Post by: AspenBud on March 28, 2013, 09:21:44 AM
If big game populations are taking as big a hit as seems to be the case, at what point does the wolf population crash? I'm just sitting here thinking this morning and for the number of wolves in a place like Idaho or Montana it seems like there should be a lot of food for them there. But if big game is disappearing, what are they eating to be able to sustain their continued population growth? Rabbits and mice?
Livestock losses can't be the sole food sustaining them so what are they eating? And at what point does the population crash?
I know everyone wants to answer that it will crash when they've eaten everything in site but realistically if big game populations are diminishing there should be a corresponding shrinking of the wolf population over time. In Idaho and Montana that does not seem to be the case. Their population keeps growing. Is it that wolves haven't yet reached that tipping point there or is there something else going on?
Any ideas?
Post by: MR5x5 on March 28, 2013, 09:33:23 AM
Post by: HUNT on March 28, 2013, 09:38:46 AM
From my personal experiences there - WE HAVENT SEEN ANYTHING YET!
When the food source is gone from one area they will simply move on to the next area.
Post by: Northway on March 28, 2013, 09:43:40 AM
Looking at the rate of expansion by wolves has got me thinking.
If big game populations are taking as big a hit as seems to be the case, at what point does the wolf population crash? I'm just sitting here thinking this morning and for the number of wolves in a place like Idaho or Montana it seems like there should be a lot of food for them there. But if big game is disappearing, what are they eating to be able to sustain their continued population growth? Rabbits and mice?
Livestock losses can't be the sole food sustaining them so what are they eating? And at what point does the population crash?
I know everyone wants to answer that it will crash when they've eaten everything in site but realistically if big game populations are diminishing there should be a corresponding shrinking of the wolf population over time. In Idaho and Montana that does not seem to be the case. Their population keeps growing. Is it that wolves haven't yet reached that tipping point there or is there something else going on?
Any ideas?
My guess is that rapid expansion will continue during the next three or four years, with wolves hitting a high point in the Northeast first, then moving from north to south down the cascades.
With the way things are going, there is a strong argument for early delisting in the Northeast independent of the rest of the state.
Post by: AspenBud on March 28, 2013, 10:08:09 AM
When the food source is gone from one area they will simply move on to the next area.
Is there any evidence of that being the case? Have packs up and moved or disappeared from areas that they over hunted? Or have pups from those packs simply ventured off to form new packs elsewhere?
Those are two different things.
If the original packs are where they've always been, what are they eating? I know wolves will travel far for food, but hunting greater and greater distances away burns more calories too. It's not a good survival strategy if you're a predator.
If packs are sticking to their original ranges and expansion is simply from pack members being kicked out or leaving, how are the remaining wolves surviving?
Post by: HUNT on March 28, 2013, 10:23:42 AM
If the food source is exhausted the pack will simply move to where there is a food source. Its called survival.
The only time that they will not move is when there are pups in the den.
The wolves seem to follow the game animals from drainage to drainage wherever they go.
But maybe this all happens in the area a pack calls home? How big an area is this? 200, 500, 1000 square miles?
Post by: AspenBud on March 28, 2013, 10:35:33 AM
My understanding and experience- I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
If the food source is exhausted the pack will simply move to where there is a food source. Its called survival.
The only time that they will not move is when there are pups in the den.
The wolves seem to follow the game animals from drainage to drainage wherever they go.
But maybe this all happens in the area a pack calls home? How big an area is this? 200, 500, 1000 square miles?
I get your point about survival, but is there any evidence that this has happened? Have packs disappeared from some areas because of that? And if they haven't, why not?
Post by: Northway on March 28, 2013, 10:50:36 AM
My understanding and experience- I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
If the food source is exhausted the pack will simply move to where there is a food source. Its called survival.
The only time that they will not move is when there are pups in the den.
The wolves seem to follow the game animals from drainage to drainage wherever they go.
But maybe this all happens in the area a pack calls home? How big an area is this? 200, 500, 1000 square miles?
I get your point about survival, but is there any evidence that this has happened? Have packs disappeared from some areas because of that? And if they haven't, why not?
Some have thoerized that this is what happened in the Lolo area of Idaho. As the tree cover has become thicker after the burns decades ago, the terrain wasn't all that great for elk to start with. Wolves came back and had an advantage over the elk due to the terrain, especially in winter, and elk numbers dropped over subsequent years. Subsequently, wolf numbers dropped and when the IDFG started an aggressive campaign to reduce wolf numbers in that area, there was/has been a lot of trouble finding enough wolves to control.
My memory is hazy on the exact circumstances, so someone wiser to the situation might be able to poke a lot of holes in that.
Post by: AspenBud on March 28, 2013, 10:57:33 AM
My understanding and experience- I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
If the food source is exhausted the pack will simply move to where there is a food source. Its called survival.
The only time that they will not move is when there are pups in the den.
The wolves seem to follow the game animals from drainage to drainage wherever they go.
But maybe this all happens in the area a pack calls home? How big an area is this? 200, 500, 1000 square miles?
I get your point about survival, but is there any evidence that this has happened? Have packs disappeared from some areas because of that? And if they haven't, why not?
Some have thoerized that this is what happened in the Lolo area of Idaho. As the tree cover has become thicker after the burns decades ago, the terrain wasn't all that great for elk to start with. Wolves came back and had an advantage over the elk due to the terrain, especially in winter, and elk numbers dropped over subsequent years. Subsequently, wolf numbers dropped and when the IDFG started an aggressive campaign to reduce wolf numbers in that area, there was/has been a lot of trouble finding enough wolves to control.
My memory is hazy on the exact circumstances, so someone wiser to the situation might be able to poke a lot of holes in that.
So if I understand you correctly the habitat for elk in that area wasn't that stellar to start with and wolves hunted out the ones that were there?
Is something similar happening in areas where the habitat is more favorable?
Post by: uplandhunter870 on March 28, 2013, 11:07:20 AM
My understanding and experience- I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
If the food source is exhausted the pack will simply move to where there is a food source. Its called survival.
The only time that they will not move is when there are pups in the den.
The wolves seem to follow the game animals from drainage to drainage wherever they go.
But maybe this all happens in the area a pack calls home? How big an area is this? 200, 500, 1000 square miles?
I get your point about survival, but is there any evidence that this has happened? Have packs disappeared from some areas because of that? And if they haven't, why not?
not to sound arrogant or like a A-hat but its a basic ecological principle that as a predators food source is diminished the predator population will either reduce in numbers due to lack of food or move to another area that has enough of a prey population to support the predator population. all has to do with carrying capacity of an area
with wolves moving to new areas or packs splitting into smaller packs and establishing territory in new areas, i dont think the studies have been done to either support or defy any possible hypotheses. large numbers of wolves wide spread throughout the west just havent been around long enough yet. yes there are the yellowstone packs that have been around for a while now but the park is missing a key part of the equation, people and urban areas and livestock operations.
i would theorize that yes wolves would move to new areas in search of food once their "home" area starts experiencing a food shortage. but that is under the assumption that the birth and mortality rates of the pack stay the same. i dont know a lot about wolf biology and am unsure if their birth rates increase during times of plenty and decrease under times of less like some predators or ?. its basic animal instinct that if the current "home" area is not providing enough for survival a new area is sought out to supply that need, even we humans do it if we cant find a job or place to live in a certain town that meets our basic requirements we move on.
Post by: NoImpactNoIdea on March 30, 2013, 05:31:08 PM
I've seen the effects of the wolf population on the big game herds in the units I have been hunting in Idaho for almost 20 years.
From my personal experiences there - WE HAVENT SEEN ANYTHING YET!
When the food source is gone from one area they will simply move on to the next area.
Or a different food source...
Post by: Smossy on March 30, 2013, 05:34:36 PM
Post by: Dan-o on March 30, 2013, 06:39:59 PM
Populations skyrocketed above a typical wolf carrying capacity because the park was food rich.
But haven't park wolf densities moderated downward even without humans hunting them? (I think that's what I've read)
So, they can grow a population above the wolf carrying capacity, and then they "naturally" hit a balance.... "Naturally" meaning that a bunch of excess wolves die off from fighting, starving, etc.
The problem is, the ungulate population take it on the chin while all of that is happening.
Or so I think.....
That would also help explain the rapid spread.... and possibly why Yellowstone wolf populations are falling..... Thay can't spread w/o conflict with other packs that have already spread.
:dunno: :dunno:
Post by: wolfbait on March 30, 2013, 11:25:47 PM
Post by: wolfbait on March 30, 2013, 11:30:30 PM
Crying Wolf Again - The Federal Cover-Up
By Montana State Rep. Joe Balyeat
Published 5/18/02
"Truth is violated by falsehood, but it is outraged by silence" (Henri
Frederic Amiel)
Federal wildlife biologists have taken much criticism lately for their sins
of commission-falsifying lynx evidence where there were no lynx. But even
more disastrous than their sins of commission, are their sins of omission.
MT House FWP Chairman Dan Fuchs has obtained hard evidence of the following:
1)The Feds have known since 1997 that elk calf ratios were being totally
decimated in areas of high wolf concentration.
2)When MT FWP personnel attempted to release this evidence to the public,
the Feds aggressively barred MT FWP from doing so.
Beginning in 1997, Carrie Schaefer did a study of Yellowstone wolf/elk
interaction entitled "Spatial and Temporal Variation in Wintering Elk
Abundance and Composition, and Wolf Response." Amongst other things, her
study revealed that areas of high wolf concentration inside Yellowstone had
calf ratios dropping precipitously - 0 to 10 calves per 100, even while the
ratio outside high wolf concentration areas remained at 46 calves per 100!
When MT FWP biologist Tom Lemke and others made written request for
permission to release this data to the public; the Fed response to suppress
it was swift, aggressive, and sustained. On 2/18/99, Yellowstone
Supervisory Biologist Glenn Plumb wrote: "It is my position, after
reviewing Ms. Schaefer's investigation, that her raw data do not warrant
full distribution to the public" On 3/18/99, in an interoffice Memo, Plumb
again denied the request: "Regarding your request for elk classification
data generated through Carrie Schaefer's ongoing research.we were remiss in
presenting Ms. Schaefer's.data in the Yellowstone Wolf Project Annual
Report." And they were able to hide this striking wolf predation in the
annual reports because they only gave averages for the entire northern herd
- when the 0 calf ratios in high wolf areas were averaged with the 46 calf
ratios from elsewhere, the average was still up near the 30 calf ratio
needed to sustain herd viability.
Of course, the Feds rationalized their suppression by saying that
Schaefer's study was just raw data and still ongoing. Yet even after her
report was completed the Feds never publicized nor (to our knowledge) ever
gave permission to MT FWP to release the information. In fact, one MT FWP
biologist who is directly involved with decisions related to Yellowstone
elk has stated that the data was so well suppressed that he hasn't even
seen it. Rep. Fuchs only got a copy of Schaefer's study and the related
inter-agency letters after aggressively demanding copies of all documents
related to the incident.
Last winter when Fuchs, myself, and other officials did our own elk calf
survey we discovered the calf ratio had plummeted. The initial response
from amateur wolf advocates and some professional biologists was, "These
guys are hacks and don't know how to count". After the official elk census
came out and totally substantiated our claims, they changed their tune.
They said, "OK, they're right about the drop, but we can't prove it's due
to wolves. It could be drought or hard winters, etc."
Yet the Schaefer study strongly implicates wolves as the significant factor
in two different ways. First, geographically - during the course of the
same winter, she observed alarmingly low calf ratios in high wolf areas
even while calf ratios remained above average outside high wolf areas. This
mitigates against the notion that the low calf ratios are caused by drought
or hard winters.
Secondly, when coupled with current data for the entire Northern
Yellowstone elk herd; an alarming pattern is revealed. In 1997 and 98, the
low calf ratio was confined to areas of high wolf concentration - the Lamar
Valley, etc. In this last year or so, as dense wolf populations have
reached critical mass across the entire northern Yellowstone Range; we
"surprisingly" see the area of low calf ratio also expand to encompass the
entire herd.
Let's cut to the chase (pardon the pun). Our ancestors realized long ago
that the wolf is a unique critter - a killing machine and a breeding
machine all rolled into one. Alaskan studies reveal wolf population
increases of 34% annually, even while being aggressively hunted. Data from
the first few years of our Tri-state wolf experiment also verify this same
34% annual increase. It doesn't take a CPA (or a professional wildlife
biologist) to figure out that this rate results in a 1000% increase in
population size every 8 years!
If the Feds continue to break promises, suppress evidence, and drag their
feet for 3-5 more years; our wildlife and livestock may need to be placed
on the Endangered Species List by then (never mind our pet dogs, llamas,
and small children). I repeat - we are not calling for eradication of
wolves. We are simply saying that NOW is the time for the Feds to move
immediately to de-list the wolf; so that MT, Wyoming, and Idaho state Fish
& Game Departments can manage wolves like any other species. It's time for
the Feds to make up for past sins (of commission and omission) by turning
over wolf decisions to more trustworthy managers.
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/may_2002/crying_wolf_again.htm (http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/may_2002/crying_wolf_again.htm)
Post by: Killmore on March 31, 2013, 08:48:46 AM
Post by: wolfbait on March 31, 2013, 02:11:43 PM
So , at the rate the two trappers are going ,once we get to 15 breeding pairs then waiting 3 years, what can the total numbers of wolves be? This makes me sick!!
I think WDFW have been given plenty of opportunity to confirm wolf packs, and they have proven time and again they have no desire to do so unless they have no other choice.
The public needs to get involved and document packs, throw it in WDFW's face and demand they do their job. Or we can all sit back and wait for delisting, and the decimation of our game herds, livestock etc.
Post by: Smossy on March 31, 2013, 02:19:00 PM
WDFW will be like :yike: Maybe we shouldnt of had that high of a quota for breeding sets of wolves.
Lets release the hounds...persay... "Being all the Hunters looking for vengeance on the wolf population" :IBCOOL:
I love not knowing what Im talking about half the time. :chuckle:
Im sure with as many anti-wolf people we have on here they would be wiped out in no-time. :mgun:
Post by: huntnphool on March 31, 2013, 10:25:16 PM
Cant wait untill Wolf season opens up, I see it coming in the next few years.If WDFW came out tomorrow and said we now have 15 BP, we would still have to wait three years before the meetings of delisting would start. Then we have to wait for the delisting decision, likely another year +. At that point WDFW would begin to discuss a hunting plan, likely another year. At that point the pro wolf law suits are filed blocking any hunting until the courts are done, who knows how many years that will take. Then after all that, we have the data from three other states that show hunting is woefully ineffective at controlling wolf numbers.
WDFW will be like :yike: Maybe we shouldnt of had that high of a quota for breeding sets of wolves.
Lets release the hounds...persay... "Being all the Hunters looking for vengeance on the wolf population" :IBCOOL:
I love not knowing what Im talking about half the time. :chuckle:
Im sure with as many anti-wolf people we have on here they would be wiped out in no-time. :mgun:
How many years do you think this will all take? I believe longer than "the next few years" ;) :twocents: