How many elk do wolves eat in Yellowstone

[BuzzH]

So you're saying destroy the lions now, and bring in the wolves?

But also what about the proven theories of wolves killing animals for training the young? Then just leaving them? Such as the 19 elk killed in Idaho. Sure we are talking about how much they eat but not all kills.

What's also going to stop a pack of wolves from eating their 20lb fill per day if the food is accessible. Let's say they get onto the Gunnison basin winter range. That would be a simple easy kill zone for them where they could literally kill daily and eat all the meat they wanted. Are they going to set up rules where the wolves can't bother animals on the winter range like they have for us? Just the stress of wolves to those herds could kill even more deer and elk especially in a year like this year.

You don't hear about many lions getting on the basin and running animals to get their feed.

And to your question 8 lions OR 8 wolves I'll take the 8 lions. They are spread out more in the unit which means you don't have 8 lions hunting one herd. You have 8 lions hunting 8 different herds. A pack of 8 wolves is going to hunt 1 herd that's around 8-16 elk/deer a month for the pack out of a herd of let's say 40 2-3 months it's gone pack moves to the next herd, they do have a very wide range to move.

As to your first sentence, don't bust your leg jumping to conclusions that aren't there. Try looking at the habits of, and differences between lions and wolves and how they operate. Be subjective, not reactive.

You don't know much about either lions or wolves and how they impact herds...lions are much more concentrated on the landscape than wolves, and by a long damn shot. Wolf packs are very territorial and cover a much larger home range...lions, not so much.

But, feel free to continue the anti-wolf mantra...just be aware that you aren't talking to a "tourist"...far from it.

 

[BuzzH]

You may be able to bag 2 deer and elk in Idaho a year, but not in areas that the wolves have decimated the herds. Take a trip to the Lolo area and you will find few elk and deer, plenty of predators, bear and wolves. The elk and moose tags have been on a serious decline there, along with hunt success. I've spoken with outfitters there that no longer offer elk hunts as they have switched to bear hunting and F & G biologists that say the wolves have had a dramatic decrease since the reintroduction. F & G have also hired professional wolf hunters to trim the wolf packs.

I grew up in the Lolo area, much more going on there than just wolves...your own post provided one of the answers to part of the problem with elk, moose, and deer there.

Do you reckon any habitat changes have occurred in the Lolo in the last, oh, say 80-90 years?

 

[mntnguide]

Another note Buzz...the bitterroot and NW region on Montana where the study was conducted contains a far higher density of lions than the yellowstone region. It is lion country, big steep and nasty. So it is far easier for lions to hunt elk. Whereas the yellowstone region is rolling terrain without the predominate steep rugged aspect that lions love. I just don't believe wolves kill less elk than lions IN the greater yellowstone system. Other areas are obviously different. . Also that wolf data says per wolf..well there are 10-15 in a pack. . Lions don't kill a different elk every 2 days to equate to 15/month. The amount of lions in the Teton wilderness south of yellowstone is so low biologists don't even look for them, it's just not lion country. The Yellowstone region has had a similar population of lions for years, but the wolves are what have grown, while the elk have dwindled by thousands. I just don't think in THIS region your thoughts of lions being a predominate predator over wolves is valid

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Tim McCoy]

Interesting information on this thread. Can someone provide links to the lion studies? Would love to read up and learn.

Here is one. https://sites.google.com/site/mtemilycougarstudy/home Googling ODFW Cougar studies or Oregon cougar studies or the like should show more. Oregon has studied Cougars a number of times.

 

[Hilltop]

Question for Buzz- Trying to keep an open mind and learn. I'm still having a very hard time seeing the benefit to having wolf populations outside of Yellowstone, or other zones where hunting isn't allowed, unless the idea is to reduce the numbers that hunters have to harvest to keep herds at objective numbers. Can't hunters accomplish the management objectives?

 

[BuzzH]

Another note Buzz...the bitterroot and NW region on Montana where the study was conducted contains a far higher density of lions than the yellowstone region. It is lion country, big steep and nasty. So it is far easier for lions to hunt elk. Whereas the yellowstone region is rolling terrain without the predominate steep rugged aspect that lions love. I just don't believe wolves kill less elk than lions IN the greater yellowstone system. Other areas are obviously different. . Also that wolf data says per wolf..well there are 10-15 in a pack. . Lions don't kill a different elk every 2 days to equate to 15/month. The amount of lions in the Teton wilderness south of yellowstone is so low biologists don't even look for them, it's just not lion country. The Yellowstone region has had a similar population of lions for years, but the wolves are what have grown, while the elk have dwindled by thousands. I just don't think in THIS region your thoughts of lions being a predominate predator over wolves is valid

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

"Rolling" elk hunting country in the Yellowstone area?

You must be familiar with country I'm not savvy to...:

You may be right about predation right in Yellowstone, my guess is that neither wolves nor lions are the leading elk predator in Yellowstone park....

 

[480/277]

The once famous migration hunts in Wyoming are still famous, and highly sought after...elk are far from extinct around Jackson, last I checked.

Simply math tells me pre wolves there where 19,000 to 28,000 elk in the Jackson hole area. Depending on whose figures you want to use. Lions were around , wolves not. After intro of the wolves the population is estimated to be 3500-4500 again depending on whose figures you want to use .
I don't doubt lions kill elk as do bears. Just as they did pre wolf intro, but nobody can deny the math post wolf intro.
Simple math tells me the wolf was the X in elk populations. Your "logic" may differ.

 

[BuzzH]

Question for Buzz- Trying to keep an open mind and learn. I'm still having a very hard time seeing the benefit to having wolf populations outside of Yellowstone, or other zones where hunting isn't allowed, unless the idea is to reduce the numbers that hunters have to harvest to keep herds at objective numbers. Can't hunters accomplish the management objectives?

What's the benefit of lions? Black bears? Grizzly bears? Lynx? Bobcats?...

If you're going to head down the path of actual benefit...what benefit does ANY wildlife have? Who should decide a hierarchy and define "benefit" of one species over another?

I'm just not self-righteous, and arrogant enough to demand that every species of wildlife on the planet must meet my personal definition of "benefit".

I like having some bears, lions, wolverines, lynx, fishers, otters, marten, mink, bobcats, etc. etc. around...and I'm more than happy to share some prey to make sure that they survive into the future. You know, that whole idea of leaving the place more intact and better than you found it through species diversity and the habitat required of same.

If this whole hunting conservation thing, that we've been touting to the non-hunting majority, is going to boil down to hunters deciding to only care about the animals we can snare, trap, and run a hook or bullet through...we're doomed.

At that point, we wont find much cover from the poll of public opinion...and that's a road I'd rather not even start down.

 

[BuzzH]

Simply math tells me pre wolves there where 19,000 to 28,000 elk in the Jackson hole area. Depending on whose figures you want to use. Lions were around , wolves not. After intro of the wolves the population is estimated to be 3500-4500 again depending on whose figures you want to use .
I don't doubt lions kill elk as do bears. Just as they did pre wolf intro, but nobody can deny the math post wolf intro.
Simple math tells me the wolf was the X in elk populations. Your "logic" may differ.

In your math exercise, take into that every biologist in Montana and Wyoming realized that the 19K elk number was not healthy. Also, use that math on the grizzly population of Yellowstone during the same time period.

Don't forget that the habitat in the late 80's-early 90's created pretty favorable conditions for a higher elk population. Not so much nearly 30 years after the '88 fires. Plant succession matters...big-time.

Of course the other big dead...well, cow elk in the room, is the huge number of antlerless elk permits that were issued up through about 1997-98 in the face of declining elk numbers...not very proactive on the part of the MTFWP. Don't just level the plane...keep it in a nose-dive for a decade longer.

 

[ivorytip]

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2013/08/two-wolves-kill-176-sheep-1-night-near-idaho-falls I'm trying to find any story anywhere where Lions have caused this much damage, and over night at that. wolves have a much much much bigger impact over just elk and deer and ungulates ect.... sorry Eastmans, this wasn't a plug for ODL by any means.

 

[Hilltop]

What's the benefit of lions? Black bears? Grizzly bears? Lynx? Bobcats?...

If you're going to head down the path of actual benefit...what benefit does ANY wildlife have? Who should decide a hierarchy and define "benefit" of one species over another?

I'm just not self-righteous, and arrogant enough to demand that every species of wildlife on the planet must meet my personal definition of "benefit".

I like having some bears, lions, wolverines, lynx, fishers, otters, marten, mink, bobcats, etc. etc. around...and I'm more than happy to share some prey to make sure that they survive into the future. You know, that whole idea of leaving the place more intact and better than you found it through species diversity and the habitat required of same.

If this whole hunting conservation thing, that we've been touting to the non-hunting majority, is going to boil down to hunters deciding to only care about the animals we can snare, trap, and run a hook or bullet through...we're doomed.

At that point, we wont find much cover from the poll of public opinion...and that's a road I'd rather not even start down.

I hear your point and care deeply about 99% of all wildlife- but the wolf doesn't fit in my mind the same way. Maybe it's because they are being forced back on the terrain by people who don't have to live through the impacts? I can't help but think the anti-hunting community views wolves as the "management techinique" that can fill the hunters void if they can ban hunting all together. I do appreciate hearing the other side- thank you.

 

[ivorytip]

Buzz, I hear ya. I think its awesome being able to see a wolf or wolves in the backcountry, and lions, bears and the others. I personally am just not a fan of how rapidly they are populating. when I see one, I will shoot it.

 

[gypsumreaper]

I have also never seen a lion kill for "sport". Also buzz you stated earlier that a cat kills 1 animal per week for a total of 5-6 per month. That math does not add up. As well as lions will kill and eat then not have to eat for up to a week. So that will cut down the number of kills per month. Yes big Toms have been recorded to kill more than a wolf. But the females with kittens were at 1/2 of the kills as a mature tom.

I'm not all about killing off every wolf, they need to be kept in check. As do the lions, which they are kept pretty well in check. Colorado is in a current fight with wolf reintroduction. I have followed some of these operations to view their take on the wolf introduction. One part that seemed to be common in every environmental groups fight was the wolves would manage the ungulate populations which would in turn reduce the amount of hunters. That to me is the wrong reason to want wolves.

I look at how the Colorado herds are at a pretty steady number around 450,000 elk, but the deer are always in a fight and have been since 2007. Why do we want to throw in another apex predator. Deer tags in Colorado are already at a draw only basis. With wolf reintroduction this could drop tags for elk into the same category. This would make my business harder to run, as well as put a damper on the $910,000,000 state revenue brought to Colorado for hunting. Yes that is a ton of money but with less hunting opportunities, that money doesn't come in as high. In return the CPW and USFS will have to cut back funding again.

There are many fights over this entire subject, especially bringing in lions, grizzlies, wolves, bobcats, any predator but the fact of the matter is what are wolves doing after reintroduction. Some areas it may have been good other areas, they have done bad. In his fight if we are going off the basis of wolves we're here once already so it can survive then we might as well reintroduce grizzlies as well. Bring back all the native animals then cut off hunting because they will be able to manage the eco system themselves.

My fight is we had grizzlies, lions, wolves in Colorado then Colorado was settled and the herds almost disappeared, yes much of this was no hunter conservation back in the early 1900's but with all these predators including hunters tags will be cut no more OTC elk for archery 2nd or 3rd it will all be draw and tags could turn into the same as other states of draw only.

 

[BuzzH]

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2013/08/two-wolves-kill-176-sheep-1-night-near-idaho-falls I'm trying to find any story anywhere where Lions have caused this much damage, and over night at that. wolves have a much much much bigger impact over just elk and deer and ungulates ect.... sorry Eastmans, this wasn't a plug for ODL by any means.

The last resort is to compare domestic sheep trampling each other...with impacts to deer and elk?

I'm not in the habit of comparing an apple to an aardvark...

 

[ivorytip]

The last resort is to compare domestic sheep trampling each other...with impacts to deer and elk?

I'm not in the habit of comparing an apple to an aardvark...

No buzz, its about the wolf and if the wolf is worth keeping around. You seem to be very passionate about wolves. That's cool, I get that. But with the wolf comes bigger problems than just deer and elk. As I'm sure every avid hunter will agree. Every avid hunter that hunts (unguided, public lands) in wolf country. Big bad wolf causes much more damage than your willing to admit. Not bringing up livestock when talking about wolves would be..... Aragont and self righteous. Just keeping things on an even playing field. You bring a lot of insight on this topic but its all insight in your favor. Im sorry but the number and stats game is so over used and not completely accurate.

 

[ivorytip]

Original post was about wolf kills in Yellowstone. Wasn't about lions at all. So it seems to me that you are comparing apples to an aardvark.

 

[BuzzH]

Maybe it's because they are being forced back on the terrain by people who don't have to live through the impacts? I can't help but think the anti-hunting community views wolves as the "management techinique" that can fill the hunters void if they can ban hunting all together. I do appreciate hearing the other side- thank you.

The only problem with that theory, is that if that's really what the "other side" thinks, they're also going to lose their a$$ in the poll of public opinion...not to mention that their theory simply isn't working. Wyoming has record populations of elk and has set harvest records in the last few years...and hunter opportunity and success is higher than its ever been. Like I already pointed out, there is MORE hunter opportunity in MT, ID, WY, CO, NM, AZ for elk now, than there was 20+ years ago. That's a fact, not a guess.

I'm not telling you to not believe your theory, or that maybe that is the "other sides" end game...the problem is, the facts just don't point that direction. Facts do, still matter. They also aren't getting their way on wolf management either, at least not in ID, MT, and hopefully WY now. We're still on the high ground, and I don't intend to surrender it to uninformed bar-stool talk from the "only good wolf is a dead wolf" morons, any more than I intend to surrender it to an anti-hunter.

IMO, hunters are better than that...at least I hope we're still better than that. Some of the things I read and see...really give me pause that we're starting down the low road that isn't going to favor our history of conservation ethics.

Time to refocus on what we've done the best, better than anyone else, and that's conservation of ALL wildlife, not just those that we hunt, fish, and trap.

 

[BuzzH]

No buzz, its about the wolf and if the wolf is worth keeping around. You seem to be very passionate about wolves. That's cool, I get that. But with the wolf comes bigger problems than just deer and elk. As I'm sure every avid hunter will agree. Every avid hunter that hunts (unguided, public lands) in wolf country. Big bad wolf causes much more damage than your willing to admit. Not bringing up livestock when talking about wolves would be..... Aragont and self righteous. Just keeping things on an even playing field. You bring a lot of insight on this topic but its all insight in your favor. Im sorry but the number and stats game is so over used and not completely accurate.

I'm passionate about all wildlife, from humming birds to musk ox.

I'm also not denying that wolves have impacts, can you point to where I ever downplayed what impacts wolves have? Pointing out peer-reviewed science that other things impact elk more than wolves, is not a deviation from the topic of predator impacts on elk...no more than posting the number of elk killed by people.

I think you went out in the weeds with the domestic sheep article, but if you want, we can talk about how domestic animals impact wildlife too...and it comes from a lot of different angles. Not talking about the impacts that domestic dogs, cats, cattle, sheep, domestic goats, horses, etc. etc. have on our wildlife would, indeed, be arrogant and self-righteous not to discuss. I agree 100% with you.

Ready to talk about it?

 

[480/277]

Buzz we do need the wolf. My three favorite sounds in the wild are an elk bugle , wolves howling, and loons on a lake. Having seen a wolf attack a herd of caribou in the Hoholitna in Alaska will stay with me until I die. Wild places are less wild without the wolf.

There are benefits to the wolf in the Yellowstone region. The first time I hunted elk in the Hoback , I thought to myself that the feed grounds were a recipe for a huge population correction. It's just not natural to have that many elk concentrated in an area like that. A lot of the riparian habitat was over browsed . Post wolf introduction much of that habitat is in better shape.

The problem I have is not following the original management planned for the numbers of wolves in Yellowstone. Without the ability to manage them . I don't want to see the wolf erradicated . I do want to see them in balance and within original management population models.

 

[dan maule]

Buzz we do need the wolf. My three favorite sounds in the wild are an elk bugle , wolves howling, and loons on a lake. Having seen a wolf attack a herd of caribou in the Hoholitna in Alaska will stay with me until I die. Wild places are less wild without the wolf.

There are benefits to the wolf in the Yellowstone region. The first time I hunted elk in the Hoback , I thought to myself that the feed grounds were a recipe for a huge population correction. It's just not natural to have that many elk concentrated in an area like that. A lot of the riparian habitat was over browsed . Post wolf introduction much of that habitat is in better shape.

The problem I have is not following the original management planned for the numbers of wolves in Yellowstone. Without the ability to manage them . I don't want to see the wolf erradicated . I do want to see them in balance and within original management population models.

Agree, here in Upper Michigan the courts have removed the hunting season even after wolves were declared "recovered". I like the possibility of seeing and potentially harvesting a wolf. However if they are not allowed to be properly managed any species will become problematic. There are people I know in sections of the UP who have basically given up deer hunting because they see more wolves than deer. It is not the wolf that worries me it is the favoritism this species is shown that causes me concern.