Author Topic: Wolves in Yellowstone  (Read 13851 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline bubbles

  • Member
  • Posts: 932
  • PM110769
Wolves in Yellowstone
« on: March 05, 2014, 09:19:27 pm »

Don Case

  • Guest
Re: Wolves in Yellowstone
« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2014, 09:45:59 pm »
Makes you think twice about everything you do.

Offline PatM

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,737
Re: Wolves in Yellowstone
« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2014, 10:05:17 pm »
Nice to see something that's not just a rant about "Canadian wolves killing all the Deer/Elk".

Offline JW_Halverson

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,923
Re: Wolves in Yellowstone
« Reply #3 on: March 05, 2014, 10:33:04 pm »
The environment is much like a spiderweb.  Pluck just one thread and they all vibrate.  Cut one thread and you weaken them all.

Many people are upset that the elk are acting like elk again, avoiding the wolves.  Elk hunting with wolves in the area has to be a good bit harder, I would imagine!
Guns have triggers. Bicycles have wheels. Trees and bows have wooden limbs.

Offline Mohawk13

  • Member
  • Posts: 402
Re: Wolves in Yellowstone
« Reply #4 on: March 05, 2014, 10:47:17 pm »
Good Point JW. Wolves do add a challenge to the hunting woods. After all its called hunting and not killing. Apex predators help an ecosystem to thrive. Man considers himself an apex predator, but we are actually late comers to the scheme of things. Man  has a tendency to destroy all that he touches, and nature, when returned to a healthy balance, rebuilds what man has destroyed...
He That Raises the sword against us, Shall be cleaved upon seven fold-Talmud.

Offline Pat B

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 37,633
Re: Wolves in Yellowstone
« Reply #5 on: March 05, 2014, 11:29:17 pm »
That is cool. I know lots of folks that don't think so though.  ::)
Make the most of all that comes and the least of all that goes!    Pat Brennan  Brevard, NC

Offline kleinpm

  • Member
  • Posts: 218
Re: Wolves in Yellowstone
« Reply #6 on: March 05, 2014, 11:36:05 pm »
I live right outside of Yellowstone and lived in Yellowstone for 4 of the last 5 years. I wish they never reintroduced wolves. It has completely divided the locals here. There are the wolfies and the non wolfies and not much in between.

If a hunter legally kills a wolf (especially a collared wolf) he can expect death threats to him and his family. Pro wolf people get denied jobs and are bitter because they assume its because they support the wolves and the employer doesn't, or vice versa.

There is discussion about a no wolf hunting buffer around the park. Well once that gets in place, and it's only a matter of time, then it's not a far stretch to extend the buffer to other animals.

The riparian habitat that is supposed to be making a tremendous comeback is being devoured by the unchecked bison herd, and outside of the park the free range cows continue to devastate riparian areas even with the presence of wolves.

FWP sets wolf quotas off of the of the lowest estimate of wolves. So the estimate is between 600 and 1800 wolves (I don't have actual numbers in front of me) in Montana, they will allow about two hundred wolves to be killed. Well 200 doesn't even keep the population in check if the number is greater than 600 to start with.

A lot of people are bitter and distrustful of both the park and FWP because the agreed upon number of wolves to meet the threshold required for reintroduction was 100 wolves and ten breeding pairs. But if a male wasn't seen at the den full of pups then that's wasn't a mating pair, then the wildlife organizations got involved with the lawsuits and before you know it we have about a gazillion wolves and no real good way to control their numbers. There was a reason it took decades of poisoning and shooting them from the air to exterminate them. They are crafty and cagey, not easily hunted and have a lot of pups.

That's my 2 cents.

Patrick
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 11:39:28 pm by kleinpm »

Offline kleinpm

  • Member
  • Posts: 218
Re: Wolves in Yellowstone
« Reply #7 on: March 05, 2014, 11:37:52 pm »
Good Point JW. Wolves do add a challenge to the hunting woods. After all its called hunting and not killing. Apex predators help an ecosystem to thrive. Man considers himself an apex predator, but we are actually late comers to the scheme of things. Man  has a tendency to destroy all that he touches, and nature, when returned to a healthy balance, rebuilds what man has destroyed...

Now that man is on the scene in the numbers that we are, how to we return to a healthy balance?

Patrick

Offline adb

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,339
Re: Wolves in Yellowstone
« Reply #8 on: March 06, 2014, 12:35:43 am »
More wolves?

Offline Dharma

  • Member
  • Posts: 453
  • Kayenta, AZ
Re: Wolves in Yellowstone
« Reply #9 on: March 06, 2014, 01:21:28 am »
Well, humans have always hunted wolves. It's the only way to get the teeth and pelts for certain ceremonies. In Europe, wolves had the reputation of carrying off children and that's where the whole Little Red Riding Hood tale came from. It was probably some kind of oral myth before it was collected into a storybook.

There's two ways human interfere with the natural world. One is to blow away everything that moves and cut down or strip mine everything that doesn't. The other way is to overprotect everything and reintroduce species and then overprotect them as well. Unless a bear gets a wild hair about it, the wolf doesn't have any predators capable of taking him out other than man. Man gets this idea that he's somehow removed from the natural world and we no longer play a role as a predator. This isn't so. We still have a role as a predator. It's just that we can afford not to be anymore. But can other species? When deer overpopulate, they starve. So, some people might feel special tenderness at those deer not being hunted, but those deer will die anyway. They'll starve or end up under a tractor trailer on a regular basis.

Now, those wolves have a pretty good gig going for them. If the government protects them, they've got carte blanche to do pretty much anything. There are no parameters on their behaviour. That's fine for a while, but if they get into someone's herds of cattle, this isn't permissible. Humans have always protected our herds as far back as when we first began pastoralism which is at least as old as agriculture. Perhaps older. The composite bow was invented to protect herds from predators and then afterwards, people like the Scythians and Mongols realized it was also a highly effective weapon of combat. If humans protect their herds, they're doing what comes natural to them. That is, protecting their food supply. Animals fight over food and we are no different in that respect. It makes more sense than fighting over vague political concepts no one really cares about in the long run.

Where the deviation from the natural order occurs is when we engage in a "Final Solution", so to speak, concerning predators. If you catch the wolf in the herd, then you defend your herd. But you can't go and wipe them out on suspicions. Well, you could, but is it skilful? Skilful means is setting up an ambush and catching the wolves doing it. Sooner or later, they'll discover that these animals may not be eaten, so stick to the ones who can be. And if children are attacked, of course, one has to get up a hunting party to stop this. Humans have always done that, too.

There need to be places where wild animals can be reasonably assured they have habitat where they can do their own thing. Humans can't mandate things be a certain way on every square inch of this planet. We have to be able to say, "Ok, so we're growing crops here and we raise cattle and sheep here. And because we eat these things, we can't allow animals to come in and eat up our food. We've never done that. So we have to defend these lands we have allocated to that." But this doesn't mean Mr. Fabulously Rich gets to come into the wilderness and build a billion dollar home with a solar hot water collector and then whine when a wolf or a coyote carries off his $5000 poodle for supper. He needs to see the poodle becoming a meatloaf as the cost of doing business, so to speak. And if someone goes into the wilderness with his dog off a leash when the sign says dogs must be leashed, and a cougar eats that dog (as happened here), well, he has no right to demand a hunting party go punish that cougar. Punish it for what? Being a cougar on its own turf? It isn't about human food supply at that point.

Back to our role as predator, the hunters among us are few and fewer still hunt wolves. It's a "what's in it for me" proposition. Am I going to get steaks out of this deal? No. I'll get a pelt and a skull and that'll look cool on the wall, but unless it's used for ceremony, that's all it'll do. But there needs to be a predator in the link to keep the wolves in check. It's the same with us. If some major world power rises and no one is there to keep them in check, they do whatever they feel like doing. But if some other power exists, they can't operate outside of their own sphere of interest or they get their hands slapped. That's how the predator-checks-predator relationship works. It's different from the predator-prey relationship.
An arrow knows only the life its maker breathes into it...

Offline killir duck

  • Member
  • Posts: 747
  • i like elk
Re: Wolves in Yellowstone
« Reply #10 on: March 06, 2014, 01:53:27 am »
 I make a living from livestock, horses and cattle are what feeds me and pays the bills, and wolves, lions and coyotes are what shrink the paycheck, I believe they need to be managed just like any other game animal, all this "endangered" stuff is pure b.s.   we don't have very many in this corner of Montana yet, but I've seen tracks a few times and a buddy got a picture of one. The Missouri river brakes used to be some of the best public land elk hunting around and now because of fwps aweful management there is now a quickly growing wolf population there (when you tell them you saw a wolf in the brakes they always say that it was just a big coyote). Btw fwp hauls "problem bears" down here now too so if you see a fwp rig pulling a stock trailer in Carter county Montana call me, ill grab the dogs and bear hunting >:D
PRIMITIVE ARCHERY what other way can you play with sticks and rocks all day and not look like a little kid

Every time i shoot at a bunny i recall the wise words of Elmer Fudd "I've got you now you waskally wabbit!"

Offline criveraville

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,210
  • Psalm 127:4
Re: Wolves in Yellowstone
« Reply #11 on: March 06, 2014, 01:54:50 am »
Cool vid
I was HECHO EN MEXICO, but assembled in Texas and I'm Texican as the day is long...  Psalm 127:4 As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.

Offline Wolf Watcher

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,308
Re: Wolves in Yellowstone
« Reply #12 on: March 06, 2014, 09:35:12 am »
The video really makes you think all is well in Yellowstone since the wolves were introduced.  I can tell you that is nothing but heart warming propaganda!  Yellowstone has always been the worst managed park in the world. For instance when they had the big fire and decided to take a "let burn" approach millions of acres of forest was burned down.  Now those areas have small trees growing so thick that grasses and forest floor plants can't grow.  The only two areas that were protected during that fire were Old Faithful and Mammoth which are man made tourist attractions. The wolves have little or no effect on the bison so the open grass areas are just as grazed off as ever without the elk. They have been spending millions of dollars netting lake trout they themselves planted in connecting water sheds many years ago.  The cutthroat fishery the lake enjoyed for many years is gone.  The cutthroats that are caught in the nets are released but die from the damage they suffer in the nets.  The lake trout are killed and dumped back in the lake which only feeds more lake trout and is a fantastic waste of food.  The lake has so many mile long nets that you have to navigate around them.  The bison have brusolosis (sp) which does not keep them form having calves, but the elk are infected.  When the wolves drove the elk out of the park that eventually brought the disease to the ranches and the effect has been devastating to many cattle ranches and even on the buffalo ranch where I live.  Yesterday my wife and I took a drive through some back country and saw a herd of upwards of a thousand head of elk on a bare mountain hill side on ranch property.  These elk are gathered up in these large herds as their way of trying to protect themselves form the wolves. It has become impossible for the Game and Fish to manage these herds.  I think the worst thing about the wolves is that they don't eat every thing they kill.  Two years ago a pack killed 13 calf elk one night and ate one!  In the spring when the pups are in the den the wolves will kill an elk or moose and eat only the lower abdomen area and then return to the den to regurgitate to feed the pups.  That leaves an entire carcass for the grizzlies and that is dangerous.  The grizzlies have killed and eaten four people in and around the Park in the last couple of years.  Our moose population has suffered the most form the wolf predation to the point of almost no hunting.  Where I live one side of the river is a permit wolf hunt area with very restricted numbers of kills allowed.  The other side of the river is a kill on sight area.  That sounds like the wolves have no chance, but let me tell you that very few are actually killed.  We have a pack here on the ranch and since they are nocturnal and very smart its almost impossible for hunter to kill one!  The thing that bothers me the most is that the government lied about the wolf species that were introduced in Yellowstone and Idaho as these wolves are more than two times the size of the wolves that were killed off. After all my rants I can tell you the wolves we have now are fantastic animals and I only wish they and the grizzlies could be managed to the point of some kind of balance.  Joe
Get Close---Shoot Straight

Offline Robby101

  • Member
  • Posts: 58
Re: Wolves in Yellowstone
« Reply #13 on: March 06, 2014, 09:48:30 am »
Cool video. Was it factual or agenda driven? I don't know.
Robby

Offline Dharma

  • Member
  • Posts: 453
  • Kayenta, AZ
Re: Wolves in Yellowstone
« Reply #14 on: March 06, 2014, 11:02:13 am »
I have a friend here who owns a gun shop and he gets in unusual stuff from time to time from his connections. Some years back, a Navajo man came in and had problems with a mountain lion getting into his horse corral and killing his horses. So, he made a wise investment into a surplus Starlight nightscope. He solved the problem within a week. Nocturnal doesn't matter to a Starlight scope, lol. And since mountain lion pelts and quivers made from those pelts are highly sought after by medicine men, the guy had an added fringe benefit from it that defrayed the cost of the Starlight scope.

Forest Service "controlled burns" and fires they let burn are great in theory, but only in theory. They had a prescribed burn years back over in Los Alamos, NM that got away from them because they started it on a very windy day. The day was too windy, but you know the deal. The paper said the fire is scheduled for this day, so we can't use common sense, we have to go by what the papers from the Great Fathers say. Well, that fire took off like a Roman candle and burned up houses and everything. These fires are supposed to clear the forest of "doghair thickets" that keep the wider diameter old-growth trees from manifesting. But what often happens is you get a crown fire that runs across the tops of the trees, especially when you have Bark Beetle infestations, and burns up the old-growth trees anyway. Then the doghair thickets return and they're back to square one. The only way to thin doghair thickets is to cut those trees and leave the ones that show promise of becoming Grandfather trees. They do that here, but then pile up the cut doghair trees and trees killed by the Bark Beetle and burn them. That's a waste. Those cut doghairs are a resource that can be made into pressed ready-light logs, paper, and so on. Plus, the fires are often done during times birds are nesting and those birds' nests become collateral damage. When those birds are Flickers, Acorn Woodpeckers, Downy Woodpeckers, and Nuthatches, well guess what? Those are the birds that eat the Bark Beetles so all you're doing is thinning the population of the birds that help eliminate the Bark Beetles that kill the trees. And when those trees die, that is what creates a catastrophic wildfire threat that culminates in a crown fire. It's also important to leave a few large dead trees in place since that's where the Flickers and Woodpeckers are going to build nests.

Forest Service tends not to see the role the smaller animals such as those Flickers and Woodpeckers play. A Nuthatch will spend hours going up and down the same tree, combing the tree for insects. So will a Flicker. Forest Service concentrates on big predators like wolves, but totally forgets the importance of protecting the insect predators like Flickers. Those birds play a much more effective role in managing forests than the Forest Service itself often does. They'll cut trees during nesting season and the nestlings in them die. The more birds you have in the forest, the healthier the trees. People mistakenly believe the woodpeckers damage healthy trees. They don't. They can hear insects inside the tree and they go after them. They have no other reason to spend that much energy drilling into the tree. When they nest, they select dead trees because those are easy to tunnel a cavity into in order to build a nest.
An arrow knows only the life its maker breathes into it...