Posted on 03/01/2014 9:59:06 PM PST by Valpal1
BOISE, Idaho — Idaho wildlife officials have killed 23 wolves in northern Idaho in an effort to boost the number of elk in the region.
The Idaho Fish and Game announced Friday afternoon that the animals were killed by USDA Wildlife Service agents using a helicopter in the Lolo elk zone near the Montana border. It's the sixth time the agency has taken action to kill wolves in the Lolo zone in the past four years, bringing the total number of wolves killed there to 48. The efforts are part of the state's predator management plan, which calls for killing wolves when the Fish and Game Department determines they are causing conflicts with people or domestic animals or that they are a significant factor in declining numbers of elk or deer.
(Excerpt) Read more at missoulian.com ...
That looks like an interesting bang stick. I’ll have to check it out.
Very important details. Thanks.
Well, at least no 35 to 40 old elk. Thanks for killin’ all the good ones!
Or it was the wildfires of 1988 that burned over 1/3 of the park that is responsible for the alleged vegetation changes as the forest regenerates itself instead of the ‘magic’ wolf theory.
It seems more likely the wolf story is the accurate one.
No it doesn’t. Post fire habitat generation has been extensively observed and documented for the last hundred years. What’s funny is how this is all now ascribed to the magic wolves in Yellowstone, but not in burned forests where there are no wolves, yet the same regeneration occurs.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20957967
Our study demonstrates that the historical failure of aspen to regenerate varied widely among stands (last recruitment year ranged from 1892 to 1956), and our data do not indicate an abrupt cessation of recruitment.
This pattern of recruitment failure appears more consistent with a gradual increase in elk numbers rather than a rapid behavioral shift in elk foraging following wolf extirpation. In addition, our estimates of relative survivorship of young browsable aspen indicate that aspen are not currently recovering in Yellowstone, even in the presence of a large wolf population.
Finally, in an experimental test of the BMTC hypothesis we found that the impacts of elk browsing on aspen demography are not diminished in sites where elk are at higher risk of predation by wolves.
Interesting. It would seem that two different types of situations occur. In one fire destroys ground cover indiscriminately along with small trees (certain types excepted, such as pitch pine, which REQUIRES fire for the cones to open).
In the other, what the article is saying is that areas overgrazed by deer are relieved of that pressure by the presence of wolf packs which drive them from open areas, allowing reforestation in those areas.
I never heard of this scenario with the “magic” wolves before, but what they are saying here appears to make some kind of sense.
I don’t know if this somethnig that reliable ecologists have worked out, or some group opposed to wolf hunting. I just don’t know.
What about other vegetation, and deer over-browing?\
Who are the people who presented this video? What are their qualifications?
The study I linked to said the opposite. You've got George Moonbat and the BBC claiming it's the magic of wolves.
When you're comparing the destructive force of a wildfire to the minor impact of wolves occasionally redirecting ungulate grazing for causing change in vegetative growth, the non-insane person would recognize that fire is more direct and powerful agent.
The 1988 wildfires burned down over a third of Yellowstone and in the middle of the natural regeneration they introduce wolves and then claim the natural result of fire induced regeneration is somehow the result of the magical presence of wolves. It's utter bison scat and propaganda.
I use the term magical, because that's how all the pro wolf nuts talk about them, all breathy spiritualism.
WHo is george Moonbat? Is he an eco-nut?
He predicted 12 years ago that if we didn't give up meat and dairy and all become vegans there would be famine everywhere.
He is The Guardian's in house global warmist and eco nut. His name is actually Monbiat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.