Yellowstone is Dead
02-13-2011, 08:09 AM
#151
Typical Buck
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 575
according to that looks like the elk are the problem, not the wolves
Once the wolves were gone the elk began to take over. Over the next few years conditions of Yellowstone National Park declined drastically. A team of scientists visiting Yellowstone in 1929 and 1933 reported, “The range was in deplorable conditions when we first saw it, and its deterioration has been progressing steadily since then.” By this time many biologists were worried about eroding land and plants dying off. The elk were multiplying inside the park and deciduous, woody species such as aspen and cottonwood suffered from overgrazing. The park service started trapping and moving the elk and, when that was not effective, killing them. This killing continued for more than 30 years. This method helped the land quality from worsening, but didn't improve the conditions. At times, people would mention bringing wolves back to Yellowstone to help control the elk population. The Yellowstone managers were not eager to bring back wolves, especially after having so successfully ridding the park of them, so they continued killing elk. In the late 1960s, local hunters began to complain to their congressmen that there were too few elk, and the congressmen threatened to stop funding Yellowstone. Killing elk was given up as a response, and then the population of the elk increased exponentially. With the rapid increase in the number of elk, the condition of the land again went quickly downhill. The destruction of the landscape affected many other animals. With the wolves gone, the population of coyotes increased dramatically, which led to an extreme decrease in the number of pronghorn antelope.[citation needed] However, the increase in the elk population caused the most profound change in the ecosystem of Yellowstone after the wolves were gone
Once the wolves were gone the elk began to take over. Over the next few years conditions of Yellowstone National Park declined drastically. A team of scientists visiting Yellowstone in 1929 and 1933 reported, “The range was in deplorable conditions when we first saw it, and its deterioration has been progressing steadily since then.” By this time many biologists were worried about eroding land and plants dying off. The elk were multiplying inside the park and deciduous, woody species such as aspen and cottonwood suffered from overgrazing. The park service started trapping and moving the elk and, when that was not effective, killing them. This killing continued for more than 30 years. This method helped the land quality from worsening, but didn't improve the conditions. At times, people would mention bringing wolves back to Yellowstone to help control the elk population. The Yellowstone managers were not eager to bring back wolves, especially after having so successfully ridding the park of them, so they continued killing elk. In the late 1960s, local hunters began to complain to their congressmen that there were too few elk, and the congressmen threatened to stop funding Yellowstone. Killing elk was given up as a response, and then the population of the elk increased exponentially. With the rapid increase in the number of elk, the condition of the land again went quickly downhill. The destruction of the landscape affected many other animals. With the wolves gone, the population of coyotes increased dramatically, which led to an extreme decrease in the number of pronghorn antelope.[citation needed] However, the increase in the elk population caused the most profound change in the ecosystem of Yellowstone after the wolves were gone
02-13-2011, 09:45 AM
#152
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location:
Posts: 2,395
Your 1000% right about to many elk in the nat. park and the balance was off without an alpha predator in there. No wolves means = to many elk / National park = closed to hunters both equal to many elk! This problem was created when they closed the park to hunting then rid the place of the wolves. HMMMMMMMMMMM sounds like the situation in Rocky mountain nat park!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Closing lands to hunting is the real issue here and it MUST ME STOPPED ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The whole issue was created by people trying to over preserve the beauty of it all when in fact they were destroying it from within.
NJheadhunter71, You are spot on. Man can some times be his own worst nightmare. We need to stop playing god, this includes federal judges that have stopped wolf hunting.
02-13-2011, 03:15 PM
#153
Typical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 694
Your 1000% right about to many elk in the nat. park and the balance was off without an alpha predator in there. No wolves means = to many elk / National park = closed to hunters both equal to many elk! This problem was created when they closed the park to hunting then rid the place of the wolves. HMMMMMMMMMMM sounds like the situation in Rocky mountain nat park!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Closing lands to hunting is the real issue here and it MUST ME STOPPED ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The whole issue was created by people trying to over preserve the beauty of it all when in fact they were destroying it from within.
It's a national Park.............It's suppose to be different. I am no greenie but don't want to see hunting in a National Park. You'd want to knock off the grizzlies whikle your busy killing everything else. Yellowstone deserves to be better than just another game farm for lazy hunters.
Get Wyoming to write a wolf management plan and everyone will be happy because you will be a huntin wolves. Even in Momtana and Idaho. Without parks like Yellowstone the elk would have been extinct too. Millions of people go to Yellowstone...........how many go see the wilds of New Jersey?
02-13-2011, 06:25 PM
#154
Fork Horn
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kittitas, Wa.
Posts: 462
It's a national Park.............It's suppose to be different. I am no greenie but don't want to see hunting in a National Park. You'd want to knock off the grizzlies whikle your busy killing everything else. Yellowstone deserves to be better than just another game farm for lazy hunters.
Get Wyoming to write a wolf management plan and everyone will be happy because you will be a huntin wolves. Even in Momtana and Idaho. Without parks like Yellowstone the elk would have been extinct too. Millions of people go to Yellowstone...........how many go see the wilds of New Jersey?
Get Wyoming to write a wolf management plan and everyone will be happy because you will be a huntin wolves. Even in Momtana and Idaho. Without parks like Yellowstone the elk would have been extinct too. Millions of people go to Yellowstone...........how many go see the wilds of New Jersey?
Ya got that right...thousands of elk were captured in Yellowstone and REINTRODUCED in areas where the white man had wiped them out....funny ya don't hear and see any uproar over that program now do ya???? Keepin the Yellowstone herd large and healthy is very important, whether some of U think that the animals are going to waste because U can't hunt them!!!!
Mans not perfect as we so well know!! we come into an area and take what we want and pretty much destroy what we don't! Everything is there for us and we harvest, dig up or kill anything of value around , and then when we have destroyed everything we stand around and point fingers at everyone/thing except ourselves!!!!
02-13-2011, 08:32 PM
#155
Spike
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 59
02-16-2011, 05:24 PM
#156
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Iowa
Posts: 674
Home / News / Local
Schweitzer says Montana will defy feds, kill wolf packs that prey on elk
Schweitzer says Montana will defy feds, kill wolf packs that prey on elk By MATTHEW BROWN Associated Press missoulian.com | Posted: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 5:45 pm | (23) Comments
Font Size:Default font sizeLarger font size
Related Documents
BILLINGS - Defying federal authority over gray wolves in his state, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer on Wednesday encouraged livestock owners to kill wolves that attack their animals - even in areas where that is not currently allowed - and said the state will start killing off packs that hurt elk herds.
Schweitzer said he no longer is willing to wait for federal officials to resolve the tangle of lawsuits over wolves, which has kept the animals on the endangered species list for a decade since recovery goals were first met.
"We will take action in Montana on our own," he said. "We've had it with Washington, D.C., with Congress just yipping about it, with (the Department of) Interior just vacillating about it. What we see in Washington, D.C., is motion masquerading as action."
State wildlife agents and ranchers killing wolves already occurs regularly across much of the Northern Rockies, where 1,700 of the predators roam parts of five states. Rules against killing wolves have been relaxed by federal officials over the past decade.
Livestock owners in southern Montana and Idaho have authority to defend their property by shooting wolves that attack their cattle, sheep or other domestic animals. And federal agents regularly kill wolves in response to such attacks, with more than 1,000 shot over the past decade.
But Schweitzer is moving to expand those killings beyond what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has so far allowed, including to parts of Montana where ranchers are not allowed to shoot the predators.
Fish and Wildlife spokesman Chris Tollefson said the agency was working with Montana and other states in the region to address their concerns over wolves.
"We've been in negotiations with Montana and the other states for some time, and we're committed to continuing that and trying to find a solution that works for everybody," he said.
In a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar that was provided by Schweitzer's office, the Democratic governor said state game wardens will be directed to stop investigating wolf shootings north of Interstate 90, the part of the state with the heaviest protections for the animals.
And he said he directed Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to begin removing packs in the Bitterroot Valley south of Missoula that have been driving down elk populations.
The state has a pending petition before the Fish and Wildlife Service to remove a dozen wolves in the Bitterroot.
A decision on that petition is pending, according to federal officials. Schweitzer indicated Wednesday that he was not going to wait, and would leave it to state wildlife agents to decide when to kill the wolves.
He was less adamant in the letter to Salazar, saying the Bitterroot packs would be killed "to the extent allowed by the Endangered Species Act."
Federal wildlife officials have tried twice in the last four years to lift endangered protections for wolves and turn over management to the states. Both attempts were reversed in federal court.
A provision in a budget bill pending before Congress would revoke endangered species status for wolves in Montana and Idaho. Other measures introduced by lawmakers would lift federal protections across the lower 48 states.
Despite the bitter public divide on the issue, attacks on livestock by other, unprotected predators such as coyotes far exceed damage from wolves, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics. But the lack of state control over wolves because of their endangered status has frustrated both livestock owners and elk hunters, who complain that their hands are tied by federal protections.
"This is a real-life problem in Montana - and we plan to start solving the problem," Schweitzer said.
Schweitzer says Montana will defy feds, kill wolf packs that prey on elk
Schweitzer says Montana will defy feds, kill wolf packs that prey on elk By MATTHEW BROWN Associated Press missoulian.com | Posted: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 5:45 pm | (23) Comments
Font Size:Default font sizeLarger font size
Related Documents
BILLINGS - Defying federal authority over gray wolves in his state, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer on Wednesday encouraged livestock owners to kill wolves that attack their animals - even in areas where that is not currently allowed - and said the state will start killing off packs that hurt elk herds.
Schweitzer said he no longer is willing to wait for federal officials to resolve the tangle of lawsuits over wolves, which has kept the animals on the endangered species list for a decade since recovery goals were first met.
"We will take action in Montana on our own," he said. "We've had it with Washington, D.C., with Congress just yipping about it, with (the Department of) Interior just vacillating about it. What we see in Washington, D.C., is motion masquerading as action."
State wildlife agents and ranchers killing wolves already occurs regularly across much of the Northern Rockies, where 1,700 of the predators roam parts of five states. Rules against killing wolves have been relaxed by federal officials over the past decade.
Livestock owners in southern Montana and Idaho have authority to defend their property by shooting wolves that attack their cattle, sheep or other domestic animals. And federal agents regularly kill wolves in response to such attacks, with more than 1,000 shot over the past decade.
But Schweitzer is moving to expand those killings beyond what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has so far allowed, including to parts of Montana where ranchers are not allowed to shoot the predators.
Fish and Wildlife spokesman Chris Tollefson said the agency was working with Montana and other states in the region to address their concerns over wolves.
"We've been in negotiations with Montana and the other states for some time, and we're committed to continuing that and trying to find a solution that works for everybody," he said.
In a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar that was provided by Schweitzer's office, the Democratic governor said state game wardens will be directed to stop investigating wolf shootings north of Interstate 90, the part of the state with the heaviest protections for the animals.
And he said he directed Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to begin removing packs in the Bitterroot Valley south of Missoula that have been driving down elk populations.
The state has a pending petition before the Fish and Wildlife Service to remove a dozen wolves in the Bitterroot.
A decision on that petition is pending, according to federal officials. Schweitzer indicated Wednesday that he was not going to wait, and would leave it to state wildlife agents to decide when to kill the wolves.
He was less adamant in the letter to Salazar, saying the Bitterroot packs would be killed "to the extent allowed by the Endangered Species Act."
Federal wildlife officials have tried twice in the last four years to lift endangered protections for wolves and turn over management to the states. Both attempts were reversed in federal court.
A provision in a budget bill pending before Congress would revoke endangered species status for wolves in Montana and Idaho. Other measures introduced by lawmakers would lift federal protections across the lower 48 states.
Despite the bitter public divide on the issue, attacks on livestock by other, unprotected predators such as coyotes far exceed damage from wolves, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics. But the lack of state control over wolves because of their endangered status has frustrated both livestock owners and elk hunters, who complain that their hands are tied by federal protections.
"This is a real-life problem in Montana - and we plan to start solving the problem," Schweitzer said.
02-17-2011, 04:38 PM
#159
Spike
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 59
X2, The blood sucking environmentalists and the welfare biologist are the people to blame for this, how far did they expect to push their wolves? How much loss can each state take before they say enough is enough? I guess we just found out Montana's limit. I hope congress in paying attention.
