Originally Posted by
dack77
To say wolves aren't naturally crossing the border is like saying the border patrol is doing a good job on the southern border with Mexico. You are naive to think otherwise. That does not mean they are not shot on sight when they are seen though. You never know and I personally could care less if the ranchers/land owners are doing that.
The problem I have with the introduction of the wolf is not the fact that it was done, it's that states can't manage them outside of Yellowstone.
So I would like to ask everyone here what their opinion is on this question, based on the research that has been done, do you not see any benefit of having wolves in the ecosystem? I would love to see an honest answer.
I have no problem with the wolves being in Yellowstone, as anyone that has any knowledge of the natural food chain knows that when a natural top tier predator is removed from the equation that all species including both mammals and vegetation are affected. This is no different in the ocean where the destruction of sharks are starting to affect all coral reef systems. The problem with Yellowstone is, elk are uncontrolled because they cannot be hunted except for outside of the park. If people didn't bitch about elk being killed inside the park like they did back in the day then this would probably be a mute point and no wolves would ever have been reintroduced.
Also the range of elk before the white man arrived covered pretty much the entire country except the gulf states. There are estimates that over 10 million elk lived here before they were destroyed by over hunting and vegetation destruction. I can't find any information regarding elk being natural to Yellowstone but elk did inhabit forests to plains to most of California. To say elk never naturally lived in Yellowstone is probably a bit of stretch but could be true. I would love to find info on that if anyone can provide it.
This is from an article on bowhunting.net regarding elk distribution. "Elk flourished from Maine (few early journals mention them, but elk bones were later located there) across the Adirondacks, Alleghenies, and Appalachians, through Kentucky-Tennessee all the way to Louisiana. From there they thrived westward to the Pacific Ocean, save only the desert Great Basin. Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin harbored large elk populations. So did Illinois, Indiana, and Pennsylvania, although wapiti disappeared there more quickly due to a rapid civilization influx. Naturalist Ernest Thompson Seton estimated some 10 million elk lived in North America before arrival of the Europeans. But numbers plummeted to about 100,000 by 1907. Populations stabilized for the next two decades, but many of the elk were non-huntable inhabitants of the Yellowstone Park and Grand Teton ecosystems."
So with that I'm not sure if they are native or were pushed into Yellowstone by us.
There is zero benefits of wolves in the lower 48. Any managment necessary can be done by human hunters. Yellowstone elk herd can be managed through a hunting system, and I would imagine it would generate top dollar. That money could then be used to inhance the park ecosystem itself.
The problem, is when sentiments over ride reason. This is 2010, no matter what sentiment somebody can conjure about the wolf, we can never go back to 1810. We live in a modern 2010 American ecosystem, not Canada, not 1810. We have built cities on the prairies, town in the valleys, and ranches and farms across this nation. Wolves are predators whose prey has been condensed into what wild areas are left, it is a false ecosystem. Additionally, with all the human owned livestock scattered across this nation, we have even developed a false prey base for the wolves. The simple fact is they don't belong here anymore. Their time has come and passed, and some day, humans time may come and pass and perhaps the wolf will colonize this land again.
Nearly all environmental policy is based on two conerstones: sentiment and litigation. Most of the environmental organizations are covered in half-truths, falsehoods and outright lies. They are able to continue to collect money because of the sentiments their membership has. You don't see statistical commercials and hard science on TV, you see pathetic pictures designed to enrage an audience. Save the Elk does the same thing, its propaganda, and it works to a point where reason is replaced with inflamed sentiment.
One can successfully evaluate nearly any policy or theory by taking it to it's ultimate conclusion. The ulimate conclusion of nearly any environemtal policy ulimately leads to the conclusion that humans should never touch wild places for any reason. Ultimately natural predators, not humans, are better at managing ecosystems. It is a systematic ideology that takes root and grows as the years go by. Nobody is stupid enough to change policy over night, it is a systematic chipping away that is necessary, and what we are seeing with the wolf. There is virtually no other reason for it's re-introduction other than pure political appeasement of the vigilant environmental left.