Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I finished reading The Return of Wolves: An Iconic Predator’s Struggle to Survive in the American West by Eli Francovich over Thanksgiving. This subject has always been a favorite of mine. I think an important part of environmental stewardship is returning predators to the wild. And for reasons I will explain, human hunting is not only no substitute, but cuts against sound management of the environment.
In 1968 I remember reading in National Geographic about the damage elk were doing to Yellowstone (and other parks) by overbrowsing. Ironically the National Park Service was dumping hay on the ground to prevent their starvation. The animals were so tame they almost could have been petted.
In 1994, my wife and I drove past the National Elk Refuge, perched between Yellowstone and Grand Teton, on our way to Jackson Hole for skiing. The elk literally covered the hillside. I was excited by the Park Service's reintroduction of wolves in January 1995 and 1996. From what I have read they have led a nice ecological recovery in Yellowstone and environs. They have spread from the Yellowstone and Idaho reintroduction sites to Oregon, California and Washington. The book was primarily about Washington and I felt the author, striving to be balanced, was too anti-wolf. Quite simply, we are leasing lands for grazing to ranchers at almost sacrifice rates; the ranchers are getting enough support. Put simply, they are grazing cattle in wilderness and selling the results at a profit.
In my "neck of the woods," the Northeast, the wolves are reestablishing themselves, through hybridization with coyotes. The local coyotes are much larger than out West. Some are hunting in packs. Essentially, I think, they are reconstituted wolves. The range of the coyotes now, on occasion, includes New York City. To my mind, "welcome back," but do not let them lose their fear of man. Believe me, that can happen. Just ask Fido.
The fear of wolves attacking people is so overblown. It's so bizarre the emotions this species elicits. And the ignorance.
Totally. I would not want to over-publicize this since the "loss of fear" risk is huge. Wolves are not many steps removed from domestic dogs, and I don't want to tempt: a) making them pets since they rarely work out; and b) close approaches to wild wolves. With bears the results of this has been tragic.
It could potentially be somewhat worse with wolves since the way dogs became domestic animals was, apparently, the propensity of some to hang out around cave-man campfires and take scraps and leftovers. Some were friendly enough to seek affection, and were willing to "pack" with humans. Unfortunately this was, at least, a thousand year process, and we have animal cruelty laws to prevent the disposition of animals that become unmanageable.
I agree that there is little danger to humans, and danger to livestock is a cost-benefit issue.
The book sounds good. I also fully support the reintroduction of wolves to the wild. In Yellowstone N.P. their presence has been beneficial to other plants and animals because they are a keystone species.
Colorado recently released wolves and I hope they stay safe and live their lives successfully.
I don't agree with cattle ranchers raising their cattle on public lands, its not fair for the wolves, because they get blamed and killed if they attack the cattle. Its not fair for the cattle getting attacked. Cattle need to be on private lands, away from wildlife with proper deterrence like electric fencing and guard dogs.
Ecosystems are healthiest when the apex predator is allowed to keep things in balance.
The problem is, human development has greatly reduced natural habitat & range, so wolf populations must be artificially managed thru hunting to maintain that balance, BUT-- A Goode-Two-Shoes court back in MA has ignorantly prevented the wise management plans of the scientists.....here in WI, for instance. Now we have an over-abundance of wolves for the habitat available-- thus enhancing the second problem of re-introduction...
...increased episodes of wolf /human or wolf/livestock interactions....On the vast fed ranges in the short grass prairie regions of the west, cattle have artificially filled the niche of the bison. That helps maintain the integrity & health of that ecosystem....There is no need to emotionally call for an end or even a reduction in use of fed land for grazing. Damage to livestock is a problem we can live with. There's are successful fed & state programs to compensate for the losses. https://www.crapo.senate.gov/media/c...s-compensation
The book sounds good. I also fully support the reintroduction of wolves to the wild. In Yellowstone N.P. their presence has been beneficial to other plants and animals because they are a keystone species.
Colorado recently released wolves and I hope they stay safe and live their lives successfully.
I don't agree with cattle ranchers raising their cattle on public lands, its not fair for the wolves, because they get blamed and killed if they attack the cattle. Its not fair for the cattle getting attacked. Cattle need to be on private lands, away from wildlife with proper deterrence like electric fencing and guard dogs.
I don't disagree with you, and I certainly realize the other environmental downsides of grazing privately owned stock on public land. However, there's an awful lot of beef on the hoof that wouldn't exist (or end up costing a lot more than it does now) without the opportunity to raise it for pennies on public land. It isn't simple to find unbiased information about the viability of the practice. You run into massive agendas from multiple sides.
I don't disagree with you, and I certainly realize the other environmental downsides of grazing privately owned stock on public land. However, there's an awful lot of beef on the hoof that wouldn't exist (or end up costing a lot more than it does now) without the opportunity to raise it for pennies on public land. It isn't simple to find unbiased information about the viability of the practice. You run into massive agendas from multiple sides.
I first read about the issue of public land grazing in William O. Douglas's book, My Wilderness: The Pacific West. I think it's nice that it's possible but it is certainly not a right. I have a lot more sympathy for ranchers that own their land or pay market-level rents. Thus my favoring wolf reintroduction to the Rockies, maybe not so much the Great Plains.
Ecosystems are healthiest when the apex predator is allowed to keep things in balance.
The problem is, human development has greatly reduced natural habitat & range, so wolf populations must be artificially managed thru hunting to maintain that balance, BUT-- A Goode-Two-Shoes court back in MA has ignorantly prevented the wise management plans of the scientists.....here in WI, for instance. Now we have an over-abundance of wolves for the habitat available-- thus enhancing the second problem of re-introduction...
Predator prey populations don't balance, they fluctuate and play eternal tug-of-war in concert with many external factors like snow, browse, parasite loads, disease etc. But you know that. By "balance" you mean reduce conflict.
As of late October there were 67 confirmed or probable wolf attacks on livestock, pets and hunting dogs in 2023 (plus one dog in December). Sixty seven, in a state with over 3 million cattle and 80,000 sheep. But stock only make up half of that number.
Wolf management in WI by hunting sounds like a solution looking for a problem.
Problem wolves can be and should be removed when human life is at risk or during an imminent attack on household pets or livestock, and of course when livestock owners have chronic problems. I have zero sympathy for the owners of hunting dogs that are killed, but a lot for the dogs. Every dog killed in WI last year was a free running trailing or treeing hound. Unfortunately for the dogs, that's what happens when their owners let them run free in wolf country. Wolves killed 33 hunting dogs in at least 12 counties last year. That's almost half of the entire 67 for the state! And this is why wolves need to be managed by hunting, for 33 free running dogs and about an equal number of "all other"?
It's completely unnecessary from an ecological standpoint but the special interests will get their wish anyway.
Those who go on and on about the damage wolves do invariably ignore a very simple calculus. That is that deer to far (far!) more damage, and wolves manage deer (and do so better than hunters).
Deer eat orders of magnitude more in crop value than wolves take in stock value.
Deer do over a billion $ in damage to automobiles annually in collisions. Wolves?? No idea, but it's negligible.
Deer kill 100+ people every year in those collisions. Wild wolves have killed three Americans total over the past 100 years.
Naturally, there are a relatively few number of predators to herbivorous prey even in natural and stable populations, so wolves will always be vastly less deleterious to human society than deer. And managing those deer? The wolf that seeks out the weak and the feeble is far better for the deer herd than the hunter which seeks out the prime genetic specimen because of its impressive rack.
About 2005 I read The Loop. Another great (novel) with a LOT of wolf information.
I'll always recommend it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
