I don't live in the West so I'm not the most qualified person to give an opinion, but this is a public board, so I will chime in.

The wolves were in yellow stone long before hunters were, right? The elk and moose survived back then, so they will now too. I support reintroduction of animals in their initial habitat. BUT, I also think they should allow hunting of Wolves in order to keep populations in check.

The problem is, apparantley the public allowed reintroduction of wolves without having a set in stone agreement about when hunting and controlling them could begin, that was a mistake that may not be reversable.

Belle Island
The problem is that NO ONE was asked if they wanted wolves outside of Yellowstone National park. We were TOLD they were going to re-introduce wolves into Yellowstone. Wolves are covered under the endangered species act so if you kill one outside of the park it is a federal crime.
I can live with the wolves inside the park & in wilderness areas. I think they should be fair game everywhere else.

Belle, I think your position is a little naive. The wolves were there first and the elk and moose survived then. When is then? Elk are not truly a mountain animal, they originally were mainly a plains animal, human encroachment forced them to become strict mountain dwellers. There is no longer such a thing as naturally sustaining game populations. Yes, in utopia the wolves, elk and moose would all live in natural balance, this is no longer possible in our world so the old they were here first argument holds no water. I doesn't matter who was here first, second or third, what matters is who is here now.

Wolf Killer, I'd like to know do you know aprox. what size is the yellow stone park? You say you have no problem if they stay in the park. What are you saying? That you have a problem when they come out of the park to hunt down the elk and moose?Do the elk and moose have their winter range outside the park? Now I'll admit that I would not like to have something shoved down my throat and have no say,But really is that many wolves that you say you guys have be that much of a problem? wyoming is a bigger state than MN. Is the problem statewide or just in the park area? I'm just trying to get a better understanding. I've never really like jim Zumbo.(his personality)so I would like a diff. opinion on this.

(KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE)[8D]

I wouldn't necessarily call it a position, as I have no experience with the situation. I'm just giving my opinion from what I've read here, in magazines, and seen on TV. But, I still don't see how a couple hundred wolves could be seriously impacting the population of elk and moose.

What I don't like to see is cattle farmers that want to eliminate all animals that prey on their stock, like wolves, yotes, and mountain lions. And as hunters being the ultimate conservationists, I think we should strive to return the wilderness areas of our country to their original state, beforo our fore fathers desimated populations of predators. Thats my position.

Belle, not to harp on you or anything, but you have no idea about wolves. I live in idaho, and we have a wolf problem. The elk here are not reproucing in the # they should. The cows have all gone into a 3rd estrus, and the bulls are all staying penned up and away. You can't even get close to them. Just last month while bow hunting with friends we had a cow elk, that had been arrowed, lose it's back end to a wolf. What we found was a bloody mess. Wolves slowly kill their prey. Not quickly, but a long and prolonged painful death. They should and need to be removed.

And the effect a "few hundred" wolves have is devestating. Like wolf killer said, hunting couldn't be ended or shortened in the west by these wolves.

Belle, I really don't have a position either, as I don't reside in wolf country. I think they have a place in the widerness and I don't mind them being there. My point was that I don't think we can return things to there so called original state. Human encroachment has changed all that. There is no more original state. We need to play the hand that we've been dealt so to speak. No question the wolves need managed and that will have to come in the form of hunting and trapping.
There is a very informative article in Field and Stream this month on this very subject. All those interested in this thread should get the magazine and read it. It was written by Thomas Mcintyre and seems unbiased and fairly written. Interstingly enough, a state wildlife biologist from the middle of wolfpack country in Idaho reports that cow to calf elk ratios have incresed. The article also reported that basically none of the large antihunting organizations have a stake or interest in the wolf restoration projects and the people responsible for the reintroduction know and agree that hunting will need to be used to keep populations in check. It is an intersting article.

btpatrior02
Yellowstone National Park is over 2.2-million acres. The Absaroka-Beartooth wilderness borders the park along it's northern boundry and is 994,000-acres. This gives the wolves over 3,000,000-acres to roam without human conflict.
The new biologist incharge of the wolves in yellowstone says. "Yellowstone national park is at its maxium limit for wolves". He says anymore wolves would be too many.
The problem with the wolves around yellowstone is there are too many people that live near the park. Too many large ranches have been subdivided into small lots. The few people that do have large ranches there are forced to support all of the wildlife that is around there area. We must also remember that the beef you buy at the store is raised somewhere. Life is getting harder for your average rancher.

Thanks for the info. But another ? What is the max that they say that is recommeded for the area? So the main problem is really that the ranchers are having problems because is that where the elk make their winter home in their fields so that attracts the wolves in killing their cattle? Thats the biggest problem what we have here in Northern Mn. and along the North Shore. And if the new Bio. says its at the max,whats the problem? Doesn't the "studies" that the bio. does have any effect on the decisions on what to do with the wildlife in the park?

(KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE)[8D]

Gotta love these predator debates where there is no right answer, but here is my opinion.

Predator prey relationship, when prey numbers are high predator numbers rise at an alarming rate. It has been proven that when predators have an abundance of food that they breed more often and have larger litters.

When prey numbers start to decrease, like any good parent those wolves are not willing to let the pups starve, hence forth they start preying on domestic stock.

Now most of the ranchers that I know or have worked for are willing to accept a certian number of deaths of their stock while its on open range but not on their own property. (are any of you willing to let someone that you dont know walk into your house and eat from your refrigerator?)

I live in Oregon so there arent that many wolves here yet, but they are coming. Right now we are faced with declining deer and elk herds with the advent of not being able to hunt cougars with dogs. Statistically one cougar kills a deer a week, thats 52 deer a year how many deer does it take to feed a pack of 12 to 15 wolves?

In the latest outdoor life magazine it said that their are 1.5 million deer/vehicle accidents a year with 150 deaths resulting from these collisions, at a cost of 1.1 billion in damages. Now I am going to assume that most of these are whitetails so it sounds like there is more of a need for wolves in the east than the west.

Anti's love predators because when hunters are no longer a viable option for manageing game then you wont need your guns anymore.

Now dont go thinking i want all predators gone i just believe that they should be managed by science not no nothing bleeding hearts at the voting booth.

Food for thought
Rogue