# Wolves (holy cow another wolf thread!)



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Im just gonna put this right here:

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=18706250&nid=1012&title=study-yellowstone-wolves-help-trees-rebound

o-||


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Wolves*



> About 100 now roam the park, and elk numbers have dropped sharply.


I think their numbers are off a little bit.


----------



## hatuquack (Nov 15, 2011)

*Re: Wolves*

Who'd have thunk it. Wolves eat birds too, don't they. LOL


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

> As fewer elk allows the trees to rebound, Ripple says they are providing new habitat for songbirds and more food for beavers.


Are grouse or chukars considered songbirds? If so, go wolves!


----------



## Markthehunter88 (Nov 5, 2010)

I went to post this same link HA! 

THIS MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL!!!! :evil:


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

Well thats more ammo for the wolf lovers.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Bax* said:


> Im just gonna put this right here:
> 
> http://www.ksl.com/?sid=18706250&nid=1012&title=study-yellowstone-wolves-help-trees-rebound
> 
> o-||


Maybe, maybe not. Funny thing about studies, they can be quite diverse of opinion...



> Behaviorally mediated trophic cascades (BMTCs) occur when the fear of predation among herbivores enhances plant productivity. Based primarily on systems involving small-bodied predators, BMTCs have been proposed as both strong and ubiquitous in natural ecosystems. Recently, however, synthetic work has suggested that the existence of BMTCs may be mediated by predator hunting mode, whereby passive (sit-and-wait) predators have much stronger effects than active (coursing) predators.
> 
> Read More: http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/09-1949.1





> Finally, in an experimental test of the BMTC hypothesis we found that the impacts of elk browsing on aspen demography are not diminished in sites where elk are at higher risk of predation by wolves. These findings suggest the need to further evaluate how trophic cascades are mediated by predator-prey life history and ecological context.


http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/09-1949.1

Note to mods: The wolf is now a hunted big game animal in Idaho and Montana, and I would think, very soon in other states. I think it might serve the forum well to keep posts about wolves here in the biggame section. o-||


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

It was in the big game section initially.... Goob, did you have a hand in this mischief?


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Bax* said:


> Im just gonna put this right here:
> 
> http://www.ksl.com/?sid=18706250&nid=1012&title=study-yellowstone-wolves-help-trees-rebound
> 
> o-||


Good call Baxter. It was either Great Outdoors or in Humor.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> ........................................
> http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/09-1949.1
> 
> Note to mods: The wolf is now a hunted big game animal in Idaho and Montana, and I would think, very soon in other states. I think it might serve the forum well to keep posts about wolves here in the biggame section. o-||


Same could be said about bears I guess, they are in Other kinds of animals too. Might as well put coyotes in with Big Game too, hell they can single-handily take down any mature buck deer. On the other hand using your logic looking at neighboring states like WY, AZ, and NV that, like UT, that do not hunt wolves, one could say we to put wolves in with Other kinds of animals, because they are not Big Game in UT, AZ, WY or NV.

Be creative like alot of our members, put up a wolf post and throw in some pics with elk, antelope, impala, moose or a Cape buffalo. A nice chart showing decreasing mule deer numbers and no one will bother you. Some wolf vs big game rhetoric on the lead sentence helps. Please don't mention white-tailed deer, they are getting along just fine with wolves in Minnesota. A quick way to get in is to go back one page in big game and cut and paste some wolf chatter, know one will know, I haven't got called on it yet. Uh...no one reads my posts though. 

I think we've been pretty lenient about it. We just can't put everything in big game.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Bax* said:


> It was in the big game section initially.... Goob, did you have a hand in this mischief?


No, not this time.

This is the heading for Other kinds of Animals:

*Other kinds of animals
Bears, cougars, furbearers, wolves, nonprotected animals, varmits*


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Well by golly it is. Maybe we should keep wolves in red to clarify for ignorant members such as myself


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

Remember fellas, this is only a study of wolves in Yellowstone NP, a place where no human harvest occurs. My question is is this study even applicable outside the park boundries where human hunting keeps the elk population in check??


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Bax* said:


> Well by golly it is. Maybe we should keep wolves in red to clarify for ignorant members such as myself


That's not a bad idea. Like I said, we've been pretty lenient with this stuff. But during the doldrums of winter the Big game section becomes a catch-all for all manner of threads.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Kevin D said:


> Remember fellas, this is only a study of wolves in Yellowstone NP, a place where no human harvest occurs. My question is is this study even applicable outside the park boundries where human hunting keeps the elk population in check??


When wolves were introduced in 95/96 there were approximately 18,000 elk in YNP. 
2008 - 6,700 elk estimated
2009 - 6,300 elk estimated
2010 - 7,100 elk estimated

Many of the elk in YNP are hunted to some extent, even today with low herd numbers. Thru the years Wyoming and Montana game departments have tried to managed the large herds of elk that migrate out of the park to get away from the deep snow by special hunts, more tags, and longer seasons close to the park. The hunts on the Jackson elk feedground, Pacific Creek and the Grand Teton NP are good examples. The hunts were designed to help keep the YNP elk herd(s) in check. They were (are) quite a sight to see, though they say the numbers are small these days.

I am curious about the study's findings. I walked across the Park from NW to SE, 78 miles, a few years ago and it was easy to see that the '88 fire had created an ocean of new quakie growth in many places. And there were elk around the quakies; wolves too. Grayling Creek would be a good example. It looked as though there was no possible way that 18,000 elk could even put a dent in all the new growth. I don't remember seeing evidence of elk feeding that heavily on trees that much. They seemed to favor broadleaf plants in the conifer burns.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

wyogoob said:


> When wolves were introduced in 95/96 there were approximately 18,000 elk in YNP.
> 2008 - 6,700 elk estimated
> 2009 - 6,300 elk estimated
> 2010 - 7,100 elk estimated


For my own personal education, Goob do you have any figures on the elk population in YNP for the decade up to the time they (the wolves) were released? I would be interested in seeing how much of the population has been affected since the introduction of wolves. Also, anyone have any information on winter kill post introduction of wolves?

This is purely for my education, but I think it would be an interesting bit of data to consider


----------



## Petersen (Sep 7, 2007)

Well, I might as well admit to being the one who moved the thread, but I left a shadow thread to it in the Big Game forum. As Wyogoob said, there's constant pressure for everything to go into the Big Game forum, which takes traffic away from the other forums, which causes even more pressure for everything to go in the big game forum.

I put it in the Great Outdoors forum instead of the Other Animals forum because it's about more than wolves — it's about changes to an entire ecosystem from trees, to beavers, to elk to birds to riparian habitats to who knows what else, and all because of a top-level predator being introduced into the system.

Now I'm not in favor of wolves having been introduced into Yellowstone (or anywhere else south of the Canadian border). But I've got to admit that the ecological changes that have cascaded down from the top to the bottom because of it are awfully interesting things to have seen happen. If anything, it goes to show that if/when wolves establish themselves in Utah in any kind of significant numbers that we could easily see more than just a reduction in elk and deer — we could see a general shift in the dynamics of whole wildlife populations as a result. From a hunting perspective, that's going to be bad, so I hope it doesn't happen, but despite that, the dynamics of the whole thing are still very interesting.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Bax* said:


> .....................
> For my own personal education, Goob do you have any figures on the elk population in YNP for the decade up to the time they (the wolves) were released? I would be interested in seeing how much of the population has been affected since the introduction of wolves. Also, anyone have any information on winter kill post introduction of wolves?
> 
> This is purely for my education, but I think it would be an interesting bit of data to consider


I wore Mr Google out trying to answer that question. It's hard to find consistant YNP elk population figures since wolf introduction. The National Park System does an aerial count as does the Wyoming Game and Fish. The easiest time to count is winter when there is snow on the ground, but many of the elk have migrated out of the paek at that time.

A couple months ago I found a site that listed YNP elk populations from 95/96 thru 09/10, but I can't find it now.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

It is tricky finding that info Goob. I dont know where people get their information some times so I figured you had an "in" of some kind.


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

Bax* said:


> It is tricky finding that info Goob. I dont know where people get their information some times so I figured you had an "in" of some kind.


Elk numbers have fluctuated up and down since the original wolves were extirpated in the 1930's, mainly due to human harvest. It seems they reached a low point in the late 1960's (even lower than current populations). The population of Elk reached highs in the late 70's and through the 80's. From what I understand these high populations were pushing and close to/perhaps even exceeding the carrying capacity for the park.

Here is a portion of an abstract that may help......

http://www.jstor.org/pss/4495221

this link may help more directly with you question....

http://www.nps.gov/yell/parknews/11005.htm

and another one,,,,this one is fun to read all of the comments about the original article...but the article itself was very informative....I have met and briefly visited with Doug Smith...he knows wolves....

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/20 ... lation7900


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

The trouble with trying to put the world back the way is was is that it was never that way for long. Ecosystems have always changed and everything adapted, moved or died off. We have a snapshot in our minds of how things ought to be and keep trying to replicate that moment. When nature does her thing after we have so carefully set up our postcard scene we get all cranky and try to find something to blame.


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

Cooky said:


> The trouble with trying to put the world back the way is was is that it was never that way for long. Ecosystems have always changed and everything adapted, moved or died off. We have a snapshot in our minds of how things ought to be and keep trying to replicate that moment. When nature does her thing after we have so carefully set up our postcard scene we get all cranky and try to find something to blame.


+1


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I saw this article and couldn't help but wonder how this plays into this discussion? Are the elk really responsible for the loss of certain trees? If not then wolves certainly couldn't be indirectly responsible for them comming back.

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=187154 ... western-us


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

bullsnot said:


> I saw this article and couldn't help but wonder how this plays into this discussion? Are the elk really responsible for the loss of certain trees? If not then wolves certainly couldn't be indirectly responsible for them comming back.
> 
> http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=187154 ... western-us


I wonder if there is a map that could illustrate affected areas that have SAD trees? Or perhaps a Western United States map of drought conditions? It would be interesting to contrast the climactic conditions the aspens face in YNP versus other areas that these researchers are saying SAD is affecting?

Interesting food for thought bullsnot


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I have a few thoughts on this.

First, applicability of this kind of study beyond the park boundaries doesn't work. The combination of large grazing animals outside the park is very different than in the park, as are predator concerns (including human hunters and vehicles in that group) are very different outside the park. I really don't think the results can be applied outside the park.

Second - addressing the theory about wolves being the variable responsible for changes in grazing patterns in riparian areas. I see it very difficult at best, and irresponsible at least, to do that. Especially considering the impact the '88 fire had on the park and habitats in the park. The fire did more to impact the entire flora of the park, the water quality, the composition of fauna, than introduction of wolves and expansion of Grizzlies every could. The maturation of the forest species - both deciduous and conifer, was completely changed with that fire. Formerly timbered areas were then available for transition to grasses - moving the elk away from the valley floors and river bottoms. Aspen love fire, and the fire increased aspen growth in areas that WERE mono-culture due to a century of fire suppression. Acres of grazing type habitats increased by the hundred of thousands of acres after the fire - again providing forage in areas other than the river bottoms. After decades of fire suppression, suitable grazing areas become islands surrounded by lodge pole forests with dead forest floors. All that changed drastically due to the fire. 

I personally see the wolf community very quick to create a study and say "See, the wolves make everything rainbows and butterflies" and have prostituted themselves on this to try to show that. I'd be very interested to see large scale GIS analysis of the change of vegetative make-up from before the '88 fire to now. Then see where that sits with the wolfies to see if they are the ones responsible for the changes. While I personally see the wolfies as a player in it all, I see the '88 fire to be a far greater catalyst to how the park has changed than the wolves.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

GaryFish said:


> I have a few thoughts on this.
> 
> First, applicability of this kind of study beyond the park boundaries doesn't work. The combination of large grazing animals outside the park is very different than in the park, as are predator concerns (including human hunters and vehicles in that group) are very different outside the park. I really don't think the results can be applied outside the park.
> 
> ...


Well said Gary, well said! I think that in addition to the fire, the article Bull linked about the drought also played/plays a big part for the elk. Before the wolf introduction, the elk herds ebbed and flowed with numbers changing by the thousands along with the periods of drout and plentiful rainfall.


----------

