# Wolves kill 19 elk in Wyoming



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Wolves near Bondurant Wyoming have taken 19 elk, 17 calves and 2 cows, in what wildlife officials are calling a "surplus killing."

USA Today says*:

*_..........over the past winter, wolves in the area have killed at least 70-75 elk, which is a "significant" number.
_
_"Based on what we've seen in this elk herd, likely [the deaths] will impact our hunting season and hunter opportunity," he said.

_ _"Because the wolves are federally protected, Wyoming wildlife managers can not take measures on a local level to curb their populations, even if they are killing high numbers of elk," he said._

see:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/wo...-surplus-kill/ar-BBqUHdC?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp

.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Poor elk in Wyoming don't have a chance; first its trains, now its wolves.

http://utahwildlife.net/forum/41-hunting-outside-utah/142425-7-elk-killed-train.html

.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

S S & S ???


----------



## Watcher (Dec 31, 2008)

I thought that according to PETA - humans are the only species "capable" of surplus killing? These wolves have no moral compass.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

*"Rare" Surplus Kill by Wyoming Wolves*

I thought this article was rather interesting. Not so much because a pack of wolves killed a bunch of elk in one night, but because it felt down played.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/03/25/wolf-pack-kills-19-wyoming-elk-in-one-night.html


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/03/25/wolf-pack-kills-19-wyoming-elk-in-one-night.html

Ha. I just posted this in Big Game (now deleted due to redundancy)


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ll-19-elk-suspected-surplus-killing/82249160/

I love the comment at the end saying wolves don't do this. I wonder if their studies have been peer reviewed????


----------



## Buzzard (Oct 20, 2008)

Now we need is a surplus wolf kill!


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Bax* said:


> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/03/25/wolf-pack-kills-19-wyoming-elk-in-one-night.html
> 
> Ha. I just posted this in Big Game (now deleted due to redundancy)


Well, I guess I didn't delete it in time. Got a couple posts so I will leave it up now


----------



## Lobowatcher (Nov 25, 2014)

Bax* said:


> I thought this article was rather interesting. Not so much because a pack of wolves killed a bunch of elk in one night, but because it felt down played.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/03/25/wolf-pack-kills-19-wyoming-elk-in-one-night.html


You might be right Bax. Not unusual for news agencies to print a minimum of information on controversial stories; it gets the 'comment section' to blow up with inane and inflammatory posts, which increases views-O,- Who knows?

This type of behavior in wolves is fairly rare, but I suppose that can be a relative term. Wyoming needs to figure out how to get their Wolf Management Plan back on board so the wolves can be managed by the State and off ESA protection. Won't be easy given the circumstances.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Lobowatcher said:


> Wyoming needs to figure out how to get their Wolf Management Plan back on board so the wolves can be managed by the State and off ESA protection. Won't be easy given the circumstances.


Thats a TALL order unfortunately.

As much as I don't like wolves. I understand why this is such a tall order (as I assume most of us do).

I can't imagine being in a decision making position where stakeholders from every side of the spectrum have input on the matter.



Wyoming Rancher said:


> Kill every wolf! They are killing my livestock and livelihood."





Animal Rights Activist said:


> Wolves are a natural part of the eco system and deserve to live just as much as you do!


I can't imagine being barraged by statements like that, then take research (that is biased (pro or anti) more often than not) and try and make heads of tales of the situation.

It seems to me that the decision makers are stuck between a rock and a hard place here. No matter what, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.


----------



## Lobowatcher (Nov 25, 2014)

I understand what you're saying Bax, unfortunately those stakeholders, both pro and con have virtually no say in the matter at this point. The courts' decision to reinstate ESA listing status was based on the 'legal process', so to speak, that the Service took when delisting the Wolf in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.

Ultimately, the courts decision concluded that it was "arbitrary and capricious for the Service to rely on the state's (Wyoming) nonbinding promises to maintain a particular number of wolves when the availability of that
specific numerical buffer was such a critical aspect of the delisting decision."

It was a 'partial' victory for the Plaintiffs (Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Fund for Animals, Humane Society of the United States, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Sierra Club): Only one aspect of their suit was granted, the other parts were not, but it was enough to reverse the prior delisting for Wyoming:

"...Plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment, and they maintain that the decision was arbitrary and capricious because Wyoming's regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect the species, the level of genetic exchange shown in the record does not warrant delisting, and the gray wolf is endangered within a significant portion of its range. Pls.' Mot. for Summ. J. [Dkt.# 48] ("Pls.' Mot.") and Pls.' Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. [Dkt. # 48-1] ("Pls.' Mem.").

The Court will *grant* plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment* in part *and *deny* it* in part* and remand the matter back to the agency because it finds that the Service could not reasonably rely on unenforceable representations when it deemed Wyoming's regulatory mechanisms to be adequate. Given the level of genetic exchange reflected in the record, the Court will not disturb the finding that the species has recovered, and it will not overturn the agency's determination that the species is not endangered or threatened within a significant portion of its range..."

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/Document68_NRM_WYOpinion.pdf

Once Wyoming and the Service can get back to an unlisted status through the courts, then the Stakeholders interests can be mulled over and decided upon during the actual 'management' of the wolves.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

And once WY has full control, strong winter wolves will still kill weak yearlings on crowded feed lots. Until, that is, the wolves are removed, and then the weak will just die by other means.......


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

LostLouisianian said:


> S S & S ???


You better bring a big track hoe, it will take a big hole to bury a train.........


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Lonetree said:


> You better bring a big track hoe, it will take a big hole to bury a train.........


I've seen a train buried before. It does take a big hole.-------SS


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Bax* said:


> Well, I guess I didn't delete it in time. Got a couple posts so I will leave it up now


No problem Bax*

I know how sensitive you are to out of state stuff being in the Utah Big Game section so I merged it for ya.

.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Words alone can't expressed how everyone in Wyoming is concerned about this.

We haven't been this jacked up since the Muppets took Manhattan.



Someone, please, cut my wrists.

.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> And once WY has full control, strong winter wolves will still kill weak yearlings on crowded feed lots. Until, that is, the wolves are removed, and then the weak will just die by other means.......


You've been to Wyoming a coupla times, haven't ya.

;-)


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

wyogoob said:


> You've been to Wyoming a coupla times, haven't ya.
> 
> ;-)


Unfortunately, to some parts more than a "coupla" times, more often than not just cutting across the South West corner of North Eastern Utah.

And I hear ya on how jacked up everyone is. On the phone the other day there was allot about elk mentioned. And it was OK when we talked about the lichen, but it must have been too upsetting to mention the wolves because it wasn't mentioned. I was just polite and did not bring it up, with the wounds being so fresh, it must still really sting.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Watcher said:


> I thought that according to PETA - humans are the only species "capable" of surplus killing? These wolves have no moral compass.


That is what the extremely biased scientists (isn't that an oxymoron?) will tell you. Old Ephraim did it all of the time taking out a dozen or so sheep and only ate the softest tissues of a few then went on to the next herd. Lots of facts that contradict their set of "facts." Those are simply the lines that they use to convince people they should reintroduce wolves and that they only need so many breeding pairs then they will be happy. That number is reached and then nearly doubled and they still aren't happy...


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Huge29 said:


> That is what the extremely biased scientists (isn't that an oxymoron?) will tell you. Old Ephraim did it all of the time taking out a dozen or so sheep and only ate the softest tissues of a few then went on to the next herd. Lots of facts that contradict their set of "facts." Those are simply the lines that they use to convince people they should reintroduce wolves and that they only need so many breeding pairs then they will be happy. That number is reached and then nearly doubled and they still aren't happy...


There are ZERO legitimate scientists saying that wolves don't surplus kill. If there are, please cite where they have said this.

What has been done here, is that legitimate scientists and wildlife managers have emphasized that this is a not the norm, it falls outside of what normally takes place. This is why it is news worthy.

For me, I look at it a little differently. I don't care if its chupacabres surplus killing leprechauns, I want to know why? Because this is outside the norm, there is something underlying this, there is something driving this phenomenon, something to be learned, and something to be understood, and therefor something to be gained, by asking why.

BTW, mustelids are probably the world's #1 surplus killers, they make humans look like we don't like to hunt.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> There are ZERO legitimate scientists saying that wolves don't surplus kill. If there are, please cite where they have said this.
> 
> What has been done here, is that legitimate scientists and wildlife managers have emphasized that this is a not the norm, it falls outside of what normally takes place. This is why it is news worthy.
> 
> ..................................................


From what I see, read, and hear "surplus" killing by wolves is indeed rare. A number of years ago a pack of wolves got into a herd of domestic sheep up in the Wind Rivers and did some surplus killing of over 20 sheep. I'll see if I can find the article....uh...add more fuel to the fire.

.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

http://legacy.ktvb.com/story/news/local/2014/07/02/11975053/


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

johnnycake said:


> http://legacy.ktvb.com/story/news/local/2014/07/02/11975053/


There was a lot of debate on that one.

_Officials with the USDA say most of the sheep suffocated, while others were trampled to death as they piled on each other while trying to escape the wolves. Less than 10 were bitten. Only one was partially consumed._
_Two gray wolves spotted by Peruvian shepherds the next day are the suspected culprits._

I wonder if the sheep herder ever got compensated for his losses?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Still, 10 killed directly by 2 wolves and not eaten. Still a surplus kill.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

johnnycake said:


> Still, 10 killed directly by 2 wolves and not eaten. Still a surplus kill.


I don't think anyone is denying that, it is a surplus kill. This reminds me of Mr. Muleskinners tagline "If you act like prey they will act like a predator". I am probably butchering that, but that is the essence of it. Just the simple baying of domestic sheep has been shown to induce a predatory response in canines. They actually looked at muting domestic sheep as a predator prophylactic.

It is the same as ground nesting birds that act hurt to draw predators away from their nests. There is some classic footage of wolves in Canada chasing Bison. The pack is on one particular bison, but then shifts to another one that is bigger, and healthier looking. They take that one down no problem. Allot of Canadian field work showed that wolves were taking caribou that appeared to be healthy. Upon examination and blood work, there was 90%+ chance that there was something wrong with the animal, worms, mineral deficiencies, etc. Farley Mowat's "Never Cry Wolf" has some classic examples of this. His story has it's own issues, but "Never Cry Wolf" is a good read, and hilarious as well.

All that aside, I'm sure there are instances where it is just simple sport killing, just for the sake of killing. Goob will probably find some good stories to post, because there have been cases with allot more than just 20 animals. Like I said my interest tends to be why. And I do love the drama of people getting upset about pig farms smelling, birds with wings flying, and water being wet.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

wyogoob said:


> There was a lot of debate on that one.


Yeah lonetree, there was absolutely no reason for me to reply to goob there for clarity sake.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Or for me..........


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> ............................................
> 
> All that aside, I'm sure there are instances where it is just simple sport killing, just for the sake of killing. Goob will probably find some good stories to post, because there have been cases with allot more than just 20 animals. Like I said my interest tends to be why..........................................


The (my) stories on wolf/livestock predation are endless but mostly anecdotal. If you dig deep enough you can find the number(s) of elk killed by wolves in Yellowstone, or the number of domestic cows killed by wolves in Wyoming....the "proven" number of sheep killed by wolves that the WY Game & Fish reimbursed the sheep herder for. (That number by the way will be dramatically different than the number the sheep herder comes up with.) Good grief, a lot of governmental agencies are counting these "events"; but many times the numbers are driven by hearsay, by anecdotal BS, written in newspapers or posted on the web before the facts are out.

Who knows?

A lightning strike kills a cow and a calf moose at a pond. 2 days later the wolves eat half of each moose. Then I walk upon the scene, see the wolves, or fresh wolf sign all over the carcasses, and then claim those 2 moose were killed by wolves. If you are a wolf-hater you'll say the wolves killed the moose. If you are a logical person you'll ask why or how did the moose die.

There's wolves where I elk hunt. So.....If an elk runs off wounded and dies up there the wolves will most likely be on the carcass and if you walk up upon that dead and half-eaten elk you will naturally think the wolves took it out given all the wolf sign. But the inverse is true also. Who's to say that dead elk wasn't taken out by a pack of wolves?

We're even performing autopsies on domestic sheep and elk carcasses now to prove how the animals died. Jeepers, we don't even do that when a Supreme Court Justice is found dead in bed at a hunting lodge.

.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

So..they _are_ cute and fluffy.....I knew it.....


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

I, for one, welcome our new wolf overlords.

Top of the page.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

The latest from the Uinta County Herald, April 1, 2016

3 more dead elk were found later, for a total of 22.

The elk belonged to the Hoback elk herd around Bondurant. The number of elk counted by the G&F in the Hoback herd in February was 1104, right at the G&F's objective of 1100. Since then between 70 and 75 elk have been killed by 2 packs of wolves working the area. The USDA recently"eliminated" 5 of the 16 wolves from one of the packs, the Dell Pack. The wolves that made the headlines belong to the Rim Pack, with 7 to 8 wolves.

3 feeder steers at a nearby ranch were killed by wolves around the same time as the 22 elk deaths. Now, for whatever reason, the elk are starting to commingle with cattle and horses, increasing ranchers' concerns over the transmission of brucellosis. 

Ranchers are compensated by the Wyoming G&F for livestock killed by wolves. Wouldn't it be great if the WY G&F was reimbursed (by the FWS) for elk killed by wolves?

My hopes are they re-open the Wyoming wolf hunt soon and make Wyoming great again. ;-)


----------

