And Yet Another Study Purporting Wolves Don’t Effect Elk Herds
October 27, 2009
Apparently we have yet another study soon to be released that is supposed to show that older wolves (beyond 3 years) lose their ability to be good killers and therefore this is somehow to show us that wolves are not having any affect on elk herds.
Without having the complete study, there is no way to actually make serious comment about the results of that study but the information that is being put out through press releases, I find leaves a lot of unanswered questions.
From the Science Daily:
The finding challenges a long-held belief that wolves are successful predators for their entire adult lives. It now appears that like human athletes, they are only at the top of their game for about 25 percent of that time. It also shows that physiology can limit predation.
Dan MacNulty, a postdoctoral researcher in the College of Biological Sciences’ Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, says that when the older wolves lose their “edge” to be the real killers, it is left up to the younger wolves. He says the younger wolves kill for the older ones. He concludes that “physiology can limit predation”. Meaning the older wolves will kill less than the younger. It seems the professor should have also concluded that younger wolves kill more than older and make up the difference.
Wolves, regardless of age, have to eat. If, as MacNulty points out the younger wolves kill so the older ones can eat, then is there really any difference in how much killing is done? All I can see is that if older wolves killed as much as the younger ones, then possibly there would be more killing than what we have. Somehow isn’t MacNulty trying to tell us wolves are somehow trending toward killing fewer elk? How can he do that?
Nothing that I have read so far mentions anything about surplus killing by wolves. Most wolf lovers deny that wolves kill far more than they eat and those willing to admit it say it is a negligible amount and nothing we should be concerned with.
The facts are still on the ground. Wolves kill to eat and for sport. To make the claim that wolves are not having an impact on elk herds runs contrary to what some state’s fish and game biologists are now discovering. As a matter of fact in Idaho’s Lolo region, some areas have been hit so hard by wolves, elk herds have reached non sustainable levels. Is this because there are more younger wolves than older?
In Yellowstone, wolves, who hunt in packs, depend on elk for survival. The finding is timely because the park’s elk population is shrinking and wolves are being blamed. Wolves were hunted out of the area in the 1930s and re-introduced in 1995. But the study shows there isn’t a strong correlation between the number of wolves in the park and the number of elk killed.
I guess we’ll have to wait and read the report in order to figure out how the results of this study shows a lack of correlation. It’s absurd to think that the number of wolves in an area will not have a “strong correlation” in how many elk get killed. Wolves eat elk. It’s their favorite food. If there are more wolf mouths to feed, something more has to be killed to feed the hungry wolves. I would call that a direct correlation.
MacNulty further goes on to say that he thinks that predation on elk is dependent upon the age structure of the wolf packs.
MacNulty says that number fluctuates based on the age structure of the wolf population at any given time. The higher the proportion of wolves over age three, the lower the rate at which they kill elk
Unless MacNulty is willing to admit that surplus killing is an integral part of wolf behavior, I fail to see how age structure and which wolves do the killing for the pack have any significant difference in the amount of killing done. One can assume that the older wolves, presumably less active, may require less food to eat to survive but is that so significant that it seriously reduces the number of elk wolves kill?
MacNulty says hunting won’t put the species at risk, but it actually skews the population towards younger wolves, which could mean more deaths, not fewer, for the elk.
I find this statement highly questionable. What possibly can MacNulty be basing this finding on? Did his study include trips to areas in Alaska, or elsewhere, where hunting and trapping of wolves has been ongoing and has studied the effects of age structure on wolves over long periods of time where there is hunting of wolves? This is the first year in decades any hunting of wolves has taken place. Surely we cannot make any scientific conclusions about the changing of age structures of wolf packs after only a few days of wolf hunting. For MacNulty to make this claim, is he saying that mostly the older wolves are those that end up being killed via hunting? Where’s the proof?
I have no idea at what age wolves are at their prime as pertaining to killing machines. Wolves still kill and wolves still need to eat. The facts are on the ground and we see the results of their actions. Does it really matter? If biologists like MacNulty are willing to admit to significant surplus killing by wolves, then I can see how, if his findings about what age wolves are the best killers, that a young wolf pack can do a lot of killing and an older one somewhat less.
Tom Remington
Related Articles
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
We feature the latest news, events and politics effecting the sports of hunting, fishing, and all outdoor activities in North America.
I performed three separate scientific studies over three decades which de bunk this main stream peer reviewed scientific lie about to be unloaded onto the public by a desperate government battling against the exposure of another lie gone wrong for them.
1. Wolf, my Canadian Timber wolf lived to be fourteen, he ran and hiked with me until twelve, he could keep up with the horses even if I galloped them and most often beat me to our destination.
2. Clark, my faithful loving Black lab, lost him at 23 months, but with a broken hip healed he could still run circles around the horse and did 30 mile trips no problem, up until his unfortunate and early demise.
3. Jimbo, My trusty faithful loving Yellow Lab, just passed this last June 5th, he was 10 years 2 months. He traveled over 40,000 miles in those years chasing my pack strings, never lost a step until April 09, and then passed June 5th. His last Journey was Sept, 08, twenty miles round trip twice to go fishing for four days at hour little rainbow hole.. He could still our run the horses across the pasture at home..
Get ready for more peer approved pseudo bunkum crap science coming out of a controlled journal mandated agency which suits the agenda of the innocent little wolves didn’t do it.. After all we in America have become accustomed to justifying our lies in our constant desire to withhold the truth.
Just in case I’m wrong leave older wolves alone and kill the pups instead..
I performed three separate scientific studies over three decades which de bunk this main stream peer reviewed scientific lie about to be unloaded onto the public by a desperate government battling against the exposure of another lie gone wrong for them.
1. Wolf, my Canadian Timber wolf lived to be fourteen, he ran and hiked with me until twelve, he could keep up with the horses even if I galloped them and most often beat me to our destination.
2. Clark, my faithful loving Black lab, lost him at 23 months, but with a broken hip healed he could still run circles around the horse and did 30 mile trips no problem, up until his unfortunate and early demise.
3. Jimbo, My trusty faithful loving Yellow Lab, just passed this last June 5th, he was 10 years 2 months. He traveled over 40,000 miles in those years chasing my pack strings, never lost a step until April 09, and then passed June 5th. His last Journey was Sept, 08, twenty miles round trip twice to go fishing for four days at hour little rainbow hole.. He could still our run the horses across the pasture at home..
Get ready for more peer approved pseudo bunkum crap science coming out of a controlled journal mandated agency which suits the agenda of the innocent little wolves didn’t do it.. After all we in America have become accustomed to justifying our lies in our constant desire to withhold the truth.
Just in case I’m wrong leave older wolves alone and kill the pups instead..
OH! You’re my new favorite blogger fyi
Greg
This is probably the most Buncombe that I have ever heard from you.
“I performed three separate scientific studies over three decades which de bunk this main stream peer reviewed scientific lie about to be unloaded onto the public by a desperate government battling against the exposure of another lie gone wrong for them.”
Tell me of what you are speaking; there is no logic in your rhetoric.
Biased observations by you do not qualify as scientific studies.
What is the forth coming lie? From whence does it come?
You are dealing in speculation, not reality.
It’s a mockery of the Buncombe Biased and agenda driven peer reviewed science as accepted by the populance at a glance from their “scientists” on the pedestal which they spout their “findings” from.. They speculate their outcomes all the time and people like you assume since their government and media recognized their infallible.. You need a reality dose.. Jerry E Smith interview. This entire interview is super good.. Part one below.. it is 7 parts, you should find it interesting. There is a helluva lot more going around us than you wish to believe, Lee, that’s your problem, not mine..
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feucGpOXuFM
It’s mockery silly..
http://candidconservatives.com/environmentalism-is-corporate-fascism/comment-page-1/#comment-135
I’ve posted two other replies Lee, I’ve been censored.
You’ve not been censored on this blog!
Check the spam filter, it did me.
Last night I went through the entire spam filter and checked all comments and never found anything. Sorry!
I think I’ve found those two posts. I wonder where they have been. Nothing there last night, they were both there this morning buried back in the date they were posted. If these aren’t the right ones Greg, let me know.
That be them, that was weird..
That is weird. When your last what’s it was up; the barrel thingie, i made first comment and never saw it.
I thot you thot it was too easy and set the comment aside for a chance at others commenting. no big deal – i’d like resolve on what it is, tho. when you get time, no hurry.
Greg
Those are fine statements regarding your canine friends. They were obviously greatly appreciated by you.