Central Idaho wolf/elk/deer/moose report!

[bearpaw]

My son also works for several different outfitters in central Idaho and has every spring and most winters for about the last 10 years. My son and I spend many months of every year in Idaho with our feet on the ground day after day. In addition we know local people who have lived their lives in Idaho who also help keep us appraised of game trends that they see.

The building consensus is that this is the third year in a row with fewer wolves and more elk/deer/moose on the winter range. My son told me on the phone a few nights ago that he has seen the most elk/deer/moose this spring than he has seen in 8 years since wolves heavily impacted the area. (They are out every day for 2 months every spring in these areas) He said there are still some wolves around but not everywhere like they were 5 or 6 years ago before the people of Idaho got fed up with Malloy's decision to prevent hunting and started taking care of the problem. Some of you may remember that even Governor Otter told IDFG they could not prosecute wolf shootings and could not provide into to the feds about wolf shootings. Ultimately I think that greatly strengthened Idaho's position to request state wolf management.

My son says with wolf numbers dropping other Idaho wildlife numbers are definitely improving. 

I don't have a current spring report from all areas of Idaho, but I'm willing to bet in the impacted areas where wolves are being reduced in numbers that the same positive effects are being experienced. Not to hard to understand why. 

[idahohuntr]

My son also works for several different outfitters in central Idaho and has every spring and most winters for about the last 10 years. My son and I spend many months of every year in Idaho with our feet on the ground day after day. In addition we know local people who have lived their lives in Idaho who also help keep us appraised of game trends that they see.

The building consensus is that this is the third year in a row with fewer wolves and more elk/deer/moose on the winter range. My son told me on the phone a few nights ago that he has seen the most elk/deer/moose this spring than he has seen in 8 years since wolves heavily impacted the area. (They are out every day for 2 months every spring in these areas) He said there are still some wolves around but not everywhere like they were 5 or 6 years ago before the people of Idaho got fed up with Malloy's decision to prevent hunting and started taking care of the problem. Some of you may remember that even Governor Otter told IDFG they could not prosecute wolf shootings and could not provide into to the feds about wolf shootings. Ultimately I think that greatly strengthened Idaho's position to request state wolf management.

My son says with wolf numbers dropping other Idaho wildlife numbers are definitely improving. 

I don't have a current spring report from all areas of Idaho, but I'm willing to bet in the impacted areas where wolves are being reduced in numbers that the same positive effects are being experienced. Not to hard to understand why. 

You wolf-hugger you...minimizing the impacts of wolves    Seems like there have been others on this forum suggest multiple times in the last 6 months that all this doom and gloom is not playing out in Idaho...gosh, I just can't remember who that was???

[bearpaw]

I don't understand your thought process. 

I clearly stated that wolf numbers have been reduced and game is now recovering. That has gone against everything you seem to preach about how wolves have not had an impact. 

I have stated from the beginning of this wolf fiasco that a small managed wolf population can be supported, unmanaged wolves cannot be sustained. 

[Bean Counter]

Wow this is great news, Bearpaw! Are ungulate herd numbers potentially going To rebound to prewolf numbers, say of the early 1990s?

Thanks for the update.

[KFhunter]

Wow this is great news, Bearpaw! Are ungulate herd numbers potentially going To rebound to prewolf numbers, say of the early 1990s?

Thanks for the update.

No



Washington is a wolf sanctuary state,  we'll breed em and send em to Idaho to keep their game numbers down.   

[bearpaw]

Wow this is great news, Bearpaw! Are ungulate herd numbers potentially going To rebound to prewolf numbers, say of the early 1990s?

Thanks for the update.

I have a very positive feeling about Idaho, local economies suffered and their F&G was hit hard by fewer license sales and Idaho is now taking action to correct that as they have some control of the wolf population, they are year by year reducing wolves to a sustainable level in at least some impacted areas. The key is to keep and document well above 150 wolves so they don't lose control of wolf management.

Idaho also aggressively manages cougars and bear. Look at how many areas have extended seasons and double tags, Idaho has also reduced other large carnivore populations to try and mitigate the presence of wolves. The end result is that I think they will achieve their elk recovery goals in at least some of the wolf impacted units. I'm not sure that will be 1990's level, but if they keep the overall large predator impacts to a lower level they are going to allow ungulate numbers to increase.

Wow this is great news, Bearpaw! Are ungulate herd numbers potentially going To rebound to prewolf numbers, say of the early 1990s?

Thanks for the update.

No



Washington is a wolf sanctuary state,  we'll breed em and send em to Idaho to keep their game numbers down.   

WA and OR will breed wolves, but I think Idaho will do what is necessary to keep wolf numbers at a manageable level in their state. Look at the recent history, Idaho keeps liberalizing hunting and trapping to get wolf reduction.

[DIYARCHERYJUNKIE]

Even more reason to quit hunting wa all together and take my money to ID every year.  We went out to ID last year for modern deer.  There were six of us trying to fill tags.  A friend of the family kille a small fork and horn.  I shot a big two point.  And another family member killed a four by five.  Two others in camp shot and missed at nice bucks.  BIG WOLF TRACKS everywhere.  But the deer numbers seemed fine.  Same with the elk numbers.  Lots of bulls and a few cows.  We seen a huge seven by seven with double drop tines.  A bunch of rag horns. 

[Bob33]

Dale, thank you for the update on Idaho. It's nice to hear some good news for a change.

[bobcat]

"A friend of the family killed a small fork and horn.  I shot a big two point."

What is the definition of a "fork and horn" buck? Is it similar to a two point? I see that term occasionally and have always wondered what it means.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bob33]

"A friend of the family killed a small fork and horn.  I shot a big two point."

What is the definition of a "fork and horn" buck? Is it similar to a two point? I see that term occasionally and have always wondered what it means.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think it's a close kin to a "forked horn" buck.

[idahohuntr]

I don't understand your thought process. 

I clearly stated that wolf numbers have been reduced and game is now recovering. That has gone against everything you seem to preach about how wolves have not had an impact. 

I have stated from the beginning of this wolf fiasco that a small managed wolf population can be supported, unmanaged wolves cannot be sustained. 

No, I have been saying since I've been on this forum that the doom and gloom predictions are not bearing out in Idaho.  I've never EVER said wolves don't have impacts; but I also do not just blindly blame wolves for all declines. The lolo for example will not recover to 1980's levels without significant habitat improvement I don't care how many wolves the state kills.  That gets twisted by many on here as I'm some sort of wolf supporter...its sad how folks twist reasonable comments from people with a ton of actual experience in these areas into some sort of wolf supporter ideology.  Just because one does not subscribe to the hysteria and paranoia surrounding wolves does not mean you are "pro-wolf".  I have multiple times indicated that Idaho is actually doing pretty good and with wolf numbers declining or stabilizing that most of Idaho is in good shape and hunting is still pretty decent.  However, it does not fit the doom and gloom prophecies of organizations that bring in money to "fight wolves" like Big Game Forever and I think too many hunters fall for their bs...just like too many non-hunting voters fall for the bs of greenie groups.   

Perhaps where we disagree is the magnitude of impacts...you are saying you are seeing rebounds in game numbers because wolves have declined slightly in the last few years and I would agree that in some areas limiting wolves is helping but i would also point to the very hard back to back winters of 08 and 09 as a reason deer and elk numbers took a hit and are now coming back as we have had several mild winters in a row...perhaps the comeback is a little easier and quicker because there are slightly fewer wolves 

Bottom line, I am a huge proponent of state based wolf management, regulated hunting of wolves, and reasonable discussion about impacts of wolves in combination with other important factors that affect ungulate populations.

[bearpaw]

I don't understand your thought process. 

I clearly stated that wolf numbers have been reduced and game is now recovering. That has gone against everything you seem to preach about how wolves have not had an impact. 

I have stated from the beginning of this wolf fiasco that a small managed wolf population can be supported, unmanaged wolves cannot be sustained. 

No, I have been saying since I've been on this forum that the doom and gloom predictions are not bearing out in Idaho.  I've never EVER said wolves don't have impacts; but I also do not just blindly blame wolves for all declines. The lolo for example will not recover to 1980's levels without significant habitat improvement I don't care how many wolves the state kills.  That gets twisted by many on here as I'm some sort of wolf supporter...its sad how folks twist reasonable comments from people with a ton of actual experience in these areas into some sort of wolf supporter ideology.  Just because one does not subscribe to the hysteria and paranoia surrounding wolves does not mean you are "pro-wolf".  I have multiple times indicated that Idaho is actually doing pretty good and with wolf numbers declining or stabilizing that most of Idaho is in good shape and hunting is still pretty decent.  However, it does not fit the doom and gloom prophecies of organizations that bring in money to "fight wolves" like Big Game Forever and I think too many hunters fall for their bs...just like too many non-hunting voters fall for the bs of greenie groups.   

Perhaps where we disagree is the magnitude of impacts...you are saying you are seeing rebounds in game numbers because wolves have declined slightly in the last few years and I would agree that in some areas limiting wolves is helping but i would also point to the very hard back to back winters of 08 and 09 as a reason deer and elk numbers took a hit and are now coming back as we have had several mild winters in a row...perhaps the comeback is a little easier and quicker because there are slightly fewer wolves 

Bottom line, I am a huge proponent of state based wolf management, regulated hunting of wolves, and reasonable discussion about impacts of wolves in combination with other important factors that affect ungulate populations.

I have to say that at times I simply don't understand your disagreement about documented wolf impacts. Perhaps you don't understand why I speak out so strongly for management of wolves? As we all know, if we work together as hunters we will get more accomplished for all. 

[DIYARCHERYJUNKIE]

"A friend of the family killed a small fork and horn.  I shot a big two point."

What is the definition of a "fork and horn" buck? Is it similar to a two point? I see that term occasionally and have always wondered what it means.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 I was always under the impression that it meant a 1x2 hence fork and horn.     I could be wrong wouldn't be the first time or the last.