Elk will be gone in Idaho by 2012

[idaho guy]

F&G considering these changes; rules will be set in March.

ROGER PHILLIPS, BOISE - THE IDAHO STATESMAN
February 3, 2015

ROGER PHILLIPS — Idaho Statesman

Idaho Fish and Game is proposing changes for the 2015 deer and elk hunts and here's a look at what's being considered. Fish and Game will seek public comment in mid February on these proposals through its website and also at regional meetings around the state.

F&G commissioners will set seasons and rules in March.

Here's a look at what's in store:

Statewide

* Consider setting big game seasons and rules for a two-year cycle.

* Standardize general deer season by closing date in Southern Idaho to Oct. 31.

Southwest Region

* Consider new extra anterless hunt in Unit 32 to address depredation issues.

* Consider increase in deer controlled hunts for bucks in Unit 22.

* Address depredation concerns with elk throughout the region.

* Increase controlled hunt bull elk opportunity in the McCall Zone.

* Consider converting Unit 39 antlerless controlled hunts to either sex.

* Consider proposal for September controlled archery deer hunt in Unit 39.

* Offer more bull elk controlled hunt opportunities in the Owyhee Zone.

Magic Valley

* Reduce late November antlerless deer tags in Unit 45.

* Rotate muzzleloader deer hunt from Units 55, 56, and 57 to Unit 45.

* Add early archery deer hunt in Unit 44.

* Adjust landowner permission controlled elk hunts to address depredation.

* Increase elk opportunity in region in response to population growth and increased depredations.

Clearwater Region

* Increase extra antlerless tags in existing hunts.

* Increase length of antlerless whitetail seasons in Units 13, 14 and 18.

* Evaluate proposal to implement trophy buck management in Palouse area.

* Expand late quality/high quality mule deer hunting in Lower Salmon units.

* Consider adding controlled hunts, possibly for youth, for mule deer.

* Review elk season structure in Hells Canyon relative to hunter crowding complaints.

* Evaluate elk hunting seasons in the Palouse area to address depredation problems.

Panhandle

* Increase whitetail deer harvest opportunities in Units 1 and 3.

* Increase elk opportunity with B-tag muzzleloader hunt, youth controlled hunts and increased controlled hunts.

Southeast Region

* Consider 10 controlled hunts tags for antlered deer in November in Units 66A, 70 and 73.

* Convert Unit 73 unlimited deer controlled hunt with "first choice only."

* Add either sex controlled deer hunts in Units 75 and 76.

* Add antlerless deer controlled hunt in Unit 77.

* Add muzzleloader deer controlled hunt in Unit 68.

Upper Snake

* Consider reducing harvest in Unit 63A archery deer hunt.

* Consider addition of greenfield hunt in Unit 50 to address depredation.

Salmon Region

* Consider region-wide extra antlerless elk landowner permission hunts with 300 tags to address depredation.

* Adjust elk tags in Units 30 and 30A.

* Consider additional antlerless elk tags in Unit 36A.

 www.idahostatesman.com/2015/02/03/3625862/heres-a-sneak-peak-at-2015-deer.html
[/quote


Thanks for posting :tup:in the panhandle i don't see how or why they would increase harvest opportunity for white tails they already have 2 full months of archer and 2 full months for rifle including all of the rut. Season lasts from sept to jan? In the panhandle I don't see anything coming back for elk the muzzy b tag is probably the spike only hunt we used to have in dec.

[KFhunter]

that's cause they getting shot 

[jasnt]

A wolf can occur anywhere in Idaho, no doubt.  Most units below I-84 wolves are very rare...this is southern Idaho.  This is category 1.  Yea, a wolf could move through those units, but they really aren't established there and thus have no impacts. 

My preference to hunt the Lolo over pretty much any general WA elk tag is not necessarily because the Lolo has more elk than any otc unit in Wa...that certainly is not the case.  My preference is based on a) very few hunters b) I can shoot any bull I see c) its an otc tag and d) gorgeous/remote country.

there are callered wolves in southern Idaho and probably more than just callered wolves there as well. I'm sure they are more spred out in that open country but they are there.  I would say there are areas in Idaho with few wolves and areas with lots. Areas with heavy, medium , low wolf predation.

[idaho guy]

Elk hunting in Idaho is still good 

That is my biggest point in all of these threads. 

the problem is some areas are bad that used to be good. Some of the good areas used to be great!  My biggest point in all these threads is to point out the truth,  the BS, and inform the ill-formed.  I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that wolves have not negatively affected elk, moose, and deer in Idaho or any other state for that matter. 

  That is exactly right and the most frustrating thing is to see some people try to claim wolves had little or no impact when agencies have been admitting and documenting wolf impacts.

Anyone who knows the seasons Idaho historically had knows that even if all the season additions are approved that are proposed, seasons still will not be as generous as hunting opportunities used to be in Idaho before wolves. There are many units, some of the previous best elk hunting areas that all cow elk hunting had to be taken away to save herds. Most of that cow elk hunting is still not being proposed because those herds are still depressed or just beginning to recover.

Thankfully Idaho implemented intense agressive predator management and some of those depressed herds are starting to come back.

 

 :yeah:in one of my spots  they having been hitting the wolves hard and from my experience the elk are coming back in there good. Hope it continues Think controlling wolves is going to be a never ending battle

[bearpaw]

April 19, 2011

"I understand and share the frustration of Idahoans over the impact wolves have had across our state in the past 16 years."

Governor Butch Otter

[bearpaw]

Thankfully Idaho implemented intense agressive predator management and some of those depressed herds are starting to come back.

BP,
What is the latest as to the survey numbers? I'm curious how the hardest hit herds have dropped and recovered, by the numbers of course 

I think IDFG is trying very hard to recover herds. They only survey each herd about every 3 years due to costs. I don't know if this was a year that IDFG surveyed the Payette but locals count those elk every year. There is a particular stretch of river canyon they always count. Before wolves impacted the area that stretch would winter 1200-1500 elk most years, at the worst time 4 or 5 years ago it was down to only 300-400, last year I believe they counted about 600 and this year they counted nearly 800 elk.

I've been hearing positive reports from outfitters in some other areas as well. I talked to a guy yesterday about the salmon and he said they are seeing and killing more animals there.

I have not heard anything recently about unit 10 but herds are beginning to look better in unit 7 and unit 6, the St Joe. This winter IDFG counted elk in the Joe and saw more calves than they have in several years.

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2015/feb/10/surveys-st-joe-elk-show-signs-increase/

With no single cure-all prescription available for Panhandle elk woes, Wakkinen said the agency addressed the elk decline in several steps:

Eliminating the general season on antlerless elk.  An unpopular move, but it increased cow survival to preserve breeding stock necessary to rebuild herds.

Liberalizing predator seasons.  Black bear and mountain lion seasons have been lengthened and in some units hunters can use electronic calls and a second tag.  Wolf hunting and trapping seasons have been lengthened region-wide and hunters and trappers can take multiple wolves.

Working to improve the quality of elk habitat.

"Elk prefer younger forests that provide nutritious browse," Wakkinen said. "The 1910 fire and large fires in the 1920s and 1930s created expansive shrubfields that were conducive to a growing elk herd.  That, coupled with widespread predator reductions, resulted in a very robust elk population starting in the 1950s."

However, those forests have matured. They don’t provide enough nutrition and in some area's they're so thick that elk become more vulnerable to predation.

The agency is working with the U.S. Forest service and other major landowners to give moose,elk and deer more consideration in forest management, he said. Prescribed fire and well-designed timber harvest are key to the effort.

Wakkinen said he sees progress.

"During winter surveys in the Panhandle, IDFG uses a ratio of 30 calves per 100 cows as a yardstick for a healthy elk herd.  As recently as 2008, ratios were as high as 43 to100 in Unit 7 in the St Joe drainage, but ratios declined following the harsh winters of 2007-09.

"This isn’t unusual following a hard winter, but typically the ratio bounces back within a couple of years.  Unfortunately, calf-cow ratios remained low in Unit 7, with winter surveys finding 9, 12 and 13 calves per 100 cows in 2012, 2013, and 2014."

The elk apparently were trapped what's known as a “predator pit,” he said.

For example, Central Montana pronghorn populations devastated by bad winters and disease have been struggling for years to recover partly because of a predator pit. Coyotes apparently are keying on the fewer number of does when they're dropping their fawns. In more normal times, say, 100 does might scatter to drop their fawns. Coyotes might sniff out and kill 20 fawns during the brief period when they're worth the effort to hunt instead of focusing on rodents. But if the herd has been reduced to 30 does having fawns, coyotes may still kill 20, but it's a much higher percentage of the crop and the herd cannot grow.

In the case of North Idaho elk, numbers were reduced by the winters, but predator numbers remained high because prolific white-tailed deer recovered quickly provided enough prey to support the bears, cougars and wolves. "The high number of predators can take enough elk to keep elk numbers low," Wakkinen said.

But surveys conducted this winter gave wildlife managers encouragement.

Ratios in Unit 7 above Avery averaged 30 calves per 100 cows and Unit 6 around Calder had more than 40 calves per 100 cows, Wakkinen said.

"Just like the cause of the decline, it is probably a combination of things," he said. Three consecutive mild winters certainly helped and liberal hunting seasons on predators and have likely helped elk escape from the predator pit, he added.

"If the current conditions remain the same or improve, we may see a continued improvement in the St Joe elk herds."

Even brighter is the report from two zones farther south where herds are at or above objective. The Boise River zone is a zone that locals complained about wolf impacts, the cow/calf ratio isn't the best yet in that zone, but the herd is doing better. I had not heard complaints about the Smoky herd, it may have never had a serious predator problem, it seems to be doing very well.

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/media/viewNewsRelease.cfm?newsID=7513

Wildlife Crews Find Robust Elk Populations

Recent survey flights by Idaho Fish and Game wildlife staffers confirmed that elk populations in two local elk "zones" are in great shape. For several days in early January, Fish and Game biologists flew large portions of the Boise River Zone and the adjacent Smoky-Bennett Zone, counting and classifying elk in each area.

In the Boise River Zone, elk numbers totaled 7,769 animals, with cow elk (5,417) and calf elk (1,317) making up the majority of the count. More than 1,000 bulls were part of the total, and classified as follows: 448 spikes, 240 raghorn bulls and 347 mature bulls.

The calf/cow index, used to gauge the health and growth status of an elk herd, was calculated at 24 calves/100 cows. The bull/cow ratio penciled out at 19 bulls/100 cows.

Wildlife biologist Jake Powell, who spent several days in a Bell 47G helicopter counting elk, provided some perspective on the numbers.

"In reference to the Department's elk management plan, these figures exceed the population objectives for this elk herd," Powell explained. "For example, our total cow elk objective for the Boise River Zone is a range between 3,200 and 4,800 animals. The 5,417 figure is obviously well above that which might translate into increased hunter opportunity this fall." Powell also noted that the poor snow conditions made surveying elk a bit difficult. "We saw animals as high as 7,000 feet which required additional time and effort to survey," Powell said.

The Smoky-Bennett Zone is new for 2015, combining the former Smoky Zone with the adjacent Bennett Hills Zone based on elk movements between the two areas. A January survey of this zone produced equally encouraging numbers.

The Smoky-Bennett Zone elk herd totaled 4,871 animals, with cow elk (2,712) and calf elk (1,173) making up the majority of the count. Nearly 1,000 bulls were part of the total, and classified as follows: 337 spikes, 349 raghorn bulls and 300 mature bulls.

The Smoky-Bennett Zone calf/cow index was calculated at 43 calves/100 cows, while the bull/cow ratio was calculated at 36 bulls/100 cows.

"Both the calf/cow and bull/cow ratios are encouraging," Fish and Game wildlife manager Daryl Meints noted. "Both ratios are signs of a very healthy elk herd."

When the Smoky-Bennett Zone was established in 2014, new population objectives were developed as well.

"Objectives for this zone, as laid out in the elk plan call for 2,000 to 3,000 cow elk, 620 to 930 total bulls and 400 to 595 adult bulls," Meints said. "Our January counts have this herd at the top end of the cow elk objective and over objective in both bull categories. That bodes well for the 2015 elk season."

In order to better quantify elk numbers across both the Boise River and Smoky-Bennett Zones, the two were flown simultaneously to account for some elk that move between these zones during winter months. Conducting the survey in this fashion resulted in a more representative calculation of elk numbers within and across the two zones.

Because both zones are above population objectives, increased harvest opportunity for elk in both areas has been proposed. Review and comment on 2015 big game hunting season proposals on the Fish and Game website at https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/content/public-involvement.

[M_ray]

You may (or perhaps not) be surprised that, when i was at college a few snows ago, Half the business class failed the test on Supply and Demand in my course.

I have not seen that "technical" term used in quite some time... I would also have to say that the IDFG have no idea what it means or how to operate thier pricing in regaurds to it. 

Yep. this is nothing new under the sun, sadly.

An example of government stupid insofar as demand elasticity regards bus fares. Often the metro bus system will attempt to raise revenues by increasing bus fares. Only to  when revenue plummets. Morons. Sometimes you get more money when you LOWER prices because more people consume the product and the loss in revenue per transaction is far outstripped by the overall increase in new business.

Tobacco by contrast is usually demand inelastic. so while raising prices will cause a very small segment to stop smoking, most will pay the higher price and the loss in a few customers is far outstripped by the additional revenue per pack.

Most of the time you have you facts straight but you should know Metro doesn't and can't raise or lower prices as they wish. Metro is owned by King County there for the county council votes on a price increase or decrease. You should know Metro advised heavily against any increase citing elderly, student and disabled persons on fixed incomes ... The County council voted in favor regardless, but of coarse the finger gets pointed at Metro. So you may want to re-think who the morons are? I think you're smart enough to understand that fares are connected to the cost of doing business too in that when fuel and the cost of goods and services go up or down it affects the cost of providing infrastructure ... its funny how some only think these things only apply to the private sector and that some how Gov programs are exempt from the effects of the price of doing business.  WTH are these professors teaching you guys these days?

Back on subject though Im not sure why some of you think a state wouldn't raise their fees when the demand goes down? Thats exactly what Montana FWP did. Five years ago or so Montana was not selling out the allocation of Deer and Elk tags and there was a shortfall of $$$.  MFWP raised prices to make up the gap, A Combo deer and Elk tag went in the neighborhood of $635 (If I remember right) to 990!!! And many including myself were able to buy a tag right up until OCT which was not the norm back in the day... Sooooo??? 

[Bean Counter]

Professors teach to compare and contrast two opposing economic forces. In this case elastic and inelastic demand curves. Albeit this may not be the best example as there are direct product costs to the cigarettes ("Cost of goods sold" on the income statement) whereas bus systems have high fixed costs and often 0 marginal cost per additional rider. Nevertheless the point is illustrated that in order to maximize revenue up to the point where MR = MC, some times its better to lower prices than raise them. In the case of cigarettes, its usually more profitable to raise prices to earn more revenue per pack and accept that a small few will quit smoking. Reference Demand Curve 1. In the case of public bus systems, generally speaking, usually a much greater volume of new ridership will be induced to start riding when prices are lower. As in demand curve #2. I wasn't speaking about King County in particular and don't tend to know much about their particular budgetary process other than that as you say, they probably start with what the bus authority starts for requests and recommendations. Who is to blame is secondary to the issue that it would be wise for the decision maker to do some econometric analysis as to maximizing revenues than immediately running to price hikes as a budgetary panacea. I'm sure the nature of that supposedly elastic demand curve varies per several market substitutes, such as concentration of businesses in a downtown core area, access to HOV lanes, as well as the fluctuation gas prices.

I spent many an hour waiting on that route 174 in my youth though. 

[jasnt]

[Bean Counter]

"... He started it"

    

[M_ray]

"... He started it"

    

Really?  I think not ...  you did by trying to bring up examples that you didn't have all your facts straight and I pointed that out ... at least in my post I commented on the original thread you on the other hand tried to give us a lesson in economics 101 ... so

Back on subject though Im not sure why some of you think a state wouldn't raise their fees when the demand goes down? Thats exactly what Montana FWP did. Five years ago or so Montana was not selling out the allocation of Deer and Elk tags and there was a shortfall of $$$.  MFWP raised prices to make up the gap, A Combo deer and Elk tag went in the neighborhood of $635 (If I remember right) to 990!!! And many including myself were able to buy a tag right up until OCT which was not the norm back in the day... Sooooo??? 

who started it? 

[Bean Counter]

Only kidding good sir. 

[wolfbait]

The 2013 Elk Plan – IDFG Biologists Continue to Blame Gross Mismanagement on Declining Habitat

http://tomremington.com/2013/11/02/the-2013-elk-plan-idfg-biologists-continue-to-blame-gross-mismanagement-on-declining-habitat/

[WAcoyotehunter]

Elk hunting in Idaho is still good 

That is my biggest point in all of these threads. 

the problem is some areas are bad that used to be good. Some of the good areas used to be great!  My biggest point in all these threads is to point out the truth,  the BS, and inform the ill-formed.  I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that wolves have not negatively affected elk, moose, and deer in Idaho or any other state for that matter. 

  That is exactly right and the most frustrating thing is to see some people try to claim wolves had little or no impact when agencies have been admitting and documenting wolf impacts.

On the flip side there are an awful lot of folks that substantially exaggerate the impacts of wolves.  Such as those who predicted elk would be extinct in Idaho in 2012 I mean how can people be so ignorant?  Its kind of like saying habitat and weather don't affect ungulate populations...you really have to wonder if those kind of people have ever actually hunted or whether they just type about hunting on the internet. 

Obviously it seems the laws of nature would cause the wolves to starve or eat each other before they found and killed the last elk. I'm not sure if he actually believed that or was just throwing out an off the cuff statement. Hard to say! I do know he didn't last long on this forum and I am aware of frictions which occurred between various Idaho sports groups.

I think he actually thought that and was trying to convince others.  I have seen quite a bit of shady math on here in the way of population estimates and forecasts.  There is no doubt that wolves will impact game herds.  I think that's been well established.  What we have trouble modeling is how serious that impact will be.  Habitat is far easier to manage than populations.  We can manage habitat to support maximum numbers of animals, but we don't. 

The argument that more habitat means more wildlife is tried and true.  It's a fact.  It does not mean predators won't have an affect, it means that they won't have as significant of an effect and the habitat will continue to serve its purpose and provide calving/fawning habitat and escape habitat. 

[wolfbait]

Elk hunting in Idaho is still good 

That is my biggest point in all of these threads. 

the problem is some areas are bad that used to be good. Some of the good areas used to be great!  My biggest point in all these threads is to point out the truth,  the BS, and inform the ill-formed.  I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that wolves have not negatively affected elk, moose, and deer in Idaho or any other state for that matter. 

  That is exactly right and the most frustrating thing is to see some people try to claim wolves had little or no impact when agencies have been admitting and documenting wolf impacts.

On the flip side there are an awful lot of folks that substantially exaggerate the impacts of wolves.  Such as those who predicted elk would be extinct in Idaho in 2012 I mean how can people be so ignorant?  Its kind of like saying habitat and weather don't affect ungulate populations...you really have to wonder if those kind of people have ever actually hunted or whether they just type about hunting on the internet. 

Obviously it seems the laws of nature would cause the wolves to starve or eat each other before they found and killed the last elk. I'm not sure if he actually believed that or was just throwing out an off the cuff statement. Hard to say! I do know he didn't last long on this forum and I am aware of frictions which occurred between various Idaho sports groups.

I think he actually thought that and was trying to convince others.  I have seen quite a bit of shady math on here in the way of population estimates and forecasts.  There is no doubt that wolves will impact game herds.  I think that's been well established.  What we have trouble modeling is how serious that impact will be.  Habitat is far easier to manage than populations.  We can manage habitat to support maximum numbers of animals, but we don't. 

The argument that more habitat means more wildlife is tried and true.  It's a fact.  It does not mean predators won't have an affect, it means that they won't have as significant of an effect and the habitat will continue to serve its purpose and provide calving/fawning habitat and escape habitat.

"The argument that more habitat means more wildlife is tried and true"

Actually your statement has been proven false several times over, look at the Yellowstone as a simple example. Unless the "Habitat" is fenced off from predators or strict predator management is instilled, the outcome will always be the same, plenty of habitat with less game and on into the predator pit.

Unless of course your habitat is one of those new computer models, then anything is possible as we have seen with the wolf introduction.