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

[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?

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

Exactly!

[Miles]

He’s going to ignore everything he doesn’t want to answer as he litters Huntwa with his “facts”.   That’s how his kind works.   They think if they say the same thing multiple times it’ll become the truth.

[idahohuntr]

Again, don't confuse science with policy.

How the voters want to manage their wildlife is policy - and whether its science/data based or not is irrelevant.  Voters could absolutely change the policy on wolves or any wildlife or any other public resource. 

Science and data do not set/decide policy...science and data inform policy and management.  Once there is an established policy, science can inform how best to achieve such policy, giving information on costs/benefits/risks/consequences etc.

Example:
Voters, through initiative and/or selection of elected officials, decide they don't want wolves.

Policy = no more wolves (per initiative, or modification of all the necessary state and federal laws)
Science = how best to eradicate wolves (poison, trap, aerial gunning...what are the costs, efficacy, risks of each method etc.)


 

[vandeman17]

Again, don't confuse science with policy.

How the voters want to manage their wildlife is policy - and whether its science/data based or not is irrelevant.  Voters could absolutely change the policy on wolves or any wildlife or any other public resource. 

Science and data do not set/decide policy...science and data inform policy and management.  Once there is an established policy, science can inform how best to achieve such policy, giving information on costs/benefits/risks/consequences etc.

Example:
Voters, through initiative and/or selection of elected officials, decide they don't want wolves.

Policy = no more wolves (per initiative, or modification of all the necessary state and federal laws)
Science = how best to eradicate wolves (poison, trap, aerial gunning...what are the costs, efficacy, risks of each method etc.)


 

Then why would one continue to present data as their justification for introduction of wolves?

[idahohuntr]

Again, don't confuse science with policy.

How the voters want to manage their wildlife is policy - and whether its science/data based or not is irrelevant.  Voters could absolutely change the policy on wolves or any wildlife or any other public resource. 

Science and data do not set/decide policy...science and data inform policy and management.  Once there is an established policy, science can inform how best to achieve such policy, giving information on costs/benefits/risks/consequences etc.

Example:
Voters, through initiative and/or selection of elected officials, decide they don't want wolves.

Policy = no more wolves (per initiative, or modification of all the necessary state and federal laws)
Science = how best to eradicate wolves (poison, trap, aerial gunning...what are the costs, efficacy, risks of each method etc.)


 

Then why would one continue to present data as their justification for introduction of wolves?

For all the same reasons people present data as their justification for not introducing wolves.

[vandeman17]

Again, don't confuse science with policy.

How the voters want to manage their wildlife is policy - and whether its science/data based or not is irrelevant.  Voters could absolutely change the policy on wolves or any wildlife or any other public resource. 

Science and data do not set/decide policy...science and data inform policy and management.  Once there is an established policy, science can inform how best to achieve such policy, giving information on costs/benefits/risks/consequences etc.

Example:
Voters, through initiative and/or selection of elected officials, decide they don't want wolves.

Policy = no more wolves (per initiative, or modification of all the necessary state and federal laws)
Science = how best to eradicate wolves (poison, trap, aerial gunning...what are the costs, efficacy, risks of each method etc.)


 

Then why would one continue to present data as their justification for introduction of wolves?

For all the same reasons people present data as their justification for not introducing wolves.

Majority of voters don't educate themselves on stats, no matter what side of the aisle they sit on, especially on items like these where they have little to no skin in the game. 

[idahohuntr]

Again, don't confuse science with policy.

How the voters want to manage their wildlife is policy - and whether its science/data based or not is irrelevant.  Voters could absolutely change the policy on wolves or any wildlife or any other public resource. 

Science and data do not set/decide policy...science and data inform policy and management.  Once there is an established policy, science can inform how best to achieve such policy, giving information on costs/benefits/risks/consequences etc.

Example:
Voters, through initiative and/or selection of elected officials, decide they don't want wolves.

Policy = no more wolves (per initiative, or modification of all the necessary state and federal laws)
Science = how best to eradicate wolves (poison, trap, aerial gunning...what are the costs, efficacy, risks of each method etc.)


 

Then why would one continue to present data as their justification for introduction of wolves?

For all the same reasons people present data as their justification for not introducing wolves.

Majority of voters don't educate themselves on stats, no matter what side of the aisle they sit on, especially on items like these where they have little to no skin in the game. 

 

Hence my initial statement: How the voters want to manage their wildlife is policy - and whether its science/data based or not is irrelevant. 

[vandeman17]

Again, don't confuse science with policy.

How the voters want to manage their wildlife is policy - and whether its science/data based or not is irrelevant.  Voters could absolutely change the policy on wolves or any wildlife or any other public resource. 

Science and data do not set/decide policy...science and data inform policy and management.  Once there is an established policy, science can inform how best to achieve such policy, giving information on costs/benefits/risks/consequences etc.

Example:
Voters, through initiative and/or selection of elected officials, decide they don't want wolves.

Policy = no more wolves (per initiative, or modification of all the necessary state and federal laws)
Science = how best to eradicate wolves (poison, trap, aerial gunning...what are the costs, efficacy, risks of each method etc.)


 

Then why would one continue to present data as their justification for introduction of wolves?

For all the same reasons people present data as their justification for not introducing wolves.

Majority of voters don't educate themselves on stats, no matter what side of the aisle they sit on, especially on items like these where they have little to no skin in the game. 

 

Hence my initial statement: How the voters want to manage their wildlife is policy - and whether its science/data based or not is irrelevant. 

exactly so when our personal, first hand experiences with how wolves are impacting areas we hunt are being discounted and "data" is the rebuttal, its garbage.

[Platensek-po]

Again, don't confuse science with policy.

How the voters want to manage their wildlife is policy - and whether its science/data based or not is irrelevant.  Voters could absolutely change the policy on wolves or any wildlife or any other public resource. 

Science and data do not set/decide policy...science and data inform policy and management.  Once there is an established policy, science can inform how best to achieve such policy, giving information on costs/benefits/risks/consequences etc.

Example:
Voters, through initiative and/or selection of elected officials, decide they don't want wolves.

Policy = no more wolves (per initiative, or modification of all the necessary state and federal laws)
Science = how best to eradicate wolves (poison, trap, aerial gunning...what are the costs, efficacy, risks of each method etc.)


 

Then why would one continue to present data as their justification for introduction of wolves?

For all the same reasons people present data as their justification for not introducing wolves.

Majority of voters don't educate themselves on stats, no matter what side of the aisle they sit on, especially on items like these where they have little to no skin in the game. 

 

Hence my initial statement: How the voters want to manage their wildlife is policy - and whether its science/data based or not is irrelevant. 

exactly so when our personal, first hand experiences with how wolves are impacting areas we hunt are being discounted and "data" is the rebuttal, its garbage.

Not to mention that the science and data suggested that introduction of wolves is unnecessary is Colorado and could even be detrimental to the Mexican wolf population.

[ribka]

Are you referring to rigors scientific studies like this after wolves wiped out over 70 per cent of the elk and moose in the park?

https://earthjustice.org/blog/2015-july/how-wolves-saved-the-foxes-mice-and-rivers-of-yellowstone-national-park

 

Again, don't confuse science with policy.

How the voters want to manage their wildlife is policy - and whether its science/data based or not is irrelevant.  Voters could absolutely change the policy on wolves or any wildlife or any other public resource. 

Science and data do not set/decide policy...science and data inform policy and management.  Once there is an established policy, science can inform how best to achieve such policy, giving information on costs/benefits/risks/consequences etc.

Example:
Voters, through initiative and/or selection of elected officials, decide they don't want wolves.

Policy = no more wolves (per initiative, or modification of all the necessary state and federal laws)
Science = how best to eradicate wolves (poison, trap, aerial gunning...what are the costs, efficacy, risks of each method etc.)


 

[ribka]

Why are you targeting an over pressured and endangered endangered fish like steelhead? Sounds pretty selfish an arrogant to me. These precious and beautiful fish belong to everyone from Portland to Miami. Remember Roosevelt's legacy please.

Leave them alone and let them recovers. There are plenty of lakes with stocked trout. sheesh

He's right about personal attacks, if nothing else highside

You hunt Oregon hydro? From your avatar it looks like it going off elk species and understory.

You've got *a lot* to learn about wolves. 

I appreciate your passion for the outdoors, but you're about 10 years behind E Washington and 15 behind Idaho.


You could learn here, or you could piss everyone off.   Your choice.


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Yes, I’m in Oregon and hunt a few other states as well.

I’m open to learning and I hope everyone else here is as well. All I ask for are decent citations and critical thought.

Whether I piss everyone off is of no concern to me. If hunters get mad at facts and observations that is their problem and not my own. I have a folder of studies used by state wildlife agencies to dictate their management decisions, or personal opinions. If hunters want science, I can do science. If this is a science based management forum, as a couple posters have claimed, then hopefully the cognitive dissonance is kept to a minimum.

About me: I chase 20 lb steelhead, big morels, big elk, and big deer. But I’m happy with 10 lb steelhead, small morels, small elk, and small deer. I love the outdoors. Cheers.

[Hydrophilic]

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

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

 Also keep in mind those numbers are all estimated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MY DATA - PLEASE READ AND RESPOND

Oregon

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

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

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

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

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

Idaho

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

Source: IDFG
---------------------

Wyoming

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

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

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

[KFhunter]

Like everyone is trying to tell you, the data is old, wrong and irrelevant, and you are wrong.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[h20hunter]

As was said earlier.....

"You are wasting your time here"

[idaho guy]

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

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

 Also keep in mind those numbers are all estimated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: IDFG

   

Thats too stupid so I’m back in. Wow your harvest graphs are an excellent example of the exact effects wolves had on success rates in Idaho. 1994 record harvest 30000 elk. 2011 15000 elk harvested exactly a 50 percent decline. What changed wolves had been in and spread throughout Idaho. 2019 back to 20000 elk harvested. Again what changed ? Agressive hunting and trapping of wolves. We went from a short season with a few tags to someplaces a year around steady with a combined 30 tags  available for hunting and trapping. Thanks for posting the excellent examples of exactly what wolves did to success rates before they were managed aggressively and after the whole story is there in your graphs. Total elk population means less than you think when talking wolf impact. Probably half of Idaho elk live on or near private land now.(post wolves) You want to have a serious debate on elk populations with the presence of wolves study the wilderness zones like the selway. Wolves are harder to trap because of remoteness and the elk populations have plummeted. Look at unit 7 and 9 in the panhandle which is also more remote. Thanks for proving my point on our experience with wolves here in Idaho