14 replies to this topic

[DrCloud]

From today's Denver Post:


Group loses lawsuit to bring wolves back into RMNP
The Denver PostPosted: 03/29/2011 01:00:00 AM MDTUpdated: 03/29/2011 06:44:32 AM MDT
An environmental group lost its bid to have wolves reintroduced into Rocky Mountain National Park as a way of controlling the elk population rather than hiring hunters.

WildEarth Guardians sued the National Park Service in 2008, arguing the park broke the law when it decided to use sharpshooters to control the park's swelling elk population. The park considered introducing sterile wolves to thin the herd but didn't seriously consider reintroducing a sustainable wolfpack.

Ruling for the Park Service last week, U.S. District Judge Marcia Krieger said it acted properly by determining reintroduction would be more difficult than using hired guns.


Read more: Group loses lawsuit to bring wolves back into RMNP - The Denver Post http://www.denverpos...6#ixzz1I25s1gYY

[HighPlainsMedic]

I can only say thank goodness sharper minds prevail.. RMNP is wayyyyy tooo smalll for a wolf population. they will end up in the housing developments abutted up to the boundaries and eat "fluffy the dog" which is alot easier to pull down than an Elk,.. Ask the locals about the amount of coyotes in town.. Eternal Vigilance will be necessary when dealing with extremists..

[Mooseman]

HighPlainsMedic, on 29 March 2011 - 05:57 PM, said:

I can only say thank goodness sharper minds prevail.. RMNP is wayyyyy tooo smalll for a wolf population. they will end up in the housing developments abutted up to the boundaries and eat "fluffy the dog" which is alot easier to pull down than an Elk,.. Ask the locals about the amount of coyotes in town.. Eternal Vigilance will be necessary when dealing with extremists..

I disagree first of all with labeling those who would like to see wolves reintroduced to the park extremist. It is the encroachment of humans, along with the systematic annihilation of the species within our boarders that have pushed the wolf outside of its natural feeding and breeding territory. Obviously, any reintroduction of wolves in RMNP would have to be closely monitored and controlled because it is a relatively small park. However, the sterile few proposed could have been a starting place for studying the impact of wolves on the surrounding communities. Wolves, in order to sustain even a small pack would most likely focus their attention on their primary prey in the park, the elk, not fluffy. Although it is probable that some pet loss might be incurred, more responsible pet ownership would greatly limit this potential unintended consequence. Even in the Yellowstone area wolf attacks on livestock are fairly rare, considering their numbers. Wolves perfer their natural prey,the elk. Allowing "sharpshooters" to kill animals that have never seen humans as a threat is the ultimate fish in the barrel shooting spree. It is a shameful means of wildlife management.

Wolves would not only decrease the number of elk in the Park, but also keep them moving while they graze, allowing willows, bushes and grasses to flourish. This, in turn would attract more songbirds. beavers and other animals native to the ecosystem. The recovery would happen in a more sane and natural order. I find the ruling to be most unfortunate. I suspect the park managers will continue to erect fences (exclosures) that further mar the landscape because even as the excess elk are killed, there is no deterent to keep the survivors from standing still and eating to their heart's delight for hours.

I hope the park managers will rethink their options. Because of all the option they have, the so called sharpshooter option is the worst and most detrimental to the Park.

Edited by Mooseman, 03 April 2011 - 03:06 PM.

[DrCloud]

Mooseman, on 03 April 2011 - 01:08 PM, said:

... Although it is probable that some pet loss might be incurred, more responsible pet ownership ...

Yep. And the same applies to toddlers who scamper off. That sure would teach their parents to be more responsible, wouldn't it?

I wonder what level of toddler loss society would find acceptable? HPH

[Mark Zemmin]

We have had this debate before on this forum. I don't mind a good spirited debate, but let's make sure we keep it friendly. Every one is entitled to their opinion.

Mark

[Mooseman]

DrCloud, on 03 April 2011 - 01:25 PM, said:

Yep. And the same applies to toddlers who scamper off. That sure would teach their parents to be more responsible, wouldn't it?

I wonder what level of toddler loss society would find acceptable? HPH

That is a very unlikely scenario. I am not sure there is a documented case of wolves attacking humans. Yes, parents should ensure their toddler is not in a position to be threatened by any wildlife, or wildhuman.

[Rhonda]

Just for information's sake, I have no hard and fast opinion on this, but what is the difference between having some wolves in the park and having mountain lions and bobcats, etc? Don't they also get the occasional pet outside of the park? And I do know that some children have been killed in the park on hiking trails in the past by mountain lions, and not toddlers either. I just wonder what the difference is since they are both large predators and come in and out of the park boundaries, why are lions and big cats acceptable but not wolves?

[DrCloud]

The federal agencies consider not only probability of occurrence but also consequences of occurrence when they make decisions about almost everything, and they consider those two variables -- probability and consequences -- to be independent aspects of the overall risk of a particular decision. This means that something that is very unlikely -- or highly unlikely or extremely unlikely -- can still be considered to be very risky if the consequences are potentially serious, such as loss of life.

And those same agencies are famously risk-averse -- they don't like to make risky decisions. For this reason, re-introducing wolves in Colorado's Front Range isn't something that the Park Service is likely to be comfortable with.

Now, if wolves show up on their own, all bets are off. Just like the NPS "allows" other large predators to inhabit the Park, they'd probably not try to exterminate a new wolf population unless there were clear evidence that they were straying into subdivisions and towns and causing trouble. HPH

[Mooseman]

DrCloud, on 03 April 2011 - 04:26 PM, said:

The federal agencies consider not only probability of occurrence but also consequences of occurrence when they make decisions about almost everything, and they consider those two variables -- probability and consequences -- to be independent aspects of the overall risk of a particular decision. This means that something that is very unlikely -- or highly unlikely or extremely unlikely -- can still be considered to be very risky if the consequences are potentially serious, such as loss of life.

And those same agencies are famously risk-averse -- they don't like to make risky decisions. For this reason, re-introducing wolves in Colorado's Front Range isn't something that the Park Service is likely to be comfortable with.


Now, if wolves show up on their own, all bets are off. Just like the NPS "allows" other large predators to inhabit the Park, they'd probably not try to exterminate a new wolf population unless there were clear evidence that they were straying into subdivisions and towns and causing trouble. HPH

Wolves are probably the most controversial animal on the planet. Humans have had nothing short of disdain for wolves for decades, or longer. Even Teddy Roosevelt, the most enviromentally active president in history, had little regard for the presence of wolves. People believe they have an unalienable right to game animals, as well as to land that converted for agriculture and livestock use. Wolves are seen as a threat to that right. Farmers, ranchers and outfitters become livid at the possibility of wolf reintroduction, anywhere. Communities surrounding Yellowstone were divided over the prospect of the reintroduction. The wolves have greatly increasred tourism and the economy of the neighboring towns. The wolves have benefitted the ecology of Yellowstone. Their ecosystem is in balance because the top predator has returned. There has been little downside to the wolf reintroduction there. The same would probably occur here as well.

The reluctance of the federal agencies, NPS and Interior, to allow the reintroduction of wolves in RMNP has more to do with their unwillingness to deal with the political fallout from farmers and rancher, than anything having to do with a real risk assessment. The risks, as proposed are relatively low. I do believe that if wolves take up residence in the Park on their own, that they will be protected.

[jflo]

I personally would love to see wolves reintroduced into RMNP, even if on a trial basis. I tend to concur with Mooseman on this subject. The sad thing is that they aren't even willing to try it. I realize that RMNP is way smaller than Yellowstone, but I believe this needs futher exploration as a real possibility. Initially, man was too ignorant to the importance of the wolf's role and impact on the ecosystem. We have become so accustomed to the way it has been for so long, just the notion of reintroduction raises fear and anger. I believe RMNP would greatly benefit from having a wolf pack.


I also reemphasize Mark's post- let's keep this all in good fun. I realize this is a very hot topic, but lets be respectful of other's opinions.

[HighPlainsMedic]

jflo, on 04 April 2011 - 03:29 AM, said:

I personally would love to see wolves reintroduced into RMNP, even if on a trial basis. I tend to concur with Mooseman on this subject. The sad thing is that they aren't even willing to try it. I realize that RMNP is way smaller than Yellowstone, but I believe this needs futher exploration as a real possibility. Initially, man was too ignorant to the importance of the wolf's role and impact on the ecosystem. We have become so accustomed to the way it has been for so long, just the notion of reintroduction raises fear and anger. I believe RMNP would greatly benefit from having a wolf pack.


I also reemphasize Mark's post- let's keep this all in good fun. I realize this is a very hot topic, but lets be respectful of other's opinions.

I respectfully disagree, in the instances below, the mountain lions were already in the park, What has happened in many Parks and Recreation area's the animals have lost their fear of man. As an example, Saturday, i was in the Big Thompson Canyon, there were about 4 Bighorn Rams, being followed by about 30 tourists with cameras, i bet all they wanted was to have a bite of grass and a drink of water. It was really quite sad to see them being stalked around where they couldn't even stop to drink without the hassle of the tourists.

The same is occuring with the Elk,

Thankfully neither of these species are predators, when a bear gets to be a nuisance because of easy eats at a campground they get shipped out, unfortunately they sometimes come back and eventually the bear will be shot because of the actions of a few people who can't follow the rules,

In Estes Park there have been many instances of Coyotes just hanging around where they lost their fear as well.

So the Park is too small, where Moraine Park is, it's just across the road to where the YMCA stables ride their horses, and in the YMCA itself i bet there are yummy smells that will attract predators.

Where are the Elk now anyway? Pretty much in town.. it's where the major early grazing is found, do you think the Wolf will follow the Elk? probably,

In the wild to survive the predator's need to expend the least amount of energy getting the most amount of calories, Maybe a dog is just a dog, and i saw a reference that it was an acceptable risk, the question is, is a wolf attack on a child an acceptable risk?

So we introduce sterile wolves to the park, to control the Elk population, and the Elk are in town, Elk are a tough species to hunt and wolves hunt in packs, A dog or a child is a lot easier to pull down.. It has nothing to do with how i feel about wolves, it's just logic played out..

Like I said, respectfully disagree..

Jeff

Predator attacks in RMNP found with a google search,

Fall. Photographer Moses Street was jogging on a popular trail in Rocky Mountain National Park near Estes Park, CO, when he glanced over his shoulder and saw a cougar about to pounce on him. The cougar backed off when Street yelled and waved his arms. Street used a large tree branch to stop a second and third attack.

Street climbed a tree and had to keep using the branch to keep the lion from advancing up the tree. Park Rangers rescued him after Street's girlfriend alerted them. (Washington Post, 7/13/97, A01)

17 July. 10-year-old Mark David Miedema was killed by an 88 pound adult female cougar shortly after 4:30 pm while returning from a hike to Cascade Falls on the North Inlet Trail on the west side of Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. Mark had raced ahead of his family on the well-traveled trail in order to see if animals had eaten the peanuts he had left on the trail on the way up. Mark was only 3-4 minutes ahead of his parents, but he was out of their sight; his family arrived to see his feet and legs extending onto the trail from adjacent brush. The cougar attempted to drag him away before fleeing. Mark died from choking on his own vomit, not from his wounds from the attack. Mark had tried to fight the cougar, and had scratches on his face and puncture wounds on his face, neck and scalp.

The lion was shot once or twice at 7 pm by Chris Philippi, a National Park Service officer who was guarding the boy's body while waiting for the coroner. The lion ran off and was killed at 8:03 pm by a professional lion tracker with dogs. The lion was pregnant with three fetuses, 2 to 2.5 years old in good health.

[B-Jay]

There was an interesting article in the March 2010 issue of National Geographic about wolves.

Here's the link if anyone is interested: Wolf Wars

B-Jay

[Rhonda]

It's just amazing what man can manage to mess up in this world. Sad that wolves were ever eradicated and that all these other species have lost their natural fear of man. Now it seems to be a solutionless problem.

Interesting article B-Jay.

[HighPlainsMedic]

Rhonda, on 04 April 2011 - 07:47 AM, said:

It's just amazing what man can manage to mess up in this world. Sad that wolves were ever eradicated and that all these other species have lost their natural fear of man. Now it seems to be a solutionless problem.

Interesting article B-Jay.

When we moved here about 15 years ago .. my boys and I went around the fence line and Pee'd, Just as in the article.. i wanted to let the coyotes know that it was our territory. Since that time I have shot off dozens of roman candles, shot gun shells in the air etc.. I have never nor will i ever shoot a Coyote, even though i am sure i have lost about 5 cats to them..

This last December my wife an I came back from Denver, and we came back the dirt road from town. We encountered about 30 coyote carcasses in the road, There is a bounty on the coyotes in this area and it appears that some hunters went out and shot about 50, then when they tried to get the bounty either they didn't know how to get or the coyotes were too mangy to be worth a bounty, they dumped them I was sickened by the sight,. Yes i hunt, and I have hunted Elk, Deer and in this area Pheasant. I also picked up road kill that was fresh. We ate everything we harvested, its against my morals to kill anything for sport and leave it lay, I hope the game and fish caught them and prosecuted them.

Do the coyotes have a fear of our place, yeah i think so, we don't see them, we hear them though.. but they have a fear of this place and I have enough respect for wildlife to not arbitrarily shoot them.. I mean in the long run, isn't it a harmony thing anyway? Another thing i learned from my dad..

This is the last i will post on this..

[DrCloud]

Yellowstone, of course, is serving as a wonderful laboratory for wolf re-introduction, and it's clear that there are many positive changes in the ecosystem there (that National Geographic article summarizes some). But the space issue remains. People know that Yellowstone is bigger than Rocky, sure. But it's way bigger, maybe eight times bigger. Consider this picture:



Three or four of the Yellowstone packs have territories (and this is what they defend, not just where they range) larger than all of Rocky. And, for the wolves' sake, it's important not to limit re-introduction to one pack, because genetic diversity is critical to species health. Further, with some 20% more visitors to Rocky "crammed" into 12% the area of Yellowstone, the visitor density is a factor of 10 higher. So the probability of encounters is hugely magnified, to the potential detriment of both humans and wolves -- and that doesn't consider the much higher human population density in the overall region outside the Park.

For all its size and grandeur, Rocky is a different sort of National Park from Yellowstone and Glacier -- it's more like Yosemite, a not-quite-urban National Park that, like it or not, has been "tamed" to a large degree. Un-taming it is not something that's easily done -- nor is the decision to do so trivial.

And it's certainly true that such a decision is altogether political. Surely, it doesn't help the process for advocates to toss about cavalier statements to the effect that pet owners need to learn responsibility by having their dogs and cats eaten. HPH