
Wyoming's War on Wolves - Thevet
https://daily.jstor.org/wyomings-war-on-wolves
======
jboggan
I know from firsthand experience how the elk and deer herds have been
decimated in that region of the country, and in fact have been cut by more
than 50% in the region I've hunted over the past decade. This dramatically
shortens the season for us and also means we haven't been able to take any
females for years now. We've also been tracked and surrounded by them on a few
occasions, and I challenge anyone who enjoys watching them on YouTube to feel
the same way after you've heard their chorus of howls completely surrounding
you in dark timber. I'm talking about deep instinctual fear . . . it's
sobering.

I think the article does a poor job of describing the hunting process, it's
not like you just kill wolves and tell Fish & Game about it later. You have to
hunt in season using certain weapons or traps and you have to apply for tags
beforehand. The success rate is extremely low, I know the first year it was
open in Idaho the projected rate was 20% but the actual rate was 0.3%. Turns
out wolves are extremely hard to hunt.

Having them off the list is a huge improvement though because the ranchers and
hunters are working in cooperation instead of opposition to the authorities.
There used to be a real S.S.S. attitude among the old timers (Shoot, Shovel,
Shut up), now they are going to be giving good data back to the authorities
who will be better able to adjust the numbers in favor of all the species that
share the ecosystem.

For context, the first wolf killed during the legal season in my area was
stuffed and mounted in the local sporting goods store . . . 7 feet nose to
tail and probably north of 140#. Not what you want to meet in the woods, and
especially not when there are two dozen of them.

~~~
narrowrail
>I'm talking about deep instinctual fear

With a 30-30 or 30-06, I'm not sure what there is to be scared of (not
mentioning a probable .45 side-arm)? Guns are scarier than teeth.

~~~
thinkharder
These aren't packs of feral chihuahuas we're talking about, the adult
(american) grey wolf mean weight is 88 Lbs, they can weigh up to 180. Imagine
an animal almost as large as you, who's very purpose for existence is to
predate mammals much larger than itself. Now imagine being surrounded by 20 of
them and aware of the fact they have evolved to hunt cooperatively, to take
down ungulates that can weight 5-10 times what they do. You are going to
_maybe_ get 1, 2 (if god himself intervenes) shots off with your bolt action
30-06 before they swarm you and literally tear you to pieces. If you had your
back to a cliff and a M134 Minigun, you might have a chance. Luckily they
mostly choose not to hunt humans, but it ain't because they wouldn't be
successful. They just have easier prey most of the time.

~~~
throwaway2048
I have hunted and been an outdoors man all my life.

This is total nonsense, one shot and they would all be running. Wolves are
deathly afraid of guns, and what predators fear is confrontation. Its easier
to run away and go after something that isn't going to result in you dying.

They are animals, with a strong desire for self preservation, not a mindless
army of killing machines out for human blood.

If it was truly this dangerous hundreds of people would be dying a year.

Your hyperbole adds nothing but disinformation to the conversation.

~~~
jboggan
Not an example of using a gun, but this wolf did not seem deterred by
confrontation and repeated shots of bear spray to the face:

[http://www.montanaoutdoor.com/2013/07/wolf-attacks-
bicyclist...](http://www.montanaoutdoor.com/2013/07/wolf-attacks-bicyclist-in-
idaho/)

~~~
throwaway2048
Its a one off situation, any number of things could have been at play, the
pepper spray could have been a dud, he could have missed in a panic or been
too far away, etc.

People going into environments like that need to carry guns, and they need to
understand that running away, especially in a panicked manner makes things
worse. I'm not saying they aren't dangerous animals, they clearly are. That's
why people need to understand how to handle them, its no different from being
prepared to climb a mountain.

But hyperbole about needing a mini-gun or you are surely going to die to a
pack of wolves is just utter, complete bullshit.

~~~
narrowrail
This is what I was talking about elsewhere in this discussion about city
people ready to believe there are packs of wolves out hunting humans. 95% of
the time in the back country (over 25 years in the rockies) when encountering
these large predators, I only see their backside as they run away.

------
protomyth
I'm sympathetic to the ranchers as its costly to lose animals, but in a lot of
ways I still think a simple economic solution would have kept this from
getting that far. If the wolves are technically owned by the federal
government, then they could have paid for each animal the wolves eat (at final
market price). Frankly, a Fish & Wildlife person driving out with a check
would have solved quite a lot of this at a much cheaper price.

The North American wolves are not their European brethren in body count (far
from it).

~~~
almog
That kind of solution could create a Cobra Effect
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect))
where ranchers feed wolves with their stock.

I'm surprised that livestock guarding dogs were not mentioned in the article.
Some breeds are known to prevent attacks by merely displaying aggressive
behavior toward predators without actually harming neither the wolves nor
themselves.

~~~
jxcole
It wouldn't really be a Cobra Effect. In the Cobra Effect, the net number of
Cobras (which were trying to be eliminated) was increased instead of
decreased. If farmers start breeding livestock intentionally to be eaten by
wolves, it's hard to see how this would have a net negative effect on the wolf
population.

Maybe you're suggesting the wolves would forget how to hunt because they are
constantly being fed by ranchers? This might be possible.

Either way, the key to implementing a policy like this would be testing it out
with a small subset of Wyoming and measuring it's effects. Also, one should be
careful not to over incentivize ranchers towards feeding wolves, but
compensate them justly.

~~~
protomyth
The other difference from the Cobra effect is that feeding wolves would result
in a whole lot of problems for the rancher (as in life and limb to family).
Those problems are enough of an incentive not to do those things. You really,
really don't want a predator to learn free meals are on your land. You already
have to manage the land use when ranching.

------
diebir
[https://www.eastidahonews.com/2017/03/boy-sprayed-cyanide-
ex...](https://www.eastidahonews.com/2017/03/boy-sprayed-cyanide-explosive-
grace-god-im-still-alive/)

POCATELLO — The family of a teenage boy sprayed by a cyanide explosive that
killed their dog is outraged they weren’t told the device was planted near
their home.

M-44s are spring-activated devices that release cyanide when they are
activated through upward pressure or pulling. The US Department of Agriculture
uses the devices to control coyotes and other predators.

------
gyrgtyn
If this bothers you, one thing you could try is searching "great lakes wolf
patrol" and send some of your developer salary their way.

------
Mz
_Multiple scientists have also challenged ideas about wolves’ positive impact
on Wyoming ecosystems. In a 2009 study, the ecologists Scott Creel and David
Christianson contend that elk’s reduced consumption of willow trees “was more
strongly affected by snow conditions than by the presence of wolves.” The
scientists Matthew Kauffman, Jedediah Brodie, and Erik Jules also refute the
notion that wolves played a central role in helping Yellowstone aspen trees to
recover in their 2010 article. That study also concludes that “aspen are not
currently recovering in Yellowstone, even in the presence of a large wolf
population.” (Other scientists have gone on to disagree with Kauffman, Brodie,
and Jules’s findings, publishing scholarly refutations of that study.)_

Science: A more civil version of the internet refutation "That's just your
opinion, man!"

------
diebir
Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West

[http://www.publiclandsranching.org/book.htm](http://www.publiclandsranching.org/book.htm)

------
zackmorris
Born and raised in Idaho. Dunno if anyone will read this, but many of us here
are against the hunting of wolves (or any other large predator like mountain
lions etc).

The reason is very simple at its core - do humans know better than the natural
world? The answer is clearly no, so there must be unintended consequences to
hunting animals purely for sport or human constructs like competition. Without
wolves, herds grow too large and overgraze streams and generally wreck
ecosystems.

I recognize that hunters want to succeed at finding game but humans are the
top predator. We already have full control, so I find arguments that we are
competing with wolves to be rather sophomoric. People just want that feeling
of having total control, which is at odds with the natural world. It's a macho
thing, not a pragmatic thing.

------
diebir
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2016/08/0...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2016/08/09/storied-alaska-wolf-pack-beloved-for-decades-has-vanished-
thanks-to-hunting/?utm_term=.972849386b62)

Storied Alaska wolf pack beloved for decades has vanished, thanks to hunting

 __*

FYI: if you went to Denali NP, your chances of seeing a wolf used to be 50% or
so. Now... the Park says 2-3%.

------
utefan001
Highly recommend life below zero on Netflix. If my family ever ends up living
off land I will now know how to do it a little bit better than I knew before
watching. The best hunter, 5ft lady, chased down a running wolf and shot it
from long distance. Great show! Alaska is amazing.

------
douche
In the absence of wolves, you get coyotes and coy-dogs, which are as bad, if
not worse than wolves, filling that niche. Nasty creatures.

~~~
throwaway2048
If you truly think that coyotes and coy-dogs are "as bad or worse" than
wolves, in terms of being dangerous to humans, you don't have a clue sorry.

~~~
douche
Not humans, but they eat every other animal out, decimating the deer, rabbits,
turkeys, about anything smaller than moose.

------
arca_vorago
I don't know the particulars of the Wyoming project, but I can speak about
this issue in depth from a firsthand perspective regarding the gray wolf
reintroduction program that started in my tiny mountain town in Arizona in 98.

First, I have to say I generally understand people wanting to preserve a
species and help an ecosystem. I really do. I have seen very little good
science to back up the purported reasons for the reintroduction program
though. Supposed benefits, ignoring the "tourist economy", such as elk and
deer grazing habit changes for waterways, have not held up, and even if they
did, were miniscule benefits that could be handled in other ways. (For
example, instead of hoping wolves will hunt beaver which cause damage (but
also help in ways), they could increase beaver tags. Right now the White
Mountain Apache reservation is having a wild horse problem. The wolves aren't
nearly numerous enough to even put a dent in it.

I have witnessed firsthand the kind of destruction that results in freshly
minted PHD's showing up in a forest they've never been to and insisting they
know better than the families that have lived on that land for 100+ years. The
primary example of this for me was the large forest fires in the area. The old
timer loggers were saying they should be allowed to thin the forests out, and
that they should be allowing natural burns to go longer and be doing more
control burns. The PHD's at the forest service insisted against this, and then
the pine beetle infestation hit, and then a flame and poof... twice, more than
400k acres up in flames. This has created distrust in the locals.

I also question some of the shock value statistics being thrown around to
villify or negate ranchers concerns. I've heard from people that they are
increasingly restricting and disallowing public grazing... so how can
decreases of livestock attacks really be trusted when there aren't nearly the
same amount of livestock in the first place?

I haven't even mentioned how badly the actual reintroduction program was
handled. They started by cage feeding pairs and releasing them as a pair. The
wolves were way to reliant on being fed and way too unafraid of humans. Now
they are trying to put cage born/fed pups into already wild packs...

My family jokes I'm half-Apache because I spent so much time in the forest
when I was younger, but now we don't let friends or family go out to half our
little _secret spots_ without being armed. It's easy to say "wolves are more
afraid of you" and spout all the things that PHD told you because he read them
in a book, but when you are in the forest and hear a pack across the ridge at
night... it has vastly changed the atmosphere of the mountains. Before the
reintro program we really only had to worry about mountain lions and the
occasional bear... both of which were much more scared of humans than any gray
wolf is, especially in a pack. That being said though, I knew ranchers who
have had more losses from the mountain lions than from the wolves, which is
one of the reasons a mountain lion hunt is tradition in the area.

In the local population, this has created massive blowback, to the point that
I openly hear people spreading the three S's when it comes to wolves. Shoot,
shovel, and shhhhhhh. I never heard of anyone actually doing it, because the
forest service put out a 50k reward for reporting such an action!

The bottom line is that at every turn I have seen phd environmentalists assume
they know best and end up causing blowback that bites locals in the ass, while
the forest service/blm will just move that person somewhere else and they
never have to deal with the consequences of their actions. The locals are
tired of this kind of federal over-reach.

New Mexico as I understand it currently has an injunction against the reintro
program for just this reasons. I say good for them.

In all my years in the forest though, I only saw one up close and personal in
the wild once. It was huge, beautiful, and majestic, and I'm glad I was in a
vehicle. I simply don't see the real value of their reintroduction other than
to make what my grandpa would call the "hippy tree huggers" feel good. In 20
years, they barely have the pop above 100.

edit: seeing lots of hate for ranchers. I honestly don't think people
understand how important rachers are to the ecosystems, a thousand times more
important than wolves. As for hunters, I generally have a lot of disdain for
them. Locals bag one elk and share it. City-boy hunters who think they are
country put on camo, sit in a stand all day and bag something mostly for the
picture and the trophy, and that bothers me greatly. They also tend to have a
lack of respect for the forest. Just saying, don't equate hunters or illegal
hunters with the ranchers.

~~~
diebir
"I honestly don't think people understand how important rachers are to the
ecosystems, a thousand times more important than wolves."

All right I'll bite. Where in Arizona? Mogollon Rim? Arizona Strip? The
Kaibab?

Aside from these above Arizona is desert. The desert is fragile. The cows
destroy the desert. The American West (deserts) are mountains of cow shit.
Every stream, every spring, every alcove is fouled if the cows can get in. The
cows are the biggest destructive force in the desert I have ever seen.

The saddest part is that the open range ranching in desert Southwest is not
even profitable without large subsidies and support by the taxpayer. These
ranches are "pretend cowboys" making a living by other means. A handful of
cows they own does not really help anyone and the costs of us all are huge.

Now, to the forested parts of Arizona. The Kaibab and the Arizona Strip are
essentially a park land. If not for cows, it would be a pristine wilderness.
This is all federal land. We do not need cows there either. 6 months ago I
went on foot from Bryce to Nankoweap. The cows on Kaibab wreck havoc just like
everywhere else. The Kaibab is dotted by swaths of open areas made by ranchers
years ago for grazing, still nothing grows.

What is really important for any ecosystem I am aware of, is to NOT have cows
and ranching. We have enough developed and rich land in other places. Please
leave the West alone! Please go to Texas where all land is private and raise
your livestock there.

This said, fewer cows and higher beef prices would help in general as well.

~~~
arca_vorago
Mogollon Rim is awfully big, but yeah. More specifically Apache-
Sitgreaves/Gila national forest. I'm not talking about and don't know about
the desert so those points are moot as are the ones about the strip and
kaibab.

That's not to say you are wrong about them in particular, but our particular
ecosystem it's different. However, the grazing on public land isn't all good.
In chokepoints sometimes land destruction happens, for example.

That being said, the idea of leaving _pristine wilderness_ that way for the
sake of it fails the understand the bigger picture I am talking about here.
For example, if we were to leave the _pristine wilderness_ to do it's thing,
we should let natural burns just do their thing. That's part of my original
statement. The forest service was interfering with the natural process of
burns in the forest and in the end caused more damage than benefit.

The livestock have helped keep underbrush down, and since the fires have
helped to spread plant life and reinvograte the forest. The ranchers in
tending the stock have also performed many of the duties that the forest
service otherwise would do, and often don't have the time, manpower, or
funding to get done. Honestly though I just happen to be a geek from the area,
I don't know that much about the grazing system and I would have to ask the
people who do know about it.

So to summarize, my list of good things are: reduced wildfire risk, increased
plant diversity, invasive plant control, and reduction of public funds needed
for land management (I've seen estimates at over $750m saved per year by
public grazing programs nationally).

I have to say a response like yours is exactly what I'm talking about. The
kind of knee-jerk "save the land" response without considering the pragmatic
reality of the situation. Ranchers alone, if done properly, could keep the
pristine wilderness more pristine than if it was all just walled off and no-
one ever went there.

~~~
diebir
Ah, Gila!

Everything that I have seen on the ground makes me think that livestock can't
be beneficial for an ecosystem, be it a desert or a forest. All I have seen
from cows in the west is damage. The times have changed. The economy is
different. The priorities of the country and people's attitudes have changed
(conservation). It is time to get cows off public lands where it makes little
economical sense.

BTW, in your case it is not grey wolf, but even a more endangered mexican
wolf, correct? These are critically endangered, if I remember correctly.

------
rch
Supply Chain info must be on record somewhere - people could just boycott beef
from these ranches.

~~~
eugeneionesco
Shame on you, the well-being of humans should be more important than an
animal.

~~~
bsder
Funny, HN is all about capitalism while it works against labor.

Suddenly, when it works against capital, HN gets very upset.

~~~
mst
That would not have been my first thought after reading "the well-being of
humans should be more important than an animal" \- I'd've thought "oh shit,
they just triggered all the urban dwelling armchair economists".

On the other hand, I suspect the trend you describe at least somewhat exists,
and you're suffering from the human brain being an overactive pattern matcher
in any given specific case rather than being entirely wrong about the general
case.

~~~
eugeneionesco
Urban dwelling? I live in rural Romania.

~~~
mst
I gave my guess as to who was downvoting and/or angrily replying to your post,
as a counterpoint to bsder's guess as to who said people are.

I also meant to type "armchair environmentalists" but too much marginal
revolution and too little coffee apparently made me braino.

Rural romanian sensibilities versus US urban dwelling archair environmentalist
would totally explain the attacks on you to me - and now seems even more
plausible than "labour versus capital" as the underlying cause.

------
squozzer
Personally I have no opinion on wolves, but I'm a city boy.

The notion that "city folk" have any idea how to manage anything out in the
wild probably contributes as much to how people in WY and elsewhere perceive
the wolf as any damage wolves may cause.

~~~
komali2
I don't understand - where in the article does it indicate to you that "city
folk" are managing wolf populations?

And furthermore, if the people managing wolf populations are defined as "city
folk," what about this definition makes them ineligible to manage wolf
populations?

~~~
narrowrail
When I lived in Idaho, my neighbor found his dead dog draped over his mailbox
because it wondered onto another neighbors land that had cattle. The law is on
their side, and this issue goes back over 100 years, though the details
differ.

~~~
komali2
That's an interesting story, but can you clarify why you mentioned it? I don't
understand the relation to my question.

~~~
narrowrail
It's the type of story that city people (who spend 0.01% of their time in
rural areas) seem to be astonished by because their lifestyles are so
different. Trying to impose your will on people in an area you've barely lived
seems quite arrogant to those that live there 100% of the time.

~~~
komali2
Oh. I hadn't found the story astonishing, sorry. To be honest, I feel like
you're the one coming off as arrogant, to suggest that there's some impassible
divide between those that live in rural communities, and those that live in
cities. I don't believe this is the case.

~~~
narrowrail
It's not an impassible divide, just a mentality difference. I'm not sure where
you live, but my county has ~60k people (well, year round residents).

