Idaho wolf survey reveals thriving breeding numbers

[elkboy]

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.

Well said!  We manage almost every vertebrate larger than an opossum in one way or another!  Wolves are no exception, and certainly they will require plenty of management, especially with juveniles dispersing into new territory.  I would add that when we do get high-severity fire on public lands to NOT rush to replant it where deer and elk are a priority.  Rushing a burned landscape back to a closed-canopy condition is not going to give us enduring elk and deer habitat.

[DOUBLELUNG]

Statements like "if there were no wolves" are about as useful as "if there was no urban liberal voting majority in Pugetropolis".  Many of us might like both.  It's not reality. 

[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.

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.

https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/reduceProposal.pdf

ALL Lolo and Selwau assessments from 2009-present show BELOW CARRYING CAPACITY. That means the habitat available should and could support more. Poor habitat is an excuse utilized to leverage less control actions.

[hirshey]

Page 4 second paragraph starts the rejection of habitat decline as reason for elk decline.

[jasnt]

ALL Lolo and Selwau assessments from 2009-present show BELOW CARRYING CAPACITY. That means the habitat available should and could support more. Poor habitat is an excuse utilized to leverage less control actions.

[bobcat]

I'm pretty sure when the IDFG kills wolves, it is not cheap. I don't think it's realistic to expect them to always keep wolf numbers at a level that will allow deer and elk to be at carrying capacity in all areas 100% of the time. With the main limiting factor on wolf control being money, who's going to pay for it?

[hirshey]

I'm pretty sure when the IDFG kills wolves, it is not cheap. I don't think it's realistic to expect them to always keep wolf numbers at a level that will allow deer and elk to be at carrying capacity in all areas 100% of the time. With the main limiting factor on wolf control being money, who's going to pay for it?

Hunters pay with tag fees... As soon as you lose the hunting revenue... Your question becomes even more pointed. Who then? The environmental groups?

[mfswallace]

http://www.petersenshunting.com/uncategorized/6-reasons-to-hunt-wolves/

[bobcat]

I'm pretty sure when the IDFG kills wolves, it is not cheap. I don't think it's realistic to expect them to always keep wolf numbers at a level that will allow deer and elk to be at carrying capacity in all areas 100% of the time. With the main limiting factor on wolf control being money, who's going to pay for it?

Hunters pay with tag fees... As soon as you lose the hunting revenue... Your question becomes even more pointed. Who then? The environmental groups?

Idaho currently has the lowest priced non-resident elk tags available, of any of the western states. I'd prefer they stay that way.

[idahohuntr]

"Poor habitat is an excuse utilized to leverage less control actions."   Perhaps by some fringe groups it is. 

I will again repeat, habitat and predation are not mutually exclusive issues and are very likely interrelated.  I do not know of a single knowledgeable person on the subject, including several IDFG biologists who were involved in the writing of the document you posted, that believe habitat is simply an "excuse" in the Lolo zone.  Current wolf numbers (but lets not forget black bears and lions are also significant) may well be the primary factor holding back a rebound in elk numbers at today's very low levels...but is the goal to get just a little higher than where we are at today? Or is it to make meaningful and significant improvements in elk numbers?  Habitat changes that have reduced availalbe forage are also believed to provide higher predator success, particularly on calf elk.  This is not an either/or issue...I would think all hunters would want both issues addressed...I know I do.  The desire by some to want to make everything a black and white issue and pretend that if you bring up any other cause of elk declines besides wolves that you are pro-wolf or whatever is unfortunate.  There will always be wolves, bears, and lions in the Lolo...just like there will always be wolves, bear, and lions in WA state.  A question posed earlier regarding what hunters can do is still salient to all of these areas; we can demand (or in WA's case hope for) wolf management actions and we can seek improvement in habitat conditions where habitat is an issue (like it is in the Lolo).  It will certainly take addressing both problems to return the Lolo to the glory days of the 1980's.  And if we accept the likely reality of the future of WA state wolf management, habitat improvement and protection is our best defense to protecting ungulates and our hunting heritage.

[hirshey]

I'm pretty sure when the IDFG kills wolves, it is not cheap. I don't think it's realistic to expect them to always keep wolf numbers at a level that will allow deer and elk to be at carrying capacity in all areas 100% of the time. With the main limiting factor on wolf control being money, who's going to pay for it?

Hunters pay with tag fees... As soon as you lose the hunting revenue... Your question becomes even more pointed. Who then? The environmental groups?

Idaho currently has the lowest priced non-resident elk tags available, of any of the western states. I'd prefer they stay that way.

Yes.. And less tag revenue would likely mean higher tag prices to pay for the continued fight... Idaho resident tag fees were proposed to increase for the first time in a long time this next season.. Unless you "lock in" your price by getting tags every year. It's coming, like it or not.

[wolfbait]

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.

Lets Blame Habitat on the Idaho Lolo Zone elk devastation!

I understand the positive effects of the 1910, 1919 and 1934’s fires (and no wolves) in creating the once famous elk population in the Lolo. Contrary to the enviro’s and IDFG’s claims that Lolo elk numbers were experiencing a steep or even slow decline in numbers due to habitat conditions the real data suggests a completely different story. A 22-year Clearwater Elk Ecology Study (1964-1985) proved the elk in the Lolo were only consuming 25% of available winter forage. IDFG blamed poor calf recruitment on having to many old cow elk in the Lolo so they increased cow tags significantly. In my opinion, the reason the calf recruitment was low was uncontrolled predators, primarily black bears, were killing too many newborn calves. Bear and wolf loving biologist Steve Nadeau had even closed the fall black bear season in the mid 1990’s because he was afraid to many mature boars were being taken! Also recent studies (2006), showed no indication elk populations were being negatively impacted by poor habitat. The 1994-1995 IDFG aerial counts of the Lolo Zone showed elk numbers stable and or increasing! The truth is the Lolo had ample habitat and still does. The terrible winter of 96-97 produced over 200% snowpack in the upper Lolo zone and that one year cut the Lolo elk numbers by 50% or greater. IDFG director Jerry Conley blamed the winter kill of 96-97 to just poor habitat even though the elk’s habitat was covered up with snow for 6 months! No doubt that the poor calf recruitment was due to unmanaged bears. In my opinion, this one terrible winter precipitated the Crapo elk initiativewhere Senator Mike Crapo brought groups together to work on projects to stop the declining elk populations. Below is the IDFG Lolo elk population data from 1989-2010. In unit 10 the elk count went from 7,745 in 1992 to 9,729 in 1994! Unit 12 the elk count went from 3,763 in 1989 to 3,832 in 1995.Due to uncontrolled wolf populations and the rugged terrain and remoteness, the Lolo elk population will never recover unless IDFG finally decides to aggressively control wolves and bears.

Read More @

http://idahoforwildlife.com/component/content/article/2-content/36-idfg-elk-managment-plan

Predator-Mediated Competition

 http://idahoforwildlife.com/Charles%20Kay/83-Predator%20mediated%20competition.pdf

[idahohuntr]

I'm pretty sure when the IDFG kills wolves, it is not cheap. I don't think it's realistic to expect them to always keep wolf numbers at a level that will allow deer and elk to be at carrying capacity in all areas 100% of the time. With the main limiting factor on wolf control being money, who's going to pay for it?

Hunters pay with tag fees... As soon as you lose the hunting revenue... Your question becomes even more pointed. Who then? The environmental groups?

Idaho currently has the lowest priced non-resident elk tags available, of any of the western states. I'd prefer they stay that way.

Yes.. And less tag revenue would likely mean higher tag prices to pay for the continued fight... Idaho resident tag fees were proposed to increase for the first time in a long time this next season.. Unless you "lock in" your price by getting tags every year. It's coming, like it or not.

2nd NR elk tag fees have been reduced by about $100.  They won't be increasing NR fees anytime soon...it backfired in a huge way when the legislature did that in 2009.  The increase in resident fees is appropriate...hopefully it passes.  Also, the NR demand is still too weak to support a price increase as a means of increasing revenue...if anything, a price cut would be the best shot at increased revenue.  2 years ago IDFG considered floating this idea...but then decided not to pursue it knowing a state legislative body elected by Residents would not support decreasing NR fees!

And some info RE: cost of wolf control...this was a hotly debated issue that passed last year -
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/feb/03/new-idaho-board-has-spent-140k-kill-31-wolves/

[CAMPMEAT]

www.idahoforwildlife.com

Type in Unsworth and you'll see how much Idaho loved him. They hated his guts because he's pro-wolfer from what they have found out.

I belong to this site and they have facts, just like wolfbait does and they don't go after fellow hunters and try and  prove a point just to be right, unlike this forum.

[hirshey]

I'm pretty sure when the IDFG kills wolves, it is not cheap. I don't think it's realistic to expect them to always keep wolf numbers at a level that will allow deer and elk to be at carrying capacity in all areas 100% of the time. With the main limiting factor on wolf control being money, who's going to pay for it?

Hunters pay with tag fees... As soon as you lose the hunting revenue... Your question becomes even more pointed. Who then? The environmental groups?

Idaho currently has the lowest priced non-resident elk tags available, of any of the western states. I'd prefer they stay that way.

Yes.. And less tag revenue would likely mean higher tag prices to pay for the continued fight... Idaho resident tag fees were proposed to increase for the first time in a long time this next season.. Unless you "lock in" your price by getting tags every year. It's coming, like it or not.

2nd NR elk tag fees have been reduced by about $100.  They won't be increasing NR fees anytime soon...it backfired in a huge way when the legislature did that in 2009.  The increase in resident fees is appropriate...hopefully it passes.  Also, the NR demand is still too weak to support a price increase as a means of increasing revenue...if anything, a price cut would be the best shot at increased revenue.  2 years ago IDFG considered floating this idea...but then decided not to pursue it knowing a state legislative body elected by Residents would not support decreasing NR fees!

And some info RE: cost of wolf control...this was a hotly debated issue that passed last year -
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/feb/03/new-idaho-board-has-spent-140k-kill-31-wolves/

Well, maybe they should sell the pelts. I know a guy that payed a handsome sum fr two full mounted wolves... $4,600 a wolf would have been darn near cut in half! . I don't mind the cost.. How much money did they misappropriate to introduce them, again?