"How wolves change rivers video"....?!

L

longbranch*

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
93   0   0
Location
Victoria,BC.
Came across this video. I think they're serious. Google "sustainable man wolf video" unbelievable Euro-anti hunting garbage. In just 20 years this happened?
Cheers
 
Last edited:
I didn't watch the video, and while I hunt wolves actively, they have an undeniable benefit to streams and rivers. When wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone, turbidiry (murkiness / entrained sediment load) of streams dropped, bank foliage rebounded, and as a result of the cleaner water and increased cover from bird predation fish stocks rebounded significantly. Many areas including Yellowstone have far higher than natural ungulate populations due to the destruction of the apex predators, who prefer open sites lines like streams, and everything is tempted by a drink. Apex predators are critical to an ecosystem's health, and while I haven't seen the video and can't comment on its message precisely, if they're saying what I think you allude they are, there's truth to it. National Geographic did a decent article some years ago on the Yellowstone research.
 
It's probaly clear but I should have mentioned for the general thread the ungulates of course would prefer to stay near the water, and lush vegetation. They eat and trample the vegatation on the stream bank, and cause erosion of the banks which introduces sediment, and widens the stream both making it shallower and wider, neither of which are good for fish. The foliage rebounded with the reintroduction of Wolves as they flocked to the streams to hunt, the banks became more stable again, and cover increased, which also reduced the severity of storm runoff that was destroying life in the streams as well. I could go on a long time but there's better info out there than I can share, via google.
 
Yup, its called an ecosystem. I've encountered many people in our country whose education would suggest that our system is woefully inadequate.
 
I watched a program on TV (maybe the history channel?) that described exactly what Ardent is talking about. The elk were becoming overabundant and once the wolves were reintroduced the elk population stabilized at a lower quantity and the aspens came back and the streams/water quality/fish etc all rebounded.

They had video over several years to prove it from permanently mounted cameras.

You can't have a stable ecosystem without predators.
 
I was writing on a smart phone earlier and made many small errors, but the gist of it is wolves allow deeper, cooler, cleaner streams that don't freeze as deeply in winter. This results from banks and vegetation not being beaten down by ungulates, when predation keeps them from staying and browsing the banks.

The effects are synergistic; shallow water with high turbidity / sediment heats up quickly, which kills fish. Colder, deeper water also holds more oxygen than warmer, shallower water. Turbidity gives sunlight something to act on further yet heating the water. Then combine winter freezes of shallow streams, and violent runoff events unchecked by the natural sponge of dense vegetation and everything gets worse again. All the negatives form when ungulates can hang around stream banks without pressure, anyone who has had livestock knows the effect. Wolves check this and the ripple effect is startling with how far it goes, there are big changes in the forests in Yellowstone too since the reintroduction of wolves.

We have become accustomed to populations of elk and deer that in many areas are far higher than natural, moose too out east in places, sometimes where they never even existed before. We see all wild animals as a good thing, and a good sign for an ecosystem, when sometimes the balances indicate significant problems, as in Saskatchewan's Cypress Hills, which not long ago in history had grizzlies. Wolves ranged the prairies in abundance not long ago, and even the lower mainland BC / Vancouver was populated by grizzlies and wolves in a blink of history ago. No indicator is better for the health of an ecosystem than the status of its apex predators; grizzles, cougars, wolves. Up north include polar bears. When they decline, things are in serious trouble. I hunt wolves, but only where it makes sense, up north they are in extreme abundance. Down south where all the human pressure is I honestly believe they deserve a break and I'm happy to see them down there.
 
Ya the wolves have been a great reintroduction to the yellow stone. Since, the elk heard is down well below 25% calves making it through the winter and are now pushing further out into the plains. You need a healthy calve reintroduction every year for a heathy heard "25%"min. So Ya wolfs are a hunters and best Freind. Scratch that a conservationist best friend. No one seems to care when a herbivore is killed, but when there is a stance taken against a carnivore like a wolf or a grizz. Suddenly a silly video like this is released from special groups to rally behind a cause that will only create more damage to our ecosystem. But that's just my opinion.
 
Lr1000 said:
Ya the wolves have been a great reintroduction to the yellow stone. Since, the elk heard is down well below 25% calves making it through the winter and are now pushing further out into the plains. You need a healthy calve reintroduction every year for a heathy heard "25%"min. So Ya wolfs are a hunters and best Freind. Scratch that a conservationist best friend. No one seems to care when a herbivore is killed, but when there is a stance taken against a carnivore like a wolf or a grizz. Suddenly a silly video like this is released from special groups to rally behind a cause that will only create more damage to our ecosystem. But that's just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it's an embarrassingly uneducated opinion. You want the real problem animal? It's humans. The science behind the wolf research is very sound, and if you took the time to read it through, very clear. But you won't. :) And I say this having killed more wolves than the vast majority on this forum, so please don't take this as bleeding heart.
 
Oh garrented people are to blame for habitat loss
more then anything, but that's the world we live in. Unless we are going to turn into China and allow only one child born this is not going to change anytime soon. The fact is wolves are doing a number on our livestock, our caribou, our moose, deer,elk and the list goes on. There is a target number for all these species, but what is the target number for wolves and grizz? Have you looked at the rentrudution rates into the animal herds in these areas? The numbers are scary and as much as people are to blame the facts are they have gotten worse with the increasing pop of preds.
 
Ardent said:
I was writing on a smart phone earlier and made many small errors, but the gist of it is wolves allow deeper, cooler, cleaner streams that don't freeze as deeply in winter. This results from banks and vegetation not being beaten down by ungulates, when predation keeps them from staying and browsing the banks.

The effects are synergistic; shallow water with high turbidity / sediment heats up quickly, which kills fish. Colder, deeper water also holds more oxygen than warmer, shallower water. Turbidity gives sunlight something to act on further yet heating the water. Then combine winter freezes of shallow streams, and violent runoff events unchecked by the natural sponge of dense vegetation and everything gets worse again. All the negatives form when ungulates can hang around stream banks without pressure, anyone who has had livestock knows the effect. Wolves check this and the ripple effect is startling with how far it goes, there are big changes in the forests in Yellowstone too since the reintroduction of wolves.

We have become accustomed to populations of elk and deer that in many areas are far higher than natural, moose too out east in places, sometimes where they never even existed before. We see all wild animals as a good thing, and a good sign for an ecosystem, when sometimes the balances indicate significant problems, as in Saskatchewan's Cypress Hills, which not long ago in history had grizzlies. Wolves ranged the prairies in abundance not long ago, and even the lower mainland BC / Vancouver was populated by grizzlies and wolves in a blink of history ago. No indicator is better for the health of an ecosystem than the status of its apex predators; grizzles, cougars, wolves. Up north include polar bears. When they decline, things are in serious trouble. I hunt wolves, but only where it makes sense, up north they are in extreme abundance. Down south where all the human pressure is I honestly believe they deserve a break and I'm happy to see them down there.
Click to expand...

All true, but while a very low population of apex predators is generally a sign of an ecosystem that's out of whack, they have a tendency to forget or ignore that this is also true when the apex predator population is too high. Conservationists seem to think "the more, the merrier" when it comes to them.
 
Ardent said:
Unfortunately it's an embarrassingly uneducated opinion. You want the real problem animal? It's humans. The science behind the wolf research is very sound, and if you took the time to read it through, very clear. But you won't. :) And I say this having killed more wolves than the vast majority on this forum, so please don't take this as bleeding heart.
Click to expand...

Someone understands the dynamic that is going on.
 
Ardent said:
I didn't watch the video, and while I hunt wolves actively, they have an undeniable benefit to streams and rivers. When wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone, turbidiry (murkiness / entrained sediment load) of streams dropped, bank foliage rebounded, and as a result of the cleaner water and increased cover from bird predation fish stocks rebounded significantly. Many areas including Yellowstone have far higher than natural ungulate populations due to the destruction of the apex predators, who prefer open sites lines like streams, and everything is tempted by a drink. Apex predators are critical to an ecosystem's health, and while I haven't seen the video and can't comment on its message precisely, if they're saying what I think you allude they are, there's truth to it. National Geographic did a decent article some years ago on the Yellowstone research.
Click to expand...

Actualy the video is talking about the reintroduction you yellowstone lol.

Both sides need to be kept in a healthy medium, to many predators a d you lose to many food animals, to few apex and you get to many food animals.

Proper conservation, includes human hunters. The correct number of tags for each keeps things in check.
 
Last edited:
bearkilr said:
All true, but while a very low population of apex predators is generally a sign of an ecosystem that's out of whack, they have a tendency to forget or ignore that this is also true when the apex predator population is too high. Conservationists seem to think "the more, the merrier" when it comes to them.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true, Alberta has a busy aerial culling operation in the northern rockies to protect woodland caribou, and BC is firing up the same in the north, and both are justified; in those specific areas.

This video, though again I have not watched as I'm a phone up north, deals with the general importance of wolves in areas they were formerly erradicated. Neither BC or Alberta wants erradication, only management, and I'm clearly all for management. When wolves are wiped out, as has all but happened in much of southern Canada and most of the US, there is of course a cascade of negative effects, very visibly seen in the streams as noted here. These remarks aren't pointed at bearkilr I believe he certainly gets it, I've segwayed out into the general discussion again.
 
Oh Really! The wolves changed the rivers!!!
I guess the change has nothing to do with the forest recovering from the fire of 1988! Sure, the few dozen wolves save a bit of vegetation by equalizing the deer (read elk) population, however the loss of the vegetation to the fire is what contributed to the erosion of the hillsides and rivers. The forest is now recovering and so is the vegetation and everything related to the balance of the ecosystem.

I am not against the wolves in any way. They are a vital contribution to the natural balance of the park. The logic of the video just escapes me.
 
Last edited:
Ardent said:
I was writing on a smart phone earlier and made many small errors, but the gist of it is wolves allow deeper, cooler, cleaner streams that don't freeze as deeply in winter. This results from banks and vegetation not being beaten down by ungulates, when predation keeps them from staying and browsing the banks.

The effects are synergistic; shallow water with high turbidity / sediment heats up quickly, which kills fish. Colder, deeper water also holds more oxygen than warmer, shallower water. Turbidity gives sunlight something to act on further yet heating the water. Then combine winter freezes of shallow streams, and violent runoff events unchecked by the natural sponge of dense vegetation and everything gets worse again. All the negatives form when ungulates can hang around stream banks without pressure, anyone who has had livestock knows the effect. Wolves check this and the ripple effect is startling with how far it goes, there are big changes in the forests in Yellowstone too since the reintroduction of wolves.

We have become accustomed to populations of elk and deer that in many areas are far higher than natural, moose too out east in places, sometimes where they never even existed before. We see all wild animals as a good thing, and a good sign for an ecosystem, when sometimes the balances indicate significant problems, as in Saskatchewan's Cypress Hills, which not long ago in history had grizzlies. Wolves ranged the prairies in abundance not long ago, and even the lower mainland BC / Vancouver was populated by grizzlies and wolves in a blink of history ago. No indicator is better for the health of an ecosystem than the status of its apex predators; grizzles, cougars, wolves. Up north include polar bears. When they decline, things are in serious trouble. I hunt wolves, but only where it makes sense, up north they are in extreme abundance. Down south where all the human pressure is I honestly believe they deserve a break and I'm happy to see them down there.
Click to expand...

If you actually believe there is not to many wolves in the south I believe you are very uneducated. I would love to see you spew ur rants in a room full of ranchers and hunters. These days in the lower 400 zones you are more likely to call in a wolf or a cat will a elk call. Ranchers are loosing tens of thousands of dollars in lost calves. You can call me uneducated in the issue that's fine but maybe get out of your basement, stop reading the theory and see what's happening to more then just the poor wolves.
 
Lr1000 said:
If you actually believe there is not to many wolves in the south I believe you are very uneducated. I would love to see you spew ur rants in a room full of ranchers and hunters. These days in the lower 400 zones you are more likely to call in a wolf or a cat will a elk call. Ranchers are loosing tens of thousands of dollars in lost calves. You can call me uneducated in the issue that's fine but maybe get out of your basement, stop reading the theory and see what's happening to more then just the poor wolves.
Click to expand...

There are too many wolves because the ranchers are losing calves? You need to think about that statement for more than a moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom