Comments on: Reintroduction of the Wolves

By: Sportie

Sportie — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:16:52 +0000

i agree with pcw…wolves need to be kept in check and allowing them to deplete a rancher or a farmers lively hood by killing his income is not right, they need to be kept under control. But i dont agree that its the humans at fault, sure wolves go for any easy kill but they kill for sport, after they’ve eaten they kill and kill and just leave their prey.

By: Nigel

Nigel — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:46:27 +0000

i think you are right wolf boy, thinking and seeing the bigger pictureis a must. Wolves however are not stupid and will go for an easy kill rather than on the hunt which they could get injured or killed on

By: Wolf Boy

Wolf Boy — Thu, 28 May 2009 17:13:00 +0000

According to a study, wolves as an attraction in Yellowstone could generate $19 million which is much more than the estimated amount of losses of livestock. In spite of ranchers’ concerns, the data thus far indicate that the wolves have remained largely within the reintroduction regions and have chosen to prey primarily on native deer and elk populations.

By: firefly

firefly — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 06:49:41 +0000

While at Bryce Canyon in Utah last year in July, it snowed, and leaving my two menfolk in the car, I got out to take pictures. Once home, I was shocked to see the face of a wolf in a stand of trees. Never saw him at the time. Thank goodness, I din’t become a delicious snack…But what a magnificent animal!

By: rks

rks — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 03:02:18 +0000

What about everyone else that would like to keep their way of life? Most everyone is trying to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. I wouldn’t be surprised that the cow that gave me the milk I’m drinking today,I will be eating later.

By: greentangle

greentangle — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:27:49 +0000

I think it’s much more important to keep the human population in check, which we’ve failed miserably at. Ranchers and their domestic animals are an environmental disaster, but they consider themselves more important than the bigger picture. Fortunately the previous two posters and their opinions are as much a fading part of the past as the president one refers to.

By: pcw

pcw — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 04:14:58 +0000

Wolves and the greater balance of the ecosystem…..it all comes down to the survival of people and how people live. That includes the ranchers and farmers, their way of life and how they put food on the table for their families. What about them. The cattle, sheep, horses, and other livestock that the farmers and ranchers need to live. Keeping the wolf population in check is a must. That means hunting them.

By: J. Igo

J. Igo — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:01:52 +0000

What makes the ecosystem any the worse for lack of the wolves? Doesn’t it just make it DIFFERENT than it was before they were eradicated and today? It’s all relative to what’s a more valuable species to be keeping around. Is it any LESS beautiful to LOOK at? So, the beavers returned? They probably just migrated from other parts. People do the very same thing…migrate to where they can better survive. What if, like elk and other wild ungulants, we preferred to eat wolves, and if wolves kill off so many of them, maybe we should, ya think, make a delicacy of ‘em? We agree with our first conservation President, Teddy Roosevelt, who would have shot them all if he could have. [See his book, The Wilderness Hunter.] Yes, they are really fine looking animals, but so is the Great Pyrenees dog.

By: Beaver, Wolves and Water at Beside the Stream

Beaver, Wolves and Water at Beside the Stream — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:02:56 +0000

[...] because they’re more watchful and live in smaller herds. And they browse less intensively, allowing cottonwood and aspen groves to replenish themselves for the first time since the 1920s when the wolves [...]