End of Elk Hunting in the Big Horns Mtns, Wyoming

For those will all the skill points in self delusion, maybe read up on the facts. The grey wolf is the natural species for the Rockies and beyond, the red wolf never extended much past the south eastern US. As for their reintroduction, all we're doing is maintaining a highly artificial zoo anyway. The dominant species are human and cattle, we're just assigning some spots for our preferred "wild" animals. Elk hunts like more elk, less wolf, people getting their food from the supermarket believe in "natural balance". It's just like balancing the budget without touching social security, medicare and defense spending; if you've reserved 98% of land for human use the rest is just pretending.
 
mquail stated...
The photo is real and was taken by Chadden Hunter in Canada's Wood Buffalo National Park

http://www.wildlifeartjournal.com/bl...ack-train.html
Click to expand...

So I am curious. How is it that the wolves in the OP image are any threat to elk in Wyoming some 1100 miles away? It would appear that the entire basis of this thread is centered around incorrect information - using a misattributed image of a large wolf pack that isn't even the same subspecies about which folks are complaining.

I am pretty sure that the elk populations are not what they were in the early 1800's before man moved into their territory.
Click to expand...

In North America, 'man' has been in elk territory for at least the last 12,000 years or so. Those involved in the largely anglo-oriented 1800s Manifest Destiny were not the first humans into the elk territory and not even the first westerners there. Historically, elk had a near bi-coastal distribution and were encountered by early French and Spanish explorers in Georgia, Louisiana, New Mexico, and California (and probably in several other states as well). Many of these explorations were soon followed by settlements in elk territory well prior to the 1800s.

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.
Click to expand...

Well that makes two of us given that your statement about red wolves is incorrect. Gray wolves are here naturally, entering the New World near the end of the Pleistocene along with a variety of other animals that are considered indigenous to North America. Red wolves never roamed the contiguous US, but were largely limited to the easter portion of the US and up into Canada. Red wolves are not special or magical in any way when it comes to disease. They suffer pretty much the full range of diseases common to many mammals and in particular to canids.

You are right in that red wolves are one of the smaller varieties and they often do hunting singly. This is because their primary prey are smaller animals such as rabbits and rodents. They also pair hunt and they will pack hunt, however, when trying to take larger prey such as deer.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/red-wolf-facts.html
http://library.fws.gov/Pubs4/endangered_red_wolves.pdf
http://www.nhptv.org/natureworks/redwolf.htm

If by your what you said you are suggesting that gray wolves are not indigenous to the United States because they originated in the Old World and came to the New World at the end of the Pleistocene, hence the gray wolves don't belong here, then neither do the elk that are the focus of the OP. Elk also entered the New World along with Gray Wolves at the end of the Pleistocene.

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.
Click to expand...

You know, there were a lot of biologists and naturalists documenting North American wildlife back at least as far as the 1700s and before photography, and there are no red wolf records from the western US, but there were plenty of gray wolves. See...
http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/3747/0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_wolf#Fossil_and_historic_record

Also see...
Hall and Kelson's Mammals of North America which is a compendium of traits, documented ranges, and marginal records as well.
http://www.science.smith.edu/departments/Biology/VHAYSSEN/msi/pdf/i0076-3519-022-01-0001.pdf
http://www.science.smith.edu/msi/pdf/i0076-3519-037-01-0001.pdf
 
Last edited:
Wolves

This past August my wife and I visited Yellowstone N.P.. We spent spent most of our time in the Lamar valley where we saw 4 or 5 wolves, 3 Grizzly bears as well as elk, antelope, coyote and a few thousand buffalo.
I don't at all think that this makes me an expert on the topic. I talked to a lot of people who visit the park quite often. Several people told me similar tales of a few years after the wolves were re-introduced to the park there were large, healthy packs of wolves and it seems that is wasn't uncommon to see wolves take down elk. The elk in the park didn't know how to deal with the wolves, they were fairly easy prey. Over time the elk have learned how to deal with the wolves and don't put themselves in the places where they are easy pickins. The wolves also have succumbed to mange and distemper, greatly decreasing their numbers. It has taken time but there seems that nature has balanced the animal population pretty well without people shooting the wolves.
The day before we arrived a spike elk was killed ( presumably by wolves or a grizzly bear ) on the bank of the Lamar river. We were able to see at least 2 grizzly bears and several wolves taking turns eating on the carcass for 4 days until the meat was gone. The bears eat when they want and the wolves wait their turn from maybe 20 yards away. I guess if there were enough wolves they might eat first but I don't think anything less than 6 wolves would mess with a grizzly. During our time there we didn't see more than 3 wolves in the same area. I was told there are now 2 small packs of wolves in and near the Lamar valley.
 
Last edited:
Interesting article mquail. I have seen dead foxes with mange around here. Not sure whether that is what killed them, and it doesn't seem to be wide spread.

I am not pro wolf by any stretch, but don't wish that stuff on anything.
 
I allways felt that the re-introduction of wolves was a bad idea thought up by people who don't live there and have no real concept of the reality of the situation. You know, PETA philes. If I lived up there I would shoot them on sight regardless of what Washington thought, just like the feral hogs down here. At least the pigs taste good!
 
Interesting article mquail. I have seen dead foxes with mange around here. Not sure whether that is what killed them, and it doesn't seem to be wide spread.

I am not pro wolf by any stretch, but don't wish that stuff on anything.
Click to expand...

A friend of mine who works for the Govt origionally told me about the origin of mange. I didn't believe him! I do now.

When it comes to wolves I'm on the fence. I think they have a place as a big game animal in the US and can fill a niche in the wild. But we've changed things so much in the last couple of hundred years those niches that have been vacated were often filled by those critters that could such as the coyote or they don't exist now. Anyway I think the wolf is here to stay though how many is probably the most important question.
 
Last edited:
The problem is.....they released the wolves in Yellowstone, but they didn't stay there. They were supposed to keep a close eye on the population, but they didn't!

Now there are wolves scattered from Oregon to Michigan...not so long ago I was one of those guys saying that a few wolves would be a good thing. But after seeing what they have done to the elk herds...I say


KILL EM ALL!...every last one of them! We no longer have room for them here...thats the difference between the lower 48 and Canada. Canada has LOTS, LOTS more wilderness than the US....they still have room for nature to take care of itself up there....down here we have taken too much land for farming and agriculture, that leaves no room for wolves.
 
Like Fast and Ferrous was a plan to institute gun control they couldn't get passed otherwise, I've convinced eliminating hunting was the main goal of introducing wolves.

Surely they knew how they would spread, and they would dessicate big game heads. You can't get laws passed to stop hunting, but if you could eliminate, or drastically reduce the hunted animals, you can stop hunting.
 
Today, 10:16 AM #49
kraigwy
Senior Member

Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 6,134
Like Fast and Ferrous was a plan to institute gun control they couldn't get passed otherwise, I've convinced eliminating hunting was the main goal of introducing wolves.

Surely they knew how they would spread, and they would dessicate big game heads. You can't get laws passed to stop hunting, but if you could eliminate, or drastically reduce the hunted animals, you can stop hunting.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Click to expand...
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071

+1, Just one more way the govn't is making everyone dependent on them in total. The wolf reintroduction is making havoc with subsistance hunting here in Idaho. I know folks that need to put an elk and a deer in the freezer every year to feed the family. The govn't knows that as well.
 
Like Fast and Furious was a plan to institute gun control they couldn't get passed otherwise
Click to expand...
From everything I've read I can't argue against the above. I'd have to argue for it.

I'm convinced eliminating hunting was the main goal of introducing wolves.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about this. I think they were simply wanting to return wolves to the Park then the wolves were too successful. The Govt became caught in a dilemma, nothing new there. What the heck were they going to do with all these wolves? I don't know how the ESA (Endangered Species Act) was involved in this but most of us can cite where the ESA has been abused. Anyway I think it all got out of hand.

Surely they knew how they would spread, and they would dessicate big game heads. You can't get laws passed to stop hunting, but if you could eliminate, or drastically reduce the hunted animals, you can stop hunting.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I can't get on this bandwagon. My personal opinion is they didn't forsee what happened then spent the rest of their time putting out fires and trying to formulate a game plan
 
Last edited:
No wonder I didn't kill anything (except my legs and feet) this year in the Big Horn's...
Click to expand...

Why not? kraigwy's picture isn't from the Bighorns. It is from over 1100 miles away in Canada.

I'm sorry but I can't get on this bandwagon. My personal opinion is they didn't forsee what happened then spent the rest of their time putting out fires and trying to formulate a game plan
Click to expand...

Right, the whole conspiracy theory stuff is probably giving the government way too much credit. A short Google search will easily reveal numerous environmental and ecological programs (some not even related to game animals in any way) that went awry via 'the law of unintended consequences.' Humans (especially government entities influenced and run by humans) have a terrible track record of meddling in extremely complex systems to effect a desired outcome to then only realize that there were numerous unintended outcomes, many not even anticipated despite extensive planning that revealed some potential unintended outcomes, but not all of them.
 
PJP, sure, there were homo saps around the Rockies 12,000 years ago. But there weren't very many of them. Their methods of food gathering were inefficient.

So here comes Whitey with the idea of having a place to live and of being able to produce food for himself and the marketplace. What does he do? He controls his environment. Since it's difficult to raise sheep and cattle with a bunch of predators around, it's Sayonara to grizzly bears and wolves. God created John M. Browning to make life easier.

Homo sap has always created a new balance of nature as the numbers have expanded. Always will. When it evolves slowly over decades and centuries, most folks figure that as it is today, that's the way it should be tomorrow. Big mistake.

So now, a balance of nature that suited the residents and the visiting hunters has been upset by governmental power and in a short period of time. This particular upset is having a negative impact on the billfolds of those raising livestock as well as those who have made a living from catering to hunters.

Over time there will be a new balance of some sort, but I can make one prediction for sure: Those people who remain in the area will have a reduced standard of living.
 
I was going to stay out of this, but I will post once.
Its funny how most of the pro wolfers are from places where there is no wolves and know only the BS garbage that the fearless government tells them.

I've heard from 3 very good sources that the wolves were part of a 50 year plan for gun control like Kraig said. Get rid of the animals, you dont need hunters. Get rid of the hunters, you need guns.

The wolves are multiplying WAY faster than you tourists know about, and they have spread clear across this state. In fact, they werent all planted in the Park. I know of 2 ranches well outside the Park boundries that G&F illeagilly planted wolves on. I also know that the WG&F wants to elimenate the wolf on sight, but has to do what the government tells them.

I know for a fact there are wolves in the Bighorns, and yes in a few short years it will be as bad as it is here in the Beartooths.

No matter how much you greenies argue for the good the wolf does, the elk hunting around here has rocketed downhill. The elk are down on the flats out of the mountains trying to stay ahead. Thats also why there are so many griz moving down. We had 7 bear attacks this summer that I know of here. I bet you touristy non-locals didnt hear of any of them. Why is this happening? Because the wolves are pushing the elk into places they normally aint.

Gardener Mt used to be one of the best hunting places in the country. Now they dont even have a hunting season. There are no elk.


I'm going to stop right there and click out. This is one of those never ending debates that will never be solved until we kill every last wolf.
 
I'm sure kraig's post wasn't meant to be a factual statement.
Click to expand...

Surely you don't mean to imply that he made a drive-by post with intentionally wrong information as a way to troll up controversy, do you?

He attributed the picture as being Circle Park which is a specific place in the Big Horns of Wyoming. He just got it wrong. Even the prey was wrong as the pack was hunting bison according to the photographer.

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.
Click to expand...

Ever to roam the face of the earth? LOL. Gray Wolves, regardless of subspecies, aren't even amongst the largest mammals currently residing on earth and are puny in size as compared to the megafauna here during the Pleistocene, and barely a snack when compared to the reptilian giants of the Jurassic.
 
""and people also wonder why the elk populations dropped from 17,000 to 2000."

wolves killed 15 thousand elk? why hasn't this hit the news? why isn't geroldo down there interviewing the elk and the wolves? this is news people, thats like 1500 elk per wolf per year or about 5 elk a day each, has anyone seen little red riding hood or the 3 little pigs?
 
No wonder I didn't kill anything (except my legs and feet) this year in the Big Horn's...
Click to expand...

Seems to be a dominate excuse amongst unsuccessful hunters on gun/hunting forums nowadays. It wasn't because of bad luck, or harsh winters, it wasn't because I was not prepared, it wasn't because I didn't scout enough or practiced my shooting enough, it was because of a government conspiracy that I came home empty handed......yeah, that's it!:rolleyes:


I've heard from 3 very good sources that the wolves were part of a 50 year plan for gun control like Kraig said
Click to expand...

Yep, lets bring in wolves and at the end of 50 years when the majority of livestock and game animals have all been eaten and the wolves are now preying on little children, gun owners will happily give up their firearms. Makes sense to me. I take it the names of those three sources are Larry, Curly and Moe?

Folks you can love the wolves, hate the wolves or have neutral feelings about them. But don't play Washington politics and cloud the issue with false statements, false pictures and silly innuendos. That kinda crap will never help your cause or case. IMHO, wolves have a place in our ecosystem, but their numbers need to be controlled by hunting for the safety and the livelihood of those they live amongst. They are not the big bad wolves from Little Red Riding Hood that is gonna eat your grandma. You conspiracy folks have all kinds of "just you wait and see!" statements, but in areas where they have always been a part of the system, this just ain't happened. As hunters we are a minority here in the lower 48, and are allowed to hunt becasue the majority of folks in this country allow us to. We must remember that. If the majority of folks here in the USA want a viable population of wolves so they can pay big bucks to hear them howl at night, there ain't nuttin' we can do about it but try and convince that majority that the numbers need to be kept in check for the good of all. Makin' up and spreadin' fantastic stories of government conspiracies and makin' statements that illegally shooting wolves because the SSS system is the only way puts the rest of us sportsman in bad light. Just sayin'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top