Wolves do affect business

[deaner]

texas is mostly private land, much of which is high fenced, full of feeders, and no wolves at all.  texas has absolutely no business in the wolf argument. 

[ghosthunter]

Here is what you are up againist.

http://msnvideo.msn.com/?channelindex=4&from=en-us_msnhp#/video/6a4694ae-d81f-40de-8a50-ba37705b077a

[Sitka_Blacktail]

You miss my point Sitka.  Recruitment for hunters is LOW, and it is lowered by less OPPORTUNITY, i did not say harvest.  That said there is a reason why the WDFW attempts to give Jr hunters a special shot at does and ducks in a kids only season.


Most hunters that have the hunting bug can tell you thier experience when they became "hooked" on thier kind of hunting. I've never taked to a hunter that was passionate about hunting that didn't have opportunity.

In 2012 70,000+ elk hunters took over 9,000 elk in Washington.  That's a 12.9% harvest success rate. Back in 1776-1978 Washington averaged 110,000 elk hunters and 12,000 elk killed. That's a 10.9% harvest success rate. Sure they took more animals back then, and more people hunted elk. But the chances of taking an elk in 2012 were 20% higher than back in the early 70s. So if a new hunter started out in 2012, they had a better chance of being "hooked" than in the early 70's if success is you measure of getting hooked on hunting. Those 40,000 extra hunters only took 3,000 more elk or a success rate of 7.5%. If 40,000 extra hunters went elk hunting today, you'd probably see similar results. But you'd probably see a shrinking resource too.

Some will argue, that we should have 110,000 elk hunters today. But maybe all that crowding in the woods turned a lot of people off to elk hunting? And it certainly didn't do the herds any good. It's the reason Washington went to the 5 elk tag system, with early and late tags and later declare your weapon tags. Something had to be done to take some of the pressure off the elk herds.

Here's a little reminder for the folks who weren't around then.

http://www.muledeerworkinggroup.com/Docs/Proceedings/1982-Western%20States%20Elk%20Workshop/Multiple%20Elk%20Tag%20System%20and%20its%20Effect%20on%20Elk%20Hunting%20Pressu.pdf

Things aren't that bad for the people who still get out and elk hunt. At least compared to the "glory days".

[bearpaw]

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:

Just about every time somebody posts something that is not in exact agreement with you, you make a statement like the one above about how the topic has been "derailed" by the wolf lovers.  I guess by "derail" you mean somebody has inserted objective, logical statements into a wolf thread and you don't like it.  You only want people to oooh and ahhh over whatever drivel you posted in the first place with no critical thought. 

Can't believe I am falling for another topic diversion.... 

Regardless of what you may try to claim if anyone reviews most of the recent wolf topics, they will see the same handful of "wolf supporters or whatever you prefer to be called" who come into the topics and hijack the discussion and lead the discussion to an entirely different topic. I'm not saying that these wolf supporters can not offer their opinion about the topic, I'm saying they always change the discussion completely away from the original topic and usually present nothing of value or facts regarding the original topic. Their usual tactic is to infer that they are better hunters than everyone who opposes unmanaged wolves and that they never have problems filling their tags in Idaho or Montana so wolves must not impact herds. We've all heard it a million times how good of hunters you are, how many times do you guys have to say that? This topic was about wolf affects on business, not how great of hunters you think you are so there must not be any wolf impacts. 

[Sitka_Blacktail]

texas is mostly private land, much of which is high fenced, full of feeders, and no wolves at all.  texas has absolutely no business in the wolf argument.

We were talking habitat Deaner. The feeders aren't what keep the game alive in Texas. That's just what draws them in for shooting. It's all the grasslands and brush and oak trees (acorns) and farmland that makes it good habitat. You were trying to tell us that Alaska has great habitat. Overall, that just isn't true.

[deaner]

texas is mostly private land, much of which is high fenced, full of feeders, and no wolves at all.  texas has absolutely no business in the wolf argument.

We were talking habitat Deaner. The feeders aren't what keep the game alive in Texas. That's just what draws them in for shooting. It's all the grasslands and brush and oak trees (acorns) and farmland that makes it good habitat. You were trying to tell us that Alaska has great habitat. Overall, that just isn't true.

i was saying alaska is able to handle a wolf population, not only because of aggressive predator management but also because they have a lot more continuous habitat unbroken by urban areas than the northern rockies area.  here we have parcels of habitat connecting between lots of human encroachment. talking about texas is a joke, has nothing to do with the conversation.  in fact the conversation is supposed to be about wolves affecting business.  once again where does texas fit into that?

[bearpaw]

Dale, you never answered my question a few pages ago as to how it would help businesses if I told them the elk hunting sucked?

KFHunter, I hunt in Washington also.  Yes, I do have skin in the game.  And no, I'm not saying screw NE Washington.  I am saying that you will always be fighting against different political ideology that has a lot more votes than you do.

Obviously you can say what you want about the elk hunting. As a businessman and being an honest person I'm not going to lie about the elk herds in wolf affected areas and I'm trying to prevent the same from happening in Washington. From what I see most outfitters readily tell the public that elk herds are hurting and moose have practically disappeared from these wolf impacted areas. In fact the very first post outlines comments from numerous outfitters telling it like it is. I would add that F&G herd counts and studies confirm and prove what the outfitters are saying about wolf impacts.

Everyone understands there are more voters in western WA. 

[bearpaw]

texas is mostly private land, much of which is high fenced, full of feeders, and no wolves at all.  texas has absolutely no business in the wolf argument.

We were talking habitat Deaner. The feeders aren't what keep the game alive in Texas. That's just what draws them in for shooting. It's all the grasslands and brush and oak trees (acorns) and farmland that makes it good habitat. You were trying to tell us that Alaska has great habitat. Overall, that just isn't true.

This is another perfect example of thread jacking a topic....

[bearpaw]

You miss my point Sitka.  Recruitment for hunters is LOW, and it is lowered by less OPPORTUNITY, i did not say harvest.  That said there is a reason why the WDFW attempts to give Jr hunters a special shot at does and ducks in a kids only season.


Most hunters that have the hunting bug can tell you thier experience when they became "hooked" on thier kind of hunting. I've never taked to a hunter that was passionate about hunting that didn't have opportunity.

In 2012 70,000+ elk hunters took over 9,000 elk in Washington.  That's a 12.9% harvest success rate. Back in 1776-1978 Washington averaged 110,000 elk hunters and 12,000 elk killed. That's a 10.9% harvest success rate. Sure they took more animals back then, and more people hunted elk. But the chances of taking an elk in 2012 were 20% higher than back in the early 70s. So if a new hunter started out in 2012, they had a better chance of being "hooked" than in the early 70's if success is you measure of getting hooked on hunting. Those 40,000 extra hunters only took 3,000 more elk or a success rate of 7.5%. If 40,000 extra hunters went elk hunting today, you'd probably see similar results. But you'd probably see a shrinking resource too.

Some will argue, that we should have 110,000 elk hunters today. But maybe all that crowding in the woods turned a lot of people off to elk hunting? And it certainly didn't do the herds any good. It's the reason Washington went to the 5 elk tag system, with early and late tags and later declare your weapon tags. Something had to be done to take some of the pressure off the elk herds.

Here's a little reminder for the folks who weren't around then.

http://www.muledeerworkinggroup.com/Docs/Proceedings/1982-Western%20States%20Elk%20Workshop/Multiple%20Elk%20Tag%20System%20and%20its%20Effect%20on%20Elk%20Hunting%20Pressu.pdf

Things aren't that bad for the people who still get out and elk hunt. At least compared to the "glory days".

If the goal is to reduce the number of hunters in Washington I would agree the status quo is working, there are less hunters today! I'm wondering why the goal is not to improve the herds to benefit the number of hunters we used to have in Washington? Your strategy seems counter productive! The results are simply not smart business nor are the results very serving to hunters who support WDFW! Your strategy fails to account for the impact to thousands of hunters who quit hunting and the lost business to this state as a result.

[JLS]

Dale, you never answered my question a few pages ago as to how it would help businesses if I told them the elk hunting sucked?

KFHunter, I hunt in Washington also.  Yes, I do have skin in the game.  And no, I'm not saying screw NE Washington.  I am saying that you will always be fighting against different political ideology that has a lot more votes than you do.

Obviously you can say what you want about the elk hunting. As a businessman and being an honest person I'm not going to lie about the elk herds in wolf affected areas and I'm trying to prevent the same from happening in Washington. From what I see most outfitters readily tell the public that elk herds are hurting and moose have practically disappeared from these wolf impacted areas. In fact the very first post outlines comments from numerous outfitters telling it like it is. I would add that F&G herd counts and studies confirm and prove what the outfitters are saying about wolf impacts.

Everyone understands there are more voters in western WA. 

Being an honest person myself, I am readily telling the public that there are many areas that have good to excellent elk hunting, and not always where you would expect it to be.  People read about one affected area and assume that elk hunting sucks in the whole state.  If I perpetuate that thought then I am doing a disservice to many other businesses.

[bearpaw]

Dale, you never answered my question a few pages ago as to how it would help businesses if I told them the elk hunting sucked?

KFHunter, I hunt in Washington also.  Yes, I do have skin in the game.  And no, I'm not saying screw NE Washington.  I am saying that you will always be fighting against different political ideology that has a lot more votes than you do.

Obviously you can say what you want about the elk hunting. As a businessman and being an honest person I'm not going to lie about the elk herds in wolf affected areas and I'm trying to prevent the same from happening in Washington. From what I see most outfitters readily tell the public that elk herds are hurting and moose have practically disappeared from these wolf impacted areas. In fact the very first post outlines comments from numerous outfitters telling it like it is. I would add that F&G herd counts and studies confirm and prove what the outfitters are saying about wolf impacts.

Everyone understands there are more voters in western WA. 

Being an honest person myself, I am readily telling the public that there are many areas that have good to excellent elk hunting, and not always where you would expect it to be.  People read about one affected area and assume that elk hunting sucks in the whole state.  If I perpetuate that thought then I am doing a disservice to many other businesses.

That's a more reasonable response, although not entirely honest. There are actually numerous impacted herds in both Idaho and Montana, that would be a more honest appraisal. Yes, there are certainly areas with more elk where the wolves have not expanded their numbers yet. Yes if you consider private land units in E Montana where there are more elk then MT is doing fine. But most residents and non-residents do not have access to those private lands. Historically thousands of hunters depended on the public land hunts in the Bitteroot, Madison, Yellowstone, etc. Those areas and others have all suffered wolf impacts documented by F&G and in the Yellowstone all the late hunts have been eliminated. For you to infer that has not impacted hunter opportunity seems a bit dishonest to me.

Furthermore, these losses of hunter opportunity and resulting declines in hunters has heavily impacted rural businesses. 

[Bob33]

Wolves eat elk.

More wolves eat more elk.

More elk eaten by wolves leaves fewer for harvest by hunters.

Hunters participate for many reasons, but to suggest that on an aggregate basis, harvest opportunity is no factor at all in what or where they hunt is rather silly.

Fewer hunters means less hunting related business in localized areas with fewer harvestable animals.

An argument could be made that the loss of hunting related business in one area is equally offset by an increase in hunting related business in another area. Can that be documented?

An argument could be made that the loss of hunting related business is equally offset by an increase in other outdoor activities, such as wolf watching. Can that be documented?

[JLS]

Dale, you never answered my question a few pages ago as to how it would help businesses if I told them the elk hunting sucked?

KFHunter, I hunt in Washington also.  Yes, I do have skin in the game.  And no, I'm not saying screw NE Washington.  I am saying that you will always be fighting against different political ideology that has a lot more votes than you do.

Obviously you can say what you want about the elk hunting. As a businessman and being an honest person I'm not going to lie about the elk herds in wolf affected areas and I'm trying to prevent the same from happening in Washington. From what I see most outfitters readily tell the public that elk herds are hurting and moose have practically disappeared from these wolf impacted areas. In fact the very first post outlines comments from numerous outfitters telling it like it is. I would add that F&G herd counts and studies confirm and prove what the outfitters are saying about wolf impacts.

Everyone understands there are more voters in western WA. 

Being an honest person myself, I am readily telling the public that there are many areas that have good to excellent elk hunting, and not always where you would expect it to be.  People read about one affected area and assume that elk hunting sucks in the whole state.  If I perpetuate that thought then I am doing a disservice to many other businesses.

That's a more reasonable response, although not entirely honest. There are actually numerous impacted herds in both Idaho and Montana, that would be a more honest appraisal. Yes, there are certainly areas with more elk where the wolves have not expanded their numbers yet. Yes if you consider private land units in E Montana where there are more elk then MT is doing fine. But most residents and non-residents do not have access to those private lands. Historically thousands of hunters depended on the public land hunts in the Bitteroot, Madison, Yellowstone, etc. Those areas and others have all suffered wolf impacts documented by F&G and in the Yellowstone all the late hunts have been eliminated. For you to infer that has not impacted hunter opportunity seems a bit dishonest to me.

Furthermore, these losses of hunter opportunity and resulting declines in hunters has heavily impacted rural businesses. 

Dishonest, give me a break   I have absolutely NOTHING to gain in any way through all of this.  It makes no difference to me, other than the fact that I want folks to look beyond the myths that would lead you to believe that elk hunting in Montana sucks.

I don't hunt private land.  I don't hunt eastern Montana very often.  I hunt public land in the western part of the state where wolves have been present for 15 years.  I hunt resident elk herds that have stayed the same or increased over the last 10 years.  A NR bowhunter killed a B&C bull less than five miles from where I hunt during bow season.

You are focusing on the negative.  Note that I never said how many herds have been affected by wolves?  I am focusing on the positives.  For you to infer that the loss of the late Yellowstone hunt is indicative of the quality of elk hunting in the Madison is entirely dishonest to me.  Take a look at the season structure there and you'll see for yourself.  Cow elk are still being killed with OTC tags late into winter.  Doesn't quite fit your argument does it?

Again, if I tell folks that there is still good elk hunting in wolf country (which there is) am I helping or hurting businesses?  You can question my honesty all you want.  The fact is I have direct experience there hunting that area and speak from that.

[bearpaw]

Dale, you never answered my question a few pages ago as to how it would help businesses if I told them the elk hunting sucked?

KFHunter, I hunt in Washington also.  Yes, I do have skin in the game.  And no, I'm not saying screw NE Washington.  I am saying that you will always be fighting against different political ideology that has a lot more votes than you do.

Obviously you can say what you want about the elk hunting. As a businessman and being an honest person I'm not going to lie about the elk herds in wolf affected areas and I'm trying to prevent the same from happening in Washington. From what I see most outfitters readily tell the public that elk herds are hurting and moose have practically disappeared from these wolf impacted areas. In fact the very first post outlines comments from numerous outfitters telling it like it is. I would add that F&G herd counts and studies confirm and prove what the outfitters are saying about wolf impacts.

Everyone understands there are more voters in western WA. 

Being an honest person myself, I am readily telling the public that there are many areas that have good to excellent elk hunting, and not always where you would expect it to be.  People read about one affected area and assume that elk hunting sucks in the whole state.  If I perpetuate that thought then I am doing a disservice to many other businesses.

That's a more reasonable response, although not entirely honest. There are actually numerous impacted herds in both Idaho and Montana, that would be a more honest appraisal. Yes, there are certainly areas with more elk where the wolves have not expanded their numbers yet. Yes if you consider private land units in E Montana where there are more elk then MT is doing fine. But most residents and non-residents do not have access to those private lands. Historically thousands of hunters depended on the public land hunts in the Bitteroot, Madison, Yellowstone, etc. Those areas and others have all suffered wolf impacts documented by F&G and in the Yellowstone all the late hunts have been eliminated. For you to infer that has not impacted hunter opportunity seems a bit dishonest to me.

Furthermore, these losses of hunter opportunity and resulting declines in hunters has heavily impacted rural businesses. 

Dishonest, give me a break   Unlike you, I have absolutely NOTHING to gain in any way through all of this.  It makes no difference to me, other than the fact that I want folks to look beyond the myths that would lead you to believe that elk hunting in Montana sucks.

I don't hunt private land.  I don't hunt eastern Montana very often.  I hunt public land in the western part of the state where wolves have been present for 15 years.  I hunt resident elk herds that have stayed the same or increased over the last 10 years.  A NR bowhunter killed a B&C bull less than five miles from where I hunt during bow season.

You are focusing on the negative.  Note that I never said how many herds have been affected by wolves?  I am focusing on the positives.  For you to infer that the loss of the late Yellowstone hunt is indicative of the quality of elk hunting in the Madison is entirely dishonest to me.  Take a look at the season structure there and you'll see for yourself.  Cow elk are still being killed with OTC tags late into winter.  Doesn't quite fit your argument does it?

Again, if I tell folks that there is still good elk hunting in wolf country (which there is) am I helping or hurting businesses?  You can question my honesty all you want.  The fact is I have direct experience there and you don't.

You can certainly deny whatever you want. The F&G statistics (which is what I like to deal with) all say there are numerous declining herds in Montana, perhaps I misidentified one of the declining herds?. Even the Yellowstone herd that used to number nearly 20,000 elk but now only numbers less than 4,000 elk probably has a handful of record class bulls. I am not arguing that at all. But the fact remains that exactly as I have stated the late hunts have been eliminated to try and save the remaining herd. No matter how you try to sidestep the issue wolves have resulted in losses of hunter opportunity and impacted local businesses.

In addition there are many other declining herds in MT and in ID with wolves identified by F&G as a limiting factor, hunter opportunity has been lost and businesses have suffered as a result. With these wolves impacting the herds if thousands of hunters didn't quit hunting on their own, the F&G agencies would likely need to limit hunter opportunity even more than they have in these public land areas to lessen herd declines just as they have in Yellowstone, Lolo, Middle Fork, and many other areas. The statistics and the agencies prove wolves as a primary limiting factor in many areas.

If there are too many elk in your hunting area you are certainly welcome to identify it specifically so some of the displaced hunters can help control these over populated elk.

I am not by any means saying every unit in ID/MT has been impacted by wolves, the statistics say otherwise. It's a lot of the former best elk areas that have been impacted. Again, yes there are elk and I'm certain there are a handful of record bulls in any area with a herd of elk, but that doesn't mean those herds have not been reduced greatly or that thousands of hunters have not lost opportunity.

[JLS]

I have never debated or denied that hunter opportunity has been lost and businesses have suffered as a result.