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

[idahohuntr]

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.

I can't imagine anyone cares about my background/education and I certainly don't see it as all that relevant.  You will certainly never hear me discuss it as any kind of support for any argument I make.  If you or others want to refer to it as to why I'm wrong (he's been indoctrinated by those liberal academics...) have at it. Again, I have no issue with sharing educational/professional background (as I posted earlier) - where I draw the line, and when I asked you to engage, is when former members were actively seeking to openly distribute my home address, name, phone, email etc. in an attempt to threaten and harass my family and I.  I'm sure you stopped it because I have no doubt you and most others here, whether I disagree on any given topic or not, are decent human beings...all legal consequences aside.

I struggle to understand why you are defensive about mentioning your outfitting business.  You own this forum, you own your outfitting website, you advertise your business on this forum.  I certainly don't see any parallel to me mentioning a direct quote from your publicly advertised outfitting website as contradictory or hypocritical of my desire to not have personal details published which would enable crazies to illegally harass and threaten my family or I. 

[Miles]

The newest troll stirs things up, then checks in occasionally to see to it that what he instigated is still progressing.  Classic...

[Brute]

The newest troll stirs things up, then checks in occasionally to see to it that what he instigated is still progressing.  Classic...

Nothing different here. He does the same thing on ifish

[idaho guy]

The newest troll stirs things up, then checks in occasionally to see to it that what he instigated is still progressing.  Classic...

 

  Uses same argument and dishonest talking points they have been spewing for 25 years in Idaho.  I said I was out on this but I can’t quit checking  :chuckle I’m not going to argue the obvious with hydro or idahohunter anymore though.

[KFhunter]

The newest troll stirs things up, then checks in occasionally to see to it that what he instigated is still progressing.  Classic...

 

  Uses same argument and dishonest talking points they have been spewing for 25 years in Idaho.  I said I was out on this but I can’t quit checking  :chuckle I’m not going to argue the obvious with hydro or idahohunter anymore though.

Trust me, they won't change their mind or learn a dam thing.  I been arguing with IDH for YEARS

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[bearpaw]

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.

I can't imagine anyone cares about my background/education and I certainly don't see it as all that relevant.  You will certainly never hear me discuss it as any kind of support for any argument I make.  If you or others want to refer to it as to why I'm wrong (he's been indoctrinated by those liberal academics...) have at it. Again, I have no issue with sharing educational/professional background (as I posted earlier) - where I draw the line, and when I asked you to engage, is when former members were actively seeking to openly distribute my home address, name, phone, email etc. in an attempt to threaten and harass my family and I.  I'm sure you stopped it because I have no doubt you and most others here, whether I disagree on any given topic or not, are decent human beings...all legal consequences aside.

I struggle to understand why you are defensive about mentioning your outfitting business.  You own this forum, you own your outfitting website, you advertise your business on this forum.  I certainly don't see any parallel to me mentioning a direct quote from your publicly advertised outfitting website as contradictory or hypocritical of my desire to not have personal details published which would enable crazies to illegally harass and threaten my family or I.

I could care less if my business is mentioned, I advertise widely. Your twisting of my business info to benefit your narrative becomes a problem, but you know that already, so you can drop the innocent act!

I don't remember your family being threatened, but none the less we don't allow members to share private info publicly about other members. Even though we disagree on many issues I respect everyone's privacy if they choose to remain anonymous, I have said nothing about your past or current career.

Our fall/winter season is still ongoing so I need to go. I'll let the rest of you wrestle around with the Colorado wolf discussion.

[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.

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.

I've already done that in this thread, minus the wolf info. But I will repost it for you, with the wolf info. And I will add some goodies at the end from other states.

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

Source: ODFW

Direct link showing INCREASING wolf numbers for each unit.
https://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/population.asp

Do you believe in having a fair conversation? Or are you simply going to cover your eyes and start attacking the messenger pigeon like everyone else here? I can go away, but that doesn't mean the data will.

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

Source: IDFG

[idaho guy]

The newest troll stirs things up, then checks in occasionally to see to it that what he instigated is still progressing.  Classic...

 

  Uses same argument and dishonest talking points they have been spewing for 25 years in Idaho.  I said I was out on this but I can’t quit checking  :chuckle I’m not going to argue the obvious with hydro or idahohunter anymore though.

Trust me, they won't change their mind or learn a dam thing.  I been arguing with IDH for YEARS

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Me too I guess I’m a slow learner 

[Platensek-po]

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?

[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.

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

Source: IDFG

[Platensek-po]

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??

[ne kid]

I laugh at all these government statistics from "educated " people. That right now are arguing over how many genders there are.

[Miles]

I laugh at all these government statistics from "educated " people. That right now are arguing over how many genders there are.

Exactly!

[vandeman17]

Hey Hydro, still waiting for you to answer my question. If game animals are owned by the voters and thus, the decisions on their management done per ballot initiatives, are you assuming those same voters study data? 

[KFhunter]

Hey Hydro, still waiting for you to answer my question. If game animals are owned by the voters and thus, the decisions on their management done per ballot initiatives, are you assuming those same voters study data?

And if those same voters decide they don't want anymore wolves at all, should they be allowed by voter initive to kill em all?




Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk