Are today's wolves preserved too much or not?

Discuss wolf conservation and status.

Moderators: Isela, Koa

Post Reply
User avatar
Koa
WolfQuest Moderator
WolfQuest Moderator
Posts: 12954
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:53 pm
Gender: Female
Contact:

Are today's wolves preserved too much or not?

Post by Koa » Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:29 pm

Hi everyone,
As apart of the suggestion thread I've started (http://www.wolfquest.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=68574), part of my goal as well as the goal shared by a few other members of this board is to create more discussion topics as opposed to just general, news-oriented threads.

So, with that being said, please, before participating in this discussion or venturing any further, remember to be civil on this thread. These kinds of discussion threads are not about proving who is right or who is wrong, but mainly to encourage healthy and substantial discussion regarding today's matters and views that surround wolves, so that others may take in and consider not just their own opinion, but fellow users' opinions as well.

Now that the usual message is over, let's continue.
The topic today is yet another "installment" in the series of discussion threads that I/others plan to continue. So, the question is: are today's wolves preserved too much? Do you think that certain species/subspecies of wolves absorb unnecessary attention that could be directed towards more endangered species/subspecies of wolves or other creatures altogether, or do you believe that the actions of today are justified and that wolves should continue to be preserved?

The view on history and controversy surrounding wolves is biased and ridden with extreme views on both sides, but sometimes those extreme views can (hopefully!) provoke us to meet in the middle and decide what is best from each point of view, or perhaps come up with our own views on such matters.

For the second part of the question: Depending upon your opinion to the original question, what do you think has caused the excessive (or lack of) amount of preservation? Today's lifestyle/media? The history of wolves? The circulation or belief of outdated information?
YOU SAY YOU WANT TO GET BETTER AND YOU DON'T KNOW HOW.

calxmity
WQ Report Team Retiree
WQ Report Team Retiree
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 11:10 am

Re: Are today's wolves preserved too much or not?

Post by calxmity » Sun Oct 21, 2012 10:38 am

Neat thread, Koa!
I believe people are looking to much into wolves. If some are in National Parks, they don't really need to keep an eye on them. I mean, people can't exactly hunt them because they are protected in the park.
As for the second question, scientists dont love to see species go extinct, so I would think they put so much attention on them because they were endangered at one point I believe.
green - cavetown

User avatar
Koa
WolfQuest Moderator
WolfQuest Moderator
Posts: 12954
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:53 pm
Gender: Female
Contact:

Re: Are today's wolves preserved too much or not?

Post by Koa » Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:44 pm

Lit wrote:Neat thread, Koa!
I believe people are looking to much into wolves. If some are in National Parks, they don't really need to keep an eye on them. I mean, people can't exactly hunt them because they are protected in the park.
As for the second question, scientists dont love to see species go extinct, so I would think they put so much attention on them because they were endangered at one point I believe.

Do not just limit your opinion to national parks.
Take into consideration the preservation of wild wolves outside of National Parks, i.e., (in the United states in this case) Minnesota, Wyoming, Idaho, etc. Protection versus non-protected. Are conservation groups with wolves being too finicky about their protection/are they justified, or is the majority of the government justified in the current management of wolves they partake in, i.e., wolf hunts?

Given, in my personal opinion, the constant bickering between conservation groups and the government and ilk, I don't see gray wolves in general becoming extinct anytime soon and can't imagine scientists foreseeing that, but I could be wrong.
YOU SAY YOU WANT TO GET BETTER AND YOU DON'T KNOW HOW.

User avatar
BlackWarrior
Former WQ Moderator
Posts: 2515
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:25 pm
Gender: Female
Location: In the Mountains

Re: Are today's wolves preserved too much or not?

Post by BlackWarrior » Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:26 pm

Let's not forget that both over-conserving and not conserving enough of any species all started with the general problem with the species numbers. Wolves (grey wolves more so) have high enough numbers that I personally don't feel there is any need to have them under protection acts. I am concerned about the status of the Mexican wolves though, and will continue to be concerned until their numbers are stable. But returning to what I first mentioned, the species numbers all started somewhere, whether it was an increase or a decrease. Things such as these are often influenced by human actions and whereabouts, so conserving wolves are just another method of trying to reverse our mistakes. In some ways, we get much to involved with natures natural cycle, but we most likely wouldn't have to get involved in the first place if we thought more thoroughly about the consequences of our decisions. Then again, if we don't step in, we may just lose some of this planet's endangered species..
Koa wrote: Given, in my personal opinion, the constant bickering between conservation groups and the government and ilk, I don't see gray wolves in general becoming extinct anytime soon and can't imagine scientists foreseeing that, but I could be wrong.

Good point, Koa. ^
Not all who w a n d e r are l o s t

Community Moderator ( April 2012 – July 2015 )
WQ Report Team ( 2012 – 2013 )
User of the Month ( December 2011 )


Avatar © Windripper

User avatar
Koa
WolfQuest Moderator
WolfQuest Moderator
Posts: 12954
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:53 pm
Gender: Female
Contact:

Re: Are today's wolves preserved too much or not?

Post by Koa » Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:35 pm

BlackWarrior wrote:[...] Things such as these are often influenced by human actions and whereabouts, so conserving wolves are just another method of trying to reverse our mistakes. In some ways, we get much to involved with natures natural cycle, but we most likely wouldn't have to get involved in the first place if we thought more thoroughly about the consequences of our decisions. Then again, if we don't step in, we may just lose some of this planet's endangered species..


Humans exist on earth - we cannot erase our existence [reasonably]. Therefore, I think, no matter for conservation or non-conservation, humans cannot simply avoid being involved. We have evolved to be a thing that manages, so it is something I believe we have no choice but to fill. "Turning a blind eye" or "not getting involved" in things as a whole would be downright impossible -- the desicions we make daily effect everything around us, too, and in a way we are still effecting our environment, which means we are getting involved or messing around with the world, but perhaps not as directly as a desicion to hunt or conserve wolves might be viewed.
YOU SAY YOU WANT TO GET BETTER AND YOU DON'T KNOW HOW.

User avatar
BlackWarrior
Former WQ Moderator
Posts: 2515
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:25 pm
Gender: Female
Location: In the Mountains

Re: Are today's wolves preserved too much or not?

Post by BlackWarrior » Wed Oct 24, 2012 7:36 am

Koa wrote:
BlackWarrior wrote:[...] Things such as these are often influenced by human actions and whereabouts, so conserving wolves are just another method of trying to reverse our mistakes. In some ways, we get much to involved with natures natural cycle, but we most likely wouldn't have to get involved in the first place if we thought more thoroughly about the consequences of our decisions. Then again, if we don't step in, we may just lose some of this planet's endangered species..
Humans exist on earth - we cannot erase our existence [reasonably]. Therefore, I think, no matter for conservation or non-conservation, humans cannot simply avoid being involved. We have evolved to be a thing that manages, so it is something I believe we have no choice but to fill. "Turning a blind eye" or "not getting involved" in things as a whole would be downright impossible -- the desicions we make daily effect everything around us, too, and in a way we are still effecting our environment, which means we are getting involved or messing around with the world, but perhaps not as directly as a desicion to hunt or conserve wolves might be viewed.

Good point Koa, I definitely agree. Humans can't simply erase their foot prints because we are in existance, therefore our everyday decisions effect everything. I do think that some of our decisions could be more efficient than they are: such as using woodland for logging. We are changing animals habitat, which is forcing their numbers to either drop or increase, but again, it's a ripple effect, one thing effects everything.

So how this reflects to conserving wolves? Perhaps we need to start working backwards. Find the source of the problem and then see what can be done to somewhat fix it. This is where I am in full agreeance with conserving some of today's wolves. It's a matter of finding that balance where conservation is necessary , and where we say, their numbers are stable.
Not all who w a n d e r are l o s t

Community Moderator ( April 2012 – July 2015 )
WQ Report Team ( 2012 – 2013 )
User of the Month ( December 2011 )


Avatar © Windripper

User avatar
Koa
WolfQuest Moderator
WolfQuest Moderator
Posts: 12954
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:53 pm
Gender: Female
Contact:

Re: Are today's wolves preserved too much or not?

Post by Koa » Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:23 pm

BlackWarrior wrote:Good point Koa, I definitely agree. Humans can't simply erase their foot prints because we are in existance, therefore our everyday decisions effect everything. I do think that some of our decisions could be more efficient than they are: such as using woodland for logging. We are changing animals habitat, which is forcing their numbers to either drop or increase, but again, it's a ripple effect, one thing effects everything.

So how this reflects to conserving wolves? Perhaps we need to start working backwards. Find the source of the problem and then see what can be done to somewhat fix it. This is where I am in full agreeance with conserving some of today's wolves. It's a matter of finding that balance where conservation is necessary , and where we say, their numbers are stable.
But woodland for logging is exactly the kind of "footprint" I'm talking about. The world has become so accustomed to a set lifestyle and resource usage that I feel, while slight changes may help short-term or lesser in the long-run, there is no avoiding this "path" we travel down as humans, if you will. What has been done is done, and yes, while we can be more cautious with how we manage our resources, no small changes will make any problems go away unless we completely reform our lifestyle, which I don't think is going to happen, LOL.

With that being said, that circles back to my point about we have to manage everything. We can "conserve" all we want, but eventually, in my opinion, it will come to a point where conservation shall be no more, and not because we don't care, but because of growth and usage of resources. That's not exactly anytime soon, but I think people need to cut their losses and deal with gray wolves how they should be dealt with - a stable, non-struggling species. (but yes, there are exceptions, i.e., Mexican gray wolf subspecies. You know what I mean.)
YOU SAY YOU WANT TO GET BETTER AND YOU DON'T KNOW HOW.

User avatar
Blightwolf
New Pack Member
New Pack Member
Posts: 3478
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:20 am

Re: Are today's wolves preserved too much or not?

Post by Blightwolf » Thu Nov 01, 2012 5:08 am

Excellent topic, Koa.

Gray wolves are definitely being preserved too much in North America. Protecting a species that doesn't require any protection whatsoever is unreasonable. Canada alone has a healthy and stable population of 52,000-60,000 wolves. United States has an increasing population of around 9,000 wolves. There's 6,000-7,000 wolves in Alaska. Throw in the global wolf populations, such as Russia's 25,000-30,000 wolves, and anyone in their right mind can determine that gray wolves and its most widespread sub-species, the Eurasian wolf, are perfectly safe. For an example, hunters could easily kill about 20-30% out of a healthy wolf population found in states like Idaho, Michigan and Minnesota without damaging the overall population. Wolves are adaptable, they're survivors - they're incredibly quick to recover from their losses. The hunting quotas in states that have 500-700 wolves is nearly always only 50-70 wolves - and most of the time, the wanted quotas aren't even achieved during the season. I have no idea why a species that is listed as a Least Concern animal by the IUCN is getting so much undeserved attention for its constant need to be 'saved' or 'conserved' from extinction? It's nonsense. Gray wolves aren't dying - not now, not even in the near future. A state that used to have 200-300 wolves can have a population of over 500 basically in a blink of an eye - that's how fast wolves recover. And then when this state goes, "Our wolves are healthy and stable, yay! Now we can hunt them responsibly!", some extremist pro-wolf conservation group responds with, "No, you can't do this, you can't hunt the wolves", bypassing all the scientific facts, reports and documents regarding the population and its status. Does this honestly make sense to a lot of people?

Now, I'm not denying the fact that there are some states that could use a bigger and healthier wolf population, like Washington and Oregon, because their populations are low and weak. But when people take a good look at North America's wolf populations in general, they should be able to see how ridiculous the fighting between conservation groups and the government is. Truth is, wolf hunting actually has a positive long-term effect on the populations rather than negatively impacting the populations.

Personally, I'm sick and tired of people raving about gray/timber wolves. Wolves that actually are endangered are ignored, and not granted the protection they need simply because of the fallacity concerning the number and status of gray wolves in North America. People still go ahead and believe the old stereotypes and false claims that wolves in America are dying of extinction if the delisting continues. I have yet seen a single argument from a conservation group that makes sense when people start talking about wolf hunting. Every state needs a stable population that is responsibly regulated and managed. Too many wolves in one state causes problems - more livestock predation, more conflicts between domestic pets and wolves, and perhaps most alarmingly, more encounters between humans and wolves. None of these are good. There is a middle-way, there is a sensible way for every state in which wolf populations exist to safely and responsibly manage their wolves. The only thing that is needed is balance. Balance, and moderation.

If something is not done and the unnecessary 'hype' surrounding gray wolves doesn't end, the world will be at the risk of losing the actually endangered wolves - Mexican, African, Middle Eastern and Asian wolves.
AUGUST 2009 USER OF THE MONTH

User avatar
Koa
WolfQuest Moderator
WolfQuest Moderator
Posts: 12954
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:53 pm
Gender: Female
Contact:

Re: Are today's wolves preserved too much or not?

Post by Koa » Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:41 pm

Blightwolf wrote:Excellent topic, Koa.

Gray wolves are definitely being preserved too much in North America. Protecting a species that doesn't require any protection whatsoever is unreasonable. Canada alone has a healthy and stable population of 52,000-60,000 wolves. United States has an increasing population of around 9,000 wolves. There's 6,000-7,000 wolves in Alaska. Throw in the global wolf populations, such as Russia's 25,000-30,000 wolves, and anyone in their right mind can determine that gray wolves and its most widespread sub-species, the Eurasian wolf, are perfectly safe. For an example, hunters could easily kill about 20-30% out of a healthy wolf population found in states like Idaho, Michigan and Minnesota without damaging the overall population. Wolves are adaptable, they're survivors - they're incredibly quick to recover from their losses. The hunting quotas in states that have 500-700 wolves is nearly always only 50-70 wolves - and most of the time, the wanted quotas aren't even achieved during the season. I have no idea why a species that is listed as a Least Concern animal by the IUCN is getting so much undeserved attention for its constant need to be 'saved' or 'conserved' from extinction? It's nonsense. Gray wolves aren't dying - not now, not even in the near future. A state that used to have 200-300 wolves can have a population of over 500 basically in a blink of an eye - that's how fast wolves recover. And then when this state goes, "Our wolves are healthy and stable, yay! Now we can hunt them responsibly!", some extremist pro-wolf conservation group responds with, "No, you can't do this, you can't hunt the wolves", bypassing all the scientific facts, reports and documents regarding the population and its status. Does this honestly make sense to a lot of people?

Now, I'm not denying the fact that there are some states that could use a bigger and healthier wolf population, like Washington and Oregon, because their populations are low and weak. But when people take a good look at North America's wolf populations in general, they should be able to see how ridiculous the fighting between conservation groups and the government is. Truth is, wolf hunting actually has a positive long-term effect on the populations rather than negatively impacting the populations.

Personally, I'm sick and tired of people raving about gray/timber wolves. Wolves that actually are endangered are ignored, and not granted the protection they need simply because of the fallacity concerning the number and status of gray wolves in North America. People still go ahead and believe the old stereotypes and false claims that wolves in America are dying of extinction if the delisting continues. I have yet seen a single argument from a conservation group that makes sense when people start talking about wolf hunting. Every state needs a stable population that is responsibly regulated and managed. Too many wolves in one state causes problems - more livestock predation, more conflicts between domestic pets and wolves, and perhaps most alarmingly, more encounters between humans and wolves. None of these are good. There is a middle-way, there is a sensible way for every state in which wolf populations exist to safely and responsibly manage their wolves. The only thing that is needed is balance. Balance, and moderation.

If something is not done and the unnecessary 'hype' surrounding gray wolves doesn't end, the world will be at the risk of losing the actually endangered wolves - Mexican, African, Middle Eastern and Asian wolves.
Thank you -- and I really think you hit it right on the head. There is so much outdated information stilll in circulation regarding wolves, and then consider this "hype" like you mentioned and it is quite a whirlwind of a mess. The conservation groups of today for wolves really need to come to grip with reality and dig deeper, beyond the surface of what they've been preaching for countless years, and need to re-investigate what they are preaching.

There are many people who "want to make a difference," for example, by signing these "petitions..." which more or less are accompanied or fueled by that same conservation group's biased and inaccurate information on wolves, and then you have sections on television about wolves briefly, etc.; it just becomes a domino effect from there, and it is really unfortunate. The number of people who have inaccurate misconceptions [conservation and ilk] about wolves greatly outnumbers the people who don't, and that is what makes it so difficult because the hype still exist and this circulation of old information still exists.
YOU SAY YOU WANT TO GET BETTER AND YOU DON'T KNOW HOW.

User avatar
Blightwolf
New Pack Member
New Pack Member
Posts: 3478
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:20 am

Re: Are today's wolves preserved too much or not?

Post by Blightwolf » Fri Nov 02, 2012 5:20 am

Koa wrote:There is so much outdated information stilll in circulation regarding wolves, and then consider this "hype" like you mentioned and it is quite a whirlwind of a mess. The conservation groups of today for wolves really need to come to grip with reality and dig deeper, beyond the surface of what they've been preaching for countless years, and need to re-investigate what they are preaching.

There are many people who "want to make a difference," for example, by signing these "petitions..." which more or less are accompanied or fueled by that same conservation group's biased and inaccurate information on wolves, and then you have sections on television about wolves briefly, etc.; it just becomes a domino effect from there, and it is really unfortunate. The number of people who have inaccurate misconceptions [conservation and ilk] about wolves greatly outnumbers the people who don't, and that is what makes it so difficult because the hype still exist and this circulation of old information still exists.
I agree, conservation groups absolutely need to revisit the false, biased ideas of wolf conservation they've been pushing at people and the US government for decades and wake up to reality. One thing that is painfully clear is that, with all due respect to these individuals, most representatives of pro-wolf conservation groups are severely under-educated about wolves. They know little to no actual facts about wolves and the history of wolves in the United States. If these people actually were more educated about the species they are so desperately trying to 'save', they would know that gray wolves have exceeded all recovery goals in the western Great Lakes area. It's true that gray wolves were once endangered throughout North America and were nearing extinction in the lower 48 states; namely when they were placed under the Endangered Species Act in 1973. But that's the past - wolves have been fully recovered for a long time now, but the old myths and misconceptions persist due to lack of accurate, up-to-date info. Everyone seems to have access to the outdated information and material but newer and greatly more accurate info for some odd reason appears extremely scarce. It's hidden under all the hype and fallacity.
AUGUST 2009 USER OF THE MONTH

Silverfang88
Pup
Pup
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 6:06 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Pluto

Re: Are today's wolves preserved too much or not?

Post by Silverfang88 » Tue Jun 25, 2013 5:45 pm

I don't think they are preserved to much, but the don't need any more preservation. A good idea is to pay more attention and preservation to animals such as the grand Cayman blue iguana (less than 25 left), the Yangtze River Dolphin (less than 20 left) The Giant Stick Insect (less than 10 left) the Coelacanth, sometimes called "fossil fish" (unknown number left) or the Abington Island Tortoise (believed to be only one more left.) Those animals are so close to becoming extinct that the smallest threat could wipe them out.
No longer active Might check in every few months

User avatar
Annalese123
Newborn Wolf
Newborn Wolf
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:04 pm
Gender: Female
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Are today's wolves preserved too much or not?

Post by Annalese123 » Sat Dec 07, 2013 6:45 am

Well if wolves are too preserved, that means it's good because then the wolves won't go into any harm.
Anyway it really depends on what or how they react to human, mainly how they like us or not. If wolves were too preserved
there is no harm in that because us humans (sometimes) want to prevent animals of sorts to not go extinct. Though it might
not be self-harm it just might be how or what we are doing. My opinion is that it can be both. it doesn't have to be a sort of
place for interest.

Now onto the other question!

This is because people want to prevent the lack of animals that have already been extinct. This is because we have already lost
hundreds of animals because of us.
As you guys might already know
I'm From CS, (ChickenSmoothie)

I have been a big part of CS Sin-
ce 2012. This is because I found
an interest in what there is there,
and love to do whatever anyone
wants me to do.

User avatar
pawnee
Former WQ Moderator
Posts: 2483
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:05 pm
Location: the far north
Contact:

Re: Are today's wolves preserved too much or not?

Post by pawnee » Fri Dec 13, 2013 9:18 am

Interesting discussion....

Personally I think you have to look at the location and resources that are poured into wildlife conservation when your talking about this. Many countries still place bounties on large predators and no real records are kept in relation to control, management or how many animals are taken each year.

In North America, grey wolves seem fairly stable. The obvious threats to wolves, in my opinion, is also a large threat to all wildlife in general as wilderness is becoming developed to make way for housing, agricultural, etc. Without wild land for animals to move, protected places will become wildlife 'islands'. In the long run this ins't good for the survival of any wildlife occupying these spaces.

I think the species-grey wolf- is fine, I'm not against hunting or trapping so long as its not done in parks and is a sustainable quota. I don't think there will be a day when red wolves and mexican wolves will not have to be managed by wildlife conservationists. I think these two wolves would benefit from greater preservation...
My Wolf Art http://pawnee.deviantart.com/
Its Not the Size of the dog in the fight, Its the size of the fight in the dog-Mark Twain

alethe
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 2811
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:39 pm
Name: [REDACTED]
Gender: Female
Location: scadrial
Contact:

Re: Are today's wolves preserved too much or not?

Post by alethe » Sun Dec 22, 2013 8:28 am

I think there are other things to play into this, not just the government or wolf conservationists. There has been a steady climb of people (specifically on the Internet) who oppose to wolf hunting/killing wolves.

I don't think that wolves are in any danger of extinction yet. I do, however, think that people find ways to make a big deal out of a small thing. There are people on the Internet (I've seen this most on DeviantArt, but I'm sure its in other places) who act like wolves can do no wrong and that any human who hunts should die. Because of this, I think that some people are trying to preserve wolves too much.

As for myself, as I said before, I don't think wolves are in any danger of becoming extinct soon.


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ⋯⋯⋯_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I eat danger for breakfast!
Actually, I don’t. I prefer cereal.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ⋯⋯⋯_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


av/sig : lupe

Post Reply

Return to “Wolf Conservation”