What Has Happened And Will Happen To Our Ecosystems Thanks To Wolves
March 8, 2010
In studies conducted in Canada on the effects of wolves on ungulates and the ecosystem in general, we find that wolves are destructive (no surprise here) and this study gives a look into a sort of crystal ball as to what the lower 48 states have to look forward to as environmentalist clamor to promote the expanse and growth of the gray wolf in order to “balance” our ecosystems.
The study is very worth reading and here’s a grocery list of some of what is discovered:
1. Wolves destroy 90% of the elk populations.
2. Elk slaughter by wolves increased in proportion to the severity of the winters.
3. 60% of the elk stopped migrating.
4. Wolves destroyed 56% of moose populations and nearly eliminated calf recruitment
5. Wolves decimated woodland caribou, bringing that species to ultimate extirpation.
6. Wolves stole 57% of prey kills by grizzlies
7. Any attempt to manage ungulate numbers anywhere near pre wolf times is a “fantasy”.
8. Increasing quality habitat for elk had no effect on increasing numbers with wolves present.
9. To begin replenishing ungulate populations, wolf numbers need to be reduced every year by at least 70%. The reduction has to be ongoing………forever.
10. Wolf hunts utilized to control wolf populations are ineffective.
Conclusion: If states choose to replenish wolves, there will be no hunting left. Wolves will destroy the ungulate populations and we’ll have more singing birds flitting about the vegetation normally eaten by ungulate species.
Tom Remington
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
We feature the latest news, events and politics effecting the sports of hunting, fishing, and all outdoor activities in North America.
” I am committed neither to having wolves in the west nor to keeping them out. I am committed, though to science being used responsibly in policy debates, something I have not yet seen with wolf recovery. My analysis indicates that the federal government and other wolf advocates have taken liberties with the truth, with science, and with the endangered species Act.” —Professor, Dr. Charles E. Kay. Utah State University..
I agree with Hebblewhite to a point. His science is good, but when he drifts into policy we part company. His idea is that wolves decimate ungulate populations, but he feels that outcome is okay. He likes the aspen and willows that recover after the elk browsing is all but eliminated. In my opinion, it is better to control elk overpopulation through human hunting, not wolves. The wolves bring too many problems with them. And they are difficult to eradicate once they have gained a foothold.
People should be the keystone predators, not wolves. We have been for thousands of years. We can make value judgments — wolves cannot. We need to assume our responsibilities as the caretakers of nature, not defer to the chaos of natural disaster. We are not Man Apart. We belong in the landscape, and we need to be mindful stewards, not passive observers.
[...] What Has Happened And Will Happen To Our Ecosystems Thanks To … [...]
Mike – I couldn’t agree more! And this is the position of the environmentalist – i.e. the exclusion of man as any kind of keystone predator and nothing but a problem.
Way back in the day, long before any land was really settled, there was abundant game everywhere, which was one of the huge attractions for settlers. The wolves didn’t wipe out herds back then, what is the major difference now? And I’m sorry if the answer to this is obvious and I’m just not seeing it!
“Way back in the day, long before any land was really settled, there was abundant game everywhere,”
It was?
That’s what our history books want us to believe. Wasn’t there? I’m…. not that old, so I can’t remember!
The red pill don’t work no more, the blue pill don’t work no more, maybe we should all take the white pill now..
[...] What Has Happened And Will Happen To Our Ecosystems Thanks To … [...]
Tom Remington,
Thanks for the excellent link. I hope that all who are interested in this subject take the time to read the study from which you extracted the “facts listed” and that they especially read the concluding paragraphs starting on page 358.
Is the primary goal to maximize elk numbers or to have a functioning ecosystem that supports greater biological diversity?
” Is the primary goal to maximize elk numbers or to have a functioning ecosystem that supports greater biological diversity?”
Show me where in Idaho history these lands have ever been to ungulate carrying capacity. Why does Idaho have 100+ controlled elk hunts, limited tag opportunity’s..??
Show me one hunt unit in the state of Idaho which comes close to the Yellowstone study claiming over population of elk damaging habitat.
This mindset > Is the primary goal to maximize elk numbers or to have a functioning ecosystem that supports greater biological diversity> concerning Idaho hunt units does not compute. Does not work here, is not creating functioning ” eco ” systems..
Idaho has the habitat to maximize elk herds, deer herds, manage wild predators, including wolves, and still allow for a surplus of ungulates for hunters to harvest annually.. Only problem is that was never the goal, the wrong people are running the show, and the wrong people are trying to force their dogma into the system via lawsuits and lies, by stealing it from the hunters who built it.. Their willing to ruin it in the process.
Don’t worry Lee we read all the bullshit science you worship.. Thanks for nothing.
Harley, the big game herds were in the grassland states, not in the mountains and sage country of the West. where vegetation is sparse.
[...] What Has Happened And Will Happen To Our Ecosystems Thanks To … [...]
Great statement–wolves are destructive. But man’s been out there making it better for all of us and wildlife by attempting to control it? That’s how the wolf was run out of the lower 48 by big money ranching to begin with. We’ve messed with it too much to leave it alone and see what happens, yet the more we mess with it, the more of a mess we make. Their ecosystem is our ecosystem. Kill and control and moderate all you want, but it seems the more we interfere, the worse mess we make of it. If you’re concerned about natural predators taking your trophy kill for your basement wall, your priorities are screwed up. There’s a bigger picture here.
Really ? There’s a bigger picture here ? Where is it ? Lets get together in 24 months and talk about those priorities again. I can’t wait to see if yours have changed by then.
Trace, that’s as typical an excuse for not being involved enough to care or do anything about it, as I’ve ever heard. You’d make a lousy mother with those ideas…or maybe you’re too young to even think about it yet! That’s if you’re a girl, if you’re a guy, then you better learn how to get off your ass and start working for a change…
jes
What makes you conclude that Trace is or would be a bad mother by her statement of March 19th, 2010 11:59 am.? Be specific.
Explain your statement “that’s as typical an excuse for not being involved enough to care or do anything about it”
You indicated that you were involved in scientific research – could you explain or elaborate?
Hello. This is an interesting blog! I felt compelled to leave my two cents here, even though it’s a slightly old article. This post is worded as a response to Mike D.’s post above, but whoever is still around to read it doesn’t have to treat it as such; the below questions are honest.
Why do you think it’s better to have humans regulate ungulates when we seem to have done such a terrible job of it in the last ~100 years? How come that after the reintroduction of wolves and drastic reduction in ungulate populations, the area under survey has promptly sprung to life in a remarkable way (in a manner that’s actually traceable back to the wolves, so hopefully no “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy)? What this study suggests is that humans just aren’t compelled to control ungulates enough. That we tend to keep big game grossly overpopulated – for a mountain habitat at least, may be different the lowlands – to maximize hunting opportunities, to the detriment of everything else. (Also, if you accept evolution, human hunting likely does nothing for it as the selection is essentially random.)
Personally, I fear the problem with our value judgements is that they usually turn out to be incorrect and destructive in the longer run. Our knowledge of ecosystems is imperfect, and always will be, though hopefully it improves over time. We either overpopulate or overhunt the species which have a perceived (not even necessarily real) momentary economic gain, and we extirpate those species which we deem to be pests, even though they may be benefitting us in indirect and hardly visible ways (see the Great Chinese Famine which was exacerbated by a sparrow extermination campaign). That is why the ideal – not always possible, sadly – course of action would be to interfere with nature only to mitigate previous undesirable human interference and otherwise let things run their course, as they have for thousands (or, in a broader sense, for billions) of years.
You speak of our responsibilities as the caretakers of nature. I agree, but I think our responsibility is to maintain as much as possible that which you somewhat incomprehensibly deem “the chaos of natural disaster”, because that is the process through which all natural wealth in the world has arisen, including our species. Without intending to offend, the notion that people are smart enough to actually improve upon the inconceivably complex and only partially-known interplay of countless factors that is nature, seems to me like extreme optimism with a fair deal of arrogance.
Frank – basing the theory of “wolves are good for the forest” on one study in Yellowstone does not mean it applies to the rest of the west. Its like basing all wolf science on the study of wolves at Isle Royale – which is a unique ecosystem. Allowing parts of Yellowstone to degrade via overgrazing is bad land management on the part of our Park Service.
From the standpoint of living in a forest that is now prone to catastrophic fire, having elk and deer eat the ladder fuels is a good thing. Many parts of the west are not at carrying capacity for ungulates, some are. Some areas badly need habitat restoration that will not happen due to locking up the land as wilderness and prohibiting human activities that would be beneficial to the animals.
There are many ways to look at an issue – and confining “science” down to studies of unique ecosystems is biased.
Frank
I appreciate and envy your ability to write in such a manner as to convey ideas I often wish I could express. You did it masterfully. Thanks.
To my knowledge I am the only one commenting on this thread that accepts evolution as fact. Perhaps TLM and Mike D, but the others don’t.
I am not of the “man is the steward of the earth’” philosophy. We had no involvement in it for billions of years and life forms survived.
TLM
“From the standpoint of living in a forest that is now prone to catastrophic fire, having elk and deer eat the ladder fuels is a good thing.” Are there enough elk and deer in the forest to accomplish that which you suggest?
“Many parts of the west are not at carrying capacity for ungulates, some are.” Is not being at capacity a bad situation? If so explain.
Some areas badly need habitat restoration (where are these areas?) (are they only in wilderness areas?) that will not happen due to locking up the land as wilderness (with which locked up lands are you concerned) and prohibiting human activities (elaborate) that would be beneficial to the animals (in what way and to which animals?).
You want man in control.
Frank “the notion that people are smart enough to actually improve upon the inconceivably complex and only partially-known interplay of countless factors that is nature, seems to me like extreme optimism with a fair deal of arrogance”
FrankLee, evolution requires far too much faith.
This for all of us who celebrate that this weekend is more than just another Sunday…
A little girl asked her mother, “How did the human race appear?”
The mother answered, “God made Adam and Eve and they had
children and so was all mankind made.
“Two days later the girl asked her father the same question.
The father answered, “Many years ago there were monkeys
from which the human race evolved.
“The confused girl returned to her mother and said, “Mom, how
is it possible that you told me the human race was created by
God, and Dad said they developed from monkeys?”
The mother answered, “Well, dear, it is very simple. I told you
about my side of the family and your father told you about his.”
Sorry for the double post but I just wanted to add that for me anyway, I take GREAT comfort in knowing that I was created specially by a power much greater than my own instead of believing that I came from an ape… Perhaps that’s what is wrong with society today. Where do you turn to in times of need and comfort?
5 dead, 25 injured in 36 hours of violence in Chicago this weekend. More than just the animal predators out there.
Would pepper spray work on a wolf like it’s supposed to work on a human?
Somehow I don’t think the apes give a rats butt about any of that….
Sorry, random thoughts, it’s aweful early and I just couldn’t sleep.
Frank,
” Why do you think it’s better to have humans regulate ungulates when we seem to have done such a terrible job of it in the last ~100 years ”
Where did this terrible job occur ? Some pro wolf ” scientists ” claim 20,000 elk was devastating 2+Million acres know as Yellowstoneage National paved highways park..
“How come that after the reintroduction of wolves and drastic reduction in ungulate populations, the area under survey has promptly sprung to life in a remarkable way (in a manner that’s actually traceable back to the wolves,”
The above theory has never been proven, it is simply the opinion of the pro wolf pusher scientists.. As well this is either the Royal Isle Study, a confined environment, and also the YellowStoneage Study, which once again is and opinion with biased assumptions and ridiculous projections circling the park itself by 500 miles east west south and north… Idaho for example has never been to carrying capacity of ungulates in the last 100 years, has not been over browsed by those ungulates, and the many controlled hunt units set up to protect ungulates from over hunting which could occur during and open general season, certainly could not handle this additional predator chasing down those small herds 24-7-365…
The rest of YOUR opinion is a complete waste of any real intellectuals time… Evolution is a hoax , grow up.
1. Charles Darwin ended his most fundamental scientific work The Origin of Species (1872, 6th edition) with the words:
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.” (Darwin 1928, 463).
2. “Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” (Darwin 1995, 60).
3. “To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.” (Darwin 1928, 462; The Origin of Species).
4. “With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically.
I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance.” (Darwin 1993, 224).
5. In 1879, three years before the end of his life, Darwin wrote that he had “never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.” (Darwin, as cited in Bowden 1998, 273).
6. In 1873 Darwin stated: “The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.” (Darwin, as cited in Bowden 1998, 273).
Since the truth is Idaho has not been to ungulate carrying capacity since the REINTRODUCTION of elk in Idaho has taken place the responsible thing to have not done was jammed this additional predator known as the wolf, which was slowly returning on its own in truth, back into the mix via the reintroduction process, which equates to another type of mans interference which is a contradiction of your evolutionary terms.. If my hunting and managing ungulates screws with the process of your hoax evolution so does the meddling of the human designed ESA as well… The truth is Idaho had wolves returning on their own, and possibly interbreeding with Coyotes as well, establishing a coywolf predator base, now destroyed by this reintro process started in 1995, by complete blind, disingenuous and utter deceptive fools, with and agenda.