Wolf controversy...

[Moots]

I'm from Wyoming, and was in law school back in the late 80's when they first talked about reintroducing wolves.  I went to a presentation, and the speaker said they wouldn't reintroduce many, and they believed that the wolves would stay in Yellowstone Park because it was a big enough area and ecosystem to sustain them.  

I suggested that the wolves might leave Yellowstone Park to follow the elk, that migrate south into Jackson Hole in the winter.  What do you know?  The wolves followed the elk out of Yellowstone Park.  Those stupid wolves.  Didn't they see the boundary markers for the park?  LOL.

[centaur]

Originally posted by Moots:
I'm from Wyoming, and was in law school back in the late 80's when they first talked about reintroducing wolves.  I went to a presentation, and the speaker said they wouldn't reintroduce many, and they believed that the wolves would stay in Yellowstone Park because it was a big enough area and ecosystem to sustain them.  

I suggested that the wolves might leave Yellowstone Park to follow the elk, that migrate south into Jackson Hole in the winter.  What do you know?  The wolves followed the elk out of Yellowstone Park.  Those stupid wolves.  Didn't they see the boundary markers for the park?  LOL.

I hear you, brother! The wolf huggers have got what they wanted; less hunting opportunity for those mean old human hunters. I firmly believe that it was part of their plan all along, and it is working.

[Sarah]

There is a pretty good book on the subject: "Where the Wild Things Were: Life, Death, and Ecological Wreckage in a Land of Vanishing Predators" by William Stolzenburg.

The author makes some very compelling arguments for why wild predators are important to maintaining overall ecological diversity. Wolves are discussed in the book.

I don't really have an opinion about Wolves, just throwing that out there.

[Black Hills]

A buddy of mine lives in the Snowy Range...  He has told me that he's figuring the elk population is down by 50 to 65% in his neck of the woods.  He is seeing a continual increase in sign of wolves, and has been for the last 10 years or so.

My son is a wild-land firefighter, and spent four weeks up in the Frank ChurchRiver of No Return & Selway-Bitterroot country last year as part of a Fire Use Module Team.  He came back with tons of photos of wolves, a few of bear, but very few of elk.  Speaking with some of the firefighters from that neck of the woods, the wolves are hammering the ungulates too hard.

Funny thing is we are seeing indications of at least one pack in the Black Hills - - mostly in the north central area.  I am guessing they probably migrated here from the Yellowstone country via the Bighorns and Bear Lodge Mtns.  Have been a few of them killed along the highways in the last few years as well.  They are definitely back, though.

On another note, there's confirmation that we have Black Bear moving back in as well.  Confirmed with trail cam photos by a wildlife specialist that works out of the same building as my son.

Couple all of that with the over-population of Mtn Lions in this area, and it becomes very obvious that humans are not the apex predator by a long shot...

[ChuckC]

Another thought to consider.  

Deer and other prey animals are what they are because of their ability in the long term of dealing with whatever adversity comes their way.  

Those able to stay vigilant and avoid being eaten by a predator might be more apt to survive and pass on their genes and teach their young some traits.  Those that cannot might be more prone to being eaten.

In time, the "weak" ones, in this case those not vigilant, or quick, or green with brown dots (camo) or whatever advantage that occurs, are gone and only the "strong" remain.  The age old story. Change is a constant and the herd is always changing.

Take away some adversity, say, top line predators, and that need is no longer important, no longer a deciding factor.  Those without the "strong" advantage are no longer at a disadvantage. .  for that particular adversity, and their genetic line can again flourish.

Deer will be here without predators.  There will be other adversities to keep them in check, if we let them happen, but if you take away the wildness of a deer, is it really the same animal ?

Hunting a tame deer (neighborhood deer) in my back yard just doesn't sound appealing to me.

Additionally, those extra deer / elk etc affect their world to, like people on earth.  Too many will eat too much and not just eat themselves out of house and home, but change their world.  

Here we go again, those plants that are vigilant (yeah right), or that can grow faster, or higher, or that contain some chemical deterrent (natural GMO ?) might not be eaten and thus live to pass on genes, while the others won't. . and the forest changes because of that.

ChuckC

[4dogs]

Originally posted by Stickbow:
If you want facts research cow calf ratios, and age structure of Elk herds. Look at carrying capacity of the habitat.

The two myths that make me chuckle the most are that they kill the sick and weak and that only the alpha male and alpha female breed.

I would like to add this one " they only kill to eat" They have never seen what a pack does to a herd bogged down by a real heavy snow. They kill for the sake of killing.

[Stixbowdrew]

I've read reports from what Montana F&G is saying, it's funny how they are quite conflicting with what the people who are out there, live, and use these areas for recreation are reporting. There was a great video on this ill have to see if I can find it and post it.

 http://www.lobowatch.org/

I can't find the video but this website has lots of good information

[Frank V]

Originally posted by 4dogs:
 

Originally posted by Stickbow:
If you want facts research cow calf ratios, and age structure of Elk herds. Look at carrying capacity of the habitat.

The two myths that make me chuckle the most are that they kill the sick and weak and that only the alpha male and alpha female breed.

I would like to add this one " they only kill to eat" They have never seen what a pack does to a herd bogged down by a real heavy snow. They kill for the sake of killing. [/b]

I knew this would be a hot topic.
Those distanced from the wolves are way more tollerant of the loss of deer, elk, moose, cattle, sheep, & sooner or later, people.
I know a rancher who has lost 80 sheep in one night to wolves. Yup they only kill what they need. BULL they kill for the pure fun of it.  

 Two years ago I met another bowhunter who cautioned us about hunting a certain medow. He said he was there chirping a cow call & was surrounded by wolves. He said he could hear them kind of low barking as they surrounded him. He left.
   One day someone is going to be killed by them. Someone's child playing in a yard is going to be killed by them.

 I for one would like to see them ALL gone. The ones we have now aren't the same breed of wolf that used to be here. They are bigger & much more of a pack predator. They need to be GONE!

[Stixbowdrew]

Howard Hills archery Jason has had his own run in with them, read this article from a few years back

 http://m.missoulian.com/news/local/wolf-killed-after-attacking-dogs-on-edge-of-hamilton/article_ebf7abac-85ac-11e0-a99b-001cc4c002e0.html?mobile_touch=true

[gringol]

Reintroducing wolves is one of the dumbest things that's ever been done in the name of wildlife management.  It's not the wolves fault, they are just doing what wolves do, but what's next?Reintroducing red wolves to Pennsylvania?  Grizzlies in so cal?

If I.lived out there I definitely would be hunting wolves.

[jhg]

Originally posted by Frank V:
...Grand parents killed wolves for a reason.
Personally, I'd like to see them all gone.

They killed them all out of ignorance. If we can't figure out a way to manage them, its our failure.
 Hating them because they have changed what we are used to is not a very good reason to wipe them out.
I'd like to think we have "evolved" enough to find a way to keep them around that balances the the various issues.

Wolves are a great animal to hate. Do some research on how/why we have chosen to hate them so much. It is pretty interesting.


Joshua

[Frank V]

Originally posted by jhg:
 

Originally posted by Frank V:
[qb] ...Grand parents killed wolves for a reason.
Personally, I'd like to see them all gone. [/b]

You said:
They killed them all out of ignorance.

I said:
Actually they killed the to keep stock depredations down!


You said:
 Hating them because they have changed what we are used to is not a very good reason to wipe them out.

I said:
If you mean they have changed what we are used to by lessening the number of deer, elk, moose, & domestic livestock, because that's what they have done & are doing!  It's enough reason for me.
 I'd way rather have Deer, Elk, Moose, & livestock than wolves!

[Stixbowdrew]

Joshua, I agree with you they don't need to be eradicated, but they do need to be put in check, and mans reason for hating the wolf is one of arrogance, if there is a land dwelling predator as efficient at killing as man it's the wolf, I have done my research and the canine will outlast the human race if we were to lose all our technological advances (guns) there's a reason they were killed off and ran off before, they are great at what they do..

[LookMomNoSights]

To just think about taking a wolf at close range with my longbow,  from a ground blind......talk about high adrenalin!!!      

[el greco]

From an outsider's prospective I think that no animal deserves to be eradicated or extinguished from the face of the earth.That's called biodiversity.On the other hand it should be up to each State's discretion to figure out how many wolves are a sustainable number and the excess should be hunted and killed.

[Mint]

Like any predator they need to be controlled.

Unfortunately as the federal Government becomes more powerful everyday and states rights lessen it is only going to get worse.

[D.J. Carr]

"those who forget the past are destine to relive it"

There was a reason why they were killed off.

[Wolfshead]

Like all game animals they need to be controlled. States should have the power to do this as to their needs.
Our creeping in on their home ranges and habitat has created the need for this to happen.
Let's face it, if WE did not encroach on their territory there would not be the need for this. However, we have and there is a need for them to be controlled.
But, lets be real here, we (humans) were the problem first. We have shown time and again that if we are not controlled what can happen. ie the Buffalo

[Frank V]

Look Mom No Sights
&  D.J. Carr
Have got the picture!    

wolves are not the warm fuzzy touchy feely animals that Walt Disney aided by the tree huggers so avidly project!

'Nuf said!
   

[Dave Pagel]

I agree with the controlled, not eradicated school of thought, like other game animals and predators.  I just read a book (The Alaska Wolf Man) on a gent named Frank Glaser who was a government hunter and predator control agent in Alaska from the late teens to the early 1950s.  He respected the wolves, but knew the moose, caribou and sheep were in big trouble if they were not controlled.  He noted many accounts of them killing for sport and not feeding.  Part of an ecosystem yes, dominating the ecosystem and putting ranchers and outfitters out business, no.

D.P.