Poachers more problematic than wolves?

[idahohuntr]

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/apr/18/north-idaho-poachers-taking-heavy-toll-game/

Interesting perspectives.

[pianoman9701]

Solution: put a bounty on both. Done.

[vandeman17]

I agree with the article that poaching is as big of a problem as wolves in most areas. The only issue is that one was brought on by poor choices of the game managers and the other is just because some people are true POS! I like the idea of a bounty on both. Getting points to turn in poachers is only attractive to hunters.

[AspenBud]

I like this quote from the article....

"But he said if predators were killing as many game animals as poachers, people would take action.

“Holy buckets, we would be setting budgets aside,” Cummings said. “We would develop a group to figure out what it was and we would develop a plan to deal with it, but we won’t even talk about what impact this has on wildlife.” "

Silly man, that's because cows aren't involved.      

[bearpaw]

Officials tell the Lewiston Tribune in a story on Friday that last year in North Idaho they confirmed poaching of 30 elk, four moose, 13 mule deer and 57 whitetail deer.

Officials say a realistic detection rate is 5 percent, meaning poachers are likely killing about 600 elk, 80 moose, 260 mule deer and 1,000 whitetail annually.

While I agree that poaching is a serious problem that needs addressed I think the statement was indicative of poor mathematics and a general understatement by wildlife officials of actual wolf impacts. Well known government studies indicate one wolf will eat 44 deer or 17 elk in 1 year. Idaho admits to having about 600 wolves (there are probably twice as many as they have found), probably about half of the known wolves are in north Idaho. Using the government statistics 300 wolves would eat 5,100 elk or 13,200 deer annually. Because wolves are obviously taking a mix of animals, the real toll is probably more like 2200 elk, 300 moose, and 6600 deer which obviously is several times worse than the poaching problem.

If poaching was stopped and wolf numbers are reduced to 200 wolves in Idaho, (100 in north Idaho) there obviously would be more abundant wildlife and much better hunting for everyone. 

[buckfvr]

I also thought their math was inventive.........." poachers are likely killing" IMHO should have read " poachers are potentially killing", lack of real statistics should have kept it in the potential for, rather than the likely to.   


Let me add that I think a big part of the undocumented poaching comes from the people who live on "Wrong Turn Movie Road "..........they kill and eat at their convenience, have forever and will forever.  They are out there, and Id bet they account for alot of critters that dont show on harvest reports.

[pianoman9701]

The attempt here to move blame away from wolves is kind of idiotic. It's like saying that cancer kills more people than car accidents, so we should go after cancer and forget about car accidents. It makes no difference if poachers are killing 4 times as many, although I think most of us with any brains can read between the lines. Control of one is not mutually exclusive of the control of the other. Both should have a bounty on them. We should do everything in our power to eliminate poachers AND wolves (at least in ID, at this point).

[stevemiller]

why don't these anti hunting groups and anti wolf groups get together and force the prosecuting attorneys of this country to penalize these poachers heavier?Oh because they are full of bull,They want all the animals dead so all the hunting will end I forgot.This article proves a lot of how ignorant they really are, if you fall into this category so be it.Just like when the DNR or the DFW or any of the other forest services let everything get so bad right under their noses so they can shut an area down to us the hunters.A $100 dollar camera set up would make 1000s annually at a entry way.A gate doesnt make any money at all.Only causes animosity amongst user groups Ie natives non natives,Horseback,Jeepers,Hikers,ETC but I guess maybe thats what their intentions really are. 

[Booman2]

Steve, constructive discussion, always the weapon of the well informed.

[wolfbait]

Officials tell the Lewiston Tribune in a story on Friday that last year in North Idaho they confirmed poaching of 30 elk, four moose, 13 mule deer and 57 whitetail deer.

Officials say a realistic detection rate is 5 percent, meaning poachers are likely killing about 600 elk, 80 moose, 260 mule deer and 1,000 whitetail annually.

While I agree that poaching is a serious problem that needs addressed I think the statement was indicative of poor mathematics and a general understatement by wildlife officials of actual wolf impacts. Well known government studies indicate one wolf will eat 44 deer or 17 elk in 1 year. Idaho admits to having about 600 wolves (there are probably twice as many as they have found), probably about half of the known wolves are in north Idaho. Using the government statistics 300 wolves would eat 5,100 elk or 13,200 deer annually. Because wolves are obviously taking a mix of animals, the real toll is probably more like 2200 elk, 300 moose, and 6600 deer which obviously is several times worse than the poaching problem.

If poaching was stopped and wolf numbers are reduced to 200 wolves in Idaho, (100 in north Idaho) there obviously would be more abundant wildlife and much better hunting for everyone. 

If poachers were stopped today, we would still have the USFWS and WDFW's wolves poaching the herds, and as these poachers that are protected above all else, expand, it won't be long and there won't be any more human poachers, because there won't be anything left to poach. See WDFW have already solved the poaching problem! No worries, look at WDFW's thirty year Wildlands Plan.

[Special T]

Lie-rs Figure and Figures Lie! I took a course or 2 in statistics and I am always suspect of how the "State" comes up with their generous numbers. Both numbers are "Educated Guesses" and neither number are good. I find it suspect that they try and  compare the 2 stats. To me it sounds like an excuse, not a solution...

[idahohuntr]

I know 2 of the guys in this article pretty well...they know North-Central Idaho as good or better than anyone.  They very clearly acknowledge that wolves have some impacts, but they also very accurately point out that poaching has more impact to ungulate herds than wolves.  I've always had a more optimistic view on the amount of poaching...but these guys know N-C Idaho and they spend a lot of time in the field...I will take their word for it...and I will sure as heck take their math over some of the absurd guessing by others in this thread.

[Special T]

Even if they have a "good" idea it still a WAG.   wolves and poachers don't give harvest reports.

[wolfbait]

Wolves hunt year around, every day! How long before there will be any wolf control in WA? I ask Wacoyote and he didn't have an answer, do you DoW=ID

[stevemiller]

I know 2 of the guys in this article pretty well...they know North-Central Idaho as good or better than anyone.  They very clearly acknowledge that wolves have some impacts, but they also very accurately point out that poaching has more impact to ungulate herds than wolves.  I've always had a more optimistic view on the amount of poaching...but these guys know N-C Idaho and they spend a lot of time in the field...I will take their word for it...and I will sure as heck take their math over some of the absurd guessing by others in this thread.

Ill say it again for you Idaho,If the people you trust so much know so much of the problem and have all the numbers why don't they do something about the poachers?who cares which group causes more damage DUH. The point is poachers get caught they get dealt with not as much as they should but something any way,With the wolves they get free reign so what point exactly is it that you are trying to make here?the courts are to blame for the poachers but people like you are why the wolves are becoming a problem.Take the blinders off,come up with a solution for your argument's and move on.