More deer killed by wolves than hunters in some Wisconsin counties

[ImBillT]

While true, this omits some key variables. Lewis and Clark did hit areas that were largely devoid of game and it was due to predators. The predators were human - native americans. Lewis referenced such and historical review and knowledge of the movements of plains indians across the landscape confirms. This has been studied extensively, so we can't take the point completely out of context in the discussion. Another key factor is, at that time, the native americans (and later pioneers) hunted for subsistence, 365 days per year and they were not picky in what they killed. What they didn't kill they certainly drove out of the area. When they started to run low on food, they moved on to other areas with more game.

It certainly is a fact that humans can impact animal populations. The lack of game in the early 20th century led to the conservation movement we have today. We almost totally eliminated the wolf in the lower 48 the first time by shooting, trapping, poisoning, and raiding dens and killing pups year-round. It is certainly up for debate as to whether modern hunters can impact a population under current regulations of hunting seasons and tag/harvest constraints. The conservation season on snow geese is a perfect example. The geese learned to utilize our changes to the habitat and the population exploded. Now, even after 20years of extended seasons with e-callers, plug less shotguns, and no limits, the season carries on because it hasn't had much of an impact. The few years Wisconsin had a wolf season the limits were set at a level intended to reduce population, and 650 wolves or so were killed, so maybe that was enough to reduce the population if it had continued. Hard to say.

The bottom line is that we as humans are arrogant. We think it is our right to manage and exploit all natural resources and we think we can do so with perfect foresight. Unfortunately, we usually just screw things up. More recent studies have show that when hunters/trappers kill the lead members of the pack, the pack usually disbands and depredation of livestock increases. So hunters might feel like they are making a difference, but they might just be irritating another stakeholder who has a loud voice in the conversation.

I don’t remember saying that humans couldn’t impact animal population. Obviously we can. That’s why we regulate hunting, and that why hunting regulations have helped restore game populations.

Wolves don’t follow hunting regulations, and that’s one of the reasons that game populations should be ONE of the criteria used to decide how we manage wolves.

 

[ImBillT]

This is what regulation by nature looks like. Part of Wisconsin problem is it is hard to get a good population estimate on deer from the northern third of the state. Even in YNP, the moose population is wild guess at best.

So wolves cut the elk population from almost 20,000 to less than 6000. Assuming that happened in a hunted area, what would that do for elk tags? How much beef would have to be raised to make up for those elk that didn’t end up in freezers? Where would the beef be raised? Where would their feed be grown?

Obviously 20k elk was excessive and unsustainable. They were destroying their habitat. We could have introduced wolves and knocked their population back via predation, or allowed them to die of starvation after damaging their own resources and the sustainable population would have been less. Outside of Yellow Stone, we have other management tools...including hunting.

 

[ImBillT]

The only point you've made is that once again, its not about proper conservation of wild places and wildlife, but YOUR personal needs as a hunter.

Conservation isn't just about the critters you can run a hook or bullet through, and was never the intent.

You'll never get it...

When you choose to stop eating I’ll agree that you’re no longer concerned about your personal needs.

No conservation isn’t ONLY about game animals, but it includes them, and it includes my use of them. I’m all for conserving wild places and wildlife including plants and animals that I don’t eat or utilize. But, until we enter the next life, we will not escape the fact that if we do not eat one thing, we will have to eat another. Believe it or not, that other living thing utilized the same amount of resources as the first.

Managing predators is part of managing wildlife.

I’m curious, when was the last year that you didn’t have an elk tag? What about any big game tag at all?

 

[SAJ-99]

So wolves cut the elk population from almost 20,000 to less than 6000. Assuming that happened in a hunted area, what would that do for elk tags? How much beef would have to be raised to make up for those elk that didn’t end up in freezers? Where would the beef be raised? Where would their feed be grown?

Obviously 20k elk was excessive and unsustainable. They were destroying their habitat. We could have introduced wolves and knocked their population back via predation, or allowed them to die of starvation after damaging their own resources and the sustainable population would have been less. Outside of Yellow Stone, we have other management tools...including hunting.

There is no beef shortage so that concern isn’t a problem. The truth is the number of elk were a problem for local ranchers, so that situation is better. The point is that nature will find an equilibrium. Now we have to determine how to adjust the equilibrium at the margins so hunters can find success. I am all for management.

 

[SAJ-99]

Believe it or not, that other living thing utilized the same amount of resources as the first.

Not exactly true.

 

[ImBillT]

Not exactly true.

Not exactly is correct.
Some animals don’t eat quite as much to attain the same weight as other animals, some animals yield more meat per pound than others animals, and it is obviously more efficient to harvest young animals. Of course, we could all become vegan and that would be the most efficient.

It is however safe to say that if you slaughter cattle and deer at the ideal time that 200lbs of deer meat and 200lbs of beef have a reasonably similar plant material cost.

 

[SAJ-99]

Not exactly is correct.
Some animals don’t eat quite as much to attain the same weight as other animals, some animals yield more meat per pound than others animals, and it is obviously more efficient to harvest young animals. Of course, we could all become vegan and that would be the most efficient.

It is however safe to say that if you slaughter cattle and deer at the ideal time that 200lbs of deer meat and 200lbs of beef have a reasonably similar plant material cost.

Not sure it is safe to say that. The problem mostly comes mostly from how cattle are raised inn order to maximize profits. Cattle are born in the middle of winter in order to get them to the highest weight by the fall. Keeping an animal alive in a cold environment requires more calories and this is exacerbated by the fact mom has to nurse the calf. Deer are conserving calories and living off fat reserves while waiting for greenup. So maybe a pound of meat from each requires the same number of calories, but from the perspective of environmental sustainability it isn’t equal.

 

[ImBillT]

Not sure it is safe to say that. The problem mostly comes mostly from how cattle are raised inn order to maximize profits. Cattle are born in the middle of winter in order to get them to the highest weight by the fall. Keeping an animal alive in a cold environment requires more calories and this is exacerbated by the fact mom has to nurse the calf. Deer are conserving calories and living off fat reserves while waiting for greenup. So maybe a pound of meat from each requires the same number of calories, but from the perspective of environmental sustainability it isn’t equal.

So are you saying that cattle are LESS environmentally sustainable?

 

[BuzzH]

So wolves cut the elk population from almost 20,000 to less than 6000. Assuming that happened in a hunted area, what would that do for elk tags? How much beef would have to be raised to make up for those elk that didn’t end up in freezers? Where would the beef be raised? Where would their feed be grown?

Obviously 20k elk was excessive and unsustainable. They were destroying their habitat. We could have introduced wolves and knocked their population back via predation, or allowed them to die of starvation after damaging their own resources and the sustainable population would have been less. Outside of Yellow Stone, we have other management tools...including hunting.

Wrong, wolves had a small part in cutting the population of elk from 20K to 6K in Yellowstone...

Look at the historic elk numbers in the GYE, elk populations were much lower in the 60's, long before wolves were reintroduced. That herd has had historic spikes and crashes for a long time...wolves or not.

 

[mtmuley]

Buzz, those wolves in Yellowstone are bigger and can range further than the wolves that were here pre reintro. Just found that out on MM today. mtmuley

 

[Sytes]

Wrong, wolves had a small part in cutting the population of elk from 20K to 6K in Yellowstone...

Look at the historic elk numbers in the GYE, elk populations were much lower in the 60's, long before wolves were reintroduced. That herd has had historic spikes and crashes for a long time...wolves or not.

Buzz, from 1932 - 1968 population reduction efforts were caused directly by humans. After 1968 the activity ceased...

edit added for those interested:

A Seventy-Year History of Trends in Yellowstone's Northern Elk Herd

We analyzed counts of northern Yellowstone elk (Cervus elaphus) in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, USA, over 70 years to evaluate the effects of changing management on population trends. Population reduction efforts and hunter harvests during 1932–1968 removed 71,330 elk and decreased...

bioone.org

 

[BuzzH]

Buzz, from 1932 - 1968 population reduction efforts were caused directly by humans. After 1968 the activity ceased...

edit added for those interested:

A Seventy-Year History of Trends in Yellowstone's Northern Elk Herd

We analyzed counts of northern Yellowstone elk (Cervus elaphus) in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, USA, over 70 years to evaluate the effects of changing management on population trends. Population reduction efforts and hunter harvests during 1932–1968 removed 71,330 elk and decreased...

bioone.org

Correct, people and other factors influence elk numbers way more than wolves.

 

[SAJ-99]

So are you saying that cattle are LESS environmentally sustainable?

Yes, but the trade off is more meat and lower prices.

 

[ImBillT]

Yes, but the trade off is more meat and lower prices.

You’re going to have to be more explicit on what you mean by more meat. More meat per square mile of land utilized, per pound of feed, per animal?

What I was getting at however was this: If producing Xlbs of beef is less sustainable than producing the same number of pounds of venison, then by all means, let’s bring wolves to the entire lower 48, reduce deer and elk numbers, and all make the switch to beef. And oh yeah, let’s call it “conservation”. Makes perfect sense.

If I don’t eat a pound of venison, I’m going to replace it with a pound of domestically raised meat.

 

[SAJ-99]

You’re going to have to be more explicit on what you mean by more meat. More meat per square mile of land utilized, per pound of feed, per animal?

What I was getting at however was this: If producing Xlbs of beef is less sustainable than producing the same number of pounds of venison, then by all means, let’s bring wolves to the entire lower 48, reduce deer and elk numbers, and all make the switch to beef. And oh yeah, let’s call it “conservation”. Makes perfect sense.

If I don’t eat a pound of venison, I’m going to replace it with a pound of domestically raised meat.

Time. More lbs per period of time. More lbs means more profit. The entire industry is set up to make money. Capitalism. No rancher want to check calves in February cold because it’s fun.
And less sustainable would mean bad for the environment. You may switch from venison to beef but the value/profit chain for beef is more transparent than that of deer. I’m sure if we farmed deer we could mess them up too.

 

[ImBillT]

Time. More lbs per period of time. More lbs means more profit. The entire industry is set up to make money. Capitalism. No rancher want to check calves in February cold because it’s fun.
And less sustainable would mean bad for the environment. You may switch from venison to beef but the value/profit chain for beef is more transparent than that of deer. I’m sure if we farmed deer we could mess them up too.

If you think raising cattle is bad for the environment, how is reducing deer and elk consumption by hunters supposed to help the situation?

 

[SAJ-99]

If you think raising cattle is bad for the environment, how is reducing deer and elk consumption by hunters supposed to help the situation?

This conversation went off rails a while ago, but shooting wolves to increase the cervid population so hunters can eat more venison instead of beef is quite a leap of faith with a LOT of assumptions built into it.

 

[ImBillT]

This conversation went off rails a while ago, but shooting wolves to increase the cervid population so hunters can eat more venison instead of beef is quite a leap of faith with a LOT of assumptions built into it.

If wolves result in fewer cervid harvests, more commercially raised meat will be eaten, and thus more will be raised. The only assumption is that hunters without tags will not go vegan for the year.

I’m not suggestion shooting wolves so that there will be MORE cervids. I’m suggesting that we limit cervid population reduction due to wolves. It should be one of the wolf management criteria.

You cannot say from one side of your mouth that beef production is unsustainable, and from the other side of your mouth that reducing harvest of cervids doesn’t make that situation worse.

 

[ClearCreek]

Buzz, those wolves in Yellowstone are bigger and can range further than the wolves that were here pre reintro. Just found that out on MM today. mtmuley

So, why don't we call them "super wolves"??

ClearCreek

 

[mtmiller]

So, why don't we call them "super wolves"??

ClearCreek

Copyright infringement.