Mr. Bangs,
I appreciate the dialog and appreciate the information which you supplied. I note your reference to Dr. Val Geist and implore you to heed his findings as well as Dr. Charles Kay’s and
the many thousands of sportsman, livestock growers and citizens who are devastated about the impact that these wolves are having on our lives. I am particularly concerned about
your remark to the Salt Lake Tribune
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14241339 “in reality – their no big deal”.
I believe this is an outrageous statement. That being what it is, I have some questions and comments for your further consideration.
Below is an excerpt from the last page of the paper you supplied. I can understand after reviewing this information that you may come to the conclusion that wolves aren’t “such a big deal”.
However, I believe the information is displayed in such a manner that it distorts and covers-up the real impacts of wolves.
.
IDAHO
1994
Wolves 0
Elk 116,000
Successful hunters 28,000
Success rate 20.96%
2002
Wolves 263
Elk 108,000
Successful hunters 18,400
Success rate 20.00%
2008
Wolves 846
Elk 107,000
Successful hunters 19,060
Success rate 22.06%
MONTANA
1994
Wolves 48
Elk 94,000
Successful hunters 18,209
Success rate 16.65%
2002
Wolves 183
Elk 130,000
Successful hunters 22,447
Success rate 19.50%
2008
Wolves 497
Elk 150,000
Successful hunters 23,917
Success rate 21.46%
WYOMING
1994
Wolves 0
Elk 102,000
Successful hunters 17,695
Success rate 43.70%
2002
Wolves 217
Elk 106,000
Successful hunters 21,462
Success rate 38.50%
2008
Wolves 302
Elk 105,000
Successful hunters 22,523
Success rate 40.1%
For the record I am curious to know what source you used for the information. However, accepting this information as factual, including the overall population numbers and hunter success rates, then one can deduce that wolves are
not having such a negative impact. However, this information displayed in this manner quoting overall totals for all units combined is covering-up the real impacts. The numbers fail to address the individual unit by unit impacts
related to this wolf introduction. I will elaborate further on this issue and on some other ignored facts:
Wolf Population and Hunter success. This macro (overall total) approach in the table above fails to identify the actual individual impact of units being devastated by wolves. The numbers fail to subtract
the inclusion of the thousands of elk added in units that were previously unhunted for elk. This inclusion and lack of a unit impact distorts the real impact of wolves. It is commonly known that wolves have basically eliminated
the viable elk populations in many units. Is it acceptable in your eyes for the wolf to wipe out elk in certain regions and simply mask this by adding elk population numbers in others?
Elk Calf recruitment Our tri-state Fish and Game departments have voiced concerns about significant reductions in elk calf/cow ratios and in elk calf recruitment. They all are admitting that this is likely a result
of increased wolf depredation. Elk calf recruitment levels in many areas are at record lows, and are declining. Is this chance? or is it the result of elk continually being harassed and hunted by wolves day and night, 365 days per year.
Any species whose reproductive rate falls below replenishment levels over a long period of time eventually spells disaster for the viability of that species. Need I mention Rocky Mountain Elk? Also as wolves deplete elk they
will shift to preying Moose, caribou?
Disease – Wolves are carriers of several debilitating and potentially deadly diseases. Other innocent wildlife, domestic livestock are contracting these diseases. What is the future impact of this disease spread to our
wildlife ecosystem? Devastating to say the least. What about the potential to be equally devastating to the livestock industry. The increased incidence of this disease is also coincident with these “reintroduced” Canadian wolves.
Before the release it was largely undetected.
Wolves are responsible for the spread of many disease and parasites, but in particular, there is major concern with the following:
Neospora Caninum which is strongly associated with bovine abortion. This disease is causing previously uninfected ungulate and domestic livestock to prematurely abort their young.
Hydatid Cysts (Echinococcus granulosa), which has been found in 2/3’s of the lungs of and internal organs of the harvested wolves. This parasite is transmitted by canines, and primarily by wolves.
It is easily contracted by animals coming into contact with wolf scat, airborne or otherwise, or in contact with any part of a wolf carcass. Such contact may infect the animal (Elk, Moose, deer, caribou, sheep, domestic livestock, humans, etc), infecting the liver, lungs and internal organs, and potentially even infect its brain. Some known symptoms are labored breathing, reduced stamina and often
premature death of the infected animal.
Consider the impact to an ecosystem that was previously untouched by wolves (prior to 1994). Consider that this same Rocky Mountain Wilderness area now has a top-tier predator thrust into its midst. The predator has experienced phenomenal growth and currently exceeds 2,000 to 3,000 wolves depending whose numbers you believe. This predator is a borne killer and hunts 365 days per year. It is responsible for killing 6.000 and 12,000 elk monthly Do you still want to stand by your statement “In reality, they're no big deal?"
Consider that Elk/Calf recruitment has plummeted to record lows in many areas where these wolves roam and is now below replenishment levels. Do you still want to stand by your statement “In reality, they're no big deal?"
Consider that wolves are primarily responsible for rapid spread of parasites and diseases within their range. These parasites Neospora Caninum and Echinococcus granulose were largely undetected prior to the introduction of wolves and now are infecting other wildlife and livestock at alarming rates. The impact of these 2,000 to 3,000 wolves exponentially spreading disease within our borders is catastrophic, and will forever impact our game, domestic livestock and potentially to humans. Do you still want to stand by your statement “In reality, they're no big deal??”
Consider the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been wasted and that wolves are continuing to cost our government and the citizens of our states Do you still want to stand by your statement “In reality, they're no big deal?"
Ed, I implore you to seriously consider your Fiduciary responsibility as a public servant in this matter as it relates to public and livestock safety, and also as it relates to the welfare and viability of the other animals that are being devastated by this misguided program.
Tony Mayer
SaveElk.com
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dear Mr. Mayer,
We have been told all along about the pure genetics of the greater Yellowstone elk herd and how when Rammels elk escaped from their holding pens that this was going to be a decimation of this pure strain of elk. In the meantime we have the USFW service [I use this term very loosely] introducing a new predator using the endangered species act that is going to totally wipe out the genetics of this fine elk herd with an introduced species. As I understand the ESA this is violating the law and is punishable by fines and or jail time. If any of us were ever caught introducing a new strain of fish or game to an area not habituated by that genetic code we would be fined and penalized to the full extent of the law. According to published articles these very wolves are turning cannibalistic and eating each other because they are running out of their primary food source in this area which is the greater Yellowstone elk herd. I have a very hard time understanding why this is not all the grounds that is needed for the removal of this introduced species. If you can use this to help our cause please do so.
Sincerely,
Rick B
