Moose and wolves.

H

hawk-i

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Just got back from a moose hunting trip. I was lucky enough to get a nice young bull on Sunday morning (still in full velvet, 38").

On day 2 heard the wolves howling about 2 to 3 miles to the south of me in the early afternoon, sounded like one hell of a lot of wolves. Wolf tracks and scat was in abundance on the logging trails and settings.

With all the wolf sign and howling it Kind of made me wonder how much the moose were being harassed by wolves.

I'm guessing the bull I got is around 2 years old, now when skinning out this moose I see both hind hocks have recently fresh healing wounds from wolves. These are tears in the hide 2 to 3 inches in length, several in total. Also I see several more completely healed scars from past encounters with wolves. So this one young bull had at least two serious encounters with wolves.

Little wonder why moose numbers are down so much in BC.
 
That was one extremely lucky young moose! Usually, when wolves draw blood on a moose, that's it.
First thought is there may have been only two or three wolves and the moose was able to escape, but to happen more than once and still get away is extremely unusual.
Bruce
 
The area has a fairly fast flowing river and smaller lakes within close proximity to the river, my guess is if the moose can get to the water it would be able to escape the wolf attacks.
 
blasted_saber said:
Are you sure they're wounds from wolves? Maybe an old bull put the antlers to him last fall?
Click to expand...

The distance between the rips in the hide would match the distance between canine teeth on a wolf....yes pretty sure these are caused by wolves.
 
If there were no wolves at all to make an impact on moose populations do you think that moose numbers would be higher? Probably not.

The Department of Natural Resources try's to keep moose, deer, elk, bear, etc etc levels at the lowest possible while obtaining the highest possible hunter numbers. This way they keep automobile insurance providers, farmers, and ranchers happy while allowing the most people to potentially benefit from a resource. Remember, wildlife is a cost for business and a liability, resource departments are under tremendous pressure to maintain low wildlife population levels in general.

Using your own observation of scarring on the young bull as a perfect example...that moose had until you got involved beat all the other factors (weather, disease, wolves, parasites, etc) that might comprovise his survival but he didn't beat man. If you hadn't killed him before he reached maturity how long do you think he'd have lived? Who know's...but I never shoot immature animals. We as hunters can make sure we have enough to hunt by never shooting females or the immature of the species. I never compromise this principle unless a record population high year is amongst us.

In all but the most inaccessible and remote locations do wolves even play into or have an impact on wildlife populations, and when they do, it balances things.

If you asked me if I would prefer a world without predation from wolves, bears, bears, or coyotes I would tell you that you'd might as well have that world without moose, deer, and elk - that is how important natural predation is in properly functioning ecosystems.
 
As well years ago Idaho's elk were taking a Sh-t kicking with as it turns out too many predatory black bears killing all the calves.Ask the US ranchers how thrilled they are with the Yellowstone wolf plant project.Harold
 
Predators probable kill 50% of the moose calfs that are born in a year. Bears would count higher than wolves on the new borns. But as winter goes on the wolves take there share. Where wolves are in area by time they leave the game numbers are down and depending on the winters it will take years for it to recover
 
See, Farley Mowat has ghost writer!


umchorn2 said:
If there were no wolves at all to make an impact on moose populations do you think that moose numbers would be higher? Probably not.

The Department of Natural Resources try's to keep moose, deer, elk, bear, etc etc levels at the lowest possible while obtaining the highest possible hunter numbers. This way they keep automobile insurance providers, farmers, and ranchers happy while allowing the most people to potentially benefit from a resource. Remember, wildlife is a cost for business and a liability, resource departments are under tremendous pressure to maintain low wildlife population levels in general.

Using your own observation of scarring on the young bull as a perfect example...that moose had until you got involved beat all the other factors (weather, disease, wolves, parasites, etc) that might comprovise his survival but he didn't beat man. If you hadn't killed him before he reached maturity how long do you think he'd have lived? Who know's...but I never shoot immature animals. We as hunters can make sure we have enough to hunt by never shooting females or the immature of the species. I never compromise this principle unless a record population high year is amongst us.

In all but the most inaccessible and remote locations do wolves even play into or have an impact on wildlife populations, and when they do, it balances things.

If you asked me if I would prefer a world without predation from wolves, bears, bears, or coyotes I would tell you that you'd might as well have that world without moose, deer, and elk - that is how important natural predation is in properly functioning ecosystems.
Click to expand...
 
The fact that wolves have "moved in" as confirmed by either sightings or evidence such as wolf kills is sufficient information to conclude that moose or big game populations have reached numbers sufficient to warrant sustaining predator numbers as noticed in some actual stable population with a given range and number of individuals.

However the absence of wolves does not mean game populations are not strong or healthy. Having more species to choose from is a blessing not a curse. More biodiversity and resources is a sign of wealth. In years with high numbers of predators a smart man would make a coat with a prime specimen or a posh comforter while in low years he would do what he could to boost all populations of wildlife.

When one spends a great deal of time and money to puchase his own hunting haven he changes the way he thinks. Although it's sad to see the result of predation or hard winters on your herd's health and numbers...you understand your role in wildlife management is to be a good steward and learn when and what to kill for the betterment of your investment...the land and the wildlife that inhabits it.
 
umchorn2 said:
The fact that wolves have "moved in" as confirmed by either sightings or evidence such as wolf kills is sufficient information to conclude that moose or big game populations have reached numbers sufficient to warrant sustaining predator numbers as noticed in some actual stable population with a given range and number of individuals.

However the absence of wolves does not mean game populations are not strong or healthy. Having more species to choose from is a blessing not a curse. More biodiversity and resources is a sign of wealth. In years with high numbers of predators a smart man would make a coat with a prime specimen or a posh comforter while in low years he would do what he could to boost all populations of wildlife.

When one spends a great deal of time and money to puchase his own hunting haven he changes the way he thinks. Although it's sad to see the result of predation or hard winters on your herd's health and numbers...you understand your role in wildlife management is to be a good steward and learn when and what to kill for the betterment of your investment...the land and the wildlife that inhabits it.
Click to expand...

between your two posts in this thread, you don't make much sense
 
What I'm saying is that just because you have an area with abundant moose and no wolves does not mean the moose are abundant because of the absence of predators. Predation accounts for a varying percentage of population variability as you move across the continent. Likewise you many have an area with healthy and strong populations of both moose and wolves concurrently.

North America had much higher populations of moose and wolves, elk and bears prior to european habitation. I read a book called "the Saskatchewan" and in it I learned that at one point the wild plains bison of Sakatchewan and southern manitoba supported about 150,000 settlers and fur trader across the North Saskatchewan River before population were too low and cattle ranching had to replace the wild stocks. By this point bison, wolves and most large game species and predators like grizzlies had been killed off and the fur trade had collapsed around 1850 after only 250 years.

All I'm saying is that you guys have to stop shooting baby animals and females if you want more moose. Even if you get rid of all the bears, wolves, coyotes etc your not going to have growing population of any big game species until you realize this important point.

"legiOn" would you care to elaborate on moose populations and hunting pressure in Newfoundland and Labrador rather than making a vacuous statement about moose populations there?

I can tell you that moose, elk, and deer populations are in my opinion low in southern manitoba and saskatchewan and there are zero wolves or bears in most of the land area in the south of these 2 provinces. And yes I'm aware of how bad winter kill can be. This leaves only one more variable...humans. Way too much hunting pressure and habitat loss.
 
Alaska has the right idea...........

They do an winter aerial wolf cull disposing of predetermined numbers per zone to help the caribou recover.Then announce it to the Media + treehuggers after the fact so they can't interfere.Works great.........Harold
 
As the lower part of Sask and the forest fringe( some parts) I would agree that the winter and hunter are more affects population than wolfed/bear. But in the forest it's the beAr and the Wolfe are tops and winter. North east prov there is a large and heathy population of wolves which are well documented along with bear population it does have its take
 
mbogo3 said:
They do an winter aerial wolf cull disposing of predetermined numbers per zone to help the caribou recover.Then announce it to the Media + treehuggers after the fact so they can't interfere.Works great.........Harold
Click to expand...

This is what BC needs to be doing as well. The area I was hunting has a long moose season starting Aug 20th and running till the end of november. If the wolves (and bears both grizzly and black are abundant there) reduce the numbers to much the likely outcome will be a 7 day season and limited entry. One bad winter with heavy deep snow will turn the table over to the wolves and the moose population could be decimated, taking years to recover.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom