Photo Credit; National Park Service, Denali National ParkLast week I went on a back packing into the central Idaho mountains, and on the way home stopped in Stanley for a snack and gas for my truck. I happened to hear a conversation between several of the local folks about Gray Wolves. Their conversation started out how bad an idea it was to reintroduce wolves into Idaho and then went on to several other topics. From there they discussed how the Canadian Wolves were larger in body size than the native Idaho wolves, and how those vicious Canadian wolves had eaten all the local wolves.
The research on wolves and on other critters does indeed prove that as you move farther north in latitude that mammals get larger in size. Generally speaking. In other words, on the average a grizzly in northern Canada is larger than a Grizzly in Yellowstone Park. However to say that native wolves in British Columbia are larger than native Idaho wolves, is not very probable.
If you look at a road map there is nothing that separates Idaho from British Columbia besides an imaginary line, which is a wee bit insignificant to a Gray Wolf. From Canada to Stanley, Idaho it's about 500 road miles or 300 air miles. A determined Gray Wolf can travel up to 100 miles in a day, if there are no substantial barriers and if I do the math correctly a wolf could travel from British Columbia and arrive in Stanley Idaho, in 5 days. That fast of a trip is not likely because the wolf would probably have to stop and hunt and feed and they would avoid highways,towns and people and other wolf packs which would make it a long trip. The point is that wolves are very mobile and cover a great deal of territory in a short time.
Then the idea that Canadian wolves killing all the native Idaho wolves is interesting and somehow I envision the native wolves all wearing bright orange Boise State shirts, making them easy to find, and all the Canadian wolves wearing the Maple Leaf flag. This might make for a great story but there is no way for one wolf to discern the nationality of another wolf and they all have the same colors and there is no difference in their sizes. A Gray Wolf is a Gray Wolf is a Gray Wolf.
Then the conversation took a different turn that I never expected. One of the gals mentioned she had seen a Gray Wolf and she said "it was beautiful". In fact she said it twice. Then her husband was discussing how he was going to wolf hunting after the snows came on his snowmobile and it was something he was looking forward to.
Perhaps this signals a change of attitude and more acceptance of the presence of wolves in Idaho. Perhaps folks that weren't fully supportive of having wolves in Idaho are starting to take ownership and can see the value, magic, beauty, and the mystery of having wolves in our State again.
4 comments:
The ongoing Idaho wolf predation study by IDFG substantiates that wolves regulate prey (elk) populations and that wolf predation mortality for those elk populations in the Lolo and Sawtooth Wolf Management Zones exceeds the predation mortality of bears or lions. The IDFG research is among the best being conducted on the question of wolf mediated effects on a prey species. These findings are compelling substantiation that wolves do indeed have profound impacts on a targeted prey species, within current habitat conditions.
Elk numbers in the Lolo and Sawtooth elk management zones are seriously depressed – by wolf predation. The science (years of high quality elk and wolf population radio-telemetry data) is clear. Wolf predation is depressing elk production well below what we should expect for the habitat quality in those zones. Elk habitat quality was following a natural, declining trend after the 1910 fires. The depressed elk production and the factors contributing to that depression is a combination of habitat quality AND substantial wolf predation on productive cow and calf elk.
---Mark Gamblin--South West Director Idaho Fish and Game..August 15, 2009, 2:40 pm
The Lolo and Sawtooth Zones the recent, sharp decline in elk productivity and recruitment I referred to is due to wolf predation of productive cows and their calves, not hunting mortality. The radio-telemety data we have for cows and calves in those zones gives us the fate of each collared elk and allows us to accurately estimate the wolf predation rate of cows and calves. Having good baseline data for these elk populations from previous years, including hunting harvest data, we can say with certainty that wolf predation has pushed elk production and recruitment in these two zones below levels that have required substantial reductions in the elk hunting opportunity that was allowable with essentially the same habitat when wolves were introduced. HOW we manage this new wildlife population dynamic (elk-wolf) and the necessary changes in public uses and benefits of those resources is of course our challenge.--- Mark Gamblin -----South West Director Idaho Fish and Game..August 15, 4:08 pm
I live IN the Sawtooth's and wolves have done exactly what Mark describes above.. As well the native packs I grew up watching in the Bear Valley, Red Mountain, and as far south as Goat Mountain are no longer present after twenty years..
When talking about wolf biology and interactions with prey such as elk, I go back to the basics. The concept of compensating mortality factors (CMF) is quite important. The basics of CMF are that wolves kill animals that are weak, or starving or injured; animals that would likely die even if wolves were not present, which results in populations of elk remaining stable in spite of predation. The statistics of elk population trends in Idaho back this up. The most important factor effecting elk populations is the condition of in their environment and habitat and climate. Can a wolf kill a healthy elk? Of course but it isn't that norm. It comes back to the adage that the "predator controls the prey, and the prey controls the predator. There are volumes of biological studies that back this up. If we in Idaho protect the elk habitat, populations will generally remain stable or increase. There are areas where elk populations have decreased such as the LoLo Area but this is really due to lack of good forage as the conifer forests have shaded out the surface vegetation.
The biggest threats to the elk populations are the loss of wintering areas due encroachment by brush and trees, the building of roads and houses on these areas, ATV trails and invasive plants such as cheatgrass and rush skeleton weed.
It is interesting how there were wolf packs present in Idaho and Montana before the reintroduction in 1995, so perhaps that was a mistake, politically speaking. Maybe not. I worked for a rancher years ago in Montana back in the mid 1970's and remember the wolf pelt he showed us, that he had shot back near the Scapegoat Wilderness. It was almost pure white!
I read the studies and models concerning this subject, and have done so for years. Those are theories. Written up by Phds who spend their time in Library's and University's, and they do consult with reports from biologists in the field. The problem is the people on the ground, those biologists, and hunters or fishermen are not fully acknowledged, only partially. I have spent over 100,000 miles in 35 years in the saddle, pulling pack mules, using trails which are not mapped, mostly game trails, picking my way into wild places in the Sawtooth and Church, i have studied elk and deer during that time, as well the predators, and other creatures, these university studies and models are not accurate. These studies are mens Bibles, and the University has become these mens gods. Yes we did have wolves passing through this country before the reintroduction. lets stop and think about this, Idaho has not been to full ungulate carrying capacity in our lifetimes, also, in 1992-93 we had a massive die off of the ungulates due to deep snows, and again in 1996-97.. Those herds were down and have not made it back, and then this wolf is brought forth, in my opinion at a bad time, and David Mech estimates the official estimation is low by 10%, I believe it even it could be 20%. So in short the damage in my opinion is real, and many herds I once knew and watched are gone. But the talking walking organic university book worms do not wish to listen to the Mountain men..
Your experience in the back country is remarkable. I think it is very important for all studies to take note of observations in the field, especially from folks that spend a great deal of time there. I don't have any idea how some of the Universities conducted their wolf studies, but it usually involves the collection of a great deal of field information, usually in exhaustive detail. Elk numbers have remained fairly stable in Idaho over the last 10 years, according to the Idaho Fish and Game Studies, with populations of elk in some units going up and in some units going down. To me its all about quality habitat, not predators and yes wolves may decrease elk numbers in some regions. I know in Yellowstone the elk numbers have dropped but I watched the range in Yellowstone get grazed down to a nubbin by elk then there were the drought years then the wolves were reintroduced. In Yellowstone it's a complicated situation but the rangeland conditions suffered sorely for decades. Increasing elk numbers is all about protecting their winter range and the calving range, and I think Idaho has done a poor job. Overall the studies completed by the various Universities on wolves, have had comparable results, and they have held true in the field. But there are some exceptions out there, as you noted, because nature is a complicated place. Your comments make me think of some of the observations the Indians made to the Lewis and Clark expedition. When the expedition was traveling back towards Montana the Indians told them (based on hundreds of years of experience) they couldn't get across Lolo Pass until mid June. The expedition didn't believe them until they tried to cross in early June and couldn't, due to the deep snows.
Post a Comment