WOLVES..."Do You Realize Now What You Have Done?..."

[tipsntails7]

http://rmefblog.blogspot.com/2014/06/informing-misinformed-about-wolves.html

Interesting read written by RMEF Prez David Allen in 2014.

I'm not saying either article is all bad, and to think wolves don't have an affect is moronic, but if love to see a single article written that doesn't run the Yellowstone or the Lolo herd out front and center... Wolves were far from the only factor to account for the decreased number.

What they also don't mention is in the Yellowstone area the wolf numbers from 2007 to 2012 were respectably cut in half... So why for 5 straight years did the elk herd continue to decrease?

19 thousand elk were the most elk EVER recorded in that area. That is way over the carrying capacity, 12k is the median going back as far as you can. From 2005 to 2006 is the largest drop in population, before that the population is really right where it should be, maybe a touch low but nothing to fret over. From then on the number steadily falls, but so did the wolf population...

All I have ever said is the wolves are a factor, but to raise pitch forks and blame it all on wolves is foolish and an easy way to side step other problems with the way Feds and states manage wildlife.

 

[jmden]

I'm not saying either article is all bad, and to think wolves don't have an affect is moronic, but if love to see a single article written that doesn't run the Yellowstone or the Lolo herd out front and center... Wolves were far from the only factor to account for the decreased number.

What they also don't mention is in the Yellowstone area the wolf numbers from 2007 to 2012 were respectably cut in half... So why for 5 straight years did the elk herd continue to decrease?

19 thousand elk were the most elk EVER recorded in that area. That is way over the carrying capacity, 12k is the median going back as far as you can. From 2005 to 2006 is the largest drop in population, before that the population is really right where it should be, maybe a touch low but nothing to fret over. From then on the number steadily falls, but so did the wolf population...

All I have ever said is the wolves are a factor, but to raise pitch forks and blame it all on wolves is foolish and an easy way to side step other problems with the way Feds and states manage wildlife.

I would guess RMEF and David Allen could be biased (no!) but perhaps you could shed light on what else caused the decrease?

Does anybody on Rok live in the Gardiner area that might see what's happened locally over the last couple of decades?

 

[2ski]

JonBoy is a guide in the area...ish.

 

[AZ Vince]

My cheap seat is in the middle of the TAX PAYER section where I have watched the Fed Gvmnt grow into a grotesquely bloated beaurocracy that is corrupt to the core and shows no ability what so ever to police itself while pursuing political agendas set forth by whomever happens to occupy the White House.

I too am tired.
Paying for things I do not want, or use, is against the principles this nation was founded on.
Let the tree huggers pay for the wolves and the damage they inflict.

 

[tipsntails7]

I would guess RMEF and David Allen could be biased (no!) but perhaps you could shed light on what else caused the decrease?

Does anybody on Rok live in the Gardiner area that might see what's happened locally over the last couple of decades?

Overgrazing was one, caused by the management of the herd to remain above carrying capacity. Climate change and the lack of water was also a huge factor, which again effected grazing land. Other predators were also a factor. If I can drum up my thesis paper I've got things sighted in it.

A biologist by the name of Middleton changed my entire perception and my entire thesis paper based on his finding in Yellowstone.

It made me examine my preconceived notions, yes wolves are a factor but they are just one piece in a puzzle that put the Yellowstone elk on the path of population decline.

 

[jmden]

Overgrazing was one, caused by the management of the herd to remain above carrying capacity. Climate change and the lack of water was also a huge factor, which again effected grazing land. Other predators were also a factor. If I can drum up my thesis paper I've got things sighted in it.

A biologist by the name of Middleton changed my entire perception and my entire thesis paper based on his finding in Yellowstone.

It made me examine my preconceived notions, yes wolves are a factor but they are just one piece in a puzzle that put the Yellowstone elk on the path of population decline.

Well...enlighten me (us)!

 

[jmden]

I'm also reminded that these imported wolves have also caused tremendous damage to established human livelihoods as well, ranchers most notably.

It's not just about ungulates and hunters, but more importantly, about humans. 300 and some established packs when the target was 10-15 packs in each of MT, ID and WY? Wow...

 

[MattB]

I'd love to see evidence which supports this statement. Every biologist I've asked about it just rolls their eyes.

And says what? Where did they get the seed stock for Yellowstone? That Canus lupus is Canus lupus, regardless of whether it is the occidentalis or irremotus sub-species?

 

[mtluckydan]

Climate change - now there is a reason that the elk population around Yellowstone declined. Must be the climate changed right there as elk in many other parts of the state didn't dramatically decline. I would expect that as widespread as climate change is claimed to be, it should be having a negative effect on elk throughout the west. I would be interested in seeing the data on that claim.

Habitat in Yellowstone should be prime for rising elk populations since the large fires that occurred there in 1988. Looking at the historic elk population changes in Idaho, they had population increases after large fires because of better habitat and food sources.

Why is it so hard to admit that the re-introduction of non-native wolves into Montana, Idaho and Wyoming has had a drastic reduction in game numbers in some areas of those states. I have witnessed it personally in north western Montana. I have read about it extensively through research on the internet and with other sources. I have talked to biologists in both Montana and Idaho. These state biologists are good people, but they are being specifically instructed not to admit or support the fact that wolves are having a detrimental effect on game populations.

Like everything else in our society, money is a major factor driving these decisions. As mentioned by someone above, it has been documented that the federal government stole money from the Pittman-Robertson Act funds to fund this project. The state agencies have continued to receive large sums of money to "manage wolves". Now, they charge money to sportsmen for tags to shoot the animals they spent millions of dollars on that are killing our game animals.

Behind the scenes, they are paying professional hunters to kill more wolves for hundreds of thousands of dollars because said sportsmen can't kill enough wolves and it is costing ranchers and said states hundreds of thousands or more in livestock losses. Outfitters have gone out of business in some areas because of lack of game numbers in there allotted hunting areas.

All the tree-huggers think it is perfectly acceptable if a wolf hamstrings an elk or moose and then feeds on it while the animal is still alive. Yet these same tree-huggers think hunters are mean and nasty for wanting to shoot the same moose and elk and feed their family with the meat. Other than the tourists that come to our national parks - who would probably visit anyway - what has been the benefit to our ecosystem. What is the actual benefit when all is said and done. Game numbers can for the most part be managed through legal and traditional hunting. We already had more than enough predators with grizzly & black bears, mountain lions, coyotes and such. As mentioned above, there was a small population of somewhat native wolves.

So in the end, for all the wolf supporters out there, what is the measurable benefit of introducing a non-native animal such as the timber wolf (not gray wolf as claimed) into our ecosystem.

 

[BroodBuster]

My opinion is simple. Wolves live in wild places in the west.

Deal with it!

As we should!

 

[jmden]

My opinion is simple. Wolves live in wild places in the west.

Deal with it!

As we should!

You are right. That is pretty simple.

 

[jmden]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443482404578042763065553382

WSJ article from 2012 on wolves written by Arthur Middleton, Ph.D.

 

[jmden]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...f-cull-program-will-continue/article24496415/

Was reminded about this a few minutes ago. I guess they're 'dealing with it'.

 

[Randy Newberg]

Does anybody on Rok live in the Gardiner area that might see what's happened locally over the last couple of decades?

I live an hour away. Here are some other things that often are not mentioned as contributing factors. Wolves have surely had an impact. I haven't read the entire thread, but I doubt anyone would argue that.

When wolves were introduced n 1995, the herd was at its highest recorded count in the current trend cycle. YNP and MT FWP decided the herd needed to be reduced. It was argued to what level would be targeted. Depending upon who you talked to, the target varied from 10K to 12K, a 40-50% reduction.

To get there, MT issued 2,200 cow tags for a late Jan/Feb period. That was an increase in cow tags over what had been issued prior to the "knock down the numbers" strategy. These were pregnant cows, so if you figured even a 25% calf recruitment rate for that herd, having an 80% harvest on 2,200 cow elk resulted in 1,760 cows and another 440 calves not recruited.

That went on for many years. When calls were made to reduce cow tags or stop the seasons because of plummeting numbers, increased age of cows, and low calf recruitment, it was met with resistance, mostly by hunters who enjoyed that hunt. Finally, FWP did close the late season, but it was too late. The damage was done.

Add that on top of wolves, a hard winter or two, and then have the highest density of grizzly bears in the lower 48 and a calf hardly had a chance. Bear predation is the leading cause of calf loss in the first three months of life; both black bears and grizzly bears.

To make it even worse, the MT legislature passed some laws that hammered elk even worse, In 2003, HB 42 was passed that required FWP to hammer any elk unit that was over objective according to the MT elk management plan. If you have ever seen a map of the units that are over objective, you would laugh. What we as hunters find to be over objective is not close to what politicians consider over objective. Needless to say, a lot of surrounding areas in units just north of this wintering range continued to have late cow seasons. Not sure if any of these Norther herd elk went that far north.

Most hunters who have not followed the politics or read the MT elk management plan are not aware that under the current rule of HB 42, even if every wolf, bear, and lion in MT died tomorrow, most of our elk units would not be allowed to expand, as the numbers are supposedly over the very low objectives the politicians forced us to adopt in our elk management plan. A map shows that the majority of elk units are "over objective," per the politically influenced objectives shown in that elk management plan. By law, if a unit is over objective, the most liberal season types are to be implemented with the focus on high harvest. See the map below. Anything in green or red is not allowed to increase, per the current elk management plan objectives. You will see that in the Paradise Valley north of Gardiner, only Unit 313 is below objective.

View attachment 32524

Additionally, the MT Legislature passed a required for FWP to implement an aggressive strategy for management of brucellosis in SW Montana. Two hot spots are the area where the Northern Yellowstone herd lives and west of the park where the elk migrate from YNP to the Madison Valley. To try reduce elk-cattle incidence of brucellosis, elk have been shot on the winter range every year. Yup, even at these lowest of low numbers, pregnant cows were being shot to keep them from possibly infecting cattle with brucellosis, albeit not at the high numbers as before.

The wolf surely made a difference. But, when you consider all the other pressures placed on these elk, I think a case could be made that too much hunting pressure put them in a steep decline that amplified the impact of wolves, and other predators.

A lot of moving parts to the history of that herd since wolves were introduced. Living here, watching it unfold, and seeing how the politics was as much an enemy of the elk as were the wolves, it is very refreshing to see calf numbers and total numbers starting to make some modest gains in that herd.

 

[tri2hunt]

Well this is an interesting thread?? I hope all of you may be interested in my wolf trapping thread in the live hunt area of the forum. I will throw in my two cents that many will think is worth less than half that.

Wolves technically were not reintroduced, they where never completely eradicated from Idaho/Montana with the small existing numbers supplemented with relocated animals from the North.

I do believe that wolves have had an impact on game. I do not think it is the only thing impacting decline of other game, but a big contributor.

The wolves impact was exacerbated by the continual delay of management practices. I think will see this same issue with grizzlies in the future considering fish and game killed almost 60 bears last year for various reasons. Imagine how much funding they could have gotten if they offered management hunts for those, but the anti's are so short sighted they can't see the forrest for the trees type of thing?

Back to wolves, I have had encounters the last three hunting seasons as I have documented in various threads on here. I am really surprised at the at the lack of overall harvest of wolves throughout the state. That is one of the main reasons I am giving trapping a go. One thing I have found is how limited the overall trapping opportunities are in certain zones. The zone I live in and several neighboring zones, one of which I hunt and encountered wolves, does not allow trapping.

I am having to check traps every three days with a round trip drive of about 160 miles each time. It is expensive to say the least without a significant amount of return for management of the species. I also think that trapping should be allowed year round to help with management objectives.

I am a middle of the road person. I think you can have healthy populations of all game if proper management is done.

The key to that proper management is taking emotion out of the equation on all sides.

Unfortunately that is wishful thinking, so the next best thing is to come together as the game conservationists we hunters are and actively manage game populations more effectively.

I know I will rub some the wrong way that think they are doing their part, but just having a wolf tag in your pocket is not enough to be considered actively participating in management.

I know that none of you that hunt think that having an elk tag in your pocket is enough.

You have to learn, pursue, hunt!!

Very few people that are successful at harvesting or managing any game population do it by happenstance.

If you think ELK are smart, actually spend time specifically pursuing wolves.

I have more thoughts, but I am tired and have already written a novel today!

 

[tipsntails7]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443482404578042763065553382

WSJ article from 2012 on wolves written by Arthur Middleton, Ph.D.

Cannot read the whole story but this about sums it up... I admit the fish sounds a little far fetched.

http://discovermagazine.com/2014/may/16-elk-vanishing-act

 

[tipsntails7]

WOLVES..."Do You Realize Now What You Have Done?..."

I live an hour away. Here are some other things that often are not mentioned as contributing factors. Wolves have surely had an impact. I haven't read the entire thread, but I doubt anyone would argue that.

When wolves were introduced n 1995, the herd was at its highest recorded count in the current trend cycle. YNP and MT FWP decided the herd needed to be reduced. It was argued to what level would be targeted. Depending upon who you talked to, the target varied from 10K to 12K, a 40-50% reduction.

To get there, MT issued 2,200 cow tags for a late Jan/Feb period. That was an increase in cow tags over what had been issued prior to the "knock down the numbers" strategy. These were pregnant cows, so if you figured even a 25% calf recruitment rate for that herd, having an 80% harvest on 2,200 cow elk resulted in 1,760 cows and another 440 calves not recruited.

That went on for many years. When calls were made to reduce cow tags or stop the seasons because of plummeting numbers, increased age of cows, and low calf recruitment, it was met with resistance, mostly by hunters who enjoyed that hunt. Finally, FWP did close the late season, but it was too late. The damage was done.

Add that on top of wolves, a hard winter or two, and then have the highest density of grizzly bears in the lower 48 and a calf hardly had a chance. Bear predation is the leading cause of calf loss in the first three months of life; both black bears and grizzly bears.

To make it even worse, the MT legislature passed some laws that hammered elk even worse, In 2003, HB 42 was passed that required FWP to hammer any elk unit that was over objective according to the MT elk management plan. If you have ever seen a map of the units that are over objective, you would laugh. What we as hunters find to be over objective is not close to what politicians consider over objective. Needless to say, a lot of surrounding areas in units just north of this wintering range continued to have late cow seasons. Not sure if any of these Norther herd elk went that far north.

Most hunters who have not followed the politics or read the MT elk management plan are not aware that under the current rule of HB 42, even if every wolf, bear, and lion in MT died tomorrow, most of our elk units would not be allowed to expand, as the numbers are supposedly over the very low objectives the politicians forced us to adopt in our elk management plan. A map shows that the majority of elk units are "over objective," per the politically influenced objectives shown in that elk management plan. By law, if a unit is over objective, the most liberal season types are to be implemented with the focus on high harvest. See the map below. Anything in green or red is not allowed to increase, per the current elk management plan objectives. You will see that in the Paradise Valley north of Gardiner, only Unit 313 is below objective.

View attachment 32524

Additionally, the MT Legislature passed a required for FWP to implement an aggressive strategy for management of brucellosis in SW Montana. Two hot spots are the area where the Northern Yellowstone herd lives and west of the park where the elk migrate from YNP to the Madison Valley. To try reduce elk-cattle incidence of brucellosis, elk have been shot on the winter range every year. Yup, even at these lowest of low numbers, pregnant cows were being shot to keep them from possibly infecting cattle with brucellosis, albeit not at the high numbers as before.

The wolf surely made a difference. But, when you consider all the other pressures placed on these elk, I think a case could be made that too much hunting pressure put them in a steep decline that amplified the impact of wolves, and other predators.

A lot of moving parts to the history of that herd since wolves were introduced. Living here, watching it unfold, and seeing how the politics was as much an enemy of the elk as were the wolves, it is very refreshing to see calf numbers and total numbers starting to make some modest gains in that herd.

Thank you

 

[TraderMike]

Randy, thanks for your insight and taking the time to share. If one were to accept the explanation for elk decline as being a combination of management policy by state game agencies AND the predation of wolves (or maybe we should say the INCOMPETENCE of state game agencies and the predation of wolves) then I would like to float this question..

Why would anyone who cares about having thriving populations of deer and elk, which are managed by incompetent state game agencies, want to introduce a variable as complex as wolves to further confuse the matter. The state has clearly shown how effective hunters can be when used to manage herd objectives - even if their policies are flawed- and the hunters actually generate revenue rather than drain funds.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Why would anyone who cares about having thriving populations of deer and elk, which are managed by incompetent state game agencies, want to introduce a variable as complex as wolves to further confuse the matter. The state has clearly shown how effective hunters can be when used to manage herd objectives - even if their policies are flawed- and the hunters actually generate revenue rather than drain funds.

Hopefully Randy will chime back in but I think had FWP known what kind of impact the cow harvest would have had, perhaps the wolves would have been handled a bit different. Hindsight and all that stuff. Even if we took wolves out the picture, the over-harvest of cows that occurred would have still had a major impact on the Greater Yellowstone herd. Absolutely agree on the effectiveness of hunters but given that late cow hunt, sometimes we may be too effective. My hunting partner used to guide out of Gardiner during that time period and it sounded like a damn slaughter no matter how you look at it. If we can update the EMP and let politics take a back door to sound, science-based management of elk and wolves/other predators, I'm hopeful some of these areas can recover to a supported carrying capacity. I'm not hopeful we can keep the politicians out though.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Why would anyone who cares about having thriving populations of deer and elk, which are managed by incompetent state game agencies, want to introduce a variable as complex as wolves to further confuse the matter. The state has clearly shown how effective hunters can be when used to manage herd objectives - even if their policies are flawed- and the hunters actually generate revenue rather than drain funds.

It's really quite simple. A lot of folks in the US want to see wolves as part of the ecosystem again. Look at Colorado's recent poll as an example. Yes, hunters unfairly pay the price. Public trust is public trust regardless of who is paying for deer and elk tags, and the non-hunters have a say in wildlife management too whether you want them to or not.

In my opinion, the wolf reintroduction would have been a heck of a lot more palatable to me as a hunter had the pro-wolf groups ponied up some cash to purchase/protect elk habitat. Millions of dollars went down the drain to observe, study, watch, and fawn over the wolves in YNP. That money could have gone a long way towards improving or acquiring elk winter range.

For those that dismiss climate affects, this is a good read.

http://wyocoopunit.org/projects/absaroka-elk-ecology-project

Ultimately, Broodbuster has it right. The toothpaste is out of the tube and it's not going back in. I guess if it makes folks feel better to argue about the circumstances that were in place 30 years ago, feel free. IMO there are a lot more productive channels to put your angst and your efforts into.

Airlock,

As an aside, it was no secret that cow/calf ratios were way down, nor was it a secret that the average age of cows going through the Gardiner check station were approaching double digits by the late 90s. The Commission could have very well stepped in and curtailed the hunt, but the public outcry was hugely in opposition.