Why people hate wolves.

We obviously cannot exist peacefully with wolves within any reasonably close distances to human settlement or livestock without conflict that would end in dead wolves. As support for this, note that there are no wild packs of wolves that sustain pack numbers outside of either a national park or a very large wildlife management unit or a provincial crown forest. This fact is indisputable.

And there are few landowners large enough to actually support a wild free range pack of wolves, nevermind one that can grow in numbers. I would imagine someone would need hundreds of thousands of acres. Only the province can possibly have a block of land that large, even though there are several large landholders of tens of thousands of acres who would gladly provide refuge for wolves behind the safety of a fence should it so be legal to do so, many of you would still villainize these landowners for protecting the wolves within a fence. Even though you know full well the first time a wolf steps off that guys land it's dead. You guys just can't let someone have something when you can't have it.

But as it stands now, there are simply not enough private landowners who would allow wolves near them or on their lands to support wild or free range packs. This fact also explains why so few large herd animals like elk exist outside large blocks of land, typically so called "crown lands" or provincial parks, national parks etc.

No one can dispute these facts. By not allowing private landowners to derive from native or endemic wildlife some benefits or income from it they do not want to protect it. It will only be a matter of time before the crown lands, provincial parks and national parks are broken up and sold to mega corporations and every last animal will be gone. Mark my words all of you who dismiss the importance of private landowners and private investment in conservation will find empty forests with rows of only one species of tree or desolate clear cuts as well as have very bad odds of being drawn for the last few moose and elk that remain.

I would like to live in a world where a man can benefit from the resource that he protects. I am a member of the public and wildlife is provided habitat and protection on my lands but I have no rights to benefit from it. Yet someone who holds no lands, invests no money into conservation, and cares little of the actions they take against wildlife has an equal claim to use and benefit from it? Not only is that an unreasonable stance it makes no logical sense. Sorry but to turn down hundreds of millions of private conservation dollars so you can greedily shoot your draw bull with 4 inch antlers or worse yet a breeding age cow and then close a season for all because numbers are too low doesn't work for me. I proudly support private ownership of wildlife. It's better than the alternative of public ownership of no wildlife.
 
Last edited:
Is this picture real? I wonder how much that wolf would weigh?

http://www.enkivillage.com/largest-wolf.html



predator-hunting-2000s--24.jpg

They get big

And they do cause issues for hunters, we had to kill one on an elk hunt because they thought we were food. Its paw was the size of my hand

Shawn
 
Well Horshur and H4831 it appears from reading that link you are both on the money. Interesting, having read Mech's book years ago it is apparent it is time for an updated read. So these combined family groups (like on Babine Lake with 18+ packs) go home at the end of a tough day to separate dens perhaps? Do not recall the name of the wildlife documentary that focussed on wolves but one thing they mentioned; members that were not pups and not a breeding pair but adults that existed within the pack hierarchy as well. So room is made for loners without mating privileges. These were wild wolves under study. So unlike dogs a wolf ##### would not breed with her own son or vice versa? I have never hunted wolves but at this point given the moose #'s it will be shoot on sight for the immediate future.


I was quite deeply involved in the great wolf culling program in BC, basically in the 1950s. If nothing else, those of us involved learned a lot of first hand knowledge about wolves from it.
In my book, Outposts and Bushplanes, I devote an entire chapter to wolves.
Bruce
 
We obviously cannot exist peacefully with wolves within any reasonably close distances to human settlement or livestock without conflict that would end in dead wolves. As support for this, note that there are no wild packs of wolves that sustain pack numbers outside of either a national park or a very large wildlife management unit or a provincial crown forest. This fact is indisputable.

And there are few landowners large enough to actually support a wild free range pack of wolves, nevermind one that can grow in numbers. I would imagine someone would need hundreds of thousands of acres. Only the province can possibly have a block of land that large, even though there are several large landholders of tens of thousands of acres who would gladly provide refuge for wolves behind the safety of a fence should it so be legal to do so, many of you would still villainize these landowners for protecting the wolves within a fence. Even though you know full well the first time a wolf steps off that guys land it's dead. You guys just can't let someone have something when you can't have it.

But as it stands now, there are simply not enough private landowners who would allow wolves near them or on their lands to support wild or free range packs. This fact also explains why so few large herd animals like elk exist outside large blocks of land, typically so called "crown lands" or provincial parks, national parks etc.

No one can dispute these facts. By not allowing private landowners to derive from native or endemic wildlife some benefits or income from it they do not want to protect it. It will only be a matter of time before the crown lands, provincial parks and national parks are broken up and sold to mega corporations and every last animal will be gone. Mark my words all of you who dismiss the importance of private landowners and private investment in conservation will find empty forests with rows of only one species of tree or desolate clear cuts as well as have very bad odds of being drawn for the last few moose and elk that remain.

I would like to live in a world where a man can benefit from the resource that he protects. I am a member of the public and wildlife is provided habitat and protection on my lands but I have no rights to benefit from it. Yet someone who holds no lands, invests no money into conservation, and cares little of the actions they take against wildlife has an equal claim to use and benefit from it? Not only is that an unreasonable stance it makes no logical sense. Sorry but to turn down hundreds of millions of private conservation dollars so you can greedily shoot your draw bull with 4 inch antlers or worse yet a breeding age cow and then close a season for all because numbers are too low doesn't work for me. I proudly support private ownership of wildlife. It's better than the alternative of public ownership of no wildlife.

This is what your not getting you do not own any of the resources you just own 6" of dirt on the surface behind a fence you have the right to restrict how go's on your land as its your property but unles you also own the mineral rights under you land and water rights your a land owner and not the crown
I believe that in your beloved Africa if you are Land owner you hold Rights to the minerals and water but that's Africa enforced by 12-year-old kids packing AK47
 
Last edited:
This is what your not getting you do not own any of the resources you just own 6" of dirt behind a fence

I don't think you get it. I won't let the public destroy the resource. I will protect it. If you will, then we think alike. We just differ in our methods. I had to buy land. Your treaty entitles you to it. We both could choose to keep wildlife or to destroy it. I think you would like to keep it, correct? And so do I.

There are however, many men that would like to see me fail, partly because they see my actions as detrimental to them. However they are mistaken. They think that because they have degraded the resource to levels so low that they cannot benefit from it that every man should be restricted from any benefits. Do you think this way? Or do you think men should be rewarded for their efforts to maintain and produce wildlife?

To take it further, perhaps you think people who have no lands should be allowed to benefit from the very wildlife that my land sustains? Do you think this situation would be a benefit to me to have someone take wildlife without giving something in return that could be used to sustain my efforts at resource conservation? Afterall, I am the one who decides if the wildlife on my lands will live or die in much the same way a farmer decides to plant canola or a rancher to have cattle, no?
 
Last edited:
This is what your not getting you do not own any of the resources you just own 6" of dirt on the surface behind a fence you have the right to restrict how go's on your land as its your property but unles you also own the mineral rights under you land and water rights your a land owner and not the crown
I believe that in your beloved Africa if you are Land owner you hold Rights to the minerals and water but that's Africa enforced by 12-year-old kids packing AK47

I thought that if your land was ceded by the Crown prior to 1913, you owned mineral and timber rights. The only thing you didn't have full rights to was water flowing through your property. I could be wrong, though.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you get it. I won't let the public destroy the resource. I will protect it. If you will, then we think alike. We just differ in our methods. I had to buy land. Your treaty entitles you to it. We both could choose to keep wildlife or to destroy it. I think you would like to keep it, correct? And so do I.

There are however, many men that would like to see me fail, partly because they see my actions as detrimental to them. However they are mistaken. They think that because they have degraded the resource to levels so low that they cannot benefit from it that every man should be restricted from any benefits. Do you think this way? Or do you think men should be rewarded for their efforts to maintain and produce wildlife? To take it further, perhaps you think men should be allowed to benefit from the very wildlife that my land sustains? Do you think this situation would be a benefit to me??

You are wrong again I am Haida (status Indian ) there has never bin a treaty on Haida Gwaii ever !
We choose to share the land with are Neighbors not put up fences but that is are decision and no-one else's
 
I thought that if yourland was ceded by the Crown prior to 1013, you owned mineral and timber rights. The only thing you didn't hae full rights to was water flowing through your property. I could be wrong, though.

You mite be right I'm not a expert out side BC
It is different for us In BC with no treaty in most of the province
That way layer are getting rich and fat in BC settling land disputes between the crown and BC First Nashions
 
Last edited:
Is this picture real? I wonder how much that wolf would weigh?

http://www.enkivillage.com/largest-wolf.html




predator-hunting-2000s--24.jpg

Their fur makes them look bigger than they are. I shot what was at the time the 12th largest wolf (skull measurements of course) in BC and I guess it weighed somewhere in the neighborhood of 125 pounds or so, IIRC. Keep in mind skull measurements are used for scoring, but it was a big wolf.
 
Their fur makes them look bigger than they are. I shot what was at the time the 12th largest wolf (skull measurements of course) in BC and I guess it weighed somewhere in the neighborhood of 125 pounds or so, IIRC. Keep in mind skull measurements are used for scoring, but it was a big wolf.

I hope to give Wolfe hunting a nother try this winter on the Christmas break up by Hinton but I understand the odds are slim I get one but it shood be fun and grate time to brush up on Field skills
 
You mite be right I'm not a expert out side BC
It is different for us In BC with no treaty in most of the province
That way layer are getting rich and fat in BC settling land disputes between the crown and BC First Nashions

If I am right (and I do say if), it would apply to all of Canada, as properties were ceded by the Crown. That's why cities and provinces try to keep this hush-hush, because the only way they can change those rules (and a whole bunch of other benefits that come with it) is to open and change the Constitution. I know that rule was used to get farmers out of crap with environmentalists (read Ministries) that tried to make their land unusable for all kings of BS reasons - the presence of endangered three-peckered owls on the land, etc. If you want to know more about it, the Ontario Landowners Association has a ton of info on their site. BTW, those rights apply to subdivided lots as well, as they went with the land, not the owner.
 
All I know is that if I have any wolves on my land...they're my wolves!! The elk are my elk!!! Same goes for black bears, white tailed deer and the coyotes I occasionally see.

Some of you here make claims to be conservationists. When you own land that produces wildlife you can make that claim. Only humans that produce wildlife should have the opportunity to consume it. Everyone else should either pay someone who produces it for the opprtunity to consume it, thereby investing in the survival of that wildlife into perpetuity, or degrade the "public resource" and crown lands further into oblivion. You're childlren will gauk at well taxidermied museum mounts in the wildlife section of their local history museum.

If you have safaried, hunted, or guided in Africa you will know what true conservation means. The African model of wildlife conservation is the only truely sustainable model of conservation. It protects both predators and prey. How else could North American hunters fly to the other side of Earth, shoot the African equivalent of a trophy quality wolf (hyena), a deer (impala, wildebeast, etc), an elk (nyala etc), and a moose (kudu etc) in the same week and do so every year for a few thousand dollars? You simply cannot do that in any canadian province...notwithstanding some hunter hasn't managed to pull it off as I'm sure a few die hard guys over the decades have.

Nothing short of incredible conservation work and superb game management down in Africa. Look at the immitation conservationists we have here in Canada. "Shoot em all boys". Yup that works until you actually do it.

Really?... man are you in LaLa land. You own nothing. We own nothing in Canada. You may manage your land but the wildlife is "Owned" by the Crown. Period. And as we have no property rights, we in effect don't "Own" land either in the true sense of the word. If the gov't wants to run a highway through your land they can kick you off and do just that, you have no recourse. They may pay you for it, but if they want it you are gone. To say those animals are yours is the epitome of arrogance. Not in this country do you "Own" the wildlife on your land. You have to pay for a license and tags to "Take" the Queen's animals like the rest of us serfs. And if you want to sell a hide or trophy then you pay a portion of it to the Queen, hence the term a "Royalty Fee".
 
Last edited:
Really?... man are you in LaLa land. You own nothing. We own nothing in Canada. You may manage your land but the wildlife is "Owned" by the Crown. Period. And as we have no property rights, we in effect don't "Own" land either in the true sense of the word. If the gov't wants to run a highway through your land they can kick you off and do just that, you have no recourse. They may pay you for it, but if they want it you are gone. To say those animals are yours is the epitome of arrogance. Not in this country do you "Own" the wildlife on your land. You have to pay for a license and tags to "Take" the Queen's animals like the rest of us serfs.

Well said, Mr Jones. Thank you, sir.
 
Is this picture real? I wonder how much that wolf would weigh?

http://www.enkivillage.com/largest-wolf.html



predator-hunting-2000s--24.jpg

They can get pretty big. Here is a big one a trapper friend and myself took a couple years ago. He was the Alpha of that pack. For the size of the paw, in comparison my hand from wrist to tip of middle fingers is 8":



This is a pic of a bit smaller wolf from the same pack taken a few days earlier. The shed it is in is 7' from floor to rafters, I in the pic am 6' 2":

 
Back
Top Bottom