Free: Contests & Raffles.
Quote from: highside74 on January 02, 2021, 11:12:19 PMAnd elk numbers in Yellowstone were at there peak in the early 90s and have been on a decline since the late 90s. May I ask the class what changed in Yellowstone in the mid 90s? Anyone, Anyone? Oh that's right wolves in 95. But the book photocopying science guy will say that has nothing to do with it. Wait for it, wait for it...This is about Colorado, not Yellowstone, completely different. You have dragged me off topic multiple times, mainly because it was too tempting not to respond to your off topic comments, but I will stay on topic the rest of this thread. Please refrain from personal attacks, attacking my argument is one thing, attacking me personally by calling me a tool is another. Please refrain, thanks.
And elk numbers in Yellowstone were at there peak in the early 90s and have been on a decline since the late 90s. May I ask the class what changed in Yellowstone in the mid 90s? Anyone, Anyone? Oh that's right wolves in 95. But the book photocopying science guy will say that has nothing to do with it. Wait for it, wait for it...
Hydrophilic direct quote from you to platensek. “I am showing you and everyone else data where wolves are NOT impacting elk negatively. You keep dodging me in one way or another” let me ask you the same question- I am showing you and everyone else data where wolves HAVE impacted elk negatively. You keep dodging me in one way or another. What gives a study more validity? 5 years or 25 years ? I know your google machine can’t easily pull up talking points on Yellowstone,lolo,selway. Those herds are real life 25 year studies of elk herds living with wolves. Do you want to explain how wolves have not had MASSIVE negative impacts on these elk or retract your prior statements? Help me understand
Give him a few minutes. He is photocopying old text books to post.
Quote from: Hydrophilic on January 02, 2021, 11:25:44 PMQuote from: highside74 on January 02, 2021, 11:12:19 PMAnd elk numbers in Yellowstone were at there peak in the early 90s and have been on a decline since the late 90s. May I ask the class what changed in Yellowstone in the mid 90s? Anyone, Anyone? Oh that's right wolves in 95. But the book photocopying science guy will say that has nothing to do with it. Wait for it, wait for it...This is about Colorado, not Yellowstone, completely different. You have dragged me off topic multiple times, mainly because it was too tempting not to respond to your off topic comments, but I will stay on topic the rest of this thread. Please refrain from personal attacks, attacking my argument is one thing, attacking me personally by calling me a tool is another. Please refrain, thanks. This is off topic? WTH this is an exact blueprint for what will happen in Colorado. I know your romantic quote about green eyed wolves is super scientific but this is actual evidence,wow maybe even a study, of what happens to massive elk herds when you reintroduced wolves. I know it really doesn’t fit your narrative so keep quoting studies from places as far away from the west as possible. You want science!!! There it is 25 years in Yellowstone without Any co factors of predators like hunting. Explain based on this exact “experiment” of re introduced wolves makes a good case for introducing them into Colorado? You are quoting the same EXACT crap they spewed 25 years ago. Look at Yellowstone nothing could be more ON topic. Before you post new numbers of elk like last 5 years you better research how far they extended the boundaries of where the original Yellowstone elk herds now resides. But hey! The elk quit eating the stream side bushes so the fishing is better!! Yippee that’s what the same science is touting as their Yellowstone success with wolves. My grandpa who lived his whole life in Rifle Colorado told me you can’t argue with a fool. Wow was he right. Seeing the same talking points used as SCIENCE 25 years later is exhausting and irritating.
Quote from: Hydrophilic on January 03, 2021, 10:52:34 AMQuote from: idahohuntr on January 03, 2021, 10:36:41 AMQuote from: lokidog on January 03, 2021, 04:51:28 AMQuote from: idaho guy on January 02, 2021, 08:45:57 PMQuote from: Hydrophilic on December 30, 2020, 09:23:54 PMQuote from: hunt6226 on December 30, 2020, 08:41:14 PMThe proposal should be put all the wolves in the cities where their protection is voted in 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. That is the beautiful thing about this country, thank you Mr. Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt is probably rolling over in his grave over the stupidity of this one. Ballot box wildlife management was never part of the North American wildlife model, which I agree is most successful wildlife management plan in the world. Ballot box wildlife management will be the ruin of what mr Roosevelt’s gift to us was. There is over 25 years of firsthand documented facts that disprove every lie the biologist told us in Idaho 25 years ago. They are using the EXACT talking points to reintroduce wolves to Colorado right now. It’s all been shown to be bullcrap which we thought anyways but now it’s proven with decades of on the ground evidence. It’s a shame to see this but oh well have fun with the wolves Colorado.This is the key point right here! Whether you like or dislike wolves, THIS IS IT!Ballot box wildlife management was never part of the North American wildlife model, which I agree is most successful wildlife management plan in the world. Ballot box wildlife management will be the ruin of what mr Roosevelt’s gift to us was.A central tenet of the NAMWC is that the wildlife are owned by the people - a stark contrast to the days of game being owned by the king. In that sense, I disagree with these proclamations that 'ballot box management' is not part of the NAMWC. If the people who own the wildlife choose to do something by a vote of the people, that is their prerogative...however strenuously I or other hunters may dislike the outcome. Reintroducing wolves, banning bear baiting and hounds, allocating a certain percentage of elk tags to non-residents are all value judgments which will vary based on the electorate...the 'owners'. While science may provide information about how introducing an apex predator will effect other species and their habitat, it really is up to the 'owners' to decide what they prefer...in Colorado (and probably Washington if there were ever a similar vote!) a majority prefer wolves on the landscape, even if that means fewer elk and deer. Well stated. I want hydrophilic to explain Yellowstone and all the features and benefits wolves provided. It’s the closest recent example of wolf reintroduction and what Colorado is doing. Both huge elk herds in the Rockies.25 years with wolves and 25 years without. What does the science tell us about the Health of the elk herds in Yellowstone and Colorado? with the benefit of 25 years of hindsight?
Quote from: idahohuntr on January 03, 2021, 10:36:41 AMQuote from: lokidog on January 03, 2021, 04:51:28 AMQuote from: idaho guy on January 02, 2021, 08:45:57 PMQuote from: Hydrophilic on December 30, 2020, 09:23:54 PMQuote from: hunt6226 on December 30, 2020, 08:41:14 PMThe proposal should be put all the wolves in the cities where their protection is voted in 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. That is the beautiful thing about this country, thank you Mr. Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt is probably rolling over in his grave over the stupidity of this one. Ballot box wildlife management was never part of the North American wildlife model, which I agree is most successful wildlife management plan in the world. Ballot box wildlife management will be the ruin of what mr Roosevelt’s gift to us was. There is over 25 years of firsthand documented facts that disprove every lie the biologist told us in Idaho 25 years ago. They are using the EXACT talking points to reintroduce wolves to Colorado right now. It’s all been shown to be bullcrap which we thought anyways but now it’s proven with decades of on the ground evidence. It’s a shame to see this but oh well have fun with the wolves Colorado.This is the key point right here! Whether you like or dislike wolves, THIS IS IT!Ballot box wildlife management was never part of the North American wildlife model, which I agree is most successful wildlife management plan in the world. Ballot box wildlife management will be the ruin of what mr Roosevelt’s gift to us was.A central tenet of the NAMWC is that the wildlife are owned by the people - a stark contrast to the days of game being owned by the king. In that sense, I disagree with these proclamations that 'ballot box management' is not part of the NAMWC. If the people who own the wildlife choose to do something by a vote of the people, that is their prerogative...however strenuously I or other hunters may dislike the outcome. Reintroducing wolves, banning bear baiting and hounds, allocating a certain percentage of elk tags to non-residents are all value judgments which will vary based on the electorate...the 'owners'. While science may provide information about how introducing an apex predator will effect other species and their habitat, it really is up to the 'owners' to decide what they prefer...in Colorado (and probably Washington if there were ever a similar vote!) a majority prefer wolves on the landscape, even if that means fewer elk and deer. Well stated.
Quote from: lokidog on January 03, 2021, 04:51:28 AMQuote from: idaho guy on January 02, 2021, 08:45:57 PMQuote from: Hydrophilic on December 30, 2020, 09:23:54 PMQuote from: hunt6226 on December 30, 2020, 08:41:14 PMThe proposal should be put all the wolves in the cities where their protection is voted in 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. That is the beautiful thing about this country, thank you Mr. Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt is probably rolling over in his grave over the stupidity of this one. Ballot box wildlife management was never part of the North American wildlife model, which I agree is most successful wildlife management plan in the world. Ballot box wildlife management will be the ruin of what mr Roosevelt’s gift to us was. There is over 25 years of firsthand documented facts that disprove every lie the biologist told us in Idaho 25 years ago. They are using the EXACT talking points to reintroduce wolves to Colorado right now. It’s all been shown to be bullcrap which we thought anyways but now it’s proven with decades of on the ground evidence. It’s a shame to see this but oh well have fun with the wolves Colorado.This is the key point right here! Whether you like or dislike wolves, THIS IS IT!Ballot box wildlife management was never part of the North American wildlife model, which I agree is most successful wildlife management plan in the world. Ballot box wildlife management will be the ruin of what mr Roosevelt’s gift to us was.A central tenet of the NAMWC is that the wildlife are owned by the people - a stark contrast to the days of game being owned by the king. In that sense, I disagree with these proclamations that 'ballot box management' is not part of the NAMWC. If the people who own the wildlife choose to do something by a vote of the people, that is their prerogative...however strenuously I or other hunters may dislike the outcome. Reintroducing wolves, banning bear baiting and hounds, allocating a certain percentage of elk tags to non-residents are all value judgments which will vary based on the electorate...the 'owners'. While science may provide information about how introducing an apex predator will effect other species and their habitat, it really is up to the 'owners' to decide what they prefer...in Colorado (and probably Washington if there were ever a similar vote!) a majority prefer wolves on the landscape, even if that means fewer elk and deer.
Quote from: idaho guy on January 02, 2021, 08:45:57 PMQuote from: Hydrophilic on December 30, 2020, 09:23:54 PMQuote from: hunt6226 on December 30, 2020, 08:41:14 PMThe proposal should be put all the wolves in the cities where their protection is voted in 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. That is the beautiful thing about this country, thank you Mr. Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt is probably rolling over in his grave over the stupidity of this one. Ballot box wildlife management was never part of the North American wildlife model, which I agree is most successful wildlife management plan in the world. Ballot box wildlife management will be the ruin of what mr Roosevelt’s gift to us was. There is over 25 years of firsthand documented facts that disprove every lie the biologist told us in Idaho 25 years ago. They are using the EXACT talking points to reintroduce wolves to Colorado right now. It’s all been shown to be bullcrap which we thought anyways but now it’s proven with decades of on the ground evidence. It’s a shame to see this but oh well have fun with the wolves Colorado.This is the key point right here! Whether you like or dislike wolves, THIS IS IT!Ballot box wildlife management was never part of the North American wildlife model, which I agree is most successful wildlife management plan in the world. Ballot box wildlife management will be the ruin of what mr Roosevelt’s gift to us was.
Quote from: Hydrophilic on December 30, 2020, 09:23:54 PMQuote from: hunt6226 on December 30, 2020, 08:41:14 PMThe proposal should be put all the wolves in the cities where their protection is voted in 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. That is the beautiful thing about this country, thank you Mr. Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt is probably rolling over in his grave over the stupidity of this one. Ballot box wildlife management was never part of the North American wildlife model, which I agree is most successful wildlife management plan in the world. Ballot box wildlife management will be the ruin of what mr Roosevelt’s gift to us was. There is over 25 years of firsthand documented facts that disprove every lie the biologist told us in Idaho 25 years ago. They are using the EXACT talking points to reintroduce wolves to Colorado right now. It’s all been shown to be bullcrap which we thought anyways but now it’s proven with decades of on the ground evidence. It’s a shame to see this but oh well have fun with the wolves Colorado.
Quote from: hunt6226 on December 30, 2020, 08:41:14 PMThe proposal should be put all the wolves in the cities where their protection is voted in 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. That is the beautiful thing about this country, thank you Mr. Roosevelt.
The proposal should be put all the wolves in the cities where their protection is voted in
Quote from: idahohuntr on January 09, 2021, 09:27:56 AMQuote from: idaho guy on January 09, 2021, 07:35:30 AMQuote from: idahohuntr on January 08, 2021, 10:07:29 PMQuote from: brew on January 08, 2021, 09:52:17 PMHey everyone has their own opinions but what bothers me the most is the personal attacks on Hydro and even the owner of the site calling him names--that just incites the crowd. You want to have a conversation that's fine but lets be adults A lot more productive discussion can happen if we all focus on the topic and not the people. Platensek-po I appreciate the dialogue you and hydro have had...largely respectful and focused on the topic without a bunch of unnecessary attacks - even though there is strong disagreement. I've learned a bit from your exchanges and I appreciate points you both have made. I know you think uniformed citizens should vote on these issues. Let’s not debate that again. Do you think spending tax payer money to dump wolves in Colorado where they are migrating naturally is a good idea? Regardless of wether the owners(the public) have the right to decide is this a good idea? Or a total dumpster fire decision by Colorado No, I would not have voted for this initiative were I a CO resident, primarily for 2 reasons already mentioned: 1. wolves are already in CO, so like WA, just leave it to whatever naturally colonizes. 2. It does create a significant resource drain - biologists and staff working on mule deer and CWD and other important issues are going to get sucked into the same wolf bs you see WDFW sucked into. If I were advising policy makers in western CO I would be torn over how to handle this from a strategic standpoint. Do you stall, delay, seek another initiative to overturn this one (given it was such a close vote). sue under ESA and NEPA and try to stop it from ultimately happening...or, given the current political makeup, do you move quickly to establish and codify hunting seasons, depredation plans etc. that allow for more successful management in the future. CO is a purple state, trending blue. In a decade they may be solid blue like WA and at that time they will be in the same boat as WA...no chance for any hunting seasons or substantive lethal control measures.If wolves are ultimately reintroduced I expect it will be similar to all the other western states. The impacts and distribution of wolves will be variable, some areas (particularly NW Colorado) are likely to have the greatest concentration of wolves, and how this will impact ungulate herds will be a function of many other variables as well. It will not 'destroy' deer and elk hunting by any stretch, but it will have impacts on game numbers, distribution, and behavior. Can you describe your predicted impact on game numbers? Positive or negative and to what extent? Observations in the field are very important. Sampling is also important but subject to bias. Intentional or not it is important to evaluate the possibity of a biased sample. This includes not just the data and how it is collected, but also the people who collect the data. Before I take the data seriously I would like to see the framework for the sampling process, who wrote wrote the sampling plan and who collected the data. Overly simplified graphs and numbers are great for convincing an uneducated mass but that is all they are good for.
Quote from: idaho guy on January 09, 2021, 07:35:30 AMQuote from: idahohuntr on January 08, 2021, 10:07:29 PMQuote from: brew on January 08, 2021, 09:52:17 PMHey everyone has their own opinions but what bothers me the most is the personal attacks on Hydro and even the owner of the site calling him names--that just incites the crowd. You want to have a conversation that's fine but lets be adults A lot more productive discussion can happen if we all focus on the topic and not the people. Platensek-po I appreciate the dialogue you and hydro have had...largely respectful and focused on the topic without a bunch of unnecessary attacks - even though there is strong disagreement. I've learned a bit from your exchanges and I appreciate points you both have made. I know you think uniformed citizens should vote on these issues. Let’s not debate that again. Do you think spending tax payer money to dump wolves in Colorado where they are migrating naturally is a good idea? Regardless of wether the owners(the public) have the right to decide is this a good idea? Or a total dumpster fire decision by Colorado No, I would not have voted for this initiative were I a CO resident, primarily for 2 reasons already mentioned: 1. wolves are already in CO, so like WA, just leave it to whatever naturally colonizes. 2. It does create a significant resource drain - biologists and staff working on mule deer and CWD and other important issues are going to get sucked into the same wolf bs you see WDFW sucked into. If I were advising policy makers in western CO I would be torn over how to handle this from a strategic standpoint. Do you stall, delay, seek another initiative to overturn this one (given it was such a close vote). sue under ESA and NEPA and try to stop it from ultimately happening...or, given the current political makeup, do you move quickly to establish and codify hunting seasons, depredation plans etc. that allow for more successful management in the future. CO is a purple state, trending blue. In a decade they may be solid blue like WA and at that time they will be in the same boat as WA...no chance for any hunting seasons or substantive lethal control measures.If wolves are ultimately reintroduced I expect it will be similar to all the other western states. The impacts and distribution of wolves will be variable, some areas (particularly NW Colorado) are likely to have the greatest concentration of wolves, and how this will impact ungulate herds will be a function of many other variables as well. It will not 'destroy' deer and elk hunting by any stretch, but it will have impacts on game numbers, distribution, and behavior.
Quote from: idahohuntr on January 08, 2021, 10:07:29 PMQuote from: brew on January 08, 2021, 09:52:17 PMHey everyone has their own opinions but what bothers me the most is the personal attacks on Hydro and even the owner of the site calling him names--that just incites the crowd. You want to have a conversation that's fine but lets be adults A lot more productive discussion can happen if we all focus on the topic and not the people. Platensek-po I appreciate the dialogue you and hydro have had...largely respectful and focused on the topic without a bunch of unnecessary attacks - even though there is strong disagreement. I've learned a bit from your exchanges and I appreciate points you both have made. I know you think uniformed citizens should vote on these issues. Let’s not debate that again. Do you think spending tax payer money to dump wolves in Colorado where they are migrating naturally is a good idea? Regardless of wether the owners(the public) have the right to decide is this a good idea? Or a total dumpster fire decision by Colorado
Quote from: brew on January 08, 2021, 09:52:17 PMHey everyone has their own opinions but what bothers me the most is the personal attacks on Hydro and even the owner of the site calling him names--that just incites the crowd. You want to have a conversation that's fine but lets be adults A lot more productive discussion can happen if we all focus on the topic and not the people. Platensek-po I appreciate the dialogue you and hydro have had...largely respectful and focused on the topic without a bunch of unnecessary attacks - even though there is strong disagreement. I've learned a bit from your exchanges and I appreciate points you both have made.
Hey everyone has their own opinions but what bothers me the most is the personal attacks on Hydro and even the owner of the site calling him names--that just incites the crowd. You want to have a conversation that's fine but lets be adults
Quote from: Platensek-po on January 07, 2021, 02:47:05 PMQuote from: Hydrophilic on January 07, 2021, 02:17:44 PMQuote from: bearpaw on January 07, 2021, 10:19:59 AMQuote from: idahohuntr on January 07, 2021, 08:49:35 AM@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?QuotePerhaps 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 Walla2002: 1,5002005: 1,4502008: 1,5002011: 1,5002014: 1,6902016: 1,7002019: 1,700Minam2002: 1,8002005: 2,0002008: 2,1002011: 2,1002014: 2,4502016: 2,5002019: 2,500Wenaha2002: 13002005: 13502008: 1,6002011: 1,6002014: 2,4502016: 2,6002019: 2,700Source: ODFWDirect link showing INCREASING wolf numbers for each unit.https://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/population.aspDo 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): 112,333Current: 120,000Source: IDFG
Quote from: Hydrophilic on January 07, 2021, 02:17:44 PMQuote from: bearpaw on January 07, 2021, 10:19:59 AMQuote from: idahohuntr on January 07, 2021, 08:49:35 AM@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?QuotePerhaps 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.
Quote from: bearpaw on January 07, 2021, 10:19:59 AMQuote from: idahohuntr on January 07, 2021, 08:49:35 AM@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?QuotePerhaps 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.
Quote from: idahohuntr on January 07, 2021, 08:49:35 AM@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?QuotePerhaps 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.
@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.
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!
I've not read through all the banter of these last few pages - but I think folks are talking past each other and twisting arguments into something that nobody is actually arguing. I'm not aware of anyone saying wolves don't have impacts on elk herds. In fact I believe everyone has acknowledged wolves have no doubt contributed to significant declines in certain herds. There is cherry picking going on with data both sides are presenting, but I also think both sides are presenting reasonable data that does provide some value in discussing the magnitude (and variation) of wolf impacts on elk herds and elk hunting. A point I've disagreed with is when folks say wolves 'destroy' all herds and clean out all game like a vacuum. I disagree with those exaggerations because even 25 years after reintroductions and even in areas where herds have faced significant reduction, there is still elk hunting (and killing). I also do not accept that wolves are the only (or in some cases most significant) causes of declines, where declines have been observed. Its all case by case. The Lolo is not the same as yellowstone which is not the same as the panhandle which is not the same as the blues. So lets not waste any more time setting up these false arguments about whether wolves have ever impacted a herd of elk. Of course they have...they eat the *censored* things all the time.
Quote from: idahohuntr on January 09, 2021, 10:01:55 PMI've not read through all the banter of these last few pages - but I think folks are talking past each other and twisting arguments into something that nobody is actually arguing. I'm not aware of anyone saying wolves don't have impacts on elk herds. In fact I believe everyone has acknowledged wolves have no doubt contributed to significant declines in certain herds. There is cherry picking going on with data both sides are presenting, but I also think both sides are presenting reasonable data that does provide some value in discussing the magnitude (and variation) of wolf impacts on elk herds and elk hunting. A point I've disagreed with is when folks say wolves 'destroy' all herds and clean out all game like a vacuum. I disagree with those exaggerations because even 25 years after reintroductions and even in areas where herds have faced significant reduction, there is still elk hunting (and killing). I also do not accept that wolves are the only (or in some cases most significant) causes of declines, where declines have been observed. Its all case by case. The Lolo is not the same as yellowstone which is not the same as the panhandle which is not the same as the blues. So lets not waste any more time setting up these false arguments about whether wolves have ever impacted a herd of elk. Of course they have...they eat the *censored* things all the time. Paraphrasing your last comment-of course they (wolves) have (impacted elk). they eat the things (elk). That’s an honest statement. I wanted to disengage from this whole thread but made the mistake of looking a little closer at hydrophilic “data”. He had stated and cherry picked information to make the case that wolves and elk numbers could increase TOGETHER. His own Oregon stats to prove this do show increased elk herds but actually decreasing wolf numbers. It’s like he didn’t even look at it before posting. His harvest stats from Idaho he thought proved his point that elk hunting got better after wolves. They in fact are a good representation of the effect wolves did have on hunter success. Summary 1994 almost 30000 elk harvested then 1995 wolves planted. 15 years later harvest success in 2011 is cut roughy in half to 15000. What else happened in 2011? We got a wolf hunting and trapping season and now recent success is up to 20000. No one who minimize wolf depredation of elk herds will talk about Yellowstone. Other than to say yes that 1 situation wolves really impacted elk but everywhere else it’s habitat etc. hydro posted overall elk population in Idaho to claim Idaho elk have GROWN since wolves. You know how dishonest this is so I posted Idaho elk units with population objective. Every unit around ground zero for wolf re introduction is BELOW objective. We both know there are places in Idaho with ZERO or very few wolves. In general these units are above objective. I am asking hydro or anyone else to address elk herds 25 years after wolves. Yellowstone of course but include lolo and selway and in Wyoming Jackson hole herd and elk around Gardiner Montana (Yellowstone area but outside the park and was once referred to as the elk capital of Montana)Look at any of the herds around the initial wolf dumping spot and elk have been hammered. Are there other factors at play. Mostly yes but there is one common denominator for all those herds 25 years of wolves. Why did hydrophilic come on here and start posting google searches to prove wolves have very little effect on wolves.?? He actually posted an Oregon biologist letter stating that very thing wolves have had minimal impact on elk and goes on to say they find the most wolves around the bigger elk herds. That is exactly why some biologist can’t be trusted. If someone wants to debate wolves and elk they NEED to talk about those herds listed. I already know lolo it will be lack of logging or bears or lions. You don’t go from 16000 elk to 1,000 because we didn’t cut down enough trees( I agree this was and is a problem it’s just not THE problem) bears and lions were always there and those zones were the first to get 2 bear tags 2 lion tags and extended season. There is less bears today than 25 years ago I think. Where is hydrophilic? When you bring up data he did not personally google he disappears yet says he wants to have a fair debate based on science and “data” but only data he provided. Twice his “data” actually made the case against his argument. He did say wolves have negligible effects on elk and he hunts with a wolf herd and had noticed no difference in the elk pack.
Quote from: Hydrophilic on January 07, 2021, 08:55:44 PMQuote from: Platensek-po on January 07, 2021, 02:47:05 PMQuote from: Hydrophilic on January 07, 2021, 02:17:44 PMQuote from: bearpaw on January 07, 2021, 10:19:59 AMQuote from: idahohuntr on January 07, 2021, 08:49:35 AM@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?QuotePerhaps 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 Walla2002: 1,5002005: 1,4502008: 1,5002011: 1,5002014: 1,6902016: 1,7002019: 1,700Minam2002: 1,8002005: 2,0002008: 2,1002011: 2,1002014: 2,4502016: 2,5002019: 2,500Wenaha2002: 13002005: 13502008: 1,6002011: 1,6002014: 2,4502016: 2,6002019: 2,700Source: ODFWDirect link showing INCREASING wolf numbers for each unit.https://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/population.aspDo 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): 112,333Current: 120,000Source: IDFG Do you read your own charts? The Oregon wolf table shows declining numbers for wolves for example wenaha shows a high of 12 wolves and in 2019 5 wolves? 5 wolves is laughable time and numbers will do that herd in if wolves are left to grow. which they will just like a wild dog with large litters yearly
Quote from: idaho guy on January 09, 2021, 09:10:51 PMQuote from: Hydrophilic on January 07, 2021, 08:55:44 PMQuote from: Platensek-po on January 07, 2021, 02:47:05 PMQuote from: Hydrophilic on January 07, 2021, 02:17:44 PMQuote from: bearpaw on January 07, 2021, 10:19:59 AMQuote from: idahohuntr on January 07, 2021, 08:49:35 AM@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?QuotePerhaps 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 Walla2002: 1,5002005: 1,4502008: 1,5002011: 1,5002014: 1,6902016: 1,7002019: 1,700Minam2002: 1,8002005: 2,0002008: 2,1002011: 2,1002014: 2,4502016: 2,5002019: 2,500Wenaha2002: 13002005: 13502008: 1,6002011: 1,6002014: 2,4502016: 2,6002019: 2,700Source: ODFWDirect link showing INCREASING wolf numbers for each unit.https://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/population.aspDo 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): 112,333Current: 120,000Source: IDFG Do you read your own charts? The Oregon wolf table shows declining numbers for wolves for example wenaha shows a high of 12 wolves and in 2019 5 wolves? 5 wolves is laughable time and numbers will do that herd in if wolves are left to grow. which they will just like a wild dog with large litters yearlyI have not paid much attention to you because you cannot form a reasonable argument or adequately eval data. Since you took issue with the data I provided showing a wolf decrease, I adjusted both sets of data so they aligned, it took me 5 seconds, a basic skill. Still a wolf increase and an elk increase over the same time span. Wenaha Elk2008: 1,600 2011: 1,6002014: 2,4502016: 2,600Wenaha Wolves2009: 42010: 62011: 5 2012: 112013: 92014: 112015: 122016: 12The primary cause for elk decline in Yellowstone was wolves, like I stated at the start, few people will argue that. That was intentional. Before wolves the park was having to cull the elk and the surrounding areas had a very high antlerless harvest. Plus, the public really wanted the wolves back. The Jackson herd was deliberately decreased. Do you see that red line? It represents MO, management objective, where the state wants the herd numbers to be. That was an intentional decrease. See attachment, or call them directly, whatever you'd like. I can show you a lot of intentional elk decreases due to land owner conflicts, habitat degradation, etc...very common.Lolo zone decline is primarily predation. Cougar, Black Bear and more recently wolves. Elk population was declining before wolves showed up. What's your point? It seems like you are suggesting a faulty generalization, that you would like to extrapolate a handful of wolf predation examples onto the rest of the west? I have demonstrated there are many areas where predators are coinciding with growing elk numbers and hunting opportunity. Each region and unit is completely different with completely different needs, that's why DATA MATTERS. In the Oregon data I provided, which I will again copy below, this includes one of the healthiest, if not the healthiest, growing cougar population in the Western states. So, not only were the wolves increasing, but the cougars and Elk were increasing as well. Does this make sense to you? Or do I need to do a data compilation for you as well? You will notice the last attachment I added the state increased the total MO for elk and after several years they achieved their goal, primarily through manipulating hunter harvest. Walla Walla2002: 1,5002005: 1,4502008: 1,5002011: 1,5002014: 1,6902016: 1,7002019: 1,700Minam2002: 1,8002005: 2,0002008: 2,1002011: 2,1002014: 2,4502016: 2,5002019: 2,500Wenaha2002: 13002005: 13502008: 1,6002011: 1,6002014: 2,4502016: 2,6002019: 2,700Source: ODFW
