Montana Wolves - looking for real-world perspectives

[Lawnboi]

Current state of a lot of wolves in the lower 48 is nothing more than the government playing Jurassic park.

It’s not about anything but destroying hunting.

 

[Dos Perros]

Additionally, just because you want other predators to exist, doesn’t mean they need to exist. Man is the apex predator on this planet. Other animals exist only because we choose to let them.

I think it was Judge Holden that said "whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent." So I think we can extrapolate from that that wolves definitely exist with man's consent.

 

[Zeke6951]

Animal populations without large scale human intervention is a boom/bust proposition. In fact man is not always immune to boom bust cycles. In my opinion, wildlife managers should aspire to reduce the peeks and valleys in game populations. I see no problem assigning greater value to creatures that benefit humans. If large or small predators are necessary to control species I'm for it. I am not for introducing predators into ecco systems where they are not needed for population control and have been absent for decades or even centuries just because they once were a part of the landscape.

 

[WoodlandCritter]

Its really hard to say what's "necessary" and not. I hate to bring up another hot button issue, but would CWD be as bad as it is if we had had more wolves/lions/grizz for the past century? Who's to say?

 

[North of 60]

Current state of a lot of wolves in the lower 48 is nothing more than the government playing Jurassic park.

It’s not about anything but destroying hunting.

This^^^

 

[ThunderJack49]

The idea that predator control isn't effective because predator populations re-grow is like saying that mowing the lawn isn’t effective because the grass comes back.
Predators eat prey, despite however many studies and wildlife modeling systems are tweaked to suggest otherwise. There are many research papers and studies that prove this, but are often overshadowed by the minority few studies that have found a way to at least suggest otherwise.
I live just outside yellowstone. I have all the major predators in my backyard and where I hunt, which is fine with me.
Just don't tell me I can't cut the grass.
Wolves are a scapegoat, certainly, but they are also an apex predator that does a lot of killing. Maybe wolves alone wouldn’t have such an impact but the ungualate populations of my area are not only being hunted by wolves, but also two species of bears, lions, coyotes, bobcats, eagles etc. Add on hunting seasons, and it is a tremendous amount of pressure.
I used to think apex predators were very special and gave them higher status than other species. These days I would rather not find as many fawns killed in the woods and have more ungulates, leading to higher hunter success on deer and elk than just feeding wolves and bears.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Its really hard to say what's "necessary" and not. I hate to bring up another hot button issue, but would CWD be as bad as it is if we had had more wolves/lions/grizz for the past century? Who's to say?

Would CWD be as bad as it is without government intervention and funding? Is CWD that bad? What makes you think that large predators help stop the spread of CWD?

Note: I am not saying the government started CWD, but now that there are funding streams associated with managing it, it’s always going to be managed. Unless the pharmaceutical industry finds a way to make a lot of money off it by selling a treatment or vaccine for it. Yes, I am cynical.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

The idea that predator control isn't effective because predator populations re-grow is like saying that mowing the lawn isn’t effective because the grass comes back.
Predators eat prey, despite however many studies and wildlife modeling systems are tweaked to suggest otherwise. There are many research papers and studies that prove this, but are often overshadowed by the minority few studies that have found a way to at least suggest otherwise.
I live just outside yellowstone. I have all the major predators in my backyard and where I hunt, which is fine with me.
Just don't tell me I can't cut the grass.
Wolves are a scapegoat, certainly, but they are also an apex predator that does a lot of killing. Maybe wolves alone wouldn’t have such an impact but the ungualate populations of my area are not only being hunted by wolves, but also two species of bears, lions, coyotes, bobcats, eagles etc. Add on hunting seasons, and it is a tremendous amount of pressure.
I used to think apex predators were very special and gave them higher status than other species. These days I would rather not find as many fawns killed in the woods and have more ungulates, leading to higher hunter success on deer and elk than just feeding wolves and bears.

Exactly.

And to answer the question posed above, I would absolutely rather have more tasty ungulates around than more large predators. Within the bounds of state and federal law, I can manage the ungulate population without needing to import species that are threats to my cattle, kids, dogs, and other livestock.

 

[S.Clancy]

The idea that predator control isn't effective because predator populations re-grow is like saying that mowing the lawn isn’t effective because the grass comes back.
Predators eat prey, despite however many studies and wildlife modeling systems are tweaked to suggest otherwise. There are many research papers and studies that prove this, but are often overshadowed by the minority few studies that have found a way to at least suggest otherwise.
I live just outside yellowstone. I have all the major predators in my backyard and where I hunt, which is fine with me.
Just don't tell me I can't cut the grass.
Wolves are a scapegoat, certainly, but they are also an apex predator that does a lot of killing. Maybe wolves alone wouldn’t have such an impact but the ungualate populations of my area are not only being hunted by wolves, but also two species of bears, lions, coyotes, bobcats, eagles etc. Add on hunting seasons, and it is a tremendous amount of pressure.
I used to think apex predators were very special and gave them higher status than other species. These days I would rather not find as many fawns killed in the woods and have more ungulates, leading to higher hunter success on deer and elk than just feeding wolves and bears.

I more or less agree with this viewpoint. I'm fine with apex predators on the landscape, but I like to see them managed the same way as game species, for a number of reasons. I hate the political tool that grizzlies and wolves have become.