Wolf control action completed in the lolo zone

[bearpaw]

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/media/viewNewsRelease.cfm?newsID=7007
Wolf control action completed in the lolo zone

Idaho Fish and Game, in cooperation with the USDA Wildlife Services, has completed another wolf control action in northern Idaho's Lolo elk zone near the Idaho/Montana border to improve poor elk survival in the area.

 In February, Wildlife Services agents killed 23 wolves from a helicopter. The action is consistent with Idaho's predation management plan for the Lolo elk zone, where predation is the major reason elk population numbers are considerably below management objectives.

 The Lolo predation management plan is posted on the Fish and Game website: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/?getPage=325

 This is the sixth agency control action taken in Lolo zone during the last four years. Twenty-five wolves were taken in the previous five actions.

 Fish and Game authorizes control actions where wolves are causing conflicts with people or domestic animals, or are a significant factor in prey population declines. Such control actions are consistent with Idaho's 2002 Wolf Conservation and Management Plan approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Idaho Legislature.

 Fish and Game prefers to manage wolf populations using hunters and trappers and only authorizes control actions where harvest has been insufficient to meet management goals. The Lolo zone is steep, rugged country that is difficult to access, especially in winter.

 In addition to the animals killed in this control action, 17 wolves have been taken by hunters and trappers in the Lolo zone during the 2013-14 season - 7 by hunting and 10 by trapping. The trapping season ends March 31, the hunting season ends June 30.

 Fish and Game estimates there were 75 -100 wolves in the Lolo zone at the start of the 2013 hunting season with additional animals crossing back and forth between Idaho and Montana and from other Idaho elk zones. Fish and Game's goal is to reduce that Lolo zone wolf population by 70 percent.

 The Lolo elk population has declined drastically from 16,000 elk in 1989 to roughly 2,100 elk in 2010, when Fish and Game last surveyed the zone. Restoring the Lolo elk population will require liberal bear, mountain lion, and wolf harvest through hunting and trapping (in the case of wolves), and control actions in addition to improving elk habitat. The short-term goals in Fish and Game's 2014 Elk Plan are to stabilize the elk population and begin to help it grow.

 Here's a link to the new Elk Plan: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/?getpage=324

 Helicopter crews are now capturing and placing radio collars on elk, moose, and wolves in the Lolo zone in order to continue monitoring to see whether prey populations increase in response to regulated wolf hunting, trapping and control actions.

[pianoman9701]

 

We're headed for some tough times in the NE corner. 

[deltaops]

I think that is sad that they killed them wolves. I am sure it cost less to terminate them, but I would have rather seen them relocated to downtown Seattle Parks so they could at least have  place to call home. 

[pianoman9701]

I think that is sad that they killed them wolves. I am sure it cost less to terminate them, but I would have rather seen them relocated to downtown Seattle Parks so they could at least have  place to call home. 

Since they only feed on the sick and injured, that'd probably be a great place for them.

[jackmaster]

Well the problem with Washington is they wont react the way Idaho is reacting, are heards will almost be unrecoverable by the time they do something, but hey, who really cares as long as the pro wolf *censored*s get what they want

[timberfaller]

Its interesting to see the government using helicopters

Back in the day, when wolf hunting was trashed(early 70's) it was the "use" of air power that got the "ban's" put in place.  The bleeding hearts thought that was not "sportsmen like" killings!!

[JLS]

A good napalm drop would have likely been much more beneficial to the elk in the long run.

Hopefully this helps in some fashion, but the Lolo herd has been hurting for a very long time.

[wolfbait]

"The Lolo elk population has declined drastically from 16,000 elk in 1989 to roughly 2,100 elk in 2010, when Fish and Game last surveyed the zone. Restoring the Lolo elk population will require liberal bear, mountain lion, and wolf harvest through hunting and trapping (in the case of wolves), and control actions in addition to improving elk habitat. The short-term goals in Fish and Game's 2014 Elk Plan are to stabilize the elk population and begin to help it grow."

Wolves killed 13,900 in 21 years, figure that out in deer, and then add the protection of predators> it won't take 21 years for WA to be in much worse shape then Idaho etc.

[pianoman9701]

The silence is deafening from the wolf lovers on the forum. I know sooner or later we're going to hear about poachers and habitat really being the cause and it's just a coincidence with the timing that it's being blamed on the wolves.

[idahohuntr]

A good napalm drop would have likely been much more beneficial to the elk in the long run.

Hopefully this helps in some fashion, but the Lolo herd has been hurting for a very long time.

  predator control will help with short-term losses and stabilization of population at low levels.  Habitat improvement is what is needed to get the population to get back to 1970's/80's levels.

[JLS]

The silence is deafening from the wolf lovers on the forum. I know sooner or later we're going to hear about poachers and habitat really being the cause and it's just a coincidence with the timing that it's being blamed on the wolves.

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.

[Special T]

  on the napalm strike as long as it was on top of a pack of wolves!

[pianoman9701]

The silence is deafening from the wolf lovers on the forum. I know sooner or later we're going to hear about poachers and habitat really being the cause and it's just a coincidence with the timing that it's being blamed on the wolves.

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.

But because of the moratorium on clear cut logging in the NFs, the habitat is what it is - thank the greenies for that. The wolves are not sitting on their haunches eating bunnies. The greenies are responsible for the habitat problem AND the wolves. My question is: what do the greenies have against our ungulates?

[singleshot12]

Someone needs to show the greenies a pic of a wolf pack pulling a fawn or elk calf out of the mothers uterus. Maybe then they would change their perspective on these predators

[jackmaster]

A good napalm drop would have likely been much more beneficial to the elk in the long run.

Hopefully this helps in some fashion, but the Lolo herd has been hurting for a very long time.

  predator control will help with short-term losses and stabilization of population at low levels.  Habitat improvement is what is needed to get the population to get back to 1970's/80's levels.

true but habitat will never be the same unless they restrict building and start letting tree companies slash burn and control burn, it makes for great habitat and the serious control of pesticides and herbacides, but encroaching into habitat and subdividing and pounding out huge housing complexes has to stop