The real culprit of Elk decline

[JJB11B]

WDFW is to blame.......and King county

[Mudman]

What makes this professor a quack?? Since we are going to discredit someone’s work I would like to see proof that his study is flawed in the scientific method or purposefully skewed. Otherwise you are making assumptions about someone based on the fact that you don’t like their objective findings because it doesn’t fit the narrative that predators are the cause of all wildlife woes. Humans are the number 1 reason for all wildlife declines in the last 2 hundred years.

Just wondering if I proved to ya "Quack" statement.  No discredit his study.  Of course trouncing through calving grounds has bad effects.  Doing it is quacky.  Claiming its proof people are killing off thousands of elk hiking trials etc is quackful.     35 years later!  Yup I sense a Duck quacking.

[OutHouse]

Humans are the number 1 reason for all wildlife declines in the last 2 hundred years.

   And like another said, animals out in the wilderness that aren't habituated will be disturbed by human presence. They don't just look at you like town deer/elk, they get antsy and leave the area. Sure town animals will be fine birthing and keeping their young around humans but the same probably can't be said about true wild animals. Anyone who has ever separated a calf and cow screaming down a mountain bike trail knows how they will run opposite directions. And for how long? probably depends on how scared they were. That happened to me a few times coming down little bald mountain when I was younger. At the time I didn't think that I could have caused a permanent separation or at least enough stress to compromise the future of the animal.

I'm sure everyone agrees that predators are part of the problem but we are competing with them for the same resource. How did populations manage themselves before human presence? They didn't. Their numbers balanced naturally. In my opinion, poaching is worse than the predator issue. Just go to a bar up 410, east or west side, and strike up a conversation about whether we should be allowed to hunt out of season and watch the unabashed poaching stories come out of the wood work.

Regarding that study, it shouldn't even take a study for those basic findings to be accepted. Human pressure on wild animals affects them. Negatively. Sure there are lots of other factors as well, but there really isn't any intelligent debate as to whether increased human presence in wild parts adversely affects wildlife. 

[2MANY]

Elk used to be plains game until man came and pushed them to the mountains.

The end.

[Platensek-po]

What makes this professor a quack?? Since we are going to discredit someone’s work I would like to see proof that his study is flawed in the scientific method or purposefully skewed. Otherwise you are making assumptions about someone based on the fact that you don’t like their objective findings because it doesn’t fit the narrative that predators are the cause of all wildlife woes. Humans are the number 1 reason for all wildlife declines in the last 2 hundred years.

Just wondering if I proved to ya "Quack" statement.  No discredit his study.  Of course trouncing through calving grounds has bad effects.  Doing it is quacky.  Claiming its proof people are killing off thousands of elk hiking trials etc is quackful.     35 years later!  Yup I sense a Duck quacking.

No what you proved to me is that you have no understanding of how scientific studies are performed and that your reading comprehension is lacking. It states that he started studying the area in 1980 not that the study was only performed at that time. It also clearly names the wildlife manager they received the letter from. There is no actual link to the published scientific study wich is the biggest red flag. If you had stated that it might have discredited the article but nothing seems quacky about studying a herd for 30+ years

[Platensek-po]

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5bc0c8a0fb18203af9535def/t/5c7f664a4785d349f2f15f91/1551853150998/Why-No-Action.pdf

Link to the letter sent in 2017 references in the article. With the actual information found in the studies and with references to past studies done over the last 20yrs. Total quack science

[pianoman9701]

" Some likely perish because the mothers, startled by passing humans and their canine companions, run too far away for the calves to catch up, weakening the young and making them more susceptible to starvation or predation from lions or bears. "

So, they make these claims about the occasional dog accompanying a hiker, but deny the impact wolves have.   The agenda for environmental groups and the Bios is to eliminate recreation and access.  They only care about power, and animals are just leverage.  That's why predators are their Holy Grail.  See the appallingly insane protection of predators in 113 while the Selkirk Caribou were being wiped out.

This is a study done in CO, where there are few wolves.

[pianoman9701]

While I'm not entirely sold on this, we arent talking about selkirk or the methow. Anyone who has been to Vail and surrounding areas can attest to the absurd amount of trails and hikers/bikers. Literally thousands! The elk in the surrounding mountains aren't semi habituated cattle like the Yellowstone critters. When I go into the hills, which I do a lit, and I encounter animals and they realize I'm there they turn inside out to get away. So is it liberal absurdity to assume if a bunch of hippies are going off trail up in the mountains that they are disturbing elk? 10% going of trail is thousands of people a year in the area being discussed. Wolves aren't running around Vail eating elk either. If this is liberal garbage then the libs are targeting the libs for once which is a nice change of pace

Like I said, I'm not sold on this one but let's be realistic in our comparisons 

  The geography and human effect in this area is completely different from almost anywhere in WA. It's quite possible that some predators have increased in those areas during that time period, as well. But the human element in the Divide study area is undeniable. Although I tend to agree with the fact that universities are overwhelmingly liberal, I wouldn't be so quick to throw the baby out with the bath water on this study.

[jstone]

Lots of these researchers get government money for there research. SOME probably say whatever the people with the money want them to say. If they want to keep getting funding.

[pianoman9701]

There are unscrupulous "scientists" working on our money to forward their views by manipulating data. WSU got rid of one of them and now he works for animal rights groups. But I know of no bad press on the scientist who performed this study. I believe we need to watch our impact on wintering and calving elk. Many just don't care because of the allure of sheds. That's a mistake, IMHO.

[Platensek-po]

Lots of these researchers get government money for there research. SOME probably say whatever the people with the money want them to say. If they want to keep getting funding.

Not how university grants work. I understand that few of you have experience with university scientific studies and how they are awarded. This idea that you have to produce certain results or lose funding is not how it works. A good way to
Lose funding and credibility is to make up data.

[SuperX]

I wonder how much of this is shed hunters off the trails and walking the calving grounds (with or without dogs) in spring?  It seems obvious that elk can avoid trails where humans hike, and the state can close trails through calving grounds to protect them during that vulnerable time, so it has to be off-trail hiking.  The only user groups I know that do enough off trail travel to affect elk numbers are hunters and shed hunters.

[pianoman9701]

I wonder how much of this is shed hunters off the trails and walking the calving grounds (with or without dogs) in spring?  It seems obvious that elk can avoid trails where humans hike, and the state can close trails through calving grounds to protect them during that vulnerable time, so it has to be off-trail hiking.  The only user groups I know that do enough off trail travel to affect elk numbers are hunters and shed hunters.

This is a heavily-hiked area at all times of the year. Everyone wants to hike around the Divide. Spring brings incredible wild flowers and mushrooms, breathtaking views.  Vail is only a couple of hours from Denver. It's way more than hunters and shed hunters.

[Bob33]

.

[Mudman]

Sorry.  Its still a bunch of liberal conservation SEJ environmental garbage.  Anti ATV as well it seems.  They want nobody on the precious land...  Kinda reminds me of our Mazama problems.  Elk can move to another location right?? Or is spring time only have 1 area they can exist in?  What about the huge decline in mule deer?  Wheres that study?  Maybe they cant find em to harrass the fawns, lol.  Development of valleys and predators, the real problem.  Don't the elk want to migrate to lower valleys for winter feeding grounds?  Ya know the ones that have their office and Prius at?  Using this crap to further the agenda of conservation is disgusting.  I see RCKYMNTELK is supporting this right?