Idaho wolf survey reveals thriving breeding numbers

[MtnMuley]

so why don't you tell us who you would like to have seen hired as director if Unsworth is such a bad choice?

 That may have been a valid question, had the list of applicants been shared.

IDFG has done a great job with the hand they were dealt.  Also the predator and habitat issues are not mutually exclusive.  I get that the facts don't fit the hysteria you frequently try to peddle, so why don't you tell us who you would like to have seen hired as director if Unsworth is such a bad choice?

Wolfbait won't answer that question. I already asked him.

How could he or anybody else answer this question when they don't know who their choices were?? Some big secret list that apparently some know of......I call BS. Otherwise the question would have been answered after the third time it was asked.

[DOUBLELUNG]

  If folks want to make every wolf topic a referendum on Jim Unsworth...then I think its fair to ask who should have been hired as director.  If they don't want to answer the simple question then I find it appropriate to point out while some constantly complain about Unsworth they are not providing a viable candidate who should have been hired.

I think that is an interesting question. Im not sure how many other people have western states experience AND would be willing to move to Washington. I would argue that most of the people we NEED would be unwilling to leave they state they are working in to come to a department with VERY low staff morale, and the political situation we have in this state.

Very well said. 

[hirshey]

Isn't this Unworth's baby, you know, the one that Washington hunters have started to praise for his great work in Idaho ?

Yes, I'm glad you recognize the good work Unsworth has been a part of in Idaho.  Navigating the state to a position where they can manage wolves, not be hampered by federal restrictions, no longer ESA listed, send trappers and helicopters to kill wolves in areas where predation is significant on big game...the list goes on and on.  In all of the states with wolves I would have a hard time finding one that has done it better than Idaho.

I agree with you, Idahohuntr.. Sadly the same plan implementation will not be sustainable in Washington with all the bleeding hearts in Seattle-Olympia that govern based on emotions and not science. Even the "wolf experts" we support and employ in this state called that article an "opinion piece" and then went on to spotlight another article on the British Columbia wolf culling to protect woodland caribou, calling it "murder". The way we frame the issue in Washington is different than Idaho. We employ people who established wolves in Idaho and work with Wolf Haven and pretend a conflict of interest doesn't exist.

Hirshey, if you are saying that you agreed with IDFG's wolf management? Then you should be happy with WDFW's wolf management to date.

WDFW at six plus years later with five BP's, it would appear WDFW are managing for more wolves also

I can't see how WA will fair too well when we compare WA and Idaho"s game herds before wolf introduction.

When it's all said an done how will WA be different then ID, MT, and WY with environmental lawsuits?

I think your last question is precisely what I addressed in my previous comment. Idaho fish and game post-introduction has been very proactive in wolf management. Lawsuits have prevented them from managing the population to their most effective abilities (ending the trapper's season in the Frank Church, for example) but that was not an IDFG issue.. That was a law suit issue put forth by wolf advocates. Their voices are louder in WA so we won't be able to manage based on science as well as Idaho has. The resounding fact is wolves are here to stay.. So what can we do to support our game herds into the future?

[wolfbait]

  If folks want to make every wolf topic a referendum on Jim Unsworth...then I think its fair to ask who should have been hired as director.  If they don't want to answer the simple question then I find it appropriate to point out while some constantly complain about Unsworth they are not providing a viable candidate who should have been hired.

I think that is an interesting question. Im not sure how many other people have western states experience AND would be willing to move to Washington. I would argue that most of the people we NEED would be unwilling to leave they state they are working in to come to a department with VERY low staff morale, and the political situation we have in this state.

Very well said.

"some constantly complain about Unsworth"

No one in WA has any complaints about Jim Unsworth yet, what has happened is information of some of his history with IDFG has been shared, it's called vetting.

Who were the other candidates that ran for the job? Why is it a "big" secret, where only the "privileged" can access the information?

[wolfbait]

Isn't this Unworth's baby, you know, the one that Washington hunters have started to praise for his great work in Idaho ?

Yes, I'm glad you recognize the good work Unsworth has been a part of in Idaho.  Navigating the state to a position where they can manage wolves, not be hampered by federal restrictions, no longer ESA listed, send trappers and helicopters to kill wolves in areas where predation is significant on big game...the list goes on and on.  In all of the states with wolves I would have a hard time finding one that has done it better than Idaho.

I agree with you, Idahohuntr.. Sadly the same plan implementation will not be sustainable in Washington with all the bleeding hearts in Seattle-Olympia that govern based on emotions and not science. Even the "wolf experts" we support and employ in this state called that article an "opinion piece" and then went on to spotlight another article on the British Columbia wolf culling to protect woodland caribou, calling it "murder". The way we frame the issue in Washington is different than Idaho. We employ people who established wolves in Idaho and work with Wolf Haven and pretend a conflict of interest doesn't exist.

Hirshey, if you are saying that you agreed with IDFG's wolf management? Then you should be happy with WDFW's wolf management to date.

WDFW at six plus years later with five BP's, it would appear WDFW are managing for more wolves also

I can't see how WA will fair too well when we compare WA and Idaho"s game herds before wolf introduction.

When it's all said an done how will WA be different then ID, MT, and WY with environmental lawsuits?

I think your last question is precisely what I addressed in my previous comment. Idaho fish and game post-introduction has been very proactive in wolf management. Lawsuits have prevented them from managing the population to their most effective abilities (ending the trapper's season in the Frank Church, for example) but that was not an IDFG issue.. That was a law suit issue put forth by wolf advocates. Their voices are louder in WA so we won't be able to manage based on science as well as Idaho has. The resounding fact is wolves are here to stay.. So what can we do to support our game herds into the future?

Lawsuits didn't force IDFG to blame habitat for the decline in the Lolo elk herd, or from using the 10j rule to reduce wolf impacts of game herds, or the underestimation of wolves. You read up on IDFG and their wolf management and you will see where WDFW are following in their footsteps.

[idahohuntr]

The resounding fact is wolves are here to stay.. So what can we do to support our game herds into the future?

Exactly.  And the answer to your question without a doubt is Habitat protection and restoration. 

[hirshey]

AND wolf hunting. AND removal of problem animals and packs. AND managing based on sound science, not agenda. From EITHER side.. But wolves will not be exterminated even with year-round open seasons. I've seen wolves in Washington 5 times now, and have gone wolf hunting in Idaho and have eaten my $64 in tags each year. They are smart, and elusive, and were only removed the first time by poison and any avenue available. They're here. Set up a season and it'll prove me right. No amount of tags will remove them from the ecosystem. And I hate the BS about clear cuts ruining the ungulate habitat. The herds have thrived with parcels of clear cuts for a long time.. In fact when you discuss FOOD, water, shelter... The best browse is in 2-4 year old clear cuts. Dynamic habitat has been preserved and created through logging for a long time. And you can't blame the declining ungulate numbers in the Lolo on habitat loss.. The carrying capacity for that area is much higher than the population.. Hence the reason helicopter removal of some of those animals was enacted.

[wolfbait]

The resounding fact is wolves are here to stay.. So what can we do to support our game herds into the future?

Exactly.  And the answer to your question without a doubt is Habitat protection and restoration.

Back to habitat>>Priceless

[mfswallace]

The resounding fact is wolves are here to stay.. So what can we do to support our game herds into the future?

Exactly.  And the answer to your question without a doubt is Habitat protection and restoration.

Why not reduce wolves?? Don't the facts show that even if habitat is limited game herds can survive and even thrive where there are no/less wolves?  You can build the biggest and best hen house but once a Fox gets in, its over unless you eliminate the Fox, right? 

 U can't tell me idhunt that if wolves were eliminated from the Lolo elk wouldn't rebound with the "limited" habitat that is there...
While I'm not a biologist doesn't common sense come in to play at some point   

[wolfbait]

Predation and the Ecology of Fear

http://idahoforwildlife.com/Charles%20Kay/82-Predation%20and%20the%20ecology%20of%20fear.pdf

[idahohuntr]

AND wolf hunting. AND removal of problem animals and packs. AND managing based on sound science, not agenda. From EITHER side.. But wolves will not be exterminated even with year-round open seasons. I've seen wolves in Washington 5 times now, and have gone wolf hunting in Idaho and have eaten my $64 in tags each year. They are smart, and elusive, and were only removed the first time by poison and any avenue available. They're here. Set up a season and it'll prove me right. No amount of tags will remove them from the ecosystem. And I hate the BS about clear cuts ruining the ungulate habitat. The herds have thrived with parcels of clear cuts for a long time.. In fact when you discuss FOOD, water, shelter... The best browse is in 2-4 year old clear cuts. Dynamic habitat has been preserved and created through logging for a long time. And you can't blame the declining ungulate numbers in the Lolo on habitat loss.. The carrying capacity for that area is much higher than the population.. Hence the reason helicopter removal of some of those animals was enacted.

Yes, but as you already pointed out, which I have stated for several years now...the wolf management of Idaho will not be politically tolerated here in WA.  So while we can hope for wolf seasons and control actions, we also need to be thinking what else we can do to help ungulates. 

To your last couple of points...I'm not aware of anyone suggesting clear cuts and low intensity fires are not beneficial to ungulates...its a big reason the 70's and 80's were a boom for elk in Idaho.  Maybe some ultra green group has said this, but no one credible would argue clearcuts aren't usually a benefit to ungulates.

On Lolo...both habitat and predation are major factors in low elk numbers.  Again, Im not aware of anyone credible that doesn't acknowledge habitat and predation are extremely limiting to elk in the Lolo.  Its why elk numbers started declining well before wolves were ever reintroduced in the Lolo. 

U can't tell me idhunt that if wolves were eliminated from the Lolo elk wouldn't rebound with the "limited" habitat that is there...
While I'm not a biologist doesn't common sense come in to play at some point   

Im not telling you any such thing.  If there were no wolves, no lions, and no bears, absolutely I would expect increased elk numbers...it still would not be what folks remember from the 70's and 80's though.  We can all agree wolves will never be eliminated from the Lolo area...with predation management and large habitat improvement projects, we could see sizeable gains in elk numbers though.  I want to reiterate to you and Hirshey, predation and habitat issues are not mutually exclusive...it can be both and in the Lolo it is definitely both. 

[Sitka_Blacktail]

so why don't you tell us who you would like to have seen hired as director if Unsworth is such a bad choice?

 That may have been a valid question, had the list of applicants been shared.

IDFG has done a great job with the hand they were dealt.  Also the predator and habitat issues are not mutually exclusive.  I get that the facts don't fit the hysteria you frequently try to peddle, so why don't you tell us who you would like to have seen hired as director if Unsworth is such a bad choice?

Wolfbait won't answer that question. I already asked him.

How could he or anybody else answer this question when they don't know who their choices were?? Some big secret list that apparently some know of......I call BS. Otherwise the question would have been answered after the third time it was asked.

As far as I'm concerned, he could name anyone on the planet. All I want to know is who he would find acceptable? It doesn't have to be anyone on any list. Hes already told us ad nauseum why he doesn't like/trust Unsworth. Who would he like/trust? Pretty simple question.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

When the Draft Wolf EIS was written in 1993, IDFG Wolf Biologists justified wolf introduction by providing prey population estimates that were 600% higher than actually existed.

I guess if the prey populations were overestimated by 600%, there haven't really been any declines in their population then. Just more realistic estimates.

[Special T]

AND wolf hunting. AND removal of problem animals and packs. AND managing based on sound science, not agenda. From EITHER side.. But wolves will not be exterminated even with year-round open seasons. I've seen wolves in Washington 5 times now, and have gone wolf hunting in Idaho and have eaten my $64 in tags each year. They are smart, and elusive, and were only removed the first time by poison and any avenue available. They're here. Set up a season and it'll prove me right. No amount of tags will remove them from the ecosystem. And I hate the BS about clear cuts ruining the ungulate habitat. The herds have thrived with parcels of clear cuts for a long time.. In fact when you discuss FOOD, water, shelter... The best browse is in 2-4 year old clear cuts. Dynamic habitat has been preserved and created through logging for a long time. And you can't blame the declining ungulate numbers in the Lolo on habitat loss.. The carrying capacity for that area is much higher than the population.. Hence the reason helicopter removal of some of those animals was enacted.

 IF Good science had prevailed from the start the state would have done several things. They would have OKed shooting a wolf molesting cattle or pets. They would have taken the $ and support from the cattlemen to hire an experienced trapper. There are numerious things that they could have done that would have made allies of sportsmen by using science instead of saddling up to anti hunting groups trying to appease them.

I AM hopeful that Unsworth will turn the corner on MANY issues in Wa. Being a SKEPTIC is not the same as attacking. If Unsworth cannot handle sportsmen being skeptics, and understand WHY there is little trust in the department, then it wont matter is WB, Me or anyone else complains...

[Bob33]

Who's on first?
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/03/04/3060578/nez-perce-calls-lolo-wolf-killing.html


The first time Nez Perce Tribal Natural Resources Director Aaron Miles heard that the federal government and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game were killing wolves in his backyard was late Friday.

Lewiston Tribune reporter Eric Barker called him and told him that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services had killed 23 wolves in the North Fork of the Clearwater River watershed under contract for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. The tribe gets federal funds to monitor wolves and was the primary manager of the wolves in the early years of reintroduction. It didn’t get a courtesy call, Miles said Monday.

“It took me by surprise,” he said. “It’s bold and it’s arrogant.”

Fish and Game Wildlife Bureau Chief Jeff Gould said his agency coordinates annually with the Nez Perce and had made it clear it would continue to aggressively reduce wolf numbers in the Lolo zone to boost elk populations.

“It’s no surprise,” Gould said. “It’s an area where we have a problem.”
....
Idaho Fish and Game biologists said the population will not rise unless wolf, black bear and mountain lion predation is reduced. The tribe believes that poor habitat, not predators, is the primary problem, Miles said."