Endangered huh?

[predatorpro]

thought this was kinda interesting as far as just pure numbers of wolves, which im sure are all probly on the low side

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grey_wolf_populations_by_country

[pianoman9701]

Those numbers are suspect. Alberta has announced that they need to cull 6,000 wolves, so the figure or 4,500 doesn't cut the numbers. Wikipedia isn't know for it's accuracy, only for it being open for anyone to contribute.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Those numbers are suspect. Alberta has announced that they need to cull 6,000 wolves, so the figure or 4,500 doesn't cut the numbers. Wikipedia isn't know for it's accuracy, only for it being open for anyone to contribute.

Just to get the facts straight as far as they've been reported so far. Here's what was given as a ballpark estimate based on another small hunt.

I'm assuming you got your info from this story.....   http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,88569.0.html

"Researchers at the Pembina Institute figure that about 6,000 wolves will have to be culled every five years, if a smaller project in the Little Smoky River area is any guide."

Even if this is the case,  that's only 1,200 wolves per year. Probably won't affect the total population much as I'd guess that many are born there per year.  You kill those, it's just that much more likely the others will survive. More food and less territorial infighting among the wolves.  Pretty expensive to carry out too. Alaska has found out that it's a fairly expensive proposition to hunt wolves from the air, especially in low snow years. 

Then you have to hope that the culling has an effect on the herd. If it's the habitat in question, you might grow the herd too fast and cause worse problems.

Reading the rest of the article points to that direction. A couple more quotes.

"And while the report does not dwell on using an extended and intensive wolf cull to protect fragile caribou populations, it's clearly one of the few options left for the Alberta herds."

"It would be a key stop-gap measure while the natural habitat is slowly repaired over the coming decades -- likely used in conjunction with other strategies such as allowing increased hunting of deer and moose, who share the caribou habitat."

Sooooo, besides knocking down the wolf herd, they are planning to knock down deer and moose numbers which compete for the habitat.  In the long run, the total number of animals available to hunters might not change. It might just change the number of each species available. More caribou, less deer and moose.

And then this

"Much of the habitat in question overlaps with the oilsands region -- although experts and the federal report alike don't hold the oilpatch solely responsible for the destruction of the caribou habitat. Rather, they say it's a culmination of decades, even centuries, of industrial development in the region that has upset the delicate balance caribou need to thrive."

Sooooo, the wolves didn't cause the problem. It's man made.  The wolves take the heat, and nothing really changes.

"said Boutin.

"It's a direct trade-off, and society and everybody is going to have to make some real hard decisions there, because you cannot, over extensive areas, have both of those activities going on and preserve caribou unless you go to other drastic conservation efforts like predator control or fencing," he said."

So basically, industry and development has created a problem and the government feels they need to look like they are doing something to save face and take the heat off the real reason the caribou in this area have low numbers.  Spend money for a (hopeful) short term fix that might just fix it's self as far as wolf numbers go. And ohhh by the way, after a couple years of we let you whack down the deer and moose too, there may be a few more caribou, but less deer and moose and the wolf population will probably be about the same. (But of course we can then blame the Wolves for the shortage of Deer and Moose and start another wolf control project.)

That about par for the course.

Personally, my point of view would be, if you aren't going to fix the habitat, you might as well go with the staus quo and plan on having a smaller caribou population and leave the deer and moose alone as they seem to compete better in the current environment. (possibly because caribou are more migratory) Save the tax payers' money. And if you want to knock the wolves down a bit, just liberalize the seasons and encourage more trapping.

[bearpaw]

I do not find it any coincidence that wherever wolf numbers increase, big game herds suffer.

The Truth About Wolves In Alaska
"Testimony By Concerned Alaskans"
http://graywolfnews.com/pdf/truth_about_wolves_in_alaska.pdf


Van Ballenberghe (1985) states that wolf population regulation is needed when a caribou herd population declines and becomes trapped in a predator pit, wherein predators are able to prevent caribou populations from increasing.


Because Canada has allowed wolves to multiply there are many caribou herds in trouble and close to extintion, wolves are a great part of the problem.
http://graywolfnews.com/pdf/part_1_caribou_extinction_PNP.pdf
http://graywolfnews.com/pdf/part_1_caribou_extinction_PNP.pdf
http://graywolfnews.com/pdf/part_3_caribou_extinction_PNP.pdf

[Sitka_Blacktail]

It's not wolves that cause herds to fluctuate. It's nutrition.

Which of the following holds the most truth?

"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever wolf numbers increase, big game herds suffer."

"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever human numbers increase, big game herds suffer."

[Bigshooter]

It's not wolves that cause herds to fluctuate. It's nutrition.

Which of the following holds the most truth?

"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever wolf numbers increase, big game herds suffer."

"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever human numbers increase, big game herds suffer."

There's plenty of great feed in yellowstone and there are no people.  So where did the elk go?

[canyelk48]

It's not wolves that cause herds to fluctuate. It's nutrition.

Which of the following holds the most truth?

"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever wolf numbers increase, big game herds suffer."

"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever human numbers increase, big game herds suffer."

.....and the cow elk can't get the nutrition they need to produce healthy calves because of the wolves constantly hunting/chasing them throughout the Winter; thus leading to very low cow to calf ratios.  Fewer calves ultimately lead to reduced numbers of elk since there are no "replacements" for the elk that the wolves have killed and eaten.  I suppose you'll dispute that too??

[stuckalot]

It's not wolves that cause herds to fluctuate. It's nutrition.

Which of the following holds the most truth?

"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever wolf numbers increase, big game herds suffer."

"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever human numbers increase, big game herds suffer."

There's plenty of great feed in yellowstone and there are no people.  So where did the elk go?

   And the answer to todays $10,000 question?....... wait for it......

[seth30]

It's not wolves that cause herds to fluctuate. It's nutrition.

Which of the following holds the most truth?

"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever wolf numbers increase, big game herds suffer."

"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever human numbers increase, big game herds suffer."

Oh I cant wait for the BS answer that he is going to post  

There's plenty of great feed in yellowstone and there are no people.  So where did the elk go?

   And the answer to todays $10,000 question?....... wait for it......

[JimmyHoffa]

It's not wolves that cause herds to fluctuate. It's nutrition.

Which of the following holds the most truth?

"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever wolf numbers increase, big game herds suffer."

"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever human numbers increase, big game herds suffer."

Well, there is plenty of nutrition where humans are...home developments, clearcuts, gardens, etc.  Game populations seem to thrive, both deer and elk.  What I don't see too many of near humans are predators.  Predators get iced.  Out in the wilderness I see plenty of predators, but not so much game.  Plenty of nutrition there too. 

[SpringerFan]

It's not wolves that cause herds to fluctuate. It's nutrition.

Which of the following holds the most truth?

"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever wolf numbers increase, big game herds suffer."

"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever human numbers increase, big game herds suffer."

I believe in freedom of speech. But I also believe there are people who need to be silenced (as in banned from this website) since all they do is try and cause problems. This post by Sitka is just another example. No facts. Just opinions. Opinions are fine. But just like #$%holes, everyone has one. Some actually make sense......

Like somone else said, let's start posting topics on their websites. This person is just up to no good on this site.

I wonder how much money they have poured in to this state to actually help "manage" the wildlife.......

I just started hunting several years ago, and wish I had started a long time ago. Most every hunter I have met is about the animal. The environment. And maintaining a lifestyle / ecosystem that has balance.

I have failed to see anything that resembles a "balance" from this poster. Just flame wars.

My for what it is worth.

[sebek556]

 
 I am also a firm beleaver that if we take the warning labels off of everything, most people like the aboved mentioned would no longer be a problem because they would sort themselves out..

[seth30]

quote author=sebek556 link=topic=89960.msg1140678#msg1140678 date=1325649369]
 
 I am also a firm beleaver that if we take the warning labels off of everything, most people like the aboved mentioned would no longer be a problem because they would sort themselves out..
[/quote]

[seth30]

It's not wolves that cause herds to fluctuate. It's nutrition.

Which of the following holds the most truth?

"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever wolf numbers increase, big game herds suffer."

"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever human numbers increase, big game herds suffer."

I believe in freedom of speech. But I also believe there are people who need to be silenced (as in banned from this website) since all they do is try and cause problems. This post by Sitka is just another example. No facts. Just opinions. Opinions are fine. But just like #$%holes, everyone has one. Some actually make sense......

Like somone else said, let's start posting topics on their websites. This person is just up to no good on this site.

I wonder how much money they have poured in to this state to actually help "manage" the wildlife.......

I just started hunting several years ago, and wish I had started a long time ago. Most every hunter I have met is about the animal. The environment. And maintaining a lifestyle / ecosystem that has balance.

I have failed to see anything that resembles a "balance" from this poster. Just flame wars.

My for what it is worth.

spot on! 

[boneaddict]

I think its good to see both views.  Its a great way to learn.  It also generally is what makes "us" different.  Many and I mean MANY of the hugger kind would NEVER open their minds up to hearing someone elses opinion. Thats the difference between true outdoorsman and radicals.    Most outdoorsman are actually conservationists.  MANY and again I mean MANY "huggers" are very far from being conservationists although thats what they claim to be.   Many have no clue about what really occurs in nature.    As long as its not abrasive then I am sure it will be tolerated.  In fact the more that you can convey the message, the more hope there is.