The better to hunt elk, my dear
Wolf advocates say predators, not sharpshooters, best for national park
By Bill Scanlon, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published February 19, 2008 at 12:30 a.m.
Photo by Dennis Schroeder © The Rocky
A bull elk stays alert while near the Fall River Entrance Station in Rocky Mountain National Park on Monday.
Photo by Dennis Schroeder © The Rocky
A young cow elk tries to find her spot as elk graze near the Fall River Entrance Station in Rocky Mountain National Park on Monday.
Photo by Dennis Schroeder © The Rocky
A young cow elk nibbles on a ponderosa pine near the Fall River Entrance Station in Rocky Mountain National Park on Monday.
What do you think is the best way to control the elk overpopulation problem at Rocky Mountain National Park?
Photo by Dennis Schroeder © The Rocky
Wildlife Biologist Mark Graham, right, holds a cow elk's head and monitors the animal as Dr. Margaret Wild, a wildlife veterinarian with the National Park Service prepares a shot of GonaCon, a birth control drug, for a 15-year-old cow elk that has been tranquilized in Rocky Mountain National Park. The elk was also live tested for CWD through a anal biopsy, that is harmless to the animal. The elk is one of 120 elk in a research project to evaluate procedures for testing live elk for Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) and the effectiveness of a new experimental multi-year fertility control agent.
A wolf-advocacy group said Monday it will sue Rocky Mountain National Park over its decision to hire sharpshooters to kill up to 200 elk a year at the park as a way to handle overpopulation.
The decision to use the sharpshooters was made in December but signed Friday by Mike Snyder, intermountain director for the National Park Service.
A WildEarth Guardians officer said Monday that federal officials didn't take a fair look at introducing wolves to the park as an alternate way to keep the elk population down.
Elk - there are an estimated 2,000 in the park - are destroying aspen and willows in large stretches on the eastern part of the Continental Divide, threatening to decimate large areas of the riverbank ecosystem.
The Park Service says shooting elk will be part of a plan that also includes fences, restoring trees and redistributing the elk.
No predators a problem
But Rob Edward, director for carnivore recovery for the Santa Fe-based WildEarth Guardians, said 30 or 40 wolves could accomplish the same goals in a more natural way.
"We need to have enough wolves in the park that they're having an effect on the movement of elk through the landscape," Edward said.
That would mean two or three packs, he said.
A wolf needs 71/2 pounds of meat a day, so each pack likely would take down an elk every three days, Edward said.
The problem isn't so much that there are too many elk in the park but that there are no predators forcing them to move throughout the park, he said.
With no incentive to move, the elk chew the aspen and willows down to the roots, wiping out entire stretches of the trees that are essential to the ecosystem.
Wolves would get the elk moving from one willow patch to another.
Edward said the White House is hurting the cause of wolves on two fronts. In the areas where they've been reintroduced and are thriving, the Bush administration wants to take them off the endangered species list.
On the other hand, the administration is dragging its feet on reintroducing wolves to areas where they formerly ranged, such as Rocky Mountain National Park, he said.
Reassurances on wolves
Humans need not fear wolves if they were to be introduced to the park, Edward said, noting that there is no known case of a wild wolf killing a human in Colorado.
There are historical cases of wolves downing humans in Europe - but usually only in extreme conditions such as when the bubonic plague gave wolves a taste for human corpses.
Yellowstone National Park reintroduced wolves in 1995. A decade later there are probably hundreds of wolves there, and the willows are dramatically healthier, he said.
Gradual culling planned
Two polls conducted by the forerunner organization of WildEarth Guardians, Sinapu, found that from two-thirds to three-quarters of Coloradans support wolf re-
introduction, Edward said.
National Park Service officials haven't ruled out introducing wolves to the park as a way to deal with the problem, they said, but that will not be among the first solutions tried. They said the state of Colorado doesn't support re-
introduction of wolves "at this time."
The plan relies on the gradual shooting of elk rather than intense culling, as had been proposed in one of the draft plans, Park officials noted.
Healthy carcasses of the downed elk would be donated to groups in need.
Large winter storms the past few years have killed some of the elk, reducing their population from the 2001 peak, so there likely isn't an immediate need to shoot many of the animals.
The National Park Service plan also calls for testing live elk for chronic wasting disease.
In the first year, up to 120 female elk would be captured, be tested for the disease and be given a fertility-control treatment. Biologists hope they'll learn new and better ways to deal with CWD by testing the female elk.
Any elk that tested positive for CWD - a relative to mad cow disease - would be killed and removed.
The final plan "balances the most important management issues with the many differing viewpoints expressed," said Park Service Superintendent Vaughn Baker. It will be the guideline for managing elk for the next 20 years.
scanlon@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-2897
The problem
Officials say too many elk at Rocky Mountain National Park are destroying trees on the eastern part of the Continental Divide, threatening large areas of the riverbank ecosystem.
The decision
National park officials decided to hire sharpshooters to cull the herd. A New Mexico-based group says introducing wolves is a more natural, and better, way of controlling the herd.
The numbers
2,000 elk are estimated to be in Rocky Mountain National Park.
200 elk a year would be killed by sharpshooters under a plan to handle overpopulation.
40wolves would control the elk population, according to WildEarth Guardians.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
February 18, 2008
9 a.m.
Suggest removal
Firefox writes:
So a sharp shooter is more humane then selling hunting licenses, or allowing wolves to take their natural place. These people need to use their heads. Who will pay for this Cull, taxe payers, hunters would pay the DOW to hunt.
February 18, 2008
9:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Eric writes:
Your on the money Firefox. Hunters would be willing to pay top dollar for these licenses. That would bring alot of money to the state and the meat would be either used by the Hunter or given to the needy. I really think there are better ways to go about the "thinning" process.
February 18, 2008
9:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Eric writes:
I meant to type "You're". Aaauuughhhhh!
February 18, 2008
9:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
So will the animal rights nuts who want to deny needy humans from getting the elk meat, so that wolves can be reintroduced, be coughing up the money to take care of the needy? Will they spend as much money taking care of needy humans that would benefit from the elk hunt, as they do pushing lawsuits and other nonsense for wolves?
Of course not. The animal nuts would rather see humans starve than risk wolves not being reintroduced to RMNP.
February 18, 2008
9:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Firefox writes:
Rick this is not about feeding the needy for the love of God. This issue is about how to keep Elk from eating themselves out of house and home, I am a hunter and half of the meat that I may take from a hunt that I pay for in every way helping the economy of Co I give to the less fortunate. I give not because I am required but because I believe for me it is the right thing to do. Culling 100 or so ELK does nothing to help the needy do not confuse these seperate issues.
February 18, 2008
10:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Firefox... so 100 elk providing thousands of pounds of meat for needy people may not mean much to you, but for people who are needy, their opinion is likely the opposite.
The animal rights nuts prefer that wolves be taken out of other areas and dragged to RMNP against their will, and needy people suffer as a result. How about leaving the wolves alone, and helping needy people with thousands of pounds of elk meat through sensible hunting...... oh wait.... that will cause the animal rights nuts to lose out on their opportunities to see wolves in RMNP. And that is clearly a much more important cause for them than helping needy HUMANS.
February 18, 2008
10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
"Humans need not fear wolves if they were to be introduced to the park, Edwards said, noting that there is no known case of a wild wolf killing a human in Colorado."
Geez, I wonder why? Maybe because there HAVEN'T BEEN ANY WOLVES running around Rocky Mt National Park to eat any of the hikers, campers, tourists, elk watchers, and assorted other "snacks" that inhabit it pretty regularly. I love wolves and all wildlife and if wolves can be re-introduced to RMNP in a SAFE way, go for it. But this statement by Edwards is assinine at best. You stick wolves - 3 packs of them - into RMNP and I guarantee it will just be a matter of time before they snatch up some 3 year old kid on a hike with his parents.
February 18, 2008
10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
And isn't it ALL about the kids??????
February 18, 2008
10:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
windbourne writes:
Firefox, While I am pro hunting, I am not so sure that I want to see hunters in the RMNP. The reason is that far too many of them are loons. The last thing I want is to see a texan running around in RMNP with a rifle. They will shoot at the first thing that moves and that means ppl. OTH, if they only do the licenses with those that have had past licenses (perhaps 10 of them), then maybe. But with ppl running around there ALL year long, I would be concerned about the hunters being there. And I am certain that is the exact reason why the park does not want to hand out tags.
Funny thing, is that I do like the idea of bring the wolf back to help on this. In particular, they would actually move them into other areas as well as go after more of the CWD infected. IOW, they would actually help the hunters in other areas.
February 18, 2008
10:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
homeradam writes:
I can't believe how STUPID these enviro-wacko's are. Do you see what introducing wolves to Yellowstone did? They ate all the elk, deer and whatever else they could find. It ruined the hunting around the park, shut down outfitters and now the wolves are eating domestic livestock. Who pays for that.....you guessed it, TAXPAYERS. I'd rather pay for someone to kill 200 elk humanely than to continue paying ranchers forever when these rotten wolves start to expand. Why don't you aspen tea drinking nuts read the book THE WOLF MAN of ALASKA. He was an Alaska pioneer who discribes how wolves would kill just to kill. They would rip the hamstrings out of caribou and just leave them. Other caribou they'd rip open their bellies and leave them with intestines hanging out. If you want to see a wolf in the wild, go to Yellowstone or Alaska. To reintroduce wolves to RMNP would be a close second to nominating Hillary as the most stupid thing we could do.
February 18, 2008
11:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Wapitislayer writes:
RMNP isnt big enough to sustain 2 or 3 packs. Before you know it 2 or 3 packs are 10 or 12 packs and you will have wolves running all over colorado.
February 18, 2008
12:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Chadley25 writes:
rickg, you carry on about "feeding the needy" and that's really not the point of the story at all. You also preface half of what you type with "the animal rights nuts" -- again, not the point at all, and you really invalidate anything of value that might be buried in your posts by 1) just not getting the point of the story, and 2) by calling names and showing your ignorance and judgmental nature. Homeradam is about the same way... throwing insults and calling names to anyone who might dare disagree with his position or opinion.
Obviously, there's a problem in RMNP, and I don't think anyone is really denying that. Personally, I am an advocate for not so much animal rights, but the logical and thoughtful stewardship of animals by man. I guess I would think that it would be slightly more humane for an elk to be shot and killed instantly than to be chased, hunted, and killed by a wolf (either by strangulation or, more likely, by having its throat ripped).
Just once I'd like to see more civil and respectful discourse in these posts. I suppose I'm dreaming, though!
February 18, 2008
12:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
gcrez writes:
I don't think they need to worry about introducing the wolves, cause they are already here. They are at the level they need to be, which is reclusive. There are more and more sightings every year, and its only a matter of time before they become a problem. The elk in the park are not the problem, its the elk that are living in the city limits of Estes Park. They should provide us with special late season tags to hunt the heards outside the park (only to CO residents of course). How about setting up some blinds outside Estes Park High School?
February 18, 2008
12:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Radar writes:
Well here we go with animal rights nuts again, I'm a hunter, and to use sharpshooter, instead of resident hunter is not very cost effective, like memtioned earlier, hunters would pay for a chance at second season, but keep it to residents only, I too would not like out of state hunters around, heck we have enough of them during regular seasons, let the residents enjoy one of the benefits of living here. As for introducing wolves to do let nature take it course, how long will this take?, how will it be controlled the count anyways? and what will happen the wolf population grows? and like above how many hikers, hunters, tourists have to get hurt, or killed before the wolves will be bountied? The core of the problem is that Parks supervision let the count get pencil whipped and now it's a news story.
February 18, 2008
1 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Chadley, heaven forbid if anyone doesn't stay on a journalist's script. You may not value independent thought and want to whine whenever anyone points out the flaws in a journalist's opinion piece or an animal rights nut's grandiose scheme. And even worse if someone spots the inhumanity of animal rights nuts who want to take food from the mouths of needy humans and give it to wolves that were forced to be relocated to RMNP.
February 18, 2008
1 p.m.
Suggest removal
nowhearthis writes:
What does Hillary Clinton have to do with this story???? Did a fat man on the radio tell you to say that or something?
Aren't there already plenty of bears and cougars (not the Cherry Creek kind) in the park that may pose a threat to humans? So why are people acting like wolves are some new and isolated threat that are going to steal all our babies? Newsflash, it can be dangerous to go out into the wild, thats why they call it that.
February 18, 2008
1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bookem writes:
When wolves were introduced into Yellowstone there were more positive consequences than negative. Michael states "its just a matter of time" before a wolf attacks a human. How many people have been killed by a wolf in Yellowstone the past 12 years? Let me also qualify my question by adding "without being stupid?" As in..."Oh, look at the friendly wolves! Maybe we should go up and pet them." How many?
Second, wolves may "may kill for the sake of killing" as homeradam states (I am not a behavior expert on wolves). However, animal carcasses provided another (unexpected) benefit to other scavangers within Yellowstone: The bald eagle and foxes have since flourished. The same could be expected within RMNP.
Finally, I don't see too many cows in RMNP -- I don't think we need to worry about domestic livestock attacks.
February 18, 2008
1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Classof65 writes:
Reintroduction of wolves into Rocky Mountain National Park is a wonderful and efficient solution! Wolves work every day and don't ask for overtime... Wolves eliminate the weak and old, whereas hunters want the best speciments -- therefore wolves will actually better the gene pool of the herds.
February 18, 2008
1:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Hmmm..... Bookem.... since you claim that you "don't think we need to worry about domestic livestock attacks" since you "don't see too many cows in RMNP"..... can you explain how the wolves know that they're not supposed to go outside the boundary of RMNP?
Do animal rights nuts believe that wolves are so intelligent that they know the GPS coordinates of the park and will never leave it?
Funny how the article author limited the claims about attacks on humans to Colorado. Guess the propagandist realized that if he talked about the rest of the United States or Canada, he'd have to admit what he wanted to hide from readers.
February 18, 2008
2:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Firedewd writes:
The Division of Wildlife does not use tax dollars. All of their income comes from hunting and fishing license fees.
February 18, 2008
2:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Anne writes:
There are throngs of elk in Colorado - even more than the Division of Wildlife's stated objective numbers - they are everywhere throughout the state, in places other than Rocky Mountain National Park.
So why is it that all of the hunter-types start drooling about the prospect of blasting elk in a National Park? Could it be that in a place like the park, protection-softened, naive elk might be able to be shot from that lazy-boy in the back of the pick-em-up instead of having to employ some actual skill in the hunt?
Wolves are eloquent hunters--so eloquent they'd likely show the bubba contingent up!!! Oh, before you ask, yes I have seen wolves hunt elk. I've been watching them for a decade. They are the simple, ecologically appropriate solution to the over-grazing problem the Park service is trying to solve. Got elk?? Get wolves!! And sooner rather than later.
February 18, 2008
2:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Lobo451 writes:
The National Park System was established to ensure that a few small fragments of what once was a vast wild continent are preserved, in the most "natural" state possible. To that end, Congress made clear that the Park Service was to ensure the preservation of "natural ecological processes". Wolf predation is one such process, and as we are learning, a process critical to the health of the landscape.
Since wolves were extirpated from most of the lower forty-eight states at the turn of the 1900s, drastic ecological changes have resulted. Yellowstone and Rocky Mountain National Parks are prime examples of the consequences of extirpating wolves. In both parks, after wolves were eradicated, aspen and willow began a slow decline, primarily because elk and deer no longer needed to be vigilant. In the absence of wolves, these grazing animals were free to browse everything down to the ground. With the steady decline of aspen and willow, stream side areas became denuded, and the wetlands created by beavers began to disappear (because beavers need aspen and willow to build dams and to eat). Also, songbirds that used the younger wetland trees such as young aspen and willow for stopover habitat during migration became more scarce. Finally, the denuded streams grew more channelized, and the water grew warmer without the shade provided by these important wetland trees; warmer and more fast moving water may well have negative consequences for young fish fry. These are but a few of the ripples that rolled through wild America in the wake of wolves being wiped out.
Notably, it is not the simple absence of wolves as a predator of elk that causes the problems described above. It is the absence of what is called “coursing predation” that led to this ecological crisis. Unlike mountain lions, for example, which hunt by ambush, wolves generally hunt as family units, and they hunt by literally testing their prey. The fact that they get out there and challenge their prey—in order to detect any vulnerabilities in their prey—means that they keep the elk moving around more. This increase in moment translates into a significant release in browsing pressure on young aspen and willows, thus yielding more robust plant communities.
Fast forward to 1995. The National Park Service reintroduced wolves to Yellowstone, in an effort to fulfill their mandate to restore and protect natural ecological processes. Less than a decade later, aspen, willow and other wetland plants are on the rebound. Likewise, beaver appear to be recolonizing the park, and songbirds that had been missing are again gracing the valleys of Yellowstone. There is no way that sharpshooters or hunters can replicate the effect that wolves have on their prey or, ultimately, the plants. The problem that Rocky Mountain National Park is trying to solve with sharpshooters is rooted not in the number of elk in the park, but rather in their behavior.
February 18, 2008
2:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Lobo451 writes:
Note to rickg19611: "The propagandist" was directly asked about wolf attacks in Colorado. However, had he been asked about people being killed by wolves in North America, here's what he'd probably say:
"Thus far, there is no evidence of healthy, wild wolves killing humans in North America. While there have been a small number of attacks, including fatal ones, those incidents are attributable to wolves that were either rabid or were habituated by humans (by feeding). The fact is, we have much more to fear from contact with domestic livestock, pets, or other humans."
Does that mean that wolves couldn't kill a human? No. But I'd walk out into the wild of Yellowstone any day before I'd walk into a forest full of cows.
February 18, 2008
3:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Wapitislayer writes:
Lobo451 is scared of cows. Shows how loony some of the wolf lovers are.
February 18, 2008
3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Lobo451..... and the propagandist would be lying when he uses the "often claimed, but complete lie" line that "there is no evidence of healthy, wild wolves killing humans in North America".
Some enviro-whackos may swallow that lie, but normal people just have to read a newspaper once in awhile to know that propaganda is a lie.
Just ask the family of Kenton Carnegie that was attacked, killed by a pack of wolves in 2005 in Ontario Canada. Oh, and before some nut tries to spin his way out of this fact, just consider that the wolves involved were shot and tested for rabies. All healthy. Yeah... great idea to introduce packs of wolves to the neighborhood.
February 18, 2008
3:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
SteveFesch writes:
Someone needs to inform this wolf-advocacy group that tens of thousands of elk/deer are starving all over colorado right now because of the deep snow. Their numbers have been exploding over the years and hunters can't even keep up. It's sad to see them suffer like they are now.
February 18, 2008
3:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Classof80 writes:
When they put wolves in Rocky Mountain National Park I will go on a hunting trip.. The worst mistake they can make is to re-introduce wolves to the park eventually there will be no Elk, Sheep, or anything else there.. Wolves were taken out for a reason they pack and destroy wildlife faster than any human can.
It time for the bleeding heart liberals to shut their mouth and let hunters cull the heard.. The meat will go to good use and it is the most humane way to reduce the heard.
And Lobo451 is one of those who believe that wolves are the answer to everything he forgets to tell you the re-introduction of wolves to the U P has created a loss of livestock and domestic animals. Also the locals up there have started shooting the wolves because they are so out of control..
February 18, 2008
4:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Retread writes:
Sorry, but both camps are wrong in this arguement. The advocates of reintroducing the wolf are wrong because in a few years of wolf breeding the wolves will be feeding on neighborhood cattle, then the hunters will be called in to cull them. The hunters are wrong because they believe they are the answer to natures system. They alone cannot change the feeding habits, or migratory routes of the present herds.
Since they are the ones so worried about wolf attacks, they can be the first ones to go try to hunt these animals down! I can garrantee you cannot do it with a pint of whiskey in your back pocket, and a song on your lips, they are a little more cunning than your "Wascally Wabbit" Elmer...Most of them just want a chance to bag a trophy, we all know they are there, most watch them every fall and drool...
We have upset natures balance a lot more than we realize, just introducing ONE species into a area to cull the herds, will only lead to introducing another species into to cull that predator, and so on. There have only been 27 documented wolf attacks on humans since 1970. These numbers would lead us all to believe that an attack from a wolf in the wild on a human would be about as likely as being struck by lightning, or winning the LOTO. Good luck in that.
http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_o...
February 18, 2008
4:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Lobo451 writes:
Actually, rickg19611, the forensic evidence in the Kenton Carnegie has been found to point to a bear as the cause of his death, not wolves. Call that "spin" all you want, Bubba, that fact is that it is highly unlikely that wolves killed him. They may have scavenged his carcass after the fact, but that's different.
All of that aside, though, the fact remains that hundreds of people die EVERY year in vehicle collisions with deer, elk and moose in North America. Likewise, many die in collisions with domestic livestock. If you want to save lives, deal with those issues before crying about the Big Bad Wolf!
This crap about children being taken from bus stops by wolves is a red herring, and you know it--so did Senator Conrad Burns when he made the same hysterical claim back in the early 1990s. Enough whining!
February 18, 2008
4:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Lobo451 writes:
Retread, leaving aside the veracity of Troy Mader's "research", the fact is that wolves are an indisputably minor threat to humans. If you want to read really good science on this subject, go to:
http://www.timberwolfinformation.org/...
February 18, 2008
4:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Retread..... connect the dots. If you don't go swimming, or near the ocean, the odds of you being attacked by a shark are LOW. Get it yet? Low wolf populations = LOW rate of attacks on humans. Reintroduce wolves and the risk of attack rises. ASTRONOMICALLY.
Try explaining to the family of Kenton Carnegie, who was attacked and killed by wolves, that the enviro-nuts claim we're all safe from wolves because they've heard that lie repeated so often. I suspect they will offer more realistic views than the hopeful wishes of suburban dwelling enviro-nuts who sit around Boulder sipping latte's and dreaming up schemes to save those soft cuddly furballs of nature from evil humans.
February 18, 2008
4:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
autumnrose writes:
Lobo451, you are posting in the wrong place. No-one posting seems to be able to see beyond their anti-environmental viewpoint to see the logic and truth in your post. I'm not an environmental nut at all, and am heavily educated on wolf reintegration and it's impact. But at the end of the day, people will only hear what they want to hear.
And please, killing elk to "feed the needy" and killing an animal yourself because it's "part of your diet" falls on many deaf ears in this day an age where protein is readily available in many other sources. There's a reason why millions of people don't eat meat and are perfectly healthy (many which are more healthy than meat eaters, with lower cholesterol and lower incidences of heart attacks and heart disease).
Outrider... if you really want to live "off and with the land and nature" why don't you try eating other protein sources that don't involve you killing an animal when it is quite unnecessary. You don't need to kill and elk to ensure your personal survival...
I don't have a problem with hunters doing whatever it is they do - each to their own. I do have a problem with hunters who mask what they are doing behind the guise of it being "for the needy" because they couldn't survive without it. Please... educate yourself. This is not the stone age. You are killing simply for the sake of it.
February 18, 2008
4:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Lobo451 writes:
rickg19611, wher on Earth do you get off saying, "Reintroduce wolves and the risk of attack rises. ASTRONOMICALLY." That is just plain BS. If that were true, people would be slaughtered by the hundreds in Yellowstone every year. Is that happening? No! Stop lying! You are a fear mongering, pinheaded flamer. Beat it!
February 18, 2008
4:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Lobo.... come on. Tell the truth.
Check out the FACTS for yourself. A Canadian Inquest found it was WOLVES that killed him. Do a simple google search on "Kenton Carnegie" and you'll find the facts. Like the reports of "A coroner's inquest has found that Ontario student Kenton Carnegie was killed by a pack of wolves in northern Saskatchewan two years ago" on Feb 11, 2007.
ONE wolf proponent (a hired "expert witness" that got paid for his "testimony") claimed he was killed by a bear, however those who actually recovered his body said "It must have been a flying bear, since there were no bear tracks in the snow around near the body or Carnegie's tracks. Just tracks of several wolves." Different wolf researchers all AGREED it was wolves that killed him and stated so repeatedly in the inquest.
Perhaps it was the same bear that ate Timothy Treadwell, that other enviro-nut who thought grizzly bears are just cute cuddly little furballs too.
February 18, 2008
4:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Lobo.... basic MATH.
If ANY animal is NON-EXISTENT in the US, then what is your risk of being attacked by that speices of animal in Colorado? ZERO.
If that same animal species is suddenly INTRODUCED into Colorado, and ANY level of risk increases, then of course the risk has risen ASTRONOMICALLY. ANY increase from ZERO is an ASTRONOMICAL INCREASE.
Basic math.
February 18, 2008
4:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Lobo451 writes:
Amazing! How completely honest of you to use a term such as "ASTRONOMICALLY" in all caps. Answer my other question. Are there an ASTRONOMICAL number of humans getting killed by wolves in or around Yellowstone? Has even one person been killed by wolves in Yellowstone since 1995? Don't tell me about truth. You wouldn't know it if it came up and slapped you in the face. Worse, you don't care. The fact is, you simply don't want wolves reintroduced. Why don't you just say that and leave it be?
February 18, 2008
5:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Squatch writes:
Youre all wrong we just need more polar bears. Or tell W they have WMD's.
JK
Nothing is going to change so you all need to get your heads out. They have decided to use sharpshooters and that will be it. They wont want to drag the dead animals out while people are in the park so they will wait till it gets dark to shoot them then they will lose since they are trackers and that meat will go to spoil. Good times.
February 18, 2008
5:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
nowhearthis writes:
Rickg, seriously, does a wolf owe you money or something?
Were you attacked by a wolf personally?
DO YOU WRITE IN CAPS BECAUSE YOU DON'T SEE SO GOOD?
Better get some glasses to help read about all those wolf attacks, and just so you know, anecdotal evidence is never the sound basis for an argument.
February 18, 2008
5:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bookem writes:
Okay rickg19611 -- you have ONE name. Per your request I Googled Kenton Carnegie.
Here is what the article states: "A CBC investigation, based on interviews and previously unreleased government documents, supports the suggestion that this may be the first documented case of a healthy wolf killing a human in the wild in North America in at least a century."
http://www.cbc.ca/sask/features/wolve...
Then Google 'lightning strike' and you will find more people have died that way than from a wolf attack during the same time period. We all better stay inside!
Look, I am not a tree hugger by no means. Wolves were RMNP before...we should let nature run its course. As for livestock being killed, well...its hard to feel sorry for a millionaire who decided to build a ranch in the mountains. Seems like that goes with the territory.
I agree with you, Squatch, these debates are often pointless & don't change anything...but this is kind of fun.
February 18, 2008
5:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Case closed. The enviro-nuts have been proven wrong when they tried to lie and claim that wolves are not a threat to humans. The several dozen attacks and DOCUMENTED AND PROVEN DEATH BY WOLVES, is something they try to ignore.
Of course, they'll claim that even though wolves are a threat, it's not a big threat (aka lightning, etc) then the threats can be ignored. Just like people that say that just because you stand on a mountain top holding a lightning rod for days and not get struck, then it must be safe enough to do it all the time without any risk of harm.
Of course, these are the same suburban dwelling goofs that think they know what is best for RMNP because they watched a documentary that claims grizzly bears and wolves are harmless little misunderstood furballs of cuddliness.
February 18, 2008
8:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Golden writes:
This is one of the funniest comment boards I have read. WOW. Wolves introduced into the park. Great idea. Hunters shooting the elk. Great idea. It accompishes the same thing. Sharpshooters. Stupid idea. Only a hunter hating wacko envirnomentalist and urban liberals think a sharpshooter is better than a hunter. Who do you think the sharpshooters are if not paid hunters.
Hunters are not Elmer Fund. What has casued more deaths in Colorado in the past 10 years.... Elk/deer hunting related shootings or auto accidents involving granola eating, urban, wacko environmentalist?
In the past 10 years, no one in Colorado has died as the result of an Elk/Deer hunting accident.
In the same period of time, I have personally seen a dozen accidents involving old Outbacks and Volvo, rear bumpers covered with liberal save the planet, kill the people, impeach Bush bumper stickers.
Why can't wackos drive?
February 18, 2008
10:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Retread writes:
Facts: 27 documented wolf attacks since 1970..
Facts: In the year 2001, 720 hunting accidents, 78 fatal..
Somebody is full of,,,,,I wonder who the wackos are?
February 18, 2008
11:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Timbertom writes:
From the Yukon I have to admit that this will be a fun comment. I lived the first 24 years of my life as a Colorado native living in the mountains west of Pueblo in Beaulah, and the rest of the time in the high mountains around the San Luis Valley. The last 34 years were in British Columbia (15 yrs.) and Yukon (20 yrs.). I have spent my entire life loving and enjoying the great out of doors and all that is in it. I know wildlife and I know a little about wolves. Anyone from this part of the world in either Alaska (which is only 75 miles from here), or from the Yukon when we read these stories always say the same thing. What are you thinking?
Wolves are a very serious animal. They will Kill anything that is easy to kill for a meal. Like humans, they go for the easy stuff first. In the area where I live which is about 20 miles from town we have the same problem every year. Anyone who owns a large dog that would be living outside during the winter runs the risk of being eaten buy the wolves. Big northern dogs don’t want to be inside; it’s too hot for them. Anyway you always know when a wolf gets them because all that is left when their done is the ears, feet, tail, and collar. Everything else is gone in very short order.
February 18, 2008
11:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Timbertom writes:
Also, last year in the newpaper we read of a man being killed by wolves in the Northern part of Manitoba, or Saskatchewan. This event wasn’t without controversy. During the inquest one expert testified that it must have been a Bear attack. This didn’t sit well with the locals though. Several days before this man was killed several other men stood of a pack of wolves in the same area with sticks and clubs. Officials finally called in one of the top wolf Biologists in the world from Alaska and his study of the evidence showed a definite difference in the wounds and eating of the victim. Bears and wolves eat their prey in different ways. Some like the meat first and some like the guts first. Now before anyone screams I’m only showing that different predators kill and eat in very distinct ways. Old Griz will kill you and bury you for a while, and then eat you. A black bear is way more dangerous, as he likes fresh meat and will eat you as soon as he kills you
February 18, 2008
11:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Timbertom writes:
Now to show how we feel about this story, If New York nuts wanted to take Colorado rattle snakes and transplant there, just because they were once there and they are now gone. You all would split a gut and say take all you want, you’re crazy.
We too have our problems here. Someone transplanted Bison up here quite a few years ago and they are doing great. The problem is we have no predators here large enough to bring down a bison except man. Our wolves aren’t big enough. In northern Alberta where Bison and Wolves have been together for thousands of years the wolves have evolved to be much larger. Our bison are going to eat our Moose out of house and home unless man will decide to hunt more than he is accustomed to and thins the herd down on a regular basis. This only goes to show that when you mess with nature you will never be sure of all the repercussions. Wolves are a beautiful but horrifically efficient in what they do. Be careful
February 19, 2008
6:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
DahmersCookbook writes:
We need this kind of mentality in the border patrol.
February 19, 2008
6:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
forwhatitis writes:
Wolves should be in the park. They were, until we erradicated them. They would solve the problem. I've hunted elk all my life, but believe we need places like RMNP that do not allow hunting. I believe this because I am not confident that our DOW can properly manage hunting in the park.
February 19, 2008
7:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mtnsjohn writes:
I guess there are folks who think RMNP is a giant zoo with a chain-link fence around it. There is a huge problem around Yellowstone because wolves will take easy prey, and not just for a meal, but for sometimes just for sport. Animal Planet has not done reality any favors.
RMNP is 265,000 acres compared to Yellowstone's 2,219,823 acres.
February 19, 2008
7:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
windbourne writes:
Rickg, grow a pair. Look, if you really want to prove that you are a real hunter, why not pursue polar bear with bow. My Dad told that it was the most interesting hunt that he was on. Oh, do not be a coward like many other. Skip the back-up. Just you, the bow, and a very hungry bear. Once you do that, you will either come back not afraid of wolves, or you will be one with nature. Either way, the issue will be solved.
February 19, 2008
7:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
oceanview78382 writes:
I believe hunting is fine as long as its consensual for BOTH sides.
I'd really like to see an area set aside for hunters where they could hunt each other. How much more exciting would it be, instead of shooting a defenseless animal to shoot at someone who will really shoot back at you.
Hunting programs on tv would be so exciting! People could wager- there could be organized teams.
The best result would be - that at the end of each match there would be fewer rednecks alive.
February 19, 2008
7:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
"wolves should be in the park because they were there until we eradicated them".....
Of course, wolves were also in the land of downtown Denver. What next? The enviro-nuts calling for transplanting wolf packs into down Denver? Oh wait.... that would inconvenience the Birkenstock wearing, tie dye retreads that like to sip their latte's and daydream about how nature is so pristine and innocent.... without actually being forced to deal with the reality of it... of course.
The wolf nuts are no different than Timothy Treadwell. They think they understand nature because they watched a documentary and some guy pretending to be an "expert" told them that wolves are harmless fluffs of fur. Just big overgrown puppies wanting to live together with "progressives" in harmony.
February 19, 2008
8:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Wapitislayer writes:
RMNP is 265,000 acres compared to Yellowstone's 2,219,823 acres.
2,219,823 which is bigger than Rhode Island and Deleware combined. Yellowstone is also surrounded by seven national forests, six wilderness areas, three national wildlife refuges, 125,000 acres of BLM land and more than a million acres of tribal lands and private property. Estimated between 12 and 18 million acres or about the size of West Virginia. Wolves from the "nonessential experiment" in Yellowstone have been found as far away as Utah, Colorado and South Dakota. RMNP isnt big enough for wolves.
February 19, 2008
8:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Ha ha! Great headline, RMN. As one of those "animal rights nuts" I am having difficulty deciding what would be the right thing to do. All the different sides seem to have valid points, for a change.
February 19, 2008
8:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
thelizard writes:
Oceanview, brilliant argument, no really, just brilliant!
February 19, 2008
9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
dz writes:
WHO SAYS WE NEED TO CONTROL THE ELK POPULATION BY BIRTH CONTROL, WOLVES, OR SHARP SHOOTERS???
Why have the tax payers be burdened with another wolf introduction program that costs about a million dollars per wolf. Let hunters with licenses purchased from the CDOW harvest the over population. Hunters don't even have to enter the park to hunt. Just extend the archery and rifle seasons in the areas around the park. The elk do not reside in the park, (year round) and can be harvested when they leave or enter the park. (Hunting seasons have successfuly controlled the elk population for years in Colorado and still can in the future.)
February 19, 2008
9:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Squatch writes:
oceanview78382
Does he also agree since wolves are hunters we should set up dogfights for them? Get a life.
RMNP is a perfect example of what happens when you have an area and animals that cant be hunted. Over population of sick animals that will eventually have offspring dying off since they females are to old to have healthy calves. I dont know why they need sharpshooters eventually they will all get sick and die then it will be up to Hunters/Fisherman to pay for the reintroduction of elk into the park thru our hunting/fishing licenses.
February 19, 2008
9:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
nowhearthis wrote:
"Aren't there already plenty of bears and cougars (not the Cherry Creek kind) in the park that may pose a threat to humans?"
Cougars are extremely solitary creatures and they don't hunt in packs. Bears are less solitary but they also don't hunt in packs. As a very experienced outdoorsman, I would much rather deal with cougars and bears then wolf packs, which are extremely dangerous...they hunt and attack in number in an extremely coordinated fashion. I love taking my kids out into the deep woods for a weekend of camping, but the migration of wolves would drastically change how my family enjoys the mountains. The kids could no longer play freely around the campsite. My dogs would need to be chained-up.
Anyhow, putting wolf packs in a park with a lot of people while banning firearms for protection is pretty stupid. I would love to see some granola out their fighting off a wolf pack with pepper spray :) Personally, I could care less about Estes Park...or the National Parks for that matter...too many stupid rules that prevent any enjoyment.
The worst part is the migration of these packs to grazing land. Since I have ranching in my family, wolf packs are not looked at with a lot of love.
February 19, 2008
9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Anne writes:
rickg19611 - are you really so dim and full of hatred that you imagine the only encounters naturalists have with the animals they
study are on television shows???? Statements like that clearly show your ignorance.
I know the rigor these folks go to to be certain about the science
that they present, even in forums like this one. Unlike you, I
actually KNOW these people. What's really unfortunate is that people like you feel perfectly comfortable spewing lies and propaganda without proof - you don't feel the need to back up your assertions with fact (and, BTW, Troy Mader isn't in that league). They, on the other hand, spend a lot of time making sure that they can document the things they say. Wolf advocates are at a definite disadvantage, being unable to just plain LIE!! Ironic that YOU should call THEM dishonest. At least they have done the work to be sure what they are saying is scientifically valid
February 19, 2008
9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
aeb1barfo writes:
" There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who "love Nature" while deploring the "artificialities" with which "Man has spoiled 'Nature.' " The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of "Nature"-but beavers and their dams are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the "Naturist" reveals his hatred for his own race--i.e., his own self-hatred.
In the case of "Naturists" such self-hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate. As for me, willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. sapiens is the only race I have or can have. Fortunately for me, I like being part of a race made up of men and women--it strikes me as a fine arrangement and perfectly "natural."
Believe it or not, there were "Naturists" who opposed the first flight to old Earth's Moon as being "unnatural" and a ''despoiling of Nature.'' "
-Lazarus Long
Many of the people who want to become " one with nature " often become excretions of scat...
February 19, 2008
9:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Anne..... how sad. You claim wolf proponents don't lie, and yet a simple review of this thread will show repeated lies. That were easily refuted by a simple Google search.
Wolf proponent lie #1 - "Wild, healthy wolves have never killed anyone in North America". Kenton Carnegie is proof that the eco-nuts lied.
Wolf proponent lie #2 - "Wolves are not a threat to humans." Numerous documented attacks on dozens of people is proof that the eco-nuts lied again.
So much for their "science". The accurate term to describe their lies is PROPAGANDA.
February 19, 2008
9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
homeradam writes:
Go ahead and put those flea bitten canines in the park. I need another trophy for my wall. A nice black wolf hide will look good above the fireplace.
February 19, 2008
10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
The typical range for wolves is 200-400 miles. Any wolves introduced into RMNP will end up ranging as far away as Grand Junction, the New Mexico state line, Casper Wyoming, and eastern Kansas.
But then the eco-nuts will try to make people believe that the wolves will just stay inside the boundaries of RMNP. Yeah..... guess the eco-nuts will be handing out maps to the wolves to make sure they behave like the eco-nuts believe.
All the eco-nuts should just stay in their comfy suburban homes, kick back in the recliner, and watch another documentary about Timothy Treadwell... the fellow eco-"warrior" that represents the typical eco-nut species.
February 19, 2008
10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
Hey Anne, you really need to quit reading those eco-terrorist web sites and stop hanging out with the self-anointed intelligentsia.
The wolves will increase by two orders of magnitude (x100) within 10 to 12 years. How do I know? It took about this amount of time for the wolves that were released in Yellowstone to grow from 15 to 1500! The descendants are roaming across Wyoming, Idaho and Montana. So where did I find this information you ask, from the recent History Channel show "Life After People".
Scott
February 19, 2008
11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Chal writes:
Only 200 elk need to be culled? What's all the angst? Let hunters pay $$ and get them outta there.
I know some of you think RMNP is the be-all, end-all, but it's NOT that big. When you introduce wolves, they'll be running all over Colorado, not just the park. Then the ranchers will shoot them and you'll be boo-hooing into your latte's.
Quit trying to manipulate the eco-system and leave well enough alone.
February 19, 2008
11:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
JustSayin writes:
1) - the CDOW has no authority within the boundaries of a national park. Therefore, the CDOW can not issue licenses for hunters to hunt within the park.
2) - the plan is about population reduction. That means only cows are shot - to remove fecund breeding females from the population.
3) - this plan has been YEARS in the making. Many elk inventories held, research on vegetation conducted, analyzed and peer-reviewed, options developed, public hearings held, options revised, on-line and letter writing comments sought after. This is a done deal, a signed Environmental Impact Statement.
4) - Udall's legislation (which has not passed, but is still in committee, BTW) does not authorize HUNTING in the park, it just states "Nothing in the Act of March 2, 1929 (45 Stat. 1537; 16 U.S.C. 198c), or other applicable law, shall be construed as prohibiting the Secretary from using the services of qualified individuals, as volunteers or under contract with the Secretary, to assist in implementation of the Elk and Vegetation Management Plan by using lethal means to reduce the population of elk within the Park."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z...
5) - this will be ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive...
if the population declines due to whatever reasons, the plan is adjusted to take those changes into account as the next round of actions are planned. Can you imagine the uproar if wolves were reintroduced, and then had to be removed because they did their job too well? (I suspect they wouldn't have to be removed, they'd just follow the scattered elk to the foothills of Larimer and Boulder counties.)
February 19, 2008
11:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
JustSayin,
1) You are correct. However, if "volunteers" were used to cull the herd, then having a valid hunting license would be a good way to "cull" the volunteers.
2) The eco-terrorists just don't want to admit this. They "think" that if they keep calling it "hunting", then they can bring back their precious wolves.
3) FACTS BE DAMNED! Bring back the wolves! (Just kidding)
4) Udall's Bill puts the responsibility right where it belongs, with RMNP's management. Nuff said.
5) Yup, once again, let the people that understand the issue, RMNP management, deal with it accordingly.
Scott
February 19, 2008
11:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Meatwallet writes:
Can we release wolves into downtown Denver?
February 19, 2008
11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
aeb1barfo writes:
Loved the headline too.
It shows bias though. The Big Bad Wolf vs Little Red Riding Hood.
I like the song better....
"Lil' Red Riding Hood"
[howls]
Who's that I see walkin' in these woods?
Why it's Little Red Ridin' Hood
Hey there Little Red Riding Hood
You sure are lookin' good
You're everything a big bad wolf would want
Listen to me [howl]
Little Red Ridin' Hood
I don't think even big girls should
Go walkin' in these spooky old woods alone
[howls]
What big eyes you have
The kind of eyes that drive wolves mad
So, just to see that you don't get chased
I think I ought to walk with you for a way
What full lips you have
They're sure to lure someone bad
So, untill you get to grandma's place
I think you ought to walk, with me and be safe
I'm gonna keep my sheep suit on
Till I'm sure that you've been shown
That I can be trusted walkin' with you alone
[howls]
Little Red Ridin' Hood
I'd like to hold you if I could
But you might think I'm a big bad wolf, so I won't
[howls]
What a big heart I have
The better to love you with
Little Red Ridin' Hood
Even bad wolves can be good
I'll try to be satisfied
Just to walk close by your side
Maybe you'll see things my way
Before we get to grandma's place
Little Red Ridin' Hood
You sure are lookin' good
You're everything a big bad wolf could want
[howls]
(Baaa)
-Bowling for Soup
( Now this kind of wolf is an endangered species in a PC world )
February 19, 2008
11:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
It would be more fun to release the wolves in Boulder. There is more "wildlife" in Boulder for the wolves to eat.
And in the interest of helping wildlife, we could wall in the town, put up cameras to film the wolf packs on the hunt, and then put it on pay per view for the ultimate reality TV show. All proceeds can be donated to wildlife causes.
A win-win for all normal humans and wildlife alike.
February 19, 2008
11:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Meatwallet writes:
Count me in. Will the Patchouli make the wolves gag?
February 19, 2008
11:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
JustSayin writes:
6) - oh yes, this link to the Elk and Vegetation Management plan http://www.nps.gov/romo/parkmgmt/elkv...
- for those who actually want to read what is being planned, why it is being done, etc.
I don't think Sinupu or whomever they've morphed into have a legal leg to stand on, as wolves were considered as a option, just not a reasonable one in the long run.
dk - there are already hunting seasons around the park running from late August/early September (archery) to late January (rifle). These have been going on since the 1970's. The problem isn't seasons, it's all the private land east of the park were hunting isn't allowed. Like to stay at a condo when in Estes Park? Chances are that was a ranch that allowed hunting a few decades ago.
February 19, 2008
11:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
MTN_Frank writes:
You Coloradoans sure are a bunch of chickens. I thought the human stock was alot braver in the southern Rockies. You are scared out of your minds over a pack of glorified dogs. One questionable death in 100 years across all of North America and you are still terrified. A dog at the dog park is more likely to kill you than a wolf in the northern Rocky Mountains. If you want a 'safe' place to go try Disney World or the zoo. If you can't handle wildlife then stay out of the woods, try the mall. There is plenty of room for wolves in CO. Everyone agrees that wolves that attack and kill cattle, sheep, or pets, on private land, should be culled. There are PRIVATE funds to pay the ranchers for these losses so they don't lose anything and your tax money is not used. Grow some balls and let the wolves come back home!
February 19, 2008
11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
ILV2Fish writes:
This was the same argument that was used by the daisy sniffers in Boulder 20 year ago to stop deer/elk hunting. They got their wish and now they all complain as they damage their VWs hitting the deer/elk they protected while those same deer/elk eat their daisies. The same holds true now when the daisy sniffers go out for a jog and get eaten by a cougar. Basic animal instinct go after the slower feast. The same will happen in RMNP with the introduction of wolves, but that may one way to slow the visitation of tourists and open space up for the residents to enjoy. Hunter's and Fishermen paid for those elk herds to survive and those forests to be maintained not the daisy sniffers, they only enjoy the benifits at everyone's else's expense. let the Hunter's cull the herds and use the meat, that way as history has shown the daisy sniffers will feel safe when they go out in the big bad woods to be one with nature.
February 19, 2008
12:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
homeradam writes:
First let them fatten up in Berkley California on the wacko libs. Cindy Sheehan has some big ole' hams for them to chew on.
February 19, 2008
12:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
I grew up with friends and relatives that hunted. Most were responsible hunters that respected what they hunted and loved nature and the outdoors. One of my uncles always warned others to "watch out for the yahoos" whenever he and his companions left on their expeditions. Over the years he had seen and reported poachers, seen other idiots taking "sound shots", shooting from their vehicles and you name it! I'm certain many of you have known a few like this.
What concerns me whenever I read postings like this is the lack of respect that some writers use when speaking of wildlife and other people who love nature and the outdoors. I can't help wondering if a few of you might be among the "yahoos" my uncle always warned about?
February 19, 2008
12:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
woof99elk2 writes:
Let's understand that humans have created massive imbalances in the world that may eventually do us in. Reintroduce the wolves to take care of the elk imbalance, as a tiny part in trying to re-balance the world that we live in. Human solutions to nature's "problems" are invariably wrong. One example is trying to keep the Mississippi where we want it, levees, --build a city where a natural silt collection area belongs, an area that could take and absorb the storm surge, result of Katrina is what you get.
Predators are necessary to keep our world in balance and healthy, they cull the weak and sick, making the prey a stronger, healthier entity. They are part of the web of life. As far as the hungry--they could all easily be fed with Bush's tax cuts for his buddies the super rich, oil moguls, etc.
February 19, 2008
12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Meatwallet writes:
So we all agree....wolves everywhere. Besides if we do release them in Denver look at it this way, you don't have to be the fastest runner, just not the slowest. Should make for interesting drum circles.
February 19, 2008
1:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Anne writes:
So Scott...you know your opinion to be scientific fact? I'll wager that neither you nor any of your cohorts have ever even seen a wolf. It is easy enough to assume that the only folks who want balance brought back to nature are suburban-types. It is easy enough to stereotype those that disagree with you, accuse them of lying and call them names. It would certainly take more courage and intelligence to actually have an honest open dialogue with those who think differently than you do. I believe it is called critical thinking.
February 19, 2008
1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
Anne,
Now your tirade about questioning my point of the reproduction rate of wolves comes from what reputable source? I specifically pointed out where I got my information (History Channels "Life After People") so where are you getting your info? Specific names/places would be nice. Something other than, "... I actually KNOW these people."
Nope. I do not think that all eco-terrorists/freaks live in the suburbs. A number of them live "high" in the mountains ;-)
Scott
February 19, 2008
1:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Wapitislayer writes:
Anne
Just because somebody may have never seen a wolf doesnt mean they dont know about them. Kinda like just because you friends watch them through spotting scopes in the Lamar Valley doesnt make them a scientist.
February 19, 2008
2:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bookem writes:
rickg19611... and everyone else on this thread who claims wolves are dangerous to humans...
Please go to the following link:
http://www.cbc.ca/sask/features/wolve...
Per YOUR challenge I Googled "Kenton Carnegie" This is the first link that pops up. Then, please read the 3rd paragraph.
Then, please provide evidence (a link would be nice) of the "documented proof" you speak of.
February 19, 2008
2:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
Guess who will come out on top in this one..
The wolfs - UH I mean lawyers!
Split of the toungue...
February 19, 2008
2:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Meatwallet writes:
They did a Hunter and Hunted Special on the Kenton Carnegie case and the experts said it was more likely a Bear attack. It was on over the summer on either DSC or NGC. Wolves pose no threat to people, too bad.
February 19, 2008
3:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Just because one hired gun claimed it was bear attack, does not negate the OTHER experts who said it was wolves.
Not to mention the eye witnesses that recovered the body and said it must have been a magic flying bear, since there were no bear tracks anywhere around the body or his trail.
The inquest solved it. DEATH BY WOLVES.
February 19, 2008
3:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
gcrez writes:
However the solution, remember folks (especially anti-hunters), that the DOW is not financed through YOUR tax dollars. All your programs were paid for by... The hunters!!! Yes, the very people that PETA, EPA, are trying to stop, are the ones who are paying for these programs. So environmentalists thank your local hunters!
February 19, 2008
3:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Squatch writes:
Thanks gcrez
I was trying to point that out earlier.
February 19, 2008
5:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
gcrez writes:
squatch, i know, but others are failing to grasp this, so i thought i would put it out there again!
February 19, 2008
5:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Squatch, gcrez,
I am not a hunter, but I was aware of that point. You are right, a lot of people don't know this fact. Guys like yourselves, delivering that and other such messages for hunters and hunting are much more effective than those who use insults as debating points.
Environmentalists are also guilty of using attack and insult. It doesn't help the discussion.
We share a problem: the health of the elk in RMNP and the health of the park itself. The differences lay in what to do about it. I think compromise is the answer. Maybe a small, carefully monitored and controlled wolf population AND a short hunting season in the park under ranger supervision. I'm not sure, what do you guys think? I know there are good ideas on both sides of this issue.
February 19, 2008
6:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
JustSayin writes:
Worth re-posting:
This plan has been YEARS in the making. Many elk inventories held, research on vegetation conducted, analyzed and peer-reviewed, options developed, public hearings held, options revised, on-line and letter writing comments sought after. This is a done deal, a signed Environmental Impact Statement.
Kinda late to be coming to the table with new ideas.
This link to the Elk and Vegetation Management plan http://home.nps.gov/romo/parkmgmt/elk...
- for those who actually want to read what is being planned, why it is being done, etc.
February 19, 2008
6:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
JustSayin,
I didn't see and consider your first post. My emphasis is the importance of a more cooperative process involving a large part of the community in deciding similar matters to this. Science is a vital component as is the community united behind what is best for RMNP. It shouldn't be , as it so frequently is, an us versus them debate, as much as it should be an all of us working for the common good debate!
February 19, 2008
10:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Mtnlover writes:
Greenleaf, it's refreshing to hear a reasoned point of view from a non-hunter. As a sportsman and conservationist, I also wrestle with the choices. Wolves will be very difficult to manage. They are wide-ranging and as soon as the elk leave the Park, so will they. Stray dogs and cats in Estes Park will be a thing of the past. Hunters could take a proscribed number of cows each year, but not necessarily the oldest and weakest like the wolves would. Taking a wider perspective, the question is who should control the elk population, the wolves that originally did so, or the hunters who pay to maintain the presence of elk in the entire State. I'm voting for the hunters, but it's not a slam dunk.
P.s. There were wolves in Yellowstone in the early 70's when I worked there. I actually saw one, as well as pics of a small pack taken by a NPS photographer. The 'reintroduction' was actually an addition to the gene pool of a small population.
February 20, 2008
7:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Mtnlover,
I've known many hunters through the years and the majority have been reasonable people who love the wilderness as I do. I can say the same for environmentalists. Unfortunately, the reasonable among us frequently step aside and let louder, insulting voices dominate the debate. We have to stop yelling at and insulting one another! There's far too much of that going on in this country and about too many important issues. The Irony is that, in many cases, we love the same thing, we just disagree about " how best to raise the baby".
Personally, I would love to see wolves return, but on a controlled basis for their sake and ours.I don't know how this would be accomplished. Your point about them eating stray dogs and cats ( and maybe llamas, horses and goats, etc.) is well taken. They are opportunists and if my dog is easier, more available prey, well it's dog for dinner tonight! I am certain that it would rapidly become necessary to cull a wolf population,and short of hunting or trapping and moving them, I don't know how that would be done.
JustSayin makes the point that the homework for the forest service plan has been completed and the EIS has been written and approved. In that case, this argument is a "done deal", and we need to move on to other matters where I hope level heads come to the table and mitigate the shrill voices on other sides of the debate. It has been good to hear your views Mtnlover.
February 20, 2008
8:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
homeradam writes:
Here's an article from todays Anchorage Daily News in Alaska. Maybe all of you eco-tree hugging-morons should read this. Hope you get your wolves you California transplant -Hillary Clinton loving fools.
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/...
February 21, 2008
5:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
IdahoFrank writes:
I think we can spare a few Idaho imported Wolves, if you really want some. I've gotta tell you, though, they have already killed our few "native" Wolves, as well as a lot of livestock, and a lot of our wildlife. No people killed yet, but don't hold your breath. It is probably coming. These things are growing at the rate of 20-30% a year, so you won't have to worry too long about seeing and experiencing them first hand
February 21, 2008
8:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Lobo451 writes:
My heavens, IdahoFrank! Sounds like the wolves will soon take over the human population in Idaho! Lions! Tigers! Bears! Oh my!
February 21, 2008
9:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Lobo451 writes:
I can see that Rush Limbaugh has done a bang-up job of creating little ditto heads on all things "conservative". Please note that the vitriolic garbage on this comment thread is coming almost exclusively from the right side of the screen.
February 22, 2008
2:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
IdahoMan writes:
Colorado should learn a lesson from what has been going on up here in Idaho. The imported, non-native wolves that we are dealing with are already showing up in Oregon, the most recent one 440 miles from where she was tagged. The fact that most people over look is that wolves will kill for sport, coupled with the rate at which they reproduce they are decimating our Elk herds. Check out this informative website - www.saveourelk.com
February 26, 2008
9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Barb writes:
Wondering.
How can I obtain a permit to hunt non-native CATTLE that are grazing on our PUBLIC LANDS?
There are too many of them and they need proper management to keep the herd size down.