Of Roosevelt Elk, Bacteria, Hooves and Herbicides

[Landowner]

Wolves do have the pack advantage and the stamina. 

A cougar is lighting fast---for about a 1/4 mile when they lose all of their stamina. 

[Houndhunter]

Tbar.  Wolves are "coursing" predators that chase animals back and forth until a weakness exhibits itself.  They are different from sit and wait or pounce predators in this regard.  Elk can run at 45 mph and wolves top out at about 37 mph or so.  Therefore, adult elk under normal conditions can outrun wolves--unless there is deep snow, the elk are sick, old or young. 

An adult elk may be able to run "faster" than a wolf, but which has the better stamina? I get to run dogs, while still very green to hound hunting, I know dogs can out run anything. My fat out of shape hounds can run down any deer/elk, now take in the fact a wolf is a wild dog that hunts EVERY day and you have a very fit killing machine. Just wanted to point out the flaw in your theory, it may sound good but in reality your wrong. Under normal conditions, a wolf pack can kill an elk that is 100% healthy

[grundy53]

Tbar.  Wolves are "coursing" predators that chase animals back and forth until a weakness exhibits itself.  They are different from sit and wait or pounce predators in this regard.  Elk can run at 45 mph and wolves top out at about 37 mph or so.  Therefore, adult elk under normal conditions can outrun wolves--unless there is deep snow, the elk are sick, old or young. 

An adult elk may be able to run "faster" than a wolf, but which has the better stamina? I get to run dogs, while still very green to hound hunting, I know dogs can out run anything. My fat out of shape hounds can run down any deer/elk, now take in the fact a wolf is a wild dog that hunts EVERY day and you have a very fit killing machine. Just wanted to point out the flaw in your theory, it may sound good but in reality your wrong. Under normal conditions, a wolf pack can kill an elk that is 100% healthy

not to mention wolves work as a team. They take turns chasing the elk wearing it down.

sent from my typewriter

[bobferris]

Now that we've had our wolf fun, perhaps we could get back to the matter at hand i.e., what needs to be done about this situation?  My sense is there is a need to:

1) Open up the process including more people with a broader set of interests and big picture visions;
2) Gain needed funding for independent research that can be trusted to look at all potential causes without conflicts; and
3) Conduct a comprehensive review of herbicide use and more controls on the use of these substances because even if they are not the proximate cause of this current situation they are certainly not helping the situation by degrading elk and deer habitat across a broad range.   

Progress on the first one can be made with public pressure.  We have posted an action alert and more than 200 people have already sent comments into WDFW on this issue.  Send our alert in or create one of your own. 

Numbers 2 and 3 likely require legislative action which means that you have to organize--probably a broad based coalition--that would include hunters and anglers with concerns over this specific issue as well as groups working traditionally on the forestry and herbicide fronts.  You also need to attract a band of independent experts willing to lobby on your behalf which means developing relationships with biologists, ecologists and conservation leaders many of whom you have been beating up over the wolf and other issues. 

If participation in the Natural Resource Summit of America in the mid 1990s that I mentioned in a previous post taught me one thing it was the importance of maintaining relationships with people with whom you might disagree because you will eventually need them as allies on those issues where you agree.  And once you have burnt the bridges, they are awfully, awfully hard to rebuild. 

[pianoman9701]

My goal here is to help affected elk. I'm sure that's the goal of most of the hunters. It will take pressure from many sides to ensure that the problem is being faced in an appropriate and un-biased manner.

[Mudman]

Bob contact the RMEF they very well might help with your ideas.   They may be doing something on their own already?

[bobferris]

Mudman, Thank you for the suggestion.  I have had a positive working relationship with RMEF in the past when they were run by Bob Munson and adhered to science but that is exactly one of the smoldering bridges that I was referring to in my previous post.  To rebuild that bridge for me would take a management change and a major course correction.  I could explain my reasoning, but I would rather stick with the topic and not go off into the weeds on RMEF or wolves.

[grundy53]

Mudman, Thank you for the suggestion.  I have had a positive working relationship with RMEF in the past when they were run by Bob Munson and adhered to science but that is exactly one of the smoldering bridges that I was referring to in my previous post.  To rebuild that bridge for me would take a management change and a major course correction.  I could explain my reasoning, but I would rather stick with the topic and not go off into the weeds on RMEF or wolves.

We have time for a short jaunt into the weeds. What happened between you and RMEF that caused the "bridge to be burned"?

[Expedition Scout]

tag

[bobferris]

OK, I'll bite.  I am not sure that the proper question is why Bob Ferris broke with RMEF, but rather why hunters should be very concerned by sporting groups that have abandoned science, ramped up their anti-predator rhetoric to 11, and more often than not have taken positions or actions that are less consistent with the average hunter’s interests and more consistent with those of ranching, timber, energy and mining interests.  All of you should be asking questions like the following:

Why did RMEF take such a wimpy position in regards to controlling elk because of brucellosis in Montana (i.e., we do not support a plan that involves killing elk) http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/opinion/columnists/the_new_west_todd_wilkinson/montana-targets-elk-sparks-citizen-outcry/article_52da6f9c-7f77-51cd-b7b9-fadb5597ea0e.html or publicly come out in favor of more roads in wilderness areas until someone told them it was a bad idea http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/conservationist/2011/08/rocky-mountain-elk-foundation-retracts-support-anti-roadless-bill?  Why doesn’t RMEF comment on public land grazing or talk about food competition between cattle and elk?  Why does RMEF still support supplemental feeding when everyone in the science community knows that this is the way to spread disease http://m.dailyrecordnews.com/news/between---elk-fed-each-day-by-wildlife-officials/article_622a0d7e-46c3-11e1-95dc-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=jqm?  Why hasn’t RMEF come out against the use of herbicides in timber management? 

“Middleton, A.D. Changing times in Wyoming elk country: Large carnivores, drought, and elk migration. Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Annual Habitat Council Retreat, Cody, WY, 11 June 2011.” (see http://www.wyocoopunit.org/index.php/test/arthur-middleton/

Why hasn’t RMEF publicized the results of Arthur Middleton’s Yellowstone elk research that they funded and that indicated that wolves were not to blame for elk declines http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/study-wyoming-wolves-getting-bad-rap-for-elk-decline/article_ce655174-2333-5dfe-9073-37b859b5e98d.html?  They cut a check and were certainly briefed on the findings (see above).  And why do they continue to try to twist the science even when their own members call them on it http://www.cascwild.org/rmef-mutiny-and-the-false-flag/?  And why did the Murie family ask RMEF to not use their family name any more http://missoulian.com/news/local/family-pulls-award-over-rocky-mountain-elk-foundation-s-wolf/article_e42c3c42-d143-11e1-acf9-001a4bcf887a.html (and, yes,I did have something to do with that)? 

“I will be presenting to the SCI-Foundations Conservation Committee on a project I am doing for them about wildlife conservation and energy production being able to coexist to benefit wildlife and our domestic energy needs.” (see http://broadfootmediagroup.com/1

Why did Safari Club International contract with someone to make a video about the compatibility of wildlife and energy development?  Why is it in the interest of hunters to promote the idea that energy development with all the attendant pollution, human activity and roads is beneficial to wildlife? 

Why does the head of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife think that wildlife should be privatized like some sort of return to feudal times http://www.cascwild.org/don-peay-the-man-who-would-be-king-baron/? 

Why exactly did RMEF and SCI come to the table with the rest of us and sign the same endangered species statement to Congress during the Natural Resource Summit of America and then label their co-signers as environmental extremists in the next decade?  Who changed in this equation and why?  And why aren't they (RMEF and SCI) along with Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and Big Game Forever working with other sporting groups on climate change http://www.trcp.org/issues/climate-change/the-climate-change-working-group#.U6Ral_ldXuI? You can deny this carbon-driven phenomenon all you want but if you have scientists on staff and they are influencing your policy this is near the very top of your list of concerns, when it is not you have to ask why.

And while it is certainly fun to bash the wolf, even in the absence of research indicating that they are causing harm, or characterize me as an environmental extremist (take your best shot) you should really think about who is here, who is not and why.  My organization works in four states and has an operating budget just shy of $400K.  RMEF’s budget is $79 million and they operate in 49 states.  All things being equal that means that they have more than 16 times as many resources at their disposal to work on this issue in Washington.  But that is not completely true either because we also work on forest management issues, wilderness preservation, suction dredging, and salmon recovery as well as on wolves and fighting coal, LNG and oil exports.  So I have little time and resources to dedicate to this, but I am here. 

Sorry if there are typos in this but I have to jump to another project, but wanted to address this important question.

[idahohuntr]

Mudman, Thank you for the suggestion.  I have had a positive working relationship with RMEF in the past when they were run by Bob Munson and adhered to science but that is exactly one of the smoldering bridges that I was referring to in my previous post.  To rebuild that bridge for me would take a management change and a major course correction.  I could explain my reasoning, but I would rather stick with the topic and not go off into the weeds on RMEF or wolves.

We have time for a short jaunt into the weeds. What happened between you and RMEF that caused the "bridge to be burned"?

Hmmmm...RMEF strongly supports state based management of wolves using best available science to conserve ALL wildlife.  How surprising that Mr. Ferris does not support science based wolf management...seems to be a common thread here...Mr. Ferris and his group just attack the states for their management practices because science and data are just not what Cascadia Wildlands is about.

This latest posting should be another warning signal for hunters...it is becoming more clear that Bob Ferris is around to try and discredit WDFW (and having hunters on his side won't hurt his groups cause) so WDFW is in a weaker position when it comes to things like wolf management once wolves are de-listed.  Do you guys (the hunters on this forum) really believe Mr. Ferris can be so wrong on the science and data regarding wolf management but somehow is just spot on when it comes to hoof rot???  Please just think about that...and remember...WDFW are sportsmen's biggest ally when it comes to hunting/wolf management etc. in this state.  Lets not alienate WDFW and cozy up to organizations that do not support science based wildlife management...that will not help hunters or hunting in this state. 

P.S. This is nothing personal against you Mr. Ferris...you are serving your constituents well I'm sure.  You just have a radically different vision of how wildlife should be managed to best support future hunting IMO.   

[idahohuntr]

OK, I'll bite.  I am not sure that the proper question is why Bob Ferris broke with RMEF, but rather why hunters should be very concerned by sporting groups that have abandoned science, ramped up their anti-predator rhetoric to 11, and more often than not have taken positions or actions that are less consistent with the average hunter’s interests and more consistent with those of ranching, timber, energy and mining interests.  All of you should be asking questions like the following:

Why did RMEF take such a wimpy position in regards to controlling elk because of brucellosis in Montana (i.e., we do not support a plan that involves killing elk) http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/opinion/columnists/the_new_west_todd_wilkinson/montana-targets-elk-sparks-citizen-outcry/article_52da6f9c-7f77-51cd-b7b9-fadb5597ea0e.html or publicly come out in favor of more roads in wilderness areas until someone told them it was a bad idea http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/conservationist/2011/08/rocky-mountain-elk-foundation-retracts-support-anti-roadless-bill?  Why doesn’t RMEF comment on public land grazing or talk about food competition between cattle and elk?  Why does RMEF still support supplemental feeding when everyone in the science community knows that this is the way to spread disease http://m.dailyrecordnews.com/news/between---elk-fed-each-day-by-wildlife-officials/article_622a0d7e-46c3-11e1-95dc-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=jqm?  Why hasn’t RMEF come out against the use of herbicides in timber management? 

“Middleton, A.D. Changing times in Wyoming elk country: Large carnivores, drought, and elk migration. Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Annual Habitat Council Retreat, Cody, WY, 11 June 2011.” (see http://www.wyocoopunit.org/index.php/test/arthur-middleton/

Why hasn’t RMEF publicized the results of Arthur Middleton’s Yellowstone elk research that they funded and that indicated that wolves were not to blame for elk declines http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/study-wyoming-wolves-getting-bad-rap-for-elk-decline/article_ce655174-2333-5dfe-9073-37b859b5e98d.html?  They cut a check and were certainly briefed on the findings (see above).  And why do they continue to try to twist the science even when their own members call them on it http://www.cascwild.org/rmef-mutiny-and-the-false-flag/?  And why did the Murie family ask RMEF to not use their family name any more http://missoulian.com/news/local/family-pulls-award-over-rocky-mountain-elk-foundation-s-wolf/article_e42c3c42-d143-11e1-acf9-001a4bcf887a.html (and, yes,I did have something to do with that)? 

“I will be presenting to the SCI-Foundations Conservation Committee on a project I am doing for them about wildlife conservation and energy production being able to coexist to benefit wildlife and our domestic energy needs.” (see http://broadfootmediagroup.com/1

Why did Safari Club International contract with someone to make a video about the compatibility of wildlife and energy development?  Why is it in the interest of hunters to promote the idea that energy development with all the attendant pollution, human activity and roads is beneficial to wildlife? 

Why does the head of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife think that wildlife should be privatized like some sort of return to feudal times http://www.cascwild.org/don-peay-the-man-who-would-be-king-baron/? 

Why exactly did RMEF and SCI come to the table with the rest of us and sign the same endangered species statement to Congress during the Natural Resource Summit of America and then label their co-signers as environmental extremists in the next decade?  Who changed in this equation and why?  And why aren't they (RMEF and SCI) along with Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and Big Game Forever working with other sporting groups on climate change http://www.trcp.org/issues/climate-change/the-climate-change-working-group#.U6Ral_ldXuI? You can deny this carbon-driven phenomenon all you want but if you have scientists on staff and they are influencing your policy this is near the very top of your list of concerns, when it is not you have to ask why.

And while it is certainly fun to bash the wolf, even in the absence of research indicating that they are causing harm, or characterize me as an environmental extremist (take your best shot) you should really think about who is here, who is not and why.  My organization works in four states and has an operating budget just shy of $400K.  RMEF’s budget is $79 million and they operate in 49 states.  All things being equal that means that they have more than 16 times as many resources at their disposal to work on this issue in Washington.  But that is not completely true either because we also work on forest management issues, wilderness preservation, suction dredging, and salmon recovery as well as on wolves and fighting coal, LNG and oil exports.  So I have little time and resources to dedicate to this, but I am here. 

Sorry if there are typos in this but I have to jump to another project, but wanted to address this important question.

Come on Bob...we can't let perfect be the enemy of good.  RMEF has done so much for wildlife habitat conservation (6+ million acres protected and enhanced) I find it absolutely dispicable that you are attacking them like this.  Also...why are you lumping SFW/SCI etc in with RMEF?  Those are totally separate organizations and frankly RMEF has called out SFW on some of their shady dealings.  Shall we lump your organization together with ELF and other eco-terrorist organizations??

I think RMEF chooses its battles wisely...they are a habitat organization that works to conserve wildlife habitat and they have even recently been working hard at opening access for hunters on private and land-locked public lands.  They have come down a little harder on predators, but they suppport state based scientific management of wolves...which is a very reasonable stance.  Have some of their staff made remarks a little over the top...I would say perhaps...but it still doesn't diminish how much good work they have done.  The fact that you can't align with a group that does so much good across the nation is about the 5th signal we've had here that you have no interest in helping hunters.   

[grundy53]

OK, I'll bite.  I am not sure that the proper question is why Bob Ferris broke with RMEF, but rather why hunters should be very concerned by sporting groups that have abandoned science, ramped up their anti-predator rhetoric to 11, and more often than not have taken positions or actions that are less consistent with the average hunter’s interests and more consistent with those of ranching, timber, energy and mining interests.  All of you should be asking questions like the following:

Why did RMEF take such a wimpy position in regards to controlling elk because of brucellosis in Montana (i.e., we do not support a plan that involves killing elk) http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/opinion/columnists/the_new_west_todd_wilkinson/montana-targets-elk-sparks-citizen-outcry/article_52da6f9c-7f77-51cd-b7b9-fadb5597ea0e.html or publicly come out in favor of more roads in wilderness areas until someone told them it was a bad idea http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/conservationist/2011/08/rocky-mountain-elk-foundation-retracts-support-anti-roadless-bill?  Why doesn’t RMEF comment on public land grazing or talk about food competition between cattle and elk?  Why does RMEF still support supplemental feeding when everyone in the science community knows that this is the way to spread disease http://m.dailyrecordnews.com/news/between---elk-fed-each-day-by-wildlife-officials/article_622a0d7e-46c3-11e1-95dc-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=jqm?  Why hasn’t RMEF come out against the use of herbicides in timber management? 

“Middleton, A.D. Changing times in Wyoming elk country: Large carnivores, drought, and elk migration. Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Annual Habitat Council Retreat, Cody, WY, 11 June 2011.” (see http://www.wyocoopunit.org/index.php/test/arthur-middleton/

Why hasn’t RMEF publicized the results of Arthur Middleton’s Yellowstone elk research that they funded and that indicated that wolves were not to blame for elk declines http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/study-wyoming-wolves-getting-bad-rap-for-elk-decline/article_ce655174-2333-5dfe-9073-37b859b5e98d.html?  They cut a check and were certainly briefed on the findings (see above).  And why do they continue to try to twist the science even when their own members call them on it http://www.cascwild.org/rmef-mutiny-and-the-false-flag/?  And why did the Murie family ask RMEF to not use their family name any more http://missoulian.com/news/local/family-pulls-award-over-rocky-mountain-elk-foundation-s-wolf/article_e42c3c42-d143-11e1-acf9-001a4bcf887a.html (and, yes,I did have something to do with that)? 

“I will be presenting to the SCI-Foundations Conservation Committee on a project I am doing for them about wildlife conservation and energy production being able to coexist to benefit wildlife and our domestic energy needs.” (see http://broadfootmediagroup.com/1

Why did Safari Club International contract with someone to make a video about the compatibility of wildlife and energy development?  Why is it in the interest of hunters to promote the idea that energy development with all the attendant pollution, human activity and roads is beneficial to wildlife? 

Why does the head of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife think that wildlife should be privatized like some sort of return to feudal times http://www.cascwild.org/don-peay-the-man-who-would-be-king-baron/? 

Why exactly did RMEF and SCI come to the table with the rest of us and sign the same endangered species statement to Congress during the Natural Resource Summit of America and then label their co-signers as environmental extremists in the next decade?  Who changed in this equation and why?  And why aren't they (RMEF and SCI) along with Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and Big Game Forever working with other sporting groups on climate change http://www.trcp.org/issues/climate-change/the-climate-change-working-group#.U6Ral_ldXuI? You can deny this carbon-driven phenomenon all you want but if you have scientists on staff and they are influencing your policy this is near the very top of your list of concerns, when it is not you have to ask why.

And while it is certainly fun to bash the wolf, even in the absence of research indicating that they are causing harm, or characterize me as an environmental extremist (take your best shot) you should really think about who is here, who is not and why.  My organization works in four states and has an operating budget just shy of $400K.  RMEF’s budget is $79 million and they operate in 49 states.  All things being equal that means that they have more than 16 times as many resources at their disposal to work on this issue in Washington.  But that is not completely true either because we also work on forest management issues, wilderness preservation, suction dredging, and salmon recovery as well as on wolves and fighting coal, LNG and oil exports.  So I have little time and resources to dedicate to this, but I am here. 

Sorry if there are typos in this but I have to jump to another project, but wanted to address this important question.

I think you will find that most of the hunters on this site will probably agree with and support the majority of REMF's stances on these subjects...

sent from my typewriter

[Mudman]

Bob i think understanding the politically driven decisions made by RMEF is key.  They try to do good by there supporters.  They are a great entity.  To keep their donations coming they must be careful to not alienate people as it is a very diverse core that supports them.  To make stands that are divisive is not their goal.  Sucks but I see it this way and it explains some of their actions to me.

[JPhelps]

After doing some quick Facebook research...Cascadia Wildlands can kindly screw off!!!

As a hunter, I would rather join forces with another organization than to ever help further your agenda even if we both agree on Hoof Rot (most likely the only issue we agree on).