Study: Elk generally unconcerned about wolves

[beginnerhunter]

Name-calling and sexism in one sentence. Thanks for showing your true colors.

I think he meant "indoorsmen or indoorswomen", which would be egalitarian. (Also not expressing agreement with any of the posts so far).

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Both things can be true at the same time. Elk can be unconcerned with the presence of wolves and get killed (sometimes at very high rates) by them at the same time. This happens in humans why would we think it wouldn't happen in elk. Data shows un-restrained passengers in vehicles die at a higher rate than restrained passengers, yet plenty of people are so unconcerned that they wont take the seconds it takes to put on a seat belt themselves let alone their kids. Just because the elk so little concern doesn't mean they are not getting killed by wolves. Just as getting killed by wolves does not necessarily mean elk will be living in constant state of fear.

 

[COEngineer]

Credible info is hard to come by. First they do a study showing that very soon after wolf reintroduction elk started avoiding certain areas, allowing aspens to recover, this allowing beavers to recover, and the wolf being credited with saving the beaver in YNP.

I had the same thoughts. I think either the whole beaver thing was overblown and/or was not as directly related to wolf re-introduction as some people thought. More generally, though, the complexities of an eco-system are mind-boggling. None of the factors can be boiled down to simple "X is bad, Y is good," except that better habitat is better for wildlife and those of us who enjoy the outdoors.

 

[MattK]

I've thought about the study saying wolves have helped beaver populations and read the reasons in various forms and from different people. There is a causation that scientists have found...the number of coyotes decreased dramatically, which allowed the number of beavers to increase (ie. decrease in predation, at least predation that killed beavers). Along with this, overgrazing that had occurred with an elk over population as well as them moving to different areas caused a change in the ecosystem when it comes to what beavers eat. Taking these two conditions in coordination, there has been a verified increase in the number of beavers in Yellowstone.

 

[ImBillT]

How's that when there is no limit on OTC resident elk licenses in Wyoming, Montana, (and I think Idaho)...and in the case of Montana unlimited, OTC elk b-licenses for BOTH R and NR's?

A) I said “general”, which implies that the statement does not apply to all situations.

B) In my simple statement of my general feelings I mentioned that the quick simple version did not paint a perfectly accurate picture of what happens in reality.

C) Unlimited and OTC licenses exist for a variety of reasons. In some cases, there are enough elk for both human and non-human predators with plenty to spare after the fact. In other cases elk are not wanted in those areas. Furthermore, if the cow harvest is limited the total population is not after reduced in OTC areas to nearly the degree that bull age class and bull population is. The result is that harvest is somewhat self-limiting because number of hunters wanted to shoot the bulls that they saw is low, or even though there are unlimited bull licenses the bull has to meet certain criteria.

On a side note, I wonder how many places needing to reduce elk population have tried $50 non-res cow tags with license requirement. A resident might feel like his freezer is pretty full with a bull and a buck, and a free cow tag might not make him want to skip hunting a bull this year. On the other hand, a NR who didn’t draw a tag might jump all over a $50 cow tag. CO’s NR cow tag is pushing it price wise for me.

I still say that I want to hear about the real benefits and costs of reintroducing or protecting predatory species rather than simply the argument that they were once somewhere, so we should put them back there.

 

[Brian in Montana]

Ok, sure. Wolves usually tend to eat "the weak". It might be that a cow with a temporary leg injury, and an otherwise fully functional reproductive system, could be "weak". Or that rut-weary bull, that otherwise might breed two-dozen more cows in the next couple years, could be "weak". I smell some wolf apologetics in play here.

I'm no biologist, but I've seen evidence of a pack of wolves target a group of elk and basically drive them before them. They run the elk until a "weak" on drops away from the group and surround it and haul it down. Eat what they want (they don't eat the whole elk) then run the herd until the next "weakest" elk drops away.

I'm certainly not all in with the wolf erradicationists, but to say that elk are "unconcerned" with wolves is malarkey. What I see in the Pioneers and Pintars says different. I just don't have a degree beside my name to legitimize it.

 

[beginnerhunter]

A) I said “general”, which implies that the statement does not apply to all situations.

B) In my simple statement of my general feelings I mentioned that the quick simple version did not paint a perfectly accurate picture of what happens in reality.

C) Unlimited and OTC licenses exist for a variety of reasons. In some cases, there are enough elk for both human and non-human predators with plenty to spare after the fact. In other cases elk are not wanted in those areas. Furthermore, if the cow harvest is limited the total population is not after reduced in OTC areas to nearly the degree that bull age class and bull population is. The result is that harvest is somewhat self-limiting because number of hunters wanted to shoot the bulls that they saw is low, or even though there are unlimited bull licenses the bull has to meet certain criteria.

On a side note, I wonder how many places needing to reduce elk population have tried $50 non-res cow tags with license requirement. A resident might feel like his freezer is pretty full with a bull and a buck, and a free cow tag might not make him want to skip hunting a bull this year. On the other hand, a NR who didn’t draw a tag might jump all over a $50 cow tag. CO’s NR cow tag is pushing it price wise for me.

I still say that I want to hear about the real benefits and costs of reintroducing or protecting predatory species rather than simply the argument that they were once somewhere, so we should put them back there.

I read somewhere that predators may be better at slowing CWD and other diseases by their selective targeting of sick animals (more selective than humans). So potentially if a CWD animal is killed earlier by a predator, it would halt the propagation and shedding of the prions (the wolves may shed a few prions in feces prions don't propagate in wolves).

I'm too ignorant to take a side here. But I did have a question for the pro-wolf crowd: Would you be okay with wolf reintroduction if wolf hunting was permanently off the table as a conservation tool? I think that is part of the concern for the anti-wolf crowd.

 

[BuzzH]

A) I said “general”, which implies that the statement does not apply to all situations.

B) In my simple statement of my general feelings I mentioned that the quick simple version did not paint a perfectly accurate picture of what happens in reality.

C) Unlimited and OTC licenses exist for a variety of reasons. In some cases, there are enough elk for both human and non-human predators with plenty to spare after the fact. In other cases elk are not wanted in those areas. Furthermore, if the cow harvest is limited the total population is not after reduced in OTC areas to nearly the degree that bull age class and bull population is. The result is that harvest is somewhat self-limiting because number of hunters wanted to shoot the bulls that they saw is low, or even though there are unlimited bull licenses the bull has to meet certain criteria.

On a side note, I wonder how many places needing to reduce elk population have tried $50 non-res cow tags with license requirement. A resident might feel like his freezer is pretty full with a bull and a buck, and a free cow tag might not make him want to skip hunting a bull this year. On the other hand, a NR who didn’t draw a tag might jump all over a $50 cow tag. CO’s NR cow tag is pushing it price wise for me.

I still say that I want to hear about the real benefits and costs of reintroducing or protecting predatory species rather than simply the argument that they were once somewhere, so we should put them back there.

Your statements are contradictory to reality.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

I don't think most people understand how the scientific process and subsequent literature publication works. I know I didn't until I had to. There is a lot more gray than you might think.

-First, there are tiers of publications; not all peer reviewed literature is of the same "stature". For example, something published in Western North American Naturalist is not going to have the clout of something published in Science. Both peer reviewed, both legitimate, but they serve different purposes and audiences. In the same way, a conservation assessment by a state biologist may not be peer reviewed, but could have novel insights and priceless information. Each manner of publication has it's place and purpose.

-Second, unless you read the whole paper and seek to understand it--including the literature it cites--you can't say a whole lot about it and come out looking very intelligent. No skipping to the discussion section and picking one sentence you agree or disagree with...

-Third, a study can be completed and published, but not agreed with by everyone in the scientific community; even the reviewers themselves. The peer reviewers are assessing the quality of the scientific process, not just the content. If you read one paper that seems to disagree with the results of another, that is actually the rule not the exception. When you start seeing results repeated across geographic and temporal (time) scales and a preponderance of evidence emerge, it's probably something meaningful and on it's way to becoming generally accepted.

-Finally, people who get degrees in biology and natural sciences are not smarter than those who don't. Nor would 99% of them claim to be. What their education has earned them is a set of scientific, mathematical, and analytical tools to use for understanding nature. That is all. Graduate school doesn't make you smarter, it teaches you to look at things critically. Once you've immersed yourself in the literature of a given topic you don't have to spend as much time sifting through the chaff either.

I will probably post this same thing again at some point, because it seems to come up quite regularly. As to this particular paper, while relatively familiar with the science and even some of the scientists, I'm not going to comment as I have not read it in it's entirety. News outlets emphasize readership and clicks as opposed to scientific veracity, which I know everyone knows but it's easy to forget.

 

[El Jason]

As I read through some of the comments in this thread, it reinforces to me the validity of this statement:

“And on any given day in the winter in the Greater Yellowstone, you can find a scenario that would meet almost any of your ideas or emotional claims about how wolves affect elk. You can find a place where the elk didn’t budge when a pack of wolves showed up, and you can find a place where elk ran a mile,” Middleton said.
“You can find a place where wolves killed two or three elk in one go, and you will find a place where wolves fail to kill again and again. And that’s the nature of this predator and prey. The question the studies are asking is what is typical?”

If you take one thing from SnowyMountaineer's post above, this should be it:

Second, unless you read the whole paper and seek to understand it--including the literature it cites--you can't say a whole lot about it and come out looking very intelligent. No skipping to the discussion section and picking one sentence you agree or disagree with...

Don't cherry pick for confirmation bias. Don't try to find quotes to justify your position. Otherwise, you are not using the information in the context it was presented.

It's fine to take stuff with a grain of salt. However, to tell people to dismiss data because it's from a university is ridiculous. Is all university research useful and applicable? Nope. Do you have to sift through it? Sure. Does Doug Smith potentially have a bias towards wolves? Possibly. Does that mean he can't be objective? Absolutely not.

The Gros Ventre reference is a valid one. However, it's one data point. Is there causation and/or correlation? Who knows at this point? I have plenty of anecdotal observations over the years, but that doesn't mean I should be dismissive of the data presented in this study.

Referencing the presence or lack thereof of elk in the Pioneers and Pintlers solely in relation to wolves is simplistic. Hamlin's research in the Madison Valley on elk movements and timing of such is likely very applicable across much of Montana. I can't definitively say this, but I think it's not all that hard to look at elk use patterns over the last couple of decades and see an inverse correlation between available elk on public ground and harbored elk on private ground. Then, look at this in the context of increased elk damage hunts during this same time frame.

Did wolves play a role in elk numbers? Certainly. Did they directly influence where elk moved to and how they used the available habitat? I'm certainly skeptical. I personally think hunters greatly underestimate the role human pressure plays in elk movements and use patterns. I've yet to see an elk take off at a dead run when a wolf is 1000 yards away, yet I see it happen during hunting season when they smell me.

If you need a villain and want to put it on wolves, feel free. I'm not an apologist or a defender of them. They are here and they are a reality. I have little interest in re-hashing the past. However, I would hope hunters as a whole would be more willing to objectively look at scientific research before deriding it because it doesn't fit their existing paradigm.

At this point in my life, I have a lot more desire to become a better student of wildlife and habitat ecology and helping new hunters embrace this than I do of becoming a more successful hunter. Unfortunately, it seems there is more interest in how to find and kill big bucks than there is in understanding ecosystem dynamics, which aren't always neat and tidy.

I too would like to see the actual scientific publication. I'd also love to sit down with the authors and flesh out additional questions. If there is no limitation to high quality habitat, do elk try and avoid wolves? Have they seen any instances of elk voluntarily using sub optimal habitat in response to presence of wolves? Is the pattern of use changed, i.e shorter and more frequent feeding intervals vs. longer duration/less frequent intervals in the presence of wolves? Is there a seasonal influence that may change the availability of habitat?

 

[El Jason]

Those of you who don't get it yet; bulls and Cows are most intimately fearful of predators, and especially wolves. Their senses alert with dozens of cues, signalling imminent danger to themselves and the herd.

The researchers expect us to believe that because a herd of Elk doesn't run away from the presence of a wolf that it isn't fearful. That's such a crock of garbage. It's life and death with Elk, their entire nature, habits, instincts and habitat is all strictly centered around the healthy fear of predation.

I think this is a conflation of fear and use patterns. I'm not an elk psychologist, and have no idea if elk experience true fear or simply a recognition of danger. Based on what I read, they weren't measuring fear, they were observing use patterns. One is quantifiable data, the other is not.

JM77's photo made me laugh. Obviously, as prey animals, and elk must respond appropriately to a perceived threat or they end up dinner. Perception of those threats is markedly different though, and this is indisputable. I watched a very large black bear (certainly a threat to a calf elk) walk within 15-20 yards of a cow and calf elk during archery season. They were watching the bear, but didn't run at all. I've yet to find an elk during archery season that I can walk within 20 yards of while it is watching me.

 

[ImBillT]

Your statements are contradictory to reality.

Which one and how so? I’m open to reevaluate my opinions. Just like I want more than “wolves used to live there in high numbers”, I would like more than “Your statements are contradictory to reality”.

 

[jtm307]

Does anyone have a link to the actual study? I read the article 3 times and didn't see a link. I'm curious to know how these researchers determined an elk had a 10% percent probability of being eaten in a wolf encounter.

 

[BuzzH]

Which one and how so? I’m open to reevaluate my opinions. Just like I want more than “wolves used to live there in high numbers”, I would like more than “Your statements are contradictory to reality”.

No desire to repeat myself...

 

[ImBillT]

No desire to repeat myself...

Then I remain ignorant of the flaws in my opinion.

I can’t kill an elk that a wolf already killed. I’m well aware that managing wildlife and other resources cannot be completely boiled down to such simplicity, however there must be some degree of correlation there. If someone can show that A) the benefits of reintroducing wolves to CO outweigh the costs, and B) there is not a different solution that would provide a similar outcome for hunters and conservationists, then I would be more open to it. I simply do not like the argument that if they were there at one time then they should be reintroduced today.

 

[ImBillT]

I read somewhere that predators may be better at slowing CWD and other diseases by their selective targeting of sick animals (more selective than humans). So potentially if a CWD animal is killed earlier by a predator, it would halt the propagation and shedding of the prions (the wolves may shed a few prions in feces prions don't propagate in wolves).

I'm too ignorant to take a side here. But I did have a question for the pro-wolf crowd: Would you be okay with wolf reintroduction if wolf hunting was permanently off the table as a conservation tool? I think that is part of the concern for the anti-wolf crowd.

Put it in the benefits column if they can prove it. Wolves travel quite a bit though, so if they carry in infective dose of prions then my guess would be that it would be a risky strategy for reducing the spread of the disease.

 

[ImBillT]

I bet if humans had to bite an elk to cause it harm that they would tolerate us at much closer ranges than they do.

 

[beginnerhunter]

Put it in the benefits column if they can prove it. Wolves travel quite a bit though, so if they carry in infective dose of prions then my guess would be that it would be a risky strategy for reducing the spread of the disease.

In another thread, someone brought up avian scavengers scattering them far and wide!

However, a live elk will keep making and spreading prions. Not that this theory is the end all be all of course. Just thought it was interesting.

 

[ImBillT]

In another thread, someone brought up avian scavengers scattering them far and wide!

However, a live elk will keep making and spreading prions. Not that this theory is the end all be all of course. Just thought it was interesting.

Well that’s a good point! My GUESS is that hunters are currently the biggest issue with spreading CWD to new areas. Predators may be a positive on the CWD front. They definitely use different harvest criteria than I do.

 

[LopeHunter]

I will walk towards a rabbit. I am not concerned about that rabbit. If the rabbit appears unexpectedly in the distance, I will not run.

Do elk graze towards a pack of wolves? Wolves the elk have spotted.

I would see three scenarios. Elk spot wolves and immediately run away. Elk spot wolves and immediately change behavior while actively monitoring the threat. Elk spot the wolves and do not change behavior. Elk spot the wolves and move towards the wolves. The first scenario would show immediate, high level of concern. The second scenario would show how concern balanced with conserving the energy required to run. The third scenario would show no concern. The last scenario would show no concern.

I have watched at first light in November in northern Wyoming as 30 mule deer does and fawns were feeding on the same mountain ridge as a mature grizzly bear rolling over deadfall pines. Deer within 50 feet of the bear sometimes were feeding while facing away from the bear. Seemed odd to me for the deer to be that calm as I would expect the deer to blow out of there. We rode on after an hour of glassing from 200 yards from the bear. The bear never charged the deer or ran towards us. I do presume that bear had killed deer at some point. Seemed late in season for the bear to be active. Was not what I expected.