ThomasJefferson,Although your math is correct (though the source is
unspecified and therefore unverifiable) I don't think you are properly
taking into account the complexities of a forest ecosystem, nor the consequences
of elk overpopulation. According to an article from National Geographic, the
reduction of the elk population by wolves helped to restore overgrazed plants to
the ecosystem and improved its integrity and strength. Without wolves, it goes
on to say, more elk die from starvation at the end of winter. Elk will not
disappear because of wolves. Elk will disappear because of human hunters. If you
want to save the elk, you save the wolves. They both must live to balance the
ecosystem. To find article, search "Wolves' Leftovers Are
Yellowstone's Gains" on Google.
their animals, not "there" animals.
Hey, TJ, is it 3000, or 4600? Your numbers seems to keep changing. And let's
suppose your numbers are correct. That doesn't mean your facts are. You
insinuate that the Wolf Recovery Center is making excuses for the reason the
herd is at the number it is, i.e., a healthy herd. So do you have proof that
Yellowstone can sustain a healthy herd of of 30,000?By the way, if
farmers don't want wolves to eat their livestock, they can sacrifice a couple of
there animals, put enough low-level poison in the carcass to make the wolves
sick, and they will not come back to that food source again. Easy stuff!
Tj "shoot all the wolves" and "wouldn't turn in somebody who shot
100 wolves" doesn't look good for your character. I mean really, you think
that tough guy approach is the way to go? Wow, people really are losing common
sense. If you are a true outdoorsman, and a true hunter then you realize the
value of having predators in the wild. If you are a road hunter who sits in his
truck to hunt, or a weekend warrior so to speak then I can see why you have no
clue what is going on. I can't really fault you if you only get out once a year.
Clearly having 100 wolves in yellowstone isn't decimating the herds. Do some
simple math and you will discover that more deer and elk are killed on roads
then wolves could ever kill in a year. It isn't rocket science, just simple
math. Wolves did fine in the last 2,000 years or more, and so did deer and elk.
Explain that... Do you not realize that humans don't have to hunt to eat..
wolves do. Humans do it for sport, so tell me who are the real killers?
Mankind is at the top of the food chain and should be able to provide a balance
in the game management process. Hunting is still a viable ocupation for bringing
food to the table...good food. OK, so we bring in a few wolves.Wolves
mulitply fast and the wolf huggers do not want that imbalance disturbed by
humans trying to keep things in balance. In Canada and the Yukon,
they trap over populated wolf packs in wintertime to save the Carabou herds from
decimation. Their skins make fine wolf rugs sold on the open market by the
trappers. It is a great system that works well in Canada where prople still
think clearly about such matters. We learned nothing from this
recent study. It was probably done to give gtraduates from college something to
I say shoot all the wolves and study them from the inside out. Not only was this
a total waste of money, the wolves continue to drain money from wildlife
management and ranchers. First the money wasted to bring them back, then the
money wasted to maintain them and pay for the damage they do, then the money
lost from all the hunting tags that could have been sold if the wolves hadn't
ravaged the elk and deer herds. There was a much better balance before
they came back. Mother nature took care of it before man came into the picture,
then the wolf was no longer needed. Do a wildlife count, then issue enough tags
each year to keep the population in line with the available feed and land. This
raises many millions of dollars each year and keeps the populations up to the
point where many more people can enjoy and benefit from them.I for one
would never turn in someone for shooting a wolf. Any other animal yes, but not
if someone shot a hundred wolves.
This is great research! Way to go USU!
So, just how will this study help ranchers? The title overpromises and the
article never delivers the punch line.
I am here to help those of you who hang their hat on such studies that indicate
that large pack sizes are less efficient. I vow to do my part to help make them
more efficient by decreasing wolf pack sizes however I can."It
makes sense to look out for No. 1, MacNulty said.Yes, it does.
However, in our world the wolf is not #1. I will continue to take this advice as
I see fit.
Just ask the hunters who hunt around Yellowstone. The numbers are not there. The
elk herd needs about a 30% survival rate of the young to maintain a herd and
there is about a 10%. It is not only the wolves, but add the bears and other
preditors. One day we may have to feed the bears and wolves with our over
populated wild horse herds. Wolves do not care whether the prey is young, old or
weak if the oppertunity to kill is there they will kill.
TJ - once again your claims are unfounded. Check the website of national parks
out. The moderator won't let me give you the link. It is nps . gov. You will
find it. It clearly states that still in yellowstone there are over 30,000 elk
that summer in the park, and 15,000 to 22,000 use it as a winter range. Your
numbers are slightly off my friend. All you have to do is a little research to
find the facts. These are not my numbers picked out of thin air, but documented
herd numbers. Additionally, 75 wolves kill 1,000 elk per winter. This is a far
cry from the numbers of elk that hunters kill in a year. I have been to
yellowstone within the last 6 months, and literally elk are everywhere. Again,
check your facts before throwing out a ludacris 3,000 elk herd number that you
just made up. There are about 100 wolves in the park. Think about it just for a
minute. Can 100 wolves decimate an elk population of 30,000??? Plus, you still
failed to cite your sources, not surprisingly. Your version of citing a source
is "documented research" haha.
You mean there are still sheep and cattle ranches? I thought the greenies had
driven them all out of business. Wow! I would rather the wolves
run wild than the folks in the current administration.
I guess the benefit to the Ranchers is that they should encourage introduction
of more wolves to increase the pack and create more risk-adversion when they
hunt? I doubt the cows and sheep cause the wolves much concern in getting hurt
when they attack. I am one that actually agrees that we need wolves
in the wild to maintain balance with the elk/bison and deer herds, but this
study was a waste and does not assist the rancher in protecting his herds.
TJ doesn't have a reference for his claims because they are false. Amazing how
wolves and elk/bison/deer etc. managed to coexist for thousands of years. The
prey populations were fine, and the wolves mostly attacked the weak, old, young.
They are predators, so yes they kill to eat. As soons as humans come here and
drive the wolves out, and then they are reintroduced you think they are
different killing machines now? It doesn't make sense. They kill to survive. So
I bet none of the wolf lovers are in the ranching business.This
study was a waste of scarce tax dollars.
This is one of the first intelligent articles on wolves that I have seen. I am
sure studies will show they aren't as damaging as people think.
Thomas, please change your moniker. It's an outright insult to the man who
owned that name. He was one who sought facts and truth.One
question, though. If wolves were around for thousands of years, how come there
were any elk and deer left when we white eyes arrived in North America?
TJ, A link to your claim please.