« US Troops in Afghanistan Kick Back with F&S and OL | Main | Discussion Topic: Does Doe Pee Spread CWD? »

April 26, 2007

This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes

If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Field Notes at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes.

Michigan Men Sentenced for Wolf Killings

William Jason Morgan, 28, and Robert Wudzinski, 70, pleaded guilty to shooting protected wolves (one of which wore a radio collar) in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula last fall. Now sentenced, Morgan will pay $2,385, loose his hunting privileges until 2010, and be placed on six month’s probation. Wudzinski got nine months probation, will pay $2,150, and can’t hunt again until next year. Read the full story here.

Comments

Matt

These two scumbags should serve time.

Walt

Hang em high thats what I say! Those penalties are way too nice for what should be given out: 10,000.00 fine each, no more hunting privileges ever!!, loss of firearms, and no eating of pasties for a year.

tom

too bad those guys don't live in Wyoming... out there they hand out minimal fines and marksmanship medals for shooting wolves.

Matt

Tom,

If that is the mentality of people in Wyoming, then Wyoming has serious problems.

Brian

To Matt,

If them damn critters were eatin your herd of cattle or flock of sheep I bet ud be shootin em too.

Lee B.

If you put your cattle and sheep in my house I'd eat them too...

Matt

Brian,

Keep the sheep and cattle out of the wolves' woods and they won't eat them.

flashpoint

That's backwards: _your_ cows are on the wolves' turf. The conflict will exist forevermore. I prefer bison to white-faced range maggots.

Trent M.

No animal should ever be left unchecked. The romantic idea of the wolf has led some people to make some poor management decisions concerning them. I do not condone these shootings, and will not get into a "your cattle don't matter" arguement, becuase that is bunk.

Kevin Costner and his puppy scene in Dances with Wolves set back wolf management 20 years.

Ranchers have a right to protect their herd. Hunters have a right to ask that their deer herd be protected. I don't want to see wolves erradicated, but this, "let them run wherever they may roam", "born free", "koom-bi-ya" mentallity is a joke.

Get a clue.

John

Trent, I commend you post, well done!

Matt

I'm a deer hunter, but I don't think of deer as "my herd". They belong to the Earth, as does man and wolf. Humans never had the right to wipe the wolves out in the first place. And if you want to blame film for setting back wildlife management, look at all the films that potrayed the open range as glorious and painted the picture of the nature conquering cowboy was a hero.

Ethan

First off, I would like to say that I can see both sides of this argument, and agree that yes, wolves were native to much of North America, and that the ecosystems that are missing them are missing an important, albeit controversial, element.
I also realize that today, because of the human population now living where wolves used to, and near where they still could, and because of the activities and livelihoods of people living in these areas, reintroduction of wolves is a risky and dangerous proposition, for two reasons.

The first reason is because of the effect reintroduction of wolves has upon ecosystems where they have been absent for nearly a century. Wolves are by nature killing machines, and will by nature do just what they were meant to. The result is that there will be significant decreases in the populations of prey species, such as deer, elk and moose. Wolf reintroduction is a detriment to the ecosystems because it adds a new predator, and I say "new" because that is essentially what they are, for the ecosystem has been so long without them that it has adapted to function without them. The reality is that wolves had been replaced as predators by human hunters, who, unlike wolves, are highly effective in competently managing the population of prey species, and who do not over-harvest them, as wolves are apt to do.

The second reason is because of the nature of the interactions between wolves and humans, which is usually hostile and confrontational. Because of this fact reintroduction at this point and time in history, even if only to designated "wilderness areas" and national parks, is not the brightest idea society has ever had. For it is a known fact that wolves will multiply, overpopulate and roam, and will inevitably come into contact with private individuals, such as farmers and ranchers, home-owners and recreationalists, all of whom conduct their lives and business near or in areas inhabited (or inhabitable) by wolves.

After this has been accepted as fact, the questions arise:
"Is it then just or right for the government, at the request of special interest groups such as the Sierra Club, to endanger the lives and/or livelihoods of those people living in or near areas where wolves could or once did live by reintroducing them?"
"Should the special interest groups' whims take precedence over the lives and property of those who live in those areas pending wolf reintroduction?"
"If wolves are reintroduced by the Federal government, upon the petition and request of special interest groups, does this action not violate the rights and freedom of those to whom the wolves will be 'new neighbors?'"

It may help to consider these questions in light of the facts: wolves and humans or human-related activities do not mix well; also wolves are not truly endangered, for in some regions of Canada and Alaska, they outnumber humans, which raises the question of whether or not they can truly be labeled as "endangered," and thus protected and/or reintroduced as such.

My conclusion about wolves is that they should never have been reintroduced. Now that they have been, they should definitely no longer be listed as endangered, and should no longer be reintroduced to areas where they have been absent for nearly a century, but should be closely managed by the individual states where they already exist just as any other game animal is, with hunting seasons, bag limits and liscences, in order to prevent the excessive overpopulation and spread of their ranges. I also believe that private citizens, ranchers especially, should have more freedom to protect their property and/or lives and should be allowed to remove or eliminate any and all wolves that leave the designated "wilderness areas" and national parks and so threaten or harm private citizens' property and/or livelihoods.

As an afterthought, I just want to say to all the people who want to see wolves roam all over the western US: How would you like it if someone convinced the government to overstep its powers and introduce a wild pack of large carnivores into your neighborhood? If you really want to see wolves in the wild, you can go to Canada or Alaska, and see them in great quantities. You have no need or right to bring them to our ranches and our backyards. Get a clue, and realize that we eradicated wolves for a good reason back in the early 20th Century: they are large, wild carnivores that roam in packs, killing and eating indiscriminately - elk, deer, cattle, sheep, dogs, yes even the occasional human. Why don't you learn your lesson when you see the self-proclaimed "Bear Man" and his girlfriend killed and eaten by the very bears he "loved so much and wanted to protect?" Since you wanted wolves reintroduced to OUR backyards, why don't you all do the rest of us a favor, and if you love wolves so much, why don't YOU try living amongst them, and why don't you offer to fairly compensate those who lose property and lives to them? Better yet, why don't you go and sacrifice yourselves to their appetites, to prevent them from harming our property, our livelihoods and our families?

john

ehtan, your a dumbass.


humans take FAR more wild game than wolves do, and labeling wolves as "killing machines" just proves you know nothing about the animals of which you speak. get off the rancher/redneck bandwagon and join the 21st century you twit.

john

ehtan, your a dumbass.


humans take FAR more wild game than wolves do, and labeling wolves as "killing machines" just proves you know nothing about the animals of which you speak. get off the rancher/redneck bandwagon and join the 21st century you twit.

Brandon K.

wolves are killing all of the dang cattle and wolves were ment to be killed when they got overpopluated,.....AND THEY are

maverick

wolves are eating all the livestock. Ask yourself this would you starve just because of the darn wolves> I kon that I will come first before those darn animals.

Seth Swanson

shut up brandon u r wrong




Our Blogs



Syndicate