Originally Posted by sendero72
Just remember that the info is coming from an environmental media source. Granted that Alberta covers a large area, but thousands of wolves, I have some doubts as to the numbers. I'd like to see what their wildlife dept has for the numbers and define the numbers. They could be running up the number for the sympathy factor to get support to lower the number of wolves to be culled. Just can't trust them.
The numbers truly have to be questioned. Black Bear here in Washington took 50% of the Elk calves studied. A Bighorn study (I think New Mexico) had Mt. Lions taking like 80% of the lambs, one control group of Pronghorn Antelope improved from 8 to 88 fawns per 100 does before and after coyote control. NE Montana just finished a study of Elk calves that showed significant predation, the exact numbers elude me right now, but Bear, Cougar, and Wolves were well represented. Of course they didn't count the ones that they couldn't find enough of to say exactly what happened.
At the local level my partner has committed to killing an Idaho wolf. Several weekends on the ATV daylight to dark. Call relocate call. He reports almost no calf elk, but plenty of wolf tracks, and responsive howls. He's been scouting since the 4th of July and hunting since Labor day, and this pattern remains unchanged.
Here the "Wildlife" Department no longer looks at the effect of predators left unchecked. Instead we get reduced opportunities for both predator and prey. Their current mantra is "Poachers did it" which secures their jobs as license sales fall. Poachers aren't killing the calf crop. I've seen quotes from the BC biologist stating the negative effect of wolves on caribou, and being skeptical about the projected outcome of planting them here.
Remind me of the line John Wayne used in Mclintock, caught with another woman on his lap he asks "Now are you gonna believe what you see-or what I tell You"