Wolf study may help ranchers avoid livestock losses

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • askybluesea Magna, UT
    March 26, 2012 3:35 p.m.

    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.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Sept. 30, 2011 3:36 p.m.

    their animals, not "there" animals.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Sept. 30, 2011 1:35 p.m.

    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!

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    Sept. 30, 2011 8:55 a.m.

    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?

  • Elcapitan Ivins, UT
    Sept. 30, 2011 7:41 a.m.

    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 do.

  • TJ Eagle Mountain, UT
    Sept. 30, 2011 7:14 a.m.

    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.

  • raybies Layton, UT
    Sept. 30, 2011 6:29 a.m.

    This is great research! Way to go USU!

  • Nayajja Ephraim, UT
    Sept. 30, 2011 5:57 a.m.

    So, just how will this study help ranchers? The title overpromises and the article never delivers the punch line.

  • NT Springville, UT
    Sept. 29, 2011 10:13 p.m.

    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.

  • wYo8 Rock Springs, WY
    Sept. 29, 2011 5:23 p.m.

    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.

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    Sept. 29, 2011 2:44 p.m.

    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.

  • byu rugby Crystal Lake, IL
    Sept. 29, 2011 1:10 p.m.

    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.

  • bslack Draper, UT
    Sept. 29, 2011 1:01 p.m.

    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.

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    Sept. 29, 2011 12:17 p.m.

    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 do cougars.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 29, 2011 12:15 p.m.

    I bet none of the wolf lovers are in the ranching business.

    This study was a waste of scarce tax dollars.

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    Sept. 29, 2011 11:01 a.m.

    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.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Sept. 29, 2011 11:01 a.m.

    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?

  • stevo123 slc, ut
    Sept. 29, 2011 10:59 a.m.

    TJ, A link to your claim please.