Elk will be gone in Idaho by 2012

[bearpaw]

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.

   I agree 100% with needing good habitat and predator management. 

[idahohuntr]

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.

   I agree 100% with needing good habitat and predator management. 

  We all agree!!!! 

[The scout]

ahhhh it was fun listening to all of you go around in circles

[KFhunter]

  We all agree!!!! 

no we don't, not at all.

I want high hunter success rates, robust herds of Elk and lot's of moose.
I want people to be able to graze their private land and lease private timber lands for sheep/cattle
I want to continue public grazing.




I don't want small struggling Elk herds that turn good habitat into bad, because they can't make use of what they already have. 
Underutilized habitat is bad habitat with poor nutrition.

I don't see a lot of agreement here.

[Bob33]

  We all agree!!!! 

no we don't, not at all.

I want high hunter success rates, robust herds of Elk and lot's of moose.
I want people to be able to graze their private land and lease private timber lands for sheep/cattle
I want to continue public grazing.




I don't want small struggling Elk herds that turn good habitat into bad, because they can't make use of what they already have. 
Underutilized habitat is bad habitat with poor nutrition.

I don't see a lot of agreement here.

You don't agree with needing good habitat and predator management?

[jasnt]

  We all agree!!!! 

no we don't, not at all.

I want high hunter success rates, robust herds of Elk and lot's of moose.
I want people to be able to graze their private land and lease private timber lands for sheep/cattle
I want to continue public grazing.




I don't want small struggling Elk herds that turn good habitat into bad, because they can't make use of what they already have. 
Underutilized habitat is bad habitat with poor nutrition.

I don't see a lot of agreement here.

We need more logging, public land grazing, and extreme predator management! Use it or loose it!

[WAcoyotehunter]

Because public land grazing is soooo good for wildlife habitat???  I'm not following your logic?

[Bob33]

  I agree 100% with needing good habitat and predator management. 

  We all agree!!!! 

Surely there's got to be something here to disagree with.

[KFhunter]

Because public land grazing is soooo good for wildlife habitat???  I'm not following your logic?

In a nutshell, yes. Responsible grazing improves habitat. 

Habitat that has little to no grazing is much poorer in quality than habitat that is regularly turned over, in the absence of vast herds of Elk cattle do well to help this.

[KFhunter]

WAcoyotehunter go thumb through the deer section and find all the threads complaining about cattle being left on range too long, and ask yourself why they're hunting in cattle graze areas to begin with.

[jasnt]

WAcoyotehunter go thumb through the deer section and find all the threads complaining about cattle being left on range too long, and ask yourself why they're hunting in cattle graze areas to begin with.

exactly!  All benificial brush, shrubbery , grasses, ect. Are stimulated to new growth by pruning (eating) and new growth is the most nutritious.  It keeps everything from getting choked out and helps keep saplings from getting so thick they choke even them selves out

[KFhunter]

fire would also help, but we don't burn near enough.

[Special T]

"Management" requires $. I think we have plenty of land but there isn't nearly enough logging and small projects that help increase the ability to have productive land.

We used to slash burn old clear cuts and that was actually good for the ecosystem but  doing it right takes funds continuously where as Fed funds for study and purchase of lands is "Free" money.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

"Management" requires $. I think we have plenty of land but there isn't nearly enough logging and small projects that help increase the ability to have productive land.

We used to slash burn old clear cuts and that was actually good for the ecosystem but  doing it right takes funds continuously where as Fed funds for study and purchase of lands is "Free" money.

Actually, burning ended because of complaints about bad air if I remember correctly. 

[idahohuntr]

  We all agree!!!! 

no we don't, not at all.

I want high hunter success rates, robust herds of Elk and lot's of moose.
I want people to be able to graze their private land and lease private timber lands for sheep/cattle
I want to continue public grazing.




I don't want small struggling Elk herds that turn good habitat into bad, because they can't make use of what they already have. 
Underutilized habitat is bad habitat with poor nutrition.

I don't see a lot of agreement here.

You don't agree with needing good habitat and predator management?

Is there an axe-grinding emoticon?