Deer and Elk Hunting in Idaho and Montana After Wolf Introduction

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Sitka is no hunter, these Peta guys love to claim they are hunters so they can push their agenda by baiting hunters into their thinking, don't be fooled. Go through this topic, there is an abundance of data from many of us and opinion from sitka. The only value of this topic is that he is providing a good education to you guys about how the wolf lovers think and work.

If you're as far off on your other opinions as you are on this one bearpaw, I can see your problem.

I'm in my 50's and have hunted since I was 10. I got my two deer in Washington this year. A doe that I drew a second tag for and a buck.  Didn't get an elk tho.

The real value has been I'm showing you that wolves aren't the end of the world.  I'm a glass half full kind of guy.

[stuckalot]

[/quote]



The real value has been I'm showing you that wolves aren't the end of the world.  I'm a glass half full kind of guy.
[/quote]

Let a smile be your umbrella and your ass will be soaking wet!

[Jack Diamond]

Sitka , you and others have spewed a lot of data, the problem I have with data is that it can and will be skewed to meet the desired end.  I can take quotes from the bible and prove you should be driving a Honda, 'they all came of one Accord"

The "truth" is only the product of the responding party and their view of the facts,  so depending solely on where you live and work, your view of the "facts" will probably be different than mine.
Having said that , your view is relevant to where you live,if you live in a area where Wolves are an oddity, you will be happy to see one, however if you reside where the wolves live and witness the destruction , your views may change.
Your view changes in a huge way when the predators are "protected " and your life evolves around your livestock and game animals that have found refuge on your property, and in the area in which you reside.
Ranchers and all other livestock producers have fed more elk and deer than the state ever has, and if they are succesful with their livestock, they have been better stewards of the land than the state.
My question to you is where do you currently live, and how does that make you an expert, and how is your opinion superior to mine and others?
Granted there are people here on this site that are only concerned with their hunting opportunity's however there are also people that are concerned with their land ,livestock, and game that enriches the citizens of the evergreen state.
I do not dislike you , however your views do not reflect the views of the populace that will first be impacted by the state's decision.
I would be willing to see your view if only you were willing to see mine.
And lastly the state of Alaska and the state of Washington, are so completely different that it is insane to say they have much in common , when it comes to wolve's.

[furbearer365]

Sitka, the point you are not getting is that you do know for sure what you are arguing.  How do you know that the wolves will not practically end hunting as we know it.  I would like to think they wouldnt be but how do i know.  Can you guarantee me that when the wolves are brought back that there will be a management plan put into effect, no you cant?  Can you guarantee that hunters and the fish and game will win over the feds and activist on whether to delist them or not.  What you are not considering is that they will take the wolf numbers as a whole on whether or not they should be hunted or not.  They will take a total count in the state, not just region by region, meaning they could nearly wipe out hunting in certain areas simply because there are not enough total wolves in the state to allow the hunting of them.  I dont see our state fish and game getting the power from the feds to regulate the wolves as we do other game.  The wolves dont directly effect you and look at what you think of them, you practically turn your back and pretend they dont have an effect on lives, you dont think the feds will do the same.  That is fine that you dont trophy hunt but who are you to take that away from someone who wants to.  Good for you that you are satisfied with a doe, well i am not.  I enjoy the work that goes into trying to harvest the largest deer i can.  Big bucks fill a freezer too, plus i get to enjoy the trophy on my wall for years to come. 

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Sitka , you and others have spewed a lot of data, the problem I have with data is that it can and will be skewed to meet the desired end.  I can take quotes from the bible and prove you should be driving a Honda, 'they all came of one Accord"

The "truth" is only the product of the responding party and their view of the facts,  so depending solely on where you live and work, your view of the "facts" will probably be different than mine.

I can't help what you choose to believe. I've given you hard data. If you think I somehow twisted it,  go to the different State websites that have wolves and look at the harvest reports.  Explain how deer harvest in Wisconsin went from 155,000 to around a half a million all while the wolf population went from a small hand full to 650.  And explain how I misreported that or how the numbers were skewed?  I even provided links, but if you don't trust me, find your own links.  Good luck! try Michigan too. Similar situation there.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Sitka, the point you are not getting is that you do know for sure what you are arguing.  How do you know that the wolves will not practically end hunting as we know it.  I would like to think they wouldnt be but how do i know.  Can you guarantee me that when the wolves are brought back that there will be a management plan put into effect, no you cant?

How do you know wolves will end hunting? Somebody told you that? you figured it out yourself? I've lived and hunted most of my life around wolves, so I have some experience in the matter. Granted on Kodiak there are no wolves, but I've hunted deer on the mainland in Prince William Sound and there are wolves there. And once in a while they get to one or two of the islands in the Sound. I've hunted moose in a few areas of Alaska and all of them had wolves.  The main limiter of game in Alaska is bad winters.  And this one is going to be a bad one up there.  Prince William Sound has already had 12 to 17 feet of snow depending on the location.  Other than brown and black bears, and a few coyotes, there aren't really many predators there. Kodiak only has Brown bears and that herd fluctuates wildly. Bears aren't very good deer predators so they don't do much herd trimming until after the weather kills the deer.  I've watched a Kodiak Brownie stalk three deer, but he never got withing 150 yards of them. They knew he was there the whole time and they knew he was after them and they stayed away.  He followed every twist they put in their trail too. He was relentless, but never sped up as he tracked them. I was on the top of a mountain deer hunting when I saw this and they were down in a valley. Was very interesting to watch them interact.  But this winter, if the weather doesn't have a major change, is going to take a toll on the Prince William Sound herd. Then the bears and birds will have a feast in the spring.

[GrainfedMuley]

Sitka, the point you are not getting is that you do know for sure what you are arguing.  How do you know that the wolves will not practically end hunting as we know it.  I would like to think they wouldnt be but how do i know.  Can you guarantee me that when the wolves are brought back that there will be a management plan put into effect, no you cant?

How do you know wolves will end hunting? Somebody told you that? you figured it out yourself? I've lived and hunted most of my life around wolves, so I have some experience in the matter. Granted on Kodiak there are no wolves, but I've hunted deer on the mainland in Prince William Sound and there are wolves there. And once in a while they get to one or two of the islands in the Sound. I've hunted moose in a few areas of Alaska and all of them had wolves.  The main limiter of game in Alaska is bad winters.  And this one is going to be a bad one up there.  Prince William Sound has already had 12 to 17 feet of snow depending on the location.  Other than brown and black bears, and a few coyotes, there aren't really many predators there. Kodiak only has Brown bears and that herd fluctuates wildly. Bears aren't very good deer predators so they don't do much herd trimming until after the weather kills the deer.  I've watched a Kodiak Brownie stalk three deer, but he never got withing 150 yards of them. They knew he was there the whole time and they knew he was after them and they stayed away.  He followed every twist they put in their trail too. He was relentless, but never sped up as he tracked them. I was on the top of a mountain deer hunting when I saw this and they were down in a valley. Was very interesting to watch them interact.  But this winter, if the weather doesn't have a major change, is going to take a toll on the Prince William Sound herd. Then the bears and birds will have a feast in the spring.

Here you are on this thread also..........GO AWAY

[wraithen]

So for a state that already has cramped hunting and doesn't have any population problems on the too many side, what do we get sitka? Do we end up better off because of the wolves? They may decrease our lion and bear killings of herd animals but what will we gain in return? They won't make it so less animals die from predation. The common argument is that we need wolves and they should get their "fair share". I'm not sure how that equals fair anymore than I am about obama's idea of the same concept. How do wolves make it better for the hunters? Keep in mind that I am one of the few that would rather hunt predators than herd animals. I see them making it harder for me to hunt as well as everyone else. How do they help me? In what way? Even the arguements saying they won't hurt herd animal hunting point out that they hurt hunting for me. What's the good of them being here? Why do they need a foothold here when the numbers in other parts of the country already mean they are in no way threatened? Why should I help an animal that has been gone from my area for generations and hasn't negatively affected this area? Basically, what is the point?

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Here you are on this thread also..........GO AWAY

Ummmm I started this thread.

[bearpaw]

Sitka is no hunter, these Peta guys love to claim they are hunters so they can push their agenda by baiting hunters into their thinking, don't be fooled. Go through this topic, there is an abundance of data from many of us and opinion from sitka. The only value of this topic is that he is providing a good education to you guys about how the wolf lovers think and work.

If you're as far off on your other opinions as you are on this one bearpaw, I can see your problem.

I'm in my 50's and have hunted since I was 10. I got my two deer in Washington this year. A doe that I drew a second tag for and a buck.  Didn't get an elk tho.

The real value has been I'm showing you that wolves aren't the end of the world.  I'm a glass half full kind of guy.

Yes you are right, that is my opinion and I still believe you are only a wolf wolver posing as a hunter, and probably getting paid.

Wisconsin
As most info wolf lovers provide, they don't tell you the real details. The norrthern Wisconsin areas where the wolves are at have dropping deer numbers. Only because of good management in the rest of the state where wolves do not exist, has the overall harvest looked good.

Minnesota
Officials struggle to determine why moose numbers are decoing in northern Minnesota. Many hunter quit going north for their annual deer hunts becuase the wolves have impacted the northern units.

Montana/Idaho
These states maintain that their elk numbers are steady or increasing.
The truth is that in all the areas with heavy wolf numbers the big game herds are in decline. Anyone who has hunted those areas know this to be the truth. I don't need to post all the links here to prove this as everyone has already seen the proof both in print and in person. Thus the reason Idaho was unable to sell all their tags this year. Hun ters are giving up on Idaho.

Sitka, you are just like all the other wolf lovers. 

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Yes you are right, that is my opinion and I still believe you are only a wolf wolver posing as a hunter, and probably getting paid.

Sitka, you are just like all the other wolf lovers. 

Funny stuff Bear Paw. I wish somebody was paying me.   Don't have to look too hard to find the conspiracy theorists around here.

I'm neither a wolf lover, or a wolf hater.  I can take 'em or leave 'em. But I'm not afraid of them or what they do in the woods. I have to admit tho, it is pretty cool to see them or hear them. Something about a wolf howling on a moonlit night that gets the adrenaline flowing. 

When I figure out how to get my pictures successfully uploaded here, I'll post some hunting stories for you. Having issues with it right now.

[Gringo31]

The real problem is that WE continue to see less opportunity and more $$$ paid for such an opportunity.  Hunters in the field continue to drop.  Regulations are being slammed down our throats every day.  Pressure on how to manage wildlife comes from very passionate people that aren't living in the areas affected or even spend much more time there.  I don't think the question should be whether or not any action is the END to all hunting.  Maybe better if we asked is said action is better or worse for the manangement of our game animals. 

And no, I don't believe for a second that the best manangement is to do nothing and see what happens or let nature find it's own balance, as that will eliminate our bounty or harvest which defeats the purpose.

[elkboy]

I think Gringo31 is on to a few good things there.  Do-nothing management scenarios are definitely not the answer.  It is so easy to get wrapped up in worst-case scenarios ("end of all hunting", "decimated herds", etc.), that we forget that this is a system that can be tweaked via management.  Aggressively hunt (AND trap) wolves in units where game numbers are down, or where max production of game animals is the objective, or where livestock concerns carry the day. Or where, say, woodland caribou are at issue.  Or where feed stations are an issue (I personally think any semblance of a natural wolf-elk regulation dynamic is going to be impossible to achieve when feed stations are involved). 

Like it or not (and I get the feeling, most on here don't), wolves are going to be part of the critter list here in WA.  As sportsmen, we need to rally around the pragmatic agenda at this point- argue and advocate (based on science, not just passion or frustration) for aggressive management of a predator that has annual rates of increase 2-5 times the annual rates of increase of their prey.  This is not the landscape of 200 years ago.   

And last thought- can we ease off on bashing each other?  I appreciate that nobody's apathetic on here about wildlife issues.  But accusing each other being PETA plants or undercover greenies, etc. is not going to forward the dialogue between us hunters, and it sure doesn't look good to the rest of society.  My two cents.  (Seems two cents don't go quite as far as they used to- inflation, eh?)

[Bob33]

Interesting read about IDFG:


 http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2012/01/09/idaho-fish-and-game-contempt-corruption-collusion-or-just-outright-incompetence/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=idaho-fish-and-game-contempt-corruption-collusion-or-just-outright-incompetence

[NWBREW]

Very interesting indeed.



A guest blog by Barry Coe –

Having been born and raised in Idaho and as a lifelong sportsman of this state, I have had many issues with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) over the years. I have witnessed their actions on several issues that have directly lead to diminished fish and wildlife, and diminished sporting opportunities. In attempting to be involved and to protect our culture and interests, I have had one very consistent attitude and response from the agency that has become very proficient at taking whatever position they seem to think will best further their own agenda. That attitude is pure and raw contempt. And no other issue has exposed and proven this contempt more than the Canadian wolf introduction has.
 
IDFG has attempted to take the ‘we hold no blame’ position concerning wolves in this state. I feel it has been well proven that they, in fact, hold a large percentage of blame. A prior director actually wrote support letters to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and drafted an illegal permit that allowed the Canadian wolves to be dumped into this state in a blaring contempt for Idaho state code. It was so contemptuous that the Idaho state legislature actually reacted to the action, although they failed to implement accountability. Yet those were the days before the Internet and the ability to transfer information quickly and thoroughly throughout the population. Those were the days of running under the radar and outright collusion between state and federal agencies. There is little doubt in my mind, and I suspect anyone with more than a cursory knowledge of this issue would agree, that outright collusion between IDFG and the USFWS did, and continue, to take place. Wolves, grizzly bears, soon to be wolverines and all other claimed endangered species are a vast source of federal dollars and we all know, IDFG loves nothing like they love the federal dollar.
 
In a recent article, Jim (salt shaker) Hayden (IDFG Panhandle Regional Wildlife Manager) made yet another revealing comment. In this interview “Salt Shaker” Hayden seemed surprised that about 50% of the wolves harvested in this current wolf season have come from areas that IDFG didn’t even know contained wolves. Now, on the surface this comment may seem unimportant, yet when one considers the past 16 years, it’s importance is almost undefinable.

I have to ask this question of Mr. Hayden. Just exactly how can you manage a declining elk population when you obviously have no concept of the level of predation impacting those elk?
 
For years IDFG took the politically correct avenue of clinging onto the obviously and intentionally low official numbers of wolves. As hunters and outdoorsmen screamed from the rafters that those numbers were so far off it was incredible, IDFG turned a blind eye and a deaf ear. After all, the federal bucks were rolling in and the hunters were still buying licenses and tags. All was well and good at IDFG. Biologists were being hired (most directly out of the wolf introduction program) and the rumblings were contained to a small population of people who never knew how to get the truth out, especially in the face of IDFG and green eco-groups. The old tactic of ignoring and marginalizing was rolling along just fine.

It was only in the last year or two that IDFG was forced to admit that, ‘well, golly, okay, so our wolf population is around 1000 wolves’. Again the sportsmen and sportswomen of Idaho claimed that number was also an intentional down playing of the actual number of wolves in Idaho. As we witnessed the great elk herds disappear from first hand observation, IDFG still clung to the deceit that all was fine. They twisted a few numbers here, changed a few “objectives” there, rewrote a few algorithms, adjusted some seasons and continued to play both sides of the fence. After all, this has always been the status quo for this department. The level of contempt IDFG obviously has for anyone outside of the department or the federal system is amazingly apparent.

Wolf math just is not that hard. They breed like rabbits, yet have no predators. The lie just became too hard to cover up anymore and so, the science changed – I use science here with my tongue stuffed soundly into my cheek. For a decade we had manipulated science stuffed down our throats that exonerated their revenue generating wolves from any cause of any problem we were experiencing anywhere in the state they inhabited. When it became obvious that the truth was coming out, and that delisting was imminent, in spite of the department’s best efforts to keep them listed, and even drafting and submitting an illegal wolf management plan, they decided to flip over. In typical IDFG fashion, the wolves were now the cause of it all! Boy, aren’t we happy that they finally have seen the light! After all we have been telling them this for 10 years.
 
But, they now face a wiser and more connected sportspeople. We’re not buying it and they know it. We are now very informed and politically connected; we have communication outlets and media connections. But again, in true IDFG fashion, they have decided to try another avenue to generate their revenue. They want nothing worse than to have the hunters of this state out of the equation. We no longer forget past actions or play in the manner they want us to, paying more for less. They now turn to the tactic of pandering and collusion.

In what seems on the surface to be a politically correct action of seeking information concerning wildlife management in the state of Idaho, they have committed a few obvious mistakes that exposed their true intention. Their highly publicized ‘Summit’ was rolled out as that meeting. Conducted DURING hunting season, and with invitations extended to several anti-hunting, eco-green groups, and a group of actual past and present IDFG employees, IDFG now wants input on wildlife management. And, they want that input from everyone that doesn’t pay for it or expect the department to do anything other than perpetuate predators and sustain their job at all costs.
 
Rumor has it that this little summit has caused a rift in the ranks. It seems to have been generated right from the new director Virgil Moore; or at least that is where all the fingers are pointing. It seems that this long-time employee of IDFG, and new director, is attempting to return to the status quo of ignore and move forward. Instead of moving in the direction of attempting to get out from under the wolf issue, he now seems to want to change gears and get back in bed with the green, wildlands agenda, and he wants their money. Public input on management? How quaint! If only it didn’t reek of corruption, contempt and collusion. If, in fact, this is the brain child of Mr. Moore, he just flatly needs to go; it is far past time to get a director that is not a long time member of the IDFG’s good old boys club. We have flatly had enough! I suspect if our legislature is not willing to overhaul this department, the time has come to turn to the citizen and the ballot box. We have one very powerful tool at our disposal; initiatives, which are binding if passed and can be used to circumvent a lack of appropriate action by those in government. They do have the ability to change this department in ways that will both form the department in a manner the citizens of Idaho want and to also bring accountability to this long-time rogue department. The good old boys club must be dismantled.
 
Actual wolf numbers? Let’s return to Jim “Salt Shaker” Hayden for a few moments. I have heard sportsmen and women, who spend an immense amount of time in the outdoors, claim the wolf numbers in Idaho are at least double what IDFG claims. It now seems “Salt Shaker” Hayden has validated those claims. And in that claim, his statement speaks volumes. It is very sad that a department that is charged with the management of Idaho’s wildlife have failed so miserably, and stayed the course of ignoring sportspeople to the extent they have. There are but a few explanations for this miserable failure: Corruption, Collusion or outright incompetence. I will leave it to you to decide which it is or how much longer you are going to stand for it.
 
Barry Coe
Save Western Wildlife