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

[bearpaw]

Look no further than the Lolo zone in Idaho or the Yellowstone herd in MT for answers. Both of those herds used to provide some of the best elk hunting in the world, now the hunting seasons in those areas that once provided trophy animals and freezers full of meat have greatly reduced seasons and in some cases the seasons have been eliminated entirely.

The Northern Idaho Panhandle is the top producing elk zone in Idaho.

I live in the northern panhandle. He said the LOLO zone. We now have a December muzzleloader cow hunt in the panhandle due to so called depredation. What really happened is the elk were pushed into town. I did it the first year and it was like shooting fish in a barrel. I had a group of 8-10 located doing same thing every day and chose to leave them alone this year we had plenty of elk meat from Montana and leftover from last season. They cows got shot to heck eventually anyways this year. I don’t personally think harvest numbers always reflect the health of the elk herd. In this case for the panhandle it’s the addition of a late season cow tag and hundreds of depredation tags for cows that go from August till December 31. If you can’t fill that tag just go to the store. Do you think all the successful cow harvest are indicative of a thriving elk herd? It’s not sustainable but what can fish and game do when the wolves push all the elk to town? If I remember correctly you thought all the ungulate problems revolved around habitat and wolves would only have minimal impacts. What do you think now ? Do you see any correlation between wolves and major declines in deer and elk in Washington? How about the blues?

So the Panhandle zone has lots of wolves and the lolo zone has lots of wolves.  Some claim the Panhandle is the top producing elk zone in Idaho. If they both have a good number of wolves wouldn't the difference in elk abundance be attributable to other factors? Habitat and forage availability??

 

The Lolo zone is the hardest hit zone in Idaho, the Panhandle is somewhat saved by all the wolf hunting going on, you should know that! The Yellowstone herd pretty well destroys your narrative about habitat verses wolves impacting elk. Habitat has been steady at YNP since it was made into a park, the elk herds were robust until wolves were introduced. Now many of the hunting seasons have been ended and the herd still struggles, habitat has been constant, wolves are the sole variable!

Idahohntr:
Just curious what your reasoning is for the massive drop of elk numbers in the yellowstone herd? Habitat has remained constant for decades, wolves are the new variable when elk numbers began dropping substantially? Hunting seasons have in many cases been completely stopped, yet the herd struggles?

[KFhunter]

Bison are being herded off the park into corrals, the tribe then butchers them.

https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/management/bison-management.htm




Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[idahohuntr]

Idahohntr:
Just curious what your reasoning is for the massive drop of elk numbers in the yellowstone herd? Habitat has remained constant for decades, wolves are the new variable when elk numbers began dropping substantially? Hunting seasons have in many cases been completely stopped, yet the herd struggles?

Predators.  They have clearly had a large impact on elk in the yellowstone herd (not just wolves either)

I think the Lolo and a few other areas actually experience more bear predation than possibly even wolves.  Not certain, but there are a lot of units where bear just seem to be out of control and a lot of elk calf mortality data point the finger at black bears over wolves.  I'd wager this is the bigger difference between Lolo and Panhandle.  In the Panhandle, every 2nd year californian is out running baits in the spring keeping bears in check right during calving season...lolo does not get this additional bear (or wolf) hunting help.   

But while we are on the Lolo elk herd...I think its also critical to the discussion to acknowledge the zone was in decline well before wolves were really taking hold.  I guess its a baseline thing...what some considered 'really good' in the 90's was really sad to older generations that knew what the area was capable of historically.  Its even worse now but I've not spent much time there recently, so I hesitate to say much about current hunting status.  I know a few folks still do pretty well with a lot of effort.

Unless (or until) we see massive fires (or insane increases in timber harvest) the Lolo will never recover...I don't care how many wolves are killed.  I think in the half dozen or more times we've argued about the Lolo and wolves, it boils down to general agreement that both habitat and predators have really hammered the elk...the difference is you believe wolves are the primary and most significant factor, I believe habitat plays a larger role...in the end neither of us has a changed position...its the one constant in this ever changing world

I hope you had a good hunting season.

[KFhunter]

Around here,  the wolves are eating blackbears.

Pulling them out of dens

This pic is from the panhandle, its not mine.

[bearpaw]

Idahohntr:
Just curious what your reasoning is for the massive drop of elk numbers in the yellowstone herd? Habitat has remained constant for decades, wolves are the new variable when elk numbers began dropping substantially? Hunting seasons have in many cases been completely stopped, yet the herd struggles?

Predators.  They have clearly had a large impact on elk in the yellowstone herd (not just wolves either)

I think the Lolo and a few other areas actually experience more bear predation than possibly even wolves.  Not certain, but there are a lot of units where bear just seem to be out of control and a lot of elk calf mortality data point the finger at black bears over wolves.  I'd wager this is the bigger difference between Lolo and Panhandle.  In the Panhandle, every 2nd year californian is out running baits in the spring keeping bears in check right during calving season...lolo does not get this additional bear (or wolf) hunting help.   

But while we are on the Lolo elk herd...I think its also critical to the discussion to acknowledge the zone was in decline well before wolves were really taking hold.  I guess its a baseline thing...what some considered 'really good' in the 90's was really sad to older generations that knew what the area was capable of historically.  Its even worse now but I've not spent much time there recently, so I hesitate to say much about current hunting status.  I know a few folks still do pretty well with a lot of effort.

Unless (or until) we see massive fires (or insane increases in timber harvest) the Lolo will never recover...I don't care how many wolves are killed.  I think in the half dozen or more times we've argued about the Lolo and wolves, it boils down to general agreement that both habitat and predators have really hammered the elk...the difference is you believe wolves are the primary and most significant factor, I believe habitat plays a larger role...in the end neither of us has a changed position...its the one constant in this ever changing world

I hope you had a good hunting season.

Thankyou for answering and for your ideas and thoughts. I'll point out again that wolves are the new variable in Yellowstone, the habitat has remained constant, bear and cougar have been a constant, the new variable is wolves. In fact, wolves are the new variable across the west. 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.

An IDFG elk predation study in the panhandle indicated cougar actually killed more elk than wolves in that study area, bear are also a significant factor, undoubtedly some of the reason Idaho now has 2 cougar bag limits and 2 bear bag limits in many elk units. Even in areas with heavy predation by cats and bear the new and additive variable is that wolves are now also eating elk in the west, the increase in wolf numbers parallels the decline in elk numbers.

Its not that I am opposed to improving habitat, I plant all sorts of food plots to improve habitat for wildlife every year, but habitat is an old worn out narrative used by wolf groups to justify declines in elk and other ungulate numbers, used to deflect wolf impacts, and totally misleading. When you start preaching that way it sounds like you subscribe to their agenda and oppose hunter's interest in maintaining flourishing game herds that provide quality hunting opportunities.

We had a pretty fair season, thanks for your positive support.

[Skyvalhunter]

So when you have cougars, bear, and wolves preying on deer, elk, moose, sheep, etc its a no win situation for game animals. When it comes time for wolves to start self regulating their population size its already too late. Predator pit has already happened by then. How do we go about turning things around, with such an up hill battle? We can't expect Wa to head in the same direction as ID when it comes to wolf management.

[KFhunter]

So when you have cougars, bear, and wolves preying on deer, elk, moose, sheep, etc its a no win situation for game animals. When it comes time for wolves to start self regulating their population size its already too late. Predator pit has already happened by then. How do we go about turning things around, with such an up hill battle? We can't expect Wa to head in the same direction as ID when it comes to wolf management.

= we're screwed

[idaho guy]

Look no further than the Lolo zone in Idaho or the Yellowstone herd in MT for answers. Both of those herds used to provide some of the best elk hunting in the world, now the hunting seasons in those areas that once provided trophy animals and freezers full of meat have greatly reduced seasons and in some cases the seasons have been eliminated entirely.

The Northern Idaho Panhandle is the top producing elk zone in Idaho.

I live in the northern panhandle. He said the LOLO zone. We now have a December muzzleloader cow hunt in the panhandle due to so called depredation. What really happened is the elk were pushed into town. I did it the first year and it was like shooting fish in a barrel. I had a group of 8-10 located doing same thing every day and chose to leave them alone this year we had plenty of elk meat from Montana and leftover from last season. They cows got shot to heck eventually anyways this year. I don’t personally think harvest numbers always reflect the health of the elk herd. In this case for the panhandle it’s the addition of a late season cow tag and hundreds of depredation tags for cows that go from August till December 31. If you can’t fill that tag just go to the store. Do you think all the successful cow harvest are indicative of a thriving elk herd? It’s not sustainable but what can fish and game do when the wolves push all the elk to town? If I remember correctly you thought all the ungulate problems revolved around habitat and wolves would only have minimal impacts. What do you think now ? Do you see any correlation between wolves and major declines in deer and elk in Washington? How about the blues?

So the Panhandle zone has lots of wolves and the lolo zone has lots of wolves.  Some claim the Panhandle is the top producing elk zone in Idaho. If they both have a good number of wolves wouldn't the difference in elk abundance be attributable to other factors? Habitat and forage availability??

 
 
The panhandle is not the top producing elk unit to start with. That’s beside the point but the unit I live in for last report success was like 11 or 12 percent it USED to run in the 20 plus percent zone. My other point was that the success rate is inflated due to new cow tags and a late cow season that didn’t even exist when success was 20 percent plus. The cow tag from August 1st to December 31 should be as close to guaranteeing a wild elk harvest as you can get. Even with that success had plummeted Idaho elk are doing ok thanks to very aggressive hunting and trapping. None of that really matters you always want to get in the weeds of areas with elk and wolves and the elk seem to be ok. Answer the question how have ungulates faired in your state after wolves? Washington has tons of habitat with very few deer and elk. Tell me how the blues elk are faring with wolves. You had the same arguments before Washington had a lot of wolves and promised everyone that everything would be fine. Is it ? Quit talking about units in Idaho we get it here and will be trapping and hunting year around before too long. We can already hunt private land year round for wolves. Tell the truth about what’s going on right in front of you. Walla walla? That’s close to the blues is everything working out great ?

So are you wrong or is bearpaw wrong? My earlier post was simply a verbatim quote from his outfitters website. 
https://bearpawoutfitters.com/idaho_elk_hunting_combo.html

Not everyone realizes it, but if you add harvest numbers that are readily available on the IDFG website, my quote is much more than just correct, I'm sure you know that too. I think Idaho guy was referring to success rate, he mentions success, it's true that the Panhandle does not have the highest hunter success rate!

   

this is correct -panhandle has always been top producing elk zone in total numbers of elk harvested. My point is the success rate in many of the units plummetted after wolves arrived in large numbers. I think last time I looked one unit was only 8 percent and it used to be outstanding as far as hunter success. My other point is even with the success rate being half of what it was. Even with less success I think the lower number is inflated because of the addition of december cow season and a lot more depradation tags that are a lot easier tags to fill. Without these new seasons and tags the success rate would be even worse. Idahohunter you still have not adressed the blues? I remember you using the lolo argument years ago and that its habitat not wolves. Lets talk about some new areas where habitat is not a factor but wolves are. Yellowstone is good but what about your backyard how are things going for washington elk with the new wolves?

[idaho guy]

Idahohntr:
Just curious what your reasoning is for the massive drop of elk numbers in the yellowstone herd? Habitat has remained constant for decades, wolves are the new variable when elk numbers began dropping substantially? Hunting seasons have in many cases been completely stopped, yet the herd struggles?

Predators.  They have clearly had a large impact on elk in the yellowstone herd (not just wolves either)

I think the Lolo and a few other areas actually experience more bear predation than possibly even wolves.  Not certain, but there are a lot of units where bear just seem to be out of control and a lot of elk calf mortality data point the finger at black bears over wolves.  I'd wager this is the bigger difference between Lolo and Panhandle.  In the Panhandle, every 2nd year californian is out running baits in the spring keeping bears in check right during calving season...lolo does not get this additional bear (or wolf) hunting help.   

But while we are on the Lolo elk herd...I think its also critical to the discussion to acknowledge the zone was in decline well before wolves were really taking hold.  I guess its a baseline thing...what some considered 'really good' in the 90's was really sad to older generations that knew what the area was capable of historically.  Its even worse now but I've not spent much time there recently, so I hesitate to say much about current hunting status.  I know a few folks still do pretty well with a lot of effort.

Unless (or until) we see massive fires (or insane increases in timber harvest) the Lolo will never recover...I don't care how many wolves are killed.  I think in the half dozen or more times we've argued about the Lolo and wolves, it boils down to general agreement that both habitat and predators have really hammered the elk...the difference is you believe wolves are the primary and most significant factor, I believe habitat plays a larger role...in the end neither of us has a changed position...its the one constant in this ever changing world

I hope you had a good hunting season.

Thankyou for answering and for your ideas and thoughts. I'll point out again that wolves are the new variable in Yellowstone, the habitat has remained constant, bear and cougar have been a constant, the new variable is wolves. In fact, wolves are the new variable across the west. 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.

An IDFG elk predation study in the panhandle indicated cougar actually killed more elk than wolves in that study area, bear are also a significant factor, undoubtedly some of the reason Idaho now has 2 cougar bag limits and 2 bear bag limits in many elk units. Even in areas with heavy predation by cats and bear the new and additive variable is that wolves are now also eating elk in the west, the increase in wolf numbers parallels the decline in elk numbers.

Its not that I am opposed to improving habitat, I plant all sorts of food plots to improve habitat for wildlife every year, but habitat is an old worn out narrative used by wolf groups to justify declines in elk and other ungulate numbers, used to deflect wolf impacts, and totally misleading. When you start preaching that way it sounds like you subscribe to their agenda and oppose hunter's interest in maintaining flourishing game herds that provide quality hunting opportunities.

We had a pretty fair season, thanks for your positive support.

   

Bearpaw this is a sincere question. With the guiding you do in the panhandle for bears and lions does that study make any sense. I value you your opinion so I am not questioning that you would mention it. It just does not jive with what I have seen. Most of the lion kills we find are whitetails but we do find elk just the majority are deer. Most of the wolf kills are elk? this has been consistent for decades. Also we seemed to have WAY more lions and bears in the early 90s but also WAY more elk. It didnt seem like the elk really changed or numbers went down until we had a signifigant number of wolves. I dont know but that lion study didnt jive with what we typically see and I was wondering what your experience has been? thanks! I typically hunt only 2 or 3 drainages regular and then hunt other areas sporadic so maybe thats why i dont see the massive elk kills by lions? We find a lot more wolf killed elk. The main thing is how many more lion tracks i cut in the 90's versus now and there was or I at least encountered twice as many elk in the 90s.   

[idahohuntr]

Its not that I am opposed to improving habitat, I plant all sorts of food plots to improve habitat for wildlife every year, but habitat is an old worn out narrative used by wolf groups to justify declines in elk and other ungulate numbers, used to deflect wolf impacts, and totally misleading. When you start preaching that way it sounds like you subscribe to their agenda and oppose hunter's interest in maintaining flourishing game herds that provide quality hunting opportunities.

I get the disdain towards whatever groups misuse information...in wolf debates it happens on both sides.  Some claim wolves are wonderful and do no harm, only eat the weak etc., and others exaggerate equally delusionally with respect to the impact of wolves on wildlife.  The reality I would like injected into any of these discussions is the complex and interacting factors that drive animal abundance.  I am deeply interested in maintaining flourishing game herds - which is why I cringe at the idea of dismissing ANY major cause of decline.  If in one herd its wolves, then lets address it.  If in another herd its habitat, or a different predator (bears), lets address it.  If its a combination of factors (like the Lolo) - addressing one and not the other won't do a damn bit of good.  Hunters identifying other critically significant issues affecting abundance is not intended to mislead or marginalize effects of predators, its a desire to ensure we have huntable populations of game and frankly it requires a big picture look that encompasses more than teeth and claws. 

A relevant example since folks like to talk Yellowstone/Wyoming is CWD.  Through a lot of habitat loss, winter range in parts of western wyoming have been developed/altered etc. and Wyoming has been reliant on winter feeding to maintain or improve elk numbers given the loss/reduction of important winter range.  With recent lawsuits and concerns of CWD spread at feedgrounds I'm concerned winter feeding will be pushed aside (not overnight, but the end is in sight)...and what will happen to those elk herds?  If migratory animals lose their winter range, then you take away supplemental feeding due to disease spread...that doesn't end well for hunters.  And its not as though Wyoming is the only area with supplemental feeding to offset lost winter range...think CWD might come to WA someday?  I think so...how important does habitat on winter range become when lawsuits end feeding?  Is being concerned about winter range habitat mutually exclusive of predator concerns? NO.  Is being concerned about winter range an attempt to marginalize previous effects of wolves? NO.  Is this an example of why a hunter interested in flourishing game herds might also be concerned with habitat, even in areas where wolves are present? YES.

Idahohunter you still have not adressed the blues? I remember you using the lolo argument years ago and that its habitat not wolves. Lets talk about some new areas where habitat is not a factor but wolves are. Yellowstone is good but what about your backyard how are things going for washington elk with the new wolves?

First, habitat is ALWAYS a factor.  It may not be a contributor to animal declines in certain areas, but animals simply cannot live without habitat.  Animals survive all the time in the presence of predators, but they cease to exist if they lose their habitat.  Your tag says you live in Hayden...it would take me weeks to show you some areas that used to hold phenomenal deer hunting that are now covered in developments in the hayden/rathdrum area...areas that will never hold a huntable population of deer again.  I've never completely lost a hunting area to wolves (e.g., Lolo) - I have permanently lost many hunting areas to development/habitat loss. 

As for the blues, I think there are a number of issues, and wolves are in the mix but I'm not convinced its all (or even mostly) wolves.  Permit numbers speak for themselves.  Bear numbers are outrageous and if other studies apply here, I think wolves are additive but bears are the elephant in the room.  Cougars too.  Frankly, the guys (i think some frequent this forum) who are pushing increased bear limits and season dates for much of WA are going to be a huge help to blues elk hunters...they've done good things with bear regs for us hunters, and like most efforts it is probably under appreciated.  Other issues...I think in some units, depredation permits and crop damage issues overly constrain elk numbers.  Recent winters definitely hurt, but probably had a vastly more significant effect on deer than elk...and if you combine high predator density on a bad winter, life gets tough.  I don't see too many recent habitat issues, and certainly nothing to explain the declines I've observed in just the past 6 or so years. Tribal harvest, sure its a factor in some areas, but I've also seen declines in parts of the Blues with little or no tribal hunting.  Anyways, thats my take...for a variety of reasons I'd rather not comment on my recent elk hunting experience in the area - and its really not valuable to this broader discussion. 

[KFhunter]

Its all just talk, look at our new commissioners.

How are we not screwed?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[KFhunter]

IDH I appreciate your well written post, many truths in  there and a lot of blame to go around. You have evolved some.

We can't do anything about urban sprawl, and,  we can't do anything about wolves either.

I don't see any way "I" can help other than help Idaho, which I do by joining F4WM and filling my predator tags here in WA.

With our two new commissioners I don't see any help there, opposite.  WDFW "looking to expand their tent" means not hunters.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Hydrophilic]

Its not that I am opposed to improving habitat, I plant all sorts of food plots to improve habitat for wildlife every year, but habitat is an old worn out narrative used by wolf groups to justify declines in elk and other ungulate numbers, used to deflect wolf impacts, and totally misleading. When you start preaching that way it sounds like you subscribe to their agenda and oppose hunter's interest in maintaining flourishing game herds that provide quality hunting opportunities.

I get the disdain towards whatever groups misuse information...in wolf debates it happens on both sides.  Some claim wolves are wonderful and do no harm, only eat the weak etc., and others exaggerate equally delusionally with respect to the impact of wolves on wildlife.  The reality I would like injected into any of these discussions is the complex and interacting factors that drive animal abundance.  I am deeply interested in maintaining flourishing game herds - which is why I cringe at the idea of dismissing ANY major cause of decline.  If in one herd its wolves, then lets address it.  If in another herd its habitat, or a different predator (bears), lets address it.  If its a combination of factors (like the Lolo) - addressing one and not the other won't do a damn bit of good.  Hunters identifying other critically significant issues affecting abundance is not intended to mislead or marginalize effects of predators, its a desire to ensure we have huntable populations of game and frankly it requires a big picture look that encompasses more than teeth and claws. 

A relevant example since folks like to talk Yellowstone/Wyoming is CWD.  Through a lot of habitat loss, winter range in parts of western wyoming have been developed/altered etc. and Wyoming has been reliant on winter feeding to maintain or improve elk numbers given the loss/reduction of important winter range.  With recent lawsuits and concerns of CWD spread at feedgrounds I'm concerned winter feeding will be pushed aside (not overnight, but the end is in sight)...and what will happen to those elk herds?  If migratory animals lose their winter range, then you take away supplemental feeding due to disease spread...that doesn't end well for hunters.  And its not as though Wyoming is the only area with supplemental feeding to offset lost winter range...think CWD might come to WA someday?  I think so...how important does habitat on winter range become when lawsuits end feeding?  Is being concerned about winter range habitat mutually exclusive of predator concerns? NO.  Is being concerned about winter range an attempt to marginalize previous effects of wolves? NO.  Is this an example of why a hunter interested in flourishing game herds might also be concerned with habitat, even in areas where wolves are present? YES.

Idahohunter you still have not adressed the blues? I remember you using the lolo argument years ago and that its habitat not wolves. Lets talk about some new areas where habitat is not a factor but wolves are. Yellowstone is good but what about your backyard how are things going for washington elk with the new wolves?

First, habitat is ALWAYS a factor.  It may not be a contributor to animal declines in certain areas, but animals simply cannot live without habitat.  Animals survive all the time in the presence of predators, but they cease to exist if they lose their habitat.  Your tag says you live in Hayden...it would take me weeks to show you some areas that used to hold phenomenal deer hunting that are now covered in developments in the hayden/rathdrum area...areas that will never hold a huntable population of deer again.  I've never completely lost a hunting area to wolves (e.g., Lolo) - I have permanently lost many hunting areas to development/habitat loss. 

As for the blues, I think there are a number of issues, and wolves are in the mix but I'm not convinced its all (or even mostly) wolves.  Permit numbers speak for themselves.  Bear numbers are outrageous and if other studies apply here, I think wolves are additive but bears are the elephant in the room.  Cougars too.  Frankly, the guys (i think some frequent this forum) who are pushing increased bear limits and season dates for much of WA are going to be a huge help to blues elk hunters...they've done good things with bear regs for us hunters, and like most efforts it is probably under appreciated.  Other issues...I think in some units, depredation permits and crop damage issues overly constrain elk numbers.  Recent winters definitely hurt, but probably had a vastly more significant effect on deer than elk...and if you combine high predator density on a bad winter, life gets tough.  I don't see too many recent habitat issues, and certainly nothing to explain the declines I've observed in just the past 6 or so years. Tribal harvest, sure its a factor in some areas, but I've also seen declines in parts of the Blues with little or no tribal hunting.  Anyways, thats my take...for a variety of reasons I'd rather not comment on my recent elk hunting experience in the area - and its really not valuable to this broader discussion.

Habitat is huge. Quite a few studies which suggest predation is compensatory if habitat is intact. Predation can also be very additive if habitat is poor, bad winter, etc. A recent Eastman's podcast on mule deer migration corridors also acknowledges this. It all depends on the unit and the data. Without the data you can believe you are controlling a predator to help ungulates but you may just as likely be out for a trophy hunt of no significance to deer or elk.

I can talk for ages about habitat. As I have mentioned it depends on the unit and the data, but if habitat received half the focus from hunters as the fanged predators it would be a different world. Cheatgrass and medusahead are the dominant grasses on many large swaths of public and private land. These grasses are of little or no use to mule deer, for example. What's more worrisome? Infested areas are growing at rates of up to 15% per year. Then you add our strong affinity for unfettered development, and our inclination to assume the government will fix the habitat why bother helping, what are we left with? Simply put, we can't have infinite growth on finite resources, and as hunters we cannot afford not be able to identify the top invasive grasses and plants.

Regarding Yellowstone, nobody who looks at the data will argue the wolves are not having an impact. For some reason it's the default "gotcha" rebuke in all wolf conversations with hunters. The wolves were supposed to have an impact in Yellowstone, period. Yellowstone is an entirely different management strategy than Colorado. Just like Colorado is entirely different from Wyoming, and so on, and so forth.

"For 50 years this debate focused on the prospect that there were too many elk overgrazing their winter range (Houston 1982, Barmore2003). As a result, the United States National Park Service(NPS) implemented intensive population reduction efforts during 1932–1968.A new management policy was initiated by NPS in 1969(Cole 1971). Elk culling in the Park ceased and managers allowed elk abundance to fluctuate without any manipulation inside the park (Houston 1982). Under this ‘‘natural regulation’’ policy, elk numbers increased rapidly, which led to further controversy about overgrazing (National ResearchCouncil [NRC] 2002).
A Seventy-Year History of Trends in Yellowstone’s Northern Elk Herd, EBERHARDT,WHITE, GARROTT, HOUSTON

Is hunting allowed inside Yellowstone? If it isn't, why would hunters as a collective user group expect such a large influence over the publics national park?

My remarks and questions are not directed toward you necessarily, just anyone in general. I appreciate your posts so far.

[KFhunter]

Habitat is the wolf huggers default gotcha answer.

Dashiell had a lot of sheep, he made a deal with private timber company to use his sheep to remove undesirable plants and weeds unstead of using chemical pesticides.

Wolves started really eating these sheep, soon it was impossible to control the depredations, WDFW and several conservation groups held this sheep rancher as a model for conservation and conflict resolution.

But conflict resolution didn't work, no amount of range riders or fladdery or other non-lethal methods would work.

WDFW would have to kill the wolves in accordance with the wolf plan

Dashiell is a bad guy now, he should die.

He pulled his sheep off that private timber ground, WDFW all but demanded he do so.

No one runs sheep on timber ground, only in fenced paddocks near their house

Now they spray chemicals to control weeds

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[idahohuntr]

Is hunting allowed inside Yellowstone? If it isn't, why would hunters as a collective user group expect such a large influence over the publics national park?

Good info - per your question, it boils down to animals moving in and out of the park.  Both elk and wolves.  There are a number of hunts that have targeted or relied upon elk that reside at least part of the year in Yellowstone.  If elk decline, those hunts are reduced or eliminated and I believe bearpaw named some of those hunts which have indeed been stopped with the decline.  But I agree, groups other than hunters have a strong interest in issues affecting national treasures like yellowstone.