Wolf Hunt Part 2
I do appreciate and read all comments. We may not always agree; however, your input is valued. There are issues we can accept even if we do not approve. There are also issues we cannot accept and cannot approve of. Can I base my support of a candidate on this single issue - yes. This is the case with the Wolf Hunt.
My reasons are as follows. Animal Welfare involves more than dogs and cats. It's promoting the humane treatment of all animals. Yes, we kill animals for food, clothing, and sport. I was raised on a farm and am very aware of the life and death cycle. This is something I accept.
Minnesota law describes animals as "every living creature except members of the human race." Minnesota law also defines torture and cruelty as "every act, omission, or neglect which causes or permits unnecessary or unjustifiable pain, suffering, or death".
Why, then, would we accept a continuation of leg hold traps? They are cruel - much more so than one well placed bullet. They cause pain and suffering to not only the intended target but to other animals as well. Traps are hidden, may be scented, and may be placed on or near wildlife trails.
The Wolf was removed from the endangered list. There was a 5 year waiting period regarding wolf management. The DNR came to the Legislature last year asking for the Legislature to remove the five year wait on a management plan for wolves. The Governor did not object to lifting the 5 year waiting period.
The DNR had pushed for this and the Legislature and Governor have approved. We are accepting and approving a form of killing that goes against State law. It is inhumane and should not be accepted. Therefore, I cannot vote for any candidate that supports this law nor will I donate to the DNR. Yes, the Legislature does many good things - although several of the past sessions have made me wonder. The DNR also does good things. However, this decision is unjustified. Why would we accept the intentional, deliberate promotion of animal cruelty by endorsing the use of leg hold traps? Are we giving the DNR too much power? Are we not holding the people we have elected accountable? Yes, perhaps we are.
So, going back to the original question: Can I base my support of a candidate on this single issue? Yes.
Ron Falenschek
12:56 pm on Wednesday, June 27, 2012
It is in the wolves best interest to implement a management system which maintains the population at an acceptable level. The sooner, the better. Hunting and trapping are proven and humane methods to achieving that result. Neither violate state law as you suggest, and are in fact effectively used throughout the U.S. to manage numerous wildlife species.
The DNR is taking an extremely conservative approach to the initial wolf season. With a maximum of only 400 wolves taken, it will have very little statistical significance on the population. It will however be a starting point which allows them to gather data and gradually fine tune the management program over a number of years. For this reason bypassing the waiting period makes sense. The goal of the DNR is to make sure that we do continue to maintain a balanced wolf population in the future.
If any significant data was received by the survey, it is the need for greater education of the public on the goals of the hunt.
As far as basing a vote on a single issue. There is no justification. It’s simply irresponsible.
Shirley Taggart
3:15 pm on Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Ron
Please check out MN Statute 343.20 Subd. 2 and Subd. 3. Also States banning leg-hold traps include Washington, California, Massachusetts, Arizona, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Florida.
Cities banning leg-hold traps include: Columbia, Maryland; Nashua, New Hampshire; Two Harbors, Minnesota; and St. Paul, Minnesota.
Shirley
D. Bell
9:33 am on Thursday, June 28, 2012
The wolf population in MN is estimated to be 3,000 according to the DNR.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/wolves/mgmt.html
So 400 wolves is not "statistically insignificant" considering the small number of wolves. Furthermore, some wolf populations are so small as to create inbred groups, thus endangering the survival of the species.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/03/17/royale-island-wolves/
Tom Sullivan
6:40 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
People seem quick to say that 400 wolves is conservative, but many more than that will die off as a result of the season (wolves caught in traps that chew their legs off and die later elsewhere, which is a well known phenomenon called “ring-off” and those that hunters don't cleanly kill) - these wolves will not be counted towards the quota. These wolves will die in the woods alone from injuries or infection, or they will starve to death because they are injured or otherwise unable to hunt. This means that in a single season of trapping and hunting, the wolf population could decrease to year 1998 levels or lower, wasting over 14 years of state and federal funding towards wolf conservation efforts.
The minimum population goal is 1,600 - at which point immediate action would be taken to reverse the population decline. This means that instead thinking about it like we have approximately 3,000 wolves, the quota of 400 is actually coming out of an above minimum population of about 1,400 wolves - that's almost 29% and that's on the low end of what the fallout will likely be. That is not insignificant. It is extremely irresponsible of the DNR to begin an open season without even making the effort obtain an accurate population estimate.
The goal of the DNR is not to balance the wolf population, it seems their goal is to make some money by letting our wolves be killed for entertainment. If their true goal was balance, there are more effective and humane means available.
Ron Falenschek
4:08 pm on Wednesday, June 27, 2012
I'm very familiar with the MN statute you referenced. It has nothing to do with this issue. It's often misinterpreted by anti hunting/trapping groups to misinform. The key terms of the statute are "unnecessary" and "unjustifiable".
Trappers do not violate that statute any more than veteranarians, farmers, etc..
And as I stated above hunting and trapping are recognized as effective and humane methods of wildlife management.
As for other states, you're unfortunately correct. A few states have abandoned verified management methods based purely on emotionalism and misinformation.
I'm not familiar with all the cities you listed, but expect the reason has much more do to with proximity to humans and pets much more than the alleged inhumane treatment of animals..
D. Bell
9:42 am on Thursday, June 28, 2012
Traps are inhumane. Period. We know that animals suffer and morally we should not condone suffering, whether it is legalized or not. Wolves are not the same as dogs, but are genetically so close as to be identical. If we would not allow a dog to suffer alone in a trap, in pain for days, we should not allow it to happen to a wolf. It is cruel and unnecessary.
Ron Falenschek
10:44 am on Thursday, June 28, 2012
D. Bell
The average litter size for wolves is 5. That means the 400 wolf restriction is roughly 5% of just the new litter alone. That IS NOT statistically significant to the population.
Period.
The Public Radio reference you listed concerned one specific small pack of wolves confined to an island, thus limiting interaction with other packs. Not the general population.
Lastly, there are strict guidelines for trappers using leghold traps. Animals do not "suffer alone in leg hold traps for days." Traps must be checked at a minumum of 24 hours. A majority trappers check far more often than that.
Susan
5:47 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
It is cruel, whether it is 24 hours, or two hours. I understand the need for hunting some species for population control, but why do we need to trap an animal in this way? For those hunters who like to call themselves sportsman, I hope you consider this to be unsportsmanlike behavior.
Tom Sullivan
6:46 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
When the trapper does finally return to check the trap, they will kill the wolf by strangulation or blunt force trauma (stomping it to death) in order to preserve the fur and skull. Trapping is a barbaric practice that has no place in our society and would be considered criminal animal cruelty in any other context. Animal cruelty has long been recognized as a behavior seen in those who commit other violent behaviors such as child abuse. Legally protecting this type of behavior to gain pelts, claws, and skulls unnecessarily risks desensitizing young people to the animals’ pain and and sends the wrong message about the humane treatment of animals.
Susan
6:51 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
This just makes my stomach turn! Why on earth would anyone want to use these traps, or think it is okay to do so? Maybe, as Tom says, it's in the personality of someone who already has "issues".
It should be outlawed, period.
Tom Sullivan
6:27 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
There is no biological reason for a public take of wolves in Minnesota where the wolf population has remained stable for over ten years without human interference in the form of hunting and trapping. Wolves’ numbers do not need to be controlled through human intervention because they control their own populations based on resources available in their territory. Due to wolves’ built in population controls, the Minnesota DNR has not established a maximum population goal for wolves as they do for other species. Wolves naturally face high rates of mortality, and according to the DNR Wolf Management Plan approximately 35% of adult wolves die each year from starvation, intraspecific strife (territory disputes with other wolves), and human related causes such as poaching and car collisions.
In addition to the mortality sources that have been studied, wolf populations will likely be negatively impacted by a warming climate (parasitic diseases) and the lightened state restrictions on killing wolves. The prudent and responsible action would be to wait and observe these impacts before rushing to a public take via trapping and hunting. While it has been historically low, wolf depredation of livestock is always a concern and we should be focused on supporting our farmers with non-lethal and lethal methods when necessary to control this problem. The random elimination of wolves via a public take will not effectively manage this problem and may even increase depredation.
Ron Falenschek
8:02 am on Friday, June 29, 2012
Tom,
Strangulation and "stomping to death"? Seriously?
I'm not sure if you are the victim of misinformation, or just intentionally trying to mislead. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the first.
Your responses are so full of poor assumptions I don't know where to begin.
Tom Sullivan
3:18 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
Yes, strangulation and stomping to death. Those are methods used to kill wolves when trapped. I've researched this issue and if you care to rebut actual points, please do so with your own research and don't just try to bully people on a message board because you think you can.