Deer and Elk Hunting in Idaho and Montana After Wolf Introduction

[elkboy]

Another comment from me- the hydatid disease issue is a bit of a red herring, one we should probably steer clear of as we address real management issues (of which there are many, as this thread and others are making quite clear!)- this, IMHO, will help enhance our (hunters') credibility on predator issues.  The more dangerous form of echinococcus disease, the  'sylvatic' type, we brought with us from Europe via sheep introduction, and is easily maintained in wild canids of all kinds, including stray dogs, foxes, coyotes, etc.  Trying to pin this on wolves when coyotes are a very abundant definitive host is a bad PR idea in the fights ahead, I think.  Incidentally, I've never seen this disease referred to as "wolf worms", since it can occur in any canid. 

Good summary in the following document.  Happy New Year, everyone!

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wolves/docs/ParasiteFlyer.pdf

[furbearer365]

Sitka, before you post anything else please read and answer.
WHAT FACTUAL GOODS THAT COME FROM WOLVES WILL WE SEE IN THE NEXT 10 - 15 YEARS.  Please answer it, because you havent already done so.  Leave out the words I BELIEVE,I THINK, OR MAYBE.

[Wenatcheejay]

A dog which does that needs to be put down. Thank you for the comparison to wolves that attack pets and livestock. I totally agree with you.

And Jay, I totally agree with you. I also agree that wolves that do the same need to be dealt with aggressively. Take out the ones that cause trouble before they cause more trouble or teach others to cause trouble.  That should be the rule for all animals and humans.

If more of this had happened with wolves, if it would happen without lawsuits, the hunting community would support it as it once did. We did not change the goal posts, the Fed's did, DFW did. All most want is a sensible MANAGEMENT. Humans, livestock, and pets above wild animals for a start. A sustainable deer, moose and elk population. Again and again evidence shows unmanaged wolves are a disaster. There is no plan to deal with it, never was. But I have to admit, when I look at WDFW there is no clear mandate for them to manage anything for Big Game hunting. So, until there is what's the point of talking about anything else? The animals are there for biologists to do as they please.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

If more of this had happened with wolves, if it would happen without lawsuits, the hunting community would support it as it once did. We did not change the goal posts, the Fed's did, DFW did. All most want is a sensible MANAGEMENT. Humans, livestock, and pets above wild animals for a start. A sustainable deer, moose and elk population. Again and again evidence shows unmanaged wolves are a disaster. There is no plan to deal with it, never was. But I have to admit, when I look at WDFW there is no clear mandate for them to manage anything for Big Game hunting. So, until there is what's the point of talking about anything else? The animals are there for biologists to do as they please.

Again I agree with you. And that is where our efforts need to go, towards good and sensible management. Anything else is wasted time, money and effort.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Sitka, yes there are many variables that lead to the deaths of our game such as car wrecks etc.  But why are you comparing a completely accidental wreck to our biologists deliberately planting wolves. 

Because I believe that wolves will never get to a point where they will threaten hunting. I also believe they will take other predators out. I also believe a lot of what they eat will be carrion such as animals killed by autos and animals that die after being shot and escaping. They are opportunistic.  So I believe in the long run they will be a push as far as the size of game herds.

Predators tho are going to take a hit from them. They will even take on bears when it comes to food. anybody who spends time in the Washington woods knows that this state is overrun by coyotes. Just by knocking them down wolves will be deserving of what they eat.

Why do I believe that wolves won't overpopulate the State? Because wolves are very territorial. It's a built in limiting factor that cervids don't have. They will actively hunt down and kill other wolves that invade their territory. Also, wolves live a tough life. Besides other wolves, wolves get killed or mortally wounded by the game they hunt.

[huntnnw]

"Because I believe that wolves will never get to a point where they will threaten hunting. I also believe they will take other predators out."


WOW! you must not read or been to areas that once were full of elk and moose

[wraithen]

Sitka, do you condone hunting wolves?

Huntnnw, he believes those animals simply went to better places and that herds don't stay in one place historically for forever.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Sitka, do you condone hunting wolves?

I have said before here, I not only condone hunting but trapping wolves.

So what's your point?

[wraithen]

I don't have one, I was just curious. There's a lot of pages so I guess I missed it.

[huntnnw]

Sitka, do you condone hunting wolves?

Huntnnw, he believes those animals simply went to better places and that herds don't stay in one place historically for forever.

haha...just magically 25,000 head of elk in the Big hole valley just moved away...christ..

[Wenatcheejay]

If more of this had happened with wolves, if it would happen without lawsuits, the hunting community would support it as it once did. We did not change the goal posts, the Fed's did, DFW did. All most want is a sensible MANAGEMENT. Humans, livestock, and pets above wild animals for a start. A sustainable deer, moose and elk population. Again and again evidence shows unmanaged wolves are a disaster. There is no plan to deal with it, never was. But I have to admit, when I look at WDFW there is no clear mandate for them to manage anything for Big Game hunting. So, until there is what's the point of talking about anything else? The animals are there for biologists to do as they please.

Again I agree with you. And that is where our efforts need to go, towards good and sensible management. Anything else is wasted time, money and effort.

OK "sensible" management.

Was and is Yellowstone an example of that?

Is the Lolo unit in Idaho sensible example?

Is it sensible to wait until herds are at levels so low they are not recoverable?

I ask because so far that has been management.

But somehow, that is not going to happen here. So they say. And they refuse to have a plan if it happens. Accept to manage through restriction certian user groups. (The Average Washington Big Game Hunter) That is the only WDFW mandate here.

[huntnnw]

and u say opportunities wont be lost...We have gotten the moose populations here in NE WA to record number..taken a long time to get this herd to where it is...I will gurantee if wolves become prevalent in these areas they will wipe them out like they have done in MT..that will directly effect US hunters here in WA who want a moose tag one day

[bearpaw]

Sitka, yes there are many variables that lead to the deaths of our game such as car wrecks etc.  But why are you comparing a completely accidental wreck to our biologists deliberately planting wolves. 

Because I believe that wolves will never get to a point where they will threaten hunting. I also believe they will take other predators out. I also believe a lot of what they eat will be carrion such as animals killed by autos and animals that die after being shot and escaping. They are opportunistic.  So I believe in the long run they will be a push as far as the size of game herds.

Predators tho are going to take a hit from them. They will even take on bears when it comes to food. anybody who spends time in the Washington woods knows that this state is overrun by coyotes. Just by knocking them down wolves will be deserving of what they eat.

Why do I believe that wolves won't overpopulate the State? Because wolves are very territorial. It's a built in limiting factor that cervids don't have. They will actively hunt down and kill other wolves that invade their territory. Also, wolves live a tough life. Besides other wolves, wolves get killed or mortally wounded by the game they hunt.

Sitka_Blacktail thank you for showing us precisely how misguided wildlife managers and many unsuspecting residents are in Washington. You are patently wrong about the effects on hunting. Hunters in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are experiencing the "threat to hunting". 2000 Gardner late cow elk hunts have been completely eliminated, the northern Yellowstone elk herd has gone form nearly 20,000 to less than 5,000 since wolves were introduced. The portion of that herd that lives off the park has gone from nearly 12,000 to a little more than 2200. Certain seasons in many areas of the Rocky Mountain states have been greatly reduced or completely eliminated due to wolves being a primary factor in dramatic herd decline. Success rates in numerous units are at record lows. Many families depended on annual success from these hunts to fill their freezers.

Fact: I am an outfitter in Idaho and Montana, I used to get most of my hunters from urban areas but I'm getting an increasing number of hunters from central Idaho, western Montana and Wyoming who are calling me wanting to book deer hunts in Washington or Utah, cow elk hunts in Utah, or bison hunts on private ranches because they are having no success elk and deer hunting where they live and they want to eat something other than domestic meat.

Last week a guy from Libby Montana called and said he hasn't gotten an elk in 4 years since the wolves have overpopulated northwest Montana, he booked a bison hunt on a private ranch so he could fill his freezer. I have nearly more interest in meat hunts from wolf affected areas now as I do from urban areas. 10 years ago I never had a call from hunters in these formerly prime hunting areas.

Sitka_Blacktail your replies lack any facts, instead you speak exactly like a brainwashed F&G biologist citing "Defenders Of Wildlife" wilderness-like theory that wolves will self regulate and have little effect. You completely sidestep the facts and numbers coming out of wolf affected areas in the Rocky Mtn states. Unfortunately self-regulation means wolves starve to death or eat each other and numbers drop because there is not enough wild game to support such high wolf numbers. The problem in today's modern ecosystems in the lower 48 states is that much of the landscape is human inhabited with pets and livestock. The wolves simply switch their diet to stay alive. The livestock loss numbers presented to you have proven this true. The videos posted have shown this to be true. The following news story further proves you are patently wrong, wolves do threaten hunting!

http://www.ktvq.com/news/gardiner-elk-hunt-falls-victim-to-wolves/

Gardiner elk hunt falls victim to wolves
Posted: Feb 18, 2010 11:00 PM by Jay Kohn

GARDINER - One of the consequences of "Living with Wolves" is the elimination of a special late season elk hunt near Gardiner that has been part of the Montana hunting scene for the past 35 years. The January hunt was firstconducted in 1976, to help manage elk migrating out of Yellowstone National Park. At that time, the park's northern herd had reached as many as 12-thousand animals.

But once wolves were reintroduced to the park, the northern herd's numbers started declining. In 2005, game managers counted 9,545 elk. Three years later that figure had dropped to 3,912 animals, and by 2009 the herd's population was down to 3,511 elk. This year, FWP's aerial surveys of the northern herd outside the park's boundaries counted only 2,236 animals.

Last week, Montana's Fish and Game Commission voted to end the late season hunt citing elk numbers that had fallen below target levels due to predation mainly from wolves, but also from grizzly bears. The Montana Elk Plan established in 2004 called for a population of between 3-thousand to 5-thousand elk in the portion of the Northern elk herd that winters in Montana.

[bearpaw]

I will say that I obviously don't expect a widespread epidemic, and this is not my primary concern about wolves, but if you were one of the recently infected people in Idaho, you might feel differently about the laxed statements made by authorities regarding E Granulosus.

http://www.healthandwelfare.idaho.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=yrb8A0GvnMI%3D&tabid=682

Foreyt et al2 reported finding E. granulosus in 62% of Idaho wolves evaluated between 2006 and 2008. E. granulosus was also detected in elk, deer, and a mountain goat. The authors consider this the first report of E. granulosus in a wildlife cycle in Idaho.

HHHMMMMMM, I guess it's only a co-incidence!

Having proven that a high percentage of Idaho wolves are infected "wolf worms" I can suggest with assumed accuracy there is a 62% chance the single wolf "who's pack originated from Idaho", that is traveling through Oregon to California has been depositing "wolf worm" eggs along the entire route.

I can also suggest with assumed accuracy that 62% of the wolves in Washington that originated from Idaho and Oregon are depositing eggs across Washington's landscape in virtually every piece of wolf scat dropped.

Does anyone think that no dog or local coyote will ever sniff a piece of wolf scat "terd" from one of our newly residing wolves? Does anyone think that no wild ungulate or no livestock animal will sniff a "terd" while grazing? Does anyone think it's impossible for a small child petting and playing with the family dog to be infected? Does anyone think that a person who works or recreates with livestock or wild animals that have grazed cannot become infected?

There are two new cases of E Granulosus infection in humans in Idaho. A person in Elk City and I have heard the other person is in Bonners Ferry. Granted the odds are low, but it's a bummer if you or your child is the one that gets infected....
____________________________________

In other countries the authorities are far more concerned about advising and protecting their citizens from infections. In the lower 48 states the authorities are more concerned about minimizing the effects and possibility of infection so wolves are accepted by the public.

Argentina: http://vet.unne.edu.ar/revista/22-1%202011/RevVet_vol_22_nro_1_2011-04_Lavallen.pdf

Abstract
Lavallén, C.M.; Dopchiz, M.C.; Lobianco, E.; Hollmann, P.; Denegri, G.: Intestinal
parasites of zoonotic importance in dogs from the District of General Pueyrredón (Buenos
Aires, Argentina). Rev. vet. 22: 1, 19–24, 2011. Dog feces harbouring infective parasitic
forms (larves, eggs, cysts of helminths and oocysts of protozoan) are potential sources of environmental
contamination, representing a high risk of infection for people. The feces of 46
dogs housed at the Municipal Centre of Zoonoses of Mar del Plata City were analyzed to determine
the prevalence of intestinal parasitic forms. The overall prevalence of parasites was
89.13%. Detected parasites were Ancylostoma caninum (71.74%), Toxocara canis (63.04%),
Trichuris vulpis (45.65%), Uncinaria stenocephala (41.30%), Capillaria aerophila (17.39%),
Echinococcus granulosus (8.69%), Giardia spp. (10.87%) and Isospora spp. (2.17%). The
geographical characteristics and the wet weather of the region under consideration, together
with the cultural habits and the socio–economic situation of the population may favor transmission.
The prevalences of stray and domesticated infected dogs were 88% and 95.24%,
respectively. Because stray dogs are often free–roaming, environmental contamination with
parasite forms had likely already occurred. The prevalences of A. caninum and T. vulpis
were significantly higher in < 6 years–old dogs rather than in older animals. Parasite–specific
immunity is usually acquired during development, probably as a consequence of single
or repeated exposures. Multiple infections were more frequent (80%) than infections with
a single parasite (20%) and the most common parasite association (21.87%) was among A.
caninum, T. vulpis, T. canis and U. stenocephala. The high prevalence of poly–parasitized
animals together with the zoonotic potential of the parasites found in the samples, indicate
that dog feces could be the source of several parasite infections for human as well as canine
populations of the region under study. The parasite zoonoses transmitted by dogs are still a
sanitary problem in the District of General Pueyrredón.

Turkey

_____________________________________________

I am in no way trying to say this issue should dominate our wolf discussion, but in my opinion it's another negative and an important issue regarding wolves and our Washington agencies should at least be educating people to be cautious.

[bearpaw]

I have been drawn into this discussion and must say this is all old news to those of us who have folowed the wolf issue. We've had all these discussions in the past, we all know wolves are here, we need to plan on how to deal with them in the future.

My main concern at this point is how to influence the WDFW to monitor wolves in Washington. Our agency is way behind the curve, there appears to be well over 100 wolves in Washington and WDFW thinks there is no more than 30 wolves and only has one moderately successful trapper. Somehow we must influence the state to hire some capable trappers to get these wolves verified. Natural proven reproduction rates in Idaho and Montana suggest that our wolf population will grow by 24% per year. It would be easy for WA to have as many wolves and problems as Idaho if we don't get on top of monitoring our wolf numbers.

This video shows where the Rocky Mountain states are now, and where we will be soon:

(please keep in mind they are talking about the areas surrounding yellowstone, they are not talking about having wolves in every county of the state)