Wolves

[Ray Kunz]

There are two sides to every story. http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/...change-rivers/
Sometimes chains of events get complicated.

[hap]

I would dearly love to get the opportunity to peer-review those studies...

As agenda-driven as it is, right down to the Limey accent, I need to pass on further comments...

[zaxaca]

For goodness sake, hap, the guy has a British accent . Surely he's smarter than us, especially about occurrences in the United States. How many people could reach such broad conclusions on a very limited data set?

[Longs for Cutts]

The trophic cascades that are happening in Yellowstone are extremely obvious to those of us who live here. When I made my second fishing visit to Yellowstone in 1999, it was hard to find willows taller than your knees. Now they are routinely over your head and the beaver population is skyrocketing with the obvious effects on the fishing, especially on little mountain creeks that used to not have fish over 6 inches.

[Ed_D]

So in effect, did the wolves do anything that hunters wouldn't have done? Couldn't we have re-introduced hunters to the ecosystem and done all of that as well as improving the economy of the area? And is the increase in bears really a plus?

I am quite ready to be enlightened to the contrary, but I wonder if the problems Yellowstone had weren't the result of a protectionist mindset in the first place.

Open to honest debate,
Ed

[NJTroutbum]

Careful now Ed, you're treading on holy ground now. LOL Hunting in Yellowstone? Next you'll be suggesting we kill and eat a trout!

[ducksterman]

I'm conflicted on this wolf thing.

Heard a lady call into a radio talk show the other day ...she is a bow hunter and said where she has been hunting deer and elk for years....since the wolves have moved in ...no more deer and elk....That bothered me thinking the wolves had devoured them...but I do wonder maybe they[deer/elk] just moved out.

Ed, I suspect that mindset still exists.

[Royce]

Before I jump onto either side of this bandwagon, I need a few more actual FACTS.

I am no in any way smart enough to know whether the deer (and elk, since that's what he showed in the video) simply moving from one spot to another spot is a good thing. Maybe deer (and elk) were better off being able to be in BOTH places.

Someone who is smarter than I needs to show me, for a fact, that there being more beavers is better, that an increase in the bear population is better. I get nervous when human intervention is automatically considered an improvement.

Not trying to start a fight here. I just know I'm not smart enough to understand all of the ramifications.

Royce

[Kerry Stratton]

So in effect, did the wolves do anything that hunters wouldn't have done? Couldn't we have re-introduced hunters to the ecosystem and done all of that as well as improving the economy of the area? And is the increase in bears really a plus?

I am quite ready to be enlightened to the contrary, but I wonder if the problems Yellowstone had weren't the result of a protectionist mindset in the first place.

Open to honest debate,
Ed

For the sake of argument. Hunters will seek out and kill the biggest and strongest. Wolves on the other hand need to be efficient and will take the slower, weak or sick animals. I would think the latter would be better for the herd overall.

[NJTroutbum]

Wolves also have no bag limits or seasons. And just like bears their predation on calving or fawns is immense.