Greater Yellowstone wolf question

**Donkey Punch** · 10-19-2010, 11:47 PM

I have read both sides of the story, and have no idea who or what to believe. So here is the question. Are there enough wolves in the area to open a hunting season, and is there any direct evidence as to how the wolf population has affected the elk population?

**iscariot** · 10-19-2010, 11:58 PM

Some studies addressing the latter part of your question.

http://www.forestry.oregonstate.edu/...iccascades.pdf

http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/facul...cology2005.pdf

https://fp.auburn.edu/sfws/ditchkoff...0al%202003.pdf

http://article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/p...startPage=1401

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.219...A%5D2.0.CO%3B2

**mtsprings** · 10-20-2010, 12:21 AM

The wolves have defiantly impacted elk numbers. Look into the size of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd pre and post wolf. Some estimates put it at 1/4th the size it was before wolves. The result has been hard on the local (Gardiner area) outfitters in general season and has destroyed the late season hunt, where Fish and Game are issuing a fraction of the licenses they once were.
A very good argument can definitely be made that the size of the herd, before wolves was too large for the habitat to sustain. That lower elk numbers have been a blessing to the ecosystem.
The population is hunt able in a regulations and quotas. (Should wolves be hunted? Lots of different opinions on the morality of this, which was not the question)
(IMO) People who insist the wolves have not impacted elk, along with people who insist wolf is Satan incarnated and the people who think the population cannot withstand some loss through hunting are refusing to acknowledge other peoples perspective along with facts.
These people tend to remind me of my Sunday school teacher whom would not allow the topic of evolution to even be discussed along my geology professor whom at least once a week berated every Christian as a complete moron. Personal agendas may have put some blinders on them.

^^^^Nice links. Lower elk numbers have along with changed behavior have impacted ecosystem.

**tank3467** · 10-20-2010, 02:03 AM

I don't want to lie about my feelings about wolves, I believe that they made a mistake reintroducing them, but they are here and need to be controlled. The biggest problem right now is environmental "extremists," and their agenda. I have searched but can not find the original wolf reintroduction plan, but I understand it was 200 breeding pairs. I once again am having a hard time finding the population estimates but 1700 wolves are estimated (according to wikipedia).

What must be understood is the economy of the states that wolves in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Huge parts of the economy are ranching and hunting. Let's face it, most of the country are meat eaters, that means cattle. Wolves are here to stay, but they are currently afraid of nothing, because they are protected. The above post shows the decline of big game populations, which means less people hunting (mainly out of staters) and less money coming into the state. The next problem is the predation on livestock. One farm alone lost 120 sheep in one week. http://missoulian.com/news/local/art...cc4c03286.html
These losses are paid for by tax payers for compensation.

Montana alone is paying around 150,000 dollars a year to ranchers for livestock depridation by wolves. That doesnt figure in the cost for paying for workers who track and take care of the wolves. Last year after the hunting season closed fwp of montana paid trappers to kill a pack of 14? (i think) wolves who were killing cattle, at what price.

I could go on and on, and I'm sure that people will say i'm stupid, but most of them probably don't understand the impact to states economy that the wolves are impacting. I already have a long blog, but if there are questions feel free to ask and I will answer as well as I can.

I forgot to mention that wolves are not even close to endangered. The canadian wolf population is estimated at between 52,000-60,000.(wolf.org)

**RootSkier** · 10-20-2010, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by tank3467

The biggest problem right now is environmental "extremists," and their agenda.

Arguing about the agenda environmental extremists while at the same time supporting outfitters that operate in Wilderness areas....this is amusing.

**Tye 1on** · 10-20-2010, 08:12 AM

imho those are a couple of the easiest wolf questions, Iscariot covered the first one pretty well, and i haven't heard any argument, even from enviros, that there's not a population that could support a hunt.

**PassTheDutchie** · 10-20-2010, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by tank3467

IThe above post shows the decline of big game populations, which means less people hunting (mainly out of staters) and less money coming into the state.

Let's remember that fewer people are hunting nowadays. It's a hobby/sport/avocation/lifestyle that's been in steep decline for decades for a number of reasons completely unrelated to wolves & herd numbers.

**montanaskier** · 10-20-2010, 08:33 AM

sounds like a politician running for office: "...the effect on the economy..." blahblahblah.

Must suck for the outfitters that actually have to HUNT for herd animals now. No more just hanging around areas they know the herds will be. Yeah that must suck...actually having to hunt.

The enviro is WAY better off overall with the wolves in the area...flora, fauna, etc

But yeah a few could probably be hunted and it not kill the population

**Fat City** · 10-20-2010, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by tank3467

I don't want to lie about my feelings about wolves, I believe that they made a mistake reintroducing them, but they are here and need to be controlled. The biggest problem right now is environmental "extremists," and their agenda. I have searched but can not find the original wolf reintroduction plan, but I understand it was 200 breeding pairs. I once again am having a hard time finding the population estimates but 1700 wolves are estimated (according to wikipedia).

What must be understood is the economy of the states that wolves in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Huge parts of the economy are ranching and hunting. Let's face it, most of the country are meat eaters, that means cattle. Wolves are here to stay, but they are currently afraid of nothing, because they are protected. The above post shows the decline of big game populations, which means less people hunting (mainly out of staters) and less money coming into the state. The next problem is the predation on livestock. One farm alone lost 120 sheep in one week. http://missoulian.com/news/local/art...cc4c03286.html
These losses are paid for by tax payers for compensation.

Montana alone is paying around 150,000 dollars a year to ranchers for livestock depridation by wolves. That doesnt figure in the cost for paying for workers who track and take care of the wolves. Last year after the hunting season closed fwp of montana paid trappers to kill a pack of 14? (i think) wolves who were killing cattle, at what price.

I could go on and on, and I'm sure that people will say i'm stupid, but most of them probably don't understand the impact to states economy that the wolves are impacting. I already have a long blog, but if there are questions feel free to ask and I will answer as well as I can.

I forgot to mention that wolves are not even close to endangered. The canadian wolf population is estimated at between 52,000-60,000.(wolf.org)

Tank3467, you rudimentary grasp of the situation in discussion is embarrasing. We are talking about the Rocky Mountain Grey Wolf population. Your quote above is an INTERNATIONAL estimate. The RMGW population is closer to a few thousand. Get a clue.

**DougW** · 10-20-2010, 10:45 AM

Why are wolfes such a big deal in the States. I was out on a ranch where my wife rides where they run cattle into woods, and we saw a wolf track pretty close to were the horses are kept. Sure they lose a few calves but not big losses. Its just not an issue in Alberta.

**tank3467** · 10-20-2010, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by RootSkier

Arguing about the agenda environmental extremists while at the same time supporting outfitters that operate in Wilderness areas....this is amusing.

You are wrong. I made absolutely no mention of supporting outfitters, in fact I am no fan of outfitters. I will be voting to end outfitter sponsored licenses. Also most outfitters in this area stay away from public land. They pay ranchers big money to "lease" the rights to hunt on private land. Thus taking away opportunities for the general public to hunt private land. I support hunters right not outfitters.

**JoeStrummer** · 10-20-2010, 11:16 AM

This is a bit of a hobby of mine for the last 20 years, as I was involved in meetings and data gathering for the original EIS.

I have spent parts of 9 hunting seasons in some deep areas just south or east of the park, including 94-98 during the reintroduction period. I actually did some research in 1997 and 1998 on this topic. Severe winters (like 1996-1997) are much better for wolf predation (for obvous reasons, elk are distressed.) And wolves definitely eat about 10 times as many elk as any other ungulates they could prey upon. Cow/calf ratios are down since the reintroduction, hard to say whether that is a result of wolf predation or drought, or something else. Like everything else, it's a combination of multiple factors.

The original EIS found it possible that wolves could kill up to 30% of the elk population over 10 years. In fact, elk are only down slightly (maybe 5%-10%) since 1994, and there is not direct link attributing all of that to wolf predation.

Hunting advocates over-exaggerate the threat wolves pose, for their own motivations. The next step after delisting them is hunting them. Outfitters have been shooting them since they were reintroduced. There doesn't need to be a "hunting season" to be a hunting season.

**Mau** · 10-20-2010, 11:29 AM

Here's an interesting article about the Yellowstone Wolves: The Big Bad Wolf Makes Good

**tank3467** · 10-20-2010, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by Fat City

[/COLOR]

Tank3467, you rudimentary grasp of the situation in discussion is embarrasing. We are talking about the Rocky Mountain Grey Wolf population. Your quote above is an INTERNATIONAL estimate. The RMGW population is closer to a few thousand. Get a clue.

It was a broad generalization, but you do realize the the Rocky mountain grey wolf was taken from canada and transplanted back into the United States. They are not a special sub-species they are Grey wolves, and therefore they are technically not endangered.

The whole point and the big problem is not that the wolves need to be wiped out again. They are here to stay anyone that doesn't believe this is an idiot. The problem is giving the states the right to control population and problem wolves. Montana and Idaho and comprehensive plans on wolf conservation, but environmental groups sued to have them relisted. This means in parts of Montana if a wolf is attacking a ranchers cattle they can do nothing about it but watch, and then the receive taxpayers money for compensation.

Wyoming has different ideas about wolf control and now because of the re-listing Idaho is not going to work with the federal government. Read the story.

http://www.mtstandard.com/news/state...cc4c03286.html

Hugh Conway · 10-20-2010, 11:42 AM

Why would that a problem when state politicians have expressed their desire to have the population extirpated?

**iscariot** · 10-20-2010, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by tank3467

I don't want to lie about my feelings about wolves, I believe that they made a mistake reintroducing them, but they are here and need to be controlled. The biggest problem right now is environmental "extremists," and their agenda. I have searched but can not find the original wolf reintroduction plan, but I understand it was 200 breeding pairs. I once again am having a hard time finding the population estimates but 1700 wolves are estimated (according to wikipedia).

What must be understood is the economy of the states that wolves in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Huge parts of the economy are ranching and hunting. Let's face it, most of the country are meat eaters, that means cattle. Wolves are here to stay, but they are currently afraid of nothing, because they are protected. The above post shows the decline of big game populations, which means less people hunting (mainly out of staters) and less money coming into the state. The next problem is the predation on livestock. One farm alone lost 120 sheep in one week. http://missoulian.com/news/local/art...cc4c03286.html
These losses are paid for by tax payers for compensation.

Montana alone is paying around 150,000 dollars a year to ranchers for livestock depridation by wolves. That doesnt figure in the cost for paying for workers who track and take care of the wolves. Last year after the hunting season closed fwp of montana paid trappers to kill a pack of 14? (i think) wolves who were killing cattle, at what price.

I could go on and on, and I'm sure that people will say i'm stupid, but most of them probably don't understand the impact to states economy that the wolves are impacting. I already have a long blog, but if there are questions feel free to ask and I will answer as well as I can.

I forgot to mention that wolves are not even close to endangered. The canadian wolf population is estimated at between 52,000-60,000.(wolf.org)

Aside from the inaccuracies and gross ignorance, I just thought this little gem from Spats was an appropriate response...

Spats - We don't need predator control, we need whiner control. Anyone who complains that "the gummint oughta do sumpin" about the wolves and coyotes should be darted, caged, and released in a more suitable habitat for them, like the middle of Manhattan.

Paging lukaski...

**Big Snowballs** · 10-20-2010, 03:02 PM

Why do stupid people blame Wolves for being Wolves?
They help the Ecosystem by killing the weak and sick. This keeps the gene pool strong and reduces disease. Wolves are apex predators and without a apex predator natures balance is thrown off. Sure Hunting does help but are hunters picking off the the sick and weak ..NO
Long Live The Wolf.

**Lone Star** · 10-20-2010, 03:06 PM

wolves are made up by scientists to scare us into supporting their socialist political agenda.

**Dantheman** · 10-20-2010, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by mtsprings

Look into the size of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd pre and post wolf. Some estimates put it at 1/4th the size it was before wolves.

I know nothing about pre- and post-wolf elk population figures, but I was immediately convinced this was bullshit and was thus quite tickled to read this:

Originally Posted by JoeStrummer

In fact, elk are only down slightly (maybe 5%-10%) since 1994, and there is not direct link attributing all of that to wolf predation.

**iscariot** · 10-20-2010, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by Lone Star

wolves are made up by scientists to scare us into supporting their socialist political agenda.

**JoeStrummer** · 10-20-2010, 05:35 PM

Dantheman - Actually, mtsprings is correct since he was talking about the Northern Range. I was responding to the OPs throughts on the entire GYE. In the Tetons, for example, populations are up to the point where last year they had a special hunting season to cull the herd. For this discussion, let's talk about the Northern Range.

Montana FWS issued 2900 antler-less elk permits in 2000. Contrast that with 100 in the last year. Is it a coincidence the population has actually gone up slightly in the Northern Range the past couple of years? So the drops that we've seen in the 2000s can have other contributing factors besides the dire wolf. Yes I know you can't hunt in the park but of the 7 or 8 major herds, only one or two stay within the safety of the park boundary. If hunting advocates acknowledge they take 10% of the elk that stray outside the park, what do you suppose the actual percentage might be? also, grizzly bear populations are up - they tend to do most of their killing in early season. What part are they playing?

Related to the wolf - Elk birth rate was down for most of the 2000s and there were ideas that the stress of wolf predation increases cortisol, which inhibits progesterone, making it harder for cows to carry calves to term. But fecal samples tested throughout the park don't show abnormal cortisol. The guess by MSU is that cows are trading reproductive possibilities for personal self-preservation in the face of wolf population. In other words, let's not have kids, I don't want to have to protect them for getting eaten!

I don't know if I buy this or not but even those who hold the wolf responsible don't see a big increase in direct predation. Indirectly, it's possible the wolf's presence is suppressing birth rate.

In any case, this year and last, calf-to-cow ratios were in the mid-20s per 100, which is where biologists think they should be to sustain the population. So the thought is that we are going to see the elk population in the Northern Range stabilize. The pre-1990 levels weren't sustainable anyway and often forced elk harvests.

All this science and research and nobody really knows jackshit.

**bushman** · 10-20-2010, 06:23 PM

We gots shitloads of em,fuckers are everywhere. If your short, come get some of ours, you can trap em and move em. Bad news is they come back.

**brutah** · 10-20-2010, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by tank3467

This means in parts of Montana if a wolf is attacking a ranchers cattle they can do nothing about it but watch, and then the receive taxpayers money for compensation.

you also realize that ranchers receive money when elks graze on their lands????

do you realize that elks are migratory mammals by nature and that without wolves and other top predators they don't move??? creating more of a problem not only to the environment but also to ranchers?

I think hunters are mostly pissed off because now the elk move around, whereas, before they didn't have to because they were only being hunted during a small portion of the year.

its really hard to argue against the environmental benefit of wolves and i'm a hunter.

**iscariot** · 10-20-2010, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by tank3467

Montana and Idaho and comprehensive plans on wolf conservation, but environmental groups sued to have them relisted. This means in parts of Montana if a wolf is attacking a ranchers cattle they can do nothing about it but watch, and then the receive taxpayers money for compensation.

Actually, donkeys are great at warding off wolves. The ranchers could do this, if only they did a little research.

Put a few donkeys in with the sheep/cattle/whatever and the wolves will go somewhere else.

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/...ts/donkey2.htm

http://www.iberianature.com/spainblo...p-from-wolves/

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/multimed...tml?cid=983160

http://howlingforjustice.wordpress.c...ver-livestock/

http://www.reviewmessenger.com/index...3Arotator-news

Hugh Conway · 10-20-2010, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by DougW

Its just not an issue in Alberta.

Duh. Alberta is where Hollywood has filmed Westerns for years, of course it's not an issue, it's not the "real" west.

It's just where all their images of the West come from