Summit Treestands
Wolves, Lions, and Elk
Elk
Contributors to this thread:
Ace 07-Apr-22
Kodiak 07-Apr-22
Bowbender 07-Apr-22
nmwapiti 07-Apr-22
6pointbull 07-Apr-22
APauls 07-Apr-22
Recurve Man 07-Apr-22
Mule Power 07-Apr-22
WV Mountaineer 07-Apr-22
KSflatlander 07-Apr-22
Mule Power 07-Apr-22
KSflatlander 07-Apr-22
Nimrod 07-Apr-22
Recurve Man 07-Apr-22
Ron Niziolek 07-Apr-22
Ron Niziolek 07-Apr-22
Mule Power 07-Apr-22
KSflatlander 08-Apr-22
Mule Power 08-Apr-22
KSflatlander 08-Apr-22
6pointbull 08-Apr-22
Mule Power 08-Apr-22
KSflatlander 08-Apr-22
APauls 08-Apr-22
solo hunter19 08-Apr-22
KSflatlander 08-Apr-22
Smurph 08-Apr-22
Mule Power 08-Apr-22
Mule Power 08-Apr-22
WV Mountaineer 08-Apr-22
Mule Power 08-Apr-22
KSflatlander 08-Apr-22
Ron Niziolek 08-Apr-22
Mule Power 08-Apr-22
keepemsharp 08-Apr-22
APauls 08-Apr-22
[email protected] 08-Apr-22
Smurph 08-Apr-22
Smurph 08-Apr-22
[email protected] 08-Apr-22
Thornton 09-Apr-22
Corax_latrans 09-Apr-22
Smurph 09-Apr-22
[email protected] 09-Apr-22
KSflatlander 09-Apr-22
Mule Power 09-Apr-22
KSflatlander 09-Apr-22
Inshart 09-Apr-22
bowbender77 09-Apr-22
grasshopper 09-Apr-22
WV Mountaineer 09-Apr-22
Novembermadman 09-Apr-22
WV Mountaineer 09-Apr-22
KSflatlander 09-Apr-22
Mule Power 10-Apr-22
welka 10-Apr-22
jdbbowhunter 10-Apr-22
Novembermadman 10-Apr-22
WV Mountaineer 10-Apr-22
KSflatlander 10-Apr-22
Mule Power 10-Apr-22
KSflatlander 10-Apr-22
Ironbow 10-Apr-22
Mule Power 10-Apr-22
Mule Power 10-Apr-22
KSflatlander 10-Apr-22
Rgiesey 10-Apr-22
dm/wolfskin 17-Apr-22
Ermine 17-Apr-22
Thornton 18-Apr-22
From: Ace
07-Apr-22

Ace's Link
I apologize if this has been posted here before, but I just read about this study for the first time:

Elk hunters were among the first in line to object to wolf reintroduction in the Lower 48, but a new study suggests that mountain lion hunters may have had even greater cause for concern.

“The big take home of this paper is that wolves have the strongest effect on the survival and abundance of mountain lions in the system,” Dr. Mark Elbroch told MeatEater. Elbroch is the lead author of the study and the puma program director for Panthera, a wild cat conservation group.

“It’s dramatic. Wolves are a power on the landscape. We saw cats respond, but we thought it was anecdotal. The strength of the [wolves’] effects surprised every one of us,” Elbroch said.

Mountain lion populations decreased 48% in the southern Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem between 2000 and 2015. Biologists have tried for the last several years to identify the primary driver in this decline. A 2018 study by Elbroch and his colleagues posited that the drop was likely caused by three primary factors: regulated human hunting, wolves killing lion kittens, and increased starvation.

This latest paper, which Elbroch and his co-authors published late last year in the peer-reviewed academic journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, indicates that wolves drive both kitten mortality and starvation, and their impact eclipses human hunting by a factor of four. In concrete terms, the study estimates that just 20 wolves can account for the effects of all human predation in the study area.

(the rest of the story is at the link)

From: Kodiak
07-Apr-22
Dogs and cats, living together, it'll be anarchy.

From: Bowbender
07-Apr-22

Bowbender's embedded Photo
Bowbender's embedded Photo
Kodiak,

End of the world stuff for sure!!

From: nmwapiti
07-Apr-22
Wolves are definitely a force to be reckoned with. On my only bear hunt up in Ontario, the outfitter said when the wolves come around everything else leaves. The bears, the moose, anything that is able to gets out of the area. A pack of wolves can kill anything.

From: 6pointbull
07-Apr-22
Not surprising, although as the wolves eat themselves out of house and home, they will look for any source of feed they can find. Pretty much all species around yellowstone have decreased in number, except grizzlies. They have benefited from all of the wolf killing sprees.

From: APauls
07-Apr-22

APauls's embedded Photo
APauls's embedded Photo
APauls's embedded Photo
APauls's embedded Photo
Wolves are tip of the iceberg. If they can take down polar bears they can take anything. Look at the size differential, and that's not even a giant bear. We routinely see packs of gray wolves testing polars. They annihilate as many cubs as they can as well.

From: Recurve Man
07-Apr-22
Wolves are like the MS 13 gang. Nothing really matters except being superior.

From: Mule Power
07-Apr-22
The fact that hunting is a cooperative effort for wolves sets them apart from all other predators. That and the fact that they are the poster child for anti-hunters due to the way uneducated non hunters and city people view them. An accident waiting to happen from day one!

07-Apr-22
The term Apex predator gets used a lot. But, if the wolf is in the ecosystem being discussed, it is the Apex predator. End of discussion.

Man’s best friend is a loyal, dependent side kick. Supposedly A direct Descendent of the wolf. A wolf ‘s bloodline is pure. Only because it didn’t get caught and domesticated. Why, because it was too smart to have that happen.

While I do not doubt the family tree of the canine species, I do believe a wolf is the smartest, toughest, predator on the planet. And, will adapt and survive any where man allows it. Time has shown that. It’s the only mammal predator I know of that can be labeled as such. For good reason too.

From: KSflatlander
07-Apr-22

KSflatlander's Link
“Pretty much all species around yellowstone have decreased in number, except grizzlies.“

That is completely counter to all the biological studies I have read on the effects of the wolf introduction in Yellowstone. Many species of plants (e.g., aspen, willows, cottonwood), songbirds, and smaller mammals have increased and stabilized. The elk and wolf populations inside Yellowstone have also stabilized. I haven’t seen bio data of species “around” Yellowstone. If you have some scientific journals on the subject I’d like to read them.

From: Mule Power
07-Apr-22
Dude stfu once again. Why is it that you so easily buy into all of the anti hunter propaganda. Wolves help grass grow. Yeah ok… maybe in the spot where I bury them!. I feel absolutely no need to be politically correct with people like you. Have you spoken to any ranchers or outfitters lately? I didn’t think so.

From: KSflatlander
07-Apr-22
Dude maybe if you were a conservationist and valued ecosystems you would understand. Anti-hunter propaganda…obviously you can’t differentiate science from propaganda. Nothing in my post or link was anti-hunter. You made that leap…that hyperbole is on you. Have you spoken to any Yellowstone ecologists lately. I didn’t think so.

From: Nimrod
07-Apr-22
Considering that the number of elk went from almost 20,000 in '94 to a low of under 4,000 in 2013 of course there is is going to be more grass and willows. Because wolves have decimated the elk herd. The area north of the park used to be a great hunt with really good bulls and now it's nearly dead. It's easy for folks that haven't watched the effect that wolves have to comment on what they read.

From: Recurve Man
07-Apr-22
No comment on the Yellowstone Ecologist. Pretty sure i know who they voted for in 2020.

From: Ron Niziolek
07-Apr-22
My take on the mortality of lions is their kill cycle has to be much more often because around here there is rarely a chance to bury it and return over a few days to eat. Wolves find it and clean it up too quickly. I guess bears are guilty of that as well. It’s extremely difficult for momma cats to kill that often and provide for themselves and kittens.

From: Ron Niziolek
07-Apr-22
And I agree with mule power. Stfu Ks is right. I’m personally glad you don’t live anywhere around here but if you did, you may have more of a clue, though I doubt it. Keep reading whatever science makes you happy. I’m sure it’s peer reviewed by stellar unbiased scientists such as yourself.

From: Mule Power
07-Apr-22
Nimrod… thanks. But he’s deaf dumb and blind to that side of the story. The facts side.

Yeah the elk have stabilized… at an all time low after being decimated. Conservationist? You have no idea you anti hunting tree hugging idiot. I’m not candy coating my comments to you. I’ve seen enough to know how you think. We’ve all read that article. It’s old. Wolves made the fishing better and the skies bluer. Even Old Faithful is spouting off more often right! Do you realize how gullible you look? No… you don’t. Go have another glass of Kool Aid and hug a tree!

From: KSflatlander
08-Apr-22
I won’t sugar coat it for you either you freaking simpleton. I posted a peer reviewed scientific study from a biologist that spent 40 years in Yellowstone and seen the effects of wolves on the ECOSYSTEM. My post was about the OP. The unbiased data is there on the true ecosystem effects of wolves. You just don’t like the factual data. I didn’t link an article with pro-wolfer spin on it. By your post you didn’t read the link. You just made assumptions and reacted like an emotional child throwing a fit.

You use emotionally loaded humanized words like “decimated” “killer” or other terms in regards to wolves. Then you blast the antis for humanizing wolves through their stupid loaded Disney words about wolves. You, and I mean you personally, ironically cast human emotions on wolves just like the anti-hunters and tree huggers. And on that subject, I’ve sit across the table from environmental groups. I’ve engaged with them on their illogical preservationist outlooks. You are the poster boy for what they are looking for to push their agenda. Grow up you emotional man-child.

I understand impacts to those who live with wolves. The impacts to ranchers is real. I understand that. It wasn’t what the OP was about.

From: Mule Power
08-Apr-22

Mule Power's embedded Photo
Mule Power's embedded Photo
Mule Power's embedded Photo
Mule Power's embedded Photo
Wolf hugger reviewed. My emotions are a result of a total lack of scientific management of a predator that was never native to the area.

I never used the word killer. But I could. An animal that takes the life of another animal and doesn’t even consume it isn’t a subsistence hunter. It’s a killer.

The word decimated is definitely applicable. If Yellowstone isn’t an example of the decimation caused by wolves ask the people in Wisconsin and Minnesota how the deer hunting is going. Ask them if the wolves have stabilized their big game populations.

A flatlander like you wouldn’t last 10 minutes in a neighborhood where wolves actually exist. A place where you don’t need articles or charts to know the facts. But here are a couple charts for your viewing pleasure. Fact. No peer reviews needed. I’ll let you Google up the deer and moose facts in Wisconsin Minnesota and Michigan’s UP. But you won’t.

From: KSflatlander
08-Apr-22
I have already looked up and read the effects of wolves on deer in those states. If you have links of good studies I’d like to see them and will read them. I’ve also talked to others here that experienced it first hand in WI. I never said wolves don’t have an impact and I’ve never advocated for wolves to be unchecked. They must be managed and the best tool to do that is hunting. The issues in those states is not a wolf problem it’s a people problem. With the idealist pro wolf preservationists people who sue the USFWS at every turn on one end of the spectrum and the SSS people on the other. Both sides unfairly inject human consciousness and emotions into wolves and then rip each other for doing so.

Thanks for the charts. I’ve seen those. Part of the reason for the Yellowstone reintroduction was to reduce the elk population in the park. It will be interesting to seen if the peaks and valleys of the wolf and elk populations smooth out like what has been observed in the last 12 years or will the populations continue to boom and bust. Also, Canis lupus is native. That is fact biologically and legally as determined in the courts regarding the ESA.

By the way, I have hunted elk with wolves in Idaho. But I understand they are not in my backyard like some here so I realize my real world experience is lacking. A week of hunting in wolf country is not the same as living in wolf country. I understand that.

From: 6pointbull
08-Apr-22
Most of this info is crap. We do not have the extensive habitat to support the number of wolves proposed along with healthy deer and elk populations. Elk especially are migrating in record numbers to other parts of the state to get away from the wolves and bears. We hear all the time that parts of Montana are over population objectives, which is not the case, just elk trying to survive by migrating. there is much more to all of this than what is printed in the "feel good stories" we see.

From: Mule Power
08-Apr-22
This is not a study. This is common sense. A fact or two based on common sense. What person is the least upset at a family funeral? The dead person because they don’t know they’re dead. Likewise stupid people just aren’t smart enough to know they’re stupid. They have nothing between their ears to compare stupid to. My mother has Alzheimers but she thinks everything is just fine. Get the picture?

You fall into a similar category. It’s the brainwashed people. They’re not dead. Not necessarily stupid. They have just filled their brains with an overload of seemingly intelligent seemingly factual information to the point where they are completely unable to see beyond that information to a reality which is in fact very easy to see. As a matter of fact sometimes these people are actually intelligent but that only makes matters worse. They think that people who disagree with them cannot possibly be right. That those people are just rude crude forms of human beings who don’t read enough to know the actual facts. At that point there is nothing you can do or say to convince them that you are actually as smart as them. Your hands on real world experiences go in one ear and right out the other. Common sense has become non existent. Yep, that’s the category you are in. As far as emotional involvement… since people like you are part of the problem… yes I find you irritating. And I’m not the only one. There are other dumb people like me who feel the same way.

Congratulations on your 1 week experience in wolf country. You are hereby officially qualified to support your opinion.

From: KSflatlander
08-Apr-22
You forgot to mention the 30 years of experience designing and conducting biological studies. I guarantee I’ve spent way more time than you in the woods observing wildlife. What are you basing your opinion on from Pennsylvania with all your wolves.

By the way, based on your logic I guess you have no opinion on women’s reproductive rights because you’ve never given birth or the war on Ukraine because you haven’t lived there. See how dumb you sound…and that’s your word. And you say common sense and then claim Canis lupus is not native…say that in a room full of biologists and the reaction will range from eye roll to rotflmao. Common sense my a#%. If that’s your stance then frankly you are really scientifically clueless.

“yes I find you irritating. And I’m not the only one.“. Seriously LMAO. You need a buddies to stand up and make you feel better?

From: APauls
08-Apr-22
Just reading this out of interest, and looking at the graphs Mule Power supplied. Couple honest curiosity questions as I don't know much about Yellowstone. Seems like back in the day it was all elk. Tons and tons of them. Was that a healthy number of elk for Yellowstone? What is a healthy number of elk for Yellowstone? I guess would that be presented in elk/acre? Why in the face of increasing wolf numbers do bison numbers steadily climb almost as if the wolves don't affect them at all? Could you attribute the growth in the bison population to the lowering number of elk? Or what do they attribute the growing bison population to?

My gut reaction to wolf numbers going from 0 to about 59 animals while there are almost no bison would be that bison would be adversely affected. Maybe even get wiped out. But instead as wolf numbers climb, top out around 100, and later settle around 40 animals bison numbers continue to climb to where at the end of that graph they more than quadruple to 4,000 animals. Super interesting and not what I would have thought would happen. Have to assume this is due to lower elk numbers and prairie opening up to the bison - or what do they say? Like I say I have absolutely no dog in this fight I am just interested.

What would be very interesting from an observing viewpoint is what would happen if they once again eradicated the wolves. Would elk numbers increase and bison decrease? There has to be a carrying capacity of herbivores. I wonder how many acres a single bison "needs" as compared to a single elk. Cool stuff.

08-Apr-22
First off let me state that i do not hate wolves and find them interesting and extremely intelligent and would not want them totally eliminated. But I live and hunt in northern Wisconsin and deal first hand with them. They have decimated the whitetail population in many areas not from just killing them but also from the constant pressure put on deer as well as many other species causing birth and survival rates to be much lower. Especially because of the pressure put on them during the winter months. I also hunt grouse with my bird dogs and have had several encounters where they have tried to attack my dogs and keep in mind this is in close proximity to myself. They have very little fear of man. Again i am not for eliminating them but we most certainly need a season on them to bring the numbers down so we have a balance with the environment and social tolerances. Not just for hunting but so all species effected can be maintained at a reasonable population.

From: KSflatlander
08-Apr-22

KSflatlander's Link
APauls- some of the answers to your questions are in the Society of Mammalogy article in the link.

From: Smurph
08-Apr-22
Ks flat lander, appreciate your willingness to at least consider differing points of view. To me it is not a big jump in logic to consider this.- I could say as an unaffected Oregonian, that Kanas farmers have adversely affected native insect populations. All spraying of crops should cease. No more plowing either to save snakes and rodents. I’m sure any number of surveys and scientific studies could be built to defend my position. The Thing is, people who live in the rural west likeOregon and Montana, live here because we love hunting and fishing. Most of us want to protect that. For the most part, wolves have been forced upon us by people from distant places. Farmers from the Midwest don’t want or deserve me telling them how to manage there resources. I only ask the same for rural westerners.

From: Mule Power
08-Apr-22

Mule Power's embedded Photo
Mule Power's embedded Photo
Mule Power's embedded Photo
Mule Power's embedded Photo
You obviously have no clue about my background. My experience is far from Pennsylvania. Although we do have elk. 35 years hunting, guiding, and outfitting in Montana and Wyoming are way better credentials then a bookworm. I watched wolves go from one or two to the point where they had to take out entire packs from helicopters. Had them surround me on horses, chase my horses through corral fences only to find them weeks later. Kill my neighbors livestock. Called them in with cow calls and bugles. Some I let walk some I shot. Ever been close to a wolf in the wild? I’ve heard them breathe. A little scary actually. I can tell you what one smells like flopped over your shoulder. Unlike anything else. Very strong stench. This one ran across my .300 Ultra Mag after chowing down on a mulie a friend’s son arrowed the night before.

Surprise surprise I have as much or probably more experience living alongside wolves than most people on this website. Certainly more than you. I watched what happened to the western Montana moose, elk, and deer with my own two eyes.

And yet I can still honestly say I don’t hate wolves. I just hate the people who fail to realize that they don’t belong here in uncertain and unmanaged numbers.

And by the way all the numbers you see for populations in Yellowstone and surrounding states as well as Wisconsin and Minnesota are way off . By miles. They spread like wildfire. They can’t be managed by hunting alone. Trapping works better but for every one you manage to trap 6 more are born. That’s what makes them like an aggressive cancer to big game and to hunting. Next question/comment?

From: Mule Power
08-Apr-22

Mule Power's embedded Photo
Mule Power's embedded Photo

Mule Power's Link
Here’s a couple for you. A great day but days like this are few and far between. By the way they are also putting a hurting on our lion population. Sadly the article in the link will tell you what happened to the dogs owned by the guy in this picture. They’re putting a hurting on the lion hounds too. It’s to the point where turning dogs loose on a track could very likely be a death sentence for them. I’ve spent some time outside Pa Flatlander. A lifetime.

08-Apr-22
Just wait. Shortly there will be a peer reviewed study showing how the bookworms science TRUMP’s a 35 year outfitters experience. It’s out there. Likely written by a guy living in Kansas. lol.

From: Mule Power
08-Apr-22

Mule Power's Link
Here’s my 2 minutes of fame on the Howling for Justice website. First name on the list of people who “killed our magnificent wolves”. The name below mine Brady Stamps was guiding for me when he killed that one. We spotted the pack taking down a cow at last light the night before. Shot his at first light the next morning. On down the list is Ken Francisco a neighbor and fellow Bitterroot outfitter who could give you his thoughts on flatlander perspective on wolves. Further down is another friend Eric Weare. He outfits up in the NW part of MT near Noxon. Below him is Cody Hensen, a good friend who owns Royal Tine Guide School where I’d pick up a new guide or two each year. I got threats from the fine people at wolf huggers of America after making it to their wall of shame. I have plenty of other actual factual experiences with wolves. Half my family lives along the Montana/Idaho border. Tell me about your experience and credentials again. You sat in a room somewhere and talked about them. Lol

From: KSflatlander
08-Apr-22
Mule- I’m not discounting your experiences. How do you know numbers are off by a mile? You said you use common sense. Did you count wolves in everyone of those states? Your experience TRUMPS wolf data collected by biologists? It’s not surprising that a outfitter who makes money off hunting feels the way you do and I see your perspective.

I posted because someone said all species populations decrease due to wolves in Yellowstone. I posted a credible source showing that wasn’t the case which is also evident in the graph you posted. Then you piped off with your a personal attack.

Best of luck to you and your hunters this season. By the way, I’ve elk hunted on the Idaho side of the Idaho/Montana border in wolf country. Beautiful country.

From: Ron Niziolek
08-Apr-22
Another problem many seem to not understand is that the wolves don’t stay in the park. They have a far reaching impact way beyond the borders. To get some reprieve, elk have left the park, left national forest and are impacting ranches and farms and even antelope habitat like never before. Why? Because if the wolves follow them into these areas, Fish and Wildlife or Game and Fish get called quickly and sometimes kill all or most of the pack. Many times they can’t even identify the pack. Didn’t know it existed. A well balanced ecosystem is something all sportsmen and conservationists should get behind. However, when a species gets introduced to said ecosystem and receives protections to the detriment of other species, I call bs.

Observing elk in said park is kinda rare. Moose are almost nonexistent in and out of the park, but hey, at least we have flowers, grass and aspen. When seeing grizzlies and wolves is more common than prey species, it’s not a balanced system.

From: Mule Power
08-Apr-22
Too late you already discredited my post. Now you’ll backpedal after I tell you about my extensive hands on experience. But you’ll still blow off everything I say because you’re an edumacated professional rocket scientist and assume I’m not.

Well let’s see, at one point they told us there were 16 wolves in our region. In one day I saw 14 in the West Fork, the same morning another guide in a completely different area saw 11, and my brother was way up north in the valley and saw six. If my redneck math serves me correctly that’s nearly double of what you would read in a book. I never wrote that stuff down or made a chart or anything so maybe you don’t consider it data? Are you going to now tell me we all saw the same wolves?

Common sense man, how can they know every time a wolf is born? They only monitor packs with collared wolves. There are other packs splitting off of those packs all the time. You pencil pushers kill me. No matter what I say you’re gonna pull out a piece of paper and tell me I’m full of shit and ask me how would I know.

Have you done any round table discussions on the stabilized elk populations in the Selway Bitterroot wilderness or the Lolo National Forest? Here I’ll simplify it for you: They went down the shitter.

How else would I form an opinion about the accuracy of wolf numbers? I hunted grouse with the local biologist who would regularly tell me that they really didn’t have a clue how many wolves are were. Does that count?

Or how about when they say there are 20 and we kill 4 and they still say there are 20? Could the numbers possibly be just a guess? Absolutely! Gotta tell the people something… anything other than “we don’t know”.

From: keepemsharp
08-Apr-22
I used to belong to the Kansas Wildlife federation which meant I was a member of the National Wildlife Federation. Thought it was a good outfit. This week I got a pitch to rejoin the National Wildlife Federation. On the cover of the pitch was a pix of two wolf cubs. Does this mean they now believe that the future of wildlife should mean the expansion of wolves? I don't agree.

From: APauls
08-Apr-22
What I find interesting is that I don’t know of a place where any reasonable population of man has lived in close proximity to wolves and decided they are a net benefit. Each time in history that I am aware of man has decided to remove the wolf.

But hey, it’s 2020. We know better now. Whatever our forefathers thought was obviously wrong

08-Apr-22
There is somewhere around 3000 wolves in ID, MT & WY. Wolves eat 20 elk per wolf, per year (or some equivalent if elk aren't plentiful).

Thats 60,000 elk per year. Not every part of the issue is complex.

From: Smurph
08-Apr-22
Don’t forget about the expanding wolf populations in Oregon and Washington too!

From: Smurph
08-Apr-22
Don’t forget about the expanding wolf populations in Oregon and Washington too!

08-Apr-22
And Colorado

From: Thornton
09-Apr-22
I'd pay for a wolf hunt if anybody wants to take me.

09-Apr-22
Backing up just a touch here…

“ Seems like back in the day it was all elk. Tons and tons of them. Was that a healthy number of elk for Yellowstone? ”

In a word, No.

In two words, HELL, No!

They were really hammering the landscape, and SOMETHING really HAD to be done. There’s plenty of room to disagree about WHAT should’ve been done, but NO question that there was an issue.

But no one had ever had the opportunity to observe how fast wolves could reproduce when placed into an area with a hyperabundance of prey like that, and (speaking only for myself) I really don’t believe that anyone had any idea that the numbers would explode as they did. Or how large the packs would get to be. Or how efficient those enormous packs would be at taking down Elk. Failure of imagination, I suppose. It’s good to have solid data, but there are NEVER solid data for the Unprecedented.

The Problem is that human hunters are generally not happy unless the big game population is kept artificially high… at levels which allow predators to max out their reproductive capacity. Guess you could say that when the hunting is Easy Enough for us humans, it’s just Too Damn Easy for the 24/7/365 predators.

So they increase at an unnatural rate, become hyperefficient, deplete the local herds to an unnatural degree and disperse or move on… into a new area with an unnatural abundance of prey.

That’s the very definition of unsustainable. And when the predators run out of food in socially acceptable (to non-hunters) areas, I’m afraid it’s gonna get Real.

From: Smurph
09-Apr-22
Don’t forget about the expanding wolf populations in Oregon and Washington too!

09-Apr-22
I think a good number of people thought they would explode in numbers. Thats why it was fought from the beginning and why the management numbers were a huge part of the process. I'm no biologist but I know I expected them to thrive and was foolish enough to support having around 300-400 wolves total like the original plan laid out. After the feds increased the numbers after it was too late to stop and then watching the court battles torpedo management when even the feds were trying to give the states management, I realized it was naive of me.

From: KSflatlander
09-Apr-22
Mule- you should call the National Academy of Sciences and let them know that Joe a.k.a. Mule Power has figured out a new and more accurate way to count wildlife. Just walk in the woods count. Then call your buddies and compare notes. Submit it to the Journal of Wildlife Biologists. The will surely publish it on the first try. I mean…you and your two buddies seen all the wolves in a zone in one day at the same time. Truly remarkable. Scientists will also be amazed that you discovered a new wolf species that has learned not to cross zone borders. Apparently that has to be true for your method to be correct.

How about this…tell me the year your wolf count happened and what management zone you are talking about. So that’s 30 wolves in which zone in what year? And where were each of you exactly?

We have a term for people like you Mule Power. Barstool Biologists around the U.S. contributions to science include a black panther in every single county in the whole U.S., and Bigfoots from coast to coast (with secret black helicopters to transport each). The barstool bios share a bond with flat earthers, Look to your left and right…flat is it not? Common sense based on personal observations. And there is always “this other guy” or some anonymous elusive “biologists” that said X.

Do you think that most wild populations are counted by simple observation. If you don’t understand the statistics behind how biologists count populations then I’m not explaining it. It’s an estimate because physically counting is typically impossible and prone to error especially with highly mobile and elusive species.

09-Apr-22
Another Kansan asking a question…

When Yellowstone had too many elk, why did they not open it up to temporary hunting?

We have a park nearby that the deer were decimating the fauna, causing numerous vehicle collisions etc. They opened it up to archery hunting and when that didn’t reduce numbers sufficiently they had sharpshooters come in over a couple nights and handle it. All meat was donated so it was good for PR as well.

I am sure this was thought of? Is it because it is a federal park and gaining permission to do this would be too difficult?

09-Apr-22
Ryan,

In face to face conversations you were always very reasonable about recognizing the need to manage wolves. And I know you are highly intelligent.

But your comments regarding trained biologists like yourself versus people with credible field experience cause me to share my own experience…

20 years ago when I was helping teach HE/BHE education, I was in attendance with some other instructors for a meeting. We were asked how many deer we killed with archery tackle. A KDWPT biologist was sitting next to me, and his answer was “zero”. I laughed.

How could a person with little experience actually teach?

We had a bet, I said I could guide him to a deer on his first hunt with me. He went from 0 to two on that hunt. PM me, I will provide his name and contact info for you to verify the story. He is a wildlife biologist, ABD, in Oregon now and would agree with Mule Power’s comments over yours.

These guys have real world experience, and I make a living in HE and trust that over peer reviewed published papers from folks who are not actually living what they are publishing about.

From: Mule Power
09-Apr-22
“Mule I’m not discounting your experiences”

Really? I mean… I don’t have a masters in human behavior but myself and Maury Povich would have to say that is a lie. What you are doing is ruining any credibility that your credentials had somewhat given you. You’re also embarrassing yourself. Actual observations, facts, annoy you. That can’t be! Lol I even provided you with pictures and other evidence of my experiences with your furry friends.

You’d be surprised what one can learn by sitting on a stump for awhile instead of at a desk. Mother Nature doesn’t hand out degrees but she’s quite the teacher.

From: KSflatlander
09-Apr-22
Mule- I don’t discount your numbers and observations. I got no reason to doubt you. Is it possible that the zone wolf population numbers you were given were misstated? Or is it possible that a pack of wolves crossed zone boundaries that day?

I seen pictures of 3 wolves. Where’s photos of the other 27? Great pictures by the way and great trophies. Did you mount either of those two on the log picture?

“You’d be surprised what one can learn by sitting on a stump for awhile instead of at a desk. Mother Nature doesn’t hand out degrees but she’s quite the teacher.“

Absolutely true. That’s why I spend a lot of hours sitting in a treestand, backpacking and hunting in the mountains, and working in the woods. Learned a lot that you couldn’t from a book.

What zone were you in and in what year?

From: Inshart
09-Apr-22

Inshart's embedded Photo
Snap-shot from my trail cam, 150 yards from my house. They were on my cameras every day for 2 months (only had the cams out for the 2 months)
Inshart's embedded Photo
Snap-shot from my trail cam, 150 yards from my house. They were on my cameras every day for 2 months (only had the cams out for the 2 months)
OMG Ks, your posts are absolutely unbelievable!!

A few years ago (about 2010?) Bugle Magazine put out a study that compared 3 western states to MN. I think those states were Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. It said that Minnesota had more wolves than those 3 states combined. I believed it back then -- I'm only guessing here, but I think they have most likely caught up with us by now.

For you to "attempt" to have us believe you over Mule Power is laughable. How can you possibly, even attempt to discredit someone who has first hand knowledge (backed up with photos, and testimonials from others) as to wolf issues?????

You sound just like Dana, who continued to call Mike U. a liar when he was giving us first had accounts of the on-going trucker rally in Canada.

You are another typical liberal who refuses to believe what is fact compared to so called "scientific data" put together and disseminated by pro-wolf bias!

Am I anti-wolf? YOU BET I AM!

From: bowbender77
09-Apr-22

bowbender77's embedded Photo
bowbender77's embedded Photo

From: grasshopper
09-Apr-22

grasshopper's embedded Photo
grasshopper's embedded Photo
The problem with peer reviewed science is it is authored and reviewed by humans. Another issue I personally have is the arrogance of the "scientists", nothing really humble about most of them.

My pastor like to say if you put your faith in any man, you will surely be disappointed. He also likes to say we are not in heaven yet, the earth is the devils domain.

Wolves, covid, indoctrinating kids into really wierd sexual stuff in preschool and grade school, legalizing mind altering drugs, promoting gambling, alcoholism, take your pick, it's all a part of the devils plan here on earth. I'll take the Bibles word over any peer reviewed science.

The second most important commandment in the Bible is love your neighbor. It's not love your ecosystem, or your planet by reducing carbon emmisions. I can't figure out just how introducing wolves is loving your neighbor, it just isn't helpful.

09-Apr-22
KABOOM!!!!!

Well said grasshopper.

09-Apr-22
I back everything Mule Power is saying on these wolves (and others who have posted). The numbers the game and fish clowns come up with are way off. Here in WI they said there were 1000 wolves. There was a season last spring with a quota of 200 wolves. Half those tags went to the Indians who will not kill a wolf because it is their brethren. So we had 100 wolves to cull on a daily call in system to check the numbers killed. In just over 4 days there were 218 wolves killed!!! So tell us KS with all your intelligence how those numbers make sense? Either WI has the most elite wolf hunters in the world or wolves are really stupid creatures. I'm still trying to figure it out and need some guidance from somebody way more intelligent then I. Nearly a quarter of all the wolves wiped out in WI in about 100 hours. If you believe the numbers you are an idiot!!

09-Apr-22
Intelligence has been showcased by some here. But, it wasn’t by the grad student.

From: KSflatlander
09-Apr-22
IDK Novembermadman…how many hunters were there for the 218 wolves?

From: Mule Power
10-Apr-22
What difference does it make data entry boy? For every wolf seen there are 20 (unofficial guesstimate used simply for the purpose of shedding light on the subject without extensive research but based on actual experiences in actual wolf habitat along with consideration of observed numbers of other mostly nocturnal predators and therefore good enough to use in this comment and accepted by most people as close enough) that weren’t seen.

Furthermore what do you care? Let’s get a few things straight. For all practical purposes it’s safe to say that compared to the original number of wolves that we were forced to accept, non native ones I might add, the term we can accurately use to describe the current population is a “shitload”.

Also very important to this debate between you and the rest of the people on this website who support the preservation of our hunting heritage is the FACT that the people who ramrodded the dumping off of wolves in the lower 48 hired people like you with tape between the lenses of their glasses and 13 pens in their shirt pocket to go to court to assist their attorneys in presenting their case to the judges, the ones that are often bought and paid for from places like California and also in their back pocket, to prevent state game agencies from doing their job which is managing wildlife through scientific methods to include using hunters and trappers as one of their tools.

They did so at the expense of other species of big game which reveals the FACT that they are not animal lovers at all but instead merely anti hunters. The FACT that you support their ideas and are here arguing about it makes you one of them. Part of the problem. And like many other non hunters who send donations to fund these expensive lawsuits you don’t even realize that at the end of the day you are also an anti hunter. The fact that you deer hunt and went to Idaho once is irrelevant. So instead of asking questions like “how many hunters were there” or “what year and what zone was that” so you can go gather data to support your next line of pro-wolf bullshit why don’t you just do us all a favor and delete your Bowsite account and go become a member of Howling for Justice and spend your time conversing with people who are on the same side of the fence as you? We’ve heard enough.

The facts are the facts. There are too many wolves and they are reducing the number of big game animals at an alarming rate which is eliminating hunting opportunities. Period. So go back to my second post and take the advice I gave you in the first sentence!

From: welka
10-Apr-22
Might be better if he spent time in the woods where wolves have devastated populations. I was fortunate to kill a buck 10 years in a row up in northern Wisconsin in the late 90s/early 2000's and our camp used to shoot 10-12 deer every year. You can sit all day now for 5 days and NEVER see a hair due to the wolves. Ever walk up on a pack of killers and see how much meat they eat - I have twice and very little. Ever get tracked by wolves to your stand in the morning and not know it until you walked back in the dark? I have and you would support way higher harvests if you had that happen to you. Ever walk in the dark to your stand trying to be stealthy with no light and get surrounded by a pack - I have and see the comment above about then supporting higher harvests. Ever see the videos where the wolves sit outside the playground with kids inside the fence and one even shows the trying to dig under. It's going to unfortunately take some attack with loss of life on a human before the wolf lovers start to think a little differently -especially if it is one of their loved ones. Ever have your elk hunt that you train, plan, dream about every year get ruined by wolves - I have TWICE and it would be way less likely if pack totals were down. Mule Power makes many good points. Wolf population control is now wolf propogation control with no end in sight. Spew all you want about why they should be around until you walk days and seasons in areas like those of us with first hand experiences where wolves have gone unchecked - you will stop arguing with the rest of us.

From: jdbbowhunter
10-Apr-22
Drop a pack or two of wolves off in Kansas. Just a thought.

10-Apr-22
There were 13 hunters who shot all 218 wolves KS...yep, 13 hunters got 100 tags and they shot 218 wolves. Point I'm trying to make is IT DOESN'T MATTER! The numbers the DNR are telling us for wolves in this state are BS. I'm not even wasting my time on looking up how many hunters there were. You are a keyboard warrior you go look it up. I have coyotes to kill and help my deer herd out where I am at and don't have time responding to a pro wolf antihunter such as yourself.

10-Apr-22
Great posts.

From: KSflatlander
10-Apr-22
November- You used the number of wolves killed so quickly as a defacto population count to prove there are too many. If that’s the case, wouldn’t it matter if it was 100,000, 10,000, or 13 hunters? That info is very relevant…common sense as Mule Power put it. Would it also be relevant that those wolves haven’t ever been hunted before? Kind of like hunting elk OTC vs private land. It very well could have been that there were more wolves than the DNR estimated…or a factor of a combination of all 3, or 10, or 100 different factors. But it is not proof that the count is off. The guy who never gets 100 yards from camp always claims the elk populations are way down and the unit sucks. The hunters at the next camp who really hunt and got into elk everyday claim the unit is great and managed well.

You all can try to paint me as an anti-hunter or a pro wolfer if it makes you feel better. I posted because someone else posted that species populations went down in Yellowstone after the reintroduction of native (no matter how many times you say non-native you’re wrong every time) gray wolves. That statement is false and hyperbole (a.k.a facts to Mule Power) and I posted a link and Mule posted a chart that disproved it. So ironic Mike Power says the population numbers are of and then posts a chart with population numbers that were obtained using the same scientific methods to count wolves. Which is it?

Your bias, words, and negative attitude towards wolves do a hell of a lot more damage to the hunting community than me seeing ecological value in a native top predator. Am I promoting unchecked populations of reintroduction initiatives by popular vote? Hell no. I’ve said that many times here.

By the way, you pointed out that you have elk in Pennsylvania. I’m sure you were so upset when they introduced that “non-native” elk species to your state…eye roll. I mean how could they dare introduce the Rocky Mountain subspecies to eastern Pennsylvania woodlands.

I figured you wouldn’t answer the question. There are “s#%tloads” of wolves. Got it lol.

From: Mule Power
10-Apr-22

Mule Power's embedded Photo
Mule Power's embedded Photo
Dumbass. They are native to the mountains of Pa. Forgot to collect data.

From: KSflatlander
10-Apr-22
No no no…those are descendants of the Rocky Mountain subspecies (Cervus canadensis nelsoni). Based on YOUR logic they are not native as the eastern elk is (Cervus canadensis canadensis). No different than Rocky Mountain gray wolf (Canis lupus irremotus) vs northwestern gray wolf (Canis lupus occidentalis) used to reintroduce wolves to Yellowstone and MT.

Your post just proves my point…dum#%!.

From: Ironbow
10-Apr-22
I spent 3 days with my daughter in Yellowstone last May. Lots of Bison, 8 grizzlies, no moose, very few elk, don’t remember seeing any mule deer in the park. Asked a ranger about not seeing any elk the first two days. His response? “Wolves”.

From: Mule Power
10-Apr-22
And one more thing… my words are NOT biased against wolves. I’ll take the time to give you a little history on my relationship with wolves and how I feel about them.

First of all if you back up you’ll see that I’ve never said anything about exterminating them. I haven’t spoken in a derogatory manner such as “Shoot all of the bastards”. If I felt that way you’d know it. Like most hunters I respect all wildlife. I don’t give human qualities to them and so I don’t think they intentionally do us or our big game harm. I’ve told many people who do have a hatred for them that they never had a meeting and said let’s go kill all the elk. Let’s screw the outfitters. Wolves are just being wolves. I don’t fault them for that.

I can still remember the first wolf I saw. He was a huge one! He was sitting on his haunches on a hilltop above my main camp just watching us. We were securing loads onto a string of mules. He didn’t seem to have a worry in the world. Just sat there and stared at us. At the time they were still protected by the ESA so the idea of shooting a wolf never crossed my mind. In fact I enjoyed the experience and thought wow they really are here that was pretty damn cool!

But things changed fast. Instead of seeing moose along the creekside trails all we saw were piles of bones. There were literally zero moose! Gone. Then elk got harder to find. During archery they weren’t nearly as vocal. When we did hear bulls bugle they would soon go silent and vanish and right where they were standing would be a pack of howling wolves. But we still weren’t shooting them. We didn’t yet realize that we were looking at would become cancer to our big game and to hunting itself.

Eventually we reached and exceeded the population goals per the reintroduction plan. That’s when the problems started. That’s when it became obvious that the pro wolf people were not about just preserving an endangered species. The number of wolves didn’t matter at all anymore. They changed the subject. It was now about a more diversified gene pool. We had a wolf hunting season for one year. It enraged them. They employed pencil pushing geeks like you from everywhere other than wolf country to go to court with charts and diagrams and projections of what it was going to take to save the species. A specie that by the way was alive and well all across Canada, the Yukon, and Alaska. Thriving actually. Never mind also that we already had packs of wolves right here in the lower 48. They put the whole pile of propaganda on judge Malloys desk in Missoula and won. Our hunting season was canceled. At that time we had reached the tipping point. We couldn’t afford to lose another year without controlling the wolf population. By then the wolves were brave. They seem to know our hands were tied. One day they’d chase my horses through the portable corral fence. The next day they would be right back there 50 yards from the cook tent howling away looking for their next meal. They just did as they pleased. If they started targeting livestock fish and game would be forced to eliminate them from helicopters. But the wolves in the back country went unmanaged and unchecked. The pro wolf people didn’t care about the elk the deer or the moose. They didn’t care about the livestock, the ranchers or the outfitters and hunters. So at that point fair became fair. But even then I can tell you that when someone pulled the trigger on a wolf they didn’t whisper “Damn wolves” they said “Damn anti hunters” They are the true enemies to hunting. . Because for the wolf huggers the elimination of hunting meant mission accomplished.

As a true hunter there is at least a small amount of remorse every time you take a life. The same goes for wolves. But the one thing that made it a little better was the fact that taking the life of a wolf was the fault of the people who gave a hunter no other choice. If they had let the state game agencies manage wolves like they do successfully with every other species of animal it wouldn’t have had to come to that. Besides it wasn’t going to make a difference anyway. Every spring when litters of pups are born the population doubles anyway.

Today not a lot has changed. We have wolf hunting seasons but they are useless in managing the populations. The only thing that reduces the population or relocate wolves when they eat themselves out of house and home. Or when a pack is eliminated by the authorities. Meanwhile the pro wolfers are still at it. Right now they’re focus is on Colorado. They’re really good at what they do so success is imminent down there. Maybe they’re coming soon do a neighborhood near you flatlander to be honest I hope that happens. And because like I said it’s not the wolves I have hatred for. It’s the people that put them there and lied to us and people like you who continue to spread their propaganda with a stack of papers on your desk and typing your nonsense on websites like not giving a shit about what people see with their own two eyes. So there you have it I’m not a wolf hater. I don’t have a problem with a balanced ecosystem. But the fact is the nature of wolves makes it nearly impossible to keep them in check. So you keep on fighting your fight and will keep fighting ours. But to do it on a page where the members are all hunters and know the truth about wolves and people like you is ridiculous. You don’t even mind that you get no respect here. Makes me wonder if you’re not on their payroll books too.

From: Mule Power
10-Apr-22
And in regards to your last post… there is no difference between the elk here now and the native ones. To be clear that means they have not affected any other species of wildlife or the habit in any negative ways. Nobody is complaining. Not even the anti hunters because arguing about our elk isn’t profitable and it doesn’t help the agenda of eliminating hunting. We have a hunting season and the herd is well managed. Their existence is for all practical purposes identical to the elk that were native here.

Do you know what the best g difference is between the wolves that live here now and the native ones is? That’s easy…. It’s the people like you. We didn’t have people like you when the original wolves were present.

From: KSflatlander
10-Apr-22
Please show me where I’ve posted propaganda anywhere on here. The Journal of Mammalogy is not propaganda. If you think it is then that’s your problem as you live in a biased fantasy land. Keep trying to gaslight by attempting to lump me in with anti-hunters. On their payroll…lol grow up.

I don’t know how to say this more plainly. Wolves have ecological value. Wolf populations need to be controlled and the best method is hunting. Wolves should be managed by wildlife agencies not courts.

Hearing about your experience with wolves is real and I can empathize. If I was an outfitter competing with them or they go after my horses it would definitely stick in my brain. I understand that. But I’ve not advocated that wolves go unchecked. Actually I’m advocating the opposite through hunting. But it’s the wildlife biologists and state game managers who should do it using the current proven population count methods and goals that balance predators, prey/big game, and the ecosystem.

That is not your public land, it’s ours.

Edit: To your last post, your views of the elk vs wolf reintroduction and them being native makes you a hypocrite. Biologically it’s the exact same situation with subspecies. If those Pennsylvania elk are “native” (by your own definition) then so are the wolves in Yellowstone and MT. Either they both are or are not.

10-Apr-22
Ryan,

MP’s point about the elk in PA not causing a detrimental impact on other wildlife was the point worth reflecting on IMO, not whether they are the same sub-species.

Outfitters are telling you from experience that wolves are decreasing game populations. At some point this translates into lower license sales, which means less money for game departments to manage all species. Hopefully we all agree this is not our goal?

Further, he is saying that biologists like yourself stating wolves have value in the eco-system is what antis focus on to use in courts to prevent sound biological management.

Your acknowledging this belatedly causes a credibility doubt. Too many guys here with solid hunting reputations have stated their observations in WI and other states, enough so that true hunter biologists ought to be screaming at the current mis-management, not offering support to those who have an agenda, whether that support is inadvertent or not.

From: Rgiesey
10-Apr-22
There aren’t moose in sight in the wolf recovery area. Not just the elk have changed.

From: dm/wolfskin
17-Apr-22
Remember all studies and research have one thing in common, money. Fed, State, and groups give money to people to do studies for their agenda. Data can be manipulated to the desire outcome.

From: Ermine
17-Apr-22
Wolf introduction is not an idea by wildlife biologist. It’s a ploy by anti hunters to hurt hunting. In Colorado all the state wildlife officials did not want wolves. They know it’s bad idea in Colorado. They were given a gag order by the Governor and not allowed to give their expert opinion on wolves in Colorado. But it’s pushed by pro wolf anti hunting groups. And then voted on by the general public who has no clue on wildlife management.

I think it’s funny and sad that the people who are calling the shots on wolf management aren’t wildlife experts, but in fact judges in places that have no clue on wildlife.

Hunting by humans brings bushiness and revenue and provides money for wildlife conservation. Wolves and human hunting can’t coexist in my opinion.

From: Thornton
18-Apr-22
Lions have to kill several times as much to survive in wolf territory. The wolf packs will connect with a lion, follow him, and eat his cached kills.

  • Sitka Gear