Crying Wolf - Some quick facts about Wolves

WATCH ENTIRE FILM FOR FREE HERE: http://vimeo.com/28858208

A look at what the return of the wolf has cost the greater Yellowstone ecosystem, livestock producers, and taxpayers as well. Wolf populations have exploded causing elk, moose, deer, and mountain sheep numbers to drop dramatically. Ranchers are experiencing heavy losses due to wolf depredation, and the stress the wolves add to their livestock significantly lessens their performance. Not to mention the tens of millions of taxpayer dollars spent thus far. For what reason? "Crying Wolf" takes a look at the facts.

http://www.cryingwolfmovie.com

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Wolf
• Reintroduction
• Yellowstone
• National
• Park
• Wolves
• gray
• canis
• lupis
• animals
• documentary

[JDKing1776]

Hey Konalomon, thanks for your comment. You bring up a good point. Since hunting is not allowed in the Park, let a few wolves in there to keep the elk numbers down. But the key words there are "few" and "in the Park." The film will address this issue further.

[PsychiatryExposed]

Elk Population Idaho: 115,000

Cattle Population Idaho: 1,950,000 Hmmmmmmmmmm......I thought I read that Elk feed on the same things as cattle. Well...... I wonder if the ranchers will generously give some that land to the elk to give them more more room. Even if there were no wolves.

I read also that the land used by livestock grazing totals the same area as Texas and California combined.

You guys cry wolf I cry cattle.

[JSharpe78]

I think it's silly of you to compare numbers pre- vs. post-wolves. What you're seeing in Yellowstone today are normal, healthy numbers. Numbers from a time before wolves were reintroduced represented a bizarre, non-natural situation--ungulates evolved in an environment full of predators, not devoid of them. Additionally, elk numbers are far too high because of winter hay. Most of America wants functional ecosystems, not parks managed exclusively for your favorite animal to kill.

[operationNOBO]

@tbizzone101 I wish you good luck on next seasons wolf hunt.

[tbizzone101]

@operationNOBO - Aren't you late for an NRA meeting or something? Don't forget your meds!

[operationNOBO]

@tbizzone10 thank u fer your rebutttle, you ha ve totalliie changed mah opinion about propagandanists.

[tbizzone101]

@operationNOBO - I'm sorry you have such a hard time with writing. This conversation would be more fruitful if you could reasonably articulate your point. I hope you really don't believe that basic ecology is nothing more than a scapegoat. If that is true, then I'd hope you pick up a book or two on the subject. Also, it might benefit your argument to cite these "studies" you keep referencing. It's obvious the propagandists who made this 'Crying Wolf' movie have stifled your ability to reason.

[operationNOBO]

@tbizzone101 The smug comments you make achieve very little.

[operationNOBO]

@tbizzone101 That is the whole point, reducing one species to promote other aspects of the ecosystem. It is a completely absurd view. The studies do not agree that wolves will have a lasting effect on aspens. In recent studies YNP wolves have shown that sine elk numbers are reducing, wolves are killing each other in competition for them. The ecosystem theory is an absolute scapegoat for pro wolf groups. I think you meant F&G feeding elk during winters to stabalize their numbers.

[tbizzone101]

@operationNOBO - I still don't understand your point. Which biologists are claiming the statement you made about aspen growth? It helps if you identify your subject. "Which protect fish and tweety birds" - are you asking a question? I don't mind discussing the topic of wolf management, but it'd be nice if you would compose your statements at a post-5th grade English writing level. My feedlot statement was in reference to the supplemental food G&F gives abnormally large elk herds.

[operationNOBO]

@tbizzone101 I'm sorry there Bizzone, forgive me that I used improper grammar. First, explain your feedlot statement. Secondly, I find it funny because these biologists claim that wolves don't have enough of an impact to enhance the growth of young aspen trees. Which protect the fish and tweety birds. I say this, because it's the argument pro wolf people use. I'm really sorry I offended you with one mispelled word, hyphens,and run on sentences.

[tbizzone101]

@operationNOBO If you could use proper grammar your comment might make more sense. From what I can translate: yes, the recolonization of wolves in the western states has correlated with ecological benefits, including a healthy elk herd. In the absence of wolves, the elk population grew to densities unsustainable for the ecosystem, which why humans had to begin establishing feedlots.

[operationNOBO]

@tbizzone101 so introducing a predator to the states, which has enhances fish populations, shrub and tree growth along streams as well as other aquatic life is better than having a healthy elk herd? If you examine the lies of feds and DOW, why couldn't they keep their promises with the original breeding pairs. Even if you are anti hunting, and pro wolf, what the agenda has pushed is not right. There is science, and it is divided in opinion.