Ria wrote:I think, if nothing else, adding the wolves put YNP at the forefront of the news and people like me, who hadn't been before, started checking it out and realizing it would make a great vacation. And, of course, once you go, you have to keep going. I don't go for the wolves, although I enjoy seeing them when I do, I love it all, but again, the news stories put it in people's faces and I think that could have more to do with it than actually seeing wolves.
Steve wrote:Ria wrote:I think, if nothing else, adding the wolves put YNP at the forefront of the news and people like me, who hadn't been before, started checking it out and realizing it would make a great vacation. And, of course, once you go, you have to keep going. I don't go for the wolves, although I enjoy seeing them when I do, I love it all, but again, the news stories put it in people's faces and I think that could have more to do with it than actually seeing wolves.
Ain't that it though? The stories, the hype, the news got you interested in going to Yellowstone. It's all part of the package. The place got a bit more interesting to people when wolves were reintroduced.
In 1990, there were no wolves. No one went to the park for the moose in 1990. No one went for the bison. Or the waterfalls.
They went for the whole package. Same as today. The package is a bit more attractive now that wolves are there and the visitation is up considerably.
That's what they caught him with at that time. He was known to poach bison in the park before that. They just hadn't had the press around when they had caught him or others. The difference was an article penned by a reporter.ELK wrote:In fact the early buffalo killed were not by managers, but by one man named Howell, who killed 12, I believe it was in Pelican Valley.
From: http://www.wyomingtalesandtrails.com/yellowstonea.htmlIt was in the Pelican Valley in October of 1883 that soldiers caught Edgar Howell of Cooke City slaughtering five bison. Emerson Hough (1857-1923) was then writing for George Bird Grinnell's Forest and Stream for $15.00 a month. In the March 13, 1884, edition of the magazine he pointed out the absurdity of the penalties for poaching in Yellowstone. All that could be done was expel Howell from the Park only to have him return again. Hough reported that there were only about 100 bison left in the park. Public outrage resulted in the passage of the Lacey Act providing for real penalties for harming animals within the park. Hough later went on to write the Curly cowboy series in the Saturday Evening Post, Passing of the Frontier and The Covered Wagon, devoted to the Texas cattle trails and the Oregon Trail. As was Grinnell, Hough was a personal friend of Theodore Roosevelt.
From: http://www.nationalparktravel.com/yello ... istory.htmTroops enforced park regulations vigorously, patrolling on horseback during the summer and on skis during the winter. Their most persistent problem was controlling poachers. During the latter part of the 1800s, bison had been nearly exterminated from the American West and the last free-ranging herd had taken refuge in the wilds of Yellowstone. Unfortunately, this was a bit like going out of the fire into the frying pan, as the activities of poachers were a constant threat to these last remaining animals. The maximum punishment the Army could impose for this crime was to confiscate a poacher's belongings and banish him from the park. However, it proved nearly impossible to prevent him from returning. Most poachers were local residents who knew the area well and could slip in and out of the park boundaries without being noticed. In the spring of 1894, Army officers learned that an infamous bison poacher named Edgar Howell was camped in Yellowstone's Pelican Valley. Howell was caught literally red-handed, blood staining his hands as he skinned a bison he had just killed. Soldiers escorted him back to Army headquarters in Mammoth Hot Springs, where they intended to hold Howell for as long as possible in the guard house. As luck would have it, en route, they encountered a group of visitors, one of whom was a prominent reporter of the New York magazine, Forest and Stream. Appalled at hearing about the minor punishment Howell would receive for his poaching activities, the reporter wired the story to his editor.
BlackDragonsCaldron wrote:As I said in another post, there are lies, damn lies and statistics.
Based on my math from the published NPS statistics for recreational visitors to Yellowstone, the average number of yearly visitors for the decade 1975 to 1984 was 2,231,215 and for the decade 1985 to 1994 it was 2,683,652.
That is an increase of 15.61% over the prior decade.
The average number of yearly visitors during the decade from 1995 to 2004 was 2,973,731. That is an increase of 10.81% over the prior decade.
The seven year average from 2005 to 2011 was 3,179,08. An increase of 6.91% over the prior decade.
Just for fun I ran the numbers for Rocky Mountain National Park. They had a visitor increase of 15.20% when comparing the decade 1985-1994 with the decade 1995-2004 - a 4.39% better gain in visitor numbers than Yellowstone with no wolves in sight.
Therefore I do not see how you can conclude that the introduction of wolves in 1995 had a major impact on visitation when the decade to decade increase in visitor numbers was actually better in Yellowstone before wolves were introduced (comparing the period 1975/1984 to 1985/1994 with the period 1985/1994 to 1995/2004). In fact the rate of increase in visitation actually went down after the introduction of wolves to the park.
Using your logic, you could come to the conclusion that some people were scared away from visiting the park by the reintroduction of wolves.
The people who post on this forum are not in any way representative of the average tourist who visits Yellowstone. Just read the Yellowstone forum on Trip Advisor if you have any doubt about that.
There are perhaps 100 people who actively participate in these discussions over the course of a year - compared to 3,394,326 recreational visitors to Yellowstone listed for 2011 on the NPS web site. Many (or at least the most vocal) on here have very specific interests in the park - wolves, elk, bears, photography, etc. rather than being what I consider "generalists" - people who enjoy the full range of what Yellowstone has to offer on each visit.
I know you all want to push for your own agenda on here but sometimes it goes way beyond fuzzy logic.
To state that the reintroduction of wolves into the park is responsible for a major increase in visitation to the park is not supported by either the numbers or the reality of the typical Yellowstone visitors, who make up the vast majority of the numbers we are throwing around in this discussion.
AZTA wrote:buffalogirl, there would be no predators, and therefore no drama, without the prey species as well.
buffalogirl, there would be no predators, and therefore no drama, without the prey species as well.
Steve wrote:wolves introduced in 1995
1995 to 2004 the park averaged 2.93 million visitors per year, an increase of 24%
2005 to 2011 the park averaged 3.11 million visitors
samparks23 wrote:The fact of the matter is that there is a sizable group of Yellowstone's visitors that likely would not be there if it weren't for wolves, people who spend money at the local hotels, restaurants, gas stations, stores, etc. I, myself, would not spend a month and a couple thousand bucks in Gardiner each winter if it weren't for wolves. There are plenty of people just like me that would not make winter trips to YNP for wildlife photography if it weren't for wolves. This is even more true of the wolf-watchers. Just ask the people who own lodging establishments in Gardiner and Silver Gate/Cooke City what wolves have done for them, especially during the formerly slow time of year; the winter. This economic benefit should not be overlooked or understated.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests