Support The Ban Well, it's not exactly a ban. It is a 5 year Moratorium on recreational wolf hunting and trapping. Senator Chris Eaton of Brooklyn Center has authored a bill to reinstate the five year wait. According to Ed Boggess of the Minnesota DNR, they did not do an actual count prior to the hunt. He said it would have been a better option however they plan to do a wolf count now. Mr. Boggess didn't feel the wolf hunt threatened the population. The DNR's management of the deer population was used as an example of their excellent management skills. Absolutely no mention was made regarding the Moose population. In this case, the Moose population has and is falling at a rapid rate. Now the DNR decides to cancel the Moose hunt. Why wasn't this done sooner? Why did they wait for the population to hit a fragile state before cancelling the hunt?
The Moratorium would not stop farmers and ranchers from killing wolves that threaten their livestock. That is separate all together. We are talking recreational hunting and trapping.
Back to the bill. Once this bill is introduced, it will need to be heard by the Senate Environment and Energy Committee. Please contact the following members and ask for their support.
Senate Environment and Energy Committee
Sen. John Marty (Chair) - Call 651-296-5645 or Send Email
Sen. John Hoffman (Vice Chair) - Call 651-296-4154 or Send Email
Sen. David Brown - Call 651-296-8075 or Send Email
Sen. Michelle Benson - Call 651-296-3219 or Send Email
Sen. Scott Dibble - Call 651-296-4191 or Send Email
Sen. Chris Eaton - Call 651-296-8869 or Send Email
Sen. Foung Hawj - Call 651-296-5285 or Send Email
Sen. Lyle Koenen - Call 651-296-5094 or Send Email
Sen. David Osmek - Call 651-296-1282 or Send Email
Sen. Julie Rosen - Call 651-296-5713 or Send Email
Sen. Bev Scalze - Call 651-296-5537 or Send Email
Sen. Matt Schmit - Call 651-296-4264 or Send Email
Sen. Katie Sieben - Call 651-297-8060 or Send Email
Sen. Bill Weber - Call 651-296-5650 or Send Email
Please thank Sen. Chris Eaton and the co-authors of this bill (listed below) for their leadership on this issue and encourage them to advocate for the passage of this bill into law.
Sen. David Hann - Call 651-296-1749 or Send Email
Sen. David Senjem - Call 651-296-3903 or Send Email
Sen. Terri Bonoff - Call 651-296-4314 or Send Email
Sen. Sandra Pappas - Call 651-296-1802 or Send Email
Currently, there is no companion bill in the House of Representatives. Contact your Representatives and ask them to author/co-author a House version. A companion bill is necessary. Your Representatives need your encouragement and support. Also, contact your district Senators. Let them know this issue matters. Ask them to support this bill.
Time is of the essence. Bills only have so much time to work through the legislative process. If they do not move, it's like being in a massive traffic jam. You just don't get anywhere - on time.
Don’t you think you’re having a typical knee jerk reaction? It’s no secret that you are opposed to wolf hunting, but don’t you think science should take precedence over emotions. The most surprising thing about this year’s wolf hunting season was the speed that the quotas were filled. If there were a shortage of wolf’s the season would have ended without the quotas being filled. I think you will find that there are more wolves in the great white north then anyone thinks there are and regulated wolf hunts will not have an effect on the overall population as the years go by. Folks please don’t support a ban on wolf hunting, in fact support continued wolf hunting and trapping season’s in the future.
You are correct on one point. I am opposed to the wolf hunt. However, knee jerk reaction - I don't think so. Good management would wisely require a count prior to the start of the hunt and then another after. Regarding the speed at which the quotas were filled - could it be that the wolves have never been a target of hunting and were reasonably comfortable in their environment?
If they can count them for that reason they can count them before the hunt too. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/wolves/mgmt.html
From: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/wolves/mgmt.html So it is in the wolves long-term survival interest that people be allowed to pay for the right to shoot bullets at them? I don't get it...
As also eluded to, it is extremely difficult to determine a precise population of wolves without this type of system. The harvest results do however support that the population is most likely much higher than initial estimates. What would be the benefit of a 5 year moratorium? There is none. Other than to merely delay the implementation of a much needed management tool. Even if an extremely precise method of counting were available without the hunt, it would not satisfy the opponents of this hunt. This is merely a stall tactic, to delay wolf management based on their emotional reaction or lack of understanding, rather than scientific methods.
The wolf population in MN has been stable for a decade and isn't coming close to unacceptable levels. Opening up wolf hunting when there is no wolf population problem is irresponsible and can't realistically be called a, "management tool." It would seem that the wolf population is helping control the deer population better than hunters ever could. This gives the hunters less to shoot at. The hunters I've spoken to are excited about their newfound ability to shoot bullets at wolves for two reasons. First, they get to shoot wolves. Second, they have been blaming the wolves for the reduced deer population and correctly believe that reducing the wolf population will help the deer population grow again. Allowing the hunting of wolves is not a management tool. It is just a way to give the hunters more to shoot at. I'll retract all of this if anybody can find evidence that wolf populations in MN were approaching ecologically dangerous levels.
If you believe hunters only want a hunting season so they can “shoot bullets at wolves”, you are just plain wrong. Once the hunt has taken place for a year or two, you will have all the evidence you need and can retract your statements then. But I won’t hold my breath.
Farmers and ranchers don’t raise livestock for fun and entertainment but for the economic value. Look at the skunk, there are no skunk farms because the skunk has no economic value at this point in time. If someone can come up with a use for the skunk someone else will start a skunk farm. Kenya allows very little hunting and no Dangerous/Big 5 hunting. Kenya has the worst poaching problem in the world. By not allowing hunting the economic value of the animal has been removed and no longer benefits the common person. Since the animal has no value to the people it will be killed and eaten. If an Elephant eats 5% of your crop and tramples another 50% you will not be able to feed your family of village. The government of Kenya will not compensate you for the loss or allow anyone to kill the Elephant so you are out. What would you do? I know what I would do, kill the Elephant and feed my family. Kenya’s Elephant population is low and in trouble
Hunting provided value to the animal and it will be protected. Wolf hunting guides will protect the wolf so that wolf hunters will pay them to hunt in an area known to have wolfs. No hunter will kill the last wolf in Minnesota.
The truth is hunting is a tool used to reduce animal populations before they reach unacceptable levels
Hunting and fishing licenses fund 59.5 percent of the Minnesota DNR wild life budget. Donations are .5 percent. 1/2 of one percent. How much did you donate to the DNR Shirley? If it wasn't for people hunting wildlife you wouldn't see any wolves. Put your money where your mouth is and match the funds supplied by hunting and fishing licenses or go find something else to protest.
Directly from the DNR. If there have been more encounters recently it is due to increased population and range of us humans. Some of the encounters are due to irresponsible human behavior. A grown person should understand that up north it is quite possible to encounter a wolf. Is that an appropriate place for a puppy? Also, Wisconsin has far fewer wolves than MN and the encounters have been going up there just as fast. Sounds like decreasing their numbers doesn't really help decrease encounters now does it. Source: http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/116787898.html?refer=y "If you believe hunters only want a hunting season so they can 'shoot bullets at wolves', you are just plain wrong." Ahh yes there's MN's budget to worry about. Other than that, there is no reason to buy a license to shoot an animal other than the fact that you desire to shoot an animal. I'm not judging you for it. I'm a hunter myself. I just like being transparent about what's really going on. Besides, I said I'd retract if the wolf population were proving to be an ecological issue which it is not.
The wolves have tremendous economic value. They may be taking down $96,000 per year of livestock (which the state compensates for) but that is more than worth it if they can prevent even 10% of the crops lost to deer. http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/116787898.html?refer=y In 1984 Wisconsin was losing $36.7 million in crops to deer annually. 10% of that is over $3 million and that was back in 1984 dollars. http://www.extension.org/pages/8784/deer-damage-assessment As you said, these farmers don't raise these crops and animals for fun. The rest of your post I'm not sure I understand. You completely lost me at: "Since the animal has no value to the people it will be killed and eaten." An animal that can be killed and eaten has some value since food is valued. You, sir, have lost me. Also I'm not sure the Kenya analogy works in this instance. Wolves don't have tusks that are valuable on a black market and we don't hack each other up after every election.
*This leads me to believe that the whole wolf hunt may have been more of a ploy for state funds than simple demand from hunters.
Your argument that the only reason for increased wolf encounters in human expansion is as inaccurate as your other posts. The expansion of the wolf population (some estimates exceed 6,000 now) has pushed them into areas that have never supported populations for at least the last two generations. So now it's humans fault that they own pets in that area, and should know better? : ) Get a grip. I'm sure you feel the internet article you read makes you more qualified than wildlife experts across the country who actually spend time in the field studying these animals, but it doesn't.
First 23,500 people applied for licenses and each paid $4.14 for $97,290.00 Of the 3600 early season licenses all were sold and paid for, 2986 before the cutoff date and the remaining 614 in 3 ½ minutes when the licenses were made available to people that had applied but did not get drawn for a total of $108,000.00 All of the second season licenses were sold and that is $72,000.00 So just for licenses the state received $277,290.00 and since there were quite a few out of state hunters the number was higher. In most cases you would find the on average each hunter spent another $1,000.00 for food, lodging, gas and so on. There is another $6,000,000.00 so the state brought in around $6,277,290.00 for the 399 wolfs that was taken. The state did quite well at an average of $15,732.56 per wolf. That is what I mean by the wolf has value and local people will protect that kind of value.
In Kenya if a farmer kills a wild animal he will go to jail or be shot. Wolfs have a very nice fur coat and it is quite valuable. All bets are off on the elections.
Now, $1,000 per hunter sounds a little steep but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. However, I'm not so sure you can lump $6 million of spending in with $277,290.00 of license fees because not all of the $6 million went to the State's coffers. At best you can include the 6.875% sales tax on that 6 million which comes to $412,500. So the state raked in about $689,790. That brings it down to $1,728 per wolf. That is still pretty good. So it looks like you've proven that lots of people around here (about 23,000) want to put a bullet into a wolf for some reason. And you've proven that the scheme was lucrative for the state. That's all great until you consider the fact that the wolf population isn't even approaching a size that is unacceptable. And as I pointed out in a comment above, the wolves are probably worth far more alive than dead given how much crop damage they likely prevent by thinning the deer population.
If there are areas where wolves are attacking animals the owners of the animals have the right to shoot those wolves. They also have the right to hire an armed person to guard the farm if they wanted. In fact, I bet a farm that was being hounded by wolves could pull in a bit of money. If people are that eager to shoot a wolf then farms plagued by wolves could recoup some of their losses by letting hunters pay to guard the farm for a night. Ranchers in Texas make arrangements like this regularly but usually to take care of wild pigs.
Deer live in the forest too. Wolves eat the deer in the forest and then the deer don't roam into farms to eat the crops.