Wapiabi elk

[purgatory.sv]

Originally Posted by Rabbit Snarer

Have read his and others research and according to them wolves are not the main factor in the Ya Ha Tindas resident elk decline or the migration herd from over 2000 down to about 300. They don't know.

I refuse to discuss the issue of reducing wolf populations with someone who believes he can get public support to kill 90% of Alberta's wolves one year and then follow up year after year indefinitely - that's delusional.

I do agree that decease, likely distemper will reduce them at some point unless prey populations fail slowly but that's a long ways away.

It's sad when someone who only wants the truth is branded an anti hunter, but does allow many to keep their head buried in the sand.

You are the only one who has not validated your view?

I have.

[Rabbit Snarer]

Originally Posted by purgatory.sv

You are the only one who has not validated your view?

I have.

Please excuse my ignorance but I have no idea what your view is unless it's you support Youg Eldons view? I don't and wish he would reply to my post.

[purgatory.sv]

You caught me. (Troll)

I am a user of the resources that have been presented to me.


I question, but not like you.

I am not a qualified individual, just a user.

I have noticed more dog tracks were I play.
That is all.


Young Eldon gave you a direction.

[Rabbit Snarer]

Originally Posted by purgatory.sv

You caught me. (Troll)

I am a user of the resources that have been presented to me.


I question, but not like you.

I am not a qualified individual, just a user.

I have noticed more dog tracks were I play.
That is all.


Young Eldon gave you a direction.

I think you are so far ahead of me I'll never catch up - so I'll give up.

[purgatory.sv]

What are you looking for?

I must now rest, the sun is gone, it’s cool and sleep will be good under the bridge.


I am not ahead of you just here.



warm

[hayseed]

Does not The Chungo Creek Outfitters still run an outfit for sheep an elk??

I have heard they still do well on both, aint what it used to be I bet..

[Big Grey Wolf]

Sorry, I forgot to reply to the rabbit who claimed hunters killed all the elk. If you check hunter success for probably last 20 years in most foothills zones west of Rocky it took 200+ years for average elk hunter to harvest an elk. There are not to many of us hunters that live for 200+ years.

[Rabbit Snarer]

Originally Posted by Big Grey Wolf

Sorry, I forgot to reply to the rabbit who claimed hunters killed all the elk. If you check hunter success for probably last 20 years in most foothills zones west of Rocky it took 200+ years for average elk hunter to harvest an elk. There are not to many of us hunters that live for 200+ years.

You should give Young Eldon a call and between the two of you it would be problem solved! - maybe give us a hint on how you are going to handle the wolves? Everyone would like to know. No blowin smoke, just "how".

[Xbolt7mm]

Originally Posted by Young Eldon

Nate Web did a very good study of the wolves west of Sundre and Rocky Mountain House 10 years ago. He was working on his Doctorate Degree at U of A. They were eating a lot of elk - should soon be running out of ungulates.

wolves in that area will not reduce in numbers on their own with the population of the deer.moose and elk decreasing. Wolves will continue to increase in numbers unless something is done to kill off the wolves or the other food source "ferel Horses". You will see more ferel horses in those areas than game any day of the week. Its completely screwing up natures balance and i'm sure its no good for managing hunting. The horses gotta go.

[robson3954]

Originally Posted by Xbolt7mm

wolves in that area will not reduce in numbers on their own with the population of the deer.moose and elk decreasing. Wolves will continue to increase in numbers unless something is done to kill off the wolves or the other food source "ferel Horses". You will see more ferel horses in those areas than game any day of the week. Its completely screwing up natures balance and i'm sure its no good for managing hunting. The horses gotta go.

I don't disagree with horse management as they are an invasive species so to speak, but I'd like to see a good study on whether or not they actually push natural species out.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Rabbit Snarer

Have read his and others research and according to them wolves are not the main factor in the Ya Ha Tindas resident elk decline or the migration herd from over 2000 down to about 300. They don't know.

I refuse to discuss the issue of reducing wolf populations with someone who believes he can get public support to kill 90% of Alberta's wolves one year and then follow up year after year indefinitely - that's delusional.

I do agree that decease, likely distemper will reduce them at some point unless prey populations fail slowly but that's a long ways away.

It's sad when someone who only wants the truth is branded an anti hunter, but does allow many to keep their head buried in the sand.

The demise (extirpation) of the Ya Ha migratory elk herd and the 90% reduction in moose and the non migratory elk herd most certainly was found to be due to wolf predation. But I am not surprised that you were too scared to comprehend that conclusion.

That's great. I expected the likes of you to hide (refuse) to discuss significant wolf population reductions. Farley sure did sink his teeth into you.

Actually it is rabies that will likely force a government cull on wolves, again....

I'll brand you as an anti-hunter until you provide conclusive proof that you are not. 90% of your posts whine about people killing animals, the other 10% are off topic. You have so far only provided proof that you are indeed an anti-hunter.

[Xbolt7mm]

Originally Posted by robson3954

I don't disagree with horse management as they are an invasive species so to speak, but I'd like to see a good study on whether or not they actually push natural species out.

I don't think they do push them out as there is likely enough food for them all but it does supply another very ubundant/significant food source for the wolves. which in turn puts more pressure on the ungulates that should be there. The wolf population should go up and down with the ungulate population (which could also include wildlife management for us hunters) but right now its not, the wolf population is climbing so they gotta be eating something

[Young Eldon]

The need to have definitive studies for people like Rabbit Snarer has seldom been accomplished. Never when it comes to wolf management. There are to many variables to consider, time runs out, funds play out, etc. Gunson and Schmidt hoped that enough data from their study would be adequate to generate the political will to manage wolves in the East Slopes of Alberta. The majority PC government of the day would not have touched wolf management unless they could have been convinced that it would help increase their majority position in the next election. A train load of good scientific data would not have been enough to do that!
Anyone that has done or seen ungulate survey results for the East Slopes over the last 20 years has to wonder what has caused the major declines in densities although the hunting regulations have remained relatively stable. People on the ground saw the anecdotal rise in predator (wolf, grizzly, cougar) numbers. Even in areas highly protected from human activities (Natural and Wilderness Areas adjacent to Federal Parks) most ungulate densities are low.
It is true that the reduction of ungulates in the East Slopes is not just due to wolves. Habitat decimation, hunting, bears and cougars have all done their share. However, several studies have indicated that wolves can readily further reduce ungulates below densities desired for human uses such as hunting, viewing and preservation of endangered species. One needs to be clear that in Alberta we strive for both conservation and management of wildlife – not just conservation of wildlife in most instances. We have established a few Parks in Alberta where conservation of wildlife is sometimes given higher priority than human use of the wildlife. Management of wildlife for human uses strives to maintain natural conditions but it does not exclude manipulation of species for perceived benefits to humans.

The elk management goals in farmed areas such as Rabbit Snarer mentioned are much different than those in most of the East Slopes. Cow seasons are there to hold the elk densities lower and reduce depredation of farm and ranch lands. Spike elk seasons were not my idea and they did not last long. Nate Webb likely did not attribute lowering ungulate densities to wolf predation because that was not a goal of his thesis and he knew he lacked the data to do so. The Wildlife Management Biologists knew they did not have the funds, political will or public support to do more than study wolf management for
salvation of Mountain Caribou in the Grand Prairie Region.

The problem with wolf management in the East Slopes is the lack of a means to reduce densities that is socially, humanely and economically acceptable. The only effective method I have come up with would be to use hunting with the assistance of radio collared “Judas wolves”for locating packs. That method would be expensive to maintain and, no doubt, ethically unacceptable to many people. So it looks like disease and starvation will be the factors that slowly reduce wolf densities and allow some ungulate densities to recover. Unless, the few new NDP caucus members find the political will and funds to actively bring ungulate densities in the East Slopes back to their potential carrying capacities - the nonhuman predators will rule for some time yet.

[diamonddave]

"The need to have definitive studies for people like Rabbit Snarer has seldom been accomplished"

Seems like some of you know, who is rabbit snarer, and what are his expert qualifications?

[Rabbit Snarer]

An excellent overall assessment by Young Eldon. Many of you should read it and understand it. The only problem I have with it is the statement that studies have not been done which would satisfy me. This is not true, many have been done and none blame wolves as a primary cause of ungulate reductions, only a contributing factor which does not sit well with many of you, presumably including Young Eldon.

If you watched the recent CTV documentary on wolves you will have heard the new carnivore management biologist confirm this and add that wolf control would be unwise in part because it would require at least the removal of 80% of the population per year. Impossible!

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Rabbit Snarer

An excellent overall assessment by Young Eldon. Many of you should read it and understand it. The only problem I have with it is the statement that studies have not been done which would satisfy me. This is not true, many have been done and none blame wolves as a primary cause of ungulate reductions, only a contributing factor which does not sit well with many of you, presumably including Young Eldon.

If you watched the recent CTV documentary on wolves you will have heard the new carnivore management biologist confirm this and add that wolf control would be unwise in part because it would require at least the removal of 80% of the population per year. Impossible!

And right there is the rabbit hole.

Wolves are the major cause of ungulate population reduction..... Not satisfied.

Wolves are not the major cause of ungulate population reduction..... Satisfied.

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

I'll brand you as an anti-hunter until you provide conclusive proof that you are not. 90% of your posts whine about people killing animals, the other 10% are off topic. You have so far only provided proof that you are indeed an anti-hunter.

bingo

[Rabbit Snarer]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

And right there is the rabbit hole.

Wolves are the major cause of ungulate population reduction..... Not satisfied.

Wolves are not the major cause of ungulate population reduction..... Satisfied.

Sorry, but you haven't answered anything. Are wolves a major, moderate, or minor contributor to elk decline? Whatever their role what do you recommend be done about it? Please be specific.

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by Rabbit Snarer

An excellent overall assessment by Young Eldon. Many of you should read it and understand it. The only problem I have with it is the statement that studies have not been done which would satisfy me. This is not true, many have been done and none blame wolves as a primary cause of ungulate reductions, only a contributing factor which does not sit well with many of you, presumably including Young Eldon.

If you watched the recent CTV documentary on wolves you will have heard the new carnivore management biologist confirm this and add that wolf control would be unwise in part because it would require at least the removal of 80% of the population per year. Impossible!

So you actually believe that a reduction of 25% of the wolves would not reduce the predation on their primary prey species? Do you have a study that shows the remaining wolves increasing their food intake by 30% because of the reduction of the wolf numbers?

When Elk populations are in a decline then it would be pertinent to identify the contributing factors and mitigate them as we are able.

When a contributing factor is identified and all attempts at mitigation are outright denied then there is a problem with the process.

Your argument is very much like that of the ATV abusers - logging and oil damage the environment so why are you worrying about us? Specious at best.

[st99]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

So you actually believe that a reduction of 25% of the wolves would not reduce the predation on their primary prey species? Do you have a study that shows the remaining wolves increasing their food intake by 30% because of the reduction of the wolf numbers?

When Elk populations are in a decline then it would be pertinent to identify the contributing factors and mitigate them as we are able.

When a contributing factor is identified and all attempts at mitigation are outright denied then there is a problem with the process.

Your argument is very much like that of the ATV abusers - logging and oil damage the environment so why are you worrying about us? Specious at best.

Exactly !!! we better fix part of the problem, than do nothing

[Rabbit Snarer]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

So you actually believe that a reduction of 25% of the wolves would not reduce the predation on their primary prey species? Do you have a study that shows the remaining wolves increasing their food intake by 30% because of the reduction of the wolf numbers?

When Elk populations are in a decline then it would be pertinent to identify the contributing factors and mitigate them as we are able.

When a contributing factor is identified and all attempts at mitigation are outright denied then there is a problem with the process.

Your argument is very much like that of the ATV abusers - logging and oil damage the environment so why are you worrying about us? Specious at best.

You have a reasonable question about reducing wolves by 25%. Wolves in the referred to area have a annual mortality of about 35% which they recover from every year only with pup survival, no outside recruitment needed. You would have to increase the mortality rate by your 25% for it to be additive in order to make some small change and then continue doing it every year thereafter. For there to be a significant change the overall population would have to be reduced by 80% as the carnivore specialist on the CTV documentary said. I don't think either of these reduction rates are possible.

As for mitigating other factors all you have to do is look at how the caribou situation in AB is being handled. Unless the new government values wildlife more than clear cutting and gas and oil production it's hopeless.

As it is now the only influences which can realistically be changed are a reduction in non treaty hunters. This will happen as soon as treaty hunters have difficulty obtaining game. Our hunting will be stopped because they have priority over wildlife.

[David Henry]

So if you guys are done discussing the merits of sliced bread versus unsliced, may we return to the O.P's initial question. What's in there for Elk ?
About six years ago I spent some time in Whisker Creek looking at sheep and as such traveled through some good country coming down from the north along the Brazeau River. We saw several Elk in areas of dense timber like the stuff around Bill McDermits old trappers cabin. (I think that was his name anyway) I also saw one heck of a good bull moose way the hell and gone up the top of the Whisker. As mentioned by a previous post if you are intending to backpack your way in there how do you plan to get your meat and trophy out. I would suggest you make contact with one of the local outfitters, Chungo Creek might be able to drop you in the general area and leave you for a few days and haul you out. Sounds like you might see the occasional wolf as well. D.H.

[st99]

Originally Posted by Rabbit Snarer

You have a reasonable question about reducing wolves by 25%. Wolves in the referred to area have a annual mortality of about 35% which they recover from every year only with pup survival, no outside recruitment needed. You would have to increase the mortality rate by your 25% for it to be additive in order to make some small change and then continue doing it every year thereafter. For there to be a significant change the overall population would have to be reduced by 80% as the carnivore specialist on the CTV documentary said. I don't think either of these reduction rates are possible.

As for mitigating other factors all you have to do is look at how the caribou situation in AB is being handled. Unless the new government values wildlife more than clear cutting and gas and oil production it's hopeless.

As it is now the only influences which can realistically be changed are a reduction in non treaty hunters. This will happen as soon as treaty hunters have difficulty obtaining game. Our hunting will be stopped because they have priority over wildlife.

Your math don't add up. If the actual mortality rate is 35%, and at that rate the herd stay stable. We don't need 80% to reduce the population, but only 40% would generate a 5% decrease in population. And 5% is better than none.

[Rabbit Snarer]

Originally Posted by st99

Your math don't add up. If the actual mortality rate is 35%, and at that rate the herd stay stable. We don't need 80% to reduce the population, but only 40% would generate a 5% decrease in population. And 5% is better than none.

The reduction you refer to is not additive it's compensatory - you are in effect killing wolves which are already dead, thus no gain.

[diamonddave]

Originally Posted by Rabbit Snarer

The reduction you refer to is not additive it's compensatory - you are in effect killing wolves which are already dead, thus no gain.

That comment is right out of the peta handbook......

[Rabbit Snarer]

Originally Posted by diamonddave

That comment is right out of the peta handbook......

That comment is a basic biological fact recognized by every scientist who deals with mortality in animals. If peta uses it then they understand demographics better than you which for an anti hunting group is disturbing to me.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Rabbit Snarer

The reduction you refer to is not additive it's compensatory - you are in effect killing wolves which are already dead, thus no gain.

Nope. If the quantified natural mortality is 35% then anything above that percentage would be additive mortality, not compensatory. Which makes your version of Facts, False. v v

Originally Posted by Rabbit Snarer

That comment is a basic biological fact recognized by every scientist who deals with mortality in animals. If peta uses it then they understand demographics better than you which for an anti hunting group is disturbing to me.

More precisely, any human induced mortality can be both additive and compensatory - depending upon the conditions and context.


Not surprisingly, you neglected to mention that a 25 or 35% cull would stop the wolf numbers from growing, which is better than having an increase in the wolf population when management goals are to reduce the mortality rates on ungulates.

[Grizzly Adams]

Was actually surprised to see no wolf sign, after all the reports I've heard.

Grizz

[----->shooter]

Originally Posted by David Henry

So if you guys are done discussing the merits of sliced bread versus unsliced, may we return to the O.P's initial question. What's in there for Elk ?
About six years ago I spent some time in Whisker Creek looking at sheep and as such traveled through some good country coming down from the north along the Brazeau River. We saw several Elk in areas of dense timber like the stuff around Bill McDermits old trappers cabin. (I think that was his name anyway) I also saw one heck of a good bull moose way the hell and gone up the top of the Whisker. As mentioned by a previous post if you are intending to backpack your way in there how do you plan to get your meat and trophy out. I would suggest you make contact with one of the local outfitters, Chungo Creek might be able to drop you in the general area and leave you for a few days and haul you out. Sounds like you might see the occasional wolf as well. D.H.

Yessir, this is being factored in to my plans. And Thanks for the real response!
No different than any other backpack hunt. How do hunters get a sheep off the mountain? I know an elk is bigger but same principle, I won't be trying to drag a intact elk out of there. Gutless and pack it out, I will have someone coming to help, and also be making backup plans with exactly what you suggest, contacting an outfitter to see if they are willing to help. Saw chungo' website, not sure if they still guide, but I'll be checking.
So far, I'm only planning a scouting trip as it stands.
Thanks again for your productive question. And thanks to those that helped with advice, pm's and calls.

[----->shooter]

To those that are humouring the thread snarer, why bother? It's like arguing with a three year old.... You won't get an intelligent answer, just...why?
Why?
Why?
Why?