Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Around the Campfire => Topic started by: bubbles on March 05, 2014, 09:19:27 pm
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q
Interesting little tidbit.
-
Makes you think twice about everything you do.
-
Nice to see something that's not just a rant about "Canadian wolves killing all the Deer/Elk".
-
The environment is much like a spiderweb. Pluck just one thread and they all vibrate. Cut one thread and you weaken them all.
Many people are upset that the elk are acting like elk again, avoiding the wolves. Elk hunting with wolves in the area has to be a good bit harder, I would imagine!
-
Good Point JW. Wolves do add a challenge to the hunting woods. After all its called hunting and not killing. Apex predators help an ecosystem to thrive. Man considers himself an apex predator, but we are actually late comers to the scheme of things. Man has a tendency to destroy all that he touches, and nature, when returned to a healthy balance, rebuilds what man has destroyed...
-
That is cool. I know lots of folks that don't think so though. ::)
-
I live right outside of Yellowstone and lived in Yellowstone for 4 of the last 5 years. I wish they never reintroduced wolves. It has completely divided the locals here. There are the wolfies and the non wolfies and not much in between.
If a hunter legally kills a wolf (especially a collared wolf) he can expect death threats to him and his family. Pro wolf people get denied jobs and are bitter because they assume its because they support the wolves and the employer doesn't, or vice versa.
There is discussion about a no wolf hunting buffer around the park. Well once that gets in place, and it's only a matter of time, then it's not a far stretch to extend the buffer to other animals.
The riparian habitat that is supposed to be making a tremendous comeback is being devoured by the unchecked bison herd, and outside of the park the free range cows continue to devastate riparian areas even with the presence of wolves.
FWP sets wolf quotas off of the of the lowest estimate of wolves. So the estimate is between 600 and 1800 wolves (I don't have actual numbers in front of me) in Montana, they will allow about two hundred wolves to be killed. Well 200 doesn't even keep the population in check if the number is greater than 600 to start with.
A lot of people are bitter and distrustful of both the park and FWP because the agreed upon number of wolves to meet the threshold required for reintroduction was 100 wolves and ten breeding pairs. But if a male wasn't seen at the den full of pups then that's wasn't a mating pair, then the wildlife organizations got involved with the lawsuits and before you know it we have about a gazillion wolves and no real good way to control their numbers. There was a reason it took decades of poisoning and shooting them from the air to exterminate them. They are crafty and cagey, not easily hunted and have a lot of pups.
That's my 2 cents.
Patrick
-
Good Point JW. Wolves do add a challenge to the hunting woods. After all its called hunting and not killing. Apex predators help an ecosystem to thrive. Man considers himself an apex predator, but we are actually late comers to the scheme of things. Man has a tendency to destroy all that he touches, and nature, when returned to a healthy balance, rebuilds what man has destroyed...
Now that man is on the scene in the numbers that we are, how to we return to a healthy balance?
Patrick
-
More wolves?
-
Well, humans have always hunted wolves. It's the only way to get the teeth and pelts for certain ceremonies. In Europe, wolves had the reputation of carrying off children and that's where the whole Little Red Riding Hood tale came from. It was probably some kind of oral myth before it was collected into a storybook.
There's two ways human interfere with the natural world. One is to blow away everything that moves and cut down or strip mine everything that doesn't. The other way is to overprotect everything and reintroduce species and then overprotect them as well. Unless a bear gets a wild hair about it, the wolf doesn't have any predators capable of taking him out other than man. Man gets this idea that he's somehow removed from the natural world and we no longer play a role as a predator. This isn't so. We still have a role as a predator. It's just that we can afford not to be anymore. But can other species? When deer overpopulate, they starve. So, some people might feel special tenderness at those deer not being hunted, but those deer will die anyway. They'll starve or end up under a tractor trailer on a regular basis.
Now, those wolves have a pretty good gig going for them. If the government protects them, they've got carte blanche to do pretty much anything. There are no parameters on their behaviour. That's fine for a while, but if they get into someone's herds of cattle, this isn't permissible. Humans have always protected our herds as far back as when we first began pastoralism which is at least as old as agriculture. Perhaps older. The composite bow was invented to protect herds from predators and then afterwards, people like the Scythians and Mongols realized it was also a highly effective weapon of combat. If humans protect their herds, they're doing what comes natural to them. That is, protecting their food supply. Animals fight over food and we are no different in that respect. It makes more sense than fighting over vague political concepts no one really cares about in the long run.
Where the deviation from the natural order occurs is when we engage in a "Final Solution", so to speak, concerning predators. If you catch the wolf in the herd, then you defend your herd. But you can't go and wipe them out on suspicions. Well, you could, but is it skilful? Skilful means is setting up an ambush and catching the wolves doing it. Sooner or later, they'll discover that these animals may not be eaten, so stick to the ones who can be. And if children are attacked, of course, one has to get up a hunting party to stop this. Humans have always done that, too.
There need to be places where wild animals can be reasonably assured they have habitat where they can do their own thing. Humans can't mandate things be a certain way on every square inch of this planet. We have to be able to say, "Ok, so we're growing crops here and we raise cattle and sheep here. And because we eat these things, we can't allow animals to come in and eat up our food. We've never done that. So we have to defend these lands we have allocated to that." But this doesn't mean Mr. Fabulously Rich gets to come into the wilderness and build a billion dollar home with a solar hot water collector and then whine when a wolf or a coyote carries off his $5000 poodle for supper. He needs to see the poodle becoming a meatloaf as the cost of doing business, so to speak. And if someone goes into the wilderness with his dog off a leash when the sign says dogs must be leashed, and a cougar eats that dog (as happened here), well, he has no right to demand a hunting party go punish that cougar. Punish it for what? Being a cougar on its own turf? It isn't about human food supply at that point.
Back to our role as predator, the hunters among us are few and fewer still hunt wolves. It's a "what's in it for me" proposition. Am I going to get steaks out of this deal? No. I'll get a pelt and a skull and that'll look cool on the wall, but unless it's used for ceremony, that's all it'll do. But there needs to be a predator in the link to keep the wolves in check. It's the same with us. If some major world power rises and no one is there to keep them in check, they do whatever they feel like doing. But if some other power exists, they can't operate outside of their own sphere of interest or they get their hands slapped. That's how the predator-checks-predator relationship works. It's different from the predator-prey relationship.
-
I make a living from livestock, horses and cattle are what feeds me and pays the bills, and wolves, lions and coyotes are what shrink the paycheck, I believe they need to be managed just like any other game animal, all this "endangered" stuff is pure b.s. we don't have very many in this corner of Montana yet, but I've seen tracks a few times and a buddy got a picture of one. The Missouri river brakes used to be some of the best public land elk hunting around and now because of fwps aweful management there is now a quickly growing wolf population there (when you tell them you saw a wolf in the brakes they always say that it was just a big coyote). Btw fwp hauls "problem bears" down here now too so if you see a fwp rig pulling a stock trailer in Carter county Montana call me, ill grab the dogs and bear hunting >:D
-
Cool vid
-
The video really makes you think all is well in Yellowstone since the wolves were introduced. I can tell you that is nothing but heart warming propaganda! Yellowstone has always been the worst managed park in the world. For instance when they had the big fire and decided to take a "let burn" approach millions of acres of forest was burned down. Now those areas have small trees growing so thick that grasses and forest floor plants can't grow. The only two areas that were protected during that fire were Old Faithful and Mammoth which are man made tourist attractions. The wolves have little or no effect on the bison so the open grass areas are just as grazed off as ever without the elk. They have been spending millions of dollars netting lake trout they themselves planted in connecting water sheds many years ago. The cutthroat fishery the lake enjoyed for many years is gone. The cutthroats that are caught in the nets are released but die from the damage they suffer in the nets. The lake trout are killed and dumped back in the lake which only feeds more lake trout and is a fantastic waste of food. The lake has so many mile long nets that you have to navigate around them. The bison have brusolosis (sp) which does not keep them form having calves, but the elk are infected. When the wolves drove the elk out of the park that eventually brought the disease to the ranches and the effect has been devastating to many cattle ranches and even on the buffalo ranch where I live. Yesterday my wife and I took a drive through some back country and saw a herd of upwards of a thousand head of elk on a bare mountain hill side on ranch property. These elk are gathered up in these large herds as their way of trying to protect themselves form the wolves. It has become impossible for the Game and Fish to manage these herds. I think the worst thing about the wolves is that they don't eat every thing they kill. Two years ago a pack killed 13 calf elk one night and ate one! In the spring when the pups are in the den the wolves will kill an elk or moose and eat only the lower abdomen area and then return to the den to regurgitate to feed the pups. That leaves an entire carcass for the grizzlies and that is dangerous. The grizzlies have killed and eaten four people in and around the Park in the last couple of years. Our moose population has suffered the most form the wolf predation to the point of almost no hunting. Where I live one side of the river is a permit wolf hunt area with very restricted numbers of kills allowed. The other side of the river is a kill on sight area. That sounds like the wolves have no chance, but let me tell you that very few are actually killed. We have a pack here on the ranch and since they are nocturnal and very smart its almost impossible for hunter to kill one! The thing that bothers me the most is that the government lied about the wolf species that were introduced in Yellowstone and Idaho as these wolves are more than two times the size of the wolves that were killed off. After all my rants I can tell you the wolves we have now are fantastic animals and I only wish they and the grizzlies could be managed to the point of some kind of balance. Joe
-
Cool video. Was it factual or agenda driven? I don't know.
Robby
-
I have a friend here who owns a gun shop and he gets in unusual stuff from time to time from his connections. Some years back, a Navajo man came in and had problems with a mountain lion getting into his horse corral and killing his horses. So, he made a wise investment into a surplus Starlight nightscope. He solved the problem within a week. Nocturnal doesn't matter to a Starlight scope, lol. And since mountain lion pelts and quivers made from those pelts are highly sought after by medicine men, the guy had an added fringe benefit from it that defrayed the cost of the Starlight scope.
Forest Service "controlled burns" and fires they let burn are great in theory, but only in theory. They had a prescribed burn years back over in Los Alamos, NM that got away from them because they started it on a very windy day. The day was too windy, but you know the deal. The paper said the fire is scheduled for this day, so we can't use common sense, we have to go by what the papers from the Great Fathers say. Well, that fire took off like a Roman candle and burned up houses and everything. These fires are supposed to clear the forest of "doghair thickets" that keep the wider diameter old-growth trees from manifesting. But what often happens is you get a crown fire that runs across the tops of the trees, especially when you have Bark Beetle infestations, and burns up the old-growth trees anyway. Then the doghair thickets return and they're back to square one. The only way to thin doghair thickets is to cut those trees and leave the ones that show promise of becoming Grandfather trees. They do that here, but then pile up the cut doghair trees and trees killed by the Bark Beetle and burn them. That's a waste. Those cut doghairs are a resource that can be made into pressed ready-light logs, paper, and so on. Plus, the fires are often done during times birds are nesting and those birds' nests become collateral damage. When those birds are Flickers, Acorn Woodpeckers, Downy Woodpeckers, and Nuthatches, well guess what? Those are the birds that eat the Bark Beetles so all you're doing is thinning the population of the birds that help eliminate the Bark Beetles that kill the trees. And when those trees die, that is what creates a catastrophic wildfire threat that culminates in a crown fire. It's also important to leave a few large dead trees in place since that's where the Flickers and Woodpeckers are going to build nests.
Forest Service tends not to see the role the smaller animals such as those Flickers and Woodpeckers play. A Nuthatch will spend hours going up and down the same tree, combing the tree for insects. So will a Flicker. Forest Service concentrates on big predators like wolves, but totally forgets the importance of protecting the insect predators like Flickers. Those birds play a much more effective role in managing forests than the Forest Service itself often does. They'll cut trees during nesting season and the nestlings in them die. The more birds you have in the forest, the healthier the trees. People mistakenly believe the woodpeckers damage healthy trees. They don't. They can hear insects inside the tree and they go after them. They have no other reason to spend that much energy drilling into the tree. When they nest, they select dead trees because those are easy to tunnel a cavity into in order to build a nest.
-
I'd like to see the evidence that the original wolf inhabiting that area was so much smaller. The Wolf evolves to fill a niche and the niche of that area demands a larger wolf.
The game is large, therefore the wolf needs to be as well. It just doesn't make sense that an area would be swarming with Elk and Buffalo and a little Wolf would be what inhabits the area.
-
Cool video. Was it factual or agenda driven? I don't know.
Robby
That, in a nutshell, is the problem. There is very little anyone can say on either side of the wolf fence that won't be attacked as propaganda. Even data can be intentionally mis-interpreted by both sides.
I think the most disturbing aspect of wolves is that a lot of anti-hunting organizations have latched onto them as a possible way to reduce hunting opportunities. What better way to outlaw hunting of big game than to reduce their number with other predators?
Patrick
-
Wolves, Much Like any predator or prey animal, need to be managed in the numbers that the ecosystem will comfortably contain. That being said, prescribed hunts should be put into place. Any animal, be it domesticated, or wild, must be controlled in number so that they do not put a strain on local resources or on the environment they inhabit.....Management is key.
-
I'd like to see the evidence that the original wolf inhabiting that area was so much smaller. The Wolf evolves to fill a niche and the niche of that area demands a larger wolf.
The game is large, therefore the wolf needs to be as well. It just doesn't make sense that an area would be swarming with Elk and Buffalo and a little Wolf would be what inhabits the area.
The Park has roughly 12 wolf skulls from attributed to wolves shot in and around the park from the late 1800's and early 1900's. I don't think there is a verifiable measurable difference between the reintroduced wolves and the wolves that were here before.
Here is the rub with that though. To battle the argument that the wolves they wanted to reintroduce were not the same as the ones that were here before, they had to make sure all wolves were classified as the same. My details are a little fuzzy on this and I don't have the time to do the research right now, but there couldn't be a bunch of different subspecies of wolves because then they couldn't be sure that what they were reintroducing was the same wolf that was here before. But if all the wolves are the same, then they certainly aren't going extinct or even endangered. How many wolves are there in Alaska and Canada? Why is the same logic not applied to Grizzly bears? If Grizzly bears were historically at least as far east as the Missouri River, why is there not a big push to reintroduce them on the plains? Probably because the habitat is fragmented and modified by man enough that it isn't a real viable option. The same reason the wolves should not have been reintroduced.
Patrick
-
Wolves, Much Like any predator or prey animal, need to be managed in the numbers that the ecosystem will comfortably contain. That being said, prescribed hunts should be put into place. Any animal, be it domesticated, or wild, must be controlled in number so that they do not put a strain on local resources or on the environment they inhabit.....Management is key.
Managing wolves is easier said than done. Hunting them is difficult, poisoning is out of the question, trapping is better but there aren't many trappers that know what they are doing enough to really put a dent in the population. Even if they did, they are only allowed to trap a certain number.
Patrick
-
I think its funny that people that have not lived here for many years know what is best for a very complex environment. It would be like me trying to tell the people in Florida how to manage their non native snakes! How many know that it was Yellowstone Park Officials that killed off all their grizzlies which eventually led to having them on the endangered species list? Its also a fact that animals in the northern climes are inherently larger than those of their southern cousins. The wolves that inhabited Wyoming during the times when they were finally killed off weighed around 65 pounds. Some of the Canadian wolves can weigh 265 pounds plus. I just hope when they kill off all the moose the feds will bring in some Yukon moose to replace them. If you think these Canadian wolves are the same species come with me and visit our Meeteetse museum to look at the pictures of the last wolves killed in Wyoming. They were much smaller than what we have now. Please don't think that I hate the wolves. I hate what they have done with moving our elk out of the mountains and all the problems that has caused. I also hate seeing them eat on an animal, neighbor's cow or elk before its dead!
-
Nature is a cruel beast. We have wolves all over Northern MN...Tracks in My yard twice this winter.
-
I think its funny that people that have not lived here for many years know what is best for a very complex environment. It would be like me trying to tell the people in Florida how to manage their non native snakes! How many know that it was Yellowstone Park Officials that killed off all their grizzlies which eventually led to having them on the endangered species list? Its also a fact that animals in the northern climes are inherently larger than those of their southern cousins. The wolves that inhabited Wyoming during the times when they were finally killed off weighed around 65 pounds. Some of the Canadian wolves can weigh 265 pounds plus. I just hope when they kill off all the moose the feds will bring in some Yukon moose to replace them. If you think these Canadian wolves are the same species come with me and visit our Meeteetse museum to look at the pictures of the last wolves killed in Wyoming. They were much smaller than what we have now. Please don't think that I hate the wolves. I hate what they have done with moving our elk out of the mountains and all the problems that has caused. I also hate seeing them eat on an animal, neighbor's cow or elk before its dead!
wolf watcher has got it right, i don't mean any disrespect but if you haven't lived around wolves you don't understand the problem, as already stated most everything you read about wolves is heavily biased, so you need to go talk to the people who have to deal with the effects of wolves on a daily basis, which pretty much excludes everyone but ranchers and hunters, i wouldn't bother talking to the park or fwp, for the most part they won't tell you the straight of it anyways.
-
The wife and I have been studying this for going on 5 years now. We moved to MN to see how management here has made for a healthier deer herd and wolf packs. That being said, they need better management in other areas to balance the needs of hunters, ranchers, and ecosystems. Re introducing an apex predator into a system that has been devoid of them for 100 years, and not managing their numbers, is extremely fool hardy.
Much of what people have to say about wolves is fueled by mis information and fear. Self interest of ranchers and hunters also comes into play. Unfortunately human emotion gets involved, common sense practices get abandoned, anger rises, and feelings get hurt. There is no simple answer. We have been looking for one, but every State, every Ecosystem presents its own challenges. I think if both sides could actually sit down and listen to one another, and work towards a common goal, management would be much easier. Sad thing is everyone sees their side of the issue as most pressing, and no one is willing to compromise. It has turned into an all or nothing for either side with no middle ground.
I am posting this as a hunter, and conservationist. I am the devils advocate and my wife is the Biologist. It has made for some interesting discussions around My place in the last 5 years. We have had death threats from ranchers and hunters alike, just for studying these creatures and trying to be fair and balanced in our findings. So you can see how touchy the issue is in area around the US.
So like I was saying, Better management all around needs to occur on all sides, and a better dialogue needs to be opened by all sides. In the end, I feel it wil be nature that suffers, as Man has always managed to win out.....
Just My .02 on the matter...Unbiased, observers view....
-
There is just no way that the two subspecies of wolf are that different. The two subspecies likely originally met and even interbred right in that zone where they were introduced.
You can look at the range of Canis Lupus Occidentalis (The introduced "Canadian" type) and Canis Lupus Nubilus (The Great Plains Wolf) and see that.
You would have to present convincing evidence as to why nature would select a 65 pound wolf to be a top predator where the game is very large. That just doesn't happen.
There are parts of the world where wolves are very small but that is always where they only have much smaller game available.
The thought that the Elk can't cope because the Wolves are bigger is ludicrous. Wolves and Elk shared territory from Mexico to China.
Wolves have never wiped out Elk anywhere.
-
PatM..Good points all around..The wolf wasn't the Apex predator on the plains, the Grizzly Bear was. The wolf fit into a niche along with the coyote and the other canines. Griz were first to meet their demise, as they were bigger and easier to eradicate. Then came wolves and Indians. Coyotes were never really put into check. They have always been resilient.
A well voiced statement on Elk and Wolves also. One thing that Man fails to take into being, is that the influence of Man upon the earth has done more to lower Elk Numbers than any other predator. Development, Agriculture, and Urbanization have decreased Elk numbers to the point of them being extinct in traditional regions. Re Introduction has bolstered numbers in States where these programs have been implemented, But Elk will never roam the earth to the extent to which they did before Europeans started settling North America. They have been pushed into small mountainous areas, surrounded by agriculture and society, and roam about 1/10th of where they used to be native.
Many different sides to a complex issue. Have sat and listened to many, if not most of the differing narratives...
-
Man trying to fix what he broke is the same as fixing a broken vase. You can glue the pieces back together, but there's always that missing piece that rolled under the bookshelf never to be found, the glue lines are visible, and the vase never holds water again. It looks good from a distance but, close up, you can see the vase is broken. Like the buffalo. Sure, they've been reintroduced. But can they make the same migratory patterns they used to? And where are the nomad hunters that followed the herds? The Cowbirds that once followed the buffalo herds have already adapted to other patterns of behaviour and this is why they are now a threat to the survival of Mountain Bluebirds.
Wolves will be wolves. That's their nature. Sure, they eat animals before they're dead. That's how Nature operates. Ravens will swallow songbird nestlings whole. Humans are not necessarily exempt. There was a sashimi practice where the fish was taken from a tank and eaten alive, pieces sliced from it on the spot. Not entirely different from dropping a live lobster into a pot of boiling water to get that peak freshness. For that matter, our weapons of war are not entirely humane. Napalm is a great example of that. A wolf eats an animal alive to fill its belly. But we'll drop napalm on other people to achieve some arcane political objective. And if our bomb drop is off target---oops---we call that collateral damage, issue a press release apology, and it's back to business as usual. In other words, we humans cannot necessarily point fingers at the animal world since we're no angels ourselves. We could say, however, it's our nature and our teeth and claws have merely become F-18s and Apache gunships. It is, after all, no accident our military weapons and many military units are named after animal predators. It's a subconscious recognition of what they truly are, whether we're comfortable admitting that to ourselves or not.
-
PatM: Before the settlers moved across the plains there were an estimated 65 plus million bison roaming North America from Canada to Mexico. The wolves of record were not what you are calling the APex predator. They were scavengers and not bison predators. That species of wolf was eradicated and is no longer a member of the living wolf species. The buffalo itself was almost wiped out! It was eight years after the wolves had been introduced before a bison kill was confirmed in Yellowstone by wolves. I live on a buffalo ranch and can tell you that they do not kill the buffalo. What my point about the wolf and its impact on the elk population is not that they are killing the elk off, but rather, they have caused the elk to leave the park and all the surrounding mountains east and south of the park boundary. The largest non roaded contiguous area in the lower United States lies just below the Southeast corner of Yellowstone. That area before the introduction of the Canadian wolves into the Park, was a haven for elk, moose, deer, and mountain sheep. The elk have been driven out of those mountains all the way to the semi desert of Wyoming. With the elk as a carrier of brusulosis (sp) they have become a economic problem for a state that relies on beef and sheep production as an income base. I have had many opportunities over the last ten years to shoot a number of wolves and have always chose not to even when they have been in my yard. They have been responsible for the tremendous decline in the moose population. They have been along with the grizzlies more detrimental to the sheep ranchers than the cattle ranchers. The only ones that have really gained from the wolf introduction and its subsequent litigations are the lawyers. What you need to do is come out to my place and spend some time learning the real effects the wolves have had on our ranchers many of whom have been here for over a hundred years. I would be glad to have you call me on the phone and maybe we can understand each other. 307/868/2143 Let me ask you this? What would you think if a wolf could get into your income and take away some of the profits you plan to live on and that take away could go on through as many as ten years growing exponentially? That is what happens when the wolves kill a specially bred heifer like the three that were killed across the road last year! PS: I know about the brutality of Nature as well as anyone here and don't mind telling you that seeing an animal being eaten while its still alive is beyond my ability to condone Nature and mans brutality. Many have been the times when I passed up a arrow shot at an animal because I could not offer that animal a clean and quick kill.
-
I was purely talking about whether the Wolves are really any different to their own ecosystem.
Not sure I buy the fact that the original "Buffalo wolf" was not a predator of the Buffalo. Why would it not be?
In Canada a pack hunts the much larger Wood Buffalo.
http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/episodes/wolves-and-buffalo
-
PatM: because of their size they could not use the buffalo as a prey animal. When a buffalo died they cleaned up the carcass! And once again the wolves that prey on Woodland buffalo were the BIG Canadian wolves we have been talking about. I can tell you that buffalo are their own worst enemy! Because the young are always at their mother's side they often get killed by the bulls as collateral damage when breeding takes place. The ranch loses several calves each year just that way and they become bait for the coyotes, birds, etc! I think you just don't want to understand how this eco system works!
-
But why wouldn't they be able to kill the smaller Plains Bison? If a larger Wolf can kill a Wood Bison there is no reason to believe that the original "Buffalo Wolves" were not killing the smaller Plains Bison.
Where is the evidence that the original wolves were actually so small? Wolf sizes just don't work that way in the presence of large game.
The Grizzly doesn't limit the size of Wolves anywhere else so why would it on the Plains?
I do know that neither of us was there in the original scenario so we are just seeing a fragment of the original eco system and forming opinions based on that.
-
The people who would have known left no written records because they had no written language.
-
But why wouldn't they be able to kill the smaller Plains Bison? If a larger Wolf can kill a Wood Bison there is no reason to believe that the original "Buffalo Wolves" were not killing the smaller Plains Bison.
Where is the evidence that the original wolves were actually so small? Wolf sizes just don't work that way in the presence of large game.
The Grizzly doesn't limit the size of Wolves anywhere else so why would it on the Plains?
I do know that neither of us was there in the original scenario so we are just seeing a fragment of the original eco system and forming opinions based on that.
Pat,
I have to agree that the wolves are probably similar in size today as they were 150 years ago. The skulls they have from past years are within the normal variance for size of the wolves that are here today. Wolf Watcher is right though that the wolves we have here today don't kill many bison. There was a bison hobbling around with a broken leg and a prolapsed uterus for about three months before the wolves finally put her out of her misery. Wolves eat what is easiest to kill and bison usually aren't it.
Patrick
-
The people who would have known left no written records because they had no written language.
People with a written language went through those areas for hundreds of years while the Wolves and Bison were in abundance.
-
Yeup...And we kind enough to put them in paintings of the era...Oddly enough....patrolling around herds of Bison looking for the old, weak, and feeble....imagine that. Many western explorers also mentioned the size and characteristics of the wolves they encountered and observed...Anyone ever read the Journals of Lewis and Clark???Not the small Library version, but the multi-volume version...well described..
-
But why wouldn't they be able to kill the smaller Plains Bison? If a larger Wolf can kill a Wood Bison there is no reason to believe that the original "Buffalo Wolves" were not killing the smaller Plains Bison.
Where is the evidence that the original wolves were actually so small? Wolf sizes just don't work that way in the presence of large game.
The Grizzly doesn't limit the size of Wolves anywhere else so why would it on the Plains?
I do know that neither of us was there in the original scenario so we are just seeing a fragment of the original eco system and forming opinions based on that.
Pat,
I have to agree that the wolves are probably similar in size today as they were 150 years ago. The skulls they have from past years are within the normal variance for size of the wolves that are here today. Wolf Watcher is right though that the wolves we have here today don't kill many bison. There was a bison hobbling around with a broken leg and a prolapsed uterus for about three months before the wolves finally put her out of her misery. Wolves eat what is easiest to kill and bison usually aren't it.
Patrick
The wolves introduced were also from Montana, not just Alberta.
Few of them actually had any experience with even seeing Bison never mind hunting them. The first attacks happened almost immediately after release, not eight years later.
Definitely Bison are not the first choice but there is little question that wolves are still perfectly capable of taking down Bison.
You can find much video evidence and studies have been published documenting the kills.
-
Yeup...And we kind enough to put them in paintings of the era...Oddly enough....patrolling around herds of Bison looking for the old, weak, and feeble....imagine that. Many western explorers also mentioned the size and characteristics of the wolves they encountered and observed...Anyone ever read the Journals of Lewis and Clark???Not the small Library version, but the multi-volume version...well described..
The thought that predators only target the old and diseased apparently has a fair amount of dispute when lengthy studies are done.
That overlooks the unlucky such as perfectly healthy cows that have just given birth and leave themselves and the new calf at risk.
You can also often see a healthy animal just make one wrong turn and isolate themselves from a herd and immediately become vulnerable.
Predators never pause for a health and age check in those situations. The prey animal has to not just be healthy but borderline freakishly strong to offset bad luck.
In the best of situations a wild animal still needs an incredibly large dose of luck to live to anything close to old age.
-
PatM: You win with all your first hand knowledge I am sure you know much more about how the wolves have affected the elk and bison populations. I would like to ask how many wolves, elk, and bison live where you live? By the way there were no wolves planted in 1995 that came from Montana. I have known one of the men that was involved in trapping the wolves in Canada that were transported to the Park and he told me all about catching and releasing them! He just retired as the wolf manager in the Cody office of the Game and Fish.
-
I am solely discussing the ability of wolves to hunt and the difference the various subspecies have which allow them to hunt big game species.
I am not at all discussing their impact on the Bison and Elk population within a restricted area. Merely discussing whether it is "normal" behavior.
-
It's hard to quantify what is "normal behaviour" for a reintroduced species or an introduced species. Pigeons were once canyon cliff dwellers and nesters from North Africa. Now they've become so accustomed to living in man's environment, their behaviour changed and they learned man is a better host than a cliff in North Africa. In turn, Peregrine Falcons and even Redtail Hawks have discovered they can adapt to cities to hunt these pigeons and taken advantage of man as a de facto host, not to mention the nesting opportunities on the ledges of skyscrapers. English Sparrows are the descendants of weaverbirds from Africa. They learned man is a much better host because food availability is better and nesting sites are easier in the eaves of buildings. Once an animal has man as a host, their behaviour changes, and what was once "normal" for them is no longer normal. And while wild animals can be introduced, man has unintentionally made himself the host of the animal and, thus, altered its normal behaviour. If man protects the wild animal, even more so has he become the host.
The English Sparrow was not native to North America; it was brought here by Europeans because they missed them. Because of its adaptable nature, the English Sparrow became highly successful, just as it did in Europe. It can outcompete the native sparrows here as well as other songbirds of its size. It can defeat Mountain Bluebirds in the fringe areas of towns and cities in certain regions for nesting sites. It can monopolize and aggressively defend birdfeeders and other food sources and thus propagate its species faster than other birds. Man became the host of this bird by introducing it to an area that had not seen this type of bird. Honestly, man is the host of introduced wolves in the same manner. Man captures them from one area, transports them to another area, and assumes this will be a natural thing. But this wasn't so with English Sparrows, nor is it so with wolves. It's like thinking that, ok, we wiped out the Passenger Pigeon, so the common pigeon in cities will restore that. And the effects of introduced species are not usually what was intended. As with the English Sparrow. And if tomorrow it was decided to get rid of English Sparrows, it couldn't be done. That bird has already adapted and is too intelligent to eradicate. It adapts too fast. Wolves, being transported and introduced, are unintentionally being taught rapid progress evolution and adaptation in the same way.
-
I think when there were 65 million bison, following a herd and waiting for the small percentage that breaks a leg or gets sick to lag behind was the easiest way to get a meal. Bison generally don't run from a fight with wolves like elk do, so I think now the elk are just easier prey.
Patrick
-
I saw a show on PBS, NOVA about Alaska's Coastal wolves. These coastal wolves are just over half the size of the inland timber wolves. The guy studying them found out that their main food source was grizzly bears. As he took scat samples to figure this out he found grizzly claws and teeth in their scat. They showed a grizzly eating on carrion on the beach when all of a sudden it startled and ran off just as a pack of these wolves moved in.
These wolves also caught and ate salmon when the salmon would run in the fall.
-
The trouble with comparing Old World pigeons and sparrows to wolves is that the wolves are still much more a natural presence in the North American environment.
There was no barrier to them naturally migrating to the Yellowstone region. The more northern species was already on its way there. New arrivals of Wolves coming over the Bering Straight have been displacing or absorbing more early arrivals for eons.
It wouldn't have been entirely unrealistic for them to have just got there on their own in time.
-
I wonder how much size variance depends on food? So the coastal wolves may or may not have as much food as the timber wolves, which makes them smaller. Like South Koreans compared to North Koreans. :o
Wolves killed toward the end of the 19th century and early 20th century would have had a hard time finding lots of elk and bison to eat.
Patrick
-
Patrick, I think it was more a matter of climate for the coastal wolves. That area has a more moderate climate than central Alaska.
-
Patrick, I think it was more a matter of climate for the coastal wolves. That area has a more moderate climate than central Alaska.
That could be it too! Maybe the point is that within the same species there can be significant size variance due to a host of factors.
Patrick
-
You just have to look at Dogs to see what possibilities the wolf genome can accomplish.
-
PatM, one difference is that those wolves did not naturally migrate there even if it postulated that they could have. The other difference is that reintroducing a species that once inhabited an area but hasn't for quite some time can be the same as introducing a non-native species because the other species have already adapted to it not being there. The Woolly Mammoth was once native to North America, but what would happen if we introduced elephants and thought it would be the same thing? Or if we cloned the Woolly Mammoth and thought that would be the same as before? Horses once inhabited North America, disappeared due to hunting or other factors, and was reintroduced by the Spanish. That resulted in a paradigm shift among Native cultures who acquired it and thus their hunting strategies. And ultimately culminated in part of the need by ranchers later on to eradicate wolves to protect horse herds from predation.
-
The species being preyed on wouldn't adapt that fast. Even domesticated animals haven't forgotten their basic fear of predators. I think people forget that the wolves hadn't been gone that long from Yellowstone. Far less than 100 years.
You can't compare wild horses and Mammoth's to that.
-
Glad to read this as I learned a lot. Don't really have any facts to add nor the experience. The one thing I will say is that modern man forgot a long time ago how to live in harmony with the earth. Every thing that we have changed will never be as it was. We can try to play god by reintroducing animals but I don't think the ecosystem will change as fast as we can breed and truck in animals. I guess my bottom line is that we should take care of what we have left and I don't think mother nature cares what we do to it cause when she is sick of us she'll get rid of humans and then it will be earth + plastic. I don't think we are capable of truly figuring out what best for a ecosystem that took millennia to develop.
-
This all sounds good, and I hope that it's true. Hayden Valley is my favorite place on the planet! But when something leads people to claim that "man destroys whatever he touches" and "nature will repair what man has destroyed" you've lost me as an advocate. Pure nonsense on every level.
-
I'm not saying wolves don't belong there or can't play a part. What I'm saying is this isn't the same as running down to Napa and getting a distributor cap for a 72 Chevy pickup where it doesn't have to be the factory-made original. There aren't drop-in replacements for biological species. Take the honeybee, for example. If that insect went extinct, along with it would go numerous flowering plants, in fact, a great deal of our food supply. We can't think that we can drop in more hummingbirds and call it good. With the wolves, yes, you can drop in an analogue species. But that doesn't make it the same as before. Man, in his hubris, can't assume problem solved, it's all good, we made it all better again, and call it a day. There are unintended consequences. Like Rumsfeld once said, there's things we know, things we don't know, and things we don't know that we don't know. Known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.
In the case of the wolf, there are, of course, a lot of emotions behind it. One faction tends to romanticize the wolf into something it truly isn't. They see this animal as proud and noble. Like when the Bald Eagle was selected to be our national symbol, it was assumed this was a noble animal that earned an honest living fishing. They didn't observe it long enough to see it scavenging carcasses. And now it'll hang around landfills to garner edibles there. And the wolf occupies a very high place in the human psyche because we tend to anthropomorphize it and assign it human values, as we do with many other animals we see as noble. It's no wonder so many people have this animal as a totem as opposed to a raccoon, squirrel, skunk, or an opossum. All these things that inhabit our subconscious in Jungian fashion combine to create the "perfect storm", as it were, to reintroduce first and ask questions later.
Another faction believes the wolf was wiped out for valid reasons and bringing them back presents the same challenges that led to spending so much time and resources to accomplish that goal. They tend to romanticize their own role as stalwart defenders of order and civilizing factors. They settled the land and made it safe for farming, ranching, and picnicking in the woods without Little Johnny being carted off for a midday snack by a pack of wolves. Nature has extreme limits and man has dominion over it all and, thus, we can and should do anything we want because we have the guns and brains.
Another faction seeks to bring science into the fray, forgetting that science also brought us nuclear weapons and is, ergo, not infallible in being able to recognize unforeseen consequences of allegedly good science. This faction also forgets that Nature does not necessarily follow what we believe to be science because science does not hold all the answers as to how the planet works, much less the entire universe. What was science 500 years ago isn't science now in many cases, but superstition and wrong conclusions based on what they knew or thought they knew at the time. When the hydrogen bomb was being developed, some scientists feared a cascade reaction that might destroy the planet but went ahead and developed it anyway. This is important to remember. Science doesn't necessarily act in humanity's---or the ecosystem's---best interest. Enter into this equation game management officials who believe in "scientific game management" strategies as if the planet limped along bereft of guidance, balance, wisdom, and direction for billions of years until fish & game agencies manifested. Of course game agencies protect the wilderness areas. But they are not always the final words of wisdom on the matter when these agencies start being staffed by people with a political or emotion-driven agenda. Then these people shoehorn science (or what passes for it, truth be told) into the debate to support their own personal wants and desires or to support those of various political officials who seek to get involved and whose wildlife knowledge descends from having seen Bambi and various other Disney interpretations of the natural world. If their funding is increased by supporting, say, introducing Meerkats into the Sequoia National Forest, they'll dig up some scientific tidbit to support that. One also has to question what the actual agenda and goal of wolf reintroduction is. Is this an effort to restore an area, or the ham-handed attempt of anti-hunting factions to manage game without human hunters? This is a valid question that needs to be asked. Who drives these efforts? Who funds them, aside from the game agencies? Who is getting together the petitions and why?
Finally, we have to ask the questions of what happens when the experiment (because that's what it is, really) goes pear-shaped? Do we just wash our hands of it, or not? Do we keep trying it if it fails? Or can we accept that we acted perhaps wrongly in the past and decide to put more effort into protecting the species that are in danger right now that we can---and should---save? Not to say we shouldn't act to save the wolf. We should and must. But we need more than emotion from all the factions involved.
-
The honey bee is an introduced species itself. If it was gone, things would be "back to normal".
One thing we certainly blow out of proportion is the cost for these reintroductions. After all the money spent it seems like we still got it wrong.
The actual cost of just trapping a bunch of the Rocky Mountain variety of Wolves and dropping them in the park could certainly have been much cheaper.
The world we live in today demands that about five levels of authority are required to be paid before something gets done incorrectly.
It's mostly about creating jobs or making jobs justifiable.
-
Correct, PatM. Once a species is introduced, nothing goes back to what one terms "normal".
-
on a lighter note. :)
-
on a lighter note. :)
Ha! :laugh:
-
Someone stated that they had learned a lot from this thread. Be careful when you assume that anything you have read here is factual. I will not call anyone out as I am no expert on wolves, but some very quick research contradicted some of what I read. Not trying to stir trouble just prefer to get facts from authoritative sources.
-
Someone stated that they had learned a lot from this thread. Be careful when you assume that anything you have read here is factual. I will not call anyone out as I am no expert on wolves, but some very quick research contradicted some of what I read. Not trying to stir trouble just prefer to get facts from authoritative sources.
I'm with you, Tom. Hopefully, everyone knows what, "assume", means? They are introducing Red wolves down here,, in the largest area of cattle ranches in Florida. Sounds like a waste of Tax dollars to me.
-
Someone stated that they had learned a lot from this thread. Be careful when you assume that anything you have read here is factual. I will not call anyone out as I am no expert on wolves, but some very quick research contradicted some of what I read.ot trying to stir trouble just prefer to get facts from authoritative sources.
When I said "I learned a lot from this thread" it was geared at all the opinions out there. It nice to hear from people that live and see what the media and government won't say. I am no expert on this topic by any means but can't imagine one could come up with a cut and dry answer of reintroduction of spieces being a success in a short period of time.
-
Trouble is the way I see it there is way to many people get involved with people and areas and echo systems they know nothing about. You see it all starts with an idea and that idea is passed on to others through avocation and soon it is a group that advocates the idea further(not normally so much with the locals). This Idea gets crammed down a bunch of peaceful hard working hick folk(like myself) This idea has already spread like a cancer and before we know what hit us we are in what seems like inoperable stage 4. The people on top really don't care a lot about what happens in the long run because by God it was there idea and they now have the support financial backing via followers of the idea to pay the lawyers and politics who follow money not right or wrong. As long as the followers pay they continue the fight and those that manage the fight weaponry(money) rake it in. Out here in the west we see it with Oh so precious mustang, the timber, the cougar, the bear and now many parts the wolf. What we the people who truly live and work these rural vast area see is the wild life is minimal compared two twenty years ago in places beyond belief. we have less live stock on the forest we have fenced huge riparian areas along the creeks and rivers to keep the live stock back lost water rights literally bent over backwards to please the masses and the nation which by large we feed. thus resulting in less live stock less agriculture higher food prices less of which are grown locally and more that comes from other countries, Many of whom would rather see us Americans dead than alive. Fish and wild life agencies still sale a high amount of tags for the animals disappearing we have far more baron black skeletons' of what was once a mighty forest than we ever logged and still the owl has faired not better but worse. We see a lot more bear and cougar especially in towns and around homes because pets and live stock are easier pray than the scattered scared of their own shadow wild life. Still those who venture out once in a while or not at all pay the bill to keep the fight going. We are few they are many our resources like wise. But I must ask when we grow our last crop, slaughter our last steer prepare our last supper do you think we will send it to you. When you open your imported fruits, vegetables, meats do you ever wonder did they know it was headed to America did they add something other than a blessing do you know? My bottom line is if you don't live and partake in an area you should not advocate what happens in that area. I don't say or advocate what goes on in Main, Florida or even the Willamette Valley in my own state. It is a different area than east of the Cascades climate, water, entire echo system different. If every body had this common sense then things would go far better.
-
I was raised by wolves. Don't kill my mommy and daddy :P :o 8) Sorry, I'm up too late and I'm beginning to turn into a troll.
-
Oops sorry Tim I do advocate in Florida. I think you should get some sleep and get out and make more videos. Thems are good stuff there even the gory dead turtle ones. Good night young man.