The wolves of Yellowstone | 60 Minutes Archive 

Unless it starts hunting what you eat

Wrong

@@bagelthug are you saying wolves are the bagels of the animal kingdom? Because I agree 100%

Destroyed our elk herds all over and we'll never forgive you

@@coyotedust that’s awesome the elk herds belong to you, I didn’t know that was a thing

@@coyotedust Not true. Wolves and elk coexisted for thousands of years before settlement and the wolves didn't destroy the elk herds. Habitat loss, disease and over hunting are what is causing elk numbers to decline.

Not only did wolves reestablish the integrity of the food chain, but the wolves made the sound of Yellowstone come back.

And make great garments

@@1970BBB noo don’t hurt the poor puppies :(

The most beautiful animal on earth if you ask me

Wish people would stop listening to fair tales 🙄 and damning the animals

Wish fewer people would pretend to be a biologist on youtube.

I don’t have to read. I’ve done my own boots on the ground research just outside the park for 40 yrs before and after reintro. Wildlife balances are way out of whack in some ranges in the same ecosystem. Troubling when FWP told the wolves have damn near wiped out the moose population in the area I’ve studied. It got so back that the feds have had to fly it and mitigate the multiple wolf packs 2 or 3 times in the past 5 yrs. Love the wolf, but also love their prey and just want balance. It’s different in the park because of the 1000s of bison you don’t have outside the park. Think that’s the big difference in balance difference

True.

Great! Maybe they should live in your backyard

@@fm4695 that would be fine with me

Small animal ?😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Anecdotal evidence does not supersede peer reviewed research.

@@EthanDurant That's odd. Actual scientists use anecdotal evidence in volume to help understand local situations.

In 2022, Michigan hunters harvested 339,189 deer. Wolves are definitely not a problem for deer.

@@superdaveinca9254Unfortunately, wolves like easy meals. So, all those fenced in hamburgers-on-hooves are easy targets.

Same in Northern Wisconsin no deer are small animals left something need to be done with the wolf problem

Until you have to share your property with them.. there not that awesome when they eat your Boston Terrier...

@@kyle2441 Dude yer killing me!!!! Ruff ruff....yelp

@@kyle2441 Yeah. Listening to it scream for help as it's intestines are consumed first would be as heart wrenching as when these invasive Canadian Gray Wolves wolves do that to your cow and you must choose between no food, shooting wolves and going to prison. That's the issue. The law preventing you from defending your animals. But if you have video footage and a couple months to spare, you might be one of the few allowed depredation permits and become nocturnal.

Stay away

It was shopping for lunch-pets

@@fm4695 I mean bears, mountain lion, and Coyotes do the same thing

Really? How do you cook them?

sure dude. The population of deer in Minnesota is still very healthy

wolves actually play an essential part of the ecosystem, they keep populations of deer, moose, elk, etc otherwise these animals overgraze and destroy the underbrush of forests. I cannot understate how important wolves truly are and how destroyed the ecosystem has become in areas that historically had wolves but no longer do :)

Deer eradicated in Minnesota? Complete poppycock. Deer are numerous and the state is vast.

@@xeonpaiEssential as in essentially wiping out local populations of deer and elk. So many myths running out there (like what you wrote) are just talking points completely detached from reality.

@@paulring86 Everything I said is scientifically proven to be true, I'm sorry but you have no idea what you're talking about. Do more research before you espouse such stupidity.

I hate people who say they are hunters, but abuse the animals that they hunt.

When the deer and elk don’t have any more natural predators, they overpopulate, they aren’t as healthy, and they destroy the landscape, the environment, the rivers, the park, truly amazing.

@@kareyrose yeah I mean that’s the common answer but I’m saying it’s sad and interesting that fear is also a huge factor in the strategy, and while the claims are that deer do this, yes they doooo buuuut humans have ruined the environment by destroying migration paths and escape routes sooo it would be an unfair advantage for the wolves who are not only being reintroduced which means the native animals are too naive to avoid them… but also when they do catch the news that the wolfs are back and town they’ll have no where to run… leaving overgrowth… and it’s funny how we listen to industrial cattle farmers but don’t talk to any hippy anarchists 🤷‍♀️. Farmers are the bad guys, homesteaders are good, and they deal with predators but industrial farms that deal with major loses because of overpopulated cattle herds and poultry houses have no right talking… the mission is far from finished but the wolves are are a great warrior of the eagle chief and life will go on 🍎🌎✌️

@@SeagullAmIOne thanks for the laugh.

I live here - they are everywhere and they eat my f-ing plants

Oops, wrong, Yellowstone has a hunting season for these animals.

It was about the reintroduction of the wolves to the park and all its implications.

I'm a veteran too! How do you cook yours?

CBS won’t be around much longer … thank god

Funny too mine are pack dogs and cannot live alone.

Paying the price? Luxury or inconvenience of not being able to hunt?

Montanas actually a beautiful state I was pleasantly surprised.

boohoo

I think what you're meaning to say is that cattle aren't an aboriginal specie's in north America, at least. You could say they are indigenous, and definitely native. What would be the key difference,them not migrating themselves, but being shipped here?

@@YousirArdume If an animal was shipped here by human it is not aboriginal, indigenous or native. Cattle were shipped here by Europeans back in the day making them an invasive species. I am not sure where you are getting your information or definitions from but they are verifiably wrong.

@@EthanDurant It would help you to look up the definition of invasive species. You are using the wrong label for cattle.

@@BeautifuLakesStreamsBiologists "Unlike native grazers like elk, cattle didn't evolve here. They're an invasive species - and the harm they'd been inflicting was clear in overgrazed range, mucked-up pastures, manure-polluted waterways and trampled vegetation" - Center for Biological Diversity "An invasive species is an organism that is not indigenous, or native, to a particular area." - National Geographic You are a fool if you think cattle do not harm the environment. The run off from farms pollutes waterways. The methane gas from manure damages the ozone. I could go on and on.

@@EthanDurant you know nothing of ecology. It is clear in the first laughable reference you made. Start with a topic called regenerative agriculture. That will at least get you to a very base level. Then come back here and try to lecture a biologist. By the way, I doubt NatGeo made that very bad attempt at trying to define invasive. They are biased, but not that badly.

Not always. What happens when the cattle or sheep just get get carried off

@@jimtheobald1141 I guess in rare cases that might happen. But with the "fake" cases they are over compensated and it will make up for that. Of course the big factor is the 35 million of tourist dollars that the wolves brought and almost all of that is during the winter when it's is much slower.

Incorrect. Ranchers are not ALWAYS compensated.

@@thePrisoner1000 Nope...the often do not get compensated.

@@marge3157 I didn't say they always get compensated, but the fact they don't seem to talk about the fact that they do get compensated.

The impact has been positive. The animals they hunt and eat are the ones that are overgrazing and overpopulated. That makes the area out of balance. Diseases thrive, and animals starve to death when the wolf is gone. It seems paradoxical, but it isn't. It's the opposite. Ignorance and fear of them lead to them being eradicated and that was a shame.

@@jenniferloftus2363they weren’t even the same species of wolf that was native to the area.. talk about ignorance

@@marcspencer800just like the colonizers aren’t native to the area, so what?

@@marcspencer800like that makes a functional difference.... oh wait - it doesn't.

@@jenniferloftus2363 well coming from Idaho and being involved in cattle I assure you that they are a problem.. see them eat a calf out of a cow multiple times.. that’s why we don’t give them a chance to do it.. if we see them they are getting Shot 100% of the time

and i bet you use something that is made from beef and beef byproducts. Smh

That's called "natural balance". When the predators eat their prey, their prey numbers decrease. When the prey numbers decrease, so does the number of predators, which then gives they population of prey animals a chance to increase again. With this increase of prey animals, the population of predators then also increases.

@@hyenaboy7504 EVERY national park in America has hardly ANY animals to see while there. Yellowstone was the ONLY national park where you could see all kinds of big game while there. Do you understand you've RUINED the best national park in America? Do you even care?

@@LavishPatchKid balanced ecosystems aren’t ruined.

@@hyenaboy7504 National Parks are attractions, that cost money to upkeep. You've ruined what made it an attraction. Within 10 years, Yellowstone will have less visitors than Yosemite. You've ended the park.

@@LavishPatchKid national parks exist as a way to preserve nature.

Sounds like a great idea! Maybe when the cows, deer, elk, antelope, and sheep roam freely onto golf courses, lawns, football and baseball fields those animals will all benefit from the lush vegetation we humans provide. Then we can all enjoy watching them - what a joy it will be!!!

I'm no wolf hugger but I know that no predator species can be "out of control". Their numbers march in lockstep with available prey, with some very slight variation The deer elk numbers are declining from wasting deer disease and all the people moving into Idaho Wyoming Montana area

@@willbass2869 I am pro-wolf and I am pro-conservation...we need balance. I have witnessed wolves in the wild they are incredible. The wolf was exterminated completely as well as the grizzly in lots of states because of the lack of big game on the landscape over 100 years ago and attacks on livestock grazing. In Lewis and Clarks writings, they talk about the lack of game in the ID and MT areas. The goal for the project was a reintroduction...but you can't reintroduce something that was extinct. So they brought in a Canadian gray wolf. That wolf hunts in packs and is about 50% larger to what was native. They wanted 15 breeding pairs total in WY. Fair enough. At this point, they are well over 100 breeding pairs from that introduction across the west. After that, they need to be managed as the undulate population as dropped off. I have been camping, fishing, etc. in Wy, ID and Mt for over 40 years. The game in not on the landscape like it was. The way the wolf was managed 100 years ago was with poison. It is extremely hard to have a balanced population of wolves and big game. What happens is the wolf numbers explode as they have and are (there are 3 packs in CA now) so they eventually wipe out the game and then they die off of starvation and disease. Most wolf packs sport hunt just eating the guys. Then the game comes back and explodes and we end up in this cycle of 25-35 years vs we could have balance the entire time. The bigger issue now is the biologists are not making the calls. The wolf that was just added to CO, was on a ballet. That is ridiculous. And it was dropped in a cordor that will not work. Those wolves have already moved out of that area. Wy, Id, and Mt all talk about the issues they have with the abundance of wolves on the landscape. It's an "out of control" issue. We need balance if not it is not fair to the wolf or the big game. And we have made incredible growth the last 75 years with conservation of big game in the USA.

@@yo2stix your decline in elk deer has little to do with wolves. Urbanization & large scale factory farming have bigger impact on food, shelter and migratory routes of prey species

@@willbass2869 Wolves live in the mountains not neighborhoods. There has been a direct correlation in the decline of ungulates with the Canadian wolf transplant. Look into. Its widespread knowledge.

@@willbass2869 You are no biologist either, but here you are pretending to be one on youtube.

But the wolf population isn’t fine

it was fine for the thousands of years prior when there were wolves.

Yellowstone is better WITH Wolves.

You are so right!!!!! There are agreements which state that very thing. However, those who experience loss must prove the wolves were the real cause and not some disease or other fatal experience. To make matters worse, the livestock remains may not be located in time to establish/perform a necropsy and so the Agencies are able to decline reimbursement.

@@fm4695It would definitely appeal to both sides, just need the ranchers to be honest. Wolves must continue to thrive

Unless it's threatening your livlihood.

@@karnaagmaybe you need to give the land back to natives and relocate, like the Europeans made the natives relocate

That wouldn't make any sense at all. That rancher owns the land. Who cares who used to have it. We all live on conquered land.@@kmack998