rambopacker

I was in a saddle shop in S.E. Arizona yesterday and started talking with the owner about my upcoming moose hunt in Wyoming. He said he received a newsletter stating that the last moose in Yellowstone was recently killed by wolves and that they are responsible for wiping them out. Since I started planning my moose hunt I've talked to a number of people and read about the dwindling moose population caused by the wolves. I know they have had profound effects in other places on varoius populations and this bothers me a lot as I believe they are being over protected once they are established. As you can tell I'm not totally against wolves, just the way we manage them. Back to the earlier statement"Last moose in Yellowstone recently killed" I told him I doubted that was true or even close to it. I do know their numbers are down but exactly how bad is it? I can get the official word but would like to hear from others. I had three wolves almost walk up to me in the Gila Wilderness and have discussed them with a local outfitter who says the elk are already harder to find and he thought the wolves were responsible. I'm involved in Wilderness management and always thought the big predators belonged, at least in some of them. So give me some thoughts. Just remember before lecturing to harsh, I too, am an avid hunter.

bigbulls

While I don't have any facts to back me up, I would be willing to bet a years salary that there are still plenty of moose in Yellow stone. There is no way in the world that the wolves could wipe out an entire population of heathy moose in Yellowstone.

I think a bigger concern in the ticks, fleas and other parasites that cause the moose to loose and scrach off all of their hair during the summer and when winter rolls around they do not have the protection from the elements that they need and die of sevear cold.

Hiawatha

I agree with bigbulls, ticks may have devastating effects on the moose population especially in drought years when there is less water for the moose to keep the ticks off of them. In my region of saskatchewan the moose have died out really bad over the last 3 years. 2 years ago while shed hunting my friend and i discovered 5 dead moose dead in fenclines within a 3 mile radius of my farm. One died so close to my farm we could smell it when there was a south wind. It just looked like these critters had layed down to sleep and never woke up. How many were dead that we never did find? As a result they lowered the hunting pressure on the moose here but its still not enough, the rifle season should be closed down completely. I remember when i first started trapping in the spring which was about 6 years ago, i could not go a day without seeing a moose in the river flats where i trap. For the past 2 years i have only spotted 1 moose on my land. I am not to say that wolves will not take a moose down but most likely these moose have died of ticks or they have been weakened enough by the parasites that they become an easy prey for the wolves. If the wolves would not prey on a tick infested moose the mooses survival would still be very questionable.

Wolf killer

rambopacker I live just outside of Yellowstone & can tell you that the moose population has thaken a HUGE hit since the reintroduction of wolves. The head biologist incharge of the wolf reintroduction says, the Yellowstone ecosystem is at its maxium capacity for wolves. The wolf is also killing a ton of elk & deer. The wolf population is close to 670-wolves in the yellowstone ecosystem. When the biologist told us of reintroduction plans in 1994. They said the total population in the yellowstone ecosystem would top out at around 100-wolves. They were either lying or were just way off.

Hiawatha

Here is my logic. The original population was thought to top out at around 100 wolves, this may be true in normal conditions. When animals have the proper resources their populations will grow. There has to be some factor that limits their population expansion (space/food/predation/disease). In this case Yellowstone contains an abundant food source for the wolves and also no hunting of wolves. So basically the rate of fitness for these critters is very high because they are getting plenty of food and are able to reproduce. If they don't make some type of effort to control the wolf population they will do it to themselves. Eventually they will depleat their food resources enough and many will die off. Wolf Killer the ticks are a mooses worst predator here in saskatchewan.

ironranger

Hiawatha, to answer your question, I would have to say that they are lying or shall I say "Keeping the facts hidden" in a politically correct manner!! In Minnesota, my brother has heard time and again up north that there are only about 2500 wolves in MN but from what I hear that number appears to be much larger. Remember, these are biologists that are part of the re-introduction and want it to succeed. If they start saying that there are too many wolves it could possibly affect their efforts or possibly change their funding, e.i. paycheck. You can bet that the animal rights folk are lining up behind them ready to do battle when the time comes to delist them so that they can be controlled via hunts or by whatever means. They've been talking about delisting wolves in MN for awhile now and nothing ever seems to get done. Or at least I've not witnessed any progress. When I first heard years back that they were introducing wolves into the western states I figured I better start hunting there while there are opportunities. As long as there is game the wolves will multiple until the food source starts to drop and then they will level off. The problem is that what will be that leveling off in terms of numbers of elk/deer left?? I remember back in the 1960's in northern MN when the wolves weren't protected and there were deer all over the place. Things changed once they became protected and started to multiple. Then the deer dropped over the years. That's not to say that there isn't any decent hunting up there but it will never be like it was in the past as the wolves see to that.

Hiawatha

I agree 100% with you ranger. I am not saying that re introducing wolves into an area is a bad thing but you have to manage the population somehow. I am a biology minor in Universtiy and i can grasp this concept so why can't the proffesional biologist get it. Its not exactly rocket science. You have to limit the wolf population somehow or else they will keep growing until they have destoyed the herds. If they want to see the reintoduction program work it would be more beneficial to the wolves to have a lower population. Wolves have a fairly large territory and if there are too many wolvers per square mile then they will have difficulty being successful. They will begin to hinder each others progress. Which is excatly what seems to be happening, there are getting to be too many wolves and they will soon be starving each other. The population will eventually level itself off to a steady state but at what costs? Most of the deer/elk/moose will be gone. There is a little equation here we use in school that if you know the amount of wolves an ecosystem can support, the multiplication rate etc then you can calculate how many wolves you can remove and still keep the population at equalibrium. It was stated here above that the carrying capacity was 670 wolves, therefore no more than 335 can be removed at once. It may be such a thing that they remove 200 wolves now and 40 a year to maintain a balance, i am not sure of the exact figures because i don't have the data but i am estimating. Anyway you slice it though something has to be done.

bigbulls

That's the whole problem when any one reintroduces any animal to where it once was. The people doing the reintroduction want the it to succede so badly that they do not make any kind of future provisions for controling the new population. They figure that nature will take care of itself. Well, it certainly will. If left to "grow" freely they will either eventually starve themselves to death after they deplete their food resources or begin dying of disease or severe winter weather cause they are not healthy enough to endure it. While at the same time they will hurt the rest of the population of all the other species that share the same lands, predators and prey alike.

We need both the predators as well as the prey animals if we want to have a balanced system but because humans have taken much of the land that was once available for the animals we have the ultimate responsibility to keep their populations under control or the animals will suffer the consequences. I really don't understand why biologists and animal rights people can't seem to get this fact. They all need each other to maintain a healthy balance and we must make sure that it stays in ballance.

rambopacker

I talked to the saddle shop owner again and he said his info was coming from an university that is involved with wolves somehow. I will be going back over and will get copies of some of this literature so I can read for myself what it says and I will share it with all. It sounds like most who have responded to this thread feel like I do and that is it's not the wolves that are the problem, just the way we manage them. My Dad lives up in Mn. and said that the estimated wolf population has exploded by the original targets. I was working for the ranger district in Dubois Wyoming when the first pack migrated out of Yellowstone and took up residence just North of town. They immediately started killing local livestock and a some of the wolves were killed or moved.

I believe wolves are a natural part of the ecosystem but that the ecosystem isn't all that natural anymore. I question what the effects of all the dissapearng winter range outside the park has caused. I don't believe the animals can migrate like they use to and they are forced to bunch up in areas where they might not naturally, if they could migrate out of the park. Does this make them easier prey for the wolves? Just a non-expert with some thoughts.

One last thought, and some of this comes from my living in Catron County and some of you may have heard about the range/rancher issues we have down here in N.M. We might think twice about making it harder for the ranchers to make a living. If they go out of business and sell their ranches they will be sub-divided and we will loose more winter range and we will see even less game animals. There has to be a fine balance somewhere.

Wolf killer

I am glad to see this thread did not get taken over by emotions. I think we all feel the same way about wolves? Yellowstone national park is a unnatural setting (like disneyland). We have built up all around it except in wilderness areas. The wolves are just being wolves. The real problem is the people. They let there emotions get in the way of logical thinking. We do need to control the population. We need to set population objectives & keep the wolves in line with that number. Montana & Wyoming set population objectives for there deer & elk herds. I think its time to add wolves to that list.
Hiawatha I would have never thought that a little tick could kill a moose. I just figured moose could fight off the effects of a tick? You learn something new everyday.