Trumper Swans, Yellowstone's signature birds have reached their lowest numbers since the 1930's with wolves killing over 25% of their number during a 12 month period from 2005 to 2006 stated McEneaney the park's ornithologist.

Will the next headline be "Swans Extinct in Yellowstone" by 2008?

Where is a tasty elk calf when you need one!

Now I don't want to start a war, but I believe it is probably due to several things. Wolves may be a small part, but I think that it is more related to lost of habitat (especially with the current environmental conditions). Maybe by swans were at too high of a population and the wolves are mother nature's way of fixing that issue.

It could also be related to the fact that there are so many raccoons and coyotes in the world. They are hard the the eggs and the fledglings.

quote:

Originally posted by MThuntr:
Now I don't want to start a war, but I believe it is probably due to several things. Wolves may be a small part, but I think that it is more related to lost of habitat (especially with the current environmental conditions). Maybe by swans were at too high of a population and the wolves are mother nature's way of fixing that issue.

It could also be related to the fact that there are so many raccoons and coyotes in the world. They are hard the the eggs and the fledglings.

1. The park ornithologist didn't suggest loss of habitat as a reason. Were talking about swans in the park and I don't think anyone can drain Yellowstone lake.

2. Swan population in the park is at an all time low, so over population is out also.

3. Current environmental conditions ie global warming may be the cause if it is causing the wolves to hunt more.

4. Wolves are the natural ememy of coyotes and have been shown to be reducing the population of coyotes in Yellowstone so that is out.

Maybe the wolves have run out of elk calves?

The Big Sky ADVENTURE, July 6-12, 2007

quote:

Maybe the wolves have run out of elk calves?

How many times must we say, the wolves are vegitarians, they do not affect big game species or any wildlife species for that matter. They are not over populated, even though the last count put them at over 1300 in the three state region. 1000+ in Wy. Just ask the outdoor writer, or brent the iowa wolf guru, or even idaho vandal. They will all agree the wolves are not the root cause of some species of wildlife declining. It is global warming, habitat loss, the drought, and probably george bush's fault.

quote:

Wolves may be a small part, but I think that it is more related to lost of habitat

Yes only 25%. 25 out of every 100, 1 out of 4, if we could eliminate that small percentage of kalifornians in Wy. we would be back to 450,000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Swans are evil. Would rather look at a wolf than a swan.

Arm and teach the swans how to shoot wolves....

John
Wondering if we call a wolf an Assault dog if a larhe group of democrats will finaly ban them...

quote:

Yes only 25%. 25 out of every 100, 1 out of 4, if we could eliminate that small percentage of kalifornians in Wy. we would be back to 450,000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Right on!!!!!!!

Can someone explain why wolves were reintroduced into the area?

quote:

Originally posted by DMB:
Can someone explain why wolves were reintroduced into the area?

NO

Do you have a link to the article?

This is some funny chit...

The wolves probalby have an easier time becasue they've killed off all the elk and moose, allowing the grasses/shrubs/etc to grow up around the edges of the water allowing for easier ambush.

Fuggn wolves.

Actually, a very sheepish researcher just published that the wolves are NOT significantly changing the grazing behavior of elk. They still prefer to eat the same stuff.

Even though they swore high and low that the wolves would restore the aspen habitat by dispersing the elk. Oooooops.

There's just a lot fewer elk around, which does have an impact. FWIW, Dutch.

Another great topic, which will be pushed aside by the enviro wackos. Wolves are the scourge. In the Thorofare, where we would see 100s of elk and many moose we saw 4 elk this year and not a moose in 3 years. Delisting wolves tomorrow would be 10 years too late.

Dutch-- Wolves are not changing the grazing patterns of elk. Elk will always like to eat the same things. As you said, there are just 50% less of them to eat it. The biggest saving grace for the willows is that the wolves have decimated Moose populations.

I can see the new bumper sticker; Save a Willow, Sacrifice a Moose Population

Where is Brent when we need him??????

So I did a little reserch at lunch...

There is only about a dozen breeding pairs of swans in the whole park. Loosing 25%, while significant, only means a handfull of swans.

The aspen theory was just that, a theory and it proved to be false. No proof the elk were detroying the stands of aspen. Drought!

quote:

Can someone explain why wolves were reintroduced into the area?

enviro-zealots need no reason, they have no ability to reason. My answer, is also NO!

quote:

Originally posted by Ivan:
So I did a little reserch at lunch...

There is only about a dozen breeding pairs of swans in the whole park. Loosing 25%, while significant, only means a handfull of swans.

What if there were 1,000 swans in the park and 250 were killed? Would that be better? Still 25%. As the population of wolves increases at the 25% rate we are seeing, the swans will be brutally killed and eaten until none remain in the park.

I guess I haven't heard of wolf predation decimating swan numbers...snapper do you have a link to this information??

Everyplace I've seen a swan nest, the wolf would have to take a swim to get out there. As for them killing adults...?????

MG

I guess I believe the park's ornithologist who studies the swans in Yellowstone.

quote:

Originally posted by Snapper:
Trumper Swans, Yellowstone's signature birds have reached their lowest numbers since the 1930's with wolves killing over 25% of their number during a 12 month period from 2005 to 2006 stated McEneaney the park's ornithologist.

Picked up The Big Sky ADVENTURE, July 6-12, 2007 in Bozeman in Monday.

AT MY buddys place in the Michigan UP he used to have coyotes in the area all the time. Noisy little buggers and saw them all the time.
Mich reintroduced wolves into the area...

NO more coyotes. Hasnt heard one all this summer. Did see a wolf in his driveway.
DNR put out signs in the area warning people to keep their pets CLOSE as the wolves will scsore free range pets.

bear hunters can now run their dogs in prep for bear hunting...
but
they are not doing it in his area out of fear of losing too many dogs.
wolves may not be teh top of the food chain but they sure come close.

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:
The aspen theory was just that, a theory and it proved to be false. No proof the elk were detroying the stands of aspen. Drought!

quote:

Can someone explain why wolves were reintroduced into the area?

enviro-zealots need no reason, they have no ability to reason. My answer, is also NO!

And where was this proven? Can I see the publications? The data?

And Kudu, about the ability to reason - Have you been smoking again?

Brent

2006 Yellowstone Bird Report by Terry McEneaney


TRUMPETER SWAN The Yellowstone National Park resident Trumpeter Swan subpopulation continues to show signs of a species at risk of local imperilment. Traditionally, the Centennial Valley of Montana has been a hot spot for cygnet production in the greater Yellowstone area. Swan recruitment from outside of Yellowstone National Park is a critical factor in maintaining the resident swan population. Historically, swans that died in the park (mainly through predation) were eventually replaced by swans from outside the park (namely the Centennial Valley). However, management events over the last two decades have led to a reduction of breeding swans particularly outside the Park, coupled with low numbers of fledged cygnets throughout the greater Yellowstone (Figure 5) are cause for serious concern.

GRAPH INSET: The number of sub adult/adult resident swans in Yellowstone National Park has declined steadily since 1961 and currently stands at only 14 individuals (Figure 6). This is tied with 1931 and 1934 as being the lowest number of sub adult/adults ever recorded in the park, since we have been collecting population trend data. These adult numbers are expected to stay low due to predation and until adult swan numbers in the Centennial Valley significantly increase, which is expected to take at least a couple decades.

Adult swan recruits from the Paradise Valley have helped in maintaining the Yellowstone swan population for the time being. However, one new recruit was observed on the Northern Range in 2006. The chances of survival for this swan is not good, due to the extreme drought conditions in this area. In the spring of 2005 three subadult and 2006 two subadult/adult floaters or non-breeders showed up on the Madison River, providing signs of small but slow incremental change in the swan recruits coming from the west of the park. In 2004 a single adult swan at 7 Mile Bridge on the Madison River, finally picked up a mate after 40 months of being alone on the territory during the month of August. But mammalian predation has all but eliminated the gains made on the west side of the park. In recent years, trumpeter swan nest attempts have ranged from 2 to 10 per year (Figure 7). There were only three swan nest attempts in 2006, these three nest attempts have stayed steady for the last five years, with the exception of 2004 in which there were 4 nest attempts. In 2006, four cygnets hatched from one brood in Yellowstone National Park, and no cygnets reached fledgling age. And the staff ornithologist observed one newly hatched cygnet from a single swan brood of four, preyed upon by an adult Bald Eagle. Bears also played a role in swan nest failures this year, when egg clutches from two swan territories were documented as being destroyed by grizzly bears.

Paradise Valley Trumpeter Swan Flock. Yellowstone National Park began to participate in Trumpeter Swan conservation issues (north of the park) in the Paradise Valley of Montana due to the potential threat posed by exotic Mute Swans. In the 1960s, a private landowner purchased a pair of Mute Swans for aesthetic purposes. By the late 1970s, the Mute Swan population had grown to a high of 120 individuals. Fearing potential competition with native Trumpeter Swans in Yellowstone National Park, the National Park Service became involved in a program to reverse this alien threat to native swans. In 1987, a slide program was presented by the Yellowstone National Park staff to Paradise Valley landowners interested in helping resident Trumpeter Swans. After the initial presentation, an informal agreement was reached indicating the importance of eliminating Mute Swans immediately and replacing them with captive-raised Trumpeter Swans. The biggest obstacle was finding private funding to pay for the program, particularly since the purchase of captive Trumpeter Swans can be very expensive. Generous support from the Cinnabar Foundation and the Chevron Corporation, in addition to contributions from private citizens, allowed this program to proceed on schedule. The first order of business was the elimination of Mute Swans. The staff ornithologist, through the help of landowners and park rangers, began to eliminate the first Mute Swans in the fall of 1987. By 1989, the Mute Swan population was reduced to 13 individuals, and Trumpeter Swans were introduced into Paradise Valley. In 1991, Trumpeter Swans outnumbered Mute Swans nine to two in Paradise Valley. By the mid- 1990s, Mute Swans were eliminated from Paradise Valley altogether. Therefore, the threat posed by an alien species was extinguished in a relatively short period of time.

Throughout the years, the Paradise Valley Trumpeter Swan program has experienced three major setbacks: 1) two captive swans and one wild swan were illegally shot or poached on the DePuy Ranch on December 2, 1995, 2) severe floods on the Yellowstone River during the spring and summer of 1997 and 1998 flushed many swans down river, leading to a major decline in the swan flock, and 3.) a series of adult mortalities. In 1999, one captive swan pair managed to fledge five cygnets on one ranch and a wild swan pair fledged a single cygnet. In 2001, one of the wild swans died from a wire collision leaving the nesting area vacant, however a captive pair fledged 1 young. In 2006, in the Paradise Valley there were two nesting pairs that failed to fledge any young. No young hatched from either of the two nests. In 2006, fall survey of the Paradise Valley swans tallied 10 individuals-- 10 adults, 0 cygnets (Figures 8,9 ), with details on production (Table 2). The primary reason subadult/adult swans declined in numbers in the Paradise Valley was due to collision mortality with wires, predation, lead poisoning, and recruits exploring the confines of Yellowstone National Park and the Paradise Valley. Banded swans from the Paradise Valley have been seen in Yellowstone National Park on occasion. So the program continues to pay off in small increments.

Here's the study... about page 12

http://www.nps.gov/yell/naturescience/upload/2006_bird_report.pdf

While wolves might finish them off, they are hardly the main reason for the decline. If that was the case then we should have seen a sharp decline in population since the reintroduction, not stabil numbers right?

so is this a made up satement or did Mrs McEneaney really state this? I've looked for over an hour and can find no refrence to it on the net.

quote:

As the population of wolves increases at the 25% rate we are seeing, the swans will be brutally killed and eaten until none remain in the park.

What's with the loaded language? "Brutally killed and eaten"? Gimme' a break. I don't know enough about the wolf debate to comment about it specifically, so I don't, but you really seem to be pushing the edge of ridiculousness to be using terms like that. Raptors eat rodents. Cats eat small mammals. Big fish eat little fish. Bears eat whatever they can. And so it goes. I hunt and kill lots of animals, and enjoy eating them a great deal. I'm guessing you do too, so maybe you should consider doing yourself and the rest of us a favor and lay off the usage of the PETA friendly language, huh?

Carry on,

KG

I've personally seen the decline of Deer and Elk in north Yellowstone. There was a time before the intro of the Wolves, that ruminants could be found walking the streets of Gardiner, MT during daylight hours. Now it's a rare sight. What's no longer a rare sight it Wolves. The last time I was in Yellowstone (Lamar River Valley area) we watched 11 Wolves in the middle of the day execute an ambush on a huge bull Elk. Before we could see the outcome it began to snow and the Ranger told us to leave in case they had to close the roads. Wolves have had easy street on the wildlife. I hope hunting is open in WY, MT and ID soon. They need to be trimmed up. Anyone that thinks they need protecting ought to have to live with them and try and make a living; guiding hunters or stock ranching IMHO. LDK

Here you go brentski, both articles were previously pasted on this site, by me, and both you neglected to read out of frustration of me being right and you wrong!!!! Or possibly the professor is just a plain ol liberal that hates to be proved wrong, or maybe just can't read and comprehend. So tear it up and call the people who are really involved liars and no nothings. One is the state forester and one is with jellystone park. So take your pick, one I would bet is conservative the other liberal like you.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by kudu56:
The aspen theory was just that, a theory and it proved to be false. No proof the elk were detroying the stands of aspen. Drought!


quote:
Can someone explain why wolves were reintroduced into the area?



enviro-zealots need no reason, they have no ability to reason. My answer, is also NO!



And where was this proven? Can I see the publications? The data?

And Kudu, about the ability to reason - Have you been smoking again?

Brent

State forester says drought!

JACKSON -- In Wyoming, state forester Bill Crapser said aspen stands, like those in other Western states, are declining as well.

"It's partially because as aspen stands get older, conifers take over aspen stands," he said. "That's just the succession of the forest."

Most of the state's aspen stands are on federal lands, so Crapser said there are "limited things we can do."

Some aspen stands are being thinned to foment new growth, and in other areas, prescribed burns can regenerate aspen stands, he said.

"The extended drought has also had an impact on overall aspen health," Crapser said.

In Aspen Alley, a stretch of aspen trees on the Medicine Bow National Forest outside Encampment and Baggs in Carbon County, trees are getting old and suffering from wind breakage and decay, Crapser said.

"Really the only thing we can do is cut down old aspen and foster new trees," he said.

In fact, of the 38 proposals to improve wildlife habitat received by the newly created Wildlife and Natural Resource Trust Board, 11 focused on aspen regeneration. The proposals would remove evergreen trees through fire or other methods to help regenerate aspen, sagebrush and other vegetation that are beneficial to wildlife.

For example, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is sponsoring a $180,000 request to go toward a $798,700 controlled burn and mechanical harvest of evergreens to rejuvenate aspen and shrubs in the Bates Creek watershed in southern Natrona County.

In all, of 31 grants were approved, and 10 of those addressed regenerating aspen stands.

Included in award-winning grants were:

$80,000 for the Bates Creek watershed project to perform mechanical harvest and prescribed fire to enhance aspen and deciduous shrubs. Sponsored by the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

$50,000 for the North Laramie Range prescribed fire, to remove encroaching conifers and re-establish aspen, grassland and sagebrush habitats. Sponsored by the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

$60,000 for the Maki Creek prescribed fire, to remove encroaching conifers and re-establish aspen, grassland and sagebrush habitats and to improve livestock forage. Sponsored by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

$50,000 for North Fork prescribed fire to remove encroaching conifers and help maintain and expand crucial winter habitat for bighorn sheep, elk and mule deer. Sponsored by the Shoshone National Forest.

Is climate responsible for aspen decline?
By WILLY ZIMMER
Star-Tribune staff writer Thursday, March 18, 2004



Scientists and land managers have been concerned for some time about the decline of Wyoming's aspen stands, particularly in northern Yellowstone National Park. Some estimate up to 200,000 acres statewide have given way to conifer and shrub encroachment since the turn of the century.

The decline is generally attributed to over-browsing by ungulates, mainly elk, and aggressive wildfire suppression.

Some detective work by biologist Roy Renkin, however, may change those assumptions. Renkin, who works with the Natural Resource Branch in Yellowstone National Park, conducts studies on aspen in the park. His work includes observing how the trees reacted to the infamous Yellowstone fires of 1988.

But it was a session with some firewood that may soon get his fellow scientists talking. Renkin said he was mulling over how elk affect aspen one day while splitting firewood. He noticed in a split log the patterns caused by past injuries, and wondered if similar "architectural signals" had been left by browsing animals.
That observation pushed Renkin into the field to look for downed aspen that were young during the early part of the century to dissect and study for those signals. He said he still has "another summer's worth of data to collect and another 3-4 months of lab analysis." But to date, 81 percent of the trees he sampled showed evidence of significant browsing injuries. That has led him to some contrarian conclusions.

"I can find evidence on some of these where I can read in the lower 1.5 meters of the tree up to six different browse events," Renkin said. "I really think what this work is going to show is that browsing by elk has been much more prolific than we have heretofore recognized, and kind of takes some of these old assumptions that have turned into dogma over time that these aspen were able to profusely grow because there weren't any elk to feed on them. ... Quite to the contrary these aspen have been repeatedly browsed for a very long time."

Another popular hypothesis is the introduction of wolves will thin the herd and promote an aspen comeback. Renkin said he was been counting tree rings and found no evidence to support that contention, either.

"Nobody has a handle on how many elk there were. But I do know that when elk were artificially reduced down to about 5,000 head back through the '60s, I don't see a corresponding flush of aspen growth that corresponds to lower elk numbers," he said.

Renkin said aspen reactions after the 1988 Yellowstone fire also tends to debunk the notion fire is the answer for all declining aspen stands. Although numerous trees were observed sprouting from seed after the fire, further development has been generally limited by poor soils and conditions.

Existing stands, which should have sprouted vigorously from clonal root systems, have not shown a universally vigorous response, either.

"Fire doesn't seem to be the panacea for improving the performance or condition of aspen that a number of people hypothesized that it could be," Renkin said.

Renkin's findings lead him to conclude a warming climate may be the underlying cause of aspen decline.

"We do know that the climate in the last century has gotten progressively warmer and dryer," Renkin said. "Where I keep leaning towards is the climatic influence is really what's driving the performance of these aspen. I get the impression that things like fire and things like browsing are really secondary to the overall performance of aspen. ... They're out there and they're important but they're secondary."

Renkin said he hopes to publish all of his findings next year in a "major ecological journal," and expects they may stir up some controversy.

"(The climate theory) is not accepted by the scientific community, and it won't be until it gets published," Renkin said. "But it's this angle I'm trying to pursue, because it sheds a whole new light on our interpretation about the performance of aspen."

Your wolves are not worth a f&cking drop of shit! The same as your opinion about them! They (wolves)never will, never have, will not, can't, and don't do a dam* good thing, but kill, eat their fill,leave the rest to rot, and sleep and sh(t. So get over it, and go watch your bambi movie!

GOOD GOD! You people are some thing else, the parks (yellowstones) ornithologist says the wolves are killing swans and you doubt him and call him a liar, one of the parks biologists says the aspen decline is due to climate and drought, (I bet doug smith had him fired, as he contradicted the head wolf f8ck head of the park), and you doubt him, and these are the same liberal tree huggers that on your side. You just want to believe what you dream up and what you want, and all of the people that are really
involved, are trained, spend every work day in this enviroment, and you doubt them to.


You just won't accept the FACT, that 1300, carniverous, killing eating machines, are having an adverse/negative effect on certain species of prey animals in the northwest part of Wyoming!

WHOA kudu! Don't stroke out on us!!!

As far as the whole swan deal, we have yet to see any article written on the subject that points towards wolves. From what I know about swans, they are damn good at flying into fences and powerlines...we used to see dead swans along Flat Creek all the time that had died as a result of a powerline collision.

What I think is funny about all this, some folks on this forum can bash wildlife biologists as being retarded, worthless pieces of shit who don't know a prairie dog hole from their own ass, but these same folks then tout the same biologists as being all knowing, highly trained individuals who definately know what it is they are talking about.

Which one is it? Or do we choose by the topic???

MG

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:
Your wolves are not worth a f&cking drop of shit! The same as your opinion about them! They (wolves)never will, never have, will not, can't, and don't do a dam* good thing, but kill, eat their fill,leave the rest to rot, and sleep and sh(t. So get over it, and go watch your bambi movie!

+10,000

quote:

Which one is it?

AS a majority, they are trained, dedicated, educated, useful, I am not sure,trustworthy-still not sure, depends on their own agenda and who they work for. But, BUT, the majority gather and discern useful information that most of the wildlife decisions are based, some sound, some not so sound. I know for a fact here in Wy, the G&F have biologists that are pretty liberal in their way of thinking.

I recently read an internal audit, done by the Nebrasksa Game and Parks Commission, done by an independent agency, they polled all employees of the G&P, as to wether they bought any licenses from the dept. That is any license, fishing, trapping, hunting, consevation stamps,park permits etc; 49% said no, almost half the employees that worked for the G&P did not support their own agency by buying a license. And of the 49%, 63% of one work group did not. Guess which work group? Biologists!

Every government agency loves data and statistics, and where else can they gather such info? From their biologists.

The wolves are here to stay, little if any control will come soon, wildlife populations will suffer,are suffering, because of predation, not drought, not loss of habitat, hunting will suffer, nothing we can do but bitch. The wolf was brought in to control elk and burgeoning bison numbers in the park. Well guess what, the only thing that ever controlled the bison, is hunting, as for the elk, goal accomplished! Over and over accomplished. Beyond anyones expectations, excedeing all expectations. Even eddy bangs has admitted that.

Tony, Nice post regarding the decline of the Paradise Valley Trumpeter Swan Flock as well as the Yellowstone Swans due to wolves as Terry pointed out in her article.

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer 2006 Yellowstone Bird Report by Terry McEneaney

The number of sub adult/adult resident swans in Yellowstone National Park has declined steadily since 1961 and currently stands at only 14 individuals.

Paradise Valley Trumpeter Swan Flock. Throughout the years, the Paradise Valley Trumpeter Swan program has experienced three major setbacks: 1) two captive swans and one wild swan were illegally shot or poached on the DePuy Ranch on December 2, 1995, 2) severe floods on the Yellowstone River during the spring and summer of 1997 and 1998 flushed many swans down river, leading to a major decline in the swan flock, and 3.) a series of adult mortalities. In 1999, one captive swan pair managed to fledge five cygnets on one ranch and a wild swan pair fledged a single cygnet. In 2001, one of the wild swans died from a wire collision leaving the nesting area vacant,

The primary reason subadult/adult swans declined in numbers in the Paradise Valley was due to collision mortality with wires, predation, lead poisoning, and recruits exploring the confines of Yellowstone National Park and the Paradise Valley. Banded swans from the Paradise Valley have been seen in Yellowstone National Park on occasion. So the program continues to pay off in small increments.

Tony, you didn't bold the following statement and many readers may have missed it.

But mammalian predation has all but eliminated the gains made on the west side of the park.

Clearly Terry stated wolves in her article on page 43:

Trumpeter Swans Killed By Wolves
Three Trumpeter Swans, two from the 7 Mile Bridge area and one from Riddle Lake
were killed by wolves in 2005 (McEneaney 2005). On 30 April 2006, two additional
Trumpeter Swans were also preyed upon by three wolves in Gibbon Meadow area,
forcing the birds to soft snow where they were easily captured and killed. Then on 6 May
2006, a pair of swans was caught sleeping in the Gibbon Meadow area, when a lone wolf
caught and killed one of the adults in the water. This marks 5 swans killed within a 12
month period, and represents Yellowstone resident birds all believed to be the most
recent recruits from the 7 Mile Bridge area.

Although there is a lone swan remaining in the general area of the geyser basins, none have been observed in the 7 Mile Bridge area since the winter/spring of 2005/2006.

http://www.nps.gov/yell/naturescience/upload/2006_bird_report.pdf

Nice picture by the way!

Round them wolves all back up and send them back to us, we'll shoot them for you.
Course they claim there is none left here either, although they are not hard to find.

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:
They (wolves)never will, never have, will not, can't, and don't do a dam* good thing, but kill, eat their fill,leave the rest to rot, and sleep and sh(t.

Of course, the anti-hunters use the same rhetoric about us hunters--but they usually throw in the phrase "beer drinking slobs".......

Casey

BUT THE real question about all of this..
to the wolves.. do the swans taste like chicken?

quote:

BUT THE real question about all of this..
to the wolves.. do the swans taste like chicken?

The inuit shoot and eat swans, they must be edible. I can't imagine them being to tasty.

Old, Sick, Weak? You decide.

On the 16th of July, ID WS confirmed that a wolf came into a cowboy's camp site and killed a border collie cattle dog that was chained up only 20 yards from an unattended camp trailer. The camp was on FS land about 20 miles SE of Idaho Falls on Falls Creek.

Defending it's territory. It has happened close to a 100 times with hunting and working dogs and family pets. More federal BS, you can't defend your pet or property.

On the 9th of July, MT WS confirmed that a yearling heifer was killed by wolves on a ranch in the Upper Madison South of Ennis, MT.

Nothing like a tasty heifer!

If one were to gut shoot an offending wolf, odds are good it would expire far enough away to remove culpability from the offending shooter.

Swans taste quite good, I legally took and ate one this spring.

I think it is unfortunate that the feds have as much control over state issues as they do. Should Wyoming have wolves? Seems it ought to be up to Wyom-ans. (I'm sure I mangled that one.)I wonder if we all would be better served by spending our time advocating for a smaller and less all encompassing federal gov rather than Yellowstone swan salvation.

Here in the Dillingham area wolves, moose and swans seem to co exist quite happily, and all with legal hunting seasons on each species. It is true that the habitat in Alaska is night and day different between the lower 48, so probably no comparison can be made, but it is true that here they co exist.

The greatest threat to wildlife is not the wolves, but man.
Give up hunting Elk for 2 years and watch the numbers fly back up. The wolves would have more elk to eat, and your precious swans would be safe.