This show was done in 2016 and researchers then were trying to find out why the elk herd was only a third of what it was in the 1990's. They did surmise that it was too big in the 90's and was probably headed for a collapse. Their research showed that very few cow elk were less than nine years old meaning the herd was middle-aged to old. They never came to an actual cause but figured the increase in grizzly bears and their intense hunting of elk calves in the spring when they are most hungry was the most logical answer. They never thought the wolf packs had all that much to do with it I think because of the age structure but weaning calves that can avoid grizzlies and yearlings are very easy targets for wolves and can cause that same age structure. I think the wolf packs are the most logical reason as they don't hibernate and the bears do and the big ungulates are what's available in winter.

I've lived 100 miles north of Yellowstone NP for over 40 years. My job took me to West Yellowstone, Gardiner, and Cooke City very often outside of he winter months, although I did make several trips to Cooke City in the winter just to see the thousands of wintering elk a d big horn sheep. In the summer it was not uncommon to see up to 6 moose a day on the drive from Bozeman to West Yellowstone.

Then in the mid '90s the Park and USF&WS released wolves in Yellowstone, and almost immediately the northern Yellowstone elk herd began taking a nose dive. The Park then started making excuses as to why the elk were dissappeaaring.

They said the fires of '94 and later destroyed much of the elk's winter range, but the fires of '88 were the largest in recent years and the northern Yellowstone elk herd was still over 20,000 animals in '95. Then the Park blamed the grizzlies, but the grizzlies have always been there and yes they are increasing, but a pack of 5 or more wolves can kill far more elk than a bear can. Plus the wolves are killing elk (and sheep and moose) all winter when the bears are hibernating.

In the spring he wolves also put increased stress on the pregnant and calving cow elk which greatly increases the mortality rate of both the unborn and newly born calves and the cows.

Driving through Yellowstone NP now, you are lucky to see a few elk where there used to be thousands, and it is extremally rare to see a moose.

I live on the opposite end of the park from him.
I'm not gonna do all that typing so just scroll up and read it again.

all I'm gonna add is that Idaho is now gonna start reimbursing hunters when they kill a Wolf.

From the Wyoming side same as above. Way too many wolves and grizzly bears. Wolves hit the moose real hard also.

A lot of modern humans are in denial about predators.

As many don't live among them.

The universities are teaching junk science about them.

Base on flawed steadies done on isolated populations.

I Have wolves with in a 100 yards of the house on a regular bases.

Yes I see them and capture their pictures on game cams. I see their sign daily.

Yes they do have an effect on the big game population.

There is a very good reason we reduced their number in the past.

Those reasons still exist.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
A lot of modern humans are in denial about predators.

As many don't live among them.


Those reasons still exist.

I think very few are unaware that predators kill to live. The difference to me is at what level an individual believes these large predator should exist. For example I can't be convinced that they don't deserve to exist in their native range while being managed at a reasonable population. Others are at the extreme other end and believe that they don't, merely because they kill off the game that they want to hunt and put in the freezer, pure selfishness. Of course there are the nuts who can't admit the world we live in and think that they shouldn't be touched at all.

I also wouldn't say we just reduced their numbers. We practically drove them to extinction in the lower 48.

quote:

Originally posted by AXEL19:

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
A lot of modern humans are in denial about predators.

As many don't live among them.


Those reasons still exist.

I think very few are unaware that predators kill to live. The difference to me is at what level an individual believes these large predator should exist. For example I can't be convinced that they don't deserve to exist in their native range while being managed at a reasonable population. Others are at the extreme other end and believe that they don't, merely because they kill off the game that they want to hunt and put in the freezer, pure selfishness. Of course there are the nuts who can't admit the world we live in and think that they shouldn't be touched at all.

I also wouldn't say we just reduced their numbers. We practically drove them to extinction in the lower 48.

They well never be able to exist in all their native range again. As the anti's claim they should.

Think of wolves in any major city and suburbs.

The absolute protection of them is what the problem is. They become very use to living among humans that they lose their fear.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:

quote:

Originally posted by AXEL19:

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
A lot of modern humans are in denial about predators.

As many don't live among them.


Those reasons still exist.

I think very few are unaware that predators kill to live. The difference to me is at what level an individual believes these large predator should exist. For example I can't be convinced that they don't deserve to exist in their native range while being managed at a reasonable population. Others are at the extreme other end and believe that they don't, merely because they kill off the game that they want to hunt and put in the freezer, pure selfishness. Of course there are the nuts who can't admit the world we live in and think that they shouldn't be touched at all.

I also wouldn't say we just reduced their numbers. We practically drove them to extinction in the lower 48.

They well never be able to exist in all their native range again. As the anti's claim they should.

Think of wolves in any major city and suburbs.

The absolute protection of them is what the problem is. They become very use to living among humans that they lose their fear.

I agree, wolves in all of their native range is impossible. Not that I would mind seeing some scare the hell out of a far off greenie or two.

And as for absolute protection, let's hope that the states can keep rolling with realistic hunting seasons and quotas. I'm usually in wolf country up here and I have no twisted sense of reality while outdoors which is why I carry heavily in the woods. Even on the outskirts of town or in the country in your yard we have to be mindful. Over the winter their travel corridors are unlimited and lead to the first confirmed wolf in the yard. The dog does not go out alone at night.

quote:

The dog does not go out alone at night

Had a neighbor lose is lab to wolves taken right off the porch.

In Wis people lose hunting dogs on a regular basics.

I have had wolves go through the yard several times.

quote:

There is a very good reason we reduced their number in the past.

Those reasons still exist.

Amen!

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:

quote:

The dog does not go out alone at night

Had a neighbor lose is lab to wolves taken right off the porch.

In Wis people lose hunting dogs on a regular basics.

I have had wolves go through the yard several times.

Just to be clear, I'm in WI too, a half hour north of Wausau.

Hunting dogs get killed up here every year but most people watch their pets well enough. That said, a number of years ago, a guy on the other side of town had his GSP get attacked by a wolf one afternoon. Luckily for both of them, his 100 lb lab buddy ran out of the open door and bulldozed the wolf which made him let go and they beat hell back to the house. That's the last attack that I am aware of in the immediate area.

The area I hunt alot is smack dab in a packs range and has been for many years, yet people still go out there and walk their dogs, snowshoe, etc. completely unarmed. One day somebody's luck will run out but I refuse to blame the wolves just because of people's ignorance or lackadaisical attitude and that goes all around.

Oh well, it's a complex issue that nobody will ever see eye to eye on.

Reintroduce them in Rock Creek Park

I count 20 dogs so far killed this year.

Wis. wolf, dog killed report.

https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topi...at/wolf/dogdeps.html

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
I count 20 dogs so far killed this year.

Wis. wolf, dog killed report.

https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topi...at/wolf/dogdeps.html

17 dead on that list. The others are injuries sustained or harassment. The injured lab in my county is only about 4 or so miles from me in the home area of the pack where I hunt alot. I had to look it up but it was lucky to get away from 2 wolves. There are two other local packs in the area so people need to watch out for their dogs.

Not bad considering how many hounds get run every year.

I too live within about 150 miles of the park. I have hunted the elk several times before wolfs and range did not have much to do with it. the range was in not the best shape before wolfs and the elk did fine and were expanding. All the predators (bear, lion ect.) except wolfs have existed there for years and have not had any effect on the elk. Initially for the first few years after the wolf the elk numbers continued to climb because there were not enough wolfs. As the wolf population increased the elk population started to level off and then go down. several years later a friend of mine that worked for fish and game showed me a graph of wolf population vs elk population by year and it was very obvious that the wolf population had a direct impact on elk. I have never seen that graph published anywhere. The data is pretty obvious if you can get it.

quote:

Originally posted by MtElkHunter:
I too live within about 150 miles of the park. I have hunted the elk several times before wolfs and range did not have much to do with it. the range was in not the best shape before wolfs and the elk did fine and were expanding. All the predators (bear, lion ect.) except wolfs have existed there for years and have not had any effect on the elk. Initially for the first few years after the wolf the elk numbers continued to climb because there were not enough wolfs. As the wolf population increased the elk population started to level off and then go down. several years later a friend of mine that worked for fish and game showed me a graph of wolf population vs elk population by year and it was very obvious that the wolf population had a direct impact on elk. I have never seen that graph published anywhere. The data is pretty obvious if you can get it.

I Googled Yellowstone elk/wolf population, it came up with this. Mtelkhunter see if this story has the same graph you talked about.

http://nnhsbiology.pbworks.com...s%20in%20Yellowstone

I understand they have some Brucillosas in the herd and I know the buffalo have it, between that and the wolves, they will take a hit for sure..

This wolf problem is wrought with lies and politics by so called professional people with an agenda..A wolf pack can eat a lot of meat in thecourse of a year..over population is always a problem with the anti hunting group who state " Its natures way so its ok" what a totally ignorant statemant that is..

Ravenr who used to post here, posted this over on FB:

I looked at that graph and it is close but the one I saw was a little different. the one I saw the elk population was like a ragged dome and the wolf population was like of a weird shaped inverted dome that kind of flattened at the end. This has been a while ago so this may just have more data in than the one i saw.