blacktail slayer

Here are some things that I have posted about wolves.



You should read the book "Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation" by David Mech and Luigi Boitani (Best Scientific Wolf Book Out There)

Neat wolf fact:
Wolves have been known to eat mouthfuls of hair from prey before tearing into soft tissue. This is thought to help increase digestion up to twice as fast as without eating the hair. Emptying out their gut will allow them to feed again and minimize losses to scavengers.

More things to think about wolves before giving them a label. I for one do not think any label should be given to wolves, but everyone has their own opinion on this species.
Wolves kill their prey by chasing them down continually biting at them and causing them to bleed and go into shock. Biting off the airway can be used after the animal is brought down. Some prey may be left after an attack to later be killed by the wolves. Wolves will choose certain characteristics in there prey to give them an advantage over them. Ex. Poor conditioned prey, males during and post rut, calves and fawns. Wolves choose to be selective as they have to evaluate the cost vs. benefit of attacking their prey. Wolves can not kill their prey by instantly snapping their neck or suffocating them; such as mountain lions do their prey. This advantage gives lions the ability to attack and kill prey that is in any form of condition. Lions are not choosy at all compared to wolves. Wolves have been reported several times given up on an attack when the prey stands it ground or the wolves determine the cost of attacking a good condition animal is not worth the benefit. There are some studies out there, but more are needed to show how wolves target and attack poor conditioned prey. Necrotic jawbones, tapeworm cysts, arthritic joints, depleted fat stores, abnormal blood composition, even the nutrition of an preys mom or grandmother may affect the preys learning ability cause fewer brain cells, and reduce antibodies; which could all lead to lead to an animals death by a wolf.
Just thought I would throw a few things out there for people to think about. I think that all of our effort should go towards education, getting the wolves de-listed and get our lion population back at management objectives. Way too much bad talk and labeling going on. Hope you all have a great new year.

Yep you are right on mtn300. Wolves do not like to hunt in thick cover. Lions on the other hand hunt in that thick stuff. Game will then have to adjust the way they live their day to day lives. Here is a good peer reviewed article.
“Comparative Patterns of Predation by Cougars and Recolonizing Wolves in Montana’s Madison Range”
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1691&context=icwdm_usd anwr c
I would highly recommend anyone interested in finding facts on wolves or anything for that matter; use GOOGLE SCHOLAR and then do their search. Peer reviewed research articles are way better than word of mouth. I’m not saying we can’t learn from each other and that researchers can’t learn from us either. There is just a lot of false information being spread out there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rank Amateur
Interesting study among many, I would have to question the population, age, sex estimates made from aerial and land surveys. First bulls have a tendency to be more solitary animals which then reduces the sightability of those animals, second some bulls could have dropped antlers by March and most certainly the bucks had, and aging animals from sight is impossible other than broad classifications (calf/yearling/cow). I think that might be one of the reasons the bull predation numbers may be skewed, but as the report pointed out, bulls may have to stay down in the lower areas due to conditioning and then are thus more exposed to predation and another study I reviewed suggested that bulls simply were over confident in regards to their ability to defend against wolves, I would suppose that will change over time.

Interesting info regarding the effects on deer populations, I would have to disagree that this will be a long term effect though, I guess that would depend on the rate of decline in the elk herds. The data would tend to support the claim that wolves are leading to the decline of elk, not only from the wolves direct predation, but by causing increased cougar predation and one would also infer reduced preferred habitat use by elk, which will lead to declining health.
Yes it would be interesting what the affect of wolves on deer in that area have been since the study and what will happen in the future. Studies can help us learn a lot about predator and prey relations. This however will only help so much. Every area will have different outcomes. This means every state, unit, hill, ridge, and pack size. This is where is gets extremely hard for the bios to predict and manage our states, units, and even specific locations that have predators and game animals. Sure people would think that one study would lead to one solution and our game animal populations should be exploding. Such is not the case when it comes to life. Our bios have to follow certain rules and regulations themselves. Politics gets in the way also. Some studies will show one area that wolves do not have hardly an affect on game species. Then another location may show wolves may decrease populations rather quickly to fawn/calf recruitment. This does not always means the wolves are to blame for the low recruitment of fawns and calves. There is about a million factors that go into all of this and it is different in every location. I’m sure if someone could come up with the perfect answer to fix all wildlife populations; bios would be all ears. The truth is there is no one solution that could work across the U.S. It has been awhile since I read that paper I posted, but did it not talk about how wolves cause cougar predation to decline in number of kills and that elk still chose to stay in their preferred habitat; even though it would increase their chance of predation. I may have read both of those in another study.

http://www.kutv.com/content/outdoors...UqvzSFoPQ.cspx
Great wolf video. I don't know how people hear yotes and think they are wolf howls. You get to hear a wolf in the video.

I know there will be times that wolves will kill and not eat everything from their kill. Wolves however make caches sometimes with left over food. These caches get raided by other animals along with the carcasses as well. Wolf kills have been snowed on or even frozen and claimed months later by wolves and other animals. Wolf kills hardly ever go to waste. I would sure like to read a scientific study that proves otherwise. Wolves killing for sport as mentioned above happens in areas that have plentiful wildlife. This does not happen very often at all. If you read up on wolf bio's paper; you will see this in normally only recorded 1 to maybe 3 times in 20-30yrs of wolf research. This is from information up to 2001 to maybe 2003 that I have read up on. No one can really complain about wolves killing for sport except maybe very few ranchers that this has actually happen to. People are just going to have to learn to deal with it. We don't plan on getting in wrecks or dying while driving do we? It happens and such is life. We have it pretty good here in the U.S. No one is going to ever get it their way or be right about everything 100% of the time. We should be happy with our recovery of an animal that we once wiped out. This goes towards the animal rights groups as well. They need to learn to give it up when a recovery program is successful and that animal needs to be taken off the list. There are positive and negative outcomes to everything we do. We just need to get out of our individual tunnels (hunter and animal rights groups) and look at the big picture. Once we see the big picture; then we try and manage it the best we can. It will never be perfect. Sorry I could have typed more, but I don't have the time. Lets hope that ID and MT get to have a hunting season this year

So should we eliminate all the grizzlies in North America also? Wolf kills will feed a ton of different animals. If sportsman are so for helping out the wildlife and claim they are better than animal rights groups; this should be looked at as a good thing. Yes wolves, bears, and predators need to be managed, but they are a part of the big picture.

For the people that think wolves in YNP is a bad idea; I have a challenge for you. Please read all these articles I have posted. Then explain to me and show me scientific data that says wolves are bad for YNP. I will then take your data and try to pass it on to bios. Maybe all these studies are wrong. Declining elk have been a good thing for the YNP ecosystem. At least that is what these articles say. Maybe hunters have done better scientific studies. I sure would like to see the data. Hunters are for all wildlife and ecosystems; right? Maybe that is just me. What are all of the ifishers for? Please do not respond if you have not read over every page of these articles. I don't think you would have a leg to stand on. This post is about wolves and elk in YNP. I am not referring to wolves in any other area.
Methods http://www.forestry.oregonstate.edu/...sen%202000.pdf

http://archimede.mat.ulaval.ca/pages...l_preprint.pdf
YNP’s elk population was artificially maintained at 3000-6000 individuals from 1930-1968 (Romme et al. 1995) (Found in article pg.11)
http://www.cof.orst.edu/leopold/pape...ttonwoodEA.pdf
http://www.cof.orst.edu/leopold/papers/ripple.pdf
https://fp.auburn.edu/sfws/ditchkoff...0al%202003.pdf
That is why I stated my post was about wolves and their affects in YNP and not anywhere else. The post was for people to read who thought wolves in YNP is a bad idea. The same has been proven with predators and ungulates in Zion NP and Kiabab.

It has been proven that wolves can help out wildlife and the environment in scientific studies. I'm not saying that it will always be the same in every area, which shows and tells you how difficult it is to manage in our complex ecosystem.


I know wolves in different areas during different times will have different outcomes. It just seemed like no one has ever read any scientific papers showing other outcomes than dead animals. Most people on here only talk about big game animals, when our ecosystem is much more than that. There are a lot of other things going on in our ecosystem affecting our big game than we have figured out. An example is the mule deer in the Eagle Caps. Why have they not rebounded from the winter around 69 or 70? They have plenty of food, but the numbers just have not seemed to bounce back over all that time. Just like you said about how things change and an old research paper may not hold true in every place or time. The same can be said about wolves killing all the big game. Could there not be something that we are missing that is affecting the big game? I don't believe there has been a 100% proven fact what has happened to the mule deer since that great winter. There are tons of factors that make this thing very complex to figure out, but everyone wants to jump on the wolves. It would be nice if the wolves would have stayed out of Oregon until we had better fawn/calves survival rates and higher MO's. I hear everyone on that. I just don't get the lets wipe them all out because we are such great hunting conversationalist thing. We claim to want to help wildlife, but then a few want to turn around and wipe out certain wildlife they don't care for. I don't think those very few people can say bad things about animal rights groups or claim they are wildlife saviors. My posts are to only open up that tunnel a few on here look through. I myself learn more every day and look at life at different ways. I agree with a lot of things people say on here, but try and sit back and look at the big picture. I know Oregon has been having a problem with big game numbers, tags, predators. It would be nice to get all those things under control before the wolves through one more thing into our complex ecosystem. Life just is not the easy and I wish we could get what ever we wanted. Lets just hope the wolf numbers stay low for awhile and we can get things changed around. My post are not meant for everyone on here, but for a few to open up their views on all wildlife.
If all the big game animals die off like some believe in Oregon; will it be the wolves fault?
Yes they eat game animals, but I think there are a ton of influences on our game than wolves. No one can say what the outcome will be 50 years from know. Every place is different with its own unique webbed ecosystem. Different factors influencing different outcomes. We will add new research papers to our old ones and learn to change our management plans to the best of our ability. No single person will be 100% happy with any of the millions of outcomes that are possible. It is up to the state and feds to do their best to have an outcome that will hopefully benefit everything, but negative effects are a given. There are a ton of factors that may never be realized or figured out until years later. I wish we could predict the future and have a perfect environment of animals and plant life in every state, unit, mountain, ridge, and so on. This however is only a wish. I have a ton more I would like to say, but need to get back to the books with exams next week.

http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.219...R%5D2.0.CO%3B2
Here is a good article on wolves & elk in YNP. I would just skip down to the bottom of page 9 to read the "Discussion" if you are not interested in reading the whole article. It talks about wolves, cow hunts, and snow/water being the affects of elk decreasing population trend. It does not talk about an answer, but wolves are not the only thing to blame. Yes the cow tags have come down since 03 or something like that. That will be a less of a factor in the future with lower cow tags, but still a factor none the less. Snow, rain, vegetation, winter grounds will play factors every year also. This is a complex thing we are dealing with and no 100% sure cause or solution. It will take time to figure this thing out. We can't fix all the human influences on our game animals or change global weather patterns to suit game animals. I wish it was an easy fix, but not likely to happen. We try and learn, predict, and manage ALL our wildlife as best we can. Nothing is perfect. No one really know what things will be like 25 years down the road.

Conner77

I like wolves and all, but I just think they should count the population more and stay consistant with what the population should be and keep it at that set number, I think they just dont try hard enough to get exact numbers.

blacktail slayer

For the most part I think that the states know their numbers. It is the anti's and WY's Wolf Plan that have been holding up the states from managing the wolves.

Muliefever

Blacktail slayer...

? for you, are you in Washington,Oregon or Northern Cali? Must be right. Well guess what they are coming! This year elk hunting in my home state of Idaho, i was talking to the McCall Idaho Biologist. He told me himself that he watched a big pack swim the snake in Hells Canyon across to Oregon.. Everyone will see what happens to your elk heard in the near future! I grew up hunting the back country of Idaho.. Guess what we used to have wolves.. Native Wolves.. Then they brought in these monsters. What will they do next, bring in the african lion? do we need another alien predator in our woods? NO!

www.saveelk.com

blacktail slayer

I worked in Oregon doing wolf surveys. We have had wolves for a few years now. Nothing new over here.

blacktail slayer

Here is some more stuff that I have posted before.

A little research will show you that it is not our states management that has messed things up. Needless lawsuits and WY unwilling to change their Wolf Plan is what has messed it up for the states and hunters. I worked with some of the wolf bio's from Oregon and Idaho and don't remember anyone wanting the feds to stay in control of the wolves and not the state agencies. You can thank the anti's and WY for that.

I have seen a Oregon wildlife book that was printed in the 1930's that talked about how Oregon male wolves were over 100lbs and the same size as the Canadian wolves. I think the aggressive Canadian wolves comes from the wolf hysteria we have been seeing lately. All wolves are aggressive. They are predators that kill to eat remember.

Do you really think that if the U.S. and Canada had such a different wolf, that the Canadian wolf would have never made it over here? I don't remember a 10ft high fence that went 5ft under ground along the North border of the U.S. I would like see some scientific post about "thrill kill" from wolves. All the research on wolves doing thrill kills is like around 6 times in history. Please don't post some non scientific pics or typing from saveelk.com website. I want science and not propaganda. Wolves do come back to kills, make caches from kills, and can get chased off by bears or humans. Please site your scientific source; so I can go there and investigate it myself. Thanks

One reason that the wolves may seem very aggressive is the fact that they have not been hunted yet. Here in Oregon before 1995 and the Dog Ban; the mountian lions were affraid of humans and we had very few bad reports about lions. Ever since the ban of dogs hunting lions we have had hundreds of reports a year about people getting stalked and domestic animals getting attacked. Does that mean we all of a sudden have a new subspecies of lions that are more aggressive? I think not. The same holds true for the wolves. If we ever get a hunting season started we shall see the aggressive behavior of the wolves decrease. Lets just hope that we get a hunting season soon.

A few people dying from wolves will not change a thing. Just look at Cali and the lions that have killed people.

We can thank WY and the anti's in court battles for what we see.

Here is wolf article if anyone is interested.
http://www.billingsgazette.net/artic.../30-bigger.txt

Ihuntandfish

Kayaker fights off hungry wolf on North Coast[/align]
Larry Pynn, CanWest News Service
Published: Wednesday, August 01, 2007
[/align]VANCOUVER -- A Port Moody kayaker's recent life-and-death struggle with a hungry wolf on B.C.'s remote North Coast -- the second wolf attack in the province in seven years, and the first thought to involve predatory intent -- has prompted a conservation officer to warn against taking wolf encounters too lightly.
"This was a predatory wolf attack," conservation officer James Zucchelli confirmed from his Bella Coola Valley office.
The 31-year-old kayaker was setting up his tent on a beach on the coast when an old female wolf emerged from the bushes and attacked, Zucchelli said.
The kayaker fought with the wolf for several minutes, suffering bites to his leg and hands as he tried to pry its jaws apart and put it in a headlock.
He dragged himself and the wolf several metres down the beach to his kayak, removed a 10-cm knife from his life- jacket, and repeatedly stabbed the animal.
The wolf fled and the kayaker called for help on his marine radio. Employees from a nearby resort rescued him, then killed the wolf with a shotgun blast.

© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2007[/align][/align]
Posted by DaveO at 10:15 AM [/align][/align]

country1

Just another reason why there should be concealed carry in WI and IL and in the national parks.

farm hunter

blah blah -

Why do so many hunters thinh they have some god given rightto eradicate any species - say nothing of wolves (or coyotes, predetors in general)!?

Its annoying -

FH

Muliefever