Wolf Poisoning

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

This is paper is well worth the time for hunters to read for a better understanding of wolves and wolf management in Alberta over the last 100+ years.


Review of Management and Research of Wolf-Big Game Predation in Alberta 1984
https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/2d4c...-inalberta.pdf

The link you provided is contradicting you in case you didn't realize it.

In your previous post you stated that the Rabies eradication efforts were not responsible for the large reduction in wolf numbers in the 1950s as was suggested correctly by Big Gray Wolf.

Your link clearly states that Wolf control efforts were largely ineffective until the anti Rabies eradication program that ran from 1952 to 1956

It's in the opening statement, near the top.

And by the way, it was not MY generation that eradicated the wolves.

I was just two years old the year that program ended.

This is so typical of today's outdoors men.
One points an accusing finger at the first person who disagrees with the general line of thinking.
Meanwhile you out right deny what we say all while you are providing a link that supports what we say.

You know what, Not that long ago it was me that thought the old guys had no idea what they were talking about.
Funny thing about getting old, one learns to research more and jump to conclusions less.

I miss knowing everything about anything. Now I have to make do with what I learned through experience and research.

[Spruster]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

The link you provided is contradicting you in case you didn't realize it.

In your previous post you stated that the Rabies eradication efforts were not responsible for the large reduction in wolf numbers in the 1950s as was suggested correctly by Big Gray Wolf.

Your link clearly states that Wolf control efforts were largely ineffective until the anti Rabies eradication program that ran from 1952 to 1956

It's in the opening statement, near the top.

And by the way, it was not MY generation that eradicated the wolves.

I was just two years old the year that program ended.

This is so typical of today's outdoors men.
One points an accusing finger at the first person who disagrees with the general line of thinking.
Meanwhile you out right deny what we say all while you are providing a link that supports what we say.

You know what, Not that long ago it was me that thought the old guys had no idea what they were talking about.Funny thing about getting old, one learns to research more and jump to conclusions less.

I miss knowing everything about anything. Now I have to make do with what I learned through experience and research.

still no answer as to what should be done . cute neutral reply . Tell us what old guys actually think !

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

The link you provided is contradicting you in case you didn't realize it.

In your previous post you stated that the Rabies eradication efforts were not responsible for the large reduction in wolf numbers in the 1950s as was suggested correctly by Big Gray Wolf.

Your link clearly states that Wolf control efforts were largely ineffective until the anti Rabies eradication program that ran from 1952 to 1956

It's in the opening statement, near the top.

And by the way, it was not MY generation that eradicated the wolves.

I was just two years old the year that program ended.

This is so typical of today's outdoors men.
One points an accusing finger at the first person who disagrees with the general line of thinking.
Meanwhile you out right deny what we say all while you are providing a link that supports what we say.

You know what, Not that long ago it was me that thought the old guys had no idea what they were talking about.
Funny thing about getting old, one learns to research more and jump to conclusions less.

I miss knowing everything about anything. Now I have to make do with what I learned through experience and research.

Ain't that a fact !

I was around when that program took place.It certainly did the job. In the early 60's thru the 70's there were so many Moose around it was unbelievable compared to today. It was during that same period that even non-resident aliens had two Moose tags to fill in the Fox Creek area. Things were good without the hordes of Wolves around and as I recall there wasn't a great deal of collateral damage to the other Forest critters. - some, but not critical.. The Trappers still did OK, but not great ,for a couple of years after.

[coyoteman]

If the govt made it legal to hunt wolves from choppers, with the proper control, and licence.The americans would line up to do so.The hog hunting videos in Texas, not for the squeamish,as they mow down countless hogs, with there semi, and auto weapons.This would provide good money for local companies, as well as helping with the problem.Buttt the antis would as usual cry bloody murder-----

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

The link you provided is contradicting you in case you didn't realize it.

In your previous post you stated that the Rabies eradication efforts were not responsible for the large reduction in wolf numbers in the 1950s as was suggested correctly by Big Gray Wolf.

Your link clearly states that Wolf control efforts were largely ineffective until the anti Rabies eradication program that ran from 1952 to 1956

It's in the opening statement, near the top.

And by the way, it was not MY generation that eradicated the wolves.

I was just two years old the year that program ended.

This is so typical of today's outdoors men.
One points an accusing finger at the first person who disagrees with the general line of thinking.
Meanwhile you out right deny what we say all while you are providing a link that supports what we say.

You know what, Not that long ago it was me that thought the old guys had no idea what they were talking about.
Funny thing about getting old, one learns to research more and jump to conclusions less.

I miss knowing everything about anything. Now I have to make do with what I learned through experience and research.

As much as I love your rants....

Go back and read my post, pay attention to the bolded section of the quote I was referring to. I was simply and directly addressing the claim that the 50's wolf cull had nothing to do with the desire to increase game populations.

As is supported by the fantastic review authored by Gunson, the Alberta government and individuals, including trappers and members of the very first version of the AFGA, killed wolves in an attempt to increased ungulate populations. This policy was still actively in effect through the 50's.

Never did I state that "the Rabies eradication efforts were not responsible for the large reduction in wolf numbers in the 1950"....

The rest I'll ignore due to compassion for the erratic.

Except that maybe you should get mad at Grey Wolf for first including you in That generation.

[Grizzly Adams]

I know this trapper, he's been doing his part, think he got at least 9. Of course there's outrage by the Huggers.

https://www.rmoutlook.com/article/wo...-line-20190131

Seems a way better option than poisoning.

Grizz

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

I know this trapper, he's been doing his part, think he got at least 9. Of course there's outrage by the Huggers.

https://www.rmoutlook.com/article/wo...-line-20190131

Seems a way better option than poisoning.

Grizz

Just not nearly as effective. Poison takes care of those packs really quick

[sage 13]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

Just not nearly as effective. Poison takes care of those packs really quick

along with other animals but yet so do snares unfortunately.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

As much as I love your rants....

Go back and read my post, pay attention to the bolded section of the quote I was referring to. I was simply and directly addressing the claim that the 50's wolf cull had nothing to do with the desire to increase game populations.

The section you bolded says.

knocked the wolf population back in the 50's to control the spread of rabbies, not for game management.

Your response;

As a whole, that's just not true.

Since the formation of Alberta, wolf control has always included great consideration for the effect of protecting and increasing game populations.

Perhaps you didn't mean that the way it reads, but I see only one way to read that.

That is, you are saying the strychnine campaign was also about game management.

That is simply not true.

It is true that efforts had been made previously to to control predator populations including wolves but most of the effort involved stakeholders actions not government field personnel. And it wasn't very effective against wolves in the north.

The government field work involved mostly studies. monitoring and law enforcement much as it does now. And regulatory changes, setting seasons and bag limits ext.

There simply aren't enough government employees to effectively control any wildlife populations without a lot of involvement from the tax payers.
More so even then today.

The 1950s rabies eradication campaign was a good example of that.
Trappers, ranchers, farmers and others were recruited to place strychnine baits in their area. My father was one of those recruited.

The use of strychnine had been made illegal many years previously so only government personnel had access to it.
A state of emergency was declared and strychnine was handed out to anyone willing to put out baits. No training or oversight involved.

My dad was one of the few who know how to use it since it had been legal to use as a trapping tool when he was learning to trap.

The point of all that rambling is to show that the use of strychnine in this case, had nothing to do with normal wildlife management and everything to do with an emergency situation.

The PDF you linked to bear this out by saying in the abstract that;

control of Wolves was ineffective until the anti-rabies program of 1952-56,

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

Just not nearly as effective. Poison takes care of those packs really quick

Done properly it can, but done wrong it will kill few wolves and a lot of species not targeted.
Which seems to be the case from reports I have seen.

A couple of years ago I found a PDF report from one of those bait locations.
It showed four wolves killed along with several Coyote, a couple of Fox, two Marten, one Lynx, dozens of Gray Jays, several Ravens and Magpies and misc other species.

From what I learned about the use of strychnine I would imagine that a good number of non target species were not recovered and so not counted.

To me, that does not sound like an effective tool. Kinda like burning down the barn to get rid of the Pigeons.

[MooseRiverTrapper]

In the good old days the outfitters had a jar of the universally effective stuff in their saddle bag. Every gutpile got spiced up. Also hawk and owl feet were worth a few cents a pair at the county office. Had lots of game and game birds around and a lack of useless predators.

[sage 13]

Originally Posted by MooseRiverTrapper

In the good old days the outfitters had a jar of the universally effective stuff in their saddle bag. Every gutpile got spiced up. Also hawk and owl feet were worth a few cents a pair at the county office. Had lots of game and game birds around and a lack of useless predators.

Interesting so outfitters were to blame for the killing of many animals or birds they felt were useless. Wonder why they think the wildlife is all about them.

[MooseRiverTrapper]

Originally Posted by sage 13

Interesting so outfitters were to blame for the killing of many animals or birds they felt were useless. Wonder why they think the wildlife is all about them.

Lol great twist. The ranchers had it too.

[sage 13]

Originally Posted by MooseRiverTrapper

Lol great twist. The ranchers had it too.

So outfitters and ranchers interesting, funny how today many of them think its all about them as well.

[MooseRiverTrapper]

Originally Posted by sage 13

So outfitters and ranchers interesting, funny how today many of them think its all about them as well.

What good would it do the guy in town to have some?

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by sage 13

Interesting so outfitters were to blame for the killing of many animals or birds they felt were useless. Wonder why they think the wildlife is all about them.

Things were done a little differently back then no doubt. I’ve listened to enough stories over the years of things that were done 30-50 years ago, and about those involved and you’d be surprised at times who was doing it and who was helping.
Everybody had the same end goal, more ungulates and less predators. Now of course I’m talking about bush Outfitters in the west and north country, not the private land deer guys although there may have been one or two that did both. In the end it benefited the Outfitters just as much as the resident guy out for a week long sheep hunt, or chasing elk or moose in the wilmore. There was lots of game for everybody ! I sure don’t ever remember hearing a resident complain about that, even though they’d put zero effort into helping it get to that point.

[creeky]

Originally Posted by MooseRiverTrapper

What good would it do the guy in town to have some?

The decency, wisdom and intelligence of electing not to use it (poison).


There’s a bigger picture out there on the land, one that includes future generations and the predators you consider to be useless.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Big Grey Wolf]

Guys, an interesting twist on the strycknine wolf rabies program in 50's in BC. It was Indian Affairs that ran the program and put up money for rabies control. They were concerned would be no moose for their wards and they would need to buy expensive beef. " Two birds with one stone"

[Spruster]

Originally Posted by creeky

The decency, wisdom and intelligence of electing not to use it (poison).


There’s a bigger picture out there on the land, one that includes future generations and the predators you consider to be useless.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

well , without control that will be the PICTURE . Land and wolves . At this rate that's all that's gonna be left . Get the picture ?
And for you's that can't stomach the collateral damage ( which is monitored) , leave it alone and see what damage is .

[RockyMountainMusic]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Done properly it can, but done wrong it will kill few wolves and a lot of species not targeted.
Which seems to be the case from reports I have seen.

A couple of years ago I found a PDF report from one of those bait locations.
It showed four wolves killed along with several Coyote, a couple of Fox, two Marten, one Lynx, dozens of Gray Jays, several Ravens and Magpies and misc other species.

From what I learned about the use of strychnine I would imagine that a good number of non target species were not recovered and so not counted.

To me, that does not sound like an effective tool. Kinda like burning down the barn to get rid of the Pigeons.

That's the report numbers that they will admit to, in that I know you don't see the 2 grizzlies that were poisoned do you or the multiple animals that actually make it away from the mounds and don't die right there. How honest do you think they are lmao. They don't go anywhere to look, and that's when they even go back to the site to check. I'm all for controlling numbers properly but what about bears cougars and other preds making huge impacts where we just turn the blind eye to that and industry and the wolf is the big problem, if you truly believe poisoning wolfs is the answer I have some bridges for sale for you gullible folks.

[Spruster]

Originally Posted by RockyMountainMusic

That's the report numbers that they will admit to, in that I know you don't see the 2 grizzlies that were poisoned do you or the multiple animals that actually make it away from the mounds and don't die right there. How honest do you think they are lmao. They don't go anywhere to look, and that's when they even go back to the site to check. I'm all for controlling numbers properly but what about bears cougars and other preds making huge impacts where we just turn the blind eye to that and industry and the wolf is the big problem, if you truly believe poisoning wolfs is the answer I have some bridges for sale for you gullible folks.

Bears hibernate in the winter , news . The other predators will eventually 100 % STARVE ..so pick your poison , keep your bridge

[RockyMountainMusic]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

Things were done a little differently back then no doubt. I’ve listened to enough stories over the years of things that were done 30-50 years ago, and about those involved and you’d be surprised at times who was doing it and who was helping.
Everybody had the same end goal, more ungulates and less predators. Now of course I’m talking about bush Outfitters in the west and north country, not the private land deer guys although there may have been one or two that did both. In the end it benefited the Outfitters just as much as the resident guy out for a week long sheep hunt, or chasing elk or moose in the wilmore. There was lots of game for everybody ! I sure don’t ever remember hearing a resident complain about that, even though they’d put zero effort into helping it get to that point.

I know some of those involved in the poisoning that took place in the Wilmore back then and yes that was the goal, but they had no idea what else would come from it and they sure had a different outlook on poison after the fact too. It wiped out a lot of the fur bearers on their lines especially things like wolverine and fox for many years. And back then how many grizzlies populated the area as opposed to today? If you don't look at the big picture with all predators and industry and populations etc your just wasting time.

[Spruster]

Originally Posted by Spruster

Bears hibernate in the winter , news . The other predators will eventually 100 % STARVE ..so pick your poison , keep your bridge

Originally Posted by RockyMountainMusic

I know some of those involved in the poisoning that took place in the Wilmore back then and yes that was the goal, but they had no idea what else would come from it and they sure had a different outlook on poison after the fact too. It wiped out a lot of the fur bearers on their lines especially things like wolverine and fox for many years. And back then how many grizzlies populated the area as opposed to today? If you don't look at the big picture with all predators and industry and populations etc your just wasting time.

I answered this one too … Its time deal with it

[RockyMountainMusic]

Originally Posted by Spruster

Bears hibernate in the winter , news . The other predators will eventually 100 % STARVE ..so pick your poison , keep your bridge

You seem so clever... Grizz on my line this year were still out past Christmas and not uncommon to see most of the year, so I can tell already your the perfect person for the bridge first... So when they didn't poison or heli shoot the wolves from the 60's to little over a decade ago all the predators just died right starved from no ungulates left lmao.....I'm ok with proper predator control but its more than just the wolf that is the cause! how much you got to spend for the bridge

[RockyMountainMusic]

Originally Posted by Spruster

I answered this one too … Its time deal with it

I agree it was time long ago to deal with it all but the gov has no interest in that

[Spruster]

Originally Posted by RockyMountainMusic

I agree it was time long ago to deal with it all but the gov has no interest in that

At least I have an answer, I really dislike it when someone is opposed , have NO solution and try to sell bridges .

You can't have your cake and eat too .

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by RockyMountainMusic

I know some of those involved in the poisoning that took place in the Wilmore back then and yes that was the goal, but they had no idea what else would come from it and they sure had a different outlook on poison after the fact too. It wiped out a lot of the fur bearers on their lines especially things like wolverine and fox for many years. And back then how many grizzlies populated the area as opposed to today? If you don't look at the big picture with all predators and industry and populations etc your just wasting time.

What industry?
Outfitting and trapping are the only industry going on in Wilmore, same as the areas I’m talking about up north. Maybe a little isolated exploration for mining but that’s almost non existent too.
Most of these places don’t have any unregulated harvest to speak of either, so you can’t blame the low numbers of ungulates on them either.

So you have predators and landscape that dictate the carrying capacity of the land. When they poisoned the wolves and burned the valleys to create food they had large numbers of ungulates. When the valleys grew up and the predator numbers got out of control the ungulates numbers plummeted.

Lower fox and wolverine numbers likely wasn’t at the top of their list of concerns in most cases, although I have no doubt the resilient furbearers didn’t all get wiped out anyway. There needs to be a balance between everything in the wild, and right now we’re way out of balance.
Predators are at their absolute peak, and ungulates are way down. I have no doubt that in another 30-40 years things will turn around on their own again and the tables will be turned, but most of us will be long gone by then !

[RockyMountainMusic]

Originally Posted by Spruster

At least I have an answer, I really dislike it when someone is opposed , have NO solution and try to sell bridges .

You can't have your cake and eat too .

The suggestions are proper management of ALL predators.. bears have huge impact on calves in the spring other provinces have years of research to show how detrimental it can be, we have a goat population on Caw ridge that not so long ago was one of or the highest population in AB which has now dropped to very few animals I suspect predators play a role in that.

Next suggestion: instead of clearcutting as much old growth forest as fast as we can as far as one can see with little to no rules or buffers maybe we can log more responsibly.. Back in the 80's the logging companies had rules about where they could harvest (not close to highways or creeks/streams etc) today its a freefall, with little future plans for re-growth. On y line they cut some blocks and the gov said they are doing a "study" to see if the blocks will reforest themselves. Tree planting back in the 80's was a must although they paid them by the tree so it wasn't done right either but it was something. Spraying of the blocks or replanting wrong species of trees is also issues in some areas or so I've heard. Industry is one the gov really likes to ignore

You see bud there are many suggestions that have been given to gov as we have been trying to talk and figure out solutions for over a decade, I don't know where you live but I am seeing this first hand of what they are doing and its not that I am opposed like you suggest, I am opposed to HOW they are doing it and how the focus is only on one small part of the puzzle. They don't want to look at anything industrial cause that's people jobs and livelihood which part of that I get but doesn't mean we can't do it proper and as for the other predators look at BC this world is about politics has nothing to do with science. You want to see wolf numbers go up to Zama on the bison hunt now that is something to witness I've never seen the likes of that.

So you say you have the answer please spell it out for me what is it? poison all the predators in Alberta and just have ungulates left cause I don't quite understand your answer??

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

Things were done a little differently back then no doubt. I’ve listened to enough stories over the years of things that were done 30-50 years ago, and about those involved and you’d be surprised at times who was doing it and who was helping.
Everybody had the same end goal, more ungulates and less predators. Now of course I’m talking about bush Outfitters in the west and north country, not the private land deer guys although there may have been one or two that did both. In the end it benefited the Outfitters just as much as the resident guy out for a week long sheep hunt, or chasing elk or moose in the wilmore. There was lots of game for everybody ! I sure don’t ever remember hearing a resident complain about that, even though they’d put zero effort into helping it get to that point.

Bang On !

With the number of Hunters today,coupled with easy access to most "Wilderness" areas, the role of the natural predator has been superceded. Their role as a predominant Game Management tool is no longer required. There's just too much pressure from both sides, not to mention loss of habitat, to allow our wild Ungulates to maintain sustainable populations in most wilderness areas.
The good old days are now...IMO

[RockyMountainMusic]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

What industry?
Outfitting and trapping are the only industry going on in Wilmore, same as the areas I’m talking about up north. Maybe a little isolated exploration for mining but that’s almost non existent too.
Most of these places don’t have any unregulated harvest to speak of either, so you can’t blame the low numbers of ungulates on them either.

So you have predators and landscape that dictate the carrying capacity of the land. When they poisoned the wolves and burned the valleys to create food they had large numbers of ungulates. When the valleys grew up and the predator numbers got out of control the ungulates numbers plummeted.

Lower fox and wolverine numbers likely wasn’t at the top of their list of concerns in most cases, although I have no doubt the resilient furbearers didn’t all get wiped out anyway. There needs to be a balance between everything in the wild, and right now we’re way out of balance.
Predators are at their absolute peak, and ungulates are way down. I have no doubt that in another 30-40 years things will turn around on their own again and the tables will be turned, but most of us will be long gone by then !

The industry I was referring to was outside the Wilmore where a good majority of the poisoning is taking place now, although shell and other industries were in fact in the Wilmore back in the 50's. I trap the Wilmore every year and have a pretty good idea on whats happening or not around the area I cover which is the largest line in there.. The lower fur did decimate a lot of income for them and most would never touch strychnine again and have nothing good to say about it. You see Tork I don't disagree with you about the predator numbers but how can you look at just the wolf and totally ignore the bears and cats etc and think it will balance just fine.. I agree again 100% the numbers are out of balance but there is more to it than just high wolf numbers