How many elk do wolves eat in Yellowstone

xtreme

Very Active Member
Feb 25, 2011
859
4
Searcy, Arkansas 72143
From the ranching view, none of the predators are welcome. Two days ago I lost my second calf in a row from coyote predation. All toll, I am sure to be north of $20,000. from coyotes. I am awaiting a call from Arkansas Game and Fish. Going to see if they will help. The Mexican buzzard also gets its share. These are valuable cattle, not just commercial grade cattle. Coyotes are having a severe impact on me and I can just image a western cattleman and all the wolf, bear and cats do to his herd. I don't get compensated however. My friend lost a calf to buzzards and is being compensated $1500. That money comes from somewhere. Why is it so important to impose the wolf on the world that had them gone?
 

BuzzH

Very Active Member
Apr 15, 2015
909
952
From a ranching standpoint, our deer, elk, pronghorn, etc. are not welcome either in many cases.

A wolf kills an elk and everyone's hair is on fire...the Montana legislature kills them by the thousands via passing legislation to hold them at extremely low objective numbers...and nobody says a word.

But, the wolf gets all the blame...you cant script this kind of irony.
 

gypsumreaper

Active Member
Mar 13, 2014
308
0
Actually buzz I know very very many ranchers that love the elk, deer and pronghorn.

Buzz are you a rancher?
 

BuzzH

Very Active Member
Apr 15, 2015
909
952
Actually buzz I know very very many ranchers that love the elk, deer and pronghorn.

Buzz are you a rancher?
I know many, many ranchers that don't like elk, deer, and pronghorn...call your local biologist and ask if they get many landowner complaints about our wildlife...

How is my being, or not being, a rancher relevant?
 

gypsumreaper

Active Member
Mar 13, 2014
308
0
Around here there is basically 0 rancher complaints about the wildlife. Ranchers use them as a second income with landowner tags.
If the ranchers you know have such a problem with them it's because they haven't made the move to accept them and make areas where the animals can't get to their hay. That's the biggest problem ranchers have with wildlife is eating their winter hay, but some won't use the accessories to make their hay pens inaccessible to wildlife.

Me asking if you are a rancher was just a simple question. I wanted to know what your ranching experience was with how you stated from a ranching standpoint.
 
Last edited:

gypsumreaper

Active Member
Mar 13, 2014
308
0
I also found this interesting, seems the only thing that benefited from the reintroduction was the beavers.

Scientists have been researching and studying the impacts on the Yellowstone ecosystem since re-introduction in 1995.

As the wolf population in the park has grown, the elk population, their favored prey, has declined. Prior to reintroduction, the EIS predicted that wolves would kill an average 12 elk per wolf annually. This estimate proved too low as wolves are now killing an average of 22 elk per wolf annually.[29] This decline in elk has resulted in changes in flora, most specifically willows, cottonwoods and aspens along the fringes of heavily timbered areas. Although wolf kills are directly attributable to declines in elk numbers, some research has shown that elk behavior has been significantly altered by wolf predation. The constant presence of wolves have pushed elk into less favorable habitats, raised their stress level, lowered their nutrition and their overall birth rate.[30]

The wolves became significant predators of coyotes after their reintroduction. Since then, in 1995 and 1996, the local coyote population went through a dramatic restructuring. Until the wolves returned, Yellowstone National Park had one of the densest and most stable coyote populations in America due to a lack of human impacts. Two years after the wolf reintroductions, the pre-wolf population of coyotes had been reduced to 50% through both competitive exclusion and intraguild predation. Coyote numbers were 39% lower in the areas of Yellowstone where wolves were reintroduced. In one study, about 16% of radio-collared coyotes were preyed upon by wolves. Yellowstone coyotes have had to shift their territories as a result, moving from open meadows to steep terrain. Carcasses in the open no longer attract coyotes; when a coyote is chased on flat terrain, it is often killed. They feel more secure on steep terrain where they will often lead a pursuing wolf downhill. As the wolf comes after it, the coyote will turn around and run uphill. Wolves, being heavier, cannot stop and the coyote gains a large lead. Though physical confrontations between the two species are usually dominated by the larger wolves, coyotes have been known to attack wolves if they outnumber them. Both species will kill each other's pups given the opportunity.[31][32]

Coyotes, in their turn, naturally suppress foxes, so the diminished coyote population has led to a rise in foxes, and "That in turn shifts the odds of survival for coyote prey such as hares and young deer, as well as for the small rodents and ground-nesting birds the foxes stalk. These changes affect how often certain roots, buds, seeds and insects get eaten, which can alter the balance of local plant communities, and so on down the food chain all the way to fungi and microbes." [33]

The presence of wolves has also coincided with a dramatic rise in the park's beaver population; where there was just one beaver colony in Yellowstone in 2001, there were nine beaver colonies in the park by 2011. The presence of wolves seems to have encouraged elk to browse more widely, diminishing their pressure on stands of willow, a plant that beavers need to survive the winter.[34] The renewed presence of beavers in the ecosystem has substantial effects on the local watershed because the existence of beaver dams "even out the seasonal pulses of runoff; store water for recharging the water table; and provide cold, shaded water for fish."[35] Beaver dams also counter erosion and create "new pond and marsh habitats for moose, otters, mink, wading birds, waterfowl, fish, amphibians and more."[33]

Wolf kills are scavenged by and thus feed a wide array of animals, including, but not limited to, ravens, wolverines, bald eagles, golden eagles, grizzly bears, black bears, jays, magpies, martens and coyotes.[33]

Meanwhile, wolf packs often claim kills made by cougars, which has driven that species back out of valley hunting grounds to their more traditional mountainside territory.[33]

The top-down effect of the reintroduction of an apex predator like the wolf on other flora and fauna in an ecosystem is an example of a trophic cascade.

Cited from WIKIPEDIA. History of Wolves in Yellowstone.
 

BuzzH

Very Active Member
Apr 15, 2015
909
952
Around here there is basically 0 rancher complaints about the wildlife. Ranchers use them as a second income with landowner tags.
If the ranchers you know have such a problem with them it's because they haven't made the move to accept them and make areas where the animals can't get to their hay. That's the biggest problem ranchers have with wildlife is eating their winter hay, but some won't use the accessories to make their hay pens inaccessible to wildlife.
Come on, I already told you I'm not a tourist. I bet I can call every single district DOW office in Colorado and find multiple wildlife complaints.

Do you really think I'm that unaware of what goes on in Colorado?
 

BuzzH

Very Active Member
Apr 15, 2015
909
952
I also found this interesting, seems the only thing that benefited from the reintroduction was the beavers.

Scientists have been researching and studying the impacts on the Yellowstone ecosystem since re-introduction in 1995.

As the wolf population in the park has grown, the elk population, their favored prey, has declined. Prior to reintroduction, the EIS predicted that wolves would kill an average 12 elk per wolf annually. This estimate proved too low as wolves are now killing an average of 22 elk per wolf annually.[29] This decline in elk has resulted in changes in flora, most specifically willows, cottonwoods and aspens along the fringes of heavily timbered areas. Although wolf kills are directly attributable to declines in elk numbers, some research has shown that elk behavior has been significantly altered by wolf predation. The constant presence of wolves have pushed elk into less favorable habitats, raised their stress level, lowered their nutrition and their overall birth rate.[30]

The wolves became significant predators of coyotes after their reintroduction. Since then, in 1995 and 1996, the local coyote population went through a dramatic restructuring. Until the wolves returned, Yellowstone National Park had one of the densest and most stable coyote populations in America due to a lack of human impacts. Two years after the wolf reintroductions, the pre-wolf population of coyotes had been reduced to 50% through both competitive exclusion and intraguild predation. Coyote numbers were 39% lower in the areas of Yellowstone where wolves were reintroduced. In one study, about 16% of radio-collared coyotes were preyed upon by wolves. Yellowstone coyotes have had to shift their territories as a result, moving from open meadows to steep terrain. Carcasses in the open no longer attract coyotes; when a coyote is chased on flat terrain, it is often killed. They feel more secure on steep terrain where they will often lead a pursuing wolf downhill. As the wolf comes after it, the coyote will turn around and run uphill. Wolves, being heavier, cannot stop and the coyote gains a large lead. Though physical confrontations between the two species are usually dominated by the larger wolves, coyotes have been known to attack wolves if they outnumber them. Both species will kill each other's pups given the opportunity.[31][32]

Coyotes, in their turn, naturally suppress foxes, so the diminished coyote population has led to a rise in foxes, and "That in turn shifts the odds of survival for coyote prey such as hares and young deer, as well as for the small rodents and ground-nesting birds the foxes stalk. These changes affect how often certain roots, buds, seeds and insects get eaten, which can alter the balance of local plant communities, and so on down the food chain all the way to fungi and microbes." [33]

The presence of wolves has also coincided with a dramatic rise in the park's beaver population; where there was just one beaver colony in Yellowstone in 2001, there were nine beaver colonies in the park by 2011. The presence of wolves seems to have encouraged elk to browse more widely, diminishing their pressure on stands of willow, a plant that beavers need to survive the winter.[34] The renewed presence of beavers in the ecosystem has substantial effects on the local watershed because the existence of beaver dams "even out the seasonal pulses of runoff; store water for recharging the water table; and provide cold, shaded water for fish."[35] Beaver dams also counter erosion and create "new pond and marsh habitats for moose, otters, mink, wading birds, waterfowl, fish, amphibians and more."[33]

Wolf kills are scavenged by and thus feed a wide array of animals, including, but not limited to, ravens, wolverines, bald eagles, golden eagles, grizzly bears, black bears, jays, magpies, martens and coyotes.[33]

Meanwhile, wolf packs often claim kills made by cougars, which has driven that species back out of valley hunting grounds to their more traditional mountainside territory.[33]

The top-down effect of the reintroduction of an apex predator like the wolf on other flora and fauna in an ecosystem is an example of a trophic cascade.

Cited from WIKIPEDIA. History of Wolves in Yellowstone.


The ONLY thing that benefited is beavers? Not according to the science, including what you just posted.
 

gypsumreaper

Active Member
Mar 13, 2014
308
0
The ONLY thing that benefited is beavers? Not according to the science, including what you just posted.
O ur right and the wolves benefited to,

And yes you can call and find complaints but many of them right here in my area don't care one way or another. They took precautions to secure their hay. And I never said you were a tourist.

I also found this article interesting from 2014 as it outlined mostly what the 104 wolves in Yellowstone killed in a 4 month period.

https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/wolfmgnt.htm
 
Last edited:

BuzzH

Very Active Member
Apr 15, 2015
909
952
Bottom line is that wolves aren't impacting things nearly to the level that anyone says...whether its elk predation, livestock predation, etc.

Many other things kill elk, nobody wants to talk about it. Other predators have significant impacts on elk, nobody wants to talk about. Legislators have impacts, nobody wants to talk about it.

We should kill all wolves because they kill some domestic sheep...even though APHIS data clearly shows that fido, the domestic dog, kills 4 times as many as wolves on an annual basis. Mountain lions kill more domestic sheep a year than wolves, so do coyotes, as do bobcats. Hell, eagles kill only 300 less per year than wolves!

Nobody is advocating to kill every last domestic dog, every lion, every eagle, bobcat, etc. but yet, plenty want wolves off the landscape because they kill some domestic sheep?

Its strange how facts never enter into the equation in these wolf discussions...raw emotion and nothing more.

Facts still matter...at least to me.
 
Last edited:

BuzzH

Very Active Member
Apr 15, 2015
909
952
I also found this article interesting from 2014 as it outlined mostly what the 104 wolves in Yellowstone killed in a 4 month period.

https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/wolfmgnt.htm
That's actually a lot less per wolf than the FEIS predicted as ungulate predation goes. Also, much less than other peer-reviewed science would suggest.

The FEIS predicted 12 ungulates per year per wolf...other research has it closer to 22 ungulates per year per wolf.

The data you provided...196 ungulates over 4 months killed by 104 wolves.

Advanced math 196/4=49 per month

More advanced math 49/104=.47 per month/wolf

.47x12 months=roughly 6 per year per wolf. That's pretty low compared to what other data suggests, but its the data you provided.

Contrast that with lions that kill one ungulate a week on average...52 per year.

Wolves aren't having the impact that lions are, in particular when you look at the number of lions on the landscape compared to wolves.
 
Last edited:

gypsumreaper

Active Member
Mar 13, 2014
308
0
This isn't about lions, you keep bringing that up. And your numbers are across the board with lions in trying to follow but you go from 9000 lbs of meat a year to, 1 per week to, 5-6 a month. Therefore rarely any of your math with lion hunting adds up.

I'm saying that Colorados eco system survived before with, wolves and lions. Then we showed up, and it wasn't standing with 3 predators, the wolves were taken out so it was lions and humans. And I'm taking killing predators not bears or coyotes or bobcats who sometimes kill ungulates. The elk and deer herds began coming back. Coincidence with the wolves leaving and more conservation efforts maybe. But even now Colorados deer herds are on the decline. Elk herds are pretty stable. There is a lot of hunting opportunity for anyone in Colorado, for elk and deer. With wolves brought back into the picture there's no doubt that the herds would suffer. The Maroon bells wilderness is a prime candidate for wolf reintroduction, the wilderness runs right into Gunnison basin. Where there is a huge wintering ground for deer and elk, you don't think the wolves wouldn't follow the herds to wintering grounds?

Then as all research shows and I believe you have pointed out, the wolves will take out the weak and sick animals. Well in a year like this year in Gunnison that would have been a lot of killing. Research has also shown the harder the winter the more the wolves can hunt and kill because the ungulates are easier targets.

Also in a harsh winter like this past year stress to the game was a huge concern which is why the area is always closed off all winter to human traffic. My other article stated the wolves caused extra stress to the game during the winter, pushing them into different areas. How would that be beneficial to the game? They don't want to be in the open anymore cause of the wolves so they move to the trees where there's less forage and more snow?

The wolves may not have as much impact on the herds as lions, but it's gonna have to be one or the other. So let's get rid of lions and throw wolves in then, when wolves can't keep up with the predation as lions did before, here comes the govt as you've stated before to mass eradicate herds to keep them in check. So leave it how it is, no wolves in Colorado let me rephrase that no federal or even state managed wolves in Colorado. Keep them up north I don't care if you love them that much you can have them. But my fight has been to keep them out of Colorado. And no I do not support federally or state managed wolves. That didn't work in Yellowstone either, even the environmentalists said the park could sustain 78 wolves, well here comes the 78 wolf mark and we surpassed that because everyone loved them so much. Yet the elk herd still dwindled, And more wolves are kept around. You can't trust anyone to manage them correctly because they are going to side with the money aspect of it and usually many environmental groups have more money.
 

BuzzH

Very Active Member
Apr 15, 2015
909
952
Averages are what they are...the common reference to how many ungulates a lion kills is about 1 per week per lion. I've read studies that suggest some large toms kill a deer every 4-5 days. Some kill less often. Wolves I've read ranges of (low end) by what you provided about 6 per year...to a high of 22 per year per wolf.

The 9K pounds of ungulates killed by lions is pretty well in line with 52 per year...assuming that the average weight of an ungulate killed by a lion is 175lbs. That's right at 52 per year. Of course, elk calves don't weigh 175lbs when they're a month old, many 6 month old mule deer are not 100lbs either. Of course adult elk weigh much more than 175lbs. Lions that feed exclusively on elk, they likely kill much more than the average of 9k lbs/year...other that feed on primarily whitetail does...likely much less.

The science clearly though, whether you want to talk about lbs/year, ungulates a year, etc. all take you to the same place...lions kill a chit ton more ungulates per year than wolves, and by a landslide.

As to the rest of your last post, I'm fine with you wanting to keep wolves out of Colorado. The rest is just conjecture on your part, that's fine too.

Personally, I look at all these issues subjectively, and at the facts. Many don't, you aren't alone in that and that's fine too.

I wont apologize for being much more inclined to believe facts over conjecture...every single time.

BTW, it doesn't have to be one or the other with wolves and lions...want proof?

Look at MT, ID, WY for your answer...WY NR elk applications are up over 3k from just 3 years ago. Not bad for a state where the "wolves ate all the elk".

Also fair to note, if the wolves ate all the elk in Wyoming, the math doesn't pencil out why elk are at record numbers, we're averaging 40% success on elk, and setting harvest records.

Those pesky facts again...
 
Last edited:

Hilltop

Veteran member
Feb 25, 2014
3,847
2,230
Eastern Nebraska
To me the white elephant in the room that isn't really discussed anymore is the difference between the native species and the introduced species. Not saying the following article is gospel but this information is out there everywhere in varying degrees. Those of you in the know have all probably read this but I felt like it was a good read;

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwio5Jfwmv_SAhXHx4MKHfdNB3gQFggaMAA&url=http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2011/01/21/native-rocky-mountain-wolves-v-introduced-canadian-gray-wolves/&usg=AFQjCNHAlWorWDQWWrlL_FJG2lB0VTqcyg

To me this is like introducing piranha in waters to replace trout. Bad analogy but you get my point.
 
Last edited:

kidoggy

Veteran member
Apr 23, 2016
9,847
10,860
58
idaho
Bottom line is that wolves aren't impacting things nearly to the level that anyone says...whether its elk predation, livestock predation, etc.

Many other things kill elk, nobody wants to talk about it. Other predators have significant impacts on elk, nobody wants to talk about. Legislators have impacts, nobody wants to talk about it.

We should kill all wolves because they kill some domestic sheep...even though APHIS data clearly shows that fido, the domestic dog, kills 4 times as many as wolves on an annual basis. Mountain lions kill more domestic sheep a year than wolves, so do coyotes, as do bobcats. Hell, eagles kill only 300 less per year than wolves!

Nobody is advocating to kill every last domestic dog, every lion, every eagle, bobcat, etc. but yet, plenty want wolves off the landscape because they kill some domestic sheep?

Its strange how facts never enter into the equation in these wolf discussions...raw emotion and nothing more.

Facts still matter...at least to me.

lol. facts don't matter to you, throwing out fuzzy facts does.
only fact that matters is , when wolves are introduced ,elk herds decline
 

BuzzH

Very Active Member
Apr 15, 2015
909
952
To me the white elephant in the room that isn't really discussed anymore is the difference between the native species and the introduced species. Not saying the following article is gospel but this information is out there everywhere in varying degrees. Those of you in the know have all probably read this but I felt like it was a good read;

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwio5Jfwmv_SAhXHx4MKHfdNB3gQFggaMAA&url=http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2011/01/21/native-rocky-mountain-wolves-v-introduced-canadian-gray-wolves/&usg=AFQjCNHAlWorWDQWWrlL_FJG2lB0VTqcyg

To me this is like introducing piranha in waters to replace trout. Bad analogy but you get me point.
Less fact in that than the national enquirer.
 

gypsumreaper

Active Member
Mar 13, 2014
308
0
Personally, I look at all these issues subjectively, and at the facts. Many don't, you aren't alone in that and that's fine too.


You say that I am looking at this subjectively without facts, yet I have posted several articles that have shown the FACTS that the elk declined in Yellowstone upon reintroduction.

You are literally a im right you're wrong regardless type of person. Your beliefs are the way it is and everyone else is wrong in their opinion even with facts hat show otherwise.

I am still trying to figure out how you figure an elk provides 175lbs of meat roughly. Yes maybe for a humans consumption that's an average, but wolves and lions both eat internal organs what's a gut pile weigh? As well as slicking a carcass as you have said, puts all kinds of face meat, neck meat, rib meat, that isn't always harvested by all hunters. You have also left out the fact that many lions will go 7-9 days on average after a harvest before their next harvest.

The other fact is wolves killing for sport that is never once been brought up, how about the 19 elk killed in Idaho overnight and not a single one was eaten on by the wolves? Sure that doesn't go towards your wolf yearly harvest fact, but has been proven wolves kill for sport, this is a fact that most wolf lovers leave out of the equation. I have never seen a fact of lions killing for sport.