Must have been the same "good reason"that they stole the Indian's land too.

Survival of the fittest. Obviously, the Asian migrants lost to the European migrants in Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Just like the Mexicans today eh?I guess what goes around comes around.

It is nice we rewrote the rules of civilization during the 60's. But our modern rules were not the rules of civilization prior to the late 20 century. It was dog eat dog.

Who will re write history next time around?

Me and my dad use to kill huge bull elk by the park every year from the 80s -2006. We would ride way back in and see herds of 50-300 hunting on horses not driving up n down roads. It’s sad we don’t even go around there anymore.wish they would completely close the hunting around the park cuz the few bulls that do come out of the park get shot by the outfitters n stuff. They use to have late hunts n special bull tags. Not anymore the elk have no chance around there. Should be archery only or close it. Last time I went to Gardner seen 14 grizzlies in one day.

I am sure you are absolutely correct. Thus my previous comment about expedience and self-interest versus "darned good reason".


When we look at Yellowstone where no hunting was allowed and the apex predator...other than man....was removed...it isn't at all surprising to see the habitat destruction that took place. Neither is it surprising to see a more 'normal' distribution of species ...both plant and animal....since reintroduction.

What IS surprising is that people are surprised. For a good lesson along the exact same lines....read about the Kaibab deer herd between 1906 and 1930. A perfect example of what SHOULD have been expected both before and after reintroduction.

I recall reading years ago when the habitat began recovering there after reintroduction .

Aspen , for example, were able to grow new groupings when they would be eaten to the ground before, all manner of shrubs, other young trees, etc. changed the environment for the better. No more bank erosion , other animal life also changed and benefitted.

The whole ecosystem was transformed in a few years.

It was a learning experience for me , along with before and after photos.

How cool to be able to trap such an apex predator as a wolf - to have them as a managed resource available to trappers .

Montana Jake: Im sorry to hear you and your dad don't hunt the park any more. Is it just too expensive if you do not harvest? I would think that you would still go out just for the experience (you get to hunt Yellowstone!!!). I realize you have seen the country before but still it Yellowstone! Speak to your father and say" its not like it was and won't be the same but maybe that's not all bad". 'Hunting is not suppose to be easy or it would be called shooting". I think if you practice tracking and maybe spend a couple extra days out on the land with your father (how cool is that, my dad died when I was 18) you can still harvest maybe not a huge bull. But enough to fill a freezer and you hunt Yellowstone with your father. Totally way more important than expense (yes I know expense is very important) or resentment of lost experiences. I would love to hunt Yellowstone on horseback with my sons. Talk to your father, even if it goes no further, just talking about it, that's a treasure in itself.

If Yellowstone's habitat was being destroyed by an overpopulation of ungulates, my bet is the local residents, or stakeholders, would have supported allowing themselves the opportunity to reduce those populations through regulated hunting and trapping. The wildlife was mismanaged by the Park Service due to their own misguided beliefs that man is not natural. Who is suppose to be managing the wildlife in Wyoming for maximum benefit of the people Wyoming anyway, the Feds or the State? Whether I think wolves should be running around in Wyoming is irrelevant, since I don't live there.

"During the 1870s and 1880s Native American tribes were effectively excluded from the national park. Under a half-dozen tribes had made seasonal use of the Yellowstone area, but the only year-round residents were small bands of Eastern Shoshone known as "Sheepeaters". They left the area under the assurances of a treaty negotiated in 1868, under which the Sheepeaters ceded their lands but retained the right to hunt in Yellowstone. The United States never ratified the treaty and refused to recognize the claims of the Sheepeaters or any other tribe that had used Yellowstone.[43]"

"Starting in 1914, in an effort to protect elk populations, the U.S. Congress appropriated funds to be used for the purposes of "destroying wolves, prairie dogs, and other animals injurious to agriculture and animal husbandry" on public lands. Park Service hunters carried out these orders, and by 1926 they had killed 136 wolves, and wolves were virtually eliminated from Yellowstone.[104] Further exterminations continued until the National Park Service ended the practice in 1935."

You could ask the same questions about Denali. At least they have a few predators also

National Parks are by far the USA's greatest invention. Management of this great triumph in social experimentation has some down sides. But still National parks are a real point of glory in American history. Would the King of England established National Parks? Probably not. Be proud of you great achievement in establishing a legacy for the planet to follow. Its unfortunate that an agreement could not be worked out with the aboriginal people of the Parks, similar to what we have done in Canada with our northern Parks. But our first Canadian parks had very similar issues with inhabitants of lands that became Parks.

I believe the recent UN study found that Parks established through agreements with tribal governments have had the most success. Can you imagine if the US Cavalry negotiated with the Suixe Tribal Chiefs to establish a multi use National Park in the Black Hills and kept the prospectors out?

Problem I see with a "buffer zone" is that once they start declining in the "buffer zone" what's to stop the animal right dingbats from then trying to implement a buffer zone to the buffer zone? Give an inch they take a mile.

We (at least Idaho) do NOT want to kill all the wolves (not that we could anyway) If their numbers drop below 150 wolves in the state or 10 breeding pairs they will get listed again and we won't be able to touch them.

That's exactly what they keep trying to do around Denali Park. Buffers around buffers

I’m told the Buffalo wolf in Yellowstone was similar in size to the Timber wolf in Minnesota. Instead of reintroducing a similar sized wolf, they went to northern Canada and used the large MaKinzie River wolf. The largest of the remaining sub species of wolves. I saw a park service picture of a 156 pound male wolf they were tagging in the park. They say what’s the problem, it’s a wolf? But they are concerned someone released lake trout in Yellowstone lake.

Im pretty sure they captured the wolves in Yukon and Northern BC. and its Mackenzie, Scottish not Lithuanian.

Strange the USFW had to import wolves. Maybe they couldn't corrupt us? USFW has plenty of their own wolves here.

I gotta agree with white17. I'm not biologist but I do believe that predators (wolves included) are needed in moderate numbers to control prey populations. I'm not a wolf hater, kill em all type by any means. I can only speak to Idaho but I do think that we have too many of them here and management is definitely a good tool. I think they're an interesting, one-of-a-kind resource to be able to harvest as well. Just my opinion and I do catch flak for it from the kill em all types.

You do know why they are concerned with lake trout in Yellowstone lake and its effect?

For those that aren't here is the problem with Lake trout (non-native in Yellowstone lake).
1) they eat the native Cutthroat Trout
2) Lake Trout spawn in the lake, Cutthroat Trout spawn in rivers/creeks.
3) Less Cutthroat Trout in the rivers/creeks in the spring eliminates a traditional food source for Grizzly Bears.
4) Grizzly Bears now need to find alternative food in spring, They found it, Elk calves.
5) Less Cuttthroat Trout equals less Elk.

So for those concerned with the elk population they should be behind the elimination of a Non-native Fish species that changed the the Park for the worse.