Most prevalent wolf myths: they kill all the elk and leave none for hunters and they are the biggest threat to livestock.
Wolves have primarily been a hated and highly misunderstood species by ranchers, landowners, and hunters, but the reasons are often based on myth and allegory, for which they are unfairly maligned.
According to a recent report by Defenders of Wildlife, Some hunters report that it is more difficult to find elk since wolves have returned to the states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, which leads some people to mistakenly assume that elk numbers have significantly dropped from wolf predation.
Instead, as documented by scientists and researchers, the wolf’s hunting behavior of testing their prey for weakness can cause elk to avoid open areas, move to higher altitudes, seek out more areas with heavy foliage for cover, or instinctually move toward human dominated landscapes where landowners may offer less hunter access.
Furthermore, increased use of All Terrain Vehicles is also affecting elk behavior in some of the same ways. These behavioral changes mean that hunters and wildlife managers may need to adapt their strategies to accommodate the ability of elk to adapt to predator patterns.
Meanwhile, overall estimates for those states in 2009 suggest there are more than 350,000 elk in the region, which is more than enough for both wolves and humans to hunt.
In nature, a wolf’s primary food source is wild prey, like elk, deer, moose, caribou, bison, big horned sheep, muskoxen, and smaller prey--not livestock. But, they are opportunistic and unattended livestock could end up being an easy meal.
Ranchers and landowners mistakenly believe that wolves present the greatest threat to their livestock, but statistics from the National Agriculture Statistics Service, shows that only 1% of lost livestock, including unconfirmed losses, is due to wolves. The biggest threat remains to be disease, birthing issues, extreme weather, and other predators, including wild dogs.
However, conservation groups like Defenders of Wildlife are working hard to educate ranchers to improve tolerance and minimize conflicts.
Non-lethal methods for protecting livestock
Defenders Wolf Experts
***Jean Williams 2010
Comments
All mature, responsible, and civil comments are welcome. Offensive, abusive, and obnoxious comments will be unceremoniously deleted. This post is not a platform to be spammed by people wishing to promote their ideological agendas or petty bigoted diatribes. It's also helpful to read the article before commenting.
It easy to blame the wolves - they have been getting a bad rap for years. Animals survive by instinct and we are the ones encroaching on their homes. There's no reason why livestock can't exist near wolves if people will think and understand before they blame. You may want to look into how badly some cattle farmers treat their animals. They need a lot of education there.
Though I agree with the article and feel that it is necessary and good to dispel some of the popular negative beliefs surrounding wolves in general, I would ask the author or editors to exhibit more discretion in the use of the terms "myth" and "mythology" which have a much deeper and broader meaning than simply "a lie", "misconception" or "popular belief". Indeed, the myths surrounding wolves in the western world do not help their cause as they are mentioned in the Bible on numerous occasions as symbols of destruction and greed. As the Bible is the prevalent source of occidental myth, it would be interesting to explore how this vision affects our relationship and attitude towards wolves, but in order to do this we must appropriately understand and differentiate "myth" and "mythology" from their more vague and erroneous contemporary usages. That would be my only complaint with this article as otherwise I fully support a deeper understanding of these exquisite creatures.
I think Jane is using "myth" and "mythology" in an over-the-top sense for effect - and she does a good job of it. It's sort of a Hitchensonian approach - not only are these notions wrong or errors - they are "myths" - so far out there that they are not even based in our reality. They're like faerie tales. I like it.
Jean by the way - I meant to say Jean and not Jane in previous comment - but you know that.
"Teams of veterinarians and police shooters have killed some 58,000 stray dogs in and around the Iraqi capital over the past three months as part of a campaign to curb an increasing number of strays blamed for attacks on residents."
OMFG the murdering animal killers!
Well, I don't know what point "dumb Shiite" is trying to make, but anyone mincing words over the use of "myth" in this article-- is just arguing semanics.
"Instead, as documented by scientists and researchers, the wolf’s hunting behavior of testing their prey for weakness can cause elk to avoid open areas, move to higher altitudes, seek out more areas with heavy foliage for cover ... "
This is probably spot on, making for a tougher hunt for the hunter. It may make for a longer stalk, or a longer wait in a blind, but that's hunting.
A wolf, caught in the act of killing livestock should be shot. But indiscriminate killing of wolves benefits no one.
Paul, in addition to forcing the elk into heavier cover, it expends precious energy, reduces forage availability and can over time weaken the entire herd making it more susceptible to disease and starvation.
I am astonished that you completed the article without using "sustainable" in the text.
This is pure baloney. Wolves can go to higher altitudes too. Their tracks are everywhere in Montana
elk101[dot]com/2010/04/rmef-letter-to-defenders-of-wildlife-regarding-wolves/
Articles like this are misleading. First, frame the problem with assertions like Myth: wolves kill ALL THE ELK. Then follow it with claims like those of Defenders of Wildlife in which "wolves are just testing their prey" and that is why the may move to higher ground, steeper slopes and stay out of openings. The true facts are these elk are trying to stay alive. A wolf will eat upwards of 10-23 elk a year. They are not always the injured and old. Most wolves eat alot of very healthy elk calves. They affect herd stucture and that is what is worrysome to hunters.
This author is disingenuous with her conclusions because she simply does not know the facts and does not want to learn them.
Continuing on my earlier statement.
100 wolves = about 1,000 dead healthy elk. With the average 17% success rate for hunters harvesting elk, that is roughly the same as having the equivalent of 5,882 new human hunters in the woods. No wonder they are mad.
Another point the author misses, when claiming there are many elk in the area. That is because the wolves are not everywhere yet. Wolves have gone through the excess elk in Yellowstone and, while safe from humans there, are going where the elk are. There are less than 100 wolves in Yellowstone now, based on official estimates from the Yellowston National Park wolf scientists.
What crock of wolf poopie this article is!
You seem to have everything all figured out, it's nothing more than conjecture and speculation and dubious math. I would rather believe the Defender's biologists any day and that is clearly where the facts for this article comes from. So, do your self a favor and click the links included and try to educate yourself.
While Jean makes the point that ranchers are being educated, its also a point that WHEN a protected wolf kills the rancher's stock, the rancher not being able to either stop the predation nor recover the worth of the stock lost it severely strains the rancher's resources. forcing them to provide uncompensated feed for the protected wolf is wrong also. DoW et al are NOT forthcoming with compensation for the affected ranchers, leading to a rather adversarial relationship and the ranchers doing what they must to protect their stock.
In addition, DoW is hardly a balanced source for info on impacts of the wolves, sort of like letting the tobacco companies run health studies on cigarettes.
In addition, WDFW has a Bio on staff who REFUSES to label any stock losses as wolf kills even with video evidence. That sort of action puts him FIRMLY in the pro-wolf camp and abrogates his duty as a WDFW official to ALL wildlife.
As far as the hunters go...its OUR TAG MONIES that paid for the habitat improvements, rangeland, winter range protections and a host of other wildlife services and it purely torques us to see that thrown out for a supposedly endangered critter that is NOT endangered by any means.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!