Pend Oreille wolf study UW?

[Tman]

Ran into a UW student walking with a dog in the Cusick area Saturday. Said they had a team out looking for wolf scat to try and identify how many different individual wolves are in the area. Said they had found quite a bit of scat in the Cusick creek area. Anyone know any more about this study?

[bearpaw]

Interesting, I havn't heard about it!

[MuleDeer]

That may have been Carolyn Shores from UW.  Mule Deer Foundation is funding her research project, which is studying the affect of number of wolves in a given area, and how that population may be affecting the survival rates of mule deer fawns due to predation by coyotes.  When the study is done, we'll post the results/findings here in case any of you are interested in reading them.  Anything we can learn to help the ungulate populations and possibly help influence mgmt. of the wolves will help!

[wolfbait]

I think we can look at the Yellowstone-Lolo elk herd and figure out what happens to ungulates with wolves in the picture, a new study isn't going to change things is it? 

The wolf is the critter that is pushing the ungulate populations off the cliff, so now they are going to study the impact coyotes have on fawns?

[MuleDeer]

Actually, coyotes account for roughly 80% of fawn mortality in mule deer.  Wolves prefer adult deer.  Wolves decrease the number of coyotes in an area that both inhabit.  This can actually be a benefit to fawn survival for mule deer, and knowing that would help us in managing not only mule deer, but also give us more info to use in the future mgmt. of wolves.
I know all the data from Yellowstone and have read those reports, too.  How about taking a look at SE Alaska, specifically Prince of Wales Island and tell me what you think.  There, Black Tail Deer, the largest black bears around, and wolves all co-exist, with huntable populations of all 3 species. 
I personally agree wolves are not what we want on our landscape.   But I also know that wolves and ungulates exist in the same ecosystems and both thrive once adapted to that co-existence.  That's our challenge now; getting to the point that the ungulates learn to survive with wolves before the populations are too depleted to recover.  The cold, hard truth is, wolves are here, and probably here to stay, at least for our lifetimes.  Rather than get stuck on the idea that they shouldn't be here, we need to focus on whatever we can do to help manage them as best we can. 

[wolfbait]

Actually, coyotes account for roughly 80% of fawn mortality in mule deer.  Wolves prefer adult deer.  Wolves decrease the number of coyotes in an area that both inhabit.  This can actually be a benefit to fawn survival for mule deer, and knowing that would help us in managing not only mule deer, but also give us more info to use in the future mgmt. of wolves.
I know all the data from Yellowstone and have read those reports, too.  How about taking a look at SE Alaska, specifically Prince of Wales Island and tell me what you think.  There, Black Tail Deer, the largest black bears around, and wolves all co-exist, with huntable populations of all 3 species. 
I personally agree wolves are not what we want on our landscape.   But I also know that wolves and ungulates exist in the same ecosystems and both thrive once adapted to that co-existence.  That's our challenge now; getting to the point that the ungulates learn to survive with wolves before the populations are too depleted to recover.  The cold, hard truth is, wolves are here, and probably here to stay, at least for our lifetimes.  Rather than get stuck on the idea that they shouldn't be here, we need to focus on whatever we can do to help manage them as best we can.

"Actually, coyotes account for roughly 80% of fawn mortality in mule deer.  Wolves prefer adult deer.  Wolves decrease the number of coyotes in an area that both inhabit.  This can actually be a benefit to fawn survival for mule deer, and knowing that would help us in managing not only mule deer, but also give us more info to use in the future mgmt. of wolves."

 Wolves have not decreased the coyote population as much as was first thought, studies have shown this. Replacing coyotes with wolves is not a plus.

 Stating that wolves prefer adult deer is not true, wolves kill anything and everything, they are opportunists. In fact wolves will tear the fetus out of cow elk, eat it and leave the cow laying there to slowly die. We have seen deer in the Methow where wolves have killed the doe ate the fawn in her and left the rest. What we have with the addition of protected wolves is just an added predator decimating the game herds and killing livestock.

The Denali Caribou herd, which numbered in the tens of thousands for many decades, declined to 10,000 by the 1960s and numbered only about 1,000 by the late 1970s. Studies from the late 1970's indicated that early calf survival was very poor even though adult cows were in good condition and had adequate food resources.

Predation on young calves was concluded to be the major factor in the population decline and, despite some gradual increases during a series of mild winters, the herd has remained well below 10% of its former long-term numbers and remains incapable of recovering from the predator pit without intensive wolf control. Read more @

http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf

Do Predators Always Kill Substandard Individuals
http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/Do_predators_always_kill_substandard_Individuals_2-2013.pdf

The Future of North American Wolves, Interview with Dr. Valerius Geist
http://www.outdoorhub.com/opinions/2013/08/14/the-future-of-north-american-wolves-interview-with-dr-valerius-geist/

Wolves: when Ignorance is Bliss
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/Dr%20Geist/When%20ignorance%20is%20bliss.html


"How about taking a look at SE Alaska, specifically Prince of Wales Island and tell me what you think.  There, Black Tail Deer, the largest black bears around, and wolves all co-exist, with huntable populations of all 3 species." 

Wolf management on an island is totally different then on the mainland. On an island wolves can be controlled by their prey base, hunting and trapping.

When Biologists Stocked Alaska with Wolves

http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2035%20July-Nov%202009.pdf

The Alexander Archipelago Wolf: A Conservation Assessment

Most of the wolves in southeast Alaska occur on the large islands south of Frederick Sound. These islands (game management units 2 and 3) support approximately 60 to 70 percent of the total population. By extrapolating from empirical population estimates for Prince of Wales Island, we estimated the autumn 1994 population of wolves in southeast Alaska at slightly over 900 animals (SE = 216). Hunting, trapping, and illegal killing accounts for a high percentage of the mortality in wolves. Based on analysis of trapping and hunting morality by wildlife analysis area (WAA), we determined that mortality was correlated with the linear kilometers of road within WAA's. Indeed, reported wolf harvest increased twofold when the length of road below 370 meters (1200 ft) elevation exceeded 95 kilometers (59 mi), regardless of size of the WAA. This corresponded to an approximate road density of 0.4 kilometer per square kilometer (0.7 mi/mi²), most of which were open to human access. Between 1993 and 1995, the average annual mortality in a total sample of 24 radio-collared wolves on Prince of Wales Island was 50 percent SE = 13 percent). If applied to the overall wolf population on Prince of Wales Island, this rate of mortality would not be sustainable.

Wolf populations are closely tied to population levels of their ungulate prey. For southeast Alaska, we predicted the number of deer required per wolf to attain equilibrium between deer and wolves by using a Monte Carlo simulation of a model that calculated equilibrium ratios for wolves and their ungulate prey. We assumed a high average finite rate of increase for deer (1.3), a mean predation rate of 26 deer per wolf per year, and a human harvest of deer equal to 21 percent of the annual increment. Our results suggest that 170 to 180 deer per wolf are needed for a 95-percent probability of equilibrium, provided that mortality of deer due to predation is primarily additive. We cannot suggest a minimum deer population because we do not know what constitutes a minimum viable wolf population either demographically or genetically. Nevertheless, if we expect to sustain the current postdenning population of 250-300 wolves on Prince of Wales Island (along with subsistence and sport harvests of deer) with a high probability of attaining equilibrium, then sufficient habitat is needed to support 42,500 to 54,000 deer. Read more@  http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wolf.aawolf

Wolf Predation
http://idahoforwildlife.com/Charles%20Kay/76-wolf%20predation-more%20bad%20news.pdf





Dr. David Mech, the man who invented “balance of nature”, refutes his own claim. Says “Balance of Nature” a Myth.

http://tomremington.com/2013/04/24/top-wolf-scientist-charges-wolf-researchers-have-become-advocates-rather-than-scientists/

UAF Analysis shows Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago and Prince of Wales Island wolves not subspecies
http://www.akbizmag.com/Alaska-Business-Monthly/December-2014/UAF-Analysis-shows-Southeast-Alaska-Alexander-Archipelago-and-Prince-of-Wales-Island-wolves-not-subspecies/

"I personally agree wolves are not what we want on our landscape.   But I also know that wolves and ungulates exist in the same ecosystems and both thrive once adapted to that co-existence"

DNA Studies – Smaller Native Wolves Existed in Northern Rockies before Canadian Wolf Transplant
http://tomremington.com/2012/07/20/dna-studies-smaller-native-wolves-existed-in-northern-rockies-before-canadian-wolf-transplant/

Another "study" isn't going to help in the politics of managing/controlling wolves, it's a waste of money.

[MuleDeer]

Glad to see you have read up some articles on wolves; I have too, as well as many others on this site.  Regardless of what the views are of anyone on this site, the fact is, wolves are here to stay, at least for our lifetimes.  How about we work towards realistic solutions and suggestions, instead of same old "kill them all" mentality, which just gets us a stereotype of "extremists"?  You know as well as anyone else that that's not going to happen, so why not work towards goals and mgmt. tools that are legal and hopefully viable in the near future?
If all you want to do is complain, that is your right; but how many times have you seen "that guy" at a commission meeting get recognized?  It's not the best way to go about us trying to make a difference.  Just my opinion.

[MuleDeer]

To better and more accurately respond to your comments to my post:

"Actually, coyotes account for roughly 80% of fawn mortality in mule deer.  Wolves prefer adult deer.  Wolves decrease the number of coyotes in an area that both inhabit.  This can actually be a benefit to fawn survival for mule deer, and knowing that would help us in managing not only mule deer, but also give us more info to use in the future mgmt. of wolves."

 Replacing coyotes with wolves is not a plus.  "Never said this was a plus."

 Stating that wolves prefer adult deer is not true, wolves kill anything and everything, they are opportunists. In fact wolves will tear the fetus out of cow elk, eat it and leave the cow laying there to slowly die. We have seen deer in the Methow where wolves have killed the doe ate the fawn in her and left the rest. What we have with the addition of protected wolves is just an added predator decimating the game herds and killing livestock.
"Studies have directly shown that, in respect to deer, wolves do, in fact, prefer adult deer to fawns. I didn't say they wouldn't eat a fetus.  That's very well known.  But the study is about fawn survival after birth, not prenatal fetus'."

The Denali Caribou herd, which numbered in the tens of thousands for many decades, declined to 10,000 by the 1960s and numbered only about 1,000 by the late 1970s. Studies from the late 1970's indicated that early calf survival was very poor even though adult cows were in good condition and had adequate food resources.

Predation on young calves was concluded to be the major factor in the population decline and, despite some gradual increases during a series of mild winters, the herd has remained well below 10% of its former long-term numbers and remains incapable of recovering from the predator pit without intensive wolf control.
"There is a HUGE difference between a larger, slower, pack animal like caribou than deer.  Especially in areas where there are major differences in escapement cover.  Not saying it's not an issue, but just pointing out the difference makes it hard to accurately compare."


Wolves: when Ignorance is Bliss
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/Dr%20Geist/When%20ignorance%20is%20bliss.html
"The purpose of studies, whether you agree with them or not, is to avoid the ignorance and learn more about the issue."


"How about taking a look at SE Alaska, specifically Prince of Wales Island and tell me what you think.  There, Black Tail Deer, the largest black bears around, and wolves all co-exist, with huntable populations of all 3 species." 

Wolf management on an island is totally different then on the mainland. On an island wolves can be controlled by their prey base, hunting and trapping.
"Agreed.  And hopefully we will get to the point of mgmt. of wolves and their prey base as needed here to see the ungulate populations survive and eventually thrive again.  The fact is, mgmt. CAN make a difference.  That's what we're hoping to achieve."


UAF Analysis shows Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago and Prince of Wales Island wolves not subspecies
http://www.akbizmag.com/Alaska-Business-Monthly/December-2014/UAF-Analysis-shows-Southeast-Alaska-Alexander-Archipelago-and-Prince-of-Wales-Island-wolves-not-subspecies/
"A little off topic, but I'm aware of this one, too.  This was an attempt by the antis to halt the Big Timber sale on Prince of Wales Island.  It's been debunked, and the sale is moving forward now.  Another area we are doing a lot of habitat work for blacktail deer."

Another "study" isn't going to help in the politics of managing/controlling wolves, it's a waste of money.
[/quote]
"As a 501 c3, we aren't allowed by law to lobby in politics, or spend our funds there.  I'm not about politics, and neither is MDF.  We study the science and provide results to agencies to help them make informed decisions.  And the amount of money we put into those studies pales when compared to the amount we put on the ground for habitat work to strengthen mule deer and blacktail populations."

[wolfbait]

Glad to see you have read up some articles on wolves; I have too, as well as many others on this site.  Regardless of what the views are of anyone on this site, the fact is, wolves are here to stay, at least for our lifetimes.  How about we work towards realistic solutions and suggestions, instead of same old "kill them all" mentality, which just gets us a stereotype of "extremists"?  You know as well as anyone else that that's not going to happen, so why not work towards goals and mgmt. tools that are legal and hopefully viable in the near future?
If all you want to do is complain, that is your right; but how many times have you seen "that guy" at a commission meeting get recognized?  It's not the best way to go about us trying to make a difference.  Just my opinion.

Why is it the pro-wolf side always jumps to the conclusion of we want to kill them all? Did I say kill them all?

I think controlling wolves is the turn that is used in places that have delt with them for years, wolf management is a joke.

WDFW are playing the wolf numbers game the same as the USFWS, IDFG etc., it's a joke, and the sad part is the game herds, ranchers etc. are the ones who will be hurt the most.

You think that a study about coyotes killing fawns is going to make a difference in managing wolves? Remember the deer herds etc. were not in trouble till the wolf was added. 

 You can throw money after money at deer habitat, won't matter to the wolves they will just keep the slaughterhouse going.

By the way I didn't realize I was complaining when I posted the links, if you don't want anyone to respond then perhaps you should mention that when you post.

Lets see a some links of these studies:"Studies have directly shown that, in respect to deer, wolves do, in fact, prefer adult deer to fawns.

[MuleDeer]

Glad to see you have read up some articles on wolves; I have too, as well as many others on this site.  Regardless of what the views are of anyone on this site, the fact is, wolves are here to stay, at least for our lifetimes.  How about we work towards realistic solutions and suggestions, instead of same old "kill them all" mentality, which just gets us a stereotype of "extremists"?  You know as well as anyone else that that's not going to happen, so why not work towards goals and mgmt. tools that are legal and hopefully viable in the near future?
If all you want to do is complain, that is your right; but how many times have you seen "that guy" at a commission meeting get recognized?  It's not the best way to go about us trying to make a difference.  Just my opinion.

Why is it the pro-wolf side always jumps to the conclusion of we want to kill them all? Did I say kill them all?

I think controlling wolves is the turn that is used in places that have delt with them for years, wolf management is a joke.

WDFW are playing the wolf numbers game the same as the USFWS, IDFG etc., it's a joke, and the sad part is the game herds, ranchers etc. are the ones who will be hurt the most.

You think that a study about coyotes killing fawns is going to make a difference in managing wolves? Remember the deer herds etc. were not in trouble till the wolf was added. 

 You can throw money after money at deer habitat, won't matter to the wolves they will just keep the slaughterhouse going.

By the way I didn't realize I was complaining when I posted the links, if you don't want anyone to respond then perhaps you should mention that when you post.

Lets see a some links of these studies:"Studies have directly shown that, in respect to deer, wolves do, in fact, prefer adult deer to fawns.

First of all, I'm not Pro Wolf at all.  And Mule Deer herds have been in decline for years, long before the wolves showed up on the landscape...pure fact, based on numerous studies by many different individuals and agencies, all across the West.  To say "the deer herds were not in trouble til the wolf was added" sure comes thru as a view that isn't willing to see all the causes.  As far as complaints, I never said your links were: they are good info.  But look at the statements you just made...looks like they are all complaints to me, without any sign of a solution suggested.  Just complaints.  We know the probllems...it is time to work on finding solutions.
By your statement about wasting money on habitat, am I to assume you are against any habitat work for ungulates?  Again, a complaint, but no sign of a suggestion for a better solution.
The arguing and "conspiracy theories" on this site and within the hunting community as a whole are doing us no good in this situation.  It just keeps giving ammo to those that oppose our views, so they can call us "extreme" and "blood thirsty killers".  How about we start working together, quit blaming everything and everyone, and just start looking for answers and presenting a unified voice on the issues?  Enough of my rant: I'm happy to discuss this issue with anyone who wants to help make progress and search for solutions, and I welcome responses to my posts; I just won't respond to the conspiracy and complaint posts anymore. 

[idahohuntr]

Excellent points MuleDeer.  This is the kind of common sense I wish was more common.  Numerous factors influence the abundance and distribution of ungulates...and very often centers around habitat issues. Whining about the government and spreading conspiracies might be fun for some folks, but it does nothing for improving hunting or the wildlife that we all care about.  Thank you again for your efforts and serving on the WAG.

[MuleDeer]

For those interested, here is the Objectives and Goals of this study going on with the UW group.  Just and FYI to help you understand how some of these projects work, and some insight on how a study like this can provide a lot more than just an answer to "Do coyotes kill fawns?"  These studies help us learn how to better manage mule deer as a species, not just predators.  Thanks for the positive comments that have been made so far.
Notice one of the contributors to a listed study is Unsworth, our newly hired Director.  It's for another thread, but the consensus with IDFG biologists is that we got the right guy to help us.  (Like I said, another thread)
PROJECT GOALS, OBJECTIVES, PURPOSE:
Our goal is to assess the indirect role wolves have on mule deer fawn survival by reducing coyote populations, and thus predation, on mule deer fawns.  This trophic relationship between wolves, coyotes and mule deer has never before been studied, although coyotes are a major predator on deer neonates and mule deer are one of the most popular game species in North America.

Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) populations have been declining throughout the western United States since the 1980’s, putatively due to low fawn survival (Carpenter 1998, Unsworth 1999, Gaillard 2000). At the same time, gray wolves (Canis lupus) are in the process of recolonizing many areas of the northwestern USA. The return of wolves to the American west offers an opportunity to explore the impacts these top predators have on native ungulate populations.

One interesting possibility is that wolves may indirectly benefit ungulate populations by suppressing coyotes (Canis latrans). Coyotes account for up to 80% of fawn mortality in areas where wolves are absent (Pojar & Bowden 2004, Kilgo 2010) and wolf recolonization has been shown to dramatically reduce coyote abundance in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Berger & Gese 2007, Berger et al. 2008).  Therefore, wolf recolonization has the potential to significantly reduce predation pressure on fawns by reducing coyote populations.  Importantly, coyotes are a major predator on neonates, but wolves preferentially take adult deer. 

We will test whether wolves indirectly influence mule deer fawn survival by decreasing coyote populations. The results of this study will be applicable across mule deer range in western North America where wolves are recolonizing. This research will help managers understand how the return of the wolf, one of the biggest ecological changes currently occurring in the west, will affect mule deer populations.

Project Goals
1) Assess changes in coyote abundance and diet in areas with and without wolves. 
2) Compare the causes and rate of mortality of mule deer fawns in areas with and without wolves

Our objectives for Goal 1:
•   Determine coyote abundance in wolf and non-wolf areas via remote-camera grids and scat and track surveys.  Collect coyote scats in both wolf and non-wolf areas.
•   Conduct genetic dietary analysis of coyote scats using genetic sequencing.

Scat surveys and remote camera grids established in each study area will also allow us to detect invasion of non-wolf areas by wolves.

Our objectives for Goal 2:
•   Capture 120 pregnant mule deer over the grant period in both the wolf and non-wolf areas. 60 does will be captured in the wolf area and 60 in the non-wolf area. Equip deer with GPS collars and Vaginal Implant Transmitters (VITs), which signal when a doe has given birth.  GPS collars are refurbishable between years so we need a minimum of 40 collars for 3 field seasons.
•   Equip at least 120 fawns in the wolf and non-wolf areas with expandable, breakaway VHF collars with four-hour mortality sensors.  Fawns will be monitored daily through August, and minimally 2 times weekly until they reach 16 weeks (~4 months). Predation will be distinguished from other causes of mortality by presence of puncture wounds on the fawns’ head and neck.  The predator species responsible for each mortality will be determined by searching kill sites for predator scat and tracks.
Note that by equipping does with VITs, we will also be able to assess vegetation and landscape attributes of birth sites. We will also be able to document direct predation of wolves on adult females and fawns through the use of GPS collars and mortality-sensitive VHF collars.
**Side note: this is one of those projects that we could use volunteers to help with the work.  If there is some interest in tracking fawns this summer, let me know.  The Okanogan Chapter will be coordinating times for that.

[jrebel]

Is this the same study / reason they are actively trapping wolves in unit 117?? 

[MuleDeer]

Excellent points MuleDeer.  This is the kind of common sense I wish was more common.  Numerous factors influence the abundance and distribution of ungulates...and very often centers around habitat issues. Whining about the government and spreading conspiracies might be fun for some folks, but it does nothing for improving hunting or the wildlife that we all care about.  Thank you again for your efforts and serving on the WAG.

   I'll do my best.  If I get off track, I know I can rely on the forum to steer me straight!

[nwwanderer]

Thanks Wolfbait   Go Cougs?, nope, gone to the dogs.  Prince of Wales Island data like comparing a Neanderthal to Hong Kong apartment dweller.  Not many malls, pets, livestock, children, private property, tax base etc. on those islands, and yes I have been there.  If the foundation wants a study area check out the Mill Creek watershed, no recent history of any legal hunting except transplanted elk and a predator/prey base in a 400,000 acre basin with little or no human interaction and the mule deer still have issues.  Good evidence of 'natural' not human caused interactions.  I encourage foundation members to monitor foundation spending.

[wolfbait]

To better and more accurately respond to your comments to my post:

"Actually, coyotes account for roughly 80% of fawn mortality in mule deer.  Wolves prefer adult deer.  Wolves decrease the number of coyotes in an area that both inhabit.  This can actually be a benefit to fawn survival for mule deer, and knowing that would help us in managing not only mule deer, but also give us more info to use in the future mgmt. of wolves."

 Replacing coyotes with wolves is not a plus.  "Never said this was a plus."

 Stating that wolves prefer adult deer is not true, wolves kill anything and everything, they are opportunists. In fact wolves will tear the fetus out of cow elk, eat it and leave the cow laying there to slowly die. We have seen deer in the Methow where wolves have killed the doe ate the fawn in her and left the rest. What we have with the addition of protected wolves is just an added predator decimating the game herds and killing livestock.
"Studies have directly shown that, in respect to deer, wolves do, in fact, prefer adult deer to fawns. I didn't say they wouldn't eat a fetus.  That's very well known.  But the study is about fawn survival after birth, not prenatal fetus'."


By preying on the elk, wolves can/will take the more vulnerable mule deer to exceedingly low levels or extinction. The wolves that were turned loose in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have preyed primarily on elk and there are data on how many elk each wolf kills per year---22 elk/wolf/year---but there is little data from these states or anywhere else on the effect of wolf predation on mule deer. To put it simply, mule decline so rapidly that there is nothing left to study!


Hunter harvest of black-tailed deer on Vancouver island though, gives some idea of what will happen if pro-wolf advocates have their way. Before wolves arrived, sportsmen on Vancouver Island took home around 25,000 blacktails a year. Now that wolves have overrun the island, the figure has plummeted to less than 4,000 deer a year. Moreover,  blacktails are now found in reasonable abundance only where they live in suburbs or cities; i.e., the deer have moved into town to avoid predators
http://idahoforwildlife.com/Charles%20Kay/76-wolf%20predation-more%20bad%20news.pdf

Lets see some links to these studies that show wolves favor adult deer over fawns.

The Denali Caribou herd, which numbered in the tens of thousands for many decades, declined to 10,000 by the 1960s and numbered only about 1,000 by the late 1970s. Studies from the late 1970's indicated that early calf survival was very poor even though adult cows were in good condition and had adequate food resources.

Predation on young calves was concluded to be the major factor in the population decline and, despite some gradual increases during a series of mild winters, the herd has remained well below 10% of its former long-term numbers and remains incapable of recovering from the predator pit without intensive wolf control.
"There is a HUGE difference between a larger, slower, pack animal like caribou than deer.  Especially in areas where there are major differences in escapement cover.  Not saying it's not an issue, but just pointing out the difference makes it hard to accurately compare."

So would you consider the elk of Yellowstone and Lolo to be large, slower pack animals also?


Wolves: when Ignorance is Bliss
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/Dr%20Geist/When%20ignorance%20is%20bliss.html
"The purpose of studies, whether you agree with them or not, is to avoid the ignorance and learn more about the issue."

I would have to say that another study to study what is already known is where the "ignorance" comes in to play.

"How about taking a look at SE Alaska, specifically Prince of Wales Island and tell me what you think.  There, Black Tail Deer, the largest black bears around, and wolves all co-exist, with huntable populations of all 3 species." 

Wolf management on an island is totally different then on the mainland. On an island wolves can be controlled by their prey base, hunting and trapping.
"Agreed.  And hopefully we will get to the point of mgmt. of wolves and their prey base as needed here to see the ungulate populations survive and eventually thrive again.  The fact is, mgmt. CAN make a difference.  That's what we're hoping to achieve."


UAF Analysis shows Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago and Prince of Wales Island wolves not subspecies
http://www.akbizmag.com/Alaska-Business-Monthly/December-2014/UAF-Analysis-shows-Southeast-Alaska-Alexander-Archipelago-and-Prince-of-Wales-Island-wolves-not-subspecies/
"A little off topic, but I'm aware of this one, too.  This was an attempt by the antis to halt the Big Timber sale on Prince of Wales Island.  It's been debunked, and the sale is moving forward now.  Another area we are doing a lot of habitat work for blacktail deer."

Another "study" isn't going to help in the politics of managing/controlling wolves, it's a waste of money.

"As a 501 c3, we aren't allowed by law to lobby in politics, or spend our funds there.  I'm not about politics, and neither is MDF.  We study the science and provide results to agencies to help them make informed decisions.  And the amount of money we put into those studies pales when compared to the amount we put on the ground for habitat work to strengthen mule deer and blacktail populations."[/color][/color]

Do wolves change when they cross state lines. How many studies are needed to once again prove without wolf control there will be no hunting.

Instead of doing another worthless study why not put the money and time into confirming wolf packs/bP's?

[MuleDeer]

Thanks Wolfbait   Go Cougs?, nope, gone to the dogs.  Prince of Wales Island data like comparing a Neanderthal to Hong Kong apartment dweller.  Not many malls, pets, livestock, children, private property, tax base etc. on those islands, and yes I have been there.  If the foundation wants a study area check out the Mill Creek watershed, no recent history of any legal hunting except transplanted elk and a predator/prey base in a 400,000 acre basin with little or no human interaction and the mule deer still have issues.  Good evidence of 'natural' not human caused interactions.  I encourage foundation members to monitor foundation spending.

I encourage MDF members to monitor MDF spending too.  Matter of fact, the local members in their respective chapters are the ones who approve putting THEIR money into whatever projects they choose.  I don't spend their money for them: they spend it.  The national office doesn't spend their money for them either...those decisions are all made by the local chapter.  As far as spending on the national level, it is an open book: if anyone wants that info, they can find it on our website, within our 990 forms, or just ask me to provide it for them.  We don't have any hidden agenda.  Every dollar that is spent is public info.  Every chapter dollar that is spent is on what that chapter wants to spend it on, as long as it fits within our mission statement, "The conservation of Mule Deer, Black Tailed deer, and their habitat."  Simple as that.
As far as study areas that haven't been touched yet, reason is probably that there is no local chapter to push for that.  As the RD for this region, there is no way I can know everything or everyplace that work needs to be done; that is what we need local chapters for.  They provide the leads, projects, and/or contacts locally to get things done.  Want some work done in your area, get involved.

[Special T]

First off a closed loop system like an island provides interesting information about other closed loop systems. you can learn something but it does not necessarirly apply to the general population... Many of the "Island deer" Black tail are pretty darn small. These are also closed loops and do not necessarily relate to the Blacktail I hunt in the 407 GMU wich is "Next Door"

University of Alaska did a study on the impact of hunting on the wolves outside of  Denali NP. (I bet Wolfbait can post it up) That stated that hunting anoly accounted for 3-6% of wolf mortality and to get a "stable" zero growth/Loss you needed a harvest of 50-70% each year...

My bigget beef is that we could have coyote style open season on Wolves and it would not affect numbers much BUT would have the benifit of gaining the support of hunters and other WDFW critics... Wolves have an open season in ID (and many people shot them before there was one) yet there are plenty of them Still in ID. The WDFW does NOT manage wildlife, the manage the actions of PEOPLE especially hunters... Since it appears that hunters dont have a huge impact on wolves in AK, ID, WY, MT MN and else where what makes anyone think Hunters will have a big impact here?


I think the Purpose of the study is interesting Might be of some use... But the fact remains that Mule deer are in decline and Wolves eat deer.

I have done my best to greatly reduce the population of coyotes near my brother in laws farm killing nearly everyone I see yet there has NEVER been a shortage of them... I would make the WAG that wolves will be the same way... Perhaps fewer in numbers, but smart, ellusive, & always present. 

[AspenBud]

Since it appears that hunters dont have a huge impact on wolves in AK, ID, WY, MT MN and else where what makes anyone think Hunters will have a big impact here?

The answer is in the numbers.

The state of Washington claims literally tens of thousands of coyotes exist here but 100 or less wolves. While it's probably safe to assume the small number is wrong it's impossible to sell coyote style hunting of them let alone a regulated season with bag and season limits when the public is presented with that. It's like going to your boss saying there is a problem with no hard numbers to prove it.

But the problem right now is HSUS, the SC, and DoW really don't want people shooting wolves, for ANY reason. That's not just unreasonable, it's downright irresponsible.

[Special T]

I dont disagree with your assement on the orgs or the public perception. Where we disagree is that other states have already done plenty of studies and have lots of experiences to learn from.

IF wdfd had taken the steps to allow people to protect property from the beginning and not cozyed up with those orgs then most people who are skeptics would not be so hostile and second guess thier motives or action.

[bearpaw]

I dont disagree with your assement on the orgs or the public perception. Where we disagree is that other states have already done plenty of studies and have lots of experiences to learn from.

IF wdfd had taken the steps to allow people to protect property from the beginning and not cozyed up with those orgs then most people who are skeptics would not be so hostile and second guess thier motives or action.

   well stated

[timberfaller]

Is this "study" have any of the "Lynx" people involved from THAT study?  YOU know the one with "planted" hairs and DNA from zoo captives!

[mfswallace]

Excellent points MuleDeer.  This is the kind of common sense I wish was more common.  Numerous factors influence the abundance and distribution of ungulates...and very often centers around habitat issues. Whining about the government and spreading conspiracies might be fun for some folks, but it does nothing for improving hunting or the wildlife that we all care about.  Thank you again for your efforts and serving on the WAG.

[WAPatriot]

Hope I'm not the extremist who thinks anti s run the wdfw and government. Anti s meaning anti hunting fishing trapping independence. Only one way to take care of wolves.

[mfswallace]

I dont disagree with your assement on the orgs or the public perception. Where we disagree is that other states have already done plenty of studies and have lots of experiences to learn from.

IF wdfd had taken the steps to allow people to protect property from the beginning and not cozyed up with those orgs then most people who are skeptics would not be so hostile and second guess thier motives or action.

One of the biggest differences in Washington is the smaller amount of open land(yes there are some wide open spaces) and a much larger human population spread over the landscape.

[Special T]

IF you think the WDFW isnt led by Anti's thats OK, but still does not detract from my argument. the ACTIONS of the WDFW show us that they are more worried about Anti groups than the sportsmen revolting...

And they have a hard time figuring out why recruitment is so low. 

[wolfbait]

IF you think the WDFW isnt led by Anti's thats OK, but still does not detract from my argument. the ACTIONS of the WDFW show us that they are more worried about Anti groups than the sportsmen revolting...

And they have a hard time figuring out why recruitment is so low. 

Not only led by Anti's, but also infiltrated by anti's and they just hired a brand new one to lead the department with Unsworth.

[Special T]

WB you may be right, but even if you are it detracts from your argument and all the facts you lay forth. Whatever the reason we agree that the wdfw isnt to concerned with what we sportsmen think.

[MuleDeer]

IF you think the WDFW isnt led by Anti's thats OK, but still does not detract from my argument. the ACTIONS of the WDFW show us that they are more worried about Anti groups than the sportsmen revolting...

And they have a hard time figuring out why recruitment is so low. 

Not only led by Anti's, but also infiltrated by anti's and they just hired a brand new one to lead the department with Unsworth.

How much do you know about Unsworth?  Facts, of course, not just hearsay that you have read somewhere.
How about a direct quote from him: "They quote Idaho Fish and Game deputy director Jim Unsworth on Outdoor Idaho saying: "Right now the overwhelming lion’s share of funds comes from sportsmen. And, you know, sometimes we’re criticized because we manage for sportsman, but, just a reality check, that’s who is paying our bills. That’s who is paying our paycheck and who is paying for the management.”
How about the fact he has been an active hunter and license holder for many years?  Anti?  Guess again.

[wolfbait]

IF you think the WDFW isnt led by Anti's thats OK, but still does not detract from my argument. the ACTIONS of the WDFW show us that they are more worried about Anti groups than the sportsmen revolting...

And they have a hard time figuring out why recruitment is so low. 

Not only led by Anti's, but also infiltrated by anti's and they just hired a brand new one to lead the department with Unsworth.

How much do you know about Unsworth?  Facts, of course, not just hearsay that you have read somewhere.
How about a direct quote from him: "They quote Idaho Fish and Game deputy director Jim Unsworth on Outdoor Idaho saying: "Right now the overwhelming lion’s share of funds comes from sportsmen. And, you know, sometimes we’re criticized because we manage for sportsman, but, just a reality check, that’s who is paying our bills. That’s who is paying our paycheck and who is paying for the management.”
How about the fact he has been an active hunter and license holder for many years?  Anti?  Guess again.

Mitch Friedman of CNW claims to be a hunter also, and yet he fights for wolves and grizzly bears or any other critter that will shut down public lands.

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,168303.50.html

[MuleDeer]

IF you think the WDFW isnt led by Anti's thats OK, but still does not detract from my argument. the ACTIONS of the WDFW show us that they are more worried about Anti groups than the sportsmen revolting...

And they have a hard time figuring out why recruitment is so low. 

Not only led by Anti's, but also infiltrated by anti's and they just hired a brand new one to lead the department with Unsworth.

How much do you know about Unsworth?  Facts, of course, not just hearsay that you have read somewhere.
How about a direct quote from him: "They quote Idaho Fish and Game deputy director Jim Unsworth on Outdoor Idaho saying: "Right now the overwhelming lion’s share of funds comes from sportsmen. And, you know, sometimes we’re criticized because we manage for sportsman, but, just a reality check, that’s who is paying our bills. That’s who is paying our paycheck and who is paying for the management.”
How about the fact he has been an active hunter and license holder for many years?  Anti?  Guess again.

Mitch Friedman of CNW claims to be a hunter also, and yet he fights for wolves and grizzly bears or any other critter that will shut down public lands.

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,168303.50.html

Is this the quote you are referring to? “...The Department believes the greatest return to society from the wildlife resource occurs when the maximum variety of products is provided and that maximizing a single product (e.g., harvest) is not necessarily desirable. We will encourage and promote nonconsumptive use of elk.”
He's explaining there that ONLY focusing on one aspect of a resource isn't the best option, so they will encourage and promote nonconsumptive use of elk.  Yes, he should has said "also" to that.  But is looking for all of the best options for a game dept to raise revenue an evil thing?
As far as Mitch Friedman goes, didn't know he was part of the conversation.  But I'll bite.  Mitch is an avid hunter; I know him personally and have worked with him.  The word you left out of your statement about him is "management".  He and CNW do fight for wolf and grizzly "management".  Their intent and purpose isn't to shut down public lands, but to protect species.  Do they do it in a way you don't agree with, and does it sometimes hurt our public access?  Yes.  But working with them can help them see better management options that don't close down public lands, but still achieve the goals.  I'm willing to work with any group if I believe I can help to make a difference.  As soon as we all quit the willingness to try and make a difference, we have lost.

[idahohuntr]

Unsworth is as much a hunter as anyone on this forum.  Its unfortunate to see folks resort to blatant lies to try and support their radical positions.

[Special T]

I am reserving judgement on him but at least it "Appears" that he is better than our last leader...

[wolfbait]

IF you think the WDFW isnt led by Anti's thats OK, but still does not detract from my argument. the ACTIONS of the WDFW show us that they are more worried about Anti groups than the sportsmen revolting...

And they have a hard time figuring out why recruitment is so low. 

Not only led by Anti's, but also infiltrated by anti's and they just hired a brand new one to lead the department with Unsworth.

How much do you know about Unsworth?  Facts, of course, not just hearsay that you have read somewhere.
How about a direct quote from him: "They quote Idaho Fish and Game deputy director Jim Unsworth on Outdoor Idaho saying: "Right now the overwhelming lion’s share of funds comes from sportsmen. And, you know, sometimes we’re criticized because we manage for sportsman, but, just a reality check, that’s who is paying our bills. That’s who is paying our paycheck and who is paying for the management.”
How about the fact he has been an active hunter and license holder for many years?  Anti?  Guess again.

Mitch Friedman of CNW claims to be a hunter also, and yet he fights for wolves and grizzly bears or any other critter that will shut down public lands.

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,168303.50.html

Is this the quote you are referring to? “...The Department believes the greatest return to society from the wildlife resource occurs when the maximum variety of products is provided and that maximizing a single product (e.g., harvest) is not necessarily desirable. We will encourage and promote nonconsumptive use of elk.”
He's explaining there that ONLY focusing on one aspect of a resource isn't the best option, so they will encourage and promote nonconsumptive use of elk.  Yes, he should has said "also" to that.  But is looking for all of the best options for a game dept to raise revenue an evil thing?
As far as Mitch Friedman goes, didn't know he was part of the conversation.  But I'll bite.  Mitch is an avid hunter; I know him personally and have worked with him.  The word you left out of your statement about him is "management".  He and CNW do fight for wolf and grizzly "management".  Their intent and purpose isn't to shut down public lands, but to protect species.  Do they do it in a way you don't agree with, and does it sometimes hurt our public access?  Yes.  But working with them can help them see better management options that don't close down public lands, but still achieve the goals.  I'm willing to work with any group if I believe I can help to make a difference.  As soon as we all quit the willingness to try and make a difference, we have lost.

You wanted a "quote" and I gave you one, and now you want to change the quote so that he looks better? You really don't want to hear about his past history from Idaho and thats fine. It seems WDFW would just a soon ID, MT and Wyoming's wolf history was forgotten also, that way there wouldn't be any comparison in how wolves should and shouldn't be managed. As it is, it seems WDFW think they have a different wolf then Idaho, look at the wolf plan they adopted. Look at the pitiful attempt at confirming wolf packs and BP's, if WDFW were truly interested in managing wolves so as to avoid the impact on WA ungulates they could have delisted a few years ago easily.

IDFG allowed a huge build up of wolves before they were finally forced to do anything, WDFW are playing the same game, the difference is WA has never had the amount of ungulates as Idaho, WA's game herds could look just like the Lolo elk herd by the time WDFW are forced to respond.


Personally I don't care if unsworth or anyone else who is pro-wolf hunts or not, I brought Mitch of CNW into the discussion to show it really doesn't matter. CNW and DoW were in on the first WDFW wolf push in the 1980's and 90's.

Unsworth is as much a hunter as anyone on this forum.  Its unfortunate to see folks resort to blatant lies to try and support their radical positions.

"Its unfortunate to see folks resort to blatant lies to try and support their radical positions."

Who exactly are you talking about I-hunter?

[grundy53]

IF you think the WDFW isnt led by Anti's thats OK, but still does not detract from my argument. the ACTIONS of the WDFW show us that they are more worried about Anti groups than the sportsmen revolting...

And they have a hard time figuring out why recruitment is so low. 

Not only led by Anti's, but also infiltrated by anti's and they just hired a brand new one to lead the department with Unsworth.

How much do you know about Unsworth?  Facts, of course, not just hearsay that you have read somewhere.
How about a direct quote from him: "They quote Idaho Fish and Game deputy director Jim Unsworth on Outdoor Idaho saying: "Right now the overwhelming lion’s share of funds comes from sportsmen. And, you know, sometimes we’re criticized because we manage for sportsman, but, just a reality check, that’s who is paying our bills. That’s who is paying our paycheck and who is paying for the management.”
How about the fact he has been an active hunter and license holder for many years?  Anti?  Guess again.

Mitch Friedman of CNW claims to be a hunter also, and yet he fights for wolves and grizzly bears or any other critter that will shut down public lands.

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,168303.50.html

Is this the quote you are referring to? “...The Department believes the greatest return to society from the wildlife resource occurs when the maximum variety of products is provided and that maximizing a single product (e.g., harvest) is not necessarily desirable. We will encourage and promote nonconsumptive use of elk.”
He's explaining there that ONLY focusing on one aspect of a resource isn't the best option, so they will encourage and promote nonconsumptive use of elk.  Yes, he should has said "also" to that.  But is looking for all of the best options for a game dept to raise revenue an evil thing?
As far as Mitch Friedman goes, didn't know he was part of the conversation.  But I'll bite.  Mitch is an avid hunter; I know him personally and have worked with him.  The word you left out of your statement about him is "management".  He and CNW do fight for wolf and grizzly "management".  Their intent and purpose isn't to shut down public lands, but to protect species.  Do they do it in a way you don't agree with, and does it sometimes hurt our public access?  Yes.  But working with them can help them see better management options that don't close down public lands, but still achieve the goals.  I'm willing to work with any group if I believe I can help to make a difference.  As soon as we all quit the willingness to try and make a difference, we have lost.

Wow....

[JimmyHoffa]

Too bad they were so key in getting the hound-baiting and trapping bans passed......hard to believe they are pro 'management'. 

[Special T]

Too bad they were so key in getting the hound-baiting and trapping bans passed......hard to believe they are pro 'management'.

These kind of statements are what we SHOULD AWAYS bring up. Show the true colors by peoples, and Orgs actions...

[jasnt]

Sad thing is that even if we were giving unlimited hunting of wolves in Washington we will never be able to stop the spread or growth of wolves in wa. With the wolf plan we have I believe it will allow actual wolf population (not minimum count) to get too large for our ungulate population to handle.  NE wa has the lowest elk numbers and highest wolf numbers. Unregulated wolves are making it worse. Even if we started today with a coyote like season on wolves in NE corner. We as hunters(can't even include the trappers on this one cause they won't be able to do much with current laws ;( ) will not be able to steady numbers or stop growth, best we could hope for would be a slitely slower growth rate.