Wolves, caribou and moose - it's complicated

[Curmudgeon]

This is interesting. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/science/moose-wolves-caribou.html?mabReward=ACTM7&recid=602d653c-3a6e-44d3-512c-38cdff78c593&recp=7

[wooly]

I don't know that it's complicated, so much as it's too complex for some to see.

Trying to convince most average deer hunters that toothy predators can be beneficial to the environment as a whole, is something few will take the time to wrap their head around. As the analogy in your story points out, killing the wolves is just the band aid solution most can't see any further than.

This vid may have been posted on this site before, but it gives a good explanation of the predators role in maintaining a healthy environment, and the benefits to many other species that once inhabited the same lands.

 

[left field]

Thanks for posting that. There's a show on tonight that may be worth watching.

Quote

From America's heartland come four unexpected warriors for a hidden but far-reaching conservation movement: a Montana rancher, two Kansas farmers, and a Louisiana fisherman. With a passion for the terrain that defines their identity, each has bridged long-standing divides - between rural communities and outside experts, people that work the land and federal bureaucrats -- to preserve the landscapes that sustain their livelihoods.

Discovery's RANCHER, FARMER, FISHERMAN shines a light on this unheralded movement and offers inspiring solutions to the challenges confronting America's wild land and wildlife, fisheries, and croplands -- including climate change.

Based on Miriam Horn's recently released book, "Rancher, Farmer, Fisherman: Conservation Heroes of the American Heartland," RANCHER, FARMER, FISHERMAN waves together the stories of four unlikely conservation heroes working in America's heartland. At a moment when it seems that collaboration is not just nonexistent but impossible, these working families cross political boundaries to arrive at real solutions for protecting the land and sea that define our country - and are crucial to all of our survival.

RANCHER, FARMER, FISHERMAN premieres Thursday, August 31 at 9PM ET on Discovery.

 

 

 

[slickrockpack]

"Thinking Like A Mountain",  1949 

"the first rule in tinkering is keep all the parts..."

Edited September 1, 2017 by slickrockpack
photo add

[Curmudgeon]

It's good to hear from some folks who aren't knee jerk predator haters. Some of the threads around here................................

[Rattler]

I don't hate wolves or coyote, but often wonder about any benefit of having them around, other than another animal available to hunt.

Considering game animal populations seemed healthy and fine prior to the reintroduction of wolves, or the expansion of territory by yotes, why do we want them back in those areas?  Seems to me they were taken out because they caused problems and when they were gone, the only thing missing from their old areas, was them.

I often hear supporters claim they are good for keeping the other animal populations under control, but doesn't that eliminate a lot of the need for liberal hunting seasons and bag limits?  How do we know if the future might be one where the predators control game animals and hunting is no longer necessary?

Besides, the wolf and yote populations seem to get out of control and require major control themselves.  

If they are the solution to a problem, what exactly is the problem they solve?

 

Edited September 1, 2017 by Rattler

[Rattler]

On 8/31/2017 at 10:00 AM, left field said:

Thanks for posting that. There's a show on tonight that may be worth watching.

Rancher, Farmer, Fisherman.

I wonder why they didn't have HUNTER in that little group.

 

[left field]

Ask them. 

[Four Season Whitetail's]

I don't hate wolves or coyote, but often wonder about any benefit of having them around, other than another animal available to hunt.
Considering game animal populations seemed healthy and fine prior to the reintroduction of wolves, or the expansion of territory by yotes, why do we want them back in those areas?  Seems to me they were taken out because they caused problems and when they were gone, the only thing missing from their old areas, was them.
I often hear supporters claim they are good for keeping the other animal populations under control, but doesn't that eliminate a lot of the need for liberal hunting seasons and bag limits?  How do we know if the future might be one where the predators control game animals and hunting is no longer necessary?
Besides, the wolf and yote populations seem to get out of control and require major control themselves.  
If they are the solution to a problem, what exactly is the problem they solve?
 

Exactly! Useless Vermin! Wolfs were brought back by the same people that want hunting gone. I can promise you that if some of the vermin lovers on this site were picking up all the dead leftover cattle those wolves were killing they would be singing a different tune. Wolves and Yotes serve no useful purpose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rattler]

9 minutes ago, Four Season Whitetails said:

Wolfs were brought back by the same people that want hunting gone.

Wolves and Yotes serve no useful purpose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I often wonder about the first sentence.  I believe it may have some truth to it.  Maybe a lot of truth.

The 2nd sentence is debatable.  I would like someone to explain to me what useful purpose they do serve, since, like I said above, things seemed fine when they weren't around.

[left field]

Majesty.

If you can't see that then I doubt there's any answer that would satisfy. 

[ATbuckhunter]

1 hour ago, Rattler said:

I often wonder about the first sentence.  I believe it may have some truth to it.  Maybe a lot of truth.

The 2nd sentence is debatable.  I would like someone to explain to me what useful purpose they do serve, since, like I said above, things seemed fine when they weren't around.

I can give an example from yellowstone actually. Years ago yellowstone was known for their huge elk population which looks great to wild life viewers and hunters, but is actually very damaging to the land. Wolves definitely decreased the game populations by quite a bit, but that allowed for a healthier ecosystem. Just like when you have too many deer per sq mile, the elk decimated generations of trees and other types of browse due to their high population density at the time. Since the introduction, the ecosystem has better maturity rates as well as healthier elk since they have better browse available to them. Now I do believe they have to be managed (like most animals) as best as possible to try to create a healthy ecosystem. Its hard to please the ecosystem and hunters who just want to see more and more game. 

[Rattler]

Why didn't they just allow more Elk hunting in Yellowstone?  Hunter's would have paid handsomely to hunt those Elk.  Instead they spent millions on wolves and wolf management?  Seems like the wrong solution to that problem.

 

[Rattler]

27 minutes ago, left field said:

Majesty.

If you can't see that then I doubt there's any answer that would satisfy. 

Sorry, but I don't get the point.  Could you elaborate?

[left field]

Really? You're asking what useful purpose predators serve. I said, "majesty".

I like hearing and seeing coyotes and the few times I've heard wolves in Northern Canada I was thrilled. If anything, I am probably more excited to see a predator in the wild than any other animal. 

I see my place as an outdoorsman to slide into a "balanced" eco system and would manage for that. Generalising here, but managing for the maximum amount of animals to shoot at the expense of another animal seems counter productive to what excites me about the outdoors. 

I have no livestock to protect so not concerned there. Even if I did, a LGD is far more effective than a gun. I have no fear of coyotes attacking me. And my wife doesn't need another fur coat.  

So I'll sit on my back porch at night, drink whisky from a tin cup, and listen to the coyotes sing and think all is right with the world. 

[Curmudgeon]

Lefty,

The question was incomplete. What rattler really wants to know is "what purpose does it serves TO HIM". None obviously. It's an arrogant attitude. We might ask what purpose an eagle serves, or a hellbender, or the Grand Canyon for that matter. What good is a national park unless you can drill or mine it. It's all about serving OUR needs and desires. What good is a deer except for food? They're an ecological disaster in many places, including right here. Why value them? 

Coyotes bring me joy. I watch them whenever I can. Knowing there is something wild, something that we cannot "manage" is a wonderful thing in a world where wildness is a rare thing. And, anyone who believes they can be managed must choose to ignore a century and a half of failures.

I do have a healthy respect for them. I suffer no illusions about how serious and deadly they can be. Having kept sheep for 40 years, I am very aware of large predators.

I wish it were not so but the He-man Coyote Haters Club has more influence on the minds of the average hunter around here than you or I.  

[Doc]

Of course you are all aware that NYS went a whole bunch of years with no coyotes at all, so the claim of their importance in our environment I think is way over-stated. Also it has to be said that coyotes enjoy a place at the top of their food chain with nothing but starvation and disease controlling their numbers. That is not a healthy situation in any habitat. Hunting and trapping should be utilized as a control tool to as large an extent as is possible just like any other species. The bunny huggers that see these animals as natures version of doggies have to get over this idea that they have some special place that puts them above needing control just like any other species. They do not come from the pet store.

[airedale]

Always easy for the bunny hugger (especially the NY Times) because in far off places they have no dog in the fight, stuff like livestock loss and harassment, hunting grounds lost, game depletion in hunting areas, pets and hunting dogs being killed etc. why should they care? The folks that have to live and deal with this stuff have a different view.

Al

Wisconsin tries to keep records

https://dnrx.wisconsin.gov/wdacp/public/depredation/2016

A couple of examples of what is left of some hunting dogs,

Edited September 1, 2017 by airedale

[left field]

Shocked to see that predators are good at killing things. 

Hunting dogs that are killed while doing their life's work die a noble death. 

Livestock that is being harassed by coyotes should be warded by livestock guardian dogs. No coyote will get through an Anatolian or Kangal.

And as I like songbirds, I'm not a huge fan of cats running free.  

Nowhere am I saying that coyotes shouldn't be hunted, trapped or managed in some other way. I'm simply putting forth the idea that a forest or field is more magical with a coyote in it. 

[airedale]

2 hours ago, left field said:

Hunting dogs that are killed while doing their life's work die a noble death. 

Nobody I know that hunts with dogs (and I know more than a few) would consider it noble for them to be killed and eaten by Wolves.

Al

[ATbuckhunter]

9 hours ago, Rattler said:

Why didn't they just allow more Elk hunting in Yellowstone?  Hunter's would have paid handsomely to hunt those Elk.  Instead they spent millions on wolves and wolf management?  Seems like the wrong solution to that problem.

 

For one it was more than just elk that needed management and we can't compare the effectiveness of wolves to us. In order to control the population you'd need more cow harvest and many are more interested in getting a bull than a cow. It was also about restoring an animal that was part of the landscape and ruined by us. May not help you much, but they are a valuable part of the ecosystem. 

[Rattler]

5 hours ago, Curmudgeon said:

Lefty,

The question was incomplete. What rattler really wants to know is "what purpose does it serves TO HIM". None obviously. It's an arrogant attitude. We might ask what purpose an eagle serves, or a hellbender, or the Grand Canyon for that matter. What good is a national park unless you can drill or mine it. It's all about serving OUR needs and desires. What good is a deer except for food? They're an ecological disaster in many places, including right here. Why value them? 

Coyotes bring me joy. I watch them whenever I can. Knowing there is something wild, something that we cannot "manage" is a wonderful thing in a world where wildness is a rare thing. And, anyone who believes they can be managed must choose to ignore a century and a half of failures.

I do have a healthy respect for them. I suffer no illusions about how serious and deadly they can be. Having kept sheep for 40 years, I am very aware of large predators.

I wish it were not so but the He-man Coyote Haters Club has more influence on the minds of the average hunter around here than you or I.  

Curmudgen, the arrogance is not mine, it is in your attitude.  I stated the question correctly.  It is not incomplete.  Your answer is reading something into the question that was not asked.  Try answering the question I asked instead of attacking me for asking it.

Why would anyone want to increase the population of a predator because "It's something we cannot manage"?  This sounds like a desire to allow wildlife management to get out of control.  All wildlife is "wild".  that's why we call them "wildlife".  However, keeping populations in balance is important.  Allowing predator populations to increase beyond the point of threat would seem to be a bad idea.  If you disagree, I'd like to know why.

If you want to have more influence on the minds of the average hunter, you better start being more factual and less snobbish and insulting.  Don't change the subject, or turn it around to suit your opinion.  just answer the question.

 

[wooly]

1 hour ago, airedale said:

Nobody I know that hunts with dogs (and I know more than a few) would consider it noble for them to be killed and eaten by Wolves.

Al

C'mon man, nobody that I know that drives a car (and I know more than a few) would consider it a preferred method to be killed by a deer either.

The reality is that deer kill far more PEOPLE than wolves and coyotes combined.... yet hunters can't seem to get enough of them and protect them high above all else. 

As long as we're grabbing random dramatic pics off the web I'll hang this one as a reminder of why we need the help of predators.

Let one of these torpedos land in mommas lap on her way to get groceries for you and the kids and then we can talk about how sad it is a hunting dog was eaten by persuing a critter with far superior training and natural killer instinct!

I don't know where you guys keep coming up with this story that anyone here is against predator control through hunting and trapping. The only ones who keep bringing that up are yourselves. I suppose you all just keep repeating the lie to one another that eventually other folks will believe it's the truth.

 

[Rattler]

Wooly, you seem to miss the fact deer have many sources of death.  Are you suggesting there are too many deer and we should allow an overpopulation of predators take care of the problem for us?  The subject being discussed is eliminating one cause of deer mortality.  Would you rather we eliminate cars than coyotes?

BTW, I see cars hit deer that were running from pursuing coyotes all the time.

 

 

 

Edited September 2, 2017 by Rattler

[Four Season Whitetail's]

I love the azzclowns that think yotes can't be controlled I can promise you that an area can be very much controlled of that vermin. A guy just has to use every means possible and not worry about some stupid law drawn up by a guy in a white shirt sitting behind a desk that has never stepped into the woods. Oh and it's so much easier if you hit them while the whole family is home!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk