How Wolves Benefit Yellowstone

[RedGlitter]

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/planet ... stone.html

[Nomad]

I think the bigger question is how do werewolves benefit anyone anywhere ?

After all wolves are really nothing more than werewolves in sheeps clothing.

Im unclear how Yellowstone fits into all of this.

[BTS]

RedGlitter;702340 wrote: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/planet ... stone.html


How has it benefited ranchers?

Or do we NOT care?

[Bryn Mawr]

BTS;716389 wrote: How has it benefited ranchers?

Or do we NOT care?


Hm - Yellowstone, national park, balance.

Yes, by all meant care for the ranchers but there has to be a balance between the needs of man and the needs of nature.

Allowing wolves some space within a national park / nature reserve is not excessive by any means. if they cannot have space in a national park then where is left for them. The alternative is to kill all wolves and that is not acceptable.

[trashcanman]

The grey wolf is endangered? :wah:

There's a good one. Come visit northern Minnesota, were neck deep in them.

[Bryn Mawr]

trashcanman;716638 wrote: The grey wolf is endangered? :wah:

There's a good one. Come visit northern Minnesota, were neck deep in them.


That's a good one - sounds like a former member who claimed deforestation wasn't happening because he could see lots of trees from his back door.

[trashcanman]

Bryn Mawr;716657 wrote: That's a good one - sounds like a former member who claimed deforestation wasn't happening because he could see lots of trees from his back door.


There's more trees in the U.S. now than before the white man showed up.

Land managment by the lumber and paper industries will unsure there will allways be plenty of trees around.

[Bryn Mawr]

trashcanman;716667 wrote: There's more trees in the U.S. now than before the white man showed up.

Land managment by the lumber and paper industries will unsure there will allways be plenty of trees around.


And there's more to the world than the US

[trashcanman]

Very true...

Can't say i worry about the wolf population or how many trees you have left in England tho.....

[Bryn Mawr]

trashcanman;716681 wrote: Very true...

Can't say i worry about the wolf population or how many trees you have left in England tho.....


The point being that a species becomes endangered depending on the world population - not how many are in you back yard.

Just in case you hadn't noticed.

[trashcanman]

I understand the point you are trying to make.

No animal should be killed to the point of extinction.

BUT just because its rare in a certain area should'nt mean others need to live with a over abundance .

In Minnesota the wolf is on the threatened list( no hunting, can only be killed when proof of livestock has been taken).

Another 2 hrs. north of me in Canada they can be shot as a pest.

The wolf should never have been reintroduced to Yellow Stone. Theres just too many chances of the wolves coming out of the parks boundries and taking livestock.

[Bryn Mawr]

trashcanman;716688 wrote: I understand the point you are trying to make.

No animal should be killed to the point of extinction.

BUT just because its rare in a certain area should'nt mean others need to live with a over abundance .

In Minnesota the wolf is on the threatened list( no hunting, can only be killed when proof of livestock has been taken).

Another 2 hrs. north of me in Canada they can be shot as a pest.

The wolf should never have been reintroduced to Yellow Stone. Theres just too many chances of the wolves coming out of the parks boundries and taking livestock.


So, as I asked BTS, if the wolf cannot share room with us in a national park / nature reserve then where do you suggest we make room for them?

[trashcanman]

There is no need to make room for them.Their is a healthly population of wolfs scattered threw out North America.

[Bryn Mawr]

trashcanman;716694 wrote: There is no need to make room for them.Their is a healthly population of wolfs scattered threw out North America.


The endangered listing suggests that you're wrong - care to provide some evidence - something more than "I can see lots out of my back door".

[trashcanman]

OK ,I give up :-5

You know wayyyyyy more about wolves living in your flat in London than i do.

have a great day,

[Bryn Mawr]

trashcanman;716705 wrote: OK ,I give up :-5

You know wayyyyyy more about wolves living in your flat in London than i do.

have a great day,


You're making the assertions - I'm just asking a question

[BTS]

Bryn Mawr;716700 wrote: The endangered listing suggests that you're wrong - care to provide some evidence - something more than "I can see lots out of my back door".










Mr Mawr.......

A link just for you, then read my post if you don't mind?

http://www.rangemagazine.com/archives/s ... eberry.htm





Please show us ALL how many endangered species have been de-listed since President Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act? (YES Nixon signed it!!!!!!!!!!!)

How many hundreds have been listed?

How many have gone extinct in the USA?

Do you think that the poor wolves are the ONLY endangered species in Yellowstone?

How many endangered species do the wolves kill a year (in and out of the park)?

How many killer wolves kill livestock out of the park? Or better yet

"How many ranchers loose sheep, calves, cows, dogs, and other farm animals to roving wolves?

I know it is not in your back yard.... Unfortunately it is in others back yards across the pond from you, but it seems you know better.....

You know touchie feely from afar........Come live it with the wolves crammed down our throats if you like?



A few facts:

Before the wolf was ever crammed down OUR throats as endangered there were over 50,000 wolves in North America. The whole wolf program was (is) a fraud. The real goal was (is) to use the Endangered Species Act to expand federal land use control. Neither the federal government nor the leaders of the major environmental groups have ever really cared a hoot about the welfare of the wolves.



I can link you to HUNDREDS of cases of maimed livestock at the hands of these lovable ummm.umm lets see....... oh yah

LOVEABLE killers!!!!!!

[RedGlitter]

That's a load BTS and you and I have been this route before with the wolves you so detest. While I can't argue your point about the Feds, I certainly call bs on your notion that environmental groups don't care.

[BTS]

RedGlitter;716794 wrote: That's a load BTS and you and I have been this route before with the wolves you so detest. While I can't argue your point about the Feds, I certainly call bs on your notion that environmental groups don't care.
A load of BTS..............:wah::wah:

I like that:wah:

Ok then, answer some of me other questions in post other than you feel the touchie feely enviros were slighted by me.......(wondering how touchie feely they felt when a pack of 8 wolves slaughtered 42 head of sheep and only ate 2?) Not very I am sure!!!!!!!!

Like just answer one or two:

HOW MANY ENDANGERED SPECIES are killed by wolves EVERY year in Yellowstone?

Or out of Yellowstone for that matter?

Were the wolves REALLY endangered in North America to begin with?

[Bryn Mawr]

BTS;716798 wrote: A load of BTS..............:wah::wah:

I like that:wah:

Ok then, answer some of me other questions in post other than you feel the touchie feely enviros were slighted by me.......(wondering how touchie feely they felt when a pack of 8 wolves slaughtered 42 head of sheep and only ate 2?) Not very I am sure!!!!!!!!

Like just answer one or two:

HOW MANY ENDANGERED SPECIES are killed by wolves EVERY year in Yellowstone?

Or out of Yellowstone for that matter?

Were the wolves REALLY endangered in North America to begin with?


Given that I do not understand the first part of your post - I guess it doesn't translate too well.

How many endangered species are killed every year in Yellowstone? Very few - for two very good reasons :-

Firstly, endangered species are, by their very nature, a very small part of the ecosystem. The major component of the wolf's diet is elk - they cull the old and sick animals. One of the major effect of the re-introduction of the wolf is changing the grazing patterns of the elk and a regeneration of the environment by stopping overgrazing. Another effect is a reduction in the number of coyote in the park reducing an alternative source of predation.

Secondly, as at the end of 2005 there were 136 wolves in Yellowstone park - hardly earth shattering. Indeed, in the middle of this year, after the birth of this year's pups, the total population in the Northern Rocky Mountains was only 1545 (source http://wolves.wordpress.com/2007/09/22/ ... ons-falls/)

With regard to the terrible slaughter of sheep, I would point you at http://www.idahowolves.org/ quoting http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/cu ... 6-2005.pdf where you will find that less than 1% of all sheep losses (and less than 2.5% of losses due to predation - 270 out of 12,100 throughout Idaho) were due to wolves.

By 2005 then number lost to wolves throughout Idaho had dropped to 173 (source Steve Nadeau, Statewide Large Carnivore Manager, Idaho Fish and Game, 600 S. Walnut, Boise, ID 83707.) and by 2006 it was only 184 throughout the whole Northern Rocky Mountain area.(source http://wolves.wordpress.com/2007/09/22/ ... ons-falls/)

The major predator of sheep (apart from man) was the coyote and even the mountain lion took twice as many as your oh so terrible wolf.



Now, would you care to answer my question - where, if not a national park / nature reserve, would you make room for the wolf?

[BTS]

Bryn Mawr;717068 wrote:

Given that I do not understand the first part of your post - I guess it doesn't translate too well.



How many endangered species are killed every year in Yellowstone? Very few - for two very good reasons :-



Firstly, endangered species are, by their very nature, a very small part of the ecosystem. The major component of the wolf's diet is elk - they cull the old and sick animals. One of the major effect of the re-introduction of the wolf is changing the grazing patterns of the elk and a regeneration of the environment by stopping overgrazing. Another effect is a reduction in the number of coyote in the park reducing an alternative source of predation.



Secondly, as at the end of 2005 there were 136 wolves in Yellowstone park - hardly earth shattering. Indeed, in the middle of this year, after the birth of this year's pups, the total population in the Northern Rocky Mountains was only 1545 (source http://wolves.wordpress.com/2007/09/22/ ... ons-falls/)



With regard to the terrible slaughter of sheep, I would point you at http://www.idahowolves.org/ quoting http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/cu ... 6-2005.pdf where you will find that less than 1% of all sheep losses (and less than 2.5% of losses due to predation - 270 out of 12,100 throughout Idaho) were due to wolves.



By 2005 then number lost to wolves throughout Idaho had dropped to 173 (source Steve Nadeau, Statewide Large Carnivore Manager, Idaho Fish and Game, 600 S. Walnut, Boise, ID 83707.) and by 2006 it was only 184 throughout the whole Northern Rocky Mountain area.(source http://wolves.wordpress.com/2007/09/22/ ... ons-falls/)



The major predator of sheep (apart from man) was the coyote and even the mountain lion took twice as many as your oh so terrible wolf.



Now, would you care to answer my question - where, if not a national park / nature reserve, would you make room for the wolf?


I guess you are right. I did not articulate too well.......

My point is that the wolves of Yellowstone will leave and kill livestock as I stated "a pack of 8 wolves slaughtered 42 head of sheep and only ate 2?"

Those sheep were not in Yellowstone.



The endangered species most killed by wolves is the buffalo. They bog down in the snow worse than the elk and deer and are one of their main preys.

I am sure this is not common knowledge as it goes against the whole idea of saving one species that is killing another, also in danger.



Now, would you care to answer my question - where, if not a national park / nature reserve, would you make room for the wolf in bloody ol England?

As I recall you country has caused them to become..........

UUUHHHMM................EXTINT!!!!!!!!

Not ENDANGERED

[RedGlitter]

BTS, would you agree that the natural ecosystem is designed to serve both prey and predator? Yes? No? The way Nature designed it? Because I cannot help after reading so many of your posts on these animal issues, that you must hate all predators. If you're a rancher that would make sense. NOT good sense, just sense in the way of explanation.

Humans have screwed with Nature's business by killing off the predators we think are anathema to our livestock and we have no sense of reason when it comes to understanding or respecting our place in this ecosystem. We don't steward, we control and that is wrong.

[BTS]

RedGlitter;717690 wrote: BTS, would you agree that the natural ecosystem is designed to serve both prey and predator? Yes? No? The way Nature designed it? Because I cannot help after reading so many of your posts on these animal issues, that you must hate all predators. If you're a rancher that would make sense. NOT good sense, just sense in the way of explanation.



Humans have screwed with Nature's business by killing off the predators we think are anathema to our livestock and we have no sense of reason when it comes to understanding or respecting our place in this ecosystem. We don't steward, we control and that is wrong.


Ever hear of Darwin........

We and earth MUTATE........

Such as: Australian pups born with NO tail.......Hmm could that be because they have been bobbed for enough years that their DNA says......NO TAIL?



If the wolf or any of the predators of North America vanish then something else replaces him, And I take offence with the remark that Ranchers are not stewards......

MY ass.... Maybe you aren't a steward when you say "We"......... If ranchers do not take care of their lands then, please tell me why the sierra club and others want to grab ranchers land and most reasons are this "Oh this is the LAST of the pristine land in the area"



HMMM WHY might that be the last? Is it because they raped and pillaged the land?

Or is it so pristine because they cared for and nurtured it?

[RedGlitter]

Well actually BTS, I don't think that even matters. If you don't care for all the creatures on that land and show a healthy respect for them and their way of life then your stewardship basically sucks.

I come from a long line of ranchers and farmers. Fortunately not all of them share this lunatic mentality because they recognize the necessity of all animals including predators.

[BTS]

RedGlitter;717711 wrote: Well actually BTS, I don't think that even matters. If you don't care for all the creatures on that land and show a healthy respect for them and their way of life then your stewardship basically sucks.



I come from a long line of ranchers and farmers. Fortunately not all of them share this lunatic mentality because they recognize the necessity of all animals including predators.


I gotta laugh.:wah:.long line of ranchers in Arizonia......



How many wolves run on all your family ranch's now?

[RedGlitter]

BTS;717716 wrote: I gotta laugh.:wah:.long line of ranchers in Arizonia......



How many wolves run on all your family ranch's now?


I'm not sure what's funny about ranchers in Arizona, but my family's farm and ranches are in Oklahoma. I wonder if that's also funny?

[Bryn Mawr]

BTS;717683 wrote: I guess you are right. I did not articulate too well.......

My point is that the wolves of Yellowstone will leave and kill livestock as I stated "a pack of 8 wolves slaughtered 42 head of sheep and only ate 2?"

Those sheep were not in Yellowstone.



The endangered species most killed by wolves is the buffalo. They bog down in the snow worse than the elk and deer and are one of their main preys.

I am sure this is not common knowledge as it goes against the whole idea of saving one species that is killing another, also in danger.



Now, would you care to answer my question - where, if not a national park / nature reserve, would you make room for the wolf in bloody ol England?

As I recall you country has caused them to become..........

UUUHHHMM................EXTINT!!!!!!!!

Not ENDANGERED


The figures I quoted were not restricted to Yellowstone - they were either for the state of Idaho or for the whole of the Northren Rocky Mountains where the last figures available show a total of 184 sheep killed in the year out of tens of thousands lost to predation.

In your earlier posts you were bleating about the sheep so I didn't look at the figures for bison but yes, wolves do take the occasional bison when elk are not available - a total of fourteen over the last four years for which I can find figures.

Might I give you a quote which shows why the figures are so low and are likely to remain low :-

The 8-membered Mollie's Pack killed a bull bison on March 6, and there is a dramatic video of the battle, which will be shown at the Interagency wolf conference at Chico next week. However, before the bison was killed, it killed Molly's wolf 175F and sent two other wolves flying through the air, and also kicking them. It took the wolves more than 12 hours to kill the bison! The bison was still standing at dark, so the actual kill came during the night and was not observed by the researchers.



Several days later, despite the wolves' injuries, Wayne Brewster, Kerry Gunther, and Travis Wyman saw the pack kill an elk cow. This took just 2 minutes instead of over 12 hours. It is unusual for elk to be in the Pelican this early in the spring. The pack fed on the elk for just 1 hour before a very large grizzly came and claimed their kill. The researchers wanted to investigate the elk carcass to check its condition, but the grizzly was still on it 2 days later.



Since then Mollie's Pack has moved east out of the Park into Crow Creek in the North Absaroka Wilderness, perhaps because the going was so tough this late winter in the Pelican.



That is called nature - it happens.

As to the re-introduction of wolves into the UK, although they have, as you say, been extinct since 1680, there are serious proposals to do just that. For obvious reasons it is unlikely to be in the south of the country where any pack territory would almost certainly include at least half a dozen villages. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2065794.stm for details.

[Accountable]

Bryn Mawr;716690 wrote: So, as I asked BTS, if the wolf cannot share room with us in a national park / nature reserve then where do you suggest we make room for them?
OO! OO! I know! *jumping up and down with hand raised*



Send 'em to Florida. They can help control the abandoned pet snake population that's eating all the alligators.

[Bryn Mawr]

Accountable;717767 wrote: OO! OO! I know! *jumping up and down with hand raised*



Send 'em to Florida. They can help control the abandoned pet snake population that's eating all the alligators.


Sir, please Sir, how big's dem snakes

Now you *really* have me frightened :wah:

Good to see you Acc - and glad to hear you're enjoying teaching.

[Accountable]

Python explodes after swallowing 6-foot alligator in Florida Everglades

mongabay.com

October 5, 2005







Michael Barron of the National Park Service took this picture of a carcass of an alligator as it protudes out from the body of a dead Burmese python in Everglades National Park, Florida.



The National Park Service released photos that show the carcass of an American alligator that was almost swallowed by a Burmese python.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



& thanks for the good wishes. :-6

[Bryn Mawr]

Accountable;720212 wrote: Python explodes after swallowing 6-foot alligator in Florida Everglades

mongabay.com

October 5, 2005







Michael Barron of the National Park Service took this picture of a carcass of an alligator as it protudes out from the body of a dead Burmese python in Everglades National Park, Florida.



The National Park Service released photos that show the carcass of an American alligator that was almost swallowed by a Burmese python.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



& thanks for the good wishes. :-6


That is truly amazing - and scary.

Thanks for finding it out.

[gmc]

BTS;717710 wrote: Ever hear of Darwin........

We and earth MUTATE........

Such as: Australian pups born with NO tail.......Hmm could that be because they have been bobbed for enough years that their DNA says......NO TAIL?



If the wolf or any of the predators of North America vanish then something else replaces him, And I take offence with the remark that Ranchers are not stewards......

MY ass.... Maybe you aren't a steward when you say "We"......... If ranchers do not take care of their lands then, please tell me why the sierra club and others want to grab ranchers land and most reasons are this "Oh this is the LAST of the pristine land in the area"



HMMM WHY might that be the last? Is it because they raped and pillaged the land?

Or is it so pristine because they cared for and nurtured it?


Maybe because it hadn't been economic to sell the limber and plant crops. My understanding is that the sierra club (and correct me if I'm wrong) came about because at the time america was being deforested at a phenomanal rate and there was a very real danger no natural forest would be left-as in no yellowstone for you to argue about just a barren landscape. Without environmentalists you really would have had nothing left-maybe you should have a look at some of the arguments put at the time. It's founder was a scot who came from a country that had been completely deforested and over farmed to the extent that large sections are actually incapable of growing anything edible except sheep that in turn prevent the land recovering. That's what really caused the highland clearances and why there are so many of scots and irish descent in the states.

As to land grab was it not first come first serve got to keep what they could hold. Your western mythology is full of tales of homesteaders fighting nasty cattle barons who wanted to keep everything for themselves and beating up on the little man. What is the difference between a rancher grabbing land that wasn't his in the first place and keeping it by force and the homesteader or government. Are you seriously suggesting that federal land be sold off so that private individuals or companies can strip out the forests and exploit the land and for whose benefit? Where would the profit go. And would it really be more than they make off tourism. What alternative are you suggesting in preference.

Your ranchers history of land management is not too brilliant-look at the dust bowl disasters of the thirties beforehand there were plenty of people warning what could happen and nobody took them seriously either.

Next time you sit down to a steak maybe you should worry about what the rancher fed his cows. If you don't start growing breasts because of the hormone content maybe the BSE will get you instead. Not to mention what they are adding to the water table when they spray chemicals on the fields.

I'm not American and as an outsider on one hand you get the impression that the environmental lobby is quite strong and on the other that it is powerless.



Are you seriously in support of this kind of thing? Who owns the country-politicians, ranchers or should everybody have say in what is done supposedly for their benefit. If you destroy your environment ultimately you destroy yourself. If you let someone convince you it doesn't matter and you have no place objecting you hand power to someone else.

In the UK at one point many of the rivers were devoid of life not just because of industrial pollution but also as the result of farming practices and the careless use of pesticides and the like-the same in europe it's one of the reasons countries like germany have political parties whose environmental agenda is their main attraction and they do get elected because the reality of not caring was on the doorstep.

posted by bryn mawr

As to the re-introduction of wolves into the UK, although they have, as you say, been extinct since 1680, there are serious proposals to do just that. For obvious reasons it is unlikely to be in the south of the country where any pack territory would almost certainly include at least half a dozen villages. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2065794.stm for details.


Environmentalist do come up with stupid ideas. Landownership in Scotland is a political issue with large estates being owned by individuals and companies. Many of whom would love to stop try and stop hillwallkers and mountain bikers and the like although they daren't openly say so. I would be very suspicious of this guys motives. As an often times lone hillwalker re-introducing wolves is one of the stupidest ideas currently on the go. Some treehuggers have as much common sense as the trees they are hugging.

[Accountable]

In all things, balance is the key.







We need wackos on both sides.



Back before WWII, Japan took Korea and stripped it of its wood within a few decades. There were no environmentalists to stop them. They still have a lumber shortage I believe.



Here in the US, the severity of our wildfires are a direct result of environmentalists going too far in "saving" our forests and not allowing the natural process of burning to occassionally clear the underbrush. We're doing alot better now but still have work to do.

[gmc]

Accountable;720326 wrote: In all things, balance is the key.







We need wackos on both sides.



Back before WWII, Japan took Korea and stripped it of its wood within a few decades. There were no environmentalists to stop them. They still have a lumber shortage I believe.



Here in the US, the severity of our wildfires are a direct result of environmentalists going too far in "saving" our forests and not allowing the natural process of burning to occassionally clear the underbrush. We're doing alot better now but still have work to do.


Red Glitter and BTS are Wackos?:eek:

[Bryn Mawr]

gmc;720353 wrote: Red Glitter and BTS are Wackos?:eek:


No, but Frankie Spankie is :wah:

[RedGlitter]

Bryn Mawr;720422 wrote: No, but Frankie Spankie is :wah:


:yh_rotfl