Wolf populations max out

[BuzzH]

Theres wolves in most all of SW Montana right now, including the areas with the extended seasons and the areas 25% over population goals...

 

[The Hedgehog]

The extended seasons weren't in the Absaroka-Beartooth, Madison, or Gallatin ranges, where traditional late season elk hunts and moose permits have been axed in recent years. I could be wrong, but my guess is wolf numbers are just slightly higher in these places. But I suppose since the wolf populations are now "maxed out" we probably can't expect them to assist in the MT elk management to the west of the river. I guess time will tell.

 

[Nemont]

Gardiner late elk hunt to be cut

By SCOTT McMILLION, Chronicle Staff Writer

HELENA -- The winter elk hunt in Gardiner will be cut from 1,180 hunters to 148 hunters, mirroring the steady downward spiral of the Northern Yellowstone elk herd, the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission decided here Thursday.

The hunt is likely to be discontinued altogether in the future, said Kurt Alt, FWP regional wildlife manager.
"It's probably going to go away," he said.

He cited the heavy density of wolves in and near the park, coupled with other predation, as a reason for cutting the hunt by more than 90 percent by January, 2006.

The northern Yellowstone herd hit a peak of about 19,000 animals in 1994. The next year, wolves were reintroduced and elk have been on a steady decline ever since.

"It's just one more mouth to feed," Alt said of the wolves.


As recently as 2000, FWP offered more than 2,800 tags for the late hunt, which aimed to harvest mostly female elk that migrated out of Yellowstone National Park.

"We expect to observe less than 8,000 elk during this December's count," Alt said. "Wolf lovers will have a hard time accepting that wolves are having such an impact."

He noted that in 1968, when the National Park Service stopped culling elk inside the park, there were about 4,000 elk there. By 1975, the year the late hunt commenced, the number had climbed to 12,000. In those years, there were no wolves, about half as many grizzly bears as there are today, and a lot fewer lions, Alt noted.

He said that, with the abundance of predators in and near the park, he fears that "one bad winter" could drop the elk herd to the 1968 level and the smaller herd would then face all those predators.

Critics of wolf reintroduction have pointed to reduced elk numbers for years and blamed wolves for them.

Now it turns out they're right, at least partly.

Recent studies in Yellowstone have shown that 70 percent of elk calves die from predators by the end of September of their first year.

Bears, both black and grizzly, account for about 60 percent of the calves that die in the first few weeks of their lives in the jaws of predators. After the calves become more mobile, wolves begin killing more of them and bears kill fewer, the studies show.

Springtime counts over the last three years have shown that between 12 and 14 calves per hundred cows have remained alive through the first year of their life.

A calf/cow ratio of about 20 is needed for a herd to sustain itself, Alt told the commission.

FWP commission chairman Dan Walker asked him if he expected to see that level reached within the next 10 years. Alt said "no."

The commission also approved Montana's statewide elk plan, which focuses on ways for people to harvest more elk, if necessary. Unlike the area just north of the park, most elk hunting districts in the state contain more elk than guidelines call for, leading to landowner complaints.

It's possible that some districts could be limited to antlerless elk only, in efforts to reduce populations.

Alt said he is not concerned about wolves causing similar big drops in elk numbers in other parts of the state.

It hasn't happened in northwest Montana, he said, or along the Rocky Mountain Front, where wolves have lived for years.

Wolves will continue to spread out from the park, but a significant number will get get in trouble with livestock and likely will be killed, Alt said.

"Whether they are listed (by the Endangered Species Act) or not, wolves will be managed on landscapes where people live and work," he said.

FWP is taking over many wolf management duties from the federal government.

Once delisted -- a step that could be years away -- Montana hopes to install limited hunting and trapping seasons for wolves, he said.

 

[BigHornRam]

Greenhorn,

Hunters in the country surrounding the Jellystone wolf sanctuary and nursery are going to have a healthy population of wolves to compete with from now on. Mother nature will be the only one managing the wolves in Jellystone....whether the wolves are delisted or not. It sucks.

 

[wyomingtim]

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

I saw a wolf once....it was near Eagle, CO about 3 years ago. No one believed me, but I know what I saw.

We had reports a few months ago that a rancher saw 2 wolves running through the grasslands just north of us. I don't know that it has been verified, but you would think that long time ranchers (like this one) (and no, not one of the welfare ranchers) would know the difference between a coyote and a wolf.

 

[ELKCHSR]

There was one killed in Missouri just a few years ago....

 

[JoseCuervo]

Paul and Greenhorn,

Just exactly what is the foundation of your opposition on the Wolves? Is it just that you don't want competition when you are Elk hunting? Is good managment of Elk, in your opinion, mean that you maximize the numbers of Elk on the Mountain?

How would you relate that to the Wyoming feedlot Elk?

I would guess that the fact Greenhorn whacks a big bull every year means that Wolves don't affect his hunting. And that the more lazy fat-ass wolf haters that think hunting has been ruined (by 2010 all deer, elk, moose will be wiped out.... ) just means less competition for true hard core elk hunters.

Our area has wolves, and we are seeing more Elk than ever, but far less hunters.

 

[Horn Seeker]

Whats your point Tim?? So there were two or three wolves spotted hundreds or even a thousand miles from where they are supposed to be? A big male looking for his own territory can travel infinite distances (ok, infinite may be abit of a strong words). One wolf in all of CO, and yeah, thats probably all there was IF you did see a wolf, isn't going to impact CO's elk pop. We are talking about hundreds of wolves that eat a lot of elk meat and need to eat it every couple days. If theres 1000 wolves running around they are eating maybe...hmmm, how many deer and elk a year.....I actually dont know, but its a crap load and as the deer and elk numbers drop so is our hunting opportunity. Then when the wolves start starving, our hunting opp will end because they will be endowed ALL the game meat, as we can go to the store to get our food, but they cant.

Not Good. Yes....the Sky Is Falling!

 

[Moosie]

Hey Gunner, Hows the Elk harvest been up in the Sawtooths were you hunt ? Still as Good as 5 years ago ? 10 years ago ? better ? Worse ?

I agree with Ithica, Let's get the Wolf population from 270 to 1500 !!!! then we can get 100 tags a year to control them when they are Delisted.... Then there is ONLY 1400.. WOW !!! Only 1400, we know that won't make a Difference in our hunting.

Am I greedy ? MAybe, But with Everything against the animals we hunt including loss of habitat, Current US preditors, hunters, AND the intoduction of the Canadian Wolf, it does make it harder to hunt. Will it effect my hunting ? Nope, Cuz Right now I'll outhike 95% of the Ya-hoots that set out for hunting, So I'll have the Edge. Am I still seeing alot of Game ? You bet, Every year I lean to be a Better hunter and How to hunt. But all it takes is to Loose the hunter "Opertunity" which Idaho is Doing (a FACT) and the Tag #'s will decrease in sales (thats already happeing also a fact) and not as many people participate to let the Guys that don't make all the choices. Once that happen we'l loose all the hunting rights and the wolves won't have hunters to compete anyways.

Awsome Plan !!!! |oo |oo

I say Let the Guys that shoot the wolves keep shooting them and keep the #'s around 200-300 I'll back a Wolf poacher any day of the week

 

[The Hedgehog]

Elkgunner, I don't have any opposition to wolves, but I don't like that elk hunting opportunities are being traded for pumped-up wolf numbers. I worry because folks seem to be clueless on population estimates and have no schedule for delisting. I never used to see more wolf tracks than all other species combined when walking trails this time of the year.

Do you prefer that wolves manage elk and not hunters? Instead of asking me about elk management why don't you tell me about moose management.

The upper Gallatin used to offer some of the premier moose hunting units in this state. Now it sucks. Are we supposed to be doing a happy dance about it.

1995 Unit 310 20 moose permits
2004 Unit 310 1 moose permit
1995 Unit 307 5 moose permits
2004 Unit 307 1 moose permit

 

[JoseCuervo]

Hey Gunner, Hows the Elk harvest been up in the Sawtooths were you hunt ? Still as Good as 5 years ago ? 10 years ago ? better ? Worse ?

I say Let the Guys that shoot the wolves keep shooting them and keep the #'s around 200-300 I'll back a Wolf poacher any day of the week

I can only tell you about the last 14 years in the Sawtooths. And from the same camp that we have been hunting out of, we are now seeing more elk by a HUGE amount than we did 14 years ago. Harvest numbers are down, but that was only after we grew up and quit shooting spikes... hump We are also seeing fewer hunters.

Do you only back wolf poachers, or do you back all poachers? And how do you decide what type of poachers are ok? Is some poaching good, and other poaching bad?

 

[JoseCuervo]

Greenhorn,

I am fine with all the bad publicity due to the Elk. I love to hear guys say that there aren't any Elk, as the wolves ate them all. When we were out cutting Christmas trees two weeks ago, we had trouble finding nice ones on FS land. It is in an area with wolves, perhaps there is a connection???

If we didn't want wolves re-introduced, we should have commented more. The fact is, they are here, and they are protected. We need to move on, and figure out what to do now. And the best answer is the one that we start hunting them. Instead of bitching and poaching, let's manage and hunt them. My guess is that Idaho and MT will manage the wolves at the low end of the acceptable range.

The real question to answer is how do you move forward from here. The wolves are here, let's get the plans in place and start hunting them. Let's keep telling the out of staters that all the wolves prey on 6x6 bulls, and the only place to hunt Elk in MT, ID, and WY is along the roads, as wolves are afraid of ATVs, so the Elk populations are booming along roads.

Here is an article on the BENEFITS of Wolves..... Any comments?

__________________________________
The Ecology Of Fear: Wolves Gone, Western Ecosystems Suffer
CORVALLIS, Ore. - Research about wolves that began in Yellowstone National Park has been replicated in an adjacent area, and a growing body of evidence leads scientists to conclude that this historic predator may have an ecological impact far more important than realized in the American West.

The near extinction of the gray wolf across most of the West in the past century now appears to have removed the natural element of "fear" from these ecosystems. It has triggered a cascade of ecological effects on everything from elk populations to beaver, birds, fish, and even stream systems - and helped lead directly to the collapsing health of aspen and some other tree species and vegetation.

Two recent studies by forestry scientists from Oregon State University, published in the journals BioScience and Forest Ecology and Management, outline a role for the gray wolf that is complex and rarely understood, but helps explain many major problems facing western streams, forests and wildlife.

"It would appear that the loss of a keystone predator, the gray wolf, across vast areas of the American West may have set the stage for previously unrecognized and unappreciated ecological changes in riparian and upland plant communities, and the functions they provide," the scientists concluded.

The studies were authored by William Ripple, a professor, and Robert Beschta, a professor emeritus, in the OSU College of Forestry.

In their research, the scientists explore a concept that has been called "the ecology of fear."

The ecological and historical significance of wolves is only partly due to the actual impact they have by preying on other animals, both large and small, the OSU researchers have found. Just as important is the fear that many larger animals have of wolves, and the resulting behavioral changes in elk and some other grazing animals.

"Prey species will alter their use of space and their foraging patterns according to the features of the terrain and how that affects the risk of predation," Ripple and Beschta noted in their study. "They forage or browse less intensively at high-risk sites."

Some of those sites, the researchers say, are streamsides rich in aspen, cottonwood, willow and other edible vegetation. When healthy and normal, such areas naturally grow large trees and other streamside vegetation that provides the basis for supporting beaver, other wildlife, fish populations, native bird communities, and stable channel banks.

The OSU scientists, in previous work, documented that the loss of aspen and cottonwood trees in Yellowstone National Park dated almost exactly to the extermination of the last wolf packs in the park in the mid-1920s.

The elk moved in, ate young trees before they could become established, and the entire riparian ecosystem began a slow demise that was only reversed recently - when wolves were re-introduced to the park.

In their newest work, the researchers have found exactly the same forces at work along the Gallatin River in southwestern Montana. Coincidental with the return of wolves to that area, there has been a dramatic recovery of willow populations along streams, and other possible factors such as changing climate conditions have been ruled out as a possible cause.

A modest recovery of willows may not seem that significant. But the OSU researchers say it has set the stage for ecological "spin-offs," including an increase in plant biomass, improved streambank stability, better floodplain functioning, reduced soil erosion, and better food web support for everything from beaver to river otter, fish, birds, amphibians, and insects. Biodiversity will increase and rising beaver populations will lead to even more changes, including sediment retention, wetland maintenance and nutrient cycling.

And the story, the OSU scientists say, appears to be much larger than just Yellowstone National Park or the mountainous regions around it, as demonstrated by a broad range of research.

One study suggested that the loss of wolves has allowed increases in deer populations across much of North America, which led to a browsing pressure on plants that was unprecedented. Predation effects involving wolves and elk were also found in aspen growth in Jasper National Park. In Grand Teton National Park, the local extinction of grizzly bears and wolves caused an increase in herbivory on willow by moose, and ultimately decreased the diversity of neotropical migrant birds.

The role of fear, while emphasizing the value of wolves, is not exclusive to them, the scientists said. Even the fear of human sport hunters has a role.

One study in Montana showed that elk adjusted their foraging behavior by browsing far from roads to avoid human contact and possible predation. And research in Colorado has found that aspen was far more heavily browsed, and used year-round by elk, where sport hunting was excluded.

Ultimately, however, the value of large predators needs to be reconsidered, the reports conclude. The body of evidence has become compelling, the OSU researchers say, that predation by top carnivores, especially wolves, may be pivotal to maintaining biodiversity in some ecosystems.

More information on this research can be found on the Web at http://www.cof.orst.edu/wolves.

"The ranges of large carnivores are continuing to collapse around the world," the scientists note in their report. "In North America, the gray wolf and the grizzly bear have faced nearly complete extirpation in the lower 48 states, although populations of these carnivores have been increasing in recent years."

"Growing evidence points to the importance of conserving these animals because they have cascading effects on lower trophic levels."

A similar point, they said, was made by the great naturalist Aldo Leopold in 1949, who predicted this crisis.

"I have lived to see state after state extirpate its wolves," Leopold wrote 55 years ago. "I have seen every edible bush and seedling browsed, first to anemic desuetude, and then to death."

_________________________________________

 

[The Hedgehog]

Thanks Elkgunner. That's one of the best tree-hugger studies I've read in a while. So not only can the wolves do a wonderful job of managing our wildlife, they're good for the shrubs and flowers too.

Now don't get me wrong, there are and always will be elk in the Gallatin, the wolves won't eat them all, and like I said a few wolves would be nice, but here's some more numbers...

Late season elk hunting opportunites on the upper Gallatin:
1995: 610 elk permits and unlimited late season archery permits
2005: NONE

Late season upper Yellowstone elk hunting opportunites:
1995: 4265 elk permits
2005: 148 elk permits

These are not the only hunts around the park that have taken massive quota hits. Should we talk about sheep hunts and large predators in the Gallatin now?

 

[ringer]

Show me a university town and I'll show you a nest full of liberal idealists who manipulate every syllable to reach their intended conclusion. Let's see there are no more elk in the Gallatin so the forage plants are flourishing. DUH! And just why couldn't the same thing be accomplished by increasing elk permits to hunters?? HELLO? Look at those beavers run from the big bad wolf and the aspens are clapping with glee. Give me a break. WE are the top predator-screw the wolf.

 

[Moosie]

Do you only back wolf poachers, or do you back all poachers? And how do you decide what type of poachers are ok? Is some poaching good, and other poaching bad?

Poaching is a touchy subject............. but in General I only back Wolf Poachers Although If someone takes a deer strickly for food and is in the position that they really need it I have a hard time looking bad on then either. But there are very few people that really "need" the meat to survive. If someone makes a mistake in Duck hunting and shoots 2 hens instead of one or something liek that I don't look bad at that either. So yah, some poaching good, some bad

As far as Elk goes, You're right, the numbers in our area are up. And thats why the McCall wolf heard moved into Lowman. The Government trapper collared the additional wolves up there this year and was surprised how far they traveled and what they cross to find new places. The Remote places they had in mind to have the Wolves like Unit 27, Etc is Huge. But the Dogs and traveling outside their area and are all over.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not the Standard Wolf Hater. I personally wouldn't shoot one...... or Two, even if given the Chance. I'm jsut stating if I heard of one getting shot I wouldn't say anything Do I go to the Wolf BAnquets and Have the Anti Wolfe Stickers ? Heck no, I don't think they are doing a dang thing. It's a Federal decision and if Everyone in Idaho was in the Wolf coalition the Delisting would still happen at the governments own decision. All they are doing is Wasting money on Lawyers and lots of it, to get something done that is happening anyways.

It's not just wolves that make the hunting worse, It's people too. But we can control people. I don't blame wolves for eating deer and elk, Heck, they need to eat too. They are just doing what they do, Hunt food. Do I think they'll eat all the Animals, no, and not even close. But they do make an impact and with the numbers growing like they are it's jsut not needed or wanted.

Although the Hundreds of thousands (MAybe millions) of dollars that were spent and is still being spent is a a Great way to spend the money !!!! Then to turn around and Have them Shoot the wolves to control them, and ppay chitload to do that too..... Way to go on good spending I much rather had seen them Take that money, Buy up the Boise Front to stop all the Houses going in and leave the Crutial habitat for the wintering range.

 

[ELKCHSR]

Here is the biggest problem with limiting the numbers of hunters, which this is really all about...
Hunting dollars pay the largest percentage of any of these game management practices that are brought to us.
Where will the $$$ come from when more hunters bail out of the system because the cost gets to be too much for them to bear?
Will it be these little empty-headed collage kids that only know what their professors tell them?
Will it be the big environmental orgs that push for zero hunting?
I really doubt it. They want all of these things, but don’t want to put their money where their mouths are, unless it is to give it to some lawyer somewhere. Will they then go to the taxpayer to fund these things they so desire? More than likely, but because the tax payers in general won't want to pay as much $$$ for it as will be required, the next logical move will be to shut it all down so that the costs can be contained.

The issue I see here is that if you only want those in good shape to hunt, then those individuals will have to come up with the largest amount of $$$ to pay for what should be a right and privilege.
Moosie had the numbers about right with his percentage of 95%...
That is the percentage of people the left wings would like to see out of "THEIR" lands.

 

[ELKCHSR]

I would add one more thing.
If you take the "Feelings" out of these equations and put in actual understanding and knowledge into it as was once done, then the management would and could be done proper.
Enviro's know though that the best way to get their extremely one sided agendas thru is to touch the populace in their hearts, that way their brains aren't activated when good decision making needs to be implemented.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Thanks Elkgunner. That's one of the best tree-hugger studies I've read in a while. So not only can the wolves do a wonderful job of managing our wildlife, they're good for the shrubs and flowers too.

Now don't get me wrong, there are and always will be elk in the Gallatin, the wolves won't eat them all, and like I said a few wolves would be nice, but here's some more numbers...

Late season elk hunting opportunites on the upper Gallatin:
1995: 610 elk permits and unlimited late season archery permits
2005: NONE

Greenhorn,
What were those unlimited archery hunts? Were the guys killing 390 bulls, or were they sticking arrows into cows that were belly deep in snow? Was it a quality hunt? Would you be willing to shut down rut hunts or rifle hunts to re-instate it?

The area that I hunt has wolves. But we also have guys like this...

These elk were killed in the same unit I hunt. These would have been NEXT year's 6x6's |oo

Greenhorn,
Based upon the pictures of the Bulls I have seen you post of the last few year's hunts, I would love to see the BIGGER bulls you used to kill, when hunting wasn't so shitty now that we have wolves....

 

[BigHornRam]

So what are you saying gunner? Are you one of those elitist pricks that think that big antlers are all that matter? That putting meat in the freezer is bad? Hunter opportunity is being slashed around the Park and that is O. K. with you as long as you can shot a six point every decade? News flash. The elk around the park are growing large head gear because of limited competion, true. But when all the mature bulls are either shot out or die off, and calf recruitement is down around 8/100 then 6 point bulls will be few and far between even for a stud hunter like you. Good luck. and good luck finding enough hunters to support and defend hunting as well.

Moosie,

You make too much sense. We are in 100% agreement.

 

[The Hedgehog]

EG, I felt it was a quality archery hunt, but it had low success rates. It was tough hunting, but very fun. I hunted it in 1995 and missed 2 nice bulls one morning. Does it take a regular harvest of 390 bulls to qualify as a quality hunt? I do know some big bulls have been taken, along with some cows … never very many, but at least we had the opportunity to hunt.

Why would re-instating this hunt require closing a rut hunt? During the rut, nearly all those animals are in Yellowstone Park and not able to be hunted. Given the current bull, cow, calf ratios, where do you think the herd will be in 10 years?

Where did I ever say hunting my MT elk hunting is crummy now? It seems you have a tendency to make a lot of incorrect and irrelevant assumptions. No comments on the moose and elk quota cuts, eh? Let me guess, you’ve found a study from the University of Rhode Island that proves the riparian areas and willow bottoms of the upper Gallatin are now showing dramatic growth since the previously out of control moose population has been brought back into balance by the wolves.