Commentary
Why I can't support Minnesota's season on wolves
By Bridget Hart
Bridget Hart, from Bloomington, Minn., is a senior in kinesiology at Iowa State University.
For most of my life, I have been proud of Minnesota and the measures it has taken to protect the gray wolf from unnecessary predation. I was awed by the up-close encounters that the International Wolf Center in Ely offers to hundreds of visitors each year. But now Minnesota has abandoned that tradition of pride and respect in favor of something less honorable.
For the past month and a half, I have stood by and watched as headline after headline has been published regarding the wolf hunt. Now I feel I must say my piece.
The claim by the Department of Natural Resources that this wolf hunt is a gateway for educational research is a farce. I believe this for several reasons.
One reason is the rapid turnover in legislation that allowed this hunt to happen in the first place. Wolves had been off the endangered species list for a metaphorical minute before the call for hunting permits came to the DNR. Under previous legislation, the state was supposed to wait five years to even start thinking about having a hunt. But people pressed, and the legislation was changed. After a mere 11 months, wolf permits were raffled off in game-show fashion to several hundred "lucky" hunters, just in time for deer season.
Another reason is the obvious lack of data on the wolf population. This hunt is not a population-control mechanism; if it was, there'd be evidence stating that the wolf population is out of control. But there isn't. The data doesn't support such reasoning because there isn't any data. The DNR hasn't had accurate data on the wolf packs in Minnesota for over five years. Yet it claims that by taking wolf population data during the course of this hunt, it will have accurate results. That seems a little backwards to me.
I believe this hunt caters to game hunters, not livestock owners. These wolf-hunt permits have been raffled off not to livestock owners, who may have the largest claim on the basis of wolf predation, but to deer hunters. This suggests either that the hunters feel that wolves threaten their chance of killing the prize buck they want (an unlikely assumption), or that this is a trophy hunt meant to increase revenue to the DNR.
My claim is that the revenues of this wolf hunt will offset the compensations that the state of Minnesota has already doled out to livestock owners as a result of wolves preying on their property. I think the quota was merely a way to pacify the naturalists who abhor the idea of this hunt, and to quell the fear that we as a state were returning to the wolf eradication habits that endangered this species in the first place 40 years ago. The permit lottery was a festive way for the DNR to make some extra cash. They'll never reach the 400-wolf quota, right?
Then the numbers came in from the early season hunt: first 30, then 84, then finally 147 wolves ... none of which will affect the number of compensation claims that livestock owners file each year. I don't mean to paint a picture of a money-grubbing Department of Natural Resources. Every state department needs revenue, and the DNR receives its highest revenue from game hunters. It makes some kind of sense that this wolf hunt generates revenue for the department.
However, the steps that were taken following the removal of the wolf from the endangered species list leave me asking: Is it really the wolves' welfare you have in mind?
Comments (33)
iam with you to try to stop kill the gray wolf an all other wolfs what did they do to the people that our hunthig them i love the wovels an it hurts me to read that they are beinng hunted they should hut the peolpe the hunts them an see how they like it thanks for trying to help lonewolf from ohio
Yes I do feel it is in the wolves' best interest. Here is my take. I remember when wolves' feared man.If you saw one it at distance. You never saw them in town, now you do. And you never saw one in your yard, now about once a year I will have one in the yard, I am outside yelling at it and all it does is slowly walk away, no fear at all. When I am driving I will see them and they just stand there and wait for the car to go by then walk across the road. This behavior is not normal, and is not safe for man or wolf. When I go to Ont. hunting and fishing and have a chance wolf encounter, they act the way wolves' used to act here. I am noway saying to chase them back to the brink. But, they need to have the fear of man put back in them. They are smart animals, it won't take long and that will happen.
Thank You Bridget for speaking up as I have been waiting for someone with knowledge on the subject to recognize the farce this hunt has become.
How many wolves were killed under the "don't ask- don't tell"method? DNR is not mentioning finding any unregistered wolf remains are they? Do not fool yourselves into believing everyone is hunting legally. I hate that Minnesota has done this to wolves again.
This wolf hunt is something to make hunters feel good. I dont know how anyone can kill a wolf if it is in its own territory and not hurting people. This is something for sick people who want to hurt animals just for the sport of killing. The way they trap the wolves is inhumane and not right. This is the only animal we allow this type of toture and it is a sacred animal. We should be protecting the wolf instead of killing the wolf. I feel like this is a way for the DNR to make some extra cash, and disregarding the lives of 400 wolves could be a big mistake since they just got took of the endangered list. Who knows if they even have an accurate count on the wolves in the first place. I totally agree with your article and I wish more people thought like you.
Bridget, just as you have chosen a career in Kinesiology, the people in the DNR chose a career in WildLife Management. Let them do their job.
Whitie got it right.
Let the DNR do its job. It has a history of being very good at wildlife management. Fact is, they could have set the limit at 800 wolves harvested and not done anything but good for the animals.
People like Bridget Hart, with no knowledge whatsoever of the subject on which they speak, armed only with their own "feelings" on the matter, are woefully undergunned for the battle which they choose to fight.
Talk about bringing a knife to a gunfight.
We must resist this constant replacing of Common Sense with Personal Feelings. It will only result in disaster, sooner rather than later.
She titles her Commentary "Why I can't support Minnesota's season on wolves", not "Why the Minnesota season on wolves is not supported by the facts".
Go live in the woods, Bridget. For a few years. When the realities of life set in, you will be happily carrying a long range wolf rifle.
The "feelings" of those commenters without any knowledge of the subject on which they speak are worse than useless. They take up space, but add nothing of value.
They should be students, striving to learn, rather than screaming bundles of pseudo knowledge, having as their highest standard their own immature feelings.
She is young. She will learn. There is nothing like living to chase away those big angry feelings-driven ideas.
Learn before speaking. Learn before having ideas. Life isn't a Twitter account. It is more than just tossing off whatever comes into your mind.
Yes, I live in VA but am from MN. And I have some experience with captive wolves, studied some on wild wolves, etc, etc. Several points:The legislators made this decision, not the DNR from what is being said. You want science? Good, bring in the relevant scientists. Where did they come up with the number 800? What is the rush? I propose no trapping because whether you love or hate wolves, traps are cruel. They also catch unintended "prey", including pet dogs. (fact-check it out.) There will never be total agreement on the wolf issue because it's those on the extremes that make the most noise. I am for taking some time, getting some acknowledged consultants and doing what is best for the people, the animals and the regional ecology. Why is that not the goal?
Traps are not cruel. I trapped for decades in the big woods, catching many thousands of animals in leg-hold traps (paw-hold is more accurate). Most are sleeping like a baby when the trapper arrives.
No, traps are not cruel. A pack of wolves, on the other hand, ripping a deer apart while it is still alive, meets the definition of cruelty. But, as they are non-civilized animals of low intelligence just out to fill their stomachs, we forgive them.
I have watched a raccoon sit still for an hour on a muskrat house until the muskrat came, then pounced on the muskrat and ripped it apart while it was still alive.
I have seen 3 dogs, each with a leg of the same raccoon in their jaws, pull in opposite directions until the raccoon came apart, while still very much alive. The raccoon's screams were unbearable.
Now, that's Cruelty. And watching an eagle, (and, another time, an owl) swoop down and pierce a mink with its talons, then rip out its guts with its beak, while it was still alive.
And the number of canids I have watched die of rabies, distemper, mange, parasites, injury...it's not a pretty sight.
You big city self-appointed wildlife biologists seem to think wild animals live some kind of wonderful, healthy, sweet & loving Disney life. Come & live in the big woods for awhile. You will think differently. You will leave your immature "feelings" behind. Or, spend a lot of time lying to yourself.
The death they get from a trapper-hunter is the best available to them.
Dearest S. Austin,
You claim, in your first post that people "with no knowledge whatsoever of the subject on which they speak...are woefully undergunned for the battle which they choose to fight" and yet you launch into the "battle" not armed with facts and figures of any real relevance, but rather with a handful of personal experiences of "the realities of life." I can only assume that these "realities" have of course been fact-checked and supported by various academic sources, which is why you do not even feel the need to cite them, insisting only that people of Ms. Hart's character are of the lowest sort, resorting to base "feeling" rather than actual research. These people, no doubt, employ stories of unrelated cruelty to other non-threatened species in order to try and derail the conversation on an unrelated issue. Similarly, I'm sure these people would ignore the fact that these wolves are the species that has moved from "endangered" to "threatened" to "hunted" in the shortest amount of time. As you say, "they take up space but add nothing of value." Perhaps I could recommend you to some more academic sources which you could consult before heading off with your "long range wolf rifle" into the fray of intellectual conversation on a potentially delicate topic. Ms. Hart does point out that many of the permits are being raffled out to big game hunters rather than ranchers defending incredibly valuable livestock. You, on the other hand, cite your live "in the big woods" 1/2
The logic I see behind this wolf slaughter seems to be as follows: Hunters kill deer. Wolves kill deer. There aren't enough deer anymore, so now let's kill the wolves to make more deer. Logic, folks. Right here. *eye roll*
Do people honestly not see the fallacy? One day you will have to realize that killing any animal for your sport is not the answer, nor is it a sustainable solution. *That* would be the difference between why the hunting of wolves by humans and the hunting of deer by wolves is different-- one is needed by a species to survive. The other is instead a cruel sport of chasing some fantastical manly dream of bagging an animal that hasn't been a real threat for hundreds of years. These people are so wrapped up in fairytales they lost grip with reality.
I find it ironic that the people who are telling the writer, ostensibly, "Get out because this isn't your specialty" and complaining that the writer is "using feelings" are also, presumably, people who are both out of their specialized disciplines and responding using their selfsame feelings on the issue. A track record is not evidence, neither is your opinion, nor are anecdotes. The DNR can be corrupt. I also would ask these people to refrain from ad hominem attacks and ageist remarks. Age is not equal to intelligence, as is obvious by your comments. This "wolf hunt" will have a profound impact on Minnesota for years to come. Don't you dare tell a citizen that their opinion is not valid because of their age.
(Continued).
and seem to hold a certain disdain for "big city self-appointed wildlife biologists," forgoing academic degrees and certification for your own sense of self-righteousness. Your examples are not cruelty: they are nature. Your actions are not natural: they are cruel in an attempt to diminish the argument at hand and dismiss a well-thought out argument (whether you agree or disagree) as mere sentimental Twitter fodder. As we all know, constructing an essay that is accepted by MPR is not the same as writing out a tweet (or, shall we say, a belligerent comment on another's hard work).
I wish you all the best in your knife fight.
John Bliss
Bridget, who speaks for the deer and coyotes nd other animals killed by the wolves? Wolves do have a role in maintaining healthy populations of other animals however. I have hunted small game for decades and would find no pleasure in killing a wolf unless it was threatening me. I believe there should not be any wolf hunting until wolves bnecome a real problem. Ranchers should be compensated financially for any cattle lost to wolves. If the losses beccome too great, then perhaps the rancher could hunt them.
While I don't want to hunt wolves, and don't see any reason to other than a pelt (which seems wasteful to me, unless wolf meat is some sort of well kept delicious secret), I don't get where people are coming from labeling the DNR as some sort of uber-corrupt institution. Species managed by the DNR have never gone extinct (to the best of my knowledge), so those concerns seem overblown. I appreciate that the Tribes have banned wolf hunting, but not everyone follows their religions and origin stories. If expensive wolf permits can help wolf populations in the long run, I guess that isn't so bad, we just need to make sure that's what happens. Plus some of the most influential conservation groups are also hunting groups. I think it's foolish to think that we'd have successful conservation programs without letting hunters do some hunting. I guess I'll just stick to not hunting wolves.
If anyone is wondering, the season is oriented towards the livelihood livestock owners, however, the tickets are not expressly promoted to them is because that is a completely ineffectual way of approaching the problem. Make no mistake, wolves do threaten livestock, and the DNR is attempting to rectify this with the overturning of the wolves' endangered status. But to think that the DNR is going to sell permits exclusively to livestock owners is foolish. If that is done, the damage to livestock and property will have already been done when the rancher seeks to purchase or intends to use his permit. If done in reverse, the DNR must use time and resources finding and validating only ranchers. By focusing on hunters, the DNR finds a group of people with the time and the inclination to purchase the permits and hunt the wolves the ranchers need hunted for the sake of their livelihoods. The hunters will come and do the job the ranchers need done, and it as simple as that. While some may find a person's pleasure from hunting wolves repugnant, this is of ancillary concern and an argument born out of emotional dread.
Let the DNR do their job. There are too many wolves up here now. We see them almost daily, and they are not afraid of you, or me.
I love it! The wolf (lovers) people are grasping for everything and anything possible to help their lost cause . The girl that wrote this article is a senior in college (22 years old), studying a completely unrelated major in IOWA, and is from the minneapolis metro area! Kinesiology is the study of human movements... Has not one thing to do with natural resourses, wolves, or anything even close to topic! LOL!!!!!!! How does her advise or opinion matter in the least? Id bet my last penny shes never seen or heard a wild wolf. Whats next? 16 year old sandwich artists, waiters, dock boys writing artices for you guys. What a gas! You wolf lovers are killing me! Meanwhile, im out killing these vermin. Keep fighting guys, it keeps me interested in reading the next days paper.
I abhor killing wildlife when it is senseless and indiscriminate. This does not include wild canids who MAY be troublesome to SOME ranchers on rare occasions if the livestock is secured/protected appropriately.
Trapping is cruel and I cannot believe the above post that states the trapped animals were "sleeping like babies". Bull. They may have been exhausted and traumatized but certainly not happily looking forward to that club on the head which you think is just fine. You wrongfully accuse predator species of "cruelty" because the kill their prey "while still alive". Seriously?? How do you propose they prepare their pray before "killing it alive"? At least they're killing to eat, Mr. Austin which is more than you can say when you trap/hunt fur-bearers. Humans need to get over themselves! lol
Mr. Jones, hunters will come WHENEVER there is something to kill, not just to "help ranchers". They are nobody's heroes. The clean, ethical hunter seems to be becoming a thing of the past.
I appreciate the feedback on this. Here's some bonus reading material that I used to formulate my claims:
"'We don’t feel that the hunting of wolves this fall will significantly affect the state’s wolf population, and wouldn’t anticipate this fall’s harvest of wolves would have any effect on the number of compensation claims,' said Ed Boggess, director of the DNR Fish and Wildlife Division." (from http://www.timberwolfinformation.org/?p=13167)
"Minnesota has paid out a gradually increasing number of claims for wolf depredation over the last several years, mostly for cattle but also for some sheep, turkeys and pet dogs, even a horse and a llama, according to the agriculture department. The $154,136 the state paid in fiscal 2012 was for 111 verified claims." (from http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/09/05/wolfs-recovery-seen-in-livestock-loss-payouts/)
"The Legislature set aside $300,000 in the current budget to compensate farmers for losses caused by wolves and by elk, which sometimes eat row crops. Replenishing the fund would likely require more money from the Legislature, although in previous years when the fund ran out the state was able to get a federal grant that allowed it to pay farmers' claims, Friisoe said. It's not clear if that would be an option now, he said." (from http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/09/05/environment/wolf-recovery-payouts/)
Most of the other basic information I picked up from the DNR website.
I have read all the blogs on this subject and it's clearly evident that the article and those supporting this article are politically driven for your own interest. It's unfortunate that MPR has to stoop to the low that allows one to commentate on a subject matter that hasn't been researched. This article has no factual structure and if Ms. Hart would have taken the time to actually read what the DNR has factually posted on their websites,she probably wouldn't have tarnished her parents good name. I don't understand why one would speak about a subject with such flippant concern about the real and facts. Whether you don't like wolf hunting or any other form of hunting,isn't a reason to talk out of turn. As a college student I would think you know or have been taught this by now.It's a shame you have wasted all that time and money on your education and haven't really learned a whole lot. Spend some real quality time and get informed before you speak and cut the political hugging !
I couldn't agree more with this article. I am sickened by the killing of wolves for nothing more than a testosterone high. I concur that there is no science in this, that's just a buzz created by the DNR to justify placating the "safari" hunter set who haven't legally been able to kill wolves for decades. At the end of the day for the DNR it's about what it is always about MONEY. For the responders who
say we are to blindly trust the DNR and just let them do their job, I can do little more than scoff. In what world do you let your EMPLOYEES do whatever they want with no oversight and to remain silent when they are completely off track.
As to those who want the people who don't USE the wilderness to be quiet, I say this: I am a lifelong MN resident, I am a tax payer who has lived
up north. I do not need to be living in and off the woods to have a legitimate right to an opinion or to be able to say something about the animals and resources that abide here. They are everyone's responsibility and only once they are murdered in their own environment do they become the property of the killer.
To the trappers comment that the PAW TRAP is so humane. What drugs kind of drugs are you on? I am still haunted by a picture of a wolf in a trap, bloodied
with more than 1/2 of his leg chewed off.
He didn't look like he had fallen asleep
waiting to be killed once the trapper arrived, so be aware no one buys that
theory, nor do the folks whose dogs die each year as "non target" animals.
I couldn't agree more with this article. I am sickened by the killing of wolves for nothing more than a testosterone high. I concur that there is no science in this, that's just a buzz created by the DNR to justify placating the "safari" hunter set who haven't legally been able to kill wolves for decades. At the end of the day for the DNR it's about what it is always about MONEY. For the responders who
say we are to blindly trust the DNR and just let them do their job, I can do little more than scoff. In what world do you let your EMPLOYEES do whatever they want with no oversight and to remain silent when they are completely off track.
As to those who want the people who don't USE the wilderness to be quiet, I say this: I am a lifelong MN resident, I am a tax payer who has lived
up north. I do not need to be living in and off the woods to have a legitimate right to an opinion or to be able to say something about the animals and resources that abide here. They are everyone's responsibility and only once they are murdered in their own environment do they become the property of the killer.
To the trappers comment that the PAW TRAP is so humane. What drugs kind of drugs are you on? I am still haunted by a picture of a wolf in a trap, bloodied
with more than 1/2 of his leg chewed off.
He didn't look like he had fallen asleep
waiting to be killed once the trapper arrived, so be aware no one buys that
theory, nor do the folks whose dogs die each year as "non target" animals.
This wolf hunt and trap season gives Minnesota a black and bloodied eye. These wonderful, intelligent ancestors of our dogs serve no dietary purpose and killing them has no purpose whatsoever. Farmers have a fund to be compensated for wolf-killed animals. Catching these amazing wolves in traps where they try to chew off limbs to get away is am imagine so horrific that I don't ever want to see an actual photo. The blustery testosterone filled "hunters" should find some other outlet for their aggression before killing animals who have done nothing to harm them. Minnesota, this is a travesty inflicted on all of us. Shame on the DNR for its dreadful mismanagement of our natural resources.
Thank you, Bridget! This hunt is nothing but blood lust. It's deplorable.
As a person of reasonable intelligence I feel I have educated myself on this subject to speak objectively on it. The right to bear arms is the core of this. The red necks who "hunt" any animal using their dogs and 4 wheelers only thirst for blood. To them it's not about having food for the family, it's all sport. The trophy hunters are in the same category only they don't use the meat. They just stuff the dead animal to hang on a wall and collect dust. What is at the heart of this is the fact the DNR is made up of a group of animal haters. They are not there to protect anything other than their right to carry a gun and kill animals. As humans continue to rob wildlife of their habitat their numbers decline to the point of extinction. The lawmakers were thinking with the wrong "head" when this legislation was passed and I can only hope it will come back to bite them back at election time. Hang your heads in shame to each of you who support this. Once endangered is now going to be hunted to extinction and there ain't no way you can magically bring them back!
116 trapped and killed wolves in less than 3 weeks of the 2nd season........ WAY TO GO TRAPPERS!!!! There is so many more than 3,000 wolves on this state it's crazy. Next year the quota will be 600-800 I'm betting. These vermin are thick and the whole bunch needs to be trapped and it's hide tacked up. Keep up the good work and here's to 400 dead wolves! Or maybe even a few extras......
Mr.Anderson seems to have an anger management issue.
Let's take the latest info leak about the entire Wedge Pack in OR that was wiped out (at a rancher's demand). Apparently it was a neighbor's dogs who did the still alleged livestock damage, at least that is the most recent version. It's also said that the necropsy results on the dead wolves will NOT be revealed (well, not without some intense legal work I guess - which can be arranged). No big surprise there, is it!
Mr.Anderson, the word "vermin" is misapplied for your purposes, so you may be unique in thinking so.
You give the impression you have no hunting ethics whatsoever - and believe me, you are dragging ALL hunters down with you.
Attempts to justify this wolf hunt are a sham. It is fueled by ranchers who should be doing more to protect their livestock than taking the "easy" way out, and perhaps not infringe so heavily on the habitat of wolves and other wildlife. Why does the Govt grant so many ranching licenses??The meat processing industry is responsible for the majority of greenhouse gases that are wreaking havoc on our planet - there is ample scientific evidence to support this. While I can "understand" hunting for food and prefer it to the evils of factory farming, I don't think anyone eats the wolf but regards it as a "trophy". Just as some deer hunters see a beautiful buck and want to kill it not for the meat but for purposes of bragging and a trophy on the wall. Peggy Callahan, Executive Director of the Wildlife Science Center wrote an article in the Star Tribune justifying trapping as it is also used to trap wolves to radio collar. Perhaps the scientists make sure they get back quickly - commercial trappers don't and very often the animal has tried to chew it's foot off in an attempt to free itself. Try and imagine yourself in a trap!! The DNR will tell you that a wild animal is under tremendous stress in a cage or trap. Please stop this cruel wolf hunt and stop making excuses for needless and gratuitous killing.
The only anger I have is towards the wolf lovers. I certainly would not call it anger, just disappointment really. There are so many problems in our state and country and people spend time on a stinkin wild dog..... WTF!!! Are you kidding me!! Little kids dying of cancer, shootings from crazy people, 4.00 a gallon gas, and you knot heads are protesting a vermin hunt that doesn't make one difference on this planet in the least.... REALLY!!! What's even more sad is the few that reference wolves as individuals or as human like. I hear reference to this "wedge pack" as if they were celebrity wolves or something? What? Government trappers took 23 wolves off my 3 neighbors properties here in St Louis Co alone for eating sheep, cattle, and two black labs. What was the name of that pack? What a joke!!! Please get a life and donate your time to something worth while. Wolves are not people, they don't have feelings, they don't give a rats ass about you. Keep fighting the good fight guys, keeps it interesting for me and the rest of the world.
The people spending time protesting this harvest are the reason the wolves should be in fear. I think the State/DNR proposed this hunt. The years and years of lawsuits and whining have come to a head. The wolf seasons should have began 10-12 years ago when they were first delisted. They would have been properly managed and all this anger and hatred of the wolf would never gotten to this point, not even close. Now it's to late for them, especially in the western state where they will be hunted to extinction again without question. To many farms to have them there again and WAY to much money at stake for the farmers who barely scratch a living now. I believe the hunters in Mn are starting to take things into their own hands now as well. To many wolves, no question. It's to bad it got to this point but it's to late.
It is very simple. It is wrong, wrong,
wrong and cruel to slaughter the wolf.The wolf is our friend, not our enemy. When will compassion and reason take over cruelty and stupidity?
Enough killing. Time to shoot but only with a camera.
I am in 100% support of the wolf hunt/trapping seasons. We have wolves here dieing of mange which is spread from one animal to another to another. Wolves have lost thier fear of man. The wolf has become a common sight in my yard and they come close enough to poop just a few feet from my door. I also truely believe that the DNR has vastly under esimated the wold population in Minnesota.
Most you the people here are missing the point. I live in northern Minnesota and a few week ends ago we were out at our shack enjoying the time, and 3 wolves came in with no fear. We, my two kids 4 & 6 and wife, went into the shack for the rest of the day. I would have shot them with my bow but with the laws being so strict I was affraid of losing my shack and property. The wolf population has gotten out of control and the wolves fear of man has deminished. We used to see moose on a normal basis at the shack, now its been years since we've seen any sign of them. The wolves need to be thinned out and become more afraid of us then we are of them. I can not sit in my stand any more until dark at deer season in fear of the animal. we need to up the number of kills and thin the heards.
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Terms and Conditions before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
