Wedge pack costs

[GrousePointer]

There are several great examples in the Midwest (national forest) where you will find zero deer (areas where zero wolves exist). Deer like early succession forest, not old growth. Clear cutting has a lot of benefits and deer are among them. Organizations like the Ruffed Grouse Society can give you all sorts of hard science on the topic. They would know since they spend a pretty penny fighting tree hugger organizations like the Sierra Club who fight any kind of cutting whatsoever. Sadly, deer hunters and their organizations  have been slower to recognize the problem or the magnitude of it over the years. The problem is the decline occurs slowly, to most the problem seems to take place over night when in fact it had been going on for years. Show me an old growth forest with little sunlight getting through the canopy and I'll show you a desert.

[huntnphool]

Bob, I think you made a mistake totaling the numbers up. On some years they record the numbers differently than others. Sometimes numbers are repeated and if you aren't paying close attention, it's easy to add in a number that's already been accounted for. I know, as I've already attempted to add them up previously. I'll try to find a less confusing source.

Still waiting for that less confusing source, the one that doesn't repeat numbers or record them differently from year to year.

[Bob33]

Bob, I think you made a mistake totaling the numbers up. On some years they record the numbers differently than others. Sometimes numbers are repeated and if you aren't paying close attention, it's easy to add in a number that's already been accounted for. I know, as I've already attempted to add them up previously. I'll try to find a less confusing source.

Still waiting for that less confusing source, the one that doesn't repeat numbers or record them differently from year to year.

It's coming and will show elk harvests flat, except in wolf areas where they're up 20%. 

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Still waiting for that less confusing source, the one that doesn't repeat numbers or record them differently from year to year.

All right chuckling phool. Is this a good enough source for you? It's the official Idaho Department of Fish and Game elk report.

If you and anybody else take the time to read it, you can educate yourself and be an educated phool. It's very informative and enlightening.

https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Elk%20Statewide%20PR10.pdf

Go to page 4. On it you will see a graph on the left that has the actual number of elk harvested by year. On the right is another graph in traditional graph form.  Now if you add the cows taken and the bulls taken for each year, you will soon see the numbers Bob33 used on his graph were wrong. For starters, there isn't one year approaching 25,000 elk taken, let alone 35,000. In fact there is only one year with a harvest over 20,000 and that was 2005 with a total harvest of about 20,600. So now would be a good time to admit I was right and you were wrong and we can continue on our discussion in a respectful way with correct "facts".   If you can't do that, there is no point continuing, because if you won't accept facts because they don't agree with your viewpoint It's a waste of my time pointing them out to you. In that case, all I can say is "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

[Sitka_Blacktail]

So your argument is that home development, not wolves, are responsible for the deer elk and Moises populations crashing in the Yellowstone , Lolo and Clearwater areas in MT and ID?  Have you ever been over and hunted and hiked in these areas?

Close, but not quite so simplistic. I believe "human activity" would sum it up better. Again from the Idaho elk report........
https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Elk%20Statewide%20PR10.pdf

Go to page 1 Statewide summary and you'll find this.........

"Elk populations increased over the last 50 years; however, total pressure on the resource has dramatically increased. Human development has reduced available habitat on winter ranges and increased access into elk habitat"

and this..........

"Access into elk habitat is a primary problem facing wildlife managers today. Roads and motorized trails built into elk habitat for timber management and other activities increase hunter access and often increase elk vulnerability to harvest."

and this...............

"Although the trade-offs associated with road and motorized trail construction may vary with each individual situation, the increase in numbers of people associated with increased access is almost universally detrimental to elk. Elk move away from human disturbance when harassed, and elk that remain in logged and roaded areas are subject to more hunters over a longer period of time than elk that live in more secluded habitats."

In 1990 Idaho had a population of just over 900,000. Today it is over 1,500,000. If you  think that extra 600,000 people and their activities doesn't have an affect on game animals, you need to think again.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Bob, I think you made a mistake totaling the numbers up. On some years they record the numbers differently than others. Sometimes numbers are repeated and if you aren't paying close attention, it's easy to add in a number that's already been accounted for. I know, as I've already attempted to add them up previously. I'll try to find a less confusing source.

Still waiting for that less confusing source, the one that doesn't repeat numbers or record them differently from year to year.

It's coming and will show elk harvests flat, except in wolf areas where they're up 20%. 

Sorry I couldn't get right on it. I'm driving the Alaska Highway and don't have a lot of time for looking stuff up.

https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Elk%20Statewide%20PR10.pdf

page 4.

[jackmaster]

Damn sitka and grousepointer you guys really love these damn wolves dont ya? well can you guys make and keep a promise? never leave this site and when these wolves decimate the deer and elk and are camped out at feedn stations killn the hell out of these animals, then you guys be man enough to come back on here and eat crow, it gets a little redundant when you guys keep spewing all these numbers and wanna be facts, well here is an idea, look at it from a SPORTSMANS point of view, and please dont try to claim that you are sportman when we all know you are wolves in sheeps clothing........

[pianoman9701]

Damn sitka and grousepointer you guys really love these damn wolves dont ya? well can you guys make and keep a promise? never leave this site and when these wolves decimate the deer and elk and are camped out at feedn stations killn the hell out of these animals, then you guys be man enough to come back on here and eat crow, it gets a little redundant when you guys keep spewing all these numbers and wanna be facts, well here is an idea, look at it from a SPORTSMANS point of view, and please dont try to claim that you are sportman when we all know you are wolves in sheeps clothing........

Good luck with that, Jack. People of this mindset will be fine with the loss of our hunting privileges if it comes down to a choice between hunters and wolves. It's a sad commentary on how people forget who made hunting possible for future generations - us hunters. It turns out that what conservationist hunters have been doing for 100+ years is building up the pantry for predators, and not the human ones.

[GrousePointer]

If you don't like my word for it or wildlife agencies word for it, how about a non-profit funded and supported by hunters?

http://www.ruffedgrousesociety.org/UserFiles/File/Upland%20Almanac%20Winter%20MDZSm.pdf

I mean this in the most respectful way possible, you guys need to educate yourselves about wildlife habitat and how to improve it if you want to keep successfully hunting in the future. You can kill every predator out there and still won't solve the problem without better habitat maintenance. You can fight that all you want, but you can also bet that the Sierra Club et al doesn't have a clue about it yet they are dictating habitat policy, or trying to, to you.

Think about it.

[GrousePointer]

http://www.ruffedgrousesociety.org/The-Other-Silent-Spring-and-Placing-Wildlife-at-Risk

[pianoman9701]

No one's going to kill all of the predators, especially with no hounds or bait. Cougars are at full carrying capacity everywhere in the state. Wolves are going nuts and the state is just beginning to realize the impact of their foolish plan. Bears are also at full carrying capacity. Coyotes are in downtown Seattle. Not only is the demise of predators not even possible at this point, it's so far from the truth as to be fairy tale. If every wolf were eliminated from the state today, we still have huge management problems that don't account for man as an apex predator. The greenies who spend no time in the woods have dictated predator policy now for 17 years and with the addition of the wolf, the hunting in this state is going to collapse.

[boneaddict]

no nothing about it

you guys need to educate yourselves about wildlife habitat

[GrousePointer]

no nothing about it

you guys need to educate yourselves about wildlife habitat

Sadly a lot of guys don't.

 I hear this same argument in reference to coyotes and pheasant all of the time. Guys blame yotes for a lack of birds and just like the wolf and big game, there is a grain of truth to that. But there are places where the pheasant lives in high numbers and coyotes are everywhere. What's the difference? Habitat.

The wolf issue is a big distraction that is taking attention away from a much bigger problem that will have longer term consequences. Speaking for the west side, we don't log like we used to, if you don't think that has made a difference to big game you would be wrong.

[pianoman9701]

no nothing about it

you guys need to educate yourselves about wildlife habitat

Sadly a lot of guys don't.

 I hear this same argument in reference to coyotes and pheasant all of the time. Guys blame yotes for a lack of birds and just like the wolf and big game, there is a grain of truth to that. But there are places where the pheasant lives in high numbers and coyotes are everywhere. What's the difference? Habitat.

The wolf issue is a big distraction that is taking attention away from a much bigger problem that will have longer term consequences. Speaking for the west side, we don't log like we used to, if you don't think that has made a difference to big game you would be wrong.

Yes, the decreased logging is another symptom of people who live in the city making country decisions. This combined with a full plate of predators is the greenie double play against our game opportunities. Couldn't agree more.

[boneaddict]

Farming practices have been more detrimental to pheasants than coyotes.

Housing on the winterrange(here in washington), gas exploration etc elsewhere have taken their tolls on Muledeer.    Problem that concerns me is that wolves are like putting the bullet between the eyes to the herds, and its something we can control.    Its like dumping a sex predator in the middle of a class of 14 year old girls and see what happens.   Folks can declare its the natural order of things, but its not something that is needed for a healthy system at this point. 


Logging is INDEED needed, and its unfortunate that so many green groups have put a halt to it.  The Gore/Clinton agenda is still being felt.   He didn't inhale.....well if he was in the neighborhood now, he'd be inhaling.