OT - Save our elk

[AmBraCol]

Well, I'm headed back home tomorrow. It's been a LONG two weeks. Got this link in my e-mail, thought some of y'all might be interested...

http://www.saveourelk.com/

[wm]

Wolves are prolific reproducers and will devour any thing edible in their territory. The only natural limit on their population is starvation.....and that will only kick in when all the deer, elk, rabbit, etc are gone.

That is not opinion.....that is sceintific fact.

If you want a large population of wolves in your area be prepared to sacrifice other species.

Wm

[alnitak]

Sorry...I don't agree with either opinion (as they are not "facts") and have seen numerous studies to disprove them both. In fact, there were just a couple of articles printed in the Washington Post (of all places) last week [here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02215.html, and here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00645.html] about the OVER-population of elk, and the impact on the environment they are causing. While wolves are the elk's natural predator, a number of studies have shown that where they keep the elk in balance, a number of other species of animals, including rabbit. beaver, deer and the like, and trees, such as willow and aspen, can florish since the elk destroy habitat essential to their ability to survive.

I have been reading up on and studying wolves for more than 30 years. The bottom line is, most (if not virtually all) of the damage attributed to wolves is caused by man, not wolves. There was no imbalance before man came along. Wolves didn't continue to populate and clear the West of all deer, rabbits, elk, etc. -- man did. Now, I'm not discounting the occasional domestic animal killed by wolves. But man's destruction of the environment and natural habitat is so heinous and wide-spread, that any discussion of predators, native animal populations and environmental impacts has to start, and end, with man. Any behavior by animals, or even plant adaptations, is a response to their short-sighted, selfish, wantonly destructive habits. I am constantly appalled by posts on forums, including this one, where people laughingly brag about their "kills", which were only done for their short-term pleasure. Like the post on this forum a year or so ago, where the member bragged about introducing their son to lever guns by shooting at frogs, having a grand old time killing "about 100 of them" when they came upon them in a water hole while fishing. Or all the "shoot, shovel, shut-up" posts about wolves. How typical -- we destroy the natural wonders of the world that God put on this earth for us to steward, then blame the poor beasts for being true to their nature and trying to survive! If you're hunting to put food on the table, in a responsible, managed way, I have no issue with that. But wanton killing, just because you can, or "target practice" on animals you have no intention of eating, even if they are frogs, leaves me sickened.

In almost three years, I have never engaged in an argument in a post on this forum, but this continual maligning of wolves, and glorification of killing "pests" (which are only in the ecosystem in the numbers they are because man has destroyed the ecological niches that supported other viable wildlife), strikes me as beneath the dignity, intelligence and honor of the majority of the members I know on this forum.

[Rimfire McNutjob]

At last, being from Florida has finally paid off. I have absolutely no skin in this game. There's an outside chance that I could relate this topic to the continued protection of alligators down here ... but why bother when I can finally sit back and watch another political topic blow up on the Leverguns forum.

Quick, somebody link the pictures of the moose being killed by wolves up in Maine earlier this year and let's get this ball rolling.

[wm]

In the spirit of ardent but cordial debate let me reply to two points you made.

"There was no imbalance before man came along. Wolves didn't continue to populate and clear the West of all deer, rabbits, elk, etc. -- man did."

This is absolutley true & correct for the time being discussed.....Now that man has impacted the enviroment and migration habits of large animals the elk populations are hemmed in and much easier prey. Mass migrations of animals no longer take place in North America and large mammals such as elk and moose and bear are found in pockets.

As for the 'three s' approach......I can not in good conscience condone it or accept it. It is wrong.

Wm

[alnitak]

Mass migrations of animals no longer take place in North America and large mammals such as elk and moose and bear are found in pockets.

Wm

Agreed. I heartily support the efforts that some groups are making to create a "connected" wildlife refuge, which would allow for a more natural migration of herds and predators. It's a difficult problem, as land becomes more and more scarce. Unfortunately, I'm not optimistic of the long-term sustainability of such solutions, but am keeping my fingers crossed.

[gregg]

WHY Oh WHY did they just plant the wolf in wyo.??? I know they the wolf has moved thru much of Mt. from Yellowstone park. This has taken years to do and I'm not getting any younger. I HOPE to see the wolf expanded from coast to coast. Lots of wild country west to the coast and the good Lord know there room to the east coast.

Agreed. I heartily support the efforts that some groups are making to create a "connected" wildlife refuge, which would allow for a more natural migration of herds and predators. It's a difficult problem, as land becomes more and more scarce. Unfortunately, I'm not optimistic of the long-term sustainability of such solutions, but am keeping my fingers crossed.

alnitak what is going on in your part of the world to make this happen and what part are you taking to push it along??
Gregg

[alnitak]

Gregg,

Wyoming has been a key player in this movement:

http://www.uwyo.edu/openspaces/docs/Mig ... ridors.pdf
http://www.westgov.org/wga/policy/07/wi ... s07-01.pdf
http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/article.php?art_id=2711

And other Western states as well:

http://www.scwildlands.org/articles/080 ... onicle.pdf
http://www.sanjuancorridors.org/
http://www.alcnet.org/node/248

As I live in Northern VA, much of my activism has been confined to writing letters to our Federal agencies (BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, who have been studying this issue for a few years) and my Senators, and contibuting to activist groups (e.g., Nature Conservancy, American Land Conservancy). I also get involved on a local basis, but the corridors here in the DelMarVa area are more migratory fowl based, and even fish, such as the Rockfish, but not large herds of mammals.

There has been some progress made, as parcels have been bought and/or set aside to "connect the dots" between State and National parks and refuges. But these areas are getting harder to find. Not all efforts have been met with success, especially when trying to acquire private land or swap National holdings for commercially held properties. I hope the efforts continue, as the importance of preserving these corridors gains more widespread attention.

[marlinman93]

It's not that the wolf will cause great numbers of elk to disappear, nor that they can singlehandedly destroy elk populations, or any other species. The problem is we continue to protect more and more species that are predators, and in doing so, the cumulative effect is less game animals.
I've seen the effect of restricted hunting of cougars in Oregon, and what it's done to devastate deer populations, and we sure don't need another predator in the mix. Unfortunately we've got them now, due to repopulation of wolves in neighboring Idaho, they have now moved into Oregon.
With the average Cougar taking a deer a week, (statistics that Ore. F&W support) that's 52 deer a year to one Cougar. Many hunt units support populations of Cougar that number in the hundreds. Combine that with black bear, and toss in wolves, and I might as well stop hunting, as the deer populations will dwindle to near extinction, as they were in the early 1900's, before conservation and trapping evened things out. How about we just pack them all up and send them to Virginia?

[alnitak]

Interesting. Here in the East, VA specifically (though many other states as well), the deer population is growing to where they are becoming a nuisance. The latest figures I've seen says that across the US, the deer population is about 32-34 million, or just about what it was 200+ years ago. In VA, we have close to a million deer (900,000+); PA has 1.2M, and populations are up in MD as well (don't have the figure off the top of my head). Studies have shown that the development we are experiencing here actually contributes to the population growth, as the very deveopment that leads to creation of more housing and commercial properties, and the destruction of forested areas, actually creates ideal conditions for deer to thrive. Open grassy areas, overgrown areas at the edges of stands of trees (and the resulting briar patches), lack of predators (except for cars and the occasional hunter), create an ecological niche for which the deer (and squirrels and ravens) are particularly well suited. Our deer season starts in October, and anterless extends well into January. There's even been proposals of mass sterilization. (You ought to see the number of houses that put string around their gardens with CDs on them to keep the deer out of their front yards at night...in the 'burbs!)

I agree that protection of one species, or a few species, can lead to an imbalance. I think more global protection is a good thing. On the other hand, man continues to eradicate predators, as evidenced by the declining number of bear, foxes, coyotes, etc.. If you look at the bear population in VA (and across the country), and the number of counties that bear have been taken in over the last five years, the declinging numbers obviously reflect the growth expansion. Here in the East, we have already, virtually (with some localized exceptions), eliminated cougar, coyotes, wolves, black bear, brown bear, marten, etc., etc. And that trend is fast moving across the country. So, with less predators about of all kinds, except man, it's not surprising that deer are out of control.

I would expect that, in general, this is the same situation faced by much of the country -- if not now, then in the near future. And it seems that the stop-gap measure of protecting a few species until they get healthy, they protecting a few others is kinda like the guy twirling plates on a stick. Sooner or later, there are too many plates, or not enough energy to spin them all, and they all come crashing down -- either one at a time or all together.

What's needed are vast, integrated refuges, where entire populations and ecological trees can cohabit as nature intended. However, I don't ever see that happening. Even in Africa, with such vast preserves as Kruger, the resources inside the park reach a point where they can't sustain a natural population. So, we can only limp along preserving what we can for as long as we can, until the only thing left are paltry examples in zoos. I don't believe that what man has broken can be fixed by man.

I feel sorry for my children's children.

[Fungus Sam]

What if??? the goal of the bleeding heart conservationists was not to reintroduce wolves into areas but to ultimately do away with hunting? No more game animals, too bad. No reason to own a hunting rifle now! Turn in your guns to us - we're really the gun control lobby!!!

[Old Savage]

The wolves were brought in to kill the deer and elk to reduce hunter interest. By - the bad guys.

[marlinman93]

In Oregon, bear numbers are way up; cougar numbers are way up, and now wolves are entering the picture. Maybe we could do a simple swap, and send sme predators in exchange for some whitetail deer!

[Don McDowell]

As I live in Northern VA, much of my activism has been confined to writing letters to our Federal agencies (BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, who have been studying this issue for a few years) and my Senators, and contibuting to activist groups (e.g., Nature Conservancy, American Land Conservancy). I also get involved on a local basis, but the corridors here in the DelMarVa area are more migratory fowl based, and even fish, such as the Rockfish, but not large herds of mammals.

.

Well now there's the whole problem in a nut shell. Nut jobs such as yourself that don't know enough to hardly tell which end goes up, writing letters and wringing hands. Getting involved in things you don't have a clue as to what is actually going on, in places you likely have never spent much more than a couple of glorious days of vacation.
Your sir are an example of what is completly wrong with this country. You think thru your simple minded means , that you are doing something good for your children. Well that's bullspit.
Wolves are destructive killers, and like most any canid eat very little of what they kill when they're not hungry. They kill just for the sake of it.
While in theory they're supposed to help keep nature in balance, is a good theory if there weren't already folks living on the land and trying to make a living.
The devastation to the livestock industry is enormous. But as long as your kids might be able to hear a wolf howl on some visit to the great american west you'll be happy.
Never darn mind the suffering and expense you and your kind put good honest folks thru.
I just wish that you twits had the ability to think things clear thru and see what happens when you get your "activist" hat on. Cuz it ain't pretty and if it were happening in your back yard, there'ld be an endless stream of calls for the government to step in and bail you out. But beings it's not in your backyard and you don't feel the effect of it it's just fine.
You and your simple minded activist friends make me want to puke. You have no clue as to what the total results of your "activism" is, and worst of all you apparently don't give a darn, as long as your happy all is well.

[Jayhawker]

We don't need to reinstate the top predators, because, for the most part, mankind has replaced them. There isn't room at the top of the food pyramid for an overabundance of predators and with human hunters in the equation, the only way we can balance it is if we remove some of the other predators. If those predators don't see us as competitors, we will be seen as prey. We can't live in paradise along side the wolf, cougar, or bear singing happy songs in peace and harmony. Life isn't so easy.

[gimdandy]

Thanks Don for saying what I can never put into civil words. Anyone that would quote the washington post and then talk about the harm the elk have caused to the environment I'm afraid has classed himself as an idiot.
Then goes on to say he's studied wolves for 30 years and lives in W. V. and knows about all these things that in my 59 yrs. LIVING in Idaho and being in the woods as much as I have , I realize that this fellow is full of BULLSPIT (if I may coin your word since it fits so well )

[gimdandy]

It appears that maybe not everyone on this forum has leverguns as their main interest

[J Miller]

Some time ago I read an article that talked about a connected wilderness system throughout North America. This system was designed and set up by the UN and all people living there would be kicked out. Prohibited from entering and arrested if they did so.
I don't have that link any more, but it sounds exactly like the system alnitak is pushing. I think we have a mole in our midst.

Joe

[El Mac]

Wolves are prolific reproducers and will devour any thing edible in their territory. The only natural limit on their population is starvation.....and that will only kick in when all the deer, elk, rabbit, etc are gone.

That is not opinion.....that is sceintific fact.

If you want a large population of wolves in your area be prepared to sacrifice other species.

Wm

Indeed. Thats why there are no other animals on the American continent. Because wolves killed everything else off. Nothing and I mean NOTHING but massive amounts of wolves out there. I guess the next thing is, wolves will start killing off men too.

[El Mac]

While I don't doubt that wolves will make a dent into elk's population, why wouldn't the state fish & wildlife get involved and either control the situation or allow a permit system to draw hunters to counter the spread of wolves?

[wm]

Mr El Mac....please carefully reread my posts. Elk and other game animals are hemmed in by city, highway, and natural barriers. That is why in the modern sense wolves are so much more destructive.

Or put simply if you took an area say 50 mile by 50 mile and fenced it in with say 500 elk and 20 wolves. Elk would reproduce at a generous rate of say 350 animals a year, the wolves on the other hand would reproduce at a rate 50 or so a year. Elk take two years to reach maturity, wolves a year. Therefore it is logical the wolves would reproduce at a faster rate than the elk.

How long until the increased number of wolves (and their natural predation they would do to survive) decimate the elk popluation. A dozen years or so?

The world you referred to has passed and unless you are willing to vacate large expanses of all humans then that world will not return.

Wm

Gentleman can we please treat each other with a little respect? Leave the name calling and snotty posts for the school yard.[/i]

[El Mac]

WM,

If what you say is true and verifiable (and not just hysteria) then I'm with you. Not to the point of annihilating all the wolves but controlling their population like we do with any other animal. Seems logical to me.

Regards,
EM

[Don McDowell]

While I don't doubt that wolves will make a dent into elk's population, why wouldn't the state fish & wildlife get involved and either control the situation or allow a permit system to draw hunters to counter the spread of wolves?

Because those TRANSPLANTED CANADIAN WOLVES (at an original cost of 1 million $US each) are given protection under the farse of the endangered species act. (never mind there already was a viable wolf population in the GYES)
The cost to the state of Wyoming alone so far, is astounding. The court battles,trying to proctect states rights and all that goes with it, when a handful of buerocrats try to take over the dictatorship of a whole region. Not to mention the all out attack on an entire regions way of life, and the hardships that have beseiged family's that have spent generations in the region.
All because a handful of "activist" want their children to be happy. Never giving a thought to the sadness and strife that "activism" inflicts on other peoples children.

[wm]

Mr El Mac at what point did you feel I was advocating their wholesale destruction?

I was only questioning the wisdom of reintroduction. Many people seem to think that since there were wolves here or there once we should bring them back now. That was then and this is now.

300 years ago in Michigan the white tail deer population was very small. After the white man colonized and began lumbering all the old growth forest (nearly clear cutting the state), tiled and drained the lowlands near the rivers and lake shores, and began wide spread farming the white tail deer (& pheasent, duck, goose, etc) population exploded.

The enviroment has forever been changed by the hand of man. That is a unreversable fact.

I think in the future I would suggest you read posts a little more carefully before insulting someone. If you are not sure what someone means...ask for clarification.

Wm

[Don McDowell]

Mr Wm

Gentleman can we please treat each other with a little respect? Leave the name calling and snotty posts for the school yard.[/i]

Where's the respect for the people who's lives are severely impacted by the transplant of canadian wolves?

Snotty posts my sorry butt, what we have here is a clustered group of "activist" that want a whole region of people to loose their way of life, all so that on the off chance someday they or their children might be able to hear a wolf howl. Based off of junk science forstered by folks with a not compeletely honorable intentions.
No sir this isn't an arguement about which is better Winchester or Marlin, This goes right to the heart and soul of people being able to live their lives.
Its the kind of thing that has started shooting wars.

[El Mac]

WM,

I've shown plenty of respect for you here and have NOT engaged in name calling.

You postulated this:

Wolves are prolific reproducers and will devour any thing edible in their territory. The only natural limit on their population is starvation.....and that will only kick in when all the deer, elk, rabbit, etc are gone.

That is not opinion.....that is sceintific fact.

Show me the facts. Show me scientific studies. You are the one that intimated wolves were going to wipe out all the animals.

And please take note of my post wherein I said I wouldn't be opposed to having a season on wolves to control them. As I said before, we do it with other animals, we can do it to wolves too.

If its a bunch of beaurocraps ruining the law for their own purposes, then pressure, money, votes need to be applied to their pea brains to get THEM under control.

Me thinks thou are a bit thin skinned. (Note that is a descriptive term, an adjective - not a noun.) And I wasn't even hard on you. Sheesh.

[bigbore442001]

Several years ago, the State of Maine allowed trained trappers to use snares to trap coyotes in areas that they were negatively impacting the deer herd. The first year that they did this the deer kill in those areas doubled. I know this for a fact due to one of my old friends was one of the trappers. His area historically had a low deer population and the darned coyote didn't help much. Keep in mind that eastern coyotes are much larger than their western cousins. Fifty to sixty pounders aren't uncommon. The State of Maine has snaring seminars for some trappers and all went well for a while. Then some fruit group tried to sue the fish and game over the incidental snaring of a Canadian lynx on the Canadian border. Well the fish and game stopped the program rather than show some spine and continue a program that worked. By the way, accidental catches were almost non existant with the training and the use of a stop loss on the snare.

What the West needs is a good group of snaremen to thin the wolves down to nothing. Those Canadian hybrid wolves are like an exotic animal. They were never part of the western ecosystem and should never been imported by that filandering idiot administration that kowtowed to the fruit groups.

I know people like to cite all sorts of statistics but keep in mind, the people who implemented this boondoggle will not show stats that indicate the millions spent was a huge failure and a negative impact on the area. They will show stats that are inconclusive or even outright fabricated to show it is a so called success. I will trust what people in the area see and hear. If they tell me that the elk and deer are gone, they I will believe them over some idiot who never left the desk in a city office who says everything is fine and dandy.

[rjohns94]

I see no reason that this can't be a reasonable discourse and once again several of you have gotten into name calling. Then you say you are using civil language. Not civil in my eyes and way out of line with the rules of this forum.

[jkbrea]

I have hunted in N/W Wyoming every year for the past 18 years for elk. There is no doubt in my mind they are devastating the elk and moose population. Where I hunt I have actually seen more elk than usual because the wolves are pushing them further south, but that's temporary. The moose on the other hand have all but disappeared in my hunting area. I used to see them daily when hunting. A game warden told me that in my hunt area, about 90 calves a year were counted prior to the wolves. Two years ago they only counted 4 that made it through the first year. I have heard wolves in the wild and although it is kind of cool to hear them, I don't like them decimating the elk herds. Eventually elk tags will be extremely hard to get and it will effect the livelyhood of the citizens living there. Numerous outfitter's have been seriously affected because of wolves. Although I don't want the wolves there, I think the people of Wyoming should decide what's best for Wyoming.

[alnitak]

I can't believe the vitriol on this forum. I'm starting to understand the "time to go" thread a few days back. Even though I defended the forum then, I'm starting to see his point.

Here are some responses to replies to my earlier post.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

“What if??? the goal of the bleeding heart conservationists was not to reintroduce wolves into areas but to ultimately do away with hunting? No more game animals, too bad. No reason to own a hunting rifle now! Turn in your guns to us - we're really the gun control lobby!!!â€

[Don McDowell]

Alnitak you need to try and get it thru your head, that while you are tucked away in your little urban sanctuary, and not affected by the nonsense to which you support there are many hundreds of families whose lives are severely affected by those same stupid , ignorant and mis quided causes.
I feel so sorry for you because you don't even seem to be able to grasp the devastation you and others like you have wrought upon a population by your activism.
The transplanting of CANADIAN WOLVES had a greater impact on local economies, and peoples way of living than apparently is even possible for you to even begin to understand.
I will not back down ,you are out of line with your activism. Your activism is much more akin to facism .
This isn't about your children being able to know there's wolves in the wild, there already were wolves in the wild.
This wolf thing is about states rights, its about private property rights, and the rights of people to maintain their way of life and pursuit of happinsess,and those quite frankly are way more important than any of the drivel you seem to hold so dear.

[wm]

Alright Mr El Mac....

Lets start with "Science, economics, and rhetoric: environmental advocacy and the wolf reintroduction debate" as published by the Rocky Mountain Research Station and the USDA

Or the USFWS Wolf reintroduction program review from 2005.

Both of these are generally pro reintroduction but they acknowledge there is validity to concerns of those who oppose these programs.

And I can't find it now but the Sportsmans Alliance of Maine put together a common sense study that was based on real observations and not theroy.

Add to that many studies here in Michigan regarding the potential reintroduction of wolves to this state. (Michigan has a wolf population which migrated here on their own from Wisconsin in its upper pennisula where the human population is much smaller and agriculture is much more limited)

Where are your studies? How deep is your knowledge?

Wolves are superior predators and the only check on their population is their foood supply. That is simple, first year zoology. All mamals work in the same simple terms, i.e. the more plentiful their resources, the more they reproduce. And wolves are very good breeders.....a female wolf can produce a litter of up to 6 pups every year.

The elk (their most natural prey) are at a disadvantage because they are hemmed in by man made boundaries. They are easy prey under those circumstances and would find their numbers seriously reduced. That is not theroy or opinion. It has been observed in Yellowstone, the Adirondacks, and New Mexico.

And when the wolves run through the elk they will turn to other sources of food....and being the efficent predators that they are they will drive those populations down.

In regards to your suggestion to control the wolf population by hunting or culling....since wolves are classified as an endangered species they can not be hunted. That is federal law.

I did not accuse you of name calling.

I took offense at your next to last post on the first page of this subject in which demonstarted your attitude. Would you mockingly imitate me and roll your eyes if we were in the same room as you seemed to do in that posting? Are you that sort of person? Don't bother answering that, I already have an informed opinion on that.

I've made my case. I will post no more on this subject. If your opinion is based on the romance of the call of the wolf so be it.

Wm

[jkbrea]

alnitak,
I don't know how i got lumped into the group that is attacking you. I simply made a statement as to MY observation and experience and it was in response to the original post. I did not intend it to be directed to you or your post. Your are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.

[El Mac]

Would you mockingly imitate me and roll your eyes if we were in the same room as you seemed to do in that posting? Are you that sort of person? Don't bother answering that, I already have an informed opinion on that.

Perhaps.

I've made my case. I will post no more on this subject. If your opinion is based on the romance of the call of the wolf so be it.

Wm

Indeed. Thanks.

[alnitak]

jkbrea,

I agree. I did not intend my response to you as anything more than a clarification. I appreciate your experiemce, data and opinion.

Bruce