Free: Contests & Raffles.
Quote from: huntnphool on February 15, 2017, 02:40:35 PMQuote from: bobcat on February 15, 2017, 02:37:35 PMQuote from: huntnphool on February 15, 2017, 02:29:27 PMQuote from: bobcat on February 15, 2017, 02:25:36 PMLooks like 1.9 million dollars is what they have to spend. I wonder, is it really worth it? Wouldn't it be better to spend that money on wildlife habitat restoration? Before they can restore the wolf habitat, they must first know how much food the wolves will need within that habitat.You'd think they'd be interested in restoring and/or improving mule deer habitat, since doing so would provide more deer for the wolves to eat. They don't need to though, there are plenty of mule deer to sustain a balanced wolf/prey natural order."Natural order" as in there aren't enough deer for us humans to hunt because the wolves' need to eat is more important than our need to hunt?
Quote from: bobcat on February 15, 2017, 02:37:35 PMQuote from: huntnphool on February 15, 2017, 02:29:27 PMQuote from: bobcat on February 15, 2017, 02:25:36 PMLooks like 1.9 million dollars is what they have to spend. I wonder, is it really worth it? Wouldn't it be better to spend that money on wildlife habitat restoration? Before they can restore the wolf habitat, they must first know how much food the wolves will need within that habitat.You'd think they'd be interested in restoring and/or improving mule deer habitat, since doing so would provide more deer for the wolves to eat. They don't need to though, there are plenty of mule deer to sustain a balanced wolf/prey natural order.
Quote from: huntnphool on February 15, 2017, 02:29:27 PMQuote from: bobcat on February 15, 2017, 02:25:36 PMLooks like 1.9 million dollars is what they have to spend. I wonder, is it really worth it? Wouldn't it be better to spend that money on wildlife habitat restoration? Before they can restore the wolf habitat, they must first know how much food the wolves will need within that habitat.You'd think they'd be interested in restoring and/or improving mule deer habitat, since doing so would provide more deer for the wolves to eat.
Quote from: bobcat on February 15, 2017, 02:25:36 PMLooks like 1.9 million dollars is what they have to spend. I wonder, is it really worth it? Wouldn't it be better to spend that money on wildlife habitat restoration? Before they can restore the wolf habitat, they must first know how much food the wolves will need within that habitat.
Looks like 1.9 million dollars is what they have to spend. I wonder, is it really worth it? Wouldn't it be better to spend that money on wildlife habitat restoration?
Quote from: Curly on February 15, 2017, 02:45:31 PMIt will most likely be a complete and total waste of money. OK, final offer. $1.7M. Quote from: pianoman9701 on February 15, 2017, 02:46:13 PM I don't think they intend to do the survey by opening up their stomachs, Flound3rz. Either way, I'm good. I can make up BS as good as the next guy.
It will most likely be a complete and total waste of money.
I don't think they intend to do the survey by opening up their stomachs, Flound3rz.
What a waste of damn money, look at wyomings moose population, looks at idaho for god's sake. Can't they pull some valuable info from the states that have already suffered from the wolf populations, how tough and expensive would that be?
I don't see anything in the report that says they captured and collared fawns and calves to look at predation rates on recruitment. Seems like that would be a big piece of the picture.
Quote from: Practical Approach on February 15, 2017, 03:31:55 PM I don't see anything in the report that says they captured and collared fawns and calves to look at predation rates on recruitment. Seems like that would be a big piece of the picture. And when they find coyotes and black bears are the big culprits when it comes to fawn/calf predation the wolf-haters will deny it. I know, 200 wolves eat more fawns/calves than 25,000 bears and 200,000 coyotes. Makes perfect sense..to the great scientific minds on here.
Quote from: Cougartail on February 15, 2017, 04:29:42 PMQuote from: Practical Approach on February 15, 2017, 03:31:55 PM I don't see anything in the report that says they captured and collared fawns and calves to look at predation rates on recruitment. Seems like that would be a big piece of the picture. And when they find coyotes and black bears are the big culprits when it comes to fawn/calf predation the wolf-haters will deny it. I know, 200 wolves eat more fawns/calves than 25,000 bears and 200,000 coyotes. Makes perfect sense..to the great scientific minds on here.For the westside, some studies have been done that suggest bobcats get most the fawns and cougars the calves.