The Fate of the Gray Wolf

Sorry about the spelling. I can't see the text in the comments box so well.

Yes they are preditors, do they deserve to be here more than the elk? What are you going to replace the elk with Beef?

I have seen elk herds demolished, where there were 50 elk in a herd, wolves come in and now there are none.

henry
From what I just read it was the Elk that became a problem when the wolves were killed and the main reason for bringing them back. Here they want the Timber wolf population to grow because of an over population of white tail deer. If they would simply throw away the endangered list and just not allow hunting there would not be any of these problems. It comes on your property and is a danger you kill it, otherwise you let it be. The natives seem to have got a long just fine that way 500 years ago.

I should have said not hunting non-game animals - sorry.

If wildlife is a problem for those selfish people then they first need to educate themself not to have too many kids. Second, they should not move or build homes in the wild. I wonder if they know they invate the animal land? Just put the situation in reverse...Do you feel the pain of these animals? What right does anyone have to go gun down any life? Why animal lives are so worthless compared to humans"???? This is a human's world of selfishness and distruction.

Before we allow the hunting of wolves, we should allow the hunting of Sierra Club and PETA members.

First of all, 1,500 wolves is not that many for such a large area. Genetic diversity within a population needs to be maintain, and it is better maintained with larger population numbers. Wolves are beautiful creatures that deserve to live undisturbed in the wild with as little human interference as possible. Secondly, the wolves are apex predators. This means that they have NO NATURAL PREDATORS and never have. Humans are the wolves only predators. With an apex predator, the populations will work themselves out. If they become overpopulated, they starve for the lack of prey. This has happened in other apex predators like the orca, great white shark and African lions. As for the comment that the ranchers need to protect their stocks. The wolves would only eat the cows that were sick or weak, and the ranchers can get monetary compensation for the cows that die from the wolves. If anything, the ranchers only gain from the wolf predation because they only eat the animals that were sick or dieing anyway. Also, under normals situations, the wolves would only prey on livestock if they could not find natural prey to eat. Wolves only kill what they need to survive and will never kill more than one animal just for "sport". As for the human attacks. There has NEVER been a documented wolf attack on a human. The wolves would rather run than attack a human. The only exceptions are if the wolf is cornered, their young are threatened, or they are extremely sick. The fear of wolves is just a stereotype that has been passed down from generation to generation, like the fear of snakes and sharks. Please do us all a favor and do some research before you post unsupported information.

NO!!!! The gray wolf sould NOT be hunted!!! Nor should it be taken of the endangered species list. 1,500 wolves is a mere handful which could easily be wiped out if they are hunted. We should'nt think that it's just okay if we alter the fate of nature at our choosing. There are PLENTY of other thriving animal species out there flourishing. Lets not target the species who's numbers are few....

JOCK59801: The ranches are in wolf country, not the other way around. This so-called "management" program allows for more than half the existing wolf population to be killed, often employing ARIAL HUNTS - a disgusting practice still extensively employed in the lower 48 and Alaska, and which ought to be outlawed. I called the US Fish & Wildlife Service last night to make my opposition known, and will be
donating to wildlife defense efforts in the weeks ahead. Bush/Cheney will not be happy until they've eliminated every wild and beautiful thing and paved the entire country.

This is a complicated issue. We want the wolf populations to stay healthy, but we also need the support of the people who have lived on the land for generations. Without that support, no mere laws are going to protect the wolf.

There are no plans for indiscriminant hunting of wolves. Everything will be rigidly managed and argued over at every step, you can count on that! Wolves do sometimes kill livestock, and some wolves have to be removed if they get into trouble - that has been going on all along. The main issues are whether it is possible for wolves to coexist on ranchlands, and the issue of sport hunting. I would prefer not to have any sport hunting, but if it occurs it will be strictly limited and not allowed to decrease core populations; and of course there will never be hunting in the National Parks.

I always find it interesting how people who live in cities can love a creature that decimates entire elk herds. For the "they were here first" crowd. The gray wolf was never a primary predator in the inland northwest until they were 're-introduced' at a cost of millions of dollars. These are dogs, they breed quickly. As soon as one pack reaches around 12-15, they break off and start a new pack. One pack needs nearly 50 sq. miles to remain healthy. Packs can double and split within ten years. As canines, they WILL kill for sport and are doing so now within Yellowstone Park. While their re-introduction to the park was beneficial to cull out the Elk herd and expand the Bison, their numbers have grown to proportions that the park itself cannot sustain. They will travel literally miles to find prey. And for the 'they won't attack livestock unless they are starving' crowd. You may want to visit Wyoming, Montana and Idaho before you make such wholly incorrect statements. Cattle make for nice prey because they are slow when compared to a healthy elk.

IF a wolf is shot, the shooter should be made to eat it. Wolves hunt and kill only to eat and survive. Most white trash just hunt for pleasure, and prefer canned hunts.

Bill - The truth is usually in between somewhere. Wolves do not decimate entire elk herds. The elk populations in and around Yellowstone are doing just fine. Some wolves attack livestock and others don't. It seems to vary by pack. That is one reason wolves need to managed on a case by case basis.

And of course wolves were once a primary predator in the inland northwest; but then they were a primary predator where the city-dwellers live too, so nobody should be talking about kicking anyone else off their land.

jock59801
Well said - That is what I was trying to point out. The native americans lived with the wolf for centuries and would only kill one in defense. They did not need an endangered species list.

Holly
Never been to L.A. huh?

Quietman - To be fair, the native Americans never had domestic livestock (other than well-guarded horses) or I'm sure they would not have been quite so tolerant of wolves. But they also were never numerous enough to wipe out enitre populations even if they had tried. But you are right, coexistance is obvioulsy possible, although domestic livestock makes it tricky.

jock59801
And those farmers should be allowed to protect and defend their property - not the same as going out on a hunt. Like I siad before, keep dogs and predators tend to keep their distance - why else would we have domesticated the dog in the first place? Of course a handy 30-06 helps too.

jock59801
Oh yes - by the way - the horse was introduced to the americas by the Spanish. Prior their were only "indian ponies" and for most tribes they were food. Just an FYI :)

Quietman: I have traveled extensively, but no, I have never been to LA but would like to visit some day. Native Americans didn't need an endangered species list, perhaps, but certain newcomers drove the wolf population (as well as the bison and other animals) to the brink of extinction with over-zealous hunting, trapping, etc. It happened once, so it is fair to assume that, without the protection an endangered species list affords threatened animals, it could happen again. I simply like a world with wild creatures in it- what is so wrong with that?

Delisting isn't about allowing ranchers to shoot wolves to defend their livestock, btw - the majority of individuals who will obtain a license to hunt wolves will (probably) be sportsmen who want to add the wolf to their list of kills. There are plans to allow aerial hunts as well; a wolf pack taking down an elk has been painted as an horrific event, but a human being in a fixed wing aircraft gunning down an animal that can't possibly get away - is this acceptable? Just wondering. Delisting is a polarizing issue, to be sure, but one that can be discussed with civility, I hope.