End of Elk Hunting in the Big Horns Mtns, Wyoming
- Thread starter kraigwy
- Start date
kraigwy said:
I guess, I got that off of the Wyoming Game & Fish web site, Wolf Management is the top link.
sirgilligan
New member
I hunted in Wyoming this year. My family that lives there recommended certain areas to avoid because of the Grizzly. The Grizzly is more aggressive because of the wolves pushing the elk (and other prey) into more populated areas. Now the elk are down amongst the cattle and Wyoming is not a "bangs free" state anymore.
Federal laws over reach. People in the city in Southern California or Florida (just two states picked for an example) are often out of touch with nature, the balance, and the brutality of it.
I think that everyone in the Rocky Mountain West should put aside their "mind your own business" attitude in 2012 and push for legislation to protect wasps, skunks, termites, starlings, hornets, mosquitoes, stray dogs, stray cats, rabbits, rats, mice, and all types of snakes and reptiles. After we get the legislation in place then we should all take turns "re-introducing" animals into cities of our choice! Didn't there used to be jaguars in California?
Sorry, I am being a smart alec, but I am trying to point out the disconnect and over reach that causes such things.
Federal laws over reach. People in the city in Southern California or Florida (just two states picked for an example) are often out of touch with nature, the balance, and the brutality of it.
I think that everyone in the Rocky Mountain West should put aside their "mind your own business" attitude in 2012 and push for legislation to protect wasps, skunks, termites, starlings, hornets, mosquitoes, stray dogs, stray cats, rabbits, rats, mice, and all types of snakes and reptiles. After we get the legislation in place then we should all take turns "re-introducing" animals into cities of our choice! Didn't there used to be jaguars in California?
Sorry, I am being a smart alec, but I am trying to point out the disconnect and over reach that causes such things.
tahunua001
New member
and people wonder why idaho is recruiting alaskan trapping experts to actually teach outdoorsmen how to track, trap and hunt these things...they're out there make no mistake. and people also wonder why the elk populations dropped from 17,000 to 2000.
and I cant believe the level of ignorance here. the indigenious wolves of the contiguous US are red wolves. lone hunters, high infant mortality rates, a good 30-50 pounds lighter than gray wolves and they didn't carry disease. they were little more than coyotes.
these are canadian gray wolves. they are adapted to harsher environments than montana, idaho and wyoming so they hunt in packs to take down larger game, they have a non-existant mortality rate for the pups and they are huge. they have adapted to hunt regardless of whether they are hungry or not because they may not see another herd for a long time. they will kill entire herds of elk without eating a single bite on many of them simply becasue they can. pictures of the old timers with wolves are pictures of red wolves, not gray wolves. if they weren't in black and white then maybe some people could open their eyes to the stupidity that was the introduction of gray wolves to the US.
the reason gray wolves aren't out of control in alaska and canada is the same reason that wild pigs aren't out of control in africa, it's their natural habitat, not yellowstone, not the lewis-clark valley, not the bitter roots or the big horns.
and I cant believe the level of ignorance here. the indigenious wolves of the contiguous US are red wolves. lone hunters, high infant mortality rates, a good 30-50 pounds lighter than gray wolves and they didn't carry disease. they were little more than coyotes.
these are canadian gray wolves. they are adapted to harsher environments than montana, idaho and wyoming so they hunt in packs to take down larger game, they have a non-existant mortality rate for the pups and they are huge. they have adapted to hunt regardless of whether they are hungry or not because they may not see another herd for a long time. they will kill entire herds of elk without eating a single bite on many of them simply becasue they can. pictures of the old timers with wolves are pictures of red wolves, not gray wolves. if they weren't in black and white then maybe some people could open their eyes to the stupidity that was the introduction of gray wolves to the US.
the reason gray wolves aren't out of control in alaska and canada is the same reason that wild pigs aren't out of control in africa, it's their natural habitat, not yellowstone, not the lewis-clark valley, not the bitter roots or the big horns.
Last edited:
tahunua001
New member
+1 these last couple years has shown a huge increase in bear attacks despite decreased numbers of people venturing into the wild
sirgilligan
New member
Thanks, but I am just reporting what was told by those that have lived there, their family has been there over 100 years now. They know the area, the dangers, the animal populations, the interaction with their cattle herds, all of it.
The main point is that unless you talk to those that deal with it every day and put behind you the stereotype of a rancher being a big dumb brute and realize that ranchers are mechanics, veterinarians, soil conservationists, workers with chemicals, genetics, and a plethora of other sciences and fields of study and take them for their word things would not be where they are now. When they tell me it is too dangerous, I believe them. When the tell me why, and when it started, and how they witnessed the situation progress it all makes sense.
Yes, I am a simple software engineer with a graduate degree in Physical and Mathematical Sciences, but that doesn't make me smart. I grew up on a dairy farm. I treated sick calves, I poured cement, I built buildings, I repaired machinery, and I know, from first hand experience, that farmer, rancher, or computer scientist, people are smart through work and effort and experience. Poor speaking skills or writing skills doesn't make one stupid.
I wonder why it seems, and it does seem so, that people think ranchers and their ilk are stupid. My rule is that if someone thinks someone else is stupid then they are arrogant. I have met very few stupid people. Plenty of ignorant ones, but few stupid ones.
I don't know why I went down this particular rat hole. Sorry.
Local Wyoming ranchers have told me personally that the Grizzly bear is more aggressive since the wolves pushed the food supply into more populated areas. The elk then brought disease to the cattle. It is all connected.
They march straighter than some of those REP 63's I trained in the Guard, Captain. They will probablty have to be hunted annually to keep their numbers down, and if the authorities get it right, the state will profit from a good program of season limits and so forth. And that helps the economy at the local level.
All you have to do is watch the movie "Cry Wolf".That movie is proof wolves subsist entirely on mice and are nothing to worry about.
I had one elk season in the Flat Tops in Colorado.I missed the next hunt,but two brothers and a friend went back.
All spent a lot of years outdoors in Colorado,all know what a coyote is.One spent his young life living in Alaska,and served on the military there.He knows what wolves are.One of my brothers on this hunt spent his career in SOCOM,and was an A team Commander for many years.
These folks are not prone to sensationalize seeing some coyotes.
They heard wolves,wolve left tracks through camp while they were hunting,and the elk had moved on.
They told DOW,and they said,"No,no wolves in the Flat Tops".Later,they changed their mind,and said there are wolves in the Flat Tops.
Huntergirl,who posted here,encountered wolves in Wyo.I consider her quite credible.
Doggone,I have been on the verge of ordering a Lipsey Special Ruger with Bisley grips....
But that pic is enough to make me think double stack 10 mm,maybe a fusion 1911 kit!!
I had one elk season in the Flat Tops in Colorado.I missed the next hunt,but two brothers and a friend went back.
All spent a lot of years outdoors in Colorado,all know what a coyote is.One spent his young life living in Alaska,and served on the military there.He knows what wolves are.One of my brothers on this hunt spent his career in SOCOM,and was an A team Commander for many years.
These folks are not prone to sensationalize seeing some coyotes.
They heard wolves,wolve left tracks through camp while they were hunting,and the elk had moved on.
They told DOW,and they said,"No,no wolves in the Flat Tops".Later,they changed their mind,and said there are wolves in the Flat Tops.
Huntergirl,who posted here,encountered wolves in Wyo.I consider her quite credible.
Doggone,I have been on the verge of ordering a Lipsey Special Ruger with Bisley grips....
But that pic is enough to make me think double stack 10 mm,maybe a fusion 1911 kit!!
Wolves have expanded alot, they are now about 50 miles outside of Salt Lake City.
I'm all for wolves.......skinned and tanned!
We had a growing number around Bear Lake in south eastern Idaho when I lived there, and you could definitely notice the change in numbers of the rest of the critters around.
I'm all for wolves.......skinned and tanned!
We had a growing number around Bear Lake in south eastern Idaho when I lived there, and you could definitely notice the change in numbers of the rest of the critters around.
I whole heartedly agree, maybe we should release a few dozen around Washington DC and see how harmless they are...........
" . . . why the elk populations dropped from 17,000 to 2000." In Idaho for 1988 to 2010.
This is true for the Lolo Zone and somewhat true for the Sawtooth Zone. Depletion of elk herds in both zones is primarily due to wolf predation and to periods of harsh weather. Other Idaho elk zones seem to be holding their elk populations at reasonable levels.
Very interesting read - http://greateryellowstone.org/uploads/Idaho_FG.pdf
This is true for the Lolo Zone and somewhat true for the Sawtooth Zone. Depletion of elk herds in both zones is primarily due to wolf predation and to periods of harsh weather. Other Idaho elk zones seem to be holding their elk populations at reasonable levels.
Very interesting read - http://greateryellowstone.org/uploads/Idaho_FG.pdf
Pond James Pond
New member
I am not a Zoologist, but I find Zoology interesting.
In principle, I find humanity's constant ability to wipe stuff out, not simply accommodate somewhat depressing.
Still,I do not know the ins and outs of this situation, nor to I have a definitive answer to whether this species ever roamed these areas. So I will leave my own views there for now.
I would like an honest answer though. Do those people who are against this species living in the wild and doing what evolution designed it to do resent it because it is no longer doing what it should be in nature, or because it means they get fewer elk to shoot?
Flame if you will, but I actually just want an honest answer from people.
In principle, I find humanity's constant ability to wipe stuff out, not simply accommodate somewhat depressing.
Still,I do not know the ins and outs of this situation, nor to I have a definitive answer to whether this species ever roamed these areas. So I will leave my own views there for now.
I would like an honest answer though. Do those people who are against this species living in the wild and doing what evolution designed it to do resent it because it is no longer doing what it should be in nature, or because it means they get fewer elk to shoot?
Flame if you will, but I actually just want an honest answer from people.
As in any invasive species, they are out of place and not doing what "evolution" meant them to do in that ecosystem. A healthy ecosystem has checks and balances for the prey and predators. This is technically an invasive subspecies that is the most aggressive and largest of all the extant wolves. It is also a cruel killing machine that often kills and doesn't bother to eat the kill. Grizzly bears, black bears and mountain lions only kill what they can eat. Not so with this invasive beast. Take a look at the following link to see why ranchers want to rid the land of these beasts. (Not for the faint of heart)
http://washingtonwolf.info/livestock_attacks.html
"Evolution" placed this beast in the northern, subarctic and Arctic regions where caribou have a much better chance of survival in huge numbers than elk, deer and even mountain lions, grizzly bears and black bears who are no longer the highest on the food chain the northern Rockies. They are out of place. This is not an experiment that nature produced but man instead. It is one more in a long line of ill fated interventions in nature by man.
Lastly, look up the history of wolves in Russia and Finland and you will see the battle waged against these beast that are not only deadly in their own right, but also carry a deadly parasite that infects all the creatures in the woods that contaminate themselves in the ever present wolf scat. Humans can bring them home on the bottom of their shoes where people become infected with a parasite that can form huge cysts throughout the body. Treatment for these parasites are less than adequate and they kill many people in Russia and Finland.
http://westinstenv.org/wildpeop/2010/02/07/synopsis-of-wolf-borne-hydatid-disease/
Worst of all, the Feds knew all of this information about this subspecies BEFORE they introduced them to a perfectly functioning ecosystem. It is no longer in balance. Wolves are known to eat every game animal in an area until they starve themselves to death unlike most other predators. One wolf will kill up to 50 elk every year. Do the math on how many wolves it takes to wipe out an entire ungulate population.
Most folks truly have never heard the whole story about wolves and why the folks out west hate them with a passion. We did a good thing banishing them to the far reaches of the northern territories nearly a century ago and ridding populated areas of this beast. We are simply foolish to place people, livestock and game animals at risk from this invasive species. The people in Russia and Finland are befuddled by this unique experiment which makes no sense to them. For any one that digs deep into this controversy, I suspect it won't make any sense to them either.
http://washingtonwolf.info/livestock_attacks.html
"Evolution" placed this beast in the northern, subarctic and Arctic regions where caribou have a much better chance of survival in huge numbers than elk, deer and even mountain lions, grizzly bears and black bears who are no longer the highest on the food chain the northern Rockies. They are out of place. This is not an experiment that nature produced but man instead. It is one more in a long line of ill fated interventions in nature by man.
Lastly, look up the history of wolves in Russia and Finland and you will see the battle waged against these beast that are not only deadly in their own right, but also carry a deadly parasite that infects all the creatures in the woods that contaminate themselves in the ever present wolf scat. Humans can bring them home on the bottom of their shoes where people become infected with a parasite that can form huge cysts throughout the body. Treatment for these parasites are less than adequate and they kill many people in Russia and Finland.
http://westinstenv.org/wildpeop/2010/02/07/synopsis-of-wolf-borne-hydatid-disease/
Worst of all, the Feds knew all of this information about this subspecies BEFORE they introduced them to a perfectly functioning ecosystem. It is no longer in balance. Wolves are known to eat every game animal in an area until they starve themselves to death unlike most other predators. One wolf will kill up to 50 elk every year. Do the math on how many wolves it takes to wipe out an entire ungulate population.
Most folks truly have never heard the whole story about wolves and why the folks out west hate them with a passion. We did a good thing banishing them to the far reaches of the northern territories nearly a century ago and ridding populated areas of this beast. We are simply foolish to place people, livestock and game animals at risk from this invasive species. The people in Russia and Finland are befuddled by this unique experiment which makes no sense to them. For any one that digs deep into this controversy, I suspect it won't make any sense to them either.
Pond James Pond
New member
Well, firstly, there are many animals that may hunt and kill for what we may see as just pleasure, or leaving most of the carcass untouched. It is may be means of pack cohesion reinforcement or social structuring. Grizzlies will kill a salmon, just to eat a few grams of roe, killer whales kill a humpback, just to eat the tongue, and cute dolphins do kill for the fun of it, at face value.
Humans do the same: we sometimes kill for a trophy, a tusk or a skin and leave the rest. Humans at least have a moral self awareness allowing us to decide if it is right or wrong.
My point is that this behaviour would not take place if it did not serve some purpose, even if it is not nutritional. Wolves, being fairly intelligent simply would not expend that energy, nor put themselves are risk of physical harm for no benefit at all...
So my guess is they do this for a reason, not because they are inherently "evil".
I have not looked at the link relating to wolf kills. Any animal killed by a predator and not eaten whole, instantaneously is not a pretty sight, not just those by wolves.
The difference with livestock is people attribute a financial value: its not that the wolf kills, its that it affects someone's paycheck.
My point here is that an animal's means of killing can't be used as a legitimate reason to wipe it out again.
I understand that you say that this species is invasive.
I will refrain from judging that one way or the other as other members seem equally sure that it was a native species at sometime in the past. I simply don't know enough about this species to judge.
You also rightly say that human intervention is often cock-eyed and meddlesome, but that statement is even more true of the unfettered eradications and extinctions that then make reintroductions a necessary consideration later.
With respect to disease, wolves are not the only vectors of parasites and disease in the wild. Indeed, this is a potent means of control for any number of species in the wild. There are lots of animal carriers.
Ticks are worse in Scandinavia, or at least far more publicised as a threat than wolf poo. At least with the latter you can wipe your feet, or leave the shoes outside. Not so easy with Borealiosis, or Encephalitis.
Should we wipe out any and all carriers of disease or try and deseminate a viable treatment into their habitat? If not all, then why just wolves on this basis?
My general point in all of this is, if we leave the question of whether they are native or not out, as I don't know either way, all the other reasons could just as easily be pointed at other species than the wolf, yet they are not spoken of with such vehemence.
I'm left with the impression that many dislike either the effect on income (livestock) or the competition for game (hunting sports). That was why I was asking for people's honest views on their reasons against.
BTW, is there a reason you type evolution in inverted commas?
Humans do the same: we sometimes kill for a trophy, a tusk or a skin and leave the rest. Humans at least have a moral self awareness allowing us to decide if it is right or wrong.
My point is that this behaviour would not take place if it did not serve some purpose, even if it is not nutritional. Wolves, being fairly intelligent simply would not expend that energy, nor put themselves are risk of physical harm for no benefit at all...
So my guess is they do this for a reason, not because they are inherently "evil".
I have not looked at the link relating to wolf kills. Any animal killed by a predator and not eaten whole, instantaneously is not a pretty sight, not just those by wolves.
The difference with livestock is people attribute a financial value: its not that the wolf kills, its that it affects someone's paycheck.
My point here is that an animal's means of killing can't be used as a legitimate reason to wipe it out again.
I understand that you say that this species is invasive.
I will refrain from judging that one way or the other as other members seem equally sure that it was a native species at sometime in the past. I simply don't know enough about this species to judge.
You also rightly say that human intervention is often cock-eyed and meddlesome, but that statement is even more true of the unfettered eradications and extinctions that then make reintroductions a necessary consideration later.
With respect to disease, wolves are not the only vectors of parasites and disease in the wild. Indeed, this is a potent means of control for any number of species in the wild. There are lots of animal carriers.
Ticks are worse in Scandinavia, or at least far more publicised as a threat than wolf poo. At least with the latter you can wipe your feet, or leave the shoes outside. Not so easy with Borealiosis, or Encephalitis.
Should we wipe out any and all carriers of disease or try and deseminate a viable treatment into their habitat? If not all, then why just wolves on this basis?
My general point in all of this is, if we leave the question of whether they are native or not out, as I don't know either way, all the other reasons could just as easily be pointed at other species than the wolf, yet they are not spoken of with such vehemence.
I'm left with the impression that many dislike either the effect on income (livestock) or the competition for game (hunting sports). That was why I was asking for people's honest views on their reasons against.
BTW, is there a reason you type evolution in inverted commas?
Last edited:
In a post above, I tried to address this, PJP.
If the humans hadn't wanted to take over the lands that are prime habitat for the ungulates and wolves, I wouldn't think highly of wolf killers. They serve a purpose when the rest of a population base has no other means of population control other than disease and lack of food. It is best to keep populations in check "mechanically" than to wait until over population puts severe suffering into the equation.
But man is in charge of the critters whether it be thru some religious book one believes or thru legislated powers.
Once we chose to move our pets, livestock, children and belongings into an area to live, we begin making the area suitable.
One thing man has the ability to do is to remove critters that may be thinkin' the man and his charges would fit on their menu or play time list of fun critters to play with.
Not only did we move west but we took over much of the land other critters once had access to.
So now you have fewer elk and other animals. More calving cows and children though.
Everything was fine since wolves were eradicated to a very low population... Some will even say that the original native subspecie was made extinct.
Now we have even MORE humans and FEWER other animals and they think it is smart to introduce a subspecie known as one of the largest to ever roam the face of the earth.
And rather than try this on a smaller scale to try it out using the Red Wolf who roamed up that way as his northern limits...
Brent
If the humans hadn't wanted to take over the lands that are prime habitat for the ungulates and wolves, I wouldn't think highly of wolf killers. They serve a purpose when the rest of a population base has no other means of population control other than disease and lack of food. It is best to keep populations in check "mechanically" than to wait until over population puts severe suffering into the equation.
But man is in charge of the critters whether it be thru some religious book one believes or thru legislated powers.
Once we chose to move our pets, livestock, children and belongings into an area to live, we begin making the area suitable.
One thing man has the ability to do is to remove critters that may be thinkin' the man and his charges would fit on their menu or play time list of fun critters to play with.
Not only did we move west but we took over much of the land other critters once had access to.
So now you have fewer elk and other animals. More calving cows and children though.
Everything was fine since wolves were eradicated to a very low population... Some will even say that the original native subspecie was made extinct.
Now we have even MORE humans and FEWER other animals and they think it is smart to introduce a subspecie known as one of the largest to ever roam the face of the earth.
And rather than try this on a smaller scale to try it out using the Red Wolf who roamed up that way as his northern limits...
Brent
Pond James Pond
New member
Perhaps not in the case of elk population, but extinctions are happeining left right and centre and typically the result of carelessness or short-sightedness and sometimes the solutions are not as simple as a reintroduction.
Our attitude to how we interact with our environments (I won't call it manage as I believe that to be a fallacy) is historically nothing to be proud of and yet we continue in the same manner....
Pond James Pond
New member
@Hogdogs
I can see where you are coming from and to add to it I would firstly say that we are not in charge of the critters. We only think we are.
They and the systems they inhabit, the laws of nature and physics don't give two hoots for whatever our various writings may proclaim.
It just doesn't work that way.
However, your observation about the ratio and movement of Man and how these wolves interact with that movement is probably right. They do appear to be in direct competition.
Based on that it seems that the reason there are fewer elk is more a product of man's growing activities rather than those of wolves.
This reintroduction is simply exacerbating Man's own effects.
So, my view is that there is just as strong an arguement for changing our behaviours in this and other environments as there is an arguement against reintroducing wolves. Both actions would have beneficial effects on elk populations.
Needless to say, I can guess which comes in second place.
The questions that come to mind for me are:
What will happen to the elk populations if Man's expansion is such that they then become the nuisance species?
Will they, too, become candidates for eradication?
Or will they die out just because we clear their habitats of trees?
It is also worth noting that, arguably, livestock is probably more of an invasive species than the wolves...
Either way, thanks for helping to answer my question.
I can see where you are coming from and to add to it I would firstly say that we are not in charge of the critters. We only think we are.
They and the systems they inhabit, the laws of nature and physics don't give two hoots for whatever our various writings may proclaim.
It just doesn't work that way.
However, your observation about the ratio and movement of Man and how these wolves interact with that movement is probably right. They do appear to be in direct competition.
Based on that it seems that the reason there are fewer elk is more a product of man's growing activities rather than those of wolves.
This reintroduction is simply exacerbating Man's own effects.
So, my view is that there is just as strong an arguement for changing our behaviours in this and other environments as there is an arguement against reintroducing wolves. Both actions would have beneficial effects on elk populations.
Needless to say, I can guess which comes in second place.
The questions that come to mind for me are:
What will happen to the elk populations if Man's expansion is such that they then become the nuisance species?
Will they, too, become candidates for eradication?
Or will they die out just because we clear their habitats of trees?
It is also worth noting that, arguably, livestock is probably more of an invasive species than the wolves...
Either way, thanks for helping to answer my question.
Last edited: