Thank goodness, BC is culling wolves

elker

elker

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Location
Vancouver Island, BC
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-wolf-cull-will-likely-last-5-years-assistant-deputy-minister-says-1.2952556


B.C. wolf cull will likely last 5 years, assistant deputy minister says
Critics say culls are ineffective and cruel

Assistant deputy minister Tom Ethier told CBC News the 180 wolves being shot from helicopter in the South Peace and South Selkirk regions this winter are just the beginning.

"We've been pretty clear this is a five-year project," Ethier said. "We're going to be doing this for the next five years. At the end of those five years, we're going to do that analysis as to whether this effort was worth it."

All hails to the sharpshooters
 
okanagan199 said:
hunters don't have a big enough impact.
Click to expand...

We will continue to do what we can.
2 winters ago the cattleman's association in fort st john area was offering 650 a wolf, skinned or not. We bumped into several guys with frozen wolves in their pickup boxes while up there for late feb elk draw. Sadly I didn't get any wolves of my own to pad the trip cost LOL
 
Full credit to Rain Coast. They have raised $70,000 from the anti's on the back of this cull with no mention of how they are going to spend it.
 
They opened up seasons to No Closed Season and No Bag Limit a few years ago. Doesn't change a thing as wolves are very smart and not easy to hunt. Nobody was limiting out before then.

Should've put the birds in the air then. Too late now in my opinion, but can't hurt to try and save what's left of BC game.

Although the way the BC liberals are selling off the game/giving all the game allocations to the guides, it might not matter what's left for the residents of BC if nothing changes soon. But that's a whole different subject.
 
eatredmeat157 said:
No money in it? Get your trapping licence. You can clear 500$ before you take the skin off. Bounty is offered
Click to expand...
you can buy a license but where can you get a line in a decent area so you can trap? I have looked for years and know of many that are never run by the owners, they use it as a status symbol more than anything.

The 650 the cattlemans association puts up is a good start, get the province to match it for all types of hunting and we would be on to something.
 
Brian46 said:
you can buy a license but where can you get a line in a decent area so you can trap? I have looked for years and know of many that are never run by the owners, they use it as a status symbol more than anything.

The 650 the cattlemans association puts up is a good start, have the province match it and we would be on to something.
Click to expand...

Is true on the status symbol.
Keep in mind you don't need to own a trap line.
You can trap anywhere you can get written permission from a landowner.
 
Drillbit said:
Should've put the birds in the air then. Too late now in my opinion, but can't hurt to try and save what's left of BC game...
Click to expand...

This is just alarmism or sensationalism... it is not grounded in biological fact...

Wolves cannot destroy "all game..." the symbiotic relationship of predator and prey is such that their populations are their own control... they have been coexisting for thousands of years, long before helicopters and guns... there are a few isolated cases where a small bio-zone might become unbalanced, the larger picture would take care of the small region on its own, but we humans become very alarmed when the purple spotted tree frog or the three toed woodland reindeer become threatened... we feel the need to jump in to rectify the apparent imbalance, what we usually discover is that we create a bigger problem somewhere else in the ecosystem... they say hind sight is 20-20... apparently not.

Before I get labelled a "bunny hugger" I should say that I am in favour of predator control... but lets be honest, we don't do it to save "all" God's little creatures... we do it so that there are healthy populations of desirable species (also called "game").
 
hoytcanon said:
This is just alarmism or sensationalism... it is not grounded in biological fact...

Wolves cannot destroy "all game..." the symbiotic relationship of predator and prey is such that their populations are their own control... they have been coexisting for thousands of years, long before helicopters and guns... there are a few isolated cases where a small bio-zone might become unbalanced, the larger picture would take care of the small region on its own, but we humans become very alarmed when the purple spotted tree frog or the three toed woodland reindeer become threatened... we feel the need to jump in to rectify the apparent imbalance, what we usually discover is that we create a bigger problem somewhere else in the ecosystem... they say hind sight is 20-20... apparently not.

Before I get labelled a "bunny hugger" I should say that I am in favour of predator control... but lets be honest, we don't do it to save "all" God's little creatures... we do it so that there are healthy populations of desirable species (also called "game").
Click to expand...

Yep. Predator culls are exercises in optics, and usually not biologically sound. Basically they are attempts to rectify what we perceive as a problem ( for which we are the culprits) that often result in larger problems down the road. Predators that wipe out their food sources don't last long, and since wolves and their prey sources have been around for some time, it's not something they are in the habit of doing. On the other hand, herbivores without predators soon eat themselves out of suitable habitat, and then begin to starve while destroying their surroundings; like at Rondeau Provincial Park a number of years ago. Nature is best left without our interference as a "helpful fixer".
 
Chuckbuster said:
Yep. Predator culls are exercises in optics, and usually not biologically sound. Basically they are attempts to rectify what we perceive as a problem ( for which we are the culprits) that often result in larger problems down the road. Predators that wipe out their food sources don't last long, and since wolves and their prey sources have been around for some time, it's not something they are in the habit of doing. On the other hand, herbivores without predators soon eat themselves out of suitable habitat, and then begin to starve while destroying their surroundings; like at Rondeau Provincial Park a number of years ago. Nature is best left without our interference as a "helpful fixer".
Click to expand...

where exactly in the entire world would it be possible for nature to be left alone. With logging, mining, oil exploration going on and ATV's, skiers and snowmachines running around all over the place it is not a perceived problem it is a problem and I don't believe for one minute that a species can not be wiped out by wolves because of this.
Nature was screwed when the first man came on the scene.
 
old hound said:
where exactly in the entire world would it be possible for nature to be left alone. With logging, mining, oil exploration going on and ATV's, skiers and snowmachines running around all over the place it is not a perceived problem it is a problem and I don't believe for one minute that a species can not be wiped out by wolves because of this.
Nature was screwed when the first man came on the scene.
Click to expand...

Never suggested it was feasible anywhere in particular. Just stated an observation. Also, do you have any documented evidence of any species driven to extinction specifically by wolves?

Many people simply want predators gone from or severely limited within their environment because of a visceral dislike, or the belief that they (wolves) are killing their (people) deer or other "desirable" wildlife. Yes, there are problems with wolves and livestock in areas where they come into contact, but, that is to be expected; all wildlife-farming/domestic animal interactions or contacts won't be benign, there are also plenty of problems with deer and crops as well.
 
Chuckbuster said:
Never suggested it was feasible anywhere in particular. Just stated an observation. Also, do you have any documented evidence of any species driven to extinction specifically by wolves?

Many people simply want predators gone from or severely limited within their environment because of a visceral dislike, or the belief that they (wolves) are killing their (people) deer or other "desirable" wildlife. Yes, there are problems with wolves and livestock in areas where they come into contact, but, that is to be expected; all wildlife-farming/domestic animal interactions or contacts won't be benign, there are also plenty of problems with deer and crops as well.
Click to expand...

We cannot look to history for proof wolves can eliminate a species, because nowhere in history have wolves had an abundant artificial, propped up food source to multiply on. Ranching and farming provide easy meals for wolves when they would otherwise starve to death from low prey numbers.

Radio collar's confirmed something over 30% of adult mortalities in the herd were wolves.

This is a last ditch effort to save a herd. It is by no means optimum wildlife management. Then again, I don't think a "leave it to nature" approach is valid given mankind's impact on the ecology.
 
Chuckbuster said:
Never suggested it was feasible anywhere in particular. Just stated an observation. Also, do you have any documented evidence of any species driven to extinction specifically by wolves?

Many people simply want predators gone from or severely limited within their environment because of a visceral dislike, or the belief that they (wolves) are killing their (people) deer or other "desirable" wildlife. Yes, there are problems with wolves and livestock in areas where they come into contact, but, that is to be expected; all wildlife-farming/domestic animal interactions or contacts won't be benign, there are also plenty of problems with deer and crops as well.
Click to expand...
When there are problems with deers, we have deer culls. For example, deer cull in saanich.
When there are problems with wolves, we have wolf culls. For example, BC government is doing it.
When we have problems with "brain dead" hunters, we try to talk them out of confusion. For example, we are helping you.
 
mathil said:
We cannot look to history for proof wolves can eliminate a species, because nowhere in history have wolves had an abundant artificial, propped up food source to multiply on. Ranching and farming provide easy meals for wolves when they would otherwise starve to death from low prey numbers.

Radio collar's confirmed something over 30% of adult mortalities in the herd were wolves.

This is a last ditch effort to save a herd. It is by no means optimum wildlife management. Then again, I don't think a "leave it to nature" approach is valid given mankind's impact on the ecology.
Click to expand...

So, yes; to my knowledge as well, wolves have never eliminated any species anywhere at any time (unlike the species that blames them for extinctions). Yes, livestock does provide an easy source of food for wolves, and nobody denies that: negative livestock/crop-wildlife interactions are a common problem wherever they meet. However, the object of saving a particular population of ungulates may or may not have merit as the population may inevitably be on it's way out due to resource depletion/habitat change or competing species, genetic isolation, or any of a myriad number of other reasons. Killing off Species A to save Species B won't necessarily (and probably won't) yield the desired results and runs a greater risk of throwing an ecosystem into even greater imbalance.

You are right; it is not an ideal wildlife management practice. And, given our interference in the natural order of things, it does sometimes behoove us to intervene. However, before we do anything drastic, we need to ensure that the ripple effect doesn't make things worse...and making things better for us in terms of hunting opportunities at the expense of the ecosystem and habitat is not a good thing; the system will inevitably crash and take all hunting opportunities with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom