<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GaMylwohL14?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0"></iframe>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ysa5OBhXz-Q?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0"></iframe>
Here is a somewhat neutral article from a different viewpoint: http://www.popsci.com/article/science/have-wolves-really-saved-yellowstone I can tell you there are many individuals in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, including ranchers, that don't agree with the rosy picture presented in that video. It is a serious hot-button issue in that region.
Interesting. The video talked about the wolves impact on deer while the article talked about the elk herds.
This is a good discussion, with some real science on both sides. All I know is that wolves don't scare me: people who want to "manage the ecosystem" scare me... BTW- I recently watched a show on wolves that contained some useful information: 1. All dogs on planet earth are descended from gray wolves. 2. There IS an important difference between dogs (canis domesticus) and wolves (canis lupus). The brain of a wolf is three times larger than a dog. Scientists say that wolves "are too smart to be domesticated."
To the point Kes is making, everybody should read this article. Things sometimes are never as simple as they might seem. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/opinion/is-the-wolf-a-real-american-hero.html?_r=1
Not knowing anything about either side of the conversation, I see the validity of both sides of the argument. I would think that there should be protection for the farmers/ranchers whose privately owned herds are ravaged by wolves. Like both the video and the article maintain, there has to be balance. I would think that applies also to the manner in which wolves obtain their prey. If they are killing deer or elk on government land, and scientists believe that by doing so they are contributing to a balanced ecosystem, then have at it. If they are killing privately owned cattle or sheep, then farmers/ranchers should have the right to kill the culprits. Just the opinion of a city boy.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fk9iJougDFE?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0"></iframe>
Beavers 2 Oregon Hippie Hikers 0 http://news.yahoo.com/oregon-men-hospitalized-recovering-rare-beaver-attack-202013154.html
Now discussion of Cecil the Lion. I thought I'd post this op ed from the NYT written by a grad student from Zimbabwe. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/opinion/in-zimbabwe-we-dont-cry-for-lions.html?mwrsm=Facebook&_r=0 Entitled In Zimbabwe We Don't Cry for Lions. Some tidbits.. When he got a text from a friend extending condolences on the death of Cecil, and asked if he lived near Cecil...his first thought was Cecil Who? He assures us that in his village no Lion is beloved or given an affectionate nick name, they are objects of Terror. It's not long but interesting read.
That commentary sure puts a common sense lid on the issue. However, it won't stop the madness. Thanks, Terry. Had I not read it, I wouldn't have had an inkling of how the locals view the situation.
There was a news story last night where they interviewed a guy that was tracking Cecil's movements by a GPS collar or tag. He stated that Cecil had, unfortunately, left the confines of the preserve and shortly thereafter his movements stopped. I don't understand how that is illegal? On the preserve, yeah, but I haven't heard anyone say that hunting in Zimbabwe is illegal anywhere except on the preserves.
I think the issue with Cecil is that he was "lured" off the preserve by the guides. Apparently they get his attention with a dead antelope or something like that and then drag it to a location and he follows and then he's legal to take..theoretically. I have read conflicting reports, that it's not illegal but unethical and the guides who did this were kicked out of their Guide Assoc. I've also read that it is illegal.