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

[Hydrophilic]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: ODFW

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

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

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

Source: IDFG

 

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?   

Idahoguy - I fish, drink, and work in no particular order so apologies if I cannot keep up with your posts.

Please read all of my posts and if you can still formulate an argument from me that states wolves do not have an impact on game then I'll be very impressed because I did not say that anywhere. You seem to have a hard time understanding this so I will sum it up in one sentence, as I did with another poster recently.

My responses, and my data, were aimed at blanket statements stating wolves always destroy elk or have a drastic effect on them.

Blanket statements such as those are completely false and unreasonable and need to be called out. I could provide quite a bit more data, research, and statements from each states Fish and Game that says the same but I see little point. There no doubt exists units that are being detrimentally harmed by one predator or another, just like there are units where habitat is the primary issue, and other units were disease outbreaks, development, energy/extraction, etc are the primary issue. Every unit is completely different and requires a completely different management perspective and goal. I'm a big fan of the biologists who devote their careers to this and I believe they do a very good job as I usually take an animal of some sort every year or two. This wouldn't be possible without them.

The Wenaha elk population has increased with 8 years straight of increasing wolves, and 3 years of decreasing wolves, or 11 years total of wolves present. The elk population was increasing well before the wolves arrived, the complete year to year data I have, goes back to 2002. The arrival of wolves did nothing to halt the population growth. In fact, the elk population saw it's highest % gain of 31% in 2012-2013 (1800-2350) after the wolves had been there for 4 years and doubled!  An argument might be the wolves haven't been there 25 years which is certainly something to consider, but the Blue Mtns have some of the highest cougar densities in the state, and the state very likely has the highest cougar population in the nation. Little to no cougar harvest in these areas. Surely 10 years or so of combined predation from bears, cougars, and wolves would 'decimate the herd' or 'vacuum them up' or 'be very additive'. But the herd is still increasing as of the latest survey. In fact, it's more than doubled in the last 18 years. There are other examples of this. And yes, it can all change from one bad winter that throws the balance off, I am not arguing that and never have been.

If it's acceptable for others to cite yellowstone and make faulty generalizations about the rest of the West based on Yellowstone, etc., why isn't someone else allowed to cite  contrary examples? Granted, it's hard to compare anything with yellowstone and all units are different with different herd sizes, MO's, etc. The truth lies in the middle and ANY reasonable person will agree. Unreasonable people make blanket statements. And unreasonable people don't call them out on it.

Thats my only point I'm trying to make, nothing else.

I've attached some yellowstone history below. The park biologists wanted to keep removing elk in the 60's because that's what the science was showing them and the range was completely torn up. They even brought hunters and reporters out there to show them, and everyone agreed the elk needed to be culled, this was when the population was already at one the lowest numbers it had been, if you've seen the graph you know what spot I'm talking about. Eventually The hunters interjected and the elk culling was stopped, a move not supported by science. This caused a massive explosion in the elk population which was not sustainable, unless you happened to be a hunter that wanted unlimited elk on everyone else's public resource. The wolves were badly needed and the resulting decline was definitely due to the wolves, this was intentional, but the degree of the decline was probably not. The severity of decline was also caused by a moderate - liberal antlerless harvest until 2004.

This is a good article. Even the scientist who places more of the blame on the wolves states they are not completely at fault, a moderate to liberal harvest policy was also to blame.

https://www.yellowstonepark.com/news/elk-populations-decline

[idaho guy]

Wow on Yellowstone. Hydro I don’t think you have really studied the data. This is not an insult it’s just unbelievably apparent you have no idea of how a lot of our modern western elk herds were established. Thanks for photocopy of 1960’s textbook it’s actually extremely relevant for a change. If you have ever hunted the panhandle of Idaho or just read about it you would know ALL of the current st joe elk herd was initially brought here from Yellowstone and paid for by groups of sportsman. The st joe elk herd was the best elk hunting hands down in north Idaho. That is not true today. Study units 7 and 9 of the st joe and you will see what happened. (Clue wolves showed up there first and are still present in larger numbers). The debate over wether to slaughter the elk or not was simple. The game departments and sportsman wanted to continue to have migration hunts(remember the model you have praised is entirely funded by hunting tag sales). And continue to TRANSPLANT excess elk to suitable habitat which had already been incredibly successful(st joe one example) . So your answer to the wolf decimation of Yellowstone elk is there were too many elk. Ok problem solved now there is too little.
This had 3 major impacts. Some of the most sought after tags in Montana no longer exist. This breaks the model you claim to love by eliminating part of the actual funding of it.
2. There are no more elk to transplant to bolster other herds or fill suitable habitat with new herds(which was done with huge success in north Idaho).
3. Those same wolves killed a majority of the Yellowstone elk and eventually migrated to the st joe and decimated that herd which was created from the surplus elk of Yellowstone.
Massive amounts of our game department budget had to be diverted to managing wolves instead of other wildlife last 25 years. 25 years later WAS THIS WORTH IT? Did it make sense?
I still don’t understand what your point is honestly. You have a small microcosm in Oregon that shows for a short period of time wolves and elk increases. That is just a matter of time and numbers 5-10 wolves is not much. Just wait. I have presented data showing what happens after 25 years of elk and wolves living together. You can’t paint a state population with a broad brush even Idaho has large areas with zero wolves.The evidence is there if you want to look at it without bias. You have contempt prior to investigation.
When I see the exact talking points they used 25 years ago I get upset. Wolves eat elk. If you let wolves loose on the landscape you will have less elk. If you don’t manage the wolves they will decimate your elk herds. Again look at the harvest success rates you posted for Idaho. Harvest plummeted after wolves and started to rebound when we got a hunting and trapping season. I really didn’t want to get sucked in on another wolf discussion but I don’t like the being lied too and so will provide evidence when I feel the public is being lied too. (Again) . You have argued for the North American wildlife model but then supported Yellowstone wolves as a way to destroy it. (We could have kept selling tags and used revenue to transplant elk to other habitat). You subsequently agreed that areas where wolves have been for 25 years elk have been decimated while arguing elk can grow with wolves(look I found 8 years in Oregon but actually wolf populations are cut in half in last 3 years). Let’s omit the last 3 years or I mean “align “ the data to make your point.
Again we have both wasted time here. If you wanted to convince any hunters on here that wolves don’t have large impacts on elk you did not. Any hunter on here that hunts areas where wolves have been present for a LONG period of time knows different. You can’t and biologist can no longer tell us we can’t believe our lying eyes. Most western hunters have seen the effects of wolves personally and the talking points have been exposed as pure bullcrap. Most of us knew they were but now we have on the ground first hand experience. I have been blessed to live and hunt in Idaho for 30 years and lived and hunted in Montana before that. That’s 53 years of almost year around hunting if I choose to in 2 amazing states. Idaho fish and game gets it and with their predator management we will have good hunting I think for the rest of my life. Washington, Oregon and maybe Colorado could be screwed with already liberal politics affecting game policies. If you keep spouting liberal talking points on wolves you are part of the problem. I want to be part of the solution so I will probably always debate lies on the internet about wolves. I’m not anti predator either. I love to hunt lions and bears. I have caught 2 lions this year and let them go. I love to hunt it all and want to hunt and manage predators but don’t want them gone. When I look back at 25 years with wolves. Between the decimated elk herds, the money and time, lawsuits It was not worth it. I’m ok with wolves in Idaho now but I don’t think they ever should have introduced them. It was a mistake

[idaho guy]

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. 

 

  Kinda hard to study a variable when it’s not there 

[idaho guy]

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

  I was aware of that I think most members are. It really just makes this decision by voters double stupid  :chuckle 

[idaho guy]

Hydrophilic one more question. Honest question and then I think we can go our separate ways    . Do you think introducing wolves into Yellowstone was the right thing to do ? Regardless of wether you think the people should decide. FYI Idaho was strongly opposed to wolves right up to our fish and game but feds strong armed Idaho and did it anyways. I would appreciate your answer to include the North American wildlife model and how it’s funded. But also the opportunity we had to transplant more elk to other areas suitable for elk but where none were present. I just want to know if you honestly believe looking back 25 years with other options was this a good decision. I won’t argue the point but I would really appreciate knowing how you view this and why.

[Hydrophilic]

Hydrophilic one more question. Honest question and then I think we can go our separate ways    . Do you think introducing wolves into Yellowstone was the right thing to do ? Regardless of wether you think the people should decide. FYI Idaho was strongly opposed to wolves right up to our fish and game but feds strong armed Idaho and did it anyways. I would appreciate your answer to include the North American wildlife model and how it’s funded. But also the opportunity we had to transplant more elk to other areas suitable for elk but where none were present. I just want to know if you honestly believe looking back 25 years with other options was this a good decision. I won’t argue the point but I would really appreciate knowing how you view this and why.

Thank you for your kinder responses this go around. We can agree to disagree, that is certainly fine with me, and I'm glad you have a good time hunting Lions, etc. Where I come from I saw a lot of pure hate for predators, it was very sad, from a stewardship perspective and a plain human perspective. Purposeful gut shots, illegal spotlighting, etc. I really think that type of hunter is a terrible representative of an already struggling user group.

Personally, I can take off my hunting hat and put my conservation hat on very easily. When I'm not hunting, I'm fishing, backpacking, hiking, bird watching, picking mushrooms, botany, restoring habitat, etc. I appreciate all of these respective user groups I get to know and I also appreciate the guy stuck in an office for 40 years who knows a wild place such as yellowstone exists, and that gives him some hope and reassurance in this crazy, over developed, and over populated world. Places like yellowstone are the beating, wild heart of America. As soon as you tame something, or try to make it predictable, it is not wild. I would certainly have not done it any other way.

As far as the NAMWC - all user groups need to be represented, it is not a model strictly for hunters. WC = wildlife conservation. While it would be nice, it is not possible to maximize hunter benefit everywhere if we are also taking the publics input, which we definitely should. From this standpoint I look at Idaho, Wyoming and see their record elk harvests in recent times, 25 years after wolf reintroduction, as a great thing. Some units have been altered but the overall success is fantastic. In Oregon, as I mentioned, same thing. I have noticed very little change in the elk hunting in 20+ years in my particular unit, even with the exploding mountain lion population, the official data also suggests my personal observations match the real trend. The one thing that tugs at my heart strings is mule deer, but as I told someone else that's a different conversation.

Here is one of my favorite stories. A hunter shared this with me recently and it quickly became one of my all time favorites. Colorado Div of Wildlife estimated a certain Mule deer population of 7,000-7,300. The hunters vehemently disagreed stating their "on the ground experience", casual observations put the population much lower at 1,750. The state invited the hunters to help devise a study to validate these results. The hunters helped design a study and analyze / interpret the results. Their results confirmed the Colorado Div. of Wildlife estimates and hunters STILL disagreed and refused to accept the results. As a result, sportsmen's credibility plummeted with other stakeholders. I listen to the consensus of scientists and biologists and this is the primary reason - a fair amount of hunters do not truly believe in science based management, they believe in science based management that benefits them, and if it doesn't benefit them they resort to emotional fits. So that is my perspective and where I come from. As a user group hunters are going to get steamrolled if they don't get their act together.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3784816?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

[idahohuntr]

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. 

 

  Kinda hard to study a variable when it’s not there 

If you want to assess the effects of a variable (wolves) you need to have some sort of control.  Looking at a period of time pre-wolves is one way to better assess the effects of this new variable (wolves).  Its still not perfect (nothing ever is in natural environments), but its a much more objective evaluation than starting and really only looking at data while wolves are present.

My statements only apply for those interested in scientific and objective considerations/discussions.  There is no need to consider any of this for folks who want to make value based emotional arguments or voting decisions.

[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. 

 

  Kinda hard to study a variable when it’s not there 

If you want to assess the effects of a variable (wolves) you need to have some sort of control.  Looking at a period of time pre-wolves is one way to better assess the effects of this new variable (wolves).  Its still not perfect (nothing ever is in natural environments), but its a much more objective evaluation than starting and really only looking at data while wolves are present.

My statements only apply for those interested in scientific and objective considerations/discussions.  There is no need to consider any of this for folks who want to make value based emotional arguments or voting decisions.

Which is exactly what has happened in many western states

[Buckhunter24]

Deer, elk and moose are wolves primary food source. There is no doubt that they decrease ungulate populations where they reside. The question is how much do they decrease the population. Is the effect linear as wolf population increases? As wolf population increases does secondary mortality and lower calving rates increase due to stress? In a state where options for controlling wolf population is very limited its troubling because wolf populations will grow for many years to come and the effects will likely compound.

[idaho guy]

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. 

 

  Kinda hard to study a variable when it’s not there 

If you want to assess the effects of a variable (wolves) you need to have some sort of control.  Looking at a period of time pre-wolves is one way to better assess the effects of this new variable (wolves).  Its still not perfect (nothing ever is in natural environments), but its a much more objective evaluation than starting and really only looking at data while wolves are present.

My statements only apply for those interested in scientific and objective considerations/discussions.  There is no need to consider any of this for folks who want to make value based emotional arguments or voting decisions.

   

I agree in a perfect setting you want a control group or multiple control groups with all the other variables constant. As you said that will never happen in nature because of habitat,hard or easy winters, fires on and on. I think for this discussion looking at wolf and elk populations over 25 years(in areas where they are living together)  is pretty valid. We can argue methodology all day long but sometimes 1 plus 1 just equals 2.

[idaho guy]

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. 

 

  Kinda hard to study a variable when it’s not there 

If you want to assess the effects of a variable (wolves) you need to have some sort of control.  Looking at a period of time pre-wolves is one way to better assess the effects of this new variable (wolves).  Its still not perfect (nothing ever is in natural environments), but its a much more objective evaluation than starting and really only looking at data while wolves are present.

My statements only apply for those interested in scientific and objective considerations/discussions.  There is no need to consider any of this for folks who want to make value based emotional arguments or voting decisions.

Which is exactly what has happened in many western states

 

That last statement is interesting about emotional arguments or voting decisions. That's really what kicked this whole thing off a group of colorado voters made a really emotional decision and voted to import more wolves on top of the ones already there and the many more that will migrate there. l guess we have come full circle. Mostly city dwelling voters made an emotional decision that will impact all their rural neighbors forever. Just because we have the right to do something doesn't mean we should.   

[idaho guy]

Hydrophilic one more question. Honest question and then I think we can go our separate ways    . Do you think introducing wolves into Yellowstone was the right thing to do ? Regardless of wether you think the people should decide. FYI Idaho was strongly opposed to wolves right up to our fish and game but feds strong armed Idaho and did it anyways. I would appreciate your answer to include the North American wildlife model and how it’s funded. But also the opportunity we had to transplant more elk to other areas suitable for elk but where none were present. I just want to know if you honestly believe looking back 25 years with other options was this a good decision. I won’t argue the point but I would really appreciate knowing how you view this and why.

Thank you for your kinder responses this go around. We can agree to disagree, that is certainly fine with me, and I'm glad you have a good time hunting Lions, etc. Where I come from I saw a lot of pure hate for predators, it was very sad, from a stewardship perspective and a plain human perspective. Purposeful gut shots, illegal spotlighting, etc. I really think that type of hunter is a terrible representative of an already struggling user group.

Personally, I can take off my hunting hat and put my conservation hat on very easily. When I'm not hunting, I'm fishing, backpacking, hiking, bird watching, picking mushrooms, botany, restoring habitat, etc. I appreciate all of these respective user groups I get to know and I also appreciate the guy stuck in an office for 40 years who knows a wild place such as yellowstone exists, and that gives him some hope and reassurance in this crazy, over developed, and over populated world. Places like yellowstone are the beating, wild heart of America. As soon as you tame something, or try to make it predictable, it is not wild. I would certainly have not done it any other way.

As far as the NAMWC - all user groups need to be represented, it is not a model strictly for hunters. WC = wildlife conservation. While it would be nice, it is not possible to maximize hunter benefit everywhere if we are also taking the publics input, which we definitely should. From this standpoint I look at Idaho, Wyoming and see their record elk harvests in recent times, 25 years after wolf reintroduction, as a great thing. Some units have been altered but the overall success is fantastic. In Oregon, as I mentioned, same thing. I have noticed very little change in the elk hunting in 20+ years in my particular unit, even with the exploding mountain lion population, the official data also suggests my personal observations match the real trend. The one thing that tugs at my heart strings is mule deer, but as I told someone else that's a different conversation.

Here is one of my favorite stories. A hunter shared this with me recently and it quickly became one of my all time favorites. Colorado Div of Wildlife estimated a certain Mule deer population of 7,000-7,300. The hunters vehemently disagreed stating their "on the ground experience", casual observations put the population much lower at 1,750. The state invited the hunters to help devise a study to validate these results. The hunters helped design a study and analyze / interpret the results. Their results confirmed the Colorado Div. of Wildlife estimates and hunters STILL disagreed and refused to accept the results. As a result, sportsmen's credibility plummeted with other stakeholders. I listen to the consensus of scientists and biologists and this is the primary reason - a fair amount of hunters do not truly believe in science based management, they believe in science based management that benefits them, and if it doesn't benefit them they resort to emotional fits. So that is my perspective and where I come from. As a user group hunters are going to get steamrolled if they don't get their act together.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3784816?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

     

Ok thanks for the honest response.I think I understand how you are viewing the north american wildlife model and you see the value primarily in the public owning wildlife and having THE final say in management.  We will have to disagree on the north american wildlife model and thats ok. You have to have surplus game to hunt and sell tags to create revenue to then fund management and create surplus game for the future. The U.S. took the approach of favoring antlered or horned game over fangs and claws. It worked wonderfull for 100 years. There's actually studies on our approach versus other countries and the U.S. model has been by far the most successfull. Thats why after 100 years of population growth and loss of habitat we still have more elk,deer and ducks etc than we had 100 years ago. If we decide that we value apex predators above all others the model is broke. Its over as we know it. WE the american people have the right to do this but it doesn't mean we should. I can take my hunter hat off too and appreciate the value in just wild places but I will fight to save the north american wildlife model as it now exists. Our kids ability to hunt depends on it   

[highcountry_hunter]

Man, if you could remove the few random posts by people who don’t know how to use punctuation and believe everything they read on Facebook, this has been a really really good debate. As someone who strongly opposes the reintroduction of any species based on votes, both sides have made some really good, strong points. Well done gentlemen, well done.

[idaho guy]

Deer, elk and moose are wolves primary food source. There is no doubt that they decrease ungulate populations where they reside. The question is how much do they decrease the population. Is the effect linear as wolf population increases? As wolf population increases does secondary mortality and lower calving rates increase due to stress? In a state where options for controlling wolf population is very limited its troubling because wolf populations will grow for many years to come and the effects will likely compound.

 


  that’s the sad part of it. Washington,Oregon and maybe Colorado Will be screwed on this since liberal politics are already influencing game management

[Hydrophilic]

Deer, elk and moose are wolves primary food source. There is no doubt that they decrease ungulate populations where they reside. The question is how much do they decrease the population. Is the effect linear as wolf population increases? As wolf population increases does secondary mortality and lower calving rates increase due to stress? In a state where options for controlling wolf population is very limited its troubling because wolf populations will grow for many years to come and the effects will likely compound.

 


  that’s the sad part of it. Washington,Oregon and maybe Colorado Will be screwed on this since liberal politics are already influencing game management

It's not as simple as that. Everyone has heard the pendulum example in politics. It sways one way with certain force, it will soon sway back the other way with equal force.

Wolves were extirpated from many states and cougars were hunted down to 200 in Oregon, in the late 1960's.

https://myodfw.com/big-game-hunting/species/cougar

For a hunter who cares about nothing else than horns or meat that was probably fantastic. For the average citizen, scientist, conservationist, national geographic reader, etc., it was a tragedy, and now they have caught the pendulum where they have been able to, more liberal states, and are holding it for the moment, I can't honestly blame them. The logical place is somewhere in between. Healthy predator populations that support the best hunting opportunities possible. That doesn't mean plugging every forest with as many elk as possible and it also doesn't mean culling the predators by 50% every time the elk enter a down cycle.

I would very seriously entertain studies on the relationship between cougars and mule deer in Oregon, given we have such a healthy cougar population. Not because I think they are the primary cause of the decline, but because they could potentially be a huge additive factor in it. Right now there are 30% less in utero fawn rates than there should be for a normal population -- that's insane. A lot of deer are dying from starvation in the summer when they should be fat. That's not predators, thats the mess we have created, not one side or the other, but everyone. This info is from a biologist, and I relate to his info after seeing fields and fields of cheat grass, medusahead, in what used to be native bunch grass , shrub prairies. Terrifying.

On a side note - for those who don't like sharing federal public lands and public resources with other user groups you can support an organization known as American Lands Council which would love to transfer federal land back to the states. This position was also recently added to a prominent platform in this country so it's gaining steam.