Yellowstone Park Wolves

[SAJ-99]

If the park could keep its revenues I’m sure it would be far in the black.

I would bet against that claim.

 

[mtmiller]

Do we really want to give MT control over wildlife in YNP?

Just chatted with Wilks. They are in.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Just chatted with Wilks. They are in.

I'm sure the Gov's personal trapper is as well. It's an affront to freedom if they can't poach woofs in the park.

 

[MTGomer]

Do we really want to give MT control over wildlife in YNP? There's not even a wildlife designation for bison anymore.

Plus, we'd have shoulder seasons, etc.

Let the park be, change some practices and be consistent with the organic act & the creation act.

It would mostly be Wyoming.
Obviously it’s not worth arguing about because it isn’t going to happen, but yes I think Yellowstone as a designated wilderness area incorporated into the Beartooth and Washakie would be far superior to the shit show, circus it currently is.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It would mostly be Wyoming.
Obviously it’s not worth arguing about because it isn’t going to happen, but yes I think Yellowstone as a designated wilderness area incorporated into the Beartooth and Washakie would be far superior to the shit show, circus it currently is.

You can have designated wilderness in side a national park.

Also, what you are complaining about isn't a permanent issue. It's a management one. You can change how parks are managed. Yellowstone is a great example of that going from bear watching parties at the dumps to hosting the bison rodeo every year.

Part of why YNP was created was to ensure that there was a refuge for wildlife. TR's Wilderness Hunter has a great excerpt about this.

 

[MTGomer]

I would bet against that claim.

You are probably right. That was a really stupid thing for me to say wasn’t it?

It would get pissed away. I should know better.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Then where do all those tourists go instead? Do they not go? Do they go to another NP? Do they go to the adjacent FS lands? Are we simply moving the problem or solving something?

Let them eat cake in Disneyland with Mickey Mouse.

 

[MTGomer]

Refuge



Not refuge

 

[Ben Lamb]

99% of the public never leaves these lines on the map:



The park is 4 million acres, +/- a few for the roads here. Name 4 million acres that has that few roads inside CONUS.

It ain't perfect, not by a long shot. It would be far, far worse if it hadn't been set aside in the 1870's because of mining claims, livestock operations, roads, logging, etc.

NP status saved that chunk of country, just like NP status has saved hundreds of millions of acres from unbridled development elsewhere.

The elk of Yellowstone are one of the most sought after herds in the west. Between the Crandall Creek elk, Norther herd, Thoroughfare herd and the Jackson herd, I don't think you'd have 1/2 the number of elk in the region if it weren't designated as a park. Same for those migratory bucks coming out of the east gate area. Or grizzly populations being what they are now.

 

[406dn]

I'm sure the Gov's personal trapper is as well. It's an affront to freedom if they can't poach woofs in the park.

Governor Greg would say it's proper management, not poaching.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Having hiked and backpacked many prominent trails in YNP, I can assure you that once travelled a couple of miles from the pavement you won't see very many other folks.
A good hike for me is when I'm back far enough to no longer hear the Harleys screaming.

 

[Straight Arrow]

It's an affront to freedom if they can't poach woofs in the park.

I'm sure that's written as a right somewhere in my vest pocket Constutooshun.

 

[SAJ-99]

You are probably right. That was a really stupid thing for me to say wasn’t it?

It would get pissed away. I should know better.

NPS contracts with Xanterra (a private co) to operate all the concessions - lodging, restaurants, etc. That company probably makes a profit because, you know, capitalism. The NPS charges fees for every vehicle entering the park. They don't charge directly by the person. So one car with 8 people is the same is as 1 person. It is hard to get how much revenue the part collects, but you start adjusting the visitor numbers and I'm guessing about $80m. A SWAG and I really have no clue on how close that is to right. Seems like a lot, but NPS still has staff and has to pay for road construction, repairs, fire monitoring, some marketing costs, etc, etc. I doubt that even $80m lasts long, especially given how those roads take a beating.

To the other silly points in this thread. It is impossible to tell how much a wolves add or detract from the financial situation of the park. Literally impossible. So people pick their side of the argument and make outrageous claims that they are "sure" are true. People do spend a lot of money in the surrounding communities and one of the top reasons cited for visiting the part is wildlife viewing, so the number isn't zero, but what it might be it not possible to determine accurately.

One of the things that might directly relate to HT'ers is when the committee was making a decision on the quota and took public comment, I bet over 90% were pro-wolf. I listened to them and the meeting where people called in and attended. The committee ignored them. It is easy to write them off as pro-environmental, left-wing extremists, and ignore them when you agree with the decision. Unfortunately it is another sign of the degradation of majority rule and elected officials (and appointed ones) assuming they know what is best. You can see other instances where it hasn't worked in our favor - elk management plans and permits, shoulder seasons, etc. Despite the public comments favoring something, they were ignored. Its a proverbial slippery slope. We need more discussion and some give and take regardless of what side you fall on in any/every particular issue.

 

[Sytes]

It's political football 101: punt, next team fixes the crap the other team created...

Look @ Bears Ear... NP, Not, NP...

Leave the circus shit show in our current National Parks. Learn from...? Wait, Bears Ear??? Back to NP.

Nope. Nothing learned here folks. Move the RV's along.

 

[manitou1]

Thank you I read that along with many other arguments and studies. The problem is not wolves on Yellowstone but when they leave the park. Pro wolf groups want more and more concessions and bigger buffer zones. I refer to you seeing residents that supported the wolf reintroduction but I honestly did not see the same thing. Ranchers , hunters were in strong opposition . One guy whom i attended the hearing with from Delaware told me he did not care if ranchers lost livestock and hunters didn’t have big game to hunt . He wanted to spend his two weeks a year seeing wolves ! He was not alone in his opinion. I challenge anyone tp tell me that they believe if one of the Yellowstone wolves is kill anywhere in the state of Montana that there is going to be outrage.

If they have their way, the buffer zone boundaries would be the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean.

 

[manitou1]

Visitors don't fly into the park by copter. They drive and spend money on the way through Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, etc. Money that wouldn't be spent if they weren't going to visit the park.

I am good with that...

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

It would mostly be Wyoming.
Obviously it’s not worth arguing about because it isn’t going to happen, but yes I think Yellowstone as a designated wilderness area incorporated into the Beartooth and Washakie would be far superior to the shit show, circus it currently is.

"and dedicated and set apart as a public park or pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people"
-YELLOWSTONE ACT, 1872


I think we are imposing our ideals and preferences on the park.

 

[mtmiller]

I am good with that...

Guess you aren't living in West Yellowstone or Gardiner?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Guess you aren't living in West Yellowstone or Gardiner?

Or Cody, or Bozeman, Red Lodge, Cooke City, or Island Park, Dubois, Jackson Hole, Kelly, Bondurant, Star Valley, etc.

 

[Sytes]

"and dedicated and set apart as a public park or pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people"
-YELLOWSTONE ACT, 1872


I think we are imposing our ideals and preferences on the park.

I think we are always imposing our ideals and preferences on anything conservation related... right?
/insert Hunt Talk forums