Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Positive? These studies are conducted by "scientists" affiliated with the pro wolf groups. What is positive about increased livestock predation, pet predation and irreversible elk population decline? The Greater Northern Yellowstone elk herd has gone from over 18,000 to less than 2000 since the illegal introduction of wolves. I say illegal because the wolves released are not the same type of wolf that once roamed Montana. If you have seen the devastation I have seen because of the wolf, you would not be saying it is positive. I've seen pregnant elk cows taken down and their hind ends ripped open in order for the wolves to tear out the elk fetus only to eat the heart out of the fetus. This is done while the cow is still alive. Wolves sport kill. Proof of that is my dead horse and my neighbors dog which was killed less than five feet from the front door. This was a confirmed wolf predation kill by the Montana Fish & Game. How's that for positive?
Scientists for the Fish & Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and various state agencies are not "affiliated with the pro-wolf groups." I work with a lot of these folks, all of whom care about our country's natural resources. But they also understand the need to maintain balance in order to preserve them.
Regarding "illegal" re-introduction: there's been no agreement among the scientific community that the eastern wolf is a separate species. The only thing agreed upon is that it's a wolf, just as a yellow lab and a dalmation are both dogs. Calling something "illegal," simply because you don't happen to like it, doesn't make it so.
Wolf 101 - wolves are constantly roaming. They can travel upwards of 150 miles in a week looking for food. When they find it, they normally move on. They also don't kill "for sport." They may kill something and not completely consume it, but consider this: if humans were like wolves and didn't have the ability to carry, refrigerate, preserve, or otherwise store our perishable food, we'd probably waste some of it, too. I fail to see how any dead animal is proof that it was killed for "sport" - unless it's one killed by a hunter and mounted on a wall. "Wolf predation" is not the same as killing for "sport." It just means the wolf killed a domesticated animal.
In my experience working with wolf issues here in Northern MN, there are two kinds of people who hate wolves.
Historically, there were ranchers and livestock owners upon whose animals wolves often prey. However, when you essentially have a business raising animals that are food for a wild species, that's become the cost of doing business. I say "historically" and "were" because many of these livestock owners' concerns have been or are being addressed: livestock owners are actually compensated for animals lost to wolf predation. This is done by either the state or federal government (or a combination) or by "pro wolf groups" like the Defenders of Wildlife, who were actually offering compensation to ranchers as far back as the mid-1980's. There are also legal, government-managed mechanisms to take care of certain wolves (the ones which don't move on, become habituated to the presence of livestock, and are essentially 'repeat offenders' looking for the permanent easy meal). This includes the USDA's Wildlife Services, who will come to a landowner's property and trap/kill problem wolves. While many people who love and appreciate wolves don't agree with this, they also don't understand that taking/killing some animals is often required to balance an ecosystem.
Then, there are the sportsmen who think wolves should be eliminated altogether, simply to preserve the opportunity of having a successful hunt. As a hunter, I find the idea of taking our "wild" spaces and turning them into gigantic hunting preserves by eliminating a species that is competing with me for a game animal to be disturbing. I always heard the same rationale from hunters here: people who hunt the same areas would go a couple of years without seeing a deer, yet seeing a lot of wolf tracks. They'd jump to the conclusion that "the wolves are taking all of our deer...", then blame the state, blame the feds, and blame the "pro wolf groups" for their unsuccessful hunts. But as I stated previously, the wolves move. That means the deer and other game species get moved by them. Solution? Hunt somewhere else. Or wait until the wolves leave and the animals move back into the area.
Also, deer, elk, and other game species don't 'belong' to hunters. They're a natural resource. And if it can be argued that they belong to anyone at all, I think it's everyone. That's why - as hunters - we buy licenses, the money from which supports our state game management agencies. And those agencies, in turn, manage these resources for the good of the entire populace - not just for the ones who harvest them. And in that vein, wolves also 'belong,' to everyone - not just the people who hunt, live near wolves, etc.
It's funny - most hunters I know would never hunt on a high-fence game farm, where deer or other species are not much different from cattle, have no predators and, thus, no competition for the people who pay to shoot them. They consider it cowardly, unsporting, and to be a "canned" hunt. I don't disagree at all. But many of the same hunters would like to see wolves eradicated, which - to me - is essentially taking a huge step toward turning nature into a big game farm.
We have 60,000 wolves here in this country and I don't even recall the last time I heard about a wolf attack. I never ever have been afraid of wolves while camping in wolf country. I'm not afraid of black bears either but I'm pretty wary of grizzly bears when I'm in their space. We had one right in our camp and we were all sound asleep. We did not even know he was there until we saw his tracks the next morning, just a couple of feet from our tents. Never ever ever keep anything eatable in your tent. Not even a spoon that has touched food.
They are introducing different species. That's not restoration. That's mucking about even more with nature.
But they're not - that's a myth that's spread by a lot of the anti-wolf crowd. There's no evidence that the wolves that were re-introduced to Yellowstone are any different genetically than the wolves that lived there originally, and there never has been any. You keep hearing these anecdotes about huge, Canadian "super-wolves" that are supposedly 150 to 200 pounds at adulthood, but strangely, nobody
has ever produced a wolf carcass that supports these anecdotes. There's no truth to it at all.
Here's a great video that explains how re-introducing wolves into Yellowstone National Park had many positive results. I hope you watch it.
Don't have time to watch the video right now. But knowing a few wildlife biologists who have studied wolves and how they help riparian areas and actually strengthen the Elk/Deer herds, I find that wolves are very misunderstood. (And I used to be a hunter and have NO problem with hunters!)
I have personally come across wolves (and bears) while camping in WY, MT and ID and have never had a major problem with any of them. However, I do carry a recommended bear spray, and a .44 mag (300 Cor-bons) just in case. And I can gladly say that in all years, I have never had to pull the mag, but a few times, I have used the spray.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,957,550 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjh
They are introducing different species. That's not restoration. That's mucking about even more with nature.
Nope, same scientific species, Canis lupus. There was minor debate whether the subspecies was different, but there isn't really any strong evidence to support that. It's pretty irrelevant since all the North American subspecies are tenuous and they are all protected, and they were re-introducing themselves anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by f5fstop
Don't have time to watch the video right now. But knowing a few wildlife biologists who have studied wolves and how they help riparian areas and actually strengthen the Elk/Deer herds, I find that wolves are very misunderstood. (And I used to be a hunter and have NO problem with hunters!)
Indeed. The riparian area studies are very interesting. The feeding and migration behavior of ungulates change with the presence of a top predator and it does seem to help the ecosystem. People see far less elk, but not because there are many less elk, but because the elk change their behavior and are much more wary.
But they're not - that's a myth that's spread by a lot of the anti-wolf crowd. There's no evidence that the wolves that were re-introduced to Yellowstone are any different genetically than the wolves that lived there originally, and there never has been any. You keep hearing these anecdotes about huge, Canadian "super-wolves" that are supposedly 150 to 200 pounds at adulthood, but strangely, nobody
has ever produced a wolf carcass that supports these anecdotes. There's no truth to it at all.
It's funny you bring that up, as there are bunch of pics floating around on the internet showing people with HUGE wolves that they supposedly killed. All of those were actually photshopped by some Idaho game wardens.
I have spent a number of years investigating wolf shootings, wolf predation, wolf poisonings, etc. That means I have seen and collected many wolves. The biggest one I've ever come across was just over 110 pounds, but the vast majority were in the 50-70 pound range. That doesn't mean there aren't some big wolves out there, but those photos of wolves being held aloft by people who are smaller than the wolves are strictly for entertainment value.
All my life,I thought they are dangerous to be around. I never knew that people go camping in an area where wolves live.
what are your thoughts on that?
They are dangerous, they are a wild animal that often hunts in packs and will even kill a lot more than they needs to eat, such as a cow herd. People camp all the time and there are bears, and wolves, coyotes, mountain lions, other big cats or moose. That is why everyone that camps needs to take as many precautions as possible, like stringing your food up in a tree before bed, eating away from your sleep area, having a good campfire going that will go all night, not having food on you or in your tent, being very observant, if you know how to handle and shoot a gun and be safe with them, bring a handgun and rifle or shotgun.
The wolf is the totem of my wife's clan. If I were to say anything bad about a wolf, my wife would be much more dangerous than any wolf attack.
With that said the Native Americans lived amongst wolves and wolf attacks were unheard of. while there were wolf attacks in Europe and Asia, they were virtually unknown in the Americas until the arrival of Europeans that killed off nearly all of their food.
With that said Both my wife and I have often been in wolf habitat. But we do our best to give them a wide berth and do make enough noise to make our presence known. If a wolf knows you are in the area they will do their best to avoid you.
I grew up with a wolf (pure breed Siberian giant one).
Of course, they can be dangerous; if a stranger wandered in your home, wouldn't you be offended?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
