# Wolves in Yellowstone



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Interesting reading on the increase of wolves in Yellowstone:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHar ... 495&page=1


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

I went to Yellowstone this past summer and saw a wolf with cubs. It was pretty cool. Other than that Yellowstone sucks. Here's an idea for them to restore the "natural balance" in the park; get rid of the hotels, cafeterias, shops, paved roads, gas stations, etc. :roll:

Yellowstone=Disneyland with a view


----------



## Niles Short (Mar 18, 2004)

good idea


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

My sister lives in Wyoming and she and her husband go there in the winter. The pics she has showed me of the elk are so close you could touch them. They mainly cross country ski there. They have been there other times of the year and it is pretty touristy but the winter is when she recommends for smaller crowds and the winter scene. I'll have to ask her about the wolves.


----------



## birddog131 (Oct 28, 2004)

Indeed they are getting more and more plentiful. Wolves and pups :lol: not cubs :wink: are being seen more and more. A few winters ago I got to snowmobile through yellowstone and we got to watch 3 wolves hunting a mulie...it was crazy! We watched them from a ridge and they were completly working together! Northern MN is starting to see more and more timber wolves as well....it is only a matter of time before there will be a trapping or hunting tag available in MN and WY..... They are neat to see!


----------



## GooseBuster3 (Mar 1, 2002)

The Elk population was 19,000 before the wovles know it at somthing like 9,000-10,000 elk due to the wolves. Those wovles are no good for the biggame populaions and the ranchers out there. This info came from a reliable source.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

The problem Goosebuster my dear friend is that you have to look at Yellowstone as an entire ecosystem. Without some sort of controls on the elk population they tend to overgraze the range. Which for you GB3, and your sometimes short sighted thinking, is great because you have more elk to shoot. But if you want to see elk on Yellowstone for your kids you have to have "balance" (which can never be fully restored because of human intervention) but wolves do a pretty good job filling the ecological niche of predator where they don't allow you and your rifle.

I just had to be an a-hole Tyler. I can't help it. Its my nature. 

If you want I can provide some pretty good sources. :wink: In fact we can start with the paper I just turned in last week on the subject. oke:


----------



## cbass (Sep 9, 2003)

Your so smart GG :lol:


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

GG, I think your true calling would be a college professor! Give it some thought.......I was approached by U Mary to teach a class or two for their master's program and I may do it next year!


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

GG Rocks!!!! :jammin:


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

cbass,
We will see in the next six months how smart I really am. I may be the dumbest person all of you know. :x


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

The only chance you ever regret is the one you didn't take!!!! :wink:


----------



## greenhead (Jun 1, 2004)

There will always be too many of an animal or not enough as long as people are here.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

As civilization encroaches into the wilderness the balance of nature is turning to mythical. Habitat fragmentation in many areas has removed viable populations of natural predators, and the balance of nature without human intervention is not possible. At least this justifies the sport of hunting even from a biological perspective. In ecosystems like Yellowstone the wolves enjoy total protection from man. In this ecosystem if not controlled they will increase populations until prey species populations crash. Where elk populations stabilize in Yellowstone remains to be seen. Perhaps OK, perhaps disastrous. I guess my opinion would be guardedly optimistic. My only fear is that the animal rights groups will block sound biological decisions to control wolf populations once optimal populations have been reached.


----------



## Goodfella (Jan 26, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> . . .once optimal populations have been reached.


We had an optimal population a few years ago when it was 0. But that really wasn't the case either. It never was at 0. There's always been wolves, but they were few and far between. Perfect.
You're talking about decreasing elk populations. Heard anything about the moose populations. They are taking the biggest hit. Ever seen a moose calf. They are the most uncoordinated animal I've ever seen. They have no chance.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

I think the wolves should be controlled outside of the park yes. However Yellowstone should not be managed to produce the most Elk for humans. That is what got it in trouble in the first place. The wolves will not kill everything. Eventually their population will level off to a point of balance between predators and prey. At least that's the idea. Maybe it isn't possible in Yellowstone but they are trying to find out.

There are some places we should not treat with an anthropocentric view. But that's just my opinion.


----------



## smalls (Sep 9, 2003)

But GG, what will happen when the wolves start eating the tourists babies?


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Maybe the dingos ate your baby?


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Then they will have to put up signs that say "Don't feed the Wolves"


----------



## smalls (Sep 9, 2003)

gandergrinder said:


> Then they will have to put up signs that say "Don't feed the Wolves"


"Don't feed the Wolves babies"


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

wolves and moutain lions ect are the reason elk, moose and deer are evolved into something worth hunting without their influence elk would be as stupid as herefords and as fun to hunt. Moose have been living with wolves for thousands of years and managed just fine, its when we start getting in the mix that things get out of kilter


----------



## Goodfella (Jan 26, 2004)

Bobm
But we are in the mix. There is nothing we can do about that. You're talking about a time when the numbers of elk, buffalo etc. were endless. A few wolves at that time wouldn't hurt anything. They would be a good thing. Unfortunately the world has changed. We've moved into their areas and killed all of the wolves and elk. Now the remaining numbers of elk and moose (and livestock) can't handle large numbers of wolves. The elk population has been controlled only by humans for quite some time now. Add wolves to the mix. Now you have a problem.


----------



## zfish87 (Oct 25, 2004)

I was in Idaho earlier this year elk hunting and there is a big fight going on between the rancher/landowners and the state. They are actually sueing the federal government for re-introducing canadian grey wolves into Idaho. the wolves weren't being released into parks or anything, just public land. The locals main argument is that the wolves the were introduced were not the natural subspecies that was present before, the canadian grey wolf is supposedly more aggresive than the wolves that were there before. The locals gave us pamphlets on it that talk about how terrible the wolves were, and although it seemed a little dramatic, the wolves have definatley had an impact, far more than the cougars. if you ask any rancher or landowner out there they'll tall ya it's open season on all wolves.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

We are not in the mix, in Yellowstone last time I checked you get in a little trouble taking a crack at a elk there. And the public land the wolves are released on is just that public, not the ranchers. The ranchers and guiding industry just doesn't like them because they are a form of competition for the elk they want to sell to NR hunters. I say kick the ranchers off of the BLM they over graze, and have come to believe is their land. We need to quit subsidizing western cattle growers against midwestern and southern ones that don't get ultra cheap grazing land at the expense of the taxpayers.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Yep, 40 years ago they called it the "Sagebrush Wars" out west. Ranchers were fencing off public land and charging access through the gates on land they didn't own. Pretty sweet. Sound familiar? As sparse as ND's population is, it would still seem doubtfull wolves would last long here if they strayed in. There are some wackos in nc ND that swore USFW was planting wolves in the area. (probably out of black UN helicopters). :lol:


----------



## Goodfella (Jan 26, 2004)

Bobm said:


> We are not in the mix, in Yellowstone last time I checked you get in a little trouble taking a crack at a elk there. And the public land the wolves are released on is just that public, not the ranchers.


Are you serious? Have you ever been in Gardner on opening morning? It's a blood bath. As soon as the elk come out of the park the lead is flying. Believe it or not, wolves leave the park boundaries too. They also leave the boundaries of other public land. You sound like you've never been out west before. "But the wolves are so pretty"


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Well I would like to see a few wolves. Few, very few, just a chance to see one once in a while. I would like to see the cattle off the public land also. They pay about half of what it cost just to administer the land. How can a cattleman in central or eastern North Dakota compete with someone who pays less for land than they do taxes around Bismarck, Jamestown, or Valley City. I like a few wolves, but keep their population low enough to ensure good elk populations. Elk graze like cattle, they don't brows like deer. Fewer cattle, more habitat, equals more elk. Public land should support recreation for the public as a whole, not just ranchers, outfitters, and guides.

My fear is that when wolf populations are where sportsmen would like to see them animal rights groups will go to court to stop any season that would control their populations. If that happens there like it has in Minnesota, then I say do not release anymore anywhere.

I don't understand that when a furry critter kills and elk that's OK with the animal rights crowd, but if I want to eat one I'm terrible. I also don't understand why they revere predators. They think eagles, wolves, bear, and such are worth more than elk, moose etc. Maybe they think if predators kill deer and elk then we can't.


----------



## mallard (Mar 27, 2002)

I talked to a relative from Kemmer,WY that was in town this weekend about this subject.He stated that the wolves are expanding very rapidly in Wyoming and are really going after the cattle and sheep in his part of the state.The ranchers having the most problems own there own range land so it isnt federal forest or BLM.I have absolutely no problem with wolves in the park,but when they start ranging as far south as Kemmer and start preying on domestic stock,they have to be managed.He said that the feds wont allow the state to manage the wolf population and it is in court right now.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I don't care if they shoot the wolves on private property, but I do care if they shoot them on public land and if the ranchers were kicked off the BLM like they should be, that BLM and the national forests would be enough land for the wolves to do fine. I've ben hunting out west for the last 30 years and I'm tired of seening roads and other acccess to public lands denied by ranchers who have come to believe they"own the BLM". I don't want one cent of public monies or one square foot of public land given to farmers or ranchers anymore.


----------

