CalNewbie

Muley69 makes an interesting point: "Keep in mind also that population control is the heart of hunting. If the wolves can do an adequate job of controling the elk population, why even have hunters? "

Reading this and the posts with the comment "Kill a wolf and save 100 elk" got me to thinking. Assume for a moment that the wolves are established in an area (through re-introduction or natural causes) and that they reduce the elk herd to such a point that there is no "surplus" available for hunters. I suspect that there are very few subsistence hunters out there these days. Would you feel justified in eliminating the wolves for eating the elk that they need so that we can hunt elk? If nature has balanced the equation on its own, what's our moral arguement for knocking out a species just so we can have access to it? If its OK to introduce elk in Kentucky, why not wolves in Colorado?

I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on that.

My opinion is that its not quite that simple, even if you shot every wolf that left Yellowstone and kept them bottled up inside. I think its more complex than that because it almost assumes that man is not part of nature. The wolf kills coyotes that compete for its food and territory that's OK, but if man kills wolves that compete for its food and territory, that's not OK? Given an abundance of prey, predators will explode until the numbers are brought down, then starve (or spread out, which isn't really that possible in this case).

Man is usually more sensible in his approach, promoting a sensible, sustainable harvest. If they want to control elk populations in Yellowstone, let hunters in (crazy talk, I know). True, we don't always agree on how, and state DNR's have a crazy balancing act But I suspect we'd all like the opportunity to try.