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

[idahohuntr]

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.

 

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.

You've provided cherry picked data as well...its not a coincidence you like to start data sets in the early 90's when game numbers were at their highest in many decades.  You also fail to mention in any of your posts the extraordinary winters in 1996 and 2008 in the areas you like to discuss.  Animal abundance is never static, so when you start at a record high, then attribute all future declines to wolves it's not that simple.  You also fail to mention that 25 years after wolf introduction, the opportunity to harvest an elk in Idaho is about as high as its ever been - and this is probably also true for WY and MT.  And again, this is not to say there have not been substantial impacts to various herds...but all can still be hunted OTC, so the preponderance of the evidence, 25 years post introduction, is not the doom and gloom some like to portray.   

[idaho guy]

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.

 

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.

You've provided cherry picked data as well...its not a coincidence you like to start data sets in the early 90's when game numbers were at their highest in many decades.  You also fail to mention in any of your posts the extraordinary winters in 1996 and 2008 in the areas you like to discuss.  Animal abundance is never static, so when you start at a record high, then attribute all future declines to wolves it's not that simple.  You also fail to mention that 25 years after wolf introduction, the opportunity to harvest an elk in Idaho is about as high as its ever been - and this is probably also true for WY and MT.  And again, this is not to say there have not been substantial impacts to various herds...but all can still be hunted OTC, so the preponderance of the evidence, 25 years post introduction, is not the doom and gloom some like to portray.   

   

Really I picked the early 90s because there was an abundance of game populations? Or did I pick that time frame because thats WHEN WOLVES were reintroduced? It was the latter of course. You above all know that there is multitude of factors which affect game populations the one thing that smooths out hard winters, lack of logging, fires etc effect so you can see the impact of 1 individual factor is TIME. Think about the irony of that statement-"You cherry picked the early 90s when game populations were at an all time high." when in fact I chose it because that is exactly when wolves showed up. I posted the idaho game units and elk objective specifically to demonstrate the areas where wolves were reintroduced and where the greatest amount of wolves reside are BELOW objective. I never predicted the end of hunting I always felt they would be detrimental to our herds and the evidence is certainly there. If wolves are not strongly managed in other states it could and will dramatically effect hunting. It already has. Dont forget that Idaho is very aggressive in  wolf management. Year around seasons on private land,30 tags per person per year, 1000 dollar bounty(reimbursement through fwim) and fish and game has spent their own money to hire sharpshooters to kill wolves out of helicopters. What would Idaho look like today without these measures. Wolves have not been the yawn they wont make much difference event that was promised. I do take issue with Hydro coming on here claiming reliance on data and science but only using google talking points provided by extremely pro wolf groups. Its the same exact false information that was provided 25 years ago. Im fine with wolves in Idaho now and feel very optimistic with the measures fish and game has taken. 25 years later you have to ask was it really worth it to bring these wolves here? I dont know but fear for other states with liberal leaning game departments   

[idaho guy]

@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

 

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

I 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 Elk
2008: 1,600   
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600

Wenaha Wolves
2009: 4
2010: 6
2011: 5
2012: 11
2013: 9
2014: 11
2015: 12
2016: 12

The 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 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

     


Wow!-Manipulating data is a basic skill. I could cherry pick any time frame of ANY statistics to prove any point I wanted to make. Your original "data"  showed increasing elk and decreasing wolves over time. Do you really want to pretend to have and honest debate based on science and pick small windows of data to prove your point. That is meaningless. The longer time frame we have to observe any natural interaction the more valid it becomes. You are the king of there is a myriad of factors that affect game populations. The only thing that smooths out all the other factors so you can determine the real trend of one individual impact (wolves) is time. You want to base your sample on 8 years and 2000 elk and somewhere beetwenn 5 and 12 wolves!  thats a joke and you know it if you really study data. Lets conduct a scientific study but I get to choose the time period and I want the shortest time period available and I want to make the pool as small as possible. Is that a scientific approach?   

Yellowstone-Ok I give your credit you at least addresed it. Thank you. You were spouting the  benefits of the north american wildlife model but seem to not understand how it works. They were culling animals out of yellowstone with hunts to reduce the population . The model functions because we managed for surplus game to sell tags to raise revenue to then increase habitat etc and manage for future surplus game. They INTENTIONALLY introduced wolves to eliminate surplus game and by doing that broke the model. Those hunts for migrating elk were some of the most sought after tags in Montana. Most of those hunts have been eliminated-where is the revenue coming from to manage elk? Oh wait we need to take more money out even though there is now less money to study and manage wolves? Do you only appreciate the portion of that model when it comes to ownership of wildlife and our ability to vote on very impactful decisions or do you appreciate what funds it? You cant have both if we keep using ballot box wildlife management -I will comment on the other areas you adressd later       

[idahohuntr]

If you wanted to fairly represent the magnitude of 1 factor over TIME as you claim, you would be looking for data sets that extend prior to the peaks that were common in many herds in the early 90's.  Showing a handful of years before wolves does not give a very complete picture, but its a great way to cherry pick and present an incomplete story.  Data sets extending 25+ years prior to wolf reintroduction would provide a great deal more insight.   

As I stated earlier, you and hydro have both provided data that is of value to a discussion like this, but you are presenting information in a way that is biased to fit your narrative.   
 
Somebody posted a time series of data for the Jackson, WY elk herd I believe...from like the early 80's to 2015 or something close to that...it tells quite a different story than if you just show herd numbers starting in 1994.

But make no mistake - I do commend you for posting data to inform these discussions. Focusing on such information and attacking the data, the way it was collected, biases that might exist in the way it was collected...all much more enlightening than those who simply resort to childish personal attacks and name calling.       

[bearpaw]

Idaho guy your data looks solid to me. I do not need to see data from 25 years prior to wolves to see the impact by wolves from the 90's to now! I think Idahohntr is just trying to deflect the impact of wolves, just as he usually does! 

[vandeman17]

Until wolf decisions and management is done by wildlife agencies and biologists instead of ballot boxes, ALL data is pointless. 

[idaho guy]

If you wanted to fairly represent the magnitude of 1 factor over TIME as you claim, you would be looking for data sets that extend prior to the peaks that were common in many herds in the early 90's.  Showing a handful of years before wolves does not give a very complete picture, but its a great way to cherry pick and present an incomplete story.  Data sets extending 25+ years prior to wolf reintroduction would provide a great deal more insight.   

As I stated earlier, you and hydro have both provided data that is of value to a discussion like this, but you are presenting information in a way that is biased to fit your narrative.   
 
Somebody posted a time series of data for the Jackson, WY elk herd I believe...from like the early 80's to 2015 or something close to that...it tells quite a different story than if you just show herd numbers starting in 1994.

But make no mistake - I do commend you for posting data to inform these discussions. Focusing on such information and attacking the data, the way it was collected, biases that might exist in the way it was collected...all much more enlightening than those who simply resort to childish personal attacks and name calling.     

   

OK-I am not here to write a term paper but I picked my time frame because it was when there were actually wolves on the landscape. The topic here is wolves. Its ironic that the date coincided with peak herd levels. Or is it?  That aside, does Hydros data make sense to you. He said I cant make a basic argument but he aligned(manipulated) his time frame of wolves and elk graphs to show elk and wolf populations do grow together. Choosing an 8 year period from 2008 to 2016? and limiting his sample to around 1500-2600 elk and 5-12 wolves. Is this short period of time(hand selected with bias) and small sample usefull to extrapolate to the rest of the american west? Is this a good way to evaluate data? You disclosed your background in this area. Would you ever accept that as a reliable study? or data that you would make blanket decisions on for the rest of the western U.S. ?   

[idahohuntr]

If you wanted to fairly represent the magnitude of 1 factor over TIME as you claim, you would be looking for data sets that extend prior to the peaks that were common in many herds in the early 90's.  Showing a handful of years before wolves does not give a very complete picture, but its a great way to cherry pick and present an incomplete story.  Data sets extending 25+ years prior to wolf reintroduction would provide a great deal more insight.   

As I stated earlier, you and hydro have both provided data that is of value to a discussion like this, but you are presenting information in a way that is biased to fit your narrative.   
 
Somebody posted a time series of data for the Jackson, WY elk herd I believe...from like the early 80's to 2015 or something close to that...it tells quite a different story than if you just show herd numbers starting in 1994.

But make no mistake - I do commend you for posting data to inform these discussions. Focusing on such information and attacking the data, the way it was collected, biases that might exist in the way it was collected...all much more enlightening than those who simply resort to childish personal attacks and name calling.     

   

OK-I am not here to write a term paper but I picked my time frame because it was when there were actually wolves on the landscape. The topic here is wolves. Its ironic that the date coincided with peak herd levels. Or is it?  That aside, does Hydros data make sense to you. He said I cant make a basic argument but he aligned(manipulated) his time frame of wolves and elk graphs to show elk and wolf populations do grow together. Choosing an 8 year period from 2008 to 2016? and limiting his sample to around 1500-2600 elk and 5-12 wolves. Is this short period of time(hand selected with bias) and small sample usefull to extrapolate to the rest of the american west? Is this a good way to evaluate data? You disclosed your background in this area. Would you ever accept that as a reliable study? or data that you would make blanket decisions on for the rest of the western U.S. ?

I agree with you there are certainly issues with extrapolating hydros data. I thought he was showing that data in response to a claim that elk herds always go down over time if wolves are present and he used that data as at least one example of that not being the case.  As you point out, cause/effect can take a little time to play out so certainly a longer time frame with elk/wolf numbers would be more enlightening...and your other points about how far you can really extrapolate that data (e.g., the western US) are absolutely valid IMO. 

Back to your data...I know the topic is wolves...they are the variable we are discussing.  To most objectively evaluate the impact you want to see data pre and post-treatment...the treatment in this case being reintroduction of wolves.  We've got 25 annual data points for post-wolves...what did the same herds look like for the 25 years pre wolves?  That helps inform the discussion IMO.  I have no idea what some of that data may show...for the Lolo, its possibly more extreme (as in, the highs in the early 80's might be way higher than 1994)...I truly don't know.

And as you are pointing out in some of this...and the point I often try to make...when you really start objectively looking at the data, acknowledging that in addition to just pre/post wolf numbers, you've also got to acknowledge winters, droughts, hunter numbers/harvest, other predator numbers...its a much more complex picture than just looking at what elk numbers have done post wolves...well, its complex if you are trying to objectively evaluate the magnitude of impacts...there's no complexity to just acknowledging wolves have some level of impact just as many other variables do.

[idaho guy]

@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

 

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

I 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 Elk
2008: 1,600   
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600

Wenaha Wolves
2009: 4
2010: 6
2011: 5
2012: 11
2013: 9
2014: 11
2015: 12
2016: 12

The 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 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

   

Ok let your comment sink in for a minute. Yellowstone they intentionally introduced wolves to reduce the elk population! But I cant make a basic argument or evaluate data  Ok buddy-no graphs in that statement but sounds like you are agreeing wolves decimate elk populations.  but you seem to be making an argument that wolves,lions and elk can all grow in population TOGETHER. Your answer to the devastation in yellowstone is that they introduced wolves on purpose to REDUCE the elk population. So its ok in yellowston but in Oregon wolves,lions and elk all increase in number together.   

You want to tout the great benefit of the north american wildlife model but either dont comprehend or choose to ignore how it works or is funded? You said  they introduced the wolves in yellowstone because of the necessary hunts and unusually HIGH antlerless harvest? Does that sound like a bad thing? High harvest rates sounds like something that needs to be ended to an elk hunter? Who understands how the "model" is funded through tag sales

LOLO-you said whats my point?  You said I want to take a hand full of wolf depredations and generalize to the rest of the west . Does a herd of 16000 elk being reduced to 1,000 sound like a hand full? You are trying to take a 2000 plus or minus elk herd in oregon that has lived with 4 to 12 wolves and generalize that to the rest of the west.
Look at the idaho hunting units-the ones below objective are where wolves were planted and also where the greatest number of wolves reside. Using statewide populations is dishonest-every state still has areas with ZERO wolves.
Your arguments are tired talking points. I have refuted every single one of them with actual DATA. You need to concede this tired game of wolves don't really impact elk populations. Why did you come on this site? Do you really think you can or have convinced anyone that wolves are not extremely detrimental to elk? We have all mostly seen it first hand where we hunt. you are wasting your time. The only member who partially might agree with some points is idahohunter. Idahohunter said it best "of course wolves impact elk populations they eat the things(elk). Wolves eat elk. I would like to see a deer population graph along with your "healthy" lion graph. My experience is lions eat more deer. You have convinced no one that wolves are "no big deal" and all wildlife will flourish together. You succeeded in pissing me off and we have both wasted time.I would like 1 response-How can you make that statement about yellowstone and make the argument that wolves dont dramatically reduce elk? or better yet that elk packs actually grow in the presence of wolf herds? Cognitive dissonance?     

[idaho guy]

I'm willing to bet hydro disappears 

[vandeman17]

And as you are pointing out in some of this...and the point I often try to make...when you really start objectively looking at the data, acknowledging that in addition to just pre/post wolf numbers, you've also got to acknowledge winters, droughts, hunter numbers/harvest, other predator numbers...its a much more complex picture than just looking at what elk numbers have done post wolves...well, its complex if you are trying to objectively evaluate the magnitude of impacts...there's no complexity to just acknowledging wolves have some level of impact just as many other variables do.

Are you saying that the years before 1995, when Idaho Guy started his data, there there were no winters, droughts, elk being killed by hunters/bears/cats etc? All those factors were there pre-wolf so the elk were able to adapt and overcome and I am sure if you looked long term, you would see high numbers and lower numbers. The introduction of wolves in the mid 90's is the variable that can pretty be isolated and thus I think is the only relevant way to evaluate the impact on wolves to elk populations.

[NRA4LIFE]

I have only one question to hydro-P.  Why are you doing this on this sight?

[idahohuntr]

Are you saying that the years before 1995, when Idaho Guy started his data, there there were no winters, droughts, elk being killed by hunters/bears/cats etc? All those factors were there pre-wolf so the elk were able to adapt and overcome and I am sure if you looked long term, you would see high numbers and lower numbers. The introduction of wolves in the mid 90's is the variable that can pretty be isolated and thus I think is the only relevant way to evaluate the impact on wolves to elk populations.

No, I'm saying those are all factors that can and do affect elk abundance. We can better understand individual herd impacts from wolves if we understand what elk abundance was doing over a longer period of time before wolves were present.  This in no way isolates or completely controls for those other factors (winter, harvest, drought...) but gives us a better sense than just starting immediately prior to introductions. 

[vandeman17]

So what if I pick a starting year where the elk were at a peak and you pick to start at a year they were in a decline, who would be right? Is that not cherry picking to make one’s case stronger? Instead, we have 25 years of numbers that start in the year the variable in discussion was introduced. That seems like the most logical, non cherry picked year to draw any type of correlation from. 

[Miles]

Again, hate to break it to you all, but wolves are already here.