Wolves...Region 8

[Bugle M In]

wolves have to be managed as do all animals, because of human involvement.
I am not in favour of poison and as mentioned feel those that mention it should be looked into.
I have had friends have there pets killed because of it.
I feel all the funds from out door activitys should go back into out door activitys plus
those using it such as logging/forestry, outfitters, tour and out door recreating groups.

Go ahead...pm me, I will give you my name.
I have a clear conscience, and do everything by the book.
Talk to your retired CO in the area, he knows I am more ethical then most.
(although, I don't think your history with him is to your liking)
I am talking about putting that stuff way back in the "back country", where trapping does not seem to happen,
or where the trappers will most certainly be ineffective.
Like Gcreek and you stated to him...trapper has taken a lot of wolves around his area, yet they keep coming back.
Sounds to me like the wolves come from further back and will continue to be an issue.
Sure, the trapper likes to be able to set the same traps in the same spot...year after year, but it does not mean he is putting a dent into them at all.
Trapping is better around city/town limits then 1080, but in the back country, I think it would be a good choice.
Doubt there is the 1800.00 per hour plus staff costs to put a heli up to shoot them.
Either way, it should be the ministry to handle that, but, you know yourself, they haven't been doing too much on any of the issues, and don't look like they will anytime soon.
Instead, you offer really no solutions, or any new input to be discussed.
What is your "solution" buddy!

[boxhitch]

Sadly, I think, in today's political climate, when it becomes clear that predators such as wolves, bears and cats are running low on "food" (deer, moose, elk, etc...), the "go to" will be to reduce human hunter opportunities rather than reduce predator populations.
That will be the "thinking" of both the law-makers and the ones that elect them.

Not good....

Thats the beauty in the safety of todays regulations and game management to healthy conservative male/female ratios. As long as the ratio is suitable for the females to bare young, the surplus males are what hunters have as opportunity. Overall numbers may go down, but as long as the ratio is maintained, hunters will have ops. There is no doubt hunter success will go down with fewer males to take out, but arguably the hunt can continue and the available females will have off spring.
Having more surviving offspring is the key to increasing populations, but hunters take won't make more or less babies, if ratios are proper
Its really a simple process, and has been the key to management so far which is to 'maintain a healthy population'. Nobody has set a mandate for the province to grow more ungulates or to have a target of 'x' number of any wildlife, and until that step is taken there is no target to strive for, no need to change management.
Hunters will never win the battle to have their desired species increase in numbers at the expense of some other type of wildlife.

The only arguement that is getting traction now about increasing ungulate numbers is the indians demand for more sustenance animals, and unfortunately the easy answer there is to reduce the licensed hunters take..

[J_T]

Go ahead...pm me, I will give you my name.
I have a clear conscience, and do everything by the book.
Talk to your retired CO in the area, he knows I am more ethical then most.
(although, I don't think your history with him is to your liking)
I am talking about putting that stuff way back in the "back country", where trapping does not seem to happen,
or where the trappers will most certainly be ineffective.
Like Gcreek and you stated to him...trapper has taken a lot of wolves around his area, yet they keep coming back.
Sounds to me like the wolves come from further back and will continue to be an issue.
Sure, the trapper likes to be able to set the same traps in the same spot...year after year, but it does not mean he is putting a dent into them at all.
Trapping is better around city/town limits then 1080, but in the back country, I think it would be a good choice.
Doubt there is the 1800.00 per hour plus staff costs to put a heli up to shoot them.
Either way, it should be the ministry to handle that, but, you know yourself, they haven't been doing too much on any of the issues, and don't look like they will anytime soon.
Instead, you offer really no solutions, or any new input to be discussed.
What is your "solution" buddy!

I'm not a wolf expert by any means. However my understanding is, when you have a pack you have an Alpha pair. With an alpha pairing, 'generally' only the alpha female goes into heat, and only about once per year. If you take out either of the alpha pair, you have a fracturing in the pack and they separate into multiple packs and all the females go into heat. The result is generally more wolves and more packs. It is best, if wolf population control is strategic. Leaving the alpha pairing if possible. As Alpha's, they tend to stay in a defined area.
When we/generic 'we', see wolves and notify say the trapper in hopes to take an approach to reduce/remove the pack, that trapper is limited to the range of his trap line to attempt any trapping of wolves. And as we know, wolves move around and follow the prey species. So a trapper who has wolves in his area in the summer months, eating elk, every year, will not be able to trap them, because they aren't there when his trapping season allows him to trap.

[Bugle M In]

Thats the beauty in the safety of todays regulations and game management to healthy conservative male/female ratios. As long as the ratio is suitable for the females to bare young, the surplus males are what hunters have as opportunity. Overall numbers may go down, but as long as the ratio is maintained, hunters will have ops. There is no doubt hunter success will go down with fewer males to take out, but arguably the hunt can continue and the available females will have off spring.
Having more surviving offspring is the key to increasing populations, but hunters take won't make more or less babies, if ratios are proper
Its really a simple process, and has been the key to management so far which is to 'maintain a healthy population'. Nobody has set a mandate for the province to grow more ungulates or to have a target of 'x' number of any wildlife, and until that step is taken there is no target to strive for, no need to change management.
Hunters will never win the battle to have their desired species increase in numbers at the expense of some other type of wildlife.

The only arguement that is getting traction now about increasing ungulate numbers is the indians demand for more sustenance animals, and unfortunately the easy answer there is to reduce the licensed hunters take..

well said, and so true.

[Walking Buffalo]

I'm not a wolf expert by any means. However my understanding is, when you have a pack you have an Alpha pair. With an alpha pairing, 'generally' only the alpha female goes into heat, and only about once per year. If you take out either of the alpha pair, you have a fracturing in the pack and they separate into multiple packs and all the females go into heat. The result is generally more wolves and more packs. It is best, if wolf population control is strategic. Leaving the alpha pairing if possible. As Alpha's, they tend to stay in a defined area.
When we/generic 'we', see wolves and notify say the trapper in hopes to take an approach to reduce/remove the pack, that trapper is limited to the range of his trap line to attempt any trapping of wolves. And as we know, wolves move around and follow the prey species. So a trapper who has wolves in his area in the summer months, eating elk, every year, will not be able to trap them, because they aren't there when his trapping season allows him to trap.

This theory has been shown to occur, and other times different outcomes happen.
Studies have also shown that when the Alpha pair is killed, the remaining pack dissolves into chaos, infighting and dispersal....
These broken packs are vulnerable to mortality from themselves and neighbouring packs. Lone wolves are at a survival disadvantage.
Large stable packs are more likely to produce offshoot packs in comparison to unstable packs. Yet this is rarely mentioned...

IMO, the excessive promotion that killing the Alpha pair increases wolf populations is faulty for being biased, they usually will not admit that the opposite outcome often happens.

Now why would someone do that?

[bearvalley]

This theory has been shown to occur, and other times different outcomes happen.
Studies have also shown that when the Alpha pair is killed, the remaining pack dissolves into chaos, infighting and dispersal....
These broken packs are vulnerable to mortality from themselves and neighbouring packs. Lone wolves are at a survival disadvantage.
Large stable packs are more likely to produce offshoot packs in comparison to unstable packs. Yet this is rarely mentioned...

IMO, the excessive promotion that killing the Alpha pair increases wolf populations is faulty for being biased, they usually will not admit that the opposite outcome often happens.

Now why would someone do that?

What you say is true.
Large packs containing numerous adult wolves being tampered with is where fragmentation and creation of more wolves occurs.
Packs made up of pups and sub adults tend to crumble when the alphas are removed.
Another myth is that just the alpha female has pups.
Wolves are no different than dogs.
More than one adult female in a pack will breed....tail is tail.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Do you mind mentioning what outfitter.
Hopefully they take his outfitters license and area away.

No problem as it was in the news several months ago.
Jim Weins.

http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?138413-another-guide-charged/page2

[LBM]

Go ahead...pm me, I will give you my name.
I have a clear conscience, and do everything by the book.
Talk to your retired CO in the area, he knows I am more ethical then most.
(although, I don't think your history with him is to your liking)
I am talking about putting that stuff way back in the "back country", where trapping does not seem to happen,
or where the trappers will most certainly be ineffective.
Like Gcreek and you stated to him...trapper has taken a lot of wolves around his area, yet they keep coming back.
Sounds to me like the wolves come from further back and will continue to be an issue.
Sure, the trapper likes to be able to set the same traps in the same spot...year after year, but it does not mean he is putting a dent into them at all.
Trapping is better around city/town limits then 1080, but in the back country, I think it would be a good choice.
Doubt there is the 1800.00 per hour plus staff costs to put a heli up to shoot them.
Either way, it should be the ministry to handle that, but, you know yourself, they haven't been doing too much on any of the issues, and don't look like they will anytime soon.
Instead, you offer really no solutions, or any new input to be discussed.
What is your "solution" buddy!

What do I need your name for, I can tell enough about your character and ethics from what you write, sorry but your not some one I would be buddys with.
No lots of retired COs , cops, teachers, doctors people from all walks of life and many still practicing there profession, don't need them telling me about someone,
Im quit capable of making my own choice and decisions.

[LBM]

No problem as it was in the news several months ago.
Jim Weins.

http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?138413-another-guide-charged/page2

Ya thanks I did goggle it and seen it was him but didn't open the link for said may contain viruses so will see if can find another one.

[LBM]

[QUOTE=BgBlkDg;1949320]

Again feel this is part of the problem in trying to get other groups to listen or understand others opinions is to continually put them down or call them names.
Curious to as how many wolves you have shoot in your 65 + years.[/QUOT

I am NOT going to dignify your insolent, ignorant and baseless comments here by posting ANY information on my activities from my first fly-caught Trout, aged 6, 1952, to my last trip in Sept. of this year.

I hardly have to justify or verify my decades of active wilderness work, conservation or personal integrity to an obvious poseur-troll like you and I suspect that I am not alone in my dislike of you and your pathetic drivel. So, piss off and bother someone who is willing to waste time with nincompoops like you.

You could have just said NONE, way easier then your little rant here. I thought your back/spine was acting up on your last trip so you didn't go
out, toured Nelson for a couple days then went home.