20 years of wolves in Yellowstone National Park film

Sojourn

Wanderer
Amazing creatures. My wife and I backpacked on Isle Royale in the Michigan UP several years ago when there was still a relatively healthy population of wolves remaining there. We had the good fortune to talk with Roth Peterson, wolf biologist and author famous for his wolf research, and his wife Candy at Daisy Farm Camp. Very genuine folks with a passion for the wolves and the moose they prey on. They invited us over to their home at Bangsund's cabin. Fascinating place, every moose skull that they have collected over the decades is located there. Isle Royale has been a continuos living laboratory for wildlife biologists since the late 50's for the study of wolves' impact and the benefit on their prey and environment. Sadly, it is predicted that this may be last year for the wolves of Isle Royale, they will likely become a victim of their own small gene pool on such a small island. http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/node/144
 
Last edited:

762X39

Explorer
Lovely, I love all Predators (I am one after all as are humans in general) and wolves especially.:coffee:
 

ZJARCHER

Adventurer
When the Shiras, Elk, and Bighorn sheep populations are extinct in the park, the feds will regret that decision. Their populations are at all time lows in the park. The wolf heard has WAY overgrown itself and spread into Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana. The numbers are so badly skewed by the feds, because they failed at reintroduction (I use that term lightly- the Wolves they introduced are Canadian in origin. Much larger in size, heard size, and much , MUCH faster reproducing than the wolves that originally lived in Yellowstone) and population control. The Feds, a an attempt to hide their failure, have suppressed private studies that have shown the negative impact on the overpopulation and WIDE spread growth of them. I think they're absolutley amazing animals, but the program was handled wrong from day one and has not been managed, but instead funded by the padded pockets of specialist groups across the world. Not to mention the effect the growing heard is having on ranchers, sportsmen, and the future of both.

I have a friend in Montana who lost 1/3 of his cattle heard this past year to wolf kills.

Well composed video, but its obvious who funded it.
 

David Harris

Expedition Leader
When the Shiras, Elk, and Bighorn sheep populations are extinct in the park, the feds will regret that decision. Their populations are at all time lows in the park. The wolf heard has WAY overgrown itself and spread into Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana. The numbers are so badly skewed by the feds, because they failed at reintroduction (I use that term lightly- the Wolves they introduced are Canadian in origin. Much larger in size, heard size, and much , MUCH faster reproducing than the wolves that originally lived in Yellowstone) and population control. The Feds, a an attempt to hide their failure, have suppressed private studies that have shown the negative impact on the overpopulation and WIDE spread growth of them. I think they're absolutley amazing animals, but the program was handled wrong from day one and has not been managed, but instead funded by the padded pockets of specialist groups across the world. Not to mention the effect the growing heard is having on ranchers, sportsmen, and the future of both.

I have a friend in Montana who lost 1/3 of his cattle heard this past year to wolf kills.

Well composed video, but its obvious who funded it.

I'm not an expert on the numbers myself, but it seems that if there were too few natural predators before wolves were introduced, then now the numbers would be coming down to a natural equilibrium with the wolves back. How do you know game populations are too low? Maybe they are just right? Just asking what data you are using to back up your claims?
 
Kinda hard to take a guy serious that provides no numbers to back up his commentary, and does not know the difference between "heard" and "herd" and that wolves generally are referred to as pack animals, whereas I have heard of a herd of cattle.

Provide numbers and proof for my education. I am curious.
 
Last edited:

gorillamel

Dirty Blonde
This article may help explain the Canadian vs Idaho/Montana, etc wold argument that the poster mentions (which is a biologically invalid argument since wolves do not follow political boundaries): http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/08/14/3324048_a-long-winded-answer-to-what-were.html?rh=1

As an Idahoan, I hear the argument to kill off the wolves all the time and that Fish and Game mistakenly introduced the "wrong" wolf when they were attempting to bring the population numbers up. I work closely with Fish and Game and have spoken to them often enough on the "issue" that it basically comes down to misunderstanding population genetics and gene flow from the general public (among many other things) regarding introduction of animals to bring up population numbers (in order to avoid the bottleneck effect).

Do wolves damage rancher's animal/livelihood populations? You bet. Wolves are also predators and livestock are prey. Does it suck for ranchers? You bet it does. That is less money and therefore less food on their table at the end of the day. I'm not a biologist. I do not have the answers. Introducing a predator back into its natural range that is now covered with ranch land is a precarious balance to form and withstand.
 

David Harris

Expedition Leader
Livestock guard dogs may be an answer:

http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/companimals/guarddogs/guarddogs.htm

The article says that many wolves will avoid encounters with a guard dog if one is present. Also the dogs can be used in groups to protect against more dangerous predators. Probably wouldn't eliminate losses but would assuredly limit them. It's a very very old school method from a time when people and wolves existed side by side.
 

newhue

Adventurer
Who would have thought, that's a very interesting little movie. Certainly complicates and challenges how humans generally think. I'm sure a wolf would like more land and less humans if they could talk. The answer is difficult no matter which side it is approached.
 

ZJARCHER

Adventurer
Take a second to watch this^
I'll post more details when I get a chance.

Oh and excuuuuse me for a single mis-typed word. I'll have my secretary proof read my next forum post. :Rollseyes: didn't know the spelling police would be patrolling.
 
I'm sorry but that is the stupidest thing I have heard wolfs will not avoid another dog in thier territory in fact just the opposite they will activly seek out and kill said dog. A side note there are alot of houndsmen in the wolf re-introduction areas that have lost good hounds some even whole packs to wolfs.
Livestock guard dogs may be an answer:

http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/companimals/guarddogs/guarddogs.htm

The article says that many wolves will avoid encounters with a guard dog if one is present. Also the dogs can be used in groups to protect against more dangerous predators. Probably wouldn't eliminate losses but would assuredly limit them. It's a very very old school method from a time when people and wolves existed side by side.
 

David Harris

Expedition Leader
I'm sorry but that is the stupidest thing I have heard wolfs will not avoid another dog in thier territory in fact just the opposite they will activly seek out and kill said dog. A side note there are alot of houndsmen in the wolf re-introduction areas that have lost good hounds some even whole packs to wolfs.

I'm no expert, just reporting what I have read and apparently there are more tests going on with big 100-130 pound European breeds which have historically been used successfully against wolves and even brown bears. At least one rancher in Oregon is confident these will protect against wolves. She is using them in packs. Here are a couple of articles:

http://www.bendbulletin.com/localst...hers-test-european-dog-breeds-against-wolves#

http://www.kxlf.com/news/certain-breeds-of-dogs-being-used-to-ward-off-wolves-from-livestock/
 
Last edited:

BigSwede

The Credible Hulk
When the Shiras, Elk, and Bighorn sheep populations are extinct in the park, the feds will regret that decision. Their populations are at all time lows in the park.
There is zero chance of that happening. Wolves just are not that effective of a predator, if their prey animal populations drop theirs will too.
And in any event, the grazers were overpopulated anyway, a reduction in their population is a good thing for the ecosystem. Interestingly, the populations of grizzlys and beavers have increased due to the presence of wolves. Beavers have more forage to eat since the elk are not eating it all, and the grizzlys are able to scavenge from wolf kills at a crucial time in their cub-rearing cycle.
 
J

JWP58

Guest
There is zero chance of that happening. Wolves just are not that effective of a predator, if their prey animal populations drop theirs will too.
And in any event, the grazers were overpopulated anyway, a reduction in their population is a good thing for the ecosystem. Interestingly, the populations of grizzlys and beavers have increased due to the presence of wolves. Beavers have more forage to eat since the elk are not eating it all, and the grizzlys are able to scavenge from wolf kills at a crucial time in their cub-rearing cycle.

Sweet. Maybe we'll get a grizzly season in the lower 48.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
185,529
Messages
2,875,563
Members
224,922
Latest member
Randy Towles
Top