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.
Wow! I guess my thought that these animals do well in NM was a major understatement! Thank you, Power, for that very interesting article! I just read it aloud to my husband, as well. I had no idea these animals were such a problem. But, it shouldn't really surprise us. It's what comes from introducing non-indigenous animals into an area they shouldn't have been in, in the first place.
I'll agree that most farmers and ranchers try to do what's best for the land they occupy...I was just pointing out that, ultimately, they'll do whatever is neccessary to make a living. I expect bad businesspeople, that is, lousy farmers and ranchers, are the ones principally responsible for poor and destructive practices in an attempt to make up for their equally poor management and business practices.
That being said, farm and ranch operators operate in a free enterprise system where the underperforming businesses ultimately fail, as they should. I can't summon up too many tears for a farm going under any more than I can weep over the demise of American Motors because they made lousy cars. It's unfortunate for everyone, but that's life.
GregW...we agree on a lot, but I think your urban recreationist conspiracy leanings are over the top. A rich guy has a right to buy property just to look at it, just as he can buy a huge building just to put his name on the top. Payin the cost to be the Boss, and the free use of one's own property.
I don't believe the USA is in any danger of starving here...our agriculture is one of the most efficient in the world and we export huge, huge amounts of food all over the place.
If you think Americans ***** about NAFTA you should hear Mexican farmers complain! When the treaty took effect the American farmer basically crushed the Mexican corn growers with their efficiency, lower price and higher quality. This doesn't sound like an industry in danger of going away any time soon.
If we're going to protect American farmers from imports we should also be extending that same principle to both heavy and light manufacturing, where we really ARE in danger of losing our mojo.
Few businesses (except maybe the poor ol oil companies) get as much subsidy and risk management as agriculture does. This makes some sense in terms of weather, but protecting a farmer from himself and the market just breeds bad business practices.
I think reintroducing the wolf (both north and south) is a good idea...they're not foreign creatures, they belong in the ecosystem and will go a long ways toward regulating deer, antelope and elk herds that tend to overrun places low in predation.
Also, I believe programs are in place in many wolf reintro. areas to compensate ranchers for stock loss. No one will bring Pookie the poodle back though....keep the dog in the yard or on a leash.
I have experience with wolves in N. Michigan. They do everything possible to avoid people and threaten no one.
The oryx pretty much run free....I just about took one out last spring. By the size of it my car and myself would probably have gotten the worst of a collision. They should be hunted down to a small population as they have no business being in White Sands. They like it though.
I thought I might attract some real firebreathers with my first post on this...I'm grateful for the thoughful and interesting responses and enjoy the exchange of ideas.
Gracias!
I think reintroducing the wolf (both north and south) is a good idea...they're not foreign creatures, they belong in the ecosystem and will go a long ways toward regulating deer, antelope and elk herds that tend to overrun places low in predation.
Also, I believe programs are in place in many wolf reintro. areas to compensate ranchers for stock loss. No one will bring Pookie the poodle back though....keep the dog in the yard or on a leash.
Well, I was going to let this go, especially since I can see your point, on certain parts of this issue, whether we agree or not. However, I strongly disagree with wolf re-introduction. Don't get me wrong. I think wolves are beautiful creatures, and I'd like to see them ranging in their natural habitat, but, like it or not, fair or not, it is just too difficult to fit them in. These animals run in packs, and they range many miles, more so than bears or cougars, for example. They are prolific in their breeding, as opposed to the other two animals, also. There is just not enough room for them, the ranchers and farmers, and the growing subdivisions, throughout the West, without running into problems.
Programs for compensation? Yes, they do exist, but like any government-run program, it is very inefficient, and the ranchers and farmers have to fight like crazy to get any payments at all. And, even when they are successful in getting the government to fork over, it quite frequently does not cover the complete loss.
Before anyone jumps on the wolf re-introduction band wagon, I would strongly suggest reading more on the opposing side. Listen to what these folks have to say about the problems that have already come into play in Wyoming, because of the re-intro there. Problems for the elk herds, problems with the local ranches. Problems for the wolves leaving Yellowstone Park boundaries, because as they do, (obviously not able to know that they shouldn't leave the safety of the Park), they get killed on the roads; some ranchers, tired of waiting for the government to do something, will shoot them. And, sometimes the government itself, has to take out these wolves. I just don't see how this is of a benefit for either people or the animals.
It was said that I had a romantic notion of ranching and farming. I would submit that too many people have a romantic notion of wolves. I'm not saying they are evil, or any such nonsense. But, there must be some practicality about this situation, or both people and wolves suffer for it. Read the Wyoming Wildlife. Read the "Range" magazine, (that I mentioned before. Excellent information coming straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak). Read local newspapers from the different ranching towns and communities. Get both sides of this issue. It may feel good to alot of folks to think of wolves being in the wild, but it's not so great for the people who have to live with the results.
Last edited by CelticLady1; 12-19-2007 at 06:23 PM..
If you'd post a couple links to specific articles, etc. I'd be more than happy to read them. There are always two sides.
I appreciate your willingness to read such information, but to be honest, as silly as it sounds, I have no idea how to post links and such. I'm afraid my computers skills are sadly lacking. And, trying to work up my memory as to where specific articles are, that would best suit this situation, would be an effort in futility. I apologize; I feel quite ill-prepared to give you better information. My magazines are scattered around the house in no particular order, and much of what I have read, over the years, has come from newspapers, and such, and some of that online, and I no longer have them. When I read up on something that interests me, I tend to wander all over cyberspace, and I don't always leave myself a breadcrumb trail to follow, later. That's a lesson to me, I guess. I need to hang onto things better.
Best bet would be to "Google". The information is out there. Just type in some key words, you'll find all kinds of stuff. In an earlier post, Power gave us us a link to an article about that oryx, and I found out that it came from a website called "High Country News". I don't really know anything about this one, so how slanted it may be, one way or the other, I don't know, but I am going to peruse it, to find out. I think it also has a paper magazine. "Wyoming Wildlife" and "Range" each have a website, also, with a few articles written on them. Of course, the paper magazines have more articles and information, but the websites are a start. Cody, Wyoming has a newspaper, called the Cody Enterprise, (there's also a website for it). Cody is the first town to the east of Yellowstone Park, and there are a number of ranchers in the area, and in the past, I've read articles in the paper, concerning this issue.
Just as an example of what you can find online, I "Googled" this issue, myself, just now, using the key words, "wolf re-introduction". The second hit was about the economic impact of wolf re-introduction. It was from the University of Idaho, written by an Agricultural Science and Technology student. The fifth hit was from a website - actionbioscience.org, that seemed, on a quick glance, to be fairly even-handed about both sides of the argument.
Last edited by CelticLady1; 12-19-2007 at 09:44 PM..
Be glad they did not introduce the Oryx's predator along with the antelope. If you think wolves, pumas, and jaguars are annoying just imagine what a dozen of so prides of African lions would do to keep the antelope under control.
All natural predators are opportunistic hunters just like humans (we are the best hunters on the planet BTW). However, the prey evolves ways to fend off the predators. Those long horns are only partially for decoration.
In most cases the predators and the prey have co evolved to fit into the same ecosystem. When man introduces new prey without the appropriate predators the prey (in this case Oryx) overpopulate the ecosystem and eventually wind up eating too much of the grass for their own good.. The indigenous predators, even if they haven’t been hunted to extinction, are not really equipped to handle the new prey so the antelope population soars. I would think that wolves, if given the choice between a horn carrying Oryx or a goat, would choose the goat. In general messing around with ecosystems generally has unplanned consequences. It takes a lot of time and energy to figure out what these are let alone predicting what they might be.
Wolves, being a native species, belong in the Yellowstone ecosystem, period.
If they leave the National Park so be it.
And please tell us what kind of problems they cause.
If the wolves happen to kill some ranchers stock so what, that rancher is more than likely feeding off the nipple of the government.
The SSS comment makes me ill..........
"Wyoming Wildlife", published by the Wyoming Game and Fish, has said that the elk herds in Wyoming have been declining since the re-introduction of wolves into Yellowstone Park, once the wolf population began gaining in numbers. Other publications have also indicated the decline, while reporting that Colorado and New Mexico's herds are stable to increasing. Obviously, wolves are not the only reason for the decline, but they are definitely a contributing factor. These animals need alot of meat to sustain themselves. They are prolific breeders, pack up, (unlike other predators such as the cougar and bear), and range miles, as I've stated before. They do not make a distinction whether their prey is wild, or domesticated. These are not faults on the part of the wolves; they are simply the facts.
Actually, these wolves are not native to Wyoming. They were brought in from Canada. As I undertand it, these wolves are larger and more aggressive than the original wolf that once inhabited the area. A bit of research will tell you more on that subject.
Other than heavy predation on the deer and elk populations in the Park, there is also the little problem of them leaving the safety of the Park boundaries. This exposes them, not only to possibly being shot, but also to being hit by vehicles, on the roads. If the wolves stayed inside the Park, there would be less problems. Unfortunately, they don't know where the boundaries are. Our government officials had this grandiose idea that these animals should be placed in the Park, and that they would stay inside of it. Such is not the case. They have now been seen as far over as the Bighorn Mountains, to the west, as far south as the WY/Co border, and have made into Montana and Idaho, as well. Apparently, they didn't read the rules. They wander out and, like any predator, will go for the easiest meal; that frequently being cattle, sheep, horses, etc. They cost the ranchers and farmers money that they can ill afford. In my earlier post, I mentioned the compensation program, that so many think reimburses these folks. But, like most government-run programs, it is inefficient.
Before anyone rants at the ranchers and farmers about SSS, they need look to our government. They are the ones who forced this situation upon these folks, against not only the protests of the ranchers and farmers themselves, but also against the protests of the State of Wyoming. This is a case of Federal bullying at it's best, or worst, depending on how one looks at it. And, it has affected not only Wyoming, but also Montana, and Idaho, as these animals wander in all directions. I don't like it myself, that some of these wolves have to be disposed of, but it is happening because folks, who mean well, but who don't understand the problems associated with wolves, (because most of them do not make their living off of the land), decided it would be a grand idea to re-introduce the wolf. A bad move for both humans and wolves.
As I have said before, repeatedly, I think that wolves are beautiful animals. I wish they could fit better into the environment, but unfortunately, that seems to be no longer the case. It is not their fault, but it is the reality. They need many miles to range, and less ranches and farms to bump into, which makes it extremely difficult in the Lower 48. It's easy to blame this all on the ranchers and farmers, but I can guarantee you that most suburbanites, in all of those subdivisions opening up across the West, would be some of the first on the SSS "program", if Fluffy or Toto was eaten. Or, perhaps they would get someone else to do it for them, like the government. Would I employ SSS just out of hand? Absolutely not, however, if my horses, cattle, etc., were being predated by a pack of wolves, now the game plan would be changed. No one, whether suburbanites or ranchers and farmers, should have to stand by, and not be able protect their pets and livestock.
Wolves, being a native species, belong in the Yellowstone ecosystem, period.
If they leave the National Park so be it.
And please tell us what kind of problems they cause.
If the wolves happen to kill some ranchers stock so what, that rancher is more than likely feeding off the nipple of the government.
The SSS comment makes me ill..........
Well it is pretty obvious that you have never delt with wildlife and domestic animals.
"If the wolves happen to kill some ranchers stock so what, that rancher is more than likely feeding off the nipple of the government"
Now that has got to be the funniest and at the same time the dumbest thing I have read all day, maybe all week
But what happens when the predators learn that it is alot easier to prey on dogs, cats, other pets and children? Guess maybe that is ok with you also.
I've got no major heartburn over the wolf. What I do have a problem with is the Federal Govt. shoving them down our throat and then say too bad for you and your domestic animals.
I live in the sticks and have raised various animals, cows, sheep, ducks, turkey and chickens.
Have had problems over the years with wild animals, from fox, coyote, bobcat and bear.
A simple matter to solve. The smaller ones you put on a stretcher, the bears you call the game department and they pick up the mortal remains.
Problem solved.
I do have to agree on the SSS theory to some degree. You need to put the hide on a stretcher before ya bury them.
If it is a wolf, the way the law is written, all you can do is suffer.
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.
Thank you, Power, for that very interesting article! I just read it aloud to my husband, as well. I had no idea these animals were such a problem. But, it shouldn't really surprise us. It's what comes from introducing non-indigenous animals into an area they shouldn't have been in, in the first place.
especially since I can see your point, on certain parts of this issue, whether we agree or not. However, I strongly disagree with wolf re-introduction. Don't get me wrong. I think wolves are beautiful creatures, and I'd like to see them ranging in their natural habitat, but, like it or not, fair or not, it is just too difficult to fit them in. These animals run in packs, and they range many miles, more so than bears or cougars, for example. They are prolific in their breeding, as opposed to the other two animals, also. There is just not enough room for them, the ranchers and farmers, and the growing subdivisions, throughout the West, without running into problems. 
). Read local newspapers from the different ranching towns and communities. Get both sides of this issue. It may feel good to alot of folks to think of wolves being in the wild, but it's not so great for the people who have to live with the results.
And, trying to work up my memory as to where specific articles are, that would best suit this situation, would be an effort in futility.
I apologize; I feel quite ill-prepared to give you better information. My magazines are scattered around the house in no particular order, and much of what I have read, over the years, has come from newspapers, and such, and some of that online, and I no longer have them. When I read up on something that interests me, I tend to wander all over cyberspace, and I don't always leave myself a breadcrumb trail to follow, later. That's a lesson to me, I guess. I need to hang onto things better. 
