TOO MANY ELK: HOW ABOUT A WOLF PACK IN NATIONAL PARK?

By Theo Stein
The Denver Post Monday, August 01, 2005




The problem: elk chewing the beejeebers out of Rocky Mountain National Park.

One solution: adding a pack of wolves to the park.

Another problem: wolves wandering into nearby Boulder and Loveland.

Still, the National Park Service is slated this week to propose as one alternative, adding a wolf pack, outfitted with radio collars, to chase the elk herds ravaging the park's aspen and willow stands.

Wolf biologists have already warned that keeping the animals in the 226,000-acre park may be next to impossible.

"I can't conceive of a way to keep wolves in the park," said University of Minnesota biologist and wolf expert David Mech. "I just don't know how one would do that."

Park Service officials concede the idea is controversial. "One biologist told us, `If you do this prepare to have your world turned upside down,"' said Therese Johnson, a park management biologist.

Wolves were successfully reintroduced at Wyoming's Yellowstone National Park, but Yellowtone is almost ten times larger than Colorado's Rocky Mountain.

"You can't keep them from going," said Michael Phillips, who headed the Yellowstone red wolf program, as a biologist for the Turner Endangered Species Fund. "The question is will they stay in the park long enough to have an impact on the elkherd?"

Wolves have been known to wander 500 miles in search of a home. Estes Park sits just outside the park, while Boulder, Loveland and some Denver suburbs are about 50 miles away.

Park officials stress that they are not trying to reintroduce wolves to Colorado and are only using the predators as a wildlife management tool.

Under the park service's wolf alternative, only a handful of wolves would be released in the rugged terrain.

These animals would be under constant surveillance and would be trapped and returned to the park if they left.

While park biologists hope the wolves would settle down to dine on park elk, sharpshooters would also be employed to bring the herd down from 3,000 animals to between 1,200 and 2,100.

"The park really doesn't have much wolf habitat, especially in winter," said Gary Skiba,, a state Department of Wildlife biologist. "Our question is, what happens when they leave?"

Other alternatives the service is considering include using elk fertility control agents or a more extensive cull of the animals.

Details of the proposals are scheduled to be released this week in a park newsletter.

The service, however, can't seem to please anyone. Boulder-based Sinapu, an advocate of returning wolves to Colorado, is also criticizing the plan.

"Wolves are not a tool," said Sinapu spokesman Rob Edward. "We should not be treating them as some sort of pest control device."

And just in case you wolf loving morons think I got over it! Forget it! I just returned from 4 days in Jellystone, it was nice, cool and rainy! A nice reprieve from the heat. We drove the loop twice, morning and evening.I had over 1000 miles on my jeep. With binos and spotting scope we went critter looking. We seen 4 cow moose, not a single calf. And maybe 50 elk with almost no calves in the herd. The bison are doing great as expected. One ranger said the bison are at record levels over 4000, while the elk and moose are on decline. One coyote and one black bear. Not a single deer or deer track. Moose calves are non-existent in the park according to Mr. Ranger on the boat tour of the lake. And he just don't know why! Nor does anyone else. Yes, those were his exact words. And the tourists ate it up! Oh boo boo and yogi where are you?

Kudu56: Ditto's on all you posted! And I want to relay the stearnest of warnings to the Hunters of and in Colorado!
DO NOT let the Wolf re-introduction program get started in your state! At all costs FIGHT these green assed intellectual idiots!
If they want that herd thinned down there in Colorado - then add more Elk Hunters, more Elk permits or longer Elk seasons! This produces revenue and Hunting opportunities without all the attending horrors and shit storms that Wolves bring with them!
I got a call today from one of my close friends and he referred me to the latest issue of the green moron backed rmef's magazine - the bugle (the bungle, would be more appropriate!)!
Apparently in this issue is a first hand report from some outfitters that relay in first person, first hand experience what the now triple over populated Wolves have done to them and their business's and Hunting opportunities!
Thanks for nothing rmef!
I do not know how these green assed intellectual idiots can stand by and watch while our hard earned and long fought to propogate Elk herds disappear into thin air in the form of Wolf farts?
I am serious how can these morons stand by and watch this happen? Maybe they are more interested in stirring money around in their various pots than in protecting our hard fought for Elk herds and Elk Hunting opportunities?
Again if this "program" gets started in Colorado be prepared for the worst of consequences to follow within 10 years! And in 25 or 35 years the wonderful Elk (and Moose and Sheep herds) that Colorado now has will be gone - up in Wolf farts!
Colorado you have been warned!
Thanks for nothing rmef!
I just got done spending three days in some of the BEST Elk and Moose country in ALL of Montana! I got first hand reports from person after person that the Moose are next to gone and the Elk herds there, like in Yellowstone country, have very few calves! Conditions in the country I am talking about have been wonderful for the last 8 to 10 years for the wild game. Yet their numbers are down and the calf crops miserable!
Blame it on housing starts (none in this valley now or ever!) or drought (plenty of water in this area!) or what ever you green leaning intellectual idiots are blaming our diminishing game herds on this month! But those in the area and those that observe these areas that are over-populated with Wolves KNOW these causes! IT's the over-abundance of the Wolves causing these problems!
Colorado be on guard!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

...is it safe to go back in the water?

I have to agree with you both that wolf reintroduction would be foolish in RMNP at this point (your eyes do not deceive you....)

Although we know we disagree on Yellowstone as has been beat to death in the thread that will not die, and here I may appear as a wolf lover, but my position is and has always been WE DONT KNOW the long term effects of wolf reintroduction and until we do I hope Colorado fights it to no end!

The greens are definetly stepping on their d**ks if they think they have the effects figured out enough to support another wolf reintroduction without having all of the facts. I think hunting would be a good idea as VG states, but the problem is that elk hunting (or any hunting) is not allowed in National Parks. Maybe there should be?? I mean fishing is allowed...why not hunting?

IV

Peachy. Freaking educated idiots running the assylum. Our illustrious leaders here have stated that they "have devised a plan for when wolves spread to Utah". I cant say for certian, but Im guessing that the wolves havent read it..

I've heard from a number of Coloradans that the unofficial wolf control plan in Colorado is based upon "trigger control" no matter what the DOW says.

They mention using sharp shooters to thin the herd. I wonder what they do with the dead sharp shot elk? Will they do with them as they do with the 20,000 lake trout caught and netted in Yellowstone Lake each year? Chop them up and chum them back into the lake? How many needy families could be fed by 1000 to 2000 elk? But like I said before, the initial reintroduction of wolves averaged $1 million per wolf. And kids go to bed hungry at night!

I don't know how many people already knew this, but the Colorado DOW reports that a dead wolf was found near Highway 70 west of Denver a few months ago.

Man, it must be a real bummer to drive around Yellowstone Park all day and not see any of the elk that used to wait in line to get shot at when they migrated out of the park at the start of winter.

So, IV, exactly why NOT wolves in CO? They are going to get them anyway so what the hell. Nothing anyone can do about it now anyway.

But I am interested in why you think not. I can think of only one reason you would be against it, but let's see what your reasoning is.

I'm also wondering if you think the "greens" don't know about the effects of wolf introductions what do the "reds" really know about the long-term and indirect effects of excluding wolves?

Hunting in a national park is not going to happen. Just ain't. Too bad, but that's reality. So, would you rather have nothing to crop the herd?

Brent

quote:

Man, it must be a real bummer to drive around Yellowstone Park all day and not see any of the elk that used to wait in line to get shot at when they migrated out of the park at the start of winter.

Yeah it is a bummer, I would still rather see elk, moose, deer, and bison than nothing.
Especially in the spring and see the young, which are pretty much non-existent. Kind of the reason people go to the park is to see wildlife. The other bummer is following dumb asses from Texas and Iowa, who have to stop and take a picture of every bison, chikadee,flower, and chipmunk they see. One about every few hundred yards.

quote:

While park biologists hope the wolves would settle down to dine on park elk, sharpshooters would also be employed to bring the herd down from 3,000 animals to between 1,200 and 2,100.

They used to do this in Yellowstone every winter.

Brent: I believe I stated already why I do not believe it is a good idea, but I can certainly restate it. WE (THEY, US...however you would like to phrase it) do not know the long term effects of wolf reintroduction. It is currently being done as we all know and the jury is still out. It may work as knowledgable biologists have hypothesized, it may be a disaster. IF it works in a manner that a reasonable compromise with respect to population equilibriums and a reasonable compromise with respect to all of the stakeholders is reached, then I am all for it. If it comes down to a choice between wolves and non-huntable game populations (I am willing to accept lower than previous levels of game harvest although many are not) but NON-HUNTABLE game populations are unacceptable to me. We all get one opinion and that is mine, no more or no less valid than anyoe elses, in the end, majority rules.

As far as "reds" go, I must be missing something...do you mean communists? I do not believe I ever implied that ANY group knew "about the long-term and indirect effects of excluding wolves?" Although much more evidence is in place regarding this as wolves have been severely impacted over the last 50 years.

And in answer to yuor question, "yes" I do not believe the "greens" know the effcts of wolf reintroduction yet. (NO one does.) There have been some positive indications with respect to aspen sapling recovery, stream temperature and predation avoidance behavior by elk, but I have not seen any other comprehensive peer reviewed published studies indicating other positive benefits, although I am sure there may be others.

I agree with you that hunting will probably never happen in National Parks, but I think that it is a better idea RIGHT NOW than reintroducing wolves into RMNP.

And yes, when confronted with ONLY an A or B choice, I would rather have A) nothing to crop the herd than--> B)reintroduce wolves at this point.

What do you think should happen?

Was that the reasoning you thought I would have or am I missing something?

IV

I just can't understand the terrible strategies behind some of our different State's Wildlife Officials.

One thing I will give em' credit for here is when the deer start to overpopulate in city areas and such they will allow bow hunting in these areas to control the population.

Maybe CO should allow a set number of tags for archery hunters to control the heard w/in certain areas or Create a "Wild Game for the Hungry" type of system and cull down the heard themselves.

Reloader

IV, I figured you had something more substantial for your no-wolves stance. I figured something to do with area in that the GYE is probably a good bit bigger than RMNP and its surrounds.

But never mind that. You are sorta right about not knowing the consequences of wolves - but not really, in fact, you are being a good bit disingenous when it comes right down to it. We do know a fair bit about systems with wolves and systems with reintroduced wolves, and we know that wolf systems have functioned reasonably for millenia. We also know that the RMNP region once had wolves.

What we DO NOT know are the the long-term effects of no wolves/no hunting. Although we do have some indication that things are not good without wolves. Quite a bit not good. And I recall some posts by you to that effect on the "other" thread. Hence, I am not sure why you are suddenly taking the opposite stance here. What is it about RMNP that does not apply to the GYE? I'm expecting you to have a more scientific rationale that what you have tossed out here, especially since the balance of what we "don't know" tilts to the no-wolf side.

I suppose we do need someplace for the autotourists to bag their elk from their cars, but a zoo would suffice for them. I believe the TX high fence game parks are good places for them to go.

As for whether wolves should be reintroduced into RMNP? I don't really give a rat's ass. They are going to get there anyway.

Brent

quote:

As for whether wolves should be reintroduced into RMNP? I don't really give a rat's ass. They are going to get there anyway.

They are probably already there, last winter there was a pair near the Baggs Wyoming area. Not a great distance from RMNP. Over the years there have been numerous sightings of a grizzly bear there also. None ever confirmed I don't think but still many sightings.

Disingenuous? uh.....ok. Sorry to have disappointed you, I'll try harder next time.

So we have lots of information on ecosystems that have had wolves removed for 30+ years and then reintroductions were performed where private homes, cattle ranchers and hunters were affected?

Post the name and author of a published study that fits the above criteria......doesn't exist yet. We know about wolf ecosystems etc. in which humans were not present ( to a limited degree) but systems have functioned for millenia?------> HELLO!...McFLY!!.....Did these systems that had functioned for millenia have housing developments, recreation, cattle ranching, sport hunting?........So the level of knowledge DOES NOT TIP TO THE "HAVING WOLF SIDE."

As far as having the opposite view from previous posts, maybe you should read them in their entirety and you will see nothing has changed. 1) Wolf reintroduction is in my opinion worth trying (it is being tried in GYE) 2) I think in the end it will be a good thing for the ecosystem. 3) I do not think it should be tried anywhere else until the long term effects are known. Simple.

So many people are against them without knowing the facts and so many people are for them without knowing the facts, my position is and has always been "lets get the facts"

Twist it around however you like.....

IV

IV, you know exactly the literature on the effects of wolves on ungulates, aspen, willows, moose etc. If you need the rest, yes, you might have to do that yourself. But we have lived with wolves around our private home for 20 yrs in Minnesota and many more have lived there for many many more years (not to mention all of Canada). Some of them are ranchers - if you need the data, it's out there. If you want RECENT wolf expansions, then look around northcentral-central Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc etc. I'm sure you will find the studies because they do exist if you want to find them. These people have just recently learned to live with wolves.

So, of course the level of knowledge about what happens with wolves is far better documented than without, but both sides are well enough documented, unless you think there is something special about the RMNP situation which you have avoided addressing.

In any event, we KNOW that plant communities suffer from lack of wolves, we know that tree age distributions suffer, we know that overbrowsing is a huge issue - esp in RMNP (did you check the issue of Ecol. Apps just out this week?). We know that people exist well with wolves despite the whining. So, why GYE and NOT RMNP?

I think science has quite a few facts, and I think YOU know them as well. But suddenly you want to dance around them. Yes, you are being disingenuous and I'm curious why, because you are a biologist and you must have a clearer rationale than this.

Brent

Just an observation, but I spent a little time in Yellowstone this weekend, as well. There is no doubt the elk are being dispersed, and there is no doubt in my mind that the number of calves is down by about half.

What surprised me is that the number of buffalo calves seemed WAY down. About half.

I would rather not have introduced the wolf, but I agree with IV, we really don't know the final result. On the other hand, I'm 99.44% sure that the wolves are going to need to be managed, and managed hard. Ecosystem wide, the F&G emphasis on raising elk is having some pretty serious impacts on certain habitats and the range in general.

As an idle thought, I wonder how much the first wolf tag would auction for? Would be a good way for the "well to do" to subsidize our hunting..... JMO, Dutch.

Again, I do not know how to make this any clearer:

1) I am not AVOIDING anything. I think the size of RMNP would present some scale challenges that are not the same as GYE..... I just know and recognize the limits of my knowledge on the subject. If these papers exist I would love to see them, not to prove myself right or wrong or anyone else right or wrong, I do not really care about that, I care what is best for the overall health of the ecosystem WHILE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE HUMAN STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED.

2)Suddenly I am dancing around something?......WHat? uh......Ok. I guess.....

3) 20 years? Thats funny. 20 years is not enough (in my opinion) to consider the wolf issue solved. If we were to close the book on GYE reintroduction right now, I believe more evidence exists for removing them again then exists to continue to justify their presence. BUT, I THINK MORE TIME IS REQUIRED TO ADEQUATELY LOOK INTO THE SITUATION. That is the only reason I support the wolf in GYE.

As far as your conviction that I am disingenuous I guess considering that at times VarmintGuy and Kudu56 consider my postings to be too "Pro-wolf" on this deal and folks like yourself (Brent) consider them to be "Anti-wolf" I guess I am stuck in the middle........bummer eh?

IV

Oh IV,
the 20 yrs was my PERSONAL time up there. Like I said, many spent many many more years and continue to live up there with wolves. And wolves have moved down to invade places that have not seen them in over a century.

In fact last Wednesday, I was back up there for a visit and saw among other things, many does and fawns, some within 1/2 mile of a lactating wolf that I also was lucky enough to watch for a while.

In the meantime, we do know what is happening to forests and communities that have been deprived of wolves. The outlook is NOT good and that's a given.

And no, I would not lump you with Kudu56 or Varmintguy, and that's exactly why I did expect that you had a stronger set of facts and ideas behind your flip-flop, because you have had better arguments in your past posts.

So how much time? Where? And what data do you require to make the call?

In the meantime, the clock is ticking on RMNP and other similar places (e.g., Ecol Apps 15(4): 1284-1295 among many many many other papers).

Whatchya gonna do while we wait?

Brent

PS. So what radio station airs your show? I'd like to listen in.

quote:

So how much time? Where? And what data do you require to make the call?

The amount of time would need to be established by either predator/prey equilibrium or if the relationship is more cyclic then enough time to see enough cycles that statistically significant results could be implied--> how long is that?---> I don't know.

Where? Throughout the GYE and the surrounding areas---Montana, Idaho and Wyoming--- we have actually had a pack reported here in Moscow.( Irrelevant ot the discussion but nonetheless) I am not sure how familiar you may be with the geography of Idaho but we are on the Palouse directly adjoining the Washington border. It is mostly wheat, barley and lentil fields in shaloow rolling hills.

What data would I require to make the call? Again, I am no wolf expert nor would I ever claim to be--but in my limited exposure I would need to see where the equilibrium of population is reached. I think the compromise will make no one happy--- pro wolf people wont like wolf control and limits on population, hunters are not going to like less oppotunity, homeowners are not going to like the idea of potentially raised levels of conflict with pets, livestock, etc. Ranchers seem to be convinced that wolves are going to have a significant impact on livelihoods (do they or don't they----this is what I mean by not having enough information)

Now, when your talking about RMNP---the options you presented were either A) reintroducing wolves or B) doing nothing. I have already stated I believe B) is a better option then A). So, for the sake of argument, why not allow C) limited entry permit hunting to reduce the numbers of elk? The logical argument against this is the same as I use for arguing against the wolves---we don't know what will happen in either case. So, next we have to decide which alternative has the lowest level of risk should we discover that the alternative chosen was having deleterious results. In other words, which will be easier to reverse if it turns out be wrong? Wolves or hunting by permit only? I would put forward that stopping permit hunting would be far easier than removing an established wolf population. Now, I am not one of the alarmists who believe "once wolves are in they will never be gotten rid of"---> we have seen that we can extirpate nearly anything we want --I believe it is much easier to stop hunting.

"In the meantime, we do know what is happening to forests and communities that have been deprived of wolves. The outlook is NOT good and that's a given."

That argument is weak at best. Forests + no wolves= troubled forests thus wolves + forests = healthy forests?
By the same logic:
Forests were a lot healthier before the airplane was invented--maybe no more airplanes?
Forests were a lot healthier before daylight savings was enacted--maybe no more daylight savings?
Forests were a lot healthier before humans came across the land bridge--maybe we should all just go back to Siberia?

IV

quote:

As far as your conviction that I am disingenuous I guess considering that at times VarmintGuy and Kudu56 consider my postings to be too "Pro-wolf" on this deal and folks like yourself (Brent) consider them to be "Anti-wolf" I guess I am stuck in the middle........bummer eh?

I might consider you slightly pro-wolf. But your opiions are based on education,experience, and your work. Not some arm chair, babbeling,new era green peace clone, from Iowa! I would be honored to have you lumped into my category!

Your oppinions are well respected from the low life likes, like me!

The GYE wolf was introduced, a population of that magnatude has never been dumped into a virgin eco system such as GYE. Ever and never before! Yes the jury is still out, and my bet is, it was and is a mistake. But you will never "NEVER" get the real and true story because of people that look at the world with rose colored glasses. To many biased oppinions, both pro and con. I tend to believe the real people, who live with, and on common sense. Ranchers, outfitters, hunters, loggers,miners, farmers, and such. Salt of the earth people so to speak. The meat and patato types than contribute to our economy, not some computer program or peace of paper economy that we are rapidly headed for.

Idaho Vandal: Yeah, I consider you pro-Wolf!
Make no mistake WHAT SO EVER about that!
I have never once seen you state, profess or imply that the Wolves should IMMEDIATELY be brought under control! Killed back to the promised level of 325 animals!
Are you aware (I have posted it several dozen times!) that we as citizens and Hunters were promised by those responsible for the re-introduction that the Wolves would be limited to 325 total population! Then, when that number would be reached, the individual states of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana could "regulate" the Wolves as the states saw fit!
WELL! The Wolves now number between 850 and 1,000 animals and are wreaking havoc in many areas, in many ways, in many shapes and in many forms! Yet no program of regulation has been turned over to any state to get down to that number!
And yet, you wonder, why I call you pro-Wolf? The reason I call you pro-Wolf is because you put the Wolf ABOVE the hard fought for Game Herds that Hunters and Fish & Game agencies have strived for, for so many decades!
In less than one decade your buddies, the Wolves, have decimated the Northern Yellowstone Elk herd! Drastically reducing numbers of Hunting opportunities for humans there and reducing the herd from 19,500 animals to 8,500 animals! This is not an isolated situation it is happening everywhere the Wolves are over-populated! Witness also the situation in Yellowstone Park! Or do you care?
Yeah you are pro-Wolf, anti-Huting and most certainly intellectually bankrupt!
Can I make it any more plain?
The poor folks in Colorado are about to get sucked into the same shit storm that the green intellectual idiots foisted upon the people of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming!
I have heard rumors even the green assed idiots at the rmef in their latest issue of the rag called "the bugle" (I call it the Bunglers Gazette!) have published an article detailing the complete destruction of some Elk outfitters business and opportunities! Aaahhh - welcome to reality you dim-bulb green assed intellectual idiot money stirrers!
I refer to this rumor because I would no more pay for the magazine than I would piss on an intellectual idiot who was on fire.
Idaho Vandal you are either part of the problem or part of the solution! And intellectually deprived persons like yourself that blame the devastion Wolves are causing to our hard fought for Elk and other Big Game herds (like Big Horn Sheep, Moose, Deer!) on housing starts and drought and global warming and blah blah blah - ARE part of the problem! Live with it or change your ways!
And by changing your ways (if you choose to) start by denouncing emphatically and unequivocally the horrendous over-population of Wolves here in the tri-state affected area! And denounce the re-introduction of Wolves into Colorado, Oregon, New Mexico, Arizona, Washington and Northern California!
I am waiting.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Kudu56: Do you know if those Elk spill over or migrate out of that National Park. I just assumed they do. If they do then human Hunters should be allowed to PAY for the opportunity to harvest, use and eat those fine animals.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Kudu56,

Everyone knows it's the drought that is taking the toll on the moose. The wolves are too busy eating cattle.

Ha....

Bart

Uh...VG: I said that on the second posting I ever did at AR........but hey, whose counting!

Here, check it out:

Posted 26 March 2005 08:26
I must have failed to mention... I complete agree with hunting surplus wolves. You are absolutely correct. I also believe we have a surplus of wolves.....

Its on about page 7 I think of the thread that will not die.......

As far as the Moose go, (your gonna love this, I can hardly wait... ) Ticks that are found on whitetail deer are killing more moose in sympatric zones than wolves ever have......and yes, drought has a lot to do with it because I guess the ticks do better when its hot and dry......

Maybe we need big flea collars?.....

And as far as Bighorn sheep go---- you can blame that one on ranchers-----disease transference from domesticated animals......

IV

Get a sound wolf management plan in place before an reintroduction to the park begins.

Because you know nothing will happen after a reinto is already in place.

No limit and no closed season for wolves outside the park might take care of keeping most of the wolves in the park. And leave just enough wolves to see a track now and then out of the park.

quote:

Originally posted by IdahoVandal:

quote:

So how much time? Where? And what data do you require to make the call?

The amount of time would need to be established by either predator/prey equilibrium or if the relationship is more cyclic then enough time to see enough cycles that statistically significant results could be implied--> how long is that?---> I don't know.

IV, I can see that we do not do a very good job of teaching predator-prey dynamics to budding ecologists. You will not see cycles here, not from predators anyway. Cycles, true cycles are rare in the extreme and only occur under special conditions which include very specialized predators and very very simple food chain dynamics. Even then they fall apart.

You might look, again, at Rolf Peterson's work on Isle Royale again. You will see no cycles, yet that is about as simple as specialized as a wolf-system gets. You will not see equilibria either. At least not in the point-equilibrium sense, yet wolves and moose continue to coexist as the system bounces between top-down and bottom-up regulation.

I think you need to study up on predator-prey dynamics a good bit if you want to be a population ecologist. It is a difficult and fuzzy issue when applied to real world situations. Equilibria models being a good example. Fashionably, it is still a bit politically uncool to argue for equilibria dynamics in ecology these days, though they do exist. Much like the concept of a niche is a useful and even real concept, the idea of equilibria are equally fuzzy in reality - they are there but quantifying one fully is, shall we say, a tad bit difficult.

quote:

Where? Throughout the GYE and the surrounding areas---Montana, Idaho and Wyoming--- we have actually had a pack reported here in Moscow.( Irrelevant ot the discussion but nonetheless) I am not sure how familiar you may be with the geography of Idaho but we are on the Palouse directly adjoining the Washington border. It is mostly wheat, barley and lentil fields in shaloow rolling hills.

I'm familiar with the area enough to know what you talking about. Not sure why the geography of the Palouse is relevant to the RMNP however. But given that the RMNP region used to hold wolves, it seems reasonable that it could do so again and even that the area might well be better off if it did, given the issues that we know it now faces in the absense of wolves.

quote:

What data would I require to make the call? Again, I am no wolf expert nor would I ever claim to be--but in my limited exposure I would need to see where the equilibrium of population is reached.

And how exactly will you know when that happens? As I said, knowing that there must be an equilibrium does not make one measureable. And at what scale of space and time? That is not a trivial question.

It is interesting that you require such data though given that you already have stated numerous times that you believe there are surplus wolves (surplus being in excess of equilibrium numbers?). How do you know this? What numbers are you using? Defend this idea about surplus wolves a minute. I think it might be defendable, but let's see where you are coming from.

quote:

I think the compromise will make no one happy

Now there is a given!

quote:

--- pro wolf people wont like wolf control and limits on population,

Being a pro wolf people myself, I find it could become reasonable, depending on the "limits" but wolf control per se, is really going to continue to a politically, not biologically defined issue.

quote:

hunters are not going to like less oppotunity, homeowners are not going to like the idea of potentially raised levels of conflict with pets, livestock, etc. Ranchers seem to be convinced that wolves are going to have a significant impact on livelihoods (do they or don't they----this is what I mean by not having enough information)

So far as I can tell, NW WY is not being depopulated of humans, land values are not crashing, beef and beef farmers have not become extinct, hunting lotteries are being sold out and the $$ that people are willing to pay for tags, esp. in WY are increasing at rates that outstrip even the inflation rates of tuition and the medical industry! I think we have data - life goes on. Ditto for many many other areas that have cattle and wolves (MN, WI, and most of Canada), people and wolves (same places), pets and wolves (I've always had dogs when I lived and returned to wolf country, no problems yet. May happen - my tough luck I guess, people that have cats in coyote country have learned to live, or not , with it).

quote:

So, for the sake of argument, why not allow C) limited entry permit hunting to reduce the numbers of elk?

Because we both agreed that this will just not happen. You would more likely get govt. sniping as was historically done in Yellowstone. And I believe it would not be too hard to go back to YOUR OWN posts suggesting that you would much prefer to hunt in an intact and functional ecosystem than one that is game farmed in this manner.

quote:

The logical argument against this is the same as I use for arguing against the wolves---we don't know what will happen in either case. So, next we have to decide which alternative has the lowest level of risk should we discover that the alternative chosen was having deleterious results.

You know very well that every management decision of any kind, including doing nothing, is done w/o complete and full knowledge of the results. You also know that making the best call is done using the information at hand. And you know very well what that information is telling you - the status quo is not working. You also know that wolves DID work there once before and do work in most other places. So where is the problem?

quote:

In other words, which will be easier to reverse if it turns out be wrong? Wolves or hunting by permit only?

Population issues will not be met with bull tags - so you would be recommending cow-only right? And even though this ain't gonna happen you are going to hide behind that as a solution w/o a creditable scientific argument against using a wolves? I don't think you have a leg to stand on here.

quote:

That argument is weak at best. Forests + no wolves= troubled forests thus wolves + forests = healthy forests?

Care to back that up with some significant biological rationale?
Can you refute the now almost uncountable number of articles on overgrazing thoughout the West and Midwest, and just about everywhere else where ungulate populations have gone amuck?
Can you find a healthy age-class structure to aspens in RMNP any more than you can hemlocks in Wisconsin or oaks in Iowa?

quote:

By the same logic:
Forests were a lot healthier before the airplane was invented--maybe no more airplanes? Forests were a lot healthier before daylight savings was enacted--maybe no more daylight savings?
Forests were a lot healthier before humans came across the land bridge--maybe we should all just go back to Siberia?

If you haven't taken your comprehensive exams yet, I pity your committee. They will not enjoy such pathetic rationalization and will find it rather insulting to be asked to do so. I hope you can muster better than that. If you want to be a biologist then you really ought to speak like a biologist. I expected a lot more interesting and challenging debate from you, but you retreat to that sort of BS. I was hoping you knew something scientifically interesting and were willing to share it. I would be willing to listen to any opinion grounded in something that smacks, at least slightly, of scientific rationalism. But this? Come on! It's a pile of BS and you know it. This is the level of logic used by VarmintGuy and his multiple personalities. I know you can do better than that - unless you can't because there isn't a creditable scientific rationale.

IV you could be a lot more helpful to your cause, whatever it may be, but you are slamming your own credibility. Perhaps you don't care - you are afterall, just a pseudonym, but you could be more constructive than this.

Brent

What ever happens in RMNP, something needs to be done. The riparian areas are pretty much stripped out thanks to the elk, many aspen stands have no new suckers, and the trees that are remaining are old, very scarred up trees (lots of elk tooth marks) that one day will dissappear from the park.

Either way, wolves or sharp shooters, the folks on the front range are going to shit. A pile of these elk winter in Estes Park...I'm sure the first wolf pack that takes down an elk inside the city limits will have folks running with thier children back towards Denver (hmmm...maybe that isn't such a bad idea). However, when the shooting begins, I'm sure a green contingency from Boulder will be right up there with their picket signs protesting the "slaughter" of these animals. There has also been talk of a biobullet with a contraceptive inside...my personal feeling about adding synthetic hormones into wildlife populations is a HUGE mistake. Save that for another post I guess.

Something needs to be done to curb the number of elk, or mother nature will do it herself. Whether a bad winter, or a disease rips through the herd, there is going to be a bunch of dead elk in town. Once again, I'm sure the folks in Estes will crap. Oh well, you want to live in the woods, expect the woods to live with you.

I guess this whole deal is a good example for all those "monday quarterback biologists" out there. Wildlife management is not as simple as the face value most folks put on it (I didn't see any elk, those damn wolves! or there were no bucks this year, the damn Fish and Game killed them all!!). In recent years it has become incredibly political, with NO BIOLOGICAL logic, only emotion going into difficult decisions being made by folks with no experience or formal education. Would you want your local representative running YOUR retirement portfolio?? It is no wonder why emotions run high with these types of arguments.

MG

Wow! Thanks for getting on the ivory tower and pointing out my faults I hope some day to be as knowledgable and as good as you. I can see why folks who aren't very knowledgable about wolf reintroduction or may not completely understand the isssue completely get turned off by the pro wolf people. They love to get on their ivory towers and bark down their superiority to the lowly plebes below.....just by reading a few public forum posts of opinions and thoughts and questions you have drawn your conclusions about me, my intellect and my future abilities.

I guess my committee should be pitied, but I pity your students if this is any indication of how you respond when someone dares to challenge your logic......

I have argued with VG and Kudu about this as we all know, at one point I tried a manner of argument that you use with VG, I realized quickly that was not how I intended to map out my future and quickly apologized to VG, we may differ in opinion but at some level we are able to discuss things in the format that is presented---> and owe each other a certain level of respect on a public forum.

I may agree with a lot of your argument (Brent) and often play the role of "devils advocate" or "contrarian" just because it is a good way to learn about how people approach different natural resource issues, but if in my endeavours I never live up to the intellectual threshold that you have laid out I will consider myself a success.

People like you are the reason wolves will never get a fair shake with most of the general public who reside in the areas that are under consideration, I HOPE to NEVER sound like you do when you communicate to people. Everyone else is just "TOO DUMB" to get it, so why post here anymore, is that it?

I would be honored to be lumped in with (as you put it) the "likes of VarmintGuy or Kudu56" even though we disagree about wolves, over the likes of condascending peole like yourself (Brent) who could care less how people feel about the issue or what effects it may have on them.....

I guess if being concerned with both sides of an issue will make me a pathetic and weak scientist, then I hope to be as weak and pathetic as they come.......folks like you will soon retire and then we can get to the business of fixing what your generation of biologists has left us with........thanks!

IV

Cool guy, I think you about summed it up there.

Good job. Make sure to always lead with the ivory tower jab like that and you can never go wrong - especially in this forum. Then you can ignore all the rest of the specifics, or just draw your airplane:forest correlations and ride off into the sunset a hero.

In the meantime, I'm always willing to listen to any biology you can put forth. That was the entire point.


Brent

PS.. I don't care what you're for, just tell me WHY the hell you are for it (or against it in this instance).

Quote:; PS.. I don't care what you're for, just tell me WHY the hell you are for it (or against it in this instance::::


Either for or against, so long as your for, I am against!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Brent: I am having a hard time making heads or tails out of the blather you are posting!
Are you stating from the comfort of your den (back In IOWA!) that there is no biology in the fact that the Wolves are wreaking havoc on our Moose, Bighorn Sheep, Elk and other Big Game herds here in the Montana, Wyoming and Idaho areas?
Here is some "biology" for you if in fact YOU ARE SUFFERING from that self inflicted bit of idiocy!
The Northern Yellowstone Elk herd has been decimated by the reintroduction of Wolves! We have not only lost 11,000 Elk out of that herd in the last ten years but we have lost 2,000 Montana special Elk permits for human Hunters!
Thats right the "biology" is this - in 1995 the year the Wolves were reintroduced there were 19,500 Elk in that herd. Then came your buds the Wolves! Last year there were 8,500 Elk in that herd!!! And the number of calves counted in that herd of 8,500 animals was way below what would even sustain that herd at that level! In "biological" terms then, that Elk herd will be decimated further next year!
There was a "biological" type article in the local newspaper this week that revealed the Wolves are reproducing now at a rate of "at least 14% a year"! The biological truth then is we will have as many as 1,140 Wolves here next year!
The "biological" fact then is the Wolves EACH eat the bio-mass equivalent of 1.8 Elk per month! In other, "biological" fact type words then - there will be eaten, by Wolves, next year alone the bio mass equivalent of 24,624 Elk!
Is that "biological" enough for you back there in Iowa?
The problem is Brent, that your buddies the Wolves were supposed to be held to a strict population of 325 animals in the tri-state area! The feds lied to us and we now have at least 850 Wolves and many believe we hit 1,000 Wolves this spring! That will be 1,140 Wolves by next spring!
How long do you think our Elk herds here in the Rockies will last with that many Elk being eaten by your buds, the Wolves? I would like a "biological" answer to that please!
And I would like a "biological" answer to this also - how many lost Hunting opportunities will be lost again next year due to the over population of the Wolves?
We lost 2,000 permits in Montana in the one region alone! Consider, when you answer me, the states of Idaho and Wyoming also!
Thanks for nothing you lying bastard feds and you green assed myopic idiots at the rmef!
Pray, Colorado does not let this horror begin in their state!
Remember I am not professing every last Wolf be exterminated. I just want them kept at a manageable level by the states that are suffering the indignities of their over-population!
I went on several spring Bear Hunts this May and June here in the Rockies and I got sick and tired of seeing Wolf tracks following every set of cow/calf Elk tracks I came across. I mean it, I was literally sick! And I am not even in the area of the worst predation by Wolves! I am way west (95 air miles) of that horror!
I hope my answers to your doubts has enough "biology" to convince you that "we have a problem - IOWA"!
The problem is decimated game herds and lost Hunting opportunities - let alone all the domestic animals eaten by the Wolves and the lost commerce that many of our small communities suffer!
For instance my friends own an 8 unit motel in Wisdom, Montana! I have known them for 30 plus years. Until the Wolves came to their valley they were booked full all Elk season long (from September 1st to the Sunday after Thanksgiving - which is sometimes as late as December first or as early as November 24th depending on the calendar year) They have not had a full house in the Hunting season in 5 years! They are running on one or two rooms rented at a time. My friends are going broke! Due to Wolves decimating the Elk and Moose in their Valley. That may not mean much to you in your den in IOWA but they are 70 year residents of Montana and are in a bad way. This is just one example, there are hundreds more! That may not be a "biological" fact but it is a fact of life now under your buds, the Wolves!
Think about that for a while!
I attended an Elk Hunting seminar in Butte, Montana last week. A Hunter I have known for many years was lucky enough to draw a Mt. Goat tag last year (2,004 season). He was Hunting in a high basin when he came across 6 Mt. Goats that had been slaughtered by Wolves. Thats right Wolves wantonly killed this group of Mt. Goats and ate very little!
My acquaintance said there was blood for hundreds of feet in every direction! Wolf tracks everywhere!
Hmmm... is that biological enough for you!
How are the Mt. Goats faring their in IOWA by the way???
Not 5 miles from my home, your buds the Wolves, killed 22 domestic Sheep in one night recently. And they maimed several others. The rancher notified the authorities but the next night the Wolves came back and jumped into his corral and killed several more! They did not eat much but did kill and maim many!
Horses, cattle, sheep, dogs and llamas have been killed by your buds the Wolves in my county alone! Is that "any biology" enough for you back there in IOWA?
Let me know if you need more "biology" to help you get your head out of your ass? I will try and provide it for you!
Control The Wolves - Save Our Elk!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

I think Brent or one of his clones posted that he is a professor at some college. I would hate to be one of his students, as I am sure, if you simply stated your thoughts on an anti-wolf stance you would never pass his class. That I would bet the farm on!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, today there was another article about wolves. Seems that a Cdow bioligist and a Rmnp
bioligist think that releasing wolves would be
an effective way to control CWD. As wolves only
kill and eat sick and weak elk and deer.
So I guess if enough of highly educated idoits,
belive this, Then we are in deep doo-doo
Charlie

What a crock of s...! Oh I see they're going to put up a fence to keep the wolves where they want them (another bright idea they haven't thought of yet). When they do that they can take all the wolves they want from Wyoming to stock RMNP.