Wolves vs Black Bear

[Sytes]

Since both black bear and wolves are a dominant factor in NW MT, figured a breakdown of #'s would be an interesting comparison.

Harvest, cub / pup litter size, mortality, and avg lifespan:

Wolves/black bear harvest 2017:
Wolves - 84
B bears - 507

Wolves/black bear avg annual litter:
Wolves - 5
B bears - 1.5

Wolves/black bear cub/pup avg mortality:
Wolves - 50%
B bears - 40%

Wolves/black bear life span:
Wolves - 7 years
B bears - 18 years

As IDFG stated recently,

We won't speculate any longer on whether the population is increasing or decreasing," Schriever said. "That makes the wolf management plan actually useful for us now that we know which direction the population will be moving.

Montana needs to get with practical wolf #'s so we may better assist our R1 ungulate conservation efforts related to apex predation.

 

[zpooch]

17 year old wolves?

 

[Sytes]

Edited. Tacked a 1 before the 7. Good catch. Thanks

 

[Sytes]

Robert, it was an error, I saw and changed it after an immediate re-read upon posting. I edited it then reloaded the page to see Zpooch is super fast.
As you are able to see, My edit completed before it timed to a point to even show it was edited.

***

Wolves compared to black bears w/ the base factors presented.
It does not take into account harvest, territory size, etc.

This accounts for life span and 50% M/F each litter.
I can not find specific minimal count #'s for wolves nor the black bear population in R1 to play with those numbers and factor in harvest ratios.
A few gurus here share how absurd FWP is with respect to collecting accurate R1 elk counts in other threads and a minimal count for ESA interests will suffice?

Interesting from a base standpoint.
With numbers (in first post) that show the wolf harvest rate approx 1/6th that of black bears... Again, bare base numbers that shed a bit of light on the frustration many in NW MT express.

We won't speculate any longer on whether the population is increasing or decreasing," Schriever said. "That makes the wolf management plan actually useful for us now that we know which direction the population will be moving.

Montana needs to get with practical wolf #'s so we may better assist our R1 ungulate conservation efforts related to apex predation. Right, there are many factors involved recovering our Elk in NW MT.

Ignoring the best estimated wolf numbers is pretty unfortunate. Idaho has something going that would be very useful for MT to identify where wolves need focused culling to reduce the numbers that permit elk the opportunity for recovery. Merely ignoring real numbers and quality quotas will not assist our elk in R1.

 

[Arctic_Snow_Seeker]

You’re assuming all wolves eat meat.

 

[Gerald Martin]

You’re assuming all wolves eat meat.

With 18 years of wolves and a total population of 1,764,337.5 and how quickly they adapt to eating whatever stands in front of them, I have figured out why there are no needles on the larch trees this winter. The wolves ate them all.

They will be headed for Bozeman next.... Cue the Jaws theme.

 

[Sytes]

Yup... as expected... 17 million. Focus on extremes... Ignore the content expressed. Yup. You got me, Gerald - I am full knowing there are over 17 million wolves in NW Montana... after all, they migrated back in 1980... Hell of a lot more than that.

What a bummer @Gerald Martin . never expected you to play this run of shit.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Charles, I have to say you lost me with the content expressed. Maybe, I'm too dumb to know what you are illustrating with that chart, but I don't see the biological reality reflected in the numbers as I understand the chart. In terms of real numbers of wolves it seems as reasonable as my ridiculous post. It seems like fear-mongering to me, based on an emotional response to the perceived impacts of wolves.

If I got it wrong, I apologize. But, posting charts of what could be with incorrect inputs that don't reflect reality doesn't help your cause.

 

[Gerald Martin]

My (somewhat) educated guess is there are substantially more black bears than wolves in Region 1.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

1.7 million is a lot of wolves. I have absolutely no idea what the point of all those numbers are.

 

[bestcrossbowguide]

Black bears are more dangerous as compared to wolves.
Blogger at Best Crossbow Guide

 

[Deleted member 20812]

 

[Sytes]

@Gerald Martin it is merely an intent to share MT's action, or better said, lack of action to collect as best possible #'s for wolves, harms our ability to support conservation as a whole - predators and ungulates.
We have 507 black bears taken in R1 (2017) yet have a quota for wolves based on a minimal count method to appease USFWS.

Wolves procreate at a much greater rate than black bears yet, we don't have a reasonable understanding of their population and if they're playing too heavy a role in some areas, just right in others, or heck... too heavily hunted/trapped in others.
We can't trust R1 FWP to get fair elk counts as they rarely gain helicopter access, claimed as budget / mechanical, etc issues, yet... Hey, minimal count for wolves will do just fine.

Idaho played the ESA *minimal count game that noted 760...
Summer of 2019, upon extensive game camera usage (700 game cameras) and computer imagery programs to identify same or different wolves... approx 1,500 wolves.

Yet, Montana, bordered with ID and GYE... We play around with the imaginary *minimal count of 900.

If we're taking some 500 bears every year in Region 1, and take into account the birthing rate between wolves and black bears, yet our *minimal count of 900 Statewide keeps the facade going, how will we know where we stand with this apex predator?

 

[Gerald Martin]

So, would it be safe to say that based on Idaho's game camera survey showing that the actual number of wolves was twice the minimum estimate of 760, Montana likely has @ 1800 wolves? I'll buy those numbers. I think I've seen population estimates from 1200-1600 across the state somewhere although I can't remember where I saw it.

I don't think your numbers on your chart are based on observed wolf behavior and breeding rates in studied populations or here in NW MT.

At the end of the day, I happen to agree with you that wolves are a problem. However, I think posting numbers that don't reflect reality has an adverse effect on helping us understand the true extent of the effect wolves have on elk and deer numbers. Crying wolf is a well documented phenomenon.

I could have probably articulated my opinion in a more gracious fashion by simply saying those numbers don't add up. Sometimes my attempt at sarcastic whit isn't as clever as when it was in my head. My apologies.

 

[Schaaf]

@Gerald Martin this is a few years outdated but plays in line with that 1200-1600 estimated number.

Maybe a bio can chime in on MT’s methodology for counting wolves but I don’t know enough to say one way or the other.

 

[BrentD]

Sytes, I don't do wolf biology but I know enough to know those numbers you play with are ridiculous.

1. Litter size of 5 per wolf? How about 5 per pack. Difference is huge.
2. Average life span 7 yrs? From birth? Not a chance.
3. Breeding every year of those 7 yrs? Not a chance.
4. Do male wolves breed in your model? You say your model accounts for sex ratio, so how's that?
5. Density dependence. It happens. Really.

I don't see the point of your spreadsheet model given that you know it's not even sorta, kinda, or even maybe representative of reality. And I suspect the bear data are not much better.

What exactly is the point you are trying to make? There are more wolves than bears or ???

 

[Deleted member 20812]

There are such bigger issues to resolve than whether Montana has 1400 or 1.7 million wolves.

 

[Sytes]

1. Litter size of 5 per wolf? How about 5 per pack. Difference is huge.
2. Average life span 7 yrs? From birth? Not a chance.
3. Breeding every year of those 7 yrs? Not a chance.
4. Do male wolves breed in your model? You say your model accounts for sex ratio, so how's that?
5. Density dependence. It happens. Really.

The intent is to present two predators in NW MT. I could have chosen cats though I chose black bears... My thoughts related to population growth as black bears are the slowest reproducing predators in NW MT.

Wolves compared to black bears w/ the base factors presented.
It does not take into account harvest, territory size, etc.

In response to your comments;

1. Female Black Bears reproduce every other year (NW MT no litter until 6.5 years old). I offset this factor for the female wolf pack leader as one of 4 females in the pack + females in the pack who part from the pack or birth as well. I roughed the numbers to be close enough for the limited time spent for an opinion shared. Not such a "Huge difference" though maybe off slightly, give or take...

2. Average life span: Not a chance? While I respect your content (agree or disagree - I believe we will have to simply disagree...

Life span:

The life spans of wild wolves vary dramatically. Although the average lifespan is between 6 and 8 years, many will die sooner, and some can reach 13. Wolves in captivity can live up to 17 years.

https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/river-of-no-return-gray-wolf-fact-sheet/7659/

3. Wolves "Breeding every year of those 7 years"... Taking into account there are durations of time for female black bears, beginning 6.5 years for NW MT black bears, it's a rough comparison.

In NW MT first estrus at 4.5 years, often no litter until 6.5 years old.

http://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=AMAJB01010

4. Accounted a 50% male/female ratio for wolf population.

5. Apparently you need to read this portion again - I agree with your statement, territory / "density" happens.

Wolves compared to black bears w/ the base factors presented.
It does not take into account harvest, territory size, etc.

What exactly is the point you are trying to make? There are more wolves than bears or ???

My, "point" is we should be identifying the best numbers possible for our NW MT wolf counts to best assist our conservation efforts. There are various factors involved in recovering our elk herd. One of the main factors is predation. The population growth rate presents something close to what Idaho experienced... a 200% increase once the... well - feel free to read my intent:

Wolves vs Black Bear

Since both black bear and wolves are a dominant factor in NW MT, figured a breakdown of #'s would be an interesting comparison. Harvest, cub / pup litter size, mortality, and avg lifespan: Wolves/black bear harvest 2017: Wolves - 84 B bears - 507 Wolves/black bear avg annual litter: Wolves -...

www.hunttalk.com

 

[Sytes]

There are such bigger issues to resolve than whether Montana has 1400 or 1.7 million wolves.

JLS - for many in NW MT - this is a big issue to look for better conservation efforts. Maybe not for you... Where do you live? Though for our accounting of Region 1 poor elk #'s, we would like to see the best form of wolf # accounting possible. Predation is a significant factor along with shoddy FWP management of elk tags, etc... It's a problem up here, as it is in Idaho. At least Idaho has taken several steps to curb the concerns though several actions to include private contributions for trappers for expenses upon successful wolf harvest. The ability to better define where wolves are in excess is great information to best function conservation efforts.

Words shared that mean jack squat to you - cheers. No difference to me.

 

[RidgeRoamingRichard]

I feel like my parents are fighting at the dinner table....anybody want to go wolf hunting this week?