Hunting Elk and Deer is a HUGE source of income for Wyoming. Weather you agree with hunting or not many people depend on hunting (hunting guides) for a career. Wolves threaten that career by reducing the chance for clients to have a successful hunt. Lower success rates drive away paying customers which equals lost revenue for the outfitter, and the state. Are wolves really worth Millions of lost income for the state? I don't think they should be eliminated, just kept under control.
Another fact missing from all of this discussion is the policy of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation to, in simple terms, to support the continued presence of wolves in areas with elk populations.
#7 The movie "Bambi" is far from reality and the only way to get closer to it is to trust and use the scientific method to present data and rationally discuss this issue. This is absent on the discussion of this video.
#6 must be regarded with a great deal of skepticism. The Save Elk website appeals to the emotions of people who know little of the importance of predators in natural ecosystems. Statements that animals that kill elk must be eliminated in order to be protected ignore tens of thousands of pages of research and disciplined observation over a period decades.
The movie "Bambi" probably represents this emotional view of wildlife biology better than any other single piece of work.
#5 Now we have people stating that after 70 years of wolves being absent that they are decimating (allegedly) the elk population after being returned to the ecosystem? Without the intervention of humans, over the long term, fire, elk and wolves stayed in balance. It would seem that considering the previous two sentences, as well as extensive research showing that natural predators help ensure prey populations stay healthy and sustainable, that statements of elk being eliminated by wolves
The removal of predators and the exclusion of fire has had profound effects to ecosystems all over the western U.S. and elsewhere. Yellowstone is no exception. The effect of the exclusion of fire is well documented and my five weeks on the fire lines as a crew boss for 5 weeks in 1988 allows me to understand these effects. The widespread 1988 fires were beneficial for the elk population.
Wolves, fire and elk have existed in Yellowstone for thousands of years.
#3 An example is BP trying to tell us that the Gulf of Mexico will fully recover by 2012. Science indicates otherwise.
The predator prey relationship was not well understood when mountain lions, wolves and coyotes were removed from the Kaibab Plateau starting in 1909. By the 1920's deer overpopulation was destroying vegetation and the herd was becoming increasingly diseased. The situation is so complex that it is difficult to measure the damage or the recovery of what happened.
#2 Those that have are not elitists, rather they have spent a large amount of time immersed in these subjects. Their education and experience gives them the ability to observe components and trends in natural systems whether those be flora or fauna.
For whatever reason there is a distrust of science with more emotional, rather than rational thinking being used. Some powerful interests stand to gain by this and are likely fostering this through misinformation campaigns.
#1 The predator-prey relationship is widely misunderstood, especially by people who have little or no education in ecology, wildlife biology/management, general biology and related fields such as forestry, range conservation and similar. The scientific method is equally misunderstood with a very small percentage of people that can name the elements of steps of the method. Still fewer people have actually had practical experience in these fields and using science.
Plants to an all time low? Noooooo, you have no idea. This could happen somewhat with way to many elk in an area. The park biologists are saying this to cover up the fact that most people see very few elk anymore.....why? the wolves have killed 80% of them. Biology class? Run by people who have never had experiences with true wolf behavior.
This simply isn't true. Russian research shows as much. And further, research in Lolo Zone 10 and 12 in Idaho show as much. Elk populations have plummeted by 90% since the wolf has been reintroduced, and elk carcasses not even consumed but simply ripped open litter the countryside. Don't hide from the facts. Do the research. It's there. These wolves are blood thirsty killers, and soon they will be attacking our livestock and family pets.
@cmartel2 I'll tell you that THIS isn't true.The only time a wolf will kill a sheep or something is because their natural habitat has been turned into pastures for BRAINLESS sheep and goats.Wolves only do what they need to survive and they are not blood thirsty killers but the creatures that took their home are.
And for the record there is more chance for you to get killed by a human for bumping into them on the street than you would get by a wolf.
@cmartel2 the decline of elk is most likely due to the effect people have on hunting the animals, not the wolves. Wolves only take down sick or old animals, and have little chance at taking down full grown healthy animals, even with the pack. Look at the research for introduction of wolves in yellowstone. They have brought down the elk population to a healthy number and now species of trees that haven't been in the area are growing. They are an essential part of their environment.
@bigbonelk Wolves are not wasteful creatures. They take down their kill and will stay around the animal feeding on it for days on end until something like a bear takes it from them. Also, not only does their kill provide food for themselves, but also for smaller creatures (vultures, coyotes, foxes, etc.). I believe your misconceptions are harming the public opinion on these animals.
@MissCheshireCat19 Go to saveelk.com. Are you also telling me that of the 4,000 or so elk left in Yellowstone (from a herd of 16,000) are the only elk that were HEALTHY? All the rest that the wolves killed were sick? Not likely.
@Mont556n In addition to that, the main reason why the elk are not high in number is because a direct predator was introduced, which means the progesterone levels in the does dropped, which later on means low calving rates.
@MissCheshireCat19 Maybe part of it, but mostly speculation from biologists. The elk are not high in numbers anywhere wolves have resided for more than five years. Yellowstone, Lolo, Idaho.....Less than 10% of calves reach one year of age in yellowstone. There are about 4,500 elk in yellowtone now, down from over 15,000. The larger question is how far will the elk numbers drop. Moose are down from 1200 in 1995 to 114 left in the entire region. They may go extinct.
@Mont556n an article at eurekalert states that after researching calves, few of them were found to be killed by wolves. If you want the article, I can tell you what to google. The truth is, although the wolves are strong, they cannot withstand everything. The druid pack numbered up to 35. But parvo virus destroyed most if not all of their pups, and along with mange, and the slough pack, they were driven out of lamar valley. Nature takes care of itself. It is man that screws it all up.
@MissCheshireCat19 tell me what to google....mange was brought here to control coyotes, not natural. Don't know about parvo.....The numbers of wolves will drop regardless. Once they run out of prey, they will have to move on.....
@Mont556n google 'elk and wolves' and it's the link right under the save elk one. Youtube won't allow me to post it directly. Wolves don't only eat elk. Once the heard heads out of the valley, i believe it's around spring though not quite sure, the wolves are only left to prey on the rodents in the area. And I'm confused, are you concerned for the health of the elk, or rather, the health of the cattle near the area?
@MissCheshireCat19 I cannot beleive that because I live here. Wolves follow the elk everywhere. They especially prey on the calves (along with bears) right after they are born. The problem is that unlike bears, once the young elk learn to run, they can get away from the bears. They cannot get away from the wolves. The drastic population drops of elk in areas where wolves have resided in numbers for more than a few years shows this. Yes, I do not want wolves eating cattle, either.
@Mont556n I understand that you don't want the elk to disappear, but believe me neither do I. All I am saying is according to the research they've been doing on the area, the decrease in number of calves has been mainly accounted for in the decreased of calves being born. With the reintroduction of wolves, many native species of trees and plants have been able to grow back bc the elk do not feed on them as often, meaning a more abundant and healthy environment. The wolves are there for balance.
@MissCheshireCat19 What you are explaining is the fairy tale given by prowolf biologists who want wolves in every corner of our state. We don"t have an overpopulation of elk (we did in yellowstone, but that is in the past now) and to say that removing elk is going to increase vegetation (aspens as an example) is ridiculous. Sure, elk and ungulates eat aspen....so what? They are not eating them into extinction. This myth has been propagated long enough.
@Mont556n No it's not, the elk were mostly in the valley before pushing the number those species of plants to an alltime low, but since the introduction of wolves the elk have stayed out of the valley since they're easily killed there. We covered this in our biology class at a university school. In addition, I've spoken to park rangers and they've stated the same thing. They are not "prowolf", but merely scientific facts obtained through actual research.
@MissCheshireCat19 the elk are free to wander in and out of the park; which means once out of the park, people are free to hunt them - which is most likely the case. Right now the white pack is the largest in number ranging from 9-12. Those numbers are far too small to take down a fully grown healthy animal without someone getting injured. The main point of that site is to get people to ignore the hunters and go after the wolves. I mean look who sponsors them: ESPN outdoors and the outdoorsman
Hunting Elk and Deer is a HUGE source of income for Wyoming. Weather you agree with hunting or not many people depend on hunting (hunting guides) for a career. Wolves threaten that career by reducing the chance for clients to have a successful hunt. Lower success rates drive away paying customers which equals lost revenue for the outfitter, and the state. Are wolves really worth Millions of lost income for the state? I don't think they should be eliminated, just kept under control.
5hundie 6 months ago
Another fact missing from all of this discussion is the policy of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation to, in simple terms, to support the continued presence of wolves in areas with elk populations.
retiredranger1999 1 year ago
#7 The movie "Bambi" is far from reality and the only way to get closer to it is to trust and use the scientific method to present data and rationally discuss this issue. This is absent on the discussion of this video.
retiredranger1999 1 year ago
#6 must be regarded with a great deal of skepticism. The Save Elk website appeals to the emotions of people who know little of the importance of predators in natural ecosystems. Statements that animals that kill elk must be eliminated in order to be protected ignore tens of thousands of pages of research and disciplined observation over a period decades.
The movie "Bambi" probably represents this emotional view of wildlife biology better than any other single piece of work.
retiredranger1999 1 year ago
#5 Now we have people stating that after 70 years of wolves being absent that they are decimating (allegedly) the elk population after being returned to the ecosystem? Without the intervention of humans, over the long term, fire, elk and wolves stayed in balance. It would seem that considering the previous two sentences, as well as extensive research showing that natural predators help ensure prey populations stay healthy and sustainable, that statements of elk being eliminated by wolves
retiredranger1999 1 year ago
The removal of predators and the exclusion of fire has had profound effects to ecosystems all over the western U.S. and elsewhere. Yellowstone is no exception. The effect of the exclusion of fire is well documented and my five weeks on the fire lines as a crew boss for 5 weeks in 1988 allows me to understand these effects. The widespread 1988 fires were beneficial for the elk population.
Wolves, fire and elk have existed in Yellowstone for thousands of years.
retiredranger1999 1 year ago
#3 An example is BP trying to tell us that the Gulf of Mexico will fully recover by 2012. Science indicates otherwise.
The predator prey relationship was not well understood when mountain lions, wolves and coyotes were removed from the Kaibab Plateau starting in 1909. By the 1920's deer overpopulation was destroying vegetation and the herd was becoming increasingly diseased. The situation is so complex that it is difficult to measure the damage or the recovery of what happened.
retiredranger1999 1 year ago
#2 Those that have are not elitists, rather they have spent a large amount of time immersed in these subjects. Their education and experience gives them the ability to observe components and trends in natural systems whether those be flora or fauna.
For whatever reason there is a distrust of science with more emotional, rather than rational thinking being used. Some powerful interests stand to gain by this and are likely fostering this through misinformation campaigns.
retiredranger1999 1 year ago
#1 The predator-prey relationship is widely misunderstood, especially by people who have little or no education in ecology, wildlife biology/management, general biology and related fields such as forestry, range conservation and similar. The scientific method is equally misunderstood with a very small percentage of people that can name the elements of steps of the method. Still fewer people have actually had practical experience in these fields and using science.
retiredranger1999 1 year ago
Plants to an all time low? Noooooo, you have no idea. This could happen somewhat with way to many elk in an area. The park biologists are saying this to cover up the fact that most people see very few elk anymore.....why? the wolves have killed 80% of them. Biology class? Run by people who have never had experiences with true wolf behavior.
Mont556n 1 year ago
This simply isn't true. Russian research shows as much. And further, research in Lolo Zone 10 and 12 in Idaho show as much. Elk populations have plummeted by 90% since the wolf has been reintroduced, and elk carcasses not even consumed but simply ripped open litter the countryside. Don't hide from the facts. Do the research. It's there. These wolves are blood thirsty killers, and soon they will be attacking our livestock and family pets.
cmartel2 1 year ago
@cmartel2 I'll tell you that THIS isn't true.The only time a wolf will kill a sheep or something is because their natural habitat has been turned into pastures for BRAINLESS sheep and goats.Wolves only do what they need to survive and they are not blood thirsty killers but the creatures that took their home are.
And for the record there is more chance for you to get killed by a human for bumping into them on the street than you would get by a wolf.
matea977 1 year ago 2
@matea977 OI! ...goats are not brainless! sheep on the other hand... but otherwise, i agree with you
MissCheshireCat19 1 year ago
@matea977 You have no clue.......
Mont556n 1 year ago
@cmartel2 the decline of elk is most likely due to the effect people have on hunting the animals, not the wolves. Wolves only take down sick or old animals, and have little chance at taking down full grown healthy animals, even with the pack. Look at the research for introduction of wolves in yellowstone. They have brought down the elk population to a healthy number and now species of trees that haven't been in the area are growing. They are an essential part of their environment.
MissCheshireCat19 1 year ago
...They kill the animals they want. They don't eat much meat either, they are wasteful. ..If people wasted meat like wolves they'd go to jail...
bigbonelk 1 year ago
@bigbonelk Wolves are not wasteful creatures. They take down their kill and will stay around the animal feeding on it for days on end until something like a bear takes it from them. Also, not only does their kill provide food for themselves, but also for smaller creatures (vultures, coyotes, foxes, etc.). I believe your misconceptions are harming the public opinion on these animals.
MissCheshireCat19 1 year ago
Then why do they seem to kill mostly healthy animals? Wish I could beleve you, but evidence points elseware......
Mont556n 1 year ago
@Mont556n Where did you get the information that they hunt down healthy animals?
MissCheshireCat19 1 year ago
@MissCheshireCat19 Go to saveelk.com. Are you also telling me that of the 4,000 or so elk left in Yellowstone (from a herd of 16,000) are the only elk that were HEALTHY? All the rest that the wolves killed were sick? Not likely.
Mont556n 1 year ago
@Mont556n In addition to that, the main reason why the elk are not high in number is because a direct predator was introduced, which means the progesterone levels in the does dropped, which later on means low calving rates.
MissCheshireCat19 1 year ago
@MissCheshireCat19 Maybe part of it, but mostly speculation from biologists. The elk are not high in numbers anywhere wolves have resided for more than five years. Yellowstone, Lolo, Idaho.....Less than 10% of calves reach one year of age in yellowstone. There are about 4,500 elk in yellowtone now, down from over 15,000. The larger question is how far will the elk numbers drop. Moose are down from 1200 in 1995 to 114 left in the entire region. They may go extinct.
Mont556n 1 year ago
@Mont556n an article at eurekalert states that after researching calves, few of them were found to be killed by wolves. If you want the article, I can tell you what to google. The truth is, although the wolves are strong, they cannot withstand everything. The druid pack numbered up to 35. But parvo virus destroyed most if not all of their pups, and along with mange, and the slough pack, they were driven out of lamar valley. Nature takes care of itself. It is man that screws it all up.
MissCheshireCat19 1 year ago
@MissCheshireCat19 tell me what to google....mange was brought here to control coyotes, not natural. Don't know about parvo.....The numbers of wolves will drop regardless. Once they run out of prey, they will have to move on.....
Mont556n 1 year ago
@Mont556n google 'elk and wolves' and it's the link right under the save elk one. Youtube won't allow me to post it directly. Wolves don't only eat elk. Once the heard heads out of the valley, i believe it's around spring though not quite sure, the wolves are only left to prey on the rodents in the area. And I'm confused, are you concerned for the health of the elk, or rather, the health of the cattle near the area?
MissCheshireCat19 1 year ago
@MissCheshireCat19 I cannot beleive that because I live here. Wolves follow the elk everywhere. They especially prey on the calves (along with bears) right after they are born. The problem is that unlike bears, once the young elk learn to run, they can get away from the bears. They cannot get away from the wolves. The drastic population drops of elk in areas where wolves have resided in numbers for more than a few years shows this. Yes, I do not want wolves eating cattle, either.
Mont556n 1 year ago
@Mont556n I understand that you don't want the elk to disappear, but believe me neither do I. All I am saying is according to the research they've been doing on the area, the decrease in number of calves has been mainly accounted for in the decreased of calves being born. With the reintroduction of wolves, many native species of trees and plants have been able to grow back bc the elk do not feed on them as often, meaning a more abundant and healthy environment. The wolves are there for balance.
MissCheshireCat19 1 year ago
@MissCheshireCat19 What you are explaining is the fairy tale given by prowolf biologists who want wolves in every corner of our state. We don"t have an overpopulation of elk (we did in yellowstone, but that is in the past now) and to say that removing elk is going to increase vegetation (aspens as an example) is ridiculous. Sure, elk and ungulates eat aspen....so what? They are not eating them into extinction. This myth has been propagated long enough.
Mont556n 1 year ago
@Mont556n No it's not, the elk were mostly in the valley before pushing the number those species of plants to an alltime low, but since the introduction of wolves the elk have stayed out of the valley since they're easily killed there. We covered this in our biology class at a university school. In addition, I've spoken to park rangers and they've stated the same thing. They are not "prowolf", but merely scientific facts obtained through actual research.
MissCheshireCat19 1 year ago
@MissCheshireCat19 the elk are free to wander in and out of the park; which means once out of the park, people are free to hunt them - which is most likely the case. Right now the white pack is the largest in number ranging from 9-12. Those numbers are far too small to take down a fully grown healthy animal without someone getting injured. The main point of that site is to get people to ignore the hunters and go after the wolves. I mean look who sponsors them: ESPN outdoors and the outdoorsman
MissCheshireCat19 1 year ago
What if i'm with a friend..will it run between us first?!?!...I just gotta run faster than him!!
JoshyBallz4 2 years ago