Free: Contests & Raffles.
There is no correlation between the success rates depicted in the chart and overall Elk population either.
Quote from: KFhunter on February 24, 2014, 10:00:37 PMThere is no correlation between the success rates depicted in the chart and overall Elk population either. No direct correlation. Not an animal to animal correlation. But how many times has it been argued here that lack of success is costing Idaho and other states hunters? So what is more important, how many elk Idaho has, or how many get harvested each year. I'd say as long as you can maintain it, harvest numbers are more important than total numbers. But that's just me.Doesn't do you any good to have the woods full of animals if you can't harvest them.
Recess is over, it's time to take your seat.
it it equally misleading to think that elk numbers will rebound anywhere close to 1980s levels in the Lolo if we just get rid of/or significantly reduce wolves and other predators.
KF- The graph I posted is from the IDFG elk management plan...the same plan/source data bearpaw is posting on recent harvest and population trends. But thats nice you can draw I do believe the long-term trends in any population data, whether its yellowstone or Lolo or Idaho as a whole gives a better sense of some of the points many folks try to make on these forums: elk numbers are dynamic and lots of factors contribute to those changes. I think we all generally agree on that It is misleading to think that wolves aren't holding down elk numbers in specific units...it it equally misleading to think that elk numbers will rebound anywhere close to 1980s levels in the Lolo if we just get rid of/or significantly reduce wolves and other predators.
Quote from: idahohuntr on February 24, 2014, 10:45:38 PMit it equally misleading to think that elk numbers will rebound anywhere close to 1980s levels in the Lolo if we just get rid of/or significantly reduce wolves and other predators.Burn it to the ground and you might see some significant rebound.