jmden
WKR
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443482404578042763065553382
I'll link to this article above to a Ph.D. wolf expert Arthur Middleton who some that seem 'friendly to wolves' even here have cited. In particular (among other things that could be responded to in the Denver Post guest column linked to by husky390) this guest columnist references riparian (streamside) habitat and in the Arthur Middleton WSJ article from well over 3 years ago he says this:
"Environmentalist groups not only have ignored clear evidence of wolves' resilience. These groups have also oversold a story that wolves heal degraded landscapes by keeping their herbivorous prey on the move. But previous studies suggesting that wolves might scare elk from overbrowsing aspen and willow communities have been refuted by new, more comprehensive research."
They are still beating the drums (or dead horse?) over the streamside 'riparian' habitat areas. It's the only truly tangible ecological 'benefit' they can hang their hats on that the wolves supposedly gives us, so they have to use it even if it's mostly false. This is all about ideology and politics because politics and ideology is EVERYWHERE and often true science takes a back seat to it. Introducing a non-native subspecies was ideologically/politically motivated, not based on science. If it had been based even loosely on science, Canus lupus irremotus would've had tremendous effort and $ focused on it to restore it. Not bring an invasive, non-native subspecies across an imaginary line (49th parallel) and suddenly call them 'endangered' and doing it using Pittman Robertson money to boot. At it's beginnings, at it's root and at it's core, this is an ideological battle. Don't think otherwise.
