What are your views on Wolf reintroduction in Maine and ADKs??

[Puma concolor]

Well, if one thing has been decided as a result of this thread, it is this ... I am DEFINITELY going to read "The Beast in the Garden." I've already ordered it from the local Borders. Looks like an outstanding book!!!

Does anyone think there are already cougars in NY? Very interesting topic perhaps for another thread.

 

[Lawn Sale]

pshaw! If you were a two-year-old child, or a domestic cat, I could understand your anxiety about coyotes. As you appear to be an adult male, I think your account of being pursued by coyotes is just a matter of getting spooked. Of course, I could be wrong; you could be the first adult person in the recorded history of N America to be eaten by coyotes. If so, I will be happy to revise my opinions.

I was in my early teens at the time I was chased, as were the others with me, and if you consider getting literally chased out of the woods by coyotes "spooked", then you are correct. I do not fear them now, but have not forgotten that day. The incident with my dad was back in the mid-90's just north of Moosehead Lake. I'll thank you not to imply I'm a liar.

Probably not necessary. My reading is that they are coming back on their own. Certainly there appears now to be an established breeding population in Minnesota, and their are some very recent very solid records (hair traps, scat) from Quebec. One or more of them in the Gaspé, so the cougars wouldn't have to find a way across the St Lawrence valley to get to New England. see the eastern cougar net , interesting stuff.
Cougar do not need really wild, undisturbed country; they seem to do quite well in WA in industrial forest landscapes, similar to Northern and Western Maine. All they really need is deer and cover.
I reckon that's a really scary prospect for you, given your fears about the much less lethal coyotes. But I assure you, cougars usually leave people alone.

You are belittling me here, and I'd appreciate it if you stopped, since you don't know me and I don't know you. I have actually seen the local mountain lions that are coming back to the midcoast area, and I have no fear of them, or of the coyotes. I relayed an incident that happened to me, and you chose to make fun of it and imply I'm lying? I'll thank you to be a little more civil please.

I think you are revealing your complete ignorance of the habitat requirements of deer and moose. Logging, forest woodlots, patchy exurban landscapes, deer love that stuff. Why do you think there is such a plague of deer in new jersey suburbs? Probably more whitetails now than in pre-columbian times.

You're right, I must know nothing of habitat requirements since you know so much about me. I haven't taught Hunter Safety for the state for the last 10 years (part of this course is on game habitat), haven't been hunting for the last 27 years, and haven't been hiking and going into the woods since I was 2.

So, since we're on the subject, do you know more than what you read, or is that the extent of your boundless knowledge? Just because you didn't read about it in some journal doesn't mean it didn't, or won't, happen.

 

[RGF1]

Studies have shown that a natural predator helps the prey population by weeding out the old, the sick and the weak thereby strengthening the herd. The opposite is true with human hunters. Hunters want to go for trophy bucks. The biologists could plead 'please get the doe!' so that there is more of a population check. To no avail. Trophy hunting will take the strongest and the fastest growing putting sleective pressure on the herd that favores the weak males. Nature had an article on this a year ago.

The point you make about Islands is a good one. Lets say wolves were put into an area with abundant moose and deer populations. (yes wolves are hunters not carion grubbers) All populations will reach a dynamic equilbrium. Hunting in this area may need to get curtailed. Also the deer over abundance in the hinterlands and suberbs out side of the area will be untouched. "The Beast in the Garden" does point out that an over abundant food source will eventualy bring predation. Simple experiment; put a tray of sandwiches and brownies at a trail head.

Puck you are correct . The only reason hunters oppose wolves returning is that it will in effect reduce the the amount of deer and moose they can kill.
Eventually the wolf will make it's way hear one way or the othere. They may well already be here. . Having hiked and climbed where tere are both wolves and cougars i never was afraid . In fact I saw a cougar once at a distance it took off before I could even raise my camera. I have heard wolves it is hard to expalian differnt and not at all sacry.
Also the tall tales one hears about coyotes mostly myth . I have seen them too had one come close but as soon as I took it's photo it was gone they are not stupid they are not going to chase you , they prefer to wait untill you leave then raid what ever thay can get into .
I would love to see the wolf and courgar come back on thier own if they are re introduced it should be carefully thought out. Thoose who point out that the deer poulation is so large is due not only to lack of predators hunting but our wild life mangement "maneges " the herd for the benifit of hunters ,Not the deer. So their is less deer and moose for hunters to kill and the deer herd will be healtier less collisions with cars and so on. I think that the pro hunting side is being less than forthcoming Just come out and say you guys do not want the wolf or cougar back because it means less deer to kill. Then lets see how the debate goes.

The tall tales are just that made up to scare people .
If thiere natural peredators come back there will be more of a equalibruim and a healthier deer that are less of a nuisance to some. Many deer would not survive long north of the lakes area due ot a deeper snow pack making them easy prey for wolves or a cougar. There would be more moose and maybe even in some places caribou at some point . they would take the deers place .

 

[TCD]

I'm not convinced that all negative animal interaction stories are tall tales or myths. I think there are some well documented accounts in the regular news, like CNN, of runners and bicyclists being killed by mountain lions in California in recent years...

 

[Maddy]

I also want to point out that while I have long appreciated the speech attributed to Cheif Seattle (quoted by Maddy), it is useful to know that he never said those things.

According to my research this evening from the Museum of History and Indians in Seattle the words I quoted represent the gist of Chief Seattle's remarks. "However flawed it may be, this is the only eyewitness account of Chief Seattles most famous speech". It appears that the language was embellished for the sake of emphasis but the substance of his talk was not changed.
It probably didn't sound quite glamorous enough for the media.

Have any of you been involved with the wolf recovery people that travel with wolves across the US educating people about this species? They came several time to Hadley Fish and Game and it was a really amazing experience to hear the presentation and meet the wolves up close and personal. The wolves dictated the interactions and if they gave any indication that they wanted out of the room they were escorted out immediately. They were in no way treated like pets and their "wildness" was most definitely respected. WE had to be very quiet and the wolf would walk around and pick someone to visit. It you couldn't handle it you had to leave because they didn't want anyone spooking them.
They talked a lot about recovery and helped people to understand and respect these beautiful animals. It was a very enlightning evening.

 

[RGF1]

I'm not convinced that all negative animal interaction stories are tall tales or myths. I think there are some well documented accounts in the regular news, like CNN, of runners and bicyclists being killed by mountain lions in California in recent years...

Of course this does on a very rare ocassion happen . The reason a Lion will attack a runner of bycylist is beacuuse the mimic the prey usually deer in the case of a adiult human. But the other side of this if you really want wild places then you should accpet thier are predators it seems some want a Park were every thing is maneged just for them. . The other part is we are building in the lions habitat . It really is amazing that people want "wilderness" untill they find out what wilderness really is . .I would think that it is part of the risk you take . Or is that some groomed trails , huts shelters , signs with milage and markers in thier "wilderness" Not that thre is any thing wrong with that Just be honest about it.
I for one would love to hear a wolf howl Spot a lion in the distance Having seen them and been awed by the speed and grace they move at . Also knowing a lion can if need be take a grizzley . Even Grizzleys will avoid them . .
Aslo ther is another side to the ranches out west . most of them are on federal land that you own and they rancgher pays rates set in the 18,00s . Wish I could lease land at that rate.
If one is afraid of being attacked by a cougar do not go where they live . For th most part cougars are afraid of humans and avoid them yes you see a story in the news it is called sensationlism lion attacks are very rare .
I thought the ethic was we are going into the wild lifes homes.

 

[Lawn Sale]

Puck you are correct . The only reason hunters oppose wolves returning is that it will in effect reduce the the amount of deer and moose they can kill.

Yeah, it's all some conspiracy. I am a hunter and don't want ANY species artificially repopulated, whether it's the wolf or the snout nosed mole. Let nature run its course.

Thoose who point out that the deer poulation is so large is due not only to lack of predators hunting but our wild life mangement "maneges " the herd for the benifit of hunters ,Not the deer. So their is less deer and moose for hunters to kill and the deer herd will be healtier less collisions with cars and so on. I think that the pro hunting side is being less than forthcoming Just come out and say you guys do not want the wolf or cougar back because it means less deer to kill.

Contrary to what you might think, the Fish & Wildlife department does not cater to the "hunters". They base their decisions on the wildlife biologists, of which I know a few. The hunting permits are adjusted each year based on those biologists results. If the population goes down due to snowstorms, meteors, or little green men from Mars, the biologists numbers reflect this in the herd and the allowable harvest amounts are adjusted accordingly.

The tall tales are just that made up to scare people .
If thiere natural peredators come back there will be more of a equalibruim and a healthier deer that are less of a nuisance to some. Many deer would not survive long north of the lakes area due ot a deeper snow pack making them easy prey for wolves or a cougar. There would be more moose and maybe even in some places caribou at some point . they would take the deers place .

I agree the herd will be healthier, and I am all for it. But, if you'll do your homework and not rely on conspiracy theories, you'll see that in most cases of artificial repopulation, especially those with predatory traits, the balance will skew in the opposite direction resulting in more predators. In some cases the cure is worse than the problem.

Your theory of deer not surviving due to deeper snow pack doesn't hold water. If the snow is so deep the deer have a hard time getting around, the wolves and cougars would as well.

Hunters are not bad people despite you attempting to make this into something it's not. The same with the state, they are certainly not in the "pocket" of the hunters, as one I can tell you so without reservation.

 

[thuja]

You know, the whole position about "we do not want predator X, they will eat people and do bad things", the really curious thing about it is that when a particular predator has been around a long time, most people just don't think it's a big deal. Here in WA, there are lots of cougars and most of the outdoor recreating public thinks about them hardly at all. They're pretty darn good at staying out of sight, and usually it's only by tracks that you ever have a clue that they are around. And at the same time, it's interesting to sit back and watch the good citizens of Iowa, Illinois, New York, whatever, work themselves into a great frenzy of anxiety over the possible appearance of this feared predator, who will stalk and eat people.

I am not holding the citizens of WA up as models of good sense, however, since the same thing goes on here over any proposal to reintroduce wolves (to the Olympic peninsula, a few years ago), or grizzly bears to the N cascades. It was interesting to hang out in the Canadian Selkirks a couple of summers ago, where there is a pretty good grizz pop. The locals there are pretty much blase and matter-of-fact about grizzly bears, at the same time that a large part of the hiker population in WA is just totally skittish about grizz reintroduction.

People are conservative, they don't like change. And they have atavistic fears of any large animal with teeth and claws, irrespective of the actual odds of predation. That's probably the bottom line.

 

[gaiagirl]

Does anyone think there are already cougars in NY? Very interesting topic perhaps for another thread.[/QUOTE]

On the cougar question, which has come up throughout this thread, I can only recommend you look up Sue Morse in Vermont and/or her group Keeping Track. Cougars are not in the Northeast by migration. The cat that has been roaming The Quabbin area for some time has been proven to be a South American lion. Scat was scraped for sloughed off epithelial cells and DNA sequencing run which can reveal the matrilineal geneology. This lab work showed the cat was South American in origin i.e., it was some idiot's house pet that was either let loose or got loose all by itself!!

Having familiarity with the midcoast Maine area, I know that a cat has been spotted by authorities up in the area somewhat inland from Newcastle near Damariscotta this past year as well (there was an article in the Lincoln County News about it sometime this spring, I believe it was in April). Sad to say, but these animals are not migrating naturally, they are escaped "pets", according to everything I have ever heard or read that was scientifically sound. The author of Tracking and the Art of Seeing (his name escapes me at the moment) has also spoken on this subject and concurs. Sue Morse and other wildlife experts believe mountain lions will eventually migrate here where there is appropriate habitat and prey (Adirondacks, Northern Maine, parts of Vermont, perhaps portions of NH) but I will take quite a while for this to happen.

 

[Tim Seaver]

Paul Rezendes is the author of Tracking and the Art of Seeing - great book!
He's also a top-notch photographer.

BLE - I know many would say the black bear really isn't a predator per se, but the sort of irrational fear of an attack would likely be similar to those expressed about the wolf, even though they would seem to be similarly unfounded based on the data. I don't pretend to have the knowledge to decide if wolf introduction is good or not, but I bet the comments would likely be very similar.

Excellent point. It's interesting how fear plays such a big role in these deliberations. Even though vastly higher numbers of people are killed by domestic dogs than wolves or cougars, because we don't think of them as the "scary predator in the woods", most people have little fear of them in comparison.

 

[Lawn Sale]

Having familiarity with the midcoast Maine area, I know that a cat has been spotted by authorities up in the area somewhat inland from Newcastle near Damariscotta this past year as well (there was an article in the Lincoln County News about it sometime this spring, I believe it was in April). Sad to say, but these animals are not migrating naturally, they are escaped "pets", according to everything I have ever heard or read that was scientifically sound. The author of Tracking and the Art of Seeing (his name escapes me at the moment) has also spoken on this subject and concurs. Sue Morse and other wildlife experts believe mountain lions will eventually migrate here where there is appropriate habitat and prey (Adirondacks, Northern Maine, parts of Vermont, perhaps portions of NH) but I will take quite a while for this to happen.

I have no idea as to where it came from, only that it's been around here for at least the last 12-13 years, and it's managed to elude people on a regular basis. The article in question made the paper because it's the first photos of the cat, previous evidence has been tracks, scat, and hairs (which were included with deer hair 10' up in a tree).

If it was a pet, and I'm not saying it wasn't, wouldn't it have less of a fear of humans and be more visible? I've only seen it once and that was while it was crossing a paved road. I've haven't seen it while hunting, hiking, 4 wheeling, or just generally driving around.

I think it's cool having a big cat in the area and I hope they do repopulate themselves, I just don't think they need any help from us.

 

[gaiagirl]

I wasn't aware the cat had been around for that long (maybe i need to remember to carry a whistle and a knife just for my own comfort when I hike in the Camden hills alone ???), but the lion in Central Mass has been there for quite a while too. It has been treed once briefly that I know of but it mostly keeps hidden. It has tons of area to roam, plenty of food, etc and it is all alone. This animal was not part of any migration pattern. I'm sure there is a miniscule possibility there has been migration, but there IS proof of escaped animals in most cases and there is absolutely no scientific evidence at all that they have made their way this far East as yet. And I agree, it is best they do so on their own. We have mucked up enough already. Nature's way is best when it comes to big predators. The issue is too emotional, too political, too hysterical.

 

[RGF1]

Yeah, it's all some conspiracy. I am a hunter and don't want ANY species artificially repopulated, whether it's the wolf or the snout nosed mole. Let nature run its course.





Contrary to what you might think, the Fish & Wildlife department does not cater to the "hunters". They base their decisions on the wildlife biologists, of which I know a few. The hunting permits are adjusted each year based on those biologists results. If the population goes down due to snowstorms, meteors, or little green men from Mars, the biologists numbers reflect this in the herd and the allowable harvest amounts are adjusted accordingly.





I agree the herd will be healthier, and I am all for it. But, if you'll do your homework and not rely on conspiracy theories, you'll see that in most cases of artificial repopulation, especially those with predatory traits, the balance will skew in the opposite direction resulting in more predators. In some cases the cure is worse than the problem.

Your theory of deer not surviving due to deeper snow pack doesn't hold water. If the snow is so deep the deer have a hard time getting around, the wolves and cougars would as well.

Hunters are not bad people despite you attempting to make this into something it's not. The same with the state, they are certainly not in the "pocket" of the hunters, as one I can tell you so without reservation.

There is not a conspriacsy it is very obvious look who is against big predators coming back.
As fro the deper snow pack cougars and wolves can move trough snow much easier than a deer There are wolves alaska Where thier F & G is going to shoot some so the HUNTERS can have more moose to kill.
there is a lot of snow in pats of Alaska not ab ny deer and the wolve seem to manege to get the moose.
There are cougars in parts of Wyoming abn nd Montana that have a deep Snow pack not mauch in the way of deer there are Elk and moose they are taller and can move better in the snow. IN Co there is a growing Mule deer population but not many if any wolves the Hunters did a grand job wiping them, out earlier in the last century . The Cougar is there but in Small numberes tey genrally feed on the eaier to catch Mule deer than the elk though they do take them

Of course not all hunters are bad but the idea that wild life exists for them to blast away at does become repusive andd yes F&G manges wild life to benifit HUNTERs who pay for them through licenses.
Just be up front about it and say you do not want big predators because it means less game to blast away at. That is what is behind some hunters motives nothing more or less not a conspriacy your post is nearly a Flame BTW . You just did not like that I told the true reason for hunters not wanting big predators .
I doubt we would hear a peep if some thing that did not take game was reintroduced.

 

[Puck]

Lawnsale
What you have said about game policy being based on biologist's studies is partly true and the reality of your statment is state by state. I have alwys felt the fish and wildlife dep in New England were pretty solid. However that is not always the case.. http://magazine.audubon.org/incite/incite0507.html
The link is to an Audubon article about the deer population problem and how best to solve it. What mess! There is so many forces at work it is hard to sort them out and do the right thing.

RGF1
What you said about Mountain Lions attacking humans because they mimic thier prey is partialy true. The book Beast in the Garden shows that a lion population in close proximity to humans will study us and then determine that we are food...then the season begins.

 

[dave.m]

I ...<snip>... don't want ANY species artificially repopulated, whether it's the wolf or the snout nosed mole. Let nature run its course.

I think any reading of natural history would have to conclude that human attempts to tweak the ecosystem almost always backfire. "You can never do one thing", as Garritt Hardin reminds us.

That said, I'm not sure there is any escape on this.

Vermont was nearly stripped of trees in the late 1800s. Industrial logging has shaped the northwoods for many years but is giving way to quasi-suburban recreational sprawl. Human populations are increasing, as it the foot print of our oil based economy and transportation infrastructure. Road continue to improve which push development further and deeper in.

This begs the question, what exactly is natural? How exactly do we let nature "run its course" in this situation.

I'm not taking a position pro or con here relative to the reintroduction of the wolves. Just pointing out that I think the distinctions of natural and artificial strike me as contrived. As a species, we are shaping and altering our ecosystem in a multitude of ways.

 

[pedxing]

According to my research this evening from the Museum of History and Indians in Seattle the words I quoted represent the gist of Chief Seattle's remarks. "However flawed it may be, this is the only eyewitness account of Chief Seattles most famous speech".

Maddy, I hope my persistence is not offensive. The text you qoute is not taken from the one eyewitness transcription of Seattle's speech. Your text was from a 1971 movie and bears no significant resemblance to the eyewitness account you mention. The eyewitness version is very interesting, sad, and eloquent and can be found at:

http://www.synaptic.bc.ca/ejournal/smith.htm

I'm not disagreeing with your point of view, I'm much in agreement. It's just that I want to keep the record straight. I'm not trying to criticize you. Lot's of distinguished people (including Al Gore) have repeated this fictional account. I've been corrected after posting modern myths (urban legends?) myself.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Vermont was nearly stripped of trees in the late 1800s. Industrial logging has shaped the northwoods for many years but is giving way to quasi-suburban recreational sprawl.

Dave -

In the interests of accuracy - as I recall my Vermont history, the deforestation, and resulting loss and eradication of turkeys (and near eradication of deer) was caused mostly by the boom in wool production rather than lumber. Huge areas are turned to pastureland to support sheep. The market crashed when New Zealand wool production ramped up around the mid-1800's, as the land there was better suited (i.e. more economical) than Vermont's.

Kevin

 

[dave.m]

Dave -

In the interests of accuracy - as I recall my Vermont history, the deforestation, and resulting loss and eradication of turkeys (and near eradication of deer) was caused mostly by the boom in wool production rather than lumber. Huge areas are turned to pastureland to support sheep. The market crashed when New Zealand wool production ramped up around the mid-1800's, as the land there was better suited (i.e. more economical) than Vermont's.

Kevin,

that is my understanding as well. by industrial logging, I was more thinking about the lumbering in the mid to late 1900s, which is different (and more associated with ME and internataional paper companies?). And in between there was the non-wool related lumbering in NH at the end of the 1800s and early 1900s.

sorry for the confusion. limited time at work!