Wolf populations max out

[BuzzH]

Yellowstone biologist: Park wolves hit plateau
Posted Dec 21, 2004 - 08:32 AM


MIKE STARK
The Billings Gazette

Yellowstone National Park may have about all the wolves it can handle.

For the first time since wolves were reintroduced to the park 10 years ago, the population has likely reached a plateau. Gone are the days when the wolf population jumped 40 or 50 percent a year. Even more recent growth rates - around 10 percent a year - may be tapering off. Preliminary estimates show there are now about 169 wolves in 15 packs, down from 174 the year before, according to Doug Smith, Yellowstone's lead wolf biologist. On Yellowstone's Northern Range, the wolf population dropped by 10 to 15 wolves in the last year, primarily because of competition.

''I'd say that wolves are approaching carrying capacity in the park,'' Smith said Monday.

Researchers last week completed the first half of an annual study of wolves in the park.

It's no surprise that the population is leveling off, Smith said. There's only so much room and so much food for wolves inside the park. Competition has become especially acute in the Northern Range, where seven packs vie for survival. Even though 30 pups survived this year, the population in that area still fell 15 percent because of fierce competition. Most of the wolves that died were killed in fights with other wolves.

''In the Northern Range, every pack has a neighbor infringing on its territory,'' Smith said.

Elsewhere in the park, competition is less intense because many packs have large swaths of land to themselves, Smith said.

Tracking Yellowstone's wolf population has been an important project since wolves were reintroduced in 1995 and 1996, Smith said. Crews survey the wolves each fall and late winter looking at population dynamics, food choices and other key indicators.

Between 1995 and 1998, the population grew by 40 to 50 percent annually. Between 2000 and 2003, the growth rate was closer to 10 percent a year. The population dipped slightly in 1999 during a parvo outbreak.

But this year there's no sign that disease has played a role in the population estimates, even though mange has had an impact on wolves outside the park's borders. The number of wolves in Yellowstone has flattened primarily because of increased competition and fewer places for new packs to get established, he said.

Smith predicts that Yellowstone's wolf population is stabilizing and will eventually fall to a lower, long-term level.

''But we don't know what that will be yet,'' Smith said.

Outside the park in the larger Yellowstone ecosystem, the wolf population has leveled off, too.

The 2004 estimate is about 300 wolves, about the same number figured in 2003, according to Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Now that most of the best wolf habitat is being used, the population will be kept in check as wolves disperse, get into trouble with livestock and are killed by government agents or others, Bangs said.

''The fact is that when you get the good stuff filled up with wolves, it's pretty hard to keep them alive,'' Bangs said.

Researchers in Yellowstone also found a new pattern in what wolves chose to eat this fall.

Wolves killed more bull elk and fewer calves than normal during the study, which lasted from Nov. 15 to Dec. 14, Smith said.

In a typical fall, bull elk make up 5 to 10 percent of the wolves' diet. This year, it was about 30 percent. Elk calves made up about 20 percent wolf kills this fall, compared with 50 to 60 percent in normal years.

It's unclear what has caused the switch this year but Smith said it may be connected to 2004's wet summer.

Kill rates are also down slightly this year, he said, which may be connected to scant snowfall this year, which acts in the elks' advantage because they have an easier time escaping predators and finding food

 

[The Hedgehog]

Are these the same folks that said 2 years ago they exterminated all the wolves in the Madison Range. Sounds like a bullshit attempt to smooth over rough water.

 

[BuzzH]

Greenhorn,

Who knows for sure whats going on...you could be right?

 

[The Hedgehog]

Buzz,

Ed Bangs said it in March of 2004.."There are basically not any wolves left in the Madison Range." Strange because I saw wolves in the Madison Range in May. And right now, there are wolves all through the range, unless there's some heavy packs of club-foot coyotes on steroids, which I doubt.

Bottom line is you cannot believe anything he quotes, at least I don't. And to say they are now at a plateau in and around the park is a total crock. It's just been the last 2 years that I've noticed a big surve in local wolf sign.

 

[BuzzH]

Greenhorn,

I'm with you, Bangs is a long way from knowing exactly where every wolf in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming live or range.

The way they've spread, I think it was and is a bold/stupid statement to say they're gone from anywhere...in particular the Madison Range.

I'm not even sure that anyone is even bothering to keep track of where wolves are anymore. The population is well above the delisting numbers, and they're finding tracks and such all over the place.

As to the population plateauing, maybe just wishful thinking on my part, but hey, hopefully they're right about something...

 

[BigHornRam]

Buzz,

When the feed supply starts to dwindle the wolves either starve or disperse. How long would it take for a wolf or a pack to go from Jellystone to the Madison Range? A day or two? All this was predictable..... should have took this in account BEFORE the mutts were released. You are a big time puss. If anyone else but Greenhorn would have stated Bangs was full of shit, you'ld have jumped all over them.

So Jellystone is a wolf nursery for now on. Thats what guy's like you wanted so take credit for your great gift to all who like to hunt. I'm glad I don't hunt arond the Park anymore. Just another one of your "pet pork projects that's cutting in to the "social security trust fund". But hey, at least Ed and his cronies have a good job. Instead of actually counting wolves, they probably spend most of their time $*)Q!#@$ off on the computer all day like some other gummint worker we know.

 

[Ithaca 37]

A month ago I spent some time talking to a trapper who works for the Fish and Wildlife Service. He traps "problem" wolves in Idaho. Sometimes they kill them, sometimes they relocate them. He was telling me how many "known" wolves were in Idaho and I asked him for his estimate on the actual number. When I asked how he arrived at that actual number estimate he had some pretty interesting info. I'm not going to give out any of the numbers he gave me, but here's one of the ways he uses to estimate the actual population. When collared wolves move out of the home area looking for new territory he sometimes is involved in the radio tracking. He says they can get a pretty good idea where other "unknown" packs are by watching the traveling behavior of collared wolves. If they pass quickly thru prime wolf habitat it's likely they're not hanging around because they can tell it's already an established territory for another pack. By mapping out the prime areas that have no collared wolves in them, but have collared wolves in surrounding territories they can make some educated guesses at how many wolves are actually there.

If you remember a few years ago, the anti-wolf nuts were claiming that with 50% increases in wolf populations each year it would only be a few years before we'd be over run with them. They ignored those of us who pointed out the territorial aspect. Once again, time is showing us that the anti's are mostly looney tunes.

Many species that are introduced to an area increase rapidly for a while, then top out and crash to a lower long term level. Chukars introduced to Idaho in the early '50s are a classic example. They peaked out in the '70s and then crashed. Turkey's will probably do the same. I believe wolves will, too.

 

[BuzzH]

BHR,

If you spent the time in the field around the Madison like Greenhorn does, I may put some credibility into what you say.

But, with you living in the 'root and hanging out in the local gin mills there, I dont think I'm inclined to believe much of anything you have to say...your sources are very suspect.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Ithaca, what specifically are you refering to when you say time is showing the anti-wolfers are loony-tunes?

These researchers and wolf-loving advocates don't have any specific data that "proves" jack. Thier counts, whether they call it "educated guesses," estimates are just SWAGs. That's the only fact on this thread.

 

[ELKCHSR]

I have personally seen two so far around the Anaconda area this year, when I contacted the wolf people, they were pretty interested. They sent me the report they had so far, I put some of it up earlier, the rest is just kinda dry reading. They are happy to send you what they have, or seem to be anyway.
I was told they keep a map of the regions involved and put a pin or some thing in the spots of all of the sightings that are reported.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Buzz,

When the feed supply starts to dwindle the wolves either starve or disperse. How long would it take for a wolf or a pack to go from Jellystone to the Madison Range? A day or two? All this was predictable..... should have took this in account BEFORE the mutts were released.

BHR,
This was not predictable, and in fact, this was the oppoosite as to what was expected. All of the Wolves introduced into Yellowstone were carefully selected via extensive DNA testing, to not have the Wandering Gene. Just like with those Wild Sheep in MT, everybody was assured that the Wandering Gene was recessive in these herds..... hump

 

[Ithaca 37]

Greenhorn, Last Spring, before the pups were born, the wolf biologists in Idaho knew of 398 wolves in the state (that's the number I was given by a very reliable source). That's plenty for delisting. All they could do about the "unknowns" is estimate. Even when adding their wildest guess to the verified number, the population doesn't come to even half of what the anti-wolf nuts were claiming (they claimed 2000). Also, if you remember, a few years ago the anti-wolf crowd was projecting wolf numbers based on 50% yearly increases just about forever. Anyone with any sense knew the wolves would eventually run out of territories.

In checking the Idaho anti-wolf Coalition web page I notice they are now claiming 800-1000 wolves in Idaho. A year ago they were claiming 2000. They must have figured out how ridiculous that was.

Here's some nuts for ya: http://www.natureswolves.com/index.html

From the very beginning, I've been an advocate of getting the wolf numbers high enough for delisting ASAP and then controlling them by hunting. It's the only solution. Others who are fighting that solution, (like the state of WY) are only prolonging the problem. We're seeing that now.

Here's an estimate of how many wolves the tri-state area will have by 2010 (Five more years) Can anyone believe it?

".....Wolves are multiplying at an alarming rate, at 34 percent per year. Ed Bangs, US Fish and Wildlife Service, wolf recovery coordinator for the lower 48 states says the tri-states have 720 wolves, of that Idaho has 260. These numbers are very conservative, says Gary Marbut, President of Montana Shooting Sports Association. He says that many credible observers place’s the numbers at 1200 or more.

Assuming the conservative number of 720, by, 2010 wolf populations will exceed 5700 if not controlled, he said.............."

http://www.usa4id.com/ciwc/Wolve Likely to Wipe Out Wildlife.htm

Here's the whole article:

Wolves Likely to Wipe Out Wildlife?



Pocatello- Wolves likely to wipe out the wildlife resource in the Tri- States. (ID MT WY )



At a recent Wolf debate held at Idaho State University, Carter Niemeyer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW) wolf recovery coordinator for Idaho, told the audience if everyone would let the wolf situation settle down for 10 years wolves will become part of the ecosystem. Warren Ballard, now a professor of wildlife biology in Texas, has conducted scientific research concerning wolves extensively in Alaska. Ballard, a former wolf biologist for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, says without drastic wolf control methods by 2010, elk, moose, deer, sheep, goats will be gone, smaller animals such as ground-nesting birds, rabbits, gophers and anything else edible will be wiped out, ranchers will be bankrupt, horseback riders will won’t be safe outside highly-guarded enclaves, hiking will be very dangerous, and living in the Tri-States will be very different.

Wolves are multiplying at an alarming rate, at 34 percent per year. Ed Bangs, US Fish and Wildlife Service, wolf recovery coordinator for the lower 48 states says the tri-states have 720 wolves, of that Idaho has 260. These numbers are very conservative, says Gary Marbut, President of Montana Shooting Sports Association. He says that many credible observers place’s the numbers at 1200 or more.

Assuming the conservative number of 720, by, 2010 wolf populations will exceed 5700 if not controlled, he said. Recent studies conducted in Idaho showed some very troubling numbers. 90 percent of all Wolf kills are elk, 58 percent were calves, 31 percent adult cows and 11 percent were bulls, with deer comprising of the remainder. These numbers were almost replicated in Montana says Robert T. Fanning, Chairman of the Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, Inc.

The problem: it takes 2500 elk to feed 100 of the non-indigenous Canadian Gray Wolves per year, this does not include what is known as "Sport Killing" says Fanning, a graduate from the University of Notre Dame with a degree in biology. He says the nonessential and experimental program is not about wolves; the main focus is to drive people off public lands using wolves as a tool. The magnitude of predation on game and non-game animals is supported by Wolf experts from the United States and Canada.

Scientific research done by Kyran Kunkel of the Turner Endangered Species Fund probably most closely resembles Idaho’s situation. Kunkel´s studies showed that wolves favored white-tailed deer over elk and moose, but would shift to those animals when they were available. Kunkel´s work also showed that wolves and cougars co-existed in the study area, as well as did black and grizzly bears, and all preyed on deer, elk and moose. After re-colonization by wolves, deer and elk numbers declined and so did hunter success. At the same time, populations of deer, elk and hunter success improved elsewhere in Montana where there were no wolves. His studies showed that as prey species declined, cougars eventually starved, wolves killed each other and had lower reproductive rates, and the prey animals consequently rebounded and hunter success improved. Kunkel said that cycle would likely repeat itself in the long term, and there was probably little that could be done to change it. We shouldn’t kid ourselves and think we can manage predator and prey for stable populations, Kunkel said.
In McCall ID. Scientist, Tom Bergerud wolf expert from British Columbia, Canada, (where these wolves came from) told the Idaho Fish and Game Commission, he had more dire predictions about wolves. “I predict that you’re going to have major impacts from wolves in this state, (Idaho)” he said. “I predict a major elk decline”. He said, he saw wolves repeatedly depress moose, caribou and elk populations while studying them throughout Canada, and in some cases they wiped out local populations of caribou. I’ve watched herd after herd (of caribou) go "EXTINCT" across Canada, he said. Bergerud said wolves will concentrate on one prey species until it is depressed, (Predator Pit) then move onto another when it was available. He also said reducing wolf numbers led to increases in prey animals, but wolf reductions had to be done over a wide area and for long periods of time. “As far as I’m concerned, wolves do not self regulate”, Bergerud said.

Montana state moose biologist Kurt Alt tells us the moose are all but wiped out. Wildlife in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have been decimated and predation on domesticated livestock industry which relies on wildlife as a buffer between predators is 500 to 700 percent higher than the USF&WS will acknowledge. Without immediate wolf control the ranchers will be forced out of business due to wolf predation. . Numerous pro-wolf adversary groups are protesting saying U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not done enough to protect wolfs and will likely file law suits, preventing the delisting process of wolves for state management control.
As un-collared wolf population continues to expand, compounding the difficult task of documenting formation of new packs. The Wolf Recovery Program relies on wolf sighting reports from the public to identify potential areas to survey for new wolf packs.

Ron Gillett, Chairman of the Central Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition Inc., who owns and operates an outfitting and guide service in Stanley ID, says the numbers don't add up, because there are many wolves without radio tracking devices, leaving USFWS officials no way of accounting for wolves. "It is impossible to know the true wolf count in Idaho because of the dense terrain and the topography of this state”. Gillett, contends Idaho wolf populations are almost double what USFWS, is releasing. “Wolves are multiplying like rabbits in Australia, wolves are land piranhas, annihilating everything in their path”. “Our wildlife is being wiped out” Gillett said. Pro-wolf adversary groups are saying USFWS has not done enough to protect wolves and are expected to file lawsuits preventing the delisting process for state control in 2003



John Nelson
Central Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition

 

[JoseCuervo]

At a recent Wolf debate held at Idaho State University, Carter Niemeyer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW) wolf recovery coordinator for Idaho, told the audience if everyone would let the wolf situation settle down for 10 years wolves will become part of the ecosystem. Warren Ballard, now a professor of wildlife biology in Texas, has conducted scientific research concerning wolves extensively in Alaska. Ballard, a former wolf biologist for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, says without drastic wolf control methods by 2010, elk, moose, deer, sheep, goats will be gone, smaller animals such as ground-nesting birds, rabbits, gophers and anything else edible will be wiped out, ranchers will be bankrupt, horseback riders will won’t be safe outside highly-guarded enclaves, hiking will be very dangerous, and living in the Tri-States will be very different.

Oh my!!!


I guess we should all give up on hunting, as we have one of them edjumacated Texans telling us that elk, deer, sheep, goats, moose, etc.. will be wiped out in 4 more years!!!! |oo

 

[Ithaca 37]

Crazy, huh? That's what I'm referring to when I say "looney tunes". The people who say that kinda stuff and the people who actually believe it. Does anyone in their right mind believe that?

Here it is again: "by 2010, elk, moose, deer, sheep, goats will be gone, smaller animals such as ground-nesting birds, rabbits, gophers and anything else edible will be wiped out, ranchers will be bankrupt, horseback riders will won’t be safe outside highly-guarded enclaves, hiking will be very dangerous, and living in the Tri-States will be very different."



Maybe we all better sell our hunting equipment------guns and all---before everybody else wises up. Every edible thing in WY, Idaho and Montana will be gone in five more years!

 

[The Hedgehog]

Yup that's looney. But it doesn't change the fact there are certainly a shitpile of wolves, a lot more than they think. They're becoming more and more evident as of the last 2 years where I live, and there doesn't seem to be any progress on delisting. The mention of the population on the "plateau" is a bullshit smoke and mirrors PR effort. Some of you guys would feel a lot different if it was your stomping grounds. Wolves are OK, but not when they are out of control. When you regularly see more wolf tracks than all the rest of the game combined it's a bit of a worry.

 

[ringer]

Just read about the wolf impact for North Yellowstone. The Gardiner herd had 4000 elk in 1968, 19000 elk in 1994, wolf reintroduced in 1995 and today they have 8000 elk and dropping fast. Had 1180 tags for 2004 and only 148 tags for next year. These numbers are from Montana Game & Fish. But I'm sure the wolf has had a positive impact on hunting. Let us know when we can buy wolf tags and we can set up a group event.

 

[BuzzH]

Ringer,

Dig a little deeper...

You'll also find that the population of 19,000 elk in Yellowstone was WAY above the carrying capacity. There were about 2500 permits given then, and hunters were not making a dent. The winter of 1996 took a good toll as well. Also, the herd was skewed heavily with unproductive/old elk, all documented.

On top of all that, the park created the need for 2500 permits a year to help control their numbers.

Also note that the elk season in a large portion of SW Montana was kept open for an additional 2 weeks this year (total of 7 weeks of rifle and 5 weeks of archery) to help REDUCE the elk population, which is way over the desired population goals. Also, last year was the first time in the history of elk hunting in Montana that some elk hunters were allowed to kill 2 elk per year in many areas in Montana.

In practically all of Montana elk hunting opportunities have increased.

So, using one area as an example of over-all elk hunting opportunities being lost by wolves, is pretty lame.

That said, I would like to see wolves delisted and hunted, right now. That would give hunters more opportunity to control wolves in their hunting areas, and also give them a chance to bag a wolf.

 

[ELKCHSR]

I got two in my house hold this year...
But because a lot of people were running the area I usually frequent, and elk not being stupid, just moved back into the landscape a little deeper.
It was three solid weeks of hardcore hiking that finally showed me where they were.
I will tell you what though, the area I go to, has more elk in it than any other areas I have stomped in since moving back to Montana some 7-8 years ago.
I have seen no wolf sign in this area yet though. There is sign in other parts of the Big Hole that I have found. I suppose it will only be a matter of time, I sure hope by that time they delist them and put tags out....
That would be fun....

 

[BuzzH]

Ringer,

For your viewing pleasure:

Elk hunting remains slow in season extension
By NICK GEVOCK, Chronicle Staff Writer

Hunters had an extra two weeks to bag an elk this year, but most still came home empty handed.

"We did kill a few more elk, but not nearly the number we were hoping for," said Pat Flowers, Region 3 Supervisor for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
Officials extended the season on cow elk through Dec. 12 to reduce the number of elk in most hunting districts west of the Madison River. Elk numbers are well over the target populations that biologists set.

The extension is part of new management standards established by the FWP Commission.

Hunters checked an additional 119 cow and calf elk through five FWP check stations throughout the region on the two weekends that the season was extended. While that helped reduce numbers, it wasn't nearly enough to get the herds even close the target numbers, said Kurt Alt, Region 3 wildlife manager.

"It doesn't even keep up with calf production," he said.


FWP's elk management plan includes three criteria for extending the season: a kill of less than 25 percent of the average; a liberal regulation for at least the past three years; and herds that are 20 percent above the target population.

The criteria to determine which districts remain open also calls for reasonable public access.

Success rates for elk hunting are largely dependent on snowfall and cold temperatures, which push elk to lower elevations looking for food. The hunting season started off with heavy snows, but turned mild.

That pattern continued through the extension.

"We were hoping to see a weather front come in that would dramatically increase hunter success, and it didn't happen," Alt said.

However, the extension combined with this year's general season made it possible for hunters to kill a few more cow elk than last year's general season.

Throughout the seven weeks of hunting this year, officials checked 322 antlerless elk through the four check stations that were open both years.

That compares to 226 elk checked through the same stations during last year's general season.

Hunters turned out in fair numbers, although there wasn't the overcrowding that officials feared. On the two additional weekends, 2,898 hunters came through the check stations.

With elk numbers remaining high, hunters should expect liberal regulations that allow cow elk to be killed in many districts with a general permit again next year, Alt said.

"We're over objective in elk numbers," he said. "We didn't get there overnight, and we won't get back to objective overnight either."

Nick Gevock is at [email protected]

 

[ringer]

Buzz-does that article refer to the areas with wolves growing in numbers or the entire state? The article I read from the Chronicle referred to only the Gardiner herd and not to the state and clearly implied that wolves were good at killing the mature bulls and not just the young and sick. We do agree that a wolf season and delisting would be interesting. I doubt that the average hunter would do too well on them though. I saw a pair within 50 yards bowhunting in eastern AZ last year but that was just luck and they didn't make a sound. I know that the cats will kill more elk and just for fun but the wolves will spread and grow faster so you may see them all over your hunt areas in the future. Hope not.