Wolf control action completed in the lolo zone

[Special T]

If ID really wanted to get on top of the problem they would issue Aerial gunning permits. I'd dropp a couple a grand on a run and gun from a helo trip with out a sweat. ID could have its harvest while MAKING $ instead of spending it... 

[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.

[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.

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.

[JLS]

If you read the plan you will learn that IDFG is attempting to improve habitat.

Unfortunately, unless they are running roads on motorcycles and using drip torches, it's not going to have any substantial effect anytime soon.

[bearpaw]

If you read the plan you will learn that IDFG is attempting to improve habitat.

Unfortunately, unless they are running roads on motorcycles and using drip torches, it's not going to have any substantial effect anytime soon.

We both know they can't do that so we know habitat will be a slower process with USFS involved.

In the meantime great strides can be made with wolf and other predator control and recent history shows that the Lolo should be able to support 3x as many elk as it has now. So IDFG is moving in the right direction. 

[Sitka_Blacktail]

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.

[jackmaster]

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.

winter kill dont have jack squat to do with over populated habitat, it has everything to do with a hard winter that kills off way more than a normal winter, and with the wolves they make it impossible for the numbers to recover, whats so hard to understand about that, oh i know, if your a pro wolf lover, then anything is skewed in order to make the wolf come out smelling like roses, what also hard for you wolf lovers to understand is THIS ISNT ALASKA OR NORTHERN CANADA, this is the lower 48, completely differant places where the wolf is considered, and the fact that the wolf of today is how many times larger and more aggressive to the wolf that was originally erradicated from the lower 48 by people with a hell of alot more fore thought than the jacknobs of today

[JLS]

winter kill dont have jack squat to do with over populated habitat, it has everything to do with a hard winter that kills off way more than a normal winter, and with the wolves they make it impossible for the numbers to recover, whats so hard to understand about that, oh i know, if your a pro wolf lover, then anything is skewed in order to make the wolf come out smelling like roses, what also hard for you wolf lovers to understand is THIS ISNT ALASKA OR NORTHERN CANADA, this is the lower 48, completely differant places where the wolf is considered, and the fact that the wolf of today is how many times larger and more aggressive to the wolf that was originally erradicated from the lower 48 by people with a hell of alot more fore thought than the jacknobs of today

You may want to rethink your winter kill statement.

No pro wolf lover here.  I'm a pro elk hunter who would like to see things done in a sustainable manner.

[JLS]

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.

[wolfbait]

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.

I guess you didn't see the study that said improving habitat showed that it didn't affect the herds but instead showed that wolves killed more animals. Those who say habitat is the problem, instead of controlling  predators are pushing WDFW's agenda of buying up land. I think from this point on I will just rename you hot air, or the wind.

[AspenBud]

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.

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.

[KFhunter]

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.

You sure don't know much about cattle 

Here's what's happening in one particular graze lease I know about, and anyone can verify the veracity of this little tidbit of information with a Sunday drive in the woods....

The wolves are keeping the cattle confined to a fraction of the lease causing serious over grazing in a small area while the rest of the lease goes almost untouched.  The ranchers continually drive the cattle up higher on the lease, then overnight find the cattle back down low hugging the corrals and trucks.   

You can literally drive through the range and see within a mile the grass go from stubble to 4 foot tall and untouched.


Then guess who comes along and looks at the over grazed small portion and goes "OMGosh look at the over grazing!  We got to further restrict the number of cattle on this range!"

[KFhunter]

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.

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.   

[KFhunter]

winter kill dont have jack squat to do with over populated habitat, it has everything to do with a hard winter that kills off way more than a normal winter, and with the wolves they make it impossible for the numbers to recover, whats so hard to understand about that, oh i know, if your a pro wolf lover, then anything is skewed in order to make the wolf come out smelling like roses, what also hard for you wolf lovers to understand is THIS ISNT ALASKA OR NORTHERN CANADA, this is the lower 48, completely differant places where the wolf is considered, and the fact that the wolf of today is how many times larger and more aggressive to the wolf that was originally erradicated from the lower 48 by people with a hell of alot more fore thought than the jacknobs of today

You may want to rethink your winter kill statement.

No pro wolf lover here.  I'm a pro elk hunter who would like to see things done in a sustainable manner.

I see your point JLS,  "habitat" is 365/year not just early summer.


What scares me is a deep snow year with cascade concrete,  ungulates wallowing around in belly deep snow and wolves loping along on top.
 
It's instances like this where prey is so easy to come by they kill and leave carcass only partially eaten or not at all - just the stress of being ran is enough to turn a hard winter into a wolf induced "winter kill",  like the 176 sheep piled up in Montana, only a few had actual bite marks.

Same with an Elk herd having a hard winter, wolves push them and they use up the energy reserves.  Enough energy to turn a hard winter into a "winter kill"

[AspenBud]

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.

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