So many questions. So much misinformation

Yes, we have had wolves in the Big Horn Mountains. Or should I say "wolflike creatures" since the USFWS won't commit to them being wolves. They were all killed by traps or poison in areas where sheep were being killed. This was in the Southeast mountains near Kaycee Wyoming.

Sorry to rain on your parade fishingdude, but I lived and worked in Yellowstone Park for 4 years. I have lived, worked, huunted and hiked in the mountains of Wyoming all of my 37 years. I have never, EVER, seen elk destroy a stream. This is a bunch of B.S. Elk do not hang out and wallow on stream banks like domestic cattle. The closest to that would be Flat Creek, in Jackson Hole, where the winter feeding grounds are located. When you attract 10,000 head of elk to a small area with artificial food sources(hay) you do get some of the efffects of cattle herds. But since this happens in winter, when the stream and the ground are frozen, not much damage occurs.

There were already native wolf packs, small ones, in Yellowstone and the surrounding area. They were habituated to stay away from people and domestic stock. The wolves that were brought here were free ranging wolves from Canada. These "new wolves" only see domestic animals as easier prey.

I wonder if in your research you talked to any ranchers that defenders of wildlife REFUSED to pay because they couldn't "PROVE" that wolves had killed the stock?

Just like most "natural" attempts to CONTROL nature, this one is doomed to fail. To say that the wolves will control the elk population is akin to saying that sharks control overcrowded beaches. When there are too few or no elk at all to sustain packs, do think they are just going to curl up and die? No, they will spread out looking for more food. As they do they push other predators as well. Do you think that it is just coincidental that since reintroduction the number of bears coming into populated areas has dramaticaly increased?

In Canada, these wolves had thousands of square miles to roam, as did their prey. Here, there are patches of wild bordered on all sides by cities, mountain ranges, canyons, and major roads. It is the same as putting a pirahna in a 100 gal tank and then wondering why all the goldfish are gone one day.

If true biodiverisity is the goal, then why are there no wolf and grizzly bear being reintroduced to California or New York? Simple answer is that most of the people who made these decisions live in those places. THEY don't have to live, or try to make a living with the consequences of their actions. And they don't want to have something like that in THEIR back yard. I met some of the people involved in the reintroduction, possibly even your instructor. They were mostly self inflated, egotistical, jerks, who thought they could CONTROL something wild. Only a huge ego can convince someone that they know better than nature. It was this ego that wiped out predators in the the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and is the same ego that will eventually lead to more problems in the future.

There were once thousands of wolves and grizzlies and millions of bison in the west. There were also no cities, railroads, or highways. It's fine to wish things were the way they used to be, but on a practical level, it is impossible to attain. The land can no longer sustain the same species in the same numbers as it used to.

These numbers of large predators and bison were artificial in the first place, since the native americans hunted to extinction all of these species competition. The remaining species were either too big, too fast, too hard to get to, or in the case of grizz, too damn mean to kill off. Ever wonder why there are fast herbivores left and not giant ground sloths?

Man changes his environment wherever he goes. Sometimes for good, sometimes for bad. Only man has the hubris to think that he can actually CONTROL the environment.

Well, I dont want to be in a huge arguement but I did find specific research that showed riparian areas before wolf reintroduction and after, and after the introduction the grasses and shrubs were at least 4 times as tall as they were before. This was mostly in areas where the streams were in areas that the elk considered to be "danger areas" or areas that wolves or other natural predators could easily trap them in such as a draw. Now I didnt mean destroy the area but it was devistated by their presence in some locations and with wolf presence the areas around the streams have grown much better since. Though I spose from a fishermans point this could also be a bad thing since i'm not a fan of getting my line tangled in a bush but it does help the area.
But yes, I am complietly aware that defenders did not compensate many farmers because like i stated you have to have proof of a kill and without it you dont get paid, however, it does help to some extent. SO basically I'm just saying that if they are going to put the wolves in one place they may as well introduce them in surrounding areas so if farmers need to kill a troublesome wolf they can without the ESA giving it to them.

Just because the grass was taller really doesn't mean a thing.

What a surprise, that grazing animals, graze on....grass! Elk do not tear up the ground as extensively as cattle or sheep, and they do not eat the plants to the ground promoting erosion. Did you bother to research what happens when stands of grass that actually depend on being grazed off periodicaly do not get grazed off? Maybe you should.

The bottom line is this.

1. The Federal Government has spent 10's of millions of dollars in reintroduction, monitoring, "control" etc.

2. They could have brought in millions of dollars by simply letting sportsmen have access to thin the herds out.

3. The general public seems to have the misconception that Yellowstone is a preserve or sanctuary. The purpose of creating the park, in the original documents, was "for the enjoyment of the people". Not for a preserve or sanctuary. Since the USFWS had rangers shooting elk and bison inside the park to feed the wolves when they were in pens, then what is the difference between that and thinning herds.

4. Yellowstone, through the unnatural management (read mismanagement) over the past 100 years, is anything but natural. Non native grasses, trees, weeds, and animals have completely changed the park from it's original state.

5. Read "Guardians of Yellowstone" by a former chief ranger of the park. And "Playing God in Yellowstone" about how the idea that yellowstone is a natural system that man can just leave alone is total B.S.

6. The idea that we can introduce a large, migratory predator iinto an ecosystem that has not seen them for 100 years just because as you put it fishingdude.

"may as well introduce them in surrounding areas so if farmers need to kill a troublesome wolf they can without the ESA giving it to them."

When exactly was that the case? The feds still do not want to let Wyoming take over control of the wolf population. They don't like the fact that we might issue licenses to hunt wolves when the population is high enough. Unless a "farmer" as you call them (actually they are "ranchers" out here, farmers raise crops, ranchers raise animals) shoots a wolf in the act of killing an animal, they DO get the book thrown at them.

7. If this is such a great idea, why are wolves not being reintroduced everywhere they historically lived? And I don't recall "thinning elk herds" as being one of the reasons touted by the reintroduction proponents. If we really want biodiversity, why don't we start shipping problem grizzly bears from Wyoming to Colorado, Utah, and California? It is their historic range, and those areas are lacking a population of large predators. Then when we get enough wolves we can start exporting them to those areas as well.

You can try to put a "happy face" on reintroduction all you want. It has been a half assed plan from the start. The "I know better than you" pointy headed intellectuals who came up with the plan have been forced to constantly come up with new justifications and excuses for the wolves and how they are effecting herds and how far they are ranging.

Answer two questions fishingdude.

What are the wolves going to eat and where are they going to go after they "thin the elk herds" to the point where they are no longer a viable food source or move out of Yellowstone seeking to escape?


What is going to happen to the ecosystem when, with 80% calf mortality from wolves, there are no longer the elk left to sustain viable herds?

Answer those two honestly, go to the local library and check out the two books I mentioned, then come back and talk to me when you are better informed.

Howdy I know this is a touchy subject for some, and it's good to voice opinions on it, but it's getting a little heated. So lets try and keep it calm and respectful.
Thanks
Joe

Sorry Joe. I get a little carried away since I live in the middle of this mess. Until you have seen firsthand what kind of devistation these animals can do, you really don't know.

If every one who supports reintroduction had to witness 80 plus elk slaughtered and crippled, laying on the ground with their back legs ripped apart, unable to move, with none eaten, they might change their minds.

Mike,

I got a idea!

Take some pictures of this next time you see this that way we can speard it all over the internet so everyone can see

I'll help in distributing the pictures if you want too

Dimitri