Wolves in Yellowstone

[dave1949]

:confused2:

What do they prey on when there is not enough beavers and whitetail? How about family pets and live stock? The wolves around my area make frequent trips to town and prey on domestic dogs cats. Things may have been working just fine before we came along I don't know and I don't think We know better I just know I am here. I am not sure if you have had any dealings with wolves in your neck of the woods here they have become a real pain in the butt.

No wolves here. I don't think I'd mind if there were though.

Sure, their presence changes things. People shouldn't expect otherwise. The question is what are people willing to do to coexist with nature?

It's easy for people to dominate nature and screw it up in the process. It's much more difficult and challenging to find ways to live with some wildness around us. And we are not always going to succeed at that. Assuming we are smarter than a pack of wolves, I bet it can be figured out though.

In past times people kept herds of domestic animals in the presence of wolves, bears, and such. They didn't do it by just opening the front door for pets, or the barn doors for stock. That is essentially what people want to be able to do, just set out a nice predator meal and then complain when they show up for dinner. That is not realistic if they also want wildlife in some form that is close to natural, healthy and sustainable.

If we are to be honest, bullets are cheaper than barns, fences, shepherds and guard dogs. Killing any wildlife that may cause us effort or expense is the cheap and lazy way out. To the extent that choice is driven by farm and ranch economics, I think a solid majority of Americans would pay ten or twenty cents per pound more for meat if it means wildlife is being preserved. We should expect to and be willing to pay for what we value.

Ranchers and farmers are compensated for predator losses. I don't know how fairly or how well those programs operate. I'd rather see a market-driven solution where prices reflect production costs and losses. Let the market reward the ability to cost effectively preserve wildlife while producing meat.

 

[jjlite]

No wolves here. I don't think I'd mind if there were though.

Sure, their presence changes things. People shouldn't expect otherwise. The question is what are people willing to do to coexist with nature?

It's easy for people to dominate nature and screw it up in the process. It's much more difficult and challenging to find ways to live with some wildness around us. And we are not always going to succeed at that. Assuming we are smarter than a pack of wolves, I bet it can be figured out though.

In past times people kept herds of domestic animals in the presence of wolves, bears, and such. They didn't do it by just opening the front door for pets, or the barn doors for stock. That is essentially what people want to be able to do, just set out a nice predator meal and then complain when they show up for dinner. That is not realistic if they also want wildlife in some form that is close to natural, healthy and sustainable.

If we are to be honest, bullets are cheaper than barns, fences, shepherds and guard dogs. Killing any wildlife that may cause us effort or expense is the cheap and lazy way out. To the extent that choice is driven by farm and ranch economics, I think a solid majority of Americans would pay ten or twenty cents per pound more for meat if it means wildlife is being preserved. We should expect to and be willing to pay for what we value.

Ranchers and farmers are compensated for predator losses. I don't know how fairly or how well those programs operate. I'd rather see a market-driven solution where prices reflect production costs and losses. Let the market reward the ability to cost effectively preserve wildlife while producing meat.

Give me a break!! In the past they shot wolves,bears and anything else that threatened there livestock. As far as guard dogs doing anything tell that to the guy down the street that went to feed his dog and found just its head on its leash still connected to the dog house. You don't THINK you would mind. IMO I think you would.

 

[dave1949]

Give me a break!! In the past they shot wolves,bears and anything else that threatened there livestock. As far as guard dogs doing anything tell that to the guy down the street that went to feed his dog and found just its head on its leash still connected to the dog house. You don't THINK you would mind. IMO I think you would.

No break for you.

What did people do about predators before guns were common? Oh that's right, they actually tended and watched over their animals instead of watching TV and collecting payments from the government.

A dog chained to a dog house is not a guard dog; it's a staked out meal. It's cruel, in that situation especially. It's also a lazy and cheap way to keep a pet. It proves the guy down the street IS dumber than a wolf.

 

[lockhaven]

if sport hunting had been allowed in Yellow Stone there would never had been an overpopulation of elk

 

[dave1949]

If wolves had not been exterminated in Yellowstone, there would never have been an overpopulation of elk.

 

[charlz]

Ranchers and farmers are compensated for predator losses. I don't know how fairly or how well those programs operate. I'd rather see a market-driven solution where prices reflect production costs and losses. Let the market reward the ability to cost effectively preserve wildlife while producing meat.

Not entirely true. The Feds promised to reimburse but quickly backed off due to costs. Sierra Club had also promised to compensate for wolf-killed livestock but also backed off that promise. The only way you might be paid is if your particular State has it's own self-funded program.

Reimbursement is for the value of the killed animal only. Costs associated with things like having to bottle feed lambs or calves whose mother was killed by predators is not covered. Costs
(losses) for stepped up patrolling of herds at night and deterrents after an attack is not covered.

 

[ovrszd]

Man feels fear and alarm at any living creature that's perceived as able to do bodily harm to him. He then calculates a way to eliminate that threat, most likely by killing the enemy.

Wolves, Cougars, Gators, or any other wild creature feels fear and alarm when confronted by man. He then calculates a way to eliminate that threat, most likely by removing himself from the threat by retreat. A wild animal carefully weighs the cost versus payoff of a confrontation with another living creature. A pack of Wolves could live off a large Grizzly bear carcass for a week or more. But the cost ratio is too high. So they choose an elk. That is until they see a cow which can't outrun a child and has no defense equipment. So they kill the cow. As for sheep. At one time I had 110 ewes. Coyotes, if given the opportunity, would kill my sheep and only eat a specific part of the animal. Easy, quick meal. It's simply nature.

Great discussion so far. And no name calling and gnashing of teeth. Hopefully that can continue. Discussions like this are very educational for all of us and reflects the broad range of experiences with wildlife. We need them, they need us, so we gotta figure out a way to get along

 

[drssg]

if sport hunting had been allowed in Yellow Stone there would never had been an overpopulation of elk

That was my thought while watching the video. The narrator went on about all the AMAZING benefits of the wolves, which came down to eating elk. I'll bet plenty of hunters would be willing to do the same thing, without killing off livestock.