What could possibly be killing them...
Moose
Are they that dumb or do they just not want to say the “W” word? Can’t wait for Colorado to have our moose population decimated by the wolves.
The moose population is going down hill in all the areas where there are no wolves. Can't blame the dogs for that.
Wolves will decimate Colorado’s elk population. I don’t care if moose numbers are falling in places that supposedly don’t have wolves. It’s just the apex predator on the whole planet. What harm could they do?
An unchecked wolf population will decimate big game populations, especially moose when they have enough elk to keep them going. And then omnivorous bears, especially grizzly bears will keep the big game populations permanently suppressed, after that even wolf numbers will drop. You’ll just have lots of scenic country to look at after it’s all done. The mountains of Alberta, Canada and many other countries have proven this out...
The one western state with a booming and expanding Shiras Moose population over the last 20 years is Colorado. During that same time the Moose population in Wyoming and Montana and Idaho went to hell. But I guess it’s just a coincidence that it was only Colorado that didn’t receive a wolf infestation during that time.
Bear's here take down quite a few Moose Calves each Spring here in Ontario. When our Spring hunt was cancelled down went the Moose. Wolves take their share also.
Bears hibernate. Wolves are at it 24/6/365. Game animals are much more vulnerable in deep snow. Moose with their long legs stay pretty high eating small branches that are above the snow. Elk prefer a little easier life. Where moose winter they are sitting ducks! They’re always the first to go when wolves enter the picture.
I think you’re on the wrong website bigdog21
Wolves kill for fun as well as other predators. There are accounts of wolves killing 15+ elk two different nights and none eaten. A friend had 24 chukars killed in one night and only one eaten by a raccoon. A neighbor had four pack goats killed in one night by a lion and none eaten.
I have a friend who thinks wolves only eat rabbits and mice after watching a national geographic show.
Asked him if he was drunk when watching and mistook the wolves for foxes or coyotes lol
"and dont say you hunt for food the meat locker is way cheaper then a elk hunt".
If you are eating food from a "meat locker"...you are basically a contract killer. Some of us prefer to do the job ourselves, rather than paying others for the "dirty work".
Dr. Valerius Geist predicted that Shiras moose will become extinct everywhere these non native wolves are introduced. Before the CO vote on wolf forcing, he stated the only places they would survive were in CO and UT, where these wolves don't exist.
So maybe Utah will be the last stand..
But they only kill the weak and sick, so it's cool.
The day of the wolf died with the last big Buffalo herds. There’s no place for them now anywhere where major livestock operations exist.
Sure as a hunter I don’t like them. I seriously doubt my grandkids will have OTC elk hunting available to them. If wolf reintroductions continue with little or no management, elk hunting in the future will be like sheep hunting now. Big demand, small supply
But also as a descendant of a cattleman, with ties to a lot of people who depend on cattle to support their families, I will NEVER side with a bloody wolf.
Big dog really man. The issue since day 1 when we foolishly reached an agreement with anti hunters was to reach a certain number and then manage them like any and all other wildlife. But the anti hunters and people like you want them to be untouchable. On a pedestal a some kind of poster child for wild animals.
The other point worth wasting my breath on you for is that it is obvious that you are not a hunter at all. If you were you would not suggest that we hunt for $h1ts and giggles. It’s not about sport or fun. It’s a way of life. People like you can’t be taught to comprehend that.
Your post clearly suggests that hunting is unnecessary and any killing of animals should be left to other animals. So wtf are you even doing on this site?
Wolves are coveted by today's liberal game managers to replace human hunters. The libs have a plan.
Wolves aren't responsible for every place that has issues with moose populations declining but they are a serious issue in many. Aside from the obvious reason that they turn moose into wolf poop, when a moose population declines we can, and do, adjust human take quickly. Wolves just keep eating. I don't blame them, thats their job and they are amazingly good at it. In the western US before settlement and removal of bison, the giant connected ecosystem and huge prey base could better absorb regional declines in prey. The modern west is very different with chopped up habitat, cities, agriculture, roads, fences and its missing a few million 1000 pound bison to eat.
Bake made the most truthful and overlooked statement in the entire wolf debate. Here's his quote:
"The day of the wolf died with the last big Buffalo herds."
Do some research on exactly how many bison were killed in what period of time in our American past. The facts are staggering. Wolves were part of THAT ecosystem and with the decimation of the buffalo, the wolf's role changed.
Our whole American west ecosystem will never be able to re-establish the balance that existed before civilization. Attempting to will cause damage somehow, somewhere...and it appears that the moose is paying the price. Sad. All of it.
I think we need to re-establish Buffalo herds to all historic ranges.
“ The moose population is going down hill in all the areas where there are no wolves”
So your saying Colorado moose herd numbers are dropping in numbers currently?. And introducing wolves won’t decimate them
I will take that bet.
The libs are trying, they are multifaceted.
Without thinning and new growth caused by wildfires, moose have less feeding and breeding habitat. According to Campbell, moose populations are highest in areas 40 years after a major wildfire. But habitat loss is not the only probable cause of moose decline. Tiny ticks also could be a big problem.Jul 21, 2019
Disease, parasites may be the biggest initial concern for adults Another major component of the first year of the study was learning more about how adult moose died. Of the nine radio collared adult moose that died in the first eight months of the study, more than half were attributed to parasites and/or disease. Three of those were attributed to emaciation with a concurrent winter tick infestation.
Two other deaths were attributed to predation, one wolf caused and one lion or bear caused. Another moose died as the result of a vehicle collision, and one other cause of death could not be determined.
Researchers also performed necropsies — death investigations of animals — on moose that had not been collared, which revealed additional diseases and causes of mortality not represented in the sample of collared animals.
Again, emaciation – concurrent with a winter tick infestation – and parasitic disease were the leading cause of death, followed by infectious/inflammatory diseases, vehicle collisions, non-infectious diseases, neurologic diseases and predation.
“One of the most interesting things we’ve found is all the different ways moose are dying,” Roberts said “And there are a lot, many of which are driven by diseases and parasites. It can be several encompassing things, but many factors are associated with winter tick infestations, which seems to be the number-one issue so far.”
“Those are some causes of mortality we shouldn’t be seeing in any species — tick-related deaths, or deaths related to external parasites,” Hurley added. “But we are seeing them, and they are really specific to moose.”
Predation is an ongoing research area,” Campbell said. “Moose rely on deep snow to avoid predators in the winter. We don’t always have deep snow. Without deep snow, then predators like wolves and mountain lions have an advantage over moose.”
Moose challenges
The “perfect storm of issues” that moose are facing is widespread. Officials in Idaho, Utah and Montana have reported similar population declines, a trend that’s raised concern since the early 2000s.
“They’re influenced by a whole variety of issues,” Brimeyer said.
Predation from wolves, grizzly bears and mountain lions plays a role.
“Wolves start showing up in the late ‘90s,” Brimeyer said. “Around the same time, grizzly bears start expanding their range. They’re all a piece of the puzzle. I don’t want to diminish the role that predation played, because it’s pretty significant.”
Brimeyer said wolf hunting seasons are successfully keeping the predators in check in Wyoming, which could prove beneficial to moose.
In addition to predation, moose are threatened by other environmental factors, from massive wildfires that destroy habitat to tiny parasites that can bring mighty moose down from the inside.
Brimeyer said warmer, drier weather in Wyoming in recent years has made it easier for parasites like winter ticks, which attach themselves to moose in the fall, to stay alive and feed on the moose.
“In dry falls, those animals tend to pick up a lot of (winter ticks), which can affect their ability to maintain their nutritional status,” Brimeyer said. “Some of these animals can carry a very high tick load.”
A 2018 study on New Hampshire moose found that animals with high ticks loads died of emaciation and malnutrition linked to the arachnids.
Wyoming moose have also been affected by a carotid artery worm, a parasite transmitted by horseflies that constricts blood flow and can lead to death. The parasite’s target host, deer, are often asymptomatic.
“The moose is the wrong host for this parasite, so they have symptoms where they start walking in circles and eventually die,” Brimeyer said.
Humans aren’t blameless in the decline, either. Brimeyer said the department has seen an uptick in vehicle collisions resulting in moose fatalities.
Re establish Buffalo to natural ranges? You wanna import beef from Argentina and Brazil, and take away the livelihoods of over half a million ranchers? Sounds like a good idea
Funny, isn’t it, how people who will campaign for “science-based wildlife management” when it’s “the Libs“ who want to operate off of raw emotion are so quick to dismiss any serious scientific inquiry as pointless and stupid when it doesn’t fit their own narrative.
Predators aren’t evil, and they are not nearly as benign as a lot of people seem to want to think. They are just predators. Hating them for doing what they do is as absurd as anti-hunters hating human hunters for what we do.
In some respects, I would like to think that there is still room for the wolf in Colorado, but when you look at the level of conflict with them in places like Montana, Wyoming, Alberta… and I’m not talking about “decimated“ deer and elk herd‘s… I’m thinking more in terms of the stuff that Val Guist has written about with wolves quickly becoming acclimated to humans as a potential Food Source.... which is only one step removed from Food Item.... which is, frankly, not OK with me. Yes, that is a human-centric point of view. I am comfortable with that.
GF, you wanna give an example of anyone dismissing what you said. I haven’t read the first thing stating people don’t believe science.
Mankind has dramatically upset the balance between species on basically every piece of ice or rock on the planet. It’s not a judgment thing. It’s just how it is when one species overpopulates and becomes the dominant species or predator. We essentially can blame ourselves for the imbalances and problems which exist in trying to achieve the goals we want for wildlife. Man doesn’t want there to be balance in the natural sense, because that would never work into man’s plans and desires. So it’s really a strategy of constant manipulation and reaction to what’s happening with a given species.
The problem here isn’t the wolf. It isn’t the tick or the grizzly. It’s us. We’ve altered and created a world where animals can’t ever live in the original balance which once existed. But we refuse to blame ourselves. We blame anything which competes with our desires. People, wolves, bears, parasites, development.....it all works to suppress moose populations. These are big, strong animals, but they are surprisingly susceptible to the imbalances WE have brought to them. The wolf is a focal point of hatred for many hunters and ranchers. Wolves are of course simply doing what wolves have done for thousands of years. Hating them for it is human I suppose. But they’re not causing problems for moose because they’re wolves. They are causing problems because we (humans) think we know how to raise foxes and chickens in the same small barn. We can’t find a way to blame ourselves for losing chickens....so guess who loses?
The only balance we can achieve now is totally artificial. Wolves must die so we can pursue our own desires to have and hunt moose. Understandable. We created the problem and it’s ours to solve.
The Libs and Tribes in Montana are creating a large area in the Missouri River Basin to establish buffalo. The wolves and bears are coming too. Should be real interesting to see how the elk herd fares in the Missouri Breaks regions. Of course some of the area will become a National Park with protection from human hunting, while in other areas the human hunter and wolves will compete for the available tags, LOL.
Many hunters supported this effort by the APR (and several other International sponsored groups) under the promise they could do limited hunting, for a limited period of years, with tribal approval in most cases. Perfect example of hunters thinking short term, the antis long term. This is happening now, some buffalo already are established, with a few wolves having moved into the western areas ! Wolf tracks are not yet common, but are present in the Missouri Breaks.
Bigdog would a wolf stand by and watch a coyote kill off all of its food and say “oh well it’s nature”? Probably not, they would kill the coyote...which is also nature. The problem with people like you is that idea that hunting isn’t “necessary”, and it’s just a sport. If you think that hunting or game species don’t need to exist because “meat lockers” do then you’re part of the problem. Wake up or move on.
The liberal only operates on science when it suits their needs/agenda. It’s as plain as the nose on the Sphinx on the pyramid
Bigdog, how would you like it if the Feds came into your hunting area and dumped a couple train loads of super-predators that never existed there before, which started hammering the deer you like to hunt. Wouldn't that be cool!
Wolves don’t pay for tags. Hunters pay for hunting Licenses which goes to support wildlife and conservation
I’m hearing a common misconception. An assumption that hunters hate wolves. I have to disagree with that.
When I was outfitting on the Montana/Idaho border it was bad. The problem was very real. The moose were already gone, elk being hammered, and livestock also on the menu. Eventually I decided to sell the business which wasn’t easy.
Quite often people would say to me “Damn wolves I bet you hate those bastards” My answer came quick... no not at all. Hate makes it personal. I’m a realist. I know that the wolves didn’t conspire every morning to plan how they could do me harm. They don’t hate me or the animals they prey upon. Hate is a human trait, in my opinion not present in animals. Those wolves were just doing what wolves do. Things that humans do which is raising a family and teaching their young how to do the same thing. Is there a reason to take that personally and hate them? No.
If there is any hatred or animosity in me when it comes to wolves it is for the creatures who do get up in the morning and think about their agenda which is meant to harm me and the hunting heritage. The people with total disregard for other animals that are being decimated and no concern for livestock owners. Those are the bastards I’d rather see standing broadside at 20 yards! Those are the greedy ones not the wolves themselves. Unfortunately there will never be an open season on anti hunters so the victims of THEIR agenda become the moose and elk as well as hunters and ranchers and of course.... the wolves.
I think most true hunters feel the same way. If you read the comments on this thread nobody is really suggesting that wolves are evil and should be killed because of that. Instead most agree that problem as usual and as stated by Kevin is human beings.
So please don’t assume or suggest that hunters are out trying to exterminate wolves anymore than you would assume we kill elk and deer out of anger. Hunters have a track record of being the true stewards of the land. Fact! Any level headed opinions will always say the same thing: The problem are the anti hunters who sit in courtrooms bogging down science and logic. We have altered the landscape so we have to manage things. Those people tie the hands of us and state wildlife agencies and pretend the facts don’t exist. Their agenda is very obvious when you consider that the wolves were never endangered in the first place. They are just the perfect tool to eliminate hunting and to play on the emotions of the uneducated and serve as the poster child to raise millions of dollars to fund the anti hunting movement. Period.
So tell me again why ethical hunters who are willing to regulate what we do in the best interest of animals and their habitat should go buy all of our food at a grocery store??? What’s next a label on your store bought food that convinces people that no animals were harmed in the making of your steaks or hamburgers? Look around... we have a “hunter” on a hunting forum telling us that we don’t have to hunt for food the meat locker is cheaper. Lord save us. This planet has become a real clusterf¥€#!
Bake:
You don’t know sarcasm when you hear it? They want to restore wolves because they were there “back then”. Using the same FLAWED logic maybe we should restore the Buffalo? Neither makes sense in Today’s world
80 years ago Canadian wolves did not live in Colorado. Next?
Trophy, we tried that argument and it didn’t work sadly
Yeah Rick they were also in Montana and other places in the lower 48 too. Things were fine. Your buddies didn’t want to talk about that. They were busy selling the idea that wolves were on the brink of extinction.
These wolves never lived in CO. Totally different subspecies despite what some Bowsite lefties claim. Bigdog, I see you are from Illinois. Wolves used to live there too. How about if we dump a few truckloads from Canada into your backyard. Wouldn't that be great?!
Lou just imagine how good the deer hunting would be there after they eat all the old and sick ones!
No it wouldn't it's already illegal to shoot wolves in Illinois. Lol keep where you can hunt them.
Rick, ie, Bigdog, The CSU online survey concerning the reintroduction for the gray wolf was flawed from the beginning claiming that 80% of Coloradoans wanted wolves to be restored in Colorado. Stopthewolf coalition knew that if we were able to show facts why the reintroduction was a terrible idea, that might turn the tide in our favor and prove that 80% of Colorado's population was misinformed. So we conducted, with the help of a survey company, a phone survey first asking the question, "based on what you currently know about the wolf issue, how might you vote.?" The results was in the 75-80% range for approval of the reintroduction. After given more facts about the reintroduction, the person surveyed was then asked, How would you vote now?, The response was now less than 50% in favor. The final outcome was 51% in favor and 49% against the reintroduction; and not the 80% vs 20% as shown my the CSU online survey. We lost by only 39,000 votes out of 3.4 million voters. I am sure if we would have had more time to get the word out, per the pandemic, the vote would have been in our favor, and against the reintroduction. THe CPW Commission and staff while on record against the forced reintroduction, per a state voting regulation, ie were under a "gag order" against speaking out against the reintroduction. Over half of Colorado County Commissions signed a resolution against the reintroduction, and all Colorado counties voters, except four along the Front Range and one near Durango, voted NO against the introduction. That is five out of 62 counties in Colorado voted Yes, the rest stating, Hell NO. So it seems that those outside of Colorado know more about the wildlife management needs than the trained professionals on the CPW staff and on the Wildlife Commission. There is NO need to reintroduce the gray wolf into Colorado but that did not stop the OUTSIDDERs who just WANTED them here, to raise 1.4 million dollars to force the issue and use the Ballot Initiative process to circumvent the Commission and the CPW staff. And what was never mentioned by the Prowolfers was the COST of the introduction. "oh the government will pay for it". I am sure Hunters and Fisherman will pay via, license fees, for the majority of it with the Game Cash fund and hardly any if no funding from the State General Fund. A cost of millions over the next 10 years.
I ask many prowolfers on how the wolf will bring back the critical balance of nature to Colorado once established as the Ballot Initiative stated. Never got a good answer except, "will look at Yellowstone" , or it will help the Aspen trees survive (no proof), or wolves will help with CWD (no proof) or wolves were here first."
It is very easy for those outside of Colorado to play Quarter back and believe the introduction of the gray wolf will benefit Colorado's way of life, and then those west of the Continental Divide will not be impacted in a negative way over time. But then they do not live there and have nothing at risk and nothing invested much like many along the Front Range who voted Yes, yep, nothing invested and nothing at risk!
That’s a great post, Paul.
Yellowstone NEEDED more predators. Humans aren’t allowed to hunt inside the Park, the ungulates were out of control, and they were damaging/altering the natural environment. Nowhere outside of National Parks was this quite such a problem, though it is probably fair to say that deer and Elk numbers have been maintained at a higher than sustainable levels in many places. The Ft Collins area being among them, especially 30 years ago.... Too much Posted, unhunted land.
But outside of national parks, that is an easy problem to fix (on publicly-accessible land) simply by issuing more cow tags and doe tags during firearms. You can say what you like about rifle hunters, but when was the last time that one of them got hungry in January and ate your dog?
I love the idea of more big predators out there, even if it cuts into my odds of success.... but they are problematic even when their numbers are managed.... and they seem to have very little interest in sharing with ME....
I do think there are still areas which are big enough to accommodate managed populations of wolves - not that I think CO is necessarily among them - but they do need to be kept at limited numbers and restricted to the areas where they are desirable, and they need to be managed effectively in areas where they are not....
Yea GF. Kept at limited numbers. We were told that once remember? Next
Each wolf will kill 700 elk in their lifetime. Proven by science to be true. Pretty sure none of us will kill 700 in our lifetime.
Bigdog, your math needs a little work. Colorado loses an estimated 300,000 deer and elk to predators now, without wolves. A total of only 70,000 deer and elk are taken by hunters. Deer are under population objectives almost everywhere in the state, and declining for a variety of reasons. Elk are right at objective, by using cash-paying hunters to maintain that "balance of nature" the ignorant folks tout.
1000 wolves will put a monstrous dent in the animals available to hunters, but they pay nothing toward wildlife. I can't understand the mentality of a hunter who wants to screw up the greatest wildlife management model in the world, which balances human encroachment, habitat destruction, need for revenue, and maximizing opportunity to take home meat for the family (as YOU claim to do, Bigdog...).
And all from someone who doesn’t even live in Colorado . . .
Controlled numbers - I never suggested that that’s what happened. It’s what’s necessary.
Trouble in Yellowstone was that nobody in the Scientific community anticipated what would happen when they dropped a couple of pike into the hatchery pond. Easy to say now that they should have seen it coming, but there were no data to suggest that the wolves would multiply as they did, nor expand into packs as large as they did.
You can call it a failure of imagination, but as a rule, Science doesn’t really DO imagination....
It’s kind of a problem.
I’m still trying to figure out what the term “re imagine” means everytime I hear a liberal say it......it’s one thing to have an imagination but to live life imagining what “could be” just because someone thinks, wishes or imagines or re imagines it could be, does not make it reality. It’s borderline delusional and in some cases totally delusional....
Dogs have sex. As often as possible. Then they have puppies. And the puppies have puppies. Who knew? Certainly not "scientists" whose salaries and careers depended upon those puppies having puppies.
“ Dogs have sex. As often as possible. ”
Wolves & Coyotes have sex about 1 month out of the year, and typically only the Alpha pair will breed. Just like their prey, they have to time it right and limit the number of pups that the pack needs to support, or survivorship is unsustainably low.
Yellowstone proved that what happens under natural constraints cannot fully anticipate what could happen under extreme, unnatural conditions. First time around, call it an Honest Mistake.
But we’re well past Round One. And failure to do anything to address the fall-out from the mistake is a whole ‘nother proposition.
OTOH, you don’t hear so much complaining from the guys in MN/WI. Kinda makes me wonder what’s the difference??
"OTOH, you don’t hear so much complaining from the guys in MN/WI"
Drop into a restaurant during hunting season up north and its usually popular topic.
I’ve heard plenty of complaining from guys in Colorado, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Washington, Oregon, AZ and yea my home state of NM. Cmon GF. Where have you been hiding?
I never did buy it that only the alphas mate and have pups. They are dogs. And just like raghorn bulls they will get away with whatever they can. Also when wolves mature they split off and go make a living elsewhere. They expand the territory. The rate at which wolves have increased and spread would suggest that there are more than 2 to three breeding pairs in a given area having pups once a year.
I hear they have meetings with all the animals in the forest once a year and hash out who's the King and who gets to eat who..... then there's a great big party with song and dance that the "scientific" urban people imagine they join in on..... then they all go home and live happily ever after...
or was that the mermaids?..... I forget..... no matter, fantasy is fantasy.....
My $.02 from personal experience
I have over the past 10 years watched this debate with a front row seat. I watch moose from my deck, and have 4-6 reside on my property annually. I have only allowed one young lady to hunt moose on the property, that was a special case.
8 years ago I found a dead bull in the driveway, it was killed an eaten by wolves, I did a little CSI and found all the evidence I needed. That summer I started seeing wolves for the first time, the next summer they denned on my place, (took me 2 years to find it). Over the next 4 or so years the moose all disappeared.
I started trying to fill a wolf tag an hunted hard, (never got one) but the wolves moved off the place 3 or so years ago, and the moose are back in full strength.
During this time there was a large push to reduce moose tags due to a fungus? that was killing them? all kinds of tax money spent on research.
Seems to me the fungus? traveled with the wolves. Just saying.
oz
First I've heard of a fungus being the culprit...in my neck of the woods I've heard of every excuse from ticks, global warming, lack of logging/burns, poaching, to trains...but wolves are NEVER part of the problem. When I lived in Minnesota the powers that be proclaimed that wolves ONLY eat the sick or weak...and if they did find a dead moose that wolves were feeding on then it obviously had "pre-existing conditions". Total crock of you know what, but people eat it up hook line and sinker. Sheep..
The moose population is thriving and growing in ND. We have almost zero wolves here. We have almost zero bears here. We have an almost unlimited food source for them. Hmmmmmmmm.............
Jaq-quit giving facts to Bigdog-liberals can't think straight with facts and they start misspelling things in posts and salivating all over their computers. The pink colored sky in the fairy tale world they want to live in is a reality in their mind only.
bigdog2,
Humans KNOW HOW TO MANAGE HUNTS SO ELK NUMBERS INCREASE OR REMAIN STABLE!!! CAN YOU SAY THAT FOR WOLVES??? dO UNGULATE NUMBERS INCREASE WHERE WOLVES PREDATE??? tAKE YOU BUNNYHUGGING MORALISTIC VIEWS TOWARD HUMAN HUNTERS ELSEWHERE. TK
Yep, they did. Before 330 million of us came here. SMH...
This is to GF. I live in Wisconsin and yes wolves are a problem here. Not only for deer and other wild life but the farmers in the northern half of the state. Just about anytime a discussion about hunting in the northern half of the state breaks out you can bet the topic of wolves' comes up. Me personally i do not want to see them eliminated. They are part of the eco system but the do need to managed at an acceptable level to help maintain a healthy whitetail population and at a socially accepted level. If kept at a reasonable population most folks would have no problem accepting them as a natural part of the eco system.
Solo hunter, I think the majority of hunters would agree with you. That they have become a political cudgel to be used against hunting and the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is the problem.
I will admit that when I am on the deck and they are howling, they are pretty cool.
But when they come up on the deck and rattle the pack rat out of my live trap in the middle of the night, they are not so cool.
oz
The sad part is the uninformed get to vote. Big dog is a perfect example. Spouting off BS claims that hold zero truth. But his vote, along with a bunch of uninformed voters (my girlfriends sister and husband) voted based on the feel good. My fault, I should have assumed they didn’t know better, but after I explained the reintro, both regretted their voting for reintro. How many of the “yes” voted for the same reasons.
Someone has to say it: Bigdog you sir are a dumba$$! Oblivious to the facts. You talk to hear yourself but have your fingers in your ears when others speak. That last post says it all. We had less traffic accidents back in the 1800s too. I won’t waste my breath explaining why!
Here.... saves me lots of typing....
But we only follow SCIENCE!!!! Geist is only a delusional irrational whacko...(tongue planted in cheek)
If you want to help the herds, kill lions and bears, they consume more wildlife every year than all hunting combined. State pays professional hunters and they kill more lions and bears that cause problems than the licensed hunters do.
"Dr. Valerius Geist predicted that Shiras moose will become extinct everywhere these non native wolves are introduced. Before the CO vote on wolf forcing, he stated the only places they would survive were in CO and UT, where these wolves don't exist."
Did he explain why that would be the case when there are Shiras moose in places that have had wolves all along (e.g. SE BC)?
By today’s logic, just ask Dr Fauci. Maybe he could recommend 3 masks and a shield to protect them from the wolves.....
I was up fishing in Minn. a few years ago. The big talk then was the study they wanted to do on the declining moose population. So, they radio collared 9 or 10 calves to study. I'm not sure of the correct timeline anymore but I believe within a month the study was over because the wolves ate all the calves, LOL. The Ranger I was talking to just said, ya, that went bad in a hurry.
We have 20 years of wolf reintroduction now in MT to look back on. It's plain as day. Doesn't matter though, the left is not looking for reason or fact. They have an agenda and the rest be damned.
GF. Are you kidding me. Every time wolves come up I chime in about how they have decimated the deer population.
Up until about 15 years ago (when I first began seeing wolves in my back yard) I could drive around and see, literally hundreds of deer in one evening with-in a 5 mile circle of my place. Off my deck, on my neighbors field I could watch 20 to 30 deer every night out feeding - small field - about 100 yards wide and 300 yards long. Now, if I see 2 or 3 it's a big deal.
I used to shed hunt and would find where wolves killed deer every winter. My wife and I could hear wolves howling at night in every direction from our deck.
I've videoed wolves from my bow stand. I've seen piles of scat - all filled with deer hair.
My neighbor had one of her dogs taken off her deck by a timber wolf, it came back the next night and tried to get her other one. The television station was here and interviewed myself and the local DNR warden. Federal trapper came in and took that wolf out the next day.
So don't come on here with your stupid "logic" and say that we (Minnesotans) don't complain about the wolves. There was a good reason they were eliminated years ago and wouldn't hurt my feelings one bit if they were eliminated again!!!!!!!!!!!! People want to see wolves - go to Yellowstone or Canada.
I missed this thread originally.
GF posted “ OTOH, you don’t hear so much complaining from the guys in MN/WI. Kinda makes me wonder what’s the difference??”
Hahahahahahaha!!! If you’re not hearing anyone frustrated about the wolves in WI, you must only be talking to Rod Coronado and his minions.
Wisconsin resident here. The wolf population may be the number one topic in regards to Wisconsin hunting right now.
We've been yelling wolves for years in MN. To say no one is screaming in MN or WI is dead wrong. Our DNR here in MN has it all figured out: It's global warming....no it's ticks....no it's (insert whatever word you want other than W#$F) and that's the reason. Open a wolf hunting season, closed right afterwards by a liberal judge. Open, close, open, close. Repeat.... MN will never have a moose season again I'm afraid. Better than that, the moose will go away in MN all together in not too many years. But we will have fluffy because everyone besides those that live in MN want to see those cute little guys. TODDY
We have abundant wolves. Trust me.(ever hear that before!) Federal wolf biologist here a personal friend. He's very realistic about wolves. We have packs virtually covering the North half of the state. I've been out with him on snaring jobs. Packs surprisingly close to busy towns. Best bait for them...deer carcasses. Yah ya might not hear on posts a lot of wolf talk from MN hunters but it is common camp talk here. Guess after all these years(forever) it's just a fact of nature. Doesn't mean we don't think they are eating our deer and moose. They are.
You can add Michigan's UP to the MN and WI discussions.
Dr. Valerius Geist predicts that Shiras moose will essentially become extinct wherever wolves are allowed to proliferate unchecked. He said their only hope for survival is in Utah and Colorado. This was before the CO election.
Those that try to claim a wolf population brings a healthier stronger elk and moose herd are so out of touch with reality they are beyond hope. Don’t give me the Yellowstone model or any other skewed data points. You can twist data and skew it anyway you like to support your position. Adding an apex predator to “help” the prey is like adding a barn cat to your barn to help the mouse population. And adding the wolf has the same end result to the elk and moose as adding the cat does for the mice.
Few years ago Bugle Mag ran an article about the wolves in MN. "Minnesota has more timber wolves than Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho combined" Not sure that's still true these days, but the bleeding heart liberals found a tree hugging judge to put them back on the endangered list.
In New Hampshire, the problem is ticks. They are finding them with 50,000 ticks on them that cause them to bleed to death. TMBB
This past winter was kinder to the moose up here on the NH/Quebec border, tick wise. Vehicles are killing them this summer. As a volunteer first responder I have been to 12 moose/vehicle collisions this summer, so far. That is just in our local area. Being a former Biologist, I like to check them out for ticks, and I am finding some but not as many as last summer. The two deer I have checked had no deer ticks. If we can slow people down, we should see a rebound up here in our moose population. A lot of our big cuts are growing back with browse, and that helps. TooManyBowsBob is right about the tick count. Moose I looked at last summer we’re covered and I found one dying in the woods, with thousands of ticks on him. It looked like his skin was moving. I put him out of his misery.
I've heard about ticks causing issues, but that's just creepy! I've shot deer here in MN that have had quite a few on them, but NEVER that many.
A report from the Vermont Dept of Wildlife, ie, In may, when the snow was gone and the dead counted, the Vermont moose team found that of the 29 calves in their study that winter (one having shucked its collar), 15 died of tick infestation. Fifty-two percent. New Hampshire and Maine had similar results. Northern New England’s moose had officially had their fourth tick epizootic event in five years, their sixth in 11.
Here ( NW Ontario ) it's #1.... Brain Worm & Ticks #2... Bears and Wolves.
Old School, you nailed it on the head with adding a barn cat to help the mouse population! Do you mean the cat doesn’t manage the mice to have lots for next year? He just kills every single one he can, healthy or not? Kinda like a wolf with ungulates? Perfect analogy!
It would be perfect analogy if it were true.
“Seasonally, there is strong selection for calves, which comprised 18% of the available elk between 1995 and 2000 (14). Young elk are likely more vulnerable just because they are young, which makes them easier to catch and kill than adults. There was also strong selection against cows, as they comprised ?60% of the available elk for the same time period. However, when cows are killed, wolves select older individuals that are presumably easier to kill than those in their prime (ages 1–9 y). For the period of 1995–2000, wolves killed bulls in proportion to their availability. The switch from calf to bull selection seen in the early winter of 2004 is notable, as are the declining kill rates and their seasonal variation for 2000–2004. Differences in seasonal kill rates for 1995–2000 are likely explained by differences in elk vulnerability. The changing trends in kill rates, seasonal variation, and prey selection are less understood at this time, but are likely the result of a combination of factors: availability and vulnerability of prey, interference competition between wolf packs, and winter severity and drought (D. Smith and D. Stahler, Yellowstone Wolf Project, unpublished data).“
It is true that predators left unchecked can reduce prey populations in closed ecosystems; however, they absolutely select for the easiest prey in their search image. Biological sciences have known this for decades.
They will kill what is easiest to catch at the time. It’s always been risk vs reward.
Just because data can be spun doesn’t mean that it always is when it is counter to your opinion.
And how did the wolf experiment go in Idaho? Is that a closed ecosystem? I know, it’s just a sheer coincidence that wolves were introduced and N Idaho elk hunting has never been the same…. They’ve only killed the young, weak and sick up there.
Information from a Idaho Dept of Wildlife study, elk data from 2005 - 2008. as follows, Survival of elk calves 6 to 12 months old was 30 percent in the Sawtooth zone and 52 percent in the Lolo zone. During winter, wolves were the leading cause of elk calf death, killing one-third of the elk calves in those zones. Malnutrition, while not as great a factor as wolf predation, also influenced calf deaths in the Sawtooth zone. Lolo Zone: one of the most studied elk populations The Lolo zone in north-central Idaho used to be one of the West’s most popular areas to hunt elk. The Lolo zone is also unique in having one of the West’s most intensively studied elk herds, providing a valuable perspective on the historic and current factors that influence elk populations. The Lolo zone is also notable for having experienced one of the greatest elk population declines in Idaho. The population peaked in 1989 at an estimated 16,054 elk before subsequently declining. Several factors played a role in this decline but today, wolves are the primary reason that elk are still trending downward in this zone and cannot recover. Wolves became well established in the Lolo zone from 2003 to 2005. The elk population in 2006 was estimated to be 5,110. From 2005 to 2008, IDFG documented that wolves removed 20 percent of the cow elk population annually, and survival was down to only 75 percent annually with no cow losses to hunter harvest. Results from previous elk studies in the Lolo zone, before wolves were released in Idaho, indicated annual survival was 89 percent even with hunter harvest. Perhaps even more alarming is that winter calf survival is only 30 to 52 percent in areas with relatively high wolf numbers. This compares to calf survival rates of 71 to 89 percent prior to 2004 when wolf densities were lower. Wolves were responsible for most of the winter mortality of calves 6 to 12 months old. Today’s estimated population level is 2,178 and wolves are having an unacceptable impact on elk herds in the Lolo zone.
KS - you are missing my very simple and logical point. I’ll try one more time - adding an apex predator is not the way to increase or maintain elk populations. I have no doubt you can find “independent studies” that show the opposite. Kind of like finding the peaceful protests in Portland last summer.
And yes - go ahead and study elk populations in Idaho. You’ll find some remarkable parallels with wolf reintroduction and tags. Back when the wolves we running “unchecked” populations plummeted and you could buy elk tags over the counter all through the season. Then the state started controlling the wolf population where they could (shooting them from helicopters, etc…) - and what do you know, elk populations start coming back and now most zoned tags sold out in less than 1 day of the tags going on sale - if you call that a simple co-incidence, you’re really not trying to see the truth. I’ve enjoyed hunting Idaho through the years - and wolves sure didn’t make the hunting better. Nothing like hunting fewer elk and the ones that are there are quieter and on edge. Just what every elk bow Hunter dreams of. Have you elk hunted Idaho? -in pre wolf days, unchecked wolf days and in the present? Just curious if you have any first hand experience or if it’s all from “independent research” found on the internet.
How many elk hunters do you know that sit in camp and say “you know what this place really needs… it needs for wolves to be reintroduced here.”
Yes, I have hunted elk in Idaho.
“Those that try to claim a wolf population brings a healthier stronger elk and moose herd are so out of touch with reality they are beyond hope.”
Predators can improve the “HEALTH” of prey populations. We know this. Agreed that predators can reduce prey populations…of course. But ecosystems and national forested are not only managed to increase elk populations and hunter success. Your statement/opinion was hyperbole based on what we have know about predators/prey relationships for +50 years.
What happens to the cats in the barn when the mice population can’t support them?
The cats move on to another barn. Decimating the mice population as they go from place to place. Making no need for mice traps (hunters).
So the elk in the Lolo in Idaho are “healthier” because of the wolves. Ok, got it. I’m obviously not going to change your mind KS and no one else here will either. My posts certainly aren’t made with hoping to convince you of anything.
I stand by my cat and mouse analogy and most here agree with it. Introduce an apex predator and prey suffer for it. It’s really pretty logical.
Ever expanding human population and encroachment, taking up more and more winter grounds etc, which in turn pushes these animals into smaller and smaller “islands” of habitat. And then adding apex predators to the mix for East pickings.
These things all combined is what will ultimately have us hunting rodents one day.
Another note with most of the worlds problems today.
Life is too damn easy compared to the days of old!! They are so easy it’s created boredom!!
This boredom has caused people to create problems for fun!!
We need a real hard reality check
Guess what barn cats do? They kill countless wild animals and wild birds. They have been responsible for the extinction of some bird species. So house cats isn’t a good analogy.
Back before this country was formed and wildlife was not managed, you had bears, wolves, coyotes, and cats as top predators. Native Americans with bows and small populations didn’t factor as much. With the introduction of guns, we became part of the top predator group, as well as eliminating habitat. Farmers and ranchers raised livestock and the wolves and bears had new prey which led to their demise. Bears are solitary hunters, as well as cats. Wolves are pack hunters, very efficient. With less prey, something has to give. Either reduce the predation or let nature take its course, which will certainly eliminate man as a predator. That is the dream for the anti- hunters. In the end, without controls, as livestock get preyed upon, economics will kick in, ranchers and farmers will declare war on the wolf, and history will repeat itself, probably over the antis dead bodies. When hamburger goes to $20 a pound, look out. The best thing is wildlife management with habitat conservation, regulated hunting seasons, trapping, and predator control. Without that, wolves are doomed as people’s attitudes towards them shifts, and it will. We are a very liberal nation, but when the reality hits, there will be a tremendous blowback. The distrust of government and those who wish to control our land and lives is something ingrained in too many of us.
The BC caribou experiments have proven beyond a doubt that wolves can and will decimate to critical levels large ungulate populations. The southern caribou herds are now listed as "biologically extinct", after being predator/prey studied literally to death. After every study the biologists are told by politicians to go find another result that doesn't include a wolf cull. Maternity penning works great, until you release the cow/calf pairs back to the wild, where the wolves immediately eat them.
Three of our more northern herds that were slowly declining got lucky and got the Indian bands onside to do wolf culls. Over the last five years the herds have been increasing an average 11% per year, with the last year counted being 15% !! Remember that is exponential growth. Compounding growth.
Nothing has changed except large scale, annual wolf removal. Industrial and recreational use has continued. Habitat hasn't change in the short time frame. ONLY WOLF REMOVAL!
Now of course the anti wolf kill orgs all just keep bleating "But it's more complicated than that." No it's not. Calves turned into wolf shit don't grow up to have more calves.
In northern BC, black and grizzly bears kill about 40% - 60% of the moose calves in the first six weeks of the calves' lives. Mostly the black bears though, because there are just so many more of them. Then the wolves take over.
BC has studied this to death and I do mean death and the answer is always the same, then the next step is always the same. "Find a result that won't cost me city votes in the next election!"
KS flatlander, so wolves only kill as many calves and bulls as they can and that doesn’t wipe out the elk? I don’t live in a textbook. I live in real life and wolves have wiped out the elk and moose in the mountains of Alberta, period, end of story. And then the wolf numbers drop off and bears, especially grizzlies keep the prey numbers suppressed forever! It’s a real life fact that has happened in my lifetime and habitat improvement, like burns, have done nothing to change it.
KSflatlander, I've watched our elk population plummet since 1995, and our moose population suffer an even larger hit. Eventually Idaho, Montana and finally Wyoming allowed wolf hunting or the trend would have continued. Because of the wolves and grizzly bears, we rarely see a moose. Personally, I see quite a few more griz and wolves than I do moose. And the fallacy that they kill only the sick, old or weak is bs. They're opportunistic. If they make a kill, but have a chance for another, they will.
Ambush, you are 100% correct and real life observations from people in the woods will agree.
I really see it in the farm land of northern Alberta where we guide. The elk and moose will have their calves in a small bush patch with some water right beside the road on private land, wolves and bears leave them alone. Then 2-4 weeks later they take their calves to the big bush when they are old enough to escape from predators. We have stable or increasing elk and moose populations with lots of human hunting pressure. We are able to manage the animals. We still have quite a few wolves too.
Ksflat and anyone else who believe that wolves don't decimate the deer/elk/moose young are living in a fantasy world. Again, the only good wolf is a dead wolf - flame away!!!!
These discussions are good for one thing…its always easy to differentiate those whose opinions are based on real-life experiences from those whose opinions are gained from a textbook.
These Apex predators have been shoved down our throats and we’ve felt helpless while we’ve watched our moose, elk, and deer herds decimated. Combine that with hearing some claim they make our herds healthier, or they only kill the old and weak, is the reason many of us believe exactly as Inshart…the only good wolf is a dead wolf. Thank God, in Wyoming they can be shot 24/7/365 as vermin in the majority of the state.
What you guys are seeing in the West, we are seeing here with bobcats wiping out our turkey and songbirds. We tried to get a 50 permit season as a start and failed, even with the backing of our Fish and Game Dept. As I posted before, when you let nature take control after protecting predators, or in the instance of the West, introducing them with no honest plan to control them, you will see a catastrophe. It is like the wacky forestry the feds utilize to placate the ignorant, don’t cut and then spend billions fighting fires and replacing homes. Up here the feds believe that tree need to simply grow and die. Of course they aren’t foresters, they utilize a guy with a degree in environmental science.
