Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire What's the real story on wolves?

For a class in school, I have decided to write a paper regarding the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone and surrounding areas. The paper is supposed to be a kind of exploration, meaning that I don't have my mind made up one way or the other at the onset of the paper, and end with me still undecided or leaning one way or the other. I have been interested in the wolf discussions so I decided to find out more. I know what I'm going to hear here, and most likely I agree with most or all of it, but lets hear it. More than anything I'm playing devil's advocate, but I have a few serious questions I've come up with.

1. Wasn't the wolf here first? One of the reasons I hear people ranting is that they are decimating our game herds. Weren't the game herds huge when the first settlers got here? Why?
2. Does the wolf have a right to be here?
3. Ranchers complain about livestock losses. If there were a gov't program to compensate ranchers for all losses (is there now?), would that work?
4. Is there a compromise?
5. As sportsmen we favor the game species, like elk and deer. Do those animals deserve more money and respect?

I am reading conflicting information from both sides. Since I'm writing on this board, you know which side I agree with, although I'm not 100% convinced that there isn't a middle ground. I'd like to hear your opinions.

Before man showed up (not native people) in large numbers
predator and prey fluctuated.( Look at the relationship of the lynx and the snow shoe hare)And that is what is happening now. But with man being the top predator in large numbers you have a larger need for prey so now the wolf needs to be kept to a manageable number. As for yellowstone where hunting is closed the numbers will rise and fall naturally.
from what I understand the bison numbers are fine.They are to much for a wolf to take down thats why there were so many on the planes before the white man showed up.(i'm white) As for the wolves that leave yellowstone they need to be delt with. Unless you can find a why to teach then to read.
untill then killing the ones that leave the park is the only way to teach the ones that don't not to.Example I have found that shooting ducks in one place to much they will quit coming back.the Wildlife is a lot smarter than most people give them credit for. Why do you think it's so hard to find deer ,elk ,up here moose during the open season. they learn that at that time of year they get shot at. In one day during closed season I have seen from 60 to 80 moose on 15 maybe 20 miles or road( bulls and cows) so where are they during open season: hiding.Thats my hypothesis and I'm sticking to it.
I don't what to see an one animal wiped out but they need to be managed.

Just viewed a piece, on the History Channel I think, on this very subject. Seems the Park people are happy with the reintroduction of Wolves, the vegetation is coming back due to less deer and elk population, and there is a better balance of nature in the park. According to them the results are outstanding. There is even talk of expanding a "corridor" for Wolves up through Canada. Chalk one up for the Wolves. I hold great respect for this noble animal, and the more I learn about them, my respect grows.

wolf's in yellowstone



if ya go search the alaska area and other areas for wolves you will find lots of wolf comments from about 1 to 3 months ago



we have a plenty of wolves in wisconsin and don't need anymore, nothing wrong with a few wolf packs in remote areas, but if left unchecked they mutliply and spread, that's when the trouble starts. and the trouble has started here and is here.now what?

A wolf corridor through Canada? Yes I've heard this too. The problem is that these people are misinformed as there are lots of wolves in Canada and there is no need of a corridor as they roam pretty much wherever they want. The wolf advocates try to make it sound like wolves are on the verge of extinction and they are not. We harvest(kill)wolves in the hunting season pretty much at will up here as there is no special licence needed and they are thriving. If their numbers are not controlled in areas suitable for them they will expand and venture into areas where they are not desirable, ie. farmland, surburbia and start taking pets and livestock etc. I don't believe that anyone wants wolves eradicated but we have a situation where there is only so much suitable habitat for predators like wolves and grizzly bears and trying to establish their populations into areas that are settled and urbanized does not bode well for either party. If they continue to protect them as they expand their ranges into these areas at the same time losing their fear of man because they are protected it won't be long until they see our children, pets, and livestock and garbage as tasty morsels in these areas. Yes I've seen a wolves and enjoy their howling and want to continue to see and hear them as they are a valuable part of nature. On the other hand I don't want them in my backyard, pasture or wandering the schoolyards. Because mans presence has interferred with nature we have to try and manage the wildlife as best as we can, why should the wolf be an exception.

Well, there is really nothing wrong with wolves in one's bnackyard (literally, last spring), as long as your dogs stay sharp. Mine- especially the Dachshund- gets real twitchy when the wolves come through. So far, I haven't lost anything to the wolves or coyotes, but the guy I bought the house from had his beagle go hunting one day and not come back.

1. What has "being here first" to do with it? We've been here at least 10,000 years. We're staying. Hopefully, so are the wolves.

2."Right to be here" That's feel-good bullsh*t from the Liberal Left. We NEED them to be here (or at least I do)! - but in managed numbers, depending on the situation. Alaska can support thousands (tho we presently have too many) while Wyoming can only support much lower numbers because of the human/livestock densities.

3. There are compensation programs in various areas.

4. Management of ANY game species is always a compromise- numbers in more settled areas are generally managed by regulating human hunting pressure/development. Wolves are the most prolific of all large predators, worldwide, and can quickly grow beyond what is socio/economically desirable. At least from a hunters/rancher's point of view.

There is no "balance of nature" but rather a constant state of fluctuation. Mother Nature's fluctuations depend on a series of random events, often resulting in extreme/long duration cycles. Human management tends to dampen both the extreme swings, and the duration between peaks and valleys. To my mind, the jury is still out on whether this is long term desirable or not. (Is not the vegetation perhaps adapted to the longer, more exteme swings itself?) On the other hand- I like to hunt and eat wild game myself!

5. From my point of view, dear and elk vs wolves deserve the same amount of $ and respect required to maintain a healthy viable population of all species within environmental/management practices. In otherwords- I want them all, but if any of them begin to exceed desirable goals (whatever those are determined to be) then kill them back before Nature does, because Nature's kill backs always exceed ours! If some are in danger, then protect them. From the the Game Department's point of view, there is a whole lot more license money in deer and elk herds than wolf packs.