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

[mfswallace]

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.   

 

[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.

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.   

I don't think it clearly shows that at all. What year were the wolves introduced in the units, or when was their presence first reported?  That is no where on the graphs, unless I am completely missing that?  I also see a large over all decline from the late 80's to now is some units.  I don't recall hearing about wolves back then, maybe I am wrong though? I think the point others and myself are trying to make, is that these graphs show only hunter success rates which take into account many different variables that has been mentioned.  It would be nice to see these graphs overlay-ed with the introduction and rise in the wolf population.  Better yet, elk populations by unit overlay-ed with wolf populations over the years starting in the late 80's.  Then we would start to see more specific information relating to the point trying to be made.  We could then see what populations were doing pre and post introduction.

[AspenBud]

Correlation is not proof of causation, but causation will create a correlation.

[mfswallace]

Deny, deny, more stuies needed, deny, deny, different information needed, deny, deny,......

at some point heads need to come out of the sand   

[elkinrutdrivemenuts]

Deny, deny, more stuies needed, deny, deny, different information needed, deny, deny,......

at some point heads need to come out of the sand   

Who the heck is denying anything?  I'm trying to show that the wrong statistics are being used to show their direct impact on elk.  We all know wolves kill elk and have changed hunter success rates, but these charts aren't going to prove anything to someone who doesn't believe they impact the populations as much as they really do.  There is to much information missing to come to any sort of a conclusion as to why hunter success rates have diminished, unless you are only showing it to like minded individuals, then yes it works.

[wolfbait]

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.   

I don't think it clearly shows that at all. What year were the wolves introduced in the units, or when was their presence first reported?  That is no where on the graphs, unless I am completely missing that?  I also see a large over all decline from the late 80's to now is some units.  I don't recall hearing about wolves back then, maybe I am wrong though? I think the point others and myself are trying to make, is that these graphs show only hunter success rates which take into account many different variables that has been mentioned.  It would be nice to see these graphs overlay-ed with the introduction and rise in the wolf population.  Better yet, elk populations by unit overlay-ed with wolf populations over the years starting in the late 80's.  Then we would start to see more specific information relating to the point trying to be made.  We could then see what populations were doing pre and post introduction.

Look at the impact wolves have had on livestock since the wolf introduction, we all know that isn't an equal comparison. But before the introduction there were very few wolf problems, the habitat was still the same, climate the same, the only factor that changed was an added predator that was protected above all else. In some case the wolves were killed for livestock predation, but it was open season on the elk etc.

 I don't believe anyone can honestly discount the wolves as the reason for the impact and decline of the elk herds, knowing the facts since the wolf introduction.

[mfswallace]

Deny, deny, more stuies needed, deny, deny, different information needed, deny, deny,......

at some point heads need to come out of the sand   

Who the heck is denying anything?  I'm trying to show that the wrong statistics are being used to show their direct impact on elk.  We all know wolves kill elk and have changed hunter success rates, but these charts aren't going to prove anything to someone who doesn't believe they impact the populations as much as they really do.  There is to much information missing to come to any sort of a conclusion as to why hunter success rates have diminished, unless you are only showing it to like minded individuals, then yes it works.

 

 deflect, deflect, we need more studies, deflect, deflect, different information needed, deflect, deflect....

yes, individuals with a mind do see the connection of 800-1000 wolves and significantly less elk 

[idahohuntr]

I don't think it clearly shows that at all. What year were the wolves introduced in the units, or when was their presence first reported?  That is no where on the graphs, unless I am completely missing that?  I also see a large over all decline from the late 80's to now is some units.  I don't recall hearing about wolves back then, maybe I am wrong though? I think the point others and myself are trying to make, is that these graphs show only hunter success rates which take into account many different variables that has been mentioned.  It would be nice to see these graphs overlay-ed with the introduction and rise in the wolf population.  Better yet, elk populations by unit overlay-ed with wolf populations over the years starting in the late 80's.  Then we would start to see more specific information relating to the point trying to be made.  We could then see what populations were doing pre and post introduction.

I mostly think some folks are insecure about their beliefs or understanding and so when other people point out very valid and obvious reasons the graphs bearpaw posted to "show" what wolves do to elk herds as incomplete at best, they get very defensive.  I don't understand why...I even go to great lengths now to state the obvious...wolves do indeed eat elk...before I explained why the graphs do not justify the title of this thread as some would have you believe.

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.   

You are being far too simplistic.  If ungulate numbers were only a function of predator numbers life would be easy for game managers...very easy.  Its not.  It is very complex and so you can't just post a graph and suggest you know the answer to managing an elk herd (and bearpaw didn't do this..although his thread title was somewhat misleading).  We have to look at all factors in order to effectively manage the resource...while some try to spin that as blaming anything but wolves I see it as being thorough...there are a whole lot of units in the west that have decreased deer and elk herds and it is not just wolves, wolves, wolves.

[KFhunter]

Wolves do more than "eat elk"

They harass them non-stop.

This affects calf recruitment and makes whole herds more susceptible to winterkill - expending calories running from wolves instead of surviving a bad winter.

A pack of wolves coming into a calving area can run wet cows out of a whole valley, leaving a bunch of starving calves for the bears/yotes to come clean up.




You're the one whose over simplifying things here. If *only* the wolves just ate elk 

[idahohuntr]

Wolves do more than "eat elk"

They harass them non-stop.

This affects calf recruitment and makes whole herds more susceptible to winterkill - expending calories running from wolves instead of surviving a bad winter.

A pack of wolves coming into a calving area can run wet cows out of a whole valley, leaving a bunch of starving calves for the bears/yotes to come clean up.




You're the one whose over simplifying things here. If *only* the wolves just ate elk 

I am the one trying to explain how complex things are...I never said the only impacts wolves have is physically eating them...I was just pointing out the absurd lengths I go to now because when I would post these complexities people would chime in that I was trying to cover up the notion that wolves eat elk. 

If you go back to my first post in this thread you will see where I very clearly state in the first line: wolves have impacts on elk numbers and behavior...this would obviously encompass all of the things you mention above, but you clearly missed what I said...happens to all of us 

[KFhunter]

Wolves do more than "eat elk"

They harass them non-stop.

This affects calf recruitment and makes whole herds more susceptible to winterkill - expending calories running from wolves instead of surviving a bad winter.

A pack of wolves coming into a calving area can run wet cows out of a whole valley, leaving a bunch of starving calves for the bears/yotes to come clean up.




You're the one whose over simplifying things here. If *only* the wolves just ate elk 

I am the one trying to explain how complex things are...I never said the only impacts wolves have is physically eating them...I was just pointing out the absurd lengths I go to now because when I would post these complexities people would chime in that I was trying to cover up the notion that wolves eat elk. 

If you go back to my first post in this thread you will see where I very clearly state in the first line: wolves have impacts on elk numbers and behavior...this would obviously encompass all of the things you mention above, but you clearly missed what I said...happens to all of us 

When an otherwise intelligent person is loosing a debate they tend to go to great lengths make things absurdly complex.

[idahohuntr]

First you say im simplifying things, then when I point out to you that actually I'm not...well then your back to saying I make things complex because I'm "loosing" the debate  Ol' John Kerry ain't got nothing on you when it comes to flip flopping 

[bearpaw]

Greater Yellowstone Elk Herd
Late hunts on winter range outside the park have been curtailed, logging shouldn't be a factor, I don't think development is a factor with this herd.

Herd continues to decline....

[Dan-o]

That graph clearly shows that the Greater Yellowstone Elk Herd was made up predominantly of old and sick elk.

Eventually, the wolves should get it trimmed down to a couple hundred really healthy elk.

[KFhunter]

or Elk smart enough to hang out in the parking lots hob knobbing with the tourists.