More on wolves

[royinidaho]

From the Wyoming 2005 report:

Interesting stats: Which elk are mostly killed by wolves? Calves, cows or bulls?

Winter Studies: During the 2005 March winter study (30 days), wolves were observed for 404
hours from the ground. The number of days wolf packs were located from the air ranged from 3
(Biscuit Basin) to 18 (Leopold, Geode, Druid Peak, Slough Creek, Agate Creek). Sixty-nine
definite or probable wolf kills were detected, including 60 elk, 3 bison, 2 mule deer, 1 moose,
and 3 unknown species. Among elk, 7 (12%) were calves, 15 (25%) were cows, 33 (55%) were
bulls, 5 (8%) were of unknown sex adult. In addition, 16 ungulates that died from other natural
causes (winter kill, cougar kill, stuck in mud) were scavenged by wolf packs, including 9 bison
and 7 elk. Of note, the 25-member Leopold pack had an unusually low kill rate in March
because they scavenged 4 bison and 3 elk carcasses.
During the 2005 November–December winter study (30 days), wolves were observed for 296.5
hours from the ground. The number of days wolf packs were located from the air ranged from 9
(Druid Peak) to 18 (Leopold, Hellroaring, Slough Creek, Agate Creek, Cougar Creek). Fifty-five
definite or probable wolf kills were detected during the November-December 2005 Winter
Study, including 44 elk, 5 bison, 2 deer, 2 moose, 2 unknown. Among elk, 11 (25%) of the kills
were calves, 12 (27%) were cows, 18 (41%) were bulls, and 3 (7%) were elk of unknown sex
and age.

[royinidaho]

The answer, from the same report:

Prey selection also appeared to
be changing with fewer elk calves and more bulls taken.:rolleyes:

[fabsroman]

Isn't it a good thing that they are killing more bulls than calves and cows? Unless of course they are killing trophy elk that hunters would want.

Personally, if they are killing bulls and the elk population can sustain itself with those numbers of kills, I could care less if they are killing trophy elk.

The counter argument is that these wolves are strong enough to kill bulls at will, and when the supply of bulls runs out, the cows and calves would be easier prey. I wonder why they decide to take bulls instead of cows and calves.

One thing I didn't see in those studies was the killing of any domesticated animals. You would think that out of that many hours, they would have observed at least one domesticated animal killed, but I guess not. Maybe these wolves were in the middle of nowhere. I'm not familiar with the areas out there, so I wouldn't have the foggiest clue.

[petey]

Bulls are eaiser prey, especially during the months of November and December...period.

And the oldest and biggest bulls are the easiet of them all....how do I know?

Plain common sense.

The bulls start their pre-rutting in early Septemer. They are running cows for 3 months straight. Fighting other bulls to keep their herem. And when bulls fight, a lot of the time it's to the death. These aren't any little whitetail fights or tickling of horns either...they go at it. Ok, so now we have 3 months of fighting, running non-stop just to keep his cows, breeding which is tiring because of all the chasing done....oh yeah and now we have 3 feet of snow too. Oh did I forget to mention, the only elk that what probably actually turn on a wolf to defend itself would be a bull. Cows/calves would more than likely high-tail it at the mention of a wolf and at that point it's a matter of who runs out of steam first. With a bull...."hey, he's not running, lets gang up on him!"

Simple prey for a small pack of wolves. But you're talking packs of 9 -18. Well that's just plain real easy prey then.

As soon as that bull turns to fight like he's been doing for the past 2 months he's done. He doesn't have the energy to put up a good fight and doesn't have the stamina to out run the pack.

I have this same theory about PA and coyotes. I believe their #1 prey during these same months are the big ol bucks that we're "supposed" to have here now. If you sit down and actually think you don't have to do studies to figure out this stuff. They need to fix this wolf problem asap!

[M.T. Pockets]

I agree Petey, ask the outfitters in the Northern Yellowstone area that have gone out of business.

I was against the reintroduction of wolves in the Rockies. They'd been out of the ecosystem too long, and man has changed the whole dynamics of the area. Mostly through loss of winter habitat and development.

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation's recent publication of Bugle has some interesting articles regarding wolves and their impact on elk herds.

By the way, there were NO moose permits issued to non-residents in the entire Thorofare region of Wyoming this year. This area used to have a thriving moose population that was on the increase after the '88 fires.

Most hunters that don't mind wolves don't have them in their own backyard.

Do I sound selfish that I want to keep the game for hunters rather than a few hundred wolves ? Probably, but I won't apologize for it. It was hunters who saved wildlife in this country during the last century. Wolves have their place, but it should be the truly wild country in Canada and Alaska, dipping down into Northern MN. Places where man hasn't screwed up the whole ecosystem already. By the way, Alaska is having it's own controversy over wolves, it's not all roses there either. If wolves are left uncontrolled, there really is no need for the sport hunter to take the huntable surplus. Without the sport hunter's support will large wildlife populations continue ? They wouldn't have over the last 100 years.

[Skyline]

None of this should have been unexpected. Sadly, when the packs get up into numbers like 9-18, nothing is safe. I have seen big packs like that take down a perfectly healthy 4 or 5 year old bull moose and virtually consume the entire animal in one night...........I am not fabricating this. I have seen it.

I have a hard time biting my tongue when hunters, who know nothing about wolves beyond what they see on TV, rear up in righteous indignation about the wolf and his role in the ecosystem. Eco-systems they do not live in and know nothing about beyond what they have seen in the media.

The World Wildlife Fund, Friends of Animals and others like them, have done a very good job.....they even have some of our own believing the crap they spew.

Completely protecting the wolves simply dooms the local wildlife populations to a cycle of drastic highs and lows. In some places the game may never recover and this has been seen in several caribou herds in central British Columbia where the herds declined rapidly due to wolf predation and have never come back. There are so few caribou spread over such a vast area that they will never return to their former numbers.

Some wolves are a good thing.......too many are not. In the end, you can have some wolves and hunting or lots of wolves and little or no hunting.

If I lived where you guys do and the big game numbers dropped to low levels, which required severe cuts in the draws, etc. The first thing I would demand is a severe cut in non-resident hunter allocations, because after all the residents who live there and pay taxes should get first crack at the game. Only then will some of the non-resident armchair wolf biologists start to pay attention......when it affects them personally.

[royinidaho]

fabs, Here's the link. http://westerngraywolf.fws.gov/annualreports.htm

They did get a few dom. animals.


Petey, et al:

The conjecture of the researchers regarding the bulls was that in addition to what petey said, the bulls are more attentative towards eating thus allowing the wolves to get closer before reacting.

If you study the reports, they are long, note that MT's pack by pack discussions are quite detailed. While, I'm sad to say, Idaho's pack by pack discussion is limited to a map with little green colors. That is a pretty fair indication of the quality and detail of information being recieved by us. Its much worse than pulling teeth.......