This is my understanding of wolf behavior as well. What concerns me is that the current data from our state is based on packs with plenty of room to expand. There is nothing stopping expansion until they hit the coast. Then they will overpopulate the habitat, decimate the wild food supply and hit the domesticated livestock as well. Currently ranchers are allowed to kill wolves caught attacking livestock, so that may deter some depredation of livestock. But it does nothing for the wild game.Problem without some form of control is before Ma Nature balances things out, the wolves will have to decimate their food supply. In areas where there is a high density of deer/elk and access for hunting is low or unavailable, wolves can be a boon to the local ecosystem.
Predators are proven to be good for deer populations.
I don't know if they are still there (I hope so) but 50 years ago, the largest wolves in the US were in PA!We have no wolves that i'm aware of in PA.
The problem with wolves is all the research on them never includes human hunters as natural predators.
If distance from the wolves released in Yellowstone is any indication of time frame, you have about as long as I do. They crossed Idaho to eastern Washington between release in the 90's and 2009 when the first pack was recognized by the state. In the last 10 years they are officially in half the state. A few years ago a wolf was photographed in a town just east of Seattle. It was not recognized by the state as anything more than a rumor, until it got hit and killed by a car on Interstate 90.I know as a ranching family on the plains of SE Colorado, it'll be awhile until wolves make it to my families ranch.
That all depends on what you consider to be "good for the population" and which end of the food chain you are on. "Good for the population" as in better fed, larger, more alert deer? Then sure, because as predators cull the herds until the easiest ones (young, old, sick, unalert) are dead and it is too hard to hunt for the remaining prey, browse quality increases and prey animals will benefit from increased quantity and quality of feed and lower competition for cover and territories. But for the ones that get culled, it's pretty much over at dinner time. So, good for the population but not so much for the individuals.Predators are proven to be good for deer populations.
That all depends on what you consider to be "good for the population" and which end of the food chain you are on. "Good for the population" as in better fed, larger, more alert deer? Then sure, because as predators cull the herds until the easiest ones (young, old, sick, unalert) are dead and it is too hard to hunt for the remaining prey, browse quality increases and prey animals will benefit from increased quantity and quality of feed and lower competition for cover and territories. But for the ones that get culled, it's pretty much over at dinner time. So, good for the population but not so much for the individuals.