Wolves

02 September 2003, 06:33

Elkslayer

Daryl, I find your post frustrating because it is a great example of the misunderstanding between the people who post to these forums, who, on most other topics are of a like mind.

Speaking personally, I really couldn't give a damn if wolves were as thick as black birds or sparrows. I would gladly like to see them in running around in packs numerous enough that they become boring to see, but here is where you are missing the point, as long as they don't eradicate another species.

The whole point that you seem to be not understanding is visitors who go to Y-stone and locals who live around Y-stone and in the Y-stone ecosystem (that area that surrounds the park for 75-125 miles, I can't speak for ID or MT but am sure it is the same) are reporting they are seeing wolves and buffalo but no elk.

We have had local news reports (K2 TV, Casper Star Tribune) complete with video of the dead or dying elk that were killed or attacked and injured EVERY night in the elk's wintering grounds. I hope you can believe local news video of 5 fresh kills and 15 head of elk with hunks of their hamstring missing and their nose bitten off. The the news crew marks those dead with survey tape and returns the next morning to find new, fresh kills that don't have the tape.

I really don't know how may species that are herd animals that can withstand having 10-25 head killed or injured nearly every night during the winter and still produce enough offspring to maintain herd numbers. Do you?

Now understand, I love nature, I love to see all of Gods wild creatures, all of them. I make damn sure I financially support wildlife. I make sure I attempt to help have a voice in decision makeing processes that effect wildlife to try to offset those who lobby without having first hand knowledge (read to mean bunny-huggers from big eastern cities). BUT, I am a hunter,,, an ELK HUNTER. If elk are reduced to the point where they become endangered in the wolf re-introduction area, then I, and other hunters, businesses, and towns are impacted. Some businesses to the point of being unprofitable and could or would go under.

There will not be a need to use hunting as a population control tool for game management. If there is no need for hunter, guess what! There is no need for hunting firearms! Now I am not into the conspiricy theory stuff. But it sure seems to be logical steps to follow.

Plus this ain't Alaska. There are only a few remaining wintering areas (valleys) for these unglates to hang out which is like putting them into a holding pasture. Sure, they can run up and down the mountains that they frequent in the summer so they might excape the wolves, that is if they can manuver through 12-16 feet of snow (like West Y-stone gets).

And lastly to those of you who don't live in this area and are not directly effected. And I am not trying to take a cheap shot at you either, I'm not trying to piss you off, just trying to make this more meaningful (shoe on the other foot type of thing) but hows about some of us from this are who live in towns say, of 5,000 to 25,000 people come to you large city 1M + and "solve" your traffic problems? Maybe we could come to your area and help with our "knowledge of the situation" solve a similar wildlife issue unique to your local? I am confident you would greatly appreciate our input too.

02 September 2003, 07:22

Ol Bull

Elkslayer, Very Well Said [Smile]

02 September 2003, 07:39

Outdoor Writer

Since there has been much comment concering the wolves in WY, especially in the "sky is falling" department, folks here might want to take a look at the Wyoming Wolf Plan.It requires Acrobat Reader. -TONY

[ 09-01-2003, 23:13: Message edited by: Outdoor Writer ]

02 September 2003, 18:29

RMK

There isn't any conspiracy theory involved in any of the wolf issue. Wolves were reintroduced to kill off big game in yellowstone park and to further limit mans part in controlling animal numbers . The feds aren't funded by hunting licenses,so they are very pro wolf. They see it as a tool to kill off elk, buffalo and other animals that are impossible to control,since you can't hunt the park. Not to mention half of the USFWS cocksuckers are card carrying peta members. The anti hunting segent wanted wolves to be reintroduced for several reasons. First hunters always site that we have to hunt,because natural predators have been removed and game populations have to be kept in check. In enters the wolf,hunters aren't needed as much. Second,most of your hardcore anti's are nothing but profesional lobbyists,they have to have something to push and sponge off of. The wolf issue has served them well. Second,alot of your enviromentalists,have a total hard on for ranching around jellystone. They'd love to see predators run ranching out. Local Fish and Game are dependant on license fee's,they're for the most part in bed with ranching and they've honestly seen how fucked up this wolf problem is. They want the wolf gone.

The bottom line is,the wolf issue is real and we haven't seen shit yet. The elk population isn't nearly as bad as some will site it is. But just give it time.

02 September 2003, 20:32

Jon A

quote:
Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:
especially in the "sky is falling" department, folks here might want to take a look at the Wyoming Wolf Plan.

And your point is? That's the plan Wyoming would like to put in place when/if the wolves are delisted. Right now Wyoming can't do a damn thing to manage wolves. Since this plan actually allows people to shoot them in order to keep their population in check, you have all the greenies putting pressure on the USFWS to keep them "listed."

http://www.greateryellowstone.org/take-action/action-alerts/act_wolves.html

Just one example. I do think wolves could co-exist with everybody in this area just fine--with the right management. That's the whole issue here and why people are so pissed. The people who live there and the people who are paid to manage the wildlife in their own damn state can't touch these things. Instead, greenies from far off lands are making managment decisions with their keyboards. And they aren't the ones who have to deal with the consequences of those decisions.

03 September 2003, 09:12

<Daryl Douthat>

Bingo! Finally a response.

If you would like to solve the traffic problems in Nenana(population 500), have at it no matter where you live. As far as input on fish and game problems, I hope we can all learn from each other. Most "real Alaskans" now would prefer to turn the state into the place they came from, complete with all the stuff they came here to escape. If it weren't for the influence of the rest of the US, real Alaskans would have totally trashed this state long ago and we're hell bent on doing it now. As for large herds and predators, the major problem in Alaska has been overhunting. There are still very large caribou herds, overall good moose populations, and wolf populations are healthy. In an earlier era, people shot truckloads of caribou in the Nelchina basin and then wondered what happened to the population. Same along the Taylor highway. There are areas where moose or caribou populations are low and predators certainly can play a major role, especially when the population is in a "pit". Currently, a lot of yelling about the wolf problem in McGrath and hence relocation of bears during moose-calving time. Maybe it will work, too soon to tell, but the major predator of moose calves in summer turned out to be black bears.

What led to my comments is the hysterical conspiracy theory ranting and raving about wolves and the fear that they will destroy all the elk herds and then the black helicopters from the UN will descend to take our rifles and all hunting will end. I'm a hunter, but espousing that kind of stuff is pretty goofy. Does seeing one wolf really deserve a newspaper article that then gets enshrined in a website on the horrors of wolves. I would suggest that some of you read those antiwolf websites after a good night's sleep. Do you really believe that stuff?

03 September 2003, 01:47

Brent

jstevens, you slay me !! [Smile]

Hear a howl and you pick up and leave? What a hoot indeed. But better for the rest of us I suppose. I grew up hunting in wolf country (NE MN), and we certainly had both wolves and deer. As does Wisconsin, Michigan, and oh yeah, Alaska and most of Canada.

Thanks for the laughs.

Jon A, explain how wolves in Yellowstone are "much more enclosed" than wolves on Isle Royale, or NE Minnesota for that matter, but particularly on the island and then explain exactly how close population dynamics affect cycles - indeed they can in a number of ways, but since Huffakers' classic paper in the 50's, not much progress has been made on the effects of closure per se.

Specifically, explain, "Every indication is that this relationship will be a "good" example of the predator-prey cycle.

I'll tell you why I don't think this will be a good example and why this will not happen.

1. There are too many alternative prey for wolves - alternative prey, especially with strongly different demographies derail cycles. This is very well shown in comparing cyclic and noncycling predator-prey relationships and is best described by Hanski and Hentonnen among others.

2. There are other predators on elk - namely humans, whose dynamics are decoupled from elk.

3. There are no examples of wolf-elk cycles anywhere in nature. Nor wolf-moose cycles, and I'm 90% sure wolf-deer cycles. If you know of any rigorous demonstrations of such cycles - show me.

4. Wolves will be delisted, and probably quites soon. That will not make them huntable for sporting opportunities, but that too will eventually occur just as has happened with alligators for example.

Brent

03 September 2003, 08:25

Jon A

quote:
Originally posted by Brent:
Jon A, explain how wolves in Yellowstone are "much more enclosed" than wolves on Isle Royale, or NE Minnesota for that matter,

Of course the wolves aren't all that enclosed (even though the people that put them there swore up and down they'd all stay in the park when they were put there [Roll Eyes]

but that's another subject). It's the elk that are. I don't know anything about that island, but in general deer can survive and even flurish in people's back yards in the subdivided sprawl that has become their habitat. Elk can't. They only have so much winter feeding ground. Their habitat in the lower 48 is a tiny spec compared with the vastness of Alaska and Canada that the moose, etc, are blessed with. Comparing them to anything in Alaska, Canada, or the deer in MN is absurd. Apples to oranges.

quote:
Specifically, explain, "Every indication is that this relationship will be a "good" example of the predator-prey cycle.

Look at the populations right now. The wolves are multiplying like jackrabbits, increasing in numbers at an exponential rate. The elk are decreasing and the calf/cow ratios are extremely low. That's an indication that in a few years from now elk numbers will be even lower and wolf numbers will be much, much higher--unless man steps in and reduces the numbers of elk harvested by hunters and/or allows hunters to reduce the number wolves. The first cycle has begun.

quote:
1. There are too many alternative prey for wolves - alternative prey, especially with strongly different demographies derail cycles.

I think I saw on the Disney channel once, how a wolf will pass up easy pickin's at the "all you can eat buffet" to go chase other, more challenging prey when he gets bored and feels like balancing his diet. [Roll Eyes]

When you have herds of elk trapped on their relatively tiny winter ranges--especially where they are being fed as they are in Wyoming--it's too easy to pass up. You're right that alternative prey will ensure the wolf will survive even with drastically fewer elk, but they aren't going to leave the elk alone until they do become drastically fewer.

quote:
2. There are other predators on elk - namely humans, whose dynamics are decoupled from elk.

I agree with you there. We have a tool to limit the number of elk by increasing the hunting on them should they ever become too numerous. But if their numbers continue to decline after we stop all hunting on them, it's out of our hands. It's too late.

quote:
3. There are no examples of wolf-elk cycles anywhere in nature.

Elk and wolves have never before coexisted in this environment. 200 years ago the elks' habitat was quite a bit bigger than Yellowstone. And there were a few million Buffalo for the wolves to pick on, etc.

quote:
4. Wolves will be delisted, and probably quites soon.

Let's hope so.

BTW, I think you probably mis-understood what I meant by my first post. It seemed you had implied that predator-prey cyles simply didn't apply to wolves for some reason or don't exist at all. That's why I jumped on you. Now it seems you understand these cycles quite well--you just don't think they'll apply to this situation.

When I say it does apply, I don't mean we'll really have what you'll probably now hold as the standard to say it does--actual repeating population cycles. I'm saying the first cycle has begun and will continue until man steps in. Unfortunately I'm afraid that might not happen until the elk population is down close to where its bottom of the cylce would be. What happens from there on out won't be controlled by nature. It will be controlled by man.

Hopefully the men controlling it will be the people who live there, not politicians and environmentalists that live thousands of miles away.

03 September 2003, 09:42

Brent

quote:
Originally posted by Jon A:
BTW, I think you probably mis-understood what I meant by my first post. It seemed you had implied that predator-prey cyles simply didn't apply to wolves for some reason or don't exist at all. That's why I jumped on you. Now it seems you understand these cycles quite well--you just don't think they'll apply to this situation.

Thanks for the tiny admission. I don't think they apply in this situation at all.

quote:
Originally posted by Jon A:
When I say it does apply, I don't mean we'll really have what you'll probably now hold as the standard to say it does--actual repeating population cycles. I'm saying the first cycle has begun and will continue until man steps in. Unfortunately I'm afraid that might not happen until the elk population is down close to where its bottom of the cylce would be. What happens from there on out won't be controlled by nature. It will be controlled by man.

Hopefully the men controlling it will be the people who live there, not politicians and environmentalists that live thousands of miles away.

Hopefully, the people controling it will not be JUST the men that live there, but people from everywhere. Afterall, the situation is far beyond a few locals- they are just one important constituent, not all the important constituents.

In the meantime, wolves DO exist with deer and moose in small areas, including Isle Royal on the smallest scale to Alaska/Canada on the largest. And they do so w/o cycles.

As for wolves being confined to the park, of course they are not confined to the park, neither are the elk. In fact, parking on the park boundaries waiting for the elk is a favorite outfitter tactic out there. How can you say elk are confined to Yellowstone? They range the entire Rockies from border to border and beyond.
Brent

03 September 2003, 11:10

Elkslayer

"How can you say elk are confined to Yellowstone? They range the entire Rockies from border to border and beyond." - Brent

I think you already know this but in case you don't, an elk does not migrate or "range" nearly as far as a wolf pack does. Therefore once the wolves have taken the local elk herd populations down to the point it is not viable to hunt the wolf pack simply moves. To Colorado, Utah, Washington, Oregon and on and on BTW - that is something those Isle Royal wolves can't do.

03 September 2003, 12:12

Brent

quote:
Originally posted by Elkslayer:
I think you already know this but in case you don't, an elk does not migrate or "range" nearly as far as a wolf pack does. Therefore once the wolves have taken the local elk herd populations down to the point it is not viable to hunt the wolf pack simply moves. To Colorado, Utah, Washington, Oregon and on and on BTW - that is something those Isle Royal wolves can't do.

An individual may not but a population can. By that I mean that individual elk easily traverse hundreds of miles. Witness elk on the Pinalenos (aka Graham Mts. in SW AZ) spordically yet seperated from the Mogillon rim and the nearest other populations in the White Mts by many miles of desert. Elk have drifted so far as to be killed on I10 outside of Wilcox. A hell of a long ways from any viable elk population. In fact, an individual elk was shot here in Iowa a two years back. It was orginally thought to have been an escapee but this was not the case. It walked - from Nebraska probably.

Moose show up in Iowa with regularity.

So, in this way, elk are far more mobile than you thing. Further, the elk populations are well linked in and out of the park. An individual's homerange does not encompass anything like a population - thankfully, and elk migrate into and out of Yellowstone and all over the place. The elk herds of Northern New Mex that most of us might hunt in the rifle seasons, are almost all Colorado elk on migration, with local elk having already drifted south.

In other words, the elk population of Yellowstone is well connected to the Gallatins and beyond to the north, and Jackson Hole and the Bridger Wilderness of the misc mountain ranges to the south and, I can't recall what to the west and east.

Elk move - a lot. So do wolves.

As for the Isle Royale wolves, they can leave via the ice but don't so far as I know. If they do, it is only to leave and others do not return, and that only makes coexistence of moose and wolves MORE difficult, yet they manage.

Brent

03 September 2003, 12:40

Jeff57

I've got a question,if wolves aren't a problem then why were they hunted to nearly extinction in the past? People don't put much effort in something that doesn't affect them,I'm sure some of it was misunderstanding, but all?
I think everything has it's place but man doesn't do very good job with balancing nature.
Cougars seem to be an issue here in Eastern Washington because no hound hunting is allowed, this was decided by people that don't have to live with their decisions. I live in town and they killed a young female in poor shape about five blocks away from my house. I think most people would be pretty pissed if their child or dog got ate. When the elk cycle is on the low ebb where are the wolves going to look for their next meal,I don't think the options will be very conducive to living in harmony with man.
I was told by a friend yesterday that spends as much time in the wilderness as anyone that we too have wolves in our back country.
I hope all our fears will be unfounded and you folks that are pro-wolf can say that I told you so, but I don't think that will be the case.

03 September 2003, 13:27

INresponse

What wolf. I didn't see any wolf. Heard some shooting though. Someone musta saw an elk. I never saw any wolf though.

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

03 September 2003, 16:23

Turman

Hey Navrunner, did you buy that license before you shot it or after. In Ontario you must have bought the license before hunting an animal or your poaching. It scares me to think an employee of the MNR would condone breaking the Fish & Game Act and I think he would be risking his job and outfitting business to do so. Most of the wolves up here enjoy hunting season because they get to feast on all the animals that get wounded by guys who can`t shoot. Let them eat SOME elk but never stop hunting them either.

03 September 2003, 16:56

Oscar Makonka

Wolves are like any other game animal, if hunters harvest a percentage of the elk herd, then they should also harvest a percentage of the wolf herd to keep things balanced. Thats what we do up here, you don't even require a tag up here to shoot wolves and you are encouraged to shoot them. Keeps the wolves population thinned enough that they don't expand and move into town and cause problems, and there are enough ungulates left over that there are plenty for hunters to hunt.

03 September 2003, 17:26

Jon A

quote:
Originally posted by Brent:
In the meantime, wolves DO exist with deer and moose in small areas, including Isle Royal on the smallest scale to Alaska/Canada on the largest. And they do so w/o cycles.

Iï¿½d like to hear some tech on this situation. They do so without any outside influences (nobody lives there, nobody hunts either species, etc)?

quote:
How can you say elk are confined to Yellowstone? They range the entire Rockies from border to border and beyond.

That argument is so weak it isnï¿½t even funny. If you know anything, you know the available habitat for the current elk population in such areas is relatively tiny compared with Alaska and Canadaï¿½especially in the winter. An entire herd of elk that has been going to the same winter feeding ground for all of their lives isnï¿½t simply going to pack up and head to Iowa if they feel the wolves are getting too pesky. They are sitting ducks and you know it (or at least you should).

But you know, who is right on this argument doesnï¿½t really matter at all. Because your opinion doesnï¿½t matter (technically neither does mine at the moment but at least in my case that wonï¿½t last forever).

quote:
Originally posted by Brent:
Hopefully, the people controling it will not be JUST the men that live there, but people from everywhere. Afterall, the situation is far beyond a few locals- they are just one important constituent, not all the important constituents.

This is where you are absolutely, completely, fundamentally wrong. This is why your opinion pisses so many people off.

The opinion of some PETA member in California should matter as much (or even at all) as the opinions of the people who live there and whose lives are directly affected by decisions on this matter? [Roll Eyes]

No. Hell no! (The sad fact of the matter is that as of right now, her opinion matters more than the opinions of those who live there due to politicians not doing their jobs properly.)

Her sleeping well at night in her dorm room at Berkeley because she ï¿½helped save the wolvesï¿½ (ah, it brings a tear of joy to my eye) is not her right. It simply isnï¿½t important. She doesnï¿½t get a vote. Neither do you.

That should rile you up. You will disagree. Guess what? It doesnï¿½t matter. Not just because I donï¿½t care what you think. But because:

YOUR OPINION DOES NOT LEGALLY MATTER!

Thatï¿½s right. You seem to have forgotten that wildlife belongs to the Statesï¿½or, more accurately, the people of the states. If you donï¿½t like it, who cares. Your opinion doesnï¿½t matter.

The founding fathers of this country set it up this way for good reason. First, they didnï¿½t want the land owners to ï¿½ownï¿½ the wildlife. Second, they didnï¿½t want some centralized government, monarchy, king, etc, to control who could do what with the wildlife in their neck of the woods.

So the animals in Montana belong to the people of Montana. Not the people of the US. Not to people living in California. Not to people living in Iowa. If you donï¿½t like what we do with them, tough shit. Theyï¿½re ours. Butt out.

If the people of Wyoming decide that nobody from out of state can hunt elk there anymore, guess what? Thatï¿½s their prerogative. The elk belong to them. Not you.

Your argument on this matter isnï¿½t with me. Itï¿½s with our founding fathers who set it up this way. Argue with them. They lived through times where a single king owned every deer in the forest, etc. You want the same thing they tried so hard to prevent. Too bad, they were here first. They made the rules (and I thank God they did). People in Iowa shouldnï¿½t be deciding what people in Wyoming or Montana, etc, can do with the wildlife that lives on their land. Wildlife that affects their lives and not yours.

Now of course, the wildlife in the National Parks is yours. It does belong to everybody in the US. This is how you and the chick with the dreadlocks at Berkeley were able to put wolves there when nobody in the surrounding states wanted them. This is why even the ï¿½putting the poor little wolves out to slaughterï¿½ plan of Wyoming (that is so universally rejected by you and your cohorts because it allows wolves to be shotï¿½on Wyoming soil, under certain conditions) is a compromise. It is an agreement with the Federal government to maintain a certain population level of wolves inside the Park or killing outside the Park, on Wyoming soil will basically be stopped.

Thatï¿½s all you can ask for. Thatï¿½s all you have a right to ask for. Animals in the park are what you get to care about. Animals outside the park belong to the people who live there. You have no say in that matter.

The big exception to this rule is for endangered species. In this case the feds can say, ï¿½nobody can kill one of those!ï¿½ But these wolves are not endangered by any stretch of the definition. If a decent population is maintained inside the park, what the people of Wyoming do with their, wolves outside the park is up to them. Not you. You have no say in the matter. Neither does the tree-spiker at Berkeley.

Reality sucks, eh? Cry about it all you want, it doesnï¿½t matter. If you want a say in the matter, move there. Buy some land and pay some taxes. Deal with the problems decisions on matters like this cause first hand. Then your opinion will matter.

Right now, it doesnï¿½t.

03 September 2003, 18:01

<Matt77>

"You have to understand, the wolves of Wy, Id, & Mt, were introduced, not naturally ocurring! There were native wolves here prior to the re-introduction. The Canadian wolves displaced the native wolves. The key is INTRODUCTION"
kudu56-
wolves are all canis lupus, so you are wrong.

Can't we ever get a biologist or an expert to comment on the wolf issue.

I can't believe you are all scared of a few dogs.

Subdivisions in Idaho? Obviously you've never been to northern Virginia.

It's like a kid story relived, everyone is still afraid of the big wolf.

03 September 2003, 18:05

RMK

As long as you have National parks,you're going to have these buttfucks from out of state introducing shit like wolves. National parks give these special interest groups a foot hold.

To give you an idea of just how wonderful wolves are and how they always stay in the park. Wyoming has killed according to the Casper Star Tribune,12 wolves this year,outside of the park preying on livestock. The latest wolf was killed near Tensleep wyoming. Which is far from the park and they've got a confirmed sighting near Encampment Wy,which is clear down by colorado. The incident by tensleep resulted in numerous livestock loses,before something was done by the feds. The best part is Wyoming game and fish pay for some of the damages,even though they don't even want the fuckin' wolves here.

03 September 2003, 18:36

Jon A

quote:
Originally posted by Matt77:
It's like a kid story relived, everyone is still afraid of the big wolf.

I'm sorry, I've never heard of a place called Kxzsï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½mkluï¿½, Idaho.

04 September 2003, 01:15

Brent

jona -
You need to do a little library work. You are missing on all points. Come back when you have read a little. There are countless papers on these topics of population size, dispersal, migration, predator-prey interactions, wolf-moose dynamics, and the "ownership" of wildlife - a might more complex that you probably can wrap little mind around. Your hysteria is uncreditable.

Brent

04 September 2003, 02:24

Elkslayer

quote:
Originally posted by Brent:
jona -
You need to do a little library work. You are missing on all points. Come back when you have read a little. There are countless papers on these topics of population size, dispersal, migration, predator-prey interactions, wolf-moose dynamics, and the "ownership" of wildlife - a might more complex that you probably can wrap little mind around. Your hysteria is uncreditable.

Brent

Since you are so well read, why don't you site your sources when you regurgitate them?

You are starting to sound like DFC over on 24hourcampfire.

04 September 2003, 02:37

Brent

quote:
Originally posted by Elkslayer:

quote:
Since you are so well read, why don't you site your sources when you regurgitate them?

You are starting to sound like DFC over on 24hourcampfire.[/QB]

Do a search back on this forum and you will see I have posted references for a number of articles. Look'em up.

You guys have fun now.
Brent

04 September 2003, 05:21

Kent in IA

Jeff57, for the same reasons that elk were hunted to extinction in the eastern US and white-tailed deer nearly so...crop and livestock damage!!!

I shoot every damned whitetail deer I can. The reason, because they cost me hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars every year in lost crops! They are vermin! Last year I shot over 50 deer, legally I might add, as I had them declared varmints are was allowed by law to shoot them to save my crops. Beyond the crop damage, these pests also present a significant threat to life and limb from auto accidents. Elk eat valuable range grasses and impact negatively on the cattle industry. Wolves eat cattle as well as elk so they are not a benefit to man either. Let's face it 99.9% of Americans do not eak elk or deer, they eat beef and pork! The existence of these animals is an economic hardship for the those of us making our livings on the farm/ranch! An economic hardship, I might add, they we are ill prepared to handle!

Kill as many of these crop/livestock destroying pests as you legally can! That is the one sure fire way, to help save the family farm!

Kent

[ 09-03-2003, 20:25: Message edited by: Kent in IA ]

04 September 2003, 08:01

RMK

If you're really interested in saving the family farm,stop taking out loans against every thing you fucking own. Maybe drive a 15 or 20 year old pick up rather then a brand new dodge or ford diesel.

More farms and ranches were lost due to greedy assholes taking out loans and then having the interest rates go sky high, then any deer or elk over grazing things.

Calling wyoming,montana and idaho cattle country is a fucking joke. The only reason cattle were ever even brought into this area,was because of the vast amounts of free land. The majority of the land is piss poor for grazing and only seasonally useful. When you consider that 99% of all irrigation water in these states is used for growing hay crops,just to feed cows because of lack of grazing. It's pretty easy to conclude that this isn't real suitable to cows,unless you support the shit out of them. Pennsylvania produces more beef then montana and wyoming combined.

The problem is the goverment has artificially supported ranching for so long in the western states,that it can't just leave them to fail now.

If you're worried about cattle competing with big game,keep your fucking cows off of national forest and state lands.

04 September 2003, 10:20

Jon A

I've got something for you to read, Brent. It's called the 10th Amendment. Look it up sometime.

Let me get this straight (just for the record-remember your opinion doesn't really matter [Razz]

):

1) You don't believe the wolf population in these areas will increase dramatically over the next couple of years.

2) You don't believe the elk population in these areas will decrease significantly over the next couple of years.

Do you believe these wolves qualify as an endangered species under the original intent of the act?

What exactly do you find wrong with Wyoming's management plan linked above?

04 September 2003, 10:38

<Matt77>

RMK, you're last post,
AMEN.

This issue is more complex than wolves.
Look at all of the problems that could be attributed to the "thinning elk herd."

1. mismanaged land management
2. huge open pit mining
3. over-grazing by cattle
4. invasive species, cheatgrass (muledeer?)
5. mismanaged logging plans, see reason #1
6. over-use of land by recreation seekers, see
reason number 1
7. water redirection for irragation
8. pollution
9. poaching
10. fire
I could sit here all day listing reasons why the "wilderness" is in trouble, but it simply can't be wolves alone.
It doesn't matter what state you live in, go out and have a look at how public land is mis-managed.

04 September 2003, 12:26

sdgunslinger

Yeah , those govt. lands are so overgrazed by cattle , elk harvests in places like Colorado have gone up and up . Elk populations in general were at a peak just before this wolf fiasco stated ; wonder where the elk herds were getting all their feed since cows had not left one blade of grass on any govt. land , according to some ranch haters .

However, if you notice , Kent's handle says IOWA , so I don't think his comments on crop pests apply to the wolf/elk situatuon .

Hey , RMK , just wondering , do you drive a 20 year old pickup ?

[ 09-04-2003, 03:28: Message edited by: sdgunslinger ]

04 September 2003, 12:50

bog

RMK,
Please clean it up.

Brent,
Give it up. You will never change their minds, even though you are correct on most points.

I've been through all this before. Was involved with the MN "wolf roundtable" participants. The rabid anti-wolfers will stay anti-wolf. I'm not sure, but I think most of them are anti-wolf because they don't want to sacrifice anything to have wolves. They resort to name calling and suggest you are green, left wing, commie, or anything else they can think of that is derrogatory. Its not worth arguing with them. Pet dogs for instance. Folks who chain up their dogs outside during late winter are the folks who lose dogs to wolves. Build the dog a kennel and wolves won't get them. Many folks feel that they should not have to do that. They want to live any way they want and nobody, by God, is gonna tell them to pen the dog!!! Nothing is gonna get in their way or they'll shoot!! They are not going to change.
Thats why I try to stay with GUN TOPICS on gun forums, as we can have decent conversations without hating one another. Also, stay away from religion and politics. [Smile]

Some facts:
Isle Royale has no hunting seasons. There are no whitetail deer on Isle Royale.
I'm pretty sure there are no "year-round" residents. There are a few federal workers who are seasonal residents and there are a limited number of permitted summer visitors. Most of it is a "wilderness" non-motorized canoe and hiking area. Lake Superior last froze over in '94? (I think). I live on the lakeshore; I just can't remember exactly what year it last froze. Every so often there is an ice bridge to Isle Royale from the mainland. Isle Royale is part of Michigan. It is a Park.

Brent,
It would be best to DEFINE a "classic predator-prey" relationship. Everybody would be talking about the same thing if it was defined.

I have wolves in my back yard every so often, when they feel like running through. I've had wolves kill deer in front of me while I was deer hunting. Its pretty terrible for the deer. There are so many deer in my yard that I can't grow a very good garden, even though I have the garden fenced with 8 ft pig wire fencing. Some of them can jump the fence. Sometimes they crawl under it. Point is that the wolves don't eat all the deer. Moose frequent my yard also. The wolves don't kill all them either. A den of wolves can be pretty tough on a snowshoe hare population, though.

I'm schooled in population dynamics and work professionaly in Natural Resource Management. I have lived in the wolf range for 15 years now, have studied technical papers on wolves, and have had long conversations with the local wildlife managers about wolves, moose, deer, etc..

I have not seen much data to show that wolves are reducing animal populations in Idaho and other western states where wolves were introduced. I've heard a lot of hollering about it, but no one has shown me lowered population estimates (for example) from those states. Its my understanding that the number of elk hunting permits issued by Idaho has remained stable the past couple of years. That tells me that the state thinks there are plenty of elk. If someone out there has hard data, point me to it. I'm more than willing to learn.

I can't imagine that wolves would "kill all the elk." The moose and deer populations in NE Mn. are strong. Wolves are not hunted here. The only thing I can think of that would make it any different out west, is that the prey is more visible in open areas than in the thick woods around here. Of course, there are thick areas out there too.

I'd like to hunt wolves. I've called them in many times while coyote hunting. I'd like to have a wolf rug. They would make a great game animal and a real challenge.

Anyway, I live amongst the wolves, and I like it. I hear them howling every so often. If you happen upon NE Mn, don't shoot any wolves, as there is a major penalty. I figure its up to each state to manage the critters, except for Federal Parks and other federal land like BLM, etc.. That belongs to all of us. Its OUR BUSINESS! As in NE MN., there is a lot of federal land "out west."

I could give a rip if there are wolves in the west. But there sure is a lot of misinformation and hatred out there. It seems to me that we all could stand some learnin' on the subject.

[Cool]

04 September 2003, 13:41

bog

Oh, come on!!
Nobody gonna yell at me?

[Cool]

04 September 2003, 14:22

sdgunslinger

OK bog , I'll yelp a little .

How come MN has mostly had THE most restrictive deer seasons in the Mid-West . I believe last year was the first a hunter could legally take 2 deer on a regular license.( except for a few maaanagement areas )You couldn't even legally take one by bow and one by gun in prior years . Could it be because your numerous wolves take a hell of a lot of deer ?

Why do moose appear unable to extend their range and population in MN ?, despite extensive suitable habitat . Maybe the numerous wolves make that impossilbe ? And the moose population in other than the NE continues to be shitty . Maybe wolves ?

You say deer populations are "strong" in the NE . Just because there are a number of deer eating your garden does not neccarily mean there is good hunting out in the woods. It's quite common for whitetails to congregate in suburban areas where there is little or no hunting . Also fewer wolves to worry about .... [Big Grin]

I know several hunters that used to go to northern MN , but now come out here to the prairie side of the state because the northern hunting sucks in comparision . Maybe the numerous wolves are keeping more of a lid on the hunting than some of you pro-wolfers will admit ?

As you said , you are not likely to change the mind of any rabid anti-wolf people .

Likewise , you rabid pro-wolfers will never change your mind either , despite any amount of sacrifice from your fellow hunters , or farmers and ranchers .

[ 09-04-2003, 05:26: Message edited by: sdgunslinger ]

04 September 2003, 15:13

bog

quote:
Originally posted by sdgunslinger:
OK bog , I'll yelp a little .

How come MN has mostly had THE most restrictive deer seasons in the Mid-West . I believe last year was the first a hunter could legally take 2 deer on a regular license.( except for a few maaanagement areas )You couldn't even legally take one by bow and one by gun in prior years . Could it be because your numerous wolves take a hell of a lot of deer ?

Why do moose appear unable to extend their range and population in MN ?, despite extensive suitable habitat . Maybe the numerous wolves make that impossilbe ? And the moose population in other than the NE continues to be shitty . Maybe wolves ?

You say deer populations are "strong" in the NE . Just because there are a number of deer eating your garden does not neccarily mean there is good hunting out in the woods. It's quite common for whitetails to congregate in suburban areas where there is little or no hunting . Also fewer wolves to worry about .... I know several hunters that used to go to northern MN , but now come out here to the prairie side of the state because the northern hunting sucks in comparision . Maybe the numerous wolves are keeping more of a lid on the hunting than some of you pro-wolfers will admit ?

As you said , you are not likely to change the mind of any rabid anti-wolf people .

Likewise , you rabid pro-wolfers will never change your mind either , despite any amount of sacrifice from your fellow hunters , or farmers and ranchers .

Thanks for asking!,
I didn't know that Mn had the most restrictive season.

Last year was the first year I could buy an "all season license" (not a "regular license") for $76(?), which allowed me to take two deer during bow, rifle, and muzzleloader seasons. That's probably what you are refering to? We can now take two deer, one buck and one doe, during any season (archery, gun, and muzzleloader.) We were always restricted by "either/or" before last year. I started hunting deer in Mn in about 1964, and I don't remember a season where you could take more than one deer, except with a special permit/tag/etc. , party hunting, a few two-deer areas, etc. I remember a lot of "bucks only" seasons. I think it was about 1974(?) that the deer season in Mn was closed completely. Any way, because harvest of whitetail has become so liberal may make the arguement that wolves are not eating all the deer.
Of course, wolves DO TAKE A HELL OF A LOT OF DEER. There are plenty left for me to hunt. Big, healthy deer that win the local contests at over 250 pounds every year. Deer that grew up avoiding us, coyote, bear, and wolf.

Wolves and Moose ???
Maybe not!
The "only" place in Mn with moose is NE Mn.??? Find it odd that that is where all the wolves are?

Good point about my garden. I didn't make it clear that I don't live in suburbs. I'm surrounded by Fed lands, 45 minutes from a 1000 person town on the north shore of Lake Superior. Its "over the hill." I'm the last house on the right. After that, You go north through the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness about 60 miles until you hit Canada.

I agree that wolves do thin out prey populations, I only think that its not as "bad" as others think. Some groups of deer hunters have reported reduced deer numbers when wolves move in.

04 September 2003, 15:22

bog

quote:
Originally posted by sdgunslinger:
Likewise , you rabid pro-wolfers will never change your mind either , despite any amount of sacrifice from your fellow hunters , or farmers and ranchers .

"Rabid Pro-Wolfers."
Why would you call me a "Rabid Pro-Wolfer?"
And why would you blame me for sacrifice by hunters, farmers, or ranchers.

Tell me where you differ.

04 September 2003, 15:48

sdgunslinger

Bog........virtually every other state in the mid-west has always allowed the taking of a deer with both gun and bow, if you cared to buy both licenses . Now many of the mid-west states are allowing multiple tags in different seasons and maybe five or six deer per hunter in some cases if you care to hunt multiple seasons . So I would say that MN has had the most restrictive seasons that I am familiar with .

Yet Mn probably has the most massive amount of available whitetail habitat out of the mid-west.

We take plenty of healthy 200 to 300 lb deer out of the non-wolf areas too . I'd say genetics , food supply , and hunting pressure all have play a big role in the body size of local deer........are you saying being chased by wolves make whitetail grow bigger........? Interesting theory.........and you say you are a professional natural resource guy.......... [Big Grin]

Hey , back in the days when wolves were shot on sight and even had bounties on them , didn't north Mn produce plenty of healthy 250 to 300 lb whitetails ??

[ 09-04-2003, 06:56: Message edited by: sdgunslinger ]

04 September 2003, 17:07

Rob

Those who call the people on this forum who are upset about the wolf populations in the west "anti-wolf" are completely missing the point. The point is WOLF CONTROL. A heathy wolf population at a carrying capacity that the available prey will support will require an annual cull through hunting or trapping of approximately 30% to maintain that population level. I don't think anyone here who is worried about the elk populations in their respective areas (or at least very few) want the wolves exterminated. They want them controlled, and at a level that will not result in a great loss of hunting opportunity or success. That is reasonable.

I will not debate the predator-prey cycle issue because it is not relevant whether their is a true cycle by the biological definition. The truth is that wolves are highly mobile, highly efficient killers. They can and will multiply until they have seriously depleted the game in an area. But unlike lynx and rabbits, they do not die or just stop reporducing when this happens. They move. Any cycle would have to be on an almost continental basis. The only check on their population is when they are confronted with moving into an area already occupied by other wolves. It is difficult to have documented any true cyclical behavior of wolves and moose, because of the impact of hunting and habitat destruction and wolf control in the very large geographical area that would be required. As Brent mentioned, wolves on Isle Royale will cross the ice to leave but they don't come back. If this safety valve (the mobility of woves) were not available, then you may well see cyclical behavior. The wolf&bear/ungulate dynamic is one of feast and famine.

An example would be the Nelchina Basin caribou (and moose) herds. As of a few years ago, the wolf population had grown to an estimated 500 wolves from the early 70s when wolf control had reduced the numbers to 12 in an attmept to save the Nelchina caribou. Contrary to what Daryl Douthat may have implied, it was not the truckloads of caribou that was the principal cause of this decline, but the lack of recruitment into the population. The taking of adults by hunters appeared biologically justified because the herd numbers looked like it could support it, but what happened was that the recruitment was bad due to wolf predation on the young, and ultimately the herd grew old and less productive and died. As a result, the herd crashed rapidly due as much to natural mortality as hunting. Now that wolf populations have rebounded in response to an increasing herd, just as hunting was again being allowed for more than a few permit holders, problems of recruitment have caused F&G to limit the take by hunters. In the Nelchina basin moose hunting is now available to residents only because the impact the wolves are having on moose as well.

The wolf should not be demonized, nor should it be worshipped. It is a game animal that can be managed like any other for the benefit of all concerned. The problem is with the bunny huggers and their ilk who do not want the wolf to be managed, but believe the "harmony of nature" will maintain the delicate balance between predator and prey. They do not understand that the harmony of nature will maintain a balance over the long term, but that there will be drastic population swings during the short term that could be controlled if the wolves themselves are controlled.

What needs to be decided in Wyoming and those areas is what is the balance that man would like to maintain. Then the biolgists can manage for that balance through the hunting and trapping of wolves and limitation on the human harvest of elk, deer and moose. Unfortunately for hunters, the presence of wolves does result in a lower quota for the hunters in a sustainable use regimen. What I hear is that the people in Wyoming and Idaho think the balance has been reached if not exceeded at least in some areas.

04 September 2003, 17:12

RMK

Thats funny gunslinger,wyoming elk harvest is down,yet the population is up. Fish and game site that the main reason for this,is lack of suitable forage for elk on public lands,due to over grazing by livestock. Which in turn forces elk to enter private ground,since ranchers usually don't abuse their own property and graze is available.

While on private ground the elk are hunted little and the population continues to increase. Yet all your pussy ranchers keep crying about to many elk,even though they won't let enough of the public on their land to take care of the problem. They'd much rather take a loss in damages to wildlife and pick up a welfare check from the tax payers,rather then take care of the problem.

Since you're so interested I drive a 12 year old truck and the ranchers I know that aren't in the hole,drive mostly 1980's model single cab trucks.

04 September 2003, 17:18

RMK

Rob the problem is,the feds want to use the endangered species act to manage wolves. This act has requirements that must be met in order to delist and the requirements are purposely designed to be unobtainable in most cases, so delisting won't occur.

I've heard from nobody in person that wants a wolf population in wyoming. The only people you hear wanting wolves are the bleeding heart assholes from back east.

04 September 2003, 17:45

redial

Jon A finally brought to the fore the OTHER issue, the one not based in ecology - state's rights! Thank you sir!

For many of us, the bigger argument is not what the wolves will or will not do, rather it is that so many "outsiders" are able to dictate what we do with our land and our way of life.

If you'll scan thru all the postings on this thread (and the several others on the matter that preceded it), you'll notice that all the voices from Montana, Wyoming, Idaho and most from other affected areas are NOT in favor of reintroduction. Gee, coincidence? Also coincidence that despite universal opposition, we still got the wolves, like it or not?

I doubt it.

Sorry folks. It really is a matter of "we who live here" determining how we live, not people in DC or San Francisco or wherever. If you folks from other parts of the country think reintroducing uncontrolled packs of sacred-cow carnivores is such a wonderful idea, open the tiger cage at your local zoo. In fact, open all the cages! I'll bet your neighbors will FREAK OUT. I'll bet they won't think it's as wonderful an idea as you do. The cops will have to shoot many animals. Coincidence? Hmm.

Let US decide, thank you.

Flame away. I have my Nomex skivvies on.

Redial

04 September 2003, 18:31

<Daryl Douthat>

Rob,

Don't have time to discuss all of your post(I think we are neighbors and should discuss this over coffee or beer) but the population decline I am referring to is one that occurred a about 30 years ago. What has happened more recently is ups and downs of a herd that is a remnant of the earlier very large herd. Both the Nelchina and 40 mile herds were once huge, especially the 40 mile herd. Construction of the taylor hw gave access there and people slaughtered caribou in huge numbers. I came to ak in '81 so didn't see the slaughter in the Nelchina basin firsthand, but it was big too. People litterally hauled flatbeds of 'bou out of there. Very generous limit (I think 5 per person for many years and people did hammer them lots more than wolves did(that was an era of aerial hunting of wolves). Clearly now, the problem is an urban population of roughly 350 K persons along hwy system who all want a caribou from that herd. Fortunately, the public will no longer tolerate the kind of wolf control the Outdoor Council advocates. Wolf populations are self-controlling to a much greater extent than the human population is. Glad I won't be around long enough to see them turn ak into another idaho or wyoming.

Lest anyone suspect that any of us except Brent actually knows much about the population dynamics of wolves and moose(or elk), I am a physicist who hunts and traps and has for a long while. Rob, I think I have been reading your recent article in Ak magazine and have also seen your discussions in the Ak hunt forum on the hunter who missed a bear and got to keep it anyway. [Big Grin]

See you at the post office one of these days.