2013 Idaho Wolf Monitoring Report

[bearpaw]

2013 Idaho Wolf Monitoring Report
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/reportAnnual13.pdf

This is a pretty good report showing how much Idaho knows about their wolves.

[Bean Counter]

I scanned through it real quick. Do they discuss where the trend is going? Is hunting able to at least keep the population stable?

[idaho guy]

thanks for posting thats a pretty interesting report. beancounter they have a graph in the report showing annual numbers before hunting and after.

[bearpaw]

I just talked to an Idaho resident last night who is in the Sawtooth Zone north of Boise (the study area noted below) he was telling me that he saw more deer and elk along the Payette winter range this year than he has seen in several years. The reduction in wolf numbers the last few years in certain areas of Idaho seems to be already starting to pay off at least in this zone.

The graphs show the downward trend in wolf numbers and the cause of mortality.

[bearpaw]

The wolf supporters always try to claim wolves do not reduce herds and their favorite argument is that the statewide population of elk remains stable in Idaho.

The reason their theory is faulty is because wolves only inhabit half of Idaho. Elk numbers are unaffected by wolves in half of the state and elk numbers are growing in some of those areas and elk numbers will also begin to grow in some wolf impacted areas where wolf numbers are being reduced.

Wolves can fit in if kept to reasonable numbers. The key as I have stated from the beginning is to not let wolves over populate. 

[idahohuntr]

The wolf supporters always try to claim wolves do not reduce herds and their favorite argument is that the statewide population of elk remains stable in Idaho.

The reason their theory is faulty is because wolves only inhabit half of Idaho. Elk numbers are unaffected by wolves in half of the state and elk numbers are growing in some of those areas and elk numbers will also begin to grow in some wolf impacted areas where wolf numbers are being reduced.

Wolves can fit in if kept to reasonable numbers. The key as I have stated from the beginning is to not let wolves over populate. 

Wolf supporters could care less what the elk population in Idaho is and whether it is stable so I don't think you make a good point.  Further, you seem to be suggesting that the non-wolf areas are stable/increasing and this is making up for the areas where elk numbers have dropped?? There is some truth to that but thats not the whole story.  How do you explain bull and cow populations at or above objective every year since 1995 in most of the Panhandle units, Elk City, Palouse, McCall, Hells Canyon zones etc.??  Wolves have occupied those areas for a long time and all of the units in those specific zones (except panhandle) are at or above objective.  It means presence of wolves since reintroduction has not been the limiting factor in those units, and now with declining wolf numbers it is unlikely they will limit elk populations.  Kind of ruins your theory.    But yes, statewide numbers could be misleading if they are buoyed by areas doing exceptionally well...no argument on that, just the way you present it as a rebuttal to the FACT that wolves are not the limiting factor in many areas of Idaho and never have been since they were reintroduced in 1995.

[Bean Counter]

Well I don't know how many real jobs are created by the presence of wolves, other than political-bureaucrat-b.s.-government jobs, but It seems that a lot of honest, legitimate businesses have been affected or even gone belly up completely by merely the reputation of wolves in an area. Bearpaw and the other locals are fighting a public policy war that shouldn't even be taking place.

[bearpaw]

The wolf supporters always try to claim wolves do not reduce herds and their favorite argument is that the statewide population of elk remains stable in Idaho.

The reason their theory is faulty is because wolves only inhabit half of Idaho. Elk numbers are unaffected by wolves in half of the state and elk numbers are growing in some of those areas and elk numbers will also begin to grow in some wolf impacted areas where wolf numbers are being reduced.

Wolves can fit in if kept to reasonable numbers. The key as I have stated from the beginning is to not let wolves over populate. 

Wolf supporters could care less what the elk population in Idaho is and whether it is stable so I don't think you make a good point.  Further, you seem to be suggesting that the non-wolf areas are stable/increasing and this is making up for the areas where elk numbers have dropped?? There is some truth to that but thats not the whole story.  How do you explain bull and cow populations at or above objective every year since 1995 in most of the Panhandle units, Elk City, Palouse, McCall, Hells Canyon zones etc.??  Wolves have occupied those areas for a long time and all of the units in those specific zones (except panhandle) are at or above objective.  It means presence of wolves since reintroduction has not been the limiting factor in those units, and now with declining wolf numbers it is unlikely they will limit elk populations.  Kind of ruins your theory.    But yes, statewide numbers could be misleading if they are buoyed by areas doing exceptionally well...no argument on that, just the way you present it as a rebuttal to the FACT that wolves are not the limiting factor in many areas of Idaho and never have been since they were reintroduced in 1995.

I'm sticking with the IDFG studies and wolf management plans, Gov Butch Otter, and the majority of Idahoans on the impacts of wolves and the need to reduce their numbers to improve the herds and stop declines in wolf impacted areas. These people seem to be getting on top of the problem very well. If you think you are smarter than everyone else in Idaho that's your personal problem. 

[idahohuntr]

The wolf supporters always try to claim wolves do not reduce herds and their favorite argument is that the statewide population of elk remains stable in Idaho.

The reason their theory is faulty is because wolves only inhabit half of Idaho. Elk numbers are unaffected by wolves in half of the state and elk numbers are growing in some of those areas and elk numbers will also begin to grow in some wolf impacted areas where wolf numbers are being reduced.

Wolves can fit in if kept to reasonable numbers. The key as I have stated from the beginning is to not let wolves over populate. 

Wolf supporters could care less what the elk population in Idaho is and whether it is stable so I don't think you make a good point.  Further, you seem to be suggesting that the non-wolf areas are stable/increasing and this is making up for the areas where elk numbers have dropped?? There is some truth to that but thats not the whole story.  How do you explain bull and cow populations at or above objective every year since 1995 in most of the Panhandle units, Elk City, Palouse, McCall, Hells Canyon zones etc.??  Wolves have occupied those areas for a long time and all of the units in those specific zones (except panhandle) are at or above objective.  It means presence of wolves since reintroduction has not been the limiting factor in those units, and now with declining wolf numbers it is unlikely they will limit elk populations.  Kind of ruins your theory.    But yes, statewide numbers could be misleading if they are buoyed by areas doing exceptionally well...no argument on that, just the way you present it as a rebuttal to the FACT that wolves are not the limiting factor in many areas of Idaho and never have been since they were reintroduced in 1995.

I'm sticking with the IDFG studies and wolf management plans, Gov Butch Otter, and the majority of Idahoans on the impacts of wolves and the need to reduce their numbers to improve the herds and stop declines in wolf impacted areas. These people seem to be getting on top of the problem very well. If you think you are smarter than everyone else in Idaho that's your personal problem. 

I demonstrated you were a liar in another post with your revisionist history of IDFG/Otter/Wolves and now you just can't help but try and put imaginary words in my mouth???  Pathetic. 

I also find it hilarious that in one thread you don't trust/believe IDFG professionals discussing poaching effects in North Idaho, yet now you are "sticking with IDFG reports"...again, the hypocrisy you demonstrate is simply astounding. You give this high and mighty statement about how you'll support IDFG, Otter, and Idahoans when it is unequivocal that you don't have a clue about IDFG, Otter, or wolf management in Idaho. 

[bearpaw]

The wolf supporters always try to claim wolves do not reduce herds and their favorite argument is that the statewide population of elk remains stable in Idaho.

The reason their theory is faulty is because wolves only inhabit half of Idaho. Elk numbers are unaffected by wolves in half of the state and elk numbers are growing in some of those areas and elk numbers will also begin to grow in some wolf impacted areas where wolf numbers are being reduced.

Wolves can fit in if kept to reasonable numbers. The key as I have stated from the beginning is to not let wolves over populate. 

Wolf supporters could care less what the elk population in Idaho is and whether it is stable so I don't think you make a good point.  Further, you seem to be suggesting that the non-wolf areas are stable/increasing and this is making up for the areas where elk numbers have dropped?? There is some truth to that but thats not the whole story.  How do you explain bull and cow populations at or above objective every year since 1995 in most of the Panhandle units, Elk City, Palouse, McCall, Hells Canyon zones etc.??  Wolves have occupied those areas for a long time and all of the units in those specific zones (except panhandle) are at or above objective.  It means presence of wolves since reintroduction has not been the limiting factor in those units, and now with declining wolf numbers it is unlikely they will limit elk populations.  Kind of ruins your theory.    But yes, statewide numbers could be misleading if they are buoyed by areas doing exceptionally well...no argument on that, just the way you present it as a rebuttal to the FACT that wolves are not the limiting factor in many areas of Idaho and never have been since they were reintroduced in 1995.

I'm sticking with the IDFG studies and wolf management plans, Gov Butch Otter, and the majority of Idahoans on the impacts of wolves and the need to reduce their numbers to improve the herds and stop declines in wolf impacted areas. These people seem to be getting on top of the problem very well. If you think you are smarter than everyone else in Idaho that's your personal problem. 

I demonstrated you were a liar in another post with your revisionist history of IDFG/Otter/Wolves and now you just can't help but try and put imaginary words in my mouth???  Pathetic. 

I also find it hilarious that in one thread you don't trust/believe IDFG professionals discussing poaching effects in North Idaho, yet now you are "sticking with IDFG reports"...again, the hypocrisy you demonstrate is simply astounding. You give this high and mighty statement about how you'll support IDFG, Otter, and Idahoans when it is unequivocal that you don't have a clue about IDFG, Otter, or wolf management in Idaho.

You didn't prove anything except how you can distort what a person says, you have no idea who I know and where I get my inside info from. 

IDFG is really coming around and putting solid wolf data to work, I understand this must be a tough thing for you to see happening and to accept, but I am trying to not hold this against you. 

[idahohuntr]

IDFG "is really coming around"??  I've been telling you for a long time they know what they are doing...its the nutjobs on both sides of the debate that have detracted from their very reasoned and scientific approach.  You're joining the bandwagon a little late...

Oh, and I bet I know where you get your inside info...ol' wide-stance Larry...be careful about tapping your foot in a bathroom stall though...he might give you more than just some inside wolf info 

[bearpaw]

IDFG has made a lot of changes for the better, still some work needed in some areas. 

There's no need to be so bitter, if you actually agree with wolf control and all that is finally happening in Idaho then you should be happy.