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

[buckfvr]

What Im worried about is just say anti wolf people are wrong....then we are where we are any way........nothing will change, get worse, be better..........its a wash.

Now lets say pro wolf movement is wrong.........now we have too many wolves out of control,  and declining ungulate herds where ever they are, cant get better, can and only will get worse, nothing in place to combat the devastating losses.

Where in this process do I see erroring on the safe side........which would be the side of the wild life we have worked for many years to manage successfully.  All down the drain if pro wolf is wrong.   

[jon.brown509]

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.

  Your right Elk populations well never increas,  YNP reached way above carrying capaticy for too long causing long term damage to the habitat in YNP,The population was bound to crash hard...But since the introduction to wolves they have stablzied the heard for the last 6 to 8 years around 4,000 they have never declined or incressed just stays around 4,000.The habitat in YNP well never support Elk numbers passed 8,000 even with out wolves around.May I ask where you found that they were declining ? As well as you should know wolves well only reproduce enough to support the food that is present around them which is why YNP has reached carrying capitcty for wolves as well.

[bearpaw]

http://www.ktvq.com/news/gardiner-elk-hunt-falls-victim-to-wolves/

Gardiner elk hunt falls victim to wolves

GARDINER - One of the consequences of "Living with Wolves" is the elimination of a special late season elk hunt near Gardiner that has been part of the Montana hunting scene for the past 35 years. The January hunt was firstconducted in 1976, to help manage elk migrating out of Yellowstone National Park. At that time, the park's northern herd had reached as many as 12-thousand animals.

But once wolves were reintroduced to the park, the northern herd's numbers started declining. In 2005, game managers counted 9,545 elk. Three years later that figure had dropped to 3,912 animals, and by 2009 the herd's population was down to 3,511 elk. This year, FWP's aerial surveys of the northern herd outside the park's boundaries counted only 2,236 animals.

Last week, Montana's Fish and Game Commission voted to end the late season hunt citing elk numbers that had fallen below target levels due to predation mainly from wolves, but also from grizzly bears. The Montana Elk Plan established in 2004 called for a population of between 3-thousand to 5-thousand elk in the portion of the Northern elk herd that winters in Montana.

I don't think wolves were needed at all. Hunting could have been used to control elk. If they wanted more elk killed just increase hunting seasons around the park and in the park if that is what was needed.

[idahohuntr]

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.


 

You are clueless if you think there was some massive state endorsed poaching that kept wolves in check in Idaho.  They grew exponentially until just the last couple of years where they leveled off/declined slightly.  Aspen correctly pointed out your contradictory statements...and you gave a vague response...please explain what illegal methods were effective in Idaho beyond hunting and trapping...since you say hunting and trapping will not be effective in controlling wolf populations.

Did a few locals kill wolves in rural Idaho before they were de-listed...absolutely...did it have any effect on the population...NO.  To suggest I am a "beneficiary" of some large scale poaching is beyond absurd.  Not to mention, if you say I am a beneficiary are you then acknowledging that there is still good elk hunting to be had in Idaho 19 years afters wolves were introduced there? 

[KFhunter]

Aspen bit off more than he could chew so called his big brother huh


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/14/idaho-gives-oregon-apology-gets-no-snarling-over-w/

My point is ID had a massive anti wolf movement pretty much state wide, hunters took the cue from their governor (who wanted the first wolf tag) as a pretty much green light to SSS

WA will never duplicate ID in that since.

ID has a better chance at management due to traps, legal harvest, illegal methods it's all cumulative.  Not to mention it's easier to see them in the bottom 2/3 of the state.
Panhandle is going to struggle just like the bulk of WA will - except they have trapping and co-op funded bounty on them.

WA is screwed, the only possibility is recreational hunting, and that is coming VERY slowly due to lack of proactive management and verification of wolf packs.
WDFW is making absolutely sure they're fully established before they give us the green light.

[idahohuntr]

Oh, I agree with you that WA will not have the same response as Idaho...two very different governments    I did get a kick out of his letter to the OR governor...I can appreciate a sense of humor.

But my point is SSS did not have an effect on wolf numbers...I am undecided on just how much effect hunting/trapping will have on wolf numbers...I think it increases social tolerance of wolves but I don't know how effective it is on reducing their numbers.  Aerial gunning and targeted removals can have some effect...but just relying on your average elk and deer hunter to kill a wolf probably isn't going to do a whole lot...harvesting 200 or so a year in Idaho doesn't hurt

[KFhunter]

We agree there,   it's going to take strychnine to get it done.

Like Alberta in 1962 dropping horse meat laced with strychnine out of helicopters,  that's how it's done.

That'll never happen in the US again though with USFWS at the reigns. 



Just for clarity I'm lumping all vigilante wolf control in the SSS category.
releasing dogs with parvo, poaching, poison carcasses, xylitol etc etc

[AspenBud]

Aspen bit off more than he could chew so called his big brother huh

Naw, you back peddled on your prior statements and I let you sit.

[AspenBud]

Just for clarity I'm lumping all vigilante wolf control in the SSS category.
releasing dogs with parvo, poaching, poison carcasses, xylitol etc etc

Better keep your Brittany at home.

[KFhunter]

Don't worry,  the areas I hunt for grouse she's in more danger of a cat than a poisoned carcass.

came close to loosing her to a cat once,  big tom wanted her bad.

[AspenBud]

She's spoiled 
kids got her on a pedestal

 

It's a "whoa chair."

[jstokes12]

When I read all the articles and data on the reintroduction of the gray wolf, what I can glean from all the facts is that history is repeating itself.  The data supports the reports that wolves have decreased the elk populations.  In the US history wildlife conservationist wait until there is a population collapse before any action is taken to protect the species.  The unintended or intentional consequences of this reintroduction are numerous and without an easy solution.  Wolves need to be managed and aggressively; it's not complicated math to figure out that the hunter is being replaced by wolves in "wolf approved states."  IF these states want to continue to see a lack of interest and licenses and tags sales due to wolves, then you'll see a reduction in revenue generated.  This will generate the downward spiral and ELK pay the price.

[villageidiot]

If a parent shoots a man for raping his daughter, do we call him a murderer or a hero? If a man shoots another man for molesting his kids, do we call him a low life killer or a man with convictions and integrity.
  Then why do some on here call a man that kills a wolf a poacher?  When he is trying to protect his livestock or save the deer or elk herd from getting wiped out, is he evil?  This once was called wildlife management when the game agencies tried to keep a balance and allow hunters as their number one tool to keep the populations balanced.  If you are a man that would just stand and watch someone rape your daughter and smile and just say "thats O.K., because its just natural" then you can surely be qualified to call someone that kills a wolf a poacher.

[bearpaw]

Aspen bit off more than he could chew so called his big brother huh


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/14/idaho-gives-oregon-apology-gets-no-snarling-over-w/

My point is ID had a massive anti wolf movement pretty much state wide, hunters took the cue from their governor (who wanted the first wolf tag) as a pretty much green light to SSS

WA will never duplicate ID in that since.

ID has a better chance at management due to traps, legal harvest, illegal methods it's all cumulative.  Not to mention it's easier to see them in the bottom 2/3 of the state.
Panhandle is going to struggle just like the bulk of WA will - except they have trapping and co-op funded bounty on them.

WA is screwed, the only possibility is recreational hunting, and that is coming VERY slowly due to lack of proactive management and verification of wolf packs.
WDFW is making absolutely sure they're fully established before they give us the green light.

You nailed it KFH, in Idaho the locals worked together to eliminate wolves. It was a community effort in many areas to reduce the wolf population and it was essentially supported by the governor with his decree that IDFG could not pass wolf poaching info to the feds. The reason there is a paid trapper in the Frank right now is because there are no locals living in the Frank and no year around hunting pressure on wolves. Idahohntr will never admit it, but as an elk hunter in Idaho he is most definitely a beneficiary of state sponsored SSS. 

Honestly, this whole wolf introduction time period has not been healthy for modern wildlife management in too many ways to list, but the truth is when things get to a certain point the people will react in despair. That's what happened in Idaho, especially after Judge Malloy shut down wolf hunting. It might even be a good thing that Malloy happened, that single act by Malloy really opened a lot of peoples eyes to the anti-hunting corruption in wildlife management. 

[jon.brown509]

You nailed it KFH, in Idaho the locals worked together to eliminate wolves. It was a community effort in many areas to reduce the wolf population and it was essentially supported by the governor with his decree that IDFG could not pass wolf poaching info to the feds. The reason there is a paid trapper in the Frank right now is because there are no locals living in the Frank and no year around hunting pressure on wolves. Idahohntr will never admit it, but as an elk hunter in Idaho he is most definitely a beneficiary of state sponsored SSS. 

Honestly, this whole wolf introduction time period has not been healthy for modern wildlife management in too many ways to list, but the truth is when things get to a certain point the people will react in despair. That's what happened in Idaho, especially after Judge Malloy shut down wolf hunting. It might even be a good thing that Malloy happened, that single act by Malloy really opened a lot of peoples eyes to the anti-hunting corruption in wildlife management. 

Too bad there pulling out that trapper http://hosted.verticalresponse.com/435877/85b41d5ddd/1454001502/4271a9384b/

[/quote]