COLumn: On the Range with George Wuerthner
Wuerthner: Hunting In National Parks Not Appropriate
By George Wuerthner, 3-28-07
Taking aim at proposals to open two national parks to hunting, based on the premise that it can be an effective tool in reducing high elk numbers, columnist George Wuerthner says his “On The Range” column it would be a grave mistake and open a Pandora’s box of negative consequences. Wuerthner says he has nothing against hunting but that it might be time to restore some four-legged hunters who could do the job more compatibly with the natural goals of the National Park Service. Are Colorado and North Dakota ready for wolf reintroduction? - Todd Wilkinson
In recent months, at least two proposals have surfaced to permit hunting in our national parks, ostensibly to reduce high elk numbers. One is being considered in Colorado’s Rocky Mountain National Park and the other in North Dakota’s Theodore Roosevelt National Park. In at least the case of Rocky Mountain, federal legislation has been introduced to permit hunting in the park.
Opening our parks to hunting is a mistake with grave consequences--a Pandora’s box that could easily lead to pressure to open up many other parks and sanctuaries to hunting, as well as pressure to maintain big game herds at some desired number in order to sustain hunting in or adjacent to the parks.
Before I go on, I should mention that I have a bias.
I’m a former hunting guide, and I still hunt elk every fall. So I’m inclined to support hunting—at least in some places. But I place ecological process before hunting and believe we should increase the areas where hunting is banned and native predator populations are restored.
Our parks are places where natural ecological processes are supposed to be permitted to operate to the greatest degree possible. Such processes are the “control” against which we measure the changes human have wrought to the landscape.
Granted, in an era of human induced global climate change, almost no place is immune to human influences. The smaller and more isolated the preserve, however, the more outside influences can compromise its ecological integrity. Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean there aren’t degrees of influence. The heart of Denver is a far more human manipulated environment than Rocky Mountain National Park, which is also surrounded by national forest lands that are also more or less natural. Whenver possible we should strive to preserve and enhance natural processes over human desires and/or convenience. That means, native predators, along with disease and even starvation, not hunters, should be the default “management” tool for our national parks and other natural areas.
I am not familiar enough with either Rocky Mountain or Theodore Roosevelt to opine one way or another as to whether elk are causing a significant biological impoverishment of the parks, but for the sake of argument let’s assume that other natural regulatory mechanisms including harsh winters, declining forage quality, and disease have not had a significant braking effect on elk numbers and distribution..
In the case of Rocky Mountain, native predators like wolves would seem to be the ideal tool for restoring ecological integrity. Human do not have the same ecological influence as native predators. Humans select healthier segments of the herd than native predators.
One study by Yellowstone found hunters were significantly more likely to kill healthy reproductive age individuals, while wolves tend to kill younger or older animals. Even the distribution of carrion is different between human and wolf kills—with wolves leaving carrion dispersed over a larger area. And another study recently reported that elk pregnancy rates were reduced where wolves were present—so just the presence of wolves—whether they actually kill elk or not can act to dampen herbivore population growth.
Decline in willows and aspen in Rocky Mountain attributed to excessive elk browsing is symptom of the problem—which as much a distribution issue is as numbers. As we learned after the restoration of wolves to Yellowstone, elk numbers not only declined, but elk moved around more and spent less time camped in aspen and willows. Culling would not treat the ultimate source of the issue which is a lack of a coursing predator (wolves) and the ecological process (wolf predation); we need wolves, like fire, as an ecological force across the breadth of the American West again. Certainly RMNP is a prime candidate to begin this restorative effort.
But there are other reasons to prefer native predators over human hunters as well.
Human hunters also may interfere with social inactions between animals. For instance, mature cows often lead herds on migrations. Killing of lead cows by hunters might disrupt elk migration patterns or at the very least interfere with other social interactions. Hunting, if it were done in the fall, might disturb elk during the rut. Of course all of these concerns apply equally well to our non-park lands that are open to hunting—and they are questions that are seldom asked by Game and Fish departments who are often more interested in selling wildlife license tags than maintaining ecological integrity of wildlife populations. At the very least we must assume these impacts are possible, but we will never know if we permit hunting in our parks and lose a potential control for comparison purposes.
Furthermore, removing biomass from parks could alter nutrient flows. Dead animals contribute to a whole litany of scavengers and predators—ravens, wolverine, coyotes, foxes, magpies, eagles, bears, and others. One dead elk for a sow bear and cubs is like winning the lottery—it beats out roots and berries by a mile in terms of meeting their annual energy needs. Even plant communities might benefit from the carcasses. Studies of rotting salmon that die along streams in the Pacific Northwest have shown that riparian trees and other vegetation soak up the nutrients, changing salmon bodies into plant material. A similar recycling of nutrients occurs with native herbivores—which should remain on site rather than being permitting them to be transported away from our parks.
Some vested interests, including many hunting advocacy organizations like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Wildlife Society, plus state game departments hoping to sell more hunting licenses, are quick to support hunting over other alternatives. Some suggest that near by human populations are too high to permit wolf restoration or that wolves won’t stay in the park and will cause conflicts with other interests like ranchers.
These self serving excuses from hunting advocates to exclude wolves from Rocky Mountain simply do not stand up to serious scrutiny. One of the prime reasons given for opposing wolves is the idea that somehow one needs “wilderness” to successfully restore wolves is one of the biggest myths out there.
Wolves live quite well in close proximity to humans—as long as we don’t persecute them. In Europe wolves live in and adjacent to human populations that are considerably denser than anything we have in the western US. Indeed, wolves are now living near major cities in the Upper Midwest, and there is really no reason why they could not thrive in the Colorado Front Range.
Restoration of wolves might require some adjustment in the way humans live in and adjacent to natural areas—people in Estes Park, for instance, might want to keep their pets inside or in fenced enclosures, and put all garbage in animal proof cans. Livestock owners may have to spend more on reducing predator opportunities by using calving sheds, hiring shepherds, and guard animals, but in reality these are “costs” that are presently avoided and should be part of the price of living in or near natural areas. In the end restoration of native predators is the only alternative that can maintain a healthy ecosystem—and that, more than providing hunter opportunity—is what our national parks are all about.
EDITOR’S NOTE: As a photographer, George Wuerthner has amassed an extensive portfolio of images from wildlands and wildlife on the continent, most of them in the American West, Canada and Alaska. See some of them at George Wuerthner Photography.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
It is so typical these days that people think OTHER people should make sacrifices so they can see things happen their way.
Maybe one of the sacrifices is that all that "natural land" should be closed to photographers. It probably wouldn't seem like such a good idea if that were the case, especially since you say "I have images from all of Alaska's major communities, plus national parks and preserves, and most of the larger wildlife refuges."
I really don't know the answer to the elk/wolf/whatever problem. I just know that being so cavalier about others' rights (they'll have to adjust) is MUCH easier than giving up your OWN rights.
Just my two cents.
Of course, one could make an argument that most of the National Parks in the lower 48 already have significant disruptions to their ecological processes (the elimination of large predators being the most obvious), but I still think the parks have a unique role as the places that we go to try to understand how the world works when we aren't kicking it around.
On this general point, it might be worth pointing out that there is already a public elk hunt in Grand Teton NP, which has been in place for some years.
The Governor of Montana has also suggested allowing hunting in Yellowstone. All of these proposals should be vigorously opposed
by anyone who loves our parks, a child's wonder, family vacations and wildlife; whether or not you would want to see wolves re-introduced into these parks, and whether or not you support hunting in appropriate areas.
Regarding your rapidly diminishing hunting grounds: I won't do your home work for you, but would recommend a Google search of the number of acres of National Forest, Wilderness, BLM, National Wildlife Refuge, State and local wildlife areas and private lands that allow hunting and compare them to the number of acres in National Parks that I can take my family on vacation and show my kids wildlife that doesn't panic and disappear before we ever see it. A place where my children and their children's children will be able to do the same. Then we'll chat.
George, you write, "Our parks are places where natural ecological processes are supposed to be permitted to operate to the greatest degree possible." I have to agree with Craig's comments here. When did humans become something above or separate from nature? You make that presumption in this piece, and it's an argument with many bullet holes.
You do admit to a bias, but unfortunately it's ignorance. You make gross generalizations about organizations and agencies you pretend to know something about. When citing studies in the future, please provide links or something other than "a study found." The names of the scientists would be all you need to add a shred of credibility.
Still, to answer one pt. ; when did humans become removed from the natural process? About 7 -10,000 yrs. ago - when agriculture began to centralize us in cities and we stopped, pretty much, being nomads,as were these animals! It has only gotten worse.
Since the Total nad complete return to late Pleiocene era is impossible, we do the best we can for the remaining natural world!!
If a pt. of these arguements is about the control of over populated animals that are: sick, starving,destroying their habitats and being a problem to others ; when will you start controlling the Homo sapiens?? How will you control their pop.?
I AM SORRY BUT I WILL NEVER PUT A WILD ANIMAL BEFORE MY OR MY FAMILY'S WELFARE. HUNTING AS BEEN USED SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE FALL. IT HAS BEEN USED TO PROVIDE FOOD, CLOTHING, SAFETY AND TO PREVENT OVERPOPULATION OF A SPECIES. I AM TALKING ABOUT REASONABLE HUNTING, NOT HUNTING TO THE POINT OF EXTINCTION, FOR EXAMPLE THE BUFFALO, WHICH NOW HAS REBOUNDED BY CAREFUL CONTROL, AND IS NOW A PROBLEM FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO MAKE A LIVING IN AND AROUND YELLOWSTONE, RANCHING. BECAUSE OF DISEASE AND NOT ENOUGH FOOD SOURCE. YOUR IDEA OF PUTTING AN ANIMAL IN THE SAME PLAYING FIELD AS HUMANS IS RIDICULOUS. I HAVE GREAT SYMPATHY FOR THE HUMAN PLIGHT, AND DO NOT HOLD IT IN DISREGARD.
>>>>>>>>
Public elk hunt support growing
By Charlie Meyers
Denver Post Outdoors Editor
Article Last Updated: 03/28/2007 12:16:10 AM MDT
Considering the extent to which officials at Rocky Mountain National Park and even editorialists at this very newspaper keep splashing cold water, the notion of a public hunting solution to the park's elk problem keeps gaining an amazing amount of traction.
Last week, Sen. Wayne Allard added his voice to what has become a groundswell of opinion favoring an arrangement that would use trained sportsmen to reduce a serious overpopulation of elk in the 265,769-acre natural treasure west of Estes Park.
Federal law forbids outright hunting in national parks, but there is precedent for controlled culling operations. The Colorado Wildlife Commission, along with various sportsman groups, has proposed an arrangement that would certify the Division of Wildlife as a designated agent to perform the task. Presumably, such an arrangement would satisfy the legal prohibition against hunting at large.
Under this proposal, DOW would supervise and certify, with park officials, the training of skilled hunters to shoot the animals. The most discussed alternative is to used hired professional sharpshooters. The cost of the latter operation variously has been estimated at $18 million - a staggering sum that could be reduced to nearly nothing under the commission proposal.
Allard's bill would require the U.S. Interior Secretary to consult with DOW on the matter.
A month earlier, congressman Mark Udall introduced legislation that would make clear that the National Park Service has authority to enter into such an agreement.
"The bill does not declare open season in Rocky Mountain National Park. It makes sure the Park Service has the authority to allow qualified Colorado sportsmen and sportswomen to participate under strict guidelines in the elk management plan for the park. This is a common sense solution to a real wildlife management problem," Udall said.
These currents on Capitol Hill run counter to the concerns by Vaughn Baker, park superintendent. Baker doubts such an operation is compatible with a year-round visitation pattern by more than 3 million people.
Udall's bill, H.R. 1179, has been assigned to the House Natural Resources Committee. Meanwhile, the congressman is conducting a series of "town hall" meetings in adjacent communities, beginning with a session in Estes Park last weekend.
"The more people hear about what we propose, the more supportive they are of it," said Udall spokesman Lawrence Pacheco, who stressed that the congressman hopes for an administrative solution to the problem rather than by legislation.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
In YNP as well as everywhere else wolves are opportunistic predators. They will kiill and maul any ungulate any age class. In YNP and adjacent to YNP they killed every age class and healthy elk as well. The northern herd was reduced from 19,000 to 6800 animals in less than 8 years. Hunting around YNP is a thing of the past including moose. The wolf population is increasing at a rate of 27% /year and no end in site. The population was fully recovered under the USFWS own Wolf Recovery Plan 4 years ago and nothing has happened to delist.Once you have wolves in Colorado you will never get rid of them and hunting opportunity will be reduced outside the park.Wyoming and Idaho can tell you much about the wolf problem there. Do not allow killer wolves in Colorado. Agriculture should really fight this as well the wolves won't stay in the park and they will kill livestock.
It would be a tragedy to bring wolves into Colorado. Every location with wolves there has been mortality of humans from wolves. This includes Alaska,Ontario and other Canadian provinces.In Russia wolves are very serious to human safety and have killed humans. All the information is there. Perhaps the Colorado Fish & Game Department has access to this information. It would be a tragedy to Colorado to bring wolves into your state.In YNP wolves now have a tapeworm that can be tranmitted to humans as well as mange.You cannot trust the NPS as well we found that out they lie.
>>>>>>>>
New Report Examines the Effects of Wolves on Elk
CHEYENNE, March 23—A new report released today by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department takes a detailed look at the effects that wolves are having on elk populations in northwestern Wyoming. In the report, department biologists analyzed statewide elk population data from 1980 through 2005.
Wolf reintroduction began in 1995, when the federal government released 14 wolves in Yellowstone National Park. Wolf populations reached recovery goals established by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in 2002 and continue to grow. At the end of 2006, there were an estimated 36 packs in Wyoming, including 311 individual wolves.
To determine the impacts wolves are having on elk, biologists looked at trends in calf:cow ratios over a 26-year period, both in areas where wolf populations have been established and in areas where wolves are not present. Of the 21 elk herds included in the analysis, eight are currently occupied by wolves.
“We have seen a downward trend in many of Wyoming’s elk herds over this 26-year period,” said Wyoming Game and Fish Department Wildlife Chief Jay Lawson. “That trend is likely due to long-term drought and other habitat related factors. But in half of the herds occupied by wolves, we saw a significantly greater rate of decline after wolves were established compared to herds without wolves. We can’t attribute that increased rate of decline to any factor other than wolves.”
Biologists feel an elk herd’s population can be maintained at objective and provide some hunter harvest when the ratio of calves to cows is around 25 to 100. Once ratios fall below 20:100 there is very little opportunity for hunting. Four elk herds in Wyoming with wolves present have dropped below 25 calves per 100 cows, and two of those herds are below 20 calves per 100 cows. All four herds had declining ratios before wolves were present, but the rate of decline increased significantly after wolves were established. Currently, the only elk herds in the state with recruitment rates that will not support hunting, or possibly even stable populations, are those with significant wolf predation.
“There are a lot of different factors affecting wildlife throughout the state, and wolves are a relatively recent addition to the challenges facing our elk,” said Lawson. We’re very concerned about the effects of wolves on the state’s elk and reduced hunting opportunities for the public. This report helps us understand how wolves are contributing to changes in our elk herds. We also hope this data will provide us tools to work with federal agencies in charge of wolf management to minimize the effects of wolves on elk and elk hunting opportunities.”
<<<<<<<<<<
Your herein-promoted Photography site hypes the sales of your photos and books and as a member of the Advisory Board of Western Watersheds Project you primarily focus on the negative impacts of livestock grazing ~ using an annual budget in 2006 of $450,000 to do so.
If one should be so benevolent as to assume that it MIGHT be the intent of NewWest.net to spotlight voices from throughout The New West, even to the extent of giving at least half as much headline space to promoters of The Old West that did CREATE The New West we all love and cherish, I am somewhat puzzled as to why New West continues to headline and spotlight George Wuerthner's lengthy and VERY biased opinions without headlining "the rest of the story" from noteworthy advocates who oppose his points of view with equal space and importance.
Although you have since disassociated yourself from the group ~ and I suppose you'd like for all of us to forget the violence you propagated within it as one of the primary initiators of that organization ~ some of us DO remember your adventures with Earth First! and just how well that organization did NOT serve the vast majority of us ~ as well as the death and destruction that burst through each fence severed.
You planted those seeds, George. And now you are planting yet another crop.
Perhaps the naive and the forgetful will relish the harvest.
The West, New *&* Old, is much more ~ and much more important ~ than a photograph.
As one of the 2-legged animal species you SO love to hate, might I suggest YOU be the First on Earth to volunteer YOURSELF as breakfast, lunch or dinner for the native predators you champion at the expense of all human OR humane?
It has been said that enough CATSUP will cover the taste of almost anything.
Yellowstone had a long history of artificially reducing the elk population, finally giving up on that in the sixties and eventually re-introducing natural predators (wolves). Perhaps Rocky Mountain Park will have a similar future.
You seem to be very knowledgeable of the problem Jesse are you in Montana as well?
ROSE MARY, THANKS FOR THE GEORGE EYE OPENER, WELL SAID!
I graze a combination of public and private lands, which I know irritates George; but, I still have to agree with him on many of these issues. Although I learned to hunt more than fifty years ago and hunted frequently in the past, I have come to not be very fond of today's hunters in general. Under the circumstances, I would vote for wolves over hunters for elk control and I'm sure not in favor of any hunting at all in any of our national parks. In fact, I finally had to quietly fence the public land under my control, with the agreement of the government, because of the damage being done by off-road vehicles and the large amounts of trash that motorized vehicles can carry and that almost always gets left behind. People can still walk in, at least those who will still stoop to use their own power; but, many will not and those who will can't carry cases of glass bottles, which reduces the time that I have to spend picking up broken glass. No, not all of the damage and littering comes from hunters; but, the pace sure picks up in the fall. A wolf kill is dispersed and going to soil within a couple of years in this country; human damage seems to last forever. Frankly, I also find wolves better company than today's class of hunters anyway. I could tell you just horrific stories of hunter behavior and attitudes; they're just not the kind of people that they used to be and just not very well bred today.
I would also tell you that, because nothing has been hunted in this little valley for so many years, the wildlife is just a joy to be around. I can cross the flats at the bottom of the valley and the pronghorn will come up and cough at me and walk alongside within thirty yards. Elk are curious and approachable and, if you sit still for a while, you'll find that mule deer love you to toss your watermelon rinds out about twenty feet in front of them, although they prefer the bland doritos over the spicy ones. In a little world free from guns and traps and such, wildlife come to see you as just another member of their perpetual version of home-alone. I like to hike Yellowstone for the same reason and hunters won't improve it. There is a time to grow up and hunters just aren't there yet.
The way a governed human population works, a designated, educated, guided hunter harvests an animal according to the needs of balance in that micro ecosystem of a National Park. Then the hunter goes home with his meat. As many hunters as needed to take the excess number of animals are used. And then they go home. Leave the Park. They don't move there to become professional elk hunters. Wolves are permanent. They get a home out of the deal. They stay for dinner, and stay for dinner, and stay for dinner.
With wolves, once you have them, we now have learned, they keep on increasing their numbers as they work through the prey base. Out migration impacts other game herds, and when those are not enough, private livestock. Wolves don't go home. They stay as long as there is food. We also have learned elk learn or practice new behaviors, and in doing so, seem to not breed as often as they spend the rut trying to avoid wolves instead of hanging with bulls. That, too, is reducing numbers.
There is a critical mass in animal populations, and until that mass is reached or if the population goes below that number, human hunting is not allowed nor should it be. Wolves could give a damn. In southeastern Oregon, the mule deer population got hammered by an early greenup, and deer scoured to death by the thousands in 1993-94. Coyotes and cougars have not allowed the population to grow since then. There has been no recovery, only a continuing downward trend in population. The critical mass has been lostl. The cougars are now wreaking havoc on bighorn sheep and domestic livestock since the deer numbers have dropped so low. In the Whitehorse Unit, cars kill more deer between Jordan Valley and Rome than there are tags for hunters in the whole of the Unit. And those dead deer are the ag lands deer. On the wildlands, hunters are now going the season without seeing a deer, let alone a buck. The animal and vehicle predation exceeds the annual birth rate. Yet Oregon sells tags for those units every year to keep the revenue stream flowing. If wolves enter the picture, there will soon be no deer, period. The administrators will have to lay off many of the rank and file in game management.
Oregon has eliminated hound hunting for cougar and bear, and now cougar and bear numbers are at record levels, and deer numbers are dropping like a rock, and in many areas, so are the elk numbers. Bighorn sheep transplants now are akin to dropping hamburgers under the railroad bridge...they all get eaten. A feelgood, urban tyranny of the majority eliminated traditional hound hunting, turning back 10,000 years of humans and dogs hunting together. Good hounds will become as extinct as dodo birds, because they have no purpose, and thousands of years of human development lost. And on the range, the deer and elk numbers drop yearly. Without wolves. Today. Right now. Add wolves, and it only gets worse. I wouldn't do that to your National Park, or your state, nor should anyone.
SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE IN UTOPIA? YOUR OWN PARADISE INCLUDING PUBLIC LAND.
P.S. Jesse, would it be such a bother to not type in all-caps? It's a pain for my eyes to read your posts.
George what are we going to do about the wolf problem up there where your at? Fencing public land in don't think thats quite legal. Are those wildlife freindly fences? Will the public agency who allowed the fences send me a copy ot the documents and fence specifications for a wildlife friendly fence? What agency is responsible here please step forward. What are we going to do about the wolf problem? Any ideas anyone? Lets send them all to Babbits ranch.
Elk can be moved or hazed without having to force wolves on an unwanting human population known as neighbors. The problem needs a short term management solution, and the holistic solution of forcing wolves into the area is every bit as human involved as hunting by man would be.
Selling guided, controlled chances to harvest surplus elk would produce income. Introduced wolves would have a cost forever.
There are not going to be fewer humans in the area in the area for a long time. There will be more. With wolves, the conflicts will only grow. Colorado has developed this rural big game hunting business, harvesting grass in the form of meat. Lots of out of state dollars keep logless rural economies afloat. Common sense says that economic ruin, and higher public cost is not what the majority would desire.
It is time to step back, and appreciate our humaness, a part of which is husbandry of animals. If our Native American predecessors could manage game, limited their hunting to certain seasons, managed vegetation for food, I cannot find a reason why that can't happen today. The wolf deal has been tried in Yellowstone, and we are still learning how it works, and what the down side is. The next experiment should be using humans in the Rocky Mountain NP to learn how that would work, and it will have down sides as well. That is why it would be an experiment, not unlike the ongoing experiment in Yellowstone.
This is absolutely not what I'd like. "Harvest" is an agricultural model, completely alien to the concept of national parks. If the elk are to be reduced by hunting, it should not be a "harvest," but instead a large, one-time hunt.
Nobody is suggesting that we simply limit restoring wolves to the boundaries of the Park. Indeed, RMNP should be acting as a catalyst for a regional wolf restoration effort, in the same way that Yellowstone National Park did. For more information, I'd recommend that folks visit http://sinapu.org.
Wolves are the answer.
I have personal experience with the repatriated wolves in YNP and have seen how they run when they encounter humans. They have not lost their fear; if you have scientific (not anecdotal) evidence to refute this, please provide it.
To answer your other two questions, yes, I DO desire a regional wolf restoration effort and yes, I would like a restored population of Colorado wolves in every habitat that would support them.
The sky is NOT falling. Wolves belong in wild America.
Anne, just in case all those repatriated wolves you've had all that personal experience with do NOT turn tail and run when they see you coming in your red cape with your basket of cookies ... and just in case they decide to have YOU for lunch instead of that basket of cookies slung over your arm as you tippy-toe through the tulips to Gramma's house ... here's what you can expect to ENJOY ... as do all other creatures who find themselves invited AS dinner by your dearly beloved ... but not yet repatriated (thank you God!) ... wolves:
A wolf chases its prey, lunging and biting at the hindquarters and flanks. Attacks on large calves, adult cattle, or horses ~ or YOU! ~ are characterized by bites and large ragged wounds on the hindquarters, flanks, and sometimes the upper shoulders. But that shoulder thing is a not-to-worry Anne. After dessert has been served you'll probably never need to wear a bra again.
When the prey is badly wounded and falls, a wolf will try to disembowel the animal.
If THAT doesn't "Make Your Day" nothing will!!!
Attacks on young calves or sheep are characterized by bites on the throat, head, neck, back, or hind legs. Whether or not they would consider YOU in that same light might have to do with whether you are 5'2" or 6'2" tall and whether or not you weigh in at 95# or 195#. If you want to be especially considerate of the wolves please carry a scale and a measuring stick in your basket with the cookies.
Wolves usually begin feeding by eating the viscera and hindquarters. Much of YOUR carcass may be eaten with large bones chewed and broken. YOUR carcass is apt to be torn apart and scattered with subsequent feedings. So you might consider all that to be a compliment to YOU ... having just been invited FOR *multiple* dinners ~ day after day after day!!!
But don't you worry your pretty head, Anne.
If I happen to be walking by during the lunch hour far be it from me to interrupt the joy of the occasion!!!
Introducing zoo wolves into RMNP to control zoo elk is a bad idea. If it is a sneaky way to wolf populate Colorado, then Colorado folks should be consulted first. It would be dishonest not to. But, when was dishonesty not a virtue in the wolf deal?
Holy cow, people! When is the last time a wild (non-habituated) wolf actually ate a person? Moreover, let’s look at the facts: in a report from the Department of Labor, between 1992 and 1997, 141 people were killed by cattle in the United States while on the job. 141 people in one five year period, and that does not include fatalities from collisions with cattle that were not work related.
If you need to worry about things, why not worry about cows? Cows pose a much greater risk to you and your loved-ones. For a copy of the report cited, go to:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/archive/fall2000art3.pdf
Well Anne it seems like you are convinced about the habituated wolf that it really does exist. But if you still want the proof I will post it. The problem will only get worse Anne as the wolf reproduces, tell me what is the natural predator of the wolf. I know of none! I live on a ranch where wolves have been sighted along with Mountain Lions, I will not let my children go out alone, when we go out we always carry a gun. Somehow I have a feeling that this is not even a remote possibility that you face. Are you living in the city in a subdivision or a condo? So as remote of a chance there still is a chance, would you take that risk with your children? We had a wolf slowly move right past our house, he wasn't running, he was in between a walk and a run, I was out feeding, he was not even afraid of me. To see a wild animal with no fear is in itself a big concern.
There simply is no reality behind the assertion that non-habituated wolves attack humans, in YNP or anywhere else. I have been within 25 feet of wild wolves…the very second they realized there was a human nearby, they turned tail and ran. Could they attack humans? Sure. Could they kill them? Absolutely. Is there any document research even suggesting that they actually pose a substantial risk to humans? Absolutely not.
Even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that ten people in North America had been killed by wolves in the past 100 years (which they have not), what makes that an unacceptable risk? Holy cow! Cars kill more people in a single day! Are we screaming and waving our arms for an end to the automobile. Get real!
Old West "Pretender"? Yep.
Finances will *accelerate*
When I take my next step.
That "open space" folks stop to see
From road on top the hill
Are ~ thanks to YOU ~ about to change
When concrete is the fill.
I read New West and many more
Such publications now
To guage the blood-flow in the brains
Of those who'll vote on how
The West is molded day by day;
The Future we will see.
Too many like YOU write such words.
Or so it seems to me.
So I must hurry if I wish
To "save" what you would "take".
The free-ride for the beasts must end;
Decisions I must make.
BE CAREFUL WISHES THAT YOU MAKE.
Be careful how you pray.
For YOU will have to live and learn
In world YOU make some day.
Learn from the experiences of others:
An atheist was taking a walk through the woods. "What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!" he said to himself.
As he continued walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes.
Turning to look, he saw a 7 foot grizzly charging towards him.
He ran as fast as he could up the path. Looking over his shoulder he saw that the bear was closing in on him. His heart was pumping frantically and he tried to run even faster. He tripped and fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw the bear raising his paw to take a swipe at him.
At that instant the atheist cried out: "Oh my God....!!!"
Time stopped.
The bear froze.
The forest was silent.
It was then that a bright light shone upon the man and a Voice came out of the sky saying:
"You deny My existence for all of these years, teach others I don't exist and even credit creation to a cosmic accident. Do you expect Me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?"
The atheist looked directly into the light and said:
"It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask You to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps, could you make the BEAR a Christian?"
"Very well," said the Voice.
The light went out, and the sounds of the forest resumed.
And then the bear lowered his paw, bowed his head and spoke:
"Lord, bless this food which I am about to receive and for which I am truly thankful, Amen."
Author unknown ... but point well taken me-thinks.
ALL OF A SUDDEN! a large angry Grizzly bear appeared on the far side of the clearing and charged.
One friend jumped up and yelled RUN to the other but his friend was wasting time putting on his shoes. His buddy said “ your not gonna be able to out run that bear with or without shoes, what are you wasting time for?”
The other guy said “ I don’t have to outrun that bear, I just have to outrun you.”
(I don’t think this has anything to do with the topic but I always tell the joke from the last entry and this one together.)
Wishing to decide as God looks down
Which creature she would have be where.
Whether or not God put them there.
That seat is for our God alone;
Not room for Anne upon that Throne.
YOUR stewardship detailed ... HOW?
Which creatures do YOU care for now?
Or are condemning words you speak
Your offer up for strong or weak?
"Do as you SAY" sufficient "care"?
For creatures ~ ALL ~ that are out there?
God may not recognize YOUR throne.
Perhaps He'll recognize His Own.
May God forgive me as I pave
This ranch before I go to grave.
For He will know it's folks like YOU
Who've underlined what I must do.
Thanks for your help in my decision-making process, Anne. You scare the livin' hell outta me because you do have aplenty company with aplenty of money behind you all ... including the old Earth First! terrorists like Wuerthner and Foreman who have discovered the power of the pen since their hands are no longer strong enough to wield the power, death and destruction of the sword as effectively.
You will eat what you purchase.
But since Chinese food sells well in Boulder that should not deter you for even a NY minute.
well anne how are ya.
I don’t think ya thought too much about
your what you are praying for. I suspect ya don’t know too many ranchers.
I’ll let you in on a few things I know.
Ranchers:
By their nature, by their passion, by their commitment to their business which is also their WAY of life, are about stewardship. Ranchers know that to be successful in their business, i.e. life, they must be successful in sustaining the longevity of their operation. To do this they must make long term commitments in financing, education, real estate, machinery, their personal time and the time of their family. They know deeply that they must mesh with the cycles of mother earth, the seasons, the wildlife, the grass and plant life, and if they forget even for a short time about this they are savagely punished. The essence of their success is based on first taking care of you by taking care of the land, and second the economic foundation cornerstone of our society labeled “FEED YOUR PEOPLE” and third- the careful thought, and love, and planning – long term and short term – that they guide their business with.
As far as I can tell, most of them listened to god and have for generations.
They Tend Gods Creation.
A Rancher Knows That Where There Was Nothing Before, Now An Element Of Life Exists Through His Partner Ship With His God.
And It Is Good.
Most of the Ranchers I know live every instant of their lives in the pulsing life force of nature. They strive to understand it more deeply. They respect it, nurture it, and define themselves by it.
They understand how the small interacts with large and the godlike beauty that that relationship is wrapped in.
In retrospect Anne, Your prayers were answered a before you prayed them.
You wonder why your children don’t want to stay on the ranch? Perhaps they can’t live with being another generation of genocidal “stewards”!
Unfortunately, there are many ranchers out there who actually are good stewards, who are actually working to protect Nature; but, the shrill noise of those who so hate predators obscures the good examples out there. Those people are too busy minding their herds and flocks to be bothered hanging-out on the Internet whining about predators. Enough of this, already!
On another topic, here's a great website on the things that we SHOULD be worried about, the things we worry about and shouldn't, and (if you stick with it), how to tell the difference; let's put it this way, once you've helped your kids understand the chart, they'll be quivering and asking, Daddy, am I going to die of heart disease?". Here's the link:
http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm
Now, please, everyone, take the weekend off and do something fun with your families. You just don't know what tomorrow will bring.
100% OF THE 75 REGISTERED AMERICAN QUARTER HORSES ON A COLORADO RANCH HAVE VOTED TODAY TO RETAIN TOP LEGAL COUNSEL TO INITIATE A CLASS ACTION LIBEL SUIT AGAINST A GUY NAMED ROB.
====================
"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know.
It's what we know for sure that just ain't so."
Mark Twain
Another option would be to allow dart hunting of bulls. The hunter would have his trophy picture and the bull would be gelded. Then, the animal would be released. The dart tag would still raise park revenue. Dart hunting has become quite common in Africa. Again, no need for an uncontrollable heat seeking carnivore.
For all those opposed to the presence of wolves... well too late. They are back. As for reintroduction, they are already a growing population in the Rockies. Colorado is just a migration away. So, wolves will be in Colorado. Rocky Mountain National Park will be no exception. Why not now when the need is obvious? (Retorical question)
I visit "the park" on a very frequent basis(bi-monthly). I can tell you that it is obviously over grazed. I can also tell you that the vast majority of businesses in the surrounding communities are tourist based. The Estes Park community's basis for survival is tourism, and a lot of it. Any person who buys property in that area should walk in their future yard first....they will become quickly aware of how many elk are in the area. If they buy then, and complain about elk in the yard or golf course they are complete idiots!
Wolves in Yellowstone revamped tourism. It would do the same in RMNP. Like it or not, ranchers and wolves are two peas in a pod.... they are symbols of a west that is fading away. They are both endangered. They could find commonality, and in that thrive. The road block isn't predation, it is an unwillingness to compromise.
Hunting RMNP elk, culling them, harvesting them.... none of it is a good long term fix. We are forced to face our own error here. We stuck a whole lot of civilization into a small area where animals exist, and in doing so the people there profitted from the existence of animals. Now the people there need to restore a little balance.
Wolves would do that, but not fast enough to effect the immediate need for reduction of elk. For those of you who haven't seen RMNP, the destructive consequences of over-population in a contained are are obvious. It could, and probably already does is, have an adverse effect on Big Horns, ELK, deer, moose and fish populations. The sooner we can begin rebuilding the area, the better. Reducing the population is an immediate need. Balancing it is an entirely different issue. For the betterment of the elk population, we have to do something now.
Oh, and I know ranchers are very involved in this, and hunters as well. Well, I can tell you that ranchers don't like buffalo because of the concern for deseases. And yes, elk are much more commonly found to carry burcelosis. Neither have been proven to spread the desease to cattle.
We are still finding out the truths about Chronic Wasting Desease, which is far more concerning in Colorado. It is also on the rise in other states close by. Humans (hunters)can't see the desease in ungulates until it is in it's final stages. BUT, wolves can certainly tell. Early intervention by wolves could stop the spread much more effectively and efficiently than a cull would.
Hunters should want wolves to help stop the spread of a desease that could potentially wipe out hunting opportunities in a huge way.
Ranchers should count their blessings that wolves help reduce any ungulates that carry desease.(After all, don't they use desease as a call to arms for extermination of any free ranging animal that grazes in common areas with cattle.)
By the way, Craig, do a little research about the economy of the West Yellowstone and other gate communities. I'd say you'd see that revenue is increased due to wolf lovers/watchers. Estes Park doesn't boast it's hunting guy, it boasts it's elk....Elk Fest is a HUGE event, as well as elk viewing during mating season. Then, things drop off during winter months. Winetr happens to be the very best time to see wolves.... so it stands to reason that wolf viewing could substantially improve winter revenue in the gate communities of RMNP.(Grand Lake, Granby, etc.)
Colorado met resistance when it brought back the moose population. Now areas such as Walden, where cattle ranching is a common business, are seeing the benefits of moose watchers. They also boast events in honor of the moose.
Wolves will be back in Colorado. We have already documented that atleast one was killed in the state near Idaho Springs. We can embrace them, accept that they will become a trophy species some day, and begin to benefit from their presence...Or, we could play dumb, shoot a bunch of elk this year, and stil have a problem next year.
I think bow hunting surplus animals is biologically correct. Man has been an apex predator in that ecosystem for thousands of years. To a great extent, man can be regulated. Wolves cannot.
The Jack Ward Thomas Starkey Experimental Forest USDA USFS and ODFW projects on elk, all inside a fenced 26 sq. mile enclosure, allows hunting. If I remember correctly, both hunters and elk were GPS fitted, and scientists could watch hunters and elk move as the elk were hunted. The elk won most of the time. Hunters do cause elk to move. A few hunters, periodically, would keep elk moving all year, even though they were only hunting in the fall and winter. The elk become more vigilant. But no matter how the hunting community or the biologists address the issue, the wolf people want to have it their way, and that will be the way, even if it is not the best decision. After all, we are now planting fence row to fence row, to corn, at the expense of soy beans, milo, alfalfa, what have you. And it is happening because the famers see a chance to make a buck, upgrade equipment, and the deal is there right now. If it causes a displacement of Mexicans north due to increased tortilla costs, or if it means a doubling of meat prices in the US, so what? If algore says it is the way, you had better believe the True Believers will be in lockstep. I just love the idea that John Deere and Cat are selling more big tractors, all needing more energy, none of which run on ethanol, to grow the corn to make ethanol. Tell the same BS story enough times, and it becomes truth, just like the regrowth of riparian plants in Jellystone is wolf dependent. Sure, like bears don't eat more calves than wolves, and hunters don't kill Jellystone elk when they cross over into non-Park lands to the North. My thoughts are that all those missing molars grinding wood has a lot to do with woody plant recruitment. And that is what needs to happen in the Rocky MTn NP: many fewer molars grinding plants. I think bow hunters are a fantastic idea. Same with primitive open ignition blackpowder hunters. And it would provide more diversity to Park use. More diversity is paramount to proper public use.
We made grave mistakes when we exterminated predators to begin with. And this is what happens.
We don't need to reverse wolves in the environment. But, just like every other trophy animal, they will need to be managed. They don't just reproduce endlessly. Wolves produce pups in direct proportion to their sustainable food supply. In rare cases, when left with no primary food source, the eat livestock. But the absolute most common occurance is, they reduce their popluation....or move on. Either way, if they ate all the prey around, they'd starve to death. If they had fifty pups, and there weren't enough elk, the pups would not survive. They are simply not the never-ending reproductive source some people would mislead us into believing they are.
Just like every other species but man, their ability to survive rests on their ability to find food and habitat.
Unlike Montana, Wyoming and Idaho, there is rarely a ten mile stretch between cities. Wolves don't like cities. Thus, they wouldn't just wonder aimlessly through out the wide open spaces. Their corridor for migration is much more limited.
They would repopulate and migrate, but I highly doubt they'd be as populus as house pets.
There is evidence to support this. The numbers of wolves in Yellowstone has dropped in the last two years. That wouldn't be the case if the hysteria about them were true.
You are probably an all or nothing guy. That's okay. I guess you forgot that anyone with a rifle can "figure out" how to kill a wolf. They figured it out so well that they exterminated them entirely from the Yellowstone Ecosystem. A lot of good that did.
There is no evidence to support the previous argument that the wolves would "eat up all our cows and sheep." I have yet to hear of a single rancher who went out of business due to wolves. If one did, he/she must have had an extremely low stock count to begin with.
Hunters keep right on hunting. A hundred years ago when people hunted for food, not sport, they didn't run around with the appoach "I see six elk, I should kill them all!" They new that there had to be a sustainable food source. The same is true for wolves.
But I can say that in the last few years when I have visited Yellowstone I have seen beaver, I hadn't seen one there for twenty years until 2004. I have caught a lot more trout in the Lamar Valley, and actually see aspen groves beginning to grow back....with bark.
I still see plenty of cattle and sheep between Colorado and Yellowstone's entrances. There are still a huge amount of antelope lining the roadsides (dead and alive) also.
I don't think there is a need to figure out how to kill wolves. I think there are a lot of unrelenting and narrow-minded people who want an excuse to kill them off.
Those people are primarily the ones who would hunt and fill limitless tags...but still have a freezer full of elk from the last hunt. Or ranchers who fail to see that what has effected cattle prices more than anything in recent years is drought, or as in Colorado this year, a huge snow storm.
I hunt, but I see the value of a healthier, balanced ecosystem.
We need to cull some elk in RMNP now. But let a natural balance be the long term solution.
I'd gladly pay a few cents more per pound for beef if it meant my kids' environment was a little better off.
Thank you though, for expressing your opinion. In the end, we all benefit from sharing our thoughts.
Personally as a short term fix I think that we should allow some of the groups like Catch a Dream (which sets up hunts for children with life threatening diseases) and disabled groups to set up guided hunts there, and reintroduce the wolf for long term, but set up a true management program. though the wilderness can take care of itself with proper management we can make it better.
Allow highly regulated hunting to be part of the wildlife management plan for deer, elk, etc. Allow a very limited and (highly priced) number of "take" permits to be issued. Hunters must be accompanied by a guide. Either a trained park ranger or a professional guide such as yourself. Let the free market system work.
The Park system could use the money, the impact on wildlife populations would be minimal and everyone would be happy (except ideologically driven animal rights activists).
I have a soft spot in my heart for wolves. A friend of mine had a "wolf-dog" hybrid that was better behaved than any dog. He never hurt so much as a flea in his life and children and other dogs were perfectly safe around him. He was actually about 90% wolf and 10% malamute. As sweet as can be and weighted 135 lbs. The reason wolf-dog hybrids go bad frequently is because they are crossed with vicious breeds such as German Shepards.
Ranchers and sheepherders need to go back to the traditional way of protecting herds and flocks which is someone watching them all the time with the assistance of dogs that were bred to protect livestock from predatiors.
This is the method used in Europe and other parts of the world.
George, very well written article. Your heart is in the right place.