More wolves=more deer!!

[Ithaca 37]

Here's a letter from today's paper. Can anyone explain why deer numbers are at record highs?

"Wolf’s return

In response to my friend and fellow hunter Dave Moore (Nov. 22), who is not happy about the wolf´s return to the West.

Dave is concerned about wolves´ impact on our big game herds. I do not know what the eventual impact will be, but I can share some information about my previous home state, Minnesota.

The deer herd in northern Minnesota has just reached record numbers, even though the herd was decimated by harsh winters in 1996 and 1997. The herd recovered in a few short years, despite an increasing wolf population (Minnesota now has about 3,000 wolves, compared to about 260 in Idaho).

This must mean that lots of wolves equals lots of deer, right? Well, no, this is obviously faulty reasoning, but no more faulty than claiming wolves are suddenly wiping out our big game. After all, the Clearwater elk herd went into a fast and sharp decline years before wolves reappeared.

Personally, I believe recent deals like the one between the Trust for Public Lands and Potlatch, which will protect 600,000 acres of prime big game habitat from development will have a much larger impact on keeping our elk and deer herds healthy than predators ever will.

Dan Smith, Boise"

 

[1_pointer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Personally, I believe recent deals like the one between the Trust for Public Lands and Potlatch, which will protect 600,000 acres of prime big game habitat from development will have a much larger impact on keeping our elk and deer herds healthy than predators ever will. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree with that! A suburb can 'kill' more deer than wolves, IMO. Not saying they won't have an impact or shouldn't be managed, loss of habitat is a greater risk to big game.

 

[Michaelr]

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 12-14-2002 21:50: Message edited by: michaelr ]</font>

 

[Ithaca 37]

Well, mike, how do you think the record high number of deer in Minnesota can be explained? Shouldn't the 3000 wolves have wiped out all the deer by now?

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 12-14-2002 22:33: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[Michaelr]

Comparing a whitetail to elk and mullies is like comparing marbles to bowling balls.
And the funniest part is YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT, and if you didn't then I have overestimated you and have given you way to much respect.
Why did you even make a post like that?
that really is the lamest ithica post I have ever read.
Is this all the better you could do after sumarily dismissing my earlier challenge to debate the article I posted by Charles Kay?

 

[Michaelr]

Ithica,
This is what I find both frustrating and laughable at the same time about the whole wolf debate.
My family owns property in the recovery area, I have lived my whole life in this area.
My grand father settled our Property in a covered wagon, I know this area/country very intamatly, I think that maybe I might be able to judge the situation better than you and all the arm chair quarterbacks that seem to know more than I do about My own back yard.
I would think that I should be able to recognize that seing very few fawns/calves where I should see a bunch of them should tell me something. I do take into consideration the enviornmental factors, habitat ect, ect.

I have a favorite spot that I go to every saturday of memorial weekend to view the elk and deer. I have done this every year for 25 plus years. The last couple years were the worst, I am not finding fawns, or calves in the numbers that they should be there. yes some years are bad if there has been alot of winter kill, but that has not been the case. I could look for loss of habitat, but that also isn't the case. I have seen no sign of disease. the only new factor is wolves.
Not 5 miles from this spot that I go to is the united states sheep experiment station, I know for a fact that they have lost a bunch of sheep, as of last memorial weekend they had lost over 60 sheep to wolves, but hey its the govs sheep so nobody makes an issue of it. umm 2+2=4
SSS

 

[Ithaca 37]

mike, You're right about the comparison of whitetails, mulies and elk. Whitetails are a lot smarter and adaptible than the other two. I made the post because I thought it brought up an interesting question, which I'd like to get an answer to. I'll be working on that today.

I don't dispute that you're seeing less elk and less calves. I wonder if part of the problem is that the elk have moved out of the area. I've noticed that happening as wolves work over other areas. The elk pack up and move. The moose are doing it too. I don't know if the mulies are doing it.

Debating Charles Kay would take days of research to check out all the references he made. I don't have that kinda time. He's probably right about a lot of what he said. He threw in enough personal bias to taint the overall article.

The subject of this topic is the assertion made by the letter writer in the first post. If you wanta debate the wolf situation around where you live why don't you start a topic on it?

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 12-15-2002 09:00: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[Oak]

Have the sheep always been there? Sheep will make elk move out as quickly as anything else. Just a possibility....

Oak

 

[Ithaca 37]

I was hunting with a wolf and grizzly expert today. He said, while not familiar with the Minnesota situation, it's probably a combination of a few easy winters and increased recruitment by deer. He says after years of having wolves around many of the deer that weren't as smart or didn't use the habitat as well probably have been killed. The ones left are breeding faster than ever. That, combined with a couple of easy winters, might explain the increase.

He also pointed out that wolf packs are territorial and kill intruding wolves and, possibly, they've reached the saturation point.

He had a lot of other interesting observations about wolves, too, and was familiar with lots of studies done on them. One interesting one was on some island where they were a captive population along with moose. The moose and wolf numbers see saw up and down but , over the long run, both species continue to exist there.

 

[Michaelr]

Oak,
Yes the sheep (Prairie maggots) have been there for many years. They don't run sheep like a normal ranch. It is a gov research facility.
Ithica,
"Did they move out?"
I would have to say I don't think so. That question would beg the anwser, To where?
From talking with family I know on the other side of the divide in montana it is the same situation.

 

[Ithaca 37]

mike, I know that some moose have moved 50-75 miles to get away from the wolves. I don't know about elk, but it wouldn't surprise me if they moved that far too.

 

[1_pointer]

Any research that I've read where a predator is introduced to a system (mind you many of these were done with bugs in jars, but it has also been shown in larger animals at larger scales) there is always an initial drop in population of the prey. Once through this period, the predator and prey will run on similar cycles with time lags between the peaks and troughs of each population. It is my guess that the elk are experiencing a decrease in population because of the wolves, that will remedy itself in time. For one, they have to get aclimated to being hunted by the wolves. The ones that make it will produce offspring with greater chances of doing so. So what I see happening is that at first the elk numbers will drop, but will rebound as those that are better adapted to surviving with the wolves reproduce more. In the end, I think they'll cycle as most any predator/prey relationship. Just my theory.

 

[Elkhunter]

That is about what I was thinking only you put it into words Tyler.

I know there are wolves where I elk hunt, and have been there for at least 3 years that I know of. The elk population there has not suffered. I have found it harder to find elk, but they are there and as plentiful as before, just more cautious I think. This year I did not see as many moose though, and now that the moose are down in the flats, I would have a tendency to think they have not suffered very much either. This is just what I have seen.

 

[Ithaca 37]

1 pointer, you got it right.

Some people claim coyotes kill lots of fawns (deer). Wolves kill coyotes, so that will change that situation in some way. It'll be interesting to watch.

The biggest impediment to delisting the wolves is Wyomings crazy politicians. They want to declare wolves predators that can be shot anytime. Well, the feds aren't gonna go along with that after spending all the money and time to start the wolves up again. The next step needed in the process to delist is a good, responsible management plan by each state involved.

 

[Michaelr]

Ithica,
I sure hope they get their chit together and delisting is completed.
What scares me is a bunch of law suits from the extreemies claiming that there is not enough genetic diversity.

1-Pointer,
the only flaw I see in your reasoning with predetor prey cycles is this.
Once the elk population is down the wolves will be able to switch to other prey be it deer, moose, antelope, sheep, cows. At the same time holding elk populations at the low level, the term for this is a predator pit.
until there are control measures used on the wolves the elk population would not be able to recover.
I keep hearing about the island where moose and wolves were alone together. That can't be used as an example for either side of the wolf argument. things would not happen like they did there in an ecosystem with many different species, and many different habitats.

 

[BigHornyRam]

Wyomings wolf management plan makes a lot of sense and will be accepted. Montana FWP needs to borrow some of Wyoming F&G's spine.

Paul

 

[1_pointer]

Mike- That is true. I doubt anyone knows how it will play out. I would bet money though that after a few years of being near wolves all the species will be better at avoiding them and thus increasing their population. With the low hunter success rates on elk in most states, I'm wondering how much hunters really impact the herds? IMO a reintroduction program is crap if no population control measures are put in place ahead of time.

 

[Ten Bears]

Interesting, the area I hunted for elk this year showed very little sign of elk, some sign of wolves, and moose around every turn. I saw more moos this year then I ever have.

 

[Michaelr]

Here is an excellent article.


Crying Wolf Again - The Federal Cover-Up
By Montana State Rep. Joe Balyeat
Published 05. 6. 02 at 17:16 Sierra Time
"Truth is violated by falsehood, but it is outraged by silence"
(Henri Frederic Amiel)

Federal wildlife biologists have taken much criticism lately for their sins of commission-falsifying lynx evidence where there were no lynx. But even more disastrous than their sins of commission, are their sins of omission. MT House FWP Chairman Dan Fuchs has obtained hard evidence of the following:

1)The Feds have known since 1997 that elk calf ratios were being totally decimated in areas of high wolf concentration.

2)When MT FWP personnel attempted to release this evidence to the public, the Feds aggressively barred MT FWP from doing so.

Joe Balyeat

Representative
Montana House District #32
Beginning in 1997, Carrie Schaefer did a study of Yellowstone wolf/elk interaction entitled "Spatial and Temporal Variation in Wintering Elk Abundance and Composition, and Wolf Response." Amongst other things, her study revealed that areas of high wolf concentration inside Yellowstone had calf ratios dropping precipitously - 0 to 10 calves per 100, even while the ratio outside high wolf concentration areas remained at 46 calves per 100! When MT FWP biologist Tom Lemke and others made written request for permission to release this data to the public; the Fed response to suppress it was swift, aggressive, and sustained. On 2/18/99, Yellowstone Supervisory Biologist Glenn Plumb wrote: "It is my position, after reviewing Ms. Schaefer's investigation, that her raw data do not warrant full distribution to the public."

On 3/18/99, in an interoffice Memo, Plumb again denied the request: "Regarding your request for elk classification data generated through Carrie Schaefer's ongoing research. we were remiss in presenting Ms. Schaefer's data in the Yellowstone Wolf Project Annual Report." And they were able to hide this striking wolf predation in the annual reports because they only gave averages for the entire northern herd - when the 0 calf ratios in high wolf areas were averaged with the 46 calf ratios from elsewhere, the average was still up near the 30 calf ratio needed to sustain herd viability.

Of course, the Feds rationalized their suppression by saying that Schaefer's study was just raw data and still ongoing. Yet even after her report was completed the Feds never publicized nor (to our knowledge) ever gave permission to MT FWP to release the information. In fact, one MT FWP biologist who is directly involved with decisions related to Yellowstone elk has stated that the data was so well suppressed that he hasn't even seen it. Rep. Fuchs only got a copy of Schaefer's study and the related inter-agency letters after aggressively demanding copies of all documents related to the incident.

Last winter when Fuchs, myself, and other officials did our own elk calf survey we discovered the calf ratio had plummeted. The initial response from amateur wolf advocates and some professional biologists was, "These guys are hacks and don't know how to count". After the official elk census came out and totally substantiated our claims, they changed their tune. They said, "OK, they're right about the drop, but we can't prove it's due to wolves. It could be drought or hard winters, etc."

Yet the Schaefer study strongly implicates wolves as the significant factor in two different ways. First, geographically - during the course of the same winter, she observed alarmingly low calf ratios in high wolf areas even while calf ratios remained above average outside high wolf areas. This mitigates against the notion that the low calf ratios are caused by drought or hard winters.

Secondly, when coupled with current data for the entire Northern Yellowstone elk herd; an alarming pattern is revealed. In 1997 and 98, the low calf ratio was confined to areas of high wolf concentration - the Lamar Valley, etc. In this last year or so, as dense wolf populations have reached critical mass across the entire northern Yellowstone Range; we "surprisingly" see the area of low calf ratio also expand to encompass the entire herd.

Let's cut to the chase (pardon the pun). Our ancestors realized long ago that the wolf is a unique critter - a killing machine and a breeding machine all rolled into one. Alaskan studies reveal wolf population increases of 34% annually, even while being aggressively hunted. Data from the first few years of our Tri-state wolf experiment also verify this same 34% annual increase. It doesn't take a CPA (or a professional wildlife biologist) to figure out that this rate results in a 1000% increase in population size every 8 years!

If the Feds continue to break promises, suppress evidence, and drag their feet for 3-5 more years; our wildlife and livestock may need to be placed on the Endangered Species List by then (never mind our pet dogs, llamas, and small children). I repeat - we are not calling for eradication of wolves. We are simply saying that NOW is the time for the Feds to move immediately to de-list the wolf; so that MT, Wyoming, and Idaho state Fish & Game Departments can manage wolves like any other species. It's time for the Feds to make up for past sins (of commission and omission) by turning over wolf decisions to more trustworthy managers.

 

[Ithaca 37]

mike, I wish you'd quit posting this kinda wacko stuff! Even you should realize Rep. Joe Balyeat is a looney tune! Do you really think wolves are gonna keep increasing 34% a year forever?! If that were true there'd be billions of wolves in Alaska and Canada by now. Probably hundreds of billions. You're big on math. Suppose there were 1000 wolves in Canada and Alaska 100 years ago and they increased 34% a year! You'd have over 200 billion by now!

Then he throws in the lynx study. How many times does that have to be explained? It was investigated to death and nothing came of it. If you read the SI topics you'd know that!

And what's your point with all these articles, anyway? Do you think you're going to reverse gummint policy on establishing wolf populations again?

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 12-16-2002 19:22: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>