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

[Buckhunter24]

Hey everyone has their own opinions but what bothers me the most is the personal attacks on Hydro and even the owner of the site calling him names--that just incites the crowd.  You want to have a conversation that's fine but lets be adults

A lot more productive discussion can happen if we all focus on the topic and not the people. 

Platensek-po I appreciate the dialogue you and hydro have had...largely respectful and focused on the topic without a bunch of unnecessary attacks - even though there is strong disagreement.  I've learned a bit from your exchanges and I appreciate points you both have made.

 

I know you think uniformed citizens should vote on these issues. Let’s not debate that again. Do you think spending tax payer money to dump wolves in Colorado where they are migrating naturally is a good idea? Regardless of wether the owners(the public) have the right to decide is this a good idea? Or a total dumpster fire decision by Colorado

No, I would not have voted for this initiative were I a CO resident, primarily for 2 reasons already mentioned: 1. wolves are already in CO, so like WA, just leave it to whatever naturally colonizes.  2. It does create a significant resource drain - biologists and staff working on mule deer and CWD and other important issues are going to get sucked into the same wolf bs you see WDFW sucked into. 

If I were advising policy makers in western CO I would be torn over how to handle this from a strategic standpoint.  Do you stall, delay, seek another initiative to overturn this one (given it was such a close vote). sue under ESA and NEPA and try to stop it from ultimately happening...or, given the current political makeup, do you move quickly to establish and codify hunting seasons, depredation plans etc. that allow for more successful management in the future.  CO is a purple state, trending blue.  In a decade they may be solid blue like WA and at that time they will be in the same boat as WA...no chance for any hunting seasons or substantive lethal control measures.

If wolves are ultimately reintroduced I expect it will be similar to all the other western states.  The impacts and distribution of wolves will be variable, some areas (particularly NW Colorado) are likely to have the greatest concentration of wolves, and how this will impact ungulate herds will be a function of many other variables as well.  It will not 'destroy' deer and elk hunting by any stretch, but it will have impacts on game numbers, distribution, and behavior.
 

Can you describe your predicted impact on game numbers? Positive or negative and to what extent?

Observations in the field are very important. Sampling is also important but subject to bias. Intentional or not it is important to evaluate the possibity of a biased sample. This includes not just the data and how it is collected, but also the people who collect the data. Before I take the data seriously I would like to see the framework for the sampling process, who wrote wrote the sampling plan and who collected the data. Overly simplified graphs and numbers are great for convincing an uneducated mass but that is all they are good for.

[Hydrophilic]

Did you look at the data for mule deer populations in those units???

Wenaha went from 2600 to 1350 in the last 4 years with an objective of 4K.
Minam went from 2600 to 1700 in the last 5 years and has objective of 7k.
Walla walla declined from 1900 to 1500 with an objective of 1900.
Also that same data says that walla walla has a 100% fawn winter survival rate.
That’s gotta be good data.

 Also keep in mind those numbers are all estimated.

Wenaha has a management objective of 4K for elk in that unit. It’s currently half that.
The calf to cow ratio in minam and wenaha has gone down. As has the ratio of calf to cows for Roosevelt elk in general.

So looking at the data put forth by ODFW there are places where the elk are now above MO and places that are well below. Would be interesting to see a correlation of ag or private land vs wild.

https://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/2019_Oregon_Wolf_Plan.pdf

In the odfw wolf management plan they state they have reached the management objective in the eastern part of the state and according to their own numbers are 3 times above the population goal for the area they inhabit. So by their own admission they are above objective and they also state that human take could increase by 5 to 10 percent without causing a population decline. Meaning they could have a hunting and trapping season to manage The population that is above population goals but they don’t. In their management plan I found no mention of civilian control of population at all. Curious as they admitted to having multiple problems with wolf interactions. They also state the goal to manage wolves like other game animals in the state but they are not doing that. So they are not even sticking to their own management plan. Montana and Idaho have stable wolf populations even with hunting and trapping. So why not include that as a management plan for a species that is 3x above its population numbers?

And what about Zebra in Africa? Mule Deer are an entirely different conversation.

Wenaha has had a large elk MO for a long time, it doesn't mean the herd is unhealthy, it means there is a Management objective for where they would like the herd to be, depending on many situations. Quality hunting opportunity, land owner complaints, over browsing sensitive habitat, etc. Wenaha used to have a pretty lousy elk population way back when...decades before the wolves. It has been increasing steadily.

Please, what are your thoughts on increasing elk populations in those 3 units with wolf populations? What are your thoughts on Idahos current elk population compared to the 1995 elk population when wolves were reintroduced. And what are your thoughts on record levels of elk harvest in Idaho - "For the sixth straight year, Idaho elk hunters harvested more than 20,000 elk, good for the second best stretch in the state's history"? Don't dodge me. Let's have a discussion.

I’m sorry I guess I didn’t realize that wolves don’t eat mule deer. I said it before and I’ll tell you again. Harvest numbers are not scientific. They are based on self reporting by hunters. There are a bunch of factors that can increase harvest numbers. License sales increase, better opportunity because of elk being pressured into more accessible areas. Let’s look at the actual data from ODFW. Did you notice that the bull and calf to cow ratios are down? Meaning that the weakest members are being picked off creating a different herd dynamic. Again do you believe that mule deer fawns had a 100% survival rate in walla walla for 5 straight years? ODFW does. Why are you dodging me on the population numbers of wolves and their management objective? It clearly states they have 158 wolves and their objective is 48-49. Are we talking about IDaho or Oregon or Colorado? You want to talk data but then dismiss other data put forth from the same source. I asked you about scientists asking for a natural migration of wolves into Colorado instead of a forced introduction and.... it would seem you are dodging me not vice versa. Idaho also manages its populations and has a steady population of wolves. Pregón admits to having more wolves than their objective but doesn’t touch them. Did you even read the management plan??

I'll be glad to talk about Mule deer later but first we need to resolve our conversation about elk because so much misinformation is spread here it should be illegal and against the AUP.

Did you read the data I provided? I included population numbers, not just harvest numbers. I can only do so much aside from holding your eyes open to make you read the data which I am getting directly from each states Fish and Game dept.

I'll just start lugging all of it around on all of my posts until someone reads it. Maybe I'll add Wyoming as well, just because I'm feeling nice tonight.

I am not intending to dodge your wolf data. If a state has a management objective for wolves then it is reasonable to follow it, I am fine with that and I argued against an environmental group who tried to weasel out of the wolf plan they helped design some years earlier. This Elk herd in Montana is 800% over MO, it needs to be managed too.

https://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/snowy-mountains-elk-herd-800-over-population-shows-montanas-challenge-managing-elk/article_161227e0-0ba1-5cf8-8235-a12d34666536.html

MY DATA - PLEASE READ AND RESPOND

Oregon

Walla Walla
2002: 1,500
2005: 1,450
2008: 1,500
2011: 1,500
2014: 1,690
2016: 1,700
2019: 1,700

Minam
2002: 1,800
2005: 2,000
2008: 2,100
2011: 2,100
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,500
2019: 2,500

Wenaha
2002: 1300
2005: 1350
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
2019: 2,700

THIS INCREASE IN ELK HAS BEEN ACCOMPANIED BY INCREASING WOLVES
https://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/population.asp

Source: ODFW
--------------------

Idaho

Elk population
1995 (year wolves were reintroduced): 112,333
Current: 120,000

Source: IDFG

"For the sixth straight year, Idaho elk hunters harvested more than 20,000 elk. That’s the second best stretch in the state's history."

https://idfg.idaho.gov/press/harvest-hunter-numbers-down-deer-and-elk-2019
---------------------

Wyoming

Elk Population
2004: 88,614
2020: 112,900

Source: WGFD (also attached below)
2020 article proclaiming "The Decade of Elk" in Wyoming

https://capcity.news/latest-news/2020/09/22/decade-of-the-elk-for-hunters-as-herds-top-goals-by-32/

Wait now we are talking about Wyoming?? This whole thing is crazy. What are the plus minus numbers on the population data for elk? A difference between 112 and 120k might even be within the plus minus. Also it’s very likely that if elk are being pushed out of the wilderness onto ag and private then they would be easier to count and their numbers would appear to increase. Hard to tell from a very non scientific power point graph. Wyoming’s elk is a special case. They have the lowest human population, the most parks and wilderness and great management. The fact that elk populations could be increasing along with that of wolves is irrelevant. The fact is they need to be managed per ODFWs plan. Washington’s wolves are also above objective. Idaho and Montana have proven that hunting can be an effective tool for managing wolves. Let’s start there and work out.

Your own statement

“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."

To be very clear,  Your bold initial statement is what I am responding to, nothing else. Your statement in conjunction with all of the baseless comments on this thread and forum which state Wolves are destroying ungulates everywhere they go.

I am showing you and everyone else DATA where wolves are NOT impacting elk herds or statewide populations negatively, or in an additive way. You keep dodging me one way or another. In fact, some of the data I have shown you is from UNMANAGED WOLVES and the elk populations are growing like crazy. How many examples do I have to cite for you to retract your statement? Or perhaps your meant something else and I have misunderstood you. Please explain.

I am personally not arguing for a position where wolves aren't managed. I have argued against an environmental group and FOR removing wolf protections in a certain state where proposed recovery numbers were realized. What I'm arguing for, in the latter half of this thread - to be extremely clear - is that wolves are not destroying elk, or having a significant impact on them in many places. In fact, Elk hunting has never been better in some states which have some of the highest elk numbers despite wolf reintroduction in the 90's, etc. Elk populations have been growing along with wolf populations.

Go back through this thread and read all of the misinformed comments such as "Anyone who says wolves don’t have a significant impact on wildlife has absolutely ZERO credibility with me", or Bearpaw's "members here have seen the damage inflicted by wolves, and history is bound to repeat itself in Colorado just as it has in every other wolf infested state and province, enough said!" or " Certainly these very hungry wolves that eat roughly 10 pounds of meat per day per wolf have an additive effect on predation, this additive impact is a significant factor, in fact the increases in wolf numbers parallels the declines in elk numbers in areas suffering the most from predation."

 I simply don't have the time to copy all of them here. So, please use the data I'm providing to clarify your initial statement, and if you agree with me that wolves are not decimating elk everywhere they go, or exist, then what is your response to all of the statements I take issue with in this thread? Since Wyoming data weirded you out I will take a break on my data drop.


DATA

Oregon

Walla Walla
2002: 1,500
2005: 1,450
2008: 1,500
2011: 1,500
2014: 1,690
2016: 1,700
2019: 1,700

Minam
2002: 1,800
2005: 2,000
2008: 2,100
2011: 2,100
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,500
2019: 2,500

Wenaha
2002: 1300
2005: 1350
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
2019: 2,700

THIS INCREASE IN ELK HAS BEEN ACCOMPANIED BY INCREASING WOLVES
https://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/population.asp

Source: ODFW
--------------------

Idaho

Elk population
1995 (year wolves were reintroduced): 112,333
Current: 120,000

Source: IDFG

"For the sixth straight year, Idaho elk hunters harvested more than 20,000 elk. That’s the second best stretch in the state's history."

https://idfg.idaho.gov/press/harvest-hunter-numbers-down-deer-and-elk-2019
---------------------

Wyoming

Elk Population
2004: 88,614
2020: 112,900

Source: WGFD (also attached below)
2020 article proclaiming "The Decade of Elk" in Wyoming

https://capcity.news/latest-news/2020/09/22/decade-of-the-elk-for-hunters-as-herds-top-goals-by-32/

[idaho guy]

Hey everyone has their own opinions but what bothers me the most is the personal attacks on Hydro and even the owner of the site calling him names--that just incites the crowd.  You want to have a conversation that's fine but lets be adults

A lot more productive discussion can happen if we all focus on the topic and not the people. 

Platensek-po I appreciate the dialogue you and hydro have had...largely respectful and focused on the topic without a bunch of unnecessary attacks - even though there is strong disagreement.  I've learned a bit from your exchanges and I appreciate points you both have made.

 

I know you think uniformed citizens should vote on these issues. Let’s not debate that again. Do you think spending tax payer money to dump wolves in Colorado where they are migrating naturally is a good idea? Regardless of wether the owners(the public) have the right to decide is this a good idea? Or a total dumpster fire decision by Colorado

No, I would not have voted for this initiative were I a CO resident, primarily for 2 reasons already mentioned: 1. wolves are already in CO, so like WA, just leave it to whatever naturally colonizes.  2. It does create a significant resource drain - biologists and staff working on mule deer and CWD and other important issues are going to get sucked into the same wolf bs you see WDFW sucked into. 

If I were advising policy makers in western CO I would be torn over how to handle this from a strategic standpoint.  Do you stall, delay, seek another initiative to overturn this one (given it was such a close vote). sue under ESA and NEPA and try to stop it from ultimately happening...or, given the current political makeup, do you move quickly to establish and codify hunting seasons, depredation plans etc. that allow for more successful management in the future.  CO is a purple state, trending blue.  In a decade they may be solid blue like WA and at that time they will be in the same boat as WA...no chance for any hunting seasons or substantive lethal control measures.

If wolves are ultimately reintroduced I expect it will be similar to all the other western states.  The impacts and distribution of wolves will be variable, some areas (particularly NW Colorado) are likely to have the greatest concentration of wolves, and how this will impact ungulate herds will be a function of many other variables as well.  It will not 'destroy' deer and elk hunting by any stretch, but it will have impacts on game numbers, distribution, and behavior.
 

   

  Fair enough! I can agree with a lot of that.

[idaho guy]

Did you look at the data for mule deer populations in those units???

Wenaha went from 2600 to 1350 in the last 4 years with an objective of 4K.
Minam went from 2600 to 1700 in the last 5 years and has objective of 7k.
Walla walla declined from 1900 to 1500 with an objective of 1900.
Also that same data says that walla walla has a 100% fawn winter survival rate.
That’s gotta be good data.

 Also keep in mind those numbers are all estimated.

Wenaha has a management objective of 4K for elk in that unit. It’s currently half that.
The calf to cow ratio in minam and wenaha has gone down. As has the ratio of calf to cows for Roosevelt elk in general.

So looking at the data put forth by ODFW there are places where the elk are now above MO and places that are well below. Would be interesting to see a correlation of ag or private land vs wild.

https://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/2019_Oregon_Wolf_Plan.pdf

In the odfw wolf management plan they state they have reached the management objective in the eastern part of the state and according to their own numbers are 3 times above the population goal for the area they inhabit. So by their own admission they are above objective and they also state that human take could increase by 5 to 10 percent without causing a population decline. Meaning they could have a hunting and trapping season to manage The population that is above population goals but they don’t. In their management plan I found no mention of civilian control of population at all. Curious as they admitted to having multiple problems with wolf interactions. They also state the goal to manage wolves like other game animals in the state but they are not doing that. So they are not even sticking to their own management plan. Montana and Idaho have stable wolf populations even with hunting and trapping. So why not include that as a management plan for a species that is 3x above its population numbers?

And what about Zebra in Africa? Mule Deer are an entirely different conversation.

Wenaha has had a large elk MO for a long time, it doesn't mean the herd is unhealthy, it means there is a Management objective for where they would like the herd to be, depending on many situations. Quality hunting opportunity, land owner complaints, over browsing sensitive habitat, etc. Wenaha used to have a pretty lousy elk population way back when...decades before the wolves. It has been increasing steadily.

Please, what are your thoughts on increasing elk populations in those 3 units with wolf populations? What are your thoughts on Idahos current elk population compared to the 1995 elk population when wolves were reintroduced. And what are your thoughts on record levels of elk harvest in Idaho - "For the sixth straight year, Idaho elk hunters harvested more than 20,000 elk, good for the second best stretch in the state's history"? Don't dodge me. Let's have a discussion.

I’m sorry I guess I didn’t realize that wolves don’t eat mule deer. I said it before and I’ll tell you again. Harvest numbers are not scientific. They are based on self reporting by hunters. There are a bunch of factors that can increase harvest numbers. License sales increase, better opportunity because of elk being pressured into more accessible areas. Let’s look at the actual data from ODFW. Did you notice that the bull and calf to cow ratios are down? Meaning that the weakest members are being picked off creating a different herd dynamic. Again do you believe that mule deer fawns had a 100% survival rate in walla walla for 5 straight years? ODFW does. Why are you dodging me on the population numbers of wolves and their management objective? It clearly states they have 158 wolves and their objective is 48-49. Are we talking about IDaho or Oregon or Colorado? You want to talk data but then dismiss other data put forth from the same source. I asked you about scientists asking for a natural migration of wolves into Colorado instead of a forced introduction and.... it would seem you are dodging me not vice versa. Idaho also manages its populations and has a steady population of wolves. Pregón admits to having more wolves than their objective but doesn’t touch them. Did you even read the management plan??

I'll be glad to talk about Mule deer later but first we need to resolve our conversation about elk because so much misinformation is spread here it should be illegal and against the AUP.

Did you read the data I provided? I included population numbers, not just harvest numbers. I can only do so much aside from holding your eyes open to make you read the data which I am getting directly from each states Fish and Game dept.

I'll just start lugging all of it around on all of my posts until someone reads it. Maybe I'll add Wyoming as well, just because I'm feeling nice tonight.

I am not intending to dodge your wolf data. If a state has a management objective for wolves then it is reasonable to follow it, I am fine with that and I argued against an environmental group who tried to weasel out of the wolf plan they helped design some years earlier. This Elk herd in Montana is 800% over MO, it needs to be managed too.

https://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/snowy-mountains-elk-herd-800-over-population-shows-montanas-challenge-managing-elk/article_161227e0-0ba1-5cf8-8235-a12d34666536.html

MY DATA - PLEASE READ AND RESPOND

Oregon

Walla Walla
2002: 1,500
2005: 1,450
2008: 1,500
2011: 1,500
2014: 1,690
2016: 1,700
2019: 1,700

Minam
2002: 1,800
2005: 2,000
2008: 2,100
2011: 2,100
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,500
2019: 2,500

Wenaha
2002: 1300
2005: 1350
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
2019: 2,700

THIS INCREASE IN ELK HAS BEEN ACCOMPANIED BY INCREASING WOLVES
https://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/population.asp

Source: ODFW
--------------------

Idaho

Elk population
1995 (year wolves were reintroduced): 112,333
Current: 120,000

Source: IDFG

"For the sixth straight year, Idaho elk hunters harvested more than 20,000 elk. That’s the second best stretch in the state's history."

https://idfg.idaho.gov/press/harvest-hunter-numbers-down-deer-and-elk-2019
---------------------

Wyoming

Elk Population
2004: 88,614
2020: 112,900

Source: WGFD (also attached below)
2020 article proclaiming "The Decade of Elk" in Wyoming

https://capcity.news/latest-news/2020/09/22/decade-of-the-elk-for-hunters-as-herds-top-goals-by-32/

Wait now we are talking about Wyoming?? This whole thing is crazy. What are the plus minus numbers on the population data for elk? A difference between 112 and 120k might even be within the plus minus. Also it’s very likely that if elk are being pushed out of the wilderness onto ag and private then they would be easier to count and their numbers would appear to increase. Hard to tell from a very non scientific power point graph. Wyoming’s elk is a special case. They have the lowest human population, the most parks and wilderness and great management. The fact that elk populations could be increasing along with that of wolves is irrelevant. The fact is they need to be managed per ODFWs plan. Washington’s wolves are also above objective. Idaho and Montana have proven that hunting can be an effective tool for managing wolves. Let’s start there and work out.

Your own statement

“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."

To be very clear,  Your bold initial statement is what I am responding to, nothing else. Your statement in conjunction with all of the baseless comments on this thread and forum which state Wolves are destroying ungulates everywhere they go.

I am showing you and everyone else DATA where wolves are NOT impacting elk herds or statewide populations negatively, or in an additive way. You keep dodging me one way or another. In fact, some of the data I have shown you is from UNMANAGED WOLVES and the elk populations are growing like crazy. How many examples do I have to cite for you to retract your statement? Or perhaps your meant something else and I have misunderstood you. Please explain.

I am personally not arguing for a position where wolves aren't managed. I have argued against an environmental group and FOR removing wolf protections in a certain state where proposed recovery numbers were realized. What I'm arguing for, in the latter half of this thread - to be extremely clear - is that wolves are not destroying elk, or having a significant impact on them in many places. In fact, Elk hunting has never been better in some states which have some of the highest elk numbers despite wolf reintroduction in the 90's, etc. Elk populations have been growing along with wolf populations.

Go back through this thread and read all of the misinformed comments such as "Anyone who says wolves don’t have a significant impact on wildlife has absolutely ZERO credibility with me", or Bearpaw's "members here have seen the damage inflicted by wolves, and history is bound to repeat itself in Colorado just as it has in every other wolf infested state and province, enough said!" or " Certainly these very hungry wolves that eat roughly 10 pounds of meat per day per wolf have an additive effect on predation, this additive impact is a significant factor, in fact the increases in wolf numbers parallels the declines in elk numbers in areas suffering the most from predation."

 I simply don't have the time to copy all of them here. So, please use the data I'm providing to clarify your initial statement, and if you agree with me that wolves are not decimating elk everywhere they go, or exist, then what is your response to all of the statements I take issue with in this thread? Since Wyoming data weirded you out I will take a break on my data drop.


DATA

Oregon

Walla Walla
2002: 1,500
2005: 1,450
2008: 1,500
2011: 1,500
2014: 1,690
2016: 1,700
2019: 1,700

Minam
2002: 1,800
2005: 2,000
2008: 2,100
2011: 2,100
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,500
2019: 2,500

Wenaha
2002: 1300
2005: 1350
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
2019: 2,700

THIS INCREASE IN ELK HAS BEEN ACCOMPANIED BY INCREASING WOLVES
https://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/population.asp

Source: ODFW
--------------------

Idaho

Elk population
1995 (year wolves were reintroduced): 112,333
Current: 120,000

Source: IDFG

"For the sixth straight year, Idaho elk hunters harvested more than 20,000 elk. That’s the second best stretch in the state's history."

https://idfg.idaho.gov/press/harvest-hunter-numbers-down-deer-and-elk-2019
---------------------

Wyoming

Elk Population
2004: 88,614
2020: 112,900

Source: WGFD (also attached below)
2020 article proclaiming "The Decade of Elk" in Wyoming

https://capcity.news/latest-news/2020/09/22/decade-of-the-elk-for-hunters-as-herds-top-goals-by-32/

 

Explain Yellowstone, then selway and lolo of Idaho. All places with 25 years of wolves. Yellowstone first go !

[idaho guy]

Hydro I will get you started on Yellowstone 1995 19,500 elk last count 5800 elk. There’s raw data help me understand it

[idaho guy]

Hydro a little more raw verified data. Lolo zone of Idaho 16000 elk 2016 1,000 elk. Raw data hydro please explain these numbers.

[idaho guy]

Another little bit of research for you hydro

[idaho guy]

Hydro some light  reading on the lolo zone

[idaho guy]

Did you look at the data for mule deer populations in those units???

Wenaha went from 2600 to 1350 in the last 4 years with an objective of 4K.
Minam went from 2600 to 1700 in the last 5 years and has objective of 7k.
Walla walla declined from 1900 to 1500 with an objective of 1900.
Also that same data says that walla walla has a 100% fawn winter survival rate.
That’s gotta be good data.

 Also keep in mind those numbers are all estimated.

Wenaha has a management objective of 4K for elk in that unit. It’s currently half that.
The calf to cow ratio in minam and wenaha has gone down. As has the ratio of calf to cows for Roosevelt elk in general.

So looking at the data put forth by ODFW there are places where the elk are now above MO and places that are well below. Would be interesting to see a correlation of ag or private land vs wild.

https://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/2019_Oregon_Wolf_Plan.pdf

In the odfw wolf management plan they state they have reached the management objective in the eastern part of the state and according to their own numbers are 3 times above the population goal for the area they inhabit. So by their own admission they are above objective and they also state that human take could increase by 5 to 10 percent without causing a population decline. Meaning they could have a hunting and trapping season to manage The population that is above population goals but they don’t. In their management plan I found no mention of civilian control of population at all. Curious as they admitted to having multiple problems with wolf interactions. They also state the goal to manage wolves like other game animals in the state but they are not doing that. So they are not even sticking to their own management plan. Montana and Idaho have stable wolf populations even with hunting and trapping. So why not include that as a management plan for a species that is 3x above its population numbers?

And what about Zebra in Africa? Mule Deer are an entirely different conversation.

Wenaha has had a large elk MO for a long time, it doesn't mean the herd is unhealthy, it means there is a Management objective for where they would like the herd to be, depending on many situations. Quality hunting opportunity, land owner complaints, over browsing sensitive habitat, etc. Wenaha used to have a pretty lousy elk population way back when...decades before the wolves. It has been increasing steadily.

Please, what are your thoughts on increasing elk populations in those 3 units with wolf populations? What are your thoughts on Idahos current elk population compared to the 1995 elk population when wolves were reintroduced. And what are your thoughts on record levels of elk harvest in Idaho - "For the sixth straight year, Idaho elk hunters harvested more than 20,000 elk, good for the second best stretch in the state's history"? Don't dodge me. Let's have a discussion.

I’m sorry I guess I didn’t realize that wolves don’t eat mule deer. I said it before and I’ll tell you again. Harvest numbers are not scientific. They are based on self reporting by hunters. There are a bunch of factors that can increase harvest numbers. License sales increase, better opportunity because of elk being pressured into more accessible areas. Let’s look at the actual data from ODFW. Did you notice that the bull and calf to cow ratios are down? Meaning that the weakest members are being picked off creating a different herd dynamic. Again do you believe that mule deer fawns had a 100% survival rate in walla walla for 5 straight years? ODFW does. Why are you dodging me on the population numbers of wolves and their management objective? It clearly states they have 158 wolves and their objective is 48-49. Are we talking about IDaho or Oregon or Colorado? You want to talk data but then dismiss other data put forth from the same source. I asked you about scientists asking for a natural migration of wolves into Colorado instead of a forced introduction and.... it would seem you are dodging me not vice versa. Idaho also manages its populations and has a steady population of wolves. Pregón admits to having more wolves than their objective but doesn’t touch them. Did you even read the management plan??

I'll be glad to talk about Mule deer later but first we need to resolve our conversation about elk because so much misinformation is spread here it should be illegal and against the AUP.

Did you read the data I provided? I included population numbers, not just harvest numbers. I can only do so much aside from holding your eyes open to make you read the data which I am getting directly from each states Fish and Game dept.

I'll just start lugging all of it around on all of my posts until someone reads it. Maybe I'll add Wyoming as well, just because I'm feeling nice tonight.

I am not intending to dodge your wolf data. If a state has a management objective for wolves then it is reasonable to follow it, I am fine with that and I argued against an environmental group who tried to weasel out of the wolf plan they helped design some years earlier. This Elk herd in Montana is 800% over MO, it needs to be managed too.

https://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/snowy-mountains-elk-herd-800-over-population-shows-montanas-challenge-managing-elk/article_161227e0-0ba1-5cf8-8235-a12d34666536.html

MY DATA - PLEASE READ AND RESPOND

Oregon

Walla Walla
2002: 1,500
2005: 1,450
2008: 1,500
2011: 1,500
2014: 1,690
2016: 1,700
2019: 1,700

Minam
2002: 1,800
2005: 2,000
2008: 2,100
2011: 2,100
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,500
2019: 2,500

Wenaha
2002: 1300
2005: 1350
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
2019: 2,700

THIS INCREASE IN ELK HAS BEEN ACCOMPANIED BY INCREASING WOLVES
https://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/population.asp

Source: ODFW
--------------------

Idaho

Elk population
1995 (year wolves were reintroduced): 112,333
Current: 120,000

Source: IDFG

"For the sixth straight year, Idaho elk hunters harvested more than 20,000 elk. That’s the second best stretch in the state's history."

https://idfg.idaho.gov/press/harvest-hunter-numbers-down-deer-and-elk-2019
---------------------

Wyoming

Elk Population
2004: 88,614
2020: 112,900

Source: WGFD (also attached below)
2020 article proclaiming "The Decade of Elk" in Wyoming

https://capcity.news/latest-news/2020/09/22/decade-of-the-elk-for-hunters-as-herds-top-goals-by-32/

Wait now we are talking about Wyoming?? This whole thing is crazy. What are the plus minus numbers on the population data for elk? A difference between 112 and 120k might even be within the plus minus. Also it’s very likely that if elk are being pushed out of the wilderness onto ag and private then they would be easier to count and their numbers would appear to increase. Hard to tell from a very non scientific power point graph. Wyoming’s elk is a special case. They have the lowest human population, the most parks and wilderness and great management. The fact that elk populations could be increasing along with that of wolves is irrelevant. The fact is they need to be managed per ODFWs plan. Washington’s wolves are also above objective. Idaho and Montana have proven that hunting can be an effective tool for managing wolves. Let’s start there and work out.

Your own statement

“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."

To be very clear,  Your bold initial statement is what I am responding to, nothing else. Your statement in conjunction with all of the baseless comments on this thread and forum which state Wolves are destroying ungulates everywhere they go.

I am showing you and everyone else DATA where wolves are NOT impacting elk herds or statewide populations negatively, or in an additive way. You keep dodging me one way or another. In fact, some of the data I have shown you is from UNMANAGED WOLVES and the elk populations are growing like crazy. How many examples do I have to cite for you to retract your statement? Or perhaps your meant something else and I have misunderstood you. Please explain.

I am personally not arguing for a position where wolves aren't managed. I have argued against an environmental group and FOR removing wolf protections in a certain state where proposed recovery numbers were realized. What I'm arguing for, in the latter half of this thread - to be extremely clear - is that wolves are not destroying elk, or having a significant impact on them in many places. In fact, Elk hunting has never been better in some states which have some of the highest elk numbers despite wolf reintroduction in the 90's, etc. Elk populations have been growing along with wolf populations.

Go back through this thread and read all of the misinformed comments such as "Anyone who says wolves don’t have a significant impact on wildlife has absolutely ZERO credibility with me", or Bearpaw's "members here have seen the damage inflicted by wolves, and history is bound to repeat itself in Colorado just as it has in every other wolf infested state and province, enough said!" or " Certainly these very hungry wolves that eat roughly 10 pounds of meat per day per wolf have an additive effect on predation, this additive impact is a significant factor, in fact the increases in wolf numbers parallels the declines in elk numbers in areas suffering the most from predation."

 I simply don't have the time to copy all of them here. So, please use the data I'm providing to clarify your initial statement, and if you agree with me that wolves are not decimating elk everywhere they go, or exist, then what is your response to all of the statements I take issue with in this thread? Since Wyoming data weirded you out I will take a break on my data drop.


DATA

Oregon

Walla Walla
2002: 1,500
2005: 1,450
2008: 1,500
2011: 1,500
2014: 1,690
2016: 1,700
2019: 1,700

Minam
2002: 1,800
2005: 2,000
2008: 2,100
2011: 2,100
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,500
2019: 2,500

Wenaha
2002: 1300
2005: 1350
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
2019: 2,700

THIS INCREASE IN ELK HAS BEEN ACCOMPANIED BY INCREASING WOLVES
https://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/population.asp

Source: ODFW
--------------------

Idaho

Elk population
1995 (year wolves were reintroduced): 112,333
Current: 120,000

Source: IDFG

"For the sixth straight year, Idaho elk hunters harvested more than 20,000 elk. That’s the second best stretch in the state's history."

https://idfg.idaho.gov/press/harvest-hunter-numbers-down-deer-and-elk-2019
---------------------

Wyoming

Elk Population
2004: 88,614
2020: 112,900

Source: WGFD (also attached below)
2020 article proclaiming "The Decade of Elk" in Wyoming

https://capcity.news/latest-news/2020/09/22/decade-of-the-elk-for-hunters-as-herds-top-goals-by-32/

   

Will you discuss all the data out there or only what compliments your argument? Anything that disagrees with you is a baseless claim or off topic? Explain your Idaho harvest statistics. 1994 record harvest almost 30000. 1995 wolves planted. 2011 harvest 15000 and Idaho gets a wolf hunting and trapping season. 2019 back to 20000. Does this verify that wolves have no impact on deer and elk? Like the statement we find the greatest amount of wolves around the greatest amount of elk. Wait!  what? Wolves hang around their food source? Incredible! Unless you can debate Yellowstone, lolo and the selway wolf and elk population dynamics ALL of your other cherry picked information is useless. That is ground zero for the first wolf introduction those 3 areas. That’s exactly where the wolves were dropped how are the elk faring 25 years later. If you can’t discuss these 3 areas it’s obvious you don’t want too look at data or have a real debate on this topic. Yellowstone,lolo, and selway let’s hear it.

[idaho guy]

Hmmm 🤔 another elk herd in Wyoming close to ground zero where they originally dumped wolves. Let’s debate the raw data hydro or are you still only willing to discuss “your” information which happens to agree with you. Statewide population statistics are not that useful since many areas with low to minimal wolves are way above objective. Explain to me the areas that have had wolves for 25 years. How are the elk flourishing along with growing wolf populations? Let’s discuss I’m interested.

[idaho guy]

@ hydrophilic. Where you at buddy out checking your wolf traps  or just don’t want to discuss data that you didn’t personally google? Draw a circle around ground zero for the wolf reintroduction and I will discuss any elk herd in that circle in Wyoming Montana or Idaho. Let’s talk facts on those elk herds 25 years later. Yellowstone, lolo, selway and I will add Wyoming with Jackson hole elk herd.

[vandeman17]

This is me holding my breath...

[idaho guy]

Hydrophilic This is why you’re statewide elk population estimates are so DISHONEST regarding wolf impact. Below objective units are mostly wilderness and where wolves were planted to start with and where the greatest amount of wolves are present. Above objective units are mostly areas without or with smaller numbers of wolves. They are also more ag land in general than below objective units. Do some real homework and overlay wolf populations with this elk chart then you will understand the total dishonesty of citing state wide numbers. Even parts of Idaho Montana and Wyoming have ZERO wolves. So again tell me about the elk herds I mentioned. I want you to prove to me the wolves don’t destroy elk herds. 25 years Yellowstone, lolo, selway and Jackson hole.

[idaho guy]

Hydrophilic This is why you’re statewide elk population estimates are so DISHONEST regarding wolf impact. Below objective units are mostly wilderness and where wolves were planted to start with and where the greatest amount of wolves are present. Above objective units are mostly areas without or with smaller numbers of wolves. They are also more ag land in general than below objective units. Do some real homework and overlay wolf populations with this elk chart then you will understand the total dishonesty of citing state wide numbers. Even parts of Idaho Montana and Wyoming have ZERO wolves. So again tell me about the elk herds I mentioned. I want you to prove to me the wolves don’t destroy elk herds. 25 years Yellowstone, lolo, selway and Jackson hole.

   

Hydrophilic if you are unsure where they dumped wolves put a circle right in the middle of the blue units. That’s ground zero for wolf re introduction. I have actually been there and saw the cages where they kept them initially. Yes blue means all those units are below population objective for elk  25 years later. I would like to discuss this data with you

[idaho guy]

Hydrophilic direct quote from you to platensek. “I am showing you and everyone else data where wolves are NOT impacting elk negatively. You keep dodging me in one way or another” let me ask you the same question- I am showing you and everyone else data where wolves HAVE impacted elk negatively.  You keep dodging me in one way or another. What gives a study more validity? 5 years or 25 years ? I know your google machine can’t easily pull up talking points on Yellowstone,lolo,selway. Those herds are real life 25 year studies of elk herds living with wolves.  Do you want to explain how wolves have not had MASSIVE negative impacts on these elk or retract your prior statements? Help me understand