Wolves?

[buck460XVR]

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.

yep......thank God they exterminated the Passenger Pigeon too. Who knows how many young children they pooped on.

 

[mjsja]

wolves far better manage the elk and bison population then man ever did. That is why the man had to put them back.Right now there are 34 wolves in Yellowstone. I am not against ranchers shooting wolves that are in fact killing their livestock. I think that they have that right to protect their lively hood.But it is a proven fact that the wolf population grows and declines with their prey population. So nature in fact does work.

 

[Davek1977]

.Right now there are 34 wolves in Yellowstone

Not going by the NPS's own data, unless the population declined 66% in less than 2 years time
http://www.nps.gov/yell/naturescience/wolves.htm

At the end of 2009, at least 96-98 wolves in 14 packs (6 breeding pairs), 1 non-pack grouping, and 2 loners occupied Yellowstone National Park (YNP)

 

[mjsja]

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.

we do not need to keep wolves in check and I don't understand the desire to kill one on natures greatest predators. Look at the facts check into it and you will see that the population.Natural predation is a law that no one can deny.It was here before man and it will be after we are long gone.When you allow people to hunt wolves they kill far more than they need to as proven in Wyoming 2 years ago hunters took 250 some wolves and this immediatley shut down the hunting.It might have happen a little longer ago than that.I believe ranchers should be along to kill wolves that are killing their livestock.But the wolves do not take more than they can eat. If this were the case then there would be no deer or elk to hunt

 

[oneounceload]

Maybe so ART - but my true feelings if posted here would either get me banned or the thread locked because it seems views to the contrary aren't welcome here

And since you have already said that BLM and this thread don't mix,.I will remain mute

 

[mjsja]

litttle red riding hood.

OR THE BOY WHO CRIED WOLF
I would think that the hunters would like the fact that the wolves kill off the sick and wounded.It has been proven by Doug Smith a bioligist that with the reintroduction of the wolf in Yellowstone ,that the habbitate for beaver and other animals. Yes there has been a big reduction in the elk population not just do to the wolves but also to the harsh winters we have in Wyoming.But the people that think that they are just killing to kill is not true.

 

[ZeroJunk]

I actually have a degree in Biology from the University of North Carolina. If you think a study of wolves or anything else for that matter is not influenced by the attitude and objectives of the scientists involved you have not been paying attention. A pro wolf researcher will come up with a different result than a researcher who is against the reintroduction of wolves. One seems to find what he is looking for. Concensus is a slow process. It's just the way it is. Everybody's study is objective if you agree with it.

http://westinstenv.org/wildpeop/2009/02/11/wolves-reducing-elk-populations-in-montana/

 

[elkdomBC]

I live. hunt and am a licensed hunting guide in Northern BC, Canada , wolves naturally prevalent here, in MANY areas, moose, elk, and more fragile species such as Caribou and Mountain Sheep are being decimated by wolf predation, although BC resident hunters can take 3 timber wolves per year, probably less than 5% of residents have ever even taken a shot a wolf, much less, killed one,
so called (politically correct urban public) "wolf-love" ties the hands of Gov't Fish and Wildlife managers,,wolves continue to multiply( more feed = more wolves)(more wolves= less feed) both domestic and wildlife populations suffer, mass public support to protect the wolves, results in wolves being un-controlled and the problem worsens,

I love to see wolves and hear them in the wilderness, but I hate to see large numbers of other big game decimated,

Introduce them to a new area?, and YOU will have a big problem very soon!

I would never want to see ALL of them gone!
but a LOT of them GONE ?,,, YES!

 

[Art Eatman]

It probably wouldn't hurt anything to go back to the opening post and then at least skim through the pages.

Something new to add? Fine. Repetition of what's already been said? Why?

 

[jwalk]

I don't understand the desire to kill one on natures greatest predators.

Well you might not agree with it or understand it, but like it was said before here, in this democracy we had to accept the reintroduction of wolves, we also have to accept the hunting of predators. Bears, mountain lions, coyotes, and now wolves are going to be hunted. What most people really hated about wolves is we could not hunt them when their numbers swelled beyond expectations.

When you allow people to hunt wolves they kill far more than they need to as proven in Wyoming 2 years ago hunters took 250 some wolves and this immediatley shut down the hunting.

Not true. When we could shoot them on site I believe the number of wolves shot was 20-30 maybe a little more. The predator status only lasted a couple of weeks before Judge Malloy shut it down.
Here's an article about it just after the predator hunts were allowed.

http://www.kulr8.com/news/wyoming/17880369.html

The plan which has been accepted by the feds is 100 wolves must be maintained and 10 breeding pairs outside the park.

http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_3bfd8340-9ecf-50a1-8925-fc14c85ddd3e.html

We already got forced into getting wolves in the first place, so we fought the restrictions placed on us by USFW and envrionmental groups. Look at the map in the article it shows where the wolves cannot be shot without a tag. The people around Yellowstone are going to have to learn to live with them for good. I guess that's compromise right? Point is we are not going to eradicate wolves, we are going to manage them the way the plan was initially presented to us. We don't want them wandering all over the state.

Getting back to the OP's question, the ranchers and hunters have a right to be mad. However, with political backing, a lot of money, and time you can shape the debate and maybe make things a little more favorable for you. Why shouldn't people in Boise, Pocatello, Great Falls, Bozeman and such not be able to shoot them on site? Having wolves in your back yard is not good for humans or wolves. They will learn quick people's pets and children waiting for the bus are not a source of food. There is a lot of wilderness wolves can live in.

Finally, here is an example about "how we should be able to protect our herds, property, or life." It took five months to get the govt. to do anything about it! Five months. This is what drives people to gut shoot and poison wolves. The govt. can afford to take their time or find resourses to deal with the problem while people have to live their lives. In the meantime bureaucrats sit on their hands and worry if they will get in trouble for making a decision. This is not an isolated incident. Look out Oregon and Washington it's coming to you now.

http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_388f5488-8c5b-5997-8edb-84f194706625.html

 

[Art Eatman]

jwalk's post looks like a pretty good summary of what we've all said. Enough for now. Think about it all, and we can come back to it after we know more about the upcoming discussions on reintroduction.