Wolf control action completed in the lolo zone

[KFhunter]

Again, look at who is responding and where they live. They don't want to talk about habitat because the discussion has ZERO to do with elk and deer and EVERYTHING to do with cows. People interested in hunting a particular game animal will generally be thoughtful enough to look at the big picture and support predator management AND habitat improvement or expansion.

Go to the deer and elk section on HW and dig up all the complaints about cattle being left on range too long.  Why are these hunters hunting graze leases???

Oh ya, that's because there are more deer/elk on cattle range.

Exactly my point

So we should open more public lands to cattle grazing 



either that or severely knock back predators so Elk/Deer rebound to big enough numbers to do the job cattle are doing on their respective ranges.
 

[AspenBud]

So we should open more public lands to cattle grazing 

That's certainly an option to consider.

[bearpaw]

Well, with the Lolo zone in particular I am entirely comfortable in saying that a major forest fire would have far greater impacts on future elk populations than killing some wolves.  Certainly that will affect short term numbers, but it won't provide near the long term benefit of major habitat alteration.

I am stating this from my personal experience hunting in the Lolo zone, and professional opinions from Idaho Conservation Officers that have hunted and/or worked the Lolo zone.

Go back and look at population data.  That herd crashed hard in the middle to late 90's, long before wolves were heavily established in that area.

Here, I bolded it for you.  One of many similar comments I have made.  I challenge you to find me one time I've said that wolves don't impact elk numbers.

If you read this real slow, and within context, you'll understand that I am saying that killing the wolves will provide a short term improvement.  To think it's a long term solution, without addressing the issue of habitat, is folly.

The graphs show that there were 3 times as many elk before the winter kill and wolf explosion. Once enough predators are removed to allow the elk numbers to increase three fold, then habitat improvements may be needed to further increase elk numbers. If you read the plan you will learn that IDFG is attempting to improve habitat. But it doesn't matter how good the habitat is until you get the elk survival rate higher and the predation rate lower. It's really pretty simple if you can allow yourself to look at the whole picture.

So then how do you explain the fact that the decline started in the 1980s?  The canary was in the coal mine.  The two big die offs are indicative of what will happen again if the habitat isn't improved.

I'm looking at the whole picture just fine thank you. 

You can argue the chicken or the egg all you want.  I have no problem with attempting predator control to give the herds room to grow.  But if you do it without improving the available habitat one will be sorely disappointed.  I recall very liberal bear and cougar seasons in the mid to late 90s, but numbers still declined.  The area certainly was not overrun with wolves in 1999, yet you didn't see a reversal in the decline, did you? 

I am not saying that one event has to happen before the other.  I could care less.  I do care that dumping money and resources into predator control AS A LONG TERM SOLUTION is going to be a huge disappointment as to the results.

You guys can continue to argue this amongst yourselves, I'm out.  This is just another sad example of how whenever someone mentions the dreaded "H" word, Dale et al. lose all objectivity, call people idiots, grab their pitchforks and start putting words in people's mouths to reinforce their strawman argument.

I asked where I've ever said wolves don't negatively affect ungulate numbers, and all I'm hearin' is crickets.

I bet if you asked IDFG if they could do ANYTHING they wanted in the Lolo zone for elk, no questions asked and no restrictions, they would without hesitation embark on the largest "controlled" burn project you've ever seen.

JLS, I completely agree that elk numbers dropped prior to the winter kill, that's all documented. I also completely agree that habitat is a factor, but like many others I get sick and tired of seeing agencies and wolf groups use the "Habitat" excuse to cover for poor management decisions and as an excuse to say wolves are not a problem when in fact they have been documented to be a problem.

The initial decline was actually due to several reasons, for many years IDFG allowed excessive hunting seasons for bulls and cows, over harvest by humans was probably the #1 cause of the initial decline. Also logging was curtailed by USFS and that depleted the quality of habitat and at the same time wolf numbers peaked, so there definitely was a multitude of factors involved in the initial decline.

So then a bad winter took it's toll. It doesn't matter what type of habitat is on the ground, when snow is 5 feet deep with extended cold the animals can't eat enough and many will die. Bad winters happen every few years they are a fact of life. After bad winters game herds begin to expand and eventually should reach prior numbers if other factors have not changed.

Now we are several years past the bad winter but the herd continues to decline. Anyone prudent in reversing this trend must consider all factors. The habitat was already a problem before the winter kill occurred yet there were roughly 6000 elk occupying the Lolo in the bad habitat with excessive hunting seasons and predators. IDFG has since implemented second bear tags and second cougar tags and extended seasons on bear and cougar dramatically to reduce bear and cougar numbers. IDFG has reduced bull elk hunting seasons, eliminated cow elk hunting, and capped bull elk tag sales. The herd continues to decline even though there is only 2000 elk on the same habitat.

The only other factor is wolves and the fact that wolves are eating more elk than the herd can reproduce each year, thus the continued decline. The graphs and math tell the story. This is not only my thoughts, this is reinforced by IDFG.

Like it or not, this is called a predator pit when predators are eating more animals than are recruited by natural reproduction each year thus preventing a herd from recovering. Until the predator pit is resolved it does not matter how much lunch is on the table (habitat), the herd cannot recover. Resolve the predator pit while trying to fix the habitat problem and the herd will eventually recover. 

What I don't understand is why the same people who claim wilderness is such a good thing also imply this lack of forest stewardship (poor habitat) is the problem with elk numbers. I understand habitat is a problem, I just don't understand the double standard of the wilderness crowd. Which way do you say is best for wildlife, logging or no logging? 

The best thing that could happen in the Lolo is if predators are adequately thinned and logging is resumed to create jobs and habitat. Why should we burn all that timber when it has economic value? Log it, burn the slash, remove any new roads that were made while logging, same results as if it burned. We then provide jobs, gain habitat, and gain more elk because the predator numbers have been reduced as IDFG is now doing. Once the prey numbers increase then more predators can be supported, so everyone wins. It's all pretty simple when allowed to happen.

[WAcoyotehunter]

So we should open more public lands to cattle grazing 

That's certainly an option to consider.

Are you on drugs??  People hunt on grazing leases because most of the land is tied up in one!  There is not "more wildlife" on a piece of ground because it is grazed!

Even after the forest matured there were still plenty of elk until the winterkill, now wolves have prevented the elk from recovering to pre winter-kill numbers. You guys arguing this sound utterly stupid, IDFG has documented that wolves are killing to many elk for a recovery to happen. That is precisely why the management action is being taken, to reduce wolf numbers. Elk could recover to that 10,000 range.

Look at what you just wrote Dale. Winterkill knocked the herd down. Think about that. A big part of the reason is that as the forest matured, it couldn't handle 10,000 elk any more, especially in a bad winter. And what is worse, if you send too many animals into a bad winter on marginal habitat, they likely severely damaged what was left and brought it to a point that even in a mild winter it can't support the animals it once did. And at that point, it is "utterly stupid" to use your term, to try to grow the herd by any method other than repairing the habitat, because if it won't support 3,000 elk, it surely won't support 10,000, wolves or no wolves. What you have there isn't a predator pit, it's a habitat pit.

Say a farmer has an area where 1,000 cows can graze. Then he raises his herd to 2,000 and the first year, a mild winter, he has relatively little trouble. Then he has a really bad couple of winters and not only does he lose some cows, but his grazing area is damaged and will barely support 500 cows. It does the farmer no good to put 2,000 animals back there, even though he got away with it one winter. Without a lot of supplemental feeding, he'll be lucky if he doesn't lose his whole herd. I don't know why you can't see that nature works the same way.

YES!  You nailed it.  Elk populations plummeted because or multiple forces.  Wolves were PART of that, habitat maturation/degradation was also a big part of it.  Wolves added to the problem, but are not the only cause. 

If anyone thinks that herd can rebound to the past high (10k?) without making amendments to the habitat, they are wrong.  Killing wolves is a quick fix and a Band-Aid for the bigger problem, which needs to be addressed to finish the elk herd recovery.

[bearpaw]

YES!  You nailed it.  Elk populations plummeted because or multiple forces.  Wolves were PART of that, habitat maturation/degradation was also a big part of it.  Wolves added to the problem, but are not the only cause. 

If anyone thinks that herd can rebound to the past high (10k?) without making amendments to the habitat, they are wrong.  Killing wolves is a quick fix and a Band-Aid for the bigger problem, which needs to be addressed to finish the elk herd recovery.

I think I pretty much agreed with you in my previous post. Obviously no recovery can begin until the predator pit is resolved, then yes we need habitat improvements for a full recovery.

So we should open more public lands to cattle grazing 

That's certainly an option to consider.

Are you on drugs??  People hunt on grazing leases because most of the land is tied up in one!  There is not "more wildlife" on a piece of ground because it is grazed!

Actually there is some info I've read that indicates that cattle grazing keeps new growth coming on plants and make them more palatable than over mature plants that haven't been grazed. From what I've seen on my leases which are all heavily grazed, the deer come off neighboring ungrazed areas to feed in close proximity to cattle. If the food is better in the ungrazed thick forest why do they come into the grazed areas at night to feed?

My hunting experience in also Utah (some of the best elk hunting anywhere) tells me that grazed range lands provide excellent elk habitat as well. I'm not saying over grazing is good, I'm talking about sensible grazing. There are good and bad grazing practices and from what I've seen reasonable grazing is not detrimental to wildlife.

[AspenBud]

YES!  You nailed it.  Elk populations plummeted because or multiple forces.  Wolves were PART of that, habitat maturation/degradation was also a big part of it.  Wolves added to the problem, but are not the only cause. 

If anyone thinks that herd can rebound to the past high (10k?) without making amendments to the habitat, they are wrong.  Killing wolves is a quick fix and a Band-Aid for the bigger problem, which needs to be addressed to finish the elk herd recovery.

I think I pretty much agreed with you in my previous post. Obviously no recovery can begin until the predator pit is resolved, then yes we need habitat improvements for a full recovery.

So we should open more public lands to cattle grazing 

That's certainly an option to consider.

Are you on drugs??  People hunt on grazing leases because most of the land is tied up in one!  There is not "more wildlife" on a piece of ground because it is grazed!

Actually there is some info I've read that indicates that cattle grazing keeps new growth coming on plants and make them more palatable than over mature plants that haven't been grazed. From what I've seen on my leases which are all heavily grazed, the deer come off neighboring ungrazed areas to feed in close proximity to cattle. If the food is better in the ungrazed thick forest why do they come into the grazed areas at night to feed?

My hunting experience in also Utah (some of the best elk hunting anywhere) tells me that grazed range lands provide excellent elk habitat as well. I'm not saying over grazing is good, I'm talking about sensible grazing. There are good and bad grazing practices and from what I've seen reasonable grazing is not detrimental to wildlife.

What would be interesting to know is what is on the ground in that thick forest. Clear cuts bring on increases in prey animals, ruffed grouse hunters and deer hunters seek out older cuts for that reason.

I'm guessing that a good look in that forest land would reveal either plant species that deer and elk don't favor as much or they contain bare forest bottoms. If sunlight isn't getting through the canopy there isn't much for ungulates to eat.

JLS is right, some of the areas where wolves are a problem would probably be well served with a napalm strike.

[WAcoyotehunter]

Cattle grazing certainly does help keep an area from senescing.  I would prefer to see that browse caused by native ungulates though.  Deer/elk/moose can do the same thing. 

I know this is a hunting forum and we want to see big (edible) wildlife, but we should also consider the smaller creatures when we discuss habitats.  An old stand of trees with little understory might not be useful for elk/deer/moose, but it is critical for martens, fishers, birds, amphibians.... I know that is sometimes an unpopular position around here, but I think it's important to maintain those populations too.

[bearpaw]

YES!  You nailed it.  Elk populations plummeted because or multiple forces.  Wolves were PART of that, habitat maturation/degradation was also a big part of it.  Wolves added to the problem, but are not the only cause. 

If anyone thinks that herd can rebound to the past high (10k?) without making amendments to the habitat, they are wrong.  Killing wolves is a quick fix and a Band-Aid for the bigger problem, which needs to be addressed to finish the elk herd recovery.

I think I pretty much agreed with you in my previous post. Obviously no recovery can begin until the predator pit is resolved, then yes we need habitat improvements for a full recovery.

So we should open more public lands to cattle grazing 

That's certainly an option to consider.

Are you on drugs??  People hunt on grazing leases because most of the land is tied up in one!  There is not "more wildlife" on a piece of ground because it is grazed!

Actually there is some info I've read that indicates that cattle grazing keeps new growth coming on plants and make them more palatable than over mature plants that haven't been grazed. From what I've seen on my leases which are all heavily grazed, the deer come off neighboring ungrazed areas to feed in close proximity to cattle. If the food is better in the ungrazed thick forest why do they come into the grazed areas at night to feed?

My hunting experience in also Utah (some of the best elk hunting anywhere) tells me that grazed range lands provide excellent elk habitat as well. I'm not saying over grazing is good, I'm talking about sensible grazing. There are good and bad grazing practices and from what I've seen reasonable grazing is not detrimental to wildlife.

What would be interesting to know is what is on the ground in that thick forest. Clear cuts bring on increases in prey animals, ruffed grouse hunters and deer hunters seek out older cuts for that reason.

I'm guessing that a good look in that forest land would reveal either plant species that deer and elk don't favor as much or they contain bare forest bottoms. If sunlight isn't getting through the canopy there isn't much for ungulates to eat.

JLS is right, some of the areas where wolves are a problem would probably be well served with a napalm strike.

Vegetation is more limited and by late summer plants are very mature if not grazed. Not trying to say all lands should be grazed and logged but proper grazing and logging is not the evil that greenies try to portray it as.

   Why burn a forest with napalm when you could log it, burn the slash, remove any new roads made during the logging activity, and have the same end effect as a fire while at the same time providing jobs and forest products for our citizens? 

Cattle grazing certainly does help keep an area from senescing.  I would prefer to see that browse caused by native ungulates though.  Deer/elk/moose can do the same thing. 

I know this is a hunting forum and we want to see big (edible) wildlife, but we should also consider the smaller creatures when we discuss habitats.  An old stand of trees with little understory might not be useful for elk/deer/moose, but it is critical for martens, fishers, birds, amphibians.... I know that is sometimes an unpopular position around here, but I think it's important to maintain those populations too.

I appreciate all the animals as well and understand some species may need thick habitat. I do not think we need to graze or log all the countryside or our wilderness areas, some areas should remain as natural as possible. But there needs to be some reason in this sea of environmentalism. The greenies would have everything outside the I-5 corridor designated as wilderness if they could accomplish it. 

[AspenBud]

Vegetation is more limited and by late summer plants are very mature if not grazed. Not trying to say all lands should be grazed and logged but proper grazing and logging is not the evil that greenies try to portray it as.

   Why burn a forest with napalm when you could log it, burn the slash, remove any new roads made during the logging activity, and have the same end effect as a fire while at the same time providing jobs and forest products for our citizens? 

My napalm comment was intended as a metaphor. I agree with your thoughts here.

Cattle grazing certainly does help keep an area from senescing.  I would prefer to see that browse caused by native ungulates though.  Deer/elk/moose can do the same thing. 

I know this is a hunting forum and we want to see big (edible) wildlife, but we should also consider the smaller creatures when we discuss habitats.  An old stand of trees with little understory might not be useful for elk/deer/moose, but it is critical for martens, fishers, birds, amphibians.... I know that is sometimes an unpopular position around here, but I think it's important to maintain those populations too.

I appreciate all the animals as well and understand some species may need thick habitat. I do not think we need to graze or log all the countryside or our wilderness areas, some areas should remain as natural as possible. But there needs to be some reason in this sea of environmentalism. The greenies would have everything outside the I-5 corridor designated as wilderness if they could accomplish it. 

What you're calling for here is mixed age class forest land, something I also agree with. What the anti logging folks don't understand is in the absence of forest fires you're left with clear cutting. They want people to keep their hands off the land and let it manage itself, yet they want the forest service to put out fires which in effect means we're not taking a hands off approach to nature. They can't have it both ways. 

[wolfbait]

Cattle grazing certainly does help keep an area from senescing.  I would prefer to see that browse caused by native ungulates though.  Deer/elk/moose can do the same thing. 

I know this is a hunting forum and we want to see big (edible) wildlife, but we should also consider the smaller creatures when we discuss habitats.  An old stand of trees with little understory might not be useful for elk/deer/moose, but it is critical for martens, fishers, birds, amphibians.... I know that is sometimes an unpopular position around here, but I think it's important to maintain those populations too.

Aw yes connecting corridors, I think thats what WDFW have plans for in their 30 year wildlands plan. You did notice there was NO mention of hunters in the plan.

Protect predators and then when the game herds etc. drop into the predator pit, blame it on not enough habitat, but first send their brain-washed biologists and DoW greenies to hunting sites etc. to promote "the more Habitat" BS. What a plan!

[WAcoyotehunter]

We are very lucky that you are not brainwashed like the rest of us numb wits. 

[wolfbait]

We are very lucky that you are not brainwashed like the rest of us numb wits. 

My guess is you mean't like the rest of the WDFW biologists, and this time you are correct. Mark one up for the habitat wind