Puzzling Predator Counts

I was thinking about the subject of predator counts a few weeks ago. This was after reading an article claiming that only 80 wolves now live in YNP.

At a meeting with G&F in March of 2018 I asked Luke Ellsbury about mountain lion numbers in NW Wyoming. I specifically asked if the lion population in the area was on the rise. He stated without hesitation that populations were on the rise.

When you ask G&F employees about the numbers of wolves or grizzly bears in Wyoming, I always get the same answer. With wolves they state between 200-300 and with grizzly bears the usual number given is 700. To a person, everyone I have talked to at G&F also says "these numbers are conservative". What is the purpose of making such a statement. Are they trying to downplay the numbers or do they really not have a clue?

Recent articles I have read state that 177 wolves were killed in Wyoming in 2018. Those wolves would have been killed in traffic related incidents, those killed in the trophy zone, those killed outside the trophy zone as designated, and those killed by G&F for livestock killings or other threats. The articles also stated that there are now 286 wolves in Wyoming with 80 of those wolves in YNP, 10 on the Wind River Reservation and remaining in the rest of Wyoming. If I do the math, that would suggest there were 463 wolves in Wyoming at the end of 2017 and only 286 now remain. I have been told the 200-300 number for as long as the G&F has been the managing agency for the wolf.

With regard to the grizzly bears in 2018, I believe that the mortality for the bears was the highest it has ever been. The bulk of the deaths involve G&F taking out problem bears and the bears killed by people in self defense. Is the increase in mortality the result of an increasing population in areas closer to humans, a higher grizzly bear population or just a coincidence?

In Idaho, I believe the wolf population was reduced by at least 500 wolves in 2018. The bulk of the wolves were trapped and about 15% were taken by hunters. They pay a $ 1,000 bounty for wolves and the seasons in Idaho are liberal. The nonresident tags are also cheap. Despite all of this, the wolf population continues to grow in that state.

My concern is real simple, are Wyoming G&F giving you a political answer when they state the population of wolves and grizzly bears in Wyoming or do they believe what they are saying? With all the dollars spent on grizzly bear and wolf study, shouldn't the G&F be able to produce a population figure for each that doesn't have to be qualified by saying the number is conservative? How can a problem, or lack of a problem be addressed if you don't even know what the real numbers are?

just sayin...mh

I think you asked a good question.

What I believe, in my experience regarding how the various GF agencies deal with predators and fur bearers, they are going to error on the side of conservative harvest and population estimates.

Its very difficult and expensive to classify and count predators in comparison to ungulates. They (predators/fur bearers) don't really congregate that much, occupy large ranges, etc.

I know that the way the MTFWP used to estimate populations for lions, bobcat, lynx, were largely tied to hunter/trapper success, how fast the quotas filled, and also track surveys conducted via biologists and also trappers and predator hunters. Age was used as well to make sure that the age of harvested animals weren't dominated by younger age classes.

If they were seeing steady harvest trends, increasing age structure within the harvest, and increased track sightings, they concluded that the populations were increasing. Conversely if the age structure was skewed toward mostly younger animals, it was taking longer to fill quotas, and track sighting were down, they concluded the population was decreasing.

When I used to trap, I looked at a lot of their data for bobcats, lynx, lions, wolverines, fisher, marten, and also the bear and lion data as well. Keep in mind that mandatory harvest reporting and tooth ageing was required.

That said, most biologists I knew were very reluctant to throw hard numbers at a population estimate for predators and fur bearers, rather they would point to the indicators I mentioned above to justify management decisions.

It wasn't perfect science, but it made sense to me from a management point of view, when I saw the age distributions, the quota data, track surveys, etc.

Probably some of the best data and subsequent management I ever saw in Montana was the predator/furbearer portion. Their big-game harvest/population estimates, and management of big-game was/is a total disaster in comparison.

All that said, I think the conservative approach to all predator management is pretty universal and not a conspiracy. Its just a function of how difficult it is to determine or estimate populations and try to adjust harvest to reflect what you "think" the population is.

I always had the feeling when I trapped that it made much more sense to be conservative on harvest to ensure the long-term health of the resource. Typically, I probably didn't take enough furbearers from the areas I trapped each year, even though the regulations said I could. That's the neat part of trapping, IMO. You're out there enough to get a true feeling for the area and animals you're pursuing. You also can largely make your own determination on how many you should take.

The amount of work it took to find good areas to trap, the last thing I ever wanted to do was trap an area out.

I asked my local Game and Fish biologist if they knew how many lions they had in the Grey's and salt river area. He said that they felt that they were did not have a problem with too many lions because the lion outfitters had trouble filling the quota. At $4000 to $5000 a hunt I bet they did have trouble filling the quota.











Charles Darwin:
Father of the theory of Evolution; Suggested that natural selection is the mechanism by which species evolve over geologic time.

Its a good question Mightyhunter, but I have no doubt in my mind that when it comes to grizzly and wolves, it is all political. Certainly not the fault of the biologist, there's just other forces at work that don't allow them to do their job to the fullest. Biologists have their hands tied when it comes to these species.

As far as lions, I think they are managed ok over here in western Wyoming. I know a few different guys that make a part time living off of chasin' cats. From what I've put together, lions are looked at differently. Every cat put up in a tree is not killed, at least in these areas between the continental and Wyoming Range divides. Big toms are what everyone likes to see taken. Individual hunter attitude and perception is at work here. Not every hunter is willing to take a 90+ pound female that certainly is mature and big enough to be a deer killin' machine by then. And nobody wants to be 'that guy' to close the area down.

Looking at this years' quotas west of the divide like Area 3, 14, 17, 26, 29 that all contain the Wyoming and Sublette mule deer herds, there's a female quota of 52 combined. There were 38 females taken. Area 26 and 14 which make up the Greys, Salt and southern Wyoming range and Kemmerer area had a female quota of 30, 15 each. This year 29 were taken. Only 11 females were taken in the areas west of the Wyoming Range divide, 50% of the harvest quota. Lots of domestic sheep grazing going on in Areas 14 & 26, so looks like those lions get knocked down a little and hunters are willing to take females. Area 19 up in MH's country had a quota of 20, and all 20 were taken + another 5 not counted towards the quota. Perhaps they should take a look at adding another additional females to the quota in 14, 26, and 19.

I would bet most outfitters aren't willing at first to take females during a hunt. Big toms look good in pictures. Those private souls that still love having and raising hounds and like to take their buddies out for an adventure most likely are the ones taking more females. Its an endeavor raising hounds. Did you know that a good 3 year old trained hound will sell for $3K-$6000. Not many private guys are willing to put up that kind of money for a dog. You better make some money with that hound if your spending that much. So, are outfitters charging to much at $4000 for a hunt, I tend to say, probably not. Biologists need to be proactive with outfitters and private houndsmen and say 'hey, we need to harvest these female cats in this area too." Again though, after a couple years, hunter attitudes probably set in, 'I want a nice tom, I don't want to kill another female.." Tough to manage those attitudes as a biologist.

BenHuntn,

I had a similar comment from G&F employees on the issue of the black bear quota in the Beartooths not being filled this year and also about the wolf quota not being filled in some areas of Wyoming. I think the fact that quotas aren't filled doesn't mean the population is on the decline or that hunting is the cause.

In 2018, I conversed with two young fellows who were trapping bears for G&F in the Sunlight/Crandall area. They told me this was the first trapping in the area where G&F had not trapped a single black bear. I last saw a black bear in the Beartooths about 3 years ago. Perhaps, the black bear population is declining because the grizzly bear population is increasing?

I think the wolf quota is not always filled for a couple of reasons. First, spot and stalk wolf hunting is about as successful as lion hunting without dogs. Most of the grip and grin Wyoming wolf shots I see are of small and immature wolves. Second, Wyoming sells very few wolf tags to NR hunters. I think this is caused by the high price of N/R wolf tags. Compare the price in Wyoming to the price of a NR tag in Montana or Idaho.

I am hoping that G&F will make a serious effort to determine the actual numbers of wolves and grizzly bears within the confines of the state. If an actual count were determined, I think that a lot of the mistrust concerning the count might go away. A couple of years ago, I personally saw around 25 grizzly bears out side of YNP. In 2017, while sheep hunting, I saw 6 grizzly bears in a single day in the same area. When I deer hunted in Sunlight/Crandall last year, I glassed up or stumbled on 3 different wolf packs and a couple of singles, I was a little perplexed. How could a 64 year old man on foot with one eye see so many grizzly bears and wolves if their numbers in the whole state are 700 for the bears and 200-300 for the wolves? I must be covering a lot of ground, have a great set of eyes, or I am just in the right place at the right time.


just sayin...mh

MH

They have a much better idea about wolf numbers statewide than grizzlies or lions. When they can identify packs, pack numbers and mortalities like they do, that says a lot. Where their estimates on wolves are conservative, are in the predator area, where no packs can take hold and lots of singles and pairs run around until they meet their demise. You can't compare Wyoming wolf populations to Idaho populations. Wolves thrive far better in Idaho.

I know if you ask anyone who lives in grizzly country, they all say there are more bears than G&F claims. I agree with them. Those folks like yourself, who live and hunt there, see the changes in sightings and encounters. For years hunters in my part of the state disagreed with mule deer numbers we were told existed in a general area near Casper. G&F finally did a hard count, covering the entire area with helicopter and found half the deer they thought were there. Moral: pay attention to those that live and hunt in the area.

Lions are the hardest to determine population wise, obviously due to their nature. They cannot be hunted out, as areas are continually replenished by traveling cats from core areas where lions thrive despite liberal hunting seasons. G&F are happy to listen to hunters thoughts, because they know lion hunters have more info then they do. Like Buzz was saying, they can determine a population decrease by the number of younger cats taken, especially females, but even that's not accurate, due to the skew caused by selective harvest, which seems to be the norm these days.

jm77,

Thanks for the input. I have a friend that was involved in guided lion hunting this year. They took some very large toms. He sent me the pictures. He also told me that they were treeing a lot of smaller lions and letting them go. That certainly coincides with what BuzzH and you are saying about selective harvest. My friend also expressed some concern about his dogs interacting with wolves. I told him of a spot where there was a large tom working an area. He went in with the dogs, but had to pull them out because of aggressive wolf activity.

In your comments, you mention that the wolf situation in Wyoming is different from that in Idaho. I have thought about what you say about the difference and am just curious as to why you feel that way? I know that the way to delisting and state control was different in each state. I also know that delisting has been going on longer in Idaho. I do know that much of the ground in the Northern Idaho area is more densely forested than most of this part of Wyoming. Both states border YNP and were in the middle of the wolf experiment. I also know that the wolves in Idaho have been allowed to spread over most of the state whereas Wyoming has tried to confine them to areas within the trophy zone by allowing harvest without restriction in the non-trophy zone. Are you suggesting that the rate of reproduction and population growth is different in each state? If so, why?

I agree with you that G&F should listen to hunters and those that are living in the area. I can honestly say that our local G&F is not real interested with citizen input on the subject. A couple of years ago, I stumbled on 5 grizzly bears working on two dead cows. This was on USFS ground with cattle grazing on public land. The activity was within a 100 ft. of a well traveled USFS road. I contacted G&F and was ignored. I later called the USFS and they took care of moving the carcasses out. I also told G&F a few years before that of seeing a sow grizzly with 4 cubs next to Highway 120. They didn't believe me, until I showed them the pictures. Last year, I spoke with the G&F people doing bear trapping in Sunlight/Crandall. To the best of my knowledge, their findings were not shared with the public. What they told me about the grizzly bear situation was not good.

I think G&F is caught between a rock and a hard spot in Northwest Wyoming with regard to the wolves, grizzly bears and the close proximity to YNP and the tourists. At some point in time, they will be forced to take a fact based position on the subject. Trust me, straddling the fence ain't working with the public in this area. Mistrust of the G&F is at all time high around here. With the exception of one voice at G&F in the local area, I don't trust a word they have to share with the public. I hope that is not the situation in the places where you and BuzzH live.

just sayin...mh

LAST EDITED ON Apr-30-19 AT 09:49AM (MST)[p]http://www.powelltribune.com/stories/state-wont-launch-rogue-grizzly-hunt,18775

That pesky 700 number pops up yet again. The article is also interesting.
just sayin...mh

I think in MOST cases the wildlife biologist age low in population estimates. It maybe part political.
Example: About 20 years ago they opened up the Cache unit for harvest quote of 35 lions on the unit. The biologist, a good guy IMO, estimated the lion population to be around 70. He didn't think the quota would get filled. 35 lions were harvested in about 3 weeks. Females with kittens were protected. The next year 37 lions were harvested in the same unit, in about a 3 week time. That is 72 lions killed in two years. Females with kittens are protected.

When you have units that the deer populations are way below objectives, predators, Lions, Coyotes, and bobcats surely do make an impact. Our fawn collaring research the past couple years show this as well. Very poor survival.

>When you have units that the
>deer populations are way below
>objectives, predators, Lions, Coyotes, and
>bobcats surely do make an
>impact. Our fawn collaring
>research the past couple years
>show this as well. Very
>poor survival.

We have numerous mule deer units in NW Wyoming that are way below objectives. That being said, our biologist and wardens never mention predation as a cause. The annual JCR evaluations are silent on the subject. In 2017, the JCR evaluations start claiming that "winter kill" is the major culprit.


just sayin...mh

>jm77,

>In your comments, you mention that
>the wolf situation in Wyoming
>is different from that in
>Idaho. I have thought about
>what you say about the
>difference and am just curious
>as to why you feel
>that way? I know that
>the way to delisting and
>state control was different in
>each state. I also know
>that delisting has been going
>on longer in Idaho. I
>do know that much of
>the ground in the Northern
>Idaho area is more densely
>forested than most of this
>part of Wyoming. Both states
>border YNP and were in
>the middle of the wolf
>experiment. I also know that
>the wolves in Idaho have
>been allowed to spread over
>most of the state whereas
>Wyoming has tried to confine
>them to areas within the
>trophy zone by allowing harvest
>without restriction in the non-trophy
>zone. Are you suggesting that
>the rate of reproduction and
>population growth is different in
>each state? If so, why?

I think it's common knowledge that wolf numbers in Idaho far surpass Wyoming. At least that is what I have heard. Just look at the numbers of wolves taken in Idaho and there is no let up on hunting or trapping.