The ecology of fear: Elk responses to wolves in Yellowstone are not what we thou

[KFhunter]

You're picking a fight where there is no fight to pick. You shoot them.

You might be sore because I utterly disagree with you on habitat but we share some common agreements on the wolf issue. Get over it.

You only advocate shooting them because you know it's ineffective.

When WDFW tried to remove the wedge pack they contracted hunters and WITH THE AID of the tracking collars already in place they hunted for 28 days straight and managed to kill ONE sub-adult wolf.

In the last wolf derby there was not a wholesale slaughter of wolves,  quite the opposite...ZERO wolves were killed during the derby.

[AspenBud]

As if you could just waltz out there and shoot them   


28 days, with the use of a tracking collar and the WDFW contracted hunters managed to drop ONE sub adult in the Wedge pack "removal".


The wolf derby netted zero wolf killed.

According to many here they are seen regularly in your neck of the woods. You just need the law changed.

Heck, it's so hard to find a wolf in this state we have a whole thread dedicated to wolf sightings complete with accounts of people who say they saw one or had a run in with them. Are you saying they are all liars? Do you think that none of them would have shot those wolves if it were legal to do so?

[KFhunter]

Can you really be that ignorant?

Seeing them, hearing one or finding a track is a lot different than actually shooting one.


You're just throwing the HW readers a bone in suggesting they be shot, you know damm well and good it's not effective.  Just trying to not look like such a wolf lover.

[KFhunter]

YNP has been doing this for 20 years,  has there been any instance of the Elk population increasing?

If you look at the graph jon.brown509 tossed up the answer is no.  If it were stock market graph it'd be a bear market for sure.

If YNP is the test pond of what we'll be seeing then I see no indication of the possibility of Elk populations increasing with the introduction of wolves.  As yourself have stated the wolves have leveled out in YNP - yet the Elk continue to decline.


I've used your evidence against you.

Hm, and up until 2007 the wolves in the park kept gaining in number and since then their numbers have decreased. Or rather, their numbers have fallen off a cliff.

If I had a crystal ball I would tell you when equilibrium is reached, but I don't and I can't. That's the big problem along with many other things in this, it's all one big experiment.

So no, you haven't used anything against me.

Yes I have,  utterly refuted your habitat claims.

All measurable forms of habitat increased for Elk  - willows, aspen suckers, cottonwood and everything else elk like to feed on has went up in quantity with the corresponding drop in herd sizes.   According to your habitat argument Elk numbers should be on a steep incline,  but they aren't even after 20 years of wolves in YNP.


Why is that???   BECAUSE HABITAT DON'T MEAN SHAT IF WOLVES ARE KILLING THEM ALL.


ya dink.

[AspenBud]

Seeing them, hearing one or finding a track is a lot different than actually shooting one.

According to many here who saw one they would have shot them if it were legal. Are you calling them liars?

If you would like me to agree that trapping is also needed, I think the facts speak for themselves in saying it is. Baby steps however, you don't even have the right to defend your cows free of legal hassle yet

[KFhunter]

I don't doubt some people could have shot a wolf if it were legal,  but not enough to do squat in terms of overall management.


Is it your position that trapping and recreational hunting will be enough to keep their populations in check?  I got a bridge I'd like to sell you........

[snowpack]

Yes I have,  utterly refuted your habitat claims.

All measurable forms of habitat increased for Elk  - willows, aspen suckers, cottonwood and everything else elk like to feed on has went up in quantity with the corresponding drop in herd sizes.   According to your habitat argument Elk numbers should be on a steep incline,  but they aren't even after 20 years of wolves in YNP.


Why is that???   BECAUSE HABITAT DON'T MEAN SHAT IF WOLVES ARE KILLING THEM ALL.


ya dink.

There's some interesting research out there about predation.  One good one is from Arizona, called the Three Bar.  Basically they monitored mule deer in an enclosed area that was made predator free and in the surrounding areas.  They had a bear try to climb the fence once and it was quickly removed.  Overall, the changes in habitat due to droughts or rainy years affected the enclosed deer very little.  Nearly every year the animals went into the fall with nearly each doe having a fawn.  Outside the enclosure, the deer were exposed to all the same factors except predators and the outside herds had about 1/5 the fawns with them by fall.  They said their results were indicating that predator were more of a factor than they thought and more significant than habitat.

[AspenBud]

I don't doubt some people could have shot a wolf if it were legal,  but not enough to do squat in terms of overall management.


Is it your position that trapping and recreational hunting will be enough to keep their populations in check?  I got a bridge I'd like to sell you........

Depends on your definition of "in check" I guess.

[AspenBud]

Yes I have,  utterly refuted your habitat claims.

All measurable forms of habitat increased for Elk  - willows, aspen suckers, cottonwood and everything else elk like to feed on has went up in quantity with the corresponding drop in herd sizes.   According to your habitat argument Elk numbers should be on a steep incline,  but they aren't even after 20 years of wolves in YNP.


Why is that???   BECAUSE HABITAT DON'T MEAN SHAT IF WOLVES ARE KILLING THEM ALL.


ya dink.

There's some interesting research out there about predation.  One good one is from Arizona, called the Three Bar.  Basically they monitored mule deer in an enclosed area that was made predator free and in the surrounding areas.  They had a bear try to climb the fence once and it was quickly removed.  Overall, the changes in habitat due to droughts or rainy years affected the enclosed deer very little.  Nearly every year the animals went into the fall with nearly each doe having a fawn.  Outside the enclosure, the deer were exposed to all the same factors except predators and the outside herds had about 1/5 the fawns with them by fall.  They said their results were indicating that predator were more of a factor than they thought and more significant than habitat.

Makes sense to me. In the absence of predators animals can do fairly well even in poor habitat. They need just enough shelter and just enough to eat in those circumstances. Escape cover plays no role as it's not needed.

[AspenBud]

YNP has been doing this for 20 years,  has there been any instance of the Elk population increasing?

If you look at the graph jon.brown509 tossed up the answer is no.  If it were stock market graph it'd be a bear market for sure.

If YNP is the test pond of what we'll be seeing then I see no indication of the possibility of Elk populations increasing with the introduction of wolves.  As yourself have stated the wolves have leveled out in YNP - yet the Elk continue to decline.


I've used your evidence against you.

Hm, and up until 2007 the wolves in the park kept gaining in number and since then their numbers have decreased. Or rather, their numbers have fallen off a cliff.

If I had a crystal ball I would tell you when equilibrium is reached, but I don't and I can't. That's the big problem along with many other things in this, it's all one big experiment.

So no, you haven't used anything against me.

Yes I have,  utterly refuted your habitat claims.

All measurable forms of habitat increased for Elk  - willows, aspen suckers, cottonwood and everything else elk like to feed on has went up in quantity with the corresponding drop in herd sizes.   According to your habitat argument Elk numbers should be on a steep incline,  but they aren't even after 20 years of wolves in YNP.


Why is that???   BECAUSE HABITAT DON'T MEAN SHAT IF WOLVES ARE KILLING THEM ALL.


ya dink.

Well, in the thread where I made the habitat argument I don't think I ever mentioned Yellowstone, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

I also think you're basing your knowledge of habitat to what worked pre-wolf.

The article that started this thread also made the point that the elk in Yellowstone are actually still over eating the aspen suckers etc that you mentioned as they go into those areas to hide. What you claimed here is patently false according to the article. Did you read it?

[bearpaw]

In your statements you use the zones that still have elk to try and say that hunting is still just as good in Idaho when we can all read about the significant localized impacts. 

Please keep in mind as you are typing away trying to convince us that wolves are nothing to worry about, the governor of Idaho has a hired trapper removing wolves from the Idaho wilderness to try and save the elk herds. 

You continue to distort what I say...I really don't see where we disagree much about the status of elk hunting in Idaho.  You said about 1/3 of Idaho has had extensive impact from wolves...which means about 2/3 of the state is doing alright...this is largely what I believe when I described 3 "types" of areas in Idaho. 

No, that's not at all what I said. I'll be more specific:

1/3 of Idaho hasn't been impacted too much yet as wolf numbers are still building in those areas, 1/3 of Idaho is starting to be impacted pretty good now because there are quite a few wolves, and 1/3 of Idaho has been devastated so badly that wolves are eating each other, dying, or leaving and moving into the other 2/3 of the state and into surrounding states that will end up just like the devastated 1/3 of Idaho unless people take care of business. Habitat is certainly always a concern, unfortunately it's the scapegoat used to hide the truth about the impacts of wolves. Wolf predation is very much additive to cougar, bear, and coyote predation, wolf predation is not compensatory as many bios try to say, which explains why 1/3 of Idaho is in a predator pit even though Idaho has greatly liberalized bear and cougar seasons to try and make up for wolf impacts.




Bottom line, the lower 48 states didn't need wolves to manage big game. Big game numbers could be completely managed with hunting seasons. Unfortunately we are now stuck with wolves, if F&G agencies want people to accept wolves and be more supportive of agencies, these agencies better start managing wolves better or they will continue taking the heat for destroying big game herds.

WDFW has promoted false wolf science to implement the most liberal wolf plan in the smallest western state. This wolf plan ignores the WA caribou herd and will result in dramatically reduced moose and elk herds and will also impact deer herds. WDFW has ignored documented experiences that have occurred in ID/MT/WY/BC/AB/AL. Idaho F&G started out with much of the same rubbish about wolves as WDFW. Now that millions have been lost in IDFG license sales IDFG is singing a different tune.

[idahohuntr]

  Your statements here vs. your outfitter website do not appear consistent to me...but whatever.  I know 2 things: 1. I generally approve of how Idaho is managing their wildlife, including wolves and 2. I will continue to hunt (and occassionaly) kill elk in Idaho in the future.   

[KFhunter]

You approve of wholesale SSS by Idaho residents?   You're a direct beneficiary of massive state endorsed poaching.

You should be kissing the boots of every Joe Bob you see with a little white SSS sticker on the back of their window.


 

[AspenBud]

You approve of wholesale SSS by Idaho residents?   You're a direct beneficiary of massive state endorsed poaching.

You should be kissing the boots of every Joe Bob you see with a little white SSS sticker on the back of their window.


 

Wait a minute, you told me just shooting and trapping them won't make a difference! You're making this too easy.   

[KFhunter]

legal methods Aspen,  not illegal ones.


I don't want Washington's sportsmen to feel they have to resort to unlawful action to preserve their hunting heritage.



Thought you had me huh?  Clearly you're out of your league,  better pack a bigger lunch.