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

[Dan-o]

Good point.

Either way, I'm sure that the data shown in that last elk population graph is in no way related to the the wolf population (inset graph).

In statistics, these graphs are what we call "spurious data".

[KFhunter]

HW's resident tsar of complication absurdity should be along shortly to explain all of this to us simpletons.

[Bob33]

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

Personally speaking, in debates I tend to side more with those that present their views without resorting to name calling or insults. 

[wolfbait]

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

Personally speaking, in debates I tend to side more with those that present their views without resorting to name calling or insults. 

You must do a lot of fence leaping with the wolf debates, eh? Have you ever slipped and got to acres for free?

Of all the wolf info post on this site, and others, 18 plus years,  it's hard to understand that some folks still try to down play the impact wolves have had where ever they end up. Every state that wolves end up "migrating" to, have the same impacts on livestock and ungulates as MT, WY, and Idaho. More studies will not change the outcome, wolves kill and breed, thats the only things they do.

[idahohuntr]

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

Personally speaking, in debates I tend to side more with those that present their views without resorting to name calling or insults. 

I feel like some folks have a hard time differentiating attacking logic, ideas and data from personal attacks (and I'm not suggesting that's you bob33).  It is not a personal attack to point out misinformation or provide different perspectives and interpretations.  I feel like I always attack the logic/idea...but then I almost always get a response trying to attack my credibility (he's not a hunter, he works for wdfw etc.).  I'm not a conflict averse person so I usually do get sucked into the back and forth and that is my fault.  I actually think *most* of the time bearpaw does set the example pretty well for how to respond to people who disagree with the logic, data etc. that he posts...he doesn't back down but he usually tries hard to focus on the topic, not the individual. 

[bearpaw]

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

Personally speaking, in debates I tend to side more with those that present their views without resorting to name calling or insults. 

I feel like some folks have a hard time differentiating attacking logic, ideas and data from personal attacks (and I'm not suggesting that's you bob33).  It is not a personal attack to point out misinformation or provide different perspectives and interpretations.  I feel like I always attack the logic/idea...but then I almost always get a response trying to attack my credibility (he's not a hunter, he works for wdfw etc.).  I'm not a conflict averse person so I usually do get sucked into the back and forth and that is my fault.  I actually think *most* of the time bearpaw does set the example pretty well for how to respond to people who disagree with the logic, data etc. that he posts...he doesn't back down but he usually tries hard to focus on the topic, not the individual.

  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, you've done as much name calling and or made demeaning/insulting comments as anyone on this forum. KFhunter used to have a very small sampling of your finesse in his signature. You have called me names and insulted on uncountable occasions, I am learning to ignore your low level of communication and not get drawn to that level, but occasionally it is hard to ignore your insults/name calling and human reaction gets the best of me!

[grundy53]

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

Personally speaking, in debates I tend to side more with those that present their views without resorting to name calling or insults. 

I feel like some folks have a hard time differentiating attacking logic, ideas and data from personal attacks (and I'm not suggesting that's you bob33).  It is not a personal attack to point out misinformation or provide different perspectives and interpretations.  I feel like I always attack the logic/idea...but then I almost always get a response trying to attack my credibility (he's not a hunter, he works for wdfw etc.).  I'm not a conflict averse person so I usually do get sucked into the back and forth and that is my fault.  I actually think *most* of the time bearpaw does set the example pretty well for how to respond to people who disagree with the logic, data etc. that he posts...he doesn't back down but he usually tries hard to focus on the topic, not the individual.

  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, you've done as much name calling and or made demeaning/insulting comments as anyone on this forum. KFhunter used to have a very small sampling of your finesse in his signature. You have called me names and insulted on uncountable occasions, I am learning to ignore your low level of communication and not get drawn to that level, but occasionally it is hard to ignore your insults/name calling and human reaction gets the best of me!

sent from my typewriter

[AspenBud]

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

Bad example, there are many many many instances of elk walking into peoples' yards and causing problems in places with no wolves in sight.

[AspenBud]

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....

So do the wolves in the park. What has happened there is exactly what was advertised when they turned them loose there. They made no secret of the expected results.

[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....

So do the wolves in the park. What has happened there is exactly what was advertised when they turned them loose there. They made no secret of the expected results.

Thankyou, BINGO, that is certainly their intended purpose for wolves everywhere! Reduce herds!

Some people fail to see the ultimate goal! 

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....

Could it be that park visitors and Iphones are scaring the elk to death, perhaps we need to gate off the park so the elk don't see humans and Iphones and then remove the roads. Gating and removing roads and reducing human recreational opportunity seems to be the answer always claimed by the other side to solve the problem?

[AspenBud]

The problem with these things is the matter of what we don't know.

Elk might have survived and appeared to have suitable habitat in areas before wolves came along but I very much doubt anyone here really knows what good escape cover suitable for getting away from wolves looks like. I know I don't.

There is also the matter of inferior animals surviving in the absence of a predator like a wolf. What appears to be an otherwise healthy animal may in fact be less able to escape, or fight off, wolves. Not all elk are born equal and in the absence of an effective predator like a wolf the gene pool gets watered down because more than just the strong survive. No one knows what kind of damage was done genetically over decades without a predator like the wolf.

Let me state that again because I know someone will want to argue it. Just because an animal looks healthy does not mean it was born with the tools it needs to survive wolves. It's like Navy SEAL dogs. Most that enter the program wash out, but a small slice of the gene pool make it and inevitably those are the dogs you breed. Most elk born are not tough enough to survive in the presence of wolves either, but some are. In dog breeding you breed best of breed together to get the best results consistently. If you don't you start to get inconsistent and inferior results. The same applies in nature depending on circumstances.

The point is those graphs probably do show that wolves have caused those declines. But the question you have to ask is what other factors may have contributed to that? I realize this is a section about wolves and that's the focus but if we're going to be serious about elk we need to look at everything that could be leading to their demise.

The simple and obvious solution is to shoot wolves, but I think the point others have tried to make is there is likely more to the problem than just wolves. One question is does anyone care to find out? In a lot of ways what the pro wolf folks have done is play with eugenics as it relates to elk. The elk were fine before wolves, there might have been too many in some places but that could have been handled. But what is happening now is wholesale culling by way of wolves, for those who wanted that they got it. But not everyone wanted to see that experiment happen. But it has and now we have to look at the grand picture because wolves are here to stay, hunted or not, so it's wise to look at other potential contributing factors to elk decline.   

[AspenBud]

99% of dogs bred for field trials will fail to make the cut. Circumstance and genetics cause that.

Arguably the same applies to elk. Drop predators like wolves into an area full of elk that have never seen wolves before and have bred for generations without their presence and 99% will most likely fail to survive because of circumstances and genetics.

Field trailers often want to know what made that 1% different. We should be asking the same with regards to surviving elk as long as we have wolves running around.

[Gringo31]

Sounds like a politician. 

With this wishy washy type of thinking.  Lets double the harvest rate and blame "other" factors and pat ourselves on the back to be helping the genetics of elk as we only kill the dumb ones. 

[AspenBud]

Sounds like a politician. 

With this wishy washy type of thinking.  Lets double the harvest rate and blame "other" factors and pat ourselves on the back to be helping the genetics of elk as we only kill the dumb ones. 

There's nothing wishy washy about it and you're right the matter is very political. I hate to put it this way, but releasing wolves on the existing elk populations in the lower 48 was the equivalent of sending small pox infested blankets to Native Americans who had never ever been exposed to such a disease. The kill rate is horrifically high.

The thing is, we had the political will to eradicate small pox in the long run. But we don't have such will with wolves these days so in the face of that you have to look into what increases elk survival rates. What causes them to fall prey to wolves? What can be done to limit that? The obvious answer is to manage wolves, but what over and above that can be done?

It's no secret that forest management practices in this country, particularly on National Forest lands, have gone down the toilet. I can likely find a graph that would similarly show the decline of forest management and a correlation with decreasing elk numbers in some of those affected areas in Idaho.

Again, I recognize this is a wolf forum and as such other factors aren't the focus, but serious elk management in the age of wolves requires looking beyond the predator.

[bearpaw]

Sounds like a politician. 

With this wishy washy type of thinking.  Lets double the harvest rate and blame "other" factors and pat ourselves on the back to be helping the genetics of elk as we only kill the dumb ones. 

There's nothing wishy washy about it and you're right the matter is very political. I hate to put it this way, but releasing wolves on the existing elk populations in the lower 48 was the equivalent of sending small pox infested blankets to Native Americans who had never ever been exposed to such a disease. The kill rate is horrifically high.

The thing is, we had the political will to eradicate small pox in the long run. But we don't have such will with wolves these days so in the face of that you have to look into what increases elk survival rates. What causes them to fall prey to wolves? What can be done to limit that? The obvious answer is to manage wolves, but what over and above that can be done?

It's no secret that forest management practices in this country, particularly on National Forest lands, have gone down the toilet. I can likely find a graph that would similarly show the decline of forest management and a correlation with decreasing elk numbers in some of those affected areas in Idaho.

Again, I recognize this is a wolf forum and as such other factors aren't the focus, but serious elk management in the age of wolves requires looking beyond the predator.

I agree with your post, excessive hunting seasons and reduced logging in the Lolo caused the initial elk decline and similarly in some other units. However, we can't forget that smallpox (and wolves) is a fatal disease, we need to continually immunize for smallpox (and wolves) to keep the disease from getting out of hand.