Study: Wolves Not the Cause of Elk Population Decline in Wyoming

[O_S_O_K]

I had this come across to me the other day from Outdoor Life Magazine (e-version).

Issues such as this are always emotional, on both sides of the aisle, so I always try to be as objective as possible and consider all points.

The study was funded by some big name orgs (RMEF, etc.).

I found the study interesting but definitely not conclusive. Just thought you all may be interested to read some of the findings.

Enjoy!

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/ne...2&spJobID=323084291&spReportId=MzIzMDg0MjkxS0


"The problem with quotes on Internet Forums is that it is often difficult to verify their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln

 

[nfh]

So they base the study off of one herd?

3 years of studying down the crapper.

 

[Zeke]

Interesting study, TIC.

The fact is that any time you add an unregulated apex predator you're going to lose copious amounts of game animals. (there, I've done my own study and it didn't cost a fortune)

That's the big win, win for the antis. The wolves will slowly replace hunters as a management tool.

One of these days the hunting regulations might read:
"SORRY BOYS, WE DON'T NEED YOUR BULLETS ANY MORE TO CONTROL BIG GAME ANIMALS!!!! WE HAVE WOLVES."

I hope we keep heading in the right direction of State's Rights to control ALL wildlife.

Zeke

 

[wilhille]

I don't think it will ever come to not having hunters manage the game. That might be the goal, but money is the deciding factor.
States will start losing money, can't pay for biologists animal species across the board will start to decline, and states will start to heavily manage these predators.

 

[nontypical]

If ya don't need hunters, ya don't need game managers. One feeds off the other. That is the end goal for the anti's.

Their(anti's)agenda includes getting rid of big game management as we know it today. They have their whole leg in the door now in Cali(not just their foot). It might take many decades, but that is the big plan, and it seems to be working so far.

 

[mtmuley]

Here in Montana, our FWP is taking strong action. We may get up to 5 wolf tags this season instead of 3. (combo of hunting and trapping) There's no way any state is trying to replace hunters as a management tool with wolves. mtmuley

 

[O_S_O_K]

I agree 100% that:
- wolves eat big game
- wolves need to be managed
- wolves, left unmanaged, will be even more detrimental to the herds
- and, that the anti's are using the wolf as a way to try and stop hunting

However, I think it's worth noting that the study points out some interesting findings. Ones that if we truly care about the recovery of big game we should pay attention to and at a minimum deserves some more attention.

It was interesting to me that this study was funded by conservation groups and I think it was done so with the hopes of putting scientific data behind the idea that wolves are bad for big game in a number of ways, not just as dinner.

If your goal is to eliminate the wolf then you don't care about the study, but if you want the herds to recover then maybe there is some meaningful information worth paying attention to.

That's all I am saying



"The problem with quotes on Internet Forums is that it is often difficult to verify their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln

 

[stillhunterman]

>I agree 100% that:
>- wolves eat big game
>
>- wolves need to be
>managed
>- wolves, left unmanaged, will
>be even more detrimental to
>the herds
>- and, that the anti's
>are using the wolf as
>a way to try and
>stop hunting
>
>However, I think it's worth noting
>that the study points out
>some interesting findings. Ones
>that if we truly care
>about the recovery of big
>game we should pay attention
>to and at a minimum
>deserves some more attention.
>
>It was interesting to me that
>this study was funded by
>conservation groups and I think
>it was done so with
>the hopes of putting scientific
>data behind the idea that
>wolves are bad for big
>game in a number of
>ways, not just as dinner.
>
>
>If your goal is to eliminate
>the wolf then you don't
>care about the study, but
>if you want the herds
>to recover then maybe there
>is some meaningful information worth
>paying attention to.
>
>That's all I am saying
>
>
>
>"The problem with quotes on Internet
>Forums is that it is
>often difficult to verify their
>authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln

Good post, point well taken.

www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org

 

[dragonshed]

"His research shows that the Clark's Fork herd's fate is based on a complex set of variables including habitat, weather, hunting, bears, and wolves."

Nothing new there. What I would have wanted to know from that study is how many elk wolves killed in that time period. I wish somebody would do a study that comes up with something new for once.

 

[MarshallBill5]

I agree that the antis agenda is to eliminate hunting, but I don't think that it stops there. I have felt for a long time now that it isn't to get rid of hunting but to get rid of guns in this country. For a very long time people have said that they cannot take our guns cause hunting is a part of our heritage. Well if they get rid of the game for us to hunt then there will be no need for us to have guns. We don't need them to protect ourselves, the government does that for us. There is a bigger agenda than just eliminating hunting.

 

[J939K]

The Outdoor Life article did about as poor a job really explaining this study as possible.

www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ele.12133/pdf

You can read it at that address. The real reason for the study is that "pro-wolf" people say that elk (without wolves)will destroy parts of the habitat. They say that elk camp on areas like willow patches and mow them down. Thus, if wolves are around, an environment of fear is produced that will keep elk from camping on places like willow patches and move them into the timber, escape terrain, etc.

For the pro-wolf people, they make the argument that the year-round landscape of fear cannot be provided by hunters.

This study shows that those claims are not totally accurate.

This study also points out, that the natural birth-rate is not influenced by year-round presence of wolves. The authors comments about grizzly bear impacts on calf survival is true. Grizzly bears have more of an impact on neonate survival than wolves. But, in no way does he say that wolves do not have an impact on adult elk survival.

Therefore, this study is not saying that wolves do not eat elk and that the occurrence of wolves do not cause the population of elk to decline. That decline has been well documented in many areas.

Its a little surprising how poorly the Outdoor Life article was written.