Don't kill the alpha?

[RobG]

I stumbled across this article that some might find interesting. Skip the headline and the first three paragraphs... but take note of this:

The reason appears to be that killing the alpha male or female, which normally keep a tight leash on other members of the pack, frees the other wolves to start breeding. That produces more breeding pairs.

I have heard similar things before; i.e. if you kill the alphas, the pack breaks up and scatters all over the place, making a bigger mess. Yet the alphas are the prime targets of many hunters. Thoughts?

 

[The Hedgehog]

You can get five tags. Kill the alpha and four betas.

 

[Lawnboy]

While I haven't killed a wolf yet I gotta believe that if given the chance I'd shoot for color first, then if that's not an option basically whatever wolf presents an open shot. I wouldn't be trying to figure out whether it was male or female.
Having seen wolves and talking to those who have shot them, you usually don't have a lot of time to get picky.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I'll be shooting at whatever wolf I see. Phi beta alpha whatever

 

[belly-deep]

You can get five tags. Kill the alpha and four betas.

This.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Back in 2012 when trapping became legal my friend trapped the alpha male and female from the pack. The rest of the pack dispersed and changed areas completely for 2013. This year it seems that there are wolves back in that area again so we'll see what happens.
Whoever thinks that pups don't disperse out on their own and form other packs eventually is full of bull. The numbers of breeding pairs has plummeted here in 121 with the local paper running an article that researchers were having trouble finding denning sites and evidence of new pups. I'd say that hunters and trappers are being somewhat successful at controlling numbers.

 

[sra61]

The numbers of breeding pairs has plummeted here in 121 with the local paper running an article that researchers were having trouble finding denning sites and evidence of new pups. I'd say that hunters and trappers are being somewhat successful at controlling numbers.

I agree. I am "Cautiously Optimistic". I talked to the NW Montana wolf biologist at the Sept. wolf trapping certification class. We talked about a pack down the Swan that I had heard howling right where my elk used to hang out. He said that the entire pack except for three pups had been killed last winter by hunters! Hell yeah. We hadn't seen an elk in two years, and we always saw some. I had this vision of wolves as being some super invincible predator that hunters could never put a dent in. But I am starting to think that maybe hunters could help to control them. I'm gonna try this weekend!

 

[Kaitum]

Back in 2012 when trapping became legal my friend trapped the alpha male and female from the pack. The rest of the pack dispersed and changed areas completely for 2013. This year it seems that there are wolves back in that area again so we'll see what happens. Whoever thinks that pups don't disperse out on their own and form other packs eventually is full of bull.

This is very similar to what we've observed with the GPS-collared wolves we've studied. When the alpha male and female were killed (of natural or human-related causes) the pack dispersed from their established territory. Often the territory would go unoccupied for a year or two but eventually a new pair would move in. When the alpha pair stayed intact juvenile dispersal seemed to be related to how much food was available to support the pack. Lots of food - the juveniles might stick around to help raise the pups (that is, the alphas allowed them to stick around). Little food meant the alphas and pups ate while the juveniles moved on. Interesting to see what great distances those dispersers will move. They also tended to have a much higher mortality rate.

 

[MNElkNut]

Kaitum,
that last line caught my eye. "The dispersers have a much higher mortality rate." So that kinda contradicts the original premise. Are we better off making them disperse knowing that the mortality rate will be higher or are we better off not making them disperse? I guess the question boils down to is the mortality rate of the dispersers greater than the new recruitment of the dispersers? Any idea?

 

[Ron Wright]

I'm not entirely convinced.

If we are talking about just a family of wolves, like an adult male, female, and 3 young of the year, then I would agree. There would be dispersal and in this case the mortality would probably be higher too. There would also need to be suitable habitat and an available prey base that isn't already occupied by another pack for successfully starting a new pack.

If it's an established pack, like an alpha male, female, 2 or more betas, and the young of the year, then I don't see why the betas wouldn't take over and maintain the territory. This fits into pack dynamics and the general survival of the species a lot better.

It really sounds more like a creative angle the wolf lovers would take to eliminate or reduce harvest to me, at least here in the lower 48.

 

[Kaitum]

I guess the question boils down to is the mortality rate of the dispersers greater than the new recruitment of the dispersers? Any idea?

No idea on that one. Mortality rates and recruitment will likely vary with each pack. Probably lots of factors dictating when one tips the balance one way or the other.

I think if your goal is to harvest a wolf, you should fill your tag when the opportunity presents itself. Of the few wolves I've seen that weren't out of a plane or tranquilized, I didn't have much time to judge size and guess their social status.

 

[shoots-straight]

It really sounds more like a creative angle the wolf lovers would take to eliminate or reduce harvest to me, at least here in the lower 48.

^^^^^^^^^
This!

 

[LopeHunter]

Isn't it true that an existing pack will attack other wolves that enter its territory? If is true, some of the wolves that disperse when the alpha dies will be killed by other wolves. More micro-packs of one new breeding pair may attempt to become packs but sounds like survival is an issue for an emerging pack.

Hunting pressure will also impact the micro-packs.


Hunt and hunt hard is my strategy. The wolves need to be reduced so a more reasonable wildlife balance develops between predator and prey. There are too many drainages where moose, elk and deer would thrive again if the predator (bear, wolf and cougar) pressure was lowered allowing the drainage to repopulate with prey. The prey would also return to more normal behavior including increased daytime movement and vocalization.

I am not a biologist but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.

 

[RobG]

^^^^^^^^^
This!

??? 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.

 

[RobertR]

Given the choice to take the alpha would probably be out of the question for most because no mater the species the size of the trophy always makes the decision for most.

With that said and provided this study is rock solid we would be going in the wrong detection to keep wolves delisted or not. It also makes one wonder (why) the wolf population increased so fast without hunting. Was it because of government trappers or FWP or did the SSS from ranchers cause the population increase. I know from watching a few documentaries on wolves subordinates are breeding also.

 

[Gerald Martin]

All that I know about this subject from an unscientific but woods-wise perspective is that when we didn't have a season wolf numbers in our area exploded. When we were allowed to trap and hunt wolves the numbers diminished. I don't think a single person who has killed a wolf in Montana or Idaho has pulled the trigger or set a trap with an idea of targeting an alpha, beta, kapa, delta, or any other individual wolf. Dead wolves are dead wolves. They are not like the legendary starfish that suddenly has a population explosion when you cut a leg off.
If the alpha adults are not there to guide a pack, the pack is going to be less successful in hunting. Packs that aren't successful in hunting will produce less pups due to lack of food. Eventually the pups of deceased pack leaders will learn to hunt efficiently. They will go on to breed and become alpha adults. Being as wolves are such social animals, the longer alpha adults lead a pack the quicker their offspring will learn to bring down prey.
Doesn't seem like rocket science to me. I know if I see a wolf, I won't be consciously choosing to pass an alpha adult because I'm afraid of causing the population to rise. The few encounters I've had with wolves have been fleeting at best. Lack of season and failure to buy a tag, have been what stayed my finger from the trigger, not pack dynamics.

 

[belly-deep]

It also makes one wonder (why) the wolf population increased so fast without hunting.

Yeah the alpha theory doesn't really explain that, does it?

I've heard the same thing about coyotes. The more you shoot, the more they populate. I don't know if its true or not, but it has never stopped me from pulling the trigger on a yote.

 

[Ben Lamb]

All that I know about this subject from an unscientific but woods-wise perspective is that when we didn't have a season wolf numbers in our area exploded. When we were allowed to trap and hunt wolves the numbers diminished. I don't think a single person who has killed a wolf in Montana or Idaho has pulled the trigger or set a trap with an idea of targeting an alpha, beta, kapa, delta, or any other individual wolf. Dead wolves are dead wolves. They are not like the legendary starfish that suddenly has a population explosion when you cut a leg off.
If the alpha adults are not there to guide a pack, the pack is going to be less successful in hunting. Packs that aren't successful in hunting will produce less pups due to lack of food. Eventually the pups of deceased pack leaders will learn to hunt efficiently. They will go on to breed and become alpha adults. Being as wolves are such social animals, the longer alpha adults lead a pack the quicker their offspring will learn to bring down prey.
Doesn't seem like rocket science to me. I know if I see a wolf, I won't be consciously choosing to pass an alpha adult because I'm afraid of causing the population to rise. The few encounters I've had with wolves have been fleeting at best. Lack of season and failure to buy a tag, have been what stayed my finger from the trigger, not pack dynamics.

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.

 

[RobG]

All that I know about this subject from an unscientific but woods-wise perspective is that when we didn't have a season wolf numbers in our area exploded. When we were allowed to trap and hunt wolves the numbers diminished. [snip]

I'm sure that is correct - and consistent with the study's findings. It is too bad the paper used that headline because it does not accurately describe the results of the study so it distracts from the science that can be put to use. A more accurate headline might be "Light handed wolf management means more livestock kills."

 

[Gerald Martin]

I'm sure that is correct - and consistent with the study's findings. It is too bad the paper used that headline because it does not accurately describe the results of the study so it distracts from the science that can be put to use. A more accurate headline might be "Light handed wolf management means more livestock kills."

People who make dogmatic (pun, get it? ) statements should probably know what they are talking about before they shoot off at the lip. I'll go read the article now.