Gray Wolves Delisted

[Ross]

Any one that believes this better get out of fairy tale land

The science is really clear on wolves benefiting elk population and health. 25 year studies in Yellowstone show that they significantly help manage the boom and bust cycles of population growth and collapse. This doesn't mean it's either hunting as management or wolves as management, there is a place for both. This is not some anti-hunt liberal propaganda, it's not anecdotal opinion, it's fact based research:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...es-reintroduction-helped-stabilize-ecosystem/

Additionally these studies have shown wolf introduction to be an important way for ungulate populations to survive during increasingly volatile climate swings we are experiencing as a result of climate change (yes climate change, another very real, well studied, science based reality with total global acceptance outside the USA).

Here is the detailed study on wolves in Yellowstone. Interesting read even if a bit dry:

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2656.13200

 

[Akwoodchuck]

Quick question: were there no wolves in western north america before the 1800s? Because all the accounts I've read seem to indicate that game populations were doing pretty darn well up to that point....

 

[GregB]

Wolves do an exceptionally good job culling the sick and the weak which does a great job of creating a stronger herd. There is a place for both but wolves do things that hunters do not which benefit the total population health.

100% false, they do not just target the sick and weak and they do not kill just what they need to eat. They kill just to kill and leave it to rot, or maybe snack on the ass end and eyes.

 

[MattB]

Yes sir. If you read the article and or studies you will understand why the study is still relevant. Hunters and wolves don't target Elk in the same ways, hunters are either filling the freezer or looking for a trophy bull based on rack size. Wolves do an exceptionally good job culling the sick and the weak which does a great job of creating a stronger herd. There is a place for both but wolves do things that hunters do not which benefit the total population health.

Funny thing is, I did read the article and the study. The only place where "sick" or "weak" was referenced was in the intro of the Nat Geo article. I was surprised by that based on your synopsis of the study. So surprised in fact that I word searched the study for "sick", "weak" and "disease". Imagine my surprise that none of those words was even mentioned. Weird, isn't it?

I guess the question is, did you read the article and the study? Or perhaps you just read the first few lines of the article and walked away believing what Nat Geo told you that you should.

 

[three5x5s]

Wolves only kill Elk during the sick and weak season... They go Vegan the rest of the year.

 

[GregB]

Quick question: were there no wolves in western north america before the 1800s? Because all the accounts I've read seem to indicate that game populations were doing pretty darn well up to that point....

I don't know if that is necessarily true. During the Lewis and Clark expedition, after crossing the continental divide there were times they had to eat horses and dogs, and food provided by different tribes because they were unable to find any big game to feed themselves.

 

[TomJoad]

Funny thing is, I did read the article and the study. The only place where "sick" or "weak" was referenced was in the intro of the Nat Geo article. I was surprised by that based on your synopsis of the study. So surprised in fact that I word searched the study for "sick", "weak" and "disease". Imagine my surprise that none of those words was even mentioned. Weird, isn't it?

I guess the question is, did you read the article and the study? Or perhaps you just read the first few lines of the article and walked away believing what Nat Geo told you that you should.

Yes sir, again. The study goes over (in excruciating detail) the fat content of the bone marrow harvested from the 1k+ wolf killed elk they sampled over the 25 years. that fat content is an indicator of health. This is how they discovered that Elk were preying more on Bulls during drought years since they were more weakened through the rutting period.

For all the bickering, it sure would be nice if any of you all with strong anti-wolf opinions would serve up anything remotely approaching data or a study to back-up any claims you are making. There sure are a lot of opinions and anecdotes but not a lot of data.

 

[wind gypsy]

Quick question: were there no wolves in western north america before the 1800s? Because all the accounts I've read seem to indicate that game populations were doing pretty darn well up to that point....

I'm not sure what you're getting at. There wasn't Millions of people, highways, cities, housing developments, and cattle ranches eating up tons prime habitat before the 1800s and hundreds of thousands of big game hunters with the internet teaching them how to kill stuff. Yes, people are at fault for fragile game populations. Protecting wolves as if they are the holiest being only makes that worse.

I think wolves are cool. I like em on the landscape. But how people treat them as if they are better than every other animal in the ecosystem is outrageous.

 

[MattB]

Yes sir, again. The study goes over (in excruciating detail) the fat content of the bone marrow harvested from the 1k+ wolf killed elk they sampled over the 25 years. that fat content is an indicator of health. This is how they discovered that Elk were preying more on Bulls during drought years since they were more weakened through the rutting period.

The study does speak to marrow content but not in the way you are insinuating. That was a commentary on forage quality available to the herd in general, and how animal healthy varies from year to year and by animal or by sex/age class through the season (e.g. bull condition being depleted by the rut). It did not speak to any comparison of the health of animals killed by wolves to that of the herd in general, which would be the way in which one could characterize relative weakness.

Sickness is a function of a pathogen which, again, was not mentioned in the study though you said it was. NG made that up and you continue to parrot it.

 

[Akwoodchuck]

I don't know if that is necessarily true. During the Lewis and Clark expedition, after crossing the continental divide there were times they had to eat horses and dogs, and food provided by different tribes because they were unable to find any big game to feed themselves.

That's a pretty cherry picked example, but an instructive one....there were several days crossing the very tops of the Bitterroots when the Corps couldn't find enough game to cover the daily NINE POUNDS of meat each man had become accustomed to eating up to that point.....however, there were numerous native villages of hundreds of people on each side of the divide. What were they living on, Taco Bell?

 

[MattB]

For all the bickering, it sure would be nice if any of you all with strong anti-wolf opinions would serve up anything remotely approaching data or a study to back-up any claims you are making. There sure are a lot of opinions and anecdotes but not a lot of data.

And it would be nice if the pro-wolf crowd would provide "data" to back up the claims that they are making - not just data that says x in support of claims of y.

 

[Lawnboi]

I wonder if some of the wolf sympathizers would change their tune if they had them in there back yard where their kids and pets play. That’s the reality of it in norther WI for me. I want to be able to legally take care of a problem if it comes knocking. I hope I can get a wolf tag every year. Have more spots around home picked out for wolf than I do deer.

 

[Akwoodchuck]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. There wasn't Millions of people, highways, cities, housing developments, and cattle ranches eating up tons prime habitat before the 1800s and hundreds of thousands of big game hunters with the internet teaching them how to kill stuff. Yes, people are at fault for fragile game populations. Protecting wolves as if they are the holiest being only makes that worse.

I think wolves are cool. I like em on the landscape. But how people treat them as if they are better than every other animal in the ecosystem is outrageous.

Oh, I think you saw exactly what I was getting at....we can go ahead and extirpate wolves and other predators all over again, but will still negatively affect big game hunting through overdevelopment.

 

[Ucsdryder]

Yes sir, again. The study goes over (in excruciating detail) the fat content of the bone marrow harvested from the 1k+ wolf killed elk they sampled over the 25 years. that fat content is an indicator of health. This is how they discovered that Elk were preying more on Bulls during drought years since they were more weakened through the rutting period.

For all the bickering, it sure would be nice if any of you all with strong anti-wolf opinions would serve up anything remotely approaching data or a study to back-up any claims you are making. There sure are a lot of opinions and anecdotes but not a lot of data.

Pretty easy to interpret data to further ones belief. Look at global warming. Seems cut and dry...depending on your beliefs. I’ll side with the ranchers and hunters in Idaho and the other western states that are seeing the huge negative impact wolves are having on the populations and hunting.

Also, it always cracks me up when people say “look how good they all got along in the 1800s.” Different times, different word, different eco system.

 

[TomJoad]

Friends. I never stated I was anti-wolf hunting. I additionally didn't offer my opinions on the delisting. It is possible to be pro-wolf hunting as well as pro-wolf, just like its possible to be pro-elk and pro-elk hunting. Life is not so black and white. I have family in both Wyoming and Montana that ranch cattle and farm. FWIW they are still pro-wolf and they follow the science. It's a complicated issue and one made more complicated by lack of habitat.

As for the data. I think data is pretty important and powerful as a tool. There are always different ways to interpret it and statisticians will tell you ways to really manipulate it, but I still see no alternate interpretations nor alternate sets of data being offered. Just conjecture, opinions and occasional bile. Dialog would be awesome, that's why I posted the research to being with.

 

[MattB]

Friends. I never stated I was anti-wolf hunting. I additionally didn't offer my opinions on the delisting. It is possible to be pro-wolf hunting as well as pro-wolf, just like its possible to be pro-elk and pro-elk hunting. Life is not so black and white. I have family in both Wyoming and Montana that ranch cattle and farm. FWIW they are still pro-wolf and they follow the science. It's a complicated issue and one made more complicated by lack of habitat.

As for the data. I think data is pretty important and powerful as a tool. There are always different ways to interpret it and statisticians will tell you ways to really manipulate it, but I still see no alternate interpretations nor alternate sets of data being offered. Just conjecture, opinions and occasional bile. Dialog would be awesome, that's why I posted the research to being with.

Show us where the study references that wolves prey on sick animals. Please cut and paste a citation from the study to support your statement. Otherwise you are spouting the same conjecture and opinion (or worse) that you are accusing others of.

 

[Life_Feeds_On_Life]

Friends. I never stated I was anti-wolf hunting. I additionally didn't offer my opinions on the delisting. It is possible to be pro-wolf hunting as well as pro-wolf, just like its possible to be pro-elk and pro-elk hunting. Life is not so black and white. I have family in both Wyoming and Montana that ranch cattle and farm. FWIW they are still pro-wolf and they follow the science. It's a complicated issue and one made more complicated by lack of habitat.

As for the data. I think data is pretty important and powerful as a tool. There are always different ways to interpret it and statisticians will tell you ways to really manipulate it, but I still see no alternate interpretations nor alternate sets of data being offered. Just conjecture, opinions and occasional bile. Dialog would be awesome, that's why I posted the research to being with.

It's not a scientific paper but it is written by a well published biologist who I believe works on the wolf project here in AZ. He explains that there's many more factors affecting the ecosystem in Yellowstone than the wolf reintroduction.

http://www.deernut.com/Documents/MDF%20Trophic%20Cascasdes%20SeptOct%202018.pdf

 

[TomJoad]

Show us where the study references that wolves prey on sick animals. Please cut and paste a citation from the study to support your statement. Otherwise you are spouting the same conjecture and opinion (or worse) that you are accusing others of.

MattB aka "dog with a bone":

My sincere apologies for using the word "sick" in my second post in response to you. To help you loosen your canine's a bit I have gone to the effort to remove this word from that single posting, it is now gone. Praise be. Let's hope that moves things on a bit.

Now aside from my interpretation of the study or article did you have your own interpretation you wanted to serve up for discussion? Do you see indications in the study or data or any other studies that point to wolf re-introductions not being good on balance for the health and management of Elk populations? If so AWESOME, lets hear it!

 

[BuckHunter24]

Friends. I never stated I was anti-wolf hunting. I additionally didn't offer my opinions on the delisting. It is possible to be pro-wolf hunting as well as pro-wolf, just like its possible to be pro-elk and pro-elk hunting. Life is not so black and white. I have family in both Wyoming and Montana that ranch cattle and farm. FWIW they are still pro-wolf and they follow the science. It's a complicated issue and one made more complicated by lack of habitat.

As for the data. I think data is pretty important and powerful as a tool. There are always different ways to interpret it and statisticians will tell you ways to really manipulate it, but I still see no alternate interpretations nor alternate sets of data being offered. Just conjecture, opinions and occasional bile. Dialog would be awesome, that's why I posted the research to being with.

A rancher thats pro wolf? Selling ocean front property in Arizona too?

 

[TomJoad]

It's not a scientific paper but it is written by a well published biologist who I believe works on the wolf project here in AZ. He explains that there's many more factors affecting the ecosystem in Yellowstone than the wolf reintroduction.

http://www.deernut.com/Documents/MDF%20Trophic%20Cascasdes%20SeptOct%202018.pdf

Life_Feeds_On_Life: Genuine thanks for your meaningful contribution. I hadn't seen this particular article but do like a lot of it. It doesn't however discuss the same topics addressed in the NG article or study. It is focused on the pro-wolf "Trophic Cascades" arguments and he makes reasonable and good cases against those. The Study I posted above was about wolfs benefits to elk population health especially as it pertains to climate change. As this article is from 2018 and that study was published in March 2020 I'd very much like to hear Jim's (biologist author) perspective on it, I'm sure he would have a perspective.

My favorite bits:

From the front end:
"Now wolves are portrayed inaccurately by most people except for a minority who simply see them as native carnivores that belong on the landscape, managed along with all the other species of wildlife." This describes me to a T

From the back end:
"The truth is, the wolf is not necessary to have a healthy landscape, but it belongs there with the other native species we have all helped to restore. David Mech wrote in 2012: “We don’t have to make the wolf out to be a hero to justify recovery.”