Wolves in Yellowstone

[PatM]

I'd like to see the evidence that the original wolf inhabiting that area was so much smaller. The Wolf evolves to fill a niche and the niche of that area demands a larger wolf.
 The game is large, therefore the wolf needs to be as well. It just doesn't make sense that an area would be swarming with Elk and Buffalo and a little Wolf would be what inhabits the area.

[kleinpm]

Cool video. Was it factual or agenda driven? I don't know.
Robby

That, in a nutshell, is the problem. There is very little anyone can say on either side of the wolf fence that won't be attacked as propaganda. Even data can be intentionally mis-interpreted by both sides.

I think the most disturbing aspect of wolves is that a lot of anti-hunting organizations have latched onto them as a possible way to reduce hunting opportunities. What better way to outlaw hunting of big game than to reduce their number with other predators?


Patrick

[Mohawk13]

Wolves, Much Like any predator or prey animal, need to be managed in the numbers that the ecosystem will comfortably contain. That being said, prescribed hunts should be put into place. Any animal, be it domesticated, or wild, must be controlled in number so that they do not put a strain on local resources or on the environment they inhabit.....Management is key.

[kleinpm]

I'd like to see the evidence that the original wolf inhabiting that area was so much smaller. The Wolf evolves to fill a niche and the niche of that area demands a larger wolf.
 The game is large, therefore the wolf needs to be as well. It just doesn't make sense that an area would be swarming with Elk and Buffalo and a little Wolf would be what inhabits the area.

The Park has roughly 12 wolf skulls from attributed to wolves shot in and around the park from the late 1800's and early 1900's. I don't think there is a verifiable measurable difference between the reintroduced wolves and the wolves that were here before.
Here is the rub with that though. To battle the argument that the wolves they wanted to reintroduce were not the same as the ones that were here before, they had to make sure all wolves were classified as the same. My details are a little fuzzy on this and I don't have the time to do the research right now, but there couldn't be a bunch of different subspecies of wolves because then they couldn't be sure that what they were reintroducing was the same wolf that was here before. But if all the wolves are the same, then they certainly aren't going extinct or even endangered. How many wolves are there in Alaska and Canada? Why is the same logic not applied to Grizzly bears? If Grizzly bears were historically at least as far east as the Missouri River, why is there not a big push to reintroduce them on the plains? Probably because the habitat is fragmented and modified by man enough that it isn't a real viable option. The same reason the wolves should not have been reintroduced.

Patrick

[kleinpm]

Wolves, Much Like any predator or prey animal, need to be managed in the numbers that the ecosystem will comfortably contain. That being said, prescribed hunts should be put into place. Any animal, be it domesticated, or wild, must be controlled in number so that they do not put a strain on local resources or on the environment they inhabit.....Management is key.

Managing wolves is easier said than done. Hunting them is difficult, poisoning is out of the question, trapping is better but there aren't many trappers that know what they are doing enough to really put a dent in the population. Even if they did, they are only allowed to trap a certain number.

Patrick

[Wolf Watcher]

I think its funny that people that have not lived here for many years know what is best for a very complex environment.  It would be like me trying to tell the people in Florida how to manage their non native snakes!  How many know that it was Yellowstone Park Officials that killed off all their grizzlies which eventually led to having them on the endangered species list?  Its also a fact that animals in the northern climes are inherently larger than those of their southern cousins.  The wolves that inhabited Wyoming during the times when they were finally killed off weighed around 65 pounds.  Some of the Canadian wolves can weigh 265 pounds plus.  I just hope when they kill off all the moose the feds will bring in some Yukon moose to replace them.  If you think these Canadian wolves are the same species come with me and visit our Meeteetse museum to look at the pictures of the last wolves killed in Wyoming.  They were much smaller than what we have now.  Please don't think that I hate the wolves.  I hate what they have done with moving our elk out of the mountains and all the problems that has caused.  I also hate seeing them eat on an animal, neighbor's cow or elk before its dead! 

[Mohawk13]

Nature is a cruel beast. We have wolves all over Northern MN...Tracks in My yard twice this winter.

[killir duck]

I think its funny that people that have not lived here for many years know what is best for a very complex environment.  It would be like me trying to tell the people in Florida how to manage their non native snakes!  How many know that it was Yellowstone Park Officials that killed off all their grizzlies which eventually led to having them on the endangered species list?  Its also a fact that animals in the northern climes are inherently larger than those of their southern cousins.  The wolves that inhabited Wyoming during the times when they were finally killed off weighed around 65 pounds.  Some of the Canadian wolves can weigh 265 pounds plus.  I just hope when they kill off all the moose the feds will bring in some Yukon moose to replace them.  If you think these Canadian wolves are the same species come with me and visit our Meeteetse museum to look at the pictures of the last wolves killed in Wyoming.  They were much smaller than what we have now.  Please don't think that I hate the wolves.  I hate what they have done with moving our elk out of the mountains and all the problems that has caused.  I also hate seeing them eat on an animal, neighbor's cow or elk before its dead! 

wolf watcher has got it right, i don't mean any disrespect but if you haven't lived around wolves you don't understand the problem, as already stated most everything you read about wolves is heavily biased, so you need to go talk to the people who have to deal with the effects of wolves on a daily basis, which pretty much excludes everyone but ranchers and hunters, i wouldn't bother talking to the park or fwp, for the most part they won't tell you the straight of it anyways.

[Mohawk13]

The wife and I have been studying this for going on 5 years now. We moved to MN to see how management here has made for a healthier deer herd and wolf packs. That being said, they need better management in other areas to balance the needs of hunters, ranchers, and ecosystems. Re introducing an apex predator into a system that has been devoid of them for 100 years, and not managing their numbers, is extremely fool hardy.
    Much of what people have to say about wolves is fueled by mis information and fear. Self interest of ranchers and hunters also comes into play. Unfortunately human emotion gets involved, common sense practices get abandoned, anger rises, and feelings get hurt. There is no simple answer. We have been looking for one, but every State, every Ecosystem presents its own challenges. I think if both sides could actually sit down and listen to one another, and work towards a common goal, management would be much easier. Sad thing is everyone sees their side of the issue as most pressing, and no one is willing to compromise. It has turned into an all or nothing for either side with no middle ground.
    I am posting this as a hunter, and conservationist. I am the devils advocate and my wife is the Biologist. It has made for some interesting discussions around My place in the last 5 years. We have had death threats from ranchers and hunters alike, just for studying these creatures and trying to be fair and balanced in our findings. So you can see how touchy the issue is in area around the US.
   So like I was saying, Better management all around needs to occur on all sides, and a better dialogue needs to be opened by all sides. In the end, I feel it wil be nature that suffers, as Man has always managed to win out.....

Just My .02 on the matter...Unbiased, observers view....

[PatM]

There is just no way that the two subspecies of wolf are that different. The two  subspecies likely originally met and even interbred right in that zone where they were introduced.
 You can look at the range of Canis Lupus Occidentalis (The introduced "Canadian"  type)  and Canis Lupus Nubilus (The Great Plains Wolf) and see that.
 You would have to present convincing evidence as to why nature would select a 65 pound wolf to be a top predator where the game is very large. That just doesn't happen.
 There are parts of the world where  wolves are very small but that is  always where they only have much smaller game available.
 The thought that the Elk can't cope because the Wolves are bigger is ludicrous. Wolves and Elk shared territory from Mexico to China.
 Wolves have never wiped out Elk anywhere.

[Mohawk13]

PatM..Good points all around..The wolf wasn't the Apex predator on the plains, the Grizzly Bear was. The wolf fit into a niche along with the coyote and the other canines. Griz were first to meet their demise, as they were bigger and easier to eradicate. Then came wolves and Indians. Coyotes were never really put into check. They have always been resilient.

    A well voiced statement on Elk and Wolves also. One thing that Man fails to take into being, is that the influence of Man upon the earth has done more to lower Elk Numbers than any other predator. Development, Agriculture, and Urbanization have decreased Elk numbers to the point of them being extinct in traditional regions. Re Introduction has bolstered numbers in States where these programs have been implemented, But Elk will never roam the earth to the extent to which they did before Europeans started settling North America. They have been pushed into small mountainous areas, surrounded by agriculture and society, and roam about 1/10th of where they used to be native.

     Many different sides to a complex issue. Have sat and listened to many, if not most of the differing narratives...

[Dharma]

Man trying to fix what he broke is the same as fixing a broken vase. You can glue the pieces back together, but there's always that missing piece that rolled under the bookshelf never to be found, the glue lines are visible, and the vase never holds water again. It looks good from a distance but, close up, you can see the vase is broken. Like the buffalo. Sure, they've been reintroduced. But can they make the same migratory patterns they used to? And where are the nomad hunters that followed the herds? The Cowbirds that once followed the buffalo herds have already adapted to other patterns of behaviour and this is why they are now a threat to the survival of Mountain Bluebirds.

Wolves will be wolves. That's their nature. Sure, they eat animals before they're dead. That's how Nature operates. Ravens will swallow songbird nestlings whole. Humans are not necessarily exempt. There was a sashimi practice where the fish was taken from a tank and eaten alive, pieces sliced from it on the spot. Not entirely different from dropping a live lobster into a pot of boiling water to get that peak freshness. For that matter, our weapons of war are not entirely humane. Napalm is a great example of that. A wolf eats an animal alive to fill its belly. But we'll drop napalm on other people to achieve some arcane political objective. And if our bomb drop is off target---oops---we call that collateral damage, issue a press release apology, and it's back to business as usual. In other words, we humans cannot necessarily point fingers at the animal world since we're no angels ourselves. We could say, however, it's our nature and our teeth and claws have merely become F-18s and Apache gunships. It is, after all, no accident our military weapons and many military units are named after animal predators. It's a subconscious recognition of what they truly are, whether we're comfortable admitting that to ourselves or not.

[Wolf Watcher]

PatM:  Before the settlers moved across the plains there were an estimated 65 plus million bison roaming North America from Canada to Mexico.  The wolves of record were not what you are calling the APex predator.  They were scavengers and not bison predators.  That species of wolf was eradicated and is no longer a member of the living wolf species.  The buffalo itself was almost wiped out!  It was eight years after the wolves had been introduced before a bison kill was confirmed in Yellowstone by wolves.  I live on a buffalo ranch and can tell you that they do not kill the buffalo.  What my point about the wolf and its impact on the elk population is not that they are killing the elk off, but rather, they have caused the elk to leave the park and all the surrounding mountains east and south of the park boundary.  The largest non roaded contiguous area in the lower United States lies just below the Southeast corner of Yellowstone. That area before the introduction of the Canadian wolves into the Park, was a haven for elk, moose, deer, and mountain sheep.  The elk have been driven out of those mountains all the way to the semi desert of Wyoming.  With the elk as a carrier of brusulosis (sp) they have become a economic problem for a state that relies on beef and sheep production as an income base.  I have had many opportunities over the last ten years to shoot a number of wolves and have always chose not to even when they have been in my yard.  They have been responsible for the tremendous decline in the moose population.  They have been along with the grizzlies more detrimental to the sheep ranchers than the cattle ranchers.  The only ones that have really gained from the wolf introduction and its subsequent litigations are the lawyers.  What you need to do is come out to my place and spend some time learning the real effects the wolves have had on our ranchers many of whom have been here for over a hundred years.  I would be glad to have you call me on the phone and maybe we can understand each other.  307/868/2143  Let me ask you this?  What would you think if a wolf could get into your income and take away some of the profits you plan to live on and that take away could go on through as many as ten years growing exponentially?  That is what happens when the wolves kill a specially bred heifer like the three that were killed across the road last year!  PS:  I know about the brutality of Nature as well as anyone here and don't mind telling you that seeing an animal being eaten while its still alive is beyond my ability to condone Nature and mans brutality.  Many have been the times when I passed up a arrow shot at an animal because I could not offer that animal a clean and quick kill.   

[PatM]

I was purely talking about whether the Wolves are really any different to their own ecosystem.
 Not sure I buy the fact that the original  "Buffalo wolf" was not a predator of the Buffalo. Why would it not be?
 In Canada a pack hunts the much larger Wood Buffalo.
 http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/episodes/wolves-and-buffalo
 

[Wolf Watcher]

PatM:  because of their size they could not use the buffalo as a prey animal.  When a buffalo died they cleaned up the carcass!  And once again the wolves that prey on Woodland buffalo were the BIG Canadian wolves we have been talking about.  I can tell you that buffalo are their own worst enemy!  Because the young are always at their mother's side they often get killed by the bulls as collateral damage when breeding takes place.  The ranch loses several calves each year just that way and they become bait for the coyotes, birds, etc!  I think you just don't want to understand how this eco system works!