MtnMan Loc: ID

Thanks for an article on one of the studies I have looked at. It is a classic case of news reporting where the article headline doesn't match the content.

Alas this isn't a peer reviewed study. The actual study area isn't clear but at least some of it wasn't even in Yellowstone Park. I'd have to dig into the actual study to understand how such silly results were obtained.

Here's what the article said about actual data, "The research started at a critical time for the Clark's Fork herd. Calf-to-cow ratios in the migratory herd started dropping in the mid-90s, about the same time wolves were introduced. Those ratios have remained low since 2002 and overall elk numbers decreased." Also, "Hunters and wildlife managers were alarmed by the drop in elk numbers. Doug McWhiter, a Wyoming Fish and Game biologist who manages the area, said elk numbers are stable now, but hunting opportunities had to be cut. Cow tags were reduced and hunting units in the area were switched from general over-the-counter licenses to limited quota in 2010. Hunter opportunity was reduced by 50 to 75 percent, says McWhiter who helped with Middleton's research."

The article contains speculation at best. For example, the article claims, "Middleton found that wolves weren't even the top calf predators. He found that bears typically take out more elk calves than wolves do. During a June monitoring period grizzlies killed an elk calf every two to four days and black bears killed a calf every four to eight days." He doesn't say how many wolves take out, doesn't note that bears eat other stuff much of the year and sleep half the year, and doesn't note that the wolves are additive to what the bears are doing. He doesn't note that one of the big issues is that wolves kill cow Elk to eat the fetus before the calves are born...while the Bears are hibernating.

I don't disagree that too many bears can also be a problem for Elk. Perhaps there was a particular high bear count in his study area...one of the things a scientific study would have to establish to make broad conclusions. Since no bear were planted before or after his study the bear cannot be the cause of the DROP in the Elk population.

This is also a reason that wildlife has to be managed holistically by the states...not by Federal judges and lawyers in Washington D.C.

I have been through the park several times each year since the wolf introduction. The impact is dramatic and clear.

I have also been there the thirty years before wolf introduction, and it was pretty much stable and very enjoyable.

You and your descendants who travel to Yellowstone will reap the fallout of the folly. You have my compassion. I am happy to have lived through a time when it was a much better place.

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

Just hunt with a camera in the park.and kill wolf's outside the park? Or bring in the Mexican wolf, eliminate the Canadian wolf?

MtnMan Loc: ID

Yes, I don't have a problem with hunting only with a camera in YNP. Alas your chances of bagging Elk have been devastated.

There is a wolf subspecies more akin to the historical wolves in the Rocky Mtn. area in Minnesota or somewhere. But I object to the whole idea of introducing any invasive species under the auspices of the Endangered Species Act. There are tens of thousands of wolves in Alaska and Canada. They aren't endangered. If they want to plant some invasive species where none exist now why not in Washington D.C.?

(PS: I have heard anecdotally there were some native wolves left in the Big Horn mountains of WY. The planted wolves are alleged to have wiped them out. I have not been able to verify this.)

Should we work to bring back Polio or the Wooly Mammoth?

MtnMan Loc: ID

Here's the update on TOTAL wolf population and total Elk killed by wolves since planting using the 21.6 kills per year per wolf. That estimate is pretty much the accepted average. Numbers range from 11-35 and probably vary depending on relative abundance of predator and prey and perhaps other factors.

The total wolf count chart is from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service.

(Download)

DrWilk Loc: .

What I'd like to see is the historical figures for elk/wolf population in the Yellowstone area. And I don't mean pre-wolf RE-introduction. I mean before the wolves were exterminated in the area. So prior to 1930's.
From what I've seen the elk population today is much, much higher than it was at the turn of the previous century.

MtnMan Loc: ID

I am glad you got to see some Elk. I have not been so fortunate in Yellowstone in recent years. Fortunately Elk come to me at home.

We had some great success with Big Horn on our trip to Alaska last June. We saw them on our way there. Magnificent creatures!

Also got to see a lot of bear on that trip.

(Download)


(Download)

MtnMan Loc: ID

I have seen a little on that. There are some reports from Lewis and Clark that this whole area was essentially a wildlife desert. That is the stable condition with the wolves as a top predator.

I have also seen some claims that in the late 1800s all animals were overhunted in the area. The train brought in people and there was little regulation. Of course wiping out the Bison in the Great Plains was a major government initiative to starve the Indians out of existence.

Most agree that the wildlife herds increased dramatically in the 20th century due mostly to contributions by hunters and wildlife management by the States.

Japakomom Loc: Originally from the Last Frontier

Your second chart is quite deceptive. It is a cumulative number of elk killed over a number of years, not a yearly number. Also, it does not show a source. Anybody can make a chart.

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

I was in Yellowstone early this year and had no problems finding Elk I took some pictures as this is what I do now and few other critters; legs don't support me as they once did when I hunted big game. The camera works fine for me now. I still do bird hunt in Texas and Arizona. Well good luck on your endevers MtnMan if the wolf's east of Wyoming have a species of wolf's promote the idea to the department of parks in the USA I'll support you and all that sign on to this project!

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Fine job,that's what I like!

MtnMan Loc: ID

It's label is quite clear (Do you not know what cumulative means? TOTAL?). It is the total killed so far by the introduced Canadian wolves. The number now is higher than on the chart.

The source is shown right above it: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services data. I made the chart by multiplying the number of wolves each year by 21.6, the accepted average number of Elk killed by each wolf each year. You can find that in many sources. Since the USFWS data is the MINIMUM number of wolves multiplying by the average kill rate yields the MINIMUM number of Elk killed so far by this campaign. It is the right thing to look at.

It is worse than shown on the chart because the Elk that have been killed are more calves and mid-life Elk than older ones, meaning that they didn't get to reproduce.

You may not like the data but it is accurate.

I understand if you have trouble relating to the horror this represents. Especially when you realize many of the kills involve wolves eating the Elk, including ripping out the fetuses, while the Elk are still alive. It gives me nightmares.

I hope they don't get the idea to reintroduce polio.

MtnMan Loc: ID

This story is from near where we live. It is most likely the same pack that attacked my son while hunting last month. That was near Idaho City, about 15 miles from our house. Wolves can travel 30 miles in a single day.

http://www.ktvb.com/story/local/2014/10/08/12187067/

The Elk are coming around our house at night again. They ate a Japanese Maple and Petunias right next to the house last night. Since it is hunting season they only come at night. Our dog has woken us up the last several nights...no doubt due to the Elk. We know from when they come around during the day that Elk are not impressed by barking dogs.

I'm sure the wolves aren't far behind.

DrWilk Loc: .

People have to learn that if they live in or near a wilderness area they, and especially their pets, will encounter wildlife.

MtnMan Loc: ID

What a silly statement. You obviously have no idea of the west.

There were no wolves in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming when nearly all of its current population were born or moved here. (The exception is those born or moved here since 1993). Wolves were introduced into by the Federal Government. They have expanded hundreds of miles beyond Wilderness areas. There are no fences around wilderness areas.

How'd you like it if they introduced Pit Bulls (or wolves) to wander uncontrolled in your city?

MtnMan Loc: ID

Dup post