colorado and wyoming and they have alot more wide open areas for them kind of critters. The danger thing is a semi-valid point, just like keeping your kids inside during a lightning storm (because they're statistically more likely to get struck by lightning than they are to be attacked by a wolf/bear/big cat)... My main point is that the "non native" argument is a losing one... They're exactly as native as deer, which we also completely wiped out in this state, and I don't hear anybody on this site ing about them coming back... (though lots of people who have hit them on the road have ed about the lack of natural preditors here)... Mike
|
|
|
Post by mythic1 on Mar 29, 2010 0:11:23 GMT -5
barton174 you are one of the most sensible and logical people on this forum.
The same people who say they would just shoot a Wolf because it is a Wolf are the same people who say Hang'em without a trial or guilt by association...
|
|
|
Post by trapperdave on Mar 29, 2010 7:28:22 GMT -5
Id leave it be, just another of Gods great creatures.
Alaska is full of wolves, yet their has only been one incident in over 50yrs IIRC I think some people are3 afraid of their own shadow. that or they just like to kill.
|
|
|
Post by tickman1961 on Mar 29, 2010 8:56:39 GMT -5
Wolves are true wilderness animals and have no place in Indiana - not a true wilderness area. If wolves were to rehabitate they would would need to be managed and controlled, something lacking currently in the lower 48.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Mar 29, 2010 10:18:46 GMT -5
So apparently Barton and Mythic feel that we shouldn't shoot the large predators living amongst us until they have killed a sufficient number of people to justify such a reaction.
Tell me, oh wise and reasonable ones, how many of our children will have to be killed and eaten to be a statistically justifiable reason to shoot the animals responsible? Do you have a target number in mind?
Has it crossed your mind that the reason there have been no recorded deaths in modern times in Indiana from predation by large carnivores is due to the fact that our great grandfathers had the good sense to exptirpate them to prevent that very occurrence, and not because there are some "good" wolves who would starve their own young rather than take one of ours from the school bus stop?
Do you feel that extirpation was a mistake and that we should have been suffering a "reasonable" loss of people to them all along, to be justified in trying to rid our woods and fields of that danger?
|
|
|
Post by barton174 on Mar 29, 2010 10:54:28 GMT -5
So apparently Barton and Mythic feel that we shouldn't shoot the large predators living amongst us until they have killed a sufficient number of people to justify such a reaction. Tell me, oh wise and reasonable ones, how many of our children will have to be killed and eaten to be a statistically justifiable reason to shoot the animals responsible? Do you have a target number in mind? Has it crossed your mind that the reason there have been no recorded deaths in modern times in Indiana from predation by large carnivores is due to the fact that our great grandfathers had the good sense to exptirpate them to prevent that very occurrence, and not because there are some "good" wolves who would starve their own young rather than take one of ours from the school bus stop? Do you feel that extirpation was a mistake and that we should have been suffering a "reasonable" loss of people to them all along, to be justified in trying to rid our woods and fields of that danger? First, I don't "feel" most major decisions... I make it a point to "think" them... "feeling" makes for knee-jerk, irrational reactions like "kill 'em all"... From the tone of your post, you obviously "feel" very strongly about this... I don't think either of us said "in Indiana" there haven't been any recorded deaths in modern times... Even in AK, CO, and MT, you're more likely to get struck by lightning than be attacked by wolves... You're also more likely to die from falling out of a tree stand, shooting yourself in a hunting accident, or from slipping in the tub... If you re-read my posts, you'll also gather that I said the danger thing is a semi-valid point, despite the crazy-low probability of them attacking humans; and that I am mainly going against the "they're not native, kill 'em" mentality, which is completely wrong. I also said that, yes, they would need to be controlled, and kept away from most civilization; and that, yes, they would need to have their populations maintained at a level that there is plenty of wild game to feed them, so they don't need to ignore their very strong instinct of fear of man, and venture towards us to avoid starving to death. As long as we keep killing the ones that venture toward civilization, and the numbers aren't such that they're desperate for food in the wild, the ones with the strongest sense of staying away from humans will mostly live their lives away from most of us (except those of us who venture into their lives and habitat, were they will instinctively and statistically run away unless cornered). Mike
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Mar 29, 2010 12:08:32 GMT -5
barton174 you are one of the most sensible and logical people on this forum. The same people who say they would just shoot a Wolf because it is a Wolf are the same people who say Hang'em without a trial or guilt by association... Mike comes from a family of Purdue engineers where it comes natural to be sensible & logical with all decisions. This discussion should get very interesting...
|
|
|
Post by trapperdave on Mar 29, 2010 12:29:28 GMT -5
So apparently Barton and Mythic feel that we shouldn't shoot the large predators living amongst us until they have killed a sufficient number of people to justify such a reaction. Tell me, oh wise and reasonable ones, how many of our children will have to be killed and eaten to be a statistically justifiable reason to shoot the animals responsible? Do you have a target number in mind? Has it crossed your mind that the reason there have been no recorded deaths in modern times in Indiana from predation by large carnivores is due to the fact that our great grandfathers had the good sense to exptirpate them to prevent that very occurrence, and not because there are some "good" wolves who would starve their own young rather than take one of ours from the school bus stop? Do you feel that extirpation was a mistake and that we should have been suffering a "reasonable" loss of people to them all along, to be justified in trying to rid our woods and fields of that danger? hmmm by that reasoning, we should DESTROY all dogs at once! Do you realize how many thousands of dogbites our poor children suffer from each year? And how many children die from attacks by pets? Its our moral obligation to destroy them now!! How many injured or dead children is acceptable?? tongue in cheek of course. Get my point yet?
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Mar 29, 2010 13:57:33 GMT -5
drunks first ;D
|
|
|
Post by dadfsr on Mar 29, 2010 15:14:06 GMT -5
barton174 you are one of the most sensible and logical people on this forum. The same people who say they would just shoot a Wolf because it is a Wolf are the same people who say Hang'em without a trial or guilt by association... Mike comes from a family of Purdue engineers where it comes natural to be sensible & logical with all decisions. This discussion should get very interesting... and having engineers making decisions about wildlife management differs from politicians doing the same ? Sorry I work at Purdue and graduated from there-engineers do not have to know anything about wildlife management to get their degree...they are not the final word, judge and jury!!!
|
|
|
Post by barton174 on Mar 29, 2010 15:26:29 GMT -5
and having engineers making decisions about wildlife management differs from politicians doing the same ? Sorry I work at Purdue and graduated from there-engineers do not have to know anything about wildlife management to get their degree...they are not the final word, judge and jury!!! I didn't say I was. Bob didn't say I was either... He was referring to being logical, rather than emotional. Ya see... On the Interwebs, when somebody quotes a post, they're specifically talking to that post... Bob quoted the post about being logical. I am, however, much more "with it" in real terms than a lot of the folks who come out of there... Especially a lot of the MS and PHd folks (I worked in the machine shop of Herrick when I was there... Some of the stuff most of these guys would do...) I don't, however, claim to be the state biologist. Neither should anybody here, who is not, in fact, the state wildlife biologist... Mike
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Mar 29, 2010 15:52:53 GMT -5
on engineers and bios engineers wear the pooh on the inside of their boots bios have it on the outside from time in the field ;D
|
|
|
Post by barton174 on Mar 29, 2010 18:43:40 GMT -5
on engineers and bios engineers wear the pooh on the inside of their boots bios have it on the outside from time in the field ;D Oh, that's good! I'll have to tell my wife that one! (she's an Environmental Scientist with a Bio degreee, and does field work) Mike
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Mar 29, 2010 19:19:09 GMT -5
I also said that, yes, they would need to be controlled, and kept away from most civilization; and that, yes, they would need to have their populations maintained at a level that there is plenty of wild game to feed them, so they don't need to ignore their very strong instinct of fear of man, and venture towards us to avoid starving to death. As long as we keep killing the ones that venture toward civilization, and the numbers aren't such that they're desperate for food in the wild, the ones with the strongest sense of staying away from humans will mostly live their lives away from most of us (except those of us who venture into their lives and habitat, were they will instinctively and statistically run away unless cornered). Mike With this posting you have pretty much answered the question of whether or not a wolf spotted in Indiana should be shot and why it should be shot, as Indiana lacks enough large, unpopulated areas necessary to support wolf packs.
|
|
|
Post by barton174 on Mar 29, 2010 19:51:29 GMT -5
I also said that, yes, they would need to be controlled, and kept away from most civilization; and that, yes, they would need to have their populations maintained at a level that there is plenty of wild game to feed them, so they don't need to ignore their very strong instinct of fear of man, and venture towards us to avoid starving to death. As long as we keep killing the ones that venture toward civilization, and the numbers aren't such that they're desperate for food in the wild, the ones with the strongest sense of staying away from humans will mostly live their lives away from most of us (except those of us who venture into their lives and habitat, were they will instinctively and statistically run away unless cornered). Mike With this posting you have pretty much answered the question of whether or not a wolf spotted in Indiana should be shot and why it should be shot, as Indiana lacks enough large, unpopulated areas necessary to support wolf packs. If it wonders up into your yard, and digs through your trash, yes... If you're out in the middle of the state (or large private) forrest and see one, no. Most will do everything they can to stay away from everything human. If they can do so, great... If they can't, it's a problem. Mike
|
|
|
Post by Indyhunter on Mar 29, 2010 23:45:12 GMT -5
barton174 you are one of the most sensible and logical people on this forum. The same people who say they would just shoot a Wolf because it is a Wolf are the same people who say Hang'em without a trial or guilt by association... You need to pick which side of your mouth you are going to speak out of. You'd shoot one walking through your backyard even though it isn't being aggressive, yet they should be left alone if they aren't aggressive or are "200 yards away". If you just like to stir the pot for debates sake, then say so. Otherwise you look like you are ignorant of the subject and are playing off of other peoples words. For Barton: If it wonders up into your yard, and digs through your trash, yes... If you're out in the middle of the state (or large private) forrest and see one, no. Most will do everything they can to stay away from everything human. If they can do so, great... If they can't, it's a problem. Mike What is a large private forest? Just because they are not in your back yard doesn't mean they aren't within a few hundred yards of someone else's. How far does a person have to walk to find a house in Indiana, even southern Indiana in the HNF? Mile? Maybe two? And I do believe the home range of a wolf is somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 or 50 miles in a forested area. Plus, they usually travel in packs of 6 to 8 just like Coyote. That being said...where are these gigantic coyotes going to find a place that they can be controlled without confronting a "backyard" of a human in Indiana? As I said before, I am in no way an anti-wolf person, I do not hate wolves etc etc. There is just no place for them in our state, mainly due to human population and destruction of habitat. That can be said for a lot of animals that once roamed here.
|
|
|
Post by barton174 on Mar 30, 2010 7:05:01 GMT -5
For Barton: If it wonders up into your yard, and digs through your trash, yes... If you're out in the middle of the state (or large private) forrest and see one, no. Most will do everything they can to stay away from everything human. If they can do so, great... If they can't, it's a problem. Mike What is a large private forest? Just because they are not in your back yard doesn't mean they aren't within a few hundred yards of someone else's. How far does a person have to walk to find a house in Indiana, even southern Indiana in the HNF? Mile? Maybe two? And I do believe the home range of a wolf is somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 or 50 miles in a forested area. Plus, they usually travel in packs of 6 to 8 just like Coyote. That being said...where are these gigantic coyotes going to find a place that they can be controlled without confronting a "backyard" of a human in Indiana? As I said before, I am in no way an anti-wolf person, I do not hate wolves etc etc. There is just no place for them in our state, mainly due to human population and destruction of habitat. That can be said for a lot of animals that once roamed here. Good questions, and I don't claim to have all the answers... I would consider a large private woods to be the same kind of thing we've got all over southern IN... Maybe you only own a few hundred acres, but all your neighbors own a couple hundred acres, and all their neighbors own a couple hundred acres... You end up with quite a bit of private land with a few houses scattered about one or 2 a mile... I used to camp in an area that was large enough with no houses (HNF, south of Lake Monroe... 13 miles of gravel road (maybe 10 miles by air?) to Maumee Boy Scout Camp, and except for the houses on SR46, it's ~4 miles north to the lake with no houses, and at least another 2 miles south with no houses... That's an uninterrupted 60 square miles... Crane is another place that I gather is larger than that... the area around the base that's .mil property... That's just plain square mileage, though... There are a lot of places in the lower 1/3 of the state that can support them, because when people talk about square mileage, they're not always talking about a blanket of square mileage, and anything in it is fair game... Wolves aren't stupid, and as long as they're well fed in the wild (not over-populated, enough game), they try and stay away from humans as much as possible... So if your house is smack in the middle of their range, you may never know, because you may never see them... To that, I would suspect that the wolves that would show up here on their own accord have already gotten through MO and IL, and would be the ones who have enough sense to stay away from anything involving people... Just a "for instance"... The area around where my best friend lived growing up (and his parents still live) has a wooded area behind and around the addition, and we've walked through everywhere in the woods, back to houses on all sides... This is a sort of rural suburban area... There is apparently a pretty good population of bobcat in that woods, and has been, going back years... A couple of people in the area have gotten glimpses of one or 2 through the woods in the winter, and I saw one (from his back porch one morning) step out of one woods trail, stand there for a second to look around, and walk into another woods trail that emptied in the same area of the yard... Those animals have the sense to stay in the woods, and away from the people... though they're cats, smaller, and a different story, I know... All I'm really saying is; "don't give them a chance! Keel em' all" is not the strategy that I take, and I don't think it's a good strategy for the state to take. Mike
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Mar 30, 2010 12:42:25 GMT -5
I'm pretty familiar with the area down around Maumee Scout Camp. My son and a friend of his managed to catch the place on fire while attending a camp there once. It was quickly brought under control with no serious damage.
We also were hunting a few miles north of there a year or so later and he wandered a bit further into the woods for the afternoon hunt than intended, after spotting a few orange hats near his first couple of positions and moving on in search of more privacy. Then when he started towards the car at dusk, someone had turned the woods around and moved the road we had parked on!
You're right that the area has some pretty good stretches of unbroken woods. We were informed by the CO responding to the distress call that he was lost in the largest unbroken stretch of woods in the state.
It was the dark of the moon, and overcast anyway, and you honestly couldn't see your hand in front of your face.
Fortunately, there were no wolves roaming that particular stretch of woods at that time, and as soon as the predawn light became enough to walk by without falling into creekbeds and crevices, he began walking and soon found another old log road to follow, and came out to a house as the posse of CO's, deputies, family members and friends, and a contingent of National Guardsmen were gathering for the search.
"Cool Hand", my son, was the only one in the family who got any sleep that night.
He was fourteen at the time, and later got more sense on his way to his graduation as an engineer from Purdue, and his subsequent accumulation of a string of abbreviations following his name due to his still-continuing studies and career advancements.
We both learned from the experience, and when we went into the woods in the same area the following weekend, we were equipped with small "emergency kits" on our belts that contained emergency rations, flashlights and extra batteries, fire-starting stuff, police whistles, and compasses. That was thirty years ago, a bit early for FRS radios or cell phones, or we'd have carried those as well.
Point being that even in the largest stretch of unbroken woods in the state, the presence of a "healthy: population of large carnivorous animals, particularly ones that run in packs and are known to kill for the thrill of it, will be disastrous for a certain number of kids who stray unarmed into the woods. Our entire state IS too close to someone's backyard or their favorite mushroom patch or golf course back nine or pasture, and the interfaces between the big carnivores and the unfortunate backpacker, fishermen, or other outdoors enthusiast WILL occur in this close quarters environment. You seem close to agreement on that issue.
I think that if you study Google Earth photos for a while you'll find that even most of the west is really unsuitable territory in which to force the residents to share their area with a prolific predator with the destructive capabilities of the wolf. There just are no more wildernesses out there. A land of 300 million people is not the land that we swindled the natives out of. It's a land of kids standing at school bus stops in the predawn darkness in midwinter, when the wolves' hunting is at the toughest, and hiking or riding into the woods soon after snowmelt, when the wolf pups are in the den and hungry.
And as for controlling their population within acceptable limits.....we don't have the will. It won't be done with limited hunting seasons and sporting methods. Our greatgrandfathers did it, but that was using traps and poisons and bounties and good fur prices that made some of them full-time predator controllers with virtually no restrictions on methods. We won't see the day when that sort of control comes back into being. At least not until after a mass killing of kids on a playground somewhere by a wolf pack educates some of those who have been lulled to sleep on Disney movies and those who think that the lack of certified wolf killings of people in areas completely without wolves equates with the wolf being something other than the same deadly killer it was in the settler's day.
Even as we see the result in the west, where elk calf survival is decimated by wolves in Idaho and parts of surrounding states, we fail to recognize that there is a growing danger. When the rapidly rising number of wolves reaches a certain relationship with rapidly declining numbers of elk and deer, THEN we'll see more of the problem that some have been warning about.
|
|