Looks like wolves are planned to wipe out the remaining Lake Superior Caribou

CBC News


With just a few bulls and cows, the population grew to over 700 at one point, but has been cut down after wolves walked across the ice a few winters ago.

Impossible! They only kill the weak and sick and keep the herd healthy.

Funny, I just read a similar article referencing wolves as the reason the Selkirk caribou heard in north Idaho is going extinct. Who gets to pick a winner in one endangered specie against another?

Wolves suck......smart folk exterminated them a long time ago when folks had common sense.

Exactly. The world has lost its way. Too many intelligent people with the common sense equivalence of a field mouse.

Well by golly, it's obvious the whole darn caribou herd has become sick and weak!
God bless those helpful wolves!


Osky

What I like is when we go and buy wolves from Canada, then we pay some other group to monitor them, then pay some other group to kill them.
Sounds like a program to create jobs to me.

wolves are just finishing what man started.
wolves and these herds of caribou existed for hundred, probably thousands of years together before man arrived from Europe.
Man has eliminated much of the habitat that these herds occupied. This crashed the populations.
Crashed to the point that predators that they have lived with for centuries now will finish what man started.

Blame man, not the wolves. If your concerned about the caribou lets remove all human habitation from their previous range and restore the area to what it was 250 years ago.

Blaming wolves on the extinction of these caribou is like blaming the guy who shot the last couple of passenger pigeons for causing the birds to go extinct. He may have killed the last of them but if other men had not eliminated the other billions of them then the killing of those few would of made no difference.

Wait....humans were only here for 250 years?

you seriously want to compare the impact of Native Americans (Indians) to the arrival of man from Euorope?

If you don't get my point that man altering habitat is the main cause of the decimation of the caribou I don't know what to say.

I think the Selkirk herd in that tiny area of Washington, Idaho and Montana is already extinct. I have a friend who has a cabin in the middle of the herd's range in NE Washington (he traps there also). His cabin is in their winter range, he sees no caribou tracks anymore.

I just don't think the biologists who work for the U.S. Forest Service and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife can get themselves to admit that the caribou are gone for good. If they did admit that, they couldn't "study" them anymore, they wouldn't have any justification to keep roads in the area closed, and they'd have to admit that their darling wolves and cougars wiped out the caribou.

The U.S. officials had been supplementing the caribou herd by the occasional addition of woodland caribou that the Canadians (British Columbia) had been providing. Eventually the Canadians said they weren't going to donate any more caribou to the wolf and cougar feeding program that the State of Washington was conducting.

You first DD.

Dirty D, if you read the post Tweed states that wolves are planned to wipe out the REMAINING Lake Superior caribou population. Never does he say that wolves are the only cause for the loss of caribou in the area.

Then it falls to man to manage both species to their benefit.

Mike

DD I'll give you a more thoughtful response: Given that this is 2018, what good are those wolves to those caribou?

Dirty D,in the grand scheme of things, the woodland caribou hasn't lost all that much range in the last couple centuries....they did extend south as far as the U.P. until about 100 years ago, as well as into northern Maine, where they disappeared in the 1930's (?). They were never thick in Michigan unless you go back about a thousand years. Climate changes (Natural changes, not man made) pushed them steadily north, just like the boreal forests they live in. A thousand years ago Ohio had a bunch of spruce forests....2-3 thousand years before that there was even more, pollen samples from the bottom of Ohio bogs prove that. Even if Europeans hadn't arrived here the Woodland Caribou would have been pushed farther north each century, until the next Ice Age reverses that. Crimeny, Muskox used to be here several thousand years ago too. I'm sure shooting thinned things out a bit, and helped whittle down the herd, but even if humans had disappeared 10,000 years ago, the Woodland Caribou in the Lower Great Lakes and northern New England areas would still be on the edge of extirpation from those regions.
FYI, the last Passenger Pigeon....WILD Passenger Pigeon, was shot in the year 1900 in Pike county Ohio.....by a farm kid with a BB gun. A cooped up captive bird, named Martha, lived until September of 1914, also in Ohio (Cincinnati Zoo).

If you went to the selkirks, you'd see that there is no change to the habitat from humans where the few caribou are historically found. Nor to the north in BC. Nice try though.

DD doesn't sound like a trapper to me, he sounds like an animal rights activist. Educated but ill informed, highly opinionated but almost completely wrong. DD is correct in that man caused this catastrophe. Man changed the balance between predator and prey species primarily by eliminating predators. This allowed prey species to thrive with controlled hunting by man helping to avoid overpopulation. Man then reintroduced the predators into a target rich environment resulting in a surge in predator populations and a decline in the prey species. When the prey is gone the wolves will starve and the pendulum will swing back. This could all have been avoided by proper managing of the predator species. In the west, it was the animal rights activists working through activist judges that cause the catastrophe by blocking delisting of the wolves until the populations had far exceeded targets.

I'm with ya Marty. Same goes for deer. They certainly suck too and smart folk exterminated them a long time ago when folks had common sense. -- Hal

(And you can include those nasty turkeys too! Smart folk exterminated them a long time ago when folks had common sense.)

Such procrastination and hand wringing over nothing.
Get Boco to slip on out there and snare those wolves back into reasonable numbers.
Both will then flourish.
Carry on.

Osky

Sounds like the caribou were thriving in the habit they had until the wolves came along

Oh get off it Hal. The common sense folks fixed those problems. You should really try to get a handle on that white guilt thing.

Nobody misses dinosaurs.

hal would not last with me for long......

I would make it a mission to drive him crazy...

I agree with Hal's basic premise, but not necessarily his delivery.

Extirpation isn't a good idea. I would rather have sustainable populations of both species. One to eat. One to sell.

Mike

You stand no more chance of that than the average house pet.

I figured it would be a short trip..

Are you begging for a treat? Sit Marty sit.

Like I said.....

Hal was born crazy. But no one really cares.

Agreed....humans are supposed to manage this beautiful earth. I don't mind wolves on the landscape...I just don't want them to overrun everything and it doesn't take many to significantly change the balance of an ecosystem.

Not to mention the fact that when their numbers grow they tend to expand their range getting into areas where they cause problems of a domestic nature. The state of MN ran out of funds paying depredation claims caused by wolves.

More likely the reason is, by bringing the wolf's back, there will be no need for hunters, hunting or guns. The liberals will do anything to destroy our lifestyle which they despise.

I kind of do....those brontosaurus burgers were delicious!

Well they're so big it's like shooting the broad side of a barn.

Mike

My point is simple, modern man is much more destructive to the "natural" scheme of things.
In the case of the woodland caribou (lake superior caribou) there are several causes for its demise.
of those causes the most dramatic have modern man as the root cause.


As far as the passenger pigeon, I'm fully aware of its demise from the world. I was using it as an example. Who ever killed the last one or the last thousand of them is not the one who eliminated the species. The species was already doomed at that point. Much like the woodland caribou in the great lakes area. A few left, a fraction of what it once was. Now to blame the wolf for its demise is rather short sighted. for sake of discussion lets say modern mans action caused the population to drop 90% from highs 300 years ago and now years later the wolf is taking the last 10%. And you want to blame the wolf for its demise?
That was my point. Modern man is without doubt has caused more change to the natural world in N. America. Not predators.
Mans changes have benefits some animals and hurt others. I can accept that.

Why do a few here want to eliminate yet another species from existence? Just cause this animal eats animals that you want to kill for your own benefit? There is a word for that. Selfish. Try to rationalize it any way you want, it all comes down to human greed. I can't accept that.

I have no problem managing by what ever means both prey and predator species. Skimming off some as long as the remainder is a healthy sustainable population. But I have an issue with those that want to eliminate predators so they have more to kill.

The dominant ecosystem (Oak Savanna) in my home state of WI is just about gone. Indians were a contributing factor in this ecosystem.
European man eliminated the essential ingredient (fire) for this ecosystem to exist. Now there are just remnants of it left here and there. These remnants are not big enough to support the large mammals that lived there, Elk and Bison. Other species are just hanging on. A good example is the Prairie Chicken. Not to mention the flora of this ecosystem.

I realize man and other factors have eliminated many species from this world. Some where not able to adapt to the changing environment and went out on their own. Some have gone out due to mans arrogance and greed. There is a difference.

Ah yes....humans screwed it up so we should just say "eff" it and let another apex predator wipe out them out completely.

Or...as has been demonstrated plenty of times in the last 50 years....slow and reverse the trend by managing. I think that's what most would advocate for.

I think we should bring back sabertooth tigers and make this more interesting .

Not sure what the pelts would bring. But I bet the skulls would sell for a decent amount.

Mike

If Dirty D really feels that man is to blame then maybe he should lead the way in solving the problem. Or maybe he's one of those intellectually superior types who plans to decide who else gets selected for removal.

If wolves are not kept in check and protected there will be no need for rifles to hunt deer, elk, etc. Anti gun and anti hunters both will win. How much money will not be coming into fish/game commission then? How many hunters giving it up thereby reducing PR funds to your state. WOLVES WILL SEVERLY IMPACT HUNTER PARTICIPATION.RESIDENT AND NON-RESIDENT!

We should just eliminate them from the continental US....there would still be plenty in Canada..

What wolves?

I can't understand WHY DNR's from many different states have this love for the wolf. They are all on the wagon to save the wolf. The politicians make these laws and are afraid for the tree huggers to call them out because they have the money and resources to do that.

It really needs to be open season on wolf like it is for coyotes. You will never kill all of them now or never will. When man never walks on the planet again there still will be coyotes and wolfs.

DNRs are just doing their job. Meddling disconnected judges are the problem.
The very upper echelon doesn't manage animals, it manages for politics and population. Too much authority has been stripped from the state agencies, given today's political mess they are probably happy to be clear of it. Nothing seems to gum things up more than the fed and the self serving people in power.

Osky

Maybe Don Trump Jr will help get authority back to the states.

And once the wolves eat all the caribou and the food source is gone they have two options. The wolves can move on to another area and decimate another food source or stay where they are and die of starvation. Save the next prey base and save the wolves from starvation. Lead pills for all of them.n

I don't post much, I prefer to read and learn, but I do have a response to some posters on this thread.

The tired old argument that the caribou are being eaten into extirpation is the white mans fault is a round about statement (moral equivalency)
that has nothing to do with the problem. It is a liberal progressive answer that does nothing but stir up dissent. these type of statements are used in almost any controversy whether political, religious or in this case wildlife to assign guilt, they offer no value to the problem at hand.

Concentrate your efforts on the problem instead of placing blame on past actions no one has control of.

P.S. Canada grows lots of wolves that don't need a green card to get to the U.S.

you should post more often

I believe we did extirpate wolves in much of their historic range. So, apparently we can.

m

The other thing involved with this is the infiltration of the DNR's by bunny huggers. Many positions have been filled by people that don't subscribe to our comsumtive use way of life. They get out of college and their life ambition is to stop the harvest of animals.

True Lee, true.

Osky

So a dozen wolves killed 600 caribou in two years? The settlers killed all the big predators off so they could raise livestock and could eat the game themselves.

The facts behind this wolf problem are not being addressed for what they are, and it comes down to gun ownership. Meaning, do wolves call up their Representatives and complain about gestapo wildlife officials or is it hunters, trappers and fishermen who informs the world of mismanagement?
This is not just wolves, this is horned owls, raptors, coyotes, mountain lions, grizzly bears and wolves. When the state has large predators eating everything, then there is not huntable populations of game. The licenses go up, the DNR still gets paid high salaries, but slowly another generation of outdoor's people is depleted. Use large predators to destroy wildlife and the state destroys the outdoor people, and that destroys gun ownership or the Jeffersonian ability to check the police state.

There is deliberate massive mismanagement of wildlife in America for the above reason.

For those who did not think the Bundy issue in Nevada was important, it was, because this as the same groups driving rancher access to grass and water, which these settlers obtained and passed down, to hold that land from other European powers. That was an era of when the government wanted armed citizens to protect this nation.

As a historical perspective, if you would read the books of Teddy Roosevelt and his friend, the father of Yosemite in John Borroughs, the first Naturalist in America, They both advocated killing every large predator in America and leaving only the usable and non dangerous elk, moose, deer, for the benefit of hunters. That is probably the first time you have ever heard that, but it has been censored and you have to read the old books to find out what Conservation was always meant to be.

You will notice that your ability to defend your property, to eliminate threats has all been criminalized in you being the criminal. The old methods of poisoning are now a federal crime and most have been so indoctrinated with propaganda that they willingly give up their rights and defend those who are destroying those rights. The large predators are the ones the police state is protecting, not you, and you are the criminal.
None of this happened by accident. It was by design as everything which is manifesting now, and was warned of by Parker Dozhier from the days he wrote at the Trapper for Tom Krause as editor, in those same groups are the groups now funded to protest against your rights, while a constant influx of armed police are protecting those working against your rights.

Whether it is your grouse eaten by Cooper's hawks protected, your walleyes eaten by cormorants which are protected, the cougars eating your deer which are protected, or the coyotes eating your pets, which are protected cleverly in you can not afford the gas or the license to trap them, you have captured a glimpse of a globalist agenda.

In closing, if you want a historical perspective in this agenda, Al Gore as Vice President told FFA children to give up their farms as America was going to import all of their food from Brazil in the future, and the end game in this, is to remove all landowners in America, place everyone in a city and to make America into a giant vacation spot for the global elite.
Most of you reading this will be the last generation of Americans. You will be replaced by these invaders who are being legalized. Your immigrant relatives were really a form of white slaves, as they were promised land, but were exploited for work to be more manageable than the Indians, now you are less manageable than what you will be replaced by, and what is helping to exterminate you, is all of those large predators.

The DNR is doing their job, and their job is to get you off of the land you think you have right to.

You got that right, that is the liberal plan. We have been treed by the devils.

Amen, they are not managing wildlife, they are managing people with the goal to take away are freedoms. If Clinton would have won, the game would have been over.

Star Flakes pretty much summons it up.... The key word is "globalist agenda". Everything the left is doing is for this purpose or I should say everything that the people who are leading the left are doing is for this purpose. I think the Bible speaks of this one world government... Got to have are guns for total control.

Here in Northwest Alaska, we have the Western Arctic Caribou Herd.(WACH) What Im relating here is my own,local Caribou/Wolf experiance and the whys and hows of decline.
They peaked out 16 years ago at 500,000, today they are at 220,000, but looking over time, its quite natural and expected.
Thankfully its not a ''crash', which has been seen in quite a few Caribou herds around the world in the last century.

The natural ups and down of the Caribou herd numbers, are a common thing to talk about here, many an old man has related that Caribou numbers change often,and Wolves numbers follow the peaks and lows of the Caribou, which makes sense.
Neither Wolves nor Caribou in Alaska have been exterminated, and the natural cycle continues. Often, Caribou migrate right into other herds and join them.

The biologists explain and I agree (my own observations) that mid winter rains ice the Caribou from their forage, and with the loss of habitable grounds, the young one's starve, and the Caribou move on. Wolves love this, and do what Wolves and every other living organism does; eat, eat, eat.....and then reproduce..
When a whole herd is weak and slowed, seeking food, they will be picked off until the Wolves dont have a easy supply of food and they too decline. Wolves are the final solution to a problem that was created by weather.

No different than Rabbits and Lynx, etc.
Here in NW Alaska,the Sheep populations have taken a hit as well, from the midwinter rain.


After a hard mid January rain and a return to -0-f , in couple days you find the dying calves strewn all over the place .....in the hundreds. The adults get skinny, and dont stop untill they find forage.Sometimes a whole herd shifts 60-75 mile.

We will see uncountable 1/2 eaten and partially eaten carcasses, but most go untouched....
Caribou , like their predators are a 'renewable resource', with populations a dynamic with the weather, available feed and predators. They will rise in numbers again, and migrate in and out of places, and do the things Caribou do best- Travel.

Look at the good parts; Plenty of Wolfing to be done

Do the wolves up there not get to a high enough population that they can directly reduce the numbers of a healthy caribou herd?

In parts of Alaska, yes.

Seminar poster.... If you listen to Rush you’ll know what I mean!!

No. Theres alot of Caribou, alot of Wolves and alot of room.

Wolves will finish what a mid winter rain started, and a ''healthy'' Caribou herd last week is now slow, hungry weak and on the move. Thats when Wolves can make dents in a Caribou population......and if its an already struggling population, Im sure they could decimate and scatter those.....so the Wolf predation isnt on a 'healthy' herd, itself .


Just the lack or fences and roads, citys or farms, diverted rivers means its natural state is nearly undisturbed and no ''Man'agment has knocked it out of balance.
The migrations are intact and the habitat is intact.
This is kind of unique in the world now, as human populations have changed most things.

When mid winters rains come and destroy the habitat, the Wolves eat alot at the time, but its effects are short lived, except the loss in population. 4-5 times in 10 years can wipe out any growth a herd may experience. Also, Caribou 'remember', and avoid the areas, which makes predicting any migration unpredictable.

This fall we were above freezing until almost November when late September used to be our ''Freeze up'', and our Caribou stopped their southern migration and rutted out in the Brooks range to our north, and didnt come south at all until our month long freeky warm up/late fall cooled enough that they resumed the walk.

Old timers here will say ''If there lots of Wolves, hunt them.....if theres lots of Caribou, hunt them, they go together.'' Meaning that one or the other, if not both, can be found in the same areas, and are symbiotic.

I have to agree with Caribou and Dirt.

Caribou populations are their own worst enemy. In 1991 I sat in my cabin watching approximately 80,000 caribou migrate past my door. It was the population peak for that herd. I haven't seen another caribou in that area since then !

The herds get so large that what they don't eat, they trample because of their numbers. The crashes of caribou herds are legendary.

In the case of the herd you guys are talking about...apparently there were 700 caribou at one point on an island of only 102 square miles. I'm no range scientist but that sounds incredibly dense to me. I can easily believe that habitat destruction by the caribou themselves could be a contributing factor.

Sure the wolves have some responsibility here. The other problem is that the wolves can switch to other prey like beaver. Especially in the simmer. The other thing is, if the wolves got there on a temporary ice bridge, it may be difficult for them to disperse as the pack grows or the prey base shrinks.

Sounds to me like both the wolves and the caribou need management rather than wiping out either of them. I would think that would be an easy decision.

Well said White.

Managing both would be the best idea.

Myself, I like wolves, and I like to see high numbers. The more the better to get rid of all these stupid deer. When the dam white-tail deer eat my alfalfa fields down to the dirt all fall, browse my apples and raspberries to nubs, eat every terminal bud off every white, red and jackpine I plant, dig up all my carrots and spread deer ticks all over the country, I wish we had a lot more wolves!

And when my between my wife and I we've had 18 or 19 vehicle-deer collisions that have cost me many thousands of dollars too!

Deer are a menace and a detriment to our forest.

Here's a bit of info about 5 herds in a portion of this state. Notice that wolves are never mentioned as part of the problem.


http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=309

The Boreal Woodland Caribou is, compared to the arctic and sub-arctic "Barren Ground Caribou", nearly a sedentary beast, and even though they move more than most deer and moose, they are pikers when it comes to long distance shifts when stacked up to the more northerly Caribou. Studies in Ontario show that the Caribou purposely spend most of their time singly or in small herds in areas where they are less likely to run across a wolf. How they know those areas is beyond me. Wolf predation in Woodland Caribou is apparently only a big problem when the Big Bad Wolf has a captive audience......such as when they are stuck on an island out away from other islands where they can't swim to escape the wolves.......sorta like Michipicoten!

Brown Bears wreak havoc on WACH newborn calves and the Caribou respond with mass birthing, basicly glutting the available food for the bears. They ambush adult Caribou in the river side willows at river crossings.
Eagles also swoop down and attack with puncture wounds killing calfs in some pretty high numbers.
Wolves get the slow ones,Men usually pick out the best to catch.
Lean times for cows means small babys or none at all. A few years of such and numbers dip noticeably
Then theres habitat loss, sickness and accidents......

Theres alot of constant ecological and hunting pressure on these animals.

Tell that to the farmer who lost 17 sheep to wolves or the one who has lost new born calves to wolves. There has been so many depredation claims in MN, they ran out of money. I owned 120 acres north of Floodwood. A family down the road from my place had to stop raising sheep because of the wolf population explosion. Most of the farmers in that area quit trying to raise livestock because of this.

Its is true but wolves are not the main problem up here in idaho for caribou wolves go after the elk most, and they are not good a wolf up here is deadly not just killing the sick but wiping out everything in its path. caribou have always been in a very low population. my dad and I know some what how aggressive they are cause one year in our favorit huckle berry patch, we were sitting on the next ridge over from it watchin a herd of 13 elk, to far to shoot, they started to panick and running down the old road and a pack of 18 wolves droped 7 of them elk, it wasnt good so we just started cracking off roands over there.

i know right, they were exterminated for a reason.

Pardon me but..........

Speaking of B.S. Can anybody interpret this?

"The ministry takes an adaptive management approach and is actively assessing management actions including the potential need for and feasibility of wildlife community management methods."

A very interesting book called ALASKAS WOLF MAN, Frank Glazer. The natives were awed by this man. Read the stories of his exploits with wolves, hunting, trapping. I believe his experiences told about wolves in this book are true.. white17 correct me if im wrong.

I have to admit that I never knew Frank but have read the book several times. It's a good read and, in my opinion, illustrates just how tough and motivated people were during that time.

I think there is a lot of validity in Frank's stories but I don't think I'd buy all of it. Rearden, the author, may have used a bit of license in writing the book.


The ONE person on this forum who can shed the best information on this subject, is Gulo.

Hopefully he will weigh in on the subject.


Do wolves have a detrimental affect on some people and individual critters ?? Absolutely.

Is there a beneficial aspect to their presence ? I think so.

Do we need to manage them ? Absolutely, IMO

Thanks white17 , agree on Gulo

18 dogs in one pack??? not an expert in pack sizes but that seems like numbers for 4 packs. Then to take down 7 animals as you watch.... Were you hovering along with them on your magic carpet?

To be fair........I have seen bigger packs than that. It is not usual though. And I would be very surprised to see a group that large in ID. Gulo can give us the straight poop on these issues.

The WACH population is up from a year ago, latest survey shows the population over 250K

I was just going off the pack sizes we have here in Wisconsin. Most packs are 3-5 dogs. I know that they are some that are larger but from what I have read about pack sizes in the Yellowstone area the largest is 9 dogs give or take year to year

Sure I understand that. That is more rational and pretty much agrees with what I have seen over the years. Lots of variables in pack size. I would think the main things are prey availability, room for dispersal, size of the prey, size of home range, etc.

Remember the AR lady who spoke up when the judge on the east coast put wolves back on the endangered species list? She claimed that it was good that the wolf population was up and were killing so many deer because of all the pollution the deer were causing by pooping in the woods. Guess she didn't think wolves pooped their too.

Considering myself a fine specimen of a man, I took your challenge. After reading this multiple times and even front to back I have surrendered. Huh?....

Pack size was mentioned, tracks can be deceiving. Actual eyes on, usually crossing the ice out front here 9 was about the max. Last I saw this pack a few months ago here they are at 7. I know of none bigger only because in this bush its seldom you see whole packs together and a few wolves can leave a lot of tracks. You wilderness guys can get more precise with your type of country and aircraft use.
I have spent a significant amount of time flying over northwest Ontario northern remote and I cannot ever recall seeing more than 10 strung out and that I think I'd be stretching it. Even in large caribou killing fields on ice of which I have seen a couple there were no more than that.

Osky

Thats the best news of my morning.


Im from NW Montana 30 years ago, a couple hours drive from Sandpoint and beyond, and back then I didnt even know Idaho had ANY Caribou at all.....

How did Caribou ,Main, get its name? LOL!!

Im in NW Montana , used to live just south of Sandpoint.

Years ago as I drove into Canada from the panhandle, not far from the port of entry there I actually saw a small group of what was called mountain Caribou.

It was surprising for me, them being that close to the road.

That was years ago.

Couldn't believe my eye !

First pic is a pack in the Wood Buffalo National Park in Canada , was 25 in that pack .
In my area the biggest pack I have seen is 9 ,may have been more , sometimes you don't see them all .
Seems like 6 to 8 average in my area here .

Good grief Rivers.... Incredible.
How on gods green earth can a wolf pack hit 25 or even close to that with one alpha leader? Revolt of teams or groups one would have to think would be constant and unsurvivable for an alpha?
Wilderness guys thoughts?

Osky

I am not sure if this is directed to me, if not please forgive me. You are correct about stirring up progressive dissent, as I have dissent and do my part to show liberals true colors in respect to Gun Control and hunting in general.
When Clinton and his thugs re-introduced the wolfs, they made promises, that did not keep. In Texas, we call that a lie and most people feel that way.
I fight to win and understand the enemy and any hunter,trapper or gun owner should feel the same. Liberals are a sneaky bunch and lying to get what they want is just part of the plan.

When theres a lot of food, packs will converge, when foods scarce, they compete. Wolves will eat each other.

One oldtimer I know says Wolves never die of old age, they are killed by Men or Wolves.

Come to think of it, only Humans die in bed while nearly everything is eaten while quite alive yet.....

Sharon, Chip.. I too was up in that country NW MT back a little more than 30'years ago. Pretty much north of Yaak. The border was more a concept than a barrier to me at that time.

Osky

Osky. I THINK what happens is that once in a while multiple packs MAY coalesce for a while in order to efficiently hunt. Of course there is the law of diminishing returns. The more mouths to feed, the less each mouth gets. Also, if that picture is taken in a park, you're dealing with artificial conditions as regards potential prey.

But as far as social problems within a pack of any size... I suspect that as long as there is enough to eat, everyone will be happy.


I just noticed that Caribou posted essentially what I just wrote

Osky, I have ridden horses north of the Yaak , and yes, crossing the border was just a concept then.

The trees looked all the same

I think that the highest rate of wolf mortality is from other wolves

The Alpha male will some times breed more than just one female. I have never heard of such a thing as packs coming together, where I live that would be like a big gang fight to the death every time. Of note I had a pack of 24-30 wolves 2 years ago, caught 4 adult males from it, all weighing in at 100+ lbs. That pack had a bad case of mange, and has all but broke up since that season. Pretty sure the last of them was the alpha male.

Spruce

If on the computer I would link it but I'm on my phone .
A friend of mine has a video that he got on trail cam with a pack going by .
If you want to watch it or link it here , look up "wolf pack spotted once again on northern wis trail cam KBJR 6" .

Crazy stuff.
Guess I won't be complaining about the woosy wolf pack sizes around my area any more.

Osky

Man do they pick up the scent off the camera fast!

The biggest wolf pack was the Druid Peak wolf pack in Yellowstone , it had 37 wolves in the pack in 2001 .

This MN pack had 9 in it when I took the photo but I couldn't get them all in at one time.

No wonder there are no Elk left there. Small packs are okay, but still need to be managed. Big packs like that are very bad.

I could be wrong on the numbers, but I thought I seen around the Yellowstone area herds,they were down 80%, in and out of the park .

I read the numbers last year and commented here, the herds pre wolf held between 21 and 22 thousand head of elk. Early last year I read they were at 5100 and change.

Kind of like those poor island caribootys, who knew so many were sick and weak??
Osky

Calves are the weak, but not too filling.

A significant portion die in accidents too, rivers, avalanche etc.
I've cleaned a good # of wolf skulls and a fair percentage had holes in the top of their skulls, presumably from moose hoof. The ones I cleaned survived the head bonking, however, since if you look at the anatomy of a wolf skull their brain sits way back and below those big muscles on the top of the head so a hole on the top of the head more or less between the eyes caves in a portion of the sinus. No doubt they got knocked silly, just not fatal.

Think it is cool the injuries most any predator takes and survives but then think they are trying to take down a large prey animal with their teeth! Think prehistoric folks skeletons that have been found have also shown such injuries and probably from hunting large animals with whatever weapons they had to use.

Cool info y'all just reading some of you crowd that been around wolves and deal with them a bit.

keep posting! good reads here at the fire house until the tones drop anyhow ----

J

Not a great photo but this is interior Alaska and part of a 31 wolf pack.

Pay no mind to those pre-historic folks skeletons, just get the first hand info from White17.

Osky

Unfortunately, 20 years of dealing with bio-politicians I think I understand this. IMO this is a fancy way of saying we will study this and do nothing. If you are lucky, they won't waste taxpayers money studying it before they do nothing.

First for the year here , will be many more as the year goes on , we're only halfway through January.
It didn't state all the facts but I'm guessing bobcat hunters .



From the DNR site .

Mercy! I had no idea that wolf packs would converge and are able to reach numbers that high. Very interesting information you guys are sharing. Thanks.
Out of ignorance/curiosity, how many elk/caribou/moose size animals do the wolves need to kill a week in order to adequately sustain a pack of that size?

As of Jan 7 , Montana has take 121 wolves by hunting and 38 by trapping this season , Rock On !
Wisconsin needs our season back !

Keep up the good work !

A few stats for Wisconsin.





This one is not quite up to date yet, population is higher now .

Okay Trappers! Sorry I've not piped up sooner on this thread; been out in the shed putting up fur most of the day. I've not worked directly with wolves or caribou in the Selkirks (Idaho, Washington, Montana) or in Minnesota. But, for what its worth, here's my take. Sorry for the long-winded opinions.

Woodland caribou in the Intermountain West and in Minnesota once occupied a bit bigger range in the contiguous US and Canada (ME, NH, VT, MI, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island). It is thought that, indeed, the smaller range they now exist in was due to logging of climax forests, with the subsequent movement of white-tailed deer northward. I don't remember reading anything about deer competing with woodland caribou, but rather, they carry the meningeal worm, which is death for caribou. The loss of habitat and the parasites were thought to lead to the restricted range.

That said, can wolves wipe out the remainders? Theoretically, I have no doubt that they can. But will they? In my opinion, probably not.

Among many predator/prey situations that I've observed first-hand, I will use the wolf/moose situation that I was trying to manage for ADFG in the 80s and 90s as an example. It was in White17s back yard; western interior Alaska. Simply put, moose numbers went from being one of the finest populations in the world to almost-nonexistent over about a 6-year period. Was this due to wolf predation? I think not.

Two of the hardest winters on record (deep, deep snow and c-c-cold) occurred, and started the dramatic decline. I remember one short flight in January only about 15 miles from my home and I counted 31 winter-killed moose. The wolves, obviously, were having a hay-day. Fast-forward a year or so. Now the moose population was pretty depleted. For the next several years, wolf numbers also declined precipitously, but, again as White17 noted above, there was some relief for them in alternate prey (a few caribou, metric boatloads of beaver, a small bison herd, and in the foothills, pretty fair Dall sheep numbers). The wolf numbers declined dramatically, but there were enough of them to keep the pressure on the moose. This is referred to by many as a "predator pit". I should point out that many "biologists" don't buy off on the concept of the predator-pit. Personally, I have no doubt that it can, and does, occur. That is, there is enough alternate prey to sustain a few wolves, but they still prefer their primary prey (moose), and can keep those moose numbers at extremely low density for many years. They don't wipe 'em out, they just keep the prey populations low. Too, I believe that with active management (that is, controlling wolves), prey populations can bounce back in a more reasonable amount of time. With active management, the recovery of prey populations might take a decade or more, but can be effected much sooner than letting "the balance of nature" work its way through the ecosystem in 3-4 decades. With that "management", both the prey population (moose in this case) and the predator population (wolf numbers) can bounce back much quicker. With more moose around, the moose populations would be smiling, the human hunters would be smiling, and (viola!) the wolf numbers would quickly rebound (they would be smiling too).

As with most of these Trapperman threads, a rather circuitous path is taken, and there are several other questions that have popped up above. I gotta run and start the stinky ol' fish cookin' for Miss Lisa, and I'll try to devote a bit of time for the many other questions that've popped up.

One parting shot, that having to do with wolf pack sizes. Of the collared packs we have had the past few years in Idaho, the average numbers of wolves per pack, if I remember correctly, is 7.2 wolves. In Interior Alaska, that average was closer to 10 wolves. I remember a buddy of mine, who was a good observer and not prone to exaggeration, told me of a pack of 42 he'd seen. I hopped in my 'Cub and drove down to where he'd seen them. It was mid-winter so the light was very limited, and I found a pack of 29. I didn't have the light to look for the others, but I don't doubt the veracity of the report. Further, I doubt that a pack that large would sustain itself for very long.

Sorry for the "windiness" of this reply....

Jack

The only phrase I had trouble deciphering was the "wildlife community management methods".
"wildlife management methods" would be an understandable phrase.
How does "community" fit in?
Is it a left-wing liberal communist maneuver, empowering wildlife with a human characteristic, namely "community"?
Bottom line is that you can surely count on nothing being changed.

jtg = it was not directed at you