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.
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:
