Interesting clip on wolf impact...

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Mark Walker, Feb 21, 2014.

  1. Bill Aubrey and kmac like this.
  2. Interesting. Thanks, Mark. Now, duck and get out the popcorn.
  3. Restoring natures balance...imagine that. BTW, I'm not sure they know an elk from a deer...:rolleyes:

    I'm in...
  4. Let's see. A wolf thread. There hasn't been one in awhile. I think we've set a new record for the time lapse between threads ... guess one is due :D
  5. I vote for less wolves,I prefer to have the clear space for my backcasts.... just my preferance, I have nothing against wolves. That said can I have extra butter on my popcorn?
    Chris DeLeone likes this.
  6. No.
  7. I would like to see the data he used to come to the conclusions he reached.

    Even though Rocky Mountain elk resemble European red deer, they are a different species.

    In 1994, the year before the wolf was introduced into YNP, the elk population was 19,000. Currently, there are fewer than 4,000. He concludes that the plant growth is due to elk moving out of the valleys. I'm guessing the near 75% reduction just might have played a factor.

    I completely understand someone having a special affinity for one species of animal. But this guy's description of the wolf's impact on YNP borders on adoration of a Diety.

  8. If you believe this crap you must be working for the gov't or a non-profit.
  9. Here we go
    Kcahill likes this.

  10. If you don't believe it you must be a trust funder and or an idiot
    Jason Rolfe and cabezon like this.
  11. I tried to play it but it kept stopping and starting so I said to hell with it.
  12. Yeah, that well-constructed (I'll just say it, "spin") piece was long on romance and short on facts, wasn't it? Now, I'm not saying I disagree with the notion that removing all those deer and elk wouldn't have an immediate positive result for the vegetation--it obviously would. Perhaps I just object to the semantics of the thing. "Some" deer is not the 15,000 you note here. My point being simply that no matter what side of the debate you are on, transparency and honesty is a good thing. This clip provided neither. Still, an interesting snapshot of the wolf's short term effects. Long term, I would expect the wolf population to plummet as they eat their way out of house and home.
  13. Name calling. Always constructive...

  14. Yeah, cause the other guy didn't call him an "idiot" or anything like that.... :rolleyes:
  15. [​IMG]
    The Moose population is on the right numbers and the dotted orange is wolf population up to 45 (left scale) Since 1959-2009.

    Its a very interesting chart don't you think?

    However there are so many forces at play on Isle royale, that inbreeding is now an issue. (in Wolves)

    Yellowstone Wolves have a parasite going around if I believe correctly, which might help explain this graph.


    There are usually larger forces at play that maintain certain balances over time in areas that are not affected by genetic isolation. Nature seems to have a fail safe. If the wolves were so powerful, they would have nothing to eat. By providing a weakness they maintain predator prey relations and a healthier ecosystem.

    I have noticed that in general there is a lot of hate on wolves south of the 49th. If I am wrong please call me on it, as from my view the north side likes the presence of wolves to a point.

    Oh one more thing, not sure where I heard this but apparently Wolves control Coyote populations, and if there are lots of wolves around the fox population is fairly healthy..
  16. Canadian Wolves, nuf said
  17. Balance of nature my ass... let's say I plant northern pike or sharks in your trout/salmon waters. How would that make you feel? It's interesting that people call me an idiot. The ones that have never lived in my shoes as an elk hunter and believe a foreign video that doesn't know a deer from an elk. Keep on sipping the lemonade cause your world is perfect.

    BTW my handle name is sarcasm over the clueless pricks I encounter out of WA on a daily basis, you guys might know a few.
  18. I don't hate wolves. What I object to is the anthropomorphism of wolves. The video implies the wolves alone improved the entire ecosystem of YNP all by themselves. It sounds like a rewrite of the book of Genesis. The science is ignored. The facts are ignored.

    One fact that tends to get ignored is the wolves are not endangered. They have reproduced beyond most biologists forecasts and many moved out of the Park to happier hunting grounds. Those who advocate that State wildlife folks take a "hands off" approach to the wolves are basing their demands on something other than science.

    Again, I don't hate wolves. What I object to is those folks who see the wolf, not as a wild animal, but as some sort of emissary sent from God.

    Jim Ficklin, Citori and Bill Aubrey like this.
  19. I've lived in wolf country in both Alaska and now Montana. They don't bother me and I don't bother them. Like so many things these days, in my humble opinion, it's the extremist on both ends that cloud or distort the facts and make it an issue.

    Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2
  20. I saw this video via another link, wherein it was pointed out that this was produced by British outlet for the British market and they use the term "deer" to refer to their native Irish Elk (now extinct in the British Isles). In northern Europe, the term "elk" is used for what we call a moose. The roots of those terms are apparently in Europe and were misapplied in North America by early settlers. Perhaps it is we who can't tell a deer from an elk :).

    I would add that it is a little silly to criticize this video for not detailing all of the evidence for the conclusions that are asserted to be the result of restoration of wolves in the Yellowstone ecosystem. It is a 4 minute video, fer cryin' outloud!

    That said, anyone who has been following the science on ecosystem changes since the reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone should recognize that virtually all of the assertions in the video are backed up by solid scientific studies. Among the first were the ones detailing the wolf predation on coyotes and the subsequent increase, first, in rodents, and subsequently in hawks and eagles. This was shown 10 years ago or more. I remember seeing a seminar at the UW over 5 years ago on elk in the Yellowstone that detailed the changes in behavior from spending more of their time in open habitats, often meadows near streams, to spending them in cover (the same study also showed changes in elk female hormone levels that, if I recall correctly, resulted in lowered fertility, thus contributing to population decline). About the same time studies showed the dramatic increase in woody plant growth along streams, which was associated with lower peak water temperatures in summer and increased fish size and numbers. Good for fish and for fishermen. I have not seen the studies of stream entrainment, but that seems like an expected outcome of increased streambank stability from more woody vegetation and less trampling by hoofed animals.

    Whether one approves or disapproves of the restoration of wolves in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem, their role as a keystone species, and the effects of their restoration, has been well documented.


Share This Page