There is a phrase from my old neighborhood in NJ known as getting "gaslighted".............Meaning, some pinhead spouts off some "alternative universe b.s". and swears forever that it is true when in fact it is nonsensical hogwash.......Mark Gramblin, of Idaho Fish & Game responding to an intelligent and in-the-know resident about the need to maintain carnivore populations at ecosystem serving population levels is a prime example of a "GASLIGHTER" at work with his totally inaccurate assnine statement: "NO, there is not a compelling reason to manage wolves for any specific population level, let alone "letting nature take it's course" – to achieve some desired ecological outcome OR "balance in nature"

..........here's a recent exchange between Mark Gamblin, spokesperson for Idaho Fish and Game and mysel)...THE LAST 3 LINES PRETTY MUCH EXPLAIN IT ALL.


 resident says:

 Mark Gamblin…..let me ask this another way......

- Will the decrease in wolves increase the lion population and how will that effect any lynx population since lions kill lynx?

- Will the decrease in wolves increase the coyote population and how will that affect the biodiversity of that area?

- How will the beaver population be affected if there's an increase in lions and coyotes?
--------------------------------------------------------------

 Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

 Those are interesting questions. I don't have answers for them. Why do you ask?
---------------------------------------------------------------
 resident ssays:

 Mark Gamblin…..Why do I ask???

 Because it seems counter-productive to remove an apex predator from an ecosystem in which their presence helps maintain a balance, so as a wildlife advocate who values more wildlife than just elk,I question this course of action.

 Increased lion populations make it difficult for lynx, a threatened species, to survive. Lions kill lynx! Not good when efforts are being made to protect them and restore their populations.

 Coyotes increase and move into areas vacated by wolves, so there's more predation on elk calves, fawns, game birds AND LIVESTOCK.

 Coyotes and lions prey heavily on beaver and a decrease in beaver populations affect wetland biodiversity and water storage.

 Did IDFG bother to take a look at any of these consequences related to wolf removal?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

 Of course, my question "why do you ask?" was rhetorical. It's clear where you want to go with your question – the myth of "balance" in nature. In the sense that you suggest – there is no such thing.

"Nature" is a dynamic and very messy process. Yes, there are complex ecological inter-relationships at play, including the effects that "apex" predators have on prey populations and cascading top-down effects on other biotic communities. But, to suggest that by having wolves, lion, bears or other "apex" predators at some defined density or simple population target number – will assure some benefit in terms of an ecological equilibrium – is to misunderstand, simplistically, how little we know and how poorly we can predict the consequences of changes to these ecological inter-relationships.

 In this case, you and I are talking about changes in "apex" predator abundance, at the individual species level and at variable ratios of multiple "apex" predator species AND the potential cascading effects on trophic levels below those "apex" predators.

 Cutting to your main point – NO, there is not a compelling reason to manage wolves for any specific population level, let alone "letting nature take it's course" – to achieve some desired ecological outcome OR "balance in nature".