Free: Contests & Raffles.
Quote from: KFhunter on February 21, 2014, 08:12:46 PMMaybe you can help me understand Idahohntr;*IF* you happen to be correct then what's the down side? I mean what do you stand to loose? Why are you so passionate about wolves because if you're proven correct then there is no harm and no foul. Life went on and you get the satisfaction of being correct - the worst thing that happens is I get to eat crow. If I'm correct then hunter opportunity in WA will go down the toilet, OIL tags for moose will be eliminated or so close to it whats the difference, cattle producers will take big big hits until the point it's no longer feesable to free range cattle destroying many people's way of life. I got skin in the game so to speak. All hunters have skin in the game even if they're pro-wolf.I see what your saying...the downside to me being wrong and convincing other hunters of my viewpoint could be catastrophic to hunters in the sense that wolves will annihilate elk populations...you were trying to fire them up to improve the probability of legislative action and here I am tamping the flames down. If your wrong, its actually a good thing...it means were all still hunting. Is that about right?I don't think it is bad at all to encourage hunters to speak up to legislators about concerns over wolves and to hold them accountable for fighting for the hunters in this state. I do think there is a point though if you push to far and too boldly, you lose credibility and then you just get cast aside. That is my biggest fear...if every hunter swears that wolves are going to end all elk hunting...politicians are going to see through this eventually...like the boy who cried wolf. And, if this were Idaho I would say CRY WOLF...because you would be in good company. But in WA, I think hunters might be our own worst enemy in terms of getting wolves de-listed so control actions will be easier because of the makeup of the legislature and the number of voters west of the cascades. Believe me, I thought exactly as you do about potential impacts of wolves in N. Idaho 10 or 15 years ago...it just didn't materialize so I am now more optimistic than you...I will also agree that it is NE Wa that is going to take the biggest hit from any wolf impacts and so regardless of who is right, your WA hunting is still probably going to suffer more than mine down here in SE Wa...and I fully acknowledge its easier for me to go sit on my property down here and glass bulls and watch bucks coming into my food plots and forget that it might not be so great for folks in the NE. It sounds like you've lived your whole life up there, which makes it particularly difficult to see declines in hunting opportunity. I'm not unsympathetic to your concerns, but I do believe you are more pessimistic than the evidence would support.
Maybe you can help me understand Idahohntr;*IF* you happen to be correct then what's the down side? I mean what do you stand to loose? Why are you so passionate about wolves because if you're proven correct then there is no harm and no foul. Life went on and you get the satisfaction of being correct - the worst thing that happens is I get to eat crow. If I'm correct then hunter opportunity in WA will go down the toilet, OIL tags for moose will be eliminated or so close to it whats the difference, cattle producers will take big big hits until the point it's no longer feesable to free range cattle destroying many people's way of life. I got skin in the game so to speak. All hunters have skin in the game even if they're pro-wolf.
always remember about variables boys! you may have great hunting now on your food plots but if hunting is restricted in ne wa, hunting pressure could be put on other units like yours and then even tho your on private property the state will make your unit a draw unit and now you might only be able to hunt your property once every 5 years! variables and trickle effect can not yet even be determined!
This is why I've been railing on HW over the wolf issues, there's 3-4 guys on here that constantly try to derail our efforts.
So when some one says there waiting for delisting,i think it means there waiting for a legal way of dealing with the problem,not that there a wolf lover or non-hunter.Some people care more about there hunting rights than wolves,maybe if i was deer hunting and seen a wolf attacking deer or elk i might feel diff.And had a rifle that coulnd punch all the way though,but even then they have collard wolves with GPS and all that so its a pretty big deal.
Quote from: idahohuntr on February 21, 2014, 07:45:19 PMQuote from: bearpaw on February 21, 2014, 07:23:45 PMHow do we know that Sitka is even a hunter. Oh goodness...not another witch hunt please. He is a hunter just like most every other person on this forum. Just because someone has a different viewpoint doesn't mean they are not a hunter. The world is not black and white.I'm not saying you are wrong, but have you hunted with him? How would you know? Fact: It wouldn't be the first time we had a poser on this forum.
Quote from: bearpaw on February 21, 2014, 07:23:45 PMHow do we know that Sitka is even a hunter. Oh goodness...not another witch hunt please. He is a hunter just like most every other person on this forum. Just because someone has a different viewpoint doesn't mean they are not a hunter. The world is not black and white.
How do we know that Sitka is even a hunter.
Quote from: KFhunter on February 21, 2014, 07:54:46 PMThis is why I've been railing on HW over the wolf issues, there's 3-4 guys on here that constantly try to derail our efforts. Sorry you see it as trying to derail your efforts. If you want to make any sort of difference in wolf management, you may want to go armed with articuable facts and legitimate arguments.articulable facts have no place in a kangaroo court You will never achieve a goal of poisoning, aerial gunning, and year round seasons. You will never achieve a goal of a minimal wolf population.poisoning is not my goal, my goal is to get them documented, fully delisted and hunted in conjunction with more Elk collaring and population studies on ungulates. I also want to change the MT.Lion plan. I also want generous hound permits and trapping (padded foot hold) permits in areas with too many wolves or cats (respectively), and declining Elk...none of that is happening and it makes me sad When neccessary I want them gunned down with a helicopter if they get to eating pets, livestock or attack people. If you recall I was against the 2 million dollar Idaho plan to gun them down. Let the people do it, provide incentive if necessary. I don't like the idea of government killing animals if hunters/trappers can do it. And, my philosophy is that you don't need to. I understand your is different and that's fine. We don't need to rehash that argument. Keep putting words in my mouth and we'll never finish rehashing this argument, I got more skin in the game than you do because I hunt in WA not MT. If you're correct then so be it, no harm no fowl we're all still hunting and I'll owe you a beer or something. But if I'm right.............But, whether or not you agree with my outlook on it, I can guarantee you this. You have a snowball's chance in Hell of selling the people of this state on the wolf management approach you want. You have a very good chance at selling the approach that we should do everything we can to maximize the state's ability to grow and sustain ungulate herds.getting a handle on the wolf problem will help the ungulates, this makes no since. Wolf populations will always be self limiting from a social standpoint, so to make continued predictions that Washington will be a wolf pit is, in my opinion, completely silly. Granted, we will never approach things the same way that Wyoming and Idaho do, but that's life. There are a lot more folks with very different political ideologies in this state that will win that battle. Sorry NE WA, you're screwed - that's life, oh well get over it. You're buddy Idahohntr agrees that the NE corner of the state will be fed to the wolves, sounds like you agree too but don't care. Shame on you. I don't NEED to convince anyone of anything. Yet here you are.... I just hope that folks will at least go into this with an educated argument. Living in the past,No let's DO live in the past just for a second, what happened to Lolo Elk when ID had no wolf control going on due to malloy?? Oh ya 80% decline in Elk in that region. worrying about what kind of wolf was released won't do anyone any good. If someone has proof of wrongdoing, do something with it. Otherwise, it's worth the same amount as newspaper on the bottom of a birdcage. Yup, I've said this all along - you talking to me?I am not saying in any way that sportsmen should not be proactive in regards to wolves. They should. They should be educating themselves with an open mind. If you think you are going to change wolf management with Lobowatch I thought lobowatch was a wolf advocacy group until Dec 13 2013 when I made that stupid thread "DIY wolf managers find ally in lobowatch" ROFL I had to edit it really quick. material then folks will be sorely disappointed. If you take the Toby Bridges and Scott Rockolms of the world, and compare their stuff to Howling for Justice and CBD took em a while to google them, kept getting Christian book delivery "CBD WOLF" worked though..., the truth is likely somewhere in the middle.I didn't know those names, Toby Bridges or Scott Rockholm until you or Idahohntr mentioned them, I'll go look up their writings and see what they have to say. I haven't read any of their works that I know of Signed,A wolf lover and leader of the elk hunter exodus from Washington to Montana
Former IDFG Wildlife Commissionerhttp://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,147923.msg1962541/topicseen.html#newQuoteAn information paper prepared by IDFG’s Deputy Director, Sharon Kiefer, titled, “Idaho hunting license sales and revenue changes due to wolves”, dated December 7, 2010 was submitted to the Senate Natural Resource Committee. The purpose of the paper was to address the 2009 calendar year Idaho big game license sales decline by 2,634 nonresident elk tags, 4,460 nonresident deer tags and 4,405 nonresident hunting licenses compared to 2008 sales. Hunter concerns about the effect of wolves on their prospects of success and the reduction of specific big game populations combined with the Nation’s economic down turn and a nonresident fee increase were the reasons for decreased sales. In 2008 IDFG’s elk tag sales were 13,035 and in 2013 they were 8,020 a loss of approximately 40%.This paper went on to discuss “Economic Impact Analysis of Gray Wolf Reintroduction-State Wide Assessment. “Using the most recent estimate from Cooper et al. (2002), a day of elk hunting in Idaho is worth $127.40/day for direct expenditures in 2008 dollars. The 1994 EIS estimated that between 14,619 and 21,928 hunter days would be lost due to wolf reintroductions in central Idaho. If the reduction in hunter days was linearly related to wolf populations then the loss of hunter days associated with 824 wolves (minimum number reported in 2008) would be between 120,400 and 180,686 resulting in an estimated value of the foregone benefits to hunters of between $15 and $24 million.” This $15 – 24 million represents loss income to the State of Idaho for the 2008 calendar year. Assuming Idaho lost millions associated with the decrease in nonresident hunters coming to Idaho who suffered the loss? To answer this question one must look at areas of Idaho where wolves have severely impacted deer, elk and moose populations. Start in the Panhandle Region of North Idaho at St. Maries and move east across hunt units 6, 7 and 9. According to the Regional Biologist, Jim Hayden, elk numbers have been reduced 70% over the past five years in these units primarily as a result of wolf predation. IDFG was forced to terminate the general cow season that the Panhandle had been able to sustain for the past 40 years due to depressed elk number in these units. Turn south to the two Zones mentioned by RMEF’s David Allen and you cross Big Game Managements Units (BGMU) 10/12 referred to as the Lolo Zone. The Elk population in this Zone has been reduced by 90% (16,000 to 1,500) over the past 10 years again, primarily due to wolf predation.Continue south through along the Idaho/Montana boarder through the Selway, Middle Fork, Salmon, Sawtooth portion of the Southern Mountains, Beaverhead and Island Park Zones then move west back across the center of the state through Fairfield to Idaho City to Cascade, Council, Riggins, Grangeville, Orofino and back to St. Maries to complete the circle. This circle describes what was at one time, prior to introduction of wolves, the premier elk hunting area in the country. It is now an area that, in some portions, is devoid of elk with cow/calf ratio’s among those that remain in the single digits.If the area described above is the where the majority of the nonresident hunters who once hunted in Idaho, but now no longer return to Idaho, what has been the economic impact of their absence? I had a discussion with the owners, David and Tina of Banderob’s Wild Meat Processing Plant located in St. Maries, concerning the damage that wolves had caused to their small business. In 2005 the Banderob’s processed 205 elk, the majority for nonresident hunters. In 2013 they processed 31 elk for mostly resident hunters. Tina reported that nonresident elk hunters have quit coming to St, Maries because the elk are gone. The dollar cost to their meat cutting business comparing the two years of 2005 to 2013 is (174 X $250) $43,500. The state share of this loss at 6% was $2,600.Modify message The St. Marie’s motel, gas stations, restaurants, grocery, sporting goods stores and local outfitters were similarly impacted. Assuming a 20% hunter harvest rate, the 205 nonresident hunters in 2005 came in groups of four and spent on average $127.43 per day for their 10 day elk camp experience in the St. Maries area. The overall dollar loss to small business in the St. Maries area becomes more significant and understandable. Apply the same analysis to similar businesses in Avery, Kellogg, St Regis, Lolo, Salmon, Rexburg, Stanley, Challis, McCall, Council, Riggins, Grangeville, Orofino, and back to St. Maries and you begin to understand that the negative economic impact and real cost of wolves to Idahoans is huge, in the range of $60 to $120 million over the five year period from 2008 to 2013.
An information paper prepared by IDFG’s Deputy Director, Sharon Kiefer, titled, “Idaho hunting license sales and revenue changes due to wolves”, dated December 7, 2010 was submitted to the Senate Natural Resource Committee. The purpose of the paper was to address the 2009 calendar year Idaho big game license sales decline by 2,634 nonresident elk tags, 4,460 nonresident deer tags and 4,405 nonresident hunting licenses compared to 2008 sales. Hunter concerns about the effect of wolves on their prospects of success and the reduction of specific big game populations combined with the Nation’s economic down turn and a nonresident fee increase were the reasons for decreased sales. In 2008 IDFG’s elk tag sales were 13,035 and in 2013 they were 8,020 a loss of approximately 40%.This paper went on to discuss “Economic Impact Analysis of Gray Wolf Reintroduction-State Wide Assessment. “Using the most recent estimate from Cooper et al. (2002), a day of elk hunting in Idaho is worth $127.40/day for direct expenditures in 2008 dollars. The 1994 EIS estimated that between 14,619 and 21,928 hunter days would be lost due to wolf reintroductions in central Idaho. If the reduction in hunter days was linearly related to wolf populations then the loss of hunter days associated with 824 wolves (minimum number reported in 2008) would be between 120,400 and 180,686 resulting in an estimated value of the foregone benefits to hunters of between $15 and $24 million.” This $15 – 24 million represents loss income to the State of Idaho for the 2008 calendar year. Assuming Idaho lost millions associated with the decrease in nonresident hunters coming to Idaho who suffered the loss? To answer this question one must look at areas of Idaho where wolves have severely impacted deer, elk and moose populations. Start in the Panhandle Region of North Idaho at St. Maries and move east across hunt units 6, 7 and 9. According to the Regional Biologist, Jim Hayden, elk numbers have been reduced 70% over the past five years in these units primarily as a result of wolf predation. IDFG was forced to terminate the general cow season that the Panhandle had been able to sustain for the past 40 years due to depressed elk number in these units. Turn south to the two Zones mentioned by RMEF’s David Allen and you cross Big Game Managements Units (BGMU) 10/12 referred to as the Lolo Zone. The Elk population in this Zone has been reduced by 90% (16,000 to 1,500) over the past 10 years again, primarily due to wolf predation.Continue south through along the Idaho/Montana boarder through the Selway, Middle Fork, Salmon, Sawtooth portion of the Southern Mountains, Beaverhead and Island Park Zones then move west back across the center of the state through Fairfield to Idaho City to Cascade, Council, Riggins, Grangeville, Orofino and back to St. Maries to complete the circle. This circle describes what was at one time, prior to introduction of wolves, the premier elk hunting area in the country. It is now an area that, in some portions, is devoid of elk with cow/calf ratio’s among those that remain in the single digits.If the area described above is the where the majority of the nonresident hunters who once hunted in Idaho, but now no longer return to Idaho, what has been the economic impact of their absence? I had a discussion with the owners, David and Tina of Banderob’s Wild Meat Processing Plant located in St. Maries, concerning the damage that wolves had caused to their small business. In 2005 the Banderob’s processed 205 elk, the majority for nonresident hunters. In 2013 they processed 31 elk for mostly resident hunters. Tina reported that nonresident elk hunters have quit coming to St, Maries because the elk are gone. The dollar cost to their meat cutting business comparing the two years of 2005 to 2013 is (174 X $250) $43,500. The state share of this loss at 6% was $2,600.Modify message The St. Marie’s motel, gas stations, restaurants, grocery, sporting goods stores and local outfitters were similarly impacted. Assuming a 20% hunter harvest rate, the 205 nonresident hunters in 2005 came in groups of four and spent on average $127.43 per day for their 10 day elk camp experience in the St. Maries area. The overall dollar loss to small business in the St. Maries area becomes more significant and understandable. Apply the same analysis to similar businesses in Avery, Kellogg, St Regis, Lolo, Salmon, Rexburg, Stanley, Challis, McCall, Council, Riggins, Grangeville, Orofino, and back to St. Maries and you begin to understand that the negative economic impact and real cost of wolves to Idahoans is huge, in the range of $60 to $120 million over the five year period from 2008 to 2013.
Wolves do affect businesshttp://mtstandard.com/news/opinion/columnists/wolves-do-affect-business/article_238be1b4-ec09-11e1-85ad-001a4bcf887a.html?print=true&cid=printAugust 22, 2012 12:00 am • By Denver BryanA recent op-ed piece by Montana writer Todd Wilkinson claimed that hunting outfitters were “fibbing” about the negative impact high wolf populations are having on their businesses.Wilkinson’s only support for his conclusion seemed to be the fact that he had no problem finding 50 outfitter websites in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho that advertise high elk hunting success rates.In subsequent discussions with Wilkinson, I tried to explain that it’s easy to find outfitters with websites who are still in business. However, it’s not so easy to locate outfitters who have either gone out of business, are going out of business or who are having to change how their business operates.Additionally, I asked him if he knew anyone hoping to stay in business who actually advertises that their business is doing poorly? Unfortunately, Wilkinson didn’t seem to see the logic and went on to challenge me to find even five outfitters who have gone out of business.After several weeks and hearing back from a few dozen outfitters, I found considerably more than five who are either out of business or struggling to stay in business.Here are a few comments from the few dozen that I received from outfitters regarding how high wolf populations and greatly diminished elk herds in their regions have impacted their businesses.• From Lee Hart of Broken Heart Outfitters of Gallatin Gateway: “We used to guide 50-80 elk hunters every year up in the Gallatin Canyon region with good success. However, last year we had one hunter and so far none are booked for 2012.”• From Dave Hettinger of Dillon: “I was an outfitter in Idaho for 19 years and ended up walking away from the business a few years ago (unable to sell it) due to the serious decline of the Lolo region elk herd.”• From guide Rick Hafenfeld (also a certified wildlife biologist) out of Big Timber: “In our hunting area, where we previously booked four to five trips with four to six hunters on each, we now only book two hunts with only two clients on one hunt and four on the other.“This amounts to a reduction in our business from 20-30 hunters to six or a 60 to 80 percent decrease. Contrary to environmentalists’ predictions, I know of no outfitters who have received inquiries about leading wolf watching safaris.”• From Michael Story: “I outfit in Paradise Valley west of Emigrant. Before wolf introduction there were 16 outfitters in this region and now there are just seven still hanging on.”• From Joe Cantrell of St. Regis: “Because high wolf numbers have significantly depleted the elk herd in the West Bitterroot hunting district, all of my businesses (outfitting, restaurant, bar and lodging) are down. The damage from wolves has already been done and our elk herd is down 60 percent. I still take a few hunters out but the day is coming for many outfitters when we won’t have enough elk to sustain both wolves and hunting.”• From Liz Jackson of Cooke City: “The greater Yellowstone elk herd has been drastically reduced due primarily to wolf predation. We have experienced a phenomenal change in our hunting business.“We are permitted by the Gallatin National Forest to take 18 hunters each fall. We used to be ‘fully booked’ every season but have only guided five, two and four hunters respectively over the past three years, and only harvested one bull in that time. We see the time in the near future when we will no longer be offering elk hunts in this region.”I could relay similar comments from many other outfitters on this topic but space limitations here won’t allow for such. Suffice it to say, with well over a thousand outfitters in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, the livelihoods of many have been and are still being seriously impacted by high wolf populations.— Denver Bryan is a wildlife biologist by training and a wildlife photographer by profession. He lives in Bozeman and his work has appeared on the cover of several outdoors magazines.
There is a handful of wolf supporters/lovers, or however you choose to refer to them, who derail every single wolf topic no matter how much solid evidence is presented, they avoid any data presented to bring up the same old lame issues to attempt to discredit the individuals presenting the data and hijack the topic. I'm reposting this to bring this discussion back to topic:
couple problems with your logic. one is that you said the lower 48 has more habitat... come on, the lower FORTY EIGHT STATES, which have a total of at least double the land mass of alaska, has more good habitat? come on man, silly argument. and while this MIGHT be true, youre not only talking about twice as much land, but youre also obviously taking No account of human population versus available habitat. not to mention that the "higher amount of available habitat" available in the 48 consists of lots of small pockets of habitat amid tons of urban *censored*, whereas alaska is a few small pockets of urban *censored* amidst a large area of wildlife habitat. its apples and oranges. and even if alaska had the same square miles of good habitat as the rest of the country, it would be worth way more to animals due to the MUCH lower number of people messing around in it. also, youre saying how bears are so much worse than wolves.... on KODIAK ISLAND... no *censored*? you mean the ISLAND famous for giant bears? wow who woulda thunk it? come on dude, cant you come up with a logical valid argument? quit using comparisons that make no sense
