Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting Well, the wolves are winning . . .

I went ahead and pulled the numbers from the States web site;

Here's the numbers I came up with. That info site explains all the models for coming up with the statistics, and why.

Year:..........kill 250/270...321.....Sub total....total
2003...........227/872........378........1099......1477
2004...........380/504........353.........884......1237
2005...........357/952........400........1309......1709
2006...........280/612........329.........892......1221
2007...........333/948........293........1281......1574

Totals:........1577/3888.....2074........5465......7539

I was off by 135, I admit. Here's the link if interested.
harvest tables

mtmuley...you believing it now?

I have the same information from the MTFWP biologist in charge of the Bitterroot...emailed him yesterday. I got the same information from another source as well. Both of them had the same data from 2004-2009 was 5,340 total elk killed in districts 250 and 270...and that was NOT including any archery kills.

2003 was the start of the slaughter in the Bitterroot in 250 and 270...1,100 elk taken from those units in 2003.

2002 and 2001 data reported that just over 400 total elk were taken in those 2 units.

Reality bites....

From the KFBB website in Great Falls, MT.


"BILLINGS, Mont. - Montana wildlife officials are recommending that hunters be allowed to kill nearly three times as many wolves in this year's hunt compared to 2009.

Wildlife managers are asking the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission to approve a quota between 186 and 216 wolves for the 2010 hunting season. That's compared to 75 wolves last year.

Chief of Wildlife Ken McDonald says the changes will ensure a widely distributed wolf harvest that will target areas where wolf depredations of livestock, deer and elk are expected.

There were at least 525 wolves in Montana last year and the number of wolves across the northern Rockies is growing, though at its slowest rate in nearly 15 years.

The commission will take up the proposal when it meets Thursday."

So if we add elk killed from the North end of the Valley, 261 and 204 we are approaching a harvest of around 10,000 elk in 5 years apparently. Oh, and what if we add 240? Buzz, forgive me if I am slow in my research and appear as a 95%er. I have to work full time to support my efforts to kill one of these elk. mtmuley

Those others added up to 3755 add that to the 5465= 9220

those districs are the ones that have a higher probability of a flaw, they don't have solid check station numbers to go by.

The areas that were in question do.

Those numbers I just listed were 204 +240+261 for 5 years =3755

Do you think that's out of line?

How are they going to accomplish this unless they allow trapping? I hear rumors of a trapping season down the road, but never seen it in print..

They will if they extend the season through March 31. They won't come close with the general season dates.

Wolves do have a large impact on elk. Why people insist this is not true is beyond me. It goes deeper than actual kills though.

Biologists will tell you that a pregnant elk cow, when pressured early in the pregnancy will abort.

Here's a excerpt from an interview with Idaho F&G
Two severe winters, plus a growing wolf population, have dramatically reduced elk calf survival rates. To allow the herds to recover, wildlife managers shortened hunting seasons by seven to 14 days. The cutbacks affect archery, rifle and muzzleloader seasons. Jim Hayden, Idaho Department of Fish and Game�s regional wildlife manager, discussed the situation last week.

Q.How many fewer elk calves are you seeing?

A.This year, we counted 12 calves for every 100 cows. We�ve been at a ratio of 40 to 45 calves for every 100 cows. That�s high production and we�ve had that for the last seven to eight years. We want a ratio of at least 30.

Q.How much mortality was caused by wolves, as opposed to the deep snows?

A.Just from winter alone, we know we had some substantial losses. We had more snow than we did in 1996, when there were functionally no wolves, and we still lost perhaps a quarter of the elk that winter. �Where there were no wolves, the calf ratio dropped to the 20s this spring. Where we had wolves, we saw the ratio drop to nine calves per 100 cow elk.

So w/o counting direct kills to eat, wolves are reducing the population where they live. And in this case the reduction is more than 50% not counting direct predation

Here"s another good article:
http://www.huntthewest.com/2010/IDlolo.php

Some wolf lovers say the average age of an elk kill is 12.6 years. Which doesn't just fit with the wolves preference of hunting smaller and weaker herd members.

These statements show the major problem the wolf predation is causing
Wolf predation is the major source of mortality on this elk herd and is affecting population size because too few calves are surviving to replace the adults that die each year. Predation is preventing recovery from a decline that began in the late 1980s and a steep decline following the severe winter of 1996-97.

The greatest declines were observed in numbers of elk cows, calves and spike bulls.

You can argue all you want about raw numbers, but when there's a major decline in the younger population, you will not be replacing the older elk that die from natural causes at a rate that makes a herd sustainable.

Then there's the issue that when a wolf pack gets large enough, it will kill for sport
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/IFW...lves%20kill%20120%20sheep%20in%20MT.html
When small in number, this doesn't happen. When a pack gets large enough the sport killing starts to happen.

I could go on about other issues, but the ones listed here seem to be left out or ignored by most wolf proponents.

What surprises people that hear me backing wolf hunting and blocking reintroduction is finding out that I've owned a wolf cross and a gray/timber wolf cross as pets. I love the animals. Yet I'm for hunting the existing populations because I know a lot more about the animals than the average hunter as I tried to learn as much about how they lived in the wild as possible.

All the nature shows present a very lopsided view of the animals. Many biologists do too as their desire to have them reintroduced as caused them to turn a blind eye to the not so wonderful side of the animals. A case of letting their personal feelings get in the way of being objective.

So- hunt them, control them, and don't think we owe to to nature to bring them back unconditionally. Colorado's stance of not performing a human assisted reintroduction is a sound one.

That's because you're too far removed from the wild places, farm boy. Pictures of predators killing their prey anger those with a "Disney-like" vision of nature. Anti-hunters have the same reaction to pictures of hunters killing game animals, and use those pictures in the same way.

Hey, does it always smell like pig crap in Iowa? Man, that place stinks!