Wolves and Livestock:The Never Ending Battle

[grundy53]

What cop out?  20 years after wolf introductions and they are nonexistent or at extremely low abundance in south idaho, utah, eastern montana...and it's not because of a lack of prey or extra poaching...gee...what could it be?

You are using habitat as broad brush. There is plenty suitable habitat. Just because it doesn't have wolves doesn't mean it's not suitable. I think there are many factors that influence the spread of wolves. Not just one. Are ranchers and hunters a huge factor? Probably not but it doesn't mean they are not a factor. I would definitely say it isn't just "habitat".

[idahohuntr]

I largely agree...it is the overriding factor though.

[Humptulips]

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.

I'm sorry but that isn't exactly true. WDFW has put very limited quotas on cougar and shuts the season down in many units on Dec 31 instead of letting hunters take more cougar like we should be doing.

Yes I know that, but how many cougars would really be killed without the use of hounds? A few more might be killed but is that really going to make a significant difference? That's all I was saying. If it were up to me the cougar season would be year 'round. Why not? Most guys are only going to kill one by chance while hunting something else.

Actually if the season ran until March 31 instead of only Dec 31, I think numerous additional cats would be taken. If that wasn't enough they could make the season longer. The point is that it's WDFW's choice to limit the cougar hunting in spite of record cougar numbers.

Dale,
Over 60% of the unit quotas are not met and the season runs until March 31st in those units.
What's more is most of the cougar killed are taken in a moment of opportunity by deer and elk hunters. With all the deer and elk seasons closed after the first of the year it would seem like the chances of much harvest in those first three months of the year would be slim.
If WDFW would embrace a longer season I still don't think it would substantially increase the harvest without additional methods being allowed. It would show they recognized the problem though.

We are in much different areas and sometimes it's easy for us to think how things are in our own areas without realizing things may be different in other areas. In NE WA we have so many cats the cougar quota gets shut down early almost every year. Without doubt if the season was longer in NE WA more cougar would be killed. We saw 10 cougar in the flesh last year while turkey, bear, and deer hunting, most were within 5 or 6 miles of Colville or Kettle Falls.

Admittedly it is probably much harder for hunters to harvest cougars in your area so I understand your reasoning, but cougars can be killed where I live by boot hunters or easily shot in peoples yards if we had liberal seasons. One of my guides has walked down three different cougars within 5 miles of Colville.

You're right in that we tend to look at the state from our little piece of it. We have a lot of cougar here but with the brush, when you see one it is for an instant. It would be near impossible to track one down even with snow. There is a wide gap between seeing one and getting a shot off. You may well be right on the east side. I don't see it making any difference on the west side.
It would sure make you think WDFW understood the problem if they opened the season year round and unlimited tags. I really don't think they have a clue though on how many cougar are out there.

Back to wolves, I really wonder if there will ever be that many wolves here. Deer and elk numbers are really beat down. You add another predator into the mix and what will there be for them to eat. There aren't many livestock for them. ID and MT had a tremendous amount of game to fuel the wolves expansion. That is the main difference between them and us (W WA). You east siders may be arm pit deep n them before they are spread clear to the North Peninsula.

[bearpaw]

What cop out?  20 years after wolf introductions and they are nonexistent or at extremely low abundance in south idaho, utah, eastern montana...and it's not because of a lack of prey or extra poaching...gee...what could it be?

If you don't really know why try to act like you have the right answer by simply saying "habitat"? People see right through that worn out excuse that's used so often when bio's or managers don't have enough info or want to deny the real answers to a problem. Instead of crying "wolf" they cry "habitat" and that is exactly how more and more people are viewing that! It's too bad, because habitat is a very important consideration, but it is misconstrued far too often. 

Utah has some of the most abundant elk and mule deer herds anywhere. As someone who has a fair amount of experience in the 3 areas you mention please let me remind you that we are talking about open country that is much easier to hunt and spot wolves than the thick forests of northern Idaho, western Montana, and northeast WA. There are sheep and cattle grazed on most of these areas and herders live with the sheep for 5 years at a time, ranchers check their cattle all the time too. When wolves move in it's not long until they are in the sheep and they get dealt with. I have talked to ranchers who have told me they killed wolves and I've heard rumors about other wolves that were killed. There was 1 wolf taken legally in southern Idaho last winter, I think 2 the year before. The illegal kills outnumber the legal kills in those areas. Total kills outnumber the wolves I believe currently live there by the number of tracks that I've seen in south Idaho, and Utah. I'm in those areas almost every day from mid-sept until Feb or March every year. I will say there are a lot more wolves in eastern Montana, I believe that is because there aren't as many people living there, so the wolf population is growing faster in eastern Montana and becoming more of a problem there. Wolves will live in open country where there is food, the arctic is a prime example, wolves follow the caribou and muskox herds. But most of southern Idaho and Utah I doubt wolves ever become as big a problem as other areas, the locals are probably not going to let that happen.

[jasnt]

"If you don't really know why try to act like you have the right answer by simply saying "habitat"? People see right through that worn out excuse that's used so often when bio's or managers don't have enough info or want to deny the real answers to a problem. Instead of crying "wolf" they cry "habitat" and that is exactly how more and more people are viewing that! It's too bad, because habitat is a very important consideration, but it is misconstrued far too often.  "

That is exactly how I feel!  It's getting to were I hear "habitat" and I just cringe. It seems to be the number 1 response when anyone doesn't want to accept the real problem like the wolves and woodland caribou and the elk in the Lolo zone. And yes it is sad because habitat is important and needs to not be a four letter word, it needs to be an important part of conservation.   I don't understand how anyone could believe that an apex predator that works with such amazing team work and persistence could not make a huge difference in game populations.  We are the stewards of this earth. If we want to continue to have hunt-able populations of deer, elk, moose, sheep, and predators as well then we need to manage all those game sp. for that purpose. Which costs $ paid for mostly by us who hunt them. Habitat is an important role in doing that but not #1 reason for any type of decline in game populations but it seems to be the go to answer these days even when it's clearly not the issue

[idahohuntr]

What cop out?  20 years after wolf introductions and they are nonexistent or at extremely low abundance in south idaho, utah, eastern montana...and it's not because of a lack of prey or extra poaching...gee...what could it be?

If you don't really know why try to act like you have the right answer by simply saying "habitat"? People see right through that worn out excuse that's used so often when bio's or managers don't have enough info or want to deny the real answers to a problem. Instead of crying "wolf" they cry "habitat" and that is exactly how more and more people are viewing that! It's too bad, because habitat is a very important consideration, but it is misconstrued far too often. 

Utah has some of the most abundant elk and mule deer herds anywhere. As someone who has a fair amount of experience in the 3 areas you mention please let me remind you that we are talking about open country that is much easier to hunt and spot wolves than the thick forests of northern Idaho, western Montana, and northeast WA. There are sheep and cattle grazed on most of these areas and herders live with the sheep for 5 years at a time, ranchers check their cattle all the time too. When wolves move in it's not long until they are in the sheep and they get dealt with. I have talked to ranchers who have told me they killed wolves and I've heard rumors about other wolves that were killed. There was 1 wolf taken legally in southern Idaho last winter, I think 2 the year before. The illegal kills outnumber the legal kills in those areas. Total kills outnumber the wolves I believe currently live there by the number of tracks that I've seen in south Idaho, and Utah. I'm in those areas almost every day from mid-sept until Feb or March every year. I will say there are a lot more wolves in eastern Montana, I believe that is because there aren't as many people living there, so the wolf population is growing faster in eastern Montana and becoming more of a problem there. Wolves will live in open country where there is food, the arctic is a prime example, wolves follow the caribou and muskox herds. But most of southern Idaho and Utah I doubt wolves ever become as big a problem as other areas, the locals are probably not going to let that happen.

It is not poachers.  Habitat just is not as suitable...doesn't mean they can't survive in those areas, but it is not preferred.  It has nothing to do with any level of poaching going on.  Obviously there are scumbag poachers wherever you go, but they are absolutely not even close to why there are far less wolves in some areas of s. Idaho.  Because habitat is not as suitable I agree with you wolves won't ever be much of a factor in those areas...the only way you get a sizeable wolf population in those areas is if the wolf numbers increase exponentially higher than what they are now in areas of more suitable habitat causing them to spread into more marginal areas...but given the IDFG administration over the past 30 years including Unsworth and his replacement...that's not gonna happen any time soon.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[mfswallace]

What cop out?  20 years after wolf introductions and they are nonexistent or at extremely low abundance in south idaho, utah, eastern montana...and it's not because of a lack of prey or extra poaching...gee...what could it be?

If you don't really know why try to act like you have the right answer by simply saying "habitat"? People see right through that worn out excuse that's used so often when bio's or managers don't have enough info or want to deny the real answers to a problem. Instead of crying "wolf" they cry "habitat" and that is exactly how more and more people are viewing that! It's too bad, because habitat is a very important consideration, but it is misconstrued far too often. 

Utah has some of the most abundant elk and mule deer herds anywhere. As someone who has a fair amount of experience in the 3 areas you mention please let me remind you that we are talking about open country that is much easier to hunt and spot wolves than the thick forests of northern Idaho, western Montana, and northeast WA. There are sheep and cattle grazed on most of these areas and herders live with the sheep for 5 years at a time, ranchers check their cattle all the time too. When wolves move in it's not long until they are in the sheep and they get dealt with. I have talked to ranchers who have told me they killed wolves and I've heard rumors about other wolves that were killed. There was 1 wolf taken legally in southern Idaho last winter, I think 2 the year before. The illegal kills outnumber the legal kills in those areas. Total kills outnumber the wolves I believe currently live there by the number of tracks that I've seen in south Idaho, and Utah. I'm in those areas almost every day from mid-sept until Feb or March every year. I will say there are a lot more wolves in eastern Montana, I believe that is because there aren't as many people living there, so the wolf population is growing faster in eastern Montana and becoming more of a problem there. Wolves will live in open country where there is food, the arctic is a prime example, wolves follow the caribou and muskox herds. But most of southern Idaho and Utah I doubt wolves ever become as big a problem as other areas, the locals are probably not going to let that happen.

It is not poachers.  Habitat just is not as suitable...doesn't mean they can't survive in those areas, but it is not preferred.  It has nothing to do with any level of poaching going on.  Obviously there are scumbag poachers wherever you go, but they are absolutely not even close to why there are far less wolves in some areas of s. Idaho.  Because habitat is not as suitable I agree with you wolves won't ever be much of a factor in those areas...the only way you get a sizeable wolf population in those areas is if the wolf numbers increase exponentially higher than what they are now in areas of more suitable habitat causing them to spread into more marginal areas...but given the IDFG administration over the past 30 years including Unsworth and his replacement...that's not gonna happen any time soon.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

You don't even realize your hypocrisy do you
The last 30 years have seen an explosion of wolves because of idfw and unsworthy

[mountainman]

What cop out?  20 years after wolf introductions and they are nonexistent or at extremely low abundance in south idaho, utah, eastern montana...and it's not because of a lack of prey or extra poaching...gee...what could it be?

If you don't really know why try to act like you have the right answer by simply saying "habitat"? People see right through that worn out excuse that's used so often when bio's or managers don't have enough info or want to deny the real answers to a problem. Instead of crying "wolf" they cry "habitat" and that is exactly how more and more people are viewing that! It's too bad, because habitat is a very important consideration, but it is misconstrued far too often. 

Utah has some of the most abundant elk and mule deer herds anywhere. As someone who has a fair amount of experience in the 3 areas you mention please let me remind you that we are talking about open country that is much easier to hunt and spot wolves than the thick forests of northern Idaho, western Montana, and northeast WA. There are sheep and cattle grazed on most of these areas and herders live with the sheep for 5 years at a time, ranchers check their cattle all the time too. When wolves move in it's not long until they are in the sheep and they get dealt with. I have talked to ranchers who have told me they killed wolves and I've heard rumors about other wolves that were killed. There was 1 wolf taken legally in southern Idaho last winter, I think 2 the year before. The illegal kills outnumber the legal kills in those areas. Total kills outnumber the wolves I believe currently live there by the number of tracks that I've seen in south Idaho, and Utah. I'm in those areas almost every day from mid-sept until Feb or March every year. I will say there are a lot more wolves in eastern Montana, I believe that is because there aren't as many people living there, so the wolf population is growing faster in eastern Montana and becoming more of a problem there. Wolves will live in open country where there is food, the arctic is a prime example, wolves follow the caribou and muskox herds. But most of southern Idaho and Utah I doubt wolves ever become as big a problem as other areas, the locals are probably not going to let that happen.

It is not poachers.  Habitat just is not as suitable...doesn't mean they can't survive in those areas, but it is not preferred.  It has nothing to do with any level of poaching going on.  Obviously there are scumbag poachers wherever you go, but they are absolutely not even close to why there are far less wolves in some areas of s. Idaho.  Because habitat is not as suitable I agree with you wolves won't ever be much of a factor in those areas...the only way you get a sizeable wolf population in those areas is if the wolf numbers increase exponentially higher than what they are now in areas of more suitable habitat causing them to spread into more marginal areas...but given the IDFG administration over the past 30 years including Unsworth and his replacement...that's not gonna happen any time soon.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

You don't even realize your hypocrisy do you
The last 30 years have seen an explosion of wolves because of idfw and unsworthy

[Gringo31]

It has nothing to do with any level of poaching going on.

So poaching can reduce deer and elk numbers but it doesn't have any effect of wolves.....

OR

Maybe it has an effect on wolves in other areas just not southern Idaho or Utah.   


Got it 

[idahohuntr]

Poaching doesn't explain the difference in abundance between the areas being discussed.  When there are few or no wolves present...it's difficult to poach them

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[WAPatriot]

Alls I get from this thread is some of our members are clearly wolf lovers and have no place on a hunting forum and that NE WA needs to step it up like south idaho. Cause remember it's all about habitat

[WAPatriot]

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?

Yeah that

[wolfbait]

Wolves are not all over Utah, Colorado and other southern states because of rancher mandated killing? 

Wyoming "stuck to its guns" in classifying wolves as a predator so they can be shot on sight unlike Idaho and Montana which 'caved'? 

Maybe there was something useful in the article, but I stopped reading after 2 paragraphs when it became clear that the author was clueless about wolves and wolf management in the West.

Busted! Paid Government Shill Exposes The Whole Operation!

[idahohuntr]

Wolves are not all over Utah, Colorado and other southern states because of rancher mandated killing? 

Wyoming "stuck to its guns" in classifying wolves as a predator so they can be shot on sight unlike Idaho and Montana which 'caved'? 

Maybe there was something useful in the article, but I stopped reading after 2 paragraphs when it became clear that the author was clueless about wolves and wolf management in the West.

Busted! Paid Government Shill Exposes The Whole Operation!

In the absence of facts to rebut my points you go back to your black helicopter stuff huh? I'm shocked

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Gringo31]

Poaching doesn't explain the difference in abundance between the areas being discussed.  When there are few or no wolves present...it's difficult to poach them

Chicken or egg?