Wolf intro in Yellowstone NP

OK..in my opinion as long as hunting is permitted to balance the wolf population...which I believe has become an issue in Wisconsin...

dr bob

Nature tends to find a balance and manages itself quite well. The only critters that have really become a destructive problem on the landscape, due to mindless over-population, are human beings.

arctic: "Nature tends to find a balance and manages itself quite well. The only critters that have really become a destructive problem on the landscape, due to mindless over-population, are human beings."

+1

arctic: "Nature tends to find a balance and manages itself quite well. The only critters that have really become a destructive problem on the landscape, due to mindless over-population, are human beings."

Arctic where do you come up with this romanticized nonsense about "the balance of nature"? Rubbish and hogwash. As if it were some finely tuned mechanism and then suddenly humanity showed up and threw a wrench into the works.

There is no "balance" in nature. There are huge swings in populations and good old "mother nature" is quite ruthless when it comes to "balancing" things out. Lemmings run off cliffs and beavers get their own population control disease which wipes them out. In good times predators thrive, over consume their prey species and then crash hard.

Balance of nature.........everything would be perfectly tuned if not for people. What a load of rubbish.

As per the video.......really? Yellowstone was somehow devoid of critters and bingo, bring in some wolves and now even the rivers are restored. Deer were deforesting the understory to the extent where the countryside was being ravished? Um, excuse me, just a few questions.........Spent 2 weeks in Yellowstone before the wolves introduction. I dont remember any buzz about deer impacting the park negatively and in fact dont even remember seeing a deer..........plenty of beaver though.

Yes my tone is one of derision, but I know politically correct nonsense that they are showing to our grade schoolers when I see it. They claim that even bald eagle numbers improved because of the wolf. Ahem.......

We can talk reasonably about wether the reintroduction of the wolf has benefitted the area and how the relationship between the elk and wolf is working out and wether the ranchers are experiencing negative consequences. So far, at least from what I have heard, it appears to be working out better than anyone could of hoped. So far so good......my only concern is when they do become overpopulated and start to downgrade the elk to the point where they start eyeing cattle. Will we have the ability to thin them out without folks running around like its the end of the world? Probably not. But so far things look quite optimistic concerning their reintroduction.

Now if wolves being brought into Yellowstone had such a dramatic, almost utopian, impact I bet that the reintroduction of Grizzlies into North Cascades National Park will probably end up stopping global warming.

Master, Arctic is not off base at all IMO. And I'll leave it at that in MY OPINION.

In the case of wolves in Yellowstone, if you watched the video:Wolves were extripated from Yellowstone by man. Look at what that did to the entire ecosystem of the park. And look at what happened when they returned.

Something else I will touch on. I live in Northern MN and while Minnesotans love to hunt deer, their overpopulation has decimated white pine and cedar regeneration due to browsing. The entire northern MN forest landscape is changing and in a generation, nearly no new white pine or cedar trees will be found.

This is a direct cause of an over-abundance of deer. The hunters tell me there aren't enough even though there are far more than per-european settlement times. I'm all in favor of more wolves to reduce deer populations.

I know you don't believe what the video shows but I've been following the wolf story for many years and while some of it is embellishment in the video, it is essentially all happening.

Tom

double post

Tumblehome you can tell the producers of the film dont really have a handle on what they are talking about when they start talking about "deer" when the issue was elk. Just a teeny tiny bit of difference there. But whats a few letters and extra pounds, they are still 4 footed herbivores right?

All I want is intellectual honesty and intellectual curiosity involved in science and environmental issues and stop being persuaded by slick politically correct romanticized propaganda regardless how noble and attractive it might sound. Yes I know it might make us "feel" good but what is the truth? Thats all that really matters.

Here is another perspective which has a bit on honesty involved.

Another perspective

"It turns out that there is no proof that an assemblage of wild lemmings would actually drive themselves off of a cliff at all, but rather the myth was perpetuated by a 1958 Disney documentary called White Wilderness, in which the filmmakers manually ran a pack of lemmings off of a cliff to make for good television."

missmolly: ""It turns out that there is no proof that an assemblage of wild lemmings would actually drive themselves off of a cliff at all, but rather the myth was perpetuated by a 1958 Disney documentary called White Wilderness, in which the filmmakers manually ran a pack of lemmings off of a cliff to make for good television.""

Is that really true? Who knew.......all these years. See you can't really trust what some documentarian puts forth. Wasn't Micheal Moores Fahrenheit 9-11 put out as a "documentary" and yet it was so dishonest it was put into the "satire" category at the Oscars? (but I digress). Point is still the same however......in nature there is no precise "balance". It is ruthless, often cruel, remedies to overpopulations, usually starvation and disease.

Here's the Disney deceit that both launched lemmings to their deaths and an enduring misconception.

The Mouse, not the lemming, has a seriously sick side.

"Bowling for Columbine" won for Best Documentary. My cursory research could find no "satire category" at the Oscars and if you equate satire with dishonesty, you must consider "A Modest Proposal" to be the veriest falsehood.

Master,

Agreed there is some propaganda in that particular video. There are many other films and even more peer reviewed scientific research documenting the changed ecoysytem of Yellowstone after the reintroduction of wolves.

I was in the Lamar valley of Yellowstone last spring observing the ecosystem of the wolf habitat. I've attended the Int'l wolf symposium in MN in the past and hope to again. I'm not a casual wolf junkie.

The next wolf experiment takes place on Isle Royal as soon as this winter. I'm not a fan of it since humans are playing Mother nature more so than with Yellowstone. But, I am eager to see if we have the ability to put in place what Mother nature tried to do before Europeans came.

Tom

The award Fahrenheit 911 won that you might mistake for the satire award was the
Golden Raspberry Award
George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleezza Rice won the Worst Actor, Worst Supporting Actor, and Worst Screen Couple

arctic: "Nature tends to find a balance and manages itself quite well. The only critters that have really become a destructive problem on the landscape, due to mindless over-population, are human beings."

Nature's "balance" ceased to exist when mankind showed up. It has been little other than imagination since.
As long as we're here we need to pitch in and help any way we can to counteract our imbalance.

KarlBAndersen1: "

arctic: "Nature tends to find a balance and manages itself quite well. The only critters that have really become a destructive problem on the landscape, due to mindless over-population, are human beings."

Nature's "balance" ceased to exist when mankind showed up. It has been little other than imagination since.
As long as we're here we need to pitch in and help any way we can to counteract our imbalance."

Really? Critters come and go independent of mankinds impact. I see a fossil record of all kinds of animals which are no longer around. Extinction is part of the natural cycle after all, who knew? So this perfect choreography of "balance of nature" exists only in the mind and environmental textbooks and has little to do with reality.

It reminds me of the whole global warming scenario. You can take mankind out of the picture entirely and this planet is still going to have heat and drought cycles, hurricanes, tornados, wild fires etc. etc. with or without humanity present.

missmolly: ""Bowling for Columbine" won for Best Documentary. My cursory research could find no "satire category" at the Oscars and if you equate satire with dishonesty, you must consider "A Modest Proposal" to be the veriest falsehood. "

Good catch......Apparently Moore did not even enter the film. Wise man not to subject the film to more scrutiny...........his cut and splice nefarious film making ways would of been brought into question.

Even your hero, Mr Hitchens, thought the film was dishonest crap.

9_11

tumblehome: "Master,


Agreed there is some propaganda in that particular video. There are many other films and even more peer reviewed scientific research documenting the changed ecoysytem of Yellowstone after the reintroduction of wolves.


I was in the Lamar valley of Yellowstone last spring observing the ecosystem of the wolf habitat. I've attended the Int'l wolf symposium in MN in the past and hope to again. I'm not a casual wolf junkie.


The next wolf experiment takes place on Isle Royal as soon as this winter. I'm not a fan of it since humans are playing Mother nature more so than with Yellowstone. But, I am eager to see if we have the ability to put in place what Mother nature tried to do before Europeans came.


Tom
"

I am not suggesting that the wolves have played no part in changing the eco system (for better or worse depending on your point of view) I am merely suggesting the clip in question takes great liberties which seem to be a bit over the top in their promotion of all things wolves as the total and complete savior of what was apparently a faltering eco system (seemed pretty groovy when I was there)........at least that was the way the clip seemed to me. Perhaps I am wrong?

Sure the wolves have probably helped make some hay farmers a bit poorer. They probably no longer have such a big herd of Elk to feed each rough winter at Jackson Hole. All I want is a bit of honesty, we are all big kids, the truth won't hurt us, the good and the bad. When we have the unvarnished truth, independent from political correctness (how we want things to be) then wise desicions can be made with clarity of thought and firmness of purpose.

Wikipedia lists 109 species of animals that have gone extinct due to human activities.
Just sayin'

A major Canadian oil company President was on my local TV yesterday. He said they want to build a natural gas line from Canada to MN to reduce crude oil use so as to reduce greenhouse gasses. That was a big statement coming from an oil company executive. Even they know they are helping to heat the earth. Just sayin.
I can get the news clip of him saying this if I really have to.

More Info
to stir up the pot....

I have no personal affection for wolves but the deer population in NE Wis (Green Bay area) is huge... Browse lines on the cedars demonstrate that. Unless hunters get more number CWD will become even more established in this state.

dr bob

KarlBAndersen1: "

arctic: "Nature tends to find a balance and manages itself quite well. The only critters that have really become a destructive problem on the landscape, due to mindless over-population, are human beings."

Nature's "balance" ceased to exist when mankind showed up. It has been little other than imagination since.
As long as we're here we need to pitch in and help any way we can to counteract our imbalance."

Very true. Because we introduced species from other parts of the planet that can out-compete native plants/animals, and natural forces like fire can no longer be allowed to regenerate many ecosystems, humans now have to manage most landscapes--for better or worse.

I can't wait till they find a way to bring back the tyrannosaurus rex now that would truly be restoring the balance of nature would it not? Maybe saber tooth tigers in the northwoods? Who gets to decide?

mastertangler: "

arctic: "Nature tends to find a balance and manages itself quite well. The only critters that have really become a destructive problem on the landscape, due to mindless over-population, are human beings."

Arctic where do you come up with this romanticized nonsense about "the balance of nature"? Rubbish and hogwash. As if it were some finely tuned mechanism and then suddenly humanity showed up and threw a wrench into the works.

There is no "balance" in nature. There are huge swings in populations and good old "mother nature" is quite ruthless when it comes to "balancing" things out. Lemmings run off cliffs and beavers get their own population control disease which wipes them out. In good times predators thrive, over consume their prey species and then crash hard. "

I use "balance" in a broad, scientific sense. Wild swings in population do occur for some species-- and fires, floods, and other natural events can be chaotic for a period of time--but the dynamic nature of ecosystems does tend to produce a balance that results in long-term persistence--unlike the slow, steady downward spiral that humans have caused to ecosystems worldwide.

mastertangler: "You can take mankind out of the picture entirely and this planet is still going to have heat and drought cycles, hurricanes, tornados, wild fires etc. etc. with or without humanity present. "

This is true. But put man in the picture (reality), and you accelerate the frequency and dramatize the impacts to climate change, severe weather events, environmental catastrophes, wildlife habitat and survivability, etc. Through science we know this. Our footprint is broad and impactful.

nooneuno: "I can't wait till they find a way to bring back the tyrannosaurus rex now that would truly be restoring the balance of nature would it not? Maybe saber tooth tigers in the northwoods? Who gets to decide?"

I get to decide. Next question.

nooneuno: "I can't wait till they find a way to bring back the tyrannosaurus rex now that would truly be restoring the balance of nature would it not? Maybe saber tooth tigers in the northwoods? Who gets to decide?"

Ha, thats funny. Actually they already have brought the T Rex back.......seen a documentary of sorts filmed on a remote island...........some things sort of went wrong it appears. Probably not quite ready for prime time widespread distribution. Now THAT would thin out those elk in a hurry (and maybe a few of those pesky humans as well ;-)

tumblehome: "Wikipedia lists 109 species of animals that have gone extinct due to human activities.
Just sayin'

A major Canadian oil company President was on my local TV yesterday. He said they want to build a natural gas line from Canada to MN to reduce crude oil use so as to reduce greenhouse gasses. That was a big statement coming from an oil company executive. Even they know they are helping to heat the earth. Just sayin.
I can get the news clip of him saying this if I really have to.


"

Hmmm........I guess we all hear what we want to hear. I hear him saying he wants to build a very long pipeline to transport natural gas so his company can make a lot of money. Hey, I'm cool with that.

But geez, pipelines aren't real popular.........."maybe we can frame it as helping the environment" says Sally from Human resources. "Great Idea" says the major oil company president, "I knew when I hired you you would be a great asset Sally"........."Now we just have to get the spin machine running........call Frank down at the Alberta Times........maybe we can get this thing built without a bunch of protests" ;-)

mastertangler: "

nooneuno: "I can't wait till they find a way to bring back the tyrannosaurus rex now that would truly be restoring the balance of nature would it not? Maybe saber tooth tigers in the northwoods? Who gets to decide?"

Ha, thats funny. Actually they already have brought the T Rex back.......seen a documentary of sorts filmed on a remote island...........some things sort of went wrong it appears. Probably not quite ready for prime time widespread distribution. Now THAT would thin out those elk in a hurry (and maybe a few of those pesky humans as well ;-) "

Funny, MT!

BTW, I saw the same documentary. Life finds a way.

No animals that I know of disappeared as quickly as we have made them disappear. Take just passenger pigeons as one example. Dinosaurs took millions of years to become extinct. Stuff happens in nature, but the ups and downs are part of the balancing act. To the nouveau right wing of America, virtually EVERYTHING is now a commodity, has a price tag. A sheep is killed so go and kill a wolf, even though there are millions of sheep and only a few hundred wolves. Is it like that in nature? Teddy Roosevelt, arguably the only environmentally sane (mostly) right wing president we have ever had, would be rolling in his grave. The Republican Party doesn't deserve him or his vision of protecting the wild parts of America, even if it was somewhat for hunting. His world was a lot different than ours.

"Scientists estimate that 150-200 species of plant, insect, bird and mammal become extinct every 24 hours. This is nearly 1,000 times the "natural" or "background" rate and, say many biologists, is greater than anything the world has experienced since the vanishing of the dinosaurs nearly 65m years ago."

However, there are evermore Duggars, thank God!

missmolly: "

mastertangler:



Ha, thats funny. Actually they already have brought the T Rex back.......seen a documentary of sorts filmed on a remote island...........some things sort of went wrong it appears. Probably not quite ready for prime time widespread distribution. Now THAT would thin out those elk in a hurry (and maybe a few of those pesky humans as well ;-) "

H

Funny, MT!


BTW, I saw the same documentary. Life finds a way. "

So you both watched Jurassic Park? :)

missmolly: "

mastertangler: "

nooneuno: "I can't wait till they find a way to bring back the tyrannosaurus rex now that would truly be restoring the balance of nature would it not? Maybe saber tooth tigers in the northwoods? Who gets to decide?"

Ha, thats funny. Actually they already have brought the T Rex back.......seen a documentary of sorts filmed on a remote island...........some things sort of went wrong it appears. Probably not quite ready for prime time widespread distribution. Now THAT would thin out those elk in a hurry (and maybe a few of those pesky humans as well ;-) "

Funny, MT!


BTW, I saw the same documentary. Life finds a way. "

Has anyone seen my satellite phone?

missmolly: ""Scientists estimate that 150-200 species of plant, insect, bird and mammal become extinct every 24 hours. This is nearly 1,000 times the "natural" or "background" rate and, say many biologists, is greater than anything the world has experienced since the vanishing of the dinosaurs nearly 65m years ago."


However, there are evermore Duggars, thank God! "

Yet there will always be people that think we don't have a negative impact on ecological balances of the planet. How delusional some of us are. As long as some of us, especially those in positions of authority, believe and/or behave like the skies and the oceans are fair game as dumping grounds, we are screwed.

More good stuff from Wiki. At least Native Americans were good at managing the predator populations.

North America[edit]
In the majority of Native American hunter-gatherer societies, wolves were usually killed for body parts used in rituals, or to stop them raiding food caches,[34] though some tribes would raid wolf dens to kill pups when wolf populations became too large for the Natives to live with. This also served as a method of acquiring food, as wolf pups were considered a delicacy. Native Americans were aware of the dangers of habituated wolves, and would quickly dispatch wolves following them too closely.[1] Active hunting of wolves was rare because many tribes believed that such an act would cause game animals to disappear or bring retribution from other wolves.[34] The Cherokee feared that the unjust killing of a wolf would bring about the vengeance of its pack mates, and that the weapon used for the deed would be useless in future unless exorcised by a medicine man. However, they would kill wolves with impunity if they knew the proper rites of atonement, and if the wolves themselves happened to raid their fish nets.[35] When the Kwakiutl killed a wolf, the animal would be laid out on a blanket and have portions of its flesh eaten by the perpetrators, who would express regret at the act before burying it. The Ahtna would take the dead wolf to a hut, where it would be propped in a sitting position with a banquet made by a shaman set before it. When men from certain Eskimo tribes killed a wolf, they would walk around their houses four times, expressing regret and abstaining from sexual relations with their wives for four days.[34] Young Apaches would kill wolves, cougars or bears as a rite of passage.[36] Although some of the first European colonists traveling to North America would report back that wolves were more populous in the New World than in Europe,[34] writings from the Lewis and Clark Expedition indicate that wolves were seldom seen except in aboriginal buffer zones.[37]

Interesting stuff Flambeau........I love gaining knowledge and I love, love, love history.

Mapsguy your preaching to the choir. My guess is to a person we all want the same thing.............the preservation and protection of the wilderness and to live in a world which is healthy. Unfortunately you seem to have bought into a narrative that those on the right want dirty air and dirty water.

We all continue to fuss and fight being told to dislike "the other side" all while with a sleight of hand the very side which says it is so environmentally conscious floods the country with poor and often illiterate people who could give a rip about the environment. The country is at 330 million and at this rate we are shooting for 500 million and beyond in not so lengthy a time. Take a deep breath and consider very carefully who the "real" environmentalists are.

Right now we have the means and the will to control our environmental concerns. Throw in 200 million more folks who believe in "compassionate government" ( getting other people's stuff) and we are looking at becoming poor and messy. I live in the midst of illegal immigrants......God bless them but being neat and tidy is not one of their strong attributes.

Wick: "

missmolly: "

mastertangler:



Ha, thats funny. Actually they already have brought the T Rex back.......seen a documentary of sorts filmed on a remote island...........some things sort of went wrong it appears. Probably not quite ready for prime time widespread distribution. Now THAT would thin out those elk in a hurry (and maybe a few of those pesky humans as well ;-) "

H

Funny, MT!



BTW, I saw the same documentary. Life finds a way. "

So you both watched Jurassic Park? :)"

I think that was the name of the documentary, yes. Of course, there's a chance that those "rampaging" dinosaurs were merely being chased by the filmmakers and therefore fleeing in terror, just as the lemmings were.

mapsguy1955: "

missmolly: ""Scientists estimate that 150-200 species of plant, insect, bird and mammal become extinct every 24 hours. This is nearly 1,000 times the "natural" or "background" rate and, say many biologists, is greater than anything the world has experienced since the vanishing of the dinosaurs nearly 65m years ago."



However, there are evermore Duggars, thank God! "

Yet there will always be people that think we don't have a negative impact on ecological balances of the planet. How delusional some of us are. As long as some of us, especially those in positions of authority, believe and/or behave like the skies and the oceans are fair game as dumping grounds, we are screwed. "

Our comeuppance is coming. We're termites eating the sphere of wood hurling through space. I just hope Soylent Green tastes good.*

*I wonder if Duggar tastes like chicken.

DrBobDg: " Wolf intro in Yellowstone NP

OK..in my opinion as long as hunting is permitted to balance the wolf population...which I believe has become an issue in Wisconsin...

dr bob"

Thanks for the wolf video.
Yes Arctic your absolutely right wolves help to try in this case balance the population so it doesn't get out of hand like the Elk herd did in Yellowstone with 19,000 animals(which I observed in 1987) in the northern Yellowstone and 9,000 in the southern. They were subject to swings of population due to hard winters and lack of food. Deer numbers in Yellowstone were never that high due to winters usually being to much snow.
I winter and summer camped in the back country in the 80's there was very little if any willow or young cottonwood trees in the lowland. I walked just about all the rivers and very few beavers.

The main point is without control of some kind many species will surpass carrying capacity which is defined as the amount of animals a area can carry without doing any long term damage to the habitat. Elk did long term damage.

Truth

Watch your 'balance" at 26:30.

Green Fire.... Leopold

is interesting to watch...

dr bob

It is all education and as long as science and scientists are maligned by those professing the "highest and best" attributes of the status quo, we all lose. Given we are human beings, Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are all systems that are doomed to failure in their purest forms. Today's political demagoguery allows no opposing arguments. We are killing the goose MT. Of all people here, you should be aware of that. Just one look at the flowage down the St Lucie or Caloosahatchee Rivers TODAY and it is obvious. This is all part of one big picture. We should all be so lucky as to go into space and just see Earth from the vantage points of our astronauts. We would all probably have the same epiphany most of them have. This balance is infinitely more fragile than today's leadership would have you believe. There is no Plan B.

Science and scientists are not immune from being incorrect nor are they immune from political pressure. That has been true throughout history and is true today. Endless examples exist of science being incorrect, from the strong belief of an open ocean at the North Pole to the earth being flat etc. etc.

So while my life's ambition at one time was to be a "scientist" I do not worship at that alter and I certainly do not want scientists making public policy. Some very smart people can be incredibly stupid.

I will factor in what science has to say......but all to often data is manipulated and theories are extrapolated for other agendas (as per Roger Reville theory of green house gasses for example which has been hijacked by globalists).

I'll take the word of the scientist vs. the word of the politician any day. Especially where there is consensus among 97% of scientists.

arctic: "Nature tends to find a balance and manages itself quite well. The only critters that have really become a destructive problem on the landscape, due to mindless over-population, are human beings."

Weren't the elk a destructive problem on the landscape due to mindless overpopulation, hence the reintroduction of wolves?

murphylakejim: "

arctic: "Nature tends to find a balance and manages itself quite well. The only critters that have really become a destructive problem on the landscape, due to mindless over-population, are human beings."

Weren't the elk a destructive problem on the landscape due to mindless overpopulation, hence the reintroduction of wolves?"

It was one of the reasons. In the 50's and earlier they actually had people in the park shoot elk just to keep the population down.
I have met with and read some of the research being done in the park this last 100 years iit amazing. Each project fills another piece of the puzzle.
As I mentioned before like 1988 there was no mountain lions in the park until about that year that they know of.
Just think out west at one time we the Humans almost eliminated these animals from this country-buffalo,elk,antelope,mountain lion,wolf,grizzly bear and you could go on.

Been reading a book about Yellowstone in the 1800's how people than came by wagons and horses and stay for weeks even than vacationing in Yellowstone.

"Endless examples exist of science being incorrect, from the strong belief of an open ocean at the North Pole to the earth being flat."

The former is becoming true and the latter was on religious people.

murphylakejim: "

arctic: "Nature tends to find a balance and manages itself quite well. The only critters that have really become a destructive problem on the landscape, due to mindless over-population, are human beings."

Weren't the elk a destructive problem on the landscape due to mindless overpopulation, hence the reintroduction of wolves?"

Absolutely. Removing wolves from Yellowstone (and the entire West) in the 1920s and 1930s had a really destructive impact on the environment.

mastertangler: "I will factor in what science has to say......but all to often data is manipulated and theories are extrapolated for other agendas (as per Roger Reville theory of green house gasses for example which has been hijacked by globalists).
"

That's like saying that Christianity and other forms of mythology have been hijacked to subjugate women and rape children.

Pinetree: "

murphylakejim: "

arctic: "Nature tends to find a balance and manages itself quite well. The only critters that have really become a destructive problem on the landscape, due to mindless over-population, are human beings."

Weren't the elk a destructive problem on the landscape due to mindless overpopulation, hence the reintroduction of wolves?"

It was one of the reasons. In the 50's and earlier they actually had people in the park shoot elk just to keep the population down.
I have met with and read some of the research being done in the park this last 100 years iit amazing. Each project fills another piece of the puzzle.
As I mentioned before like 1988 there was no mountain lions in the park until about that year that they know of.
Just think out west at one time we the Humans almost eliminated these animals from this country-buffalo,elk,antelope,mountain lion,wolf,grizzly bear and you could go on.


Been reading a book about Yellowstone in the 1800's how people than came by wagons and horses and stay for weeks even than vacationing in Yellowstone.
In the 50,s, a contract helicopter was used to drive buffalo into large backcountry corals in YNP where they were then shot. Overpopulation of elk was not the problem then that it is now. Park visitors continued to report seeing mountain lions over the years only to be ignored. The park brought in two dog teams largely to prove them wrong. The dogs treed eleven lions in the first two days. One den looked down on Mammoth headquarters.

"

Very rarely, if ever, has science been used specifically to subjugate people, where politics and religion do EXACTLY that, almost every time. One is based on learning/discovery and the other on management of people and control. Should science be used to influence? Absolutely. It is already used in every aspect of our lives. The only similarity is in determining laws. Science works to prove physical laws and politics creates them out of thin air. Sighs... I think we know that if you put a drop of gasoline in your beer the properties of said beer might change... Science could prove exactly why that happens. Likewise with the wolves and their surrounding biosphere. All we can do politically is respond to the emotional aspects (fear).

Carver Guest Paddler: The year I was winter camping like 1987 there was a University group there and they figured than there may be 5 cougars in the park. I did see one track than.
If there was many than you would of seen them on the dead elk or buffalo carcasses in the winter.

Historical Yellowstone notes: From 1935 to 1968, elk, pronghorn, and bison numbers were artificially controlled by shooting or trapping and removal by park rangers. Then in the 1960s, based on new studies that suggested ungulate populations could possibly be self-regulating, elk reductions were discontinued in the park.

Present cougar number est. around 35

As long as were on the Yellowstone topic. I met a Yellowstone Biologist in the 1980's. His job in the snow free seasons was to do studies in Yellowstone. Winter came- he went to Florida and did research on alligators. What a life.

Pals or just tagging along?

arctic: "

murphylakejim: "

arctic: "Nature tends to find a balance and manages itself quite well. The only critters that have really become a destructive problem on the landscape, due to mindless over-population, are human beings."

Weren't the elk a destructive problem on the landscape due to mindless overpopulation, hence the reintroduction of wolves?"

Absolutely. Removing wolves from Yellowstone (and the entire West) in the 1920s and 1930s had a really destructive impact on the environment."

so humans are the ones who balance the system

murphylakejim: "

arctic: "

murphylakejim: "

arctic: "Nature tends to find a balance and manages itself quite well. The only critters that have really become a destructive problem on the landscape, due to mindless over-population, are human beings."

Weren't the elk a destructive problem on the landscape due to mindless overpopulation, hence the reintroduction of wolves?"

Absolutely. Removing wolves from Yellowstone (and the entire West) in the 1920s and 1930s had a really destructive impact on the environment."

so humans are the ones who balance the system"

Humans are the ones who have to re-balance the system after they f**k it up in the first place.

Yes. but is a system balanced where human activity is not taken into account? In reality humans are just as natural as any other animal, we have merely found intellectual solutions where they have not.

mc2mens: "I'll take the word of the scientist vs. the word of the politician any day. Especially where there is consensus among 97% of scientists. "

A consensus of opinion is not science, plain and simple. The climate is changing, but it always has. We have had ice ages in the past, and we have come out of them. I actually heard a network news reader the other day ask the meteorologist if the "rash of volcanic activity" was related to climate change. And the meteorologist did NOT SAY NO.

Lets see now, in the 70's an issue of Time was dominated by scientist's showing how we were entering another ice age. Then in the 80's opinions turned in the direction of heat dominating the planet. Now every instance of "extreme weather" is followed by how it is linked to climate change. When exactly do they say that climate change started? What about the many decades of fossil fuel burning (with much less emission control equipment) the preceded the beginning of the end?

The climate is changing, and we have lots of man-made computer models designed to prove it. Are we contributing to this, I am sure we are. But I think that many other powerful forces are really running the show. But if our emissions are the main cause, I fear that all of the greenhouse gases that we have pumped into the system prior to the onset of global warming, climate change, or whatever we decide to call it next may show that the significant time lag between cause and effect will be followed by similar lag between stopping the cause and the reversal of the effect. Put another way, impact of climate change will linger long after we find a way to significantly reduce GLOBAL emissions.

Pass the sunscreen.

nooneuno: "Yes. but is a system balanced where human activity is not taken into account? In reality humans are just as natural as any other animal, we have merely found intellectual solutions where they have not."

Correct,and we have the most ability to destroy the natural world around us,as we have been doing for a long time.

SinglePortage: "

mc2mens: "I'll take the word of the scientist vs. the word of the politician any day. Especially where there is consensus among 97% of scientists. "

A consensus of opinion is not science, plain and simple. The climate is changing, but it always has. We have had ice ages in the past, and we have come out of them. I actually heard a network news reader the other day ask the meteorologist if the "rash of volcanic activity" was related to climate change. And the meteorologist did NOT SAY NO.


Lets see now, in the 70's an issue of Time was dominated by scientist's showing how we were entering another ice age. Then in the 80's opinions turned in the direction of heat dominating the planet. Now every instance of "extreme weather" is followed by how it is linked to climate change. When exactly do they say that climate change started? What about the many decades of fossil fuel burning (with much less emission control equipment) the preceded the beginning of the end?


The climate is changing, and we have lots of man-made computer models designed to prove it. Are we contributing to this, I am sure we are. But I think that many other powerful forces are really running the show. But if our emissions are the main cause, I fear that all of the greenhouse gases that we have pumped into the system prior to the onset of global warming, climate change, or whatever we decide to call it next may show that the significant time lag between cause and effect will be followed by similar lag between stopping the cause and the reversal of the effect. Put another way, impact of climate change will linger long after we find a way to significantly reduce GLOBAL emissions.


Pass the sunscreen.
"

Did I say consensus was science? No. I said I'd "take the word of the scientist vs. the word of the politician. Especially where there is consensus among 97% of scientists".

In the case of man's role in climate change, science (a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe) has informed and created consensus (a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people) among climate scientists.

And I trust they know more about the subject than any politician.

The National Park Service plans to reintroduce wolves to Isle Royale

SinglePortage: "
The climate is changing, and we have lots of man-made computer models designed to prove it. Are we contributing to this, I am sure we are. But I think that many other powerful forces are really running the show. But if our emissions are the main cause, I fear that all of the greenhouse gases that we have pumped into the system prior to the onset of global warming, climate change, or whatever we decide to call it next may show that the significant time lag between cause and effect will be followed by similar lag between stopping the cause and the reversal of the effect. Put another way, impact of climate change will linger long after we find a way to significantly reduce GLOBAL emissions. "

The natural mechanisms and cycles are still in effect. By adding heat-trapping gases (energy) to the system we have only amplified these cycles.

It is a well-known fact that there is a lag effect in the global climate system that will continue to heat the planet even if greenhouse gas emissions were stopped completely today.

Crop failures and human migration will be the norm very soon.

Ironic......the pro big government anti religion types would get exactly what they detest with regards to environmentalism if we look at current and historical track records of authoritarian socialistic centralized societal structures.

I also find it pathetic that such untruths as 97% of scientist believe etc. etc. which is obviously a false narrative and an internet myth which has gained much traction is continued to be spouted off as truth when a simple google search reveals the intellectual dishonesty.

And that is my objection in a nutshell.......the video on the wolf is just as dishonest as the entire global warming scenario. Both contain just enough science to be dangerous if extrapolated out to radical perspectives.

I prefer honesty..........the wolves are a balance in some respects to the Elk but not nearly to the extent that they would have us believe. The advancement of understory if far more complicated than just throwing some wolves in the mix and could just as easily have other factors involved. As per Global Warming, I mean Climate Change (so if its cold or hot it's still our fault) is little more than science being hijacked by leftists who are using the "cause" to gain a firm grip on the means of production. It is their philosophy that if they could only have control over all aspects of society they could create a utopia. In that quest the ends justifies the means........again I prefer a more practical, realistic and intellectually honest tack.........less gunk in the air is a good thing and we can get there without ceding our means of production to corrupt and clueless politicians. Why people put their faith in big government to "save them" is beyond me.

This topic has been hijacked completely. What's new?

Pinetree: "This topic has been hijacked completely. What's new?"

Agreed,
it started running off the rails very early with the political twist, in response to artcic's post on 6/4/18 @ 7:14 PM.

Perhaps it is a more entertaining thread if we all just said how wonderful the video was? Each us echoing the same mantra? Can you say BORING!

Plenty of other threads out there if that is what you wish. Cute kid, get healthy, all the best, what sleeping bag should I get etc.etc.

I'm cool with that but why not have a bit of "diversity"......sort of keeps things interesting.........and here I thought you progressive types were really into that "open minded diversity" sort of thing.

egads........
what have I done.............I just thought it was kindof a neat story but then...........


dr bob

DrBob - it is a good story. The importance of it is that it sheds light on the systemic relationship between all living things. It would be interesting to see the scientific evidence of the impacts of reintroducing the wolves in Yellowstone, but the video doesn't provide that.

Unfortunately, your post ran into the buzz saw known to some of us as MT. And he offers his expertise (opinions) on any subject. But as someone who has spent his career involved in the earth sciences, I find the interconnectedness of life on earth fascinating. I will be equally interested to see what impacts the reintroduction of wolves on Isle Royale will produce.

mapsguy1955: "No animals that I know of disappeared as quickly as we have made them disappear. Take just passenger pigeons as one example. Dinosaurs took millions of years to become extinct. Stuff happens in nature, but the ups and downs are part of the balancing act. To the nouveau right wing of America, virtually EVERYTHING is now a commodity, has a price tag. A sheep is killed so go and kill a wolf, even though there are millions of sheep and only a few hundred wolves. Is it like that in nature? Teddy Roosevelt, arguably the only environmentally sane (mostly) right wing president we have ever had, would be rolling in his grave. The Republican Party doesn't deserve him or his vision of protecting the wild parts of America, even if it was somewhat for hunting. His world was a lot different than ours. "

If it were your sheep and that’s how you provide for your family you might feel differently.

Pdog3: "If it were your sheep and that’s how you provide for your family you might feel differently. "

Maybe, but if wolves are a public resource (ie the PROPERTY of the American People), then the economic/property rights of a sheep herder need to be balanced with that.

Traditional Americans treasure their country's natural heritage.

Pdog3: "

mapsguy1955: "No animals that I know of disappeared as quickly as we have made them disappear. Take just passenger pigeons as one example. Dinosaurs took millions of years to become extinct. Stuff happens in nature, but the ups and downs are part of the balancing act. To the nouveau right wing of America, virtually EVERYTHING is now a commodity, has a price tag. A sheep is killed so go and kill a wolf, even though there are millions of sheep and only a few hundred wolves. Is it like that in nature? Teddy Roosevelt, arguably the only environmentally sane (mostly) right wing president we have ever had, would be rolling in his grave. The Republican Party doesn't deserve him or his vision of protecting the wild parts of America, even if it was somewhat for hunting. His world was a lot different than ours. "

If it were your sheep and that’s how you provide for your family you might feel differently. "

The bottom line is that when we have a business, like I do, we allow for some losses. It is part of doing business. If you build a house in a fire prone forest you buy insurance.

mc2mens: "DrBob - it is a good story. The importance of it is that it sheds light on the systemic relationship between all living things. It would be interesting to see the scientific evidence of the impacts of reintroducing the wolves in Yellowstone, but the video doesn't provide that.


Unfortunately, your post ran into the buzz saw known to some of us as MT. And he offers his expertise (opinions) on any subject. But as someone who has spent his career involved in the earth sciences, I find the interconnectedness of life on earth fascinating. I will be equally interested to see what impacts the reintroduction of wolves on Isle Royale will produce."

if you are involved with Earth Science Mc2mens then why are you going around with propaganda concerning the 97% narrative. That's just bad science and incorrect data and you probably know it.

I agree with your observation that the video was instructive to demonstrate the interconnectedness of life.

You claim a buzz saw? Where is my analysis incorrect? Your the expert, after all. I say the video is not particularly scientific and is attributing far more to the wolves than is rationale. They have restored the course of rivers and brought back eagles! Now all is well! Ahem, come on give me a break.

What will be the narrative when they overpopulate, decimate the elk and then turn their attention on everything else? Where will be the "balance of nature" then?

I'm just saying we need to start being intellectually curious and stop believing everything we are told. As per the sheep, have no fear, any livestock destroyed by wolves will be compensated to the rancher by federal dollars. Your taxes at work.

DrBobDg: "egads........
what have I done.............I just thought it was kindof a neat story but then...........



dr bob"

It is...ya never know where these discussions will go sometimes...I like to read the back and forth...some good points both sides, some ridiculous both sides. Entertaining.

Anyway thanks for posting!

T

arctic: "

Pdog3: "If it were your sheep and that’s how you provide for your family you might feel differently. "

Maybe, but if wolves are a public resource (ie the PROPERTY of the American People), then the economic/property rights of a sheep herder need to be balanced with that.

Traditional Americans treasure their country's natural heritage.

"

I love your last line, Arctic.

mastertangler: "

mc2mens: "DrBob - it is a good story. The importance of it is that it sheds light on the systemic relationship between all living things. It would be interesting to see the scientific evidence of the impacts of reintroducing the wolves in Yellowstone, but the video doesn't provide that.



Unfortunately, your post ran into the buzz saw known to some of us as MT. And he offers his expertise (opinions) on any subject. But as someone who has spent his career involved in the earth sciences, I find the interconnectedness of life on earth fascinating. I will be equally interested to see what impacts the reintroduction of wolves on Isle Royale will produce."

if you are involved with Earth Science Mc2mens then why are you going around with propaganda concerning the 97% narrative. That's just bad science and incorrect data and you probably know it.


I agree with your observation that the video was instructive to demonstrate the interconnectedness of life.


You claim a buzz saw? Where is my analysis incorrect? Your the expert, after all. I say the video is not particularly scientific and is attributing far more to the wolves than is rationale. They have restored the course of rivers and brought back eagles! Now all is well! Ahem, come on give me a break.


What will be the narrative when they overpopulate, decimate the elk and then turn their attention on everything else? Where will be the "balance of nature" then?


I'm just saying we need to start being intellectually curious and stop believing everything we are told. As per the sheep, have no fear, any livestock destroyed by wolves will be compensated to the rancher by federal dollars. Your taxes at work. "

Science has amassed an overwhelming amount of evidence pointing to human caused climate change. We're the ones who burn fossil fuels and clear trees that absorb carbon dioxide, sending heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. If you believe there is an interconnectedness to events that occur on our planet then you should be paying attention to what is happening to our climate.

Let me ask you this, do you believe that smoking causes cancer? Probably. Nobody questions the link between smoking and cancer anymore because the science was settled in the 1960s after more than 50 years of research. Think of the state of human activities and climate change as no different than smoking and cancer. In fact, we are statistically more confident that humans cause climate change than that smoking causes cancer.

You can choose to ignore or deny the evidence, but the evidence doesn’t go away. It's not bad science, or incorrect data, or propaganda. I know that and I believe you're smart enough to know that too.

Regarding the buzz saw comment, you yourself said your "tone is one of derision" (contemptuous ridicule or mockery). Your comments are often mean spirited and demeaning. In fact, they had their intended effect on the original poster.

You can choose to ignore or deny the evidence, but the evidence doesn’t go away. It's not bad science, or incorrect data, or propaganda. I know that and I believe you're smart enough to know that too.

Actually working in the field for the past 20 years would make one , not biased, think about the #'s (evidence) that is given. At least it does for me.
The evidence becomes suspect when you have data that you PERSONALLY recorded that has been changed by NOAA. In my case- the "official" data now is incorrect- but not if NOAA says so. Long story short (and I can provide details if anyone wants) that as the official weather observer for a major site in the Midwest I recorded (along with my co-workers) snowfall data that has been changed over time (once another year blew this previous year away). This is miniscule in the realm of things. But I have also seen temp records changed by small margins at my site dating back to the Dust Bowl. Not by a lot-- but just enough. And always "Up" and previous years "down" (again if you want details - please e-mail). I have kept diligent weather records from what is recorded by automation and what is recorded "old style" (old weather white cage and 8" ((standing gauge) precip amounts) for my site since 1998. The differences are subtle- but when compared over 140 years do make a difference.

When issues arise with the loss of power/ loss of automation and the manual #'s are provided to NOAA from the likes of myself and others -- they always side with the higher temps and less precip. ALWAYS. Lower temps esp are thrown out even if the automation is shown to be in error. AUTO temps will always be higher in (if in) error rather than lower just based on how temp is measured. (it's the reason a high quality temp gauge has insulation from radiation and/or placed in the shade-- away from concrete in a grassy area ) One must wonder how often this goes on elsewhere. With airport climate sites (the major climo sites in the USA) now having nearly 90% automation compared to before ASOS and AWOS-- (pre 1996 non Automated-- most sites were all human weather reporting ) one must wonder, data at a long standing climate site with long standing records may have been jeopardized as I know it has been at my site, even with humans. Even with accurate reports from humans when the automation runs amuck - it seems like NOAA wants the false data to fit the majority of data that also runs amuck to fall in line with automation and not truthful data that humans can provide. The FAA also goes with this as it's cost cutting. I work for the FAA/NOAA and see this in part everyday waiting for (hoping not) that automation doesn't cost human lives in the aviation field with a major mishap at sites I have no control of. My co-workers and myself not only try and keep the aviation community safe- but also the weather records that we all watch on the news. Sadly- this entire field (weather) is being pushed into full Auto.



This is not to say that a AGW is going on. I'am just saying it may not be to the extent at what you hear in the media. Again-- this comes from someone with 20 years recording the data.

Elk numbers rebounding


Also I know many of the elk have changed their habits and spend more time in the higher elevation and in the treed area.
I think coyotes have come back a little after almost being wiped out because they didn't run at first. They learned-the ones that survived.

Mc2mens it was specially the 97% of scientists comment which I have a big problem with and those who spout it off as "proof" of man caused climate change. As you probably know, or should know, the internet survey was a paltry number of scientists, many not even in the climatology field, and the question was phrased to ask if they believed the earth was warming while leaving out wether they believe it was man caused.

Believe what you want. It's the leftist solution of carbon credits and assuming power over industry which should terrify every American, not wether the globe might gain or lose a degree over the next 50 years. The computer projections are way off, hence the departure from the language of "global warming".

The only personal attack directed was towards those who deal in dishonesty.....that would be your 97% of scientists comment. Otherwise my fire is directed at the video. Nothing wrong with strongly held opinions and spirited debate. It's the American way.

Back to the wolves, as I have tried to do at the end of all my posts after digressing. Could not the restoration of plant life have as much to do with weather patterns as with the introduction of wolves? I do not know but as a person interested in science and truth the question has some validity.

mastertangler: "I say the video is not particularly scientific and is attributing far more to the wolves than is rationale. They have restored the course of rivers and brought back eagles! Now all is well! Ahem, come on give me a break.

What will be the narrative when they overpopulate, decimate the elk and then turn their attention on everything else? Where will be the "balance of nature" then? "

The restoration of riparian systems (riverbanks, floodplains) since wolves were restored to Yellowstone has been well documented. I have seen it myself. Elk behavior changed with the reintroduction of wolves, and lower elk numbers resulted in less browsing.

The reverse has also been well documented. When wolves were eliminated from the Kaibab Plateau in Arizona in the 1920s the resulting increase in deer devastated plant growth in the area and led to mass starvation of deer.

When the animals (deer, elk, etc) that wolves prey on decrease, so do wolves. The pups stave first. When we had a huge winter kill of deer here in northeast Minnesota between 2012 and 2014 (two severe winters, an anomaly in recent decades), wolf numbers crashed.

It was not a internet study.
Actually it was 98.3 % who were in agreement instead of 97% and the scientists examined 4,014 abstracts on climate change and found 97.2 percent of the papers assumed humans play a role in global warming . Total amount of scientists involved in climate change studies was just under 10,000 scientists.

Also this has nothing to do with wolves.

I'm interested to see what effect the wolf reintroduction program on Isle Royale will yield.

The article states the "moose population has risen to 1,500 this year. That’s not the highest on record, but without predators it could double in the next few years, according to an annual wolf and moose survey conducted by researchers from Michigan Technological University. They’ve been studying the island’s predator-prey relationship since the 1950s.

Now the moose are devouring aquatic plants and other vegetation, and face eventual decline through starvation — a cycle that happened on the island before wolves arrived to keep their numbers in check."

Was in Yellowstone one winter and talked to a University person studying elk in the winter with telementry and heart monitors etc. It was interesting when she told me how elk can slow down their metabolism in the winter to survive by lowering their heart rate down to 15 beats a minute.

mc2mens: "I'm interested to see what effect the wolf reintroduction program on Isle Royale will yield.


The article states the "moose population has risen to 1,500 this year. That’s not the highest on record, but without predators it could double in the next few years, according to an annual wolf and moose survey conducted by researchers from Michigan Technological University. They’ve been studying the island’s predator-prey relationship since the 1950s.


Now the moose are devouring aquatic plants and other vegetation, and face eventual decline through starvation — a cycle that happened on the island before wolves arrived to keep their numbers in check." "

That will be,also I hope and I am sure they follow up and see if vegetation and amount and kind changes.

Grey Owl


He was a kindof a strange duck... but was probably a key person that kept the beaver in Canada from becoming extinct. Google will take you more about this feller.

more beaver stuff

is worth a peak.

dr bob

DrBobDg: " Grey Owl



He was a kindof a strange duck... but was probably a key person that kept the beaver in Canada from becoming extinct. Google will take you more about this feller.


more beaver stuff


is worth a peak.


dr bob"

Cute picture feeding them.
Minnesota especially like the Brainerd area up to like Grand Rapids have some of the highest populations nationwide and big and healthy beaver. Main reason is that is a area of very heavy aspen growth etc.. There isn't hardly a pond that doesn't have a family of beaver.
I remember seeing little beaver activity or even much old sign in the Yellowstone in the 80's. I wonder if grizzly like beaver?

All it takes is a wee little amount of independent thinking and intellectual curiosity to counter the 97% oft quoted trump card of the global warming devotees.

97%

Fortunately Americans are not particularly concerned overall about climate change. At least not to the point of handing over the reins of industry and production to clueless politicians which would certainly create paupers and serfs of all of us if carbon credits came into play.

That is the game after all.........create a crisis, and then rush to the rescue. All they need is just a bit more of your liberty and labors (taxes) and then they can create a utopian society. Climate change = carbon credits ( the solution) where politicians will be able to decide the amount of production. Sound good to you? It doesn't to me. If they get their way we will all meet in the rice paddies. At least they will have created "equality". We can all be poor and miserable together.

FWIW I am not against the wolves in Yellowstone. I have already mentioned that but need to state it again. For all intents and purposes it appears to have worked out rather well........at least so far. Who knows what the situation will be like in 20 years. Will they expand outside the park? Will they take a liking to livestock? Seems likely eventually. But so far so good.

I have a fierce devotion to truth which some might not understand. I see the video in question as 1/2 correct and therefore a lie and little more than Disney politically correct propaganda being fed to our grade schoolers. Such info distorts real science IMO and creates simpletons.

Real scientists are the worlds biggest skeptics........real scientists are always questioning "is that really true". Real scientists don't believe what someone tells them just because it fits comfortably with their world view.

Real scientists. Cause there are so many fake scientists?

mc2mens: "Real scientists. Cause there are so many fake scientists?"

I know we want to attribute nothing but the highest motives to professions we admire. Sadly, only the naive do that. Bad actors in every walk of life. Doctors who over prescribe medication to Climatologists falsifying data (climate gate). When there is hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money to quantify and produce data on global warming I can't help but wonder what sort of results are likely to appear. Hello?

And even if the work is done correctly, I also wonder about "the powers which be" who may summarize, edit and redact the paper for suitable "public consumption".

And of course it also takes real courage on the scientists part to go against the politically correct grain. To do so incurs the wrath of those who need to "hurry and get the debate over with" so they can hurry up and assume power.

I suspect many of the climate changers are so passionate about proving the model that they have failed to consider what comes next. That being of course ceding your liberty and labors to an ever expanding centralized bureaucracy all based on science which is far from settled.

mastertangler: "FWIW I am not against the wolves in Yellowstone. I have already mentioned that but need to state it again. For all intents and purposes it appears to have worked out rather well........at least so far. Who knows what the situation will be like in 20 years. Will they expand outside the park? Will they take a liking to livestock? Seems likely eventually."

Wolves expanded out of the park years ago and occupy a good chunk of western Montana, western Wyoming, and central Idaho. They do kill livestock at times. Some people like them, some hate them.

arctic: "

mastertangler: "FWIW I am not against the wolves in Yellowstone. I have already mentioned that but need to state it again. For all intents and purposes it appears to have worked out rather well........at least so far. Who knows what the situation will be like in 20 years. Will they expand outside the park? Will they take a liking to livestock? Seems likely eventually."

Wolves expanded out of the park years ago and occupy a good chunk of western Montana, western Wyoming, and central Idaho. They do kill livestock at times. Some people like them, some hate them."

It is strange how wolves or individual packs react. I know in Minnesota wolves kill cattle on occasion and are trapped.
It is just interesting my Uncle has like 150 black Angus that is including many calves. There has been a resident wolf pack on his land for over 2 decades. He has never loss a single calf or adult to wolves,although he has seen the wolves in his pasture often. This pack and its offspring never got started on cattle.

Thank you gentlemen for bringing the thread back around.

Wolves are curious creatures to be sure. I have read where various packs get the caribou running and run them while hamstringing them thus disabling them and then onto the next one etc. etc. I have also read where they will kill all the deer they find which are yarded up in deep snow. Is it done for "fun" or rather taking advantage of a food source which will last several weeks if not months. Perhaps a combination of both.

I can assume historical accounts of wolves behaving badly with regards to livestock? Multiple kills in one evening would not surprise me. Hopefully there will be no rancher vs wolves war and the wolves will keep to their side of the tracks.

The ranchers were forecasting much doom and gloom when the reintroduction program was announced. Fortunately their worst fears have not materialized.

In the most excellent work "Arctic Adenture" author Peter Freuchen makes many interesting observations of wolves. A very worthy read despite the rather cheesy sounding title.

ugly dude

werewolf?

Odd enough looking feller to make one wonder. Story didn't mention any litigation so in Big Sky country if they are a threat to ranchers and cattle lethal action appears to be permitted.

dr bob