Kansas Crimson

Three years for the Federal government at Isle Royals Natl Park in the mid 1990s. That is the place from your bio textbooks with the predator prey examples of moose and wolves. It’s a real neat place. They don’t do stupid stuff like put out winter feed for the overpopulated animals, thus letting their numbers grow and encourage them to get used to people and spread diseases amongst their crowds.

Fair enough. My experience with wolves differ vastly from yours. Course, mine werent for a textbook.


Also, dont recall artificial feeding being part of the discussion. You've added that little bit of irrelevant fluff all on your own, as you so often do.

To each their own. Some call it irrelevant fluff while others call it interesting content to encourage discussion on a message board.

My point was that, at that time, Isle Royals NP was a very “wild” place.

My point of calling it fluff is that you added that silly little non fact (of course they werent artificially feeding, nowhere did anyone talk about that in truly wild areas....we're not discussing whitetail hunting on grandpa's farm), you added that to make my side of the argument seem more silly and less valid. The same reason you added some nonsense about geezer being a welfare queen in to my argument that people shouldnt sign up for welfare unless it is truly needed. Dont play innocent those comments are there to serve a purpose.


Also, the study from the isle appears to have spent 50 years proving nothing. The moose and wolf populations never stabilized, seemed to have little effect on one another and the populations of both species varied wildly.

That would seem to prove both of us wrong.

https://www.outsideonline.com/2066881/t ... -not-sport

special on nat geo last night prompted me to do a little searching on the whole “killing for fun” idea. turns out, wolves will feed on a carcass for months, and such “surplus killings” are exceedingly rare

i obviously don’t know the details of your experiences, tdub, but if you’ve been personally impacted by wolves then i can somewhat understand your disdain for them. i guess for me, they would be part of the attraction of living in a rural area such as yours, rather than being a drawback.

Trad, I haven’t read your link yet, but that is what I had heard too. The colder the weather, the more they might kill at once. Then return to eat. I could have mentioned that in a prior post, but some may get upset about “fluff.”

Trad, you ever hear of people providing supplemental feed to elk to help them survive winters? Again, that might smack of fluff, but it is the first thing I think of when I hear elk being discussed. BTW, if fluff offends you, might a recommend staying away from message boards titled “Off Topic.” My “fluff” comments are interesting talking points, IMO, and not meant to offend lesser posters.

I hope no one minds me discussing the wolves and moose populations at Isle Royale.... it has been mentioned in this thread by another poster so I’m going to assume this is ok.

Someone mentioned that the single predator (wolves) did not (in the last 50 years) stabilize the single prey (moose). However, I find it remiss to not mention that the wolf population took a demise from some asshole dog owner that allowed their parvo-carrying dog onto a United Nations-designated international biosphere reserve Island. The wolves were dying from parvo, NOT a lack of moose to eat. That caused the population of wolves to drop too low to maintain enough dna diversity. Again, nature might have been able to help with this, but humans now keep the great lake ice open for shipping all year round. Since no ice bridges are allowed, no new wolf blood can make it across the 14 miles to the NP from mainland Canada.

In summary, I do not agree with a conclusion simply stating that wolves can not control the over population of their prey.

DrPepper wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 4:49 pm I hope no one minds me discussing the wolves and moose populations at Isle Royale.... it has been mentioned in this thread by another poster so I’m going to assume this is ok...

Don't be silly. This discussion is fascinating.

Feral wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:34 pm

DrPepper wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 4:49 pm I hope no one minds me discussing the wolves and moose populations at Isle Royale.... it has been mentioned in this thread by another poster so I’m going to assume this is ok...

Don't be silly. This discussion is fascinating.

^^^^^^

DrPepper wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 4:30 pm Trad, I haven’t read your link yet, but that is what I had heard too. The colder the weather, the more they might kill at once. Then return to eat. I could have mentioned that in a prior post, but some may get upset about “fluff.”

Trad, you ever hear of people providing supplemental feed to elk to help them survive winters? Again, that might smack of fluff, but it is the first thing I think of when I hear elk being discussed. BTW, if fluff offends you, might a recommend staying away from message boards titled “Off Topic.” My “fluff” comments are interesting talking points, IMO, and not meant to offend lesser posters.

yes...it mentions that in either that link or a nat geo one i was reading about the same occurrence

i’ll also speculate that habitat transformations aimed at yielding better conditions for domestic animals may inadvertently provide additional resources for the elk...even if that’s not the intent. i don’t know this for fact, but seems reasonable

it should be obvious that i’m a fan of rewilding as much of this planet as possible

The megafauna discussion is great.

I can confirm that elk like to poach hay from winter livestock pastures. In CO one can view entire herds of elk commingling amongst the cattle.

What’s the history of wolves on Isle Royale? I thought I saw that they weren’t necessarily there as a long-established population. They could feasibly travel on an ice bridge, but that’s not necessarily available any longer.

With wolves and other predators, the western rancher’s mantra has long been “shoot, shovel, shut up.” Any encounter with a predator is promptly met with force. If the predator is killed the rancher buries or otherwise disposes of the carcass, since animals may be protected and ranchers don’t wanna deal with that kinda trouble.

While ranchers have long operated with this mindset, it’s arguably dated. Loosing one cow is framed as economic disaster and historically has been met with total annihilation of the predators. But this ain’t the 1850s no more, and perhaps it’s time for a greater sense of understanding and responsibility. Loosing a cow should be balanced against a sense of environmental conservation. Is loosing one cow worse than loosing one of the last wolves in Michigan, or the last grizzly bear in Colorado?

Oh and the whole “but it’s mah way of life” argument among ranchers seems at least as feeble as the same argument among coal miners.

Says the guy that isnt a rancher. If the trout were gone I bet you'd be frustrated with the lack of success during your guided fishing trips.

Ranchers operate on thin margins, losing even small amounts of animals can have a big impact on those families.


I'm not saying kill all wolves, I'm suggesting control and active management. Most people that ive met that advocate for completely unchecked wolf populations are from areas that are in no way impacted by wolf activity (generally west siders, coasters, portlanders, seattleites). When you suggest reintroduction of wolves to their areas they are up un arms about "cougars are enough, we dont need wolf's near our elementaries etc... despite the fact the natural range of wolves extend clear to the coast. I guess the children and elementaries on this side are less important to them.

Also, the shoot, shovel and shut up is less effective with the radio collars.

https://www.jhnewsandguide.com/opinion/ ... 679c9.html

Mentions the elk feeding pepper was talking about. Also discusses "surplus killings" that "dont exist".

c’mon, “cowboy common sense” versus the opinions that have actually worked with wolf conservation?

TDub wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:40 am Says the guy that isnt a rancher. If the trout were gone I bet you'd be frustrated with the lack of success during your guided fishing trips.

except cattle aren't anything close to trout, obviously. is that what you were trying to argue?

TDub wrote: Ranchers operate on thin margins, losing even small amounts of animals can have a big impact on those families.

and i can very much appreciate that, but given the relatively small impact depredation by wolves has on the grand scheme of things, it seems mis-guided to vilify the animals

this study is out-dated, but you've inspired me to look more seriously into the matter...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 0909001347

Data were gathered from depredation investigations, from the livestock compensation program and on land and livestock price in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, U.S.A. from 1987 to 2003 – a period during which wolves had endangered species status. We found that instigation of attacks on livestock by wolves was determined by need for food, but wolves may kill sheep in excess of food needs. Excessive killing of livestock may contribute significantly to intolerance for wolves. Livestock killed by wolves cost producers approximately $11,076.49 per year between 1987 and 2003, although costs were increasing linearly (R2 = 0.789, P < 0.001). Each year such costs accounted for < 0.01% of the annual gross income from livestock operations in the region. Thus, wolf depredation is a small economic cost to the industry, although it may be a significant cost to affected producers as these costs are not equitably distributed across the industry.

TDub wrote:I'm not saying kill all wolves, I'm suggesting control and active management. Most people that ive met that advocate for completely unchecked wolf populations are from areas that are in no way impacted by wolf activity (generally west siders, coasters, portlanders, seattleites). When you suggest reintroduction of wolves to their areas they are up un arms about "cougars are enough, we dont need wolf's near our elementaries etc... despite the fact the natural range of wolves extend clear to the coast. I guess the children and elementaries on this side are less important to them.

i've not encountered anyone that advocates one but not the other, but then we obviously run in different circles

wolves used to range nearly continent-wide, as did elk...and even grizzlies used to get down into the plains before they were eradicated by humans

i think it's possible to strike a balance, but it has to start with everyone being more open-minded to the others' situation and desires. and, as with other inherent risks associated with living a rural existence, there are things you'll have to deal with when you choose such a life. here in utah, as is the case throughout much of the west, you're not only going to come into more contact with wildlife, but you'll also be more vulnerable to fires...and more likely to be "cut-off" from civilization because of a heavy snow-fall

and i'm specifically looking for a wolf biologist that supports the idea of "sport killing"

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:19 am c’mon, “cowboy common sense” versus the opinions that have actually worked with wolf conservation?

Dont like cowboy common sense....actually from the jackson hole newspaper......heres CNN

https://www-m.cnn.com/2016/03/25/us/wyo ... ling%2Belk

Not arguing cattle are the same as trout. Ousdahl makes his living via trout (or did). He probably is for things that help the trout population. Cattlemen make their living via cattle and are for things that dont take away their living. Also, hunters like to eat elk and deer, and are for maintaining a population of these animals on public grounds.

Around here the elk and deer that arent killed by wolves are pushed down to private ground....(where the wolves are most likely controlled illegally.....via lead or bacon soaked sponges or some such things.

TDub wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 12:16 pm

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:19 am c’mon, “cowboy common sense” versus the opinions that have actually worked with wolf conservation?

Dont like cowboy common sense....actually from the jackson hole newspaper......heres CNN

https://www-m.cnn.com/2016/03/25/us/wyo ... ling%2Belk

that doesn't support the notion of sport killing at all

were the wolves chased off the kill/s?

how long were the carcasses left? days? weeks? months? as i said the other day, my information indicates that a wolf might return to feed on a carcass for up to seven months after the kill

if they are actively feeding the elk in that area, it would seem that the elk numbers might be inflated above what might occur naturally...in which case of course there would be an increase in predators and predation.

i’ve yet to see any source that doesn’t have a tie to ranching/agricultural that espouses the idea of sport killing

all i’ve seen is a serious misunderstanding of natural wolf behavior...but i’m gonna keep looking

and i’m honestly open to the idea, particularly because “natural” behaviors can go right out the door when it comes to the interface between humans and nature. though, nothing i’ve read has convinced me that there is some sort of carnal pleasure being had by wolves in these situations. rather, it seems they are more than likely taking advantage of prey items that are 1) overly abundant, and 2) unnaturally congregated in artificial feeding areas