3 ms·

You say that population decreased by half, but that may not mean much if they were overpopulated by 100%. What about the incidence of disease among elk populat

You say that population decreased by half, but that may not mean much if they were overpopulated by 100%. What about the incidence of disease among elk populations and livestock? One of the supposed benefits from reintroducing wolves is the positive effects for bears and coyotes as well as keeping overpopulated prey species populations down. I'm obviously a proponent of the reintroduction of wolves to their traditional habitat where possible, but I do have some sympathy to the concerns you've expressed.

jboggan 12y ago
I'm not a wildlife conservation expert by any stretch, but it was my impression in 2006/2007 (before wolves came in significant packs to the Idaho panhandle) that the elk population was stable and on sustained slight growth without any overpopulation. When the Rocky Mountain states were debating opening up a wolf season (circa 2008-2010) one of the arguments was that the early studies had indicated a balanced and desirable wolf population of around 700 or so - but current population estimates were an order of magnitude larger, around 6,000 wolves. An apex predator population of that size would (and did) tear through a large and unadjusted prey population and tend towards overpopulation, starvation, and disease themselves. Putting a human control on their spread is the only thing that was sensical both for the wolves and for the whole ecosystem. The only thing worse than 10,000 wolves running through the Rockies is 10,000 starving wolves running through the Rockies. I'd also point out that by putting the wolves on the list as a hunted species their long term survival is all but guaranteed - hunters of a particular type of game tend to be very active when conserving populations of "their" game animal, put massive personal resources towards supporting that game's environment, and pass those values on to others.

jboggan 12y ago

I'm not a wildlife conservation expert by any stretch, but it was my impression in 2006/2007 (before wolves came in significant packs to the Idaho panhandle) that the elk population was stable and on sustained slight growth without any overpopulation. When the Rocky Mountain states were debating opening up a wolf season (circa 2008-2010) one of the arguments was that the early studies had indicated a balanced and desirable wolf population of around 700 or so - but current population estimates were an order of magnitude larger, around 6,000 wolves. An apex predator population of that size would (and did) tear through a large and unadjusted prey population and tend towards overpopulation, starvation, and disease themselves. Putting a human control on their spread is the only thing that was sensical both for the wolves and for the whole ecosystem. The only thing worse than 10,000 wolves running through the Rockies is 10,000 starving wolves running through the Rockies. I'd also point out that by putting the wolves on the list as a hunted species their long term survival is all but guaranteed - hunters of a particular type of game tend to be very active when conserving populations of "their" game animal, put massive personal resources towards supporting that game's environment, and pass those values on to others.