Wolves?

Maple__City,

My meaning exactly! The only way, in my perception, is to eradicate them all. Nothing about your post being out of line, or wrong, I was just adding my 2 cents worth, bolstering your comments. They will never be kept under control without rifles and ammo, didn't mean anything offensive to your post!

History seems to be repeating itself only 70 years later

It is hard to read about how many people don't really know the facts .Once again,the wolf debate rages on.For one I have seen the wolves in the Yellowstone park and was quite close to a pack and they chose to ignore me and were after the small elk herd that consisted of about 50 elk in one herd.The facts are that more grizzly bears take elk calves then wolves do in fact wolves loose more kills then they get.Maybe one in five if they are lucky.Wolves are one of natures great predators and because of this they are in direct conflict with men.So once again here we go kill the wolf and let the elk reach high starvation status again.I for one have seen elk starve in great numbers along with bison and deer because of no natural predators. It is a very sad way to go for elk and bison.Why is it when nature is in full swing it seems to threaten the very heart of man?So if we are to play mother nature shouldn't we remove all threats to the herd animal?Like black bear, grizzly's mountain lion and even the coyote.Then all national parks can be parks for elk and bison.But then should we not also kick out the hunters and ranchers for they are the biggest predators of all

mjsja, the "wolf problem" is not a problem, particularly, in parks and wilderness areas. I've yet to read or hear of folks wanting to go into Yellowstone to shoot wolves as a control on the population there. It's when wolves do their predation on livestock that the problem leads to all the various ideas about control.

See the difference?

Whether rational or not: If there is a perception (much less any reality) that wolves have reduced the herd numbers of deer and elk, there will be fewer hunters. That reduces both license fee incomes and what could be called "tourist money" as well as less in the way of guide fees.

An economic system has developed over a period of many decades, and people depend on it for their incomes. Those incomes make house and car payments and buy food and clothing. I tend to include those sorts of things as I look at all this woulda/coulda/shoulda/oughta do-goodism.

Your facts are somewhat right but not all

Ecotourism can account for millions of dollars in annual revenue for smaller communities where wolves are close by.In counties around the park livestock production accounts for less then four percent of personal income while tourism accounts for more than 50 percent.The effects of livestock are negligible so ranching jobs are virtually nonexistent.Also several states and private programs provide reimbursement for any livestock losses due to wolf predation.

788Ham said:

My meaning exactly! The only way, in my perception, is to eradicate them all. Nothing about your post being out of line, or wrong, I was just adding my 2 cents worth, bolstering your comments. They will never be kept under control without rifles and ammo, didn't mean anything offensive to your post!

Click to expand...

No offense, but you are running away with my statements. You are entitled to your opinion, but please don't "bolster my comments" with talk about "eradicating" anything. That is not what I said and it is not what I believe.

I have no problem at all with wolves roaming wild in the lower 48. I have a problem with letting their numbers grow large enough to adversely impact the population of other game animals. In the cases where a wolf pack is keeping herd animal populations from reaching starvation levels, I think that is wonderful and peachy so long as there is something left for the people and the peoples grandchildren.

One last time for the record, I will try to make my own personal position clear in case anyone else is tripping over my opinions:

Wolf populations need to be managed properly, and at a very low number relative to other animals. They do NOT need to be "eradicated". Effective concessions and exemptions need to be made to ranchers who loose capitol due to wolf predation. Ranchers do not need an open season or additional excuse to shoot wolves.

My opinions based on my own knowledge and observation of ecology.

One of the interesting (and unexpected) things that have come to light following the wolf reintroduction is the crash in coyote populations in areas where the wolves have strong numbers. Wolves kill coyotes on sight. And it's worth noting that the spread of the coyote into the midwest and east, directly followed the eradication of wolves. Nature abhors a vacuum.

So, really, we're just trading wolves for coyotes. The wolves will take over the prime areas and push the coyote into the marginal areas where they existed historically. Coyotes kill as much game as wolves, they just tend to take young game animals instead of adult game animals.

The sky isn't falling.

Ecotourism can account for millions of dollars in annual revenue for smaller communities where wolves are close by

Click to expand...

Nonsense. I have spent time in Choteau and Augusta Mt for 25 years and have talked to hundreds of elk hunters, guides, and outfitters. I have yet to meet this wolf watcher. And, I have spent thirty weeks or so in the wilderness and have seen wolves one time. I hear them often, but they make a point of not letting you see them. And, that includes sitting on a ridge watching several meadows and valleys from daylight until dark for days at at a time.

I'm sure there are wolves in Yellowstone that are quite used to seeing people and there are wolf watchers there. That's about it.

Kodiak Bear said:

The sky isn't falling.

Click to expand...

That.

mjsja:
The "eco-tourists" or wolf watchers are putting money into West Yellowstone, MT, Gardiner, MT, Cody, WY, and Jackson, WY, the four citites closest to Yellowstone. You see lines of them in Yellowstone because the wolves don't care if you can see them or not. You're not going to see that in Washington, Oregon, Utah, and Colorado. What you are going to have is outfitters, guides, and ranchers finding it much harder to make a living. Tourists are not going to flock to the Western states to see wolves they cannot find like you can in Yellowstone. How about the tourism dollars you lose from hunters spending money on food, motels, gas, and guide fees? People in the West depend on this tourism money every fall in just about every state. Hunters will not drop thousands of dollars to go hunting when the elk heards have been devastated by wolves.
The standard line is "there is government programs to compensate ranchers." Do you know how hard it is to prove your livestock was killed by wolves a week after the fact? That is if you can find the actual carcass. It's not as if you take a picture of your dead livestock and the feds send you a check. That is a fallacy spread around by most people who don't understand the realities of the situation ranchers face and those who want to say ranchers are greedy or whining about losing a few sheep/cattle. If ranchers were allowed to shoot wolves harrassing their herds without fearing prosecution and massive fines and people allowed to shoot nuisance wolves when trouble happens, a lot (not all) of the complaints could be taken care of. Let us hunt them in a season and keep the population in check and you would not see the kind of conflicts that are occurring now, but the environmentalists are totally against any kind of hunts.

Jwalk has it right. Wolves may be a draw to Yellowstone and the immeidate area surrounding it. However, one cannot make the claim that ecotourism will be the savior of the Western states. How big of a draw are coyotes? Elk? Deer? Once wildlife becomes commonplace, the "wow" factor just isn't there anymore. Once upon a time....in the not so distant past (60 years ago or so) seeing a deer was a big event here. Now, you can't throw a rock in any direction without hitting one it seems. We have an overabundance that even liberal hunting isn't keeping in check. Why would wolves be any different? Once people get used to seeing them, the novelty will wear off and the so called ecotourism will grind to a halt. Yet, the ranchers will still be dealing with the fallout of reintroduction long after the tourists are gone. Why should one way of life be completely marginalized by reintroduction and expansion of wolves? Like I said, you can iontroduce all the wolves you want, once you've trained them to ONLY eat deer and elk, rather than the much easier to kill sheep and calves. Once they learn to read the park boundries and respect them, you can have all the wolves you want in the park. however, once they step outside, ranchers should be able to deal with depredation quickly and efficicently, by way of rifle,snare or trap. Its simply irrational to believe that western ag producers should just absord these sorts of damages, and be expected to remain in business. Wolves steal profits from a business thats already challenging, and ranchers should never be victimized by relocation efforts that have been grossly oversuccessful, putting wolves in areas never planned for reintroduction.

I really can't believe how many people advocate complete eradication of a species. Why not destroy all the other predators while we're at it? That will give you plenty more deer/elk to shoot at! Here in Indiana, we've managed to eradicate the mountain lion, bear, and wolf. Now we're overrun with whitetail deer. There are plenty of coyotes, but not enough to keep the deer population in check. I say try to repair some of the damage done by our ancestors. I wish they would reintroduce elk, bear, mountain lion and wolves to my state.

That's not to say I don't want to shoot them...

I don't advocate eradication, nor do most people in this thread. Why is it that those who want to see numbers and expansion controlled labeled as advocating wholesale slaughters? The wolf has its place in our ecosystem...however, that place is NOT in every state, or even in every western state, without methods of control also being allowed. AS a cattle rancher in SD, I'm actually happy we are largely wolf and bear free. We have plenty of coyotes, and enough lions. We don't need another threat to our way of life "introduced" to us by our government, nor do we want the Wyoming, Montana, Colorado areas to become so infested that wolves are pushed even further out of their designated reintroduction areas. This isn't 1880, and our world has changed. Theres still room for the wild wolf in our ecosystem, but to believe that their distribution should mirror that of the past or even expand it shows absolutely no understanding of the impact that would have in today's society and economy. Theres a lot of armchair biologist who have no comprehension of the amount of meat it takes to feed a pack of wolves. Wolves eat....thats what they do. They also capitalize on easy meals....and a sheep or calf (or your pet cart or dog) is a much easier target than an elk or deer is. Theres far too many idealists who would never have to actually DEAL with the impact of wolf expansion that are advocating it. For those of us making a living off the land in areas surrounding the reintroduction areas, its a different story, and one that has serious implications on our bottom lines at times.

"So, really, we're just trading wolves for coyotes."

That's what I thought as well when I immediately read this thread, and coyotes are managed with hunting.

One poster alluded to the fact that wolves would be controlled by the carrying capacity...but that is only in places where ranchers have not artificially increased the carrying capacity by introduction of livestock.

Ole Mr Wolf isn't going to get together and say...hmm we'll only have three pups this year because I see 30 mustang in the valley, we won't go on the ranchers land so we can't count the 400 head of cattle as a potential food source; therefore, the natural carrying capacity is increased, and a management tool may be needed to keep predation down - regardless of how cute and furry the predator.

I'll make a prediction and say that in 5-10 years the bunny huggers will be calling for the eradication of wolves due to there being no more bunnies and other furry animals left to hug in the Northwest.

Key point, economically: Wolf-watching eco-tourists do no good for ranchers' billfolds, in the same fashion as do deer and elk hunters. And eco-tourists don't hire guides as hunters do. Eco-tourism money goes mostly to motels and cafes.

Once again those of us that have lived with wolves closely around and have seen what they are REALLY like, have a "shoot on sight" mentality... And those that haven't been around them all that much, and have to read about what they are like, see them as wonderful little doggys that make nice noises.

Well, i've spent a LOT of time around them, and over the years i did my own personal research, They are killing machines! They kill waaaaay more than they can eat, and keep on killing... How do i know this? I know this because i've seen it myself....more than a few times! AND i'm with the leave them alone in Yellowstone, shoot them every place else!

SO, please don't tell me about this study or that, i've already done my own study, over a 25 year period!

I'd MUCH rather have a brown bear living under my house, than two wolves liveing in my back 40!!!

DM

Art Eatman said:

Key point, economically: Wolf-watching eco-tourists do no good for ranchers' billfolds, in the same fashion as do deer and elk hunters. And eco-tourists don't hire guides as hunters do. Eco-tourism money goes mostly to motels and cafes.

Click to expand...

This is why we need to manage wolves as we do other Game animals. We need to find a balance for them in a ecosystem that we try to manipulate for ourselves .Anybody that does not believe wolves contribute to the economy have not been in a northern Wisconsin tourist town. Walk down the streets of Minocqua or Eagle River on the fourth of July and look at all those Illinois folks wearin' their Wolf T-shirts and carrying Wolf merchandise. They can't buy it fast enough. They're worse than the dam Loon Lovers.(not that there's anything wrong with that.)

As I said before folks....wolves are here to stay this time. Get over it. We as hunters are a minority in a Democratic society. The majority here tolerate us because we don't bother them and we keep nuisance animal numbers down. They don't care if we don't see 40 deer a day while on stand, they just don't want to hit another one with their Escalade on the way to church. Braggin' about gut shootin' 'em and killin' everyone on sight is not impressing them, it just makes us hunters look like a bunch of Bubbas. Folks need to become informed about wolves and their habits and understand that most of their information is half truths and wives tales. Folks with no training in wildlife biology and wildlife management are kidding themselves when they claim to know more than those who do. Very few people can determine what constitutes a true wolf kill. Just because there's a dead animal with wolf tracks around means nuttin'. Many of these are animals were dead or wounded and were scavenged. Probably the case of that Buck someone was chasing for three years and never got. Poor animal probably died of old age or was wounded by someone taking a desperation shot.

The folks that wanna violate and kill wolves illegally, are violators, not heros. No better than the guy that shoots a trophy buck outta season. Last time I checked, breaking a law you don't agree with....is still breaking the law. The day they put wolf tags up for sale here in Wisconsin, I'll be the first in line to buy one. But I surely am not gonna risk my hunting and fishing privileges just to kill one illegally. I suggest other folks do the same.

The day they put wolf tags up for sale here in Wisconsin, I'll be the first in line to buy one.

Click to expand...

There's the problem. If there are so many wolves in Wisconsin, why can't you hunt them yet? The answer is you have all the environmental groups claiming the world will come to an end, or even more drastic, wolves will go extinct if we are allowed to hunt them. Idaho and Montana have been lobbying for at least a decade to hunt them, got a hunt last year, and then got their hunting season cancelled for this year. It will probably be allowed to take place despite all the wolf groups' objections. Why was it cancelled earlier in the year? Because a judge decided he didn't like Wyoming's plan to manage them so he found an excuse to cancel all the hunts. Now it looks like Wyoming will be allowed to manage wolves how we see fit, but it will take at least another year before being allowed to do it.

As far as us not knowing as much as biologists and such, the original plan was to have 150 wolves in the Yellowstone region (now Wyoming's plan calls for 100 wolves in just our state). After wolves balloned to over 1000, what did the biologists say so we could not manage them? They said we needed more wolves than 1000 or so I don't know the exact number, because the wolves were in danger of damaging the gene pool due to inbreeding. Okay I cannot dispute that not knowing the exact science, however, they never mentioned gene pools, and needing more than 1000 wolves, and that the wolves would spread beyond the Yellowstone area uncontrolled. If they would have brought that up back in the 1990's you would have had much more opposition in the first place. It just stinks to high heaven the way wolves have been forced on us.

I agree we aren't going to "kill every one of them," and wolves aren't going away. What is just criminal is how we were lied to and hunters, ranchers, and outfitters are the bad guys and extremists when we want to manage them. Why can't you hunt them in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Wyoming yet? What is the rational? Wyoming never said we were going to exterminate them. We even said there has to be I think at least ten breeding pairs outside Yellowstone. Guess what, you can shoot coyotes on site in Wyoming, you can shoot cougars on site on your property in Wyoming. Have they gone extinct? We have a black bear hunt, and they are not endangered. Our legislators, ranchers, and outfitters are not asking to wipe them out, they want to manage them. We are the ones who are called extreme when environmentalists, and the animal rights groups are the ones who won't give an inch.

jwalk said:

It just stinks to high heaven the way wolves have been forced on us.

Click to expand...

Again.............it is because we are the minority in a Democratic society. Those of us affected negatively are few compared to those that like the idea. Don't like the way our country works, do something about it(legally!) or move. Like bear, 'yotes and other predators, I'm sure at some point there will be a season on them in every area where they are too numerous to allow them to continue to be mismanaged. Problem is, the areas where they are a big problem is small compared to the areas where they have little visible affect. States do have some leeway in controlling problem wolves, as this article shows......this happened about 15 minutes from my home in an area I regularly deer hunt in.


Problem wolf pack culled

I hope the wolf regains all of its previous territories that it once occupied. I also hope we could reintroduce the panther to New England. Nature will balance itself once man gets out of the mix

Washington should learn from Idaho. A lot of Elk herds have been severly decreased. In some Zones, 15 years ago, there were no limits on Elk tags and they had a very high success rate. Now, those same Zones only offer up a hundred draw tags because the numbers are so low. That right there hurts State revenue and local economies.

My biggest issue with the whole re-introduction is the lies and the deception. The original goal in Idaho was 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves. 16 years later, that goal has been reached 10 fold.

Im buying my tag and if I happen across any, they are getting shot.

It is interesting how some have such a strong opinion about what happens in somebody else's back yard. Must be a politician.

Sorry, oneounceload, but homo sap's never gonna get out of the mix. Cities eat up nearby rural land, and the need for food will cause continual change from "natural" to farming.

When I was a kid, the US had around 150 million people. Now? Some 310 million.

I hope the wolf regains all of its previous territories that it once occupied. I also hope we could reintroduce the panther to New England. Nature will balance itself once man gets out of the mix

Click to expand...

Your welcome to your opinion, but I'm darn glad you aren't the one in charge of making such decisions! I suppose once man "gets out of the mix" it won't be an issue for any of us, because that would mean the widespread eradication of the human race. Barring that, we will ALWAYS be in the mix as we are the apex predator in the modern world

What is just criminal is how we were lied to and hunters, ranchers, and outfitters are the bad guys and extremists when we want to manage them.

Click to expand...

Amen


http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/gf...cle_45a50fbe-bff5-11e0-876b-001cc4c002e0.html

The study involving 30 elk calves fitted with tracking collars has already shown that 14 were killed by predators, 13 of them confirmed lion kills. The predator involved in the 14th kill was undetermined.

Click to expand...

Yep, we need wolves!!! Lions are only killing 1/2 of our elk crop in some areas! We need wolves to finish the job!!!

personally, i like the triple "S" remedy. Shoot, Shovel, and Shut up! a few wolves is not a problem. but left to reproduce uncontrolled, and doing so quite happily, they are eating themselves out of house and home so to speak. in another 20-30 years, after they have completely wiped out all but a few natural prey animals, they will be taking domesticated animals, and children. just like they were doing 130 years ago when our great grandfathers killed the vast majority of them off way back then. our forefathers did not kill off entire species of animals for the fun of it, they did it to make it safe to raise their families. the exception to that of course is the buffalo. they did that to make money. the rail roads were only to happy to pay men to kill them off. and they did.