Surprise effects of wolves in Yellowstone

3oaks wrote:

Old-Biscuit wrote:
MAN stop meddling and NATURE will correct itself

;)

Crowe wrote:
If the biologists were surprised that the ecosystem changed, they shouldn't be biologists. That's a no-brainer.

You both nailed it!

It's too bad that the naturalists don't think like this. If they did everything would work out the way nature intended.

Old-Biscuit wrote:
MAN stop meddling and NATURE will correct itself

;)

Crowe wrote:
If the biologists were surprised that the ecosystem changed, they shouldn't be biologists. That's a no-brainer.

You both nailed it!

If the biologists were surprised that the ecosystem changed, they shouldn't be biologists. That's a no-brainer.

The real issue for ranchers is not kills, it is the fact that wolves can cause cattle to move. When cattle are moving, they are not eating and are instead losing weight. If a steer gains two fewer pounds a week and there are 500 steers in the herd, that is 1000 lbs not gained in that week. With cattle selling for around $1.45/lb that would mean the rancher is losing close to $1500 a week. Adds up pretty quickly.

I grew up in remote rural areas in the west. A huge problem there is (pet) dogs killing livestock. People let their dogs run free, and they kill the neighbor's animals. Wolves aren't the only culprits.

I was not a fan of the "reintroduction" of wolves to Yellowstone when it was done and now that they are way beyond the target population, they are migrating to places that the Feds told them not to go to, like 150 miles south to Lander when they have been killing pets right outside the houses near the town and also livestock close to town. I do believe this foolishness would be reined in if they were to "reintroduce" wolves back into Manhattan, where they also roamed many years ago as well as putting them in DC on the mall and tell them to stay there and not wander around scaring people in the City. I thought it was bad idea then and still think it's a bad idea.

AJBert wrote:
This is all fine and dandy until the wolves leave the park and start killing live stock. Hence the reason wolves were shot on site many years ago, along with grizzlies.

I imagine it is very nice to live in an area that there will never be a threat from wolves. Unfortunately, wolves have already moved into Colorado for me. Imagine walking your precious pet and a pack of wolves show up. I'll bet you won't be so happy to have wolves around then.

Wolves don't kill for the sole purpose of eating. Most kills are for pure sport. Same with dogs and domesticated cats. Don't get me wrong, they are beautiful animals, but there is a reason they were removed from the lower 48.

Very good point that urban people don't understand

I suspect the biologists are not nearly as surprised as they article suggests. This effect has been known and observed in the oceans for decades, take one species out of the loop and everything falls apart (whole reef systems, for example).

The ranchers in New Mexico are experiencing very high cattle losses due to re-introduction of wolves in the Gila but I suspect there are many positives there as well.

I was just at Yellowstone and have been reading the nps articles before and after the trip about the wolves. While talking to the locals it was interesting how thier take on them is completely opposite of what I read. They were mostly all against them and the park thinks it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. I guess though if we killed them off they should be brought back in effort to make like it once was. Unless you live there.

Wolves will not tolerate any other kind of canine, which means dogs in their territory. If the wolves can get to the dog they will kill it. Jim.