Deseret News | Environmentalists want new wolf recovery plan

Reader comments
Environmentalists want new wolf recovery plan

Lionheart | 9:42 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Shall we follow the path of Idaho where the wolves population is exploding and they are killing off the fawns and does of the deer and elk herds? Man's best laid plans often go awry.

Brother Chuck Schroeder | 10:43 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008

So the liberal waco environmentalists want new wolf recovery plan do they, well how's this than, the NRA shall NEVER SEND a sheep, to kill a wolf, when it takes a REAL MAN to do that job, and "GIT-R-DONE!". PETA was the one's that was managing a very imperiled population of wolves based on planning that's over 20 years old and the other's, are anti-fur-coak freaks. Perhaps it's time the US brought-back The Draft, if for anything else, to clean up out US gene genetic pool of these liberal's and their breeding the species of more, take THEM all off the minority Endangered Species Act they created, because they need to be sorted out a little more carefully, as the "save the planet subspecies" reintroducing themself, generation after generation, through Biological Diversity, compromising our species' of normal people, with their genetic liberal failure's, lie's and socialism. These waco's need to STOP playing "Mother Nature" and also "GOD!."

Bilbo Bagging | 11:15 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008

It's probably not the best idea to pontificate about the gene poll whilst standing in the shallow end.

Comments continue below

Anonymous | 11:19 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Chuck, being a veteran, I know Limbaugh, Rove and Savage dodge the draft. A draft would kill off more liberals. Being a parasite isn't a value. I'm single, pay to educate kids that aren't mind and I don't call people who benefit from my tax dollars going to educate their kids socialist.

Grouse Creek and East of Kanab would be great places to start wolf reintroduction. Obama will lose votes over it. :-)

Brother Chuck Schroeder | 12:12 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Re: 11:19 a.m.

Being a veteran myself, I know Clinton and Obamacon also did dodge the draft. And the draft would kill off more liberals, they are to stupid to duck. As a Republican I to don't want liberal's and their socialist people, who benefit from my tax dollars, going to educate their kids about being a good LiL socialist. Therefore, again I say, it's time the US brought-back The Draft, if for anything else, to clean up our US gene genetic pool of these liberal's and their breeding the species of more, take THEM all off the minority Endangered Species Act they created, because they need to be sorted out a little more carefully, as the "save the planet subspecies" reintroducing themself, generation after generation, through Biological Diversity, compromising our species' of normal people, with their genetic liberal failure's lie's and socialism. Right in The White House as well as in Obamacon's Cabinet would be a GREAT PLACE to start wolf reintroduction. NEVER SEND a sheep, to kill a wolf, when it takes a "REAL MAN" to do that job, and "GIT-R-DONE!". :-)

East of Kanab!!!!! | 12:16 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Just let loose some of those mangy dogs that huge dog rescue farm has accumulated from all over the world. A whole new specie of the "wolf" would result. Since I live in the area, it would provide some good preditor hunting for me and my kids on our days off!!!
We really don't need any more wolves running around our back yards destroying our deer and elk herds which provide us with some great benefits do we?????Let the wolves multiply in Canada and Alaska where they have to trap them to keep nature in balance. They are great reproducers.

basinboy | 12:42 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Why do you think they were exterminated years ago: The only good wolf is a dead wolf!

Neola | 12:46 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Hey, Kanabster: what do you think happened in Alaska and Canada before there were any humans to "keep the balance?" Take a few biology classes, and focus on populations biology. The idea that we need to save Nature from herself is a human conceit.
Wolves would still be an asset in only some parts of the West, those areas where there is a sufficient prey base and a minimum of development. I don't think East of Kanab would be a promising place, but the Book Cliffs or Uintas would.

Neola | 2:24 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

basinboy, that's what we call "Civil War" science; we have not progressed very far since 1865, apparently. People like you and Kanabster need to get educated. Wolves aren't angels or demons; they're animals, and sometimes they're in the way of human activities, and sometimes they're not. They have complex effects on their ecosystems, and many of those effects humans could only regard as beneficial to humanity. Because they hunt & kill the prey WE wish to kill, however, they are "destroying deer herds." The world is complex; where wolves are involved, you two need to get educated.

Anonymous | 3:19 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

East of Kanab!!!!! | 12:16 We could release a wolf pack in Johnson Canyon, maybe one south of Fredonia. They can lunch on the cattle grazing on the skate farm near the old Johnson settlement grave yard.

Anonymous | 4:49 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Neola you can't study populations in biology without doing Hardy Wienburg equations. This requires solving quadratic equations.

Johnson Canyon has a nice corridor to the north where wolfs could travel. The old state highway run up the canyon years ago. If you ever drive up this canyon you will see an old sign painted on the rock.

I was Joking. Limbaugh would be a liberal in Kanab.

Idahoan | 5:24 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Utah, in spite of what these people tell you about wolves, go ask real wildlife biologists in Idaho, Wyo, Montana and even Alaska about what wolves are doing to the elk, moose and deer populations. I live in Idaho and in some areas, our elk herds are in real trouble and the studies tell us why-wolf predation. Cow calf ratios are dangerously low and not sustainable. The northern yellowstone elk herd is down over 75% and still dropping. If you want the same thing to happen to your wildlife resources just do what we did, NOTHING! Do whatever you have to do to stop this wolf nonsence. If you doubt me, contact state wildlife officers in any of these states. Don't listen to the arm chair biologists who have no clue.

I hunter's point of view | 6:03 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Some say hunters don't want wolves because they kill animals we want to kill and I confess that is true. The comparison, however, is not valid for two reasons:

#1: I am only able to hunt maybe one week a year and can only "harvest" one animal if I can. Wolves hunt 365 days a year and kill one animal each week on average. That's 52 animals per wolf. 50 wolves will take more animals that all the hunters in the state do in an entire year. 60 wolves will cause recuitment problems-(the prey will reproduce slower than the numbers killed). This is happening in other western states.

#2: I pay for the privledge to hunt with my license and tags purchases and the money is used to restore and protect wildlife habitat (all wildlife, not just big game). My money also benefits other non hunters by keeping wildlife health and strong. Wolves do not improve wildlife habitat and they prey mostly on the young. Wolves from a wildlife economics standpoint are not sustainable. Ask Wyoming, Montana and Idaho.

Neola | 7:03 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Hunter, I respect ethical hunters, but that doesn't mean that their hobby should trump all other concerns. Wolves, as you say, hunt throughout the year, in a way that has shaped the prey (elk, muley, and moose) to be what they are today. Their populations wax and wane with the fortunes of their prey base. They wield a large influence over places like Yellowstone. Since Yellowstone was brought up, study what is coming out of the park. Many species (especially favored forage species of elk) are rebounding, and many changes seem to favor a wide range of species and stabilize ecosystems.

Hunters shooting for a big rack or a lot of meat, once a year, cannot match that.

Re: Neola | 8:46 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

First of all, thanks for being civil in this debate. The difference between wolves in Yellowstone and wolves anywhere else is that there has never been any hunting in Yellowstone, so yes, more predation is needed there to control ungulate populations and prevent habitat damage. My issue with wolves we can either have many wolves and fewer ungulates or we can have more ungulates and fewer wolves. Predatation, including over hunting must be controlled or we will face overpredation and lost opportunities for all who enjoy wildlife. In Idaho, according to wildlife biologists, wolf predation is responsible for declining elk recruitment numbers so much so that they are becoming unsustainable and cow/calf ratio are dangerously low (5-6 calves/100 cows). Some would say,so what, that's nature. Others like me would say, I prefer more elk and less wolves in my world. Is my value of wildlife less important than your?

Hunters | 9:30 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

May I make three points on this issue?

#1:Hunters have been around for millions of years, just like wolves (if you accept some theories of evolution) so to say that the wolf is more natural than hunters isn't true. Humans are just as "natural" as any other species. Hunting has evolved and and so have self imposed laws restricting hunters.

#2: Not everything "natural" should be appreciated. Diptheria is natural. So is AIDs and the black plague. The word, "natural" isn't always something we should revere as superior or more desirable.

#3: In nature, there really isn't any "right or wrong", there are only consequences. Man's presence has consequences just like the presence of wolves have consequences. The question is; given a choice, what consequences do we prefer? I prefer less wolves because of the consequences they bring just like I prefer less AIDs or polio in the world.

Neoloa | 10:21 a.m. Dec. 5, 2008

Hunter, wolves were hunted by American Indians prior to 1872, establishment of the park. From 1872 to 1916, the U.S. Cavalry aggressively hunted them to "protect" the herbivores (there's a historical lesson here for wolf-haters). Eventually the National Park Service changed it's policy, no longer regarding wolves (or any native animal or plant) as bad, but as a necessary part of the park ecosystem. They were imported back at great expense, and to rave reviews.
There was indeed hunting in Yellowstone before Europeans showed up, the same kind of hunting that occurred everywhere in Indian territory, and later by trappers and mountain men.
Aldo Leopold wrote an essay, "Thinking Like a Mountain", which addresses the point better than I could.

"I now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live in mortal fear of its deer. And perhaps better the cause, for while a buck pulled down by wolves can be replaced in two or three years, a range pulled down by too many deer may fail of replacement in as many decades."
We need wolves in wild places, precisely to control the ungulates.

Neola | 10:24 a.m. Dec. 5, 2008

I never said, and never will, that wolves are more "natural" than human hunters. However, when it comes to natural selection, human hunters don't hunt the same way as wolves, and don't hunt continuously. Hunters appreciating the majesty, grace, and power of a bull elk should thank the nearest wolf.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.