Deer and Elk Hunting in Idaho and Montana After Wolf Introduction

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Wouldn't be DNR paying for deer and elk damage. It would be the WDFW.

That would be this program. http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/damage/

On this audit from 2004 I found this on page 3.

http://www.leg.wa.gov/JLARC/AuditAndStudyReports/2004/Documents/04-5.pdf

"Up to $150,000 per year is available to the Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW) to assess and pay small damage claims. Claims for more than
$10,000 go to the state Office of Risk Management and are decided and
authorized by the Legislature as sundry claims."

"An average of 50 claims per year have been submitted totaling just
under half a million dollars annually."

I'm thinking there is another program also, but haven't located it.

[Jack Diamond]

nobody in this state will be paid for animal loss, just wishful thinking. 

[Bob33]

nobody in this state will be paid for animal loss, just wishful thinking.

Even if you take the $150k figure quoted, it is insufficient for what is coming.  Thats about 100 head?   Montana lost an estimated 450 head in 2010.

Remind me again: what benefit are we getting from the wolves?

[bearpaw]

I am still trying to figure out the benefit of bringing wolves back to heavily human populated states to cause trouble and upset the balance of wildlife management and livestock production that helped make this country great. At a time when our economy is suffering, I can not think of a worse time to be promoting wolves. 

Wolves numbered some 50,000 to 60,000 in North America alone and were not endangered in any way. Governmemnts have made a huge error, sensitive species of caribou and shiras moose are being systematically eaten by expanding wolf populations. When the small caribou herd in Washington and Idaho has been eaten, when the shiras moose have been nearly all eaten, when elk herds in Washington are in as much trouble as they are in the Lolo, Bitterroot, and Northern Yellowstone, will WDFW finally understand that they have erred, or will they somehow shift the blame to auto collisions or some other factor as sitka_blacktail is more or less trying to do.

The simple fact of the matter is that we had a fairly good system of regulating game populations while at the same time providing recreation and healthy table fare for hunters. Wolves simply were not needed.

Even more importantly, unmonitored and unmanaged numbers of wolves were not needed and will be a detriment of wildlife management and livestock production in Washington. No doubt the state could support small numbers of wolves without huge impacts. But the WDFW simply does not have the capacity to find and confirm the wolves that already exist in Washington. We have members on this forum reporting wolves on a weekly basis. How can WDFW possibly keep up with monitoring reproduction if they only acknowledge 10% to 20% of the number of wolves that are actually in this state. This is a laughable situation, the WDFW has approved a wolf plan they cannot monitor.

Wolf reports:  http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,79244.0.html

To get wolves documented, this state needs no less than 1 WDFW wolf agent in each county. 2 or 3 small counties might be grouped together for 1 agent, but a large county with several wolf packs like Okanogan needs at least 2 or 3 agents. Pend Orielle County has at least 3 wolf packs, Stevens County has at a minimum 4 wolf packs and possibly as many as 7 or 8 wolf packs. Ferry County has at a minimum 2 wolf packs and possibly as many as 4 or more wolf packs. There are wolves turning up all over the state and we are only getting started. Every year the number will increase due to reproduction.

A dozen wolf agents will have a hard time documenting the wolves in this state. Currently I am told that WDFW has 1 wolf trapper.

Fellow hunters our state has certainly been fed to the wolves...

[Killmore]

There is zero benifet..I want to laugh when they start talking about a balanced ecosystem,When we started to vaccinate ourselves so we can live to a old age I think we altered it so we can never go back..Isn't that called progress..The pro wolf people just need to go ask there Grandfathers why we got rid of them 60- 70 years ago..

[frostman]

Why does the typical liberal think that taxpayer money just magically appears?

When you ask them where does this money come from to "compensate" for this and that, I expect to hear - "I don't know, from obamas stash?"

[bobcat]

I am still trying to figure out the benefit of bringing wolves back to heavily human populated states to cause trouble and upset the balance of wildlife management and livestock production that helped make this country great. At a time when our economy is suffering, I can not think of a worse time to be promoting wolves.

That right there sums my feelings up really well. This is simply a cost right now we can't afford, AND with no benefit whatsoever. We've already got enough predators, why add another one to the mix?

[Sitka_Blacktail]

I am still trying to figure out the benefit of bringing wolves back to heavily human populated states to cause trouble and upset the balance of wildlife management and livestock production that helped make this country great.

Funny you should mention livestock production since that very activity contributed greatly to some of the biggest problems in wildlife management. Farm animals spread brucellosis into our wild game animals, not to mention other diseases. Farms take up valuable range land. Water taken for farm animals and crops is water that isn't there for wild fish and animals. Wetlands are plowed up. In Washington, one of the most liberal deer and elk seasons is in unit 501. The deer and elk are hammered in that unit, especially the elk to protect some pea farmers' crops and some private forest land. Damage control hunts on winter ranges are set to protect farm crops. So instead of managing for more animals like most hunters would like to see, these hunts are actually trying to reduce the amount of animals. The way I look at it, farms and ranches reduce our hunting opportunities, not expand them, except in limited cases.  Heck, if it wasn't for farms and ranches, we could all be hunting Bison in the Great Plains. There's one animal they'll never let come back to historic levels.

will WDFW finally understand that they have erred, or will they somehow shift the blame to auto collisions or some other factor as sitka_blacktail is more or less trying to do.

Not shifting the blame to autos. Just pointing out that autos kill more animals than wolves ever will.  And I suspect roadkill (if it's left in the area) will be a significant part of wolves diets.

[Bob33]

Just pointing out that autos kill more animals than wolves ever will. 

Source, please.

That is flat out false.  Data I've read indicates that total wildlife/vehicle collisions in Washington annually are around 1100.  Many of the animals are not killed.  Assume half are.  That's 500 per year.  One wolf eats between 10 and 25 elk per year.  Grab a calculator and tell me how many elk 100 wolves eat in a year.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Just pointing out that autos kill more animals than wolves ever will. 

Source, please.

That is flat out false.  Data I've read indicates that total wildlife/vehicle collisions in Washington annually are around 1100.  Many of the animals are not killed.  Assume half are.  That's 500 per year.  One wolf eats between 10 and 25 elk per year.  Grab a calculator and tell me how many elk 100 wolves eat in a year.

Source please.

[Bob33]

Reported multiple places.  Try Google. Here is one:

http://www.thenorthernlight.com/news/article.exm/2011-10-12_fall_car_care_special_section__steering_clear_of_deer

"According to the Washington Department of Transportation, more than 1,100 wildlife/vehicle collisions are reported to the Washington State Patrol every year, resulting in nearly 1,200 injuries. "

Now what is your source?

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Reported multiple places.  Try Google. Here is one:

http://www.thenorthernlight.com/news/article.exm/2011-10-12_fall_car_care_special_section__steering_clear_of_deer

"According to the Washington Department of Transportation, more than 1,100 wildlife/vehicle collisions are reported to the Washington State Patrol every year, resulting in nearly 1,200 injuries. "

Now what is your source?

Try this one for size. From the Washington DOT

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/701.1.pdf

A couple quotes and my comments in parenthesis.

"Approximately 3,000 deer and 85 elk carcasses are removed by WSDOT personnel from Washington state highways annually. The report provides an analysis of temporal and spatial relationships associated with carcass removal sites."

(These are only the CARCASSES "removed" by DOT. In many places I've seen them lay in ditches and nearby to become carrion. Especially in rural areas. This also doesn't count animals that are hit and manage to make it somewhere only to die.)

"The WDOT dataset and the accidents they represent are most likely minimum estimates; documented removals of deer and elk carcasses from Washington state highways probably represent only a portion of an unknown number of road kills that actually occur."

(Only a portion of an unknown number. In many states, the number of road killed animals rivals that of animals killed by hunters. I wouldn't be surprised if it's close to that in Washington also. And besides deer and elk, there are many other animals killed by autos. Dogs, cats, porcupines, possums, beavers, birds, etc. It's all a food source to wolves.)

"Vehicle collisions with deer and elk on state and federal highways in Washington State killed at least 14,969 deer and 415 elk between 2000-2004. These totals include only deer and elk that were recovered from state and federal highways and do not include animals hit by vehicles that died away from the roadway or any deer or elk killed on county or city roadways."

(Again making my point that a lot more animals are killed by autos than the above mentioned numbers. The over three thousand deer per year are only those removed by the state from State and federal highways. Lots of roads in deer and elk country are county roads.)

"by comparing numbers of carcass possession tags issued for road killed deer with estimates of actual deer-vehicle collisions within their study area, estimated that for every deer recovered from the roadway as a result of a vehicle collision in New York, 5 deer were hit and not recovered or reported."

(I would guess that the 5 to one hit and reported or recovered is a conservative estimate. But that is only my OPINION. An educated guess you might say.)

(Then there is the damage to life and property that collisions with game animals cause.)

"Nationally, such accidents result in approximately 200 people killed (Conover et al. 1995) and insurance costs of nearly 2 billion dollars each year (Sudharson 2006)."

(and the loss of habitat from constructing highways)

"The direct costs of habitat loss associated with highways bisecting deer and elk ranges, and human and animal suffering as accidents occur, are obvious. But other effects, particularly to the native ungulates, can be more insidious.
For example, a migration corridor blocked by a fence near Rawlins, WY resulted in approximately 1,000 pronghorn dying by starvation and exposure before the situation was remedied"

(I can tell you for a fact that I-5 and I-90 for starters are problems for migrating game. The St Helens Herd is cut off from migrating west of I-5 for starters, so it limits the wintering grounds for them.)

So you see, your sources weren't very helpful and painted a way better situation than is really happening.

Good information is our friend. Even if it's an eye opener.

[wraithen]

Wonder what the damage does from an impact with a wolf 

[Bob33]

"415 elk between 2000-2004. "  That's about 80 per year.  That's the equivalent of what a handful of wolves will kill.

[seth30]

Wonder what the damage does from an impact with a wolf 

Oh I cant wait to here the facts and figures on this one