I’m not quite sure what it is about wolves that incites such passion in people. It’s clear to me though that the battle over wolf hunting has become a symbol for the war between hunters and the bunny hugging antis.
This became especially clear to me through a series of recent posts on the Outdoor Magazine facebook page. I simply asked the question of whether the Michigan House of Representatives had voted on the proposal to have a wolf hunt in Michigan, and the page lit up. Many of those posts were from folks strongly against hunting wolves.
Those posts were followed by responses from folks who support the biologically sound harvest of the animals.
As you might expect the conversation between the two sides was quite spirited…and that’s good. However the tone soon turned negative.
A woman named Donna Fitzpatrick posted she thought all hunters were “morons”. She made several other negative comments, then went on to say the head of a wolf hunter should hang on her wall. At that point I banned Donna from my facebook page.
I’m willing, and even eager, to discuss the benefits of hunting with someone who is interested in having an open minded conversation. However, I will not allow The Outdoor Magazine facebook page to be used as a venue to promote the anti hunting agenda.
There are plenty of websites, forums and facebook pages where such misguided information is welcome. I refuse to be part of such conversations and will not allow any media outlet I’m involved with to be used in that manner.
Yes, my Outdoor Magazine facebook page is a forum, but it’s not an open forum. The page is a great tool to discuss hunting and fishing issues, share photos of outdoor experiences and ask questions about outdoor related issues. It is not an online “free for all”.
I will exercise my right to ban blatant anti hunters and also to monitor the language used in all posts.
I got some grief for banning Donna from the page. One person even said I should “stop pouting…and grow up”. I banned Donna, not because she was an anti hunter, but because of her rudeness toward hunters, her contempt for hunting in general and her threat to put a wolf hunter’s head on her wall. Those comments add nothing positive to the conversation.
I’m also very unhappy with some of the language used by folks who posted their thoughts about a Michigan wolf hunt. I understand this is a vey emotional issue, but there’s no reason to swear and belittle others. You can make a strong point without using strong language. I strive to keep the posts on my page family friendly. We set an example for future hunters and anglers by the thoughts we express and the language used. I don’t like to delete posts, but I will if they contain inappropriate language.
My goal is to promote the history and tradition of hunting and fishing and to do what I can to ensure that lifestyle continues for future generations. The Outdoor Magazine facebook page is one tool to help me do that.
There are roughly 7,000 people now on the facebook page. That’s not a huge number by facebook standards, but enough to get a wide range of thoughts and comments. We can use facebook and other online venues in a positive manner to promote our cause, or we can be negative and further the growing conflict between some groups of hunters.
I know which direction I’m heading.
If you agree with me let’s continue forward. If not, there are plenty of other websites and facebook pages where you will be welcome.
Very eloquent post. I wholeheartedly agree with your points. I am always willing to have a discussion or debate, with people who may not share my views on hunting, but refuse to participate when it morphs into rudeness, name calling and becomes pointless. I for one applaud you decision regarding this particular incident.
Thanks Gretchen.
Very well written Mike! Please continue on with this page, I think you are doing a great job getting local issues that affect us all here in MI in a forum. As for the wolf debate you are absolutely correct, it’s very passionate. I have debated this myself, with a friend, who is a girl, who also hunts, but doesn’t think we should hunt wolves. Her reasoning is, their strong family bond. she believes if we hunt wolves, it will disrupt that bond, and bring the wolves back to endangered. I tried to assure her, that’s simply not true. She just didn’t go for it.
Please keep up the good work Mike, i very much appreciate this page!
I appreciate that Jeff.
Mike,
I agree with your Blog post: the need to keep civil, and your prerogative to manage the Facebook page as you see fit.
Civilized, even heated discussions are always acceptable. However, while rudeness is one thing, the threat of physical violence on another human (e.g. the head of a wolf hunter on Ms. Donna Fitzpatrick’s wall) exceeds all human decency, and has to be taken seriously.
The matter is actually simple. A wolf hunting season in Michigan will provide the legal opportunity to hunt that species. Accept it and hunt a wolf, or reject it and stay home.
In the meantime, our First Amendment right is guaranteed. However, with that right comes the responsibility to cope with anger and behave sensibly. Life-threatening is the complete opposite, and can never be tolerated.
Thanks Joe, always appreciate your input.
Morning Mike, very well said. I believe this wolf topic is do heated on both sides is because the wolf is the antis strongest weapon. If they have an uncontrolled wolf, us Hunters will become discouraged and not hunt.
Thanks Daniel.
Right on target Mike…I enjoy the discussions but can live without some of the misplaced passion…I believe Wolf hunting will be seen as normal preditor control as time goes on…I heard a few stories in the U.P. the past few deer seasons about very bold Wolves following children and farmers wives…A couple of hunting seasons would make the Wolves much more wary…
I agree Daniel, once the wolves realized they were no longer at the top of the food chain, their behavior would change significantly.
Well said Mike, I also believe that we need to keep the heritage of hunting alive and pass it down to the next generation as well. My daughter is only two and is interested already. Keep up the good work and talk to you later.
Thank You Trevor.
A nice statement from Mike.
Mike – Just a quick comment. I agree with many of the things you say. I enjoy the radio pod cast and the facebook page. I enjoyed you TV show when it ran, so I suppose you could call me a fan. I also love the outdoors just like you, and I agree with how you promote the outdoors. One thing that just kind of gets me is when you write an opinion piece like “Let’s keep it civil” where you point out your dislike with the anti’s as well as certain behaviors. The part that bothers me is the use of name calling by calling some anti’s “bunny huggers”. Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you but I can’t help but feel there is a small amount of hypocrisy in telling people how they should conduct themselves and then turn around and resort to name calling as well. If you and I were standing around talking about it, I wouldn’t even bat an eyelash but for some reason in this context it just doesn’t ring right. Just a little food for thought I guess from a casual observer. Keep up the great work and thank you for what you do for the outdoor community.
Thanks Matt. In reading your post I realized I probably wasn’t a clear as I should have been. When talking about civility, I was referring to the conversations/arguments between hunters. When it comes to the blatant anti hunters, I have no respect for their opinions. With that group the lack of civility seems to land solely on them. While it’s common for antis to physically threaten hunters, I have never heard of a hunter who wants to kill an anti.
Given their radical, aggressive and antagonistic behavior…I have no problem using the term “bunny hugger” with them. In fact, I think that’s a pretty mild description.
Thanks again for your comments Matt.
Sen. Casperson’s proposed wolf season is frightening beyond belief. It actually stands a good chance of efficiently using wolves to cause considerable damage to the Upper Peninsula’s deer herd.
The ignorance behind it is actually quite simple to understand. Wolves breed as groups, a litter to a pack as a rule, one they puritanically enforce. As a result you can, if needed, control their reproduction rate. If you decide you have “X” too many wolves you can carefully remove “X” wolves as whole packs, the smallest packs. that could give you, say, 30 packs averaging 10 members. 30 litters of pups in the spring. Or you could remove them from the largest packs, and have something like 50 litters averaging 6 or 60 averaging 5, and twice the birthrate.
This is where the proposed lottery and quota hunt get really surreal, where Porky crosses over into Wackyland. The hunt works exactly the opposite way as wolves’ natural control on their own numbers as an apex predator, adding non breeding wolves to a growing pack and excluding wolves from a similarly larger territory. Instead packs are randomly, about proportionally shrunk in by hunting, basically all tattered, but as many or more litters are born, 80, 90, 100 with the new packs added.
All you need to do to more than double the wolf reproduction rate of a big pack is kill two of them and free up enough territory for a pair to found a new breeding pack. just two more wolves in the area, but a whole second litter of pups for the area to feed. With the harvest scything pack members out yearly the population could shortly end up largely breeding pairs.
In deer management terms: Every wolf in a pack is, for management purposes a “buck”, except two breeding “does” that are refractory, hard to get rid of. Other wolves just take their place. Removing wolves at random increases the birthrate, a litter born to a smaller pack with a smaller territory. Kill a couple “bucks” and you may free territory for a pair, new “does” to found a new pack nearby. With their litter you have doubled the number of pups born per adult in the area territory now split between two packs. A couple of does added. The wolves run a doe season on themselves to keep their numbers down and add non breeding “bucks”. Right now wolves have had several generations to grow and develop their packs in Michigan, barring poaching – which is as self-defeating as Sen. Casperson’s ultra-buck season by driving up wolf breeding.
There is no serious analysis whether the supposed management would have any of the effects desired, but shrinking wolf packs makes them more desperate in terms of needing to gather food for the pups. These pups need to eat all that food a pup needs to grow to full size. New pairs will be especially harried.
Even if the flood of hungry wolves does not resort to human livestock, garbage, pets, etc the appetite of the wolf packs will be forced up. Pups and fawns are growing up at the same time.
I happen to believe whitetail deer are evolved to take normal losses to predators. Are they adapted to having the number of wolf pups artificially raised several times?
I also want to know the end game. Once wolf “management” has dug itself into its hole, is the plan to reduce adult wolves still more, or to tell deer hunters to leave the deer only to be fed to hungry wolves in the spring and residents to endure while the wolf packs restore themselves?
This year the actual count of deer taken in the Upper Peninsula – the one they use to figure the number of licenses and such – was up 10%, 5 times the state increase in license sales. Wolf populations have been growing by about 7% a year. Seems balanced to me. But noted wolf biologists have been quoted saying if we go the sport hunt route it will be necessary to kill up to 50% of the wolves each year to reduce their numbers. So, 7 times as many wolf pups?
Those behind this hunt do not take wolf management seriously. Wolf packs give a powerful tool to manage by, as detailed above, or they can be used as a weapon against the deer population. Wielded by wolf hunters.
Norm gave a quite extensive expanation of wolf hunting and population impact. I really could not follow or understand the logic he tried to explain. My personal discussion with a wildlife biologist did not seem to follow the same logic. My question how can a wolf hunt be bad and increase the population?
thanks for the site.
I had a hard time following it too Ken. Thanks.