Don't kill the alpha?

[tjones]

??? Why do we get defensive when a study comes out? They'll use the headline for sure, but we have to base our management on the biological facts. If it is true then we tell them thanks for providing a more effective way to reduce wolf impacts. It also documented that predation went down when populations were reduced by 25%.

Maybe another angle to look at this is that killing the alphas does not appear to help our cause, and there is evidence that it might make things worse; therefore, we should not take the alpha given a choice.

It is just something to think about. I'm not even sure if it is practical to pick out one based on social status. I've never seen more than one at a time while hunting.

I would like to see any hunter, when he sees a pack of wolves have time to sort out which is the alpha, make the choice not to shoot it and then make a shot on another wolf. Not sure many could tell the difference correctly between an alpha male and any other wolf.

 

[Gerald Martin]

from the article- "Livestock kills only started going down after overall wolf numbers were reduced by more than 25 percent."

So, my machine gun shooting off of opinions was obviously off on a tangent from the article's intention. I was speaking only on wolf numbers and how they relate to wildlife. Here in my area there is very little predation on livestock because there isn't much livestock in comparison to other areas of wolf habitat. I'm primarily concerned about predation of wildlife which has diminished dramatically as wolf numbers have gone down. Myself and others have noticed a dramatic shift in the areas where elk frequented over the past several years. Now you are more likely to see elk year around on the valley floor, with fewer elk spending a significant amount of time in the mountains. In 2010 and 2011, it was common to see wolves right around houses and elk/livestock. Since 2012, when trapping became legal, those wolves that followed the game down have been eliminated by and large. The ones who remain reverted back to more traditional wolf areas even though a lot of the game animals are down lower.
From what I have observed, elk would rather put up with people and their predation, than be harassed by wolves. Wolves would rather hunt in areas with less game but less intrusion from humans. Both elk and wolves learn quickly what levels of danger they are comfortable with and habitate those areas accordingly. Anecdotal evidence would seem to suggest that mountain lions are going to follow prey wherever it goes. Cats are largely nocturnal anyway and seem to be much more comfortable living in close proximity to humans than wolves. I think if people knew just how many cats spend time literally in their back yards they would be freaked out. I'm talking about wintertime especially.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I would like to see any hunter, when he sees a pack of wolves have time to sort out which is the alpha, make the choice not to shoot it and then make a shot on another wolf. Not sure many could tell the difference correctly between an alpha male and any other wolf.

..somebody just had to make this real.

 

[RobG]

I was speaking only on wolf numbers and how they relate to wildlife. Here in my area there is very little predation on livestock because there isn't much livestock in comparison to other areas of wolf habitat.

It is an interesting distinction because the reason livestock predation goes up is rumored to be that the juveniles find livestock easier to kill than elk. So if you were to kill the alphas the pack would turn their attention from elk to livestock, meaning more elk for us. And more grass for the elk. Bonus.

But it would be interesting to see a similar study for elk instead of livestock.

 

[RobG]

I would like to see any hunter, when he sees a pack of wolves have time to sort out which is the alpha, make the choice not to shoot it and then make a shot on another wolf. Not sure many could tell the difference correctly between an alpha male and any other wolf.

Alphas have the collars

 

[Kneetopia]

..somebody just had to make this real.

Or sometimes, whether or not it's a wolf or a dog.

 

[Ron Wright]

I guess either way sportsman are ultimately going to foot the bill

 

[shoots-straight]

It is an interesting distinction because the reason livestock predation goes up is rumored to be that the juveniles find livestock easier to kill than elk. So if you were to kill the alphas the pack would turn their attention from elk to livestock, meaning more elk for us. And more grass for the elk. Bonus.

But it would be interesting to see a similar study for elk instead of livestock.

BS, I know for a fact (after reading Varmint Guys posts on 24hr) that Ranchers are paroling their lands 24/7 against wolves and they have none on said lands. Wolves also have good reading skills and when they see a no trespassing sign they shy away from it. So they must be eating mice.

 

[Z Barebow]

You cannot be sure if it is an alpha or not until you shoot it. True alphas carry a card identifying their position in the pack (Much like mensa cards!)

 

[jryoung]

It does make perfect sense, but it's not always how things work.

Alpha's also make home territories more secure and if you have a pack that selects wildlife over livestock, then that's a pack you generally want to keep around since it causes less problems with the livestock operator, right?

Further data also shows that if you put increased pressure on canine populations, the females enter into estrus more often (this is a known fact for coyotes and science is starting emerge showing similar results in wolves). So, yeah, smacking an alpha could lead to more pups in the future.

But so far as I can tell, MT's not hurting wolf populations nor are we giving wolves a freehand. Like all good compromises that work, folks on both sides are bound to be upset.

Nature's funny. It doesn't always work how we think it should, or in the bounds of what makes sense.

At any rate, smack a wolf. Have fun, we earned the right to hunt them, so let's do it with the same respect and deference we do for other critters.

This information just fascinates me right now. I have no professional ability to interpret all the nuances but enjoy reading the studies nonetheless. The dominant male/alphas information that is emerging from studies like this and a similar mountain lion study in Washington make a lot of sense. Sometimes having that big bad mofo on the block establishes order.

On a somewhat similar vein I was listening to an interview on NPR's Fresh Air the other day as I was driving home. The interviewee's were two doctors and their new book about girls entering into puberty earlier. One of the factors, and something that jumped out at me was stress induced. Girls that live in high stress environments like broken homes will enter into puberty earlier. Of course Terri Gross and her obsequious interview style was "so" surprised by this, but I couldn't help but think about how mammals and other species respond to stress or a broken order. In short, we're programmed to survive and extend the future of our species.

Maybe I'm drawing bigger conclusions than Toby Bridges and some of his conspiracy theories, but it seems to make sense at the 60,000ft level.

 

[drahthaar]

I think wolf numbers skyrocketed in one of my areas just because game numbers skyrocketed. Once they recovered from the winter of 96, it was years of drought, no winter kill. Lots of food, lots of pups, not rocket science. But that pack still dominated a large area going clear back to early eighties, and you could see, they were around or they weren't. Since hunting them has started, nobody can tell which pack is what. I firmly believe that hunting has destabilized the wolves in that particular area. Now it seems there are three or more packs in an area that held one, with far less game.

Totally unscientific, one small area of MT, but it's clear to me. Now I think we better keep our thumb on them. More breeding pairs floating around due to packs being busted up.

And I agree, no way in hades can you tell an alpha from any of the others. But I would love to take a guess and pull the trigger on one!!!!

 

[RobG]

BS, I know for a fact (after reading Varmint Guys posts on 24hr) that Ranchers are paroling their lands 24/7 against wolves and they have none on said lands. Wolves also have good reading skills and when they see a no trespassing sign they shy away from it. So they must be eating mice.

Yes, but only if the mice are weak and/or old. I saw a documentary where a biologist verified this so it must be true.

 

[hnt4life]

I would speculate that killing an Alpha male would lower the knowledge base of the pack. Maybe this could be likened to killing a lead cow elk? You shoot the most dominant and maybe the oldest male wolf in the pack, and the pack is sure to lose some hunting prowess and maybe even make more mistakes around humans. Regardless, I don't believe that most encounters with wolves, in a hunting situation, afford the hunter the opportunity to pick out a target based on age and sex. To counter my own argument, if given the opportunity, I would shoot the Alpha female first with a quick follow up shot to the Beta female.