Wolves

[Mato Kuwapi]

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

Yes Ed, they did. Hunters by nature take the biggest, healthest and best of the species they hunt for, which in turn leaves the weaker and smaller, to contribute to the gene pool. Wolves by nature, take the weakest and smallest...improving the gene pool. You don't need to be a genius to figure that out.

As far as :
"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."

I've been there and that lady is full of dung. There are plenty of ungulates...MUCH HEALTHER than they were then before the wolf was reintoduced. Smarter now, too, because early in the wolf reintroduction, the prey animals were rather stupid as they hadn't developed a natural fear ...but that's changed. The prey animals move more now and are much more weary. The numbers of ungulates are fewer, yes, because they are suppose to be. It's healthier for the whole ecosystem.

This is a debate that gets a lot of hackle up. I'm on the side of the wolf, because I'm not grazing cattle and sheep for a living in places they were never meant to be. Ideally, I'd rather tear down the fences turn the whole plains area back to the bison, elk and deer and eat them instead...and let the wolf cull out the weak ones.