Wow
http://www.magicvalley.com/articles/2006/09/28/news_loc...ws_local_state.6.txt

and,
Wolves aren't dropping elk numbers
http://www.magicvalley.com/news_other/news_idaho/?story...OLF_REDUCTIONS_IDOL-

I am elk hunting in Idaho right now. A few days ago I saw nine wolves near Elk City.
Four black ones and 5 grey ones.
We watched them for about 45 minutes.
Several of them were BIG grown wolves.
The others were younger.

When you talk to anyone who has hunted this area for 20, 30 or even one guy, over 40 years, there opinion is that the woolves have seriously hurt the elk population, and
the Moose population is suffering badly too.

I'm sorry 24, but how can they NOT?

Wolves are large carnivorous animals, extremely intelligent that work together in their hunting - wolf-packs. Despite the Disneyfication of "Never Cry Wold" and other such absurdities, there primary food source is large game animals!

I lived in British Columbia for 7 years hunting all over the province. Wolves kill both elk and moose there. What do you think they are eating in the lower 48? Bigmacs?

The level of predation may be open to debate. Not being able to hunt Idaho for years, I'm just not acquainted w/ how the elk hunting is now since the introduction of the wolves. Yet, the fact is: There are less elk now ( & deer, moose, etc.) than would be had wolves not been introduced into the ecosystem.

You know what kills more elk and moose than wolves? I give you a hint they are currently whining about the competition from wolves! That is right, humans!

Heck there is an island in Lake Superior that is inhabited by only wolves and moose (excluding birds and small mammals) and it has been that way for centuries. This island has NO human population, if it did there would be no moose or wolves.

24mileboy: The "official" game biologist/scientists that are in charge of the "Wolves" stated that each Wolf (whether fully mature or not!) is responsible for "eating" the "bio-mass equivalent" of 1.8 Elk PER MONTH - thats for EACH Wolf!
So that "conservative" estimate of the present Wolf population eats up the "bio-mass equivalent" of 26,546 Elk EVERY YEAR!
How long can our once healthy Elk herds survive under that kind of predation? Let alone the damage imparted by stress on wintering herds of Elk by this relentless predation?
Make no mistake my friend the Wolves and the lying, deceitful, foot dragging bureacrats are doing EVERYTHING they can to decimate the human huntable Elk herds, that they possibly can!
Idaho wants to shoot 43 Wolves!
What a joke!
The feds promised us that the total number of Wolves they would allow in the TRI-STATE AREA (Montana, Idaho and Wyoming!) would be 325 Wolves!
Lie #1!
As there is "conservatively" 1,229 of them now!
Idaho needs to shoot about 540 Wolves!
Montana needs to shoot about 160 Wolves!
Wyoming needs to shoot about 195 Wolves!
Just to get back to the promised population of 325!
Fat fucking chance!
During my Spring Bear Hunting ventures I get to Hunt some beautiful high country that is also where the Elk like to Calve! It never fails! EVERY set of Cow/Calf Elk tracks I see in this area has one of more sets of Wolf tracks following them!
Elk Hunting in the Rocky Mountain West is taking a hit with this over-population of Wolves and I could give one rats ass less if the green sons of bitches and daughters of whores on this forum or any other would bemoan the loss of the wonderful experience of hearing the mournful howl of the Wolf!
Fuck howling Wolves!
I have had it with them!
Fuck them!
We worked to long and to hard over the last 8 or 10 decades to bring back the Elk herds to such wonderful numbers and such healthy herds, by the way!
The the green sons of bitches and daughters of whores in the federal government (and at the rmWf!) got a "bright idea" and decided to "introduce" Canadian Wolves to the Rocky Mountain West"!
Great idea you assholes!
Your "idea" is screwing up what was once a perfectly wonderful Hunting opportunity for hundreds of thousands of HUMANS!
Our hard work rebuilding the Elk herds is simply going up in Wolf farts!
And that is a waste in so many ways!
What further confounds me is there are HUNTERS - some on this forum - who are so blind to this destruction that they defend this overpopulation of Wolves!
How STUPID is that?
The Wolves are out of control and coming to an Elk (Moose, Bighorn Sheep and Deer as well!) Hunting "favorite spot" of everyone in the West - SOON!
Thankfs for nothing rmef (soon to be known as the rmWf!)!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

ScottS: You may call it "whining" I call it a warning!
Not to many folks worldwide know this - and you are obviously one of them - that the Wolves are now destroying Elk Hunting opportunities for humans here in the Rocky Mountains, at an alarming rate!
And they have been doing so for many years now.
Here in Montana - for just ONE "for instance" -we had an area that used to allow 2,800 special permits for Elk Hunting every year (along with the general license Hunters)! That area had a population of 19,500 Elk, up until 1995 - that was the year that "your furry friends" (the Wolves) were "introduced" to that area!
The latest Elk census in that area now shows only 8,000 Elk in that herd AND human Hunting opportunities have fallen from a previous high of 2,800 special Elk permits there to just 148 this year! And a recommendation for NO special Elk Hunting permits in that area next year!
The Elk herd is so heavily predated on by Wolves that the Calf Elk production (cow to calf ratio) is so low that it could not sustain itself at any level even if the Wolves were suddenly to disappear!
Call that whining if you want you myopic dim wit, I call it loss of long time traditional Hunting opportunities for humans!
Stick you head, ScottS, directly BACK up your ass where you won't do anymore harm - please!
You are uninformed and stupid to boot, there ScottS - thats a bad combo!
The Elk here in the Rocky Mountains don't live on islands and they can not defend themselves from over-predation by the NOW four times the predators that the feds "thought" they could withstand and had promised us!
If humans were "the problem" like you infer, then just how the hell do you explain the increasing size of our Elk herds over the last 8 to 10 decades???
Weren't humans around during that time?
You have NO idea how stupid you sound - and I for one DO NOT appreciate your stupidity.
If you don't want to have Elk Hunting in YOUR future thats one thing, but to try and ridicule the problem WE ELK HUNTERS (and outfitters and guides and taxidermists and motel owners and on and on!) are having out west here, is simply idiotic on your part!
Make no mistake ScottS, I am referring to you as an idiot!
We don't need any idiot Elk Hunters!
Take your "satire" and stupidity over to the peta forum - please!
Long live the Rocky Mountain Elk
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Why do the hunters in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming moan and bitch about wolves and "the green sons of bitches and daughters of whores in the federal government" (I like that dicription). Just shoot the SOBs Load some ammo that will shoot through a wolf at long ranges. Shoot them and trun around and walk in the opsite direction,don't go look and take pictures. Go alone so their won't be someone who can ool over on you, and keep your mouth shut. Unless they viedo tape the shoot their is no way that Dudly Do Rights (what we call game Wardens) will never make a charge stick. Problem solved!!

I spend weeks hunting every year in the Frank Church Wilderness, primarily the Chamberlain Basin and the Middle Fork, where (unfortunately) most of the wolves in Idaho reside. The problem is the wolves were introduced into an ecoo system that was absolutely ideal for them, especially the Chamberlain area: great trail system, not too steep, plenty of cover, etc. They just follow the trails until they find prey and off they go. The problem is this also makes them very difficult to see and spot given the nature of the cover, so they will be (are) very difficult to hunt and spot. The problem in Idaho is also that other predators (especially cats) are on the rise. During a recent hunt the first of this season in the Middle Fork (when it snowed about a foot up high) you couldn't find an Elk track in the snow without a cat's pug mark on top of it. I would have loved to bag a cougar (tags are virtually free), but seeing one is another matter.....I'm rethinking whether a January hunt is in the cards. I never thought shooting one out of a tree would be that much fun...although I have not had a problem shooting a leopard out of a blind...so I may rethink this..although I'm not real keen on the run up those Middle Fork mountains after the dogs to get to the tree..oh well.

VarmintGuy,
I agree with you 100%. The wolves were forced on us against our wishes. The wolf numbers are now at least 4 times the original goal of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Park Service "biologists". Our elk, moose, and bighorn sheep herds are being decimated by the wolves.

These wolf loving "biologists" have even tried to blame the reduction in elk numbers on the grizzly bears. First they tell us that 90% of the bear's diet is vegetarian. Then they tell us that the bears hibernate or sleep for 6 months of the year. So how can the 50-100 grizzly bears, in the northwest corner of Yellowstone Park, who's main diet is mostly grasses, nuts and berries, and who only eat for about half of the year, kill over 10,000 elk in the last 10 years? How stupid do they think we are? Obviously there are people, like ScottS, who believe their BS.

I have lived and hunted in SW Montana for the past 28 years. The winters have not been as severe these past 10 years as they were in the late 70's and early 80's. A biologist friend of mine used to make several trips every fall and winter to Yellowstone to see and photograph the bighorn sheep and elk. We used to see 50-100 sheep and thousands of elk every day. Now, you are lucky to see any sheep and most of the elk you see are the few that stay in Mammoth.

And yes, ScottS, humans do kill more elk than the wolves do. Human hunters in Colorado kill more elk every year than the total number of elk that were alive in the United States in 1900. Yet with all the human predation, the elk numbers increased. Plant wolves and the elk numbers plummet. The difference is that with humans, the predation is controlled with game laws and managed hunting seasons. With wolves, its just full time killing.

I attended a presentation on the Ya Ha Tinda, Wolf Elk study last Feb., where we also have declining elk numbers due to wolf predation. One of the points made was that in Banff National Park, the wolves hunt 24 hours a day, while outside the Park, they only hunt at night, due to the fact they might get shot. The answer is obvious and logical.
Grizz

Hunters contribute a lot of dollars for wildlife though taxes on Guns, ammo and license fees. There are more wildlife now than 100 years ago because of this.

What will happen when we stop Hunting? Stop buying licenses, stop staying hotels, buying meals in resturants and allow the wolves to control wildlife numbers?

I thought the goal was 10 packs of 10 wolves?
No one mentioned the 100+ wolves shot last year because of livestock deaths.

The best is yet to come.

24mileboy,

Fish and Game's Unsworth contends Idaho has provided conclusive evidence that wolves are behind low elk numbers.

Thankfs for nothing rmef (soon to be known as the rmWf!)!

VarmitGuy, if you're going to call someone else here an idiot, then persist in blaming the RMEF for wolves, you should be careful. The RMEF has supported delisting wolves so that states can manage their own wolf population, and that has been their position since wolves were reintroduced in the 90s. Saying otherwise makes you look either dishonest or like an idiot yourself, or both.

I have corrected you before on this, and presented you with the facts yet you continue to smear the one wildlife organization that is doing the most to preserve elk habitat.

quote:

Wolves aren't dropping elk numbers
http://www.magicvalley.com/news_other/news_idaho/?story...OLF_REDUCTIONS_IDOL-

I am sure that the grey wolves are vegetarian. According to the USF&W they are not having any negative affect on elk numbers! BS!


[quote]VarmitGuy, if you're going to call someone else here an idiot, then persist in blaming the RMEF for wolves, you should be careful. The RMEF has supported delisting wolves so that states can manage their own wolf population, and that has been their position since wolves were reintroduced in the 90s. Saying otherwise makes you look either dishonest or like an idiot yourself, or both.[quote]


In the beginning the RMEF supported and publicly announced that belief, and they also believed wolves are a part of sound ecological management plan. RMEF posted this in several articles in bungle magazine. I sent a letter to the editor saying that thier support of the reintroduction contradicted the RMEF's mission statement , at that time in the late 90's, they printed it and replied, "we believe that wolves are part of a sound enviromental management plan"! They also ran many pro wolf articles.

But I have heard, that RMEF has since changed management, one that stradles the fence instead of support! To green for me! I wouldn't give them the sweat off my balls if it meant keeping them alive!

I am not a wildlife biologist, but it is my understanding that wolves are one of the species that kill other than for the sake of food. And I have read more than enough on what ranchers, let alone hunters, think of wolves.

They are carnivores, not omnivores like bear. Their only food source is limited.

Elk and whitetail game management has been blown to hell by reintroducing wolves without allowing the wolves' natural predator a shot at them - that would be us.

With no risk of predation, the wolves thrive. With the introduction into rich game areas, their populations explode.

Exploding wolf populations will deplete game to such an extent that they will move to other food sources - that would be livestock and eventually humans. They have little fear of man since they are not hunted.

It is only a matter of time.

There is no comparison to bears. A bear may breed once every 3 years and have 1 to 3 cubs. A wolf is not dependent on its mother for 3 years, and a bitch can have at least 1 litter a year with 3 to 6 pups. I am not aware of the male wolf killing pups as male bears kill cubs. You do the math. And increased population creates new ranges.

The jury is still out on reintroducing carnivorous animals. I think in most cases it is a bad idea. The presence of man has indeed led to the extinction of species - just in North America, the sabre toothed tiger, the american lion and the short nosed bear. That is what evolution does to species that cannot adapt to change. I would argue that the wolf falls into that evolutionary casualty list.

Hell, why not bring back the T Rex? We can start reintroduction in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston and New York City.

In the end the reintroduction of wolves will have a negative economic impact. Nothing to hunt means few hunters who buy liceses, stay at hotels, eat at restaurants and hire guides and outfitters. And you can forget about making money off of nature or camera Safaris. Most nature lovers don't have the patience to spend days tracking for a good camera shot.

I just read an interesting artcle in, I think, Sports Afield on African rifle versus camera safaris. While hunters are only about 20% of the total traffic, they contribute over 80% in revenue generated.

quote:

Originally posted by EB:
I spend weeks hunting every year in the Frank Church Wilderness, primarily the Chamberlain Basin and the Middle Fork, where (unfortunately) most of the wolves in Idaho reside. The problem is the wolves were introduced into an ecoo system that was absolutely ideal for them, especially the Chamberlain area: great trail system, not too steep, plenty of cover, etc. They just follow the trails until they find prey and off they go. The problem is this also makes them very difficult to see and spot given the nature of the cover, so they will be (are) very difficult to hunt and spot. The problem in Idaho is also that other predators (especially cats) are on the rise. During a recent hunt the first of this season in the Middle Fork (when it snowed about a foot up high) you couldn't find an Elk track in the snow without a cat's pug mark on top of it. I would have loved to bag a cougar (tags are virtually free), but seeing one is another matter.....I'm rethinking whether a January hunt is in the cards. I never thought shooting one out of a tree would be that much fun...although I have not had a problem shooting a leopard out of a blind...so I may rethink this..although I'm not real keen on the run up those Middle Fork mountains after the dogs to get to the tree..oh well.

It will be interesting to see what happens to the elk population in the Church vs Selway areas. The Selway is much less ideal for wolves; one would have to conclude that if the historical numbers are higher in the Selway then wolves are having a detrimental impact.

Varmintguy, I agree 100% also, I spent many years in N.MN. I know what wolves can do. There is another factor to add in on the fawn/calf survival, BEARS both black and Griz are very efective predators on new born deer and elk. I just returned from the Hoback area and the numbers of bears was incrediable, while deer numbers have nose dived,I believe until both predators are controlled the numbers of deer/elk will not improve and may continue to decline. We have not had a bad winter for a long time and when it does happen the wolves will do some serious damage I have PICs from deer yards with dozens of deer with their throats tore out and nothing eaten, they go kind of nuts like sharks when they get a chance like that..

I always have to take the wolf issue with a grain of salt.

We have 10000+ wolves in our state and of course we have wolve issues.

Many people think the wolves are eating all the game. When I absolutely believe that it is simply overhunting and not wolves. It might be the wolves trying to get whats left from hunters .

-------------------------------------------

First wolf I ever saw was in Montana in 1991 in the little belts north of Helena. I thought it was great that Montana has wolves and that I actually saw one too.

But I also believe that Montana had all the wolves it needed back in 1991.

I also believe that it gross irresponsibility to just let the wolves go unmanaged through game herds that took so long to become the great resources that they are now.

The wolves are not just eating the game they may also eat the revenues created by hunters who opportunties may be lost to wolves.

--------------------------------------

The Yellowstone elk heard was out of control at 18000 animals. It is supposed to be around 10000. From info I had seen somewhere about target populations for that herd. So it is down to where it should be anyway.

-------------------

Wolves should be no closed season and no limit. There would still be some left in the far reaches of wilderness. Although they may keep quiet.

-----------------

I have lived here for twenty years and have seen five wolves one time and on my last Caribou hunt I saw one wolf that was not having any luck getting him a bou.

I am now zipping up my flame-proof suit...

With the possible exception of “guns†there are more myths about wildlife dynamics—and in particular predators—than practically every other subject.

The first question one must always ask in these discussions is: How did the elk survive the wolf onslaught before Europeans showed up on this continent to save them?

Anyway...

IN HEALTHY SITUATION (that's a key phrase--more on that another time), predators do not control prey population size. Indeed, prey population size controls predator numbers!

One of the classic examples of the predator-prey relationship is of the Lynx-Hare relationship in northern Canada and Alaska (there are different prey for Lynx in other parts of the continent/world). When Snowshoe hare populations decline, there is a lag time, then lynx populations begin to decline. When Snowshoe hare populations begin to increase, there is a lag time, and Lynx populations begin to increase. In other words, Lynx numbers FOLLOW Hare population size. Prey population determines predator numbers.

Of course wolves have reduced elk numbers—they were supposed to. It was predicted. There was an OVERPOPULATION of elk to begin with in the entire Yellowstone ecosystem—and many other areas of the Rockies. It was the intent all along that wolves would reduce the elk populations to a much more sustainable level. Elk were eating themselves out of house and home—and doing the same to Pronghorns, Deer, Bighorns, etc, etc. The elk population booms kept getting bigger and the elk busts kept getting deeper. Quite simply, it didn’t take much acumen to see THAT situation was not sustainable.

Additionally, wolves have actually reduced the overall predator biomass—more particularly, they have reduced the overall canine biomass. Coyotes. Wolves do control coyotes. Wait-a-minute you say, what about that predator-prey relationship? In this case, it is a competitive realtionship. When two species compete for the same resource, or in the case of wolves and coyotes, there is a overlap of resources competition, one species controls the other.

In the eastern U.S. it is likely this is the reason that coyotes never became established until Europeans reduce and eventually eliminated wolves. Only then did coyotes move east of the Mississippi. When the few wolves left crossbred with the newcomer, we got the Red Wolf—once thought to be another species or subspecies of wolf. Turns out it is nothing more than a Wolf-Coyote cross.

But more beneficially, those canine vermin from north of the border make those poor helpless elk better—it makes them stronger, faster, smarter and healthier. Predators make prey better.

On a more ethical note from my personal perspective: I want to hunt those wild elk that are better. If we “coddle†elk and protect them from wolves—they are nothing more than livestock. Next thing we know, they’ll be hunting them inside of enclosures...like livestock.

I could go on, but my 7 year old boy and elk huntin’ partner needs his bath—tomorrow is a school day.

Casey

Casey, i value your position, but i think one thing you may be overlooking with your idea about elk/wolf relationship prior to the white mans invasion.... the elk inhabit a very different environment than they used to. the elk that used to live in the plains have been pushed into the mountains buy the human population. from what i understand, elk were traditionally plains animals. when the westword expansion came and buffalo and elk were slaughtered for meat for the east, wolfs turned to cattle and sheep, which brought the wrath of the farmer. the farmers killed the wolves which allowed organizations like the RMEF (and Roosevelt in the beginning) to begin to restore the wild populations. now obviously i have skipped over a hundred years of human population expansion, which also brings light another flaw in the idea of bringing the wolves back. human interaction.

yes, the yellowstone population was beyond it's limits for elk population. now, if the wolves were confined to the park where they could manage those unhunted elk and not escape the bounds of the park, fine. you just go on and tell the wolves to go back yellowstone and stay there. and as far as those elk that we all enjoy hunting and spending millions of dollars in small communities on, well, if there is not a solution to the wolf problem, we can just all compete for those remaining few, while tags exist.

how bad was the united states before we reintroduced the wolves? why, exactly did we need them? was it an issue of too many elk? not in my neck of the woods! we have some very nice elk in SE Washington, but only after years of spike only hunting with a very limited number of big bull tags, 2 in the area i hunt. 1200 people put in for those two tags every year for the last 10+ years. if the us did have too many elk, so many so that we needed wolves to help control them, could not hunters help with that problem, while at the same time spending our millions of dollars? Hmmmm.... you know what, screw the wolves. you wanna go see wolves? go to canada, alaska, russia, whatever! but i dont want them in my neck of the woods!

You also have to remember that it was a reintroduced population, not naturaly occuring. Even though there were wolves already here and the USF&W denied it. The introduced population exceded all expectations and goals in the first 5 years. It is and was an experiment out of control.

Again, my time is limited this morning, so a lot will be left out...

Yes, the human factor and it's effect on habitat is the biggie ["IN HEALTHY SITUATION (that's a key phrase--more on that another time")]. What that means is there must be "management" of wildlife--including wolves. It is pretty obvious that we are probably approaching a point in the near or midterm future where we can begin to offer hunting/trapping seasons for wolves or relax the restrictions on shooting wolves that threaten property in Wyoming/Montana/ Idaho.

But my point is that predators are not a DIRECT cause of prey declines--unless a unhealthy situation already exists.

A couple other facts. The plains elk (Manitoban elk) was not pushed into the mountains--they extirpated from almost all of the their habitat. The Rocky Mountain elk always lived in the Rockies/Great Basin/eastern Sierras and Cascades. Most elk that exist today in the inter-mountain region were restored (reintroduced) from the Jackson Hole herd beginning in the 1920's. This includes places like Arizona and New Mexico where the Merriams elk had been extirpated to the point of extinction. If we restore the prey species, wouldn't it be the sound thing to also restore the predators?

BTW-the elk in places like Nebraska, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania are the not the native subspecies of elk.

Notably, there was a time when a segment of people (agriculture) looked at restoration efforts of large ungulates (deer, elk, etc) with the same "who needs them" attitudes--and sometimes used same arguments as we hear today concerning predators.

But maybe more importantly, as hunters who want to be known as conservationists and good stewards, it is important that the majority of the people support hunting. That majority in the U.S. consists of NON-HUNTERS (as opposed to the small segment of nut case anti-hunters). If hunters are viewed as wanting nothing more than to raise up a tiny segment of wildlife (game animals) so we can kill them--we will lose the support of the majority. Being conservationists who support and enjoy ALL wildlife is our single best argument.

Casey

Casey,

Good points! Virginia kills Kentucky elk every year due to the "agricultural damage" the elk may do.

Thats what you get when you elect liberal green weenies to state and federal offices. THey have overstepped their authority many times in many states.

From Wyoming G&F today:

WYOMING RESPONDS TO THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE’S REFUSAL TO DELIST WOLVES

CHEYENNE - The Wyoming Game and Fish Department has responded to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s recent denial of Wyoming’s petition to remove gray wolves from the Endangered Species List in the Northern Rocky Mountains.

In a letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Director Mitch King, Game and Fish Department Director Terry Cleveland said the service’s analysis of Wyoming’s petition is “flawed in various aspects and is lacking depth and understanding of several issues brought forth in Wyoming’s petition.â€

The Game and Fish’s entire response to the federal agency’s denial can be found on the department’s Web site at http://gf.state.wy.us/.

The denial of Wyoming’s petition is based on disagreements about the urgency of the need to delist wolves in Wyoming and the adequacy of Wyoming’s proposed plan to maintain wolves above distribution and recovery goals.

The wolf population in Wyoming continues to grow by about 20 percent per year. Based on the most recent counts, there were 309 wolves in Wyoming in 31 packs, including at least 24 potential breeding pairs - more than three times the original recovery goal for the entire Greater Yellowstone Area, which also includes portions of Idaho and Montana. There are more than 1,200 wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountain population - more than four times the original recovery goal.

Biologists estimate that approximately 22 ungulates (mostly elk) per wolf are lost each year to wolf predation. Since 2003, an average of 69 cattle have been killed by wolves annually in Wyoming. These are confirmed wolf kills only, and recent research has found that as few as 25 percent of livestock depredations are actually discovered.

“Given the rapid recovery of wolves and their effects on Wyoming’s wildlife and livestock, delisting is long overdue,†said Cleveland. “Wyoming’s plan will work. But the service is delaying the delisting process by selectively using data and references that seem to support its case while ignoring other data and the preponderance of evidence that Wyoming’s plan will ensure a recovered population of wolves. Overall, their rebuttal of Wyoming’s wolf plan is highly flawed based on unrealistic assumptions, misinterpretation of data, misrepresentation of
Wyoming’s wolf plan under Wyoming Statute and hypothetical examples that are infeasible or highly unrealistic under Wyoming’s management plan.â€

Wolves were reintroduced from Canada into Yellowstone National Park in 1995. Wolf numbers first reached the criteria for a recovered population in 2000.

Before the Northern Rocky Mountain population of wolves can be removed from the Endangered Species List, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must approve wolf management plans developed by Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. The service has approved plans developed by Idaho and Montana but has rejected Wyoming’s.

In July of 2005, Wyoming filed a petition to remove wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains from the Endangered Species List. In August of 2006, the service denied that petition.

Wyoming plans to file litigation in federal court in early October to seek a ruling that Wyoming’s wolf management plan constitutes an adequate regulatory mechanism, and an order directing the service to proceed with delisting the gray wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains.
(contact: Eric Keszler (307) 777-4594)

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him count wolves.

analog_peninsula

I agree that the prey population impacts predator populations.

The first impact it has is on breeding. Less food, less offspring. When you introduce a mature predator population into the wild, however, the pack has not been established by any historical prey numbers. I have to wonder how long it would take for a mature pack to form on its own.

Also, wolves tend to take a very liberal view as to what constitutes prey. Yes, historically it was wildlife. But they won't pass up a good meal served up at ranches and farms.

Wolves will eat just about anything. Heck, a lot of them subsist on mice and rodents in areas until their migrating prey comes back into their range. With a pack of sufficient size, they will hunt down the big stuff before bothering with the smaller stuff.

22 ungulates per year per wolf is a lot of venison. Roughly 2 per month per wolf.

And now they estimate the size of the re-introduces population at 1200 or so (when it was zero 10 years ago). That means, per year, those wolves will kill over 26,000 ungulates. At that pace, it won't take long before the deer and elk populations are all but gone.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Manion:

That means, per year, those wolves will kill over 26,000 ungulates. At that pace, it won't take long before the deer and elk populations are all but gone.

Dang, I wonder how deer and elk even survived before we exterminated wolves the first time?

As a hunter that enjoys hunting elk, mule deer, and moose in the rockies, I have mixed feelings about the wolf thing. I have no objection to there being wolves. What I object to is that they be sacred and not open to hunting. If we as a nation decide that sport hunting is a thing we want to have, and it seems that we have already decided that, then no large predator should be off limits. To do so is asking for a disaster to occur.

Isle Royale in Michigan's Superior region was mentioned as a place where moose and wolves live together. Yes, they do so. Yes, the moose population appears to be stable. Eventually this would happen in the rockies, just as it has in Canada, but keep in mind that wolves are game animals in Canada. Hunting keeps the population in check. This is the way we should manage them in the western states.

Hello all,
Unfortunately when you deal with the feds you have to do things the way they want them.
Sure would like to catch one of those Ba$tard wolves in my scope. Was up doing some scouting for my upcoming elk hunt and saw a black speck on the next ridge. Guess what was there, but according to the F&G no wolves are known in this area, just possible sightings.
The hunters in Northern Utah might want to watch close for big coyotes because have heard that they are coming down country.

On Isle Royal there is no hunting either, We can attain a balance like that if we all want to quit hunting and let "nature" balance things out.

309 wolves x 22 unglates, mostly elk, that's conservatively 6000 elk per year. Since they and the grizzly's have pretty much wiped out the moose, they won't touch bison, so I deduce it's mostly elk.

I commend our Game and Fish, and our current Govenor. Screw the feds and the pro-wolf cock suckers! And I use cocksuckers as that is what they are! They don't live here, they have their heads in the sand, they come once a year to get a woody to hear wolves howl, and we have to live with the wolf all year long and suffer the consequences.

Brent,

My figures were arrived at by doing some simple math with the infomation being reported.

1200 wolves that weren't there 10 years ago times 22 ungulates per year equals 26,400 Elk and deer taken by te 1200 wolves every year.

Jim

I also need to ask, why not a quick shot, and then walk away. With the fed system the way it is, the hunter will never get a fair say trying to work the system.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Manion:
Brent,

My figures were arrived at by doing some simple math with the infomation being reported.

1200 wolves that weren't there 10 years ago times 22 ungulates per year equals 26,400 Elk and deer taken by te 1200 wolves every year.

Jim

......if only it were that simple......

So, if you go hunting, and take 2 shots on your hunting trip (and lets say for the sake of argument your follow up shot is 3 seconds later) that means you shot 2 times in 3 seconds. Therefore, by the same "simple math" you must be shooting your rifle 2x20x60x24x365=21024000 times per year! WOW! Thats some pretty good barrel life.......
"Simple math" is really cool and useful!

IV

IV,

It is actually simple in this case. In your example, you are taking a rate per small interval of time and extrapolating that result to a POSSIBLE maximum per year.

In the case of calculating wolf kills, we were provided an average consumption per year. That average cannot be derived unless you have results to use in averaging for a period over one year. That average would include periods of sleep and activities other than the act of killing elk.

With your scenario, there is no accounting for activities other than shooting one rifle continously all day every day. In your example, if we had started with wolf data saying that a wolk was CAPABLE of killing one deer or elk in say 10 minutes (like your rifle was CAPABLE of being shot twice every 3 seconds), yes we could get some pretty outrageous results.

In your example we are working with capacity over a short period of time and coming up with a theoretical maximum. In the wolf example, we are working with an actual end result per individual, and coming up with an average number for all individuals.

Better example - my wife can spend $100 in 5 minutes. That means she can spend $1200 an hour, $4800 per day, $14,400 per month, or $1.728 million per year. Does she spend that much? Not based on my income!

On the other hand, if we start with an annual figure of spending $24,000 per year, we can say she averages spending $2000 per month. If I had 4 wives spending on average $24,000 per year, those 4 would spend $96,000 per year. And I would be looking for a padded room. They would be capable of spending $7 million a year based on what one could do in 5 minutes, but that would have no relevance to what they actually did over a year.

That's a big difference.

kudu56,

Why don't the wolves eat bison?

If you have an elk calf, or yearling elk, versus a bison calf or yearling to tackle, take down and eat, which would you choose?

Bison are considerably more protective, I have caught calf elk, I don't want any part of a calf bison!

When the elk are gone the wolf will start on the bison, but until then, the illegaly introduced canadian wolf will attack and eat the easiest prey! ELK!


Which would you want to run down and eat? Or pull out of it's mother's birth canal and devoure?

The only thing that kept the deer population some what healthy in MN, was a string of easy winters and a strong vigilante force that snared, trapped and shot a lot of wolves, without those kills the wolf population would have really exploded and the deer numbers would have dropped fast.. The control effort does not seem to be happening here and the wolf numbers show it as does the drop in the nothern elk herd, in time yes it will stabilize but we may as well not plan on eating elk regularly.

Thankfully, the vigilante illegals, were and are not very effective as the wolf population in MN has expanded many fold since the hard winters of the early 1970s.

What a joke.

Brent