Okanagan Wolf Kill

[Glacier]

Understand how conservation works? How did conservation work for tens of thousands of years before the rifle was invented then tell me that? A different time you say? Absolutely. It was a time when man was part of nature not thinking himself above or master over it. The balance of nature has been tilted and skewed by your type of mentality so badly that we may never get back to a true balance. However the sooner we stop playing god and get back in touch with truth the better chance we have.

If you hunt for food, that's great - man is after all a predator so that is part of Nature's balance. If you follow the ways of the original people in this land then you'll never take more than you need and you will always give back. If this is you then I thank you for you truly are stewards of our land.

If you hunt for the thrill of killing and like to display your trophies of the animals which you happened to sneak up on, then I believe you to be at the heart of our problems in general. If it wasn't for you we wouldn't have to have conservation officers or hunting seasons because things would naturally balance as they did for a very long time before your so called experts wrote their papers.

Stewardship has nothing to do with the reasons why you want to kill an animal. If you fish all the cod for food without any regulations, that is not stewardship. Hunting only works with science, and that is how it is done today. If you allow deer, moose, or elk hunting, it stands to reason hunting prey only adds balance, but only if the numbers are there.

As the science shows, allowing the wolf population to get out of control can lead to extirpation of carbou as well as other animals. It's much easier to allow a few wolves to be killed now rather than wait until the population has exploded such as we see in the Carboo today. This, my friend, is why they are allowing some wolves to be killed in the Okanagan.

[Gone_Fishin]

I'm curious what the reality is (for real). Some in support of the wolf hunt have stated there will be very few wolves taken. And that there will be little difference made. You are stating that unless we reduce the wolf population that will spell catastrophe for caribou. I assume we'll need to reduce the wolf population by more than a few to make a difference. So my question is who's right?

I've been wondering about that contradiction myself.

The wolf hunt is to keep them moving so they don't extirpate localized populations like caribou. It was explained above. The hunt will NOT change the numbers of wolves. But it will keep them from killing every ungulate in an area as hunting pressure makes them move around and not stay in one spot. That saves wintering populations of caribou, deer, elk, and moose from being cleaned out. Read the excerpt from Dr Geist above that explained the 3 month "vaccuuming" of prey animals by a localized wolf pack.

Wolf populations need to be culled at 80% every year if they are to be reduced in numbers, and the wolf hunt can never achieve that level. Only aerial gunning and 1080 baits can achieve that. That's an issue for the government to resolve, not the hunters of BC, if the government desires a lower wolf population.

The wolf hunt may achieve a 3 - 5% harvest annually, if hunters are lucky. Juvenile recruitment of wolf packs will far exceed that number, and will be more in the 20 - 40% range. Wolves will grow in number even with hunting, as they have done in every wildlife management region in this province that has had wolf hunting for many years, some with no bag limit on wolves. Learn, people.

[wcasako]

I can understand hunting for food, even though we mass-produce enough meat for the entire population and often throw it out because it sat too long at the grocery store, but hunting just for "sport"? Are we not intelligent enough to see how silly that is? You REALLY need to go out and shoot an animal that is of no direct threat to you, for fun? The thrill of the hunt?

Wolves may do this, because they are a wild beast, incapable of logic, reasoning and morals. They rely on instinct, and we as humans are (mostly) capable of discerning when our instincts need to be ignored, and rational, critical thinking needs to take over. If you are incapable of this, and still feel the need to strike down one of these majestic beasts from hundreds of feet away with a rifle, I truly pity you.

Strikes me as cowardly, psychotic behavior...

Your post is the perfect example of the rhetoric, inflated emotion and name calling I referred to in my post January 12.

You present yourself as a critical and logical thinker and go on to tell me I am lacking in this ability. Can I request you direct your critical thinking at your statement regarding the mass production of commercial meat and educate yourself on the impact this practice has on wildlife habitat – you do not support sport hunting but you support habitat destruction – interesting. It appears you believe humans can operate distinct from the natural world, the sooner you recognize you are a part of the system the better off we all will be. That includes recognizing that you kill living organisms to exist.

Let’s keep the name calling and insults directed at the mentally ill out of this conversation.

[wcasako]

Did you know that wolves mate for life and can have up to 42 offspring living in a pack?

So if the shoe was on the other foot and the wolves wanted to hunt one of your family members as long as they are enjoying themselves everything would be fine? Do you really consider yourself more superior then an animal? Can you really tell me you wouldn't have a concern?

Just because we are told it's okay to do something sometimes it isn't the case when faced in a similar situation.

Regarding wolves mating for life, are you stating that humans should not harvest animals that mate for life? If so this is a value statement based on emotion, not conservation. Also, it is not unusual for wolves to have more than one breeding partner. Further a wolf pack of 15 is large – could you please provide your source citing a wolf pack of 42 has been documented?

If wolves wanted to hunt one of my family members I would do what I could to protect my family and/or help my family evade predation. If the wolves killed one of my family members because they enjoyed it, the wolves would not be doing something wrong, but I would feel sad about it and have to move on with life.

[wcasako]

Understand how conservation works? How did conservation work for tens of thousands of years before the rifle was invented then tell me that? A different time you say? Absolutely. It was a time when man was part of nature not thinking himself above or master over it. The balance of nature has been tilted and skewed by your type of mentality so badly that we may never get back to a true balance. However the sooner we stop playing god and get back in touch with truth the better chance we have.

If you hunt for food, that's great - man is after all a predator so that is part of Nature's balance. If you follow the ways of the original people in this land then you'll never take more than you need and you will always give back. If this is you then I thank you for you truly are stewards of our land.

If you hunt for the thrill of killing and like to display your trophies of the animals which you happened to sneak up on, then I believe you to be at the heart of our problems in general. If it wasn't for you we wouldn't have to have conservation officers or hunting seasons because things would naturally balance as they did for a very long time before your so called experts wrote their papers.

Before the rifle was invented conservation worked as there were far fewer people on Earth, we has less technology and our ecological footprint was significantly less. Even then, humans developed tools and weapons to trump their prey, the same thinking was present then as it is today, that is human - right or wrong.

Skip to 2013 and recognize we live in a capitalist society and this system is not going away. I would love to see a different system where a greater respect of non-human organisms held more importance in our decision making, however, I don’t know what that systems is, how many people could live on Earth under such a system and I also know the masses of society do not want such a system. I would be fighting a futile war trying to convert the masses to such a philosophy. Society wants consumer goods. jobs, recreation, food and housing. If society did not want this we would all change our behaviour. Nextimeroud, if you do not want these things you would not be typing on a computer made from petroleum products, using electricity created by flooded land and you would not participate in the capitalist system via employment. We can all make micro efforts to reduce our impact, but we are all participating in the system – to tell others how to behave while carrying on in such a way is hypocrisy.

Humans will never stop playing God – good or bad this is the way it is and is going to be. It would be nice if this was not the case, but I can see the reality. People are not willing to accept a lower standard of living to achieve the utopia you dream of.

Your comments regarding hunting for food versus sport virus thrill etc. etc. are based on individual values – not fact and not science. If a wild population of living organisms can sustain a harvest of X animals, what people do with the animal after harvest has nothing to do with conservation. Once an organism has been removed from a population the impact has occurred – putting it in a human mouth, on the wall, on the floor or all of the above has absolutely nothing to do with conservation. This behaviour has to do with one human telling another to follow their ideology. I have not killed a wolf, but if someone does and they make a rug out of it – its none of my business – end of story. Once an individual goes down the road of ridiculing others and imposing personal views, they better be willing to accept the return and be told how to change their life to fit the beliefs of others. The worst part of this behaviour is it gets all of us nowhere as far as solving issues and achieving positive goals.

Your comment regarding the balance of nature being skewed by my type is true – just as it is skewed by you. The arrogance and ignorance dripping in such language is disappointing but not surprising. Please admit your existence on Earth results in animals dying and habitat being destroyed to support your lifestyle. You are part of the system and you support the system. You may type words that state you do not, but your lifestyle and consumption proves the opposite.

[wcasako]

Sorry sir I disagree with your view that we would be overrun if not for hunters. I'd say tht over hunting in fact has led many species to the brink of extinction, so quite the opposite of what you're suggesting. I'd do understand the challenges of wildlife in urban interface areas. This is really a issue of man expanding into these areas but the problem does never the less exist. I these cases we do unfortunately need to take drastic measures to protect the humans. A necessary evil without question.

I've heard and debated the "your utopian world doesn't exist" argument for a long time in regards to other environmental issues. For 30 years I've heard this and finaly now are people starting to admit they were wrong. We do need conservation to regulate hunters and prevent over hunting. There's even something to be said about stewardship and wildlife management to some degree in urban interface areas. However to suggest that nature can no longer manage itself seems a bit arrogant. If that's truly the case then we're doomed because man's track record in this regard is abysmal.

Please reply with example of species driven to the brink of extinction under modern wildlife management and regulated sport hunting. Please also refer to my post from yesterday regarding rhetoric.

Your existence and mine results in habitat fragmentation, alteration and destruction. Humans have always been part of nature. Our numbers are larger today and the impact each has on our natural resources is greater. To believe we can stand back and extract resources to support your lifestyle and all will balance out is incorrect and dangerous. I have a simple question for you – Yes or No – since your lifestyle has resulted in habitat alteration allowing wolves to drive some BC Mountain Caribou populations to the brink of extirpation, do you support lethal intervention to cull wolves to save Mountain Caribou? The balance you are presenting will include wolves and no caribou – is this the balance you want? If you prefer to see caribou eliminated rather than wolves dying, I commend you for standing up and saying so – but you cannot have it both ways.

It is interesting you state that you have been debating the “utopian world” for thirty years – funny thing is your comment regarding our movement to finally recognizing we need to do things different was used thirty years ago also – but we are still not there are we? When will the dream occur – tell us the year the dream will finally become reality, and tell us if you are willing to let some ungulate populations go extinct while we await your dream to arrive. I hope the dream arrives soon.

[wcasako]

I'm curious what the reality is (for real). Some in support of the wolf hunt have stated there will be very few wolves taken. And that there will be little difference made. You are stating that unless we reduce the wolf population that will spell catastrophe for caribou. I assume we'll need to reduce the wolf population by more than a few to make a difference. So my question is who's right?

The Okanagan wolf hunt is sustainable and should provide pressure on localized populations to keep wolves distributed. The hunt will not do what is needed in some areas of BC to reduce the population to desired levels. Yes, I said “desired levels”. As above, your existence and mine results in mass impact on the environment – to pretend you can sit in your home drawing on resources from far and wide, directly impacting habitat and wildlife populations and then stand back and pretend things will balance is short sighted. This belief will have dangerous impacts (including elimination) for some ungulate populations in our province.

[janalta]

Can you tell us exactly what impact the Okanagan wolf hunt is going to have on the caribou population in another region?

And....since we are talking conservation...are environmental changes, population, development in the area not affecting the caribou numbers ?

[wcasako]

Can you tell us exactly what impact the Okanagan wolf hunt is going to have on the caribou population in another region?

And....since we are talking conservation...are environmental changes, population, development in the area not affecting the caribou numbers ?

The Okanagan wolf hunt will have exactly zero impact on Mountain Caribou populations in other areas. Any reference I or others have made regarding caribou is to provide examples of the impacts wolf predation has on wild ungulates. Similar impacts will be seen in the Okanagan if we choose not to manage wolf populations.

If we manage for viable deer, moose and elk populations it stands to reason we manage for viable and stable wolf populations. I do not believe one organism deserves to be placed on a pedestal above all others and not managed.

Since we are talking conservation...environmental changes, population and development effect all wildlife populations, sometimes in positive ways and sometimes negative. Until we can all exist by breathing air, this is a given.

Elena Jones, a biologist who has studied five caribou herds in northeast BC for the past decade has published work on wolves and wild ungulates – not the Okanagan, but interesting reading and definitely related to wolf management and resource development.

[Fancy]

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/ ... story.html

Wolf pack that crossed the border from BC was culled.

[Fancy]

I would rather have a wolf den within in my area, than the neighbours cats in my front yard.

Do you feel the same way about coyotes? So did someone else and they regretted that decision. Wolves are sneakier and harder to get.

[janalta]

Do you feel the same way about coyotes? So did someone else and they regretted that decision. Wolves are sneakier and harder to get.

I lived for 20 years witha large coyote den being our place and a fox den across the road.
I raised goats, chickens, sheep, horses and cattle. Also had three dogs that were never bothered by them. We had a Maremma guardian dog and didn't lose a single animal until she passed away.....and even then, we lost only three lambs.
I did indeed shoot two coyotes who were caught in the act, but certainly never made any attempt to eradicate the entire pack since THEY lived there first.
We also never killed the porcupines that cost us way too many vet bills, the badgers that dug up the pastures or the deer and moose that ate the livestock's hay and grain.
It's simple....you live around wildlife, you learn to live with wildlife.
If they directly threaten or kill your animals, then, like any other animal would, you defend yourself against that particular animal....but mass eradication isn't the answer.

[wcasako]

.... mass eradication isn't the answer.

Couldn't agree more. The BC government and conversation organizations are not calling for "mass eradication" but science based management, and yes, part of management includes lethal measures.

[janalta]

Couldn't agree more. The BC government and conversation organizations are not calling for "mass eradication" but science based management, and yes, part of management includes lethal measures.

And yet...you don't think that shooting at least 80% of the population would be considered mass eradication?
And...poisoning, which was also suggested by the pro-cull group here...also not a mass eradication at all. Not to mention all of the wildlife besides the targeted wolves that could also die as a result.

[wcasako]

And yet...you don't think that shooting at least 80% of the population would be considered mass eradication?
And...poisoning, which was also suggested by the pro-cull group here...also not a mass eradication at all. Not to mention all of the wildlife besides the targeted wolves that could also die as a result.

I do not support eradication of wolves.

If a population of animals was being significantly impacted by wolf predation, a good example would be some Mountain Caribou herds in BC, I have no problem with the lethal removal of 80% of a pack. This will not eradicate the population - the population will continue and will grow.

I do not know enough about 10-80 poison to make an educated comment on its use. I have no idea if or to what extent this product can have ancillary impacts. If you have information please share.