Talk:Wolf hunting/Archive 1

I would rather not have a merge. There is a clear reason to have an article for the controversy. But that is distinct from the actual practice of hunting wolves which is of interest in itself. There is no controversy over killing wolves with eagles I know of, and there are people who would be interested. So all those who want to argue over the rights and wrong of killing wolves in the United States can go to their own page, and anyone who wants to read about the hunting of wolves can read this one. A fair and reasonable division if you ask me. There is, after all, the actual hunting and then there is the politics of the thing. Different issues. Lao Wai 15:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

All right, then let's push anything controversial about wolf hunting into wolf hunting controversy. That leaves us with a series of three articles at the moment:

1. wolf
2. wolf hunting
3. wolf hunting controversy

By the way, you write English very well. Uncle Ed 15:48, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:text move

Disputed text:

The most common justification is to preserve economically valuable livestock. Early settlers in the United States tried to eliminate wolves entirely, by offering bounties for each wolf pelt as evidence of a kill. For several decades much of the Great Plains area and Mountain States were devoid of wolves. Some wolf sub-species were hunted into extinction.

One wants scare quotes around justification, the other wants them off. I should just clap you both in irons for such a trivial disagreement, but actually this will be ever harder for you: find a way to agree on a version of this paragraph. Then I unlock the page, and it can go back. Uncle Ed 00:27, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

i do not bweleive you can relaly call it a justification, becasue this is the reason why american farmers (as an example) have attempted to extermoinmate wolves, and thats not relaly fair, because only some do this, only a very rare few, and yet, all wolves are punished, and at times shoton sight for this. that is why the justicication quotes seem to belong. Gabrielsimon 00:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

i also beleive it should be labelled a FASLE justification, because its relly not a justification at all, unless its from the point of bview of those who wish to annialate wolves. Gabrielsimon 00:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

im not the one pusheing POVs here, as it seems, friday is pushing a pro hunter POV Gabrielsimon 00:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Great, thanks for explaining your point of view. Can we agree that some folks who kill wolves claim they're defending livestock? Can we agree that in the opinion of those people, this is a reason for killing the wolves? I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm talking about the reasons people offer for killing wolves. If you want to avoid the word "justification", that's great, I can work with you there. What about something like,"Many ranchers believe that killing wolves in defense of livestock is acceptable."? Friday 00:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

yes, that is better, but i do hope you can see why i objected? Gabrielsimon 00:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, I do not see why you objected. To me, the sentence "The most common justification is to preserve economically valuable livestock" does not express approval or disapproval of the offered justification. However, I'd rather move forward then backward, and if you're OK with something like what's suggested above, I don't see the reason to dwell on past disagreements. Friday 00:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

PS, in case it helps you understand me, I objected to the scare quotes because to me they implied that the offered justification was NOT valid. I don't think it's our place to make that judgement here. Friday 01:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

the quotes were to signify thatthe justification is not absolute. ~!Gabrielsimon

Look we have three pages now, wolf, wolf hunting and wolf hunting controversy. This page has a link to the controversy page. Would it be too much to ask you all to take your dispute to that page and leave this page alone? Wolves are hunted in the United States (and Canada for that matter). They are hunted from the air. The most frequent justification is attacks on livestock - whether that justification is justified or not must be something for the wolf hunting controversy page. I took, oh, minutes, to write this page. I feel very propriatorial about it. Would you please let me have at least a day or two to bask in a warm glow before trashing it? Lao Wai 09:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Questionable paragraph

I have a few comments on this paragraph:

In the United States wolves are usually shot. They are considered challenging game because, it is claimed, they can take a bullet and keep going. Also common is aerial hunting via helicopter. After chasing an entire pack into the ground, hunters land, walk up to the exhausted wolves and shoot them at point blank range. This is widely seen as not very sporting. Alaska voted in a state-wide referendum on November 7, 2000, to ban this method of hunting by private citizens. Governor Frank Murkowski, however, continues to permit the "land and shoot" practice in certain areas of the state, describing this as "public participation" in "predator control programs." Somewhat curiously, the state does charge a fee (reportedly in excess of USD 1,000) for a permit, despite the fact that, ostensibly, the permit-holder is performing a service for the state. Wolves are listed as endangered in the "lower 48" states, and it is illegal to hunt them.

I've never heard of an animal being considered challenging to hunt because they "keep going" after being shot. It's very common for animals of any type to "keep going" after being shot. A source would be helpful.

Also, this paragraph asserts that entire packs are chased at once, until they're all exhausted. Seems strange to me that the pack would stay together no matter what's chasing it. Again, a source would be great.

"Widely seen as not very sporting". I agree it's not sporting, but these are weasel words.

"Reportedly in excess of $1000". Surely the fee for the permit is verifiable.

"Somewhat curiously" seems like a bit of POV. We don't need to tell the readers what's curious, I think we can present facts and let them decide for themselves.

In the states I'm familiar with, killing nuisance animals is legally distinct from normal hunting, with different restrictions and permits. Maybe we should distinguish between them, or maybe they're the same thing in Alaska?

Also, I can't verify the claim of endangerment. This says that the Red Wolf and Ethopian Wolf are endangered, but I see no Canis Lupis, which I believe are the only kind of wolf in the continental USA.

If anyone has sources and/or thoughts on this, that would be great. Friday 00:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

if you wish to verify the fee for the permit, then by all means, why not look it up? Gabrielsimon 00:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

So far I'm unable to find it. I was hoping whoever put the claim there would know where it came from. Friday 01:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

i didnt place it there, but i would suggest, in the case of american states, wildlife and natural resources, or simply looking up wolf hunting liscenses, with the appropriate state name... i will also try, shortly. Gabrielsimon 01:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

As the person who wrote a number of the points in question, I suppose I should clarify. For the purposes of this discussion, let us assume that by "hunting" we mean "hunting for sport."

Friday wrote: "In the states I'm familiar with, killing nuisance animals is legally distinct from normal hunting, with different restrictions and permits. Maybe we should distinguish between them, or maybe they're the same thing in Alaska?"

De jure, those two things are indeed distinct in Alaska; it is illegal to hunt wolves for sport using Same Day Airborne Hunting (aka "land and shoot") or aerial hunting (shooting from an aircraft in flight). The loophole used by the Alaska state executive is, as described in the article, to issue permits allowing the Same Day Airborne Shooting and aerial shooting "to establish a wolf population reduction or regulation program for purposes of aiding in the administration of wildlife management" (see section 5 AAC 92.039 and 5 AAC 92.110 of the Alaska Administrative Code). Legally, the pilots and gunners are not hunting, but are assisting the ADF&G in carrying out its predator control programs; thus, they may be likened to private citizens deputized by a sheriff. (Which is, incidentally, why such permits are not on the ADF&G's price list of fishing, hunting and trapping licenses.) But there are a number of provisions under 5 AAC 92.039 which are inconsistent with this contention.

First, paragraph (d)(5)(A) states that an issued permit is valid until April 30th (unless other circumstances arise before that date, such as the quota of wolves authorized to be culled has been met); thus, a pilot or gunner has to acquire a new permit every year. Second, paragraphs (d)(5)(B) and (d)(6)(B) indicate that permits are issued for a specific area or subdivision of that area; thus, a pilot or gunner cannot lend his services to the state wherever needed, but has to acquire separate shooting permits for different geographical locations. Third, paragraph (d)(6)(E) permits ADF&G to limit the "number of wolves authorized to be taken under a permit"; this is a separate provision from the quota on the number of wolves to be culled. Finally, subsection (e) specifies that "a wolf taken under a permit becomes the property of the permittee," provided the permittee has adhered to the conditions specified in the permit.

So we have a time limit on the permit, a geographical limit, a bag limit and the shooter gets to keep the trophy. To paraphrase the old saying, if it waddles like a hunting license, and quacks like a hunting license...

Alaska's "predator control programs," incidentally, cannot reasonably be described as aimed at the eradication of "nuisance animals." We aren't talking shooting a particular wolf who tends to prey on livestock; we're talking about killing a quota of wolves, without specifying the individual animals to be killed.

Regarding the figure of 1,000 dollars, the number is not verifiable from the ADF&G's site for reasons stated earlier. I got the figure from a source I personally trust, but I'll do some legwork on getting that corroborated.

I didn't write the "widely seen as not very sporting" line, but I fail to see why these are "weasel words." As far as I can see, it's no more nor less than the truth. There are people who engage in the practice, so evidently it's not universally seen as unsporting, but there are many people (including a majority of the voting public of Alaska) who do.

I did write the phrase "somewhat curiously"; this was not intended to advocate a particualr POV, but to convey as briefly as possible, and without verging off-topic, that it is very unusual, if not completely unheard of, for a private citizen to pay the government in exhange for being allowed to perform a service for that government. (Before you bring up the purchasing of officers' commissions in the British army in the 19th century, the aspiring officer did not pay the government; he paid the regimental commander. Any private citizen with enough social status and money could raise his own regiment at personal expense, and selling commissions was a way to recoup his investment. The regimental commander was at least as motivated by the desire to gain prestige and power as he was by a desire to serve the state; usually more so.) If you can come up with a better formulation, I'm more than willing to hear it. I should add that my point was not to advocate an opinion on hunting/killing of wolves using aircraft, but rather to illustrate that the Alaskan state executive is circumventing the law banning such practices.

As far as endangerment goes, Canis lupus is listed as endangered in Arizona, New Mexico and part of Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas, and as threatened almost everywhere else in the "lower 48" (but not in Alaska) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. See the relevant USFWS page and look under "Mammals." The red wolf, incidentally, is native only to North America; in fact, it is native only to the United States.

"Seems strange to me that the pack would stay together no matter what's chasing it." Wolf communication is pretty sophisticated, but it doesn't extend to pre-arranging rendez-vous points; if they scatter, they might never manage to regroup. And that would severaly jeopardize their chances of survival, and the wolves know it; that's why they operate in packs to begin with. --Euromutt 10:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for your response. Sounds like you're our subject matter expert here. I hope some of this makes it into the article. Friday 13:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

that dude pretty much backs up everything ive been saying. Gabrielsimon 00:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. Do you see how other editors tend to respond positively when sources are provided? I have a couple questions.. Is being legally defined by US law as "endangered" different from being considered endangered by conservationists, then? If so, maybe we should try to explain the differences. It looks to me like other articles use a standard notion of conservation status. I see that it's clearly stated in this article that we're instead talking about law, that's great. I see that they're NOT listed on the "Red List", anyone think this is worth mentioning?

Also, if nobody has a source for "They are considered challenging game because, it is claimed, they can take a bullet and keep going." does anyone mind if I take it out? I dislike "it is claimed" and this quote seems implausible to me, based on my (admittedly non-verifiable) experiences. Friday 00:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

PS. This assertion seems very questionable to me: "There has never been a properly documented case of a wolf attack on an adult human in Europe." Verifying the lack of documentation seems unlikely. Friday 00:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

legally defined by gonverments as endangered, or threataned means, that the governemnt has the responsabillity to help preserve the creature, as it seems to me, if its only conservation groups, then the gov lily wont take action. as it happens a lot of creatures, when shot in a clumbsety manner will struggle to thier feet and try to excape. its instinct. creatures like deer are pretty easy to hit in the heart tho, so those ahent as " challenging" as it were. Gabrielsimon 00:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

as fort he wolf attack thing, i ould surmise that it is true that there has nerver been an unprovoked attack, otherwise i have no opinnion. i know the mind of wolves they dont just attack, (by and large) for no reason, they fight to defend thiemselves and thier young, or to feed themselves and thier pups. Gabrielsimon 00:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Apparently you're not a hunter. You're right though, shot placement is key. This is true of almost any animal, whether they're considered "tough" or not. However, deer may well be tougher than you think. I've personally seen them run, sometimes hundreds of yards, when mortally wounded, even with heavily damaged heart and/or lungs. It's quite amazing. However, they're not considered a particularly tough animal by any hunters I've ever encountered. I'll try editing the sentence in question and see how it goes.

I agree that wolves don't tend to attack humans for no reason, this is not remotely an implausible claim IMO. But it doesn't tell us anything about whether there are properly documented exceptions to the rule. As a general rule, I dislike assertions about things that do NOT exist. Friday 01:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

i can seeyour point, and it does make sense. its possible to place it as there has been no record of unprovoked wolf a ttack" ro some such,m because although they will if starving or rabid, a wolf wont endanger tis young or its packmates by attacking something as dangrous as a human without cause. and no, im not a hunter, tho i have hunted before, it was only with a blade and a bow ( i refuse to use guns for any reason... they disgust me) its not terriblt supriosing that a deer would go so far when so w ounded, considering its only trying to live, tro escape... wolves are smaller, so they are likly harder to hit... and aparently a lot smarter then deer. Gabrielsimon 01:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

It's a bit difficult to file a complaint with your local law enforcement when you're playing the part of lunch. 98.200.169.18 (talk) 11:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

This article is a mess!

No disrespect intended, and I know that there has been a lot of difficulty in trying to get here, but there are some problems here. The opening paragraph has the sentence, "There has never been a properly documented case of a wolf attack on an adult human in Europe." Very interesting fact, but what does it have to do with Wolf Hunting, or even, Wolf Hunting Controversy? Does anyone mind if I just delete it?

Paragraph 2, "Several types of dog have been specially bred in countries like Italy which will remain with a flock and protect them from wolf attacks." Undoubtedly true, but what does it have to do with Wolf Hunting? RPellessier | (Talk) 04:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Unrelated, especially unsourced unrelated sentences are great candidates for being removed, IMO. Friday (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I know those are old comments but Guard dogs have *everything* to do with Wolf hunting, since historically the excuse to kill each and every last one of them was because wolves supposedly attacked livestock all the time. Guard dogs prevented wolves from doing so [this may be why wolves still exist in central italy where guard dogs were present - ppl had little reason to worry about wolves]. 107.222.205.242 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

ugh

something morally wrong about hunting wolves--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Morality is absolute in certain cases (rape, theft, murder, etc.) but becomes subjective when exposed to the nuances of individuals. Every article on this encyclopedia related to hunting bears the mark of controversy, but feel free to add some more sourced content if you've stumbled across something new. Bearerofthecup (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made some (gasp) changes!

But how long will they last, I wonder?

The picture of Antoine de Beauterne is already in his article, so I replaced it with an image of a medieval wolf-hunt. Vigilantes will notice that I added a sentence to the introduction. As I see it, either note both the docility and hostility of wolves or note neither. Luckily, it turns out that NPOV thinks the same thing.

Your friend, Bearerofthecup (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Any comments

I think some input on the recent changes made to this once severely lacking article is in order.Dark hyena (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You've done a great job, hyena. I hope the intro is agreeable now - the focus is back on hunting. Bearerofthecup (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You did your bit too though. The addition of your pictures were what inspired me.Dark hyena (talk) 12:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really important, BUT

All of the sources I have note that wolf-hunting was performed solely for the sport of it, and that the reaction among those who had tasted the meat was disgust. This is specific to Europe, of course - and there wolf-meat had a very poor reputation. I think it's worth mentioning now that we have a paragraph on hunting wolves for food. Yikes! Hardcore Canadians. Bearerofthecup (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is very important and interesting. I do not have your sources, so I think its up to you to provide the info. Is there any info on how wolf meat was prepared, or on what circumstances it was eaten? I'm not sure about wolves, but according to "L'ours; Histoire d'un Roi dechu" (The bear; History of a fallen king) bears were eaten solely for the status it gave the man who ate it, seeing as the meat itself was of a rather poor quality. Was wolf meat consumed for the same reason? Learning something new everyday!Dark hyena (talk) 12:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

All I know is that wolf-meat had the reputation of being tough and chewy with little taste. Ostensibly someone ate it at one point and the stigma stuck. The Gevaudanais, for example, killed wolves all the time, but despite their status as starving peasants they are never mentioned as having eaten them. Rather, they would sacrifice their sheep in a period of hunger - a dangerous alternative considering how much their livelihood depended on the wool trade. What I've read suggests that a hunter's sole use for wolf-meat, if he even bothered to keep it with the other valuable components, would be as animal food. Don't forget that any hunts involving dogs traditionally ended with the Fleshing of the Hounds; undoubtedly a good portion of meat would be eaten then and there. But meat is meat. If the animal is healthy then the meat is edible. Bearerofthecup (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Should the history be moved?

I think a lot of the info on the history section would be better off in the "attitudes" article. Any thoughts?Dark hyena (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, why not? That article is too focused on North America anyway. As for wolves in France, however, there's enough of that for its own article. Bearerofthecup (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Argh! Now I can't decide if the article is better or worse without the history info.Dark hyena (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Its good as it is now. It helps to form the context of how persecuted this animal was and is to this day, which is to say its pretty unreal how menacing a species humans are. The Thylacine was for 30 years put under the same pressure that the wolf has been under for 13000 years and it went extinct over it, the wolf due to its vast range is the only thing that has kept it from going extinct. 107.222.205.242 (talk)

More sections?

I've been wondering if more sections are in order. Here are some ideas;

• Justifications: Mention wolf effects on livestock and game populations, and occasional attacks on humans (for Asia naturally)

• Controversies: The fox hunting article has one. Should we extend this to wolves too? (provided we keep it neutral and keep out any oversentimental tree-hugging or bloodthirsty rancher-ranting?)

Don't just agree with me and leave it at that. Tell me if there are any objections or further ideas. Dark hyena (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Editing war?

76.21.184.65, you have been editing cited quotations that contradict the citations, caused blanking to other cited text, and written other statements that can easily be perceived as opinion if without citations. Each of these acts is of a questionable nature (especially if done without explanation), as it removes accuracy from the articles.Prior to AB getting involved, I had already posted a compromise version noting the one citation you did provide, and merged it with the non-blanked version, so as to provide balance in the article. Everything I posted is referenced and cited directly from context, and most if not all of it is direct quotes from published, cited articles. I should hope that we can come to a consensus with this, because it includes your defense side of "why" the wolves are being hunted, and what advantage it has. Duuude007 (talk) 04:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

76.21.184.65 did not "get me involved" and I left a similar message at User talk:76.21.184.65. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• I propose the following:

Congress passed the Federal Airborne Hunting Act of 1972, which made it illegal for hunters to shoot animals from a plane or helicopter. The federal legislation does have a [provision] for predator control, permitting state employees or licensed individuals to shoot from an aircraft for the sake of protecting "land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life, or crops."

Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska in 2007 approved to use this provision in the law to shoot wolves and bears while flying for the purpose of protection of property.

“ A kill of 124 wolves would thus translate to [the survival of] 1,488 moose or 2,976 caribou or some combination thereof.

~Craig Medred

”

The brackets allow the term "loophole" to be replaced with a less offensive word while showing that the quote was edited, but still fully within context. It also includes a direct contrary quote from your citation. Duuude007 (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Wolf hunt by Gerard Reesbrack.jpg

The image File:Wolf hunt by Gerard Reesbrack.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Livestock Predation

The 1980's statistics seem outdated, why not use some more current loss numbers? A quick search found that the 2005 losses have increased substantually since then. I'll go ahead and update this using this blatantly biased source:[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugguyak (talk • contribs) 08:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wolves were never Extinct in Yellowstone National Park

The statement: In 1915, federal authorities began a poisoning program of their own, resulting in the extinction of wolves in Yellowstone National Park in 1926 is not accurate nor supportable. There is clear evidence in Schullery, Paul, ed. (1996). The Yellowstone Wolf-A Guide and Sourcebook. Worland, WY: High Plains Publisher. ISBN 18810119136. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help) that there were reliable sightings of single and paired wolves in Yellowstone from 1926 through the re-introduction in 1995. Weaver's offical NPS 1975-77 study and M. Meagher's NPS 1986 study support this. The paragraph should read: Between 1916 and 1926 the National Park Service predator control program resulted in the extirpation of sustainable packs of wolves in Yellowstone National Park by 1926--Mike Cline (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Blood knife story myth?

Regarding the "Knife trap" story: The reference isn't good enough. This article (http://www.adn.com/2008/01/27/295560/blood-knife-tale-fails-to-pass.html) makes a good effort to find a better evidence for the story (including the book referenced here) but comes up short. I suggest removing it entirely Averisk (talk) 07:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)