Contributors to this thread:
Habitat for Wildlife's Link
Has this been discussed before? It really sounds believable, yet seems anti-hunting in a way to me. Call me skeptical.
Being interested in habitat management, I have discussed with state biologists in several states how over population of deer has had a big negative impact on forest regeneration. Honestly, I am concerned more than just about hunting.
Those of you who live out in that area, and other areas where wolves have been re-introduced have you noticed any of what this talks about?
Thanks.
Discussed & beaten to death couple years ago. It is definitely a pro-wolf slant to justify why wolves are so "desperately needed" in our ecosystem.
Thanks. I never saw it.
Would certainly like to see a wolf in the wild but believe those that say they kill for sport.
I don't know anyone who disagreed that elk populations and behavior in the park were an issue. The video doesn't address the majority of the introduction area where elk populations and behavior impacting rivers wasn't an issue. The wolves impact there was quite a bit different. Yellowstone is a fraction of the area involved.
"...despite human efforts to reduce populations." Thats a bit misleading. Real, proven steps to manage the Yellowstone elk were never allowed. There is a giant group of humans who would have been more than happy to reduce elk populations and increase dispersement. We also would have paid for the opportunity to help instead of costing millions and we would have done it in harmony with successful State wildlife management programs instead of in conflict with them.
I like wolves and I am ok with having a population in the Rockies but the politics, numbers and the way it was done was a mistake.
It's ok to admire the engineering and design of German WWII aircraft but to skip the part about what was actually going doesn't really put things in context.
I wish I could give you all our RED Wolves from eastern N.C. they have all but wiped out our deer herd. Forrest
Elk and possibly deer populations in YSNP before wolves were definitely too high, but they could have easily been managed even without hunting in YSNP by allotting more cow tags in their wintering grounds on all sides of the park where the multiple different herds migrated to. There would have needed to have been cooperation with the private ranches for what essentially would have been depredation tags.
They were not being managed properly because the ranches around YSNP were bathing in the money that hunting those elk gave them and WY F&G didn't realize or turned a blind eye that the elk were over carrying capacity. The claim that wolves were needed to restore balance is false. They did bring down the ungulate populations, but we could have done that with hunting. The wolves were not necessary.
Never realized that the rivers in Yellowstone were plagued by horrific erosion and course changing. And that there was a bear, beaver, eagle, and fox shortage in YNP. Thank goodness the wolves got all those issues fixed by simply eating the excess "deer".
I saw a stupid pro-wolf video on youtube and how they were responsible for reforestation ...
totally did NOT mention all the fires, ironically
I am passionate about YNP because I love biology and it was the field I really wanted to go into before I decided to go into marketing. Made a lot more money but I love science.
The video is problematic for many reasons. YNP hasn't set a elk/square mile ratio so to say that the reduction from 15k to less than 5k was right is not accurate. Let's also not mention the fact the bison cull started the same time and last I checked bison eat a bit more than an elk yet no mention in the video. The ironic part is how angry people get about the cull yet they are fine with the elk getting decimated.
It doesn't matter if I like wolves or not because they are here to stay - so I like to look at the positives and build off of them.
My daughter is a big hunter and loves the wolves and because of that I appreciate what they mean to an ecosystem.
One thing is for sure wolves are big money for YNP and that's not a bad thing.
The premise of the video is that the introduction of wolves has changed the course of the rivers. According to the video the wolves somehow introduced the beavers and probably the wolves also talked to the beavers and had them build dams in the correct places. This was because the wolves wanted to change the course of the rivers but couldn't do it themselves. The way the story ends the wolves changed the course of the rivers. This is proof that wolves are extremely intelligent!
(sarcasm)
In 2016 I went to Lamar Valley in early June, reminiscing of the old days when there were literally thousands of elk in the valley and being able to see grizzlies feeding on elk calves was the main reason to go. In 2016 there were thousands of Bison in Lamar, and the place looked like a freshly mowed golf course. All of the elk were way up high on the mountain sides, and not very many of them. So while the table was set for the info in this clip to be true, the Bison simply moved in and took over the role elk previously held. I returned this year in June and the range looked much better, grass much healthier. There were also a lot fewer Bison as the park and state killed almost 2000 of them this past winter. So yeah, the info in this clip is partially true, but the 'easy' prey has been killed by the wolves and from what I've seen the Bison aren't impacted nearly as much (I've seen Bison bedded within a couple hundred yards of an active wolf den). So I expect the Bison population to continue to grow, and I expect the park and states will have to deal with Bison to accomplish the biological restoration of rivers touted by this clip.
Dude really? They make ght as well write a sequel that says it would be really beneficial to the environment if we exterminated half of all humans. While that may be true is it really a sound or realistic solution? Wolves helped water temps in rivers! Get out your hip waders the bullshit is getting real deep!
