Wolf Wars have moved to Washington

[bucklucky]

Thing is even the people that just watch the wildlife need to get on board with the WFW or they wont have the wildlife to watch and a great example of that is yellowstone.

[Kain]

Deer and elk are boring.  Not sexy like wolves and bears.   

[sebek556]

should be done with anti wolve cheat sheet ver 1.0 this evening since fishing trip canceled and waiting on truck parts. Wanted to see really fsat if everyone would prefer idaho as the basis of the majority of facts since the elk pop is hunted and wolfs are there or should we use yellow stone where no hunting and lots of wolves?

[BIGINNER]

should be done with anti wolve cheat sheet ver 1.0 this evening since fishing trip canceled and waiting on truck parts. Wanted to see really fsat if everyone would prefer idaho as the basis of the majority of facts since the elk pop is hunted and wolfs are there or should we use yellow stone where no hunting and lots of wolves?

I WOULD SAY IDAHO,  AND YELLOWSTONE,  IDAHO SHOWS CLOSER TO WHAT WASHINGTON WILL BE LIKE, SINCE IDAHO IS HUNTED,  AND YELLOWSTONE IS A GREAT EAPLE OF THE FACT THAT HUNTING IS A MUCH BETTER MANAGEMENT TOOL THAN WOLVES,  WOLVES DO NOT MANAGE THE ELK AND DEER.  THEY DESTROY THEM,  HUNTERS MANAGE THEM

[robertg]

should be done with anti wolve cheat sheet ver 1.0 this evening since fishing trip canceled and waiting on truck parts. Wanted to see really fsat if everyone would prefer idaho as the basis of the majority of facts since the elk pop is hunted and wolfs are there or should we use yellow stone where no hunting and lots of wolves?

I WOULD SAY IDAHO,  AND YELLOWSTONE,  IDAHO SHOWS CLOSER TO WHAT WASHINGTON WILL BE LIKE, SINCE IDAHO IS HUNTED,  AND YELLOWSTONE IS A GREAT EAPLE OF THE FACT THAT HUNTING IS A MUCH BETTER MANAGEMENT TOOL THAN WOLVES,  WOLVES DO NOT MANAGE THE ELK AND DEER.  THEY DESTROY THEM,  HUNTERS MANAGE THEM

Wolves do manage the elk and deer and have been doing so for thousands upon thousands of years. Yellowstone is a national park and there is no hunting allowed. National parks are for people to view wildlife. there are under 100 wolves now in Yellowstone. I wouldn't consider under 100 wolves a lot of wolves given the size of yellowstone. There are also under 5000 elk. There used to be 19,000 elk which was way too many and many people complained that there were too many elk in yellowstone.

[robertg]

Yellowstone elk populations decline, but are wolves to blame?
Brodie Farquhar

Yellowstone elk populations have dramatically risen and fallen in recent decades, but researchers are arguing over the relative impact of wolf predation on elk populations.

For example, Yellowstone's famed northern range elk increased from about 4,000 head in 1968 to some 20,000 by 1988, due to a combination of factors: elk colonized new winter range in and north of the park, wet summers resulted in better plant production, winters were mild, and the fires of 1988 opened forests allowing more ground cover to grow. With the reintroduction of wolves into the ecosystem in 1995, elk populations held their own from 1995 to 2000 (17,000), before they dramatically dropped by 50 percent to 8,335 in winter 2004.

At the same time, researchers note both high human harvest levels and seven years of drought at the same time wolf numbers were growing throughout the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

In a broader context, more than 30,000 elk from 7-8 different herds summer in Yellowstone and approximately 15,000 to 22,000 winter in the park, according to National Park Service biologists.

Are wolves to blame?
Doug Smith and Daniel Stahler (NPS wolf biologists) and John Vucetich (Michigan Tech biologist) joined forces to investigate the influence of harvest, climate and wolf predation on Yellowstone elk. The three built computer models based on elk-related data prior to wolf restoration (1961-1995). The goal was to use the best of these models to predict how elk populations might have fared, had the wolves never been reintroduced.

Their models suggested that human harvest (hunting) might be "super-additive," that for every one percent increase in the harvest rate, elk population growth rate would decline by more than one percent.

"According to the best-performing model, which accounts for harvest rate and climate, the elk population would have been expected to decline by 7.9 percent per year, on average, between 1995 and 2004," they wrote in a study published by the peer-reviewed journal of ecology, Oikos. "Within the limits of uncertainty, which are not trivial, climate and harvest rate are justified explanations for most of the observed elk decline. To the extent that this is true, we suggest that between 1995 and 2004 wolf predation was primarily compensatory (of no significance)."

The researchers acknowledge that some wildlife managers and segments of the general public believe the decline of the northern range elk herd is attributable to wolf predation. "Our analysis indicates that there is greater justification for believing that the harvest rate and severe climate, together, account for at least much of the decline," they wrote.

Competing view
Yet ungulate biologist P.J. White (NPS) and ecologist Dr. Bob Garrott (Montana State), in a paper for Biological Conservation (2005) contend that the rapid growth of the wolf population has in fact contributed to rapid demographic decline for elk.

White and Garrott have also speculated that as wolf recovery continues, there will be greater numbers of bison and antelope, because of wolf pressure on elk and coyote populations, respectively.

Yet wolves are beginning to take bison in the park's interior. The Pelican Valley wolf pack hunts bison in late winter when they are more vulnerable and migratory elk are not available. White and Garrott suggest that a change of prey preference from elk to bison, by wolves, could lead to stable populations for elk and bison.
"Counts of northern Yellowstone elk have decreased more than predicted," wrote White and Garrott, "and counts will likely continue to decrease in the near future given the strong preference of wolves for elk and the high kill rates."

In a telephone interview, White said he believes that wolves have overshot their favored prey base of elk.

"I don't think (the elk population) decline is entirely due to wolves," said White. A moderate to liberal harvest policy has played a role, he said, as well as predation by a growing population of grizzly bears.

But simple answers are both elusive and often wrong, say scientists, citing the sheer complexity of the northern range ecosystem.

White said ruefully that 10 years after the reintroduction of wolves, "the range of predictions is as large as it was before." Past predictions have been spot-on, but others have been wildly off the mark. Today, there's disagreement on whether wolf predation is negligible or significant, where the elk and wolf populations will eventually settle, and at what level the elk hunting harvest can be sustainable.
What everyone would agree to, is that ongoing research is needed to better understand the complexity of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

Elk Facts
Elk are the second largest antlered animals in the world, only moose are larger. Bull elk are 4.5 to 5 feet tall at the shoulder and weigh 550 to 800 pounds. Cow elk weigh from 450 to 600 pounds. The National Elk Refuge near Jackson, Wyoming, has an elk herd with consists approximately 20 percent bulls, 65 percent cows, and 15 percent calves.

While most members of the deer family are primarily browsers (feeding on twigs and leaves of shrubs and trees), elk are both browsers and grazers, feeding extensively on grasses and forbs, as well as shrubs.

Grizzly bears, black bears, mountain lions, wolves, and coyotes prey on elk. By weeding out the weak, predators help maintain healthy, vigorous elk herds.
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

[BIGINNER]

should be done with anti wolve cheat sheet ver 1.0 this evening since fishing trip canceled and waiting on truck parts. Wanted to see really fsat if everyone would prefer idaho as the basis of the majority of facts since the elk pop is hunted and wolfs are there or should we use yellow stone where no hunting and lots of wolves?

I WOULD SAY IDAHO,  AND YELLOWSTONE,  IDAHO SHOWS CLOSER TO WHAT WASHINGTON WILL BE LIKE, SINCE IDAHO IS HUNTED,  AND YELLOWSTONE IS A GREAT EAPLE OF THE FACT THAT HUNTING IS A MUCH BETTER MANAGEMENT TOOL THAN WOLVES,  WOLVES DO NOT MANAGE THE ELK AND DEER.  THEY DESTROY THEM,  HUNTERS MANAGE THEM

Wolves do manage the elk and deer and have been doing so for thousands upon thousands of years. Yellowstone is a national park and there is no hunting allowed. National parks are for people to view wildlife. there are under 100 wolves now in Yellowstone. I wouldn't consider under 100 wolves a lot of wolves given the size of yellowstone. There are also under 5000 elk. There used to be 19,000 elk which was way too many and many people complained that there were too many elk in yellowstone.

THAT WOULD BE TRUE ONLY IF HUMANS WERE TOTALLY REMOVED FROM THE PLAYING FIELD,  I DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING,  I WOULD RATHER SEE THE WOLVES TOTALLY REMOVED,.  THE POINT IS,  IT 2011 AND PEOPL ARE HERE AND THEY'RE HERE TO STAY,  I'M FINE WITH WOLVES BEING HERE,  BUT NOT BY THE WOLF GROUPS TURMS,.. WOLVES NEED TO BE STRICTLY MANAGED,  BUT WITH THE COUGAR AND BLACK BEAR PROBLEMS HERE IN WASHINGTON,  I HONESTLY DON'T SEE WOLVES FITTING IN, 

[BIGINNER]

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/opinions/article_33ed3e7b-2e8f-5440-8fee-16f36fb6abb0.html


Home Opinion .Wolf hunt needed
StoryCommentsShareShare Print Create a hardcopy of this page Font Size: Default font size Larger font size  Share
.Posted: Sunday, February 26, 2006 11:00 pm | Updated: 11:07 am, Tue Feb 9, 2010.

Wolf hunt needed 0 comments

"We strongly support hunting wolves. Look at the success we've had with hunting lions and maintaining strong lion populations. There is no reason wolf management cannot be just as successful" (Ed Bangs).

Hunting wolves is a very controversial issue with sentiments running high. After careful consideration on this issue, I have come to one major conclusion. Without hunting, managing wolves is a very difficult task.


Bob Garrott, a wildlife biologist at Montana State University did a study on three different wolf packs. I am going to focus on the Gallatin region pack also known as the Chief Joseph pack. This pack was extremely restless. The alpha female was killed by a car and her mate was killed by a bull elk. This caused the pack to split up. Some of this pack ended up 160 miles away on a ranch north of Helena. The owner of the ranch shot and killed one of the pack members after it had killed 19 of his sheep. Six or seven of the wolf pack remained in the area and researchers confirmed that the pack killed 24 elk in a three-month study period. At this rate, a herd of 120 elk would be eliminated in a period of 18 months.

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has not taken a stand on hunting wolves but has presented facts about wolf behavior. According to their study, wolves are elusive and have unpredictable movement. They cannot be kept in the same place, therefore they affect different elk herds and livestock that were not thought about in the effort to bring the wolf back in the area. If hunting wolves were legal, numbers would be kept down but a high enough number could be maintained. Even Ed Bangs, a U.S. Fish and Widlife Service wolf recovery coordinator agrees that wolves should be hunted. I agree with Bob Garrott, when he states, "Wolves are not deities, no matter what some people think. We have to be able to accommodate the ranchers, because these big open spaces support everything we want - the elk, the wolves, the wildlife."

Drew Huempfner

Bozeman

[robertg]

should be done with anti wolve cheat sheet ver 1.0 this evening since fishing trip canceled and waiting on truck parts. Wanted to see really fsat if everyone would prefer idaho as the basis of the majority of facts since the elk pop is hunted and wolfs are there or should we use yellow stone where no hunting and lots of wolves?

I WOULD SAY IDAHO,  AND YELLOWSTONE,  IDAHO SHOWS CLOSER TO WHAT WASHINGTON WILL BE LIKE, SINCE IDAHO IS HUNTED,  AND YELLOWSTONE IS A GREAT EAPLE OF THE FACT THAT HUNTING IS A MUCH BETTER MANAGEMENT TOOL THAN WOLVES,  WOLVES DO NOT MANAGE THE ELK AND DEER.  THEY DESTROY THEM,  HUNTERS MANAGE THEM

Wolves do manage the elk and deer and have been doing so for thousands upon thousands of years. Yellowstone is a national park and there is no hunting allowed. National parks are for people to view wildlife. there are under 100 wolves now in Yellowstone. I wouldn't consider under 100 wolves a lot of wolves given the size of yellowstone. There are also under 5000 elk. There used to be 19,000 elk which was way too many and many people complained that there were too many elk in yellowstone.

THAT WOULD BE TRUE ONLY IF HUMANS WERE TOTALLY REMOVED FROM THE PLAYING FIELD,  I DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING,  I WOULD RATHER SEE THE WOLVES TOTALLY REMOVED,.  THE POINT IS,  IT 2011 AND PEOPL ARE HERE AND THEY'RE HERE TO STAY,  I'M FINE WITH WOLVES BEING HERE,  BUT NOT BY THE WOLF GROUPS TURMS,.. WOLVES NEED TO BE STRICTLY MANAGED,  BUT WITH THE COUGAR AND BLACK BEAR PROBLEMS HERE IN WASHINGTON,  I HONESTLY DON'T SEE WOLVES FITTING IN,

As far as national parks like yellowstone go, wolves are being managed. Wolves die from other things like disease, starvation, getting hit by cars, etc. I do find it a bit odd that Washington has a lot of cougars and as of now, they are killing many more deer and elk than wolves and all people seem to focus on is wolves. There seems to be a lot of hate for wolves and not that much hate for cougars even though there are by far many more cougars in WA and they are killing many more deer and elk than wolves as of now.

[BIGINNER]

I THINK MOSTLY WE'RE AGAIANST WOLVES BEING SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS. (I'M NOT TALKING RE-INTRODUCING OR INTRODUCING ECT)  I'M TALKING ABOUT THE B.S. WOLF PLAN WITH B.S. NUMBERS THAT THEY HAVE NO INTENSION TO STICKING TO (AS WE'VE SEEN).  THIS STATE CAN'T MANAGE THE PREDITORS THAT WE HAVE HERE AS IS,... SO LETS TRY TO GET A CRAPLOAD OF MORE PREDITORS(MORE DISTRUCTIVE ONES) SO WE CAN MISMANAGE THEM TOO,    ITS MORE ABOUT MANAGEMENT THAN BEING AGAINST WOLVES.  AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE NEED A BIG CHANGE TO THE PREDITOR MANAGEMENT THAT WE HAVE NOW, AND WE NEED TO START MANAGEING THE WOLVES RIGHT AWAY, BY REGIONS, NOT BY THE WHOLE STATE.

[robertg]

should be done with anti wolve cheat sheet ver 1.0 this evening since fishing trip canceled and waiting on truck parts. Wanted to see really fsat if everyone would prefer idaho as the basis of the majority of facts since the elk pop is hunted and wolfs are there or should we use yellow stone where no hunting and lots of wolves?

I WOULD SAY IDAHO,  AND YELLOWSTONE,  IDAHO SHOWS CLOSER TO WHAT WASHINGTON WILL BE LIKE, SINCE IDAHO IS HUNTED,  AND YELLOWSTONE IS A GREAT EAPLE OF THE FACT THAT HUNTING IS A MUCH BETTER MANAGEMENT TOOL THAN WOLVES,  WOLVES DO NOT MANAGE THE ELK AND DEER.  THEY DESTROY THEM,  HUNTERS MANAGE THEM

Wolves do manage the elk and deer and have been doing so for thousands upon thousands of years. Yellowstone is a national park and there is no hunting allowed. National parks are for people to view wildlife. there are under 100 wolves now in Yellowstone. I wouldn't consider under 100 wolves a lot of wolves given the size of yellowstone. There are also under 5000 elk. There used to be 19,000 elk which was way too many and many people complained that there were too many elk in yellowstone.

THAT WOULD BE TRUE ONLY IF HUMANS WERE TOTALLY REMOVED FROM THE PLAYING FIELD,  I DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING,  I WOULD RATHER SEE THE WOLVES TOTALLY REMOVED,.  THE POINT IS,  IT 2011 AND PEOPL ARE HERE AND THEY'RE HERE TO STAY,  I'M FINE WITH WOLVES BEING HERE,  BUT NOT BY THE WOLF GROUPS TURMS,.. WOLVES NEED TO BE STRICTLY MANAGED,  BUT WITH THE COUGAR AND BLACK BEAR PROBLEMS HERE IN WASHINGTON,  I HONESTLY DON'T SEE WOLVES FITTING IN,

I know some hunters are mad that elk #s are down in yellowstone, but there is no management objective for yellowstone. It is a national park with no hunting allowed in it. I know some don't want to here this, but many people believed that elk were very overpopulated in ynp. 19,000 elk is A LOT of elk for  a national park in my opinion. Since there is no hunting allowed in it, it was the wolf's job to keep the elk in check. There is still thousands of elk left. The elk were destroying all the vegetation and something needed to be done.

[robertg]

I THINK MOSTLY WE'RE AGAIANST WOLVES BEING SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS. (I'M NOT TALKING RE-INTRODUCING OR INTRODUCING ECT)  I'M TALKING ABOUT THE B.S. WOLF PLAN WITH B.S. NUMBERS THAT THEY HAVE NO INTENSION TO STICKING TO (AS WE'VE SEEN).  THIS STATE CAN'T MANAGE THE PREDITORS THAT WE HAVE HERE AS IS,... SO LETS TRY TO GET A CRAPLOAD OF MORE PREDITORS(MORE DISTRUCTIVE ONES) SO WE CAN MISMANAGE THEM TOO,    ITS MORE ABOUT MANAGEMENT THAN BEING AGAINST WOLVES.  AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE NEED A BIG CHANGE TO THE PREDITOR MANAGEMENT THAT WE HAVE NOW, AND WE NEED TO START MANAGEING THE WOLVES RIGHT AWAY, BY REGIONS, NOT BY THE WHOLE STATE.

Wolves were not shoved down your throat. The wolves in WA now came over naturally from other states. Natural migration is not the same thing as WA going to other states to get wolves and bringing them back to WA.

[robertg]

And even if they did plant wolves in WA which I don't believe they did, it would only be a matter of time before wolves from other states found their way in Washington.

[BIGINNER]

I THINK MOSTLY WE'RE AGAIANST WOLVES BEING SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS. (I'M NOT TALKING RE-INTRODUCING OR INTRODUCING ECT)  I'M TALKING ABOUT THE B.S. WOLF PLAN WITH B.S. NUMBERS THAT THEY HAVE NO INTENSION TO STICKING TO (AS WE'VE SEEN).  THIS STATE CAN'T MANAGE THE PREDITORS THAT WE HAVE HERE AS IS,... SO LETS TRY TO GET A CRAPLOAD OF MORE PREDITORS(MORE DISTRUCTIVE ONES) SO WE CAN MISMANAGE THEM TOO,    ITS MORE ABOUT MANAGEMENT THAN BEING AGAINST WOLVES.  AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE NEED A BIG CHANGE TO THE PREDITOR MANAGEMENT THAT WE HAVE NOW, AND WE NEED TO START MANAGEING THE WOLVES RIGHT AWAY, BY REGIONS, NOT BY THE WHOLE STATE.

Wolves were not shoved down your throat. The wolves in WA now came over naturally from other states. Natural migration is not the same thing as WA going to other states to get wolves and bringing them back to WA.

THERE THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE MORE VISABLE.   
ITS THE WOLF PLAN THAT IS BASICALLY SHOVING THE  B.S. NUMBER DOWN OUR THROATS.  AND WE ALREADY KNOW THAT 15 BREEDING PAIRS WON'T BE ENOUGH FOR THE GREENIES.  THEY'LL WANT MORE AND MORE AND MORE WITHOUT LOOKING AT OTHER PROBLEMS. (PREDITOR POPULATION AS A WHOLE)

[BIGINNER]

SO,.. ROBERT:  WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD BE THE RIGHT WAY TO HANDLE THE WHOLE WOLF/PREDITOR PROBLEM HERE IN WASHINGTON?  HOW DO YOU THINK WASHINGTON WILL BENEFIT FROM WOLVES? (WITH THE CURRENT WOLF PLAN)  WILL WASHINGTON BENEFIT FROM THIS ECONOMICALLY? HOW DO YOU THINK THIS SHOULD ALL BE PAID FOR? KEEP IN MIND THAT MOST HUNTER DON'T WANT THIS.