Guest Commentary: George Wuerthner's "On the Range"
State Management of Wolves Recipe for Conflict
By George Wuerthner, 4-29-08
A month ago the wolf was delisted under the Endangered Species Act and state wildlife agencies were permitted to take over wolf management. Most state wildlife agencies profess a desire to minimize human-wolf conflicts. Yet their management plans are, without exception, guaranteed to create greater conflicts.
All state wildlife agencies (and FWS employees in charge of managing wolves are as guilty) conveniently ignore the socio-biological relationship of predators like the wolf which makes any indiscriminate killing of animals counter productive. Just as a hundred years of coyote persecution has failed to reduce rancher/coyote conflicts, so called wolf “management” by the states will have the same effect.
Indiscriminate killing of predators--and hunting by sportsmen and/or predator control by wildlife services is indiscriminate--disrupts wolf social relationships within packs, relations with other packs, as well as relations with other predators. Even if hunting/predator control worked--which it doesn’t--it is a blunt tool at best for resolving wolf-human conflicts.
First a hunted/persecuted population tends to have more fragmented smaller packs--usually consisting of two adults plus pups. Collectively 2-3 packs of this social organization may occupy the same territory as one pack with intact social organization that may have 3-6 adults. So instead of one wolf pack occupying X amount of territory, you get three with the same number of adults, but many more pups to feed. Just the odds that any pack will attack livestock goes up tremendously when you have more packs, so two or three different packs are far more likely to attack livestock than one pack.
Furthermore, when the wolf population becomes skewed towards younger animals, they breed earlier, and produce more pups. Young rapidly growing pups, just like my own teenagers, eat a lot of food. If you have a pack that consists of two adults with 5-8 pups, they need more food per capita than a pack with 4-5 adults and 2-5 pups (which is what you are more likely to get with wolves living at near capacity and not suffering continual persecution). Consequently even if the “total” number of wolves is the same, the predation effect is greater.
Packs composed primarily of young animals require more elk and deer--even if they resist the temptation to kill livestock. A pack dominated by pups requires more food to sustain than if it is made up of older pack members. More meat requirements ultimately means more conflicts with humans.
Younger wolves are also less experienced hunters, and more likely to attack easy targets like livestock. Skewing the wolf population towards younger animals by hunting and predator control guarantees greater conflicts between livestock owners and wolves.
The unfortunate fact is that all three states are managing wolves using 19th Century attitudes and science, and ignoring 21st Century socio-ecological insights. Hunting of predators--other than the surgical removal of an occasional offending animal--is a process for conflict.
It is a self full filling process where by wolf killing begets a demand for even more wolf killing in a never ending cycle that ultimately satisfies no one. In the end everyone loses. Ranchers lose by suffering more predator losses than necessary. Hunters lose in two ways--bad press for hunters by killing an animal that a majority of people do not want shot, and secondarily by increasing the predation on elk and deer over and above what would otherwise occur. Finally, wolves lose by garnering a bad reputation for conflicts that would not exist if humans were not so intent on mismanaging them.
[End of article]I totally agree with this article. The states management for the wolves is not only inhumane and cruel, but it will also make the number of livestock losses for ranchers go up and everyone loses. Personally, I hope the twelve wildlife groups succeed in overturning the delisting of wolves from The Endangered Species List. Not just because I am a wolf lover, but also because the 19th century ways of dealing with predatory wildlife has to stop. Also, the fact that most Americans nationwide opposed wolf delisting and the government went ahead with it anyway despite opposition from the public, hostile state management plans that can lead to another all out eradication of these animals, and going against sound scientifical studies, violates the standards of a nation which is supposed to be a democracy. I hope and pray the removal of wolves from The Endangered Species List is overturned.
Comment By John Carter, 4-29-08As far as hunters are concerned regarding losses of elk or deer to wolves, consider this: In Utah, the forage consumed by livestock on National Forest, BLM and State lands each year would support approximately 2,000,000 deer or 400,000 elk. In this realm, any losses to predators are minute. Hunters should be clamoring to get livestock off of public lands so our fish and wildlife could again flourish, our watersheds produce more and cleaner water.
Comment By Marion, 4-30-08Wolves are only a symptom of the problem just like jaundice is only a symptom of hepatitis.
Big business environmentalism is eroding private property and personal rights at a very rapid rate. The produce nothing and actually contribute nothing to either the environment or to the country. The live off of the taxpayers either thru donations (another word for begging) or thru lawsuit awards. They have no investment and no responsibility for anything they do.
As the elk & moose numbers drop in the artificially high wolf infested areas, wolf proponents try to find other reasons to blame for the loss. All of those things were present BEFORE the wolves were brought in and are affecting elk and moose populations in other areas to pretty much the same degree as the Yellowstone elk and moose, yet the populations are plunging in the very high wolf density of Yellowstone. Rather than look at what is happening and try to modify it, environmentalists blame weather etc and want more wolves, more, more, more, they cannot be satiated. At the same time they are going to court to demand more money and more wolves, and most of all more control over the working people.
Marion:
Your comment comes with the idea that a decline in elk and moose is somehow "bad".
Most wildlife population range up and down in numbers over time--and the goal of most wildlife agencies is to minimize those oscillations. That is one of the fallacies of game management--it attempts to interrupt natural population fluctuations and these fluctuations are necessary to the overall health of the landscape.
Reduction in elk and other herbivores provides plant communities an opportunity to thrive and sometimes persist in places where they might otherwise not exist. This creates new ecological opportunities for a host of other species.
So instead of viewing population reductions as something "bad" we ought to view them as important to the proper functioning of the ecosystem.
No joke!!! I do consider a decline of elk and moose bad. Why do you consider stabilizing instead fo growing wolf populations bad? Please remember they have lost over half the Teton moose population, which I am sure si one reason they have not seen the drop that they have seen in Yellowsotne in the elk populations.
what do you think these thousands of wolves are supposed to eat if the numbers that we have had have caused the decline? Sheep, cattle, and horses?
Every wildlife biologist says the same thing. Break up the packs and you will get exactly what you are trying to avoid by culling the wolves. They will be eating cattle and sheep, etc. I know it is impossible for wolf haters to ever listen to the scientists about anything...they know it all which is why all the wolves were killed off many years ago. Population reductions in Elk and Bison are important to the ecosystem. Here in Colorado we have so many elk in the Rocky Mountain National Park that they are destroying the ecosystem and they are shooting them at night so the tourists won't see the kill. A Wolf's lifespan in the wild is not long. Many puppies don't live past their first birthday. I don't have the percentages with me at this moment so I can't give you the exact statistic.
Comment By Marion, 5-05-08Is that why your ancestors killed off the wolves where they lived? Wolves prey very little on buffalo, mainly moose and elk. Actually wolves in this area tend to live longer, I believe 253 that caused so much anquish, even though he was thought to have died a couple of years ago, was 7 or 8.
Comment By Joy Benedict, 5-05-08Marion....I've read your blogs before....you are single minded in your hatred of wolves. Your contention that wolves live longer in your area doesn't coincide with what wolf biologists are saying. However, giving you the benefit of the doubt, which you never give anyone who perhaps disagrees with you, I will ask the two prominent wildlife biologists that I will be spending a week with in Yellowstone next month. I will log into this blog and tell you exactly what they have to say about wolves longevity and elk and moose populations even if it agrees with you. As far as 253 is concerned, one wolf lives to be 7 or 8 hooray. For that one wolf several have died at one or two or three.....
Comment By Marion, 5-05-08To the contrary Joy, I don't hate wolves, I jsut wish the folks who want lots of them were the ones taking care of them. They got it all backwards, bringing wolves into ranch country where they could only get into trouble and weren't appreciated instead of putting them where the folks who wanted them with every fiber of their beings could deal with them.
Comment By Emily, 5-06-08Marion, ranch country is the wolf's natural habitat. The wolf was the apex predator of most ranch areas before those areas were taken over by men who wanted to raise thousands of head of cattle at a time; men who were determined to erradicate anything that might prevent the acheivment of that goal (you know - wolves, black footed ferrets, indiginous peoples.) As far as deer and elk populations, both species have fared well enough without the balancing presence of a top predator to be considered pests in many states. Many deer and elk starve in areas with severe winters, a direct result of too many individuals trying to frorage in snowy conditions. The idea that deer and elk populations going down is a negative for any person, species, or ecosystem is laughable, and seemingly a concern only for individuals interested in decorating their homes with 12 pointers. Ranchers, (while part of the overall inefficient, inhumane, and unhealthy industrialized food system) do have a right to protect their livestock; they do not have a right to try to completely erradicate a species that does so much good for the ecosystem as a whole.
Comment By Marion, 5-06-08Emily, I hate to break it to you, but the wolves were first eradicated on the east coast. There were no huge cattle ranches that were responsible, they wee removed for survival of humans. Wyoming cattle and sheep ranchers definitely were not responsible or the wolf demise in the 1700s and until the very tail end of the 1800s, and then only in Wyoming. Why does your state not have wolves? Could it be that wolves and humans are not compatible....except where environmentalists say that humans have to adapt to living with them, no matter what? Isn't it rather greedy to designate someone else's home to dealing with what you want to claim to "save", but do not want to deal with yourself?
By the way plague killed the prairie dogs which in turn caused the deaths of the black footed ferrets. Not only did ranchers not destroy them, it was a ranch that had preserved the last remaining population.
As a matter of fact it was not ranchers who destroyed the American Indians, it was the hordes of city folk and when guns didn't do the trick, making them dependent on government handouts to eat did. Ranchers often paid Indians directly for land and often provided meat and jobs for them.
Now please tell me exactly what it is that the wolves do that is s wonderful.
Do you go to Yellowstone, if so when was the last time you were there? They were nearing historic lows this fall, and probably lower now after a very tough winter. Ditto for the moose. Is it ok to eradicate the moose, in order to raise Canadian wolves? there will likely be close to 200 wolves in Yellowstone this spring and summer as all of the pups are born, possibly more, at 2 elk/moose per month how long do you thing the park can stand that kind of assault? There were 6000 left out of 19,000 elk when winter finally hit hard, and there are reports of heavy winter kill.
Marion... what part of "there were way too many elk in Yellowstone" don't you get?
Why do you think there were no deer (of either species) in the Park? Think about it. Too many elk is BAD for the environment and other species. I like elk. But I also like muleys and whitetail too. Not to mention beavers, foxes, songbirds and numerous other species that get driven out when elk numbers become bloated.
I think the Park is much better off not being nothing more than a gigantic elk ranch. Just repeating "when's the last time you saw 24,000 elk in Yellowstone" does little more than miss the point and make you look ignorant.
When's the last time you were knee-deep in jackrabbits? Would you consider that "good" and sing a sad lament if something came along and started eating the jackrabbits?
Apparently, you didn't even read the commentary, because you have not addressed any of its relevant points directly. You just keep repeating "poor ranchers have to bear the burden of wolves" and "have you been to Yellowtone and noticed you don't see an elk every 5.2 seconds anymore? The wolves RUINED the park!"
Why is it that:
1: I have yet to see an objective, verified report of even a single rancher being driven out of business by wolves?
2: Virtually everybody except strident anti-wolfers such as you is giving rave reviews about the improvent of the Park since wolf reintroduction?
Frankly, I'm not suprised you keep beating those dead horses and producing nothing but the same old dubious anectdotes to back up your assertions. I've been hearing different versions of the same hoopla from anti-wolfers since 1995. And yet, the sky still hasn't fallen.
But surpirse me Marion.. make a comment relevant to the basic premise of this essay, and then address/critisize any of its specific points.
This writer makes a compelling argument that the traditional approach to "predator management" will not work and, in fact, could make matters worse. And he offers logical arguments to back his assertions up.
So please, lay out any counter-arguments you might have. And no, yet another rendition of "but the Yellowstone elk herd..." or "well, my second cousin's grandpa's great neice's husband on his mother's side has a ranch near Pinedale.. and he said if the wolves eat one more cow, they'll have to sell Great Aunt Bea's antique china in order to pay the mortgage" won't count.
Only sound, logical arguments count from here on out.
I have been going to Yellowstone for about 65 years, while I have not seen deer every day, I have seen them every year, I also used to see moose virtually every trip, now they are scarce, very scarce. The fact remains that unless you'd like to see elk eliminated from Yellowstone, the numbers are reaching the worrisome stage, what happens to your wolves when the elk reach the number that will not support them?
I am not sure exactly what the concern over the social structure is unless you are afraid they will get psychotic. I don't know that FWS worried about identifying family structures, it was obvious however that when they tried to just take a couple members of a pack, they kept killing livestock, and they ended up having to kill entire packs. I remember that female in the Green River pack, I don't know how many males were killed before they finally took her out.
As for ranchers, I believe Mr. Weber, the 80+ yr old sheep rancher in Montana was finally put out of business, when he had attack after attack. There was an article in the paper the other day about another rancher who gave up after feeding wolves for you guys. What reimbursement there was was difficult to get and many animals were so near totally consumed as to be unable to confirm by the extreme trauma that must be identifiable.
Ingalls in Riverton gave up their lease to Stankey once the wolves started taking a toll higher than they could withstand. I do think they have a purebred smaller operation close to Riverton now. On the other hand wolves are being seen in that area too.
I really wish the owlves didn't have to be killed and they would not have been if they had been left in their wilderness home in Canada instead of being brought in for a side show.
It is interesting that there is alarm and weeping and wailing becaue half of the buffalo are gone, but cheering becasue 2/3 of the elk are gone.
Again when a wolf is in the pasture, no one is going to check his family history and social standing before shooting him.
To Marion,
If your claims above are accurate and those ranchers did go out of business and there was no reimbursement that means they weren't verified wolf kills so that argument has no value. As for the elk in Yellowstone yes there are less, but that doesn't mean they are dead it means they have been driven out because they can't handle the competition. The elk that stay are going to be the healthiest and the strongest therefore stronger elk herds. How is that a bad thing? Same thing with the Teton Moose. The fact is ungulate populations are left relatively unaffected by wolves except being healthier. Hunters kill more elk and deer than wolves do simply because there is more of them. Where are your sources?
Hi everyone. My name is Ray, from Utica, NY. I will be visiting Poland soon, and I am hoping to meet my Polish relatives. I also hope some people from here may help me in contacting my relatives before my visit. Thanks and looking forward to meeting some great people on here!
Comment By lLucyinnWash, 6-22-08My husband and I want to go on a fantastic trip soon. We were looking for suggestions. Anyone have any fantastic spots? A means to save some money would be awesome as well. Vacationing is expensive these days.
Comment By WOLF, 6-30-08To vacationing people:
Two great spots are Yellowstone National Park and Glacier National Park. These can be a little pricey. For just as amazing place, but cheaper try the Sawtooth Recreational Area in Central Idaho it is excellent. For other great places: anywhere in Western Montana, North to North Central Idaho, the Bitteroot Range is excellent.
Post You Custom Message on Millions of Forums Worldwide!
We can publish your custom message on millions of forums, blogs and message systems worldwide. By penetrating into online exisiting communities, we are able to assist you to promote your website, product, and/or services.
--> Please note that this post was published by automated means!
Forum Promotional Features:
** All Posts will be appear exactly as this post does on this forum
** All custom posts will appear to have been published by unique users
** Ability to locate and post on forums based on specific keywords
** Ability to Randomize & Rotate Posts for Increased Uniqueness
** Send Mass PM Message to millions of forum members worldwide
Please Note - I am offering a service, not software. Please refer to my online step-by-step movie demonstration listed below proving how I can post your website, product or services on millions of websites worldwide.
This will increase your web traffic, increase your potential sales, and also increase the amount of 3rd party websites that will link back to your site - which convinces major search engines of the popularity of your website.
Many of the posts are published on PR6, PR7 and PR8 Google ranked websites.
Watch Video DemonstrationVideo of Posting in Action
Please watch this 5 minute video demonstrating how your custom post will be published
<a >Click Here to Watch Video</a>
Please contact me if your interested...
ICQ: 162456288
Gmail Chat: sharepro at gmail.com
More Info: <a >Demya.com</a>
Btw - If you want to purchase pre-made established and promoted niche mp3 music, video, game and other social websites, please refer to <a >Demya.com</a>
Hi!
My name is Jessika!