Coloradans unleash wolves on their neighbors: A fitting metaphor for COVID

[Hydrophilic]

I also ponder about why WDFW/ODFW/insert agency gets a more of nod to their numbers than our observations. Is it because they're scientists, or professionals? I also spend more time pooping in the woods than some of these experts spend their entire work life. I didn't and don't need a degree to observe the obvious. Although, given the current state, I could charge good money for it.

...We need data to make game management decisions. Are you honestly going to refute that? That is a key tenant of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and the basis behind why we STILL have hunting opportunities with 300+ million people.

Would you let a janitor treat your cancer? Or would you want someone who received an education (textbooks, science) and evaluates data to see what type of cancer you have or what treatment method will work best for your specific cancer? Or are you going to bash me for supporting my opinions with data but go running to a physician when you have a health emergency and let his decisions based on data save your life? That's called cognitive dissonance. READ.

[KopperBuck]

I also ponder about why WDFW/ODFW/insert agency gets a more of nod to their numbers than our observations. Is it because they're scientists, or professionals? I also spend more time pooping in the woods than some of these experts spend their entire work life. I didn't and don't need a degree to observe the obvious. Although, given the current state, I could charge good money for it.

...We need data to make game management decisions. Are you honestly going to refute that? That is a key tenant of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and the basis behind why we STILL have hunting opportunities with 300+ million people.

Would you let a janitor treat your cancer? Or would you want someone who received an education (textbooks, science) and evaluates data to see what type of cancer you have or what treatment method will work best for your specific cancer? Or are you going to bash me for supporting my opinions with data but go running to a physician when you have a health emergency and let his decisions based on data save your life? That's called cognitive dissonance. READ.

LOL. I can read well, thank you. I'm saying that I don't believe everything they come out with. Because I literally see it everyday.

No, I wouldn't let a janitor treat my cancer. But I might listen to him if he told me the weeds were getting out of control.

[KFhunter]

What's janitors got anything to do with wolves?   It's a piss poor debate tactic to use such logical fallacies.   


This is getting ridiculous   


I don't know why you're engaging some Portlander  Kopper

[Miles]

Folks - can we stop with the baseless personal attacks that too frequently creep into these discussions?  Hydro is expressing an opinion and supporting it with data...feel free to rebut but lets drop these ridiculous personal attacks and accusations he's not a hunter.   

A member who recently joined and has only posted on this particular thread with old data while demanding people with opposing views produce new data... color me skeptical. If it walks like a troll and acts like a troll... 

Glad to see someone else sees what is happening here.

[idaho guy]

People refer to Yellowstone because its a slam dunk example of what wolves do to ungulate populations with all other variables staying relatively constant. Wolves have destroyed ungulate populations everywhere they go. I saw the populations change firsthand out around the Clearwater and up the Joe, and now in NE Washington. The stress from running them in the winter has a terrible impact along with the obvious killing. I'm sure there's research out there to show otherwise, done by someone who loves wolves.

That's a blanket statement, and clearly not true. You don't have to cite research but please cite F&W quality data from the respective states. You will need a lot of it. Without data your assertions mean nothing, and you can dislike me saying this but it doesn't change the fact it's true.

One of my favorites is when a hunter proclaims they have seen a lot of (insert predator here) kills and tracks in their unit and therefore management is badly needed. Most of the time when pressed on the issue they can't even cite management objectives, the estimated game population, or estimated predator numbers for the particular unit, let alone other factors. That's akin to me walking into the units I hunt, not seeing any predator sign, seeing lots of elk sign, and proclaiming we need to cull the elk to boost predator numbers. That's emotional and irrational, there is no data involved. That's ridiculous.

For starters, one of the units I hunt in Oregon has had wolf activity for at least 8 years. It is not a pack on record with ODFW, who knows why, despite photo evidence of adults and offspring. This unit has a better estimated elk population than it did decades ago. It exceeds MO, even with Oregon's healthy cougar population. 2019 harvest was essentially right on par with pre wolf 2004 data. Why is this? 

I've attached historic annual bull elk harvest provided by a previous ODFW document. 2019 total bull harvest (archery and rifle) was 9,597 ( out of 15,299 total elk harvested). Plot the point on the figure I attached and evaluate the data. How does it look in comparison? Have the wolves destroyed everything in their wake? These numbers were possible in conjunction with heathy cougar populations and a high antlerless harvest rate, both can decimate given the right situation. A correct response isn't to ignore everything I've just said and to say "oh, give the wolves more time". That may or may not be true but, again, it isn't based on meaningful data and therefore means nothing.

Also, as I requested earlier, please post the data to backup your initial claim of wolves destroying ungulate populations everywhere they go. Thats a big statement so make your case to me with data from all western states please.

https://myodfw.com/articles/big-game-hunting-harvest-statistics

Per your own proclamation, you will need to show us where ODFW says there are wolves in that unit or they aren't there! Your suggested data and assertions are useless and unverifiable!

So you already confirmed (and advertise on your outfitter website), using state verified/provided elk harvest data, that the Panhandle of Idaho is Idaho's top producing elk zone.

We also know the Panhandle has a HUGE number of wolves, of which some portion are harvested annually, likely a small portion, because there are an absolute ton of wolves in the Panhandle.

Not directed you at bearpaw, but I have a hard time with people wanting to personally attack hydro and call him a troll when he questions a member who says wolves have destroyed ungulates everywhere they go.  Especially when you in this very thread have demonstrated unequivocally that is not true.

Maybe folks want to argue that allowing hunters to kill a small fraction of wolves is what it takes to prevent such destruction, or maybe by 'destroy' folks mean something else? 

Either way, I see hydro pushing for more informed debate on these matters and that is a good thing.  If hunters sound like a collective bunch of uninformed folks who exaggerate impacts, that will not lead to improved predator management...it makes it easier for people in power to dismiss us as a bunch of idiots.  If we collectively can discuss these issues with supporting data and examples that withstand some level of scrutiny we can better make our case.

Look up the success rates historically and current success rates for units in the panhandle and then you will understand. Recent Success rate for archery in unit 2 and 4a were both 1 percent not a typo that’s right 1%. Archery in those units used to run high teens and I remember 4a when it was 20 to 30 percent every year. Most panhandle units would run in the 20 plus percent category. 5 and 6 had ok success for rifle but most of the elk in 5 are shot on private ground not public. And there are very little if any wolves in 5 and wolves are getting trapped like crazy in 6. My freind who lives in 6 gets 5-8every year last 4-5 years. The panhandle is a top producing zone in terms of numbers of elk harvested and it’s also gigantic stretching from st joe Clearwater divide to Canada. Does 1 percent success sound like a top elk destination to you. Look up success rates from the 90s even early 2000 and the whole story is there. It’s not my job to post all the facts if you really care about this topic look up success before and after wolves. The evidence is there

[KFhunter]

And that's with every Tom Dick and Harry trapping and shooting wolves.

We be screwed in WA

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[idaho guy]

Hydro keep looking up why wolves are good I will keep doing this and my kids will still have a place to hunt elk

[idaho guy]

Hydro and this

[KFhunter]

Hydro keep looking up why wolves are good I will keep doing this and my kids will still have a place to hunt elk

Good wolf

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[idaho guy]

Hydro and this

[idaho guy]

Hydro and this all 2020 predators taken out except wolf

[idaho guy]

Hydro and Idaho hunter you guys do you!! read books and worship what the biologist tell you. I will continue to harvest predators and my kids will have a place to hunt elk and deer. Yours might just have too prance around all the habitat running from wolves and other predators. I’m out on this argument it’s exhausting especially when people keep spewing the same old lies and arguments they used 25 years ago. It’s all been proven to be false by actual experience. You guys enjoy I am going to do my best to be part of the solution.

[idaho guy]

Folks - can we stop with the baseless personal attacks that too frequently creep into these discussions?  Hydro is expressing an opinion and supporting it with data...feel free to rebut but lets drop these ridiculous personal attacks and accusations he's not a hunter.   

A member who recently joined and has only posted on this particular thread with old data while demanding people with opposing views produce new data... color me skeptical. If it walks like a troll and acts like a troll... 

What old data am I using? Historical bull elk harvest? That’s the point, and I gave a new data point to plot for comparison, do you want more? Because I can provide it, just let me know.

One more thing  :chuckle that letter from the biologist is proof many of them can’t be trusted

[Platensek-po]

“The places with the greatest abundance of elk are also the places with the greatest abundance of wolves.” Really??? I cannot believe a biologist used that as an explanation of anything other than the obvious. You mean the wolves hang around their food source??? Are they supposed to be combing the beaches looking for seals? If anything that statement proves that wolves are having an effect on the herds. I personally would like to continue seeing wolves in the wild. For that to happen they have to be managed like everything else. You can’t try to manage some parts of the ecosystem and not others. It doesn’t work. That said that letter from the bio is devoid of anything but seriously basic information.

[hughjorgan]

Folks - can we stop with the baseless personal attacks that too frequently creep into these discussions?  Hydro is expressing an opinion and supporting it with data...feel free to rebut but lets drop these ridiculous personal attacks and accusations he's not a hunter.   

A member who recently joined and has only posted on this particular thread with old data while demanding people with opposing views produce new data... color me skeptical. If it walks like a troll and acts like a troll... 

What old data am I using? Historical bull elk harvest? That’s the point, and I gave a new data point to plot for comparison, do you want more? Because I can provide it, just let me know.

One more thing  :chuckle that letter from the biologist is proof many of them can’t be trusted

Idaho you are 100 percent speaking the truth! I have a friend that used to work for IDFG and he is a hunter, a very good one too and he worked under a pro wolf biologist in Idaho. She wasn’t really happy when he happened to double up on a couple wolves one year.

Plenty of folks in the game department aren’t for sportsman’s and until we rid the departments of these people we will get skewed data.

Nice work on the predator control Idaho guy!