Air dropping in some moose hunters........

Thread starter #3

Dub

Top Chef
Guess hunting is out of the question? Looks like a perfect place for a lottery draw for tags. They could make some serious money in the process.

Was thinking along those lines, too.
 

shdw633

Senior Member
This story is being discussed in the Politcal Forum as well and when you dive into the story it's not as much about them wanting to control the moose as it is about them wanting to try again to get the wolves back on the island. I was like all of you in regards to using hunters as the tool to get the moose under control, still am, but digging deeper into it I found that it's really not what this is about. The powers that be want a wolf pack on the island and their efforts the last time are down to 2 wolves remaining, a father and a daughter and they are not getting the job done in the reproducing category, so they want to try it again with 25 to 30 wolves over a 20 year period of time in the hopes of establishing a pack. Had the story been brought forth from that angle and not the angle it is currently running with, I feel that there would be different responses from the hunting community at large but as they are coming from the "we need them to control the moose" angle it does tend to get the dander up from a hunters standpoint. For what it's worth I am all for the use of hunters on the moose but also understand the need for reintroduction of species in areas they once thrived, though I am not for tax dollars being utilized on this....especially to the tune of 2 million over 20 years.

https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2...lves-isle-royale-national-park-restocking-zoo
 
Last edited:

Mark K

Senior Member
The first time didn’t work, so let’s spend more money and try it again until it does? Doesn’t seem like sound management practices to me.
What has most in an uproar is they are telling the states with wolves that the wolves aren’t responsible for their dwindling elk/moose/deer populations, yet they state they are bringing in wolves to reduce the numbers. Again, sound management practices?
 

shdw633

Senior Member
The first time didn’t work, so let’s spend more money and try it again until it does? Doesn’t seem like sound management practices to me.
What has most in an uproar is they are telling the states with wolves that the wolves aren’t responsible for their dwindling elk/moose/deer populations, yet they state they are bringing in wolves to reduce the numbers. Again, sound management practices?
I totally agree with that!! I believe that alot of times these projects are more about some biologists legacy or pet project rather than the well being of the species. I can understand trying to put a species back to its habitat when man's actions have displaced it; however, if you have tried it and it fails than it may not have been mans actions that caused the species to move on in the first place.
 
They crossed over on a ice bridge in the 50's, so they aren't completely
"native" to the area. This past year one of the two that they brought over went back to the mainland on another ice bridge that formed this winter. The ice bridges are
very rare as Lake Superior doesn't always freeze over. The moose also came over
on an ice bridge. The only native big game animal that was on Isle Royal was
the Caribou and they were hunted to extinction a long time ago. This is just an example of Gooberment agencies exerting their superiority of Nature. They think they know better that Nature itself.
 

Big7

Senior Member
That can get out of hand. Quick. I remember reading when coyote was re-introduced to the South-East United States.

That didn't really work out so well I'd say.
 

sea trout

Senior Member
Having a moose lottery would make money and provide memorable hunts and great table fare.
Wolf introduction cost money
 

shdw633

Senior Member
Hmmm, since the Yellowstone project was so successful.....
Just because you are successful catching a bunch of fish in one lake doesn't mean you'll be that successful catching them in any other lake.
 
Top