PDF Yellowstone Live: Mai 2012 (German Edition)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Yellowstone Live: Mai 2012 (German Edition) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Yellowstone Live: Mai 2012 (German Edition) book. Happy reading Yellowstone Live: Mai 2012 (German Edition) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Yellowstone Live: Mai 2012 (German Edition) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Yellowstone Live: Mai 2012 (German Edition) Pocket Guide.

Just thinking outloud here. Even if the elk are up high but outside the Park and wolves follow, it gives the state the excuse to continue hunts in otherwise logical buffer areas, in order to keep them from eating some of the elk. And, do recall each wolf will eat between ungulates between Nov and April. That would be why they would not go for such a buffer. I propose this wolf is part of a Federal Study, thereby receiving special Federal sanctions for destruction of protected Public property. In-addition to this sentencing proposal, Re-list all wolves for the duration of a Longitudinal and Holistic study.

A study addressing recovering regional ecological facets, such a Riparian Zones and Tributaries. Just might take a couple human generations for completion; Meanwhile, regional humans would be educated. Most people who hunt high up are either outfitters and those tags have been way reduced this year because of the state of the herd. Or individuals and guides with horses. It does take a horse to pack off the meat as you know and, a few horses because this is a very high griz area. How do you solve that? Yellowstone wolves will always find their way out of the park.

Until something is changed, you will continue to see yellowstone wolves killed by trigger happy hunters. We are going to reach a point where too many yellowstone wolves are being killed by hunters and that is when something needs to be done. The key is, they are not Yellowstone wolves, they are NRM wolves, they are simply part of the bigger picture, singling them out will not do anything to move this issue forward. By claiming they are Yellowstone wolves, you are just solidifying that fact that Yellowstone is becoming a zoo. These wolves are viewed by many thousands sb.

Yes, you see them the same as any other wolf in Montana, but for some people, the yellowstone wolves are particularly special to them. I have no doubt that yellowstone wolves will continue to be killed by hunters. Jon as of current, there are no population of wolves crashing, so no FWP and Yellowstone are not in a hard position, they are following the management plans laid down.

In all honestly, Yellowstone really has very little to do with this, once the wolves leave the park, they are under state control. They are in a hard position because are they going to continue to let the wolves from yellowstone be killed by hunters? I can honestly say, the states of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming could care less if they were in Yellowstone, they only care once they are in the states. People go to YNP to see wolves, but some of them go to see specific wolves they have grown accustomed to watching and seeing.

Wolf watching brings in millions of dollars sb. To know that you go to YNP hoping to see a specific wolf or group of wolves and to find out that they have been gunned down by hunters is going to piss a lot of people off. There are many things in this world that piss people off, that still does not trump the powers that have been given to the states, if they are pissed, there are many other places in the world they can visit. Sorry that is just the cold hard truth, once they leave the park, then they are subject to the management plans of the state they end up in.

And these wolf hunters are taking away wolf viewing opportunities from many people who pay to see wolves specifically. I own a beautiful piece of property here in NW Montana, and over the years have watched many beautiful Bulls as well as Bucks in my yard. I have also seen many of those beautiful bulls and bucks head down the road in the back of someone truck because they left my property, can I set up a buffer zone?

Nope, once they leave they are subject to the laws that are in place. It does not matter, once the wolves leave the park, they do not have the protection of the park, that is pretty simple to understand. It really does not matter if people are pissed about that, they go to the park to see a certain animal or animals, guess what the animal left the park, the hunter has only capitalized on this fact.

Outside the park, the wolves are not protected. You guys want to keep changing the rules, the lines have been drawn since and until the wolf was reintroduced, there has never been question about those lines. I, for many years went to Yellowstone in the fall to photograph certain large Elk Bulls, I also have seen many of those bulls taken by hunters, I never once thought about changing the lines in the sand.

Yes, I saw her this summer with a yearling trying to feed on a bison protected by a grizzly. Then I watched them swim the Lamar river back to their den. Fantastic wolf watching as it was close to the road. YNP wolves are habituated to people and it makes them super easy targets when they leave the Park.

Just to keep that straight. YNP wolves are easy targets for hunters once they leave the park. There are also rumors flying around that hunters are specifically targeting yellowstone wolves. A lot of hunters blame wolves for the supposed lack of elk in the park. Why they really wanted to shoot a wolf, and whether they specifically wanted to shoot a YNP wolf, would require interviewing them.

As someone interested in wolf recovery as a cultural conflict, I think that would be some valuable information. I was worried about those wolves for the same reason. They had become used to a human presence. Really tragic. A possible fix for the collar to not to collar how do you know how many wolves there are cunundrum. This will require hunter cooperation. Wolves can still be collared, just use modified rolled leather dog collars. Put a mortality chip, and only a mortality hip in each collar, so if wolf: dies; has collar chewed off; falls victim to SSS, you still have a record for that wolf.

This answers most concerns, and they are pretty darn unobtrusive, so they would even address the concerns of photographers like Larry Thorngren. Record and count tracks then compare maps that evening. It allows both sides of the wolf issue to enjoy a day. Rougher country requires a bit more work. I think drones would also work well. Immer Tracking is simpler than trapping, drugging and releasing. They are killed one at a time. Not all shots are hits or kills.

I can take you to lots of land from 10, acres to 80 acres where animals have learned no hunting occurs. Prior to the wolf hunting season I saw wolves often but since mostly only wolf sign. I have no data to back my claim only a life on the land watching animals. Not for the point of argument, but for discussion. This is the crux of my inquiry. One often hears this, but there is absolutely nothing to support it other than non-documented accounts. Will it be the end of hunting wolves, or through a form of communication wolves understand to avoid areas.

The study of animal behavior is still in its infancy. Immer A interesting read for you would be the Alaska Wolf Trapping Manuel, it tells stories of how wolves have learned about trapping and how to avoid traps. Long nights by the stove, a bit of Bushmills and the dog curled by my side. Immer, Send some of that snow south would you?

We Need snow this winter or we will be in one heck of a fix. Depending on the source, we have 6 to 8 inches coming tonight. We had at least 6 up here after thanksgiving, but most of that melted, and then, needless to say, froze into glaze ice in all the wrong spots. Things are dry here. However, we dipped Below zero last night and even almost a mile away you could hear the lake making ice.

Last week we were almost to Crazy in December. Crazy and worrisome. I personally like a nice cold winter. Gives me an excuse to use all the sweaters I own! Leslie Breeding Pair- defined as breeding male and female with pup by the end of year, if I remember. Judging from your past post you have spent sometime tracking wolves. From those tracks can you tell adults from yearling from pups? Now telling sex gets hard unless one has a lot of time.

Now part of the pack is going to get killed by any number of causes, including human causes. Using tracks gives you a fairly solid number and a good guess as to the make-up of a pack. Harvest data gives you sex and age of hunter caused death. Given that you spend some time all year, around a pack like I do tracking works just fine. I know when the local packs have pups in the spring about how many pups. I know when humans cause a death in that pack. I also spent a lot of time following tracks in the winter. Not all of the pack travels together all the time but I can tell you if a pack produced pups and if they live till winter.

I will spend some time this winter trying to distinguish male from female. Interesting observations. Hunters may be targeting the largest wolves in the pack when they encounter them and may be selectively shooting the big wolves which might tend to be some of the older radio collared wolves.

The end result is that large, older radio collared wolves are the targets rather than younger, smaller wolves. Kind of like when wolves were listed as endangered and fully protected in northwest Montana and then moved south and came under experimental, non-essential management rules. Same wolf but different rules. Small sample size but it still seems high. It only makes sense if the hunters had several wolves to choose from while hunting and chose to shoot the biggest. This is so sad.

I have taken numerous groups into Yellowstone and showed them these wolves. People from Germany, Austria and Switzerland have seen 06 and taking care of their pack. Now I get a lot of mails from German wolfwatchers asking, if they should ever go back to Yellowstone again. This senseless killing is hurting all our hearts, but it will hurt your economy too. He sells em out quicker than you can imagine. And he easily surpasses the six figure mark in revenue each year. And he is just one ranch out of hundreds!

There will always be wolves in YNP for your buddies in Europe to come see. The point is, that a growing number of Europeans are fed up with you guys now. Wolf today, Grizzly tomorrow, Coyote anytime! The world is huge and there a many destinations to go to see wolves. Peter look in your own backyard for examples on how to NOT manage wildlife! Are you freaking kidding me! I have zero desire to live my life or manage wildlife according to the desires of Europe. Of all places! Peter Thank you for your comments here and for your contributions to this blog over the years. Some folks refuse to view the planet as a brotherhood.

Their comments are not representative of anyone other than their tiny selves. If that were not true many members of the large African mammals that the world loves, would be extinct. Had these wolves died of natural causes it would not stop people from viewing wildlife. I could be wrong but the natural life expectancy of a wolf is around 10 years and the oldest wild wolf was around 13 years. The fact remains that hunters should respect the collared wolves as being part of a study, or that they may be Yellowstone wolves if you see a collar.

Registered Users

They do not. The do not. Not content with nearly , acres of land is a joke. I think its even shorter than that Robert R for many wolves. But the point is these wolves and others became part of the fabric of Yellowstone. Wild Ambassadors. Thousands who visited the park, got a glimpse of them and their families going about their daily lives. In the Uk We have just beaten a global enterprise into paying their correct taxable dues sort of.

Can not world opinion and our commercial clout beat the vested interests of what is a minority ranchers and hunters? Josh, do you really think i comment out of pure emotion? I understand its a bit more, but not that much for a wolf. Now, since the wolves have been introduced and before hunting was allowed.

So do the math as you Americans say, a live wolf earns more than a fur rug. I emailed a biologist from Montana a few weeks ago and asked him how much money wolf watching brings in. He told me that wolf watching brings in much more money than elk hunting. And, last, an elk or deer, are much different renewable resources than an elephant, or even a wolf. Nobody, to my knowledge, has yet done a drill down analysis on the economics in a sufficiently detailed way to say what the real answers are, short and long term.

Speaking of international tourism, the red deer close relative of the North American elk I saw in the Cotswolds a couple of years back were pretty ratty, and had little habitat. Perhaps your conservation efforts could use a little attention closer to home, and maybe add a few UK wolves for ecosystem balance. They are living things, not objects, who due to our overencroachment into their habitat and overhunting, their numbers are dwindling, from that and from a number of other reasons that we cannot control, such as disease.

Do we know that? We do know that unethical hunters sometimes mass kill ungulates and take way more than their share. But even so, we would deny another living creature the right to food and survival? Yes, we would. Do we have the take the entire population of deer and elk for ourselves? You lose considerable credibility when you lambast researchers without careful attention to their study design. Duffield et al. Furthermore, you could apply the same logic to hunters.

The VAST majority of hunters are not from out of state, but are local. So the question is: sans hunting opportunity would they they pay to hunt in another state, or simply spend their money on some other form of recreation? Note: In contrast to Duffield et al. Instead, the assumed a linear relationship and that all wolf-caused mortality was additive. Skepticism of science is fine, but it should be applied equally, not just to the studies with which you disagree.

You are absoulely right on the Duffield study. My apologies to all here. I had not read it in a couple years, and my faulty recollection caught up with me I have made the same incorrect reference to the study faults and results on this forum before. Here is a link to the study. I am also concerned whether such an economic projection is sustainable, since when the Duffield follow up study was done , wolf densities were at their highest in YNP at about commensurate with their prey base in the Park, now down below largely because of reduced prey base and well you know the recent hunting mortality.

In any event, whatever economic benefit is in YNP, it would seem highly unlikely it could be replicated elsewhere in the NRM for many reasons. It does, however, IMHO, deserve more formal study. Apologies for taking so long a post a reply and if my comments duplicate what has also been said. Just been rather preoccupied for the last week. Do I detect a bit of anti outsider bias in your comments?

How dare a Brit comment on an American issue! How dare you suggest that I do not know as much as I think I do. Do you know me? But I will give you a brief insight. I am a professional wildlife photographer and writer. I have written a number of articles and had numerous photographs printed about the wolves of Yellowstone and the issues that surround them. I also use reliable sources for my information, like academic and scientific papers, not a blog, newspaper, or word of mouth.

So I suggest you keep such fatuous comments to your self and not post them on a forum for informed comment and debate. You also misunderstood my comments, my beef is with trophy hunting, and there is some voodoo economics for you. To turn an animal into a rug or just to put its head on the wall is deeply immoral. By pest he meant an animal or bird that had done something to justify being shot. I did discover a third reason in Africa, self defence.

Tell me, what do you think the wolf watchers or photographers like my self live on when we come to Yellowstone, fresh air? We to spend money on food drinks,lodging and petrol, oops,gas, and guides for the entire length of our stay. However, I do agree with you about Xantera and Aramark, whose monopoly on the National Parks accommodation forces up the prices and adds little to the local economy apart from the salaries of their employees and if I remember correctly, most of them are outsiders and live in company accommodation inside the parks.

So I stay outside the park and put my money into the local economy. As do a lot of others. I also would not call an economic study be an academic institution, voodoo economics. Your last comment about Red Deer in the UK,really does show a lack of understanding about this issue so let me educate you a little. The number Red and 5 other species of deer in the U. K have reached almost epidemic proportions because they have no natural predators apart from one — Man. Even with the best efforts of the hunters and game keepers to control their numbers. They have increased to such an extent that they are now damaging the environment, much as the Elk where doing before the wolves were introduced, Hence, the scabby specimen you report on.

Similarly,the numbers of deer have been kept in higher than natural densities for the hunters. Sound familiar? It also should be remembered that only one species of deer is truly native to the UK, the Red. The Fallow deer were here before the Ice age and were reintroduced by the Romans so could be now considered native. The other four are non native invaders and escapees from estates deer parks.

Compare the distances below. I would recommend looking at a map for this exercise if you are unfamiliar with the UK. The US destinations should be familiar. Most will recognise this as the road across the north end of Yellowstone. Englefield Green to Birmingham miles. Twenty miles from where I live there are 3 times as many people than in all three states combined, and nearly 30 times as many in the whole country. Our National Parks are also a lot smaller. Not really big enough for a wandering wolf,. Wolves in the UK have been gone for a lot longer than the wolves in Yellowstone, depending on your source it is between years.

Since that time the rural landscape has changed dramatically. The industrial revolution and changes in farming practice now make it totally unsuitable, even for a versatile and adaptable animal like a wolf. There is also the populations resistance.

  • Yellowstone Bison - Yellowstone National Park (U.S. National Park Service)?
  • Every Picture Tells A Story ~ Book Two?
  • Recommended for you.
  • The Animals.
  • Windows Essentials 2012.

Some of us would like to see wolves roaming the countryside again, but we could never convince the rest of the population of this overcrowded little island to do it. Democracy in action for you. There is also a general ignorance of living with large predators. As Louise Kane says the world is watching and does care. We cannot understand why you have funded an environmental project to be proud of lets face it the US is not known for its environmental attitude and seem hell bent on destroying it.

I have forwarded the story of 06 death to The wolf conservation trust, who carried my photos and story of her and also posted it on the BBC wildlife forum. Well that sure puts things in perspective. Reintroduced wolves are not a non-native species from Canada, but returned to their rightful place. Actually Doug, the last time the studies were done on both the wolf as well as the hunting, wolves are reported to add million a year to the economy, and as posted by numbers from our US Fish and Wildlife Service, hunting account for almost 1 billion dollars a year to the economy of just Montana, that is quite a large difference.

Base on the last number studied by US Fish and Wildlife Service, you are incorrect, hunting to the state of Montana is almost a billion dollar a year business, I seriously doubt that wildlife watching adds that much to our economy. Regardless of the legalities, or creating a buffer zone, or the fact that wolves die from all sorts of things in and outside the Park, these wolves were known. These people would have been ok with another wolf killing 06, because they are interested in wolves and their dynamics.

But what might have an impact here, and time will tell, is the economics. The towns depend on YNP tourism more than hunting. If you see tourism drop dramatically next summer and people complain, the almighty dollar might be what makes the difference. I think that WY has been abusing the delisting.

Alerts In Effect

I hope that they succeed in getting the law changed for their state. MT and to a lesser extent ID seem to be much better. Then they can continue killing with impunity. I think ID has a much more draconian approach. Cody, my closest town, is a tourist town and without tourism they are sunk. I hope they stay away in droves. But will you go to Jackson? These towns are all dependent upon the park, whether Cooke City, jackson, Gardiner, W. Yellowstone, or Cody. For the most part, most of the gateway towns look like they are dried up now! Jackson of course has a great winter ski season as well as enjoys the benefit of the Hollywood crowd.

For the amount of money supposedly coming into these gateway towns, the amount of real development is very little. Not funny, true, I have several friends that are business owners in the gateway towns and they have said, the income is not all that good, they are barely getting by each year. Another thing that needs to be assessed is whether the money stays in state or goes to the multi-national corporations and their shareholders, that hold the vendor contracts for services in the Park Xanterra, Aramark etc.

I should think YNP visitation numbers would be affected more by transportation costs, including gasoline prices, OR the general health of the economy. On the other hand some local services, such as classes and those who would advance tourism services about or to see wolves may be affected, without more wolves in the Park or adjacent. For starters one has to ask the right questions in order to get good answers about economic impacts, and to whom.

I bet nobody plugged in the recurring costs to the federal government and the states for control of problem wolves, research, integration of costs into management plans for harvest prescritions for wolves or the prey upon which they rely, present value losses of hunter license revenues, and the shift away from those who would provide goods and services the only stuff I remember were direct losses to outfittersl, with no consideration of the multiplier effect or the other stuff economists like to talk about. Also, as YNP visitor numbers have historically changed with or without wolves , was there consideration of the normal expected increase from a growing population, or the negative effects of the crappy economy the last couple years that maybe had some families deferrig trips dependent on discretionary income?

I see more study opportunities in the future for economists studying wolves or the lack of them. It would take much more for that to happen. Which seems to give an even clearer picture with regard to the economic benefit around the park because of wolf re-introduction. The key is, is the money staying in the local communities, which is not so clear. There has been quite a bit lost in hunting revenue as well and I have never seen the studies track the lost revenue. We can study all we want, but until both sides IE: Gain and Loss is taken into account it is virtually impossible to get a clear picture of what the benefit or negative really is.

They were half that number, below , when WY began its wolf season and MT its second. I am not sorry to say, when that question is ask, it is often to convenient to say, I would not come to Yellowstone if there were no wolves. I have traveled to Yellowstone for over 25 years now, before wolves were present and have met hundreds if no thousand of people who did also. Course I never meant that.

These gateway communities have been there a long time. They do have quite a lot of say in Park decisions, more than I think is reasonable. For instance, When the Park considers its winter snowmobile plans, they come talk to these communities and listen. Even tho the east gate is an incredible—your tax dollar—money losing proposition in the winter, and dangerous with avalanche blasting they have to do to keep it open, its open because Cody makes a fuss.

Owned by a local. Cody is dead in the winter, and hopping with park activity in the summer. Xanterra is of course totally separate. What goes on in the Park stays in the Park in terms of money. In the old days I probably still would have come to the park s , and I remember I saw a little bit of the aftermath of the Yellowstone fires. I always wanted to visit Yellowstone, Grand Teton, and Idaho.

Well, as for coming to Y. But with no wolves to see I will have to stop running the wolf watching tours for Germans, because those people come espcially to watch the famous wolves. Yes, Y. And Yellowstone National Park is one of the few places on earth where you can could? There is still a good strong population of wolves in the park, in addition it is not even known how many will pup in the spring. Yes, I know, Savebears. We were spoiled these last years with all those close encounters. Still: The killing and trapping hast ot stop. I believe you are going to see hunting seasons continue in at least Montana and Idaho, the only way it will stop is if the population numbers drop below a certain level.

Right now, none of the states are even close to those levels and in the couple of years that hunting has been allow, the populations have continue to increase. One thing that could be really telling, is the actually numbers and have they have increased or decreased since reintroduction. But I can see them putting out a story, to say at least we are going to look at the situation, to perhaps calm down some the populace that is actually paying attention to this issue.

This should not be done around park borders. Good descriptive story, and if the author is telling the truth the fate of one more wolf is noted … by the Lamar Pack. Pro-wolf people and anti-cruelty people not anti hunting are called all kinds of names including extremists, emotional, beliefs speculated on and ridiculed, etc.

Yes, they do Ida and it does neither side any good to do it. It never furthers the conversation along and using what is considered some of the nastiest names in the world that invoke the worst hatred is certainly never the way to progress. Not surprised. The reasonable people seem to want to give the benefit of the doubt, but there is no doubt. It is unrealistic to think this management plan is ever going to be respected. There was a good conversation about how much wolves bring into the economy, why should the other side not be able to post the economic benefit of hunting to the economy?

Another thing I will add Jon, Is I rarely read the majority of your link anymore, they are all the same, why do we need to keep reading the same stuff over and over, they are redundant and each of us on here that have read them so many times in the past, have said what we are going to say. It is thrill kill, nothing more, nothing less. These dead Yellowstone wolves will not die in vain. News is traveling fast, and within a few years hunting of wolves will be banned. The population, now that it is aware of Yellowstone wolves being destroyed, will treat wolf hunting like whaling.

You might just as easily say there is no scientific reason not to hunt wolves. Good grief. Then, we just had to worry about poaching and the SSS crowd. It has to stop. Corn and pumpkins do not howl in pain when their hip is shattered by a bullet, or when their heads are bagged and their necks are snapped straight back. Worse are charges that hunters target these wolves simply for greater bragging rights. I would like to know how many collared WY wolves were taken in the trophy zone, excluding YNP wolves. In zone 2 where I live, one of the first to die was the alpha collared wolf. Though not a YNP wolf, she was collared.

Then the POS in the Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, livestock extension agencies, game dept can not zero in on the remaining wolves without actually doing a little work god forbid they do that. An export permit or re-export certificate issued by the Management Authority of the State of export or re-export is required. An export permit may be issued only if the specimen was legally obtained and if the export will not be detrimental to the survival of the species. A re-export certificate may be issued only if the specimen was imported in accordance with the Convention. In the case of a live animal or plant, it must be prepared and shipped to minimize any risk of injury, damage to health or cruel treatment.

No import permit is needed unless required by national law. In the case of specimens introduced from the sea, a certificate has to be issued by the Management Authority of the State into which the specimens are being brought, for species listed in Appendix I or II. I come to this webpage to learn about the packs of wolves around the Rocky Mountain Region, and I thank all of you for the info, love living here! But I am concerned, because we are doing it again, gonna mess up the ecosystem.

Savebears is right, the rest of the country does not care right now, and personally I would not call this hunting, but in the year you think we would come up with something more advanced then just shooting, trapping them, the solutins are out there, will the states look into it? No disrespect Savebears but there are thousands of comments that go to the agencies, many many of them against trapping and hunting.

This does indicate a sustained and directed concern especially when it comes to wolves. The agencies, while they ask for comments then ignore them. A not your business attitude, much like the one that you allude to with the numerous comments about non westerners not knowing anything about the issues, never having left their couches and cell phones, tipping the bottle at night or the other dismissive rude sounding comments we hear ad nauseum.

Not your business. They do what they know how to do provide comments, sign petitions by the hundreds of thousands and their voices are being ignored. The Yellowstone wolves are bringing the issue to the forefront and I think that will have some impact but it needs to be sustained as the yellowstone wolves are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

If you look back, when polled Americans showed a lot of support for wolves, they do care. They cared about restoring them, protecting them and now they care about them being killed. First off, lets be fair here. Just as many stereo types are flung out there against those who live in the west and support some sort of management for wolves. They are called back woods knuckle dragging, red neck, add your own adjectives in here and they get tired of it too. It is so sooo easy to condemn someone when their views do not align with our own.

We all do it to some extent I guess. I guess what it comes down to is that we all need a little more tolerance. On both sides. I hate it when one group paints everyone in the other group with the same paint brush. One petition alone in the first few days before the wolf hunts generated 68, comments. There are literally hundreds of petitions against hunting and trapping wolves and other predators.

Skype with a Yellowstone Ranger - Microsoft in Education

Idaho received 17, comments for its first online submission. I guess you are correct in that its maybe not as important as the fiscal cliff to some but the number of people concerned about wolves and wildlife is not trivial or insubstantial. We all do it to some First off, lets be fair here.

I know, cherry picking Why shove them away? The reciprocal is also true, and whenever logical discussion is attempted, one is blasted with all the crap that side can muster.

Tribes meet Wyoming resistance to Yellowstone name changes

Couple of exceptions to the above, but one gets to the point of why bother? Not a matter of having thick bark, or converting someone to your point of view. I agree — one of the things I love about visiting other areas of the country and the planet is culture. What a boring place the world would be if everyone were the same. I hope that the wildlife watchers and hunters can work together to take care of our wild places. I agree. I would NOT want everywhere to be exactly how I think and feel. Talk about horrible…something out of an apocalyptic science fiction novel. I know many hunters, and am friends with many.

I hate what they do.

Geysers and Springs of Yellowstone - ASMR - Yellowstone Live

But I really enjoy their company. Even worse is when those emotions, and that misinformation manifests itself into loading a lead bullet into the chamber and ending the life of an animal. This is where things get very scary. At least put forth a tiny amount of effort to learn something. I know I agree with my hunter friends over many issues these are people who support roadless areas, etc…a rare thing, among hunters, trust me.

Where we disagree is in killing predators. Perhaps one day hunters and conservationists will work together. But I only see that happening if hunters give way on some issues. They want to feed their families nutritious and healthy wild game meat. Okay, great. Hunting of apex predators such as wolves and grizzlies. That has to end. So hunt away. Get your ungulate meat, hunt birds. Advertise these actions as a way to enjoy healthy food and tradition. Killing based on untrue assumptions or supertitions and misinformation, is needless. The animal is wasted, for no really good, sound reason.

As long as we can separate fact from fiction, reality from fantasy. Just leave them be, and hunt in other areas. Harley, you forget a few important points. First, wolves just recently were a federally protected species. Second, much of the habitat wolves occupy in the west is on federal public land: places like Yellowstone, Glacier, The Lolo National Forest, the Gallatin National Forest, etc. This land belongs to all people. Third, Yellowstone is our first national park, and is beloved. What determines the validity of your opinion is the effort you put into researching the data and the cause.

And it works both ways too, just switch the people in question. Over three and half million visited Yellowstone last year, tens of millions have visited since the wolves were re-introduced. So thousands of comments is a pretty weak turn out in support of wolves. There is less than that actively post in this blog and many cross over to the active blogs out there.

So, even though there is a vocal support on blogs like this, it is still a very small percentage of the population that really cares enough to even make a comment. It is in fact very high relative to how many people usually comment on such matters. Whether it is sufficient to have any discernible impact is another question entirely.

I am not surprised that you disagree JB, you and I often see things in a different light.

For the millions that claim they go to Yellowstone for the wolves only and then to have such a small amount of them actually do something to protect them is quite telling to me. It has to do with your unrealistic expectations for who might engage in a particular behavior at any given time. In addition many of the comments on this particular story is because the sensationalistic nature the the media has reported it. Savebears read some of the comments that people are posting about the Yellowstone wolves, the sentiments they express are in direct contravention to what you think.

The comments lament the loss of these wolves. I think for many people they experience very profound emotions when seeing wolves and other wildlife in a wilderness setting and those emotions are long lasting. Really, what makes you think I have not read the comments, I just have a completely different view than you and some others have.

Perhaps one of our conclusions rests on a faulty premise and could be changed were that fault made apparent? I have never said, I have anything against wolves. But you are right, I love to argue, especially when I am arguing with someone that has no clue. Savebears your fight and gripe is with JB, can you leave me out of it.

Sounds like you are out of your league. I have no fight with JB, we simply disagree on a few things, you on the other hand…. I will leave that to your imagination.

  • Windows Essentials - Download - COMPUTER BILD.
  • Ninguém Nasce Sabendo - Crônicas sobre a Educação no Século 21 (Portuguese Edition).
  • The Biblical Model of Human Psychology.

There was hunting of griz before it was put on the threatened species list in about Then for a while, Montana let hunters kill 5 a year. That too was ended some time ago. The U. Fish and Wildlife Service under political pressure keeps trying to delist the grizzly bear and talk about a well regulated hunt for a few grizzly bears. Ralph What is good stewardship and if the 3 states are so backwards, what is your management plan of large predators?

Robert: This simply is not true. Large carnivores do act as check on ungulate populations, but their ability to impact ungulates depends upon a variety of factors. Thus, we should expect exactly what we see—in some places with large carnivores, ungulate populations are stable or increasing, in other places they are falling. I think some hunters have decidedly unrealistic expectations for what the land should produce; they have grown accustomed to ever increasing elk populations managed primarily for their benefit. Despite the fears of wolf advocates and hunters such as yourself, the sky will not fall in either case.

I agree, they are managing the packs fine with reasonable goals of harvest. I supported making them a trophy animal years ago… that will definitely bring the tourist dollar. When they inserted the non-native species of wolf years ago, many of us pointed out that this was the wrong thing to do… they are bigger wolves than the native ones would be.

But, we allowed it knowing that it could be a good thing. Now, as predicted, the wolves are creating problems and are overpopulating. Abiotic Fe II -oxidation rates were determined with un-inoculated controls. Culture density was measured by counting SYBR gold staining. Rates were reported as femtomoles Fe II per liter per second per cell after correcting for abiotic oxidation [0. Iron reduction rates were determined for Acidicaldus str.

MK6 and Sulfolobales str. Solid phase analysis was performed on field samples and secondary phases obtained from Metallosphaera str. Approximately 0. A double crystal Si monochromator was used for energy selection. Model compounds used for linear combination Fe-EXAFS fitting included two-line ferrihydrite sorbed to quartz sand, Si-substituted ferrihydrite, six-line ferrihydrite, lepidocrocite, goethite, hematite, potassium-jarosite, scorodite, synthetic and natural siderite, vivianite, magnetite, green rust phases chloride, sulfate, carbonate , and amorphous FeS.

Patterns were energy calibrated using a lanthanum hexaboride standard. Resulting powder diffraction images were radially integrated, converted to d-space vs. Optical images were obtained utilizing a Zeiss epifluorescence microscope Zeiss Axioskop 2 plus; Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany. The common geochemical properties across this group of thermophilic sites include pH 2.

Ferrous Fe represents the majority of total dissolved Fe at the point of discharge for nearly all springs sampled. The short residence times between sampling positions in JC2 and RS2 e. Measurements of channel velocities and estimates of total flow rate were used to approximate in situ iron oxidation rates in outflow channels of JC2 and RS2.

The lower pH acid-sulfate systems e. These systems contain higher concentrations of sulfate, potassium, and total soluble Fe than sites in NGB and as a result, jarosite is an important phase formed in these environments. The abiotic rate of Fe oxidation is quite slow at low pH Singer and Stumm, , so biological mechanisms are likely responsible for the majority of iron oxides and jarosite deposited in these systems.

Negative values indicate under-saturation of aqueous chemical species with respect to K-jarosite, indicating that these solutions would not be expected to precipitate jarosite, except perhaps in spring RS3. The different phases of ferric Fe formed in these systems relate to differences in spring geochemistry and hydrodynamic properties. For example, arsenic concentrations are one to two orders of magnitude higher in NGB springs relative to RS2 and JC2, respectively, and may play an important role in the inhibition of jarosite precipitation and the subsequent formation of amorphous ferrihydrite phases containing significant amounts of sorbed arsenate Inskeep et al.

Least squares fits dotted lines to experimental k3 weighted Fe-EXAFS spectra solid lines obtained for solids from hot springs representing bio geochemical end-members. Predicted fractions of major solid phases Fe standards 1 included in the fits are shown along with the reduced Chi square value. Molecular surveys of near full-length 16S rRNA genes present in acidic Fe mats reveal numerous different novel archaea, especially within the Crenarchaeota i.

All acidic Fe-oxide mats contained significant numbers of different Sulfolobales-like sequences, which clade with three of the known Sulfolobales genera; however, numerous entries cluster together within a previously undescribed lineage. An Fe II -oxidizing isolate was obtained representing this novel lineage strain MK5 , and is discussed in more detail below. For example, bacteria distantly related to Acidimicrobium , Acidovorax , Acidicaldus , Methylacidiphilum , Meiothermus , Geothermobacterium , and Sulfobacillus spp. Acidovorax , Acidicaldus , and Methylacidiphilum spp.

Sequences related to Acidicaldus , Geobacter , and Methylacidiphilum spp. Gene sequences observed in OSP8 reveal extensive diversity from all orders of the Crenarchaeota e. Clustering of shorter pyrotag 16S sequences using long-fragment archaeal clone groups e. Other community members including M. Consistent populations observed compared to OSP include M. Archaeal microbial community structure in two iron mat samples from Norris Geyser Basin presented as a percentage of total 16S rRNA gene pyrotag sequences that binned to different phylogenetic groups based on libraries of long-fragment sequences specific to these sites.

Four novel isolates were obtained from three different Fe-oxidizing springs in NGB and include members of the Sulfolobales Sulfolobus str. MK3, Sulfolobales str. MK5 , Bacillales Sulfobacillus str. MK2 , and Acidicaldus str. A fifth isolate from Beowulf Spring, M. MK1, has been described Kozubal et al. However, Sulfolobales str. Novel isolates obtained from acid-sulfate-chloride ASC springs and characterization of cell morphology, pH optima, temperature optima, and growth on iron and sulfur substrates as electron donors or Fe III as an electron acceptor under anaerobic conditions.

In addition, isolates were tested for their ability to fix carbon dioxide in carbon free media. MK3 is capable of autotrophic growth and all isolates are capable of oxidizing Fe II except the Acidicaldus str. All strains were capable of utilizing complex carbon from yeast extract for heterotrophic growth, consequently, none are obligate autotrophs. Both Acidicaldus str.

MK2 grew on 1. All isolates grow optimally between pH 2. Strain MK5 has the lowest pH range for growth and active cells were observed as low as 1. MK2 and Acidicaldus str. MK6 are rod-shaped. Iron oxidation rates were determined for Sulfolobales str. Iron oxidation rates ranged from Similar results were shown for M. MK1 ranging from 7. Serum bottle culture of A Metallosphaera yellowstonensis str.

MK1 and B Sulfolobales str. Iron reduction rates of 0. MK6 cultures at pH 3. Cultures were maintained at pH 3. Preliminary genome analysis of strain MK5 shows that this organism contains syntenous sequences highly related to the foxA-F gene cluster in S. Like S. Strain MK5 contains a gene encoding a sulfide quinone oxidoreductase sqr and a conserved hdr gene cluster important in elemental sulfur oxidation Quatrini et al.

Additionally, the strain has genes for a tqoAD thiosulfate oxidase directly upstream to the cbsAB — soxL2N gene operon. However the organism contains a number of genes encoding complex carbon degrading proteins including numerous cellulases, xylanases, and xenobiotic dioxygenases. MK3 are the dominant populations responsible for Fe II oxidation via this mechanism.

Genes related to cytochromes linked to Fe II oxidation in the well-characterized bacteria Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans and Leptospirillum spp. Small blue copper proteins have also been associated with Fe II oxidation in A. However, most of these sequences are homologs of sulfocyanin soxE from M. The Sulfolobales are important in all 18 spring sites as indicated by the high percentage of 16S rRNA sequences and binning of metagenome sequence reads.

In addition, metagenome data strongly suggest that M. Detailed community analysis of M. Novel Sulfolobales-like MK5-like populations also contribute a high percentage of metagenome reads and 16S rRNA gene sequences, but at slightly lower temperatures e. Sequences from members of the Desulfurococcales, Thermoproteales, and novel archaeal lineages are also important in YNP ferric iron mats. The microbial community structure of acidic iron mats is likely driven by the flux of O 2 required to drive Fe II oxidation, as well as the presence of other reduced inorganic electron donors available for growth.

However, temperature and pH are also important parameters controlling community structure. For instance, sequences related to Acidilobus spp. Moreover, bacteria such as Sulfobacillus and Acidicaldus spp. However, the primary populations involved directly in Fe cycling appear to be aerobic organisms that use the Fox terminal oxidase complex consistent with genome, metagenome, and prior mRNA expression analysis.

The five isolates discussed in this study are highly relevant to our understanding of geomicrobiology and microbial ecology of acidic geothermal ferric iron mats of YNP. All isolates are capable of oxidizing iron and strains MK5 and MK6 are also capable of ferric iron reduction under anaerobic conditions. MK3 are capable of autotrophic growth and are likely important primary producers in situ linking CO 2 fixation directly with Fe II oxidation. These organisms may be a significant source of carbon for other microorganisms such as Acidicaldus str. Therefore, the Sulfolobales isolates offer an excellent opportunity to understand mechanisms of CO 2 fixation in model natural systems.

These organisms remain a high priority for isolation. Analysis of ferric solid phases on serum bottle cultures link observed biomineralized phases found in the springs to cultured organisms. Spring geochemistry [i. In culture, M. Moreover, different solution conditions contribute to variation in solid phases observed across field sites. Both strains exhibit faster rates of Fe II -oxidation at lower pH, which is consistent with observations of other acidophilic Fe II -oxidizing microorganisms. The fixation of CO 2 under culture conditions was observed only for strain MK1.

In fact, genes for any of the six known CO 2 fixation pathways were not found in strain MK5 Berg et al. However, strain MK5 has genes that encode for a wide range of proteins known to be involved in the degradation of complex carbon sources. Strain MK5 is also capable of Fe III reduction by an unknown mechanism and may, alternatively, define its niche in situ as an anaerobic complex carbon degrader linked to Fe III respiration.

Elucidating the mechanism of Fe III reduction in strain MK5 will be an important future priority for understanding iron cycling in these systems. The biomineralization of ferric iron phases e. The findings presented in this study represent the most detailed analysis of geothermal acidic ferric iron mats reported to date, and will be invaluable for future comparative studies to similar undescribed environments. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The authors appreciate assistance from, S. Korf, W. Taylor, A. Nagy, and G. Scott Fendorf, S. Webb, and J. The authors also appreciate C. Hendrix and T. The work conducted by the U. Department of Energy under Contract No. National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. Journal List Front Microbiol v. Front Microbiol. Published online Mar Mark A. Kozubal , 1, 2 Richard E. Macur , 1, 2 Zackary J. Jay , 1, 2 Jacob P. Beam , 1, 2 Stephanie A. Malfatti , 3 Susannah G.

Tringe , 3 Benjamin D. Kocar , 4 Thomas Borch , 5 and William P. Richard E. Zackary J. Jacob P. Stephanie A. Susannah G. Benjamin D. William P. Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer. This article was submitted to Frontiers in Microbiological Chemistry, a specialty of Frontiers in Microbiology. Received Nov 3; Accepted Mar 5. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial License , which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in other forums, provided the original authors and source are credited.

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Abstract Geochemical, molecular, and physiological analyses of microbial isolates were combined to study the geomicrobiology of acidic iron oxide mats in Yellowstone National Park. Keywords: iron oxidation, iron reduction, ferric iron mat, geothermal, archaea, Sulfolobales, exobiology, jarosite.