How many elk do wolves kill in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem?

Joined
Sep 5, 2012
Messages
682
Location
Gypsum, CO
In my opinion ozyclint, before man was here there were millions of buffalo, elk, deer, pronghorn, moose all that when man came we began hunting for our own food. This is where things did go haywire, the populations could not stand human and wolf predation. One had to go, yes part of it was humans taking all they wanted much like the wolves do.
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2013
Messages
3,431
Location
Humboldt county
In my opinion ozyclint, before man was here there were millions of buffalo, elk, deer, pronghorn, moose all that when man came we began hunting for our own food. This is where things did go haywire, the populations could not stand human and wolf predation. One had to go, yes part of it was humans taking all they wanted much like the wolves do.

Except it was not to eat, it was for profit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2017
Messages
753
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
2,814
Location
Littleton, CO
ozyclint, Rinella has some good discussions on Wolves in several of his podcasts including episode 1 of the Meateater podcast. He knows several biologists around the US, including his brother and he is pretty well versed on both the historical aspects and differing regional issues. He, like myself, is all for hunting them as a big game species where the population can support it. The extirpation of the wolves from the lower 48 was state sponsored and usually involved poisoning a kill that they knew the wolves would scavenge.

Having a predator in an ecosystem performs a key role in controlling disease in the prey populations as they will most often pick off the weak, diseased and genetically inferior individuals. They are far more effective at this than us and pretty much the exact opposite of what the average hunter is after. I (and many biologists) would argue that things like [FONT=Open Sans, Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]bluetongue and chronic wasting disease (CWD) and other diseases currently occurring in ungulate populations would be controlled by an efficient predator.

Granted when you just introduce an apex predator into a population that hasn't faced danger in generations you will probably see a dramatic dip in populations as the prey learns to adapt to their new environment. Think of it like taking a bunch of Californians from Orange County and dropping them off in Kandahar. Yes, a lot of them will die pretty quick; but over time the smart ones will adapt and future generations will eventually thrive in their new reality. But, from the guiding and hunting aspect you will also have to adapt as their behavior patterns will be way different from what you are used to and they will most likely become harder to locate. But there are advantages to this too as their standard defense against humans (going nocturnal) doesn't really work for wolves, so they may become easier to find during daylight for example.[/FONT]
 
Joined
Sep 22, 2013
Messages
6,389
ozyclint, Rinella has some good discussions on Wolves in several of his podcasts including episode 1 of the Meateater podcast. He knows several biologists around the US, including his brother and he is pretty well versed on both the historical aspects and differing regional issues. He, like myself, is all for hunting them as a big game species where the population can support it. The extirpation of the wolves from the lower 48 was state sponsored and usually involved poisoning a kill that they knew the wolves would scavenge.

Having a predator in an ecosystem performs a key role in controlling disease in the prey populations as they will most often pick off the weak, diseased and genetically inferior individuals. They are far more effective at this than us and pretty much the exact opposite of what the average hunter is after. I (and many biologists) would argue that things like [FONT=Open Sans, Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]bluetongue and chronic wasting disease (CWD) and other diseases currently occurring in ungulate populations would be controlled by an efficient predator.

Granted when you just introduce an apex predator into a population that hasn't faced danger in generations you will probably see a dramatic dip in populations as the prey learns to adapt to their new environment. Think of it like taking a bunch of Californians from Orange County and dropping them off in Kandahar. Yes, a lot of them will die pretty quick; but over time the smart ones will adapt and future generations will eventually thrive in their new reality. But, from the guiding and hunting aspect you will also have to adapt as their behavior patterns will be way different from what you are used to and they will most likely become harder to locate. But there are advantages to this too as their standard defense against humans (going nocturnal) doesn't really work for wolves, so they may become easier to find during daylight for example.[/FONT]

The difference of course being that when you cut a species' population drastically, the remaining animals are not only stressed with reduced pregnancies but their low numbers cannot begin to offset the damage already done by wolves.
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2013
Messages
3,431
Location
Humboldt county
The difference of course being that when you cut a species' population drastically, the remaining animals are not only stressed with reduced pregnancies but their low numbers cannot begin to offset the damage already done by wolves.


I wasn't going to comment on the numerous threads where you have parroted your nonsense, but I can refrain no longer.

Unfortunately you have ZERO idea about wolves or their behavior, or wildlife biology in general. This is proven by your usage of "carrying capacity" which leads me to believe you have no idea what it actually means, as predatory animals CAN have a positive affect on carrying capacity in certain situations. Predators absolutely have an influence on an eco system. The problem you and many "hunters" don't realize is a healthy quality eco system doesn't mean 300% the carrying capacity of ungulates for you to shoot. It also doesn't means 300 predators for every ungulate either. It's pretty clear to everyone who pays attention that the introduction could have been done better.

You obviously have no idea about compensatory vs additive predation, much less an opinion on it. You have no idea about the studies that have been done and have PROVEN the ecological benefits wolves have created inside the Yellowstone eco system. You then use the words "thrill killing" as if to assign a human behavior to a predatory animal. I would shoot myself dead if you've ever been within 500 miles of a wolf, much less actually seen one.

You have no idea what your talking about and as usual regurgitate what you've read on forums or on click bait news articles which is convenient because you only have to read a few paragraphs instead of actual books or extensive studies, hence why you think that MSU study proved lower calving rates were due to predatory stress....shocker they actually were not. But you would know that if you actually took time to read the study. It if you actually had read it, you could have made a good case that while it wasn't directly related to stress it could have been related to predation because of ungulate movements, in part due to increased predation. But you didn't.

This shouldn't be shocking as you can't even be trusted to fact check simple things much less extremely complicated polarizing issues.

It's frustrating because you cannot have a conversation with people like you, as your mind is already made up. You don't have to believe wolves are angels(as they are not) but they are not the spawn of the devil either.

It's irrelevant if you hate wolves or not, just don't act like a complete ass every time the subject is brought up.

You make yourself, and hunters look bad with your uneducated, self centered and boisterous opinions that are not grounded in science. Please, when you meet people don't tell them your a hunter, your representation is what hunters should avoid and is quite embarrassing to people that believe hunters are conservationists and stewards of the land.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 22, 2013
Messages
6,389
9894003db54a7113cc2823c37884acc6.jpg


Bottom line, since the 90s (thru 1015) the elk populations are in freefall, beaver, willows and marshes have not sprung back as predicted. Impact on elk is more than double original projections. Wolf project is an epic fail!
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
2,448
Location
Somewhere between here and there
I too have long suspected the wolf project to be part of an anti-hunting agenda designed to bring ungulate numbers down to justify restriction of tag issuance however...if that's true the ungulates will be done for because the wolves will wipe em out before dying of starvation or turning to domestic animals, trash and ultimately human prey (as they have in India). Controlling wolves is a fantasy.

CNN - Man-eating wolves terrorize Indian villages - July 22, 1997

I'm much more concerned about access for places to hunt than I am wolf/ungulate numbers.

Elk seasons in Montana and Idaho are still just as long as they were prior to wolves.
 
Joined
Sep 22, 2013
Messages
6,389
I'm much more concerned about access for places to hunt than I am wolf/ungulate numbers.

Elk seasons in Montana and Idaho are still just as long as they were prior to wolves.

Well that concern is valid and that's where Agenda 21 plays a massive role. But Agenda 21 is far more sinister than mere allocation of space and restriction of access...it involves depopulation. I won't derail this thread with that issue but there's plenty of information available for those who use Google.

Regardless what various researchers claim and believe, there is no argument that wolf and elk populations rise and fall based on numbers. In the past two years the wolves have been in decline in Yellowstone and the elk population is growing instead of shrinking for the first time since the wolves were planted there decades ago. Updated: Yellowstone elk increase as wolf numbers decline | The Spokesman-Review
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
2,448
Location
Somewhere between here and there
Well that concern is valid and that's where Agenda 21 plays a massive role. But Agenda 21 is far more sinister than mere allocation of space and restriction of access...it involves depopulation. I won't derail this thread with that issue but there's plenty of information available for those who use Google.

Regardless what various researchers claim and believe, there is no argument that wolf and elk populations rise and fall based on numbers. In the past two years the wolves have been in decline in Yellowstone and the elk population is growing instead of shrinking for the first time since the wolves were planted there decades ago. Updated: Yellowstone elk increase as wolf numbers decline | The Spokesman-Review

Dude, I'm not going down the Agenda 21 rabbit hole with you. I'm talking loss of access to private lands and private timberlands due to leasing, and loss of access to public lands because of the push for PLT.

Certainly there is a population dynamic involving wolves and elk. Only a moron would suggest otherwise. I am willing to bet the elimination of the late Gardiner elk hunt had as much to do with increased elk numbers as anything. The age structure of that herd has been a mess for many years, and was reflected in the cow/calf ratio. And, to throw another monkey wrench into things, the number of elk in that herd is EXACTLY where it should be based on Montana FWPs elk management plan.
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2013
Messages
3,431
Location
Humboldt county
9894003db54a7113cc2823c37884acc6.jpg


Bottom line, since the 90s (thru 1015) the elk populations are in freefall, beaver, willows and marshes have not sprung back as predicted. Impact on elk is more than double original projections. Wolf project is an epic fail!

Bottom line is half the shit you've sighted is wrong.. your not a messenger, your a head line grabber that can't be bothered to actually read anything. You google something, then use the first thing that comes up, That's the problem. The study you cited about low calving rates due to stress literally said it didn't have a correlation... you did not read it, plain and simple, you should be embarrassed.

You would have to be a complete buffoon not to think wolves have an impact on herd population. The problem you don't seem to get is in many areas herds swelled to 200%+ over the recommended carrying capacity. The Yellowstone herd should be between 6-9k not 20k+. You put shit data in your going to get shit predictions out. Beavers and the ecology in the greater Yellowstone park absolutely have bounced back. What's hilarious is if you had read the MSU study you wrongly quoted you would understand why. That doesn't mean that wolves should solely receive praise though. Eco systems aren't a simple thing, so pointing to any given thing and proclaiming it as the savior or the sole problem is foolish.

You could articulate your argument in an educated structured manor, and there's plenty of things to sight in regards to wolves being detrimental, but instead you spout nonsense and misrepresent biologists works.
 
Last edited:

Gehri1tm

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
176
Talking about wolves as some super predator that can kill all of its prey and still exist by moving onto some other territory is just plain nonsense. That's us, not wolves, and it is not possible to sustain that long-term. The other main points also missed in all of this discussion of the impacts of wolves on prey is that: 1) wolves and their prey evolved together over much longer time periods than even human presence in North America; and 2) weather, mainly winter severity, is a much more important mortality agent than predation. Talking about wolf predation in isolation from winter severity isn't valid. Only under very specific conditions can predators keep prey populations suppressed at very low numbers, and it typically takes a series of severe winters to drive prey numbers that low in the first place; not predation by itself.
 
Joined
Sep 22, 2013
Messages
6,389
I guess there's two kinds of wolf huggers. Those who would plant a breed in areas where they never resided naturally before calling it a "'reintroduction" and this kind.

BqGwGnOCYAAdtvg.jpg


891d8f9b1634648cef76c01543fdaabc.jpg


fda9591793f87d58f6de812305720eb8.jpg


Large or small-kill em all. The only good wolf is a dead wolf.
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2013
Messages
3,431
Location
Humboldt county
I guess there's two kinds of wolf huggers. Those who would plant a breed in areas where they never resided naturally before calling it a "'reintroduction" and this kind.

BqGwGnOCYAAdtvg.jpg


891d8f9b1634648cef76c01543fdaabc.jpg


fda9591793f87d58f6de812305720eb8.jpg


Large or small-kill em all. The only good wolf is a dead wolf.

Your an anti-hunters wet dream.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Joined
May 13, 2015
Messages
3,711
Talking about wolves as some super predator that can kill all of its prey and still exist by moving onto some other territory is just plain nonsense. That's us, not wolves, and it is not possible to sustain that long-term. The other main points also missed in all of this discussion of the impacts of wolves on prey is that: 1) wolves and their prey evolved together over much longer time periods than even human presence in North America; and 2) weather, mainly winter severity, is a much more important mortality agent than predation. Talking about wolf predation in isolation from winter severity isn't valid. Only under very specific conditions can predators keep prey populations suppressed at very low numbers, and it typically takes a series of severe winters to drive prey numbers that low in the first place; not predation by itself.

A recently completed study here in Ca (The Mendocino National Forest, concluded about 2 years ago) on the continued repressed population of Blacktail deer, concluded that predation was a significant factor. prior to the study, the accepted belief was that predators could not have a significant impact on deer. That study should have effectuated a pyridium shift. The fact is that wolves are coursing predators, that works as a team to run down, run out of energy, keep their prey from water sources... In short they are exceptionally successful predators. They have been known to station at several waterholes/supplies, while other members of their pack run their prey to utter collapse.

Considering mans intrusion into elk habitat, we clearly no longer have to ecosystems of the past, with exception of few areas. But what does this all mean to the future of ungulates; well we simply do not know yet, as for the majority of areas, there is nothing but speculation, from all sides.

Clearly the presence of wolves forces ungulates to utilize more of their territory. Meaning the ungulates will be on the move, more than in times of no wolves. It's blatantly obvious that ungulates survived when wolves were here, unchecked. However, from today, to the time way back when, when wolves roamed, hunted, bred... the environment has undergone significant change. The most obvious should be that the vast majority of their pre-exsiting winter range is now inhabited/occupied by us/man, and much of that land is no longer utilizable to the current herds. Granted, I am simplifying the situation here to make a point, that being that we are in new territory. We simply cannot base the facts of the situation on what has happened in the past, how the elk succeeded in the past, simply because that past is gone. Those ecosystems have changed. To ignore the changes in the ecosystem, and that Mendo study, is simply naive, or basing such belief on pure fantasy/wishful thinking.

Granted, in many places, they have recognized that the wolves need to be managed. Subsequently there are now seasons on wolves, in some locals. The idea of having and maintaining a balance is the scientific ideal, and some evidence suggests that for some areas, that balance may be taking place. However, for other areas, there is significant concern that it is not; or perhaps not as fast as some thought (clearly that is the case in many areas). I'm sure everyone here is aware, but in case not, there was a pair of wolves here in northern ca, a breeding pair. In short, they are believed to have left the state, likely for richer hunting grounds, and in numbers where they can possibly hold their own within adjoining territories. But at some point, wolves will be established in Ca. However, considering the Mendo study, and the affect predation is having on the deer herd there; continued repressed population, significantly reduced life expectancy to the point that it is now calculated on a daily basis, rather than in years; it is clear that is some cases, the addition of wolves to the predator list among ungulates can lead to the demise of a struggling population; it would clearly be foolish to believe otherwise.

So in short, there is no one answer fits all in this situation. The likelihood is that some herds will rebound (or already are in some cases), and other herds will be in peril, given individual ecosystem conditions and the overall health of the herds. Here in Ca, with several struggling herds, and overall low herd numbers in many zones/herds, some fairly isolated small populations, sensitive populations such as sheep, bla bla bla, we may see extripation by wolf. And considering all the hunters dollars spent for reintroduction of our sheep and elk in Ca, that would be a travesty. In the case of Ca, the state has already listed the wolf as endangered. And the fact that this state has a reputation of not managing predators, it is highly likely that this state simply won't regulate wolves. Or, if the state does decide to regulate wolves, it will simply be to late for many herds, and we here is Ca, will be back to trying to formulate another reintroduction plan, at hunter expense. Point being, the circumstances and political environment in differing regions/states may be significant factors is the overall ecosystem success of failure in this reintroduction experiment.

Obviously success and failure may depend on how you look at the situation. What I mean is that for some, having significantly lower ungulate populations is not an issue, as long as wolves are a part of the situation. For others, that desire higher ungulate populations, and those that make a living off the ungulate population be near to above carrying capacity (yes I used that dreaded word), those lowered ungulate populations are not welcome, and may likely force them to uproot, or change careers.

Gee, I hope that's clear and understandable, as sometimes my thoughts move faster then my fingers move across the keyboard.
 
Top