Wolves and Livestock:The Never Ending Battle

[mfswallace]

No wolf hunting in wyoming in 2014 and lack of wolves in Utah or even southern idaho is not because of some invisible rancher fence.

OK- I get that ranchers want wolves controlled, and I get that hunters want wolves controlled.  As groups (hunters:ranchers) we seem to have few other common interests.  If hunters and ranchers can work together for wolf control, that's great.  We should.  But we should also recognize that Ranchers and Hunters have different interests for wolf management.  The end result might look the same, but the motivations are clearly different. 

To say that ranchers are the reason there are no wolves in Colorado and Utah is disingenuous and helps the writer lose credibility right of the bat.

I don't know if you are naive or just don't want to admit the fact of what is happening across the west. I certainly think you guys are incorrect, here's why:

Southern Idaho and Utah are big ranching country. I have spent most of my fall and winter in both of those states since 1997 and know a few ranchers in certain areas of those states. But the vast majority I do not know and probably will never know them. Out of the small number of ranchers that I do know there are two ranchers in southern Idaho that have reduced the wolf threat and one rancher in Utah who has reduced the wolf threat. Two of those had livestock killed before they took care of the problem and the other reduced the threat before he lost livestock. I've also heard of additional wolf reduction "word on the street" but nobody is saying who. I operate in 7 F&G units in southern Idaho and a dozen units in Utah, so my guides and I see how many wolf tracks there are in many of those areas. I can say this, I know of more wolves that have been removed by ranchers than what we know are alive in those same areas right now. Please keep in mind that I don't know the vast majority of ranchers and local residents and have no idea how many wolves they may have removed without saying a word to anyone.

Dr Charles Kay is a professor at the University in Logan, I don't know him personally but he is a greatly respected man. I think he explained ranchers and wolves perfectly and I have specifically pointed out facts and reasoning why I think he is correct.

Washington is only in the beginning of this same cycle. The longer WDFW takes to drag out wolf management in NE WA the further this same cycle will repeat itself here in NE WA. I've already heard "on the street" of numerous wolves killed and nobody is saying who, people want it to happen, they aren't going to finger anyone for shooting a wolf, it's the only wolf management happening. Now a moose or deer poacher, yes people still report those poachers. My point is reinforced by the huge reward that was offered on local radio and in local papers by WDFW and CNW for info on the wolf poacher who killed the wolf at Deep Lake. Most local people laughed at that reward, nobody is going to report who shot that wolf. If they did it had better be kept quiet as they would be shunned by many people in the community.

In F&G management there is a term known as "social tolerance". I have talked about this "social tolerance" many times even though I may not have called it specifically that. You can walk into nearly any bar in any small town in Idaho or western Montana and strike up a conversation about wolves and learn all about local wolf management. It has been this way ever since Malloy shut down wolf hunting. That man caused more wolf management to happen than any other single person. So while wolf advocates thought they won they actually lost with that ruling as it set off a firestorm of "vigilante wolf management". Many people lost all confidence or trust in professional game management and that ruling was one of the main turning points for many people.

Disclaimer
Don't shoot me I am only the messenger telling you the way it is. Let me be clear, I have never shot a wolf and when I do it will be legal, I follow all wildlife laws, I buy wolf tags in Idaho so I can legally shoot a wolf when I get the chance. I also fully support wildlife management, I don't like to see what wolves and green leaning federal and state F&G Depts bowing to wolf groups have done to the public's confidence in professional wildlife management, I think it's unhealthy for our whole system of wildlife management. Having said that, I will also say that at this time I will not be the person to finger anyone for protecting their livestock from unregulated wolves. What people want to see is responsible wolf management by the agencies, I think most people are willing to see a few wolves on the landscape as long as they are managed so they don't impact livestock and ungulates. Currently what we have is wolf management dictated by urban wolf lovers who don't even want wolves where they live. That doesn't set well with people that have been forced to live with unregulated wolf numbers and especially people whose livelihood has been impacted.

It is incorrect to suggest ranchers and poachers are the reason wolves are less common in southern idaho and utah...and I think you know that so I must be misunderstanding your point.

What is the reason then ??

[villageidiot]

I refuse to call a rancher killing wolves that are killing his cows a poacher.  We don't call a father that killed a rapist of his daughter a murderer but a hero.  When the state and Feds sit on their hands and do nothing the rancher is forced to protect his property.  A good number of livestock owners have been forced to become criminals according to the law.  If the law becomes legal for a skum bag to rape your 5 year old daughter you will not abide by the law. Are you a murderer or a hero?

[wolfbait]

Hunters rely on private land, about 75% of wildlife depends on private, read crop and grazing, for habitat.  I know many will say they only hunt public land, the critters use private to feed themselves.  We produce the habitat and food they rely on.  Find an old hunting family member ask him them where their grandfather hunted. If they lived in eastern Washington it was isolated areas with dismal wildlife populations.  People planted the elk in most Washington's east side.  They simply were not here.  Lewis and Clark ate dogs, horses, native supplied roots and fish once they topped the Rockies.  They very nearly starved to death twice in the interior.  Though wolf pelts were traded here, the source was not normally local.
Private production land nationally is held by family farms, about 97%.  Large corporations, Monsanto, do not farm or graze, not enough money in it.  Certainly, farms have grown and fewer families produce.  You need to realize that the 80 acre family homestead is not going to support a $600,000 combine.  Less than one half % produce more than 80% of the food, not much political clout there.  If you enjoy large game populations keeping that one and one half percent that produce all of the food on the land is critical.  Poor management decisions like protecting wolves taking private property is just another group of producers that leave production.  We enjoy feeding all of you at the smallest cost for income on the planet.  Keeping it that way is at risk and the wolf is just a very small example with huge individual consequences.

The section in bold...That historical fact poses a problem in the current political climate. Imported wolves eating imported elk...you know where that goes.

Yep, it turns elk into wolf chit while Unsworth and the rest of WDFW blame it on habitat, poachers, climate change and too many people.

Twenty years later when there are 20 elk left WDFW will come out with the statement that, it was wolves that caused the major decline in the elk herds and other ungulates and WDFW will begin the importation elk etc..

[wolfbait]

No wolf hunting in wyoming in 2014 and lack of wolves in Utah or even southern idaho is not because of some invisible rancher fence.

OK- I get that ranchers want wolves controlled, and I get that hunters want wolves controlled.  As groups (hunters:ranchers) we seem to have few other common interests.  If hunters and ranchers can work together for wolf control, that's great.  We should.  But we should also recognize that Ranchers and Hunters have different interests for wolf management.  The end result might look the same, but the motivations are clearly different. 

To say that ranchers are the reason there are no wolves in Colorado and Utah is disingenuous and helps the writer lose credibility right of the bat.

I don't know if you are naive or just don't want to admit the fact of what is happening across the west. I certainly think you guys are incorrect, here's why:

Southern Idaho and Utah are big ranching country. I have spent most of my fall and winter in both of those states since 1997 and know a few ranchers in certain areas of those states. But the vast majority I do not know and probably will never know them. Out of the small number of ranchers that I do know there are two ranchers in southern Idaho that have reduced the wolf threat and one rancher in Utah who has reduced the wolf threat. Two of those had livestock killed before they took care of the problem and the other reduced the threat before he lost livestock. I've also heard of additional wolf reduction "word on the street" but nobody is saying who. I operate in 7 F&G units in southern Idaho and a dozen units in Utah, so my guides and I see how many wolf tracks there are in many of those areas. I can say this, I know of more wolves that have been removed by ranchers than what we know are alive in those same areas right now. Please keep in mind that I don't know the vast majority of ranchers and local residents and have no idea how many wolves they may have removed without saying a word to anyone.

Dr Charles Kay is a professor at the University in Logan, I don't know him personally but he is a greatly respected man. I think he explained ranchers and wolves perfectly and I have specifically pointed out facts and reasoning why I think he is correct.

Washington is only in the beginning of this same cycle. The longer WDFW takes to drag out wolf management in NE WA the further this same cycle will repeat itself here in NE WA. I've already heard "on the street" of numerous wolves killed and nobody is saying who, people want it to happen, they aren't going to finger anyone for shooting a wolf, it's the only wolf management happening. Now a moose or deer poacher, yes people still report those poachers. My point is reinforced by the huge reward that was offered on local radio and in local papers by WDFW and CNW for info on the wolf poacher who killed the wolf at Deep Lake. Most local people laughed at that reward, nobody is going to report who shot that wolf. If they did it had better be kept quiet as they would be shunned by many people in the community.

In F&G management there is a term known as "social tolerance". I have talked about this "social tolerance" many times even though I may not have called it specifically that. You can walk into nearly any bar in any small town in Idaho or western Montana and strike up a conversation about wolves and learn all about local wolf management. It has been this way ever since Malloy shut down wolf hunting. That man caused more wolf management to happen than any other single person. So while wolf advocates thought they won they actually lost with that ruling as it set off a firestorm of "vigilante wolf management". Many people lost all confidence or trust in professional game management and that ruling was one of the main turning points for many people.

Disclaimer
Don't shoot me I am only the messenger telling you the way it is. Let me be clear, I have never shot a wolf and when I do it will be legal, I follow all wildlife laws, I buy wolf tags in Idaho so I can legally shoot a wolf when I get the chance. I also fully support wildlife management, I don't like to see what wolves and green leaning federal and state F&G Depts bowing to wolf groups have done to the public's confidence in professional wildlife management, I think it's unhealthy for our whole system of wildlife management. Having said that, I will also say that at this time I will not be the person to finger anyone for protecting their livestock from unregulated wolves. What people want to see is responsible wolf management by the agencies, I think most people are willing to see a few wolves on the landscape as long as they are managed so they don't impact livestock and ungulates. Currently what we have is wolf management dictated by urban wolf lovers who don't even want wolves where they live. That doesn't set well with people that have been forced to live with unregulated wolf numbers and especially people whose livelihood has been impacted.

It is incorrect to suggest ranchers and poachers are the reason wolves are less common in southern idaho and utah...and I think you know that so I must be misunderstanding your point.

What is the reason then ??

Maybe Bearpaw gave out too much information, as you know I-hunter rarely reads past the first two lines if he doesn't agree with what is being said.

"Southern Idaho and Utah are big ranching country. I have spent most of my fall and winter in both of those states since 1997 and know a few ranchers in certain areas of those states. But the vast majority I do not know and probably will never know them. Out of the small number of ranchers that I do know there are two ranchers in southern Idaho that have reduced the wolf threat and one rancher in Utah who has reduced the wolf threat. Two of those had livestock killed before they took care of the problem and the other reduced the threat before he lost livestock. I've also heard of additional wolf reduction "word on the street" but nobody is saying who."

In 2010 I talk to a guy down by Wenatchee who told me of a ranch that had been taking care of their own wolf problems for several years, I wonder how many more ranches in WA were doing the same.

WDFW refuse to confirm the first wolf pack in WA despite reliable wolf reports 3 to 4 years prior to the lie of first wolf pack in 70 years. Why is that?

WDFW claim most of WA's wolves are in the NE corner, another lie. Wolves are spread throughout WA now WDFW just refuses to confirm.

WDFW claim they manage all wildlife, if they were managing the game herds they would implement strict predator control, but instead they predict the weather and kill more breeding stock.


Good info. Bearpaw Probably more then I-hunter etc. wanted.

[AspenBud]

Hunters rely on private land, about 75% of wildlife depends on private, read crop and grazing, for habitat.  I know many will say they only hunt public land, the critters use private to feed themselves.  We produce the habitat and food they rely on.  Find an old hunting family member ask him them where their grandfather hunted. If they lived in eastern Washington it was isolated areas with dismal wildlife populations.  People planted the elk in most Washington's east side.  They simply were not here.  Lewis and Clark ate dogs, horses, native supplied roots and fish once they topped the Rockies.  They very nearly starved to death twice in the interior.  Though wolf pelts were traded here, the source was not normally local.
Private production land nationally is held by family farms, about 97%.  Large corporations, Monsanto, do not farm or graze, not enough money in it.  Certainly, farms have grown and fewer families produce.  You need to realize that the 80 acre family homestead is not going to support a $600,000 combine.  Less than one half % produce more than 80% of the food, not much political clout there.  If you enjoy large game populations keeping that one and one half percent that produce all of the food on the land is critical.  Poor management decisions like protecting wolves taking private property is just another group of producers that leave production.  We enjoy feeding all of you at the smallest cost for income on the planet.  Keeping it that way is at risk and the wolf is just a very small example with huge individual consequences.

The section in bold...That historical fact poses a problem in the current political climate. Imported wolves eating imported elk...you know where that goes.

Yep, it turns elk into wolf chit while Unsworth and the rest of WDFW blame it on habitat, poachers, climate change and too many people.

Twenty years later when there are 20 elk left WDFW will come out with the statement that, it was wolves that caused the major decline in the elk herds and other ungulates and WDFW will begin the importation elk etc..

At least part of that is right. If the elk weren't in eastern WA to begin with then the argument that the habitat isn't well suited holds some water. Or so can be argued. They didn't exist for a reason.

I'm not sure anyone is going to bat an eye unless Roosevelts, which have always been in Washington, unlike eastern WA elk, start to go off a cliff.

There has been a canary in the coal mine for some time now, the pheasant. The state doesn't really do a lot to ensure their numbers are stable or growing these days.  They have even cut back on pheasant release. Of course they have, they are non-natives. If elk in eastern WA were introduced then they can argue the same thing.

Obviously a similar argument can be made about at least some of the wolves here now, but it's difficult to support it if they have been crossing the border for years anyhow and when people see any return resulting from intro in other states as just reestablishing what was once here anyhow the argument has a hard time gaining traction.

Like I said, the history behind elk is not helpful in the current political climate.

[bearpaw]

Speaking of history, the history of WDFW is that they want more and more money as the years go by. They would be well advised to take a hard look at the loss of ungulates and hunting opportunity to excessive numbers of cougar/bear/wolves/coyotes. History in Idaho and parts of Montana and Wyoming tell us what the expanding wolf population will do if left unmanaged.

Ya, ya, we've all heard the rubbish from certain biologists that predators have no impact, but the reality is those predators are not eating grasshoppers all year to survive. Studies done by other biologists have found that 1 cougar on average kills 25 to 50 deer per year. Studies done on wolves have found that 1 wolf eats 17 elk or 44 deer on the average per year. Studies done on bear and coyotes have found that in some areas bear or coyotes have the highest predation rate on calf elk or fawn deer.

Washington has record numbers of cougar, a growing population of wolves, and huge numbers of bear and coyotes. All combined the predator impact is so high that mule deer in many areas will continue to decline even if all hunting was stopped. Currently in NE WA only buck deer 3 point or larger are hunted and darn few are taken. No doe and no fawns are hunted, yet the population continues to decline.

Those deer are not getting on a space ship and leaving earth, they are being turned into predator poo at an alarming rate. So back to my first comment, WDFW is going to experience the same decline in tag sales as other wolf states if they don't start managing predators like a wildlife agency instead of a predator protection agency. I like to support our agencies but I will oppose increases in license fees if it's obvious the increase is needed due to continued mismanagement of predators. Current cougar management is laughable at best.

[AspenBud]

Speaking of history, the history of WDFW is that they want more and more money as the years go by. They would be well advised to take a hard look at the loss of ungulates and hunting opportunity to excessive numbers of cougar/bear/wolves/coyotes. History in Idaho and parts of Montana and Wyoming tell us what the expanding wolf population will do if left unmanaged.

Ya, ya, we've all heard the rubbish from certain biologists that predators have no impact, but the reality is those predators are not eating grasshoppers all year to survive. Studies done by other biologists have found that 1 cougar on average kills 25 to 50 deer per year. Studies done on wolves have found that 1 wolf eats 17 elk or 44 deer on the average per year. Studies done on bear and coyotes have found that in some areas bear or coyotes have the highest predation rate on calf elk or fawn deer.

Washington has record numbers of cougar, a growing population of wolves, and huge numbers of bear and coyotes. All combined the predator impact is so high that mule deer in many areas will continue to decline even if all hunting was stopped. Currently in NE WA only buck deer 3 point or larger are hunted and darn few are taken. No doe and no fawns are hunted, yet the population continues to decline.

Those deer are not getting on a space ship and leaving earth, they are being turned into predator poo at an alarming rate. So back to my first comment, WDFW is going to experience the same decline in tag sales as other wolf states if they don't start managing predators like a wildlife agency instead of a predator protection agency. I like to support our agencies but I will oppose increases in license fees if it's obvious the increase is needed due to continued mismanagement of predators. Current cougar management is laughable at best.

First, I agree with your overall point.

But the portion I bolded brings to mind something. At some point either cougars, bears, coyotes, or wolves are going to die because they have no more food to eat. There will be a re-balancing at some point. However, if many of these animals are simply going to out strip their food supply and die from starvation anyhow then it really only makes sense to manage their numbers, keep food for them and us abundant, and carry on. I'd really like to see that point made a lot more.

What's the difference if predators are kept in check with a bullet versus starvation? Dead is dead. Starvation implies a problem. It implies things got out of balance, how is that a good thing? That needs to be asked.

[bearpaw]

Speaking of history, the history of WDFW is that they want more and more money as the years go by. They would be well advised to take a hard look at the loss of ungulates and hunting opportunity to excessive numbers of cougar/bear/wolves/coyotes. History in Idaho and parts of Montana and Wyoming tell us what the expanding wolf population will do if left unmanaged.

Ya, ya, we've all heard the rubbish from certain biologists that predators have no impact, but the reality is those predators are not eating grasshoppers all year to survive. Studies done by other biologists have found that 1 cougar on average kills 25 to 50 deer per year. Studies done on wolves have found that 1 wolf eats 17 elk or 44 deer on the average per year. Studies done on bear and coyotes have found that in some areas bear or coyotes have the highest predation rate on calf elk or fawn deer.

Washington has record numbers of cougar, a growing population of wolves, and huge numbers of bear and coyotes. All combined the predator impact is so high that mule deer in many areas will continue to decline even if all hunting was stopped. Currently in NE WA only buck deer 3 point or larger are hunted and darn few are taken. No doe and no fawns are hunted, yet the population continues to decline.

Those deer are not getting on a space ship and leaving earth, they are being turned into predator poo at an alarming rate. So back to my first comment, WDFW is going to experience the same decline in tag sales as other wolf states if they don't start managing predators like a wildlife agency instead of a predator protection agency. I like to support our agencies but I will oppose increases in license fees if it's obvious the increase is needed due to continued mismanagement of predators. Current cougar management is laughable at best.

First, I agree with your overall point.

But the portion I bolded brings to mind something. At some point either cougars, bears, coyotes, or wolves are going to die because they have no more food to eat. There will be a re-balancing at some point. However, if many of these animals are simply going to out strip their food supply and die from starvation anyhow then it really only makes sense to manage their numbers, keep food for them and us abundant, and carry on. I'd really like to see that point made a lot more.

What's the difference if predators are kept in check with a bullet versus starvation? Dead is dead. Starvation implies a problem. It implies things got out of balance, how is that a good thing? That needs to be asked.

I agree with most of what you said. The problem is that before things level out the predator's food supply (deer, elk, moose, wild sheep, livestock, pets) will have to tank before predators starve off and it all balances out. The compounded problem is that some of those species will suffer greater losses while other species will survive the higher predator numbers. I think the example of mule deer and whitetail in NE WA is a perfect example of that. Mule deer continue to decline while WT have slowly recovered from the winters of 07/08.

We pay F&G agencies to manage wildlife so all species are maintained in healthy numbers, so we don't have extreme population swings, so that wild animals do not impact ranchers and other residents, and so that hunters can harvest the excess abundance.

[KFhunter]

excellent point about disproportionate depredation on certain species,  mule deer are taking the brunt of the high cougar population but there is overlap with the wolves piling on top of the already too high cougar yearly take.

I watch a deer winter range pretty carefully and notice there's only a handful of mule deer this year and lot's of whitetail deer, the cats lacking more mule deer up higher in the range have moved down into the valley bottoms to get after the whitetail deer.  Even after the green up the cats were still down low..not good.


Did some ATV scouting this spring checking on a small mule deer herd that's in a certain area every year and it's desolate, not a single hoof print to be found.  Very strange to ride though an area checking for tracks and not see any sign of deer for several square miles, it weirds me out 

[bearpaw]

excellent point about disproportionate depredation on certain species,  mule deer are taking the brunt of the high cougar population but there is overlap with the wolves piling on top of the already too high cougar yearly take.

I watch a deer winter range pretty carefully and notice there's only a handful of mule deer this year and lot's of whitetail deer, the cats lacking more mule deer up higher in the range have moved down into the valley bottoms to get after the whitetail deer.  Even after the green up the cats were still down low..not good.


Did some ATV scouting this spring checking on a small mule deer herd that's in a certain area every year and it's desolate, not a single hoof print to be found.  Very strange to ride though an area checking for tracks and not see any sign of deer for several square miles, it weirds me out 

   There used to be good mule deer hunting in the wedge as well as pother NE GMU's, the cougars are surviving by eating whitetail but continue to wipe out the mule deer every time they find one. Mule deer are in a true full blown predator pit in NE WA. It's not hunters impacting mule deer, hardly any mule deer are killed by hunters, only 3pt+ bucks are hunted. Yet cougars are eating fawns, does, and all bucks year around.

[Special T]

WDFW is SUPPOSED to manage for Maximum benifit. IF they had allowed some wolf hunting, hound hunting for bears and cougars then there woudl be healthy populations of all kinds... Instead of finding balance for LOTS of game of every kind they are managing for game at the lowest levels... What do we need the WDFW for if that is how they are going to manage?

[bobcat]

Can't really blame it on the WDFW. The people of this state voted to ban the only effective method of managing cougar populations - hound hunting.

[wolfbait]

Can't really blame it on the WDFW. The people of this state voted to ban the only effective method of managing cougar populations - hound hunting.

WDFW could have open season with multiple takes on cougars and bears, or hunt them like coyotes until the numbers come down.

[bobcat]

I don't think any amount of cougar hunting without the use of hounds would have any effect on the cougar population. But I do agree- there's no reason we can't have a much more liberal cougar hunting season.

[mfswallace]

Can't really blame it on the WDFW. The people of this state voted to ban the only effective method of managing cougar populations - hound hunting.

Keep defending but still wrong

Did Washington Department of Fish and Wolves come out in opposition of banning hound hunting while knowing the consequences of the ban, NO!! I blame the agency that is responsible for managing all wildlife responsibly for maximum benefit with science! What a joke that anyone defends them because they go with politic vs science!!