# Quick Read on the Wolf impact on Elk



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

http://rmefblog.blogspot.com/2014/06/informing-misinformed-about-wolves.html


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Nice little read. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"Management objective numbers are set through a political process."--David Allen I would have to agree, regardless of species. That argument has been made by more than pro wolf folks.

"If you do the math, you’re looking at a wolf population numbering somewhere between 783 and 846. That’s 500 to 600 percent larger than the original agreed upon federal recovery goal set more than 20 years ago."--David Allen Those were also just political numbers, no different than objectives.

That being said, I don't see anyone any side of this that is not marketing, and banking, on the wolf issue.

I won't get too deep into the whole pro verses anti debate, other than to say that just like with deer and coyotes, if you are seeing high predation rates, in predator/prey relationships that co-evolved over thousands of years, you have a much bigger problem than predators. They are just doing what they do. 

In 1995 elk herds along with many other big game animals were already in decline. If you add an additional predator to the mix, yes you are going to see more predation, but in an already declining population, removal of that predator will not change the course of the decline.

I applaud a lot of what RMEF does, and how they have gone about much of it. But along with the Montana Fish & Game, they have refused to look at many of the under lying problems with the elk herds. You can draw a line from central Idaho, through the LOLO zone, the Bitterroot, and into South Western Montana, connecting the dots of declining herds along the way. This is in stark contrast to elk that are doing very well in many places in the West currently. Several studies have not shown a correlation, between wolves and those declining elk populations. You have high wolf concentrations in other areas, and good elk numbers as well. The wolves are exploiting a weakness. 

Are wolves killing elk in these places? Yes. Are wolves a primary, or even secondary cause of the declines? No. RMEF needs to put their money where their mouth is, and fund the research. They need to stop enabling the Montana Fish & Game, and the suppression of science. RMEF is in a unique position to make some huge strides on this, if they can look to some early influences like Adolf Murie, and not play the game like everyone else is. They have been shown that they are very capable of doing just that, on so many other issues.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Can anyone tell me what is wrong with these cow elk? They came out of Montana herds that have been flat or declining.

It is not a trick question, there is no right or wrong, I am just sharing. I did not use to be able to identify the issue either.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

Some have fewer teeth than others indicating a nutritional deficiency? Were they all killed in the same year or do they span a certain timeline?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

MWScott72 said:


> Some have fewer teeth than others indicating a nutritional deficiency? Were they all killed in the same year or do they span a certain timeline?


Two of them are missing one tooth. That may be post mortem, and likely is, but I don't know for sure.

All killed in 2013.


----------



## paddlehead (May 30, 2014)

Very interesting. . . . I think just people need to wake up and smell the roses. It is a sad shame that Yellowstone has tuned into a scenic park from a wildlife viewing park. Were the elk numbers too high? Yes. Could we have reduced them by hunting and generating some serious revenue, and get the same ecological benefits? Yes! No one can refute the fish and wildlife numbers you can see when you can click on the "80 percent." Not hunters numbers, but official biologist numbers.

Get rid of them.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

From '95 to beyond 2005 the reductions were intentional. There were 1102 cow elk tags for the Gardiner herd in 2005. How is that for hunting and revenue generation?

If wolves were the cause of elk declines, you would see it every where that there are elk and wolves, that is not the case. You have specific populations of elk, both with and without wolves, that are suffering declines and low recruitment. 

The elk in these areas of decline have two things in common, one being they are migratory. The most recent studies have shown that these migratory elk are not doing as well as their resident neighbors. The thing these migratory elk also have in common is the areas they are from, and the high prevalence of environmentally driven epigenetic degradation of all mammals and birds there. Even RMEF will sight the "habitat" and nutritional problems. But it is far from the whole story. 

I am not against state management of wolves, or wolf hunting as part of that management. But just like with Utah deer, we are not going to see any real progress until this boogie man BS is called for it really is, and we look at the bigger picture. 

Utah's mule deer started to decline the same time as Yellowstone's elk, was that because of coyote reintroduction?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

not going to argue with you because I am too tired after a day in the ER and my son graduating but you need to read up more and not just believe what you want to believe with the elk vs wolf story.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> not going to argue with you because I am too tired after a day in the ER and my son graduating but you need to read up more and not just believe what you want to believe with the elk vs wolf story.


I need to read up? :grin: Belief?

The population was 19,045 and already in decline in '94 Almost everyone agreed they had over taken carrying capacity. They had declined to 16.791 in one year from '94 to '95 without wolves. By '98 the elk population was 11,742 with less than 100 wolves on the ground. And in '99 the elk population rebounded to 14,538 and the wolf population grew to 118. The goal was still population reduction of elk at this point. And when elk numbers again climbed in 2005, they were still throwing cow tags at the elk herds.

Also the pictures I posted of the cow elk skulls is a key to part of what I am pointing out. That information is not available at RMEF.org, or too many other places for that matter. I am pretty well read on the subject, having worked with, and been in contact for years with some of the biologists that have done some of the most recent work, and some of the longest, and largest studies. I saw some of that work as it occurred, over 5 years ago, and much of it is still not published.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

yea I am sure you have better and more thorough intel than the RMEF.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> yea I am sure you have better and more thorough intel than the RMEF.


If by "better" you mean studies suppressed by Montana F&G, and ignored by the USFWS, or unpublished wolf/elk interaction study information, then yes I guess so.

Has no one caught my Murie slip?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Here is a picture of a normal cow elk skull.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> Can anyone tell me what is wrong with these cow elk? They came out of Montana herds that have been flat or declining.
> 
> It is not a trick question, there is no right or wrong, I am just sharing. I did not use to be able to identify the issue either.


The over-bite. Since elk have no top incisors and these teeth don't meet up with the upper gums, these cows had trouble eating grass and small nutritious leaders. Do I also have to give you the chemical formula reasons for the over-bite to win my new Mercedez?  (Ok, I'll confess. I cheated! I saw your other normal elk skull post.)


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Actually it is an under bite.

http://rutalocura.com/files/Examples_of_Animals_-_Disrupted_Facial_Bone_Development.pdf

I would be interested in the proof that this photo came from herds that were flat or declining. All I have seen is that they came from Montana.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

This can be opened in PDF. A long read but insightful study.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CEwQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.dep.state.fl.us%2Fpipermail%2Fpharmwaste%2Fattachments%2F20111027%2F5a47c15b%2FHoyetal2011.obj&ei=7gmSU6cQw4CiBLe5gsgP&usg=AFQjCNGWOrRuzGdWJa7bFkszFCvuJKR6Og&sig2=HFpUmk3NiBsU_qtcG8Lsgw&bvm=bv.68445247,d.cGU


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Actually it is an under bite.
> http://


 I wondered about that! In any case, I'm probably not going to win the Mercedez anyway 'cause I cheated and I don't know the chemical formulas, nor even the basic cause for sure. I'm sure we'll get an explanation shortly or, at least told to find it ourselves.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

LT-
I am perfectly fine with the issue being "environmentally driven epigenetic degradation", but I asked what this was last week and you basically stated that "no one knows". Scientists like to solve problems; however, this often takes years or decades to prove...meanwhile you have the general public that wants an answer and wants it now. Often they want an action along with that answer, and I think that this is what we're seeing w/r/t the wolf/elk issues in WY, ID, and MT. If there are environmental factors that are driving the elk and other large mammal declines, that is all well and good, but simply stating that that is the problem and not offering solutions gets us absolutely nowhere. In the meantime, the public wants action - that action may be culling additional wolves (viable solution since they're well beyond their agreed upon recovery goals, political as they may be) or it may entail adding additional restrictions to harvest of the elk herd.

Whatever the issue may be, I don't any reason why pressure cannot be taken off of the elk in the form of increased numbers of wolves killed. I would wager, though I don't know for certain, that if there are "environmental factors" involved creating a weakness in the elk herds, it does the elk absolutely no good to be overly harassed by wolves. That pressure brought to bear on the elk may just be the feather that's breaking the camel's back.

Not to hijack this thread, but the above reason is EXACTLY why I don't think wolves have any place in UT unless and until a scientifically derived population goal can be set, and held to, free of the political bulls*&t that almost always follows.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

read the link I put up above. It list a few probable causes. Chemicals and Pesticides that are carried in the wind are strong candidates:
*
Why Did the Prevalence of Brachygnathia Superior Suddenly Increase?*

Many manufactured compounds and some heavy metals induce serious thyroid 
dysfunction at very low levels of exposure [9,23,25,31]. Chronic exposure to 
toxins that disrupt the function of or replace vital hormones can result in congenital 
hypothyroidism in newborn animals. At present, thyroid hormone-disrupting 
environmental chemicals are tested by measuring their ability to affect circulating 
levels of thyroid hormones [15]. However, essential thyroid hormone actions can 
be adversely affected without detectable changes to thyroid hormone levels as they 
are currently measured [31]. If specific environmental chemicals or their metabolites 
bind to fetal thyroid-hormone receptors, they can alter thyroid-hormone signaling 
responsible for normal development of fetuses [40,41]. Realistically, exposure to 
multiple hormone-disrupting compounds known to cause congenital hypothyroidism 
in vertebrates [8,15,23,28,29,41,42] is now common to all organisms worldwide. 
The effects of such exposure on bone development of the skull and likely on the 
development of the brains of mammals and birds may be similar to the effects 
documented for dioxin exposure [43-46].
Multiple hormone disrupting toxins were found in snow, lake water, foliage and 
animals on the tops of mountains in USA national parks, with Glacier National 
Park, nearest to our study area, having the highest levels [30,47]. Such compounds 
are usually water soluble with a molecular structure that allows them to disrupt the 
normal activity of a variety of hormones. In addition, fetal exposure to both nitrates 
and nitriles have been shown to disrupt thyroid hormone function [1,6,48] and nitrates 
are known to cross the placenta of rats, guinea pigs, pigs, and cattle [1]. 
One chemical that we suspect as being a factor in causing the sudden increase in 
congenital hypothyroidism in mammals and birds is chlorothalonil, a nitrile fungicide 
used on potatoes against potato blight. The amount of this fungicide used on potato 
fields in states up wind of western Montana approximately doubled in summer 1994 
and continued to increase through 2000, decreasing somewhat after 2001 [49]. Similar 
polyhalogenated aromatic hydrocarbons (PHAHs) are known to cause multiple 
deformities and effects on multiple organs [50]. A recent study found exposure to 
chlorothalonil at one one-thousandth of levels commonly found in the environment 
resulted in mortality to tadpoles of all four frog species tested and endocrine disruption 
was indicated [51]. Low levels of toxins, including chlorothalonil [52], can be carried 
far from the application site in moist weather fronts [53]. Predictably [49,50], the 
increased prevalence of reproductive malformations corresponded to increased 
chlorothalonil use in states up wind of our area.
Another possible contributing factor is increasing use of neonicotinoid 
insecticides, registered for use in 1992 [54] and now one of the most widely used 
group of insecticides in the United States. Like chlorothalonil, winds can transport 
neonicotinoids over great distances from sites of application [55]. Two widely used 
neonicotinoids, imidacloprid and clothianidin, are acetylcholine receptor agonists and 
have been implicated in causing the die offs of domestic honeybee colonies [55,56]. 
Detrimental effects on honeybees were also found with exposure to chlorothalonil 
[57]. Neonicotinoids synergized with fungicides to increase the toxicity of the 
neonicotinoids to honey bees over 1,000 fold in lab tests [58]. Chlorothalonil and 10 || J.A. Hoy et al. | Observations Of Brachygnathia Superior In Wild Ruminants In Western Montana, Usa
neonicotinoids in combination could also have a synergistic effect on developing 
mammals, as is strongly suggested by studies showing that nicotine and cyanide are 
responsible for disrupted fetal development in babies born to human mothers who 
smoke cigarettes [59].
A developing fetus is extremely susceptible to almost immeasurably small amounts 
of toxins crossing the placenta, potentially being affected by parts per trillion or even 
parts per quadrillion [59]. Many of the resultant disruptions of cellular development 
appear to be epigenetic and inheritable [60,61]. Pediatricians and the Ontario College 
of Family Physicians state that there is no safe level of pesticide exposure, especially 
to fetuses [62,63]. While the doctors were referring to human fetuses, the same is 
likely true for fetuses of other mammals.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

Geeze Muleskinner - based on the above, we are screwed, and I only say that somewhat in jest. We pump so much crap into our atmosphere or liberate it through mining and other activities, that there is no way that it has no effect. Refusing to believe this is like the colonizers in the 19th century believing that there was no end to the buffalo...the "just shoot them, and then shoot some more - there will always be more" mentality.

I work in the environmental field, and though no tree hugger by any means, there is an absolute effect on nature related to every activity that we conduct. Even though we (the developed western countries) are getting much better at regulating, or at least getting a better handle, on our pollutants, there is so much we do not understand. Additionally, we have decades of pollution we're still trying to clean up (think mining activities & heavy metal exposure w/r/t to the study you cited). To make matters worse, you have developing countries pumping out oodles and gobs of pollution that will likely far outweigh many of the reductions on our part.

It's a depressing thing to think about. All we can do is our best - I just wish our best was good enough, but I'm skeptical of that.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

MWScott72 said:


> Geeze Muleskinner - based on the above, we are screwed, and I only say that somewhat in jest. We pump so much crap into our atmosphere or liberate it through mining and other activities, that there is no way that it has no effect. Refusing to believe this is like the colonizers in the 19th century believing that there was no end to the buffalo...the "just shoot them, and then shoot some more - there will always be more" mentality.
> 
> I work in the environmental field, and though no tree hugger by any means, there is an absolute effect on nature related to every activity that we conduct. Even though we (the developed western countries) are getting much better at regulating, or at least getting a better handle, on our pollutants, there is so much we do not understand. Additionally, we have decades of pollution we're still trying to clean up (think mining activities & heavy metal exposure w/r/t to the study you cited). To make matters worse, you have developing countries pumping out oodles and gobs of pollution that will likely far outweigh many of the reductions on our part.
> 
> It's a depressing thing to think about. All we can do is our best - I just wish our best was good enough, but I'm skeptical of that.


Absolutely. Everybody keep using Roundup, Strike Three, Kilzall and the like in the name of the greenest yard and no dandelions, we are doing irreparable damage. I have beat this drum before.

Look at the larger scale operations that are growing corn for "cleaner" ethanol fuels. How do we grow more corn? Pesticides......

There is no good answer and yes it is VERY depressing to think about. I have quit using the stuff and try to inform others that their are environmentally friendly weed killers that can be made for less money with stuff that is already at home.

To comment back on the wolves..........to blame them 100% for the decline would be short sighted at best but good luck in finding ANY of the pro-wolf groups to admit that their predation of elk has been additive in nature. It has been additive in a big way. I am ALL for the wolf being there. 100%. It makes me pro-wolf right? I am, but it needs to be a more harmonious balance. Or at least the best we can make it as stewards in a world that we have fouled up beyond repair.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

MWScott72 said:


> LT-
> I am perfectly fine with the issue being "environmentally driven epigenetic degradation", but I asked what this was last week and you basically stated that "no one knows". Scientists like to solve problems; however, this often takes years or decades to prove...meanwhile you have the general public that wants an answer and wants it now. Often they want an action along with that answer, and I think that this is what we're seeing w/r/t the wolf/elk issues in WY, ID, and MT. If there are environmental factors that are driving the elk and other large mammal declines, that is all well and good, but simply stating that that is the problem and not offering solutions gets us absolutely nowhere. In the meantime, the public wants action - that action may be culling additional wolves (viable solution since they're well beyond their agreed upon recovery goals, political as they may be) or it may entail adding additional restrictions to harvest of the elk herd.
> 
> Whatever the issue may be, I don't any reason why pressure cannot be taken off of the elk in the form of increased numbers of wolves killed. I would wager, though I don't know for certain, that if there are "environmental factors" involved creating a weakness in the elk herds, it does the elk absolutely no good to be overly harassed by wolves. That pressure brought to bear on the elk may just be the feather that's breaking the camel's back.
> ...


Hijack away.

If the elk or other wildlife are afflicted by something, they are done for whether the predators do it or something else. The predators are just doing what they do. In these particular cases, and really any involving nutrition, predators are a defense. They are a positive, not a negative. If you have a couple of bighorn sheep for example, that are weak because of nutritional deficiencies, which will open them up to pneumonia. And there is no way of improving the condition of those sheep, you want them taken out before they develop and spread pneumonia to the rest of the flock. Predators do that, with a keen ability to choose for weakness.

As for setting numbers, or objectives, those will for the most part be arbitrary with regard to biological or ecological factors, and there for political BS to some extent or another. That goes for wolves, elk or anything else. Objectives are just goals, and any biological or ecological factors you may tie to them, are not static. Ultimately, if you focus on the health of the herds, the predators do their part and are not a problem. This has been demonstrated over and over again.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

elkfromabove said:


> The over-bite. Since elk have no top incisors and these teeth don't meet up with the upper gums, these cows had trouble eating grass and small nutritious leaders. Do I also have to give you the chemical formula reasons for the over-bite to win my new Mercedez?  (Ok, I'll confess. I cheated! I saw your other normal elk skull post.)


No Beamers, but there will other stuff given away in the near future.

Lee, that is not cheating. That is paying attention and being sharp as a tack.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> Hijack away.
> 
> If the elk or other wildlife are afflicted by something, they are done for whether the predators do it or something else. The predators are just doing what they do. In these particular cases, and really any involving nutrition, predators are a defense. They are a positive, not a negative. If you have a couple of bighorn sheep for example, that are weak because of nutritional deficiencies, which will open them up to pneumonia. And there is no way of improving the condition of those sheep, you want them taken out before they develop and spread pneumonia to the rest of the flock. Predators do that, with a keen ability to choose for weakness.
> 
> As for setting numbers, or objectives, those will for the most part be arbitrary with regard to biological or ecological factors, and there for political BS to some extent or another. That goes for wolves, elk or anything else. Objectives are just goals, and any biological or ecological factors you may tie to them, are not static. Ultimately, if you focus on the health of the herds, the predators do their part and are not a problem. This has been demonstrated over and over again.


So all the talk of compensatory or additive that you have done in the past is garbage? There is no such thing as additive predation?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Actually it is an under bite.
> 
> http://rutalocura.com/files/Examples_of_Animals_-_Disrupted_Facial_Bone_Development.pdf
> 
> I would be interested in the proof that this photo came from herds that were flat or declining. All I have seen is that they came from Montana.


They came from several spots in Western Montana, the taxidermist does not have exact locations. So they are at a minimum in proximity to flat or declining herds. Let me frame it this way, if these skulls came from stable or increasing herds, how bad off are the flat or declining herds then?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

the overall elk herd in Montana has been on the rise correct?

http://fwp.mt.gov/news/newsReleases/hunting/nr_2015.html


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

I've had about all the elk I stand let me tell ya. Those mangy dogs ate all the dumb, weak, and sick wapiti north of me and then pushed all the smart, healthy and quick elk down here where I hunt. That's BS, give me a break, I'm old, half-blind and fat.

You old farts just be glad there's no wolves in Utah.


.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> So all the talk of compensatory or additive that you have done in the past is garbage? There is no such thing as additive predation?


That is still an example of compensatory predation. But I would also argue that in some cases of what is described as additive predation, what you are seeing, if all factors are taken into account, over space and time, could be better described as accelerated compensatory predation.

In the hypothetical case of the bighorns that I said should be taken out, I am making the case that by having a few sheep taken by predation, you won't lose a lot more because of disease. If there is an underlying problem, like malnutrition or disease, that animal is dead, whether it wastes away, chokes to death, or is eaten by something.

In several studies that looked at nutritional supplementation to see if nutrition was a limiting factor for animals, it has been observed over and over again that there is less predation of healthy well nourished animals. You increase herd health, predation goes down. An interesting side note to some of those studies is that when they looked for disease in animals, supplemented animals did not show any less signs of disease than did unsupplemented animals that were still exhibiting higher predation rates, and flat or declining numbers. The diseases are still there, but the animals that are getting nutritional supplements are not succumbing to disease, or predation, and their numbers increase. This is without predator removal.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> the overall elk herd in Montana has been on the rise correct?
> 
> http://fwp.mt.gov/news/newsReleases/hunting/nr_2015.html


IF you look at the whole state That is part of what RMEF is trying to point out, is that that is not the case for every single elk herd. But then rather than pointing to the facts of the matter about what has been shown about those declining herds, which is that wolves are not the issue, and that those elk are migratory, and that there are "habitat" problems, they take a left turn.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> That is still an example of compensatory predation. But I would also argue that in some cases of what is described as additive predation, what you are seeing, if all factors are taken into account, over space and time, could be better described as accelerated compensatory predation.
> 
> In the hypothetical case of the bighorns that I said should be taken out, I am making the case that by having a few sheep taken by predation, you won't lose a lot more because of disease. If there is an underlying problem, like malnutrition or disease, that animal is dead, whether it wastes away, chokes to death, or is eaten by something.
> 
> In several studies that looked at nutritional supplementation to see if nutrition was a limiting factor for animals, it has been observed over and over again that there is less predation of healthy well nourished animals. You increase herd health, predation goes down. An interesting side note to some of those studies is that when they looked for disease in animals, supplemented animals did not show any less signs of disease than did unsupplemented animals that were still exhibiting higher predation rates, and flat or declining numbers. The diseases are still there, but the animals that are getting nutritional supplements are not succumbing to disease, or predation, and their numbers increase. This is without predator removal.


This isn't a few sheep though. This is thousands of elk with the major losses occurring where the dogs run. Elk herds by and large have been on the incline in spite of some needing a good orthodontist.

"*accelerated compensatory predation*". I laughed out loud at that one. Just can't admit that the wolves got a tad out of control can you. They have received more nutrition than they can stomach. A buffet of it, uncontrolled to the point of idiocy.

How fast does a wolf have to eat before it becomes excessive? errr additive?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

MWScott72 said:


> Geeze Muleskinner - based on the above, we are screwed, and I only say that somewhat in jest. We pump so much crap into our atmosphere or liberate it through mining and other activities, that there is no way that it has no effect. Refusing to believe this is like the colonizers in the 19th century believing that there was no end to the buffalo...the "just shoot them, and then shoot some more - there will always be more" mentality.
> 
> I work in the environmental field, and though no tree hugger by any means, there is an absolute effect on nature related to every activity that we conduct. Even though we (the developed western countries) are getting much better at regulating, or at least getting a better handle, on our pollutants, there is so much we do not understand. Additionally, we have decades of pollution we're still trying to clean up (think mining activities & heavy metal exposure w/r/t to the study you cited). To make matters worse, you have developing countries pumping out oodles and gobs of pollution that will likely far outweigh many of the reductions on our part.
> 
> It's a depressing thing to think about. All we can do is our best - I just wish our best was good enough, but I'm skeptical of that.


We knew full well what we were doing with the Buffalo. That was organized, political, and intentional. Some of that may have been the wake up call for many in the early part of the last century about just what kind of an affect we can have.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Absolutely. Everybody keep using Roundup, Strike Three, Kilzall and the like in the name of the greenest yard and no dandelions, we are doing irreparable damage. I have beat this drum before.
> 
> Look at the larger scale operations that are growing corn for "cleaner" ethanol fuels. How do we grow more corn? Pesticides......
> 
> ...


'skinner is on it. The ethanol fuel thing is reshaping America.

The increased use of pesticides and herbicides grew exponentially in the 1990s to a point now that in order to compete with the big grain growers every farmer has to use chemicals in lieu of mechanical cultivation methods. I come from the corn belt, herbicide and pesticide use is unchecked and it's taking it's toll on quail, cottontails, groundhogs (mentioned in another thread), whitetail deer, amphibians, butterflies, native fish........ honey bees...others. And what we spray on corn in Iowa today ends up in the Gulf of Mexico tomorrow. Even the genetics of grain, the viability of industry standard grain varieties are being jeopardized by chemicals.

Hydrocarbons still rule the planet, economically, politically and socially.

These are the real predators, the things that will get the deer and elk in the end, not wolves.

uh...eyegottagospraymydandylions


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

MWScott72 said:


> LT-
> I am perfectly fine with the issue being "environmentally driven epigenetic degradation", but I asked what this was last week and you basically stated that "no one knows". Scientists like to solve problems; however, this often takes years or decades to prove...meanwhile you have the general public that wants an answer and wants it now. Often they want an action along with that answer, and I think that this is what we're seeing w/r/t the wolf/elk issues in WY, ID, and MT. If there are environmental factors that are driving the elk and other large mammal declines, that is all well and good, but simply stating that that is the problem and not offering solutions gets us absolutely nowhere. In the meantime, the public wants action - that action may be culling additional wolves (viable solution since they're well beyond their agreed upon recovery goals, political as they may be) or it may entail adding additional restrictions to harvest of the elk herd.


What we know is that there has been huge wildlife declines in the last 30 years, with some sharp and increasing ones since the early '90s. As I and others have looked into this, there are all these commonalities that keep popping up. Many of them by themselves don't add up to much, but when you start looking at all of them a very similar picture emerges. And when you apply time to it, it looks even more related.

Solutions: I know that no one likes this but, what we have to do is step back and reevaluate what has occurred over the last 30 years, and then ask why and how? We can not get to the solutions without doing that first. A big part of that is looking at and acknowledging some of those realities. Those elk skulls are part of that reality, those malformations were not being seen prior to the early '90s. And they are not restricted to just some elk herds in other states. Myself and others have documented the same things in mule deer here in Utah, with cases going back to at least '98.

I will stop teasing on some of this here shortly, and put my money where my mouth is, and try to further this process along. In all honesty, show me the solutions that have worked in the last 30 years. No, I am not coming to the table with solutions, but I will say very strongly that neither has anyone else.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"uh...eyegottagospraymydandylions"

I usually pour the dressing on them, and then toss, I'll have to try spraying.

"A weed is a plant that no one has found a use for yet"--Ralph Waldo Emerson


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

and after we have engineered our way to extinction and ran out our welcomed stay on Earth it will take about 3-4 years and the great commodity of corn will be nowhere to be found.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

Lonetree said:


> Hijack away.
> 
> If the elk or other wildlife are afflicted by something, they are done for whether the predators do it or something else. The predators are just doing what they do. In these particular cases, and really any involving nutrition, predators are a defense. They are a positive, not a negative. If you have a couple of bighorn sheep for example, that are weak because of nutritional deficiencies, which will open them up to pneumonia. And there is no way of improving the condition of those sheep, you want them taken out before they develop and spread pneumonia to the rest of the flock. Predators do that, with a keen ability to choose for weakness.
> 
> As for setting numbers, or objectives, those will for the most part be arbitrary with regard to biological or ecological factors, and there for political BS to some extent or another. That goes for wolves, elk or anything else. Objectives are just goals, and any biological or ecological factors you may tie to them, are not static. Ultimately, if you focus on the health of the herds, the predators do their part and are not a problem. This has been demonstrated over and over again.


I still believe that the public wants action regardless whether or not it's aware that the action is/is not a part of the solution. In this case, if you agree that we can live with a few less wolves in hard hit elk areas, why not whack some and at least look like we're trying to solve the problem? If nothing else, it might buy time with public opinion (or at least the opinion's of those directly affected by the downward spiral of elk numbers in these wolf impacted areas).

No easy answers for sure.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> "uh...eyegottagospraymydandylions"
> 
> I usually pour the dressing on them, and then toss, I'll have to try spraying.
> 
> "A weed is a plant that no one has found a use for yet"--Ralph Waldo Emerson


Yeah, some young ox-eye daisy, lambsquarter, and dandelion leaves with basalmic dressing; hold the Weed-B-Gone.

.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

wyogoob said:


> Yeah, some young ox-eye daisy, lambsquarter, and dandelion leaves with basalmic dressing; hold the Weed-B-Gone.
> 
> .


Do I hear Big Yellow Taxi playing in the back ground?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Good thread. Here is another issue I've been following recently in regards to environmental contaminants and feminized fish.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...rmone-treatments-study-finds-article-1.405112

The problem with these issues is that science has a paucity of data on the species prior to the contamination. For instance, we don't know if feminized fish were common 100 years ago or if the phenomena is new. The same likely would be said about these elk by a critic. I don't claim to have many answers, but IMO, it is a call for more resources to be put into often criticized basic scientific research and less money wasted on nonsense like lobbying congress to keep out nonexistent Mexican wolves and coyote bounties.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

MWScott72 said:


> I still believe that the public wants action regardless whether or not it's aware that the action is/is not a part of the solution. In this case, if you agree that we can live with a few less wolves in hard hit elk areas, why not whack some and at least look like we're trying to solve the problem? If nothing else, it might buy time with public opinion (or at least the opinion's of those directly affected by the downward spiral of elk numbers in these wolf impacted areas).
> 
> No easy answers for sure.


We all want some solutions, everyone has been clambering for solutions over the last 20 years. I want some too. I think a big part of why there has been no definitive solutions to be had, is that we have thrown the process and principles of scientific management out the window. Some for some very nefarious reasons, and some because of well intentioned ideas that were nothing but solutions looking for problems. We would be good to have some of those problems, seeing as how we have solutions for them.

The science has not kept up with the current state of wildlife, and technology. The further we slide down that slope, the harder it is to try and get back up. Pretty soon people start talking about just staying where they are at, at least for the time being.......

The bigger and more overwhelming some of these things are, the less likely they are to be tackled, and that only increases with time. Which is what has brought us here. We have to start at the beginning, and that essentially means about 30 years of work. And I would say we won't see the fruits of that work for at least that long, but there is no time like the present.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Catherder said:


> Good thread. Here is another issue I've been following recently in regards to environmental contaminants and feminized fish.
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...rmone-treatments-study-finds-article-1.405112
> 
> The problem with these issues is that science has a paucity of data on the species prior to the contamination. For instance, we don't know if feminized fish were common 100 years ago or if the phenomena is new. The same likely would be said about these elk by a critic. I don't claim to have many answers, but IMO, it is a call for more resources to be put into often criticized basic scientific research and less money wasted on nonsense like lobbying congress to keep out nonexistent Mexican wolves and coyote bounties.


If the fish issue is like with ungulates, I would be inclined to say it is related, and that it goes back to the egg, and much earlier development than they may be looking at, I don't know, not something I've followed. But when deer sex ratios favor males at birth, you see many of those males with underdeveloped male reproductive organs, and some misplacement of teats and other things, that could be called "feminized".

As for the elk, deer, sheep, moose, bison, etc. There is plenty of base line data, and a few researchers that understood what they were seeing early on.

As for resources and where they are going, that is no bull **** right there. Just one more way hunters and anglers are being stolen from. That is what frustrates me about RMEF, oh so close, yet not quite there.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

This University of Wyoming PHD guy says "Wolf Harassment Has Little Impact on Elk":

http://www.uwyo.edu/uw/news/2013/06/uw-study-wolf-harrassment-has-little-impact-on-elk.html

Off with his head! :grin:

.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

New UW Research Shows Grizzly Diet Shift Hits Elk Herds:

http://www.uwyo.edu/uw/news/2013/05/new-uw-research-shows-grizzly-diet-shift-hits-elk-herds.html

As lake trout replace cutthroats in the Yellowstone NP ecosystem Spring grizzly bears are increasingly switching their diets from spawning cutthroat to elk calves.

Off with their heads!! uh........the lake trout, not the grizzly bears. :grin:

.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

wyogoob said:


> This University of Wyoming PHD guy says "Wolf Harassment Has Little Impact on Elk":
> 
> http://www.uwyo.edu/uw/news/2013/06/uw-study-wolf-harrassment-has-little-impact-on-elk.html
> 
> ...


I've been interested in 'The Ecology of Fear' for a while, and there is a fair amount of info on it; it's an interesting subject. The predator/prey relationship is far more complicated than many folks think. Thanks for posting this newer article goob. Here is an older one with a bit of info;

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104128314147


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> I've been interested in 'The Ecology of Fear' for a while, and there is a fair amount of info on it; it's an interesting subject. The predator/prey relationship is far more complicated than many folks think. Thanks for posting this newer article goob. Here is an older one with a bit of info;
> 
> http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104128314147


Yes sir, thanks Perry.

I always belonged to the camp that believed that many of the elk in Yellowstone NP were pushed out, not killed, by the wolves.

.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

wyogoob said:


> New UW Research Shows Grizzly Diet Shift Hits Elk Herds:
> 
> http://www.uwyo.edu/uw/news/2013/05/new-uw-research-shows-grizzly-diet-shift-hits-elk-herds.html
> 
> ...


Gotta love the bucket biologists.Why would some one prefer lake trout to cuttys?(in my opinion)


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Dunkem said:


> Gotta love the bucket biologists.Why would some one prefer lake trout to cuttys?(in my opinion)


I didn't think that was the message he was trying to convey.

.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

wyogoob said:


> Yes sir, thanks Perry.
> 
> I always belonged to the camp that believed that many of the elk in Yellowstone NP were pushed out, not killed, by the wolves.
> 
> .


Is there any evidence to support that herds outside but adjacent to YNP grew in size when the YNP herds were decreasing? Not trying to start an argument just wondering if that is what happened. No doubt when animals begin to be preyed upon too frequently they will tend to migrate to safer areas.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

LostLouisianian said:


> Is there any evidence to support that herds outside but adjacent to YNP grew in size when the YNP herds were decreasing? Not trying to start an argument just wondering if that is what happened. No doubt when animals begin to be preyed upon too frequently they will tend to migrate to safer areas.


Yes, good question. Keep in mind it depends on who is counting the elk; the Game & Fish biologists, the Game & Fish wardens, the outfitters, or forum keyboard cowboys.

Here's my take:

According to the outfitters elk numbers decreased to the east of YNP around Cody....yet some areas were over objective and cow/calf tags numbers were increased. This is anecdotal, I haven't hunted up there.

Same holds true for the area from the Snake River to the Salt River/Bear River divide. When the wolves first hit this area, elk numbers decreased (but increased dramatically in the drainages to the south) I have witnessed this first hand.

On my side of the mountain, the Bear/Green River drainage, my personal observations have been that there's been a lot more elk even though there are wolves in the area. The herd has been over objective for a number of years and additional cow/calf tags, have been and still are, offered. I'm talking a huge area with, my guess, more sheep and cattle per square mile than other parts of western Wyoming.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

wyogoob said:


> I didn't think that was the message he was trying to convey.
> 
> .


Understood,that was just a thought that passed through my small brain.


----------

