More elk killed by mtn lions than wolves?

[idahohikker]

The only thing that’s changed is wolves in the last 20 years?

How many more people live in idaho now than 20 years ago? How many people did you know 20 years ago that hunted more than 1 or maybe 2 states? We have more developed lands now than 20 years ago? How many people did you know 20 years ago that shot scopes with turrets? How many had a range finder? How many archery hunters were there 20 years ago? Their bows shoot better 20 years ago? How many hunters had the kind of clothing, optics, light weight gear, food options, fitness that are available now? How much more conifer encroachment has advanced in the last 20 years? How many application services were there 20 years ago? How many people carried a gps with onx loaded on it? How many scouting services 20 years ago? More or less outfitters? How many hunting web sites 20 years ago? More atv’s, razors, then or now? More miles of illegal atv trails now or 20 years ago.I could go on all day...

I believe one whole hell of a lot more has changed than just wolves.

So you really want to make a point that wolves aren’t super impactful. Why don’t you hunt the Frank even though you’ve done a bunch of work there? Sounds like you saw very few deer and elk. If you were there in the early 90s when only lions were there, you’d be covered up in elk.

Many people feel really sophisticated because they defend wolves and are logical.

 

[welch01]

Can anyone share the link for the actual study itself? I tried with no luck.

I wouldn't go so far to call this story click bait, but KTVB definitely knows this is a controversial issue that will get clicks and eyeballs. So they boil the study and press release into the most basic headline, grabbed 4 quotes from the IDFG biologist they found interesting, and throw it up on the website. I would have enjoyed a more in depth look into the areas they studied, methods they used, maybe talking about an area like the Frank Church or Lolo compared to any other zone in the state. But they chose to keep the story pretty surface level and present it in a way that would trigger people on both sides of the debate.

A few other thoughts:

1) Do I feel IDFG did the best with the resources they had on this research project? Yes

2) Are there limitations to this study? Of course, any research product does and often times the scope of the study is so small that it's hard to see the forest through the trees.

3) Fifteen years is a long time to study and does provide a ton of data, I wonder what questions came up part way through that the actual researchers would have liked to pursue. Also, I wonder now that this study is complete what sort of research projects are next on this topic.

4) If the scope of the study was big enough to cover all or most elk zones in Idaho, it would be great if that is or was published as part of the actual study. As many have said, the effects of wolves vs. cougars seems to be vastly different depending on regions. It would be something very beneficial for hunters to look through in addition to success rates, hunters per zone, etc.

Lastly, the most interesting part of this story to me is the difference between % kills for cows vs. calves. The article sites that wolves account for 32% of cow elk deaths while cougars account for 35% of cow elk deaths. Compare that to calves, where wolves account for 28% and cougars account for 45%.

If we are talking about just cow elk, we can debate on how relevant that 3% difference is. Who knows what the error % on this study is. If the error percent is 2% then if it swings one direction we are at a 1% difference which I think most people would find not significant. If that 2% swung the other way, now we are taking 5% which likely becomes more significant to us as hunters.

Now, let's talk about calf kills. This study found that 17% more calves were killed by cougars than wolves. To me, that is pretty significant. We all can agree that calf recruitment is vital to an elk herds overall health. Because of that we should be looking at the 28% that wolves kill as well as the 45% that cougars kill and try to learn more and perhaps the state can adopt strategies to lower both of those.

I am not a wildlife biologist, but have spent a lot of time with both biologists and game wardens and try to listen to their thoughts on why is something instead of relying on my experience of hunting elk 1 week a year to form my opinion. I've heard from those folks that an elk herd is more dispersed at the time of calving than any other time of the year. Perhaps this is a plausible explanation for the 17% difference between wolf and cougar kills on calves. Wolves hunt in packs and tend to target herds of elk, whereas cougars hunt solo and more selectively single out their prey. In addition, cows tend to be in lower elevations and in many areas closer to private property when they are calving. It seems that if elk are more dispersed and in those areas it is more conducive to cougars having a feast on elk veil than wolves. Please feel free to poke holes in this argument or add to it with your own observations or possible reasons for the difference in amount of calves killed by wolves vs. cougars.

In summary, I think the headline (either by IDFG or KTVB) should have read "Study finds cougars kill more CALF elk than wolves. Further research needed."

Also, Archery OTC seasons open 3 weeks from tomorrow in the great Gem State, and we should all be pumped for that! Good luck to everyone this coming season!

 

[mtmuley]

I was wondering when you were going to get here.

I just asked for proof wolves chase mountain lions off kills. Don't much care, but it seems like bs. mtmuley

 

[kiddogy]

I don't know if lions kill more or not . IT REALLY DOESN'T MUCH MATTER TO ME anyhow.

I condone the killing of as many of both species as anyone is able to legally do.

more elk killed by humans then both species combined

 

[BeaverHunter]

I just asked for proof wolves chase mountain lions off kills. Don't much care, but it seems like bs. mtmuley

I know what you're saying. I've hunted the Frank Church and near the Frank Church for the last 13 years and have yet to see a lion or wolf so what do I know.

 

[Praxeus]

Not sure I believe this...thoughts?

https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/l...daho/277-1e263f7e-6a11-49cb-ada1-8bf39185284e

I say that this report is bogus. Just like all of the scientific research that was provided in an effort to make wolf reintroduction the most organic approach to balance the ecosystem. This report is an effort to minimize the devestating impact that wolves have made. No question about it...

 

[BuzzH]

So what happened in the Frank and the Selway Buzz? Was it all the people, cats, and four-wheelers? Those places should be full of elk and deer with all the fires they have and or the last 15 years. What happened in North Idaho where it’s to brushy and steep to have four-wheelers or long shots with bow or rifle. Have you hunted in any of these places?

With all these tech advancements the bull elk harvest percentages should be way up in Idaho... but they are not.

Wolves are not a problem in all of Idaho forests, but people should start recognizing that in some areas they are a huge problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that's a fair question and I'll give you some answers.

What many don't think about is WHAT caused elk numbers in the Selway and the Frank like what we experienced in the 1950's-perhaps the early 1980's. I would argue that elk were already on a pretty steep decline by the mid-80's in much of the Selway, Lochsa, North Idaho, and Western Montana.

So, about 8 million acres burned in 1910 and 1919, most all of the upper Lochsa, Selway and also North Idaho burned in those years (albeit most in 1910).

The way that forest succession works, is not immediate, it takes a number of years to reach potential and be aware that many acres when they regenerate are not that great for wildlife. Certainly some areas are spectacular. At any rate the elk in the burn area of 1910 that you're talking about enjoyed a couple things starting in the late 30's. Most people that would have tended to hunt in the late 30's-mid 1940's, were off hunting, but just not in the elk woods of North Idaho and Western Montana, both of my grandfathers included. Forest succession was hitting the "sweet spot" about that time and there wasn't much hunting pressure. A perfect storm to grow and build elk populations. Again, I would argue, elk populations that we aren't likely to see again, unless that perfect storm of conditions were to happen again. Not likely due to a bunch of factors.

So, IMO, what we experienced within the boundaries of the great burn area of Montana and Idaho, while completely natural, was pretty unique for the reasons I already mentioned. I believe it expressed itself as a once every 100+ year event. Pretty rare bird to essentially have 2 fires burn 8 million acres within a 9 year span.

As to whats going on in the Frank with the burns? Well, again, we don't live in the same world we did 100 years ago. For starters, most of the Frank has burned relatively recently, from a forest succession standpoint. Many of the burns, in particular the larger ones in the Frank, are 20 years old or even more recent. I believe we're 20-30 years away from the best available habitat conditions in the Frank for elk. Maybe longer due to changes in plant communities (think cheatgrass) and also, even though the flat earthers will deny it and scream BS, climate change. Plants and forest succession are my deal...what I do everyday. I see changes in plant community types, lack of regen in areas that were previously forested, that I wouldn't expect.

The other thing that is so different is the fact we aren't fighting a world war where hunting was certainly not any kind of priority. Elk are not enjoying any kind of unfettered population gains like they did then. We are still aggressively hunting them with better equipment, more leisure time, hunting remotely, than ever before...you and I and many others on this board are perfect examples of that. We're damn good at what we do and there really aren't many places that are too far away, too remote to reach. The new generation of elk hunters are just flat damn tough, way tougher than me and better equipped.

For those reasons, its unrealistic to expect the same outcome from the more recent fires in the Frank and the LACK of fire in large portions of Western Montana and North Idaho. You aren't comparing the same thing, not even close.

Of course, no denying that adding wolves to the equation, and the steep decline in mountain lion harvest (and also harvesting the WRONG lions), elk are getting whammied and their populations very well could remain flat or have very slow growth due to all those things I mentioned in this post and the previous one as well.

What wears me out is blaming one thing for the flat or very slowly increasing elk numbers...again, those blaming it solely on wolves are living in fantasyland. The science shows the same thing as per the OP.

 

[Bl704]

Lion killl <> lion eat.

Lions may kill more, but they cache their food. Wolves / Yotes are pack animals and opportunistic... If they were to run a lion off its kill or happen on its cache, they eat.

 

[BuzzH]

I say that this report is bogus. Just like all of the scientific research that was provided in an effort to make wolf reintroduction the most organic approach to balance the ecosystem. This report is an effort to minimize the devestating impact that wolves have made. No question about it...

Except that many areas of North Idaho and Western Montana have wolves that weren't reintroduced...

If creating a "bogus" report, why show such a slight difference in how many "more" elk are killed by lions than wolves?

I mean, get real, if you're going to falsify a report to push an agenda, then show a 10%, 20% difference...

Some people still think the world is flat...so there is that.

 

[Ratbeetle]

I just asked for proof wolves chase mountain lions off kills. Don't much care, but it seems like bs. mtmuley

Is it that difficult to believe that 6 animals would take a kill from 1 animal?

 

[jolemons]

I think that's a fair question and I'll give you some answers.

What many don't think about is WHAT caused elk numbers in the Selway and the Frank like what we experienced in the 1950's-perhaps the early 1980's. I would argue that elk were already on a pretty steep decline by the mid-80's in much of the Selway, Lochsa, North Idaho, and Western Montana.

So, about 8 million acres burned in 1910 and 1919, most all of the upper Lochsa, Selway and also North Idaho burned in those years (albeit most in 1910).

The way that forest succession works, is not immediate, it takes a number of years to reach potential and be aware that many acres when they regenerate are not that great for wildlife. Certainly some areas are spectacular. At any rate the elk in the burn area of 1910 that you're talking about enjoyed a couple things starting in the late 30's. Most people that would have tended to hunt in the late 30's-mid 1940's, were off hunting, but just not in the elk woods of North Idaho and Western Montana, both of my grandfathers included. Forest succession was hitting the "sweet spot" about that time and there wasn't much hunting pressure. A perfect storm to grow and build elk populations. Again, I would argue, elk populations that we aren't likely to see again, unless that perfect storm of conditions were to happen again. Not likely due to a bunch of factors.

So, IMO, what we experienced within the boundaries of the great burn area of Montana and Idaho, while completely natural, was pretty unique for the reasons I already mentioned. I believe it expressed itself as a once every 100+ year event. Pretty rare bird to essentially have 2 fires burn 8 million acres within a 9 year span.

As to whats going on in the Frank with the burns? Well, again, we don't live in the same world we did 100 years ago. For starters, most of the Frank has burned relatively recently, from a forest succession standpoint. Many of the burns, in particular the larger ones in the Frank, are 20 years old or even more recent. I believe we're 20-30 years away from the best available habitat conditions in the Frank for elk. Maybe longer due to changes in plant communities (think cheatgrass) and also, even though the flat earthers will deny it and scream BS, climate change. Plants and forest succession are my deal...what I do everyday. I see changes in plant community types, lack of regen in areas that were previously forested, that I wouldn't expect.

The other thing that is so different is the fact we aren't fighting a world war where hunting was certainly not any kind of priority. Elk are not enjoying any kind of unfettered population gains like they did then. We are still aggressively hunting them with better equipment, more leisure time, hunting remotely, than ever before...you and I and many others on this board are perfect examples of that. We're damn good at what we do and there really aren't many places that are too far away, too remote to reach. The new generation of elk hunters are just flat damn tough, way tougher than me and better equipped.

For those reasons, its unrealistic to expect the same outcome from the more recent fires in the Frank and the LACK of fire in large portions of Western Montana and North Idaho. You aren't comparing the same thing, not even close.

Of course, no denying that adding wolves to the equation, and the steep decline in mountain lion harvest (and also harvesting the WRONG lions), elk are getting whammied and their populations very well could remain flat or have very slow growth due to all those things I mentioned in this post and the previous one as well.

What wears me out is blaming one thing for the flat or very slowly increasing elk numbers...again, those blaming it solely on wolves are living in fantasyland. The science shows the same thing as per the OP.

Agreed. The anti-wolfers and their conspiracies wear me out.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[kiddogy]

only good wolf is a dead wolf and that's all needs be said bout that!

 

[mtmuley]

Is it that difficult to believe that 6 animals would take a kill from 1 animal?

No. But there is no proof. Just more unfounded bs. Besides, the animal is dead either way. I doubt wolves prowl around looking for lion kills. That's all I'm saying. Oportunistic once in awhile? Maybe. And, I've seen four lions at once a couple times. Irrelevant, but pretty cool. mtmuley

 

[mtmuley]

only good wolf is a dead wolf and that's all needs be said bout that!

Smoke a pack a day too? mtmuley

 

[Ratbeetle]

No. But there is no proof. Just more unfounded bs. Besides, the animal is dead either way. I doubt wolves prowl around looking for lion kills. That's all I'm saying. Oportunistic once in awhile? Maybe. And, I've seen four lions at once a couple times. Irrelevant, but pretty cool. mtmuley

Unfounded bs? An animal that runs in a average pack of six, travels on average 20-50 miles in a day and has a sense of smell about 100 times better than a person's most certainly has more than just a once in a while chance at being opportunistic. You're kidding yourself if you don't think it happens frequently.

 

[mtmuley]

Unfounded bs? An animal that runs in a average pack of six, travels on average 20-50 miles in a day and has a sense of smell about 100 times better than a person's most certainly has more than just a once in a while chance at being opportunistic. You're kidding yourself if you don't think it happens frequently.

Ok. mtmuley

 

[Life_Feeds_On_Life]

No. But there is no proof. Just more unfounded bs. Besides, the animal is dead either way. I doubt wolves prowl around looking for lion kills. That's all I'm saying. Oportunistic once in awhile? Maybe. And, I've seen four lions at once a couple times. Irrelevant, but pretty cool. mtmuley

I think the fact the wolves will run off a grizzly and a pack of dogs will push a lion make it perfectly reasonable to deduce that wolves will run off a lion fairly easily. Not unfounded at all.

 

[Justin Crossley]

No. But there is no proof. Just more unfounded bs. Besides, the animal is dead either way. I doubt wolves prowl around looking for lion kills. That's all I'm saying. Oportunistic once in awhile? Maybe. And, I've seen four lions at once a couple times. Irrelevant, but pretty cool. mtmuley

I didn't say there was proof. I stated I have heard that some people believe it may be happening and that it may help explain what appears to be an uptic in lion kill numbers. Here are some facts that I think explain the possibilty. It's a fact that animals make noise when a lion kills them. It's a fact that a roaming wolf could easily hear an animal in distress and come running. Wolves also have been known to run down hounds when they hear them treeing. So, yes I believe it is very possible for a lion that used to kill one deer or elk on average per week to get chased off it's kills and have to kill more often.

I'm not anti wolf at all. I like them and I like to hunt them. I also like to hunt coyotes, lions, and bears. I think all the predators should be managed to support healthy ungulate herds.

 

[mtmuley]

I think the fact the wolves will run off a grizzly and a pack of dogs will push a lion make it perfectly reasonable to deduce that wolves will run off a lion fairly easily. Not unfounded at all.

Ok. mtmuley

 

[mtmuley]

I didn't say there was proof. I stated I have heard that some people believe it may be happening and that it may help explain what appears to be an uptic in lion kill numbers. Here are some facts that I think explain the possibilty. It's a fact that animals make noise when a lion kills them. It's a fact that a roaming wolf could easily hear an animal in distress and come running. Wolves also have been known to run down hounds when they hear them treeing. So, yes I believe it is very possible for a lion that used to kill one deer or elk on average per week to get chased off it's kills and have to kill more often.

I'm not anti wolf at all. I like them and I like to hunt them. I also like to hunt coyotes, lions, and bears. I think all the predators should be managed to support healthy ungulate herds.

Some people believe it may be happening. In essence, lions kill more because of wolves. Ok. mtmuley