You guys are really such a bunch of morons, but entertaining. You certainly engender no sympathy, and only make enemies. You deal with no understanding of ecological processes, no population dynamics, in fact, just about zip except for the normal attacks on the enemy's character if you can't deal with the science.

I'd be interested to know the names of all those Wyoming game biologists you know so well and that are so against wolves, Kudu. My guess is you know none. I would be interested to know what population biology you actually understand and have applied to what data to produce these dire predictions of the end of the world as we k know it.

Unfortunately, I don't have any cousins, uncles or other relatives that are biologists, but being one myself, I can figure out most of this pretty easily. I can read the literature (not the newspapers) and I can do the math all for myself. But don't let that stop the insults. It's all you've got (plus some wolves - lucky you).

But frankly, I'm having enough fun just watching you and your's stew in your own foolishness.

Brent

There is always hope!

Official: Dog disease likely culprit in Yellowstone wolf decline
By BECKY BOHRERAssociated Press

Most of the gray wolf pups born in Yellowstone National Park last year have died, a federal wolf expert says, and he believes a dog disease -- parvo virus -- may be behind the dramatic loss.

Just 22 of the 69 pups born last year are still alive, said Doug Smith, the park's wolf project leader. That's the biggest drop in pup numbers since wolves were reintroduced to the park 11 years ago, with the greatest toll seen on the park's northern range. There, he said just eight of the 49 pups born last spring survived.

"It's cause for concern, a great deal of concern," he said.

Over the next few weeks, Smith said, officials plan to catch Yellowstone wolf pups and take blood samples to see if the suspicions about parvo virus are true. The disease can cause extreme diarrhea and dehydration and kill more vulnerable animals, like young pups. Though vaccination is an option -- many domestic dogs are vaccinated to protect them against parvo -- Smith said it would be largely futile in the park.

"It requires two vaccinations to build up an immunity, and we'd have to catch every wolf," he said. "And both those things are impractical."

If parvo virus is confirmed, there is little officials can do besides monitor the population and hope exposed wolves build a natural immunity to the disease, he said.

Parvo virus also is suspected in Montana by the state's wolf program leader, Carolyn Sime.

Sime said Thursday the existence of parvo virus is "quite possible" in Montana. Some wolves, particularly in the southern part of Montana, have been affected by mange, a skin problem that can lead to excessive scratching and hair loss and is also common to dogs.

Suspicions about parvo virus are based in part on den-site monitoring and whether pups emerge in summer with their packs, she said. State wildlife officials plan to step up blood collection from wolves -- possibly even drawing from wolf carcasses dead 24 hours or less-- as part of their disease surveillance, she said.

Terry Kreeger, supervisor of veterinary services for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, said that while parvo virus could have a noticeable effect for a number of years on wolf populations like Yellowstone's, he doesn't believe it will prove devastating.

It could, however, have implications for how wolves in the region are managed, Smith said. The number of wolves in Yellowstone dropped last year from 171 animals total to just 118, he said. The largest single-year drop prior to that was 11 -- from 1998-99, when parvo virus also was suspected, he said.

Competition among packs was also a factor in the overall population decline, with a handful believed to have totally disappeared, he said, adding that it would be wrong to count on always having a set number of packs in the park.

"A lot of people thought wolves are going to keep going (up) in Yellowstone, and they're not," he said.

Wolves in the Northern Rockies remain federally protected, although the state of Montana recently took over most management duties of wolves within its borders, and Idaho signed an agreement with the Interior Department Thursday to do the same there.

Who is stewing? I am here and you are there! Lucky me! There is no evidence that the wolf is or has done any good? Name one good thing other than to give you a woody???? Feels good huh? You are as misinformed as the rest. Simple math, 1000 wolves have to eat a lot of protien, and they are getting it from elk.


I know three biologists and half a dozen game wardens that believe the wolf is having a negetive effect on elk. Until a month ago they had a gag order to not say any thing positive or negative about wolves. They can now answer yours or my concerns and questions. And if you think I am a stupid bumpkin from iowa, that would give you thier names and they have their jobs threatend when you run to their supperiors or the pro-wolf zealots, forget it. Ask more than one of them yourself on your next vist!

Kudu, you are such a hoot. Of course they eat elk. And elk number are going down. So what? Dang, you might have to get out of your truck to shoot one. yeah, I know, truck hunters like you need hyperabundant elk to have a chance, but ya know what? You're just gonna have to cry harder.

There is lots of evidence that the wolves are changing the distribution of aspen and willow in the park. I count that as good in so much as it's returning back to a state closer to "normal".

So, let's name the biologists. Come on - you must know their names. You said they don't have a gag order anymore (never did either). You won't give out their names because you don't even know them.

Beyond that, what data are they gathering? Why don't you do a little research on your own, or at least read a little from those that do. Oh yeah, they might come up with answers that don't fit your little preconceptions. Damn, data hurts doesn't it. Oh well.

I'll be visiting this summer. Maybe we should meet - I'll even buy you a beer. If you are old enough to drink.

Brent

quote:

I'll be visiting this summer. Maybe we should meet - I'll even buy you a beer. If you are old enough to drink.

Are we going to argue about wolves or talk about elk hunting?

Not only loss of calves to wolves but when the population ages it can not produce to expand or grow the herd. It takes 22 calves per 100 cows just to maintian current numbers, many herds in NW Wyoming are in the 3 to 10 calves per 100. With ageing elk and fewer calves the herds are going backwards! FAST!

State study finds Yellowstone elk aging

Fish, Wildlife and Parks

Yellowstone National Park's northern elk herd is notably older than other Montana elk herds and about half the size it was in the mid-1990s, according to recent studies by the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

The herd numbers about 9,500 animals.

The elk were aged by examining incisor teeth collected from elk killed by hunters. The tests indicate that for the first time, 50 percent of the population is 9 or more years old. That makes it an exceptionally old elk population compared to others in the state. "The northern herd is fast becoming a geriatric elk population, which may reduce the herd's productivity and its ability to recover from recent population declines," said Tom Lemke, an FWP biologist in Livingston. "The aging of this population, and the smaller number of elk calves we're seeing survive, will continue to influence management decisions and to reduce hunter opportunity in this area."

The Northern Yellowstone elk herd migrates to a winter range on about a 590-square mile area along the Lamar, Gardiner and Yellowstone river basins inside Yellowstone Park and north of the park in southwestern Montana. A portion of these animals that migrate into Montana provide hunting opportunities during the popular Gardiner late season elk hunt set for Jan. 6-30.

Teeth from the harvested elk have been studied since 1996 by a small laboratory in Milltown, near Missoula. There, technicians carefully section, stain, and count the cementum annuli rings they see on the roots of the incisor teeth to determine the accurate age of each animal. The rings in the elk teeth are analogous to the rings on a tree, each ring marking a year of growth.

Recent analysis shows that the average age of elk harvested in 2005 during the Gardiner late season elk hunt hit record highs - 8.2 years old for cows, and 9.1 years old for bulls. Ten years ago, the average was 6.2 and 5.9 years of age, respectively.

Average ages in other Montana elk populations are generally in the range of 4 to 5 years.

"The aging of the Northern Yellowstone elk herd is an additional factor that could make it more difficult for this herd to expand," Lemke said. Other factors include the high number of elk calves taken by predators and losses of calves and adult elk to severe winter weather.

The new statewide Elk Management Plan uses the number of elk calves that survive their first year of life to be recruited into the herd as one guideline to determine if liberal, standard or restrictive hunting is appropriate.

Here again, the Northern Yellowstone elk are struggling. Aerial surveys indicate that, for the past four years, only 12-14 calves per 100 cow elk survived the first year of life and joined the herd. Recruitment of about 30 calves per 100 cows is more typical for Northern Yellowstone elk.

Recent studies in Yellowstone National Park show that about 70-75 percent of newborn radio-tagged Northern Yellowstone elk calves are dead within a year of their birth, mostly due to predation. Predators include bears, wolves, and coyotes - with bears accounting for 55-60 percent of the mortality and wolves and coyotes with another 10-15 percent each.

Wildlife managers have gone from liberal, to standard, to conservative hunting quotas over the past six years, trying to keep pace with the changes affecting the herd. Lemke said antlerless elk permit quotas have been reduced from 2,880 in the year 2000 to 100 in 2006.

"There will probably always be debate about how many elk people want to see in this herd. But for its overall health and viability, we know calf recruitment needs to increase in order to see the age structure of the herd return closer to the norm," Lemke said.

"We've reduced antlerless elk harvest quotas in an attempt to conserve cow elk. With more adult cow elk, we hope to see an improvement in calf recruitment, but there is a lot in this mix that we can't control," he said.

In the meantime, studying the teeth of harvested elk to determine the average age of the population will continue.

It may seem the scientific equivalent of reading tea leaves, but it is one way for wildlife managers to evaluate over time how the Northern Yellowstone elk herd is doing in adapting to changes in weather, habitat, predators and hunting pressure.

quote:You said they don't have a gag order anymore (never did either). You won't give out their names because you don't even know them.



G&F to keep oppinions to themselves!

CHEYENNE -- Go ahead and ask.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department employees now can answer people's questions about wolves.

But if the employees disagree with the state's plan for managing wolves when they're removed from federal protection, they'll likely be told to keep those opinions to themselves.

About six years ago, the Game and Fish Commission instructed department personnel that because the agency had no authority over wolves, they should refer all questions about the animals to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
At that time, the commission did not want the department involved at all in reintroduction of wolves, department Director Terry Cleveland said. Its directive was an attempt to ensure that the federal agency assumed responsibility for the reintroduction program.

"Since then we've been operating under instructions from the commission on wolves," Cleveland said.

Also at that time the wolves were concentrated in Yellowstone National Park, which is under federal control. The wolves have since expanded outside the park and are having an impact on livestock and wildlife, Cleveland said Thursday in a telephone interview.

Department officials recently asked and received from the commission more flexibility in answering the public's questions about wolves.

"We clearly still have no statutory authority, but we need to better inform the public," Cleveland said.

People are asking department personnel about their assessments of such things as pack distribution geographically, breeding patterns, the size of litters, and the state of litigation, he added.

Ron Lovercheck of LaGrange, a commission member for three years, said there never has been a written formal policy restricting department employees from talking publicly about wolves.

"At this point we felt it is time to loosen those strings," and allow personnel to visit with the public about wolves, he said.

"I think it is kind of important. It has been kind of a hush-hush thing. Maybe we overreacted," he said.

The new guidelines give department personnel authority to freely discuss the impact of wolves on big game herds and livestock, as well as their current distribution and the abundance of wolves in Wyoming and surrounding states.

However, bad-mouthing the state's wolf management plan -- which is at the heart of litigation between the state and federal governments -- is something employees shouldn't do, Cleveland said during a Game and Fish Commission meeting in Gillette earlier this week. That plan would retain the state's categorization of wolves as predators and allow them to be shot on sight outside designated areas.

"That's what they are to support," Cleveland said.

In 2003, Game and Fish biologist Dave Moody was suspended with pay for a week after he told participants in a Montana wolf conference that Wyoming's plan did not adequately protect wolves and could delay removal of federal protection for them.

We are just beginning to learn how good of a tool logging and fire is to a healthy enviroment.


[quote]
There is lots of evidence that the wolves are changing the distribution of aspen and willow in the park. I count that as good in so much as it's returning back to a state closer to "normal".

Is climate responsible for aspen decline?
By WILLY ZIMMER
Star-Tribune staff writer Thursday, March 18, 2004



Scientists and land managers have been concerned for some time about the decline of Wyoming's aspen stands, particularly in northern Yellowstone National Park. Some estimate up to 200,000 acres statewide have given way to conifer and shrub encroachment since the turn of the century.

The decline is generally attributed to over-browsing by ungulates, mainly elk, and aggressive wildfire suppression.

Some detective work by biologist Roy Renkin, however, may change those assumptions. Renkin, who works with the Natural Resource Branch in Yellowstone National Park, conducts studies on aspen in the park. His work includes observing how the trees reacted to the infamous Yellowstone fires of 1988.

But it was a session with some firewood that may soon get his fellow scientists talking. Renkin said he was mulling over how elk affect aspen one day while splitting firewood. He noticed in a split log the patterns caused by past injuries, and wondered if similar "architectural signals" had been left by browsing animals.
That observation pushed Renkin into the field to look for downed aspen that were young during the early part of the century to dissect and study for those signals. He said he still has "another summer's worth of data to collect and another 3-4 months of lab analysis." But to date, 81 percent of the trees he sampled showed evidence of significant browsing injuries. That has led him to some contrarian conclusions.

"I can find evidence on some of these where I can read in the lower 1.5 meters of the tree up to six different browse events," Renkin said. "I really think what this work is going to show is that browsing by elk has been much more prolific than we have heretofore recognized, and kind of takes some of these old assumptions that have turned into dogma over time that these aspen were able to profusely grow because there weren't any elk to feed on them. ... Quite to the contrary these aspen have been repeatedly browsed for a very long time."

Another popular hypothesis is the introduction of wolves will thin the herd and promote an aspen comeback. Renkin said he was been counting tree rings and found no evidence to support that contention, either.

"Nobody has a handle on how many elk there were. But I do know that when elk were artificially reduced down to about 5,000 head back through the '60s, I don't see a corresponding flush of aspen growth that corresponds to lower elk numbers," he said.

Renkin said aspen reactions after the 1988 Yellowstone fire also tends to debunk the notion fire is the answer for all declining aspen stands. Although numerous trees were observed sprouting from seed after the fire, further development has been generally limited by poor soils and conditions.

Existing stands, which should have sprouted vigorously from clonal root systems, have not shown a universally vigorous response, either.

"Fire doesn't seem to be the panacea for improving the performance or condition of aspen that a number of people hypothesized that it could be," Renkin said.

Renkin's findings lead him to conclude a warming climate may be the underlying cause of aspen decline.

"We do know that the climate in the last century has gotten progressively warmer and dryer," Renkin said. "Where I keep leaning towards is the climatic influence is really what's driving the performance of these aspen. I get the impression that things like fire and things like browsing are really secondary to the overall performance of aspen. ... They're out there and they're important but they're secondary."

Renkin said he hopes to publish all of his findings next year in a "major ecological journal," and expects they may stir up some controversy.

"(The climate theory) is not accepted by the scientific community, and it won't be until it gets published," Renkin said. "But it's this angle I'm trying to pursue, because it sheds a whole new light on our interpretation about the performance of aspen."

E-MAIL THIS STORY

I just love the ASSumption that all those wolves eat nothing but elk... when wolves get a far greater percentage of their year round "live kill" protein from deer, rabbits, voles even mice. and though wolves may actually eat elk they don't kill very many, winter kills many and the wolves eat the leftovers...

And what about the easier to catch and kill deer species that cohabit the elk's range? you think the Wolves snobbishly refuse to eat them?

Next you'll be blaming the wolf for the decline of mountain goat and sheep species... (Yeah right, a wolf would be suspicious if a mountain sheep fell out of the sky, which is really the only way a wolf will ever see one)

This whole discussion sounds like a rancher who whines about all his lost livestock to coyotes.
Coyotes rarely kill anything larger than a lamb and that not very often.... again, it's Rabbits, Voles and Mice.
Though coyotes will not hesitate to eat livestock that
managed to die all by themselves...

It follows the stereotypical ASSumption is that if you find a dead animal (wild or domestic) half-eaten with wolf, coyote or (insert predator here) tracks around it that the predator killed it and that is often enough not the case....

AllanD

quote:

And what about the easier to catch and kill deer species that cohabit the elk's range? you think the Wolves snobbishly refuse to eat them?

Elk are the #1 prey species for the grey wolf in the yellowstone ecosystem. Have you ever been to yellowstone? Or any areas off the road near yellowstone, the thourofare,two oceans pass,sunlight basin, head of the north fork? How many deer did you see? There are not many deer in those areas. Why? I don't know, just isn't. I am sure they eat deer but elk feeds them. Read the reports from the park by their "by-olygyst"

[quote;]
And what about the easier to catch and kill deer species that cohabit the elk's range? you think the Wolves snobbishly refuse to eat them?



http://www.nps.gov/yell/nature/animals/wolf/wolfrpt04.pdf


Allan DeGroot
Go here and read pages 12 and 13. In the winter study only 4 deer were killed in this area. I am sure in other parts of the state deer kills outnumber elk. But in the Yellowstone ecosystem, in and around the park elk kills outnumber deer kills almost 10 to 1! You will also read wolf numbers are down in yellowstone, simple reason, the park as reached its capacity for wolves. Solution, younger wolves leave and form their own packs in other places, and the USF&W transplants them. Colorado is next.

quote:

I'll be visiting this summer. Maybe we should meet - I'll even buy you a beer. If you are old enough to drink.

This ain't one of them parties where you invite me, and I ask "what are we going to do at this party"? You say "oh there will be lots of dancing" I say, "cool I like to dance"," I can cut the rug with the best" and what else? You say " we drink lots" "Ok" I say, "I like to imbibe in the spirits", and you say "there might even be a fight or two" "Cool" I say, "I love to fight as much as I like to argue". Then you say, "there will be some sex to!" "GREAT" I say, "I love sex" even at may age! Then I say, "So who all is going to be at this party"?

And you say! "Well duh, just you and me"!

Hello;
I attended a presentation on the 5 year long Ya Ha Tinda Elk, Wolf study a couple of weeks ago. The presentation was given by Mark Hebblewhite, who incidentally is moving to Montana. Mark came across as not a pro or an anti, but he pointed out that since the prresentation was held in Sundre, most of the concerns revolved around Elk. If he had done the same in Lake Louise, the audience would have worried about Wolves.
The study is not cut and dry, but it is obvious that some management changes need to be made, complicated by the fact that the Ya Ha Tinda sits on the edge of Banff national Park and jurisdiction is divided between the Provincial and Federal governments. Peaking in 1992, at around 2200, the population has since declined to 900. Wolves accounted for 42% of predation, hunters got 27% with Grizzlies killing 19%. Elk mortality from wolves, Grizzlies and humans caused a 10 to 12% population decline, over the last 5 years.
An interesting point was while wolves hunt only at night, outside the park, where there are human pressures, the wolves in the park operate on a 24 hour basis.
Co-incidentally, I went on a hike to the Ya Ha a coule of days later and discovered a radio collared elk [only cows were collared], apparently killed by wolves, a short distance from the ranch buildings. I found her early Sunday afternoon and she was over half eaten, though they last had an alive indication from her Sat. evening. Interesting was the fact that the collar, which is a sealed unit containing a couple of flashlight type batteries had been operating for 4 years. The collar is too old to re-use, so I now have an interesting souvenir, complete with blood stains, where they ripped her throat.
For the web site sesrch Ya Ha Tinda Elk Study.
Grizz

Allan DeGroot;Your knowlege concerning what wolves kill and eat must have come from watching the Walt Disney movie Never Cry Wolf.They will kill anything they can catch and may even eat it.I saw a picture at Yellowstone sports in Livingston 2 years ago of six elk calves that had been killed by wolves but not eaten.
Mountain goats usually stay at high elevations in steep rocky country that wolves would indeed have trouble taking them.Bighorn Sheep frequently cross hiwy 89 in the paradise valley, between Gardiner and Livingston.They have actually been struck and killed by motor vehicles.Wregards

Allan

You apparently don't know what the hell you're talking about when it come to wolves or coyotes. Do you're self a learning favor and read the January 2006 issue in the American Hunter article "How Many Deer Do Coyotes Eat?
A article in the Casper Star Tribune by Jeff Wright. stated that coyotes in 2004 killed 20,000 to 30,000 lambs and of all predation on calves coyotes were responsible for 25%
Near Gardiner MT there were 300 head of BigHorn Sheep, last count the population is now about thirty due to wolves.

Steve

Actually Steve, your numbers are a little off whack. Here is the article you are refering to.

Casper Star

I would say 99% of all of you guys don't know what the hell your talking about (pro or anti wolf), because unless you all are actual biologists (who has a formal education in wildlife biology or management) who spends a lot time classifing big game in the field and has some sort of "data" behind your outlandish claims (as well as a thorough understanding of predator/prey relationships)...you're just an armchair quarterback when it comes to wildlfe management and this whole "wolf" issue. You take stories in the press written by folks who have about as much knowledge with wildlife management as I do nuclear physics and blow these articles all out of proportion.

There is very little logic used when emotions are running so high, with such a controversial topic. What folks need to realize, that the wolves are here to stay...they are not going anywhere (regardless of this "SSS" bullshit logic), and now we need to come up with a socially acceptable, biologically possible, and economically feasable plan so we can manage (ie. hunt) them.

Just my .02

MG

Madgoat

Your article was written back in September of 2005. The article I read was written February 3, 2006. I agree with you 100% that wolves need to be managed, we can live with them as long as they are controlled like every other animal. Thats one of the great things about living here in Wyoming grizzlies and wolves but they need to be controlled... not wiped out.

Steve

I just sent an email to RMEF and asked what their present stand is on wolves in Montana and the effect on elk herds,I will post their answer.I think consessions were made for RMEF's presence in this wolf program and now that its gone bad I want to know what they will do to undo their mistake.I also asked to be taken off the membership list and leave me alone untill I can see they have taken steps to fixed their missplaced affilitation with the wrong side.I'll let you guys know what they say.Drop-Shot

I've been away from this forum for a couple of days, and I see that its going the way of many of our political election campains. When a candidate doesn't have anything positive to say, he starts calling names and slinging mud.

I have never been to Iowa or Pennsylvania, so I wouldn't have a clue as to how to tell the folks there how to manage their land.

For the past 28 years, I have lived about 90 miles from Yellowstone National Park. During this time I have hunted, fished, hiked, backpacked, horse packed, and worked in the National Forest and surrounding lands north of Yellowstone Park from Cooke City to West Yellowstone. I also know or have known many biologists from the Montana Department of FWP and from the Gallatin National Forest. All of them have a B.S., M.S., or a Phd degree in some phase of wildlife biology or wildlife management. Many of them are still employed by the Montana state or Federal government, and with the way politics are, they probably would not appreciate it if I mentioned their name in a public forum without their approval. The one name I can mention is Kurt Alt, who is the head wildlife biologist of Region 3 of Montana Dept of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. Kurt recently was interviewed in a front page story in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle where he truthfully told how the wolves have affected the ungulate populations in SW Montana. I have known Kurt for 10 or more years, and I believe everything that he said in that article.

Just because a person has a college degree in some phase of wildlife biology does not necessarily mean that they are an expert in all other phases of wildlife. One time (before the wolf and before the Pink-eye epidemic) some of us were helping the Montana F&G biologists trap and transplant bighorn sheep by Corwin Springs, north of Gardiner MT. When the F&G biologists asked if any of us had a ram in our net, the biologist that I was with said yes. It was a ewe. Another time, I was showing some friends some photos of my trip to Alaska. One of the photos was an 8x10 full frame picture of a willow ptarmigan that was about one half changed into its white winter plumage. A Forest Service biologist (with a phd) asked what kind of bird was in the photo.

Allan DeGroot, above, made the brilliant comment that the only way a wolf would ever see a mountain sheep would be if the sheep were to fall out of the sky. A similar statement was made on public radio by a Yellowstone Park wildlife biologist just prior to the release of wolves when she said that "the wolves would not feed on the bighorn sheep because the sheep inhabit the high rocky cliffs where the wolves cannot get to." I have pictures of me sitting on the ground on the sheep winter range in Yellowstone just outside of Gardiner where in one photo a bighorn ewe walked up to me and was sniffing my hand. The other photo shows a ram standing within 5 feet of me sitting on the ground. No, I was not feeding them nor did I have any kind of food with me. The sheep were just un-afraid and curious. The last time that I hunted bighorn sheep, in an unlimited permit area just north of Yellowstone NP, I had up to seven bighorn sheep graze to within 20 feet of me. They were close enough that we could hear them chewing. I was not in any kind of blind, my son and my golden retriever were with me, and both my son and I had our 400+ square inches of pumpkin orange vests on. Another time on that same trip we were within 40 yds of 2 mountain goats that were in the timber below us. They just stood and looked at us until we walked away. Many times I have seen bighorn sheep and mountain goats on or next to busy highways. I could go on and on with stories like these, but my point is two fold: Just because someone has a college degree, does not make them an expert in all phases of that field. I once knew a biologist who did her Phd thesis on some sort of bird, but she didn't know the difference between a mule deer and a whitetail. My other point is that bighorn sheep and mountain goats ARE preyed upon by wolves, with many times bighorn sheep being easy prey.

Many of the threads in this forum are my folks that live in Wyoming and Montana adjacent to Yellowstone NP. We can SEE what the wolves have done to the big game in the Yellowstone area. Where prior to the wolves we could drive from Mammoth to Cooke City and see hundreds to thousands of elk, we are now lucky to see a few elk (as in less than 50!).

Yes, we are lucky to live here, but we are not lucky to have 800 to 1000 wolves roaming around here decimating our big game populations.

quote:

buffybr

Nice post. The article that quotes Kurt Alt is at top of this thread. It was the start of this discussion. Kurt is very respected by many Wy Game and fish people, but the pro-wolf group poo-poo's him. The same as the anti-wolf group poo-poo's Doug Smith. Smith has been proven to twist statistics out of context for the benifit of the wolf. So it goes back and forth.

My lengthy replies in this thread, were only in response to Brent's accusations of me being completly full of BS. Slightly full I might admit, but completly never! I have no use for the wolf, many scientists are even coming out saying the reintroduction was a mistake. Time will tell. I am pretty confident of one thing, we will never be able to hunt them. Just look at Wisc. Minn. 40+ years of wolves and still no hunts. The USF&W service wants the Yellowstone area to be the breeding grounds for wolves to fill the west. That's why they don't like Wyomings plan to manage the wolf. They have filled yellowstone and the packs and individuals spread from there. Last week the Tensleep game warden told my son there are three packs in the Big Horns. So if they are there, then they have pretty much spread over most of the state. And will continue to do so. Unchecked!

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:

quote:

I'll be visiting this summer. Maybe we should meet - I'll even buy you a beer. If you are old enough to drink.

This ain't one of them parties where you invite me, and I ask "what are we going to do at this party"? You say "oh there will be lots of dancing" I say, "cool I like to dance"," I can cut the rug with the best" and what else? You say " we drink lots" "Ok" I say, "I like to imbibe in the spirits", and you say "there might even be a fight or two" "Cool" I say, "I love to fight as much as I like to argue". Then you say, "there will be some sex to!" "GREAT" I say, "I love sex" even at may age! Then I say, "So who all is going to be at this party"?

And you say! "Well duh, just you and me"!

Dude, I'll buy ya a beer - if you want kinky funky sex stuff, find another cowboy. You been watching too many movies I guess.

In the meantime, enjoy your wolves. 'Cause you sure got'em and they ain't goin' away.

Brent

quote:

Dude, I'll buy ya a beer - if you want kinky funky sex stuff, find another cowboy. You been watching too many movies I guess.

They are sheep herders! Not cowboys and it sure has everyone worked up! If you get up this way lets do the beer. And only talk elk hunting! And maybe Big 12 football~

You are on. But let's skip the football. I have less use for collegiant sports than I do for cowboys or sheep herders.

Brent

buffybr;Great post.I dont get my info from bean counters either,but from fellow ranchers and goverment hunters and the people trying to make a living in the mountains and prarries of this great state.
I think the goats and sheep in the park are more vunerable than anywhere else as I see them in places where they are really easy prey for the wolves.I spend a lot of time in the Crazies and those goats stay in really high steep country.But this summer we packed in to one of the high country lakes and I wittnessed some really unusual behaviour by yhe goats.We set up camp had our horses about 14 0n a pickett line we also had about 4-5 cow dogs.We started fishing and there were about 20 goats grazing in a meadow about 500yds from us.well they just all at once headed in our direction and proceeded to come right into camp.well the horses freaked out and I thought they were going break loose.I got between the goats and horses and couldnt turn them I called 2 of the dogs and ran the goats out of camp.My guess is they were salt deprived and had previously gotten it out of the horse manure.Go figure.W/regards

"When wolves get a far greater percentage of their year round "live kill" protein from ... voles even mice".

Maybe in the summer, but not in deep snow.

Can someone explain how a pack of wolves would trot past elk in deep snow to dig through 4 - 10 ft of snow for one mouse?

I've read articles from true wildlife biologists that will confirm that wolve packs do kill elk and have watched wolf documentaries on the Discovery channel doing just that, chasing healthy Elk until they are exausted and stuck in deep snow and are set upon by the entire pack and killed. During the program, the wolf pack they followed never dug down through deep snow for a mouse or chased a single rabbit. They just followed the Elk herd.

Like domestic dogs, they like to chase and kill.

With the warm winters out here the Elk just don't die in the numbers needed for the wolves to just happen across them for a lucky meal. I'm out hunting coyotes every weekend and I can't remember seeing a dead animal of any kind except the coyotes we call in.

My guess our PA poster is not a "wildlife Biologist" with years of field experience in the Yelowstone area with Elk and wolves, but the armchair expert refered to.

Found an interesting site on Wolves from 2003. I'll paste several clips and the site for review.

Wolves in the area subsist mainly on Elk (Cervus elaphus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), moose (Alces alces), and bison (Bison bison).

Livestock depredations in 2002 included 52 cattle (Bos taurus), 99 sheep (Ovis aries), nine dogs (Canis familiaris) and five llamas (Lama glama) confirmed lost to wolves (Table 5a, 5b). Approximately 23 of 80 known wolf packs were involved in livestock depredations. In response, 46 wolves were killed within the 3-state area.

Notice that mice are missing from the diet and livestock depredation is listed backing up what livestock owners said would happen.


Research in Yellowstone national Park
Wolf-prey relationships: Wolf–prey relationships were documented by observing wolf predation directly and by recording the characteristics of wolf prey at kill sites. Wolf packs were monitored during two winter-study sessions, 30-day periods in March and November–December during which wolves were intensively radio-tracked. The Leopold, Rose Creek II, Geode Creek, and Druid Peak Packs were monitored by two-person teams from the ground and from aircraft; the Swan Lake, Agate Creek, Tower, Slough Creek, Mollie’s, Nez Perce, Cougar Creek, Bechler, Yellowstone Delta, Chief Joseph, and Sheep Mountain Packs were monitored from aircraft only. YNP staff recorded, and entered into a database, behavioral interactions between wolves and prey, predation rates, the total time wolves fed on their kills, percent consumption of kills by wolves and scavengers, characteristics of wolf prey (e.g., nutritional condition), and characteristics of kill sites. In addition, similar data were collected opportunistically throughout the year during weekly monitoring flights and ground observations. The abundance and sex-age composition of elk within wolf pack territories were also estimated from the ground and from fixed-wing aircraft.

Composition of Wolf Kills Project staff detected 132 definite, 206 probable, and 8 possible kills made by wolves in 2002, including 291 ELK (84% oftotal) 21 bison, (6%), 4 deer (1%), 4 coyotes (1%), 4 wolves (1%), 1 badger (<0.5%), 1 Canada goose (<0.5%), and 22 unknown prey (6%). The composition of elk kills was 34% calves (0–12 months), 31% cows, 22% bulls, 5% adult elk of unknown sex, and 8% elk of unknown sex and age. Bison kills included 10 calves (unknown sex), 3 yearlings (2 female, 1 male), and 8 adults (3 female, 3 male, 2 unknown sex). Of the bison kills, 1 was killed during December, 1 in January, 5 in February, 6 in March, 7 in April, and 1 in late May. The Nez Perce Pack made 13 of the bison kills and Mollie’s Pack and Druid Peak Pack each killed 2. During winter, wolves residing on the Northern Range killed an average of 1.8 elk per wolf per 30-day study period.

Winter Studies: During the 2002 March winter study (30 days), wolves were observed for 243 hours from the ground. The number of days wolf packs were located from the air ranged from 1 (Yellowstone Delta) to 15 (Leopold, Rose Creek II, Tower, and Sheep Mountain). Seventy-two definate or probable wolf kills were detected, including 65 ELK 3 bison, and 4 prey of unknown species. Among elk, 19 (29%) were calves, 22 (34%) were cows, 18 (28%) were bulls, 4 (6%) were of unknown sex, and 2 (3%) were of unknown sex and age.

During the 2002 November-December winter study (30 days), wolves were observed for 373 hours from the ground. The number of days wolf packs were located from the air ranged from 1 (Bechler) to 18 (Leopold, Druid Peak, Geode Creek, and Agate Creek). Fifty-nine definite or probable wolf kills were detected, including 57 elk, 3 coyotes, 1 bison, and 1 unknown prey. Among elk, 22 (39%) of the kills were calves, 15 (26%) were cows, 18 (32%) were bulls, and 2 (3%) kills were adult elk of unknown sex.
Wolf-Carnivore Interactions: The reintroduction of wolves into YNP has provided an opportunity to examine interactions among a full suite of carnivores and their prey. Preliminary evidence from concurrent field studies focusing on the park’s large carnivores (wolves, cougars, grizzly bears, and black bears) suggests that these interactions have significant effects on carnivore community structure, population dynamics, and prey populations. Collaborations with interdepartmental (Bear Management, Ungulate Project, Bison Management) and interagency (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks) researchers have already been productive in pursuing science-based questions on multi-carnivore relationships. The use of new technologies such as GPS telemetry collars will advance our ability to understand the carnivore community and its interactions, as well as its impact on prey populations.

http://www.yellowstonenationalpark.com//wolves.htm


This 3-year study was initiated to investigate wolf-cougar interactions and predation on wintering ungulate populations within GMU 28 west of Salmon, Idaho. Two groups of wolves, the Jureano Mountain and Moyer Basin Packs, had established territories within the study area. In addition, four to six cougars were radio-tracked over the course of the study.
We documented prey characteristics and kill-site attributes of predator kills during winters 1999-2001 in Idaho, and located 120 wolf-killed and 98 cougar-killed ungulates on our study site. Elk was the primary prey for both predators (wolf = 77%; cougar = 74%), followed by mule deer (wolf = 23%; cougar = 24%). Both predators preyed disproportionately on elk calves (wolf = 60%; cougar = 53%) and old individuals. Among mule deer, wolves appeared to select for fawns (65%), whereas cougars killed primarily adult deer (76%). Nutritional status of prey, as determined by percent femur marrow fat, was consistently poorer in wolf-killed prey, with a greater proportion of wolf-killed prey exhibiting fat levels indicating severe malnutrition.

Defenders of Wildlife provides a compensation program for livestock killed by wolves, with expenditures of more than $270,000 between 1987 and 2002. Universities in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have provided substantial funding and support for their graduate students conducting wolf research.


Livestock owners are not paid for animals that drop dead and are found the following day being eaten by a wolf. They are found alive the next day in shock with serious wound that were caused by wolves based upon edivence in the area such as tracks,

Elk are the main prey listed and nowhere is it stated that these lucky wolves happen across dead elk on a daily basis.

We manage everything else, now we need to manage the wolves.

The relationship between wolves and their prey is a very interesting subject to me. To really find out what those relationships are we need to take out the emotional responces of both the wolf lovers and wolf haters. Then approach the subject in an objective manner. I think it is pretty clear that we have a very limited understanding of the exact relationship bewteen wolves and the elk which seems to be a major if not the major wolf prey species in the tri-state area.

There are three primary areas where this relationship is being looked at within the Tri-state area at this time. Although there may be more that I am unaware of.

The Yellowstone Park area has a well developed wolf monitoring plan in place. Here it appears that the elk populations are declining, wolves are killing a lot of elk among other species and elk populations may be impacted to great degree by wolf predation.

The Lochsa area in Idaho has a declining elk population, a large population of wolves and the elk are being impacted to a greater or lesser extent by wolves as well as black bear and mountain lion. How all these species interplay is very poorly known.

The first transplants of wolves into Idaho occured into unit 28, the Panther Creek area in 1995. Several packs established here and continue to live in this hunt unit. Elk make up a major portion of their diet along with mule deer. Elk populations are currently at historic high population levels.

We will only know why these differences occur, if we closely study the realationship between wolves and their prey.

We need to support this type of wildlife research so that we can manage wolves as just as we do our other wildlife species.

465H&H

Well said Kudu56, Snapper and Steve Lefforge!
Do not forget to include on your list of creatures "killt" by Wolves (the rmef's furry little friends!) - HORSES!
I am aware of two horses "killt" by Wolves within an hours drive from my home! No these were not "old nag" or sick type horses either!
One was an extremely valuable purebred horse! It was a pridefully owned, ridden and used for work and play type horse, owned by my close friend and neighbor! The whole family was upset at the loss of this horse and compensation had not been made - last I heard. The horse was killed on one of the families ranch lands near Wisdom, Montana last summer (and again no re-imbursement as yet as far as I know!).
And I now have back in my possession the source of the facts regarding the 600 Wolves NOW living in Idaho ALONE!
The Wolf population number of at least 600 came from the official publication of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game - January 2,006 issue!
In addition the article stated that the 600 Wolves are well dispersed now throughout Idaho!
Do not let anyone tell you that Wolves only eat Voles, Mice and Rabbits! Every Wolf I have seen in SW Montana has been hot on the heels of Elk, Antelope or Elk cow/calf pairs!
The Wolf problem is not only REAL it is spreading AND is a formidable threat to our Elk, Bighorn Sheep, Moose herds and to the future of our Hunting opportunities of these animals!
Call that emotional or call that "armchair quarterbacking" if you insist! But its the truth and folks with their heads WAY up their own asses, like Madgoat, who deny the harm the Elk are doing now, in the past AND in the future should definitely not be listened to when they say no emotions - "we need a plan now" - thats hot air and useless!
We do have a problem and it is serious! Anyone calling out "no emotions now" is simply doing a Chicken Little imitation.
Emotions are valuable tools (motivators, attention getters, emphasis indicators etc etc etc!).
Yeah I would emotionally start with the greens over at the rmef and deny them ANY support until they get off their green asses and help with the emergency that is going on NOW regarding the Wolves!
I hope some of you have better luck with getting information and action from these twerps than I did!
In the last 8 years I have spent a fair amount of time in close contact with both biologists and line officer Game Wardens here in SW Montana. NONE of them are happy with the Wolf situation as it is now - or from day one for that matter!
Nor am I!
Heres the fuckin plan there unemotional Madgoat - theres to fuckin many Wolves killing to fuckin many of our hard fought for Game Animals!
Anything more useful in overcoming the present crisis would be appreciated! Your blather regarding "emotions" and truck Hunters is about as valuable as the Wolf farts caused from the way over-populated Wolves, over-indulging on our Elk, Bighorn Sheep and Moose!
I was not in my truck when I killed my trophy 6x6 Bull Elk last year!
Your inference otherwise is petty stupid and immature!
Somehow I think that befits you!
What in the hell does berating someone who does have a tendency to Hunt from their truck have to do with the loss of way over 2,000 Special Elk permits (EVERY YEAR!) in just a couple of Hunting areas in SW Montana? What does it have to do with the Wolf caused decimation of the Nothern Yelloswtone Elk Herd (in Montana alone) - from 19,500 animals in 1995 to 8,500 animals in 2005?
Insult away if your ego commands it, but I would choose your intended insult targets a little more carefully if you wish to accomplish anything!
Thanks for nothing rmef!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Buffybr and Gophershooter I'm glad to have you in Montana.I too bemoan the loss of giant herds of elk and other animals and remember the way it used to be.If the wolf would become delisted and permits were available I would be 1st in line and not feel any remorse for the shot I took.The wolf is changing our way of life and I hold that against them and the folks that put them here.Drop-Shot

VARMITGUY!
YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING BUT CAPITOL LETERS AND EXCLAMATION POINTS SO READ THIS YOU PRICK! YOU DON'T FUCKING GET IT! THE WOLVES ARE HERE! YEA THEY SUCK! THOSE OF US WHO LIVE HERE KNOW THIS! YEA THEY EAT OUR ELK! YEA, NO ONE HERE WANTED THEM EXCEPT THE GREENIES BACK EAST WHO DON'T GIVE A SHIT! WE WILL NEVER GET RID OF THEM IN TODAYS WORLD! THIS IS A FACT OF LIFE! THE STATES OF MT, WY, AND ID ARE GOING TO GET SUED BY THE GREENIES BIGGER THAN SHIT WHEN WOLVES ARE UP FOR COMPLETE DELISTING AND MANAGEMENT HANDED OVER TO THE STATES!
HOWEVER, WILDLIFE POPULATIONS MAKE LARGE FLUCTUATIONS OVER PERIODS OF TIME! THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THE YELLOWSTONE ELK HERD HAS MADE A FLUCTUATION LIKE THIS! IT IS A WELL KNOWN FACT THAT THE ELK WERE WAY OVER THEIR CARRYING CAPACITY, AND HAD BEEN FOR SOME TIME WHICH WAS SHOWING ON THEIR HABITAT (TO THE POINT OF DESTROYING ASPEN STANDS AND ALTERING WILLOW BOTTOMS) AND THIS "DECLINE" WAS EXPECTED TO HAPPEN AT SOME POINT IN TIME! YOU CAN'T SUSTAIN 19000 ELK IN COUNTRY WITH 6' OF SNOW IN THE WINTER! IT JUST SO HAPPENS THAT THE WOLVES WERE INTRODUCED RIGHT AT START OF THIS DECLINE! IF YOU HAD ANY CLUE ABOUT PREDATOR/PREY RELATIONSHIPS, YOU WOULD SEE THAT THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE AT WORK HERE BESIDES THE WOLVES! BUT YOU'RE TOO NARROW MINDED TO SEE THAT! YOU DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT HABITAT, AND ARE TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS WHAT MAKES FOR HEALTHY ELK, NO MATTER WHAT THE WOLVES DO! THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NOTHING LEFT ON THIS CONTINENT DUE TO THE WOLVES WHEN THE PILGRIMS LANDED ACCORDING TO YOUR MENTALITY! YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT WOLF BIOLOGY EITHER! THEY ARE TERRITORIAL, YELLOWSTONE IS AT CAPACITY FOR WOLVES BASED UPON PACK DYNAMICS! WOLVES KEEP OTHER WOLF NUMBERS IN CHECK! WHAT REALLY SUCKS, IS THAT THE PLACES WOLVES ARE GROWING AND CONTRIBUTING TO THE POPULATION IS AT THE FRINGES OF THE GYE! BITCHING AND MOANING LIKE THE LITTLE PUSSY YOUR ARE ISN'T GOING TO ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING! YOUR BULL SHIT RAVING ON FROM READING THE LOCAL PAPER IS BULLSHIT! THE PAPERS ARE LIBERAL..THEY WANT TO PISS YOU OFF...YOU'RE SO NARROW MINDED THAT THEY CAN EASILY GET TO YOU!! AND IT SHOWS DUMBASS!

GROW THE FUCK UP! SUPPORT HABITAT PROTECTION! SUPPORT THE DELISTING EFFORTS! SUPPORT THE PROTECTION OF CRUCIAL ELK WINTER RANGE! SUPPORT STATE MANAGEMENT! BUT PLEASE, QUIT WITH THY CRY BABY BULLSHIT!!

MG

VarmintGuy,
I don't see where Madgoat said anything about you shooting your elk from your truck. Got some repressed memories or something that just slipped out? The fact is, we are stuck with wolves whether we like them or not, so we'd better do our best to get them all turned over to state management so they can actually be MANAGED.

465H&H laid it out pretty well. It is obviously an emotional issue. I have had the privilege (or burden) of being surrounded by many of the researchers/scientists who are dealing with the issue in Idaho. Unfortunately, extreme anti-wolf perspectives are given due consideration during public comment etc. but behind the scenes they are given absolutely no creedence. They are often laughed at behind closed doors. In the same respect, the extreme pro-wolf people are laughed at just as much.

I spend a lot of time trying to keep "hunters" from being lumped in with the extreme anti-wolf people (which is where hunters as a political group are headed). More and more hunters as a group are losing credibility because of attitudes towards management. Hunters used to nearly dictate to managers what and how things should be done; hunters had faith in the science of surplus harvest, habitat conservation etc. But when science shows one thing and hunters want something different-- there is conflict, as is the case with the wolf. If hunters really want to see higher levels of elk and deer and sheep etc. I do not believe they are going to get it by taking a position against what the science shows. I think we gain much more credibility by accepting the science and putting efforts into areas where we can show that without the past funding and political willpower of hunters as a group, there would not even be any habitat to put wolves in, or any habitat to go hiking and birdwatching in.SO, we are OWED a little bit more of a voice in the way things are done.

If we want more elk and more deer we need to find other ways to achieve that goal, rather than falsely claiming that the wolf is the sole demise of everything with 4 legs, fur and a tail.

I had the opportunity to meet one of the board of directors of RMEF today. I asked him about the whole wolf deal and he acknowledged that they know they lost a lot of members over it, but he reminded me that the RMEF is not a "hunting" organization-- thats B&C and SCI and the NRA (to some level) the RMEF's purpose is to preserve habitat for elk AND OTHER WILDLIFE, that includes wolves. Thae are about habitat, not hunting.

Personally, If we can achieve a healthy ecosystem and have higher numbers of game animals without having the wolf, I am all for lowering the numbers as much as possible, but I think a few wolves are not a bad thing. Granted, right now we have more than "a few wolves", but proposals like Idaho's Clearwater Removal should help answer a lot of questions.

IV

Well said, IV. A lot of times we tend to forget that wildlife management is extremely complicated, and that there are many interconnected processes going on out there. Yes, wolves eat elk, everyone knows that. But there are a lot of things besides predators that kill elk. Loss of habitat, especially winter range, is occurring everywhere because that is where people have decided they want to own their 40 acres in a subdivision and build a trophy home. Habitat conversion has also occurred because of livestock grazing, 100 years of fire suppression, and other uses. There are an awful lot of areas that used to be prime aspen stands that are covered with lodgepole pine and little else. Not exactly prime elk habitat. There is oil and gas development on at record levels, and that can't be great for elk and other wildlife either. I think it's good that RMEF is putting money into habitat work, where it does a lot more good than throwing money at getting rid of wolves, which just isn't going to happen at this point. We all need to accept that fact and move on toward a workable solution where we can manage them as part of the total ecosystem. Hopefully that will get done sooner rather than later, but I'm not holding my breath...

quote:

TIME THE YELLOWSTONE ELK HERD HAS MADE A FLUCTUATION LIKE THIS! IT IS A WELL KNOWN FACT THAT THE ELK WERE WAY OVER THEIR CARRYING CAPACITY, AND HAD BEEN FOR SOME TIME WHICH WAS SHOWING ON THEIR HABITAT (TO THE POINT OF DESTROYING ASPEN STANDS AND ALTERING WILLOW BOTTOMS

Read the post 26 up from here. Roy Renkin, yes another biologist. I think every one of them have a new or different oppinion. But His isn't the fisrt dispelling the myth that the elk are destroying the aspen stand. Don't forget, before winter there were over 4000 bison in the park. Maybe they have outgrown their habitat!

quote:

The RMEF's purpose is to preserve habitat for elk AND OTHER WILDLIFE, that includes wolves. They are about habitat, not hunting.

Maybe they should call themselves the Rocky Mtn Wildlife Foundation (RMWF) and not mislead people. They would do well to stress they just want to promote habitat, NOT HUNTING.

Let us remember that as originally founded the Sierra Society was a pro hunting organization.

AllanD

Madgoat: You are TRULY living up to your name there my misguided and fine feathered friend!
LOL!
Maybe you can explain to us all how the Wolves are not responsible for the incredible decimation of the Elk in the herd that populates the region just north of Yellowstone Park?
Remember these facts while you try to sluff off blame onto the "green assed idiotic reason of the month"! Remember that herd went from 19,500 animals the year your little buds the Wolves were brought in from Canada (1995!) to 8,500 in 2,005!
And remember also that the calf to cow ratio of that herd is now at 12 per 100!
Remember also that any Elk herd needs a calf to cow ratio of 20 to 100 - just to maintain itself at what ever the population is then! Normal calf to cow ratio in a growing herd (preffered) is 26-30 to 100!
Remember these things as well there madgoat, in every Elk Management Unit around this now decimated herd (here in SW Montana) the Elk populations have been increasing at an impressive rate in each of the last 10 years!
No green excuses available to you that I see there rabidgoat!
No Elk losses due to drought, no killing winters (remember I live here and I know these facts to be correct!), no big influx of condos on Elk range, no logging, no oil wells etc etc etc! Whatcha gonna burp up there ladgoat as to explain these losses?
The Elk in that area were and are being decimated BY WOLVES!
Take offense at an exclamation point if you feel that is mature and helpful, I would point out - its not!
Its laughable! He-he!
So in brief there madgout, Wolves are overabundant to the extreme in the area that has seen its Elk population go from 19,500 animals to 8,500 animals since the Wolves were brought in from Canada... aahhh... what don't you understand?
What other excuse dare YOU invoke in this travesty?
Where in the depths of your absurd stupidity do you come up with the observation that I do not care about the Elk habitat? You are not only wrong you are grasping at straws that do not exist!
You, if nothing else madcow, are so stupid and desperate - that you are entertaining! Good for a laugh!
Your stupidity leads you to call other folks names! I again counsel against that!
Another absolutely stupid and self defeating (if you are a Big Game Hunter anyway!) statement you make is the Wolves will "control themselves"!
Hah-hah-hah!
The Big Game Hunting opportunities in that area of SW Montana have seen the special permit Elk tags go from way over 2,000 each year to 140 this year and doubtful ANY next year!
Doesn't sound to me like the kind of "control" Big Game Hunters want!
Yeah real smart there madcowgoat!
Self defeating and stupid is the way I describe that situation and your comments - but of course I am a Big Game Hunter!
Not a Wolf lover/excuser!
When do you think the Elk Hunting will be shut down in the areas around this one sad cow?
Or did you send a "telegram" to your furry little friends the Wolves and ask them to quit eating the Big Game and stick to the Mice?
Your posting is so rife with incorrect assumptions and stupid statements it is hard to comprehend that someone like you is even making postings on a Big Game Hunting Forum!
You sound like you would be more at home over at the "Sierra Club" site!
You have the audacity of calling my postings regarding the current populations of Wolves in the tri-state area "BULLSHIT" - well you, "sadssedcowgoat" take the prize for crazed, jump to conclusions poster of the month!
And thats not a commendation.
So you contend that every paper in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho is "full of bullshit" and YOU and YOU ONLY - know it all!
Your madcow egotistical opinion of yourself and your latest statements, ALONE, are so bizarre and irresponsible that it fully destroys ANY credence to ANYTHING you may burp up in the future!
Self defeating you are to the extreme nonadsgoat!

By the way sadgoat in response to an off-line E-mail I got inquiring further about the source of the population figures I referred to in one of my postings the full name of the source and issue is "The Idaho Fish and Game News" - January 2,006 - Volume 18 - #1.
If you may recall there daddyslittlegoat, the source I cited there regarding the 600 Wolves in Idaho alone has been a pretty reliable source - or do you claim they are full of BS as well as all the newspapers in the Rockies?
LOL!
Like I said there sadgoatmadhatter - if nothing else you are good for a laugh!
Thanks for nothing rmef!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Here is the problem, the Northern Yellowstone elk are struggling. Aerial surveys indicate that, for the past four years, only 12-14 calves per 100 cow elk survived the first year of life and joined the herd. Recruitment of about 30 calves per 100 cows is more typical for Northern Yellowstone elk.

With older animals, smaller calf numbers will be the norm. Wolves like the calves as indicated in the studies below.

Is habitat the problem? No! Since the wolves have been released, the Elk population has dropped from almost 20,000 animals to 8,500 at last count. The remaining animals should have grown in numbers with all the range not eaten by the missing 11,00 elk. After all, the wolf population has exploded with the abundant food, why hasn't the remaining Elk Northern Elk herd exploded with all the range available?

The big problem is that with 12 cales per 100 Elk cows, the population will continue to decline because the wolf population will continue to grow unchecked in the park.

We can kiss the Northern Elk herd goodbye.

With 1,500 wolves in Northern Minnesota, can anyone tell me why the herd of elk up there has never grown with all the farm land around them?

Research in Yellowstone national Park during two winter-study sessions, 30-day periods

Composition of Wolf Kills Project staff detected 132 definite, 206 probable, and 8 possible kills made by wolves in 2002, including 291 ELK (84% of total in 60 days!)

The composition of elk kills was 34% calves (0–12 months), 31% cows, 22% bulls, 5% adult elk of unknown sex, and 8% elk of unknown sex and age.

During the 2002 November-December winter study (30 days, Almost 2 Elk per Day!), wolves were observed for 373 hours from the ground. The number of days wolf packs were located from the air ranged from 1 (Bechler) to 18 (Leopold, Druid Peak, Geode Creek, and Agate Creek). Fifty-nine definite or probable wolf kills were detected, including 57 elk, 3 coyotes, 1 bison, and 1 unknown prey. Among elk, 22 (39%) of the kills were calves, 15 (26%) were cows, 18 (32%) were bulls, and 2 (3%) kills were adult elk of unknown sex.

During winter, wolves residing on the Northern Range killed an average of 1.8 elk per wolf per 30-day study period.


Salmon, Idaho Study
This 3-year study was initiated to investigate wolf-cougar interactions and predation on wintering ungulate populations within GMU 28 west of Salmon, Idaho. Two groups of wolves, the Jureano Mountain and Moyer Basin Packs, had established territories within the study area. In addition, four to six cougars were radio-tracked over the course of the study.

We documented prey characteristics and kill-site attributes of predator kills during winters 1999-2001 in Idaho, and located 120 wolf-killed and 98 cougar-killed ungulates on our study site. Elk was the primary prey for both predators (wolf = 77%; cougar = 74%), followed by mule deer (wolf = 23%; cougar = 24%). Both predators preyed disproportionately on Elk Calves (wolf = 60%; cougar = 53%)

Post a few studies and all the experts are gone.

Back in the middle of december,the ranch I work for had a Christmas party at Chico Hot Springs we spent the night and the next morning we took a charter bus to the park.A friend and I were discussing our surprise at how many elk calves we saw.Both of us were a little hung over and didnt think about it for a couple of days.The only calves we saw were at Mammoth Hot Springs around Park HQ or up by the springs where tourists went every day.The wolves actually came in to Mammoth last summer and killed a cow in front of the Inn wittnessed by several guests.All of you lovers of wolves can keep your head up your ass as long as you want but these animals are wrecking game and livestock populations beyond belief.I dont care to hunt them because I only kill what I will eat with the exception of rodents and mountain lions,but I sure hope someone will be able to do so soon.Having said that I would kill one in a heart beat threatning livestock or cowdogs even before it was legal.w/regards

Varmitguy and Snapper

Great post by both of you. I just wish the USFWL people understood what the wolves are doing to the wildlife here in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana.

Thanks
Steve