CBC poll on culling wolves- needs yes votes

Yes. 42.63% (1,099 votes)

No. 54.93% (1,416 votes)

I'm not sure. 2.44% (63 votes)

Total Votes: 2,578

The gap is narrowing a bit.
 
Superbrad said:
With all due respect, what makes us all as hunters think that it is a good idea to cull wolves based on the fact that the tar sands have lowered the caribou numbers?.... I am not anti wolf hunting but fail to see where a "cull" is required.... it isn't as if what is causing them to outnumber the caribou is natural.... we brought this s**t on ourselves with the tar sands........ keep the regular hunt going and let nature take it's course for the rest...
Click to expand...

This is new to me. Where did you get this info?
 
Nothing disheartens me more than the sound of wolves howling when I am hunting moose.
I hear all kinds of coyote bashing everywhere. I personally don't have a problem with them. But I am in competition with wolves. Sometimes those bastards kill for fun. I eat what I shoot, they don't allways.
Wolves are having a decimating effect on moose in northern BC. I want a cull.

I don't trust the CBC using emotion to poll anything, esecially OUR STUFF.
The BC NDP used emotion to ban grizzly hunting. Now it's all limited entry.
This stuff needs to be based on science.

I don't trust the CBC and will not be tricked into voting. They will use this info as a statistic somehow.TWK
 
Breathes there the man with soul so dead that he is not thrilled to hear wolves howling from time to time during a moose hunt or whatever?? To me it is an important part of the whole hunting experience.:)

With all of that, if there are too many then of course there must be a scientifically managed cull based on sound wildlife management data and principles.:(

I don't support wholesale eradication and especially not poisoning.:mad:
 
id need a bit more info than that article provides to choose yes or no.

is this an actual case of an over population of wolves or yet another instance where humans are looking to knockout another predator for their own benefit?
 
What exactly are you all basing your vote on? The last thing hunters need is to express ignorance of the forces which shape our wildlife populations so aggressively.

Go do a bit of research on linear development and fragmentation and then decide what is threatening the caribou populations in western canada. Just make sure you sort out the 'academics' working on the oil man's dime ( I have read some recent MOELP partnership works that are sadly embarrassing)

Would I shoot wolves? Dam yeah cause wolf hides are cool, skulls look great on the mantle and the regs say go for it. Would I have ill informed, ignorant, emotional public opinion influence the management of complex crown resources? F no.
 
Lex said:
Breathes there the man with soul so dead that he is not thrilled to hear wolves howling from time to time during a moose hunt or whatever?? To me it is an important part of the whole hunting experience.:)

With all of that, if there are too many then of course there must be a scientifically managed cull based on sound wildlife management data and principles.:(

I don't support wholesale eradication and especially not poisoning.:mad:
Click to expand...

Please tell us then, what is your version of a cull?
 
david doyle said:
What exactly are you all basing your vote on? The last thing hunters need is to express ignorance of the forces which shape our wildlife populations so aggressively.

Go do a bit of research on linear development and fragmentation and then decide what is threatening the caribou populations in western canada. Just make sure you sort out the 'academics' working on the oil man's dime ( I have read some recent MOELP partnership works that are sadly embarrassing)

Would I shoot wolves? Dam yeah cause wolf hides are cool, skulls look great on the mantle and the regs say go for it. Would I have ill informed, ignorant, emotional public opinion influence the management of complex crown resources? F no.
Click to expand...

many of these fragmented herds are in a critical situation and how they have come to this is a open book but things have gone to far as the experts point fingers of why it happened.......why was 50 years ago.. what is to do now to save the remnant herds is the discussion today for to replace what once was will take a century or two.

the need for public support to manage wolves in the caribou areas has been initiated from the managers down rather then the reverse. Those who manage the crown are in the precarious position of being subject to the public's political vote rather then sound science. No high position authority will give permission to what has been recomended by experts for it is political suicide without strong public support.

what you have is managers and a staff of bioligists with payed positons who report to authority's with sound numbers but are vetoed by public sentiment.

this is why the discussion right now....vetoed recomendations regarding development in Caribou habitat supported by strong public sentiment at the time.
 
I didn't vote...and I won't.

I support hunting and trapping wolves. I even support poisoning them. But I have a problem with the "culling wolves to save caribou" here in Alberta. It's a money drain...the caribou are toast. Forestry, and Oil&Gas development isn't going to stop...and even if it did in the critical caribou areas it would take years of restoration to make the habitat "caribou friendly" again. The current condition of the habitat tips the odds in favour of wolves. There are some areas in the province though where quality habitat can be conserved...but I am not going to hold my breath for it. Alberta's caribou will be just a memory in the not so distant future....let's get on with our lives already and use the "wolf cull" money for some real conservation/hunting opportunity enhancement projects.
 
oneskilledshooter said:
You guys do realize that they are using poison, right? There are a lot of animals that are killed by the poison along with the wolves.

I will vote no and I encourage you all to reconsider.
Click to expand...

Research poison for wildlife control. As far as I can understand the poison is a substance called 1080, which is a biodegradable substance. It takes a low does of 1080 to kill canines....whch means they are more susceptible to it than other critters (felines, birds) although I think the weasel family gets hit pretty hard by it...but I could be wrong there.

In one recent article on wolf culling there was mention of strychnine but I am pretty sure that was a mistake...I though strychnine has been banned from use for quite some time.
 
Guys, I don't like to blow my own horn. (Honest)
But, I participated in the great wolf poisoning campaign of the 1950s, in BC. And yes, both strynine and 1080 poisons were used.
I have a book published and out for about six years now. In that book I have a full chapter on wolves, much of which is about the culling campaign. I explain the techniques used to ensure that very little wildlife, other than wolves, were poisoned.
If I am blowing my own horn, here is another puff.
There is not another written account of the 1950s wolf poisoning campaign by someone who was there, and actually participated in the culling program, available.
I make the above statement, partly based on what the very well known biologist and former University proffesor, Valerous Geist told me. He was in contact with me, asking questions about the program, because he said I was the only person he could find who had participated in the program and had a written account of it, and he was after first hand information on it. Here is the publishers link that goes directly to my book.
http://www.hancockhouse.com/products/outbus_r2.htm
 
H4831 said:
Guys, I don't like to blow my own horn. (Honest)
But, I participated in the great wolf poisoning campaign of the 1950s, in BC. And yes, both strynine and 1080 poisons were used.
I have a book published and out for about six years now. In that book I have a full chapter on wolves, much of which is about the culling campaign. I explain the techniques used to ensure that very little wildlife, other than wolves, were poisoned.
If I am blowing my own horn, here is another puff.
There is not another written account of the 1950s wolf poisoning campaign by someone who was there, and actually participated in the culling program, available.
I make the above statement, partly based on what the very well known biologist and former University proffesor, Valerous Geist told me. He was in contact with me, asking questions about the program, because he said I was the only person he could find who had participated in the program and had a written account of it, and he was after first hand information on it. Here is the publishers link that goes directly to my book.
http://www.hancockhouse.com/products/outbus_r2.htm
Click to expand...

Ok. I have ordered your book because it sounds like interesting firsthand history. Respectfully, I think I will still do some research into what present day wildlife managers think of 1950's style wolf management before I decide what sounds reasonable in today's game.

Note that, like some of the others on this thread, I am not going to take the CBC poll seriously for all of the reasons you can probably think of.

Also, I am old enough to remember finding poison sets all around the bush back in "the good old days". Even then I thought there ought to be a better way.

With all of that there is getting to be an awful lot more wolves around here than there used to be and it may well be time for a reduction in the wolf population. (And no! You may not tell my wife that I said this!);)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom