60 Minutes Wolf segment
Elk
I only caught the last few minutes of this last week on TV so I had to go watch it on this link.
What do you guys think, was it mostly fair coverage?
By the way, I think Randy Newberg did all hunters a great service and represent us well!
Fairly innocuous but they understate the regional impact and focus mostly on the park. Not sure $35,000,000 is spent just to see wolves though.
I saw it and didn't think it was bad other than the wolf lover dude at the park saying that the wolves focus on the old and weak elk, even though they just showed footage of wolves taking down a seemingly healthy bull. I think stating that they focus on the old and weak makes it easier for the public to accept. The reason it's weak is because the wolves have been chasing it for 4 hours. I just wish they would be honest and say that wolves will kill any and all animals...
Randy did a good job. Surprised to hear the USFW guy agree that wolves need hunting. Regarding wolves in my home state of MN, I always said if you want them to thrive, hunt them. If you make them an asset instead of a liability people will protect them instead trying to eradicate them. Now that they are being delisted I hope they will open the season again.
Cheesehead Mike X2. That is precisely what I was going to say on here. Doug Smith was pretty much at odds with his own statements of them taking weak, old and sick animals, and them showing a healthy mature bull being taken down. Tsk tsk...
Randy did a good job. If anyone didn't like Randy, who would you suggest? I saw the episode. I also follow Randy on FB and HT. You didn't see the full interview. It sounds like full interview was ~ 30 min. One of the things that fell victim to the cutting room floor was how outdoorsman will likely not be supportive of any reintroduction of other animals due to how the ESA process was manipulated via the court system. The moving of the goal posts as to what was originally agreed upon by the parties, EX how many breeding pairs, the redefinition of what constitutes a pack, etc.
There was an obviously liberal slanted study that many western states are leaning on now that shows how great "wildlife watching" is and how it brings significantly more into the western states economy's than hunting.
Probably the same source for the $35M estimate for "wildlife watching" associated with wolf watching.
Total BS and needs a serious offset and counter. Just don't know how to do it or how to get it done! Maybe B&C, P&Y, SCI, and a few others need to band together to counter this slanted study.
I also thought Randy did a good job with what little didn't end up on the cutting room floor. I LOL'd at his comment about rainbows shooting out their arses! A wolf is a wolf and it will do what wolves do, I don't find fault with them. I find fault with the liberal wolf huggers that have continued to move the goal line further and further down the field. Wolves need to be managed by the states, make that happen across the board and you give additional value to the wolf, rather than the singular value he currently represents.
"Wildlife watching" is a total hoax. Who wouldn't check "wildlife watching" on a survey? The old lady across the street who watches squirrels and birds out her window is one. So am I. Everyone who visits a western state is one, unless they are total tech geeks who never look up from their screens. Look at how many SUV commercials feature phony wildlife gapers. There is absolutely no way to assess the monetary value of wildlife watching unless the ONLY reason someone visits a place is for that alone.
But I'm afraid we've already lost the messaging war over watching vs. hunting, and about the perceived value of wolves.
I was thinking the same thing as they are talking about the wolves taking down the weak and old all the while showing on screen them taking down a healthy bull. At least everyone involved that they interviewed agreed that they do need to be hunted.
And I saw the bull getting taken down also. He looked pretty good before he had 5 or 6 wolves hanging off of him.
It was a lot better than I anticipated, also agree with the bull looking pretty healthy.
Just showing them eating a 700 pound mammal alive was a major win for us regardless of what they said I can’t believe they actually put that on TV
Yeh, I think the $35M "eco tourism" bit seems a bit inflated. I also doubt whether an "outfitter" got paid $1,000 each to take two east coasters wolf watching. looks like they were set up with a spotting scope along the road where the USFS guy tells them to look, just like everyone else.
I wouldn't say wildlife watching was a hoax, we do get multitudes into Yellowstone and Grand Teton just for that. I do agree the amount spent sounds inflated. We have had studies done on how much hunting and tourism brings in to our state and counties, it is significant.
I watched it on TV Sunday. The opening lines of the story said it all: "WOLVES HAVE AN IMAGE PROBLEM- they have been PORTRAYED as fierce, voracious predators.................." WTH???!!! They are "portrayed" as being fierce and voracious???!!! And they have an "image problem"............................like OJ Simpson???!!!
I was actually shocked to see Randy being interviewed and that CBS actually decided to give the other side of the story for once. And Randy had the best line in the entire piece: "THEY(the wolves) AREN'T THE BIG BAD WOLF AND THEY DON'T HAVE A RAINBOW SHOOTING OUT OF THEIR ASS LIKE EVERYONE WOULD THINK THEY DO."
I laughed my @$$ off at that one! : )
Wytex, I was referring to the inflated wildlife watching numbers overall, not just national parks.
For example, here in CO, the economic impact of "wildlife watching" is quantified at $2.2 BILLION per year, compared to only $919 million from hunting. Granted, hunting is seasonal, but the methodology in the studies is highly suspect and the results are deliberately skewed toward the high value of nonconsumptive users who contribute little or nothing to the state's wildlife (except for the several hundred thousand hunters who are also wildlife watchers, and double-counted..). And a family of four on a general vacation who see a deer beside the road count toward "wildlife watching" dollar quantification if they simply check a box or answer "yes" on the survey.
Did I hear Doug Smith correctly?
My Perceptions: Early in the show he said something like "After the Fish & Game people choose to reintroduce wolves to Yellowstone Park....." Did the F&G really chose this? I was under the impression that enviro groups in New York & New Jersey instigated this and the F&G organizations were given the task of implementing it. 2nd: Is this species of Artic wolves of a different variety that once lived in the park, and not the original native wolf common to Wyoming? I want to say I read something to this effect in a copy of the RMEF Bugle magazine.
I too was surprised to see Randy Newburg being allowed to comment during the story. I would like to see what was cut from his comments. Lastly the myths of "wolves only killing the weak and the sick" should be supplemented with the "Unlucky and the up-wind". I agree too that the weak may very well include "the previously attacked and injured". Though it had a left-leaning, pro-wolf feel to it, it was slightly less dubious than some other documentaries I have seen.
LaGriz
i saw the first clip and they called the wolves in montana etc. native to the area, bullchit.
I saw it. That ol Park Service guy was really interested in saving the willows and song birds....
If there woulda been a tree nearby I think he wouldve hugged it.
I wish they had never introduced wolves back into the wild, and would be pleased to see them all removed. That said anyone that thinks wildlife viewing is not significant is whistling past the grave yard. We have many people come to where I lived at Burns Or. every Spring for the annual bird watching festival. I know of people with binoculars and cameras going around taking pictures of different critters just so they can sell them. Others are inspired to be junior wildlife shutterbugs. Telling people that they and their values are insignificant, and wrong will not help the cause of controlling the wolf population. It is like starting a conversation by saying to the other side you have no respect for them. We need to show where managing wolves is in the best interest of other animals including elk. I have no doubt if it comes to where voters are asked to choose between you and I elk hunting, and protecting the wolves, we will lose in many States. I will probably get mocked for this, but I worked many years in contract administration. I can say from experience that if the other side does not trust you, and they believe you don't care about them, things get a lot more difficult and often more expensive. For what it is worth.
I'm a lot more familiar with deer and coyotes than I am elk and wolves. But I believe wolves tend to hunt in packs just like coyotes. I've often heard the dreamers say coyotes only bring down the weak and sick deer. Right! I'm of the exact opposite opinion and I'll tell you why. A big, mature buck whitetail demands respect within the social structure of the deer herd. Have you ever noticed when a big buck enters the field with other deer already present the rest of the herd gives him respect and lets him have his space. A big buck gets used to that reverence/respect. When confronted by a group of coyotes, unlike the does and other deer who run like hell, the big, mature buck confronts them because he thinks those little coyotes are just a nuisance, they'll give him respect and he can whip them. What he doesn't take into consideration is the fact that two or three coyotes will challenge his face but at the same time a couple others will flash in from the rear to hamstring him. One slash of the femoral artery and it's all over in less than a minute. If the big bucks would learn to run like the wind similar to the does and younger deer when they first see a coyote they'd live a lot longer. No big bull or buck is a match for strength in numbers. So, when someone tells you wolves and coyotes only take the weak and old please fill them in on the facts and reality. BW
Apparently there was NO wildlife viewing prior to the wolf introductions......... and would be none if they were gone.....
Better to have rainbows coming out their azz than have smoke being blown up ours.......
There is little doubt that elk populations were far beyond what the park could handle and if you go find pictures of drainages from the 30's and 80's and compare them to now, reducing elk has been good for the ecosystem.
I thought the program was about as balanced as we could expect.
If you want to get riled up about wolves, check out MN, WI, and Michigan.
swede - "That said anyone that thinks wildlife viewing is not significant is whistling past the grave yard."
Not exactly sure what that means, but I don't doubt the number is significant. Here in MN, you can find one or more organized bird watching excursions that are attended by 20-xxx people about any weekend from April - October. There are also annual christmas bird counts attended by hundreds/thousands of folks. It all adds up.
Wolves are opportunistic - they will eat the prey that they can catch. This is mostly the slowest (i.e. oldest and weakest). How can you tell from looking at a bull/buck if he has spent the last 2 months chasing cows/does and rarely eating? During the period immediately after the rut, I wouldn't be surprised if the animals doing the most breeding ARE the weakest in the herd.
I like Randy. Gotta like a northern MN dude (even one who escaped).
The wildlife viewing bit is nonsense: People go to Yellowstone for the geysers and the animals and they were going there by the millions every year for the geysers and the bison. The addition of elk to the ecosystem will add very little to tourism in the area.
The $35 million figure was presented as if it was wolf specific and incremental income to the economy based solely on the presence of wolves
that is ridiculous can they give us a figure for the millions that are spent to view elk or antelope Or bison or prairie dogs or whiskey jacks
of course not
to claim that the presence of wolves generates $35 million is crazy and if it is not intended to be a wolf specific figure then it is an irrelevant statement because the point trying to be made was that wolves more than paid for them selves
People were definitely going to Yellowstone to see wildlife and geysers prior to the Canadian/arctic wolf introductions.
The truth is that the addition of wolves to Yellowstone decreased the viewable wildlife.
The wolfies have falsified “economic benefit studies” that tout the ecological, environmental, social and economic benefits to justify further introductions of non-native wolves across the Western States. The “economic benefits” of wolves in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem do not take into account the lost big game revenue to the state and local communities and significantly overstate the “value” of revenue generation through wildlife watching. All “wildlife related viewing” revenue in the Greater Yellowstone in these “studies” is considered to be due to wolves.
Make no mistake, the pro-wolf crowd is rabidly anti-hunting. Any animal that human hunters take is an animal that might have fed a “family” of wolves. They are also anti- private property rights, ranching, farming, mining, gun ownership, etc, etc.
These same groups have expanded these “economic benefit studies” to push their agenda in states like Colorado. As Lou pointed out above their “economic benefit studies” show that “wildlife viewing” results in $2.2 Billion compared to only $919 Million for hunting in Colorado. Of curse there is absolutely no mention that hunting licenses, fees and taxes pay for the management and perpetuation of all wildlife (including non-hunted, threatened and endangered species) in the USA and “wildlife viewing” provides absolutely no revenue for those purposes.
These fictional “economic benefit” numbers are being used to influence anti-hunting legislation and public (voter) sentiment. Hell, Colorado’s own Parks and Wildlife has used these fictional numbers to raise fees on all hunting licenses when this state already makes more off hunting licenses than any other state!
The end goal of these groups is to have large predators (wolves, bears and lions) take the place of human hunters to “restore the natural balance” in our western states. Easy choice to make when “wildlife viewing” brings so much more revenue in than hunting!
There is no study out there to refute these fictitious anti-hunting “economic benefit” studies. These studies portray non-consumptive “wildlife watching” as higher value than consumptive use hunters that are not paying their fair share and actually taking wildlife away from the wildlife viewers.
If there was ever a Big Tent issue, this is certainly worthy. All hunting organizations need to pull together for a strong rebuttal.
It really sucks that fees and taxes on hunters and firearms are being used for wolf introductions that result in less big game hunting opportunities and less funding for wildlife conservation.
I thought the show was horse pucky. For reason already explained. It had no intent other then to make the unknowing human love the wolves existence in the west. It was biased. It was one sided. And, it was very misleading. On purpose.
LaGriz wrote: "...under the impression that enviro groups in New York & New Jersey instigated this and the F&G organizations were given the task of implementing it. 2nd: Is this species of Artic wolves of a different variety that once lived in the park, and not the original native wolf common to Wyoming? I want to say I read something to this effect in a copy of the RMEF Bugle magazine." Couple things I interpret differently: 1) I am not sure who originally introduced the idea from the east coast (if that is true), but I would probably put my chips on the members of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and others who represented and supported the enviro groups new to Montana from the outside, particularly those who once hailed from California and other left leaning (perhaps) coastal cities (Eg., Portland, OR and Seattle, WA, or Denver/Boulder, CO), rather than environmental newbies from NY and NJ, based on my perceptions of when I lived in Bozeman (as a newby from NY who did NOT support the lefty enviro radicals, but represented the old school environmentalist as a Fish and Wildlife biologist educated in SUNY Morrisville and Montana State University in F&W curricululi) for the 10 years when the proposals, debates, and discussions were taking place there while leading up to the time of actual introduction of wolves into YSNP. I encountered far fewer easterners than folks from CA and other western states with wolf-stars in their eyes, looking to bring 'balance and tradition' back to the park like the old days when the Native Americans lived in harmony with nature. The idealism that reigned in those early days is now magnified 10-fold in Bozeman - more than I ever imagined would take hold, even there. The trend of Neo-Montana was starting when I got there in '78, and is now so grossly intrusive that I would not want to or be able to (financially) live in Bozeman, or especially Big Sky... As for the wolf, I have little problem with it or the introduction, if it had been done according to LOGIC and F&W management Science and principle, but it was not. It was done according to Neo-Environmentalist Idealism, and also with ill-intent toward the 'Native" Montanan - the hunters and true wildlife managers. Now it is finally getting the kind of management it needs with the de-listing and the open admission by most that these animals need to be managed by hunting. FINALLY an admission by a Mainstream Network. WOW! And, next, the wolf introduced to YNP is not necessarily the same sub-species as originally inhabited Yellowstone. And most definitely, the new YNP wolves have the only connection to 'Arctic Wolves' as being a Canis Lupus subspecies. The intro'd wolves are Gray wolves. Possibly the original Park wolves were gray and timber wolves. The only other species is the red wolf, probably more European, but not in YNP. Just for clarification....
I am not saying I do not want wild things in wild country, just want legal means of control,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, THE WOLF IS A KILLING MACHINE, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.....
I need to expand: I do NOT think that CBS or any other left leaning network is ever going to be in favor of hunting, even as a management tool, esp seeing the 'wildlife viewing' portion as highly biased interpretation as a form of 'recreation' and revenue-generating. I just saw the inclusion of the hunter interview (Randy) and park employee (Smith) as an admission that wolves need to be hunted as a positive leaning direction. The fact is that in that part of the country, there are increasing numbers of idealists bent on replacing hunting and trapping with 'viewing', and other Disney-idealism type of recreations and lifestyles. Good luck to us hunters in the future. Unless we can convince the world that we, like the wolf, are natural predators, we are going to be looking at nature through fogged lenses.
My mother and her husband are avid whitetail hunters and have been for 49 years. The go to Yellowstone twice a year just to see the wildlife primarily wolves and bears. They understand the hunting angle but they are way to liberal on the issue for me. Anytime I talk about the need to hunt bears outside the park, they start crying about how long it takes a sow to raise a cub and how many sows are dry or consistently don’t raise cubs. They understand the need but they only want a handful of trouble boars killed. I don’t know how you put a number to it and I’m sure it’s inflated but there are a lot of people that go for the bears and wolves.
"...many sows are dry or consistently don’t raise cubs..." Those would be on my list of shooters.
Didn't watch it and wouldn't watch it because I have seen what has happened in N.Idaho wildlife [elk, moose, deer] because of them.
I'd like to know how a population that numbers in the thousands could qualify to be on the ESL simply because they don't occupy a certain geographic area. In a recent article in Bugle, they also talked about Eastern, and Red wolves as being hybrids and not a unique species. IMO they shouldn't be considered for protection since they appear to be just mongrels.
I wish Randy would have been given a little more air time.
They want to have the wolf back in the ecosystem and be like the perfect world. Problem is the wolf hasn’t read that game plan. No managing them by significant kill numbers it’s a loosing situation for deer and elk numbers.
