Wolf introduction out west has been a financial disaster for hunting, ranchers and the economy.

[stubborn1VT]

13 hours ago, left field said:

es, never farmed. Or appreciate the amount of work involved. And I haven't looked into this past these videos and reading about the Yellowstone reintroduction that literally changed the ecosystem for the positive: wolves meant a more mobile elk which couldn't over browse which lead to more willows, aspen and cottonwood and therefore more beavers, and better bird and trout habitat.

So you're going to base your opinion on a study of a managed park, then apply that to the rest of the West.  Makes sense.  

[Hunter007]

I think people underestimate wolf's they are very dangerous intelligent eating machines they didn't get rid of them 100 years ago for no good reason. 

That being said good wildlife management hunting /trapping could keep the wolf's in check without having to get rid of them all .  I guess a few people will have to get attacked before anyone does anything as usually. 

[left field]

11 hours ago, b3h said:

Left field
Not tryin to be a dick but that study was pretty much bs. Dig a little deeper with google-fo if u want to find out the whole story.
 

Could you point me in the right direction? Most I find suggest a positive trophic cascade effect of wolf introduction:

 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=wolf+reintroduction+yellowstone&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

10 hours ago, stubborn1VT said:

So you're going to base your opinion on a study of a managed park, then apply that to the rest of the West.  Makes sense.  

Isn't it all managed? 

I like wolves. I respect farmers. It's a complicated issue that will require a nuanced solution. And there will be compromise on both sides. Get busy figuring it out.

I look at those anti-wolf videos the same way I look at peta videos ... with a sceptical eye. The first video showcases a rancher who runs 1200 cattle on 20,000 private acres (not sure if his or others) and has grazing rights to 130,000 public acres. So we have to manage wildlife on those 130,000 public acres based on his wants, needs or losses? Sorry, not seeing that.

 

[ATbuckhunter]

15 hours ago, b3h said:

Left field
Not tryin to be a dick but that study was pretty much bs. Dig a little deeper with google-fo if u want to find out the whole story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Im also going to need some help finding studys to say other wise. I believe wolves have to be intensively managed, but biologically they have done what Left Field is saying. The evidence is there

[b3h]

1 hour ago, ATbuckhunter said:

Im also going to need some help finding studys to say other wise. I believe wolves have to be intensively managed, but biologically they have done what Left Field is saying. The evidence is there

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/science/2018/09/07/wolves-reintroduction-yellowstone-ecosystem/973658002/

https://m.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/scientists-debunk-myth-that-yellowstone-wolves-changed-entire-ecosystem-flow-of-rivers/70004699

Here is a couple that I could find in short order. Don't remember them being from accuweather and usatoday, thought it came from somewhere else. I'll keep digging when I find time.

Unfortunately this issue is another court battle being played out over way to much time. Those of you who believe that the wolf should be managed and not protected can do "something" by supporting those organizations who represent "conservation" in this court battle(s).

[ATbuckhunter]

16 minutes ago, b3h said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/science/2018/09/07/wolves-reintroduction-yellowstone-ecosystem/973658002/

https://m.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/scientists-debunk-myth-that-yellowstone-wolves-changed-entire-ecosystem-flow-of-rivers/70004699

Here is a couple that I could find in short order. Don't remember them being from accuweather and usatoday, thought it came from somewhere else. I'll keep digging when I find time.

Unfortunately this issue is another court battle being played out over way to much time. Those of you who believe that the wolf should be managed and not protected can do "something" by supporting those organizations who represent "conservation" in this court battle(s).

Both articals are basically saying that wolves have helped in someways, but its not a full recovery yet. I definitely don't think wolves are going to solve the damage that has already been done, but its one of the tools we can use. Im not anti wolf hunting as I think we should harvest a lot more wolves, but I dont think we should get rid of them. Just like any other animal, they need intensive managment in todays age. 

[left field]

I'd like to see some research papers but I think the takeaway is that certain aspects of the ecosystem bounced back in unexpected ways and to a degree that was unimagined. More work needs to be done.

Here's a quote from the USA article: 

Despite all the disagreement, most ecologists say removing predators today would be a mistake. 

"The way ecosystems put themselves back together after such a problem is still something that scientists are trying to understand," Ripple said. "The lesson is let’s not let things get as bad as they did with 70 years without wolves."

Works for me.

 

[Hunter007]

1 hour ago, left field said:

I'd like to see some research papers but I think the takeaway is that certain aspects of the ecosystem bounced back in unexpected ways and to a degree that was unimagined. More work needs to be done.

Here's a quote from the USA article: 

Despite all the disagreement, most ecologists say removing predators today would be a mistake. 

"The way ecosystems put themselves back together after such a problem is still something that scientists are trying to understand," Ripple said. "The lesson is let’s not let things get as bad as they did with 70 years without wolves."

Works for me.

 

That is only true if you didn't have human hunters and farmers around .

I can only come to the conclusion this is pure propaganda. These are the same guys who thought it was a great idea to not have BEAR hunting in new Jersey until the bears started killing people and pets .  Easy to say leave the wolfs alone when you know it's not in your backyard terrorizing your kids pets or farm animals.

[stubborn1VT]

8 hours ago, left field said:

Isn't it all managed? 

No.  It isn't managed the way that Yellowstone is.  No hunting in Yellowstone.  Big difference.

[b3h]

Ok now that we got the wolf issue solved let's talk about the grizzlies


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[left field]

39 minutes ago, Storm914 said:

That is only true if you didn't have human hunters and farmers around .

I can only come to the conclusion this is pure propaganda. These are the same guys who thought it was a great idea to not have BEAR hunting in new Jersey until the bears started killing people and pets .  Easy to say leave the wolfs alone when you know it's not in your backyard terrorizing your kids pets or farm animals.

Without sounding like too much an of ogre, I don't care that much about someone's pet that was killed by a wild animal. 

Livestock is different but there are ways to mitigate the damage. 

11 minutes ago, stubborn1VT said:

No.  It isn't managed the way that Yellowstone is.  No hunting in Yellowstone.  Big difference.

My point was that all land and wildlife is managed to some extent.

6 minutes ago, b3h said:

Ok now that we got the wolf issue solved let's talk about the grizzlies

Yes. How do grizzlies feel about wolf introduction? Love to know that.

[b3h]

IIRC the griz was intro'd after the wolf

[Hunter007]

5 minutes ago, left field said:

Without sounding like too much an of ogre, I don't care that much about someone's pet that was killed by a wild animal. 

Livestock is different but there are ways to mitigate the damage. 

My point was that all land and wildlife is managed to some extent.

Yes. How do grizzlies feel about wolf introduction? Love to know that.

And kids ? 

I like wolf's to but not near   my property  like I said it's easy to say no leave them alone when you are not  near them like those ranchers out there are .

There has got to be a balance using hunting and trapping will do that , Like it or not .

[left field]

32 minutes ago, b3h said:

IIRC the griz was intro'd after the wolf

In that case, the grizzlies opinion really doesn't matter.

29 minutes ago, Storm914 said:

And kids ? 

I like wolf's to but not near   my property  like I said it's easy to say no leave them alone when you are not  near them like those ranchers out there are .

There has got to be a balance using hunting and trapping will do that , Like it or not .

Are wolves attacking kids? I didn't know that. 

In order to hunt something you have to have a viable and sustainable population. If we're there, great. If not, then there's work to do.

[stubborn1VT]

44 minutes ago, left field said:

1 hour ago, stubborn1VT said:

No.  It isn't managed the way that Yellowstone is.  No hunting in Yellowstone.  Big difference.

My point was that all land and wildlife is managed to some extent.

Wolves aren't managed in the same way as other wildlife, thanks to politics.  You don't have a point.  You are just being a contrarian.  Bye.

[left field]

I wouldn't think so as they aren't like other animals. Politics or otherwise.

I don't really have a point other than I like wolves, respect ranchers and think it's a complicated issue. 

[Hunter007]

31 minutes ago, left field said:

I wouldn't think so as they aren't like other animals. Politics or otherwise.

I don't really have a point other than I like wolves, respect ranchers and think it's a complicated issue. 

Would you like to explain  why you think wolf's  are any different then let's say coyotes or raccoons ? You ever see a wolf kill it's not pretty .

Now just imagine if one got a hold of a kid which eventually could happen or a  adult.  They breed fast you could kill off 90% and still have plenty around 10 years later there not going away altogether unless you really want to make them go away . It's all about  good Management . 

 

[Rattler]

To me it's really a simple issue once you remove the emotion and politics involved.

There are too many wolves in many areas and they have become a problem.  They are protected where they are a problem.  They should no longer be protected.  If ranchers are allowed to take out problem wolves, that will reduce their numbers where they create problems.  There is no threat of wiping out the wolves out there anymore.  They will still be there but in far more manageable numbers.  

Plus, wolves are very intelligent.  Once they lose protected status and start getting shot for attacking sheep, cattle  and pets, they will learn to avoid those animals in the future.  They do it now because it's an easy meal without consequence.  Once they learn that meal can have deadly consequences, they will revert back to hunting meals that they should be hunting.

 

[left field]

12 hours ago, Storm914 said:

Would you like to explain  why you think wolf's  are any different then let's say coyotes or raccoons ? You ever see a wolf kill it's not pretty .

Now just imagine if one got a hold of a kid which eventually could happen or a  adult.  They breed fast you could kill off 90% and still have plenty around 10 years later there not going away altogether unless you really want to make them go away . It's all about  good Management . 

Managed differently. I thought that was clear.

Trying to picture a "pretty kill". Is that where a predator teases an animal mercilessly for being overweight until the animal quietly takes his own life?

Imagine if one got a hold of a kid? Is that how we're managing wildlife now? Okay. Imagine if one did get a hold of a kid but decided to raise and train him instead - "but, I'll most likely kill you in the morning" - and that kid eventually becomes the Dread Pirate Roberts. Good or bad?

35 minutes ago, Rattler said:

To me it's really a simple issue once you remove the emotion and politics involved.

There are too many wolves in many areas and they have become a problem.  They are protected where they are a problem.  They should no longer be protected.  If ranchers are allowed to take out problem wolves, that will reduce their numbers where they create problems.  There is no threat of wiping out the wolves out there anymore.  They will still be there but in far more manageable numbers.  

Plus, wolves are very intelligent.  Once they lose protected status and start getting shot for attacking sheep, cattle  and pets, they will learn to avoid those animals in the future.  They do it now because it's an easy meal without consequence.  Once they learn that meal can have deadly consequences, they will revert back to hunting meals that they should be hunting.

That's probably the solution needed. But it has to work for everyone. 

Edited June 13, 2019 by left field

[Rattler]

It would work for everyone if the wolf supporters were willing to allow the reduction in wolf numbers, but they aren't willing.  That is where the problem comes in.  They refuse to accept there are too many wolves in some areas.  They feel wolves are endangered still, and it's true they are rare, but when they are extremely concentrated in a small area, they are the one's who create danger.

Perhaps the wolf supporters should be trapping and relocating them to other less populated historical wolf habitat, at their own expense of course.  (The idea of trapping and relocating is acceptable to them, but paying for it seems to be something else they are not willing to do)

[left field]

And if the rancher who runs 1200 head of cattle on 130,000 PUBLIC acres realizes that he's going to have accept some losses. 

The wiki page has some good information about the challenges, successes and failures of wolf reintroduction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_reintroduction

My bottom line is that I am happy wolves are back. The balance can be worked out if all parties are willing to work together. (That's the old hippie in me talking.) 

[Hunter007]

8 minutes ago, left field said:

And if the rancher who runs 1200 head of cattle on 130,000 PUBLIC acres realizes that he's going to have accept some losses. 

The wiki page has some good information about the challenges, successes and failures of wolf reintroduction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_reintroduction

My bottom line is that I am happy wolves are back. The balance can be worked out if all parties are willing to work together. (That's the old hippie in me talking.) 

They need to be contained wolf's are smart animals once you start hunting them in certain areas where  the cattle are they will move on leave the cattle alone. 

Don't do anything and to a wolf it is  like a free buffet .  Killing a few will train them to stay away from anything human .  Like any animal.   notice city parks like  central park the animals let people get very close  that is because those are animals that never experienced hunting and associate humans with food . You start killing them and you have the opposite effect.  It is what it is .

 

[left field]

Perhaps you could offer your services to the affected parties. That kind of no-nonsense straightforward thinking is just the type of thing needed to resolve this complicated decades long issue.

[Rattler]

Ranchers have always accepted losses.  They just want to be able to control their losses.  

I don't know why you keep saying it's a complicated issue.  It isn't.  It's a political issue where one side has the law protecting it's interests in opposition to the side losing money.  The law is also fleecing the taxpayers for the cost of avoiding the resolution.

It could be fixed overnight if the law was actually working for the people instead of the wolves.

But, some people love animals and hate people.  They're complicated.  (Not referring to you here)

Edited June 13, 2019 by Rattler

[virgil]

3 hours ago, Storm914 said:

They need to be contained wolf's are smart animals once you start hunting them in certain areas where  the cattle are they will move on leave the cattle alone. 

Don't do anything and to a wolf it is  like a free buffet .  Killing a few will train them to stay away from anything human .  Like any animal.   notice city parks like  central park the animals let people get very close  that is because those are animals that never experienced hunting and associate humans with food . You start killing them and you have the opposite effect.  It is what it is .

 

Which are the animals in Central Park that 'let people get very close' because they associate people with food?  I haven't been to Central Park in a while.  Maybe it's changed since my last time.