Wolves Putting the Hurt on Elk - Your Feedback?

[Sigma]

In my efforts to get a late season elk hunt on private land, I recently talked to an outfitter in Wyoming who said that the herd in the Jackson area has been decimated by about 600 animals this season compared to last year, mainly due to wolf predation. There seem to be several wolf packs in the area and instead of going higher, he noted that the elk are going into the subdivisions where wolves won't venture. He called them "subdivision elk." Business for the outfitter is so far down that he doesn't know what to do and stated that the situation will probably be "terminal" for him. That's sad in many ways.

For those of you who have been hunting Idaho, Wyoming, Montana and Utah, what feedback have you received and what have your experiences been? Do you feel that the current wolf/elk situtation will get under control, and if so, how?

If not, what do you think can be done to fix, as the president of the RMEF put it, "one of the worst wildlife management disasters since the destruction of bison herds in the 19th century."

Is the situation out of control?

http://www.rmef.org/NR/rdonlyres/B5773431-39F6-4028-8BA6-2AF3EF8E7A31/0/RMEFLtrDefenders410.pdf

 

[Orygun]

From what I've read about Idaho the elk are slowly adapting. They got hammered and will continue to do so. But whatever survival mechanisms they had in the DNA is coming back out. Elk behavior has changed. They don't hang around riparian areas as much as they use to. Or out on the open. There are supposedly still decenyt numbers but getting to them is difficult for most.

My buddy gave up his favorite elk haunts in NE Oregon. He hunted two weeks and saw more wolf tracks than elk in several drainages where he used to be overrun with elk.

There will be a dip in whatever herd the wolves move into. There will be years of dramatic loses until the elk figure out how to survive. Whether not the elk get into a predator pit is another story.

 

[easymoney]

I too hunted Eastern Or until this year and saw more wolf tracks than in years past along the ID border and up around John Day. That combined with the increase in lions hammered the elk and deer. The same ranch I hunted for twenty years has seen a huge drop in elk that wintered there. I'm not a biologist, and I don't know if there is a correlation, but just saying what I have seen.

 

[Kentuck]

Getting to be a dead horse issue. Anyone that doesn't believe the wolves have hurt elk/moose/deer herds are simply too blind to know what's going on. I feel sorry for all the biologists that have worked their tails off only to see their efforts become piles of wolf crap.

Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Utah and Colorado would be smart to kill every wolf that strays across their state lines.

 

[Sigma]

Getting to be a dead horse issue. Anyone that doesn't believe the wolves have hurt elk/moose/deer herds are simply too blind to know what's going on. I feel sorry for all the biologists that have worked their tails off only to see their efforts become piles of wolf crap.

Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Utah and Colorado would be smart to kill every wolf that strays across their state lines.

I see what you're saying. But does effective management of the wolf constitute allowing the elk hunter who occasionally runs across a wolf to take the animal?

 

[Kentuck]

The wolves are here to stay since their can't be a whole sale killing of them, but to allow them to just continue anabated is rediculous.

 

[DAWG]

Well, I have been paitently waiting in the max points pool to draw a late elk hunt east of Yellowstone, and now the hunt is cancelled, along with all of the Yellowstone migration hunts on the east side... I wonder why?

No need for hunters to help manage what's left of the elk herds there now...

 

[suavegato]

I Elk hunted for 9 days straight this year in North-Eastern Or. (near John Day). Didn't see a single Elk and only a couple of Elk tracks... (even with fresh snow on the ground!) "Normally" in years past, we'd have seen many, many Elk tracks and or bagged at least one... Didn't see any wolf tracks but I don't think they hang out around the cattle ranch or they would be short lived...

 

[Orygun]

But does effective management of the wolf constitute allowing the elk hunter who occasionally runs across a wolf to take the animal?

If that elk hunter has a wolf tag issued by that state, then emphatically, yes.

With the HUGE amounts of defacto preserves for wolves, I do not see their populations decreasing substantially even with concerted harvest. It took a long time in a country with a vastly different mindset to get the wolves out of most of the lower 48. Europe tried for centuries to get rid of its wolves yet they still persist.

There is no money or consent by most of the public to engage in regional poisoning/aerial shooting and other like programs to get rid of the wolf. At the moment with the numbers we have in Oregon we probably could knock them back to Idaho. But not for long. The giant wilderness areas national forests, generally inaccessible land prevents hunters from getting at all the wolves. Even if there were unfettered access you would need essentially professional hunters and trappers to deal with them and there isn't money available to do that.

Basically, it ain't gonna happen. The question then is how many is too many? Do you sacrifice some wolves to increase herd numbers to bolster local economies? Do you let the wolves run rampant and drive a huge stake through the heart of regional economic engines by hampering or preventing the ability of ranchers do deal with problem wolves?

 

[Sigma]

Agreed, Orygun. I don't think that biologists really understood the impact that wolves would have on the ecosystem when they reintroduced the wolf to Yellowstone, on top of that, a subspecies of Timberwolf indigenous to Canada. As noted by the RMEF, wolf pack numbers have already far exceeded target expectations to the detriment of local economies.

My questions centered around the increasing awareness that delisting the wolf is apparently not in itself the answer. An obvious reason may lie in the fact that an elk hunt provides a hunter with one of the best sources of meat available, whereas hunting wolves does not. How many hunters will fly or drive over 1000 miles one way, pay an outfitter for a guided hunt, eat at local restaurants, stay at lodges, buy at local shops and come back with nothing but a wolf hide? I wager, not very many. So, whether we want to admit it or not, the collective enthusiasm to keep elk herds at a healthy level seems to be tied to the value placed on them as a game animal. Or as one National Geographic article put it as a conclusion: "When we say we want to conserve wildlife communities in America, does that mean including the wolf, or not?"

Personally, my answer would be yes, but not at current numbers. Perhaps introducing the wolf into the protected environment of Yellowstone Park was a big mistake to begin with.

 

[Kentuck]

Agreed, Orygun. I don't think that biologists really understood the impact that wolves would have on the ecosystem when they reintroduced the wolf to Yellowstone, on top of that, a subspecies of Timberwolf indigenous to Canada. As noted by the RMEF, wolf pack numbers have already far exceeded target expectations to the detriment of local economies.

My questions centered around the increasing awareness that delisting the wolf is apparently not in itself the answer. An obvious reason may lie in the fact that an elk hunt provides a hunter with one of the best sources of meat available, whereas hunting wolves does not. How many hunters will fly or drive over 1000 miles one way, pay an outfitter for a guided hunt, eat at local restaurants, stay at lodges, buy at local shops and come back with nothing but a wolf hide? I wager, not very many. So, whether we want to admit it or not, the collective enthusiasm to keep elk herds at a healthy level seems to be tied to the value placed on them as a game animal. Or as one National Geographic article put it as a conclusion: "When we say we want to conserve wildlife communities in America, does that mean including the wolf, or not?"

Personally, my answer would be yes, but not at current numbers. Perhaps introducing the wolf into the protected environment of Yellowstone Park was a big mistake to begin with.

Very well said and I do agree with you 100%.

 

[snoopdogg]

This won't make many of you feel better.

For Immediate Release, December 21, 2010
Contact: Noah Greenwald, (503) 484-7495

Lawsuit Launched to Recover Wolves Across Country
National Plan Would Focus on Saving Existing Wolf Populations and Returning Wolves to West Coast, New England, Southern Rockies and Great Plains​

WASHINGTON— The Center for Biological Diversity today filed a formal notice of intent to sue the Interior Department for failing to develop a recovery plan for wolves in the lower 48 states. Such a plan is required by the Endangered Species Act, and according to today’s notice should have been developed 30 years ago or more. In July the Center submitted a scientific petition to Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service asking that a national recovery plan be developed, but never received a response.
A national plan would provide a roadmap for recovering existing wolf populations and returning wolves to some of their historic range around the country; suitable wolf habitat exists in the Pacific Northwest, California, Great Basin, southern Rocky Mountains, Great Plains and New England.
“Wolves are an integral part of this country’s natural history and need a national recovery plan now,” said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center. “Although wolves have made important strides toward recovery in parts of the northern Rockies and Great Lakes, these areas represent less than 5 percent of their historic range. We call on Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to stop playing politics and use his legal authority to do right by the wolf.”
With passage of the Endangered Species Act in 1973, four subspecies of wolves were originally protected under the Endangered Species Act: the Mexican gray wolf, northern Rocky Mountain wolf, eastern timber wolf and Texas gray wolf. Because of questions about the validity of these subspecies, protection of the wolf was consolidated to include all wolves in the lower 48 states in 1978. But despite this consolidation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service never developed a national recovery plan for the wolf. Instead, it finalized plans for three of four of the previously protected subspecies. These plans cover a small fraction of the wolf’s former range, are decades old and set population goals well below what scientists now know are necessary for population health and survival.
“It is time for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to chart a new course for wolf recovery,” said Greenwald. “This plan is badly needed to establish new goals and management for existing wolf populations and as a blueprint for establishing wolves in additional areas.”
In recent years, states with wolf populations have demanded that federal protections be lifted based on the outdated recovery plans. But the Fish and Wildlife Service’s efforts to appease these demands and remove protections for northern Rockies and Great Lakes wolves have been repeatedly rebuffed by the courts in lawsuits brought by conservation groups, including the Center. A national recovery plan could specify a legally defensible path for truly recovering wolves and provide certainty for states that have wolf populations.
“The Department of the Interior’s failure to develop a national recovery strategy for the wolf, as it has for other species like the bald eagle, has led to tremendous confusion and hampered true wolf recovery,” said Greenwald. “Wolves have been an integral part of North American landscapes for millions of years and are cherished, iconic animals that deserve a certain future in this country.”
Wolves are a keystone species that benefit prey populations by culling sick animals and preventing overpopulation. Studies of wolves reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park show that they also benefit other species, including pronghorn and foxes by controlling coyote populations, and songbirds and beavers by dispersing browsing elk and allowing recovery of streamside vegetation.

<!-- InstanceEndEditable -->

 

[Bubblehide]

next it'll be grizzly's; I can't wait for that one!

 

[suavegato]

well Instead of SSS maybe now it's "LL" (lock & load)?

 

[Deleted member 33033]

I wonder how many people must die before the propaganda about wolves becomes irrelevant and folks see the problem for what it is. Of course by then, their numbers will be vast...as well as their range.

 

[Sigma]

Previous Claims Regarding Aspen and Wildlife Restoration Disputed

For Immediate Release, December 21, 2010
Contact: Noah Greenwald, (503) 484-7495

Lawsuit Launched to Recover Wolves Across Country
National Plan Would Focus on Saving Existing Wolf Populations and Returning Wolves to West Coast, New England, Southern Rockies and Great Plains

“The Department of the Interior’s failure to develop a national recovery strategy for the wolf, as it has for other species like the bald eagle, has led to tremendous confusion and hampered true wolf recovery,” said Greenwald. “Wolves have been an integral part of North American landscapes for millions of years and are cherished, iconic animals that deserve a certain future in this country.”
Wolves are a keystone species that benefit prey populations by culling sick animals and preventing overpopulation. Studies of wolves reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park show that they also benefit other species, including pronghorn and foxes by controlling coyote populations, and songbirds and beavers by dispersing browsing elk and allowing recovery of streamside vegetation.

Not so fast, Noah. While members of the "scientific community" (including those responsible for the Nat Geo "Wolf Wars" article - Wolf Wars - Illustration - National Geographic Magazine) gather together and presumptuously proclaim the wolf as responsible for the restoration of everything from aspens to the Boreal chorus frog, there are communities of scientists that suggest that the conclusion is premature. Problem is, when scientists or biologists working for so called "reputable sources" (in the case of Noah Greenwald, young Endangered Species Program Director working for the Center for Biological Diversity) proclaim their findings, there exists a general tendency of public opinion not to question them. But is that wise?

Scientists like Noah Greenwald tend to employ passages that include terms such as "millions of years" in their speeches and writings and haven't spent 20 or perhaps even 30 years in researching a specific matter and establishing their "theories." Past experience - with the establishment of other so-called scientific "theories" that had later been proven to be wrong - has shown that within the scientific community, there exists the tendency to prematurely hail evidence of results in order to obtain short term recognition and in some cases, perhaps even prestige. Remember, the “scientific method” is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Has this been followed?

There are findings from other scientists that suggest that the introduction of the wolf has NOT played a significant role in aspen recovery and ecosystem restoration. Furthermore, aspen recovery in itself, as vividly portayed in the "before and after" picture from the Nat Geo article is also disputed. See link to article below from Sciencedaily.com:

Are wolves saving Yellowstone's aspen trees from elk?

But this recent study led by Matthew Kauffman, a U.S. Geological Survey scientist, suggests that aspen are not benefitting from the landscape of fear created by wolves, and that claims of an ecosystem-wide recovery of aspen are premature.

"This study not only confirms that elk are responsible for the decline of aspen in Yellowstone beginning in the 1890s, but also that none of the aspen groves studied after wolf restoration appear to be regenerating, even in areas risky to elk," said Kauffman. "The results were surprising and have led us to refute several previous claims regarding interactions among wolves, elk and aspen in Yellowstone," Kauffman said.

Oops: wolves not saving aspen from elk - Pinedale, Wyoming

Link to article in "Ecology": http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/09-1949.1?journalCode=ecol

Spread the word to help further an educated and balanced dialog.

 

[suavegato]

funny how people learn how to bend science to suit their own agenda... and when I say funny I mean disgusting!

P.S. It just occurred to me as well. Isn't it "funny" again, that the very same people who are claiming these predators [wolves] are doing such a great job at controlling the elk population are the very same people who also claim that we don't have a predator [cat] problem in Ca and that there is little to no effect on the deer herds... you can't have it both ways! Either predators run through herds or they don't, NOT either way, depending on when it suits your agenda!

 

[HD Hunter]

Wolves and mountain lions are the official mascot animal of all anti-hunters. They believe that it is ok to reduce deer and elk herds to almost nothing. Less opportunity for you to hunt.

 

[Sigma]

I wonder how many people must die before the propaganda about wolves becomes irrelevant and folks see the problem for what it is. Of course by then, their numbers will be vast...as well as their range.

In CA, numerous deaths of joggers, hikers and mountain bikers haven't led to a delisting of the mountain lion and it's unlikely that wolf attacks will delist the wolf in other states.

 

[catchdog]

every person that has a gun should shoot the wolves on sight. and no i dont care what the law is. there is laws that say you cant spank your kids in some states. then they wounder why the kids are out of control. the wolves are out of control and the feds wont let the states have control of there own hunting of the wolves. so screw the fedral law and just do what needs to be done.