500A2, go buy a few head and turn them loose. You can buy a breeding age cow for $600 and get one bull and you got a herd. There is good habitat and no preditors east of the missiouri. I would think the herds would grow rapidly. Our elk are not as big as Oregon elk becuase they have to migrate great distances to survive the winter due to the lack of habitat. But elk have migrated for centuries. The migration routes out of Sunlight Basin are still visible. The USF&W also reported that the average weight of an adult elk has been reduced by 50# due to stress and harassement by the wolves. I think the Wy. G&F also reported on this last winter.

I'm not sure where some get the idea that Montana isn'tgood elk habitat. I sure don't see any of the wide open areas to hunt in this corner of the state. Definitely plenty of cover, and good feed where the fires have burned down our forests. Thanks again to the Green Nazis, who would rather burn than log.

Well, I`ve read this thread and even had to read some parts again just to make sure I fully understood what I was reading. I have a solution that will make Kudo and friends happy. 1st thing we got to do is put a fence around the western states to make sure no Canadian wolves can sneak across the border.(Funded by tripling income taxes in said states). Then because I get a strong feeling of anger at anyone who drives a new truck, is successful with money, works for ANY department of the government, we get rid of all Federal and state civil servents, and stop all out of state hunters who dare to drive big fancy SUV`s or 4X4`s. Hell send the RMEF our way because although someone mentioned that Canadian guides had lots of problems with wolves, I talked to a guide who actually likes wolf sign, because where there`s wolves there`s moose. I can atest to the fact that any prey species that is hunted by predators becomes more wary. So what do you here anyone in Africa screeming to kill the lions and leopards. No they lobby to get quotas on them and then hunt them. i think that if you can`t compete then give up because we compete with wolves and still fill tags every year.

Go ahead, triple our income tax! triple of nothing is still nothing. We don't have state income tax. No one mentioned getting rid of any state people, states were not mentioned, only federal. They are over staffed and actually do nothing but shuffle paper. You never see them in the field. I also know several canadian guides and outfitters, I have hunted northern BC, yukon, NWT and manitoba. Six hunts total, you know all the guides, even inuit and indian, all said the same thing, fewer wolves more game. Hmmmmm interesting! As for competition, I am not worried at all about competing for my game against a wolf. What I fear is run away population with no control that will decimate the elk herds that the RMEF, G&F commissions, wildlife groups and others that have spent millions of dollars and thousands of hours trying to get the elk and other wildlife where they are today, or were!

You miss my point Kudo, I have nothing against shooting a wolf legally. I don`t agree with poaching them. Hell, does that mean that any rancher thats pissed at the elk for grazing on his range should just load up the .300WM and start shooting. No, what I am trying to say is with controls to keep their numbers in check they could become a bonus to the west(heck something has to start eating the animals with CWD) Hell we got cattle farmers here that want all elk removed from this area because they`re eating their winter hay. And I`ll agree that if there`s wolves in an area there probably will be fewer animals but if they wipe out the large prey animals they`ll starve too. By the way all the elk that have been introduced to Ontario came from an area in Alberta that has a large wolf population and no hunting and these elk were moved because of an overpopulation problem.

[ 07-06-2003, 08:32: Message edited by: Turman ]

Turman: The Canadian Moose guides I have Hunted with and talked to encourage their Hunters to buy Wolf tags and USE them! They have no use what so ever with Wolves in their Moose Hunting areas! Puzzling this apparent contradiction!!!
There in also is the difference in your situation and the situation in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming (soon to be in Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington!) we can not Hunt the Wolves here and keep them in check in any way shape or form! They are exploding and our Elk are diminishing rapidly! The Wolves have already shot past the census numbers even the greens wanted for them! And as of now no way to stop their overpopulation!I have travelled extensively in Canada and the available Elk habitat there dwarfs what is available in the U.S.A.! No valid comparison there! The Wolves are decimating the Moose in Montana also in many areas. That situation has been conceded to the Wolf and the bunny huggers. Available Moose special tags in Montana have recently been reduced in the areas that Wolves inhabit! This is a harbinger of things to come soon in regards to our Elk herds and Hunting!
Most ranchers I know graciously allow not only Elk to graze undisturbed on their properties and various grasses and crops but also allow Whitetailed Deer, Mule Deer, Antelope and Moose to forage there! Its been a very very long time since I have even heard of a rancher/farmer in Montana taking matters into their own hands and mowing down Big Game! I thank them for that.
Not 7 miles from my home last year (according to our local paper "The Dillon Tribune") your furry friends (the Wolves) came onto one of these generous ranchers (he allows both Big Game grazing and walk in Hunting) properties and your friends (the Canadian imported Wolves) killed 22 of his domestic sheep one night (near his ranch house by the way). The rancher called the Game & Fish folks and herded what was left of his Sheep herd into a hog fenced corral! Of course no one from the U.S.F.W.S. could be contacted or could be summoned to the scene! The next night the Wolves returned and killed 9 more Sheep by jumping a 5 1/2' fence to get at the corraled Sheep! The worst part of this situation was the Wolves did not eat any of the Sheep! They just killed them!
I hate to think that this rancher may in the future try and curtail the aforementioned Big Game from his properties to try and keep the Wolves away also!?!?
We have a tough situation down here and no solution in sight as yet. But comparing the vast habitat available for Moose and Elk in Canada and your situation with the Hunted Wolves to our situation in the U.S. is not a valid comparison.
Thanks for your input though.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Well, after reading about these wolves that kill everything in site I called a fella that has hunted wolves and is the largest sheep farmer around these parts. This man does not have a good thing to say about wolves and shoots everyone he sees on site but he also insists that wolves don`t slaughter herds of sheep not eat them. He states that he has seen that very thing many times and has always been able to trace it back to dogs(either wild or domestic). He also stated that most farmers will not mention that their dogs were involved because then there`s no compensation. If you read my post you will see that I have nothing against controling wolf numbers and when I get ahold of a scanner I`ll post a pic of a nice grey that I shot with a .223. I don`t doubt that your guides don`t like wolves but that has more to do with the fact that they want to have as many moose or elk in their area as possible and any that a wolf takes is less that their clients can shoot. I will close with this,1. If the wolves can kill all your elk than indeed your animals are tame(compared to the animals around here that survive and increase even with far more wolves than you got). 2. I believe strongly that if the wolf population is high enough that there should be ways of controlling it ie. hunting, trapping etc. 3. To blame the RMEF for the wolves is like blaming DU for all the nuisance Canada geese that we have. 4. If you want to know if you have lots of wolves around just check your coyote numbers because the one thing thats guaranteed is the wolves will kill every coyote they come across.

More hunters in Montana need to thin the wolf population down some when "given" the opportunity while hunting.. And years ago I had thought about joing the RMEF but after some emlightening from a Elk hunting friend I decided Not too.....

God Bless America

All right guys I just read all the posts to this arguement and I have now lived in elk country for 5 years. The solution to this is simple DARWIN-ISUM. Think back to your high school science class... it works like this. First the wolves are here (that sucks) so we let them stay. Now with cause and effect, the elk populations are GREATLY reduced (along with the hunting opportunities, revenue to the states from hunters, etc.), then the wolves turn to live stock like the coyotes and moutain lions have. Then like they did a hundred or so years ago we hunt the wolves (may be they taste good, find a Koren dog recipe) and wipe them out again. Then we can go to all the effort that a few older guys I talked to did back in the 20s and bring the elk back and we can start the cycle all over again. Comeon guys you are taking all the fun out of this whole screwing with Ma Nature thing, and spending billions of our tax dollars. Is there a happy medium, yea there is, we reduce the population of the US to 1800s levels, dont explore the west, dont immigrate, and live a subsitence life styles.
Now if the we the hunting public can't have a united front how are we going to compete with the SUV driving soccer moms who support these left wing wackos that think that they can control fate and only bring back what they think is missing. If any group has the knowlege and finacial resorces to deal with this it is us (how much do you spend a year on hunting). I have seen up close how the forests work, and I'll bet that some of you have 10 times the knowledge that I do and the animals that are currently in the woods wouldn't know a wolf from a Chevy. Now I am not suguesting that we eliminate the wolf (to late for that), but lets find a common voice. I have a 11 year old son and he will be going on his first elk hunt in fall 04 and if there is a lesson I want him to take from hunting it is that there is no other more thoughtful, considerate, and caring group of people the he will meet.
I personally think that this (like so many other problems) should not be solved at a national level, but at a local level. This great country of ours has gotten a little bit carried away by the thought that the Feds have to solve all of our problems. Lets remove the wolf from a national endangered species list and let the states decide wether or not to let the hunters help to control them or not. A perfect example is the moutain lion, in the Peoples Republic of Commifornia it is a protected species (to each his own), but here in Idaho we have a bag limit. I haven't heard the deer hunters complaining about deer underpopulation (unless they dont fill thier tag HA HA).
In closing I would like to know who is a member of a group that can help us in this endevor. According to this posting RMEF is out, Sierra club ( sorry cant help a club named for a place in PRCA). I have the means to be of assitance, but I am not flushing my money (can afford a H&H, but a Winchester kills them just as dead). So help me out here.

No one was blaming RMEF. I just feel, by reading thier mission statement, that they should be more inclined to fight against the wolf than defend it like they have. The RMEF has become very soft on issues directly affecting elk populations. Enough said, they have done lots of good also.

AS a closing note, the original wolves introduced cost the American taxpayer right at 1 Million, that's $1,000,000 per introduced wolf. How many children go to bed hungry at night in this and other countries? How many famlies need health insurance? How many moms and dads have to work two jobs to make ends meet? How many soldiers famlies need food stamps to make ends meet on military salarys? How much do you pay in federal taxes each year? So enjoy your wolves. I won't and will never, this is 2003 not 1803!

Turman: At the risk of being called in public what a recent E-mailer to me called me (a fool for trying to convince other fools that there is in fact a real problem with the Wolves here in the Rocky Mountain States)! His quote went something like only a fool will argue with a fool! I do not think you are a fool! I do think you are denying the very obvious and the very undeniable! The Elk herds (and the Moose) around here are suffering mightily and the Wolf numbers are increasing dramatically (20%+ per year). Now deny this if you want or argue that point if you want, but you are going to have to argue it not with me or deny it to me but argue and deny it to the U.S.F.W.S., the Department of the Interior (of the U.S.) and the Game Departments of the states of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho! They all agree that we have passed the original goal set for the desired number of Wolves in those states! And they are spreading and multiplying much faster than anticipated! And again they say our Elk herds are definitely suffering!
Also if you do not believe the rancher here near me suffered the loss I relayed then I will try and get a copy of the article from the Dillon Tribune and mail it to you! Blaming this wanton slaughter on the ranchers dogs is simply ludicrous. By the way Game Officials did eventually respond and verify the source of the slaughter - Wolves! I forgot to make that clear in my original post. Let me know if you do not believe that singular incident occurred and I will get the article if still available off to you.
Wolves have been verified in Montana as having killed Llammas, young Horses, Cattle, domestic Sheep as well as Moose, Elk, Deer, Bighorn Sheep and I personally saw (along with my Hunting partner) a Wolf chasing Antelope!
So, I am convinced, that the Wolves are overpopulated and I give creedence to the census numbers of diminishing Elk herds in many areas and decimated calf crops in many areas! I am trying to build a concerned consensus among Big Game Hunters that the Wolves are going to have to be strictly controlled or we will be losing our hard fought Elk herds!
Not one thing you have said convinces me otherwise!
If the Canadian Moose and Elk can get along fine with the Wolves then that is fine by me. I have no animus whatsoever toward the Wolf. Just against what they are doing to our Game herds in here in the Northern Rocky Moutain states!
Turman do not put words in my mouth! I will not let you! I am not blaming the rmef for the Wolf problem - never have! I am blaming them for the idiotic and shortsighted policy they have in not waging an all out political war against the overpopulation of the Wolves! Therefore it is shortsighted and idiotic to in any way support the rmef! You can quote me on that!
But please do not make assumptions regarding my views!
Thanks again for your input.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Varmintguy, I must admire your stamina. Nevertheless, I'm still betting the windmills will win in the end.

I saw my first wolf tracks in 1983 in Idaho County. They have been here, coming and going, and sometimes staying, at least that long.

After all is said and done, the wolves present before the re-introduction were the ultimate threat to hunting. The root of this statement is the all-encompassing Endangered Species Act. Had the enviro's realized it, they could have tried to shut down all ungulate hunting in that part of the Rockies. All to protect the wolves that were there. They chose to put their full political weight behind introducing a "non-essential" population instead. As a result, hunting was only threatened indirectly, through the consumption of the various packs.

We can post back and forth two hundred more times, but unless and until you have the political weight to overturn the Endangered Species Act, this (the battle to exterminate the wolves) is a fight that is worth exactly the paper this post is printed on.

The only strategy that offers hunters a glimmer of daylight is to pull the wolf management out of the claws of the feds. Put it back into the state Fish and Game offices, where hunter groups at least have some influence. JMO, Dutch.

Krag35, the cougar problem is so bad in CA I even had a game warden tell me to shoot the cougar and walk away....no one would arrest me. That was in 97 in the NE corner of CA, actually an area that would love to secceed from CA...LOL.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by waksupi:
And as public employees, making twice what the average citizen makes here.
That explains alot to me. If it wasn't for the idiotic crap being taught in the schools, the kids might have a bit of sense when they get out. You obviously didn't

Waksupi,
Those two statements have really got me riled. I have been an elementary school principal for 25 years and I've gotta tell you that I am damn proud of the job I do. "Idiotic crap"? Like what? How to read? Is that idiotic crap? Who taught you to read and write so you could take part in this forum? I'm sure that in the higher grades, you had reading exercises designed to enable you to tell the difference between articles based on facts and articles based on opinion. Too bad you forgot those lessons, as is evidenced by the statements above, in which you try to pass off your opinion as if they were facts.

You want facts? I'll give you some. The public schools of today are doing a better job than they ever have. Literacy rates in the U.S. and Canada have never been higher. And this is in spite of the fact that there are more dysfunctional families than ever, and parents either have far less time to spend doing academic tasks with their children, or could care less. My son graduated from high school this June. For the last two years, in Grade 11 and 12, he took science and math courses that were not available to me until my first two years of university. In my school district and in my school, provincial and standardized test scores in mathematics and reading have been steadily climbing for the last twenty years.

Speaking for the teachers in my school, they work damn hard to get the results that they do. For them, "good enough" is never good enough. I am thinking of two in particular that arrive to work at 7:00 a.m. and regularly stay until 9 p.m. They are in the school on both days of the weekend, too, and they'll be in the school preparing for next year three or four days a week all summer long, as well.

My staff has done some wonderful stuff over the years. This past fall, we received two Grade 2 students from outside our district that had not yet learned how to read. They both suffer from fairly serious learning disabilities (normal intelligence but unable to visually process print - we used to lump all of them under the term dyslexic). We worked our asses off for these two: they were each given daily doses of learnng assistance (the learning assistance teacher worked longer hours than he was supposed to to fit them in on a daily basis); they each had a teacher tutor from another class who would pull the children out of their class when the teacher's class had gone to P.E.; we advertised for volunteers, held an evening training session, and got parents and university students to come in and work with them; and we trained the children's parents how to read with them most effectively. The outcome? In nine months time, and in spite of their disability, we brought their reading level up two full years. And you call that crap?

It makes me want to puke when I hear people rant against the school system, and it's very, very seldom that they have any facts to back up their argument. I also get sick of hearing how easy teachers have it for the money that they make. When they say this I usually respond with, "If it's such a good job why don't you go for it?" Most of them wouldn't last 30 minutes in a classroom. And if they did last, they'd have their eyes opened about how "easy" the job is. It's a matter of continuous pressure all day long. They get pressure from the students, from parents, and from administrators like me who demand the very best - constantly. Lunch hours? Forget it, they're coaching a team practice or a club, or spending time in their rooms getting children caught up with the homework that the parents didn't have the time or the inclination to supervise. After school they have meetings, workshps, or more practices, and they end up taking their marking and lesson planning home or staying late and doing it.

None of the above is meant to sound as if I'm complaining, as I love my job and the teachers I know love their jobs. It's an exciting profession - at the end of the year to see kids' tremendous growth in skills and knowledge is somewhat like the carpenter who proudly looks back on the house that is now standing where there was none before. When those two disabled kids made the grade at the end of the year, we were even happier than the kids and their parents. We had accomplished something that others said couldn't be done!

I happen to believe that education is a critically important service that a country can offer its citizens, as the people in our schools are our future, and that considering this importance, teachers should be well paid so that we can attract the very best people to work with our kids. Mark Twain said, "In public schools lies the strength of a nation." Teachers are paid well enough in B.C., but the pay is well below the average for people with university educations: the average teacher is paid $38,000 U.S. per year, and the average for university grads is in the mid to upper 40's. I can assure you that no one is in it for the money or the ease of the job.

There are three kinds of people that we should teach our kids to hold up in high respect: parents, teachers, and ministers. It hurts our society tremendously when the few rotten apples get the headlines and tarnish the rest of us. There's no need to make the situation worse by bad-mouthing the honest, hard-working majority. Waksupi, you're flat-out wrong, and you should go back and find the teachers that you had in school, shake each one's hand, and thank them for giving you the skills that you have.

Dutch: You finally have said something I completely understand and agree with (the last paragraph only of your latest posting - I did not fully comprehend or am able to comment much on the other paragraphs).
Absolutely - that will be a great step in averting the coming disaster - simply allow the states as agreed upon before the the Wolves were re-introduced (at least Montana and Wyoming stipulated this) to strictly control the Wolves! Excellent first step and my efforts have been to expedite this previously agreed upon policy! No luck as yet and I resent the fact that the rmef is not assisting in this fight.
Dutch, I have been fighting for Second Amendment rights preservation since 1968! 35years now and no sign of giving up - yet! It appears I will die of old age trying to protect them. Oh well its a battle worth fighting. I do not anticipate a rollover victory against the greens and the rmef types in this political battle either.
By the way I was Mule Deer Hunting in the Harts Pass area of north central Washington State with my uncle when we had a close encounter with a large solitary Wolf. His black mask and huge legs and paws and tracks verified it was not a dog or funny colored Coyote. He sped off once he detected us in the shadows. Cool sighting that. I just wish the Wolves were not such efficient killers. One of the local Fish & Game people here commented that the Elk he has seen killed by Wolves just allow the Wolves to approach closely and the Wolves dart upon them from close range and make their kill. The Warden is surmising (guessing what is in the Elks minds!) that the Elk think the Wolves are Coyotes and do not fear them or take defensive efforts in time to save themselves. The Elk, the surmisation goes, have been without fear of Wolves for so long that they try and save their energy until its to late for some of them. Who knows on that large bit of conjecture? I did see a set of photos taken from an airplane last winter that showed a huge herd of Elk on their winter range and several Wolves getting closer and closer in each photo and the Elk were just standing there in a herd allowing them to within what appeared to be 50 yards in the photo and they then bolted but it was to late for one Elk on that occassion!
I read recently that each Wolf in the Yellowstone Ecosystem eats "the equivalent" of 1.8 Elk per month! Apparently the "equivalent" includes all other animals that add up to the mass of 1.8 Elk per month. Lets extrapolate a little! Lets round that off to 2.0 Elk per month and go low on the estimate of Wolves in the ecosystem at 550 Wolves - so.... that comes to about duh.... 1,100 "Elk Equivalents" per month or 13,200 "Elk Equivalents" per year! And remember the Wolves are increasing at 20% per year and in areas where Wolves now inhabit the Elk are decreasing! Do you foresee any problems Dutch! I do! I do not know maybe I misinterpreted your "windmill" reference but I feel the Wolves are a real menace today and will be until they become strictly controlled.
Thanks again for your views.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Varmint guy, there is a huge difference between the 2nd amendment fight and the wolf fight. Simply because you have the Constitution on your side in the first, and the ESA against you in the second.

I consider fighting the Feds and the ESA as useful as fighting windmills. Utterly useless.

Do I think the wolves have an impact? Of course. I followed a cow/calf track last year in the snow, and after a little while a wolf track cut it, and immediately the wolf prints followed the tracks. Two hours later, the cow elk was calling for her calf, for several hours on end. Of course they have an impact! So do bears, cats, and lack of winter range.

The sky is not falling, in my opinion, but every hunter I know is concerned. RMEF or not. I have spoken to a lot of RMEF die-hards, and NONE of them are happy to have the Feds mucking around with game management. Not a single one thought that this was the way it should have been done.

As I said, though, had the wolves not been re-introduced as a "experimental" population, a true "endangered" status of those wolves that were already here could have been completely catastrophic.

Given that the ESA is the law of the land, and has broad public support, the experimental re-introduction and true endangered status were the only choices. Which leads to the same conclusion: the only way to get rid of the wolves is by getting rid of the ESA. The chance of that happening is simply zero. JMO, Dutch.

With a Republican president , and a Republican comgress , the time may be ripe to get the ESA ammended or changed to an easier to live with form............

Food for thought anyway ..........

[ 07-08-2003, 00:17: Message edited by: sdgunslinger ]

A co-working got the following e-mail from a wildlife biologist regarding wolf predation and elk populations in Yellowstone. I don’t pretend to know enough about the subject to comment on it, but I thought that I would post it here to for other to do so.

I removed all personal references and contact info and replaced then with “XXX”’s. I also has to replace all parentheses with square brackets as the UBB software was puking on them, for some reason…

-Steve

quote:

---

Below is a response from the elk biologist here in Yellowstone to someone that asked a similar question to yours regarding wolf-elk population dynamics:

It is too soon following wolf recovery to estimate the extent of any decrease in the Yellowstone ungulate populations owing to wolves. To date, however, we have not detected a substantial decrease in any ungulate population owing to wolves. For example, abundance estimates of the central and northern Yellowstone elk populations remain within 10-15% of their mean estimates during the past 2 decades. Having said this, we still anticipate that the abundance of these populations will decrease to some extent owing to additive predation by wolves. Prior to the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park during 1995 and 1996, the National Park Service funded the development of several population projection models to forecast the potential consequences of wolf recovery on ungulates in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. These models forecast a 5 to 30 percent reduction in the northern range elk population owing to the reintroduction of wolves into the ecosystem, and smaller reductions for bison, moose, and mule deer. However, these models did not anticipate the observed increase in hunting removals from the portion of the elk population wintering outside of the park, or accurately estimate the functional [i.e., kill rates] and numerical [i.e., abundance] responses of wolves in this prey-rich system. Since the reintroduction of wolves, the park has implemented a broad monitoring and research program to evaluate the proposition that wolves will ultimately regulate ungulate populations at levels sharply lower than that established prior to wolf reintroduction. Also, in 1991 Yellowstone National Park partnered with Montana State University to investigate the demographics of elk in the west-central portion of the park. This investigation has continued for eleven consecutive winters, and was expanded in scope to include predator-prey interactions when wolves established a territory in this area of the park during 1998. These efforts have resulted in the accumulation of detailed information regarding the abundance, classification [i.e., age, sex], vital rates [e.g., survival, reproduction], and removals [e.g., hunting, predation] of ungulates and their predators. We have initiated two separate efforts to incorporate this new information into population projection models that would more accurately forecast short-term trends [e.g., <5 years] in the dynamics of northern Yellowstone elk and wolves. We expect these analyses to be completed during summer 2003.

Since the early 1900s, there has been a debate regarding whether there are too many elk on the northern range of Yellowstone National Park [i.e., effects of herbivory]. During the 1930s through 1968, the park actively removed/culled elk in the park animals due to perceived overgrazing/browsing of range, and elk counts decreased from approximately 12,000 to <4,000 elk. Elk removals from the park ceased in 1969 and, since that time, the park has let the elk populations fluctuate without any direct controls inside the park; letting a combination of weather, predators, range conditions, and outside-the-park hunting and land uses influence population numbers. Following the cessation of removals, counts of the elk population on the northern range increased to approximately 12,000 elk by mid-1970s, 16,000 elk by 1982, and 19,000 elk by 1988. The winter count for the northern Yellowstone elk population was approximately 17,000 elk when wolves were first reintroduced during 1995. The population decreased to an estimated 11,000-12,000 elk during the severe winter of 1996-97 owing to a substantial winter-kill and human harvest of >3,300 elk. Since that time, annual, early-winter population counts have varied between approximately 11,500 and 14,500 elk [i.e., within 15% of the post-1996-97 count]. This variation is well within the 10-20% annual changes in counts observed since the 1970's.

A late winter elk classification flight was flown via helicopter on the northern range during February 27-28, 2002. A total of 4,001 elk were classified and we observed 14 calves and 43 total bulls per 100 cows. The estimated ratio of 43 total bulls per 100 cows is similar to the average ratio [i.e., 46 bulls per 100 cows] during 1995 through 2001. However, the estimated ratio of 14 calves per 100 cows was less than the range of 22 to 34 calves per 100 cows observed during 1995 through 2001. This low calf:cow ratio suggests that recruitment into the northern range elk population was relatively low for this cohort. The cause of this year's apparent low recruitment is unknown and cannot be inferred from the survey data. Potential contributing factors likely include drought-related effects on maternal condition and calf survival, predation, hunting, and winter kill.

There is no apparent increasing or decreasing trend in the northern range mule deer population since the reintroduction of wolves in 1995. Spring counts of this population have varied between 1,700 and 2,500 deer during 1995-2002, and the 2002 count of 1,934 deer was within 10% of the 16-year average of 2,014 deer. Annual fluctuations in deer counts have ranged between 0-30% since 1986 [Tom Lemke, Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, unpublished data]. The antlerless deer harvest [i.e., Special B License] in hunting districts 313 [east of Highway 89] and 314 [west of Highway 89] was eliminated in autumn 1999 following a major winter-kill in 1996-97 and two consecutive years of low recruitment [i.e., <30 fawns/100 adults]. For autumn 2002, however, the Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks' Commission approved a harvest of 65 and 150 antlerless mule deer in hunting districts 313 and 314, respectively. This harvest was approved owing to improved recruitment since 1998-99 [i.e., 33-54 fawns/100 adults; Tom Lemke, Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, unpublished data; 2002 Montana Big Game Hunting Regulations].

Wolves have not reduced the abundance of bison in Yellowstone National Park. Approximately 3,400 bison were counted during the winters of 1995-96 and 1996-97 following the reintroduction of wolves into the park. The count of bison decreased to approximately 2,100 bison during the winter of 1997-98 following the removal of 1,084 bison during the previous winter. The growth rate of the bison population during 1997-98 through 2001-02 averaged approximately 15% per year after accounting for removals.

Pronghorn, mule deer, and bighorn sheep populations have remained within 10-20% of the counts observed when wolves were reintroduced in 1995. Bighorn sheep, pronghorn, and mountain goats comprised <0.5% of total wolf kills in Yellowstone National Park during 1995-2001 [Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2001 Annual Report]. The annual spring count of Yellowstone pronghorn decreased from approximately 540 animals in 1992 to 235 animals in the spring of 1995. The causes of this rapid population decrease were unclear, however, the decrease occurred prior to the reintroduction of wolves. Since wolf reintroduction, spring counts of pronghorn have remained between 200 and 250 animals.

Biologists from Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks observed 172 bighorn sheep [i.e., 92 ewes, 27 lambs, 52 rams, 1 unclassified] during a helicopter count on the Gardiner basin winter range [i.e., Yankee Jim Canyon to Mammoth] during May 3-4, 2002. Since 1995, the total count has ranged between 134 and 229 sheep [mean = 161 sheep]. Estimates of recruitment and adult sex ratios during 2002 were 29 lambs per 100 ewes and 57 rams per 100 ewes. Lamb recruitment was similar to the previous three years and higher than the 7 to 8 lambs per 100 ewes observed during 1997 and 1998.

We do not have any estimates of moose abundance within Yellowstone National Park since the reintroduction of wolves owing to the difficulty of conducting rigorous surveys for this species at low densities.

I hope this information is helpful. Take care. XX XXX, Wildlife Biologist, 307/344-XXXX

XXXX XXXXX
Biological Science Technician
Yellowstone Gray Wolf Restoration Project
National Park Service
Yellowstone Center for Resources
P.O. Box XXX
Officer's Row, Building XX
Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming 82190
Phone: 307-344-XXXX
Fax: 307-344-XXXX
xxxxxxxx@nps.gov
www.nps.gov/yell/nature/animals/wolf/wolfup.html

---

Principal John G. excellent post. And I'm not a school teacher. You understand, of course, this is the age of non-accountability and it is a bit far fetched for you to expect parents to take responsibility when their kids act like little shits.

Steve,
I understand your atempt to enter factual information into this heated topic, but after reading the post from a Biological Science Tech form Yellowstone Graywolf Restoration Project, i can only draw the conclusion that i hear many times. Figures don't lie, but lyers do figure.

Where is the report from Biological techs assigned to the reproduction, tracking, and overall monitoring of the elk, sheep, proghorn, deer, and bison. I'm not believing this report at all. All too owe know that goverrment agencies will do whatever means necessary to justify their jobs, projects, research, including out & out fraudent reporting and statistics.

What amazes me is how the government agencies can write these reports, which become the gospel, and then when independant agencies submit reports in rebutal conflicting with the goverment's report, the goverment uses the excuse of bias.

Not convienced at all.

Dutch: Thanks again for your input! And I again want to make it plain as your latest post was somewhat ambiguous in this regard! "I" did not advocate starting a movement now for oveturning the Endangered Species Act! I was born and raised in the shadow of the Spotted Owl and I think I plinked a few with my BB gun long before they went on the ESA listing! I observed the resultant destruction of so many areas of Washington, Oregon and Northern Californias economies with just that one little ESA capri! And I fell victim to the resultant outrageous prices we now pay for foreign lumber! Remember please - if I have your posting right I will give my views YOU give yours! I have not advocated overthrow of the ESA in at least 10 years.
My view is this - In todays Dillonite Daily (small newspaper here in Dillon) and I will quote to you from the article. Our paper is quoting a report out of Rexburg, Idaho "the Yellowstone north Elk herd has decreased almost 1/3 from 22,000 Elk last year"! I will continue to quote from this somewhat poorly written article "Park officials admitted some of the decrease could have been caused by the re-introduction of Wolves, but they added, other predators too, could be involved"! The article continues with an unattributed statement "Other predators were there before the Wolves were reintroduced and the herds continued to grow back then"!
The somewhat poorly written article also contained this which I will quote - "Now comes the bad news - according to the report several thousand fewer permits will be issued". "The Fish and Wild Life of Wyoming is also reducing the number of permits"! "No press release from Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to date"!
Oh I forgot to mention Dutch the local paper gave this story the heading (headline?) "ECONOMY SET BACK"! In Montana this is not just about losing Hunting opportunities it also will dramatically affect the worst state economy in the U.S.!
So my suggestion to you Dutch is, if you want to save Elk Hunting in the Rocky Mountain states, quit envisioning excuses for the rmef and windmills and puffy clouds and immediately inform every Hunter you know that the Wolves are now diminishing our Hunting opportunities! I do not think anyone at the rmef would recognize OR do anything about this latest evidence of our dire Wolf situation so save your breath there! Again lets move for absolute and strict adherence to the already passed over Wolf census numbers! Lets work to make sure the indidvidual states control all predators and maintain maximum Elk herd numbers that have already been determined and striven for for decades!
I did see another article in a different paper today (Great Falls Tribune if my memory is correct) that relayed the latest census numbers for Buffalo in the Yellowstone Park. They are at a 30 year high and in fact are 1,200 animals above what the feds want (4,200 Buffalo now - 3,000 Buffalo optimum for Yellowstone). Apparently the Canadian Wolves prefer to eat Elk rather than Buffalo. The article also stated that 50% of the Buffalo are sick with brucellosis!
I am going to do some more checking on the latest news article regarding the drastic census drop of the Elk in one year! I know it was not drought, fires, or loss of habitat to be that drastic in one year!
I am glad you have admitted the Wolves are a problem! It has been apparent to me for two years now. And the dang Wolves were only reintroduced in 1995! Thats 8 years and if this news article is true they have already affected our herds and our Hunting opportunities! Like I have posed in prior postings can you imagine what will happen in 12 - 15 years?
More later.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy