Yellowstone National Park’s best-known wolf, beloved by many tourists and valued by scientists who tracked its movements, was shot and killed on Thursday outside the park’s boundaries, Wyoming wildlife officials reported.
The wolf, known as 832F to researchers, was the alpha female of the park’s highly visible Lamar Canyon pack and had become so well known that some wildlife watchers referred to her as a “rock star.” The animal had been a tourist favorite for most of the past six years.
The wolf was fitted with a $4,000 collar with GPS tracking technology, which is being returned, said Daniel Stahler, a project director for Yellowstone’s wolf program. Based on data from the wolf’s collar, researchers knew that her pack rarely ventured outside the park, and then only for brief periods, Dr. Stahler said.
This year’s hunting season in the northern Rockies has been especially controversial because of the high numbers of popular wolves and wolves fitted with research collars that have been killed just outside Yellowstone in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.
Wolf hunts, sanctioned by recent federal and state rules applying to the northern Rockies, have been fiercely debated in the region. The wolf population has rebounded since they were reintroduced in the mid-1990s to counter their extirpation a few years earlier.
Many ranchers and hunters say the wolf hunts are a reasonable way to reduce attacks on livestock and protect big game populations.
This fall, the first wolf hunts in decades were authorized in Wyoming. The wolf killed last week was the eighth collared by researchers that was shot this year after leaving the park’s boundary.
The deaths have dismayed scientists who track wolves to study their habits, population spread and threats to their survival. Still, some found 832F’s death to be particularly disheartening.
“She is the most famous wolf in the world,” said Jimmy Jones, a wildlife photographer who lives in Los Angeles and whose portrait of 832F appears in the current issue of the magazine American Scientist.
Wildlife advocates say that the wolf populations are not large enough to withstand state-sanctioned harvests and that the animals attract tourist money. Yellowstone’s scenic Lamar Valley has been one of the most reliable places to view wolves in the northern Rockies, and it attracts scores of visitors every year.
Dr. Stahler said the Lamar Canyon pack might be able to carry on if another alpha female joins it. Otherwise, the wolves may disperse and join other packs, he said. “Wolves are pretty good at filling vacancies,” he said.
The scientists can expect to have more of these wolves killed if they aren't going to do anything about this situation on the ground. But the lines are so darn blurry in this situation. Aren't ranchers allowed to use the park to have their animals graze? Aren't there non-gun ways to keep wolves away from the non-park lands?
Post by Daria Morgandorffer on Dec 11, 2012 19:57:52 GMT -5
My dad in MI called me in outrage the other day because he heard an NPR piece talking about wolves in the Upper Peninsula. Apparently, even though the wolfs are BARELY off the endangered species list, people are freaking out about them and trying to kill them all. There was someone talking on NPR in reaction to this saying that there were already laws on the books allowing people to shoot the wolves if they are threatening humans or livestock----or DEER. Motherfucking DEER AKA their natural prey.
I'm happy that wolf hunting in areas adjacent to YNP has been suspended for the time being...this kind of stuff makes me so sad. We only got to glimpse wolves in the wild when we were there for our HM in 2008 (but saw more at the bear and wolf sanctuary) and I really wish we'd gotten to see more of them even if it wouldve been from a distance.
The scientists can expect to have more of these wolves killed if they aren't going to do anything about this situation on the ground. But the lines are so darn blurry in this situation. Aren't ranchers allowed to use the park to have their animals graze? Aren't there non-gun ways to keep wolves away from the non-park lands?
If a wolf is threatening your livestock, by all means, either get it removed or kill it. But don't go on pre-emptive "wolf hunts" to decrease the overall population in your area just because they MIGHT decide to attack your cows.
Post by LoveTrains on Dec 11, 2012 20:30:42 GMT -5
I read this in the NYT earlier this week and almost cried. I spent a summer in college working in YNP and spent many summer evenings out in Lamar Valley watching the wolves.
My understanding is that the wolf hunt has now been suspended in the areas surrounding YNP so at least for the rest of this winter season the wolves are safe. For now. Still sucks, though.
The scientists can expect to have more of these wolves killed if they aren't going to do anything about this situation on the ground. But the lines are so darn blurry in this situation. Aren't ranchers allowed to use the park to have their animals graze? Aren't there non-gun ways to keep wolves away from the non-park lands?
If a wolf is threatening your livestock, by all means, either get it removed or kill it. But don't go on pre-emptive "wolf hunts" to decrease the overall population in your area just because they MIGHT decide to attack your cows.
According to the second article linked, in parts of Wyoming not bordering Yellowstone wolves can be shot on sight...whether they pose an immediate threat to humans or livestock or not.
They are wildlife who have been endangered and who are confined to a man-made boundary they don't understand. They also are a scientific investment because of the tracking collars.
Biologists say more than 80 wolves are still living in Yellowstone, a healthy population from the standpoint of species preservation. But that that number is likely to drop as hunting and trapping continue outside the park. So far this season, at least 87 wolves were shot in Montana, 120 were shot or trapped in Idaho and 58 were shot in Wyoming.
Holy shit. That's a lot of wolves shot! If there aren't many more than 80 left in the park, they just killed way more wolves than are left in Yellowstone. They're going to go extinct again if they keep that up.
I guess I'm just jaded. I'm dislike all hunting, but I don't get emotional about it. They also shoot buffalo that wander out of the park, you know.
The are endangered and important to the ecosystem. There have been hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in the project over more than a decade - and there is a possibility now that the best pack might collapse.
I think it's pretty callous to side eye that. I actually don't have a problem with all hunting - but I do with the hunting of endangered animals that wander out of a man made border and that people have invested significant resources in.
I guess I'm just jaded. I'm dislike all hunting, but I don't get emotional about it. They also shoot buffalo that wander out of the park, you know.
The are endangered and important to the ecosystem. There have been hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in the project over more than a decade - and there is a possibility now that the best pack might collapse.
I think it's pretty callous to side eye that. I actually don't have a problem with all hunting - but I do with the hunting of endangered animals that wander out of a man made border and that people have invested significant resources in.
They aren't endangered anymore. In fact, because they were protected, they became over populated in areas and threw the ecosystem out of whack. That's why you can hunt them again.
Packs collapse all the time. It's the circle of life.
I haven't seen information to indicate they were overpopulated at all, only that they, in and of themselves, pose a threat to livestock breeders' animals.
Hunters are allowed to chase them down in vehicles to kill them. It is not a fair fight.
Packs can re-establish themselves, true. They shouldn't be forced to do so by hunters who won't coexist with them.
I just don't see the same emotion for the buffalo or elk or any other species who is hunted without regard for their family structures. Why wolves? Yellowstone isn't freaking out about this.
I just don't see the same emotion for the buffalo or elk or any other species who is hunted without regard for their family structures. Why wolves? Yellowstone isn't freaking out about this.
There are tons and tons of elk and buffalo in Yellowstone. And neither are as high up in the ecosystem as wolves.
I just don't see the same emotion for the buffalo or elk or any other species who is hunted without regard for their family structures. Why wolves? Yellowstone isn't freaking out about this.
There are tons and tons of elk and buffalo in Yellowstone. And neither are as high up in the ecosystem as wolves.
I don't understand what you mean. The ecosystem isn't a hierarchy.
It's a numbers thing, there are a lot of prey to a small number of predators. Taking out 1 wolf, especially an alpha, can cause the rest of the pack to fail. They rely on the alphas for hunting expertise, reproduction, etc. This means that even if this pack survives, it is less likely to have pups next year, and the population will decline. 10 bison from a herd of 500 is no big deal. One alpha from a pack of <10, big deal.
Ok, but Park scientists aren't really concerned, so I'm not either.
Maybe I should mention DH works with Park scientists on enviro projects, so I'm not talking totally out of my ass. I tend to defer to his opinion on these issues, I guess.
I'm frustrated so I may be inarticulate. There are 80 wolves in YNP, 7 billion people in the world. We claim other species are over populated and need to be thinning but what about humanity? You don't see governments say "Whelp, there are too many people fucking shit up, gotta thin the herd..." and slaughtering people en mass for the sake of population control. Why should we do it to other species. I'm not a FEMA nut, and I have no real problem with hunting provided you use what you kill, however, this makes me ill.
I just don't see the same emotion for the buffalo or elk or any other species who is hunted without regard for their family structures. Why wolves? Yellowstone isn't freaking out about this.
OK, first, we're not talking about elk here. The article is about wolves, and that's why we're talking about wolves and not elk. I promise that when an article about elk is posted, I will be equally upset because I am strongly opposed hunting for sport (as opposed to food). I have 0 interest in having a hunting debate in general.
As to the other question of why wolves evoke emotion, there are several reasons, and none of them are hypocrisy or ignorance, as you seem to be implying: 1. Gray wolves were endangered, so people feel naturally protective. 2. Other wolves still are endangered, and some are near extinction. 3. Wolves are canines, so they naturally remind people of dogs. 4. This particlar wolf was considered a tourist attraction. She was well-known / recognized by people who visit the area. Something familiar and special was removed through violence. Surely you can see why this would be upsetting. 5. Wolves generally do not prey on livestock. It's considered uncommon, so it feels like a pointless killing when no one, including the livestock, is directly thereatened.
Yellowstone park scientists are not worried about extinction at this point, but they have acknowledged that open season on wolves is disruptive to wolf research.
They are also considering buffer zones, and the MT wildlife commissioner says they want to "do this right," which can be interpreted as killing wolves willy-nilly for being outside Yellowstone is not automatically right.
Post by LoveTrains on Dec 12, 2012 10:55:48 GMT -5
I think I am just very personally invested in the wolves. I spent a summer in YNP that was very difficult for me personally, and I just spent hours watching the wolves in the summer. It kept me sane. If you have never done it, you should. It is incredible. You can see the pack from the road in lots of places. There would always be a good group of people out on the road to Roosevelt taking pictures, etc. For me I feel like I have a personal connection with that Lamar Valley pack. It is just symbolic to me of the power of nature, the beauty of it, etc.
But something like that is hard to explain to someone who just doesn't seem to care about senseless slaughter. And it is perfectly senseless when the hunters are killing wolves that are not threatening their livestock. The data on the collar shows that the wolf rarely ventured out of the park. This particular wolf was not a threat at all.
But again, I admit I might be overly sensitive. I love animals. I get sad when I see roadkill. But this particular killing seems particularly heinous and awful to me.
I don't understand what you mean. The ecosystem isn't a hierarchy.
I mean food chain. Buffalo and elk are herbivores, whereas wolves can control the population of other large animals, which are their prey.
Exactly. Wolves are apex predators, which are pretty important to keep around. They keep the rest of the system in balance, and when you lose that, everything else goes to shit.
I mean food chain. Buffalo and elk are herbivores, whereas wolves can control the population of other large animals, which are their prey.
Exactly. Wolves are apex predators, which are pretty important to keep around. They keep the rest of the system in balance, and when you lose that, everything else goes to shit.
Smaller animals (coyotes, etc.) depend on wolf kills for the carcasses.
According to the second article linked, in parts of Wyoming not bordering Yellowstone wolves can be shot on sight...whether they pose an immediate threat to humans or livestock or not. 
