HELP SAVE THE WOLVES

[Griz]

Dan, I am assuming you understood my intent and hopefully saw your fallacies. Your doctrine is based upon google searches which does not necessarily produce the most accurate of results.

Griz

 

[Griz]

PS Dan, it might be wise next time to choose your source from a listing of people who are not considered eco-terrorists such as "Defenders of Wildlife." If all you can do is cite fringe groups data then where does that put you?

Griz

 

[fuscusking13]

All in all I think you and I share the same goal(something needs to be done) and same disdain for the proposed method of execution(a helicopter flying around on taxpayers dollars shooting at all wolves it can find), I think that there is some disagreement elsewhere but I care not to argue over said points. My information comes from well beyond just the internet. Wolves are my favorite animals and I try to never miss a television program, news article, flyer's from several organizations(that I am a member of and some that I am not) and elsewhere. Obliviously I can only post links to internet related things here, but their is a wealth of information from all sides of this argument all over the internet, on television, in notes from various court cases and so on. I just think in order to make a judgement call one must visit all sides and find the best solution for everyone, especially the animals/ecosystem. For any solution to work everyone (on all sides) is going to have to make an effort for it to work. It just seems that on the farming side many are unwilling to compromise in any way shape or form. Now also on the extreme crazy animal rights activist end there are some extremest as well. I myself have said several things that together COULD work. I never said it was economical to build a fence, I said it was easy and it is. I am not a carpenter/fence maker and I guarantee you I can construct a fence that could keep wolves out. If the farmers are truly losing soooo much to the wolves than the reduced losses would offset the expenses incurred. Not to mention the government pays them for their losses, and if the government wont many private organizations will, so they really have nothing to lose.

In conclusion these wolves are doing exactly what they are supposed to do, surviving. They were reintroduced after much legal battle, and thrived...great! Now they are starting to approach large numbers, so they need to be slowed down. If they did what I proposed(regulated hunting in small numbers and put the money towards refunding farmers for losses or people for lost pets and such, if there is a need to do so, or put the money into research to see how the hunting is making a difference for everyone) I am sure the majority would be pleased(you cant please everyone no matter how hard you try). I hope you have a great afternoon, Dan M.

 

[Griz]

Dan, I don't disagree with the fact that we, collectively speaking, need to encourage the government to allow the private sector to handle this. I am simply debating the arguments that you are choosing to use. Case in point, the fence topic you brought back up. Would you rather spend $500,000 fencing in your property or $.30 cents for a .223 bullet? If I were the farmer, I would not hesitate to shoot any wolves I saw that posed a threat. To say that the loss in livestock would offset the losses incurred by building a fence is asinine. Not even close.

Griz

 

[fuscusking13]

Your last line is exactly my point.... the problem isnt big enough like they try to make it out to be, and I also said they have the right by law to kill a wolf that is trying to attack/ or is attacking their livestock, pets, or family. Its in the Endangered species act under one of the ammended sections if you read through it. I do not recall where it is, but it is in there. The problem is if hunting is opened up unregulated a wolf that just happens by is going to get shot simply because it's a wolf. The guard dog sheepdog idea is sound(these dogs were bred to defend livestock from bigger and badder animals than wolves) and has worked since before guns were even invented. All in all I just want to see a resonable solution made. Hopefully one can be worked out. Later, Dan M.

 

[Griz]

I saw a government commissioned study that showed for one particular region that there were 6 confirmed cattle kills due to wolves. My brother raises cattle as a hobby. He has 2 bulls that are around $20,000 each. He has heifers that are closer to $10,000. The babies, given that they will have the genetics of champions, will be valued even higher. Let's say that his ranch loses 3 calves due to wolves. Is that problem not big enough, in that specific region to warrant the culling of some wolves?

My point is simply this.....we cannot make a carte blanch statement to the effect that the problem is not big enough. It's certainly big enough to the farmer who lost the cattle. It's easy to play armchair conservationist when it's not your livelihood at stake.

Regardless of whether the government does the killing or if they allow a true "season", the farmers are going to take out any wolves they need to and they will be right for doing so. The only difference is that the organization that keeps track of how many squirrels get hit by cars in the United States each year won't be notified.

Griz

 

[fuscusking13]

Well if you are allowing 10 and 20 thousand dollar animals to free range you are an idiot plain and simple, or care not about losing the money. If you truly have that much invested I think you would be willing to take better care and keep track of your animals(which means fencing them in or keeping them protected). I dont know about "your brother" but I dont like to throw away my money. Not just wolves, but if they are worth so much, what about theft, bears, idiots with guns(not hunters, you know what I mean) people in vehicles, cougars, or whatever else may be around. My opinion is if you want to let your animals free range you assume the risk, and like I said if his cattle is getting attacked he has the right to protect it, I never said he didnt. That is all, good day, Dan M.

 

[Wolfy-hound]

For the record, Anatolian shepards ARE used in this country for coyote control, for protecting herds.
I've personally talked to three different breeders that mentioned losing at least ONE dog EACH to coyotes/wolves. I can't remember if it was 1 to coyote, 2 to wolf or the other way around.
Anatolian shepards are great as far as they go. Unfortunately you cannot simply run guarddogs around large herds.
If you have a few high dollar animals then of course you can keep them in closer, and they would be in much less danger from wild wolves.
If you have a ranch of cows, then they will free range and be at risk. If a pack establishes nearby and begins to prey on cows rather than game animals, then the rancher should be able to rid himself of them.
When I said Free Range should take their losses I was speaking of ON PUBLIC LAND. NOT on their own privately owned ranch.
What most of the public doesn't quite comprehand is that THEY want wolves, but most will never ever be affeected BY wolves. The ones that cry loudest against wolves are the ONES AFFECTED i.e. the ranchers! The ones that WANT wolves tend to be folks that "love wolves" but not those Living out there. I'm speaking of generalities.
If you live in new york city.. and you support introducing wolves to Middle-o-Nowhere land, Montana... and then the rancher that LIVES there loses a cow... why shouldn't he be able to stop that wolf from killing another of his cows? Why should that rancher have to fence in his 2,000 acres against an animal HE never wanted there?
It's all well and good to say that Wolves Were There. The fact is, they are not there now.
I'll TOTALLY support managed wolves in PUBLIC parks and lands. Managed means that the agencies that are responsible get to say "Too many- kill some" or "Not enough, leave them". I do NOT support people saying that a rancher on his own ranch can't defend his money-making enterprise against predetors.
If your neighbor's Anatolian Shepard came into YOUR back yard and tore up your cat, you'd want it gone. You'd want someone to pay, and you'd want someone to make sure that the Anatolian Shepard wouldn't come back. These aren't someone's pet, these are wild animals, and unfortunately the ultimate solution is to kill them.
Relocating cost a LOT of money. The referance you made to the farmers using guard dogs, noises, etc etc.. also STARTED with "With financial help.."
It started with that becuase it's VERY expensive.
I'll state again too.. how do you know that 1200 wolves is sustainable where they are talking about? How do you know that dropping the numbers to 500 wolves won't make it a properly balanced population? Even if they say to kill 700, they didn't say every year.
And please pay attention here. Stop making out like this is a Bush thing. It's about the "local" governments, or the STATE governments. It SHOULD BE the locals. They are the ones who know what's up, who's hurt, who's benefitting.
I like wolves. But they are another predetor out of a lot of predetors. They have a place in the cycle and all that. But, sometimes you have to manage the numbers of every population of wild animals.

 

[ravensgait]

Boy where to begin well dispel a myth since attacks on humans were mentioned. In North America there has never been a documented case of other than a rabid wolf attacking humans. These guys will stand and watch while people dig out their dens and take their cubs. In Europe they did attack and kill people.. There is a history of battles and large numbers of dead left to lay. Wolves are not above eating carrion and it's not to big a step to go from eating dead people to making them dead and eating them. Thus one reason for the hatred that settlers had for wolves in North America.

Dan I'm going to respond to your earlier post
""1. We definitely are the ones that have thrown off the natural balance for years(there cant even be an argument here)""
Yes there is for if we are part of nature then how can we throw off a balance?? No doubt man has been very hard on his fellow creatures and needs to do better but as I said before we are just as much a part of Nature as Wolves are.

"2. Disprove that more pets are killed by cars than wild animals."
Griz pretty well covered it.

3. Show me how many times a sheepdog of any kind was killed by the predator it is designed to protect against(thats the whole purpose these dogs were bred for, and I doubt they would still be in use today if they were not effective).

Hey for keeping Coyotes away Donkeys work better than dogs
Dan Coyotes kill dogs all the time where wolves were displaced they expanded their range and began forming large packs. A pack of Wolves would make short work of one or even 5 dogs. Dogs can't deal with them at all and just as Wolves attack and kill their lesser relatives the Coyote, they look at dogs in the same way.

4. Show me how it wouldn't be just as effective to relocate, or how it could be less effective to open small seasons of regulated hunting. (personally regulated hunting is a great idea for several reasons as it would help control the population, keep many folks happy, although you will never keep those on each extreme happy, and will raise funds to put back into the project and such so that tax payers money is not spent on it).

One, moving them would be expensive and why would Canada want them back? Hunting Wolves is very difficult they are most often taken as incidental animals IE Hunters just happened to run into one while hunting something else.. Look at it like this ,Deer by comparison are really really dumb. Yet the national hunter success rate for deer hunters is less than 20 percent. they (where legal) hunt black bears(bears over bait where legal) and Mountain Lions with dogs as they to have large ranges and especially for hunting lions is an exercise in futility without the use of dogs. And dogs don't work very well at hunting wolves..Government hunters don't work any better really and besides there are no longer any hunters with the expertise to kill large numbers of wolves.


5. so your cousin with 600 acres.... how many animals has he lost that were definitely to the wolves? My friend lives in Montana as well and has never even seen a wolf! He doesn't own that many acres, but he has lived all over that state, as well as Idaho too. My mothers side of my family farmed in Idaho and some still do and no problems there either. ""
Dan 600 acres is puny there are ranches that are 10.000,,, 50.000 or 100.000 acres and bigger just to give you an idea of how big that is, there are 640 acres in a square mile(a mile one each side) some ranches are 50 square miles or more and have rivers and streams running into and out of them. Heck they put up big fences in Texas to keep Deer and exotic animals in and that doesn't work so how would you keep a wolf out?? the cost to do it is well lets say fencing in the millions of acres we're talking about is unrealistic and still wouldn't work.

6. Tell me we don't have control issues...war in Iraq cough cough, always having needs to control and regulate everything from other races of people to animals and everything else. ""
Yep just like Wolves control other wolves and keep the coyote pop. down ETC ETC.. Lots more to this than your seeing.

7. Show me how a wolf would get over an 8 foot fence that was properly constructed""
He'd go through, over, under or maybe even around. Dogs can get through the fences wolves are way way smarter. And we're not talking about getting into your back yard here we're talking about huge tracts of land.

8. prove to me that techniques such as keeping food and garbage smells to a minimum hasn't worked for years all over the world for keeping animals off your property on a regular basis(which you will not disprove, as its worked for me no problem for 10/15 years, and I know I am not the only one)"

Dan you don't live in the Wilds of anywhere you live in the North East. I've had bears tear the doors off the feed rooms to get at the horse feed. People who haven't a clue of what is really going on have some real great answers to bad they never work or are just to unfeasible to use.

9. Tell me a fence wouldn't have saved my aunts dog, because it would have."

OK a fence would have saved her dog, well maybe. What that has to do with this I don't know, we don't have to bad a problem with cars killing sheep and cattle and when they do they are totaled and easy to go after the driver to recover the cost of the animal.. Maybe the Animal rights groups should sell insurance to the wolves so they can have the companies pay off when they kill the wrong critter.

You say everything I said is garbage, yet it all seems to make sense especially by the numbers and facts, the proof is in the pudding if you take the time to read it from all sides, not just one or two. Remember there are three sides to every story, side 1, side 2, and the truth. You have to read it all and come to a conclusion based on all evidence. I am agreeing that there may be a problem, I just disagree with the proposed solution. Later, Dan M.

Dan, what numbers and facts??? those you got from a group that Griz described to a T ?? He wasn't kidding there are a number of those groups that are listed by the FBI as being Domestic Terrorist orgs.... In this day and age of the internet you can look on line and find something to support what you believe or want to believe. Doesn't make it true or right but you can find it..


Wolves are smart, they are nothing like a dog these animals think and reason and when you look into their eyes you find them looking back into yours searching for the same thing you are. And yeah I've looked into their eyes...Randy

 

[ravensgait]

Forgot about the noise makers and range riders as you called them ETC ETC they like fences cost lots of money and hey steaks cost enough already I don't think many would want to pay 30 or 50 dollars a pound for hamburger, do you?

Ranchers are running a business a very tough business that like farming has it's good years and it's really bad ones, they understand what an acceptable loss is and most don't see the wolf as an enemy heck most never have a wolf cross their land. But disregarding the needs of those that do see wolf problems is something we shouldn't do.

As for Ranchers leasing public land to graze stock on well what's the problem with that?? It's still open to the public it just has some cattle and sheep on it as well. Look up AU IE animal units. Each section of public land leased for grazing is leased out for a specific number of animals and for certain months of the year . This is done to keep the animals from over grazing the land. yeah a few like in everything break the rules but the vast majority don't and protect the land to use in the future.

In the past there have been funds for ranchers that lost animals to Grizzlies and Wolves these programs have helped but when a pack takes down say a Cow it really stresses out the other cattle in the herd and with stress comes weight loss ETC ETC and that in itself cost a rancher money.

By the way anyone who lets a Cat roam has in my book no say so in any matters dealing with wildlife. Cats destroy more wildlife in a year than all the Wolves,Coyotes, Foxes, Lions, Tigers you name it. House Cats are not a native species to North America and small animals here can't deal with these small killers. Cats have wiped out Quail and Song bird populations in some areas. They can take prey in size up to rabbits or larger and like their larger cosins have been know to kill just for the fun of it. You let your cat roam free and you have caused the death of many a wild animal. You want a Cat keep it in the house.

As in most things the answer to the Wolf problem is somewhere in the middle but we seldom wind up there. Randy

 

[Mooing Tricycle]

The ONLY fence i could even see MAYBE working, would be an electric fence. The wires they have running nowadays that you could have two to three layers of. That wouldnt cost half as much as an acutal fence fence, and might help to keep some wolves at bay. and definitely your livestock in.

It might cost you two or three prize winning cattle, but it could be done.... maybe. ( the price is only a guess cause i dont know how much that stuff costs on normal farms. let alone a massive ranch)

Thats about the ONLY thing i could see POSSIBLY working, but then, youd probably have to have something like a repeater ( or whatever you might call it, i dont know...lol) going too, for the long expanses of wire cause i dont know how strong the electricity would be after say, five miles of fenced in land. and THOSE would get expensive no doubt.
But you would also have to make it so the wolves couldnt jump over, or through the wires, or dig under them too.

 

[fuscusking13]

This is my final post here simply because everyone including myself is just repeating the same things over and over. First off to Randy, your last sentence on your last post could not have been better stated, truer words were never spoken. As for the Cat thing, I hate cats, but that one came with the house(left behind by previous resident) and my dog adored her so she got to stay (much to my dismay). Their relationship was quite pathetic, the cat actually went out to the bathroom with the dog, they ate together, it was terrible. Also that cat never killed anything in its life. I had a free roaming hamster that lived in the house and only went in his cage to eat, go to the bathroom, and occasionally sleep(although he usually slept on the dog bed with the cat). I also had leopard geckos, a ferret, 3 birds(who were all out during the day...an umbrella cockatoo, a sun conure and a lovebird) the two dogs, numerous snakes, and rabbits, and last but not least my pygmy goat scooter, none of which the cat ever bothered, she slept with the rabbits too in their pen in the garage, and out in their hutch outside. Mind you not all of these animals belonged to me, many were rescues and a few belonged to my roomate. Point being what some cats do aren't what they all do, and not to mention the cat came with the house, what am I supposed to do kill it? The agreement was I let it stay and my roomate was responsible for it. Anyways all in all she was an awesome cat, and I almost miss her, but not quite lol. My dog has since passed last year(it will be a year August 3rd ) so I would never take the cat back or any other cat for that matter. I don't care for animals that destroy the house/furniture. I hope that a reasonable solution is reached that can at least keep everyone reasonably satisfied, and people on all sides of the argument can come together on middle ground somewhere and compromise, its just unfortunate that those who's lives are on the line have no voice in the argument. I thank you all for an exciting debate/ and discusion as it has been interesting to see where some others here stand on something I am very passionate about. Oh and to whomever said that guard dogs cant watch large herds, do a little research first...those dogs were bred for that exact purpose and have a notorious rep for killing wolves, bears, lions, coyotes, and others as thats what they are/were bred to do, keep their herds safe for the last 6k years or so. People depended on these dogs to protect their livelihoods, and they seemed to do alright with out helicopters and gunning down all threats. I find it hard to believe also that you happen to know three breeders of one of the rarest purebred dogs in the US (around maybe, and this is a stretch 20 breeders of them in the country, and last I checked they were number 111 out of 154 registered at the time, 2006, with 380 total dogs, labs being number one with almost 124k, but now there are 157 breeds, so I am not sure exactly where they fall, I'd have to check, but 2007 numbers wont be available till the year is over) but stranger things have happened. Don't take that as me calling you a liar, as I have never met you face to face and wouldn't dare make such an accusation, just seems odd to me that further into discussion you happen to know a good percentage of the breeders in the country, but anythings possible. Also I am not sure if the Bush thing is directed at me, I know its a local thing, but on the grand scheme of things Bush cares not for the environment which he has proved time and again thru various actions, I know he has nothing to do with this, but I am pretty sure he would gun one down himself given the chance. Just my 2 cents(if its even worth that much). Everyone have a fantastic and safe weekend... I don't have to work so I know I am beyond ready to relax!!!!!!! If someone cares to discuss further pm me and we can talk via phone, or email or pm whatever. Take care as always, Dan M.

 

[Wolfy-hound]

The electric fence is less expensive yes, but it won't usually keep wolves(or dogs) out very well. Usually electric fences for dogs is actually a regular fence with electric to keep them from digging. Miles and miles of electric fencing is a lot of work to keep up, and when it gets covered in snow, it's kind of useless.
Fencing wolves out just isn't really easy at all. Fencing wolves out of thousands of acres is less easy in the extreme.
I talked to 3(three!) breeders of Anatolian Shepards at dog shows in Florida. I could care less about what percentage of breeders you see touted in the AKC numbers, but the Anatolian Shepard has only recently(in terms of breeds) been listed as an AKC breed, but they've been bred here for quite some time. I've talked to no less than a dozen OWNERS of Anatolian Shepards, they are FAR from the rarest breed of dog in this country. They were bred to help a Shepard herd and protect a herd. Not to patrol hundred of acres. They do quite well when accompanieing a human shepard, or when patrolling a fenced area(even if the area is 30 acres), but they are not to run around in several square miles.
Herd protection dogs protect a contained herd, normally only with a human shepard. The cattle "herds" are not a group like you'd see on a drive. They are scattered far and wide over a large area. Herd protection dogs do quite well against lone coyotes.. and can chase away wolves... but not always. Wolf packs have been known to go for lone dogs delibritely, whether for food or for territorial defense isn't always known.
You're right. You know nothing of me. I won't take your words as you calling me a liar. But I don't make up stuff, just because I haven't listed my life out to you in full first, doesn't mean that it hasn't happened in my life. I've worked both with large animals(including cows, horses, deer, and some exotics, including emu and to a much lesser extant ostrich) and extensively with dogs(some with wolves, hybrids, coyotes, and once a hyena- it stank) and cats(including some exotics) and for the record.. I raised seahorses, and once trained a goldfish to swim through a hoop on command. So I hope I can add my opinion to the mix, since I base it off personal experiance and that of people who have also worked with said animals, and worked in rural type areas.
I'd like to add, this is one of the best discussion of the wolf issue I've participated in, as most descend into the "murderers of the majestic wolf" vs the "tree-hugging hippies" mentality very quickly. I thank all participants for their additionsof knowledge and opinion.
Wolfy

 

[Mooing Tricycle]

The electric fence is less expensive yes, but it won't usually keep wolves(or dogs) out very well. Usually electric fences for dogs is actually a regular fence with electric to keep them from digging. Miles and miles of electric fencing is a lot of work to keep up, and when it gets covered in snow, it's kind of useless.

Ive never heard of electric fences to keep dogs from digging though... just to keep them in and those usually come with a shock collar if they get too close, Zap. but thats the home use one, and entirely different from what im talking about.

i agree that any fence would be useless.
BUT just to explain my idea better, and to point out another thought, that i dont know if snow would bother it much. these are wires that are suspended in the air, and have a currant running through them at a regular interval ( usually one jolt every 5-10 seconds) its mostly used for cattle and horses, to keep them from going outside of the fencing, like they would with wooden fencing to get at the extra grass on the other side. This stops that, and keeps them from breaking the fencing, by leaning on it.

i would think, eve ONE wire, if the wolves were to brush up against it, it would act as a deterrant more than anything else. definitely not something to keep them out if they WANTED to get in though. but that kind of fencing might help save a few stray cows from leaving the area.

But for a hungry pack of wolves, it would be as useless as one of those Jacobs ladder toys ^_-


Nothing is going to stop the wolves. regardless. if they are hungry they are going to eat, and nothing can curb that instinct.

Managing the populations is not wrong, and i feel that again, government would be much more regulated than private hunters. i Highly doubt that they are just going to be gunned down by the pack, and that organizations like the ones this article was written by, are just making it more extreme to try and catch a larger audience that does not go to look for information on their own, and make whole, a partial picture.

 

[Griz]

Managing the populations is not wrong, and i feel that again, government would be much more regulated than private hunters.

FYI, your concerns over regulating hunters are ill conceived. "Real" hunters would never tag more then allowed, would never knowingly break the laws etc. What you described earlier are what we call poachers. HUGE DIFFERENCE.

Griz

 

[ravensgait]

LOL Griz funny how they get those two confused.

As for electric fence it is used all the time and can be run for miles and miles off a single charger. It wont keep anything out that wants to get in and the wire can't be run too close to the ground. They can handle weeds ETC touching the wire but any solid object that grounds it IE touches wire and ground interupts the current and the hot wire is then useless .. In long runs of wire it is used mounted in insulators on the top of the fence. For the Hot wire to work the animal that comes in contact with it must be touching the ground when it contacts the wire. And just a weird bit of info all strung wire gives off a high pitched humm that dogs can hear that's why they seldom run into fences at night they can hear them.. Saw this demonstrated with a blind dog was really strange that the dog knew the fences were there, another piece of useless info lol.. Randy

 

[Mooing Tricycle]

FYI, your concerns over regulating hunters are ill conceived. "Real" hunters would never tag more then allowed, would never knowingly break the laws etc. What you described earlier are what we call poachers. HUGE DIFFERENCE.

Griz

No not always, There are many hunters that i know, that if they had seen a doe, or a buck, and had actually been hunting for one other other, because the other quota was already filled, they still take the does in ( or buck) if it was a good sized animal.

they are not poachers going to different states to legally get permits for that state to harvest a deer or whatever the out of state limit is. BUT they are also no poachers by taking an extra doe or buck than they were technically allowed for the season. Not everyone goes to the weigh station after every kill either, so whos to prove that others do, or dont do it. If its just a chance thing, i see nothing wrong with it.

HUGE DIFFERENCE than somone setting traps out of season, baiting, and taking way way more than they are allowed to take.
An EPO would more than likely look the other way if an extra deer was taken, or not tagged and they came across the person during the season. probably give out a stiff warning, but not much more unless the person was known for it.
people that are hunting out of season and obviously harvesting more deer than legally fair in that state are very very very different than the normal hunter who happens upon a good sized animal in his path during the season.

 

[Wolfy-hound]

To me if you take a non-legal animal it's poaching.
If you got your buck, and you see another and you shoot it, it's poaching. Going out of state is fine with me, each state has regulations as to how many deer can be taken. It doesn't really matter if one person shoots ten deer or if ten people each shoot one deer. (Each, lol, just had the image of ten people argueing over who killed it).
That's still ten deer, and that's the end result. My uncles and cousins go hunting and I'd guesstimate they harvest about 5 deer each average. How is that bad, when all the deer are taken legally?
And I was talking about the fencing that you speak of, but people use it also to keep dogs from digging out of the regular fencing. Otherwise I've not seen it stopping dogs. The regular electric fences for cows/horses never seemed to stop dogs around here. I was "told" that the dog's hair tended to insulate them, so as long as they just ducked under it, and didn't touch a nose or anything to it, it never seemed to bug them.

 

[Cat_72]

No not always, There are many hunters that i know, that if they had seen a doe, or a buck, and had actually been hunting for one other other, because the other quota was already filled, they still take the does in ( or buck) if it was a good sized animal.

they are not poachers going to different states to legally get permits for that state to harvest a deer or whatever the out of state limit is. BUT they are also no poachers by taking an extra doe or buck than they were technically allowed for the season. Not everyone goes to the weigh station after every kill either, so whos to prove that others do, or dont do it. If its just a chance thing, i see nothing wrong with it.

HUGE DIFFERENCE than somone setting traps out of season, baiting, and taking way way more than they are allowed to take.
An EPO would more than likely look the other way if an extra deer was taken, or not tagged and they came across the person during the season. probably give out a stiff warning, but not much more unless the person was known for it.
people that are hunting out of season and obviously harvesting more deer than legally fair in that state are very very very different than the normal hunter who happens upon a good sized animal in his path during the season.

By law, anyone taking a deer they are not licensed to take IS poaching, and I fail to see how you can differentiate. There were about 160,000 deer legally killed in Iowa last year....just think, if everyone who legally killed a deer "just by chance" decided to shoot that extra animal...160,000 more deer is "no big deal"? Then you get those who don't report what they've killed and don't happen to get caught, how many more deer do you suppose that adds up to, and still "no big deal"?

I can't speak for other states besides Iowa and Minnesota, but there is NO chance a DNR/EPO officer would even THINK about "looking the other way" if they find someone poaching. In Iowa, it's a minimum $1,500.00 fine, plus up to $20,000 damages payable to the state for poaching ONE deer. Just ONE. And they enforce it, strictly and to the letter of the law.

And as Griz said, a REAL hunter wouldn't even consider poaching. If most of the hunters you know are the kind that would shoot more than their limit just because the chance arose...then they aren't real hunters and shouldn't be doing it to begin with. Real hunters are just as concerned with the conservation and protection of the animal they hunt as a whole as they are with the hunt itself, and want to preserve that chance for future generations.

Every hunter I know follows the laws as well, and if I knew someone who "just by chance" took an extra deer, I'd be the first in line to turn them in for poaching.

 

[Griz]

Dang it Cat, I wanted to rip the post apart but alas, you did a great job!

Alicia, it's possible that you need to reconsider who you call friends if this is their behavior. They are P.O.A.C.H.E.R.S not hunters. Taking an animal without a tag is poaching, plain and simple.

Griz