Thank goodness, BC is culling wolves

I have never heard of this particular program, but I am familiar with attempts at wolf eradication in Algonquin Park, and the results of wolf/predator eradication in southern Ontario. In both cases, ungulate populations exploded and either have crashed or are crashing with many animals starving due to complete ecosystem destruction by the sheer number of herbivores which is far above the carrying capacity of their environment. As someone said earlier, this is not the Serengetti and removal of predators often gives the optics of desired results but actually makes things worse for the ecosystem.

EDIT: In reading further on the matter, I see continued mention of habitat degradation and fragmentation due to logging, forestry and development; making it easier for wolves to locate prey. So, in essence, it is a problem people have created and for which we will make another species pay the bill; wolves will be killed for humans having made it easier to be wolves. Again, legal and ethical hunting of wolves is one thing, but slaughter to fix a problem we have created, or at least are largely responsible for is, well, wrong and unethical.

if we have created the problem, do you not think it is our responsibility as well to help put things back into something approaching a balance?
 
if we have created the problem, do you not think it is our responsibility as well to help put things back into something approaching a balance?

Yes, I do think we have a responsibility to try and correct some of the damage we have done, when and where we can; which is partly why we have the art and science of wildlife management. But, I have a difficult time with corrections that involve removing a native species that has a long existing ecological relationship with a second species, to try and save a population of the latter that is clearly failing due to our actions...it's akin to two wrongs not making a right; at least to my thinking, anyway.

In the end, I fully understand why some managers think culls will work, and why some people support them, and, I understand their reasons for doing so. But, at the same time, one is also free to disagree with the reasons behind the decision, and the decision itself, for whatever reason. I happen to fall in the latter group with regard to culls, not because I'm a soft in the head Hippie, but because in most cases, I don't agree with the science.
 
Last edited:
Wolves are not that smart, I ran one over in the dark with a pick-up truck back before Christmas. I left him on the side of the road as I didn't have a tag to possess a wolf. I drove by the site an hour later; his brothers and sisters had him reduced to his head and a small chunk of hide in that time.
 
Wolves are not that smart, I ran one over in the dark with a pick-up truck back before Christmas. I left him on the side of the road as I didn't have a tag to possess a wolf. I drove by the site an hour later; his brothers and sisters had him reduced to his head and a small chunk of hide in that time.

Sounds smart to me...

Reminds me of "Fish's" dream in an old Barney Miller show...
 
So, do I understand correctly: we mess things up, or it could just be be nature following it's course and either way, the solution is to kill off the wolves?

Close.

Man messes up habitat which has the unintended result of aiding the wolves to become even more efficient. Wolf population grows and ungulate populations suffer due to man.

Short term solution- knock down wolf numbers to help what remains of the caribou survive.

Long term solution- restore/improve habitat for the caribou to survive and regain a balanced ecosystem


It's pretty simple, actually.
 
Man messes up habitat which has the unintended result of aiding the wolves to become even more efficient. Wolf population grows and ungulate populations suffer due to man. Short term solution- knock down wolf numbers to help what remains of the caribou survive. Long term solution- restore/improve habitat for the caribou to survive and regain a balanced ecosystem
It's pretty simple, actually.

That's a pretty decent summary. And, yes, culls are only a short term solution.
 
So, If i read this correctly, we have messed with the ecological system, causing unbalance (in our opinion). The solution if to further mess with the system in order to create balance? This is illogical to say the least.

If we truly want balance, Leave it alone to self regulate.

You have problems with wolves predating on livestock, buy a Llama.

The government coming to this conclusion shows us how truly ignorant and dangerous they can be.
 
So, If i read this correctly, we have messed with the ecological system, causing unbalance (in our opinion). The solution if to further mess with the system in order to create balance? This is illogical to say the least.

If we truly want balance, Leave it alone to self regulate.

You have problems with wolves predating on livestock, buy a Llama.

The government coming to this conclusion shows us how truly ignorant and dangerous they can be.

If we truly were to approach the hands off practice, we would likely find that the time req'd for nature to correct itself might prove excessive. Does anyone here want to wait 4 -5 years ( guesstimate) for the wolves to die off? Decimating everything edible while they dwindle to realistic numbers?
It's like beaver populations; unchecked there would be a lots more stumps & a lot less trees. Which no-one wants.
It's about 170 years too late to say "leave it all be, it'll find it's own balance"
We are stewards of the environment whether we like it or not; for better or for worse.
 
So, If i read this correctly, we have messed with the ecological system, causing unbalance (in our opinion). The solution if to further mess with the system in order to create balance? This is illogical to say the least.

If we truly want balance, Leave it alone to self regulate.

You have problems with wolves predating on livestock, buy a Llama.

The government coming to this conclusion shows us how truly ignorant and dangerous they can be.

That is kind of humourous. There hasn't yet been a llama bred that will survive more than a pair of wolves. I live in wolf country. I work in wolf country. I kill a fair number of wolves every year.

And my neighbor used to have llamas in with his stock. As he said, on the plus side almost all of his livestock survived the first night
as the llamas went in to stomp wolves into mush like they do with the occasional coyote that gets too close to his sheep.

As he put it "its kind of like trying to fend off the amorous advances of a fat girl, by throwing cheeseburgers at her. You might take the edge off her appetite that day, but what are you going to do tomorrow when she wants more cheeseburgers?"

I don't think any of the guys on the thread that are east of say Alberta have any concept of the issue that we are facing in BC. All the guys that think when the wolves eat all the deer/sheep/elk/moose goats in one valley that they will simply lay down and starve to death to equal out the cycle are sadly mistaken. They simple hit a road or seismic line, and head out in a ground eating trot and move over 10 or 15 or 30 km until they hit another area.
 
If we truly were to approach the hands off practice, we would likely find that the time req'd for nature to correct itself might prove excessive. Does anyone here want to wait 4 -5 years ( guesstimate) for the wolves to die off? .

I would guesstimate it would be more like fifteen to twenty years.
At the time of the huge 1950s wolf poisoning program there were probably more wolves in BC than there are now and their chief big game prey species were rapidly dwindling.
But wolves are such efficient killers that the wolves stayed in excellent condition. The forty or so predator control officers stationed around the province reported such things and their reports were that virtually every wolf they saw was in great physical shape.
 
I don't think any of the guys on the thread that are east of say Alberta have any concept of the issue that we are facing in BC. All the guys that think when the wolves eat all the deer/sheep/elk/moose goats in one valley that they will simply lay down and starve to death to equal out the cycle are sadly mistaken. They simple hit a road or seismic line, and head out in a ground eating trot and move over 10 or 15 or 30 km until they hit another


Yup.

They clean out one area and keep going. The process can take years and years before nature "balances" itself.
 
I don't think any of the guys on the thread that are east of say Alberta have any concept of the issue that we are facing in BC. All the guys that think when the wolves eat all the deer/sheep/elk/moose goats in one valley that they will simply lay down and starve to death to equal out the cycle are sadly mistaken. They simple hit a road or seismic line, and head out in a ground eating trot and move over 10 or 15 or 30 km until they hit another area.

Hey! Can you guys from Manitoba give us Ontarians a heads up when the BC wolves get there... let us know when you are out of deer and moose so we can get ready... if they "are" driving a '76 Chevy Woody Wagon, try to get the plate number... we'll set up road blocks before they get to Atikokan.
 
So, If i read this correctly, we have messed with the ecological system, causing unbalance (in our opinion). The solution if to further mess with the system in order to create balance? This is illogical to say the least. If we truly want balance, Leave it alone to self regulate.

How do you propose that man extricate himself from the system? Leave Earth for another planet?
 
I don't think any of the guys on the thread that are east of say Alberta have any concept of the issue that we are facing in BC. All the guys that think when the wolves eat all the deer/sheep/elk/moose goats in one valley that they will simply lay down and starve to death to equal out the cycle are sadly mistaken. They simple hit a road or seismic line, and head out in a ground eating trot and move over 10 or 15 or 30 km until they hit another


Yup.

They clean out one area and keep going. The process can take years and years before nature "balances" itself.


I completely agree , and i'll add , wolves do not limit themselves to game animals .......

what about the poor farmers / ranchers that have their entire life savings / lifes work tied up in their herds ..... then along comes a pack of wolves , now their lifes work is devastated and they are unable to feed themselves and their families ........

then lets bring things home to the "city dwellers " ...... what are you going to do when the wolves looking for food start hunting around the outskirts of towns and cities ? pets , small children and who knows what else will serve as food to a pack of predators who have eaten everything else .
 
Yes, I do think we have a responsibility to try and correct some of the damage we have done, when and where we can; which is partly why we have the art and science of wildlife management. But, I have a difficult time with corrections that involve removing a native species that has a long existing ecological relationship with a second species, to try and save a population of the latter that is clearly failing due to our actions...it's akin to two wrongs not making a right; at least to my thinking, anyway.

In the end, I fully understand why some managers think culls will work, and why some people support them, and, I understand their reasons for doing so. But, at the same time, one is also free to disagree with the reasons behind the decision, and the decision itself, for whatever reason. I happen to fall in the latter group with regard to culls, not because I'm a soft in the head Hippie, but because in most cases, I don't agree with the science.

The issue with your statements is that wolves are not being REMOVED they are being REDUCED. Wolves are overpopulated and because many factors their population is exploding and they need to be brought into line. The pine beetle devastation made super highways for wolves and they are taking advantage and jeopardizing many animal populations in BC, not just the caribou (moose are another example).
Reducing the wolf population is not the solution but it is PART of the solution. Habitat rebuilding takes time and until that happens wolves have to be managed. Just because you like seeing wolves doesn't mean we don't need to manage them. There are only two ways to manage them effectively. Shooting them from helicopters or the more effective way (and least palatable to the general populous) is poisoning them.
And personally, I would much rather see caribou than wolves any day of the week.
 
So, If i read this correctly, we have messed with the ecological system, causing unbalance (in our opinion). The solution if to further mess with the system in order to create balance? This is illogical to say the least.

If we truly want balance, Leave it alone to self regulate.

You have problems with wolves predating on livestock, buy a Llama.

The government coming to this conclusion shows us how truly ignorant and dangerous they can be.

Guy in region 6 I was talking with this year tried to raise llamas. Lost half his animals to wolves. They may be good at scaring off a 40lb coyote but a 100-150lb wolf and several of his buddies is another story. Have you seen what wolves will do to a mature bull moose? If you want to save the wolves come and tranq them and move them into your neck of the woods fill your boots.
 
Back
Top Bottom