Yellowstone is Dead

[LDennis24]

I have noticed that in the first 2 pictures you have from Ed it show's a stream bed that has diverted to the side several yards and washed out some small tree's that are no longer there but in the side by side picture graph it states that with less grazing streams won't wash out their bank's. The picture's clearly disprove that. As for my previous comment about weed control. I realize you are talking about YNP and not area's like OR ID and WA but when it happens here weed's out compete the grasses because they are conditioned to grow faster and spread quicker than grasses do. So when the ground cover regrow's after being mowed down the weed's come up first and some even produce a toxin that prevents thing's like grass from crowding them out and they just keep spreading. Being grazed closer to the ground by deer and elk, and sometime's cattle, these weed's don't get the opportunity to go to seed and are therefore kept under control by the grazing. Someone is going to have to reseed native grasses in many area's to see any improvements like the one's in your graph. I get that weed's don't seem to have anything to do with wolves but it compounds other issues when the wolves remove the animal's that help keep these thing's under control and in turn will cost more money to control these new issue's. Also the beaver's in my area don't seem to have any trouble expanding territory, they are devastating the stream bed's in the St John area because the only tree's around here that provide cover for fish in the stream are being cut down and eaten by the beaver's. In turn eliminating shade for the fish. They are also building dam's that are flooding out people's crop field's and front yard's. Stop in Ewan, WA sometime and look at the stream behind the church. If you wanna walk through the flooded field... I also have to agree with Axle that with thicker grasses you'll probably have more tick's and rodent's will prosper more with less coyote's in turn spreading more disease. Not that I wouldn't want to see thicker grass in the hill's around here. All of these issues can happen based on your graph and the idea that wolves will benefit us somehow... we also have red fox showing up here without the help of wolves in the last 5 yrs or so

[jon.brown509]

       I understand why you would speculate here's an idea to think about.Wolves hate coyotes 9 times out of ten they will kill them.When ever coyotes leave an area foxes always thrive and repopulate quickly.Much like what the wolves did as long as coyotes are looking over there backs they are now ignoring foxes due to them being the lesser predator now.Hopefully this makes some clarity on the subject.
    I have forest protection next quarter where we dive into how to stop weeds and forb's  and preserve the forest
I love the insight btw  LDennis24 with concerns It give's me plenty of questions to ask when we have our seminars with our instructors .

[bearpaw]

jon,
Here's something for you to think about. Have you considered that many of the instructors in our universities and colleges have their own agendas and that many are pro-wolfers and are opposed to hunting and ranching as we know it in the west?

If you have an open mind and truly want to be a good biologist who can think on his own and arrive at honest conclusions, you need to recognize people for what they stand for and be able to understand how their agenda affects what they say or teach. You need to decide if you are a follower or a leader. 

I do think we can live with a reasonable number of wolves, especially if they are influenced by hunting, etc, to stay in our parks and wilderness areas. But the biggest problem with the wolf introduction is that wolf proponents are trying to force too many wolves into too many inhabited areas and that causes too many impacts on our modern ecosystems. If they would take a more reasonable approach wolves would be far more accepted. I probably wouldn't even be wasting so much of my time fighting against wolves if I trusted our F&G to take a reasonable approach that caused less impacts by wolves on our herds, livestock, and lifestyles.

[bearpaw]

"Thank you WACenturion for your time ,but as a biologist shouldn't you be serving the wildlife and habitat instead of the hunters and fisherman ? "not being disrespectful just wanting open advice "one reason I talk so much on here" . I personally DON'T like wolves but they have a place in the wild."

To give you a simple answer let me just say, you are serving wildlife and habitat when you serve the public, primarily the hunters and fishermen who have funded wildlife management in this country for decades.

It a cycle....if you manage properly to protect and restore habitat, wildlife flourishes.  When wildlife, which we will call a product for the sake of this discussion flourishes, so does interest in pursuing that product.  More licenses are sold, and in addition many more dollars are spent across the board in communities for lodging, food, gas, equipment, guide services, etc.  It get broader when you start thinking major expenditures like boats, SUV's, campers.  The demand grows because there is a product out there that can provide opportunity and sustain itself in appropriate healthy numbers.

As one of my duties during my career I had the pleasure to manage Washington's Wild Turkey Program for 20 years, as a lesser part of other programs I was responsible for.  Many in WDFW, in decision making positions I might add, both in HQ and the regions themselves, didn't want turkeys because they weren't native or they were just something else to have to deal with.  They were going to compete with native species,  they were possibly going to out compete western gray squirrels and sharp-tailed grouse, they were going to eat rare slugs,  they were going to pull the moon out of it's gravitational orbit...whetever frickin excuse they could dream up.  For those 20 years I continually had to answer the same stupid questions, and from educated biologists none the less.  Fortunately I don't give up very easy and decided early on to lose an occasional battle to eventually win the war. 

The point I'm leading to is they also said it wouldn't work, we tried it in the 60's.  Yeah, we did.  Couple small releases and that was it.  Without new genes into the two small populations we had, turkeys didn't maintain themselves much beyond 15-20 years in two areas.  Turkey tag sales went down to I believe a low of 62 at one point which was 1987 if I recall.  The new introductions statewide and follow up introductions of additional birds as well as trap and transfer in state over that 20 year period, gave us what we now have today...three different subspecies and multiple bird limits.  Tag sales are through the roof. 

That is a prime example of what I'm referring to above.  Kind of like the movie "Field of Dreams".....  "If you build it they will come".  If you translate that to wildlife management when you put a product out there the public will utilize it.  That equates to dollars.  Problem is wildlife agencies are notorious for not putting those funds from licenses and funding sources like PR and DJ back into the resource and on the ground.  That's too much work.  Easier to go the meeting and planning route.  Upland bird numbers in Washington is a prime example of ignoring the problem and not putting revenues on the ground.

Ask yourself who actually spends serious money on fish and wildlife.  It's the people who buy licenses and all the related expenditures I mentioned above.  Like wolfbait mentioned....you don't see many folks coming to Idaho to see wolves.  Ask yourself another question and try to put yourself in the shoes of a normal person.  Would you like to visit Yellowstone and see elk everywhere as well as Bison, Moose and other animals.   Or would you perfer just to possibly have a chance to see a wolf or a pack and not much more?  I know what I would want. 

Fish and Wildlife agencies rolled over years ago to the invisible environmentalist monster they assumed is out there.  Those agencies bought into the political correctness BS.  Instead of forcing the tree huggers to make their case they just rolled on many issues, rather than telling them to prove it or shut up.  Just look at the difference of opinions between Al Gore and the global warming crew vs. Alaska Fish and Wildlife biologists when it comes to polar bear status.  My money is on Alaska Fish and Game.  When did all these city dwelling, save the earth types, become credible sources of scientific data?

The negatives with wolf introductions are immense.  Not only does it affect wildlife and the associated recreation use and expenditures that go with it, but everyday life for a magnitude of rural folks who have to now tolerate their presence and have their livelihood affected in a negative way by them.  Just my opinion.

I wished you were still in WDFW and would eventually become the director. Thanks again for serving the citizens of WA so well. 

[RadSav]

I wished you were still in WDFW and would eventually become the director. Thanks again for serving the citizens of WA so well. 

Something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy...But the same thing I've been selfishly thinking over the past 24 hours.

[KFhunter]

  aint that the truth


Hey jon.brown509

With pretty much any profession when a new hire is fresh out of school or academy one the first things they're told is: "OK, forget everything you just learned in school"

I don't care what profession you go into, that's one of the first things you'll hear.  The reason is as Dale pointed out, you pay to go to school and their mission even beyond educating is indoctrination of it's students in how the university wants to shape whatever program. 

[HUNTINCOUPLE]

       I understand why you would speculate here's an idea to think about.Wolves hate coyotes 9 times out of ten they will kill them.When ever coyotes leave an area foxes always thrive and repopulate quickly.Much like what the wolves did as long as coyotes are looking over there backs they are now ignoring foxes due to them being the lesser predator now.Hopefully this makes some clarity on the subject.
    I have forest protection next quarter where we dive into how to stop weeds and forb's  and preserve the forest
I love the insight btw  LDennis24 with concerns It give's me plenty of questions to ask when we have our seminars with our instructors .

With that said, coyotes looking over there backs, the wolfs need to be looking over there backs as well. Looking down the barrels of all humans rifles. Again we are the dominant predator and for us to allow this is crude and insane. Our forefathers are all probably sick to there stomach that our society even allows this conversation after all the effort they put in to eradicate such a useless species as the wolf.

[The scout]

I'm not religious but amen to that

[jon.brown509]

jon,
Here's something for you to think about. Have you considered that many of the instructors in our universities and colleges have their own agendas and that many are pro-wolfers and are opposed to hunting and ranching as we know it in the west?

If you have an open mind and truly want to be a good biologist who can think on his own and arrive at honest conclusions, you need to recognize people for what they stand for and be able to understand how their agenda affects what they say or teach. You need to decide if you are a follower or a leader. 

I do think we can live with a reasonable number of wolves, especially if they are influenced by hunting, etc, to stay in our parks and wilderness areas. But the biggest problem with the wolf introduction is that wolf proponents are trying to force too many wolves into too many inhabited areas and that causes too many impacts on our modern ecosystems. If they would take a more reasonable approach wolves would be far more accepted. I probably wouldn't even be wasting so much of my time fighting against wolves if I trusted our F&G to take a reasonable approach that caused less impacts by wolves on our herds, livestock, and lifestyles.

    I couldn't agree with you more for once Bearpaw,Now you know why i'm going to school to be able to fix it ,Most of my instructors have a feeling of we need wolves out there the number is yet to be figured out and that is causing the problem ,
  :twocents:If you knew that there were only 3-5 dogs per pack and that there would never be more per pack  do you think that would be a good number?If every year you knew the number of elk would never drop by more than 25% do to the low pack numbers and that lucky individuals who would have a lottery type draw get the chance to go shoot a dog that needs to be replaced would you be ok with that plan?           

     :twocents:As far as opposed to ranching and farming I know 100% for sure our main wildlife  instructor doesn't have a single problem with ranchers he is one, from eastern Montana, lol But he also understands both sides of the subject and try's his best to help balance the two out.
 Now Huntincouple I wouldn't say useless they have place and a need just the way there allowing them to explode and expand rapidly is whats causing the bad name"like stated above" .But I couldn't agree with you more wolves need to understand if there's humans in this area or cattle they need to get as far away as possible "not always possible but they can at least try to avoid people" .Maybe not a rifle aiming down every wolf ,only trouble making wolves should have there dick hit the dirt.Otherwise all your doing is causing more harm than good.  If you want to know what made people sick in the early 1900's ask them about Passenger pigeons    they did a great job eradicating them.

[HUNTINCOUPLE]

jon,
Here's something for you to think about. Have you considered that many of the instructors in our universities and colleges have their own agendas and that many are pro-wolfers and are opposed to hunting and ranching as we know it in the west?

If you have an open mind and truly want to be a good biologist who can think on his own and arrive at honest conclusions, you need to recognize people for what they stand for and be able to understand how their agenda affects what they say or teach. You need to decide if you are a follower or a leader. 

I do think we can live with a reasonable number of wolves, especially if they are influenced by hunting, etc, to stay in our parks and wilderness areas. But the biggest problem with the wolf introduction is that wolf proponents are trying to force too many wolves into too many inhabited areas and that causes too many impacts on our modern ecosystems. If they would take a more reasonable approach wolves would be far more accepted. I probably wouldn't even be wasting so much of my time fighting against wolves if I trusted our F&G to take a reasonable approach that caused less impacts by wolves on our herds, livestock, and lifestyles.

    I couldn't agree with you more for once Bearpaw,Now you know why i'm going to school to be able to fix it ,Most of my instructors have a feeling of we need wolves out there the number is yet to be figured out and that is causing the problem ,
  :twocents:If you knew that there were only 3-5 dogs per pack and that there would never be more per pack  do you think that would be a good number?If every year you knew the number of elk would never drop by more than 25% do to the low pack numbers and that lucky individuals who would have a lottery type draw get the chance to go shoot a dog that needs to be replaced would you be ok with that plan?           

     :twocents:As far as opposed to ranching and farming I know 100% for sure our main wildlife  instructor doesn't have a single problem with ranchers he is one, from eastern Montana, lol But he also understands both sides of the subject and try's his best to help balance the two out.
 Now Huntincouple I wouldn't say useless they have place and a need just the way there allowing them to explode and expand rapidly is whats causing the bad name"like stated above" .But I couldn't agree with you more wolves need to understand if there's humans in this area or cattle they need to get as far away as possible "not always possible but they can at least try to avoid people" .Maybe not a rifle aiming down every wolf ,only trouble making wolves should have there dick hit the dirt.Otherwise all your doing is causing more harm than good.  If you want to know what made people sick in the early 1900's ask them about Passenger pigeons    they did a great job eradicating them.

From observation  of trying to detier unwanted animals from ones property, banging pots and pans does not work so well. Shots from high powered rifles gets there attention a whole lot better. As for the slander words you use, please remember this is a family site and we and others use this site as a educational tool. We educate our 4yr old daughter with threads as this so she learns how the world works. And believe you me she already can read the slander you post and I would prefer if you could please not type it in. Thanks!!!!

[wolfbait]

jon,
Here's something for you to think about. Have you considered that many of the instructors in our universities and colleges have their own agendas and that many are pro-wolfers and are opposed to hunting and ranching as we know it in the west?

If you have an open mind and truly want to be a good biologist who can think on his own and arrive at honest conclusions, you need to recognize people for what they stand for and be able to understand how their agenda affects what they say or teach. You need to decide if you are a follower or a leader. 

I do think we can live with a reasonable number of wolves, especially if they are influenced by hunting, etc, to stay in our parks and wilderness areas. But the biggest problem with the wolf introduction is that wolf proponents are trying to force too many wolves into too many inhabited areas and that causes too many impacts on our modern ecosystems. If they would take a more reasonable approach wolves would be far more accepted. I probably wouldn't even be wasting so much of my time fighting against wolves if I trusted our F&G to take a reasonable approach that caused less impacts by wolves on our herds, livestock, and lifestyles.

    I couldn't agree with you more for once Bearpaw,Now you know why i'm going to school to be able to fix it ,Most of my instructors have a feeling of we need wolves out there the number is yet to be figured out and that is causing the problem ,
  :twocents:If you knew that there were only 3-5 dogs per pack and that there would never be more per pack  do you think that would be a good number?If every year you knew the number of elk would never drop by more than 25% do to the low pack numbers and that lucky individuals who would have a lottery type draw get the chance to go shoot a dog that needs to be replaced would you be ok with that plan?           

     :twocents:As far as opposed to ranching and farming I know 100% for sure our main wildlife  instructor doesn't have a single problem with ranchers he is one, from eastern Montana, lol But he also understands both sides of the subject and try's his best to help balance the two out.
 Now Huntincouple I wouldn't say useless they have place and a need just the way there allowing them to explode and expand rapidly is whats causing the bad name"like stated above" .But I couldn't agree with you more wolves need to understand if there's humans in this area or cattle they need to get as far away as possible "not always possible but they can at least try to avoid people" .Maybe not a rifle aiming down every wolf ,only trouble making wolves should have there dick hit the dirt.Otherwise all your doing is causing more harm than good.  If you want to know what made people sick in the early 1900's ask them about Passenger pigeons    they did a great job eradicating them.

From observation  of trying to detier unwanted animals from ones property, banging pots and pans does not work so well. Shots from high powered rifles gets there attention a whole lot better. As for the slander words you use, please remember this is a family site and we and others use this site as a educational tool. We educate our 4yr old daughter with threads as this so she learns how the world works. And believe you me she already can read the slander you post and I would prefer if you could please not type it in. Thanks!!!!

If wolves were hunted as a predator , the lower 48 could not keep up with their increase, protecting them, should bring a question mark in your mind, of why?

Pro-wolf people always bring up habitat, what they are really saying is land grab by the USFW via state game agencies and the environmentalist. SS

[Axle]

If wolves were hunted as a predator , the lower 48 could not keep up with their increase, protecting them, should bring a question mark in your mind, of why?

Pro-wolf people always bring up habitat, what they are really saying is land grab by the USFW via state game agencies and the environmentalist. SS

And isn't this all about Agenda 21?

[wolfbait]

If wolves were hunted as a predator , the lower 48 could not keep up with their increase, protecting them, should bring a question mark in your mind, of why?

Pro-wolf people always bring up habitat, what they are really saying is land grab by the USFW via state game agencies and the environmentalist. SS

And isn't this all about Agenda 21?

Yep, but no one wants to talk about it> Then there is the Wildlands Project, Huge corridors with no human contact, which equals a land grab by the feds. Mineral rights will disappear, and the list goes on.

[jon.brown509]

   In all honesty i'm sorry for slander "took me a second to see it" didn't realize i was doing that. Pot's and pans really? High powered rifle? say you do take out a wolf and it was the  alpha now the pack is going to be lead by a Juvenal and lead that pack into  a lot of trouble congrats,A better way to handle that is to Not say shoo wolf shoo "i've never heard that before made me lol", You could instead try more non lethal ways,not saying the wolf wouldn't deserve that but until you understand how the social understandings of a wolf pack are,you could kill the wrong dog and bring in a obama wolf into your area    Biggest example of that is when you see people dropping collared wolves "normally alpha is collared"
 
 Second Habitat is such a poor argument for people because of how complex habitats can be wal-mart could be a habitat.It's like the pro wolf peoples use habitat like anti wolf people use Non native both poor arguments. I hope wolves get hunted like predators there needs to be that fear in them but like I said above sometimes hunters do more harm than good 'unintentionally'
 Until we as hunters can fight out the seattle-tacoma area for what happens in the woods across the state i don't see this happening any time soon 
 

[wolfbait]

   In all honesty i'm sorry for slander "took me a second to see it" didn't realize i was doing that. Pot's and pans really? High powered rifle? say you do take out a wolf and it was the  alpha now the pack is going to be lead by a Juvenal and lead that pack into  a lot of trouble congrats,A better way to handle that is to Not say shoo wolf shoo "i've never heard that before made me lol", You could instead try more non lethal ways,not saying the wolf wouldn't deserve that but until you understand how the social understandings of a wolf pack are,you could kill the wrong dog and bring in a obama wolf into your area    Biggest example of that is when you see people dropping collared wolves "normally alpha is collared"
 
 Second Habitat is such a poor argument for people because of how complex habitats can be wal-mart could be a habitat.It's like the pro wolf peoples use habitat like anti wolf people use Non native both poor arguments. I hope wolves get hunted like predators there needs to be that fear in them but like I said above sometimes hunters do more harm than good 'unintentionally'
 Until we as hunters can fight out the seattle-tacoma area for what happens in the woods across the state i don't see this happening any time soon 

So now we are going the other way,  (Second Habitat is such a poor argument for people because of how complex habitats can be wal-mart could be a habitat.)

Really, have you discussed this with Idahohunter or wacoyote? Because they really like the habitat discussion. Isn't the lack of elk, moose, deer, etc all about not enough habitat or poor habitat? It surely couldn't be that excessive predators are killing off the game herds?