Return to Message Board

As most know, the wolves introduced into Yellowstone and central Idaho are rapidly expanding there range and the controversy that surrounds them. This year the gray wolf was removed from the endangered species list and harvest tags have been issued in Idaho. Environmental groups have expressed opposition to the delisting and hunting. Most ranchers have opposed the wolves, who kill thier livestock, most hunters are outraged about the devasted elk and deer herds. I'm curious about hikers point of view on this issue. Even though, seeing wolves roam their natural habitat appeals to me, I opposed the reintroduction. I feel the eco-system has changed too much to introduce a predator that reproduces as rapidly as the wolf. I could never shoot a wolf, but I think a hunt could keep the population in check and isolated to the depest wilderness. I hope all parties can find middle ground in this solution.

This is a very debatable topic. I live in Idaho and have heard and seen how the Wolves have impacted the surrounding areas. I get a little nervous when I am backpacking this wilderness because the wolves are so common now, almost everyone you talk to has seen one. I myself have not yet but I always pack a gun and still get nervous at night in the wild. My friend recently got a tag to shoot one and I have a blurry picture in my Mics. Hikes album on my page check it out it shows just how big they are.
T. Simons_81
Reintroduction is always a tough issue for me. I would agree that it would seem as though the ecosystem will have adapted over time and eventually strike a balance again. Species and ecosystems have always had to adapt to natural influences, now they just have to adapt to human influences as well. At the same time, I guess there is something to be said for living in and experiencing a world that is as natural as possible, and as a hiker, one of the draws is the potential of seeing wildlife in its natural habitat. I actually go back and forth on this and I guess I am actually content with those who are more directly impacted by this to work it out. I am definitely not a biologist, so I guess that I will always defer to their expertise on the issue, and if the consensus is that they deem it necessary, then they should probably know better than I. I am sympathetic to the rancher's perspective as well, but my personal bias generally leans towards protecting environment over economy (long term vs short term). It is a tough one though!