Yellowstone elk increase as wolf numbers decline

[Bob33]

http://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/news/02042015.htm

The Northern Yellowstone Cooperative Wildlife Working Group conducted its annual winter survey of the northern Yellowstone elk population on January 20, 2015. The survey, using three airplanes, was conducted by staff from the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks and the National Park Service. Staff counted 4,844 elk, including 1130 elk (23%) inside Yellowstone National Park and 3,714 elk (77%) north of the park. Survey conditions were favorable across the region.

The 2015 count was 24% higher than the 3,915 elk counted in 2013 and was the highest since 6,037 elk were counted in 2010. Survey conditions in 2014 were poor and resulted in an inaccurate count.

 So they do their entire population study in 1 day, January 20, 2015 and then admit that "survey conditions in 2014 were poor and resulted in a inaccurate count", my guess is that again was only 1 day.

 Must be nice to base two years worth of herd numbers, hunting season quotas, wolf depredation, disease, etc. etc. etc, on two days worth of work out of 730.

I think they run out of fingers and toes after a day.

[bearpaw]

But according to some here that's not supposed to happen. They are supposed to create a predator pit and simply eat everything until a black hole forms and swallows the earth whole.
[/quote]

Please show us a quote backing up your absurd statement? 

[AspenBud]

But according to some here that's not supposed to happen. They are supposed to create a predator pit and simply eat everything until a black hole forms and swallows the earth whole.

Please show us a quote backing up your absurd statement? 
[/quote]

I can't, a wolf ate it.   

[AspenBud]

This is just the first cycle. This is the way nature has worked since the dawn of time. Anyone that thinks nature will eventually find "balance" is on crack. It's in constant ebb and flow. Anyone else who says man needs to but out of nature clearly doesn't realize that the last 50 years are the first time in man's history that he is not the apex predator and directly affecting nature/animal populations through hunting for food. We are a part of nature and always will be. We need to be involved in population control.

I think the study, if anything, proves that point. Reducing livestock/wolf encounters really does mean keeping ungulate numbers in check, via hunting, since less food for wolves means fewer pups survive. Having said that, you do also need some controls on wolf numbers via hunting and trapping as well, particularly if the management goal is larger numbers of ungulates.

[bearpaw]

YNP elk should be rebounding, the wolf population has dropped significantly, in addition to eating each other and moving to other areas to find prey, those wolves are also being hunted and their numbers further reduced when they leave the park.

Since wolves have been hunted extensively in Idaho elk numbers in many areas where wolf numbers have been reduced are rebounding. Wolf impacts are really not much different than cougar impacts, roughly the same amount of game is killed by one wolf as one cougar. Wolves need to be hunted heavily to keep numbers at a level where they don't overly impact other wildlife, the big problem is when wolves are not managed due to greenie agendas.

[bearpaw]

But according to some here that's not supposed to happen. They are supposed to create a predator pit and simply eat everything until a black hole forms and swallows the earth whole.

Please show us a quote backing up your absurd statement? 

I can't, a wolf ate it.   

Exactly as I thought, just more verbal imaginary nonsense supporting wolves!

[AspenBud]

Since wolves have been hunted extensively in Idaho elk numbers in many areas where wolf numbers have been reduced are rebounding. Wolf impacts are really not much different than cougar impacts, roughly the same amount of game is killed by one wolf as one cougar. Wolves need to be hunted heavily to keep numbers at a level where they don't overly impact other wildlife, the big problem is when wolves are not managed due to greenie agendas.

What would be nice is to see a target number of ungulates, by species, and then see a target number of wolves, put out by the state. So for example, if the state wants 20,000 deer then they should manage for that. If they want 5000, they should manage for that. People can quibble over the details, but the laissez faire mentality the state appears to have towards the problem isn't right. If they can come out with concrete numbers for what they want to see out there and document progress towards those goals, then it simply becomes an argument of how many we want here, not one of potential impacts. Saying the deer population looks good given hunter success isn't good management. Neither is half hearted wolf counts.

[AspenBud]

But according to some here that's not supposed to happen. They are supposed to create a predator pit and simply eat everything until a black hole forms and swallows the earth whole.

Please show us a quote backing up your absurd statement? 

I can't, a wolf ate it.   

Exactly as I thought, just more verbal imaginary nonsense supporting wolves!
[/quote]

[bearpaw]

Since wolves have been hunted extensively in Idaho elk numbers in many areas where wolf numbers have been reduced are rebounding. Wolf impacts are really not much different than cougar impacts, roughly the same amount of game is killed by one wolf as one cougar. Wolves need to be hunted heavily to keep numbers at a level where they don't overly impact other wildlife, the big problem is when wolves are not managed due to greenie agendas.

What would be nice is to see a target number of ungulates, by species, and then see a target number of wolves, put out by the state. So for example, if the state wants 20,000 deer then they should manage for that. If they want 5000, they should manage for that. People can quibble over the details, but the laissez faire mentality the state appears to have towards the problem isn't right. If they can come out with concrete numbers for what they want to see out there and document progress towards those goals, then it simply becomes an argument of how many we want here, not one of potential impacts. Saying the deer population looks good given hunter success isn't good management. Neither is half hearted wolf counts.

I agree that the state needs to manage for certain ungulate numbers.

But you better increase that deer number significantly if you want to support several hundred wolves that will eat on average 44 deer per year according to government studies! We already have an admitted 61 wolves (isn't that the number they are throwing around) and we are not anywhere close to the 15 bp's for 3 consecutive years as required in the wolf plan. I expect at least 200 to 400 wolves statewide before they confirm 15 bp's for 3 consecutive years. Let's say there are 300 wolves, based on the government statistics that many wolves would eat about 13,200 deer per year. I don't know how many additional deer might be killed with surplus killing by the wolves. If the wolf numbers expanded to 800 or 1000 like they did in Idaho, 800 wolves could eat 35,200 deer per year.

[gaddy]

That number seems unacceptable to me, given that we also have other predators affecting our ungulate populations as well.

[AspenBud]

But according to some here that's not supposed to happen. They are supposed to create a predator pit and simply eat everything until a black hole forms and swallows the earth whole.

Please show us a quote backing up your absurd statement? 
[/quote]

FYI - I just came across an example.   

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,48084.0.html

Happy hunting this weekend!!

[bearpaw]

But according to some here that's not supposed to happen. They are supposed to create a predator pit and simply eat everything until a black hole forms and swallows the earth whole.

Please show us a quote backing up your absurd statement? 

FYI - I just came across an example.   

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,48084.0.html

Happy hunting this weekend!!

Sorry, but I don't see that quote in the post you note?

You have a nice weekend too!

[PA BEN]

Read this one, http://discovermagazine.com/2014/may/16-elk-vanishing-act, It's not the wolves it's grizzlies. It boils down to fishermen who released trout in Yellowstone.

[timberfaller]

Took the time to read through the article BEST part, were the comments!!! 

Love it when a University sends out "students" to do research then label it as Truth and Facts.

Quick question,  Doesn't the state wildlife departments have their own "biologist"?? or are THEY questionable too?? 

How many "excuses" do you come up with out of that article?

"released trout" and Climate Disruption, what a hoot!!

[elkboy]

Took the time to read through the article BEST part, were the comments!!! 

Love it when a University sends out "students" to do research then label it as Truth and Facts.

Quick question,  Doesn't the state wildlife departments have their own "biologist"?? or are THEY questionable too?? 

How many "excuses" do you come up with out of that article?

"released trout" and Climate Disruption, what a hoot!!

Is there a better term than "students" for people who are conducting research as a part of earning an advanced degree in wildlife management or natural resources?  As far as "truth and facts", the vast majority of scientists use phrases like "the best model given the currently available data" or some similar phrase for their findings. 
State agencies employ a lot of qualified scientists.  University researchers work on resource issues when their specific expertise is needed, and when the research needs in the state agency are too great for their available staff. 

I think most agree hungry grizzlies have a real impact on elk.  And grizzlies get hungrier when major food sources like cutthroat trout (introduced lake trout and 'whirling disease') and whitebark pine (blister rust, bark beetles) decline in the landscape.       
 
And Bearpaw is right, if we're going to sustain predators (and hunting too), we need more deer and elk out there, an idea I think most of us can get behind.