Black wolf on news tonight

[Ryan Pultz]

did anyone else catch the report tonight I think on Channel 6 about the video of the black wolf in eastern Oregon pretty messed up. I tell you what I see one out there and I will not be taken its picture rp

[mtn300]

I have heard that there is one near ukiah. A lady I work with said here husband saw it last year elk hunting on the flats closer to battle mountain. No shots fired just let it mosy on by. I don't imagine if it keeps showing itself that it will live long up there. Pretty soon we will be like Idaho lots of wolves and no game. Have to take up a new hobby.

[aye fsh]

Got yersef a woof tag duz ya?

[Fish Slayer]

Got yersef a woof tag duz ya?

As much as I would love to shoot that wolf too, I don't think ODFW or the OSP would like it very much.

[SLEDDER]

I have heard that there is one near ukiah. A lady I work with said here husband saw it last year elk hunting on the flats closer to battle mountain. No shots fired just let it mosy on by. I don't imagine if it keeps showing itself that it will live long up there. Pretty soon we will be like Idaho lots of wolves and no game. Have to take up a new hobby.

Idaho has more game than Oregon.

[Quaka Wacka]

Idaho has more game than Oregon.

They also manage thier wildlife a lot more restrictivly, have lower hunter density, and allow bait and hounds to control other predators. They are having dramatic declines in game population along with increased fawn/calf mortatlity, in the areas where wolves have established populations, and are being swamped with lawsuit after lawsuit when they attempt to reduce the wolves population.

[Mojo]

Wacka,
I believe you are mistaken. I have lived in Idaho my entire life, and since the pack of wolves established itself in our hunting unit, the game population has risen. (Yes I admit this may be a-typical.) The area I hunt was (IMO) overpopulated with mountain lions, and the wolves have done a number on them. The elk and deer populations are the same in our unit, they are found different areas than they used to hang out in though. There are more grouse and rabbits in the area than I have ever seen.

I can tell you there are plenty of deer and elk left in Idaho. It is not devoid of any wildlife like you insinuate.

Also, the state is not being swamped my lawsuits for controlling wolves. The IDF&G and Federal Wildlife folks are "lethally controlling" wolves in several areas where they are killing livestock and pets. So far I have heard of zero successful lawsuits or injunctions on these actions.

I'm not the greatest hunter in the world (but I'm not bad), I can tell you my success has gone up since wolves were re-introduced. I may be an aberration. I'm not a big fan of wolves, but they aren't the end of the world either. If you are adaptable, and study your quarry, you can continue to be successful.

People overstate their cases about wolves all the time. To all of you that don't live with them daily, do not believe the "sky is falling" b.s. you hear. Yes they take game animals. So do cougars, coyotes, and foxes. Those are 3 critters you won't see very many of, if wolves move in the neiborhood.

[rimrock]

Finally a voice of reason. Thanks Mojo

[Rank Amateur]

Rimrock, you have become way too predictable.

Hey, when you stated the other day on the other thread that the people of America want wolves, do you think anybody mention too them that there might be a signifcant reduction in other game populations too??

It's kinda like somebody coming out for a tax cut, oh boy everbody wants that!! Well, until there is not a cop or fireman to respond when they need one. Just thought I would throw that out there. Sure everbody wants wolves, but not everybody is willing to pay the price, especially once they are informed as to what it is. Haven't seen too much press on that information. Maybe we don't know yet???

[freespool]

I believe you are mistaken. I have lived in Idaho my entire life, and since the pack of wolves established itself in our hunting unit, the game population has risen. (Yes I admit this may be a-typical.) The area I hunt was (IMO) overpopulated with mountain lions, and the wolves have done a number on them. The elk and deer populations are the same in our unit, they are found different areas than they used to hang out in though. There are more grouse and rabbits in the area than I have ever seen.

So what your saying is, upon futher review, the sky is not falling, and hunting as we know it, has not ended.
That's good news, cuz I was starting to think the chicken lickens were possibly right, even though I could find no crediable evidence on the internet.



salmon hugger

[Mojo]

Exactly! No kidding there are wolves here. Seriously they eat meat. Sometimes deer and elk (also mice voles, rabbits, cougars, foxes, coyotes, sparrows) and whatever else they can catch. It is easier for them to kill a rabbit than a moose. That's probably why they eat more small game animals than big game animals. I think it is their hatred of (or fear of competition from) other predators that causes them to concentrate on them.

They are not vegetarians, but they aren't wiping out the herds, bottom line.

I'd really like to know how many of the folks that propose the wolves are ruining all hunting have ever hunted where they roam? Have any of you seen or heard them in the wild. I have. Hung a nice buck on the meat pole the next day.

[Super Fluke]

I want wolves to come back.

[Rank Amateur]

I wonder "who" is getting research money to answer the wolf debate. Do you think it would make any difference on the researchers disposition as to the findings or the make up of the study?

Again, wolves have not been here long enough and in large enough numbers to get the overall picture. The North Yellowstone herd is definately down, but bears, cougars and hunters have muddied the picture on this herd.

Idaho, has studies from '02 and '03 and show a definate concern from wolf predation. Habitat though is probably playing a bigger part at this time with the herds studied.

Given time though, the right place for a definative study will show that wolves are just another predator on ungulates. Whether they will displace other predators and balance the mortality from other predators is just conjecture, (I haven't seen any studies that document cougar or bear kills by wolves).

Studies are starting to show that other apex predators (bears and cougars) do have a significant effect on biggame populations. It is not much of a leap of faith to follow that adding wolves to the mix will not help the situation.

Once again, we are doing something when we do not have the answers, so what do we do when the pro wolf people are proven wrong??? Wolf bounty again?

[chiefjoseph]

EVERYBODY WANTS WOLVES? I cannot imagine they will be good for big game populations in the long run. If they eliminated the cats maybe the trade off would be a push. I would imagine that 80 to 90 percent of the people in eastern oregon dont want them. I would also guess that the wolves will be shot on site when they show up on cattle ranches following the big game herds out of the mountains in the winter. Ranchers dont want another headache which is all the wolf is. We lived without them for decades. They serve NO PURPOSE in a state with the population density of oregon. They were killed off due to conflict[ cant coexist with man] when there were far less folks living in oregon. Now there are 10 times more people here which means far less habitat mfor wolves and way more conflict.

[chinooklr]

Idaho has more game than Oregon.

[/quote]


I don't believe this is true, oregon's elk population is larger than idaho's.

And I have hunted elk in an area with wolves, and let me tell you, the elk get much harder to find when there are wolf tracks all over. Not to mention the airplane flying circles around your head tracking yhe radio collars. I for one don't like to hear wolves howling while waiting for the sun to come up.

But I thought all they ate were voles...

[raptorschild]

"I don't believe this is true, Oregon's elk population is larger than Idaho's."

Sounds like an opinion the way you stated it. Do you have any sources for that data?

Also......is this total population, or huntable population? there are plenty of elk in WA too, but many live on feed lots, or places like the Hanford Reservation where you can't hunt.

[Ras]

Sooo much conflicting information :whazzup: The Yellowstone Northern Range elk herd was at or above historic highs; probably to an unhealthy level (though all of those elk were fun to watch!). Plenty of surplus (old, young and weak). And the wolves benefited from this. However, last year actually saw a downturn in their numbers. Adults took a hit, and the pups / litters really took it (parvo it is thought). Theory is that the dogs hit their carrying capacity, and there will be the natural ebb and flow of a self-sustaining population from here on out. Still, hard to gauge with only 10 years under their belt.

Idaho hunters report everything from no elk in areas that have been healthy for generations.....and areas that have wolves, and the hunting has never been better :whazzup: Go figger An area of Central Idaho that I have hunted several times in the past 14 years had no elk 2 season's ago. My father ran into IDFG in the back-country one day; middle of nowhere! He had been following the wolves in that area all Summer. Said the drainage we were in had a couple herds of elk, and several nice bulls.....then the wolves found them about a month earlier. He said the wolves tore-up the herd pretty well, and all moved-on. So, my experience with hunting around wolves is that an area that we could be into 5-10 bulls in a couple of days had no elk for the first time that we have ever experienced. Were they all killed? No. But they were not in an area (nor others) that they always had been.

I have been to Yellowstone every year since the wolves were "re-introduced", (in Spring and a couple of Winters) and witnessed several pursuits; most ending in kills An interesting trait about wolves is how they hunt: Obviously, they are a pack animal. When on the hunt, they do not sneak along, they trot. When they chase, it is not a short-distance blast of speed, it is / can be a long, drawn-out marathon. I have watched wolves run elk for 2 miles They are long-legged, intelligent, well-equipped predators. They can run as fast / faster than elk. A natural escape strategy of prey is to cut-away / zig-zag......naturally a wolf can cut the angle and shorten his distance. They do not always get their intended target.....just usually.

All of that being said, wolves are an amazing creature to watch when they are hunting. I think cougars are a cool critter as well. Do I want them populating my hunt areas and / or state???? Not necessarily. Do they??? Maybe. Will they soon?????

Ras

[Rank Amateur]

Yes, very conflicting reports or opinions. Here's some info that you refer too on the Northern herd.

The Overgrazing Controversy
National attention has been focused on Yellowstone's northern elk winter range since the early 1930s. Scientists and managers then believed that grazing and drought in the early part of the century had reduced the range's carrying capacity, and that twice as many elk were on the range in 1932 as existed in 1914. From 1935 to 1968, elk, pronghorn, and bison numbers were artificially controlled by shooting or trapping and removal by park rangers. Then in the 1960s, based on new studies that suggested ungulate populations could possibly be self-regulating, elk reductions were discontinued in the park. The belief that elk grazing was damaging to northern range vegetation and that grazing accelerates erosion, although not supported by research data and analysis, has continued to the present. Studies of the northern elk winter range began in the 1960s and revealed no clear evidence of range overuse (Houston 1982). More recent studies conclude that sagebrush grasslands of Yellowstone's northern winter range are not overgrazed (Singer and Bishop 1990). In fact, plant production was enhanced by ungulate grazing in all but drought years. Protein content of grasses, yearly growth of big sagebrush, and seedling establishment of sagebrush were all enhanced by ungulate grazing. Neither reduction in root biomass nor an increase in dead bunchgrass clumps was observed. However, many questions remain concerning the condition of riparian zones and associated shrubby vegetation; the park hopes to conduct additional studies on aspen and willows and their relationship to ungulates on the northern range.
Two reports were made available in 1997, discussing at length the issue of grazing levels and other influences on Yellowstone's northern range. Yellowstone's Northern Range: Complexity and Change in a Wildland Ecosystem discusses the history of research and management in northern Yellowstone, home to one of the world's largest herds of elk and long the subject of controversy. Effects of Grazing by Wild Ungulates in Yellowstone National Park contains 22 technical publications summarizing recent research studies that have been peer-reviewed by scientists. Much of the research was completed by scientists from agencies other than the National Park Service, by independent contractors, and by scientists from universities located across the United States. For a copy of either report, contact the Yellowstone Center for Resources, Box 168, Yellowstone NP, Wyoming 82190, or call (307)344-2203.

Other Influences on Yellowstone's Elk Populations
Over-winter calf mortality, yearling mortality, and adult bull mortality all increase with higher elk population densities. Studies show that summer predation by grizzly bears, coyotes, black bears, and golden eagles takes an average of 32% of the northern range elk calves each year. Mountain lions prey upon elk, as do hunters north of the park (taking about 10% of the northern herd annually through the 1980s).
Gray wolves, eliminated from the park by the 1930s, are being restored, but not because park managers think the wolves will "control" the number of elk. Instead, 15 North American wolf experts predicted that 100 wolves in Yellowstone would reduce the elk by less than 20%, 10 years after reintroduction. Computer modeling of population dynamics on the northern winter range predicts that 75 wolves would kill 1,000 elk per winter, but that elk would be able to maintain their populations under this level of predation, and with only a slight decrease in hunter harvest. Since the restoration of wolves to Yellowstone began in January 1995, scientists have begun to document the effects of wolves on elk and other species. Wolves are preying predominantly on elk, as expected. They have also occasionally preyed upon moose, bison, deer, and even one pronghorn antelope.
The carrying capacity of the northern winter range increased in the 1980s because elk colonized new winter range in and north of the park, wet summers resulted in better plant production, winters were mild, and the fires of 1988 opened forests allowing more ground cover to grow. Since 1985, more than 11,000 acres of elk winter range have been purchased by the State of Montana and the U.S. Forest Service north of the park, increasing elk carrying capacity and reducing conflicts between native wildlife and agriculture.

Here's another tidbit, this kinda opens ones eye to the myth about wolves taking only the diseased or weak. Can we really say a calf is weak or just vunerable?


Winter kill rates and prey selection of gray wolves (Canis lupis) were studied in the upper Madison drainage of Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. Elk (Cervus elaphus) and bison (Bison bison) formed the ungulate prey base in the study system and a single wolf pack used the study area as its winter territory. Daily ground telemetry, snow tracking, and necropsies were used to acquire data from mid-November through May, 1998—1999 and 1999—2000. During the two winters 108 wolf kills were located. Wolves preyed primarily on elk and showed the strongest selection for calves, which comprised half the diet (n=56). Thirty cow elk ranging in age from 1 to 15 (mean=9.9) and 8 bulls ranging in age from 1 to 10 (mean=5.1) were also killed. Although bison were more abundant than elk, only one adult and 13 calf kills were found. Prey switching was apparent during the first year of the study. By late March, no elk calf kills were found while cow and bull elk and bison calves were killed at an increased rate. An analytical method was developed to estimate smoothed kill rates across time using a moving window average and a weighting scheme to account for undetected kills. This technique indicated that 30% of the wolf kills were undetected. Estimated kill rates (kills/100 wolf days) nearly doubled from fall to spring each year, and were approximately twice as high the first year (11.8) as the second year (6.5) of study. Two factors that likely influenced
kill rates were confounded between winters. Snow conditions were severe the first year and mild the second, and the wolf pack increased from 7 to 13 wolves between years. Offtake from the calf elk population was an estimated 20-25%, the highest among prey types. Though offtake was not consequential for adult elk or bison, recruitment of calf elk into the adult population may be affected by wolf predation, particularly during years of light snowpack when few calves would normally succumb to winter undernutrition. The new methodology reduced variability and improved kill rate estimation, providing new insight into wolf-ungulate dynamics in the Rocky Mountain ecosystem.


Here's a newspaper article on the Northern herd decline.

What's killing the elk in Yellowstone?
By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY
Whodunit? The big, bad wolf? Old Man Winter? A scientific mystery starring wolves, adversarial weather and a declining elk herd is playing out at Yellowstone National Park.




An elk stops traffic in Yellowstone. The elk population is declining in the park, but scientists can't agree on the reason.

By Erik Petersen, The (Cody, Wyo.) Enterprise via AP
Oh, and people — hunters — are possible suspects, too.
The elk population in North Yellowstone has dropped to about 8,000 from almost 17,000 in 1995. That was the year wolves were reintroduced into the 2.5-million-acre federal park in Wyoming, which overlaps the border of Montana and Idaho.
The northern herd contains just a fraction of the 120,000 elk believed to dwell in the park region, and Yellowstone's Northern Range is just 204,000 acres. But this region is of particular interest to scientists because it has the largest wolf population, about 106 of the park's 171 wolves in 2004, making the elk there the most vulnerable herd.


The wolves' return, which is seen by the National Park Service as a success in restoring natural balance, has drawn fire from ranchers and residents. A plan by Wyoming officials to allow unregulated hunting of wolves in some areas outside of the park — hunting is not allowed on Yellowstone lands — has been rejected by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
The wolves were expected to take a bite out of the northern herd, but the decline is greater than expected, says biologist John Vucetich of the Michigan Technical University in Houghton.
Hunters, who target elk that leave the park, have blamed the wolves. But researchers, including Vucetich, say the problem isn't that simple.
In an analysis in the current edition of the ecology journal Oikos, for example, Vucetich and park service colleagues examined weather, hunting and wolves as factors in the elk decline. Yellowstone has had seven years of drought and a severe winter in 1997 that killed many elk.
They found that weather and hunting are mostly to blame.
Biologist Mark Boyce of Canada's University of Alberta and colleagues reach similar conclusions in an upcoming paper in the journal EcologicalModeling. Montana increased the "hunter harvest" quota on elk that leave Yellowstone grounds, issuing a higher-than-ever 2,882 hunting permits in 2000. A decline in the elk herd was thus guaranteed, Boyce says, even if wolves were not present.
A review in the September Biological Conservation journal comes to a somewhat different conclusion. Authors P.J. White of the park service and Robert Garrott of Montana State University in Bozeman say wolves and hunters share the blame.
And the wolves influenced the behavior of Yellowstone's northern elk, Boyce says. For example, they have adopted protective strategies, such as moving more often and in larger groups.



U.S. Fish & Wildlife, AP file
Gray wolves could be one of the culprits behind a sharp decline in the Yellowstone region's elk population.


In the park, some biologists have suggested that increases in aspen, willows and cottonwoods may be the result of fewer elk foraging less often in areas where wolves lurk, White says.
Like every good mystery, a little-suspected culprit may be hiding in plain sight: bears.
In the Yellowstone Science journal, U.S. Geological Survey ecologist Dave Mech and his colleagues concluded this summer that "grizzly and black bears, rather than wolves, are having a greater impact on neonatal elk calf mortality than any other predator."
Zigzagging through fields where young elk lie, bears kill roughly six times more calves than wolves do, the ecologists found. Elk calves are uniquely vulnerable: They tend to stay in place near danger instead of running. In May and June, bears hunt through Northern Range calving areas for them, looking for an easy meal.
Grizzly bears are another Yellowstone-area success story that might have come at the expense of elk, Mech says. Since 1987, the predators' numbers have increased from 150 to more than 600 in the region, according to federal estimates, and many converge on the park's northern calving areas.
In fact, the grizzlies have done so well that the Interior Department has proposed taking the Yellowstone region's bears off the threatened species list under the Endangered Species Act. They've been on that list since 1975.
More years of watching wolves are needed to get a handle on the elk's decline, says Ken Hamlin of Montana's Fish, Wildlife & Parks department. He's inclined to blame the wolves, noting that elk in areas with few, or no, wolves, seem to do better. And species that wolves prey on far less often, such as mule deer and bison, haven't seen big drops in numbers, he says, despite going through the same drought and severe winters.
A steep drop in elk-hunting permits triggered by the herd's decline seemed to offer a chance to ascertain to what degree hunters have been responsible, Hamlin says. But wolf numbers also have dropped steeply in the park this year because of disease, throwing off the experiment.
"Nature just sticks her foot in there every time," Hamlin says. "We may never have any really final answers."

[TonTo]

"Nature just sticks her foot in there every time," Hamlin says. "We may never have any really final answers."

So the only thing they can realy say for certain is elk numbers are down,and wolf numbers are up
I do understand there are many other variables in each one of those reports...winter kill,winter survival,parvo,hunters,other predators...etc.,but the only thing they are positivly sure of is less elk on the northern range,and more wolves.

[Rank Amateur]

Amazing how that works. How come it didn't turn out the other way? I'm sure if we are willing to pony up more money they can find the answer someday.

[chinooklr]

"I don't believe this is true, Oregon's elk population is larger than Idaho's."

Sounds like an opinion the way you stated it. Do you have any sources for that data?

Also......is this total population, or huntable population? there are plenty of elk in WA too, but many live on feed lots, or places like the Hanford Reservation where you can't hunt.

---------------------------------------------------------

Raptor- RMEF published data, the most recent I could find today is from year 2000.

Oregon had 123,000 elk
Idaho had 110,000 elk
Interestingly enough, Wyoming only had 105,000 elk. Montana and Colorado are the only states with more elk than Oregon.

The population wasn't broken down for elk that lived on huntable land, but I would guess that in both Oregon and Idaho many elk live on ranches where yhey aren't harassed quite as often and have a ready supply of alfalfa to eat.I'm not aware of any wild elk living on feed lots in Oregon

[Quaka Wacka]

Mojo-
Actually I'm not mistaken. The first link is a HS link stating how they and 16 other organitsations filed lawsuits against the delisting of the grey wolves. I can put up more links of you are unable to find them yourself.
http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/wildlife_ne...ray_wolves.html

You also mentioned that hunting is better now but several Idaho biologists cited in a recent article disagree.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/p.../60611001/1002

And I never said Idaho was deviod of wildlife, but why would the Idaho dept of Fish and Game want to reduce the wolf population by 75% to help the elk if everything is as great as you say.

http://www.billingsgazette.com/newdex.ph...daho-wolves.inc

Most of the biologists say that the percieved "increase' in elk numbers since the wolf reintorduction is the result of the elk being run out of certain areas that the wolves are living in and therefor concentrated in others. The true damage will not be realized for several years. The wolves kill alot of calves. With fewer animals making it to adulthood the average age of the elk herds will increase. This means less breeding stock and a future reduction in calf production. The bottom line now is the elk populations are down and the wolf numbers are up. You can interpert that how ever you like, but it seems pretty clear to me. I understand that thier are many factors, but why complicate an already difficult situation.

Also, wolves definatly do not eat more small game. Any source you look up will tell you that thier main diet is ungulates, and in some areas as much as 90% of it elk.

I'm not completely opposed to wolf reintroduction, but I am opposed to it if the states are not allowed to manage thier own predator populations without the interference of those who are determined save the wolrd one predator at a time. Allow hound hunting and baiting and let the wolves come back as long as we are allowed to hunt them right along with the bears and cougars.

The long term effects are still unclear to some, but the majority of the information you gave was quite subjective.

[gottafish]

:lurk: :lurk: :lurk:

[Mojo]

Quaka Wacka,
Idaho is not being sued. The Federal Government is being sued.

Here is a link for you... Statesman Article

You make a good point about elk being wolves favorite prey. My point was it is often easier to catch small game.

I really think the best move here is for the individual states to take control of wolf management and manage the packs to best fit their place in the ecosystem. I garuntee there are may too may wolves in may places (and consequently low game numbers), but there are also hundreds of deer and elk carcasses from winter kill and disease in others (like 30 miles east of my home).

[Quaka Wacka]

I really think the best move here is for the individual states to take control of wolf management and manage the packs to best fit their place in the ecosystem. I garuntee there are may too may wolves in may places (and consequently low game numbers), but there are also hundreds of deer and elk carcasses from winter kill and disease in others (like 30 miles east of my home).

I agree. Let the states do thier job without interference form the public. If baiting and hound hunting are keeping the bear and cougar population in check, but still at sustainable levels, then let em be.

And you are right that the state is not technically getting sued but they are having to spend money and resources that could be used elsewhere to fight to manage thier own wildlife. And the end result is the same. Time and money wasted while more damage is done, after they have already recognized a problem.

The article you linked also supported what many of us have been saying. The longterm effects are still unclear, but the facts are; hunter success is down across the state, even though hunting is more resrictive. Some areas are having immeadiate negative effects on the elk population, while others will take time to tell. There are many factors effecting the overall elk health in the region(OR, WA and ID) changing habbitat(less open space/forage), developement, loss of witer range, etc. But adding another predator to a situation that is already unstable, and to tie the hands of Fish and Game until serious damage is done, is foolish at best.