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

[jasnt]

Im sure some pro wolfer will be along shortly to try and discredit that.  It blows my mind how these pro-wolf folks are so quick to blow off facts and start attaching the messenger so to speak.  I thank you guys that keep the facts straight.

[idahohuntr]

I don't understand what that long-winded post is even trying to say??  IDFG is doing a bad job and there are no elk left in Idaho? Idaho is conspiring to exterminate hunting?  It rambles so many different directions it's hard to follow what the point is.  Maybe my eyes are tired from pouring over all the maps where I will be elk hunting in Idaho this fall and I missed the point 

[wolfbait]

I don't understand what that long-winded post is even trying to say??  IDFG is doing a bad job and there are no elk left in Idaho? Idaho is conspiring to exterminate hunting?  It rambles so many different directions it's hard to follow what the point is.  Maybe my eyes are tired from pouring over all the maps where I will be elk hunting in Idaho this fall and I missed the point 

Maybe you need to get some new glasses? Maybe you have been in the smoke too long? Maybe the facts have rendered your mind into a state of blankness?

[idaho guy]

One other bit of background.  I have hunted Idaho for over 20 years, with the lifetime license continue hunting elk there.  To you who say the wolves haven't impacted the panhandle thank God they haven't found your particular little honey hole yet.  They moved into mine a couple years ago, and there has definitely been a devastating impact.  Wolves aren't everywhere at once, but in the drainages a pack resides it is a mess.   

Finally someone else that has seen firsthand what wolves do too honey holes in Idaho.(sorry they got into your spot)This is the exact point I have been trying to make. You can argue other factors all you want but if you spend enough time in the Idaho woods you will see with your own eyes exactly what wolves can do. Aspen bud your genetically inferior elk argument is exactly what the enviro pro wolfers have been saying since wolves were reintroduced. There were plenty of predators before wolves that could cull the inferior animails but they actually regulated their killing to keep the herds large and healthy, They were called hunters. But thats what this wolf thing is all about anyways introducing a new predator to reduce the herds so there is no surplus and eventually eliminate the need for human hunters. Reducing the wolf has to be the focal point on helping elk -habitat all that is important too but we need to control wolves. Yes Idaho elk huntting is still good and we are controlling wolves so we will be fine. But we need to QUIT trying to deflect the blame of wolves it is counterproductive to helping our elk   

[idahohuntr]

But we need to QUIT trying to deflect the blame of wolves it is counterproductive to helping our elk   

Its not deflecting blame, its keeping all of the factors that influence elk abundance in proportion to the magnitude of the effect.  The reality is the effects of wolves on elk have been greatly exxagerated by some and significantly downplayed by others.  Reality is wolves impact elk differently in different areas...and those impacts range from virtually 0 to fairly substantial.  I would argue that where wolves have the largest impacts also correlate to areas with relatively poor habitat (e.g., Lolo)...is there a link there?  It is just as bad to ignore the impacts of wolves as it is to ignore all of the other factors (ag, habitat, poaching, weather, etc.) that have a collectively more significant impact on elk.  Hunters tend to get really spun up on wolves, but where is the habitat thread? The ag practices thread? the depredation claims thread?  All of these have profound impacts on elk abundance but get none of the attention that a few hundred wolves do.  Frankly...hunting turning into a rich mans sport is about a million times more likely to prevent the average joe from hunting in the future than any predator population....wolves, lions, bears whatever. 

[mfswallace]

But we need to QUIT trying to deflect the blame of wolves it is counterproductive to helping our elk   

Its not deflecting blame, its keeping all of the factors that influence elk abundance in proportion to the magnitude of the effect.  The reality is the effects of wolves on elk have been greatly exxagerated by some and significantly downplayed by others.  Reality is wolves impact elk differently in different areas...and those impacts range from virtually 0 to fairly substantial.  I would argue that where wolves have the largest impacts also correlate to areas with relatively poor habitat (e.g., Lolo)...is there a link there?  It is just as bad to ignore the impacts of wolves as it is to ignore all of the other factors (ag, habitat, poaching, weather, etc.) that have a collectively more significant impact on elk.  Hunters tend to get really spun up on wolves, but where is the habitat thread? The ag practices thread? the depredation claims thread?  All of these have profound impacts on elk abundance but get none of the attention that a few hundred wolves do.  Frankly...hunting turning into a rich mans sport is about a million times more likely to prevent the average joe from hunting in the future than any predator population....wolves, lions, bears whatever.

Your right again it's not wolves it's everything else    

[idaho guy]

But we need to QUIT trying to deflect the blame of wolves it is counterproductive to helping our elk   

Its not deflecting blame, its keeping all of the factors that influence elk abundance in proportion to the magnitude of the effect.  The reality is the effects of wolves on elk have been greatly exxagerated by some and significantly downplayed by others.  Reality is wolves impact elk differently in different areas...and those impacts range from virtually 0 to fairly substantial.  I would argue that where wolves have the largest impacts also correlate to areas with relatively poor habitat (e.g., Lolo)...is there a link there?  It is just as bad to ignore the impacts of wolves as it is to ignore all of the other factors (ag, habitat, poaching, weather, etc.) that have a collectively more significant impact on elk.  Hunters tend to get really spun up on wolves, but where is the habitat thread? The ag practices thread? the depredation claims thread?  All of these have profound impacts on elk abundance but get none of the attention that a few hundred wolves do.  Frankly...hunting turning into a rich mans sport is about a million times more likely to prevent the average joe from hunting in the future than any predator population....wolves, lions, bears whatever.

Your right again it's not wolves it's everything else    

[kentrek]

But we need to QUIT trying to deflect the blame of wolves it is counterproductive to helping our elk   

Its not deflecting blame, its keeping all of the factors that influence elk abundance in proportion to the magnitude of the effect.  The reality is the effects of wolves on elk have been greatly exxagerated by some and significantly downplayed by others.  Reality is wolves impact elk differently in different areas...and those impacts range from virtually 0 to fairly substantial.  I would argue that where wolves have the largest impacts also correlate to areas with relatively poor habitat (e.g., Lolo)...is there a link there?  It is just as bad to ignore the impacts of wolves as it is to ignore all of the other factors (ag, habitat, poaching, weather, etc.) that have a collectively more significant impact on elk.  Hunters tend to get really spun up on wolves, but where is the habitat thread? The ag practices thread? the depredation claims thread?  All of these have profound impacts on elk abundance but get none of the attention that a few hundred wolves do.  Frankly...hunting turning into a rich mans sport is about a million times more likely to prevent the average joe from hunting in the future than any predator population....wolves, lions, bears whatever.

  everything is conected in one way or another.....i think the key thing is thing to remember is that wolves "tipped" the scale over...everything was pretty balanced prior to there introduction and now its in the process of re balancing its self...some areas re balance faster than others

im still gona kill elk in some pretty wolf infested areas and im hopefully gona kill every dang dog i see 

also....i think hunters restricting hunters is gona have a greater impact than wolves every thought of having

[bearpaw]

But we need to QUIT trying to deflect the blame of wolves it is counterproductive to helping our elk   

Its not deflecting blame, its keeping all of the factors that influence elk abundance in proportion to the magnitude of the effect.  The reality is the effects of wolves on elk have been greatly exxagerated by some and significantly downplayed by others.  Reality is wolves impact elk differently in different areas...and those impacts range from virtually 0 to fairly substantial.  I would argue that where wolves have the largest impacts also correlate to areas with relatively poor habitat (e.g., Lolo)...is there a link there?  It is just as bad to ignore the impacts of wolves as it is to ignore all of the other factors (ag, habitat, poaching, weather, etc.) that have a collectively more significant impact on elk.  Hunters tend to get really spun up on wolves, but where is the habitat thread? The ag practices thread? the depredation claims thread?  All of these have profound impacts on elk abundance but get none of the attention that a few hundred wolves do.  Frankly...hunting turning into a rich mans sport is about a million times more likely to prevent the average joe from hunting in the future than any predator population....wolves, lions, bears whatever.

Wolves have a huge impact, simple math tells the story. Each wolf kills the equivalent of 44 deer or 17 elk per year, but most often a mix of elk/moose/deer and whatever else they catch. An area with 1 pack of ten wolves is going to lose the equivalent of 440 deer or 170 elk/moose to wolves annually. If a region has 100 wolves that is 4,400 deer or 1700 elk/moose. When you 1000 or more wolves like Idaho, then you have numerous units below management objective. Those predation numbers come from a government study in YNP where they physically inspected kills to confirm how many animals the wolves killed, that is what they found, nobody knows how many kills they did not find.

The worst impacts by wolves are in more remote areas and units with fewer human inhabitants to thin the wolf numbers, look at the map of Idaho with the heaviest wolf impacts! 

[idahohuntr]

But we need to QUIT trying to deflect the blame of wolves it is counterproductive to helping our elk   

Its not deflecting blame, its keeping all of the factors that influence elk abundance in proportion to the magnitude of the effect.  The reality is the effects of wolves on elk have been greatly exxagerated by some and significantly downplayed by others.  Reality is wolves impact elk differently in different areas...and those impacts range from virtually 0 to fairly substantial.  I would argue that where wolves have the largest impacts also correlate to areas with relatively poor habitat (e.g., Lolo)...is there a link there?  It is just as bad to ignore the impacts of wolves as it is to ignore all of the other factors (ag, habitat, poaching, weather, etc.) that have a collectively more significant impact on elk.  Hunters tend to get really spun up on wolves, but where is the habitat thread? The ag practices thread? the depredation claims thread?  All of these have profound impacts on elk abundance but get none of the attention that a few hundred wolves do.  Frankly...hunting turning into a rich mans sport is about a million times more likely to prevent the average joe from hunting in the future than any predator population....wolves, lions, bears whatever.

Wolves have a huge impact, simple math tells the story. Each wolf kills the equivalent of 44 deer or 17 elk per year, but most often a mix of elk/moose/deer and whatever else they catch. An area with 1 pack of ten wolves is going to lose the equivalent of 440 deer or 170 elk/moose to wolves annually. If a region has 100 wolves that is 4,400 deer or 1700 elk/moose. When you 1000 or more wolves like Idaho, then you have numerous units below management objective. Those predation numbers come from a government study in YNP where they physically inspected kills to confirm how many animals the wolves killed, that is what they found, nobody knows how many kills they did not find.

The worst impacts by wolves are in more remote areas and units with fewer human inhabitants to thin the wolf numbers, look at the map of Idaho with the heaviest wolf impacts! 

Yes, wolves do eat elk and deer.  However the math is not as simple as you seem to suggest and the numbers you present are easily misconstrued.  Compensatory mortality is a big factor in almost all scenarios and so it is not accurate to suggest an elk herd would decrease in size by 170 animals annually as long as a pack of 10 wolves is present.  If that were remotely accurate there would be almost no elk in large swaths of Idaho given wolves have been present for 20 years...I think you and I agree nothing could be further from the truth...most of Idaho is actually doing pretty well.

[elkoholic1]

Seems to me the decline started right after Obama took office, but its likely Bush's fault, not the wolves.