Free: Contests & Raffles.
One wolf to the other "Where's the beef!"My inlaws all quit going north to hunt in MN/WI because they started seeing more wolves than deer, the wolves have to eat something! TOTAL MADNESS!
Quote from: bearpaw on January 01, 2018, 09:56:34 AMOne wolf to the other "Where's the beef!"My inlaws all quit going north to hunt in MN/WI because they started seeing more wolves than deer, the wolves have to eat something! TOTAL MADNESS!Minnesotans usually take 150,000 to over 200,000 deer a year. In the last 20 years there have only been 2 years where the harvest was under 150,000...... 1997 at 143,327 and 2014 at 138,442. Don't know about 2017 but 2015 and 2016 the harvest was 159,343 and 173,213 respectively, so the population is climbing again. I'd guess the 2014 down cycle was weather/habitat related. The population peaked between 2003 and 2006 then started a decline. Now it's on the incline again.http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/wildlife/deer/reports/harvest/deerharvest_2016.pdfWisconsin still harvests about 300,000 deer per year. Down from the peak of about 600,000 deer in 2000. But they made a concerted effort to lower the deer population in those days because they had way too many. You could get multiple deer tags and shooting does was definitely encouraged, in fact in 2000, 356,741 does were taken by rifle hunters and 46,220 were taken by bow hunters. Compare that to Washington's TOTAL (bucks and does) harvest for 2000 of 40,976 deer. So in 2000 in Wisconsin, bow hunters alone killed more does than the total deer harvest in Washington.http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/documents/deerhistory.pdfI don't think either state has a deer shortage.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/outdoors/2017/11/28/wisconsin-gun-deer-harvest-dips-35-year-low/900566001/most of the harvest is in the south part of the state with fewer or no wolves but am sure you know thati ve deer hunted in Wisconsin over 30 years.How many years have you hunted there? The deer hunting there used to be world class and over 4 months long. Same guys who come on here and sing the praises of wolves in Washington, Idaho, Montana and CNW yep the weather is to blame once againThe northern Wisconsin deer herd, especially, has benefitted from three consecutive mild winters and several years of “buck only” regulations intended to allow more female deer to live and reproduce.
Take it easy there sitka- there can't possibly be more to the story than wolves killing everything and conservation groups cheering them on.
Quote from: WAcoyotehunter on January 02, 2018, 04:59:16 AMTake it easy there sitka- there can't possibly be more to the story than wolves killing everything and conservation groups cheering them on. Yea...and what's with all the facts?...this is a wolf thread!
Quote from: idahohuntr on January 02, 2018, 07:02:57 AMQuote from: WAcoyotehunter on January 02, 2018, 04:59:16 AMTake it easy there sitka- there can't possibly be more to the story than wolves killing everything and conservation groups cheering them on. Yea...and what's with all the facts?...this is a wolf thread! Whoops! Sorry. I forgot where I was.
When someone comes on here and redefines eco terrorists and anti hunting groups as conservation groups you know that facts don’t matterThat was pretty funny I bet when you read that people’s livelihoods are being destroyed by wolves.Where’s cnw on this massive loss of livestock by wolves?I thought they supported all user groups
Quote from: ribka on January 02, 2018, 12:05:13 PMWhen someone comes on here and redefines eco terrorists and anti hunting groups as conservation groups you know that facts don’t matterThat was pretty funny I bet when you read that people’s livelihoods are being destroyed by wolves.Where’s cnw on this massive loss of livestock by wolves?I thought they supported all user groups CNW probably doesn't do much about wolves in Minnesota, considering it's like 1500 miles from the NW...I actually like your comment about redefining the term "conservation group" and somewhat agree. I think we (hunters) did a poor job of protecting the term. Hunting groups (DU, RMEF, SCI, ect) need to take that term back and make other groups "earn" the title.
And remember Minnesota has more wolves living there then Washington, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Wyoming... COMBINED! and there still is deer there. I am not some wolf conservationist but I think the wolf impact is a little over stated. I feel we do need to allow hunting on them just like we do with all other predators, to control numbers.
And I do think that those folks ought to be able to use aggressive means to protect their livestock.
Quote from: elkchaser54 on January 04, 2018, 12:22:20 PMAnd remember Minnesota has more wolves living there then Washington, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Wyoming... COMBINED! and there still is deer there. I am not some wolf conservationist but I think the wolf impact is a little over stated. I feel we do need to allow hunting on them just like we do with all other predators, to control numbers. I agree with your take, elkchaser. For the most part, wolves don't change things hunting-wise. There are other factors that have a bigger impact. When they do prove to be a big part of the problem, deal with them. Manage them just like other species. Focusing strictly on wolves means a lot of the other factors get ignored. And you walk around pissed off all the time.
If you don't believe "nothing you read and half of what you see" you really limit yourself. I would chalk that up as bad advice. Yeah, I believe the harvest report from.the agency. I suspect misrepresentation by hunters (falsely reporting) is more of a problem than agency misconduct.
Quote from: Sitka_Blacktail on January 04, 2018, 01:21:07 PMQuote from: elkchaser54 on January 04, 2018, 12:22:20 PMAnd remember Minnesota has more wolves living there then Washington, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Wyoming... COMBINED! and there still is deer there. I am not some wolf conservationist but I think the wolf impact is a little over stated. I feel we do need to allow hunting on them just like we do with all other predators, to control numbers. I agree with your take, elkchaser. For the most part, wolves don't change things hunting-wise. There are other factors that have a bigger impact. When they do prove to be a big part of the problem, deal with them. Manage them just like other species. Focusing strictly on wolves means a lot of the other factors get ignored. And you walk around pissed off all the time.One should remember the Yellowstone elk herd etc. when the devastation of game herds is brought to the forefront. To say that "wolves don't change things hunting-wise", is utter BS, and shows extreme ignorance.
A simple FOIA request could prove your case... Why would the agency risk tampering with harvest data? The more realistic scenario is that the seasons are changed around and harvest data comparisons get difficult.
Quote from: wolfbait on January 04, 2018, 10:53:32 PMQuote from: Sitka_Blacktail on January 04, 2018, 01:21:07 PMQuote from: elkchaser54 on January 04, 2018, 12:22:20 PMAnd remember Minnesota has more wolves living there then Washington, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Wyoming... COMBINED! and there still is deer there. I am not some wolf conservationist but I think the wolf impact is a little over stated. I feel we do need to allow hunting on them just like we do with all other predators, to control numbers. I agree with your take, elkchaser. For the most part, wolves don't change things hunting-wise. There are other factors that have a bigger impact. When they do prove to be a big part of the problem, deal with them. Manage them just like other species. Focusing strictly on wolves means a lot of the other factors get ignored. And you walk around pissed off all the time.One should remember the Yellowstone elk herd etc. when the devastation of game herds is brought to the forefront. To say that "wolves don't change things hunting-wise", is utter BS, and shows extreme ignorance.https://qcnr.usu.edu/labs/macnulty_lab/files/MacNulty%20et%20al%202016a.pdfI'll play with you wolfbait. Here is a well written and documented article about the decline in the Yellowstone herd. And wolves had a part in it although probably not in the way you would thing or as big a part as you maintain. For starters, the decline started before wolves were reintroduced. The December 1994 count was 2,254 less elk than the previous winter. Then right after the first wolves were released, the winter of 1997 happened on top of the largest hunter harvest ever in the late hunt. That winter had a record winter kill. But here is where it is probable that wolves added to the decline combined with the late hunt. And the reason is the way wolves hunt and the way humans hunt. Wolves take a good % of calves out of a herd. About half the elk they kill are calves. But interesting enough, of the cows they take, 89% ate over 10 years old. So in other words, once a cow elk matures, they are fairly safe from wolves, statistically until they get past their prime breeding age. So the prime breeders make up for calves lost to predators. But humans on the other hand tend to take prime breeding aged cows. See the graph in the article. With the late hunt continuing after the winter crash of 1997 and a growing wolf population, it was a triple whammy on the herd. With the end of the winter hunt (which was mostly about keeping damage down on surrounding farms and an attempt to keep the elk in Yellowstone from completely devastating their habitat.) and a falling wolf population, the population of the herd seems to have stabilized and is growing again.But before you lay it all on the wolves, look at the very first chart of the elk population in Yellowstone. There was another crash in recent history which culminated in the lowest number of elk in recent history and it had nothing to do with wolves as were weren't any wolves in Yellowstone in 1967-1968. After that crash, the herd grew rapidly, probably too rapidly and too large and another crash was bound to happen, wolves or no wolves. And the herd will climb again in spite of wolves.Meanwhile, hunters in Montana harvested Between 20,000-30,000 elk per year between 2004 and 2016, with 30,000 taken in 2015. In 1995, the year wolves were reintroduced Montana had roughly 95,000 elk. New newest population estimate I can find is for 2013 and it is 150,000 elk. So it doesn't appear to me that wolves are hurting hunters' ability to hunt in Montana.In Wyoming, in 1995, the year wolves were reintroduced, hunters killed 17,695 elk. In 2016, they killed 25,852 elk. Tell me again how bad wolves have slaughtered elk herds.
I love how anything involving the government always has a giant conspiracy behind it. We go from elk to rapes in Philadelphia to un-corroborated Clinton stories. I'm sure the WDFW was involved in both of those as well as UFO landings and the moon landing hoax.
Quote from: elkchaser54 on January 06, 2018, 09:57:33 AMI love how anything involving the government always has a giant conspiracy behind it. We go from elk to rapes in Philadelphia to un-corroborated Clinton stories. I'm sure the WDFW was involved in both of those as well as UFO landings and the moon landing hoax. Unfortunately that's the type we're dealing with here. If it doesn't fit their ideals, it's "fake news" and conspiracy.
Quote from: WAcoyotehunter on January 06, 2018, 11:20:03 AMQuote from: elkchaser54 on January 06, 2018, 09:57:33 AMI love how anything involving the government always has a giant conspiracy behind it. We go from elk to rapes in Philadelphia to un-corroborated Clinton stories. I'm sure the WDFW was involved in both of those as well as UFO landings and the moon landing hoax. Unfortunately that's the type we're dealing with here. If it doesn't fit their ideals, it's "fake news" and conspiracy. So people like Weilgus and Friedman don't have agendas? Look back at Jamie Rappaport Clark too.
Quote from: Sitka_Blacktail on January 05, 2018, 01:43:14 PMQuote from: wolfbait on January 04, 2018, 10:53:32 PMQuote from: Sitka_Blacktail on January 04, 2018, 01:21:07 PMQuote from: elkchaser54 on January 04, 2018, 12:22:20 PMAnd remember Minnesota has more wolves living there then Washington, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Wyoming... COMBINED! and there still is deer there. I am not some wolf conservationist but I think the wolf impact is a little over stated. I feel we do need to allow hunting on them just like we do with all other predators, to control numbers. I agree with your take, elkchaser. For the most part, wolves don't change things hunting-wise. There are other factors that have a bigger impact. When they do prove to be a big part of the problem, deal with them. Manage them just like other species. Focusing strictly on wolves means a lot of the other factors get ignored. And you walk around pissed off all the time.One should remember the Yellowstone elk herd etc. when the devastation of game herds is brought to the forefront. To say that "wolves don't change things hunting-wise", is utter BS, and shows extreme ignorance.https://qcnr.usu.edu/labs/macnulty_lab/files/MacNulty%20et%20al%202016a.pdfI'll play with you wolfbait. Here is a well written and documented article about the decline in the Yellowstone herd. And wolves had a part in it although probably not in the way you would thing or as big a part as you maintain. For starters, the decline started before wolves were reintroduced. The December 1994 count was 2,254 less elk than the previous winter. Then right after the first wolves were released, the winter of 1997 happened on top of the largest hunter harvest ever in the late hunt. That winter had a record winter kill. But here is where it is probable that wolves added to the decline combined with the late hunt. And the reason is the way wolves hunt and the way humans hunt. Wolves take a good % of calves out of a herd. About half the elk they kill are calves. But interesting enough, of the cows they take, 89% ate over 10 years old. So in other words, once a cow elk matures, they are fairly safe from wolves, statistically until they get past their prime breeding age. So the prime breeders make up for calves lost to predators. But humans on the other hand tend to take prime breeding aged cows. See the graph in the article. With the late hunt continuing after the winter crash of 1997 and a growing wolf population, it was a triple whammy on the herd. With the end of the winter hunt (which was mostly about keeping damage down on surrounding farms and an attempt to keep the elk in Yellowstone from completely devastating their habitat.) and a falling wolf population, the population of the herd seems to have stabilized and is growing again.But before you lay it all on the wolves, look at the very first chart of the elk population in Yellowstone. There was another crash in recent history which culminated in the lowest number of elk in recent history and it had nothing to do with wolves as were weren't any wolves in Yellowstone in 1967-1968. After that crash, the herd grew rapidly, probably too rapidly and too large and another crash was bound to happen, wolves or no wolves. And the herd will climb again in spite of wolves.Meanwhile, hunters in Montana harvested Between 20,000-30,000 elk per year between 2004 and 2016, with 30,000 taken in 2015. In 1995, the year wolves were reintroduced Montana had roughly 95,000 elk. New newest population estimate I can find is for 2013 and it is 150,000 elk. So it doesn't appear to me that wolves are hurting hunters' ability to hunt in Montana.In Wyoming, in 1995, the year wolves were reintroduced, hunters killed 17,695 elk. In 2016, they killed 25,852 elk. Tell me again how bad wolves have slaughtered elk herds.I tried to read some of the crap article, I really did, anything with Doug Smith in it is usually tainted: "Despite uncertainty about the northern Yellowstone elk data, there is little doubt that wolves have contributed to the recent decline of the northern elk herd. What is in doubt is the size of that contribution. How much of the decline is due to wolves? The basic biology of wolves suggests that they have a modest influence on elk dynamics. The wolf has the bite force, body size, and cooperative behavior to kill a wide array of ungulates ranging from diminutive deer to one-ton bison (Mech et al. 2015). But it lacks the massive size, retractable claws, supinating muscular forelimbs, and specialized skull configuration (Peterson and Ciucci 2003) that would allow it to be a consistently high-success hunter of any one particular prey species. Instead, the wolf is a consistently low-success hunter of a wide range of prey. Its strategy is to find the easy mark: a prey animal that is easily killed because of its small size, old age, poor health, or treacherous surroundings. The problem is that easy marks are generally rare and often inconspicuous. Wolves find their mark by relentlessly sifting through the available prey pool, testing prospective victims. Wolves cast a wide net and test many more prey than they actually kill. This is why the success of wolves hunting elk in northern Yellowstone has rarely exceeded 20% (Smith et al. 2000, Mech et al. 2001) and drops to less than 10% when only adult elk are considered (MacNulty et al. 2012)."In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. s: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlBack to the BS line of "Wolves only kill the old, the sick and the weak".Do you remember the LoLo elk herd, IDFG finally had to admit wolves were the reason for decline.
Quote from: WAcoyotehunter on January 05, 2018, 10:41:25 AMA simple FOIA request could prove your case... Why would the agency risk tampering with harvest data? The more realistic scenario is that the seasons are changed around and harvest data comparisons get difficult."Why would the agency risk tampering with harvest data"?....The same reason they inflate herd sizes AND balloon forecasts, sell more tags, make more money, support other critters other than our ungulates which we all know have not been tended to like they once were...
