Wolves in Wyoming Lose Their Protection

[slim 1,525]

Sport hunting, the hunting of animals for the pleasure, is never necessary.

And sport hunting is cruel. As the apex life form on this planet, it is our obligation to be shepherds, not masters, of the wildlife around us.

Have you ever tried shepherding prairie dogs?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Sport hunting, the hunting of animals for the pleasure, is never necessary.

And sport hunting is cruel. As the apex life form on this planet, it is our obligation to be shepherds, not masters, of the wildlife around us.

Actually sport hunting is necessary for population control. Rattlesnakes are a good example.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Sure, but 500 would be a danger to the wolves themselves. With that many animals, they'd encroach on populated areas and interact with humans too much. They'd kill each other as well.

Ever see animal carcasses by the side of the road? With 500 wolves, you'd see wolf carcasses dead because they'd have no choice but to enter into highways and other dangerous places in search of food and territory. There really is a lot of science involved in determining the number of breeding pairs and animals themselves. As Gary's illustrated, that number of animals will cover the entire state and it's highly unlikely all of them would succumb to a disease since each pack is separated both geographically and socially.

350 or so animals doesn't sound like a lot but when you consider their territory is something like 25 square miles for a single wolf and sometimes over 1,000 for a pack, you can start to understand why it doesn't take many to cover the whole state. Wyoming has almost 98,000 square miles of area so when you take out the populated places and grazing land, you end up with an area that 350 wolves could cover quite easily. Trying to fit 500 of them in there would lead to a lot of problems - like we see with bears, mt. lions, and other "dangerous" critters.

It's very likely 500 wolves will mature in the next few years since packs grow quickly due to no natural predators. However, a pack of wolves eats a bunch of food and there's only so much food to go around... see what we just did there?

"Predators" in most states are managed, even with unrestricted bag limits in place. The department of natural resources for most states (and the feds in this case) still count the number of animals in the wild and take steps (like bag limits) to add restrictions when animal populations get low.

Sport hunting may not be something you agree with, but it is something many sportsmen enjoy. I used to be against it too because I didn't think it was very sporting. Then I heard a rancher talk about putting a horse down because it'd stepped in one of the holes left by prairie dogs. Is the horse any more important? Not at all. But the tears in the rancher's eyes allowed me to see that there is something to managing wildlife and "sport hunting" is one step in that process. A necessary step, I might add.

Sitting in a tree and waiting for a deer to walk by doesn't seem very sporting to me either. But, then again, running into one at 70 mph in a 3,000lb. vehicle doesn't give the deer much of a chance either. It's a lot more humane and "sporting" to manage animals through hunting than it is to simply allow nature to take it's course.

Nature is cruel. Humans have the opportunity - and the obligation - to be master of the animals around them.

I did some math based on data from the international wolf center and available land(national parks, national forests, BLM, state parks etc.)

First, a wolf pack in the area averages 20 with a range of 300 - 1000 sq miles of territory. Then there is 48% of the total land mass as available to wolves that equals roughly 47,000 sq mi. I then take an average of the two range figures and get 650 sq mi. I divide the 350 wolves by 20 and round up to the nearest whole number which is 18.

I multiply 18 packs by 650 sq mi and the current required landmass for wolves in Wyoming equals 11,700 or roughly 25% of available land.

I guess if the state restricts hunting I'm okay with it, though I hope they set the numbers low so that the wolves can grow even if its by only a few pups a year.

One thing that everyone should realize is that wolves are beneficial in helping other preditors including the Grizzly and smaller animals who feed off of their kills. They also have been shown to help manage coyote populations, which lets face it, is one of a few major species across the US that are too great in number and a serious problem. Effectively coyotes took over in the food chain as wolves were wiped out.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Sousuke

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I did some math based on data from the international wolf center and available land(national parks, national forests, BLM, state parks etc.)

First, a wolf pack in the area averages 20 with a range of 300 - 1000 sq miles of territory. Then there is 48% of the total land mass as available to wolves that equals roughly 47,000 sq mi. I then take an average of the two range figures and get 650 sq mi. I divide the 350 wolves by 20 and round up to the nearest whole number which is 18.

I multiply 18 packs by 650 sq mi and the current required landmass for wolves in Wyoming equals 11,700 or roughly 25% of available land.

I guess if the state restricts hunting I'm okay with it, though I hope they set the numbers low so that the wolves can grow even if its by only a few pups a year.

One thing that everyone should realize is that wolves are beneficial in helping other preditors including the Grizzly and smaller animals who feed off of their kills. They also have been shown to help manage coyote populations, which lets face it, is one of a few major species across the US that are too great in number and a serious problem. Effectively coyotes took over in the food chain as wolves were wiped out.

And what about man? Man is a predator also. Your calculations assume no other predators. Please recalculate and get back to us. Show you figures please.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

If you read the article, there are certain areas just outside Yellowstone where hunting is regulated. For the remainder of Wyoming there is no regulation.

Hunting for population control I can understand, even if I don't personally agree with it. But unrestricted sport hunting? We rail against this kind of hunting in Africa and Asia. What makes us so special?

They have just been taken off the endangered species list. There is no regulation because there was no need for any until now. There are also no regulations for hunting dinosaurs. I would say to let the Wyoming Fish and Wildlife people have a chance to determine what regulations are needed. You won't because you are against all forms of sport hunting, so just say so. No amount of hunting, regulated or otherwise, is going to be OK with you so why discuss it?

Fortunately, people with your opinion on hunting have no affect on reality.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

And what about man? Man is a predator also. Your calculations assume no other predators. Please recalculate and get back to us. Show you figures please.

The 300 sq mi - 1000sq mi range is dependent on predators. There are two variables here - pack size and range. For instance with high competition from other species you will either see larger packs towards the 1000 sq mi range or you will see smaller packs (such as 8) in the 300 sq mi If you say 8 per 300 sq mi, or 30 per 1000 sq mi you'll still have a carrying capacity much higher than available land.

There are some raw numbers from Minnesota regarding man and wolf. In 2008 there were an estimated 2922 wolves that killed an estimated 43,800 to 58,500 deer where as man killed 260,000. Minnesota has less land and 10x the amount of humans yet currently supports 8x the number of wolves as Wyoming. Minnesota DNR indicates that the population has remained stable for over a decade.

Back to Wyoming, if they want to manage the population with a steady, sustainable growth then I don't see any issues but to suggest wolves are already at their maximum carrying capacities is apparently wrong.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Sousuke

[Pooky 3,783]

They have just been taken off the endangered species list. There is no regulation because there was no need for any until now. There are also no regulations for hunting dinosaurs. I would say to let the Wyoming Fish and Wildlife people have a chance to determine what regulations are needed. You won't because you are against all forms of sport hunting, so just say so. No amount of hunting, regulated or otherwise, is going to be OK with you so why discuss it?

Fortunately, people with your opinion on hunting have no affect on reality.

More's the pity that people with your opinion do.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense would realise that when you take a species off the endangered species list and allow them to be hunted, yet wish to maintain a healthy population, you start with the strictest level of control and relax it as necessary. You don't declare open season for hunters and see what carnage results.

And dinosaurs? Really? You're (not) funny.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Pooky

[slim 1,525]

Control.

There's that word again. No surprise where it comes from. No surprise that our American freedoms are offensive to the rest of the world.

[Pooky 3,783]

Control.

There's that word again. No surprise where it comes from. No surprise that our American freedoms are offensive to the rest of the world.

No surprise, eh?

Last time there was no control on the hunting of wolves, American hunters eliminated wild ones in the Lower 48.

No, it should be no surprise that rational people would want to restrict the hunting of wolves. Because hunters have exhibited such exemplary self-control in the past, haven't they?

[DaveE 178]

No surprise, eh?

Last time there was no control on the hunting of wolves, American hunters eliminated wild ones in the Lower 48.

No, it should be no surprise that rational people would want to restrict the hunting of wolves. Because hunters have exhibited such exemplary self-control in the past, haven't they?

Had nothing to do with hunting. People were hired by the government to exterminate the wolf. The wolves were eliminated because that was the goal of the government. Didn't have squat to do with self control. Additionally, there were a great many people opposed to their reintroduction. The same government that tried to exterminate them, now wants them back. Lots of cattle ranchers would shoot them on sight.

As domestic livestock replaced the wolf’s natural prey base of bison and deer, the threat of wolf predation on cattle led to a massive campaign to exterminate the wolf in the American west. Professional “wolfers” working for the livestock industry laid out strychnine-poisoned meat lines up to 150 miles long. When populations dropped to such low levels that wolves were difficult to find, states offered bounties with the goal of extirpating wolves altogether. Wolves were shot, poisoned, trapped, clubbed, set on fire and inoculated with mange, a painful and often fatal skin disease caused by mites. In a 25-year period at the turn of the century, more than 80,000 wolves were killed in Montana alone.

Edited September 3, 2012 by DaveE

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

No surprise, eh?

Last time there was no control on the hunting of wolves, American hunters eliminated wild ones in the Lower 48.

No, it should be no surprise that rational people would want to restrict the hunting of wolves. Because hunters have exhibited such exemplary self-control in the past, haven't they?

Yeah but now we have thousands and they are growing in number.. How many do we need? Limited hunting keeps the number and living area manageable so that they don't become a larger problem for those of us that live near their territories.

If you think the numbers are still too low well hey, we have plenty of Wolves here, how about we transplant a few where you live?

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

If you think the numbers are still too low well hey, we have plenty of Wolves here, how about we transplant a few where you live?

works for me, they'll keep the coyotes down!

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Yeah but now we have thousands and they are growing in number.. How many do we need? Limited hunting keeps the number and living area manageable so that they don't become a larger problem for those of us that live near their territories.

If you think the numbers are still too low well hey, we have plenty of Wolves here, how about we transplant a few where you live?

Where do you live? They haven't been introduced into California as far as I can tell, but it looks like we might have some migrants as of this year.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

works for me, they'll keep the coyotes down!

eh.. using that same logic we could get rid of all of your water snakes and replace them with rattle snakes.. I'm sure the kids will be safer.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

Where do you live? They haven't been introduced into California as far as I can tell, but it looks like we might have some migrants as of this year.

I am in Idaho...

In all seriousness.. I'm not against the Wolf re-introduction, most people here are not against them being here.. and I don't particularly care to see them hunted.. If you look on a map.. roughly 60% of the entire state is public lands and the wolves have been given huge swaths of land where they are protected. The areas outside of those swaths are where hunting is allowed (a very limited amount is allowed in the protected areas). What gets people upset here is when people from the "outside" try to push policies that do not take into account the effects of those policies on the people who live there.

Where the wolf population is no longer endangered the states where people live with them should be allowed *some* say in the management.