hillbillyhunter1

Sorry Pa,

But that is the statement that is totally ridiculous. Like ALL animals that are not hunted--they will quickly lose their fear of man.

Have you ever seen deer within a state park??? The ones that will stand around on the golf course??? You think they would do that in the national forest?? It is common sense.

Nobody is saying exterminate the wolves. They are a beautiful creature and part of nature. What I'm saying is that there has to be MUCH consideration before RE-introducing a top predator into an ecosystem that has been devoid of that for so long. Wolves will and are having major impact in their re-introduction areas. Worse is the current situation in which the Western states want to manage them according to a specific plan which includes hunting, yet are prohibited by some ALL ENCOMPASSING GRAND PLAN OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

It would be wise for you to do your own research by asking some of the members here who happen to live in states where this plan has been put into effect what they think. Then you will get some genuine first hand experience on the observation of impact by the Wolf.

I ask again---Should we re-introduce wolves into PA (part of their original range) ????????

Pa Trophy Man

Hillbillyhunter, i am speaking of predators in reference to that statement. There is nothing that shows predators (wolves,bears,cougars etc.) have a better chance of attacking humans where they are protected versus where they are hunted (please provide me with some proof to that). AGAIN, im am not advoacting releasing wolves everywhere they once were, because it is simply not possible as many of the places they once occupied no longer exist in there previous state. If someone, with a lot more training and education than me determined wolves could survive in a certain area in Pa, then i certainly wouldn't be opposed to them being reintroduced. (maybe the Allegheny National Forest? but again im not biologist). The whole point im getting at with this thread, is that its going to upset alot of people, and possibly motivate them to shoot every wolf they see, which isnt the answer. I believe alot more can be done to make the current situation in the Western states better, but again these wolves certainly don't know the difference between killing someone's pet or a wild animal. Again, everything im finding is showing that we (people) should fear being attacked by the neighbors golden retriever, more than they should a wolf. But, i still ask the question do you believe animals have a right to exist even if they have an occasional clash with the interets of man?

livbucks

I respect your opinion but do not share it PA Trophy Man. I understand where you are coming from. I think wolves are a very grand and mysterious animal myself and in a perfect world (by our standard of basis) we could walk out the back and witness their grand beauty at will. I know that in the real world this would never fly though, and that is where my opinion is based. If I could wave a magic wand and make it possible I would, but I possess no such wand. I have spoken along side you on several threads and believe you to be a very dedicated outdoorsman, of the highest ethics. We just disagree on this one, as you said before.

livbucks

Care to hear my thoughts on this one or does someone else want to take it? I'll just say I disagree here too.

hillbillyhunter1

Predators are no different than any other animal in their habituation towards man if left un-harassed--It's common sense. I'm sure there are few if any bona-fied studies to accentuate this point as there are few (other than the hunters themselves) who would want to bestow any positive aspects on the activity of hunting---One reason why the Wolf issue, from the federal standpoint, is so far off the mark and the subject of much debate.

Unlike members of PETA et al, I know that animals have NO inherent rights. However, as a true outdoorsman and friend of the natural world, I believe that all animals should be allowed to exist in their natural environment if at all possible and those environments should be guarded jealously by those that care about such things (like hunters and fisherman).

I love animals and love observing them and being part of the natural world as I hope all on here do (there is nothing better), but I don't think that has anything to do with my objection to the way the Canadian gray wolf has been re-introduced and is currently managed in our Western States. I hope that you will continue to do your own research on this subject and cannot more strongly urge you to talk with resident hunters of those states so that you may gain more insight into the problems now currently faced out there.

hillbillyhunter1

Not only re-introduced, but fully protected.

I'm sure they would all soon starve to death as there are no more deer in PA

I think this statement above is absolutely crazy and spoken with little understanding of the potential impacts--luckily it can only be made as a pure hypothetical bluff anyway.

No offense.

Take care

Pa Trophy Man

Livbucks, im glad i didn't rub you the wrong way on this debate. I've been around the board since 2001 under a few different handles and over the last year i've started doing alot more reading than posting because it seems you can't debate anything with out in turning into a naming calling, pissing match anymore. Im glad there are still a few guys around who can have a good debate without it turning personal. Best of luck in the deer woods this fall.

No offense taken, im not at all adovacting reintroducing them here (Pa) as i believe the habitat no longer exists to sustain them. Purely sightingANF as an example, of the only large tract of land i could think of and i don't personally have the education or experience to determine whether or not there is any place left in Pa that could sustain them (thats all i was trying to say in answering your question about whether or not they should be reintroduced here).

I am not sure if your comparing me to a member of peta or not but just in case your way off base. I would agree animals don't possess inherent rights but i do believe we have a duty (to ourselves and future generations) to preserve and protect them wherever possible. The way we treat animals in alot of ways is related to our treatment of each other.

Maybe i am having trouble finding it, however i cannot find anything that substanties this point anywhere on the web. If you could put me in the direction of such a study i would be glad to read it.
Something most people might tend to overlook, is that in areas animals are heavily hunted there numbers tend to be alot lower than areas where they are protected and this creatly descreases the odds they will even encounter a human, thus decreases the chances a predation situation might ever occur. In areas where they are protected obviously they may have a higher population which would increase the chance of human/predator encounter but again i can't find anything that proves that puts you at any higher risk of being attacked.

Buckshot

Pa Trophy, whens the last time you heard of someone being killed by a bear outside a national park? Grizzlys kill people in yellowstone and glacier, black bears killed people in Algonqin (sp) and just this last one in a park in Tennessee. There hasent been anyone killed in PA, mmm thats right we shoot them here. If really baffels me that you need a study to show that when animals are harrased by humans they learn to fear them. Heck it doesnt take a pen raised pheasant long to learn that humans are bad news. I havnet seen a study saying the sun will come up every morning either but dang it there it is, day after day.

Phil from Maine

I have to agree with livbucks I have no problem with wolves being where they were before the stocking program took place. They should of been left where they were and not placed any place else. I feel there home was where they were at, not where anyone wants them at.There is a reason why they were all but wiped out. I have heard in Michigan they have had their share of problems too. So why would anyone want these problems brought on all over again. There is a saying that history repeats itself.

Pa Trophy Man

Buckshot, if you'll do a little bit of reading concerning grizzlys you shall see they don't exist in the US outside of the national parks (or its believed that they are extremely rare outside of these places), those are the last habitats that still support them. What your implying is that if people were to regular hunt grizzlies, its going to habitualize them to fear people which simply isn't the case. For example, killing a bear that frequents a campground in Yellowstone is going to have no bearing whatever on another grizzly 5 miles away in the same park. To imply that it would, is suggesting they are communicating with each other? I am not saying that animals don't fear humans if they have a bad experience, but it doesn't go beyond that particular individual animal. So you kill a few bears, that isn't teaching the rest of them to be afraid of people because they are solitary animals. The truth is, bear or wolves for that matter rarely attack people, you stand a much better chance of dying in a car accident on the way to the woods than you do getting attacked when you get there.

Your are right though, the few bear attacks that do occur do happen in those areas that you stated because those are the only bears left, so naturally they aren't going to occur in places where they don't exist. Here's a link to a map showing the current home ranges of Grizzlies.

http://www.cmiae.org/grizzlyinfo.htm