TwoBear

The real comedy here is in the select few who pretend this is an ecological matter. It is an anti-hunter matter. Elk are historically a plains animal, so I cannot see how the predator/prey relationship in an alpine environment is any kind of ecology other than what we have falsely created. I cannot see how anybody can support wolf reintroduction, and at the same time say they are opposed to anti-hunting.

fritz1

Who said anything about there being a barrier???? We are talking about a uncontroled wolf problem. Do you comprehend the size of the panhandle of norhten Idaho? We have over 1500 known wolves here in this small area. The wolves kill on the average 23 elk per year per wolf, get it? Let me do the math for you! That is 38,500 elk per year out of our area, that sounds like a issue that needs to addressed to me. We need to be hunting and controlling these wolves. They have no natural predators here. You guys in Canada have a season for wolves, thus solving your wolf issues. Also look at the size of Canada and the population versus here in northern Idaho, the wolves are not only causeing a conflict with the wildlife, they are also killing a great amount of livestock and family pets.

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.

TwoBear

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.

moremules

Wolf Recovery: The Exploitation of a Species

T.R. Mader, Abundant Wildlife Society

"All we learn from history is that we don't learn from history," so goes a well-known saying. How true!

It's claimed the wolf's history is one of exploitation, readily condemned by the self-acclaimed saviors of the wolf. Those greedy ranchers, thinking only of dollars and personal gain, trapped, shot and poisoned wolves until they were no more. Thoughts of wildness, wilderness, ecosystems and ecological balance never once entered their minds.

Yet, in reality, little has changed. Today the wolf is used for such selfish desires as job security (federal biologists, radio collars, kennels, studies), emotional satisfaction (wolves are the symbols of wildness, aren't they?), and, yes, personal gain -- $$$$$$$$$$$$.

Wolf recovery is big money for both government and private organizations. The government has spent millions on wolf-related studies. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has radio-collared more than 500 wolves in Minnesota alone and that project is still on-going.

We've all received those tear-jerker letters on wolves, how we can save them from extinction, etc., etc. Pick up your local wildlife catalog and you'll find all kinds of wolfie gifts. There are paintings--the kind to show wolves' "gentle qualities," or as "wilderness guardians;" Knives with wolves etched on the sides; wolf blankets, rugs and doormats; ties with wolves; wolf jackets, sweaters, sweatshirts, T-shirts; wolf belt buckles; wolf lapel/blouse pins; wolf stamps for your letters; wolf stationary and notes; wolf shopping and tote bags; wolf mugs; wolf door chimes; wolf key rings; wolf bookends; stuffed wolf pups; even wolf furniture--coffee and end tables with wolves etched in glass. The selection seems endless. This writer counted 28 such items in one catalog.

What does all this mean? Dollars! Wolves sell! They make money. And they guarantee job security for federal biologists and similar ilk. They mean big dollars in the coffers of wolf promoters.

But we're saving the wolf, aren't we? No, we're not! We're simply exploiting them in a new politically correct way.

Wolves are not biologically endangered. They never have been, nor will they be in the foreseeable future. They are politically defined as endangered in the Endangered Species Act. (Politically defined as endangered: The government sets artificial standards by which they can term a species endangered.) Yes, it's true we drastically reduced wolves' range, but they are not endangered. Biologists estimate wolves number over 50,000 in North America.

Now look what we did to them in the Yellowstone Recovery!

First, we aerial gunned them with tranquilizer darts (we even killed one doing this) and kidnapped them from their native habitat in Canada. Second, we imprisoned them in steel cages. Third, we drew blood, eartagged, radio collared and vaccinated these wolves. Fourth, we transported them to foreign soil and placed them in kennels. (Eyewitnesses state many cages were bloody from the wolves attempting escape by the time they reached Yellowstone.) Fifth, we turned them loose in this foreign place where more than 3 million people visit, drive, hike, camp and who knows what else. Do we have the wolf's best interest in mind here?

We must also note this area of release, i.e. Yellowstone National Park, is surrounded on all sides by people who have adamantly voiced their opposition to wolves so strongly that even state legislatures went on record repeatedly opposing this program, an area where the three S's--shoot, shovel, and shut-up--have become sort of unwritten law. An area where wolves have been naturally migrating for 15 years and only number about 85 now, concentrated in and near a national park.

Example: The nine-mile pack (also known as the Tragic Pack) in Montana. The mother was illegally shot, the father killed by a vehicle. FWS kept the pups alive by artificial feeding. These pups killed some cattle. They were then harassed by helicopter until captured, undoubtedly scared out of their wits during this ordeal. They're relocated to unfamiliar country. They disperse--one heads for livestock country, is re-captured and permanently locked up in a sanctuary in Washington State. Two are illegally killed and the third is simply missing--later found shot, too.

We have insisted all along that if the pro-wolf/pro-recovery people bullied this recovery on the western states, it wouldn't work and the wolf will be the loser. We've been prophetic.

So exploitation continues. The wolf loses, but that really doesn't matter anymore since it isn't the greedy ranchers who profit.

T.R. Mader, who grew up on a ranch in Wyoming, is research director of Abundant Wildlife Society of North America, an international wildlife organization opposed to the exploitation of wolves through recovery.

http://outside.away.com/news/special...olf/mader.html

skinnnner

i live in saskatchewan canada and we do not have a wolf season.but we do have a wolf problom.i agree with the three s rule.

MinnFinn

"Studies" are mostly for government agencies to get more of our tax money and to justify their jobs. One of a number of things about this is that they never take any action, at least here in Minnesota, especially with the wolves.
I know that a certain number of predators is a part of a healthy wildlife population. But so many people in cities and places without wolves have this romantic, inaccurate view of wolves and other predators. They think they're these cute, big doggies that are so lovable. When in fact, they are very efficient at killing just about whatever they decide to.
I've heard what a pack of wolves sounds like when their moving in on deer in the day and at night. It will send a shiver up your spine, believe me! And in years with deep snow in the North, the wolves just slaughter the deer, eat the prime cuts and go on to the next kill. From about 1997 until about 2001, I only saw 4 deer near my parents place near the Superior Natl. Forest. Two of those deer were heading across a frozen lake we were ice fishing on at the time. Within 5 minutes of each deer running flat out about 3/4 mile from us, we saw an adult timber wolf following the trail right behind each deer.
This past winter there were wolf tracks coming right through my dad’s yard. He lives on 80 acres 30 mi. from Two Harbors. He had one lone wolf standing within 50 yds of his door one day when he came home. It didn’t run, even when he got of his car. They no longer fear people. This is a serious safety concern for us.
It's like so many other things. In moderate numbers, wolves can be a part of the balance of wildlife. In large numbers, they will devastate deer, moose and other wildlife seriously. I'm almost afraid to take my lab dogs on a walk through the woods with me when I go un North for a visit. I know many people here who've had dogs, cats and livestock grabbed and killed, even while they were with the animals.
Good to hear some like you have the right ideas on the subject. Thanks!

moremules

You nailed it MinnFinn, The very same thing will happen where ever these wolves are released. In Idaho the wolves have slaughtered the heck out of the game herds and are now running out of prey, which means they are moving towards towns. It will mean the feds will have to start killing more of their prize pets or release them in more states such as they did in OR and WA, who by the way came out with the lie of first wolf pack in 70 years the very same day. Three years prior to this a WDFW biologist was given trail cam pictures and wolf hair to prove we had wolves in WA, but they laughed it up saying they would put it with their sasquatch sightings. The only reason that WDFW finally "discovered" the wolf pack in 08 was because a resident in Carlton WA reported a wolf pack hanging out at a school bus stop.

Okanogan county had one of the largest mule deer herds in the US before wolves were dropped on top of them, now the deer are getting far and few between. WDFW refuse to confirm known wolf packs or livestock killed by wolves. The same play book that was used in the wolf introduction is being used on states.

In Washington, Feds Opt For Wolf Introduction Over Recovery
June 8, 2010


Yesterday we learned there were 6 packs of wolves living in Washington’s Cascade area prior to 1991 and that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife fails to inform Washington citizens of this fact while debating the recent plans for wolf management.
Apparently, this common knowledge of the existence of wolves in at least the Cascades and Olympic Peninsula, had been swept under the rug all as part of an effort to promote introduction of gray wolves from Canada rather than spend what little money was available on recovery efforts. From the Seattle Times, 1997:
Biologists say gray wolves, migrating from Canada, have begun to repopulate the Cascades in small numbers during the past decade. But in 1994, the Fish and Wildlife Service cut the roughly $200,000 being spent annually on recovery efforts for wolves and grizzly bears in the North Cascades, diverting the money to programs in Idaho.
This link provides more information about wolves in the Cascades region of Washington.
With evidence that has been around for some time and denied by most wolf advocates, it appears that even though many felt dollars and effort should be put into recovery of the wolves that were known to roam parts of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and Washington, but instead all efforts were abandoned in favor of introduction. From the Seattle Times, 1991:
For the past decade, gray wolves have been gradually making their way south from Canada, extending their range down the spine of the Rocky Mountains, and are now living in several Western states from which they were exterminated half a century ago.
An estimated 40 to 50 wolves now live in Montana, with smaller numbers in Idaho and perhaps even some in Wyoming.
In April of 1992, the Seattle Times once again reports of meetings scheduled in communities to discuss the USFWS’s plans for Canadian Gray Wolf introductions into the Yellowstone region. All part of the efforts to create an Environmental Impact Statement. The Times reported that Washington residents should be concerned about this effort as it could become a model of how the state should recover gray wolves already living in that state.
Why should Seattleites care? Aside from being a controversial topic expected to draw comments from friends and foes of the wolf nationwide, the Yellowstone EIS could serve as a model for a plan to manage wolves that are rehabitating Washington state.
State wildlife agents already have identified six packs of wolves in Washington’s Cascades, and more are expected to migrate from Canada to the state’s protected forests.
In a pro wolf article in the Seattle Times in 1992, covering an event involving wolf advocates and their hopes for wolf recovery, the story pretty much remains the same as to the existence of wolves in Washington.
Originally planned as part of a recovery program for the northern Rockies, where wolves were brought in, the effort could become unique to Washington because of the apparently burgeoning population.
For example, 100 sightings were reported in 1981, and last year there were 200, ranging as far south as Mount St. Helens, Almak said.
Note: Is it puzzling that an article written in 1992 mentions that “wolves were brought in” to recover wolves in the Northern Rockies?
Again in 1992 a gray wolf was captured and collared in Washington. What was the chatter all about concerning this wolf and others?
Pierce said the animals probably are migrating south from Canada, where wolves still are hunted.
“It appears we’re in the early stages of re-colonization of the former range in Washington,” he said. There’s evidence the animals are breeding as far south as the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area just north of Stevens Pass, Pierce added.
Indications are that wolves were naturally recovering in parts of Washington and yet what little money was available for recovery was hauled away and dumped into introduction of wolves into Yellowstone and Central Idaho. Why? Another question everyone should be asking is why at this date when Washington is working on drafting a new wolf management plan, acting as though migration of wolves from Idaho is the first time wolves ever stepped foot there, is there no mention of the wolves that have been breeding and growing there before this apparent migration?
In 2002, environmentalists lined up in droves to petition the USFWS to introduce wolves into Washington. There was no mention at this time of existing wolves in Washington.
What becomes obvious is the lack of transparency and honesty when it comes to dealing with the general public such as in Washington’s effort to draft a new wolf management plan. What’s to hide? Is pretending that this is the first time wolves have made a presence in Washington somehow going to ensure the recovery of wolves? Is there somehow a need to lie in order to achieve the goals of wolf recovery? Don’t the people of Washington and every other state in the this great Union, deserve to know the truth about the history of wolves? In Washington, isn’t it still important to tell the people that wolves recovered on their own as early as 1991 and yet all efforts to recover this species was abandoned in favor of introduction into Yellowstone? Is denying the facts in the best interest of drafting a wolf management plan?
And the biggest question of all: Has there EVER been any honesty and transparency about wolf recovery?
Tom Remington http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/201...over-recovery/

finnbear

Whered these wolves in the okanogan come from and how did they get there??? R U sayin the gumment planted them???

MinnFinn

I don't think there is a different subspecies (gray wolf v. timber wolf). In MN they are referred to most of the time as "timber wolves". They've been in northern MN forever. Since they were put on the ES list nearly 3 decades ago here, the "official count" has gone from 800 in early 1970s to - 3,000 in 2010. We know that count is way low from the people who live in primarily northern MN see them thick as fleas and now they've spreading out into area further south.
They've caused deer herds in tough winters to plummet. Now in recent years they have taken moose populations down to levels not seen in several decades (very low). The "experts" who sit behind their desks and "study" the declines in these game animals say they don't know why the populations have dropped.... HELLO! Very big (150+ adult male timber/gray wolves) and their packs (seen up to 20 in big packs) can hunt anytime 7x24 365 days.
It's out of control here, too! But you can't take it into you're own hands. Like said, it only gives the wolf fanatics (worshipers) more reason to get Fed judges to stop reasonable state run wolf culling programs, like they did in several western states.
This is a long-term fight to take back state's sovereign right to manage it's own wildlife including timber/gray wolves. Work through the legal process, pressure your state/congress reps / wildlife depts and don't give into emotions or give up. We can and will overcome with science, reason and eventually the public on our side to put good management methods in place to get wolf populations down to manageable levels.