I HAVE gotten out and talked with ranchers from the Gardiner area.  Five of them at the Town Cafe one morning last February.  They were unanimous in their feeling that bringing wolves back to Yellowstone has been a good thing.  They all said they had been opposed to the idea at first, but have changed their minds after seeing the benefits wolf watchers were bringing to the local economy.  Only one of them has lost any cattle to a possible wolf kill.  He acknowledged that the two calves he lost may have been killed by a pack of dogs allowed by their owner to run loose in the area.  But even though there was doubt as to the killers of the calves, he was reimbursed for his loss by the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Instead of hiding behind anonymity, how about disclosing your reasons and interests in this debate.  Are you ranchers?  What are you?  Where are you from?

We await your answers.

I dont have a particular dog in this fight but am amazed at the personal attacks vs reasoned argument.  Perhaps Freedom was a little agressive with his "pimps" comment but the total disrespect for his arguments and interests is ironic coming from what is normally the "tolerance" crowd. If his stats in the opening post are accurate, then he makes quite a compelling case. If they aren't then demonstrate such rather then claiming "festering hate",  "vile hatred" and questioning motives. 

This has been an issue that's generated plenty of debate - and even more emotion - for years. Doesn't look like things have changed much. When topics such as this are involved, it can be difficult to find solid, and impartial, information from someone who, as ec says, doesn't have a dog in this fight.

Without citations, it's difficult to accept Freedom 1080s statistics. For instance:

* According to the National Park Service, Yellowstone is home to fewer than 200 moose. One of the reasons, though, is lack of suitable habitat.

Although some Rocky Mountain moose populations have continued to grow and spread into new habitat, those in Yellowstone have declined since the 1980s. Estimated at roughly 1,000 in the 1970s, the current Yellowstone moose population is believed to be less than 200, with the northern range population down by at least 75 percent since the 1980s. Predation of moose calves by bear and wolf populations may be continuing to limit population growth, but the low pregnancy rates of Greater Yellowstone moose suggest limits set by food availability. Longterm studies suggest that North American moose populations tend to erupt, crash, and then stabilize for awhile at a density that depends on current ecological conditions and hunting pressure.

http://www.nps.gov/yell/naturescience/mooseinfo.htm

* As for elk populations, Dr. Ralph Maughan, a professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University with specialties in natural resource politics, notes that Wyoming's Game and Fish Department reported a near-record elk harvest last fall.

They estimate that  25,968 were taken, a near record. However the number one year was 2012 when the hunt saw 26,365 elk reported killed. In a news release, the department compares today to 1995. . .”in 1995, elk harvest was 17,695 elk, more than 8,000 fewer than the Wyoming harvest of the past few years.”

The department choose an odd year for comparison, 1995. That was the year wolves were reintroduced.  Within a few years after Wyoming politicians and others were arguing that wolves were gravely harming the elk population.  Eighteen and Nineteen years later, elk are at a record. So did wolves cause the elk increase? 

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014/03/26/wyoming-has-a-near-record-elk-...

At the same time, it's been well-noted that the park's Northern elk herd has declined quite a bit in recent years. But is it due to hunting, to wolves, to grizzlies, to brucellosis, to drought?

After decades of debate over whether this range was overgrazed by too many elk, public concern has shifted to the herd's small size. The winter count, which was approximately 17,000 when wolf reintroduction began in 1995, fell below 10,000 in 2003. It fluctuated between 6,000 and 7,000 as the wolf population on the park's northern range declined from 94 in 2007 to 38 in 2010. The elk count dropped to 3,915 in early 2013, the lowest since culling ended in the park in the 1960s. The decrease has been attributed to predation by reintroduced wolves and a large bear population, hunter harvest, and drought-related effects on pregnancy and survival. The State of Montana has reduced the permits issued for this herd so that hunting of females now has little impact on population size.--NPS

That said, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks officials went into last fall's elk hunt saying populations across the state were in good shape, with many areas (including southwestern Montana) reporting increased numbers.

http://fwp.mt.gov/news/newsReleases/hunting/nr_2015.html

Not to be overlooked is the debate over whether Yellowstone's wildlife is to be managed for hunter success or an ecologically balanced ecosystem.

Thank you, Kurt.

livingwithwolves- your posts were so incohearant and rambling I dont know how to really respond...As a historian, I tend to tune out the very second people start comparing the Third Reich and other issues. As for calling me 'bigoted' towards ranchers, I am not sure how you came up wit that conclusion. Perhaps you could explain more...

My 19th century mentality statement clearly went right over your head so I wont bother to respond to that...

I never said wolves were 'thriving' in the 19th century. I said that the wildlife in Yellowstone was living in a perfect balance of predator and prey prior to Europeans arriving. Clearly that one went over your head too...

When communicating in a written format, it might benefit you to work on your decoding and writing skills if you want your points to be understood by the otherside

And perhaps if you ranchers and farmers were not the most heavily subsidized groups in this country, people might be more receptive to your concerns.

For those who wonder why such strong reactions have come from some of the pro wolf killing folks just read the goals of the Speak for Wolves rally. This discussion is not about science or Yellowstone. It is about changing the culture of many of the rural areas of the country. It would be nice to think a reasonable balance could be reached on predator control and wildlife management in the US, but I can't think of single location where that has happened. Certainly not here in West Texas where I live.

I agree with Lee Dalton's plea for people to identify themselves. It is hard to argue with ghosts.

Wolves have a polarizing effect as people tend to be either for or against.  I have read enough information that consistently states that when the top predators are on the landscape, the ecosystem is more resilient and healthy. 

Accrording to MFWP, 80% of hunting units where wolves are present, elk populations are either exceeding or meeting goals.  The majority of the units below goals are very close to meeting them.  Wolves cannot afford to waste energy or become injured so they tend (not always) to prey on the old, lame, sick or very young elk. This results in a gene pool where the most healthy elk breed, reduces potential starvation and maintains healthy forage.  They also keep elk moving thereby allowing aspen, willows and other vegetation to be restored.

Wolves account for less than 1% of livestock predation in the western US and actually help lower predation as they kill coyotes (main source of predation).  Yes, wolves are no longer listed and can be hunted and trapped.  Bald eagles and gray whales are no longer listed so should we start killing them.  We know that predators keep nature in balance and its time to use this information instead of villifying them.