no elk (Buffalo, Auburn, Big Horn: lease, live in, fencing)

[Ann the Artist]

Just one question, Mortisha. How do you equate being all for wildlife (ie: the wolves and bears) but can turn a blind eye to the decimation of the elk and other damage they do? In no way do I mean this in a snide way. I really want to know the answer.

[Ct_bow]

Originally Posted by Ann From Texas

Just one question, Mortisha. How do you equate being all for wildlife (ie: the wolves and bears) but can turn a blind eye to the decimation of the elk and other damage they do? In no way do I mean this in a snide way. I really want to know the answer.

Animal rights activists dont care how animals live or die, so long as man has nothing to do with them. Most people dont realize this but PETA destroys 98% of all animals donated to their shelters because they think the animals are better off dead than given to someone as a pet.

[mortisha]

Jeez, my point is that if there is a balance of natural predators and grazing wildlife no hunters are needed. I was born and raised in Sheridan and I know about ranching. I still live in Wyoming and understand the difference between well managed use of land and careless exploitation of Wyoming's resources. I could go on about the gas and coal trainwreck but I won't. Wyoming needs to learn how to help industries and ranching/farming co-exsist with other land/wildlife resources. We are too heavily tipped toward land exploitation and tend to ignore the income potential of conservation and tourism of a beautiful state. Not to mention the pure esoteric enjoyment of a more balanced enviorment. You will not change my mind and I will not change your mind so I will say Bye-Bye to a waste of both our times.

[jody_wy]

and the indians were Vegetarians
running whole herds of buffalo off of cliffs, no way could you use up everything

[BennyPhoenix]

Originally Posted by mortisha

Jeez, my point is that if there is a balance of natural predators and grazing wildlife no hunters are needed.

Might be true. But the introduction of a non-native wolf will not create a balance. It has the potential to make some other animal species extinct.

[Ct_bow]

Originally Posted by mortisha

Jeez, my point is that if there is a balance of natural predators and grazing wildlife no hunters are needed.

Misses the whole point. In order for there to be a balance we need to manage our wildlife since man has altered their habitat. And the most cost effective, business freindly, food producing way of do that is through hunting.

Not mention how the sport of hunting brings family, friends and community's together. Hunters donate hundreds if not thousands of tons of wildgame to the poor through organizations like Hunter's for the Hungry. Libs just dont get it.

[jody_wy]

Nature never really been balance it swing from one side to the other, like the island lab of moose and wolves yes for years there was a balance then the wol population exploded and made for a predator pit, they dessimated the moose population and was found to be eating each other. The wolf population dropped , the moose very slowly came back but the wolf numbers dropped so low they are ready to dissapear becuse of inbreeding.Buffalo over grazed, some areas took years to recover. There probally been a closer balance of wildlife populatin with manipulation by man....

[ElkHunter]

Coming from Sheridan you should know the history of the Elk in the Big Horn Mountains. Around the turn of the century they were almost extinct. They estimated less then 20 elk through out the entire Big Horns.

The Eaton Ranch gathered Elk elswhere and brought them back into the Big Horns. At first, managing the elk until the heard had improved and then started letting some go into the BH's. Eventually, they had a strong herd. Took years.

Human intervention is why the Big Horns have elk today.

[Claim Jumper]

s.s.s.

[AuburnAL]

Originally Posted by ElkHunter

But think about this. A Wolf is one of the few animals that kills to kill. They don't kill for food. The older wolves use every opportunity they can to train the young pups and to practice.

Most predators will attempt a kill if a prey animal allows the predator to get close enough for it to be possible. The classic example of this is a pack of hyenas wiping out an entire sleeping herd of gazelle which remained asleep as the hyenas killed them one by one. That is probably what happened to the 100 sheep killed in a single night mentioned later in this thread. There's a reason flocks were attended by shepherds and sheepdogs back in the day.

The 57 elk a year per wolf seems somewhat high. I'm fairly certain Monster of God states that a cow can feed a pride of lions for about a week, but cats do sleep and lay around a lot more than wolves so maybe that figure is accurate.

I keep seeing folks say that these wolves are not the same as the ones that used to live in Wyoming. How are they different?

How long have the wolves been back in Wyoming as well? One would expect that it could take a few generations of elk before the wolves kill off all the ones too stupid to survive with wolves around, and then it would take a few more elk generations before the elk numbers reach whatever maximum number they can maintain in the presence of wolves. I guess what I'm getting at is that an area may need to have wolves in it for quite some time before we can really say this is how many elk we can expect to find here if wolves are also here.

On a personal note is it still popular to hunt deer out west with CWD being out there? I've never personally had the patience for deer hunting, but I've made a point not to eat venison for the last few years even though CWD is not supposed to be present in Alabama.