Idaho elk harvest graphs 1989-2012. You won't believe what happened after wolves

[elkinrutdrivemenuts]

I have no experience hunting the Southern units where the wolves are more prevalent, but up in the Panhandle I have yet to see any impact from the wolves.  In fact, due to the removal of the cow season, I am seeing larger herds, with more calves.  I have yet to see a wolf either.  I have heard them, one time 3 years ago, but I can still find bulls and fill my tags.  I have also seen a reduction in the amount of "hunters" in the area, which seems to greatly affect the harvest rate. I think that contributes to the decline in harvest rates in my unit far more than wolf kills.

That's my experience, I know people that hunted Lolo who no longer find elk in their old hunting grounds, just wolves.  I also know people that hunt McCall that are successful yearly, but also find wolves.  I think Idaho has a head start on getting the population to a manageable level, where they wont annihilate a herd because there are to many, but live off the sick and weak that should die anyways.  If they can achieve and maintain that population level, we shouldn't have to worry about the wolves wiping anything out. We hunters who willing to take advantage of some very generous wolf seasons will play a big part of reaching that level.

[Bob33]

It would be helpful to see the data normalized for hunter numbers. If harvest decreased by 50%, and hunter numbers decreased by 50% the per hunter harvest would be unchanged.

How much of the reduction in overall harvest is due to fewer hunters, versus the same number of hunters killing fewer animals?

[walleye1]

93 94 winter kills have something to do with these numbers. But the wolves are not helping

[elkinrutdrivemenuts]

93 94 winter kills have something to do with these numbers. But the wolves are not helping

I noticed this also, some big swings in the numbers in the late 80's early 90's prior to the wolves. 

[AspenBud]

It would be helpful to see the data normalized for hunter numbers. If harvest decreased by 50%, and hunter numbers decreased by 50% the per hunter harvest would be unchanged.

How much of the reduction in overall harvest is due to fewer hunters, versus the same number of hunters killing fewer animals?

That was the question that came to my mind. That and how many simply chose to hunt in areas unaffected by wolves rather than those that were? Did those areas see an increased harvest?   

[idaho guy]

 There is nowhere in Idaho that has 50% less elk hunters than 20 years ago. Hunter participation is not a signifigant part of the equation here. Look at the selway numbers over 1000 to 145? quite a few years ago we rode horses from nez perce pass into the selway 32 miles and did not even see a recent elk turd. We did hear wolves howling at night from camp. We were in some of the  best elk country I have ever seen. Where we went was based on detailed information from an old timer who had hunted the spot for years and just got too old but had a garage full of big elk racks from there. We went in august to scout it to actually hunt later which we did not do. The selway was ground zero for the wolf release. Look at a map and then look at the harvest statisitics. Unit 17 then 12 then 10 then 9 then 7 you dont have to be a genius to see a straight migration north of where wolves were planted and the path of destruction as the wolves moved north. It is what it is. wolves kill elk-lots of them and you cant twist the stats with gee maybe less guys are hunting! The panhandle elk herds are being impacted especially if you hunt the more remote areas. I have seen that firsthand. Seems like the elk closer to town are doing good and I think the elk are actually moving next to town to avoid wolves. Thanks bearpaw for posting this information. Good stuff

[idaho guy]

 I do think now that we can manage wolves Idaho elk hunting will continue to be good just wish we could have done something before the lolo,selway etc got decimated

[Bob33]

wolves kill elk-lots of them and you cant twist the stats with gee maybe less guys are hunting!

Are you saying that Idaho has the same number of elk hunters now that it did before wolves were introduced? If so, what incentive does IDFG have to address wolves?

[jasnt]

wolves kill elk-lots of them and you cant twist the stats with gee maybe less guys are hunting!

Are you saying that Idaho has the same number of elk hunters now that it did before wolves were introduced? If so, what incentive does IDFG have to address wolves?

I would say to prevent the other areas from dramatic losses!

[AspenBud]

wolves kill elk-lots of them and you cant twist the stats with gee maybe less guys are hunting!

Are you saying that Idaho has the same number of elk hunters now that it did before wolves were introduced? If so, what incentive does IDFG have to address wolves?

That's what's interesting. I did some checking and the number of licensed hunters, state wide, doesn't appear to have changed up or down by much over the years. The number of tags sold has varied, but fundamentally that has stayed steady as well. In fact I think the state has been trying to find ways to increase license sales as they have been rather flat for years.

This report, which only goes back to 2004, shows what I'm talking about...

http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/LicenseInfo/HuntingLicCertHistory20042013.pdf

[idaho guy]

wolves kill elk-lots of them and you cant twist the stats with gee maybe less guys are hunting!

Are you saying that Idaho has the same number of elk hunters now that it did before wolves were introduced? If so, what incentive does IDFG have to address wolves?

I would say to prevent the other areas from dramatic losses!

exactly, maybe to save a few elk? Its Idaho fish& GAME-they are funded by tag sales but their job is to manage and sustain wildlife for everyone not just sell elk tags. NO there are not as many hunters either-I believe out of state tag sales are down from a few years ago. So there is less hunters but that is not a signifigant reason for the massive harvest declines. The percentage decline in hunters does not match up with the massive harvest decrease.  Look at the map where wolves were planted and follow the migration north. Harvest stats tell the story and so do population surveys. Wolves kill elk and I think playing games with theorys about less hunters etc does not help address the problem. Wolves kill elk and we need to manage them aggresively. I think in Idaho we have the chance to do that and we will continue to have good elk huntingalong with wolves its just sad that once awesome areas have already been decimated.     

[idaho guy]

 should have read that post first- I change my answer NO there are not less hunters in idaho! I did read that out of state tag sales were down though

[bearpaw]

93 94 winter kills have something to do with these numbers. But the wolves are not helping

I noticed this also, some big swings in the numbers in the late 80's early 90's prior to the wolves.

It's normal for herds to cycle with weather/winters, during a hard winter herd numbers may decline then in years afterward the numbers rebuild, unless of course there is a predator pit preventing ungulate herds from rebounding. It certainly can be argued that wolves, bears, coyotes, and cougars combined may create a more intense predator pit.

https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=27635

We suspect that cougar predation can keep a prey population at an unnaturally low density (a “predator pit”).
Holling (1959) demonstrated that additive mortality due to predation could interact with density-dependent prey dynamics (Figure 2.2) to create either 1 or 2 stable equilibrium densities for the prey population. The theoretical basis is strong, and it is
plausible that such dynamics exist for some predator-prey systems. In vertebrate predator-prey systems, the higher equilibrium (near but somewhat below the carrying capacity set by food resources) is considered the natural state of affairs, but following a catastrophe (such as severe winter weather, drought, a tornado, a disease epidemic, or isolation of a population segment by a freeway), mortality from predation can, in theory at least, keep prey at an equilibrium far below food-based K – a situation referred to as a “predator pit” (Haber 1977, Bergerud et al. 1983, Messier 1994).

The northern YNP elk herd is a perfect example of wolves increasing already present predator impacts. This herd once provided the premier late elk hunt in the west. Montana has had to completely eliminate the late hunts on this migrating elk herd to try and save it. There are no longer any late hunts yet the herd continues to decline. Arguably the same "predator pit" scenario has likely occurred in certain impacted areas of Idaho.

[bearpaw]

wolves kill elk-lots of them and you cant twist the stats with gee maybe less guys are hunting!

Are you saying that Idaho has the same number of elk hunters now that it did before wolves were introduced? If so, what incentive does IDFG have to address wolves?

I would say to prevent the other areas from dramatic losses!

I think the Idaho F&G Dept/Commission is very aware of wolf and other predator impacts, thus the reason you see increasingly aggressive cougar, bear, and wolf management/seasons in Idaho. They are not going to allow herds to continue in decline, they are most certainly acting as needed. Many areas have spring bear seasons from April to June or July plus fall bear hunting with bait and hounds allowed in both seasons, Sept-March 31 for cougar with hounds allowed when ungulate seasons close, wolf hunting/trapping ranges from 6-12 months with up to 5 tags in many areas. Yet there is caution to prevent over harvest by having harvest quotas in many zones for cougar and wolves.

[bearpaw]

should have read that post first- I change my answer NO there are not less hunters in idaho! I did read that out of state tag sales were down though

You are correct, Non-Res sales are down, hunter numbers are also down in many of the wolf impacted units too. For example the Lolo Zone elk herd is 10% to 20% of former herd size and hunter numbers are greatly reduced by IDFG implementing a tag sales quota in that zone to try and allow the herd to grow. Wolf control action has also been taken. In several other zones IDFG has limited tag numbers to decrease the number of hunters greatly because herd counts are down and previous harvest levels cannot be supported while trying to recover those herds. Anyone claiming harvest is down only because of fewer hunters certainly hasn't studied to see that IDFG had to reduce hunter numbers to save certain herds which could not support the continued harvest.

Not all zones have been impacted by predators and there are good herds to hunt in many units where wolves have not impacted herds. But, that doesn't mean the wolf impacted zones have healthy herds too, F&G has had to reduce elk hunting opportunity and implement aggressive predator seasons to save these impacted herds. I'm appalled that some seemingly intelligent hunters cannot understand this.