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

[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

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!

   

 

[trophyhunt]

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

love it!

[trophyhunt]

Hydro and this all 2020 predators taken out except wolf

Great looking cat, is that at the taxi place I just saw?  The 150 lber?

[idaho guy]

Hydro and this all 2020 predators taken out except wolf

Great looking cat, is that at the taxi place I just saw?  The 150 lber?

 

Yes 👍

[trophyhunt]

Hydro and this all 2020 predators taken out except wolf

Great looking cat, is that at the taxi place I just saw?  The 150 lber?

 

Yes 👍

Bad azz, thanks again, cool guys. 

[bearpaw]

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.

Hydro is just another uninformed wolf troll that has listened to wolf advocating biologists and spews their talking points. He had the gall to claim his data is based on a unit where he knows there are wolves but ODFG has not confirmed them and in another post condemns anyone else who makes any claims based on personal experience. That's typical wolf lover double talk hypocrisy! He disses others for basing comments on their personal experiences and then bases his own arguments on personal experiences. I cannot type this without chuckling to myself!

Idahohntr I fully expected you to bring my business into this conversation somehow and then you say it's not directed at me, you are a real prize little buddy!

Many Panhandle areas have been hit hard by wolves, much more so in some areas than in other areas, most notable are the areas furthest from human habitation. Check out the historic elk harvest stats for the more remote panhandle units 7 & 9 to clarify what I am saying? I agree with Idaho Guy that a lot of the elk have moved closer to humans for protection and survival, more or less to a reasonable extent the closer you get to humans the more elk there are, for that reason most of north Idaho has faired better than other more remote elk zones like the Lolo or Selway. Please feel free to show where those two elk zones are doing better than the Panhandle! I will be waiting for that!

As a businessman I looked at Idaho and I looked at what the market demand is for hunts, in the end we have settled into Idaho's top elk and predator zones and one of Idaho's best mule deer regions. It has worked really well for us!

Perhaps in my next post I will bring your career into this conversation and suggest how your career has impacted your opinion of wolves, I'm sure the members would enjoy that! We could both play that game! 

[idahohuntr]

@bearpaw The part where I said it was not directed at you was that I wanted to be clear I was not saying you were personally attacking hydro.  Now that you have called him names, belittled him, and made personal attacks against him I withdraw that statement.  I had hopes that you would encourage a more respectful discussion where people can disagree and debate without name calling and personal attacks.  I see that is not the case. 

As for your threats about discussing my career...I assume you are talking about my past education and experience as a fish biologist.  I know you and some other folks have come up with some hilarious and false ideas of my past...I really liked the PM you sent me once where you had me pegged as someone who manufacturers feed troughs for WDFW.  I no longer work as a biologist, but yes, I would agree many of my positions on wildlife management issues are informed by my background and education in fish and wildlife management.  I believe my positions are more informed by many decades of hunting big game in every western state and being a 5th generation Idahoan - but no doubt my fish and wildlife degrees also shape my views. 

I hope you have a good hunting season.  I'm already looking forward to mine.

[Skyvalhunter]

Its good I can add 2 to my ignore list Hydro & Idahohntr 

[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.

   

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.   

idaho guy that is a really good question that I will answer to the best of my ability. My son and I were both surprised by the outcome of the elk study, we agree with you that mt lions typically focus on deer more than elk and have found far more deer kills than elk kills. We have watched packs of wolves follow certain herds of elk day after day, focusing on that particular herd. I don't remember the specifics of the study, perhaps mt lions are focusing more on calves and making the big impact there? At any rate were were also surprised by the results of the study indicating lions killed more elk than wolves. I suspicion that it is somehow flawed to some extent but have no smoking gun type of proof that it is flawed. Unless another study is done proving otherwise that is the IDFG data we are stuck with that will dictate panhandle management for the foreseeable future!

Wolves
I will say this about wolves in our area, we have never seen so many trappers and wolf hunters, and we hear about wolves that are being taken, they are getting quite a few wolves. We are not seeing as many of the larger packs either, there are more singles and doubles, I think that will result in the wolves eating more small game and not being as effective at taking down elk, at least I hope that is the case. I'm hoping for an increase in elk numbers as a result of the recently lowered wolf population.

Bear
We think bear numbers are holding pretty strong, even though it seems like there are fewer bear when you are trying to hound hunt with strike dogs, we think that is because there are so many bait sites and many bear are living around these bait sites and don't need to travel looking for food, basically the hounds don't have much chance of finding a bear that feeds all night on bait and curls up a few hundred yards away and sleeps all day. So far we have not seen any decrease in our bear hunting success.

Cougar
We don't see as many cougar as we did years ago either. The liberal seasons are somewhat accomplishing what F&G wanted to accomplish, fewer lions. We still have good luck hunting when the weather cooperates, as you know the last few years has not been the best for cat hunting weather, the hounds don't do so well when its pouring down rain. For that reason I don't think the liberal seasons have been as effective as F&G would prefer. But I can tell you this for certain, the cougar density is higher in units in southern Idaho where quotas close the cougar season pretty quickly, I wished they would let us kill a few more cats in southern Idaho.

Elk
Compared to other elk zones the Panhandle still has the most elk, even though we think elk numbers are half or less in many areas, and overall hunter success has dropped, the Panhandle overall is still the top in Idaho for elk numbers and harvest. We see elk pretty much every day when we elk hunt, but again as I have explained to Idahohntr, we are pretty focused about where we elk hunt. The total amount of hunters in north Idaho is off the charts, there are a ton of hunters and a lot of them are not seeing many elk. There are certain herds we watch year around, these herds are all fewer than they were in the past, it's easy to get a pretty good count on them on winter range every year and compare from year to year. Our elk counts parallel with IDFG counts, the reason IDFG is actively hunting bear, cougar, and wolves and allowing multiple tags for each type of predator! Elk are pretty winter hardy, we don't see the big winter kills like deer sometimes have, we think the predator impact (including humans and wolves, there a a lot of both) is the main issue for elk numbers.

Deer
The bad winter a few years ago impacted the deer badly, it seemed we lost 2/3 of the deer herd that winter. We think they are slowly coming back, each year we are seeing more deer, we got quite a few more deer this year than the previous couple years. The deer herd seems to be more quickly impacted by winters than by predators, although the predator impact really slows the herd from rebuilding to their previous numbers.

Idaho guy there is a lot of value in your observations, you have hunted the same areas year after year for decades, we don't have as many years to compare observations as you do, and there is no doubt in my mind that hunting was better several decades ago before there were many wolves. Even though there is still some good hunting I certainly can see reductions during our more limited time in the area.

[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.   

idaho guy that is a really good question that I will answer to the best of my ability. My son and I were both surprised by the outcome of the elk study, we agree with you that mt lions typically focus on deer more than elk and have found far more deer kills than elk kills. We have watched packs of wolves follow certain herds of elk day after day, focusing on that particular herd. I don't remember the specifics of the study, perhaps mt lions are focusing more on calves and making the big impact there? At any rate were were also surprised by the results of the study indicating lions killed more elk than wolves. I suspicion that it is somehow flawed to some extent but have no smoking gun type of proof that it is flawed. Unless another study is done proving otherwise that is the IDFG data we are stuck with that will dictate panhandle management for the foreseeable future!

Wolves
I will say this about wolves in our area, we have never seen so many trappers and wolf hunters, and we hear about wolves that are being taken, they are getting quite a few wolves. We are not seeing as many of the larger packs either, there are more singles and doubles, I think that will result in the wolves eating more small game and not being as effective at taking down elk, at least I hope that is the case. I'm hoping for an increase in elk numbers as a result of the recently lowered wolf population.

Bear
We think bear numbers are holding pretty strong, even though it seems like there are fewer bear when you are trying to hound hunt with strike dogs, we think that is because there are so many bait sites and many bear are living around these bait sites and don't need to travel looking for food, basically the hounds don't have much chance of finding a bear that feeds all night on bait and curls up a few hundred yards away and sleeps all day. So far we have not seen any decrease in our bear hunting success.

Cougar
We don't see as many cougar as we did years ago either. The liberal seasons are somewhat accomplishing what F&G wanted to accomplish, fewer lions. We still have good luck hunting when the weather cooperates, as you know the last few years has not been the best for cat hunting weather, the hounds don't do so well when its pouring down rain. For that reason I don't think the liberal seasons have been as effective as F&G would prefer. But I can tell you this for certain, the cougar density is higher in units in southern Idaho where quotas close the cougar season pretty quickly, I wished they would let us kill a few more cats in southern Idaho.

Elk
Compared to other elk zones the Panhandle still has the most elk, even though we think elk numbers are half or less in many areas, and overall hunter success has dropped, the Panhandle overall is still the top in Idaho for elk numbers and harvest. We see elk pretty much every day when we elk hunt, but again as I have explained to Idahohntr, we are pretty focused about where we elk hunt. The total amount of hunters in north Idaho is off the charts, there are a ton of hunters and a lot of them are not seeing many elk. There are certain herds we watch year around, these herds are all fewer than they were in the past, it's easy to get a pretty good count on them on winter range every year and compare from year to year. Our elk counts parallel with IDFG counts, the reason IDFG is actively hunting bear, cougar, and wolves and allowing multiple tags for each type of predator! Elk are pretty winter hardy, we don't see the big winter kills like deer sometimes have, we think the predator impact (including humans and wolves, there a a lot of both) is the main issue for elk numbers.

Deer
The bad winter a few years ago impacted the deer badly, it seemed we lost 2/3 of the deer herd that winter. We think they are slowly coming back, each year we are seeing more deer, we got quite a few more deer this year than the previous couple years. The deer herd seems to be more quickly impacted by winters than by predators, although the predator impact really slows the herd from rebuilding to their previous numbers.

Idaho guy there is a lot of value in your observations, you have hunted the same areas year after year for decades, we don't have as many years to compare observations as you do, and there is no doubt in my mind that hunting was better several decades ago before there were many wolves. Even though there is still some good hunting I certainly can see reductions during our more limited time in the area.

   


  Thank you for detailed response. It’s interesting that your experience is same as mine on the lion study. It just doesn’t make sense based on what I have seen but I am just out there recreational hunting and you guys are out there full time as a job. Thanks for the response I respect your opinions. I would agree panhandle has good to great elk hunting still but a lot of areas have really been decimated. I’m glad we have outfitters like you operating in Idaho

[bearpaw]

@bearpaw The part where I said it was not directed at you was that I wanted to be clear I was not saying you were personally attacking hydro.  Now that you have called him names, belittled him, and made personal attacks against him I withdraw that statement.  I had hopes that you would encourage a more respectful discussion where people can disagree and debate without name calling and personal attacks.  I see that is not the case. 

As for your threats about discussing my career...I assume you are talking about my past education and experience as a fish biologist.  I know you and some other folks have come up with some hilarious and false ideas of my past...I really liked the PM you sent me once where you had me pegged as someone who manufacturers feed troughs for WDFW.  I no longer work as a biologist, but yes, I would agree many of my positions on wildlife management issues are informed by my background and education in fish and wildlife management.  I believe my positions are more informed by many decades of hunting big game in every western state and being a 5th generation Idahoan - but no doubt my fish and wildlife degrees also shape my views. 

I hope you have a good hunting season.  I'm already looking forward to mine.

What I said was true, he discounted anyone who used their personal experiences but then uses his own personal experiences and admitted ODFG had not verified wolves in the area that he was using as an example, please google fu the meaning of hypocrisy!

Actually I don't remember any message accusing you of what you claim? Maybe it was another member?

Perhaps in my next post I will bring your career into this conversation and suggest how your career has impacted your opinion of wolves, I'm sure the members would enjoy that! We could both play that game!

That was a "what if" type of comment because you decided to bring my business into the conversation! You are responsible for doing that! I didn't actually offer any of your info, it's on you for providing your info to the members.

Additionally please remember, it was you who messaged me in the past regarding certain members offering personal info about you on the forum and I stopped it, maybe you forgot that.

[Hydrophilic]

@bearpaw The part where I said it was not directed at you was that I wanted to be clear I was not saying you were personally attacking hydro.  Now that you have called him names, belittled him, and made personal attacks against him I withdraw that statement.  I had hopes that you would encourage a more respectful discussion where people can disagree and debate without name calling and personal attacks.  I see that is not the case. 

As for your threats about discussing my career...I assume you are talking about my past education and experience as a fish biologist.  I know you and some other folks have come up with some hilarious and false ideas of my past...I really liked the PM you sent me once where you had me pegged as someone who manufacturers feed troughs for WDFW.  I no longer work as a biologist, but yes, I would agree many of my positions on wildlife management issues are informed by my background and education in fish and wildlife management.  I believe my positions are more informed by many decades of hunting big game in every western state and being a 5th generation Idahoan - but no doubt my fish and wildlife degrees also shape my views. 

I hope you have a good hunting season.  I'm already looking forward to mine.

What's a guy like you doing hanging out in a place like this?  Nice to meet you. One of my favorite books is written by a Washington fish biologist - Salmon without rivers. If you haven't read it I would highly recommend it, kinda grim.

[Hydrophilic]

@bearpaw The part where I said it was not directed at you was that I wanted to be clear I was not saying you were personally attacking hydro.  Now that you have called him names, belittled him, and made personal attacks against him I withdraw that statement.  I had hopes that you would encourage a more respectful discussion where people can disagree and debate without name calling and personal attacks.  I see that is not the case. 

As for your threats about discussing my career...I assume you are talking about my past education and experience as a fish biologist.  I know you and some other folks have come up with some hilarious and false ideas of my past...I really liked the PM you sent me once where you had me pegged as someone who manufacturers feed troughs for WDFW.  I no longer work as a biologist, but yes, I would agree many of my positions on wildlife management issues are informed by my background and education in fish and wildlife management.  I believe my positions are more informed by many decades of hunting big game in every western state and being a 5th generation Idahoan - but no doubt my fish and wildlife degrees also shape my views. 

I hope you have a good hunting season.  I'm already looking forward to mine.

What I said was true, he discounted anyone who used their personal experiences but then uses his own personal experiences and admitted ODFG had not verified wolves in the area that he was using as an example, please google fu the meaning of hypocrisy!

Actually I don't remember any message accusing you of what you claim? Maybe it was another member?

Perhaps in my next post I will bring your career into this conversation and suggest how your career has impacted your opinion of wolves, I'm sure the members would enjoy that! We could both play that game!

That was a "what if" type of comment because you decided to bring my business into the conversation! You are responsible for doing that! I didn't actually offer any of your info, it's on you for providing your info to the members.

Additionally please remember, it was you who messaged me in the past regarding certain members offering personal info about you on the forum and I stopped it, maybe you forgot that.

You are confused about the content of this thread, almost everyone is using their personal experiences EXCLUSIVELY, despite my repeated attempts asking for data to support multiple blanket statements and hyperboles.

Rather than focusing on one statement I made regarding an "unverified" wolf pack, throw it out, and focus on the other statements I have made which clearly demonstrate growing elk populations cohabitated by wolves. There are many other scenarios where this is happening, elk herds are above MO, and the state is issuing extra antlerless tags or trying to figure out ways to reduce the population. Also scenarios where the wolves are in fact detrimental, in some cases very detrimental, and I could list data for that too...and I might as well because it would be a better use of my time to argue with myself, using data, than to argue with the hunters here who would like to manage the publics wildlife with their personal observations and emotions.

[vandeman17]

@bearpaw The part where I said it was not directed at you was that I wanted to be clear I was not saying you were personally attacking hydro.  Now that you have called him names, belittled him, and made personal attacks against him I withdraw that statement.  I had hopes that you would encourage a more respectful discussion where people can disagree and debate without name calling and personal attacks.  I see that is not the case. 

As for your threats about discussing my career...I assume you are talking about my past education and experience as a fish biologist.  I know you and some other folks have come up with some hilarious and false ideas of my past...I really liked the PM you sent me once where you had me pegged as someone who manufacturers feed troughs for WDFW.  I no longer work as a biologist, but yes, I would agree many of my positions on wildlife management issues are informed by my background and education in fish and wildlife management.  I believe my positions are more informed by many decades of hunting big game in every western state and being a 5th generation Idahoan - but no doubt my fish and wildlife degrees also shape my views. 

I hope you have a good hunting season.  I'm already looking forward to mine.

What I said was true, he discounted anyone who used their personal experiences but then uses his own personal experiences and admitted ODFG had not verified wolves in the area that he was using as an example, please google fu the meaning of hypocrisy!

Actually I don't remember any message accusing you of what you claim? Maybe it was another member?

Perhaps in my next post I will bring your career into this conversation and suggest how your career has impacted your opinion of wolves, I'm sure the members would enjoy that! We could both play that game!

That was a "what if" type of comment because you decided to bring my business into the conversation! You are responsible for doing that! I didn't actually offer any of your info, it's on you for providing your info to the members.

Additionally please remember, it was you who messaged me in the past regarding certain members offering personal info about you on the forum and I stopped it, maybe you forgot that.

You are confused about the content of this thread, almost everyone is using their personal experiences EXCLUSIVELY, despite my repeated attempts asking for data to support multiple blanket statements and hyperboles.

Rather than focusing on one statement I made regarding an "unverified" wolf pack, throw it out, and focus on the other statements I have made which clearly demonstrate growing elk populations cohabitated by wolves. There are many other scenarios where this is happening, elk herds are above MO, and the state is issuing extra antlerless tags or trying to figure out ways to reduce the population. Also scenarios where the wolves are in fact detrimental, in some cases very detrimental, and I could list data for that too...and I might as well because it would be a better use of my time to argue with myself, using data, than to argue with the hunters here who would like to manage the publics wildlife with their personal observations and emotions.

Best idea you have had so far


You keep preaching data but also say "Well fortunately federal land is geared toward multi use and placed in trust for all citizens, and our wildlife is also placed in trust for the public. It seems fitting to me the public having input on how their trust lands and wildlife are managed." Are you telling me that all the people voting for these things are basing their vote on data?

[Platensek-po]

@bearpaw The part where I said it was not directed at you was that I wanted to be clear I was not saying you were personally attacking hydro.  Now that you have called him names, belittled him, and made personal attacks against him I withdraw that statement.  I had hopes that you would encourage a more respectful discussion where people can disagree and debate without name calling and personal attacks.  I see that is not the case. 

As for your threats about discussing my career...I assume you are talking about my past education and experience as a fish biologist.  I know you and some other folks have come up with some hilarious and false ideas of my past...I really liked the PM you sent me once where you had me pegged as someone who manufacturers feed troughs for WDFW.  I no longer work as a biologist, but yes, I would agree many of my positions on wildlife management issues are informed by my background and education in fish and wildlife management.  I believe my positions are more informed by many decades of hunting big game in every western state and being a 5th generation Idahoan - but no doubt my fish and wildlife degrees also shape my views. 

I hope you have a good hunting season.  I'm already looking forward to mine.

What I said was true, he discounted anyone who used their personal experiences but then uses his own personal experiences and admitted ODFG had not verified wolves in the area that he was using as an example, please google fu the meaning of hypocrisy!

Actually I don't remember any message accusing you of what you claim? Maybe it was another member?

Perhaps in my next post I will bring your career into this conversation and suggest how your career has impacted your opinion of wolves, I'm sure the members would enjoy that! We could both play that game!

That was a "what if" type of comment because you decided to bring my business into the conversation! You are responsible for doing that! I didn't actually offer any of your info, it's on you for providing your info to the members.

Additionally please remember, it was you who messaged me in the past regarding certain members offering personal info about you on the forum and I stopped it, maybe you forgot that.

You are confused about the content of this thread, almost everyone is using their personal experiences EXCLUSIVELY, despite my repeated attempts asking for data to support multiple blanket statements and hyperboles.

Rather than focusing on one statement I made regarding an "unverified" wolf pack, throw it out, and focus on the other statements I have made which clearly demonstrate growing elk populations cohabitated by wolves. There are many other scenarios where this is happening, elk herds are above MO, and the state is issuing extra antlerless tags or trying to figure out ways to reduce the population. Also scenarios where the wolves are in fact detrimental, in some cases very detrimental, and I could list data for that too...and I might as well because it would be a better use of my time to argue with myself, using data, than to argue with the hunters here who would like to manage the publics wildlife with their personal observations and emotions.

Can you provide stable showing the populations of game animals and wolves over the last years from any area? Showing harvest numbers by themselves is proof of nothing other than what hunters self report. I know guys who lie on those reports every year. Is there actual data on population numbers? Also if scientists say that wolves are coming in naturally then why the need for introduction of wolves from outside? Also many scientists have expressed concern over the Mexican wolf that inhabits the southern portion of Colorado and is often killed by its larger cousins. Should they not have a chance of surviving and establishing a foothold before having larger wolves thrown on top of them? All of this from the mouths of biologists studying wolves. The fact of the matter is this was a decision not based on any science at all but on a ballot initiative, which I’m sure was not read by over half the people who voted on it. Also science has many times stated that wolves have met and exceeded their recovery goals in various locations yet they will not be delisted because of feelings. Do you agree with that posture? The major thing that most of the science doesn’t deal with is how to manage these populations to also coexist with humans and humans expansion. If you only manage one side of the predator prey dynamic then it’s going to be hard to have a  balanced ecosystem.