G
Green_Bronco
Guest
There is a slew of recent wolf news out there, but I came across something on the Utah DWR website that I thought I would share. It is a 2002 study (68 pages) conducted by Utah State University entitled ?Wolves in Utah: An Analysis of Potential Impacts and Recommendations for Management.
I found it very interesting to compare what they were saying almost 10 years ago (all based on sound ?scientific? analysis and research, of course) with the reality of what has been experienced today in nearby states.
In general, the 2002 study concluded that wolves could be successfully reintroduced to Utah with no significant impacts on hunting, ranching, or revenue related to either activity.
Here are some other noteworthy highlights:
Page xi: ?We estimate that total wolf management costs should never exceed $130,000 per year.?
Page 2: ?Throughout this analysis, we have strived to maintain an objective perspective.?
Page 6: ?a majority of Utah residents held either positive or neutral attitudes toward
Wolves?
Page 10: Table 1 shows that Utah could potentially support 711 wolves (including 102 in the Book Cliffs alone!). I?LL BET THE PEOPLE IN VERNAL WOULD JUST LOVE TO GO FOR A SUNDAY DRIVE IN THE BOOK CLIFFS TO SEE THE WOLVES?
Page 17: ?Typically, wolves do not appear to dramatically reduce prey populations?
Page 18: ?These studies suggest that a recolonizing wolf population would not significantly affect
Utah?s ungulate populations.?
Page 19: ?Yellowstone elk herds have remained very stable throughout wolf recovery?
Page 21: ?The potential benefits include both use?such as increases in tourism resulting from the presence of wolves.?
Page 22: ?in Minnesota, with its 2,500 wolves, management costs per wolf are much lower, approximately $265 annually.?
Page 26: ?Although this may still be an underestimate of the true number of depredations, it suggests that actual losses of calves to wolves in Utah should be less than 116 per year. At 1999 prices ($290 per calf), this corresponds to a maximum additional annual loss of approximately $34,000.?
Page 29: ? there is little evidence suggesting that managed wolf populations would significantly affect Utah?s ungulate populations.?
Page 30: ?Additionally, deer and elk populations in Utah may not be significantly affected by
wolves.?
Page 34: ?Before initiating wolf control efforts, animal husbandry practices should be
verified as being reasonably responsible (?best management practices?) for
reducing losses to wolves.?
Page 36: ?When wolves recolonize Utah, some conflict with livestock producers is inevitable.
Although we do not expect to see significant wolf depredations on livestock in the near
future, a proactive, integrated approach to reducing any conflicts will be necessary?
Page 37: ?The goals of a Utah wolf education program should be to provide science-based, factual information about wolf ecology and management.? (THIS IS MY FAVORITE PART OF THE STUDY)
Politics aside, one other thing I couldn't help notice is that a certain ?Peay? was cited as a vocal opponent of wolves in Utah throughout the study several times (again, this dates back to 2002).
Also, does anyone know any of the authors or know where these a$$clowns ended up (hopefully not working for DNR or Fish & Wildlife in any capacity)? I'm sure they're diligently working on revising their study to update it based on the latest and greatest information regarding the ?successful? reintroduction of wolves.
In closing, I recently attended a RAC meeting and recall hearing from both RAC members and public speakers that they wanted decisions based on ?sound analysis and scientific data from our wildlife biologists and experts?. Hopefully, they still aren't using the VORTEX population-viability analysis software package referred to on page 15 of the study?.
A copy of the 68 page pdf study is available at http://wildlife.utah.gov/wolf/pdf/Wolves_in_Utah_nov15.pdf
I found it very interesting to compare what they were saying almost 10 years ago (all based on sound ?scientific? analysis and research, of course) with the reality of what has been experienced today in nearby states.
In general, the 2002 study concluded that wolves could be successfully reintroduced to Utah with no significant impacts on hunting, ranching, or revenue related to either activity.
Here are some other noteworthy highlights:
Page xi: ?We estimate that total wolf management costs should never exceed $130,000 per year.?
Page 2: ?Throughout this analysis, we have strived to maintain an objective perspective.?
Page 6: ?a majority of Utah residents held either positive or neutral attitudes toward
Wolves?
Page 10: Table 1 shows that Utah could potentially support 711 wolves (including 102 in the Book Cliffs alone!). I?LL BET THE PEOPLE IN VERNAL WOULD JUST LOVE TO GO FOR A SUNDAY DRIVE IN THE BOOK CLIFFS TO SEE THE WOLVES?
Page 17: ?Typically, wolves do not appear to dramatically reduce prey populations?
Page 18: ?These studies suggest that a recolonizing wolf population would not significantly affect
Utah?s ungulate populations.?
Page 19: ?Yellowstone elk herds have remained very stable throughout wolf recovery?
Page 21: ?The potential benefits include both use?such as increases in tourism resulting from the presence of wolves.?
Page 22: ?in Minnesota, with its 2,500 wolves, management costs per wolf are much lower, approximately $265 annually.?
Page 26: ?Although this may still be an underestimate of the true number of depredations, it suggests that actual losses of calves to wolves in Utah should be less than 116 per year. At 1999 prices ($290 per calf), this corresponds to a maximum additional annual loss of approximately $34,000.?
Page 29: ? there is little evidence suggesting that managed wolf populations would significantly affect Utah?s ungulate populations.?
Page 30: ?Additionally, deer and elk populations in Utah may not be significantly affected by
wolves.?
Page 34: ?Before initiating wolf control efforts, animal husbandry practices should be
verified as being reasonably responsible (?best management practices?) for
reducing losses to wolves.?
Page 36: ?When wolves recolonize Utah, some conflict with livestock producers is inevitable.
Although we do not expect to see significant wolf depredations on livestock in the near
future, a proactive, integrated approach to reducing any conflicts will be necessary?
Page 37: ?The goals of a Utah wolf education program should be to provide science-based, factual information about wolf ecology and management.? (THIS IS MY FAVORITE PART OF THE STUDY)
Politics aside, one other thing I couldn't help notice is that a certain ?Peay? was cited as a vocal opponent of wolves in Utah throughout the study several times (again, this dates back to 2002).
Also, does anyone know any of the authors or know where these a$$clowns ended up (hopefully not working for DNR or Fish & Wildlife in any capacity)? I'm sure they're diligently working on revising their study to update it based on the latest and greatest information regarding the ?successful? reintroduction of wolves.
In closing, I recently attended a RAC meeting and recall hearing from both RAC members and public speakers that they wanted decisions based on ?sound analysis and scientific data from our wildlife biologists and experts?. Hopefully, they still aren't using the VORTEX population-viability analysis software package referred to on page 15 of the study?.
A copy of the 68 page pdf study is available at http://wildlife.utah.gov/wolf/pdf/Wolves_in_Utah_nov15.pdf
