http://www.wjfw.com/stories.html?sku=20120709185120

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-
Wolves Kill Two Forest County Hunting Dogs  Submitted: 07/09/2012

 
CRANDON - The Wisconsin DNR's proposed wolf hunt plans to harvest more than 200 wolves this year.

It can't come soon enough for a Crandon family whose hunting dogs were killed and eaten by wolves last week.

Tim Thiel regularly hunts bears with his Plott Hounds.

Last Friday, he had ten dogs. But that's before Cassie and Gonzo were killed by a pack of wolves.

Thiel was hunting in the woods and didn't hear his dogs bark for about 30 minutes.

When he tracked them by their GPS collars, he couldn't believe what he found.

"There wasn't much," Thiel said. "There was a head and feet left, that's about all, and spine. It was all connected, but they were ate. They didn't just kill the dogs, they ate the dogs."

The Thiel family does have pictures of the dogs' bodies, but they are too graphic to share.

The DNR says it's common to see wolves kill and injure about 30 pets and livestock in the state each year.

"This time of year, typically when a dog is killed, it's probably because of an encounter with a wolf pack that has a rendezvous site which is where pups are being tended by other members of the pack," DNR Wildlife Biologist Jeremy Holtz said.

The DNR has set up a caution area in western Forest and eastern Oneida counties because of last week's attack.

It roughly traces the boundaries of what is called the Atkins Lake Wolf Pack.

Hunters and dogs are strongly advised to stay out of the area.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

link to DNR map of "warning" area. http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/wolf/documents/2012_AtkinsLake.pdf

We used to deer hunt in the NW quadrant of this warning area, but we quit 5 years ago... there just weren't any deer there like there used to be in 1980s-1990s. Now I know why. Actually we knew all along, as we've seen this pack numerous times. Still lots of grouse, and we still hunt grouse there on occasion... but we don't bring our dogs.

Fuck wolves.

Well said...thank you.

As a retired houndsman I still for the life of me can't figure out why we need these things... There used to be a bounty on the lowly wolf...now they are protected???  

WTF...which liberal politician is behind this scheme?  

No love lost here for them effen things.

Bear hunting in July?

Training their bear hunting dogs, by actually chasing bears in the woods. It's prohibited prior to July 1st.  Actual "hunting" begins in September. Look at this as their "training camp", with live pre-season action, that doesn't count because there's no shooting allowed until September, and only then if you've gotten a tag after a 10 year wait.  

I am a huge dog lover don't get me wrong, and a hunter, but these dogs are used to pack hunt bears.  Same way the wolves hunt.  More ironic than anything.

This planet isn't here for humans to destroy and use as a breeding ground as we see fit.  If anything there should probably be more wolves (why they are protected).

If someone is killed by a shark, we don't kill off every shark.

More humans are killed by humans a day, and not to eat to survive, but because of a thrill or f'd up mentality, but we don't even kill them anymore, so why should wolves be killed?

Granted wolves do kill many things other than pack dogs, but if anything you should Respect the wild, not destroy it. Most livestock that gets killed is oddly enough bred for us to eat, yet if a wolf eats it, it is the end of the world.

I am sure my opinion would change if something happened to me personally, but that is with everything.

Ever tried hound hunting? Have any idea what it costs to raise and train a good pack of Plotts?

Sorry, humans are at the top of the food chain. While we have the obligation to be caretakers of domain, we also can choose to maintain it as we as a society see fit.

We have family up in Wabeno, WI that run bear dogs every year. The Wolf encounters between dogs and wolves are getting more and more frequent. There are usually only two ways to hunt bear during the season and that's with dogs or sitting over bait. I feel hunting over bait to be lazy so Its funny you say get our fat asses out of the truck and chase the bear. Have you every been on a chase and have to trek in once a bear has been treed? Have you ever had to carry a 300lb bear out of the woods to the nearest drive-able road? Better eat your wheates buddy because its a workout.

Im all for the preservation of wildlife and Im glad they have introduced a hunting season for Wolves. Its going to keep the population in check, its going to keep the interaction between humans and livestock down and its going to generate revenue for the state.

There is no reason we as a race should completely destroy another race.  I think we fought a war against this once or twice in the past, animals or not.

Look, I am all for hunting, limiting their zones, etc, I don't like the fact that someones dogs died because of it, it actually pisses me off. But not at the wolves, they are just trying to survive, and as a creature of greater intelligence, we should understand this.  

in the last 100 years or so 3 people have died from a wolf attack in North America, all from rabies.  20-30 or so people have been "attacked" in the same time without death.

16-18 people a year die from pet dogs.

So yeah, lets kill all the wolves because they are such a threat to our race and we are the idiots that let our dogs run wild in the woods and not expect something like this to happen.

An old Russian proverb states "If you are afriad of the wolf, stay out of the forest".

I know that I will yet again be called a tree-hugging hippie for this, but don't blame wild animals for doing what comes natural. Don't want your dogs to get killed by wolves? Either keep them out of the woods (believe it or not, there are other ways to hunt bear), try to keep a closer eye on them or accept the fact that there are things out there that may kill them. I'm not one of those tree-hugging hippies that think that no wolves should ever be killed for any reason, but anybody who calls for the eradication of an entire species is a moron.

You're overlooking one important fact here.... this attack occurred in "woods" owned by the dogs' owners. Sorry, but if I want to allow my dogs to run wild in my woods, that's my right and privelege to do so!!!  If that makes me an idiot to think my animals should be safe on my property, then so be it. If the DNR, or the treehuggers, or big-city wolf idolizers, or whomever, want to "bring back" the wolf on public land, that's their perogitive. And when traveling on that public land, dog owners, hunters, and others should be aware there's wolves about, and live with the consequences. If you cannot keep them off of private land, then don't be a bit surprised by "shoot, shovel, and shut up" reactions from those who own the land. The DNR ponies up some big bucks to compensate those whose animals are killed by wolves. To me, that wouldn't be anywhere near enough compensation if I had a pet, or hunting dog, killed and eaten on my own property.  Don't want the wolves killed? Then keep the fuckers off my land.

I don't hate wolves, but when those wolves "trespass" onto private property, they should be treated as any other harmful intruder. If they harm any animals there, too bad for the wolves, it's trigger time if they cannot co-exist with those who own the land, and the animals they own that live, play, or hunt on that private land. The harmful intruders  should be totally eradicated from that private land ASAP, by any means necessary -  unless the landowner actually wants them there. Trust me... very few landowners want wolves roaming their property. What lives on public land, is up to the public that owns it. What lives on private land is up to the people that own it.

Exactly why any wolf I see on my property is an instant target. I'm protecting the fate of my pet, on or off a leash (my land - my choice), by eliminating any threats that may be on my land, ASAP.  I'd be shirking my resonsibility to my pet to allow an animal that could kill & eat it to roam freely on my property.

I hunt in northern Manysodas and the wolves have existed there naturally for many years and I'm really not all together against that. But to prop up the numbers of wolves thru some kind of legal edict by politicians and lobbyists, not so much. Any wolf on my property will get the same treatment as mentioned by rfb45colt.

We have to have better management ideas with animals like wolves or bears that can and will kill humans. We don't need excessive numbers of these critters...............

It says "In the woods" not on his land.  And as I said, control is fine. It even says in the article you posted that hunters and their dogs should stay out of the area.....

Doubt I ever will.  Keeping an animal chained/fenced up for 90% of it's life to have the remaining 10% spent chasing an animal into a tree just isn't my cup of tea.

That important fact wasn't even mentioned in the article you posted, so I don't know exactly how that can be "overlooked".  Private property is a completely different issue and I pretty much agree that if you see a wolf chasing down Fido in your backyard (or the back 40) you should be able to stop it by any means available.

The other problem I have is the DNR posts a map with the wolf pack area we as taxpayers should avoid...in the national forest? Really? The reintroduction of the wolf creates many problems that IMHO we just don't need. I can respect a persons opinion and decision to hunt or not hunt with hounds as I'm sure they respect my decision to not sit over a bait and wait...but to be told to avoid an area to protect my hounds because the wolf is protecting it's own just doesn't sit well with me. And yes it's true the handler who releases his dog IS ultimatley responsible for that animals fate. The DNR compensates for lost/eaten  hounds and that helps and there may be a season to hunt the wolf but in all honesty if they were hunted to near extinction like they were around 50 years ago I sure wouldn't lose any sleep.

There's two links. It wasn't in the TV article link.  The second link is to the DNR's report on the attack and map of where it happened.  Why is "the woods" automatically assumed NOT to be private land? While there is an abundance of publicly owned "woods" up north, the majority of "the woods" is still privately owned. To run bear dogs on it, either you own it or have permission from the owners.

Atkins Lake Pack, Forest County

On July 6, Wildlife Services confirmed that wolves from the Atkins Lake pack killed two Plott hounds on private property in the Town of Crandon. Both dogs were 5 years of age - one male and one female. This pack consisted of seven wolves last winter. Hunters and dog trainers should be aware of the potential conflict and should exercise caution within the area outlined on the map below. The caution area includes Highway 45 to the west, Highway 8 south, County S and Highway 32 on the east, and Yellow Birch Road and Old Railroad Grade on the north.

The map at my link has "public" land shaded in green or yellow, and the attack site is pinpointed on non-shaded (private) land.  

Ooops... the 2nd link in my original post is just the map, without the report. Don't know how that happened. Try this one.

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/wolf/dogdeps.html#atkins

News story on local radio said that the "private land" was owned by the dog owner's family. They don't have their news stories in print at their web site.

This is a local issue for me... I hunt grouse (on privately owned land) in the warning area, so
I know that where this occured was not public property. Even before concealed carry became legal in WI, I always carried a large bore handgun in a belt holster when hunting in "the woods"... private or public. A 2 shot over/under 20ga with birdshot isn't as good as a 6 shot .44mag in these situations. Any wolf, bear, or coyote that breaks the 25 yd perimeter around myself, or my bird dogs, I shoot it...  like Right Fucking Now. I'm not waiting for it to draw blood. One thing I've learned living in "the woods" full time for the last 22 years... if it doesn't flee upon first sight of us, it's not going to. They either run or attack... there's no in-between.

The best way I ever heard any of these debates put was this:

Everyone loves Elephants but none of those people have one crapping in their front yard.


Any predator that is not hunted usually presents a problem once it lives in proximity to humans.  Just look at Cougars in California.  Part of maintaining balance is making sure the predator respects what Humans can and will do to it.  The Wolf will never respect another smaller canine of any kind, their instinct is to kill it, be it coyote or any other.  I would not let my dog run loose in Wolf country and I would not let a Wolf run loose in my front yard.  In the long run a pack of wolves is more desirable than a pack of Latin Kings, Crips, Bloods or MS13.

Um, excuse me but... look at the map at my links again. Public land is shaded... DNR = dark green, national forest = light green, county forest = yellow. All the rest is private land. Some of it is paper company (open to the public, for hunting or other outdoor recreation) some is privately owned (mostly hunting camps). There's even full time residents. Pine Lake (summer cottages line the shores) and the town of Hiles is in the N.E. corner of the warned area. There's even a few farms near Hiles.

My hunting partner's uncle owns 120 acres of hunting land in this warned area. He bought it about 12 years ago, $1K per acre, solely for privacy while hunting. It's 75% "swamp" and not good for much else. So now the DNR says "hunters and their dogs should stay out of the area"... because there's wolves in the area? Even  when the majority of this area is private land? Really? Stay off your own land? Are the people at Pine Lake and in the town of Hiles , and other residents, supposed to evacuate? Who will compensate my friend's uncle (and all the others) for the loss of the intended use of their land? Does he still have to pay the taxes on it, if the DNR warns him (us) not to use it for the intent for which he bought it? Sorry, but FUCK that shit. We WILL hunt that land this fall, and we will "deal" with any consequences. If the DNR doesn't like it, they can come and remove "their" wolves... or we will.

Wolves belong in expansive wilderness areas. There are no real expansive wilderness areas left in WI. You cannot create the "illusion" of wildness just by introducing and protecting wild animals... that cannot co-exist alongside humans. People are here to stay. But the tree-huggers who don't have to deal with,  on a daily basis, the animals they worship, will still try. They falsely believe they can restore what civilization (by it's very nature) has destroyed, by a symbolic animal of the wild roaming free once again.  Sadly, the ones who will suffer the most in the end, are the wolves themselves. They don't belong here. Not any more.

That's funny - although I've never really gotten close to a wolf (30 yards or so) I've had bears either amble off or just stand there and look at me until I eventually walked away. I've had plenty of coyotes follow me at a certain distance because they're curious. Never been attacked - even though I'm sure both the bears and yotes knew I was unarmed. Maybe I'm hanging out in the wrong woods. Or maybe I'm, like, givin' off the wrong vibes dude.

I don't think anyone suggested killing off all the wolves. I know I didn't in the post you quoted and responded to.

We are talking about hunting dogs...not pet's. And as I stated the owners are responsible for their dogs. All the owners I know accept the possibility their dogs may be killed or lost or whatever when they turn them loose. They are also responsible for any damage caused by their dogs, the same way the DNR accepts the responsibility for damage caused by the wolf. There may be a place in the world for the wolf...in a huge expanse of wilderness I suppose but not one created by so called experts to simulate wilderness and restrict public use. All those gates in the national forest seem to have popped up right around the time the wolf was reintroduced.  The fact that we have to avoid those areas the wolf lives in is just wrong. Michigan has been dealing with this issue longer than we have and there is a saying up there ...Get addicted to UP wolves...smoke a pack a day...never wanted em...never will... I couldn't agree more.

You're starting to sound like that guy who lived with the grizzlies... until one day, they ate him.

If a coyote was following you, it wasn't curiosity. If it was curious, it was only about whether or not you were too big to eat. Coyotes only care about one thing... their stomach. If a coyote was following you, you likely would never even know it. To say you've had "plenty" of coyotes follow you sends up my bullshit flag. Bears on the other hand, can be curious. Curious about what you might have that's edible. If they approach you, or allow you to approach them within 25yds, they have no fear of you whatsoever. These are wild, predatory animals... not some Bambi from the zoo or from a Jellystone cartoon. They can, and will, eat you. The ones you really need to fear, are the ones that don't fear you. I've encountered bears in the woods on at least a dozen occasions. All but one, immediately ski-daddled as soon as it saw or scented me. No hesitation... scram!! The one that didn't kept me stuck in a tree stand while bowhunting until 3 hours after sunset. Everytime I tried to climb down, it rushed toward my ladder stand, growling and "huffing". It never attempted to climb up, luckily for me, but it wouldn't let me come down. I would've been there all fricken night, if it weren't for my 2 hunting buddies who came looking for me when one spotted my truck parked in the woods that late at night. They fired 2 shots in the ground near it, from a rifle, before it fled. I haven't bow-hunted without a .44 mag ever since.

No, you are correct, at least looking back, I kind of built off of my own words, in that I do apologize, It was the comment about having no use for them etc, that probably tripped my trigger.  But I think I mentioned sharks

I think this whole topic is off kilter now.

IMHO, I think farmers should be able to protect their investments, hunters are more than welcome to shoot the wolves in protecting their dogs, the private property vs. state land thing is just silly.  Maybe the guy should of put up no trespassing signs for the wolves?

As I said I am a hunter, and in that, I shoot for meat, not a wall mount. I would protect my dogs and shoot if need be, Two of my dogs are small, and sadly could be carried off by hawks or killed by raccoons (at night I go outside with them and make sure they don't get carried away), but I am not running around shooting them when they are on my property, some people think differently.

I think humans are overrunning this planet and destroying it, yet I like fast cars and gun powder....

In all honesty who doesn't think their own opinion isn't the best one 99% of the time. I am not going to win a battle on here, and I am going to stop arguing, and I appreciate the debate we have had thus far. My original post was meant to show that wolves aren't a threat compared to sharks or humans. Hell they aren't a comparable threat to mosquito's, elephants, hippo's, bears, etc....

So, I am out of this topic, as I think we are blowing up fighting over very little things I wouldn't normally judge in person about.  

I agree with you in theory. Wolves can be good for the ecology, up to a certain point and in appropriate areas. The DNR "scientists" themselves have said that the topography and land use of WI can support a population of about 350 wolves. I won't dispute that. But the problem lies in the fact that there's currently at least double that (if not triple) number of wolves in WI today. This will undoubtedly lead to conflicts in the land use between the human & wolf populations. But how can this be prevented? How can the wolf population be held at the sustainable level of a proper ecological balance is what's at issue here. IMO, it cannot be done. Not without a whole lot of problems suffered by the people who reside in the wolves "territory".

As for the concept of "territory". If a wolf pack establishes a "territory" that encompasses private land, now you've got what basically amounts to a property rights issue. The free-roaming wolves vs the people who have certain rights to the property they bought & paid for, and must continue to pay for through mortgages & more importantly taxes. It's ironic that a portion of those taxes go to maintain the protection of the wolves who have "invaded"
and encroached on that property, and the rights associated with it's ownership.

Because of these inherant problems with the reintroduction of the wolves, which will be ever present (and getting worse), my opinion is, it should be up to the people who live in the areas directly affected ... and most of us don't want them.  Their population cannot be limited to areas where they'll do no harm, nor can it be held at levels appropriate for the environment. Although I actually like and respect wolves in general, I don't think they belong here any more. Their time  in WI has passed. Their very nature as efficient and ruthless predators makes them unfit to coexist with humans. Someone earlier mentioned sharks. Would it be appropriate to have a shark population in a WI lake? Don't think so. Nor is it advisable to have a population of predators roaming around on private land. You're probanbly thinking "well sharks were never here before, wolves were". Yes they were... when WI was a wilderness where they could live in peace. WI is no longer that wilderness, and wolves just don't fit in, not even in semi-populated areas. It's not good for us humans, nor is it good for the wolves themselves.

BTW... do you have idea what it would cost to fence in 200 acres with a "wolf-proof" fence? Or a 40? Even a 20?  And to maintain that fence? How about the State or the animal rights groups that file those silly lawsuits to protect the wolves pay for it? That'd go over like a turd in a punch bowl. I won't spend thousands of dollars to fence in my property just to correct somebody else's foolhardiness. A $20 box of ammo and $10 shovel works just as good.

OK - you've convinced me. From now on I'm going to live in complete fear of everything outside my front door and whenever I venture out into the dark scarey woods I'm carrying a minigun on a harness with at least 5000 rounds of ammo. Thanks for the heads up.

All kidding aside - to each his own. You feel the need to go armed at all times, that's fine. Comparing anybody who doesn't share your view to Tim Treadwell is really dumb. Sounds like you've had nothing but negative experiences in the woods and that's too bad. I can see why you have the opinions you have, but even though you've lived in the woods for twenty years I can assure you that not everybody has had the same experiences. Also - might want to tone down the "I live in the woods - I know it all" rhetoric. I lived alone in a tent for two summers in griz country in SW Montana and I'm not spouting off about how I know it all and everybody should listen to my wisdom.


Hey - at least we agree on wolves on private property!

I don't live in the ocean, so sharks are zero threat to me. I don't live in Africa (nor anywhere near a zoo) so elephants & hippos are zero threat to me. While black bears do live nearby (and destroy my wife's birdfeeders on occasion) I still don't consider them much of a threat because they're omnivores, and not known to hunt and kill meat for their very survival (not like grizzlies & polar bears). Just don't get between a sow & her cubs, the others normally run off immediately. No argument on mosquitos, they spread disease. I live in rural Vilas county WI, very near the Forest county line, so wolves, OTOH, are in the woods right behind my home. I've seen them, I've seen the dead deer they've devoured. I don't consider them a threat to myself so much , but to my pets I certainly do.

Coyotes are a threat to pets too.  About 6 years ago, it cost me $400 in vet bills to have my cat stitched back together after it was attacked by a coyote, not 50' from my front door. The cat  was no push-over... never declawed, fairly large at about 18 lbs, she  has a very nasty disposition... there's not a dog in the neighborhood that will go near it, including my own. She actually won the fight, and chased the coyote off before I could get to a firearm. The vet said there was large pieces of coyote hide stuck under her claws. I saw the whole thing... it looked like a Garfield cartoon, just a blur of fur. It was over in about 7-8 seconds. The coyote knew he lost when the cat jumped on it's back and wouldn't let go, and was ripping the yote's ears to shreds with her fangs. It headed for the woods and the cat let go and jumped off. She still got 30+ stitches to her stomach and neck area from coyote bites... but the coyote was  even bloodier.  My cat's face was covered in blood, and it wasn't hers. It was young yote, a male (the cat got a swipe in on his balls too... OUCH!)  and he fucked up, big time. He literally tried to bite off more than he could chew. He brought only fangs to a fang & claw fight... so he lost.

She likely wouldn't have been the winner had that been a full grown yote, or a wolf... but you never know.

This is why cats are cool. But I digress.

LOL... I don't "live in fear" of everything in the woods, and I'm not professing to be Daniel Boone neither. But I do live my daily life in a very rural, mostly wooded area, so my day to day experiences DO give me more knowledge of such things than someone who lives in a city or suburb... just as that city person would be 10 times more "streetwise" than I would be in their urban environment. I hunt quite a bit. I've hunted bears, and I spend more time hunting coyotes than anything else (except waterfowl... which I hunt 4-5 days per week in season). I have had a few "negative" experiences, but the more time you spend in the woods, the more likely that is to happen. Try bear baiting... you'll love that. You get to see them up close & personal.

If you live in an urban area (have no clue if you do or don't)  when was the last time you saw a bear? For me, it's been about 7-8 days. No biggie... I see them all the time... but I haven't seen a "gangbanger" in decades.  I'm not afraid of bears... I just don't trust them, therefore I'm prepared when in their territory, just like I'd be carrying a .45 if walking through a ghetto,  like any city person who carries concealed on a regular basis is "prepared". Prepared to defend themselves if necessary.

I see far too many "city" people who think that the bear they see walking through the woods is named Yogi, or Teddy,  and wants to be fed picnic baskets or cuddled. Most of them ARE harmless... just as most people you encounter are harmless... but there's always the chance that one is not. Only a fool gets complacant by the everyday same old shit, and goes unprepared. The woods are not a scary place, and not terribly dangerous. Normally the biggest danger would be stumbling into a hornets nest, or getting lost. .. and a gun is of little use here. Or stumbling upon a meth lab or marijauna grow. Been there once.

But packs of wolves eating dogs does change things, just a little bit. It's only a matter of time before someone walking their pet has that pet get attacked, and if they try to intervene unarmed, they're now in danger also. Very few people will stand by and watch Fido or Fluffy get torn to shreds and eaten alive. That danger wouldn't exist to the extent it now does without the wolves being here.  It doesn't exist for me at all... because I'm  prepared to deal with it. Go ahead and ridicule me if you want. But it won't be my Fido or Fluffy turned into wolf shit.

Edit to add: Thought you might enjoy these pics. These are myself and two of my hunting partners. This was taken 9/9/2010, the morning after the bear was shot.  (I'm the guy ,with camo hat & sweatshirt, to the right of the guy with the rifle in the center). This bear was a bit over 400lbs, shot over bait on the 1st day of the season. The shooter lives down in Muskeego, his brother in the pic in West Allis, 3rd brother is in Greenfield, so I was the lone baiter. The bait sight was 2 miles from my home. I went everyday, with 10 gallons, from July 15th til Sept 8th. Twice, I met this very bear, head on, on the trail between the bait sight and the road (about 250 yds apart) at a distance of 10-15 yds. I could actually see a tick on his muzzle once. He was more frightened than I was. I was pumped with adrenalin the 1st time... 2nd time was no big deal.  I had an air-horn in one hand, a .44 Dan Wesson in the other. That air-horn sent him running both times... and he was VERY fast. No human on earth could out-run him. I'm glad he ran away from, not toward me.



The next 2 pics are 2 of the 1600 (not a misprint) trail cam pics I got of bears in 2 months of baiting every day.
You can get a good idea of this bear's size. He was the biggest of the 10 regular visitors to the bait sight. We named them all. The smaller one in the pic was named "pyscho". That little fucker was scarier than the big ones. He had no fear, and would rush toward you if you encountered him (I did 3 times... fired  some pepper spray at him once.. next time he ran as soon as he saw me).

You'd love my cat. I was never much of a cat person until we "adopted" this one. I've now changed my view of felines... they are very cool. My 18lb kitty is a real bad-ass. I can only imagine what a 400lb tiger or lion could do.

Want to discuss cougars too? We got a few of those being sighted around here now too.

Just kidding. I knew my thread about wolves would open a can of worms...  but I was bored. Oh well, it's been fun. I've said my piece, made my case... maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not... but my views are shared by more than not.

Just off the top of my head, I can think of two people killed and partially eaten by wolves in North America in just the last 10 years or so, and it wasn't rabies that killed them.  Their names were Kenton Joel Carnegie and Candice Berner.

I'm wondering aloud if we just happen to be privy to a genuine "seminar thread" here?

A fair number of low post-count newish non-paid members, not all of whom even bother to identify their profile with "WI" on one side of the debate here...

That's exactly what I said to myself right before I opened up the thread.

I want one of these stickers for my truck...

So what I should sit back and not post because Im not a paid member? Did you start on your first day as a paid member with 1000 posts?

I am sorry if you knew those people, and I didn't properly site it. I am going off of multiple google searches on the matter (type in wolf attacks in North America). The articles I read may have not been up to date.  It still is a very low statistic.  And I will repeat again, I don't have a problem with control......




Well, I am from WI. You have to start somewhere,. Paying for this site isn't going to change my opinion and as for me not being a paid member, I will think about it as long as I get to make comments like this at least weekly towards non-paid members

rfb45Colt - I think we're (for the most part) on the same page here. We both own Dan Wesson .44mags, we both have ass-kicking cats and we both have had extremely close encounters with black bears. Last time I saw a bear was about 2 1/2 weeks ago while fishing on the Peshtigo. He was upwind and completely unaware that I was there. Usually I get out in the woods a lot more, but the past few months have been insane. Can't wait 'til summers gone. I live about 1/2 mile south of Lambeau field in GB so I don't have to worry about bears or gangbangers - just lots of drunk guys in the fall.



I wasn't aware that I was required to pay a fee and waste hundreds of hours sitting behind a computer to have a valid opinion on this subject. I'm obviously sorely lacking in e-cred, so please disregard anything I've said here.

Glad you came back. I wasn't going to post any further either, I've said too much already... but what the hell, I am the one who started it.

If "control" means allowing landowners to shoot them on private property without applying for a hunting tag, then I'm with you. I don't advocate a wolf genocide in public forests, nor a bounty system like in the past (I'd prefer they weren't here, but that genie's out of the bottle), but the current proposed hunting/trapping season falls far short of adequate control, for most people living in wolf range. But it's a start. Maybe a few years will put some "fear-of-man" into the problem packs that they don't have now.

In case you didn't know, the proposed rules for hunting/trapping ("control") call for:

A season running from Oct 15th - last day of Feb.

A quota of 201 wolves statewide, with a total of 2010 "harvest tags" issued in a lottery drawing (they're assuming a 10% success rate). There's nothing in place to prevent PETA types, or others interested in "protecting" wolves at all costs, from applying for a tag and not using it if they get one, and clogging up the system for those who will actually use the tags. (I know several people who do this for bear tags To prevent this, the DNR should only issue tags to those with 5 years of prior hunting licenses of any kind, insuring that only "real" hunters, not animal-rights activists, get the tags and will use them).

6 harvest zones, with the 2010 tags split amongst them. How they'll be split will likely depend on the estimated population in each zone. I don't have the specifics.

Firearms, bows, crossbows, and trapping will be allowed. Trappers may use bait. Hunters too, but under restrictions (no specifics on the restrictions).

Up to 6 dogs may be used for tracking/trailing, but not until the day after the regular deer gun season.  

There will be a $10 application fee, and those successful will pay $100 for a resident's tag, non-resident tags will be $500. AFAIK, there's no "landowner preferance" tags.

FWIW, the guy who shot the bear in the pics in one of my previous posts, waited 10 years for that tag. Both his brothers are at 8 yrs and counting. How long will one wait in this system for a wolf tag to "control" the wolves that may have invaded their property?  I've never applied for a bear kill tag, as I'm not interested in shooting a bear... nor "hunting" wolves neither. I just believe that those who have an issue with wolves on their own land should be free to deal with them themselves if they feel they're a threat and it's necessary, without govt intervention & an  "X" amount of years waiting for "permission", or fearing hefty fines for acting on immediate threats (thus the term "shoot, shovel, shut-up" was coined).

Looks like a financial jackpot for the DNR, too. $100 for a resident tag? Seriously? I can see $500 for non-residents, but c'mon, that's pretty steep for residents.

edited: to correct wrong info in hunting regs

Hey, if you're more commonly a lurker, that's just fine.

It's just interesting when a bunch of wolf-huggers that you've never seen before with the before mentioned attributes suddenly pop out of the woodwork for just this very topic...  Perhaps it just legitimately got you excited, it happens.

Even if you actually are a bunch of seminar posters, hell, it's "just the internet".

Yup, I think we are mostly on the same page. Dan Wesson's are kick-ass... I've got 3 barrels for mine... 4", 6", & 10". It only had the 10" when I bought it back in the 80's... got lucky the same summer I was baiting my buddy's bear. I wanted to carry the DW, but the 10" was a pain. Looked at Numrich, and lo & behold, they had both a 4" & 6" (1st time I've seen them "in stock" there in 10 yrs of looking, and they only had one of each... good timing for me ) and they were only $150 ea for shroud & barrell, all NIB!!! I could NOT believe my luck!!!

But but but... you DO have to worry about bears, being only 1/2 mile from Lambeau. They play there at least once every year.  Know how to keep bears from your lawn? Put up a goalpost.

My oldest daughter lives in GB (and she's a Bears fan )... on Abrams St., between Mason & Main. She's got 2 kids, and they're renting a  3 bedroom house w/ garage. Only been there once... I drove the U-Haul when she moved there last spring. She's a manager at a McDonalds (DePere, I think). She had the same job here, but GB paid a lot more, so she took it.

BTW... saw a 300lb blackie this morning, on my way to work, only about 1/2 mile down the road.

I'm a "wolf hugger" now? You sure paint with a very broad brush.



rbf45Colt - you are lucky to find barrels for your .44. The .357's are all over the place, not so much the .44's. Monsons rule.



Hasn't it been ok since the re-introduction for land owners to kill wolves on their land if they're going after their livestock or pets? I thought that was the case - I may very well be wrong.


As far as the quota goes -a lthough the rules a little different, the quotas are the same and Montana never reached their quota.

I could be wrong on some of this, but the way it was explained to me is this: Your answer is a definate yes, & no. The yes part is, if an attack is "in progress", it's OK to defend life & limb of people and animals. The no part is, until wolves actually attack, you can't touch them. Kinda like, a thug pulls a knife on you, but you've got a gun... but you cannot shoot him until after he stabs you. By then, damage is done. Maybe not fatal, but nevertheless damage. It wouldn't take long for a wolf or two to do severe damage to a calf... and dogs even less time. If a wolf attacks and kills a calf or dog, and you do not witness it... but the next day you spot a wolf stalking another calf in the same field, legally you do nothing until it actually is in the act of attacking. Only a bloody calf is proof of an attack in progress. If you shoot a wolf, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it was absolutely necessary to save an animal from grievous harm. This is federal stuff under endangered species criteria.  Penalties were severe enough that very few people who shot one would take the chance and report it. They'd just dig a hole... triple "S" and all that. Or throw them in a wood chipper, and feed the hogs.  I have no first-hand knowledge of this, but I've heard rumors.

Now that they've been de-listed, it falls under state rules, and those aren't clear yet. Federal rules  prevented anyone, even DNR, from killing "problem" wolves, unless caught in the act and to stop the attack.  After the delisting, all this gets turned over to state authorities to "manage" the wolf population as they see fit. That's why there were so many treehugger lawsuits, because federal endangered species protection is much more stringent than what states come up with.  WI DNR  likely will issue kill permits to landowners who have suffered depredation.... problem is, attacks must occur first.  IOW, you must suffer the harm before fighting back.

Call me a tree-hugger if you want... but since this is a forum, i'll post my 2c.

If you don't want your cat fluffy or doggie ringo to come across nefarious characters in the woods, I would recommend you keep them within eyesight at all times.  Owning land does not equate to owning anything that steps foot on it. You can buy a cow, and if it wanders across the road, it is still your cow.  Just because you own the property, does not mean you can shoot any deer that crosses it(now that's a heated debate).  Yet you want to do the same for wolves? What about birds? There are some songbirds that wake me up on weekends that I would love to blast with my over under. But I don't.

If the dogs had been mauled by a bear, would we be arguing for the eradication of bears and saying they have no place in our state? I would hope not.

I see this as the nature of hunting. Letting the dogs out of earshot and sight is a calculated risk. Most of the time nothing will happen. Yet it is perfectly possible that they are hit by a car, or some other travesty happens.  Don't mistake this as callousness. I have had several dogs, and loved them dearly. If something happened to them like this, I would have been heartbroken. My feelings would have been mostly guilt for letting them go where I could not protect them.  I would not blame the wolves for doing what wolves do: eat smaller and weaker animals. They would have eaten a pair of coyotes just the same, but coyotes have the good sense to run at the sight or scent of a wolf.

People don't like predators, I get it. The predators feed on the deer. They sometimes kill livestock, and the occasional outdoor tabby cat.  If you live in an area with predators, know the risks. Down here in Milwaukee, the predators have two legs and the right to an attorney.  Up there, they have four.  

I will make you a deal: You get to shoot any wolf crossing your property.  I get to shoot any deer crossing my property.
The first part of this is the management scenario you[in general, nobody specifically] are proposing for wolves, while saying nothing about the over population of deer (I frequently see them crossing major streets in south milwaukee on early drives to work). The wolves will die of starvation if there aren't enough deer and other small prey to eat. Let it all work itself out.

ETA: for clarification, I am not against killing of predatory animals to prevent injury to person or property, just not hunting them back to near extinction so we can all feel a little safer and shoot more deer.  The world can be dangerous, plan accordingly.

I must have missed the post where anyone said anything about eradicating wolves. Where is it again?



Edit: Spelling

Earlier you so elloquently stated "Fuck wolves". The next post dllshoots took it much further by implying that wolves had no place (at least in WI). Flame - if you're going to nitpick the way you've been doing I suggest you check your spelling (mist??), 'cause sonner or later somebody's going to turn your nitpicking back on you. And if you really want to be a dick about it GreenZ's post that you quoted said nothing about "eradication".

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/532569_584838337646_17211772_n.jpg