Reintroduce wolves to Rocky Mountain Nat'l Park?

[3Bulls]

Just keep the misinformation train rolling why don't you! Montana, and Idaho already had wolves, and you know where they were coming down from?

Getting your info from "Saveelk.com", or "Lobo wolf" discredits anything you might say.


It does no good to continue with that rant. It was started to discredit the work done to perpetuate wolves. The theory they hoped for would make the Feds (through court action) remove the wolves because they weren't' the right ones. Big stretch.

A wolf population would have been here in just as big, if not bigger numbers, had we not done a "re-introduction". They were given "non-essential, experimental status" because of the "re-introduction" which allowed us to manage (kill) wolves that got into trouble. Long old story.

I too would be against putting wolves in the park. I think they might make it on their own though.

In this political climate, I don't see it.

It really does make me wonder what the heck these people were thinking. The wolves were already here. And why do they always look at these parks as an isolated system?! There is immigration, emigration, death and births. If you place them they are not going to stay!
You should get a kick out of this! I have personally heard from a veterinarian in my area that leading up to the re-introduction to YNP, he was called out to verify livestock was killed by a wolf and in his professional opinion he was certain that it was a wolf kill and had the evidence to back it up but FWP completely ignored it because there was a condition with the re-introduction that if wolves were already established outside the park the re-introduction would be called off. Politics at work!

 

[mtmiller]

Spot on man. Timber wolves were re-introduced to the YNP, not the Grey wolf.

Tres bull, could you clarify the difference for me?

 

[3Bulls]

Tres bull, could you clarify the difference for me?

Now don't take this to the bank, but basically they are the same. They can interbreed so technically they are of the same species. They are different because a long time ago two separate populations were isolated by a mountain range or body of water or something so their body size etc is different because they were exposed to different pressures from their environment. You do have to buy in to genetic evolution though. I think grey wolves are longer and sleeker and timber wolves are bulkier and stronger. Someone else might be able to clarify the differences better than I. I'm too lazy to look it up in my biology books, sorry.

ahh, almost forgot. A similar example is the Shiras Moose and the Alaskan Moose

 

[mtmiller]

Now don't take this to the bank, but basically they are the same.

Perfect, thanks.

 

[sbhooper]

A wolf is a wolf when it comes to eating big game and livestock.

 

[yote69301]

http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2011...ain-wolves-v-introduced-canadian-gray-wolves/

 

[shoots-straight]

http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2011...ain-wolves-v-introduced-canadian-gray-wolves/

So according to that report, we had a wolf that was similar to the North American Sasquatch as far as traits went. Then we brought in this bold Canadian species that have bigger packs and kill more. OK!

 

[3Bulls]

A wolf is a wolf when it comes to eating big game and livestock.

Well put. While there is evidence that wolves can and will kill for sport, they can also be used as a management tool for big game populations where hunters fail. Having abundant game is good but there is such a thing as too much. For thousands of years wolves kept prey numbers from getting too big so it is our job as hunters and keepers of the land to step in when needed and reduce the wolf population enough so that the big game numbers replenish. It is an up and down cycle that is very natural. When people think all wolves should be eliminated I understand their frustration (especially when they kill your beloved bird dog or the like). Gross big game numbers are a bad thing, especially for livestock numbers because they are in competition for grazing with big game. Any livestock owner should be free to shoot a wolf that comes within sight of their livestock in my opinion because wolves are very intelligent and they will learn that livestock means death. You cannot convince me that a wolf will not kill a big game animal that old or sick making them easier to kill. They are opportunistic as well as skilled hunters. They deserve our respect and strict management that changes with our environment, not our politics or emotions.

 

[What Map]

If they are introduced (reintroduced?) I encourage all involved to have a clear criteria to determine when they have recovered. And have full control by Colorado Fish and game from the start. I don't see them being introuduced in the Park, however.

 

[THWAK1]

Just read this on NBC News. Good for them!

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...ill-be-shot-dead-after-preying-on-cattle?lite

 

[Oak]

Just read this on NBC News. Good for them!

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...ill-be-shot-dead-after-preying-on-cattle?lite

Not just shot, mind you, shot dead.

 

[cowboy]

Only thing I don't understand is why is it illegal to have a hunt in one federal park and not in another???

For the last 2 years - Theodore Roosevelt Park, which is a federal park, in No. Dak. has had hunts to trim the elk herd down and selected the hunters on a draw basis. I was there last year on one of these hunts so this is not heresay.

We were classified as "successful applicants to be a federal park volunteer employee for the elk reduction program."

Now - this was not an OYOA as this forum is normally accustomed to. You had to sit through an orientation program, qualify an actual shooting profiency test and be physically capable of packing meat on your back, as well as being escorted by a "team leader" while actually out and about.

Program was so successful that they obtained their quota in 2 years, had approvall for a 5 year plan, and a hopes of reaching their goal in 3 years.

There will be no hunt this year - no need for it.

Some of you No. Dak-ers might chime in as I'm sure you are well aware of what and how things came about on this.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Only thing I don't understand is why is it illegal to have a hunt in one federal park and not in another???

This is a great question. National Parks are created through an Act of Congress.

In the enabling legislation or "Organic Act," hunting is usually disallowed or allowed. Same goes for the enabling proclamation of National Monuments, etc by Presidential Decree under the Antiquities Act that Theodore Roosevelt pushed through Congress.

In order to establish a hunt in a National Park, the Organic Act needs to be amended by Congress. It's difficult politically to do so. While it may make some common sense in the short term to hunt National Parks like TR or RM, there are a lot of people concerned about creating the expectation that National Parks should be open for hunting given the history leading up to the creation of Yosemite and Yellowstone (to preserve wildlife and natural surroundings). These parks in particular are viewed as sacrosanct and should not be opened to hunting.

 

[ironranger]

The article sights an overabundance of elk in Rocky Mt Nat Park as their reason for thinking about it? And it never occurred to them that using hunting to control the numbers might work? it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the agenda of the animal rights people would include introducing wolves into as many systems as they can in order to eliminate the need for hunting. Just ask anyone who previously hunted the Late season Gardiner area elk hunt which if I'm not mistaken has either gone away or is limited to very few tags. Just an example of the impact of wolves on the elk herds.

We've had wolves for many years in Minnesota and I was very disheartened when the re-intro happened in Montana/Wyoming/Idaho area knowing what the results could possibly be. They do spread as we've witnessed here in MN and it's a shame government interests overrule the will of the people that have to live amongst them.