Wolf control action completed in the lolo zone

[bearpaw]

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.

I would agree that logging or burning the lolo could benefit elk. However, the USFS isn't going to do that anytime right away. In the meantime the data shows that the elk herds were still healthy with something like 10,000 elk prior to wolf impacts and until winterkill impacted the herds. Then it has been shown that wolf predation has played a major role in preventing herds from recovering to prior numbers that were still being supported in the lolo prior to the winterkill.

This is called a predator pit and wolves are the #1 documented cause of this predator pit. Once wolf numbers and other predators are reduced enough, the small remaining elk herd (2000 or less remaining) will be able to raise enough young to begin increasing herd numbers. 

[JLS]

You can call it a predator pit if you like, but at the end of the day it's still very poor habitat.  If the habitat is so poor in the first place that the population does crash, how in the world does one expect the animals to suddenly rebound once you kill some predators?

I last hunted the Lochsa in 1999.  I was amazed, and not in a good way, by how poor the habitat was.  The ceanothus was 8-10 tall and interwoven to the point you could not walk through it in many places.  Even the upper basins were overgrown with it.  The lower slopes grew about as many noxious weeds as they did grass.

This was right on the heels of the winterkills of 96-97-98.  It hasn't changed much since then, so I fail to see how anyone would expect things to suddenly turn for the better.

jackmaster,

Subdivisions are absolutely not a concern in the Lochsa.

Special T,

Fine with me.  I bet I could pass the coffee can around to cover the helicopter time if this would ever be allowed to happen.

[WAcoyotehunter]

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

I would support that, as long as there was a "let it burn" policy for a little while...

See guys- we can all compromise here! 

[wolfbait]

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.

Not along wait eh, it just has to be the habitat or climate change, it sure couldn't be uncontrolled wolves that put the hurt on elk herds, after all wolves are the only thing that has changed in the last 80 years. Nope it has the be habitat.

[WAcoyotehunter]

you don't think habitat might have changed in the last 80 years?   

Obviously wolves are having an impact.  I don't think anyone is arguing that.  It would be totally ignorant to deny that the habitat needs improved to get the elk back to historic (PRE WOLF + GOOD HABITAT) levels.  Get it?

[AspenBud]

you don't think habitat might have changed in the last 80 years?   

Obviously wolves are having an impact.  I don't think anyone is arguing that.  It would be totally ignorant to deny that the habitat needs improved to get the elk back to historic (PRE WOLF + GOOD HABITAT) levels.  Get it?

Habitat isn't on his horizon because he's worried about cows, not elk or any other wild ungulate.

[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.

Not along wait eh, it just has to be the habitat or climate change, it sure couldn't be uncontrolled wolves that put the hurt on elk herds, after all wolves are the only thing that has changed in the last 80 years. Nope it has the be habitat.

So let me guess.  Immediately after the Lolo burned in the 1940s, it was instantly overgrown with a decadent crown forests and 10' tall stands of ceanothus?  And the elk herds flourished in this habitat until 50 years later?

Yes, wolves are the only thing that's changed in 80 years

[WAcoyotehunter]

you don't think habitat might have changed in the last 80 years?   

Obviously wolves are having an impact.  I don't think anyone is arguing that.  It would be totally ignorant to deny that the habitat needs improved to get the elk back to historic (PRE WOLF + GOOD HABITAT) levels.  Get it?

Habitat isn't on his horizon because he's worried about cows, not elk or any other wild ungulate.

Even cows need habitat.  If he managed pastures like he proposes management of federal lands his cows would starve to death long before a wolf got to them.

[bearpaw]

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.

I would agree that logging or burning the lolo could benefit elk. However, the USFS isn't going to do that anytime right away. In the meantime the data shows that the elk herds were still healthy with something like 10,000 elk prior to wolf impacts and until winterkill impacted the herds. Then it has been shown that wolf predation has played a major role in preventing herds from recovering to prior numbers that were still being supported in the lolo prior to the winterkill.

This is called a predator pit and wolves are the #1 documented cause of this predator pit. Once wolf numbers and other predators are reduced enough, the small remaining elk herd (2000 or less remaining) will be able to raise enough young to begin increasing herd numbers. 

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.

If we improved the habitat and if wolf and other predator numbers are low enough, then elk might recover to 15,000-20,000.

To continue to say wolves do not impact elk numbers is just idiotic. 

[JLS]

Again, remind me or show me where I said wolves don't impact numbers?

To continue arguing the habitat is fine and could support thousands more elk is completely stupid. 

[JLS]

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.

[BOWHUNTER45]

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

They could careless ...that's a natural event for a wolf    I think when our ancestors left this country they would have liked to think that the next generation would take things into their own hands ...when they whipped them out I believe they never intended them to return  not much of a generation left like our fathers before us but I would think the few that are here would put a stop to this BS !  I NEVER SEEN A WOLF SO IT MUST BE A COYOTE 

[wolfbait]

you don't think habitat might have changed in the last 80 years?   

Obviously wolves are having an impact.  I don't think anyone is arguing that.  It would be totally ignorant to deny that the habitat needs improved to get the elk back to historic (PRE WOLF + GOOD HABITAT) levels.  Get it?

Habitat isn't on his horizon because he's worried about cows, not elk or any other wild ungulate.

Even cows need habitat.  If he managed pastures like he proposes management of federal lands his cows would starve to death long before a wolf got to them.

With wolves there are much less cows etc., therefore more habitat, I believe the average wolf predation in cows that are confirm is one in eight, in the Methow there hasn't been a confirm wolf kill yet, I think that will change now with some honesty kicking in from a new wolf specialist. But then you already know this, you just keep playing the habitat card for WDFW.

[bearpaw]

Total count and counts of cows and calves by year are displayed in the top graph. The count of cows is particularly important (also shown in the 2nd graph). This is because in ungulates the number of cows, that is the number of females capable of bearing young, are critical to population dynamics. One bull can impregnate many cows, so the number of bulls can vary greatly and not affect the birth rate or population change trends. That is not true for cows, which can bear only one or two calves (twins are rare) per year. On average most cows will have their first calf at 3 years of age. The gestation for elk cows is 250 days, which means calves are generally born in May and June. Calves counted in winter are those which have survived for six to nine months.

 Also included in the graphs are linear trend lines for the cow count. In Zone 10 the number of cows has declined from 7,692 in 1989 to 824 in 2010, or 89 percent. In Zone 12 the number of cows has declined from 3,059 in 1986 to 534 in 2010, or 83 percent.

 In Zone 10 the number of calves has declined from 2,298 in 1989 to 144 in 2010, or 94 percent. In Zone 12 the number of calves has declined from 856 in 1985 to 38 in 2010, or 96 percent.

 Clearly, the elk populations have crashed in these zones.

 The reason is not a lack of fecundity: calf/cow ratios have varied from 6 per 100 to 30 per 100 and were reported to be 17 per 100 in Zone 10 and 7 per 100 in Zone 12 in 2010. A calf/cow ratio of 15-20 per 100 is considered to be sufficient to replace the population under normal circumstances, and no trend in calf/cow ratio was detected over the counting period. As recently as 2006 the calf/cow ratios were 29 per 100 in Zone 10 and 20 per 100 in Zone 12.

 The reason for the elk population crash is not hunting. All the animals taken are bulls, and that does not affect population dynamics as explained above. Furthermore, Lolo zone elk harvest has also decline precipitously, from over 1,500 in 1989 to less than 150 in 2008 in Zone 10 and from nearly 600 in 1992 to less than 100 in 2008 in Zone 12.

 The principal reason for the crashing elk populations is undoubtedly the introduction of wolves in 1995, and the subsequent explosion of the wolf population.

As a result to offset the wolf explosion you can kill 2 bear and 2 cougar and elk hunting has been greatly restricted, but that still hasn't helped the elk because wolves are still eating too many elk so elk numbers continued to decline.

The math is pretty simple, if there are only 1358 cow elk and annual survival of cows is only 77% that means we are losing 23% of the cows each year, if calf survival is only 7 to 17 percent and half the calves are bulls then the herd is going to continue declining. The graphs show that wolf predation is the largest factor of cow mortality, so by greatly reducing the cow mortality and calf mortality with wolf removal and increased hunting of cougar and bear the math may be corrected. Please see the graphs to confirm the data.

IDFG is now reducing the wolf population. Some of us think elk numbers will respond and others say elk numbers will not respond until habitat is addressed. Let's watch and see if elk numbers begin to increase after these predator reductions.

[bearpaw]

I've never said habitat is not an issue. However, until wolf and other predator impacts are reduced it is mathematically impossible for the Lolo herd and some other herds to increase in number. Once the herds are increasing in number then habitat could become a more limiting factor. I of course agree with habitat improvement, but I'm not so duped by the greenies to not see that these elk are in a predator pit. The charts and math detail it clearly.