wolf #'s down in Yellowstone

[quacker whacker]

thought this was intresting... http://www.missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_85f2162c-1b3a-11df-8e6a-001cc4c002e0.html 

[bobcat]

They must be running low on deer and elk to eat so they've moved on to more productive areas outside of the park.

[ICEMAN]

Sadly, that sounds exactly what is probably happening...

[WAcoyotehunter]

I remember hearing about one pack that strayed too close to the territory of another and was nearly wiped out.  They can have some pretty vicious dog fights.  It probably makes sense that they would defend territory more aggressively (notice decline in population NOT pack numbers) according to food availabilty. 
They will also do some self regulation if food becomes scarce.  Like coyotes, their litter sizes will decline if food sources are a limiter.  The decline in size probably reflects a natural balance now that prey availablity has reached normal levels and the high wolf population became unstainable. 

[whacker1]

I would also throw in there that if the game is getting scarce some wolves have probably followed said game out of the park as well.  I would think that geographic spread would play a part in this.

[WAcoyotehunter]

That might be the case- although most of that country is already occupied by existing packs, which leads to mortality from fighting as well as the extra mortality from hunting.  Several yellowstone wolves (the ones with names from the city folk... ) were killed by hunters early in the season. 

[bearpaw]

That might be the case- although most of that country is already occupied by existing packs, which leads to mortality from fighting as well as the extra mortality from hunting.  Several yellowstone wolves (the ones with names from the city folk... ) were killed by hunters early in the season. 

Or will wolves just move farther, which explains why the wolves are showing up in WA, OR, and CO.

If no hunting is allowed in YNP and if wolves have fully tapped it's ungulate reproducing capabitlity that pretty much gives us a crystal ball view for the future of hunting in the western states unless wolf management is taken more seriously.

[Pathfinder101]

I spoke for a while with a retired wolf bio from Alaska abou this time last year.  What he said is that wolf introduction follows a predictable cycle:
1.  Wolves are introduced
2.  They eat all the available food
3.  Their packs grow
4.  young males are forced out and some form new packs
5.  the food runs out
6.  wolves resort to wolf-on-wolf violence
7.  wolf numbers stabilize
8.  Game animals repopulate and their numbers stabilize
9.  With some fluctuation, both populations remain fairly stable

I asked him how long this takes, and he said it depends on the population and the size of the prey animals.  15 to 20 years usually.

Anyone remember when wolves were intruduced in Yellowstone?
I noticed when I was there this summer that you don't see NEARLY as many elk as you used to, and almost NO moose at all.  The Yellowstone ecosystem may be nearing the "wolf stabilization" phase.   

[Shootmoore]

That might be the case- although most of that country is already occupied by existing packs, which leads to mortality from fighting as well as the extra mortality from hunting.  Several yellowstone wolves (the ones with names from the city folk... ) were killed by hunters early in the season. 

Or will wolves just move farther, which explains why the wolves are showing up in WA, OR, and CO.

If no hunting is allowed in YNP and if wolves have fully tapped it's ungulate reproducing capability that pretty much gives us a crystal ball view for the future of hunting in the western states unless wolf management is taken more seriously.

This pretty much hits the nail on the head right here.  YNP has hit the cap, the wolf population is now spreading.  Why are they spreading to Washington and now Colorado?  Because they are capping out near YNP and are spreading out.  I would venture to guess even if the YNP was legal to hunt in, human hunters would not be able to hunt as the natural elk vs wolf populations have reached a balance. 

This is my concern, IF the natural balance of Predator and Prey is reached (which is what the pro wolf crowd want) humans are NOT in the picture.  Unless states are able to effectively and aggressively suppress the wolf numbers the balance will be obtained and humans will be pushed out of the picture.

Shootmoore

[WAcoyotehunter]

[Or will wolves just move farther, which explains why the wolves are showing up in WA, OR, and CO.

YES!  Which is why we're seeing wolves from Glacier National Park in Northeast Washington.  Additonally, the dispersers will have to travel further through "hostile" territory and either join a pack or try to start one, which can be difficult.  

I like that series pathfinder.  Though the food running out is a bit of an exageration.  The available food could fall to a level that makes hunting difficult and expends more calories than they can maintain...then they probably won't die, but will likely turn to livestock (or at least I would...).  

Good discussion here.

I still advocate reporting wolf sightings with good information and MORE IMPORTANTLY pushing for land use practices that will increase game populations to help support the incoming wolves but more importantly, will maintain robust populations for hunters.  Weeds are a HUGE problem in WA...we could have literally twice as many elk here if the weeds were not degrading huge tracts of land.

[WAcoyotehunter]

This is my concern, IF the natural balance of Predator and Prey is reached (which is what the pro wolf crowd want) humans are NOT in the picture.  Unless states are able to effectively and aggressively suppress the wolf numbers the balance will be obtained and humans will be pushed out of the picture.

Shootmoore

I tend to agree.  We cannot maintain "historic" wolf populations.  We can have wolves, but not too many. Management will have to be extensive and ongoing.

[Pathfinder101]

[Or will wolves just move farther, which explains why the wolves are showing up in WA, OR, and CO.

YES!  Which is why we're seeing wolves from Glacier National Park in Northeast Washington.  Additonally, the dispersers will have to travel further through "hostile" territory and either join a pack or try to start one, which can be difficult.  

I like that series pathfinder.  Though the food running out is a bit of an exageration.  The available food could fall to a level that makes hunting difficult and expends more calories than they can maintain...then they probably won't die, but will likely turn to livestock (or at least I would...).  

Good discussion here.

I still advocate reporting wolf sightings with good information and MORE IMPORTANTLY pushing for land use practices that will increase game populations to help support the incoming wolves but more importantly, will maintain robust populations for hunters.  Weeds are a HUGE problem in WA...we could have literally twice as many elk here if the weeds were not degrading huge tracts of land.

Did not mean that the food would run completely out, Just, as you said, the amount of game that it takes to feed the amount of wolves is not there anymore.  I think this is about where some parts of Idaho are right now...

[Shootmoore]

This is my concern, IF the natural balance of Predator and Prey is reached (which is what the pro wolf crowd want) humans are NOT in the picture.  Unless states are able to effectively and aggressively suppress the wolf numbers the balance will be obtained and humans will be pushed out of the picture.

Shootmoore

I tend to agree.  We cannot maintain "historic" wolf populations.  We can have wolves, but not too many. Management will have to be extensive and ongoing.

And for this reason right here is why I push so hard against the wolf.  While if truth be told I can live with a "few wolves" as long as they do not effect humans.  The pro-wolf is pushing for wolves above all else.  It is simple really if you have one side pushing for wolf above all else you must have an equal force pushing the other way and hope that the final result is somewhere in the middle.  I have watched the scenario play out in other states, and the opening volleys in this state.  I was initially for trying a level and moderate approach to the argument, but what I have seen is a heavy push from the pro-wolf side.  It seems that if you give them an inch they want to take a mile. 

Like the 3 "options" and I use the term loosly as there is really little difference among the 3.  Instead of starting somewhere reasonable in the middle ground such as 6 breeding pairs in the option not provided to the commission you could then study this and see if the numbers needed to be reduced and or increased to balance the populations of wolf vs prey vs hunters.  Instead its 15 pair, then wait 3 years before they then discuss and come up with a way to manage the wolf and how they will reduce the population at this time. 

When asked if hunting will be used for management after the 3 year waiting period, the answer given by the head of the wdfw wolf program was "maybe".  My unscientific guess is if this plan goes into affect, this is how it will play out.  The WDFW will drag its feet on "officially" recognizing breeding pairs, when and if they come to the 15 breeding pair count there will actually be 20-25 breeding pairs in Washington State (IF the prey base and available habitat can support that number).  That with those numbers of wolves in the state and then a 3 year waiting period after that, wolf population vs prey population will be closing in on the "balance".  To maintain the balance, there WILL be a push by the environmental groups to end big game hunting in Washington to protect the food to sustain the wolf population.  We will spend a lot of money to trap and relocate problem wolves (ie make someones problem someone Else's). 

If the State WDFW pulls its head out and attempts to lethally control wolves in the state, the Environmental groups WILL then use the federal courts to attempt to stop any actual meaningfull population control of the wolves.  One must only look at the other states and learn from those mistakes.  What kills me is that many of these environmental groups receive federal and state grants, then use those monies to sue the state and federal government.  It really is amazing.

Shootmoore

[whacker1]

well said Shootmore.

[woodswalker]

Well Put Shootmore.

[Dipsnort]

I spoke for a while with a retired wolf bio from Alaska abou this time last year.  What he said is that wolf introduction follows a predictable cycle:
1.  Wolves are introduced
2.  They eat all the available food
3.  Their packs grow
4.  young males are forced out and some form new packs
5.  the food runs out
6.  wolves resort to wolf-on-wolf violence
7.  wolf numbers stabilize
8.  Game animals repopulate and their numbers stabilize
9.  With some fluctuation, both populations remain fairly stable

That "biologist" doesn't know what he's talking about.  Any self-respecting hunter knows that wolves will kill all game animals, women and children.  And when those food sources run out they will begin hunting men and Volkswagens.  I guess all of those people who like bashing wildlife biologists are right after all!

[bearpaw]

There are some variables that could put WA in a different position than ID/MT/WY.

WA State has wolves listed on the state list, but the feds have delisted the eastern 1/3 of WA already. So it will be harder for the wolf lovers to sue to stop hunting in the eastern 1/3.

However, is the western 2/3 of WA still federally protected, if so, management is not a possibility anyway in the rest of the state until the feds delist.

Recently, I spoke with someone who would know what's happening, and he told me he though it was looking like something more along the lines of the "minority position" will be adopted.

I think it is very important to keep the pressure on until a plan is adopted.

[bearpaw]

I also know that SCI was meeting with the WDFW this week about wolves, and the WA cattlemen are meeting I think this week. Both these groups are pushing hard for fewer wolves.

[WAcoyotehunter]

I agree- just because the comment period is closed does not mean that this thing is decided.  Keep the letters and emails going!

[bearpaw]

I posted a letter yesterday that I sent to the commission about Hytadid Disease. I recieved a message back saying it was distributed to the commission members. http://washingtonwolf.info/diseases.html

More letters need to be sent letting the commission know that people are not going to take this lightly. Copy all letters to legislators and county commissioners in affected areas too.

[Pathfinder101]

I spoke for a while with a retired wolf bio from Alaska abou this time last year.  What he said is that wolf introduction follows a predictable cycle:
1.  Wolves are introduced
2.  They eat all the available food
3.  Their packs grow
4.  young males are forced out and some form new packs
5.  the food runs out
6.  wolves resort to wolf-on-wolf violence
7.  wolf numbers stabilize
8.  Game animals repopulate and their numbers stabilize
9.  With some fluctuation, both populations remain fairly stable

That "biologist" doesn't know what he's talking about.  Any self-respecting hunter knows that wolves will kill all game animals, women and children.  And when those food sources run out they will begin hunting men and Volkswagens.  I guess all of those people who like bashing wildlife biologists are right after all!

Keep in mind that this was not a newly graduated WA Game Bio from a "green" college...  This was an old-school Alaska guy, who hunted and trapped wolves up there for years, both for his job, and for fur.  He had retired about 10 years ago and moved here.  He was dreading wolf introduction in this state, because as he said; "we don't have a moose population to support them".

[Shootmoore]

I spoke for a while with a retired wolf bio from Alaska abou this time last year.  What he said is that wolf introduction follows a predictable cycle:
1.  Wolves are introduced
2.  They eat all the available food
3.  Their packs grow
4.  young males are forced out and some form new packs
5.  the food runs out
6.  wolves resort to wolf-on-wolf violence
7.  wolf numbers stabilize
8.  Game animals repopulate and their numbers stabilize
9.  With some fluctuation, both populations remain fairly stable

That "biologist" doesn't know what he's talking about.  Any self-respecting hunter knows that wolves will kill all game animals, women and children.  And when those food sources run out they will begin hunting men and Volkswagens.  I guess all of those people who like bashing wildlife biologists are right after all!

Keep in mind that this was not a newly graduated WA Game Bio from a "green" college...  This was an old-school Alaska guy, who hunted and trapped wolves up there for years, both for his job, and for fur.  He had retired about 10 years ago and moved here.  He was dreading wolf introduction in this state, because as he said; "we don't have a moose population to support them".

I actually agree with this Bio's overview of the how the wolves regulate themselves vs the prey population.  However the big question is #8 and #9.  Both of which in my unscientific guestimation are at numbers that will be LOWER than what will allow hunting by Washington State hunters.  This 9 steps is probably very accurate, and I believe that this 9 steps is known by the pro-wolf, anti-hunter groups (They are one in the same).  The problem with #8 and #9 is it pushes humans out of the equation.  There is where the problem lies in my opinion.

Instead of EarthFirst how about a little PeopleFirst thrown in for good measure.
Shootmoore

[Pathfinder101]

Actually, in my estimation (and the bio that I was talking to), the "problem" is the "15 to 20 years of pain that it will take to get to that point" ( His workds, not mine).  He was talking about it like there might not even be available tags for deer or elk between 5 and 8.  (by the way, those "numbers" are mine, he didn't number them, he just told me the general process).

[Shootmoore]

Actually, in my estimation (and the bio that I was talking to), the "problem" is the "15 to 20 years of pain that it will take to get to that point" ( His workds, not mine).  He was talking about it like there might not even be available tags for deer or elk between 5 and 8.  (by the way, those "numbers" are mine, he didn't number them, he just told me the general process).

I think that is a very accurate assumption.  In the short term I think that will be the area where hunting ends at least as we know it here in Washington.  #8 and #9 will be the continuing reason for no return to hunting.  As the deer and elk populations will stabailize vs the wolves never again growing in large enough numbers to allow for human hunting of those animals.  I guess you could say in the area of #5 or #6 as the end of hunting and #8 and #9 as the final nail in the coffin.

Shootmoore

[Pathfinder101]

Actually, in my estimation (and the bio that I was talking to), the "problem" is the "15 to 20 years of pain that it will take to get to that point" ( His workds, not mine).  He was talking about it like there might not even be available tags for deer or elk between 5 and 8.  (by the way, those "numbers" are mine, he didn't number them, he just told me the general process).

I think that is a very accurate assumption.  In the short term I think that will be the area where hunting ends at least as we know it here in Washington.  #8 and #9 will be the continuing reason for no return to hunting.  As the deer and elk populations will stabailize vs the wolves never again growing in large enough numbers to allow for human hunting of those animals.  I guess you could say in the area of #5 or #6 as the end of hunting and #8 and #9 as the final nail in the coffin.

Shootmoore

Point taken.  In his experience, that didn't happen, but then again, we are talking about Alaska, not WA.

[Shootmoore]

That is the wrench in the comparison there 101.  Comparison of the Alaskan habitat area vs what we have here in Washington.  The prey as well as the wolf population has a greater area to spread out to allow for recoupment of the prey species.  Here in Washington State with the limited habitat available due to population numbers, it is kind of like fish in the barrel for the wolves.  The wolf and the deer and elk MUST share the same limited area.  Where in Alaska there is room for the game animals to avoid the wolf packs, here there is only so much habitat.  I would argue the same thing applies to Canada.  There is just much much more prime habitat for the prey species to spread out to avoid the wolves.

Here in Washington State, especially on the east side of the state, there is only so many wintering area's available for the deer and elk.  With the numbers of wolves that are wanted, there will be enough wolf packs to cover all of those area's.  You will either have predation by wolves or the wolves will drive the deer and elk to less quality wintering grounds causing a higher rate of winter kill.

Think about 15 breeding pairs of wolves in Washington, then think about the elk feeding stations.  Any bets that the wolves WILL be around the feed stations in the winter once they get established in sufficient numbers.  Basically what you will have is an end of elk feeding programs.  Now you will not only have predation reduction in the elk herds, but winter kill from lack of winter range.  It's a downhill spiral either way you look at it.

Thanks for the discussion, I enjoy it but I am beginning to ramble off the topic. 

[whacker1]

It will be interesting press when we get to the first Wolf in the feeding station environment and I sadly can say that we will see that within my lifetime.
 

[Pathfinder101]

That is the wrench in the comparison there 101.  Comparison of the Alaskan habitat area vs what we have here in Washington.  The prey as well as the wolf population has a greater area to spread out to allow for recoupment of the prey species.  Here in Washington State with the limited habitat available due to population numbers, it is kind of like fish in the barrel for the wolves.  The wolf and the deer and elk MUST share the same limited area.  Where in Alaska there is room for the game animals to avoid the wolf packs, here there is only so much habitat.  I would argue the same thing applies to Canada.  There is just much much more prime habitat for the prey species to spread out to avoid the wolves.

Here in Washington State, especially on the east side of the state, there is only so many wintering area's available for the deer and elk.  With the numbers of wolves that are wanted, there will be enough wolf packs to cover all of those area's.  You will either have predation by wolves or the wolves will drive the deer and elk to less quality wintering grounds causing a higher rate of winter kill.

Think about 15 breeding pairs of wolves in Washington, then think about the elk feeding stations.  Any bets that the wolves WILL be around the feed stations in the winter once they get established in sufficient numbers.  Basically what you will have is an end of elk feeding programs.  Now you will not only have predation reduction in the elk herds, but winter kill from lack of winter range.  It's a downhill spiral either way you look at it.

Thanks for the discussion, I enjoy it but I am beginning to ramble off the topic. 

Oh, I completely agree with you Shootmore.  I wasn't comparing WA and AK, I was contrasting them.  I agree that AK and WA are completely different, that's why I said "but then again".  
Alaska actually controls their wolf population by hunting them...

[Shootmoore]

That is the wrench in the comparison there 101.  Comparison of the Alaskan habitat area vs what we have here in Washington.  The prey as well as the wolf population has a greater area to spread out to allow for recoupment of the prey species.  Here in Washington State with the limited habitat available due to population numbers, it is kind of like fish in the barrel for the wolves.  The wolf and the deer and elk MUST share the same limited area.  Where in Alaska there is room for the game animals to avoid the wolf packs, here there is only so much habitat.  I would argue the same thing applies to Canada.  There is just much much more prime habitat for the prey species to spread out to avoid the wolves.

Here in Washington State, especially on the east side of the state, there is only so many wintering area's available for the deer and elk.  With the numbers of wolves that are wanted, there will be enough wolf packs to cover all of those area's.  You will either have predation by wolves or the wolves will drive the deer and elk to less quality wintering grounds causing a higher rate of winter kill.

Think about 15 breeding pairs of wolves in Washington, then think about the elk feeding stations.  Any bets that the wolves WILL be around the feed stations in the winter once they get established in sufficient numbers.  Basically what you will have is an end of elk feeding programs.  Now you will not only have predation reduction in the elk herds, but winter kill from lack of winter range.  It's a downhill spiral either way you look at it.

Thanks for the discussion, I enjoy it but I am beginning to ramble off the topic. 

Oh, I completely agree with you Shootmore.  I wasn't comparing WA and AK, I was contrasting them.  I agree that AK and WA are completely different, that's why I said "but then again".  
Alaska actually controls their wolf population by hunting them...

I know we were agreeing it just gave me an excuse to expound on my idea's 

I am a blue living in a sea of red over here in Western Washington.  Do to my job I don't get to express my opinion much so I take FULL advantage of it here on the forums to you all's suffrage 

Shootmoore

[whacker1]

sounds like it is time for a new job 

[Shootmoore]

sounds like it is time for a new job 

4 more years and I am out of here I hope. 

[whacker1]

2014 election has you running against Maria Cantwell?

[Shootmoore]

2014 election has you running against Maria Cantwell?

Now thats funny right there, I would never get elected to a political position for two reasons.  #1 I'm not a pretty man.  #2 I am to honest, and tell it like I see it.  It gets me in trouble more often than not.  For sure I would never have a chance against someone who can tell it like "you" see it to get elected.

Shootmoore

[bearpaw]

That is the wrench in the comparison there 101.  Comparison of the Alaskan habitat area vs what we have here in Washington.  The prey as well as the wolf population has a greater area to spread out to allow for recoupment of the prey species.  Here in Washington State with the limited habitat available due to population numbers, it is kind of like fish in the barrel for the wolves.  The wolf and the deer and elk MUST share the same limited area.  Where in Alaska there is room for the game animals to avoid the wolf packs, here there is only so much habitat.  I would argue the same thing applies to Canada.  There is just much much more prime habitat for the prey species to spread out to avoid the wolves.

Here in Washington State, especially on the east side of the state, there is only so many wintering area's available for the deer and elk.  With the numbers of wolves that are wanted, there will be enough wolf packs to cover all of those area's.  You will either have predation by wolves or the wolves will drive the deer and elk to less quality wintering grounds causing a higher rate of winter kill.

Think about 15 breeding pairs of wolves in Washington, then think about the elk feeding stations.  Any bets that the wolves WILL be around the feed stations in the winter once they get established in sufficient numbers.  Basically what you will have is an end of elk feeding programs.  Now you will not only have predation reduction in the elk herds, but winter kill from lack of winter range.  It's a downhill spiral either way you look at it.

Thanks for the discussion, I enjoy it but I am beginning to ramble off the topic.  

Very good comment shootwell, I agree for the most part, but will add that if there are 15 confirmed breeding pairs, there are most likely at least double that number of breeding pairs actually on the ground. Right now WDFW claims there is 1 pack in NE WA in Pend Orielle county, but there are additional packs in NE WA that WDFW has not confirmed yet, and quite a few people in this area know it because of the wolves being seen in different areas. There's at least 1 pack if not 2 in southern Stevens County and 1 pack in northern Stevens County with pups seen multiple times this year.

According to folks in other areas, there are wolves in the blues now, and there are at least 2 or 3 packs in the Methow instead of the 1 claimed breeding pair.

[wolfbait]

In Washington and other states the wolves will put the game herds in an animal pit, which means they will kill so many that they will never be able to recover. Washington unlike Alaska has much more livestock for the wolves to kill before they start to stabilize. Even with the minority plan, at the rate the wolf packs are being confirmed we will hit over population in a short period of time. I think eventually the wolves will be put on the shoot on sight status, but not until they have ruined hunting or have become a serious threat to people.

[jackelope]

Or will wolves just move farther, which explains why the wolves are showing up in WA, OR, and CO.

you gonna try and convince wolfbait of that theory?