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

[Bob33]

A hunter would have to look real hard to find any good news in that data.

[bearpaw]

A hunter would have to look real hard to find any good news in that data.

I'm very optimistic about Idaho, they now understand their problems and are taking corrective actions.

Washington is another story, our WDFW seems to still believe the Disney science and conclusions in the wolf plan and used by Wielgus from WSU in his cougar study. 

[Bob33]

I quit hunting Idaho for elk in 2005, primarily because of wolves. I hope to return some day

[bearpaw]

I quit hunting Idaho for elk in 2005, primarily because of wolves. I hope to return some day

It's undermanaged predator numbers that cause herds to decline. Idaho is past that and getting control of predators. Just watch herd counts and hunt somewhere other than the most depressed units.

[idahohuntr]

Wolves have an impact on elk numbers and behavior.  The impacts of wolves have been and continue to be exaggerated by many folks in *most* zones of Idaho.  Whats funny is the guys who clearly do this to try and steer folks away from their units  Additionally, there are a whole bunch of units in Idaho which have experienced no impacts due to wolves.

The presentation of data for most of the units bearpaw posted requires some caveats so they can be more accurately interpreted:
1. We had 2 very severe winters in 92-93 and 96-97
2. The late 1980s was the high point or pinnacle for most elk zones in terms of elk numbers...as in historic highs...largely the result of land management practices in the 50's and 60's (this would be that habitat thing I bring up occassionally  )
3. Many of the units reported became zoned hunts with capped tag numbers in the late 90's.  Responses to increasing demand in specific units, harsh winters, and changing management priorities placed units and zones with otc tags or antlerless harvest into restricted zones causing significant declines in harvest for both social and biological reasons.

So, what all these caveats mean is that a graph showing declining elk harvest from 1989-2012 is not in all cases a "smoking gun" that wolves are to blame...I would consider it more the straw that broke the camels back in some units...harsh winters, coming off historic highs, poor habitat, and a new predator...that is what caused declines in the Lolo.  If we had the habitat and climate conditions of the early 1980s with wolves in the Lolo zone there would still be a lot of elk...much like the zones in Idaho today where wolves are plentiful and so are the elk.

One last point in response to this quote:

I'm very optimistic about Idaho, they now understand their problems and are taking corrective actions.

I have always supported IDFG on their wolf management efforts.  While some folks are finally starting to pull their head out of the sand I want to remind folks that the key staff responsible for predator management has not changed...its almost entirely the same staff IDFG had when wolf numbers started to ramp up.  Their philosophies, science, priorities, etc. are virtually unchanged as well.  It wasn't any more popular in 2004 in Idaho when I would tell people IDFG are Idaho sportsmens biggest allies than now in 2014 when I say the same about WDFW.  WDFW actually has some better information and experience to work with in managing wolves in this state, but they have many challenges (mostly political) that IDFG managers did not have to worry about.  I predict a similar outcome for WA...wolves will impact some areas, particularly those with poor habitat, have a mild effect in others, and have little or no impact on a lot of gmus. 

[bearpaw]

FYI - You leave out a great many important points Idahohntr, including the fact that many in IDFG had to learn the hard knocks about wolf management just as they are in WA now. The people of Idaho and Governor Otter had to tell IDFG to manage wolves, Otter prevented IDFG from pursuing wolf poachers, IDFG was headed down the same road of denial as WDFW is doing now, that's all documented in the many pages of wolf topics on this forum. 

[bearpaw]

Actually a couple of the worst wolf supporters were pushed out of IDFG. That helped wise up some of the rest of them to drop the Disney management and look into saving the elk herds. 

Basically what needs to happen in WDFW, a little correction in certain management.

[idahohuntr]

FYI - You leave out a great many important points Idahohntr, including the fact that many in IDFG had to learn the hard knocks about wolf management just as they are in WA now. The people of Idaho and Governor Otter had to tell IDFG to manage wolves, Otter prevented IDFG from pursuing wolf poachers, IDFG was headed down the same road of denial as WDFW is doing now, that's all documented in the many pages of wolf topics on this forum. 

Bearpaw- Please don't make me go track down the post where I already pointed out the complete fallacy you tried to push on here about Otter being elected because of his promises of wolf management...the most famous of which he made AFTER the election. 

IDFG was not "told" by the people of Idaho or by Otter to do anything differently than they intended to do all along in service of the sportsmen and women who enjoy Idaho's outdoors.  Idaho is a right to work state...if somebody in Idaho was managing wolves in a way that was displeasing to Otter they would not have a job then or today. 

You also misconstrue what Otter said about pursuing wolf poachers...the message was to USFWS and the Feds that since wolves were re-listed then Idaho was not going to spend a dime managing them (including enforcement)...it was the result of frustration with lawsuits and judges...USFWS wanted to de-list them as well as IDFG and most Idahoans...it was lawsuits from the enviro crowd and a federal judge that caused us the headaches.

Those are the facts whether you choose to believe them or not.

But most of this is meaningless when it comes to WA wolf management, which is where the focus should really be at.  WDFW faces many challenges that ID, MT, WY did not have....and I am pleased the commission denied the wolf groups petition to limit lethal take, but the realities are that the politics of this state are a very different animal that will require great finesse...and frankly, I think WDFW biologists on up to their director have sportsmen's interests at heart...whether or not the majority of hunters recognize how much we need wdfw to have successful management of wolves...   I can assure you...there is no path to a favorable outcome on wolf and elk/deer management in this state that does not require the support of current wdfw staff.  They are the biggest ally we have in this state.

[elkinrutdrivemenuts]

Wolves have an impact on elk numbers and behavior.  The impacts of wolves have been and continue to be exaggerated by many folks in *most* zones of Idaho.  Whats funny is the guys who clearly do this to try and steer folks away from their units  Additionally, there are a whole bunch of units in Idaho which have experienced no impacts due to wolves.

The presentation of data for most of the units bearpaw posted requires some caveats so they can be more accurately interpreted:
1. We had 2 very severe winters in 92-93 and 96-97
2. The late 1980s was the high point or pinnacle for most elk zones in terms of elk numbers...as in historic highs...largely the result of land management practices in the 50's and 60's (this would be that habitat thing I bring up occassionally  )
3. Many of the units reported became zoned hunts with capped tag numbers in the late 90's.  Responses to increasing demand in specific units, harsh winters, and changing management priorities placed units and zones with otc tags or antlerless harvest into restricted zones causing significant declines in harvest for both social and biological reasons.

So, what all these caveats mean is that a graph showing declining elk harvest from 1989-2012 is not in all cases a "smoking gun" that wolves are to blame...I would consider it more the straw that broke the camels back in some units...harsh winters, coming off historic highs, poor habitat, and a new predator...that is what caused declines in the Lolo.  If we had the habitat and climate conditions of the early 1980s with wolves in the Lolo zone there would still be a lot of elk...much like the zones in Idaho today where wolves are plentiful and so are the elk.

One last point in response to this quote:

I'm very optimistic about Idaho, they now understand their problems and are taking corrective actions.

I have always supported IDFG on their wolf management efforts.  While some folks are finally starting to pull their head out of the sand I want to remind folks that the key staff responsible for predator management has not changed...its almost entirely the same staff IDFG had when wolf numbers started to ramp up.  Their philosophies, science, priorities, etc. are virtually unchanged as well.  It wasn't any more popular in 2004 in Idaho when I would tell people IDFG are Idaho sportsmens biggest allies than now in 2014 when I say the same about WDFW.  WDFW actually has some better information and experience to work with in managing wolves in this state, but they have many challenges (mostly political) that IDFG managers did not have to worry about.  I predict a similar outcome for WA...wolves will impact some areas, particularly those with poor habitat, have a mild effect in others, and have little or no impact on a lot of gmus.

There is always more than just one factor. Thank you for pointing this out.  It sounds like you have seen the changes here first hand. It is obvious that the land management practices have been forgotten.  That is one thing I would love to see Idaho put as much effort into as they have managing the wolf population.  We need better management of our timber lands.

And the elk hunting is still good here, put your work into it and you will be successful.  It is still much better than Washington and the primary reason I left that state.

[bearpaw]

FYI - You leave out a great many important points Idahohntr, including the fact that many in IDFG had to learn the hard knocks about wolf management just as they are in WA now. The people of Idaho and Governor Otter had to tell IDFG to manage wolves, Otter prevented IDFG from pursuing wolf poachers, IDFG was headed down the same road of denial as WDFW is doing now, that's all documented in the many pages of wolf topics on this forum. 

Bearpaw- Please don't make me go track down the post where I already pointed out the complete fallacy you tried to push on here about Otter being elected because of his promises of wolf management...the most famous of which he made AFTER the election. 

IDFG was not "told" by the people of Idaho or by Otter to do anything differently than they intended to do all along in service of the sportsmen and women who enjoy Idaho's outdoors.  Idaho is a right to work state...if somebody in Idaho was managing wolves in a way that was displeasing to Otter they would not have a job then or today. 

You also misconstrue what Otter said about pursuing wolf poachers...the message was to USFWS and the Feds that since wolves were re-listed then Idaho was not going to spend a dime managing them (including enforcement)...it was the result of frustration with lawsuits and judges...USFWS wanted to de-list them as well as IDFG and most Idahoans...it was lawsuits from the enviro crowd and a federal judge that caused us the headaches.

Those are the facts whether you choose to believe them or not.

But most of this is meaningless when it comes to WA wolf management, which is where the focus should really be at.  WDFW faces many challenges that ID, MT, WY did not have....and I am pleased the commission denied the wolf groups petition to limit lethal take, but the realities are that the politics of this state are a very different animal that will require great finesse...and frankly, I think WDFW biologists on up to their director have sportsmen's interests at heart...whether or not the majority of hunters recognize how much we need wdfw to have successful management of wolves...   I can assure you...there is no path to a favorable outcome on wolf and elk/deer management in this state that does not require the support of current wdfw staff.  They are the biggest ally we have in this state.

You can try to discredit what I say all you want. Anyone who has watched the whole wolf process in Idaho knows how it went down and what happened, most of it's documented on this forum. Whether you even know or not, there were certain persons who were pushed out of IDFG. I'm not going to get into another pointless discussion with you, where you will ask me to cite my sources which as I have told you before I will not do, that is confidential but absolutely true, so we'll just have to disagree, you can call me a liar again or anything you want, that only shows your lack of professionalism.

If you want to massage the shoulders of everyone at WDFW for some potential Atta boy that is your choice. I prefer to offer informative data and thank those in WDFW who have earned praise by doing a good job of managing all species of wildlife and those who support the hunters and fishers of WA that pay the bills, fortunately we still have many good people in WDFW, but there could be a few changes that would benefit Washington. I'm not talking about the director, even though I disagree with some of his decisions, I think Phil Anderson is the best director we've had in a few decades.

I too am pleased with the Commission regarding their decision to reject the wolf group's petition. That doesn't mean I support their every decision, I am not at all pleased and neither are most people in NE WA with the commission's adoption of the most liberal wolf plan in the west. That was a serious mistake and I'm not going to say otherwise just to sugarcoat the wolf issue.

While you may choose to endorse the WDFW unilaterally thinking that will gain favoritism, I choose to offer informative data and offer my thanks for positive actions, but I will critique decisions and actions that are bad for wildlife or hunters/fishers. An agency needs to hear honest input from stakeholders so they know when they are going down the right or wrong path!

Have a great day! 

[bearpaw]

There is always more than just one factor. Thank you for pointing this out.  It sounds like you have seen the changes here first hand. It is obvious that the land management practices have been forgotten.  That is one thing I would love to see Idaho put as much effort into as they have managing the wolf population.  We need better management of our timber lands.

And the elk hunting is still good here, put your work into it and you will be successful.  It is still much better than Washington and the primary reason I left that state.

Just in case you missed it (see the bottom line):

[mfswallace]

I believe what happened after wolves were introduced but I can't believe it took this long for the defenders to deny irrefutable evidence and deflect from the real problem     

[idahohuntr]

FYI - You leave out a great many important points Idahohntr, including the fact that many in IDFG had to learn the hard knocks about wolf management just as they are in WA now. The people of Idaho and Governor Otter had to tell IDFG to manage wolves, Otter prevented IDFG from pursuing wolf poachers, IDFG was headed down the same road of denial as WDFW is doing now, that's all documented in the many pages of wolf topics on this forum. 

Bearpaw- Please don't make me go track down the post where I already pointed out the complete fallacy you tried to push on here about Otter being elected because of his promises of wolf management...the most famous of which he made AFTER the election. 

IDFG was not "told" by the people of Idaho or by Otter to do anything differently than they intended to do all along in service of the sportsmen and women who enjoy Idaho's outdoors.  Idaho is a right to work state...if somebody in Idaho was managing wolves in a way that was displeasing to Otter they would not have a job then or today. 

You also misconstrue what Otter said about pursuing wolf poachers...the message was to USFWS and the Feds that since wolves were re-listed then Idaho was not going to spend a dime managing them (including enforcement)...it was the result of frustration with lawsuits and judges...USFWS wanted to de-list them as well as IDFG and most Idahoans...it was lawsuits from the enviro crowd and a federal judge that caused us the headaches.

Those are the facts whether you choose to believe them or not.

But most of this is meaningless when it comes to WA wolf management, which is where the focus should really be at.  WDFW faces many challenges that ID, MT, WY did not have....and I am pleased the commission denied the wolf groups petition to limit lethal take, but the realities are that the politics of this state are a very different animal that will require great finesse...and frankly, I think WDFW biologists on up to their director have sportsmen's interests at heart...whether or not the majority of hunters recognize how much we need wdfw to have successful management of wolves...   I can assure you...there is no path to a favorable outcome on wolf and elk/deer management in this state that does not require the support of current wdfw staff.  They are the biggest ally we have in this state.

You can try to discredit what I say all you want. Anyone who has watched the whole wolf process in Idaho knows how it went down and what happened, most of it's documented on this forum. Whether you even know or not, there were certain persons who were pushed out of IDFG. I'm not going to get into another pointless discussion with you, where you will ask me to cite my sources which as I have told you before I will not do, that is confidential but absolutely true, so we'll just have to disagree, you can call me a liar again or anything you want, that only shows your lack of professionalism.

If you want to massage the shoulders of everyone at WDFW for some potential Atta boy that is your choice. I prefer to offer informative data and thank those in WDFW who have earned praise by doing a good job of managing all species of wildlife and those who support the hunters and fishers of WA that pay the bills, fortunately we still have many good people in WDFW, but there could be a few changes that would benefit Washington. I'm not talking about the director, even though I disagree with some of his decisions, I think Phil Anderson is the best director we've had in a few decades.

I too am pleased with the Commission regarding their decision to reject the wolf group's petition. That doesn't mean I support their every decision, I am not at all pleased and neither are most people in NE WA with the commission's adoption of the most liberal wolf plan in the west. That was a serious mistake and I'm not going to say otherwise just to sugarcoat the wolf issue.

While you may choose to endorse the WDFW unilaterally thinking that will gain favoritism, I choose to offer informative data and offer my thanks for positive actions, but I will critique decisions and actions that are bad for wildlife or hunters/fishers. An agency needs to hear honest input from stakeholders so they know when they are going down the right or wrong path!

Have a great day! 

Yes, we are just going to have to disagree on idfg personnel...you can't cite names but I can.  Moore, Kiefer, Unsworth, Rachael, Compton....all still there and those are the folks making policy decisions and managing wolves.  They are still there and have been for a long time.  Maybe a pee on was fired but nobody making big decisions was removed.

So just how does me posting anonymously gain 'favoritism' with wdfw??  That is a good one...I don't understand why folks can't accept that I don't have some secret agenda.  I'm not even sure what you are remotely implying...they going to draw my name or give me some discount coupons? (;

[elkinrutdrivemenuts]

There is always more than just one factor. Thank you for pointing this out.  It sounds like you have seen the changes here first hand. It is obvious that the land management practices have been forgotten.  That is one thing I would love to see Idaho put as much effort into as they have managing the wolf population.  We need better management of our timber lands.

And the elk hunting is still good here, put your work into it and you will be successful.  It is still much better than Washington and the primary reason I left that state.

Just in case you missed it (see the bottom line):

I look forward to seeing this carried out.

[idaho guy]

There is always more than just one factor. Thank you for pointing this out.  It sounds like you have seen the changes here first hand. It is obvious that the land management practices have been forgotten.  That is one thing I would love to see Idaho put as much effort into as they have managing the wolf population.  We need better management of our timber lands.

And the elk hunting is still good here, put your work into it and you will be successful.  It is still much better than Washington and the primary reason I left that state.

Just in case you missed it (see the bottom line):

I look forward to seeing this carried out.

I think they are already doing this, where they can, they did a bunch of logging and then a controlled burn on the forest service land behind my house this year. It needed it badly. No one is saying idaho elk hunting is still not really good in most areas-some areas have been decimated.  The point I want to make is why do we have to look at facts presented by bearpaw clearly showing uncontrolled wolves kill too many elk and come up with alternative reasons for the elk decline? Too many wolves kill too many elk-end of story.