Post by: bearpaw on August 23, 2012, 09:28:27 PM
http://mtstandard.com/news/opinion/columnists/wolves-do-affect-business/article_238be1b4-ec09-11e1-85ad-001a4bcf887a.html?print=true&cid=print (http://mtstandard.com/news/opinion/columnists/wolves-do-affect-business/article_238be1b4-ec09-11e1-85ad-001a4bcf887a.html?print=true&cid=print)
August 22, 2012 12:00 am • By Denver Bryan
A recent op-ed piece by Montana writer Todd Wilkinson claimed that hunting outfitters were “fibbing” about the negative impact high wolf populations are having on their businesses.
Wilkinson’s only support for his conclusion seemed to be the fact that he had no problem finding 50 outfitter websites in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho that advertise high elk hunting success rates.
In subsequent discussions with Wilkinson, I tried to explain that it’s easy to find outfitters with websites who are still in business. However, it’s not so easy to locate outfitters who have either gone out of business, are going out of business or who are having to change how their business operates.
Additionally, I asked him if he knew anyone hoping to stay in business who actually advertises that their business is doing poorly? Unfortunately, Wilkinson didn’t seem to see the logic and went on to challenge me to find even five outfitters who have gone out of business.
After several weeks and hearing back from a few dozen outfitters, I found considerably more than five who are either out of business or struggling to stay in business.
Here are a few comments from the few dozen that I received from outfitters regarding how high wolf populations and greatly diminished elk herds in their regions have impacted their businesses.
• From Lee Hart of Broken Heart Outfitters of Gallatin Gateway: “We used to guide 50-80 elk hunters every year up in the Gallatin Canyon region with good success. However, last year we had one hunter and so far none are booked for 2012.”
• From Dave Hettinger of Dillon: “I was an outfitter in Idaho for 19 years and ended up walking away from the business a few years ago (unable to sell it) due to the serious decline of the Lolo region elk herd.”
• From guide Rick Hafenfeld (also a certified wildlife biologist) out of Big Timber: “In our hunting area, where we previously booked four to five trips with four to six hunters on each, we now only book two hunts with only two clients on one hunt and four on the other.
“This amounts to a reduction in our business from 20-30 hunters to six or a 60 to 80 percent decrease. Contrary to environmentalists’ predictions, I know of no outfitters who have received inquiries about leading wolf watching safaris.”
• From Michael Story: “I outfit in Paradise Valley west of Emigrant. Before wolf introduction there were 16 outfitters in this region and now there are just seven still hanging on.”
• From Joe Cantrell of St. Regis: “Because high wolf numbers have significantly depleted the elk herd in the West Bitterroot hunting district, all of my businesses (outfitting, restaurant, bar and lodging) are down. The damage from wolves has already been done and our elk herd is down 60 percent. I still take a few hunters out but the day is coming for many outfitters when we won’t have enough elk to sustain both wolves and hunting.”
• From Liz Jackson of Cooke City: “The greater Yellowstone elk herd has been drastically reduced due primarily to wolf predation. We have experienced a phenomenal change in our hunting business.
“We are permitted by the Gallatin National Forest to take 18 hunters each fall. We used to be ‘fully booked’ every season but have only guided five, two and four hunters respectively over the past three years, and only harvested one bull in that time. We see the time in the near future when we will no longer be offering elk hunts in this region.”
I could relay similar comments from many other outfitters on this topic but space limitations here won’t allow for such. Suffice it to say, with well over a thousand outfitters in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, the livelihoods of many have been and are still being seriously impacted by high wolf populations.
— Denver Bryan is a wildlife biologist by training and a wildlife photographer by profession. He lives in Bozeman and his work has appeared on the cover of several outdoors magazines.
Post by: mkcj on August 23, 2012, 09:51:59 PM
Post by: sebek556 on August 23, 2012, 10:15:16 PM
Post by: Kowsrule30 on August 24, 2012, 02:30:41 PM
Post by: Special T on August 24, 2012, 02:37:59 PM
Post by: Austrian Hunter on August 24, 2012, 02:52:07 PM
Sad to hear, many pour their lives into their work only to have it ruined by bad policys.
:yeah:
Post by: bearpaw on January 23, 2014, 10:09:33 PM
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on January 24, 2014, 07:45:00 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 24, 2014, 10:16:14 PM
Post by: wolfbait on February 09, 2014, 06:07:02 PM
October 10, 2010 12:00 am
It would seem only fair that when you print stories in a paper such as yours about the wolf debacle in Wyoming, "your home state," you would a least print facts about the whole story.
Facts that you or any other publication never prints as follows:
1. Wyoming's management plan to classify wolves as both trophy game animals in some of the state and predator status in the rest of the state was approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife. They declared the plan as a sound and viable conservation strategy to maintain the wolf population via science and not courtrooms. This is fact.
2. The criteria for meeting the delisting requirements was changed multiple times by courtrooms and environmental groups. Saying Wyoming didn't play ball in the delisting process is a bunch of bull as they expanded the trophy zone in western Wyoming around Yellowstone to meet the Fish and Wildlife's satisfaction. This is fact.
3. If you do your homework this introduction of the Canadian gray wolf to Wyoming and Idaho was merely an experiment. It is written in proposals many times since its inception that the wolves were "experimental nonessential" This is fact.
4. This was never a reintroduction of Canadian gray wolves to Yellowstone, it was an introduction of them as they never existed here in the first place. The true Wyoming wolf was much smaller and had many different characteristics than the Canadian gray wolf. The Fish and Wildlife Service action of bringing them to our state is nothing more than an extermination of the chance that the true Wyoming wolf still existed. It's like throwing an individual species off of Noah's Ark and then under the bus. Actually it's like bringing a polar bear here if our grizzlies disappear and reintroduce the bear. A bear is a bear is a bear, right?
5. Last but not least, what about the millions of dollars it has cost motels, outfitters, restaurants, gift shops, gas stations, etc.? This introduction just doesn't affect wool growers and cattle ranchers, it affects everyone. In my town of Dubois, we went from 1,650 cow elk tags to a mere 300 in just 10 years. It has killed our hunting economy to say the least and it's well into the millions of revenue lost to our town, and many jobs too.
If you're going to write stories please try not to leave out the important stuff.
RENE SUDA, Dubois
http://trib.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_cdf946e6-e244-59c9-9745-80ecb6509f64.html (http://trib.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_cdf946e6-e244-59c9-9745-80ecb6509f64.html)
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 09, 2014, 06:42:32 PM
http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/news-1001370.aspx (http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/news-1001370.aspx)
Post by: wolfbait on February 09, 2014, 07:50:15 PM
That's pretty funny Wolfbait, and also completely misleading to what is going on in Wyoming. Your opinion piece is from 2010. Wyoming had their all time record elk harvest in 2010 and then broke it again in 2012. And their elk herd is growing. In fact to quote a F&G official, it is the "Golden Age of Elk" in Wyoming right now.
http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/news-1001370.aspx (http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/news-1001370.aspx)
Do you suppose WGFD and WDFW went to the same pro-wolf agenda classes?
Yellowstone is Dead Theatrical Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhnZvan_uT8#ws)
Post by: bearpaw on February 10, 2014, 01:43:20 AM
That's pretty funny Wolfbait, and also completely misleading to what is going on in Wyoming. Your opinion piece is from 2010. Wyoming had their all time record elk harvest in 2010 and then broke it again in 2012. And their elk herd is growing. In fact to quote a F&G official, it is the "Golden Age of Elk" in Wyoming right now.
http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/news-1001370.aspx (http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/news-1001370.aspx)
Nice try Blacktail. The truth is that wolves are shot on sight in 80% of Wyoming. So the downfall in elk numbers in the 20% of the state where wolves exist has not decreased the overall harvest for the entire state that much because the rest of the state has an excellent herd where there very few or no wolves.
This comment is the typical wolf lover mentality, they use the overall number of animals in a state to hide the localized devastating effects that wolves have on herds when wolves over populate.
Post by: finnman on February 17, 2014, 04:52:11 PM
That's pretty funny Wolfbait, and also completely misleading to what is going on in Wyoming. Your opinion piece is from 2010. Wyoming had their all time record elk harvest in 2010 and then broke it again in 2012. And their elk herd is growing. In fact to quote a F&G official, it is the "Golden Age of Elk" in Wyoming right now.
http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/news-1001370.aspx (http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/news-1001370.aspx)
Do you suppose WGFD and WDFW went to the same pro-wolf agenda classes?
Yellowstone is Dead Theatrical Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhnZvan_uT8#ws)
I just love this fellas definition for the work a biologist does, it is so reasonable its hilarious!
Post by: hunter399 on February 18, 2014, 06:14:52 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 18, 2014, 08:46:30 PM
I have a few friends that live and hunt in idaho,they told me that is pretty bad what wolves has done to there herds.One of my friend told me he will shootem on sight,he sounded really mad about it.(he hunts elk every year).
Tell your Idaho friends that live and hunt Idaho to join Hunting Washington forums and ask in the wolf section where all the good hunting in Idaho is.
Same for Montana if you have friends who live and hunt in Montana, the guys in the wolf section will be able to help them out.
Post by: bearpaw on February 18, 2014, 11:21:05 PM
I have a few friends that live and hunt in idaho,they told me that is pretty bad what wolves has done to there herds.One of my friend told me he will shootem on sight,he sounded really mad about it.(he hunts elk every year).
Tell your Idaho friends that live and hunt Idaho to join Hunting Washington forums and ask in the wolf section where all the good hunting in Idaho is.
Same for Montana if you have friends who live and hunt in Montana, the guys in the wolf section will be able to help them out.
:yeah: :chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on February 19, 2014, 07:32:59 AM
"Idaho offers some of the best elk hunting in the country and Bearpaw Outfitters have several excellent elk hunting options in Southeast Idaho" -Direct quote from Bearpaws website. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:I have a few friends that live and hunt in idaho,they told me that is pretty bad what wolves has done to there herds.One of my friend told me he will shootem on sight,he sounded really mad about it.(he hunts elk every year).Tell your Idaho friends that live and hunt Idaho to join Hunting Washington forums and ask in the wolf section where all the good hunting in Idaho is.
Same for Montana if you have friends who live and hunt in Montana, the guys in the wolf section will be able to help them out.
Post by: bearpaw on February 19, 2014, 07:53:06 AM
"Idaho offers some of the best elk hunting in the country and Bearpaw Outfitters have several excellent elk hunting options in Southeast Idaho" -Direct quote from Bearpaws website. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:I have a few friends that live and hunt in idaho,they told me that is pretty bad what wolves has done to there herds.One of my friend told me he will shootem on sight,he sounded really mad about it.(he hunts elk every year).Tell your Idaho friends that live and hunt Idaho to join Hunting Washington forums and ask in the wolf section where all the good hunting in Idaho is.
Same for Montana if you have friends who live and hunt in Montana, the guys in the wolf section will be able to help them out.
Side stepping the question eh? Not surprised! :chuckle:
Thankfully we don't have many wolves in southern Idaho, I do appreciate the extra attention you are giving my business. THANKS :tup:
Post by: JLS on February 19, 2014, 08:13:49 AM
I have a few friends that live and hunt in idaho,they told me that is pretty bad what wolves has done to there herds.One of my friend told me he will shootem on sight,he sounded really mad about it.(he hunts elk every year).
Tell your Idaho friends that live and hunt Idaho to join Hunting Washington forums and ask in the wolf section where all the good hunting in Idaho is.
Same for Montana if you have friends who live and hunt in Montana, the guys in the wolf section will be able to help them out.
Actually funny guy, I have helped a lot of people out on hunting in Montana, including when I lived there.
Would you feel better if I told them all the elk were dead?
Post by: idahohuntr on February 19, 2014, 08:54:22 AM
If you or I and a few others suggest there is still good elk hunting to be had anywhere in Idaho or Montana we are immediately labeled wolf lovers and accused of distorting the "huge impact" wolves have had on elk populations, usually by bearpaw...but ol' Bearpaw says he's got good hunting down in SE Idaho and its not questioned. :chuckle: :chuckle: The irony is just hilarious.
Actually funny guy, I have helped a lot of people out on hunting in Montana, including when I lived there.
Would you feel better if I told them all the elk were dead?
Post by: AspenBud on February 19, 2014, 09:01:19 AM
If you or I and a few others suggest there is still good elk hunting to be had anywhere in Idaho or Montana we are immediately labeled wolf lovers and accused of distorting the "huge impact" wolves have had on elk populations, usually by bearpaw...but ol' Bearpaw says he's got good hunting down in SE Idaho and its not questioned. :chuckle: :chuckle: The irony is just hilarious.
Actually funny guy, I have helped a lot of people out on hunting in Montana, including when I lived there.
Would you feel better if I told them all the elk were dead?
I talked to a guy a few months ago who told me he hauled the biggest bull he's ever seen, no guide needed, out of Montana this year. He had better luck than most of the guys I knew hunting Roosevelts on the west side.
Post by: Special T on February 19, 2014, 09:28:42 AM
Post by: bearpaw on February 19, 2014, 09:32:39 AM
If you or I and a few others suggest there is still good elk hunting to be had anywhere in Idaho or Montana we are immediately labeled wolf lovers and accused of distorting the "huge impact" wolves have had on elk populations, usually by bearpaw...but ol' Bearpaw says he's got good hunting down in SE Idaho and its not questioned. :chuckle: :chuckle: The irony is just hilarious.
Actually funny guy, I have helped a lot of people out on hunting in Montana, including when I lived there.
Would you feel better if I told them all the elk were dead?
Nice try buddy to hide the localized effects of wolves. :chuckle:
Documented IDFG Facts:
Idaho has numerous units which have not been affected by wolves yet (apparently this is where Idahohntr hunts, when those unit statistics are combined with the wolf impacted units it hide's the localized impact of wolves). IDFG surveys show that in several units the elk population has been impacted so severely that the elk population is only at 20% to 60% of the pre-wolf elk population. IDFG has determined and stated that wolves are the primary limiting factor to herd recovery. It's all on the IDFG website and has been posted on this forum numerous times.
I should ignore such irrational comments, but for anyone to continue contradicting wolf impacts is simply, well, .......?
Now I'm just guessing, but this could be a reason for a person to be viewed as a wolf lover"? :dunno:
Back to Topic
It's unfortunate that many outfitters, guides, restaurants, motels, quick stops, grocery stores, hardware stores, and other local business owners in places like Elk City, Elk River, Salmon, Lohman, Yellowpine, and dozens of other small Idaho towns are paying the price of wolf introduction.
For anyone who wants to help: Please join the "Foundation for Wildlife Management". Your $35 membership will help remove another wolf from the Idaho wilds.
http://www.foundationforwildlifemanagement.org/page2.html (http://www.foundationforwildlifemanagement.org/page2.html)
Post by: huntnphool on February 19, 2014, 09:36:00 AM
Fantastic big bull hunting where I hunt in Montana, and Idaho. :dunno:If you or I and a few others suggest there is still good elk hunting to be had anywhere in Idaho or Montana we are immediately labeled wolf lovers and accused of distorting the "huge impact" wolves have had on elk populations, usually by bearpaw
Actually funny guy, I have helped a lot of people out on hunting in Montana, including when I lived there.
Would you feel better if I told them all the elk were dead?
Post by: bearpaw on February 19, 2014, 09:48:01 AM
I bet if you compared the general oppinion of sportmen on how WY handled the wolf issue compared to how things have worked out in other states, you would find that WY sportmen have faired better than thier neighbors. I don't know why MT didn't hold fast and surrender a small portion of the state next to YNP like WY did. I am also at a loss as to why the IDFG thought it was a good idea to bring them into ID and release them.
Easy answer to some of this:
Bob Ream who has been the head of the Montana F&G Commission was part of the original wolf introduction effort. Need I say more! I'm pretty sure Ream is gone now and as you can see wolf management is moving forward a little better in Montana.
In Idaho the former director signed a permit for USFWS to illegally plant wolves which went against the Idaho legislature. Idaho finally ridded themselves of that director and other "wolfers" within their management ranks and is now moving forward with meaningful wolf research and management.
Fantastic big bull hunting where I hunt in Montana, and Idaho. :dunno:If you or I and a few others suggest there is still good elk hunting to be had anywhere in Idaho or Montana we are immediately labeled wolf lovers and accused of distorting the "huge impact" wolves have had on elk populations, usually by bearpaw
Actually funny guy, I have helped a lot of people out on hunting in Montana, including when I lived there.
Would you feel better if I told them all the elk were dead?
Of course there is still some excellent hunting, not all units have been affected by wolves and some units the effects are not as bad as in others. Also, even though the Lolo has been reduced from 16,000 elk to less than 2,000 elk, there are still a few 6 point bulls being killed there out of the 1,800 elk that still exist. But the fact remains that herd used to number 16,000+ and wolves have been identified as the primary limiting factor to herd recovery. :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on February 19, 2014, 10:41:46 AM
:chuckle: You are killing me here...my comments are irrational...I'm a wolf lover...but were saying THE SAME DARN THING: :yike: Wolves impact some units, but there is still good elk hunting in Idaho (and Montana). We obviously disagree about some confounding factors and perhaps just exactly how much of the state is still good elk hunting...but we largely agree there is still good elk hunting to be had in Idaho. I guess you just like to argue for the sake of arguing. :dunno:If you or I and a few others suggest there is still good elk hunting to be had anywhere in Idaho or Montana we are immediately labeled wolf lovers and accused of distorting the "huge impact" wolves have had on elk populations, usually by bearpaw...but ol' Bearpaw says he's got good hunting down in SE Idaho and its not questioned. :chuckle: :chuckle: The irony is just hilarious.
Actually funny guy, I have helped a lot of people out on hunting in Montana, including when I lived there.
Would you feel better if I told them all the elk were dead?
Nice try buddy to hide the localized effects of wolves. :chuckle:
Documented IDFG Facts:
Idaho has numerous units which have not been affected by wolves yet (apparently this is where Idahohntr hunts, when those unit statistics are combined with the wolf impacted units it hide's the localized impact of wolves). IDFG surveys show that in several units the elk population has been impacted so severely that the elk population is only at 20% to 60% of the pre-wolf elk population. IDFG has determined and stated that wolves are the primary limiting factor to herd recovery. It's all on the IDFG website and has been posted on this forum numerous times.
I should ignore such irrational comments, but for anyone to continue contradicting wolf impacts is simply, well, .......?
Now I'm just guessing, but this could be a reason for a person to be viewed as a wolf lover"? :dunno:
Post by: idaho guy on February 19, 2014, 10:55:31 AM
[/quote]Fantastic big bull hunting where I hunt in Montana, and Idaho. :dunno:
[/quote]
:bash:Good for you you have a good hunting area not impacted by wolves yet. I hunt in idaho and montana too. The spots I hunt are good for both deer and elk. otherwise I would not hunt there. Who cares, the point is that wolves have severely impacted a lot of elk numbers and hunting in Idaho and Montana. I have seen absolute honey holes for elk ruined by too many wolves. Look at a map of idaho-wolves planted in selway-elk numbers plummet-wolves move north to lolo/clearwater-elk herd plummets .wolves move north to st joe-elk herd decreasing and season shortened,no cow season, no muzzy season. Now they are in the coeur d alenes-same thing. I am glad you all have good idaho elk spots but it is just a matter of time and you will feel the wolf pain too.
Post by: AspenBud on February 19, 2014, 11:17:55 AM
http://www.ktvb.com/news/Ranchers-asking-the-state-to-do-more-about-elk-241926041.html (http://www.ktvb.com/news/Ranchers-asking-the-state-to-do-more-about-elk-241926041.html)
Post by: Special T on February 19, 2014, 11:42:25 AM
Post by: AspenBud on February 19, 2014, 11:51:19 AM
Its not a big mental jump to see that elk are moving away from predator pressure. They come out of the hills and stay around houses... I know this is the case because i see more deer during modern rifle in W WA around people's homes than nearly any other time. I bet if they do shoot them up it won't help the over all numbers... We all know from hunting that certain weather conditions congregate animals in areas where the rest of the time they aren't there, or are very few. Why whould we not see that with predators?
Elk go onto peoples' property for an easy meal. There is a reason people with crops think they are a pest.
Post by: Special T on February 19, 2014, 11:58:12 AM
I didn't think elk breed like whitetails and explode overnight?
Post by: AspenBud on February 19, 2014, 12:04:15 PM
True but the article YOU posted talked about a ranch that has been around FOREVER and only had a half dozen or so bull Elk hanging around and now there are THOUSANDS! Do they like an easy meal, you bet... What has changed since the half dozen or so elk and the thousands now?
I didn't think elk breed like whitetails and explode overnight?
The article explained what has happened pretty clearly.
Sorry, but not every landowner loves elk and others love them so much they don't allow public hunting of them.
I'm not sure how bright an idea turning loose a bunch of wolves was, but if you're the state and you have people whose crops are being destroyed by elk and hunters can't get the job done because other land owners severely restrict hunting, what are you going to do?
Post by: Special T on February 19, 2014, 12:05:50 PM
Post by: AspenBud on February 19, 2014, 12:10:05 PM
Oh agree that limiting hunter acess is part of the problem, and if you cant figure that out you got trouble.
Agreed
But I've seen it posted quite frequently that increasing limits would have had the same affect as wolves on any elk population problems. At least in some areas that just wasn't, and probably still isn't, true.
Post by: idaho guy on February 19, 2014, 12:46:04 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 19, 2014, 12:51:11 PM
:chuckle: You are killing me here...my comments are irrational...I'm a wolf lover...but were saying THE SAME DARN THING: :yike: Wolves impact some units, but there is still good elk hunting in Idaho (and Montana). We obviously disagree about some confounding factors and perhaps just exactly how much of the state is still good elk hunting...but we largely agree there is still good elk hunting to be had in Idaho. I guess you just like to argue for the sake of arguing. :dunno:If you or I and a few others suggest there is still good elk hunting to be had anywhere in Idaho or Montana we are immediately labeled wolf lovers and accused of distorting the "huge impact" wolves have had on elk populations, usually by bearpaw...but ol' Bearpaw says he's got good hunting down in SE Idaho and its not questioned. :chuckle: :chuckle: The irony is just hilarious.
Actually funny guy, I have helped a lot of people out on hunting in Montana, including when I lived there.
Would you feel better if I told them all the elk were dead?
Nice try buddy to hide the localized effects of wolves. :chuckle:
Documented IDFG Facts:
Idaho has numerous units which have not been affected by wolves yet (apparently this is where Idahohntr hunts, when those unit statistics are combined with the wolf impacted units it hide's the localized impact of wolves). IDFG surveys show that in several units the elk population has been impacted so severely that the elk population is only at 20% to 60% of the pre-wolf elk population. IDFG has determined and stated that wolves are the primary limiting factor to herd recovery. It's all on the IDFG website and has been posted on this forum numerous times.
I should ignore such irrational comments, but for anyone to continue contradicting wolf impacts is simply, well, .......?
Now I'm just guessing, but this could be a reason for a person to be viewed as a wolf lover"? :dunno:
It seems you object to all the data proving wolves are the limiting factor in impacted areas. Maybe you aren't and I am just imagining that, but it sure seemed that way. I was going to say the same about your arguing. If we are in agreement we can both move on and fry bigger fish. :brew:
Post by: Northway on February 20, 2014, 09:00:35 AM
If you want to find out how many guides have gone out of business all you should have to do i ask each state's game agency for the numbers. They make you get a permit to guide so they should have the records... maybe even a online seach could turn up the historical numbers if that is important. :twocents:
If someone looks into how many outfitters have left the business in certain areas, it would be important to look at how many drifted in and out of the business before wolf impacts so you can isolate the incremental difference.
Post by: bearpaw on February 20, 2014, 09:25:21 AM
If you want to find out how many guides have gone out of business all you should have to do i ask each state's game agency for the numbers. They make you get a permit to guide so they should have the records... maybe even a online seach could turn up the historical numbers if that is important. :twocents:
If someone looks into how many outfitters have left the business in certain areas, it would be important to look at how many drifted in and out of the business before wolf impacts so you can isolate the incremental difference.
Prior to wolf introduction the outfitter number was steady, yes some quit but new ones started. I recently applied for an abandoned area in Idaho, I was the only outfitter to apply for that area. 10 years ago I applied for another area and there were 6 outfitters trying to get that same area. I recently heard that we've lost nearly half the hunting outfitters in Idaho.
Post by: Special T on February 20, 2014, 10:04:20 AM
Oh agree that limiting hunter acess is part of the problem, and if you cant figure that out you got trouble.
Agreed
But I've seen it posted quite frequently that increasing limits would have had the same affect as wolves on any elk population problems. At least in some areas that just wasn't, and probably still isn't, true.
Amongst many of the problems with elk in the skagit valley acess is definatly one of them. Some think they are a pet, others a nusance but very few give permission.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 20, 2014, 10:54:36 AM
special t is right about the predators moving the game into town. Around my house there was a decent elk herd living a few miles behind me on the forest service. This year they were few miles the other way living by the highway and the dump! And no you cant hunt them there. Seen it in other places around coeur d alene too. elk and deer moving into town. They did not do this till the wolves starting showing up in the mountains. The deer always seemed to hang on the outskirsts of town for an easy meal i guess. Elk pattern really changed though
That's funny, because the predators move right into town with the prey, so how is that moving away from predators. I know of three different cougars and two bears that have been seen within 4 blocks of my house and I wouldn't be surprised if there are more. I've seen one of the cougars, two blocks away and It was seen once in our neighbor's driveway and once in my yard. Then a few blocks away there has been a couple smaller one's seen. All animals go where their food is.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 20, 2014, 10:57:12 AM
Prior to wolf introduction the outfitter number was steady, yes some quit but new ones started. I recently applied for an abandoned area in Idaho, I was the only outfitter to apply for that area. 10 years ago I applied for another area and there were 6 outfitters trying to get that same area. I recently heard that we've lost nearly half the hunting outfitters in Idaho.
Now why would you want to have an area where you will obviously go broke? ;)
Post by: bearpaw on February 20, 2014, 10:59:22 AM
Prior to wolf introduction the outfitter number was steady, yes some quit but new ones started. I recently applied for an abandoned area in Idaho, I was the only outfitter to apply for that area. 10 years ago I applied for another area and there were 6 outfitters trying to get that same area. I recently heard that we've lost nearly half the hunting outfitters in Idaho.
Now why would you want to have an area where you will obviously go broke? ;)
I was able to get the additional area at no charge, usually you have to buy out an existing outfitter. I will be offering cougar/wolf combo hunts. ;) ;)
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 20, 2014, 11:09:17 AM
Prior to wolf introduction the outfitter number was steady, yes some quit but new ones started. I recently applied for an abandoned area in Idaho, I was the only outfitter to apply for that area. 10 years ago I applied for another area and there were 6 outfitters trying to get that same area. I recently heard that we've lost nearly half the hunting outfitters in Idaho.
Now why would you want to have an area where you will obviously go broke? ;)
I was able to get the additional area at no charge, usually you have to buy out an existing outfitter. I will be offering cougar/wolf combo hunts. ;) ;)
Cool! The last guy should have thought of that.
Post by: Special T on February 20, 2014, 11:14:59 AM
special t is right about the predators moving the game into town. Around my house there was a decent elk herd living a few miles behind me on the forest service. This year they were few miles the other way living by the highway and the dump! And no you cant hunt them there. Seen it in other places around coeur d alene too. elk and deer moving into town. They did not do this till the wolves starting showing up in the mountains. The deer always seemed to hang on the outskirsts of town for an easy meal i guess. Elk pattern really changed though
That's funny, because the predators move right into town with the prey, so how is that moving away from predators. I know of three different cougars and two bears that have been seen within 4 blocks of my house and I wouldn't be surprised if there are more. I've seen one of the cougars, two blocks away and It was seen once in our neighbor's driveway and once in my yard. Then a few blocks away there has been a couple smaller one's seen. All animals go where their food is.
While this is true, it is the deer/elks only option is to move away from pressure. "In Town" is only marginaly safer than the woods, but if you can convince the deer and elk to go back to thier home i'm all ears on how to do it.
If i was a deer or elk, i'd hang out in the yard of the biggest redneck i could find... At least he would have a loaded gun and take any shot he could get on a wolf! :chuckle:
Post by: AspenBud on February 20, 2014, 11:25:56 AM
Post by: KFhunter on February 20, 2014, 11:28:33 AM
My parents have had deer living on their near acre for years. Every Spring a doe shows up with a fawn or two (twins). Wolves are nowhere near the town they live in. Roosevelt elk moved into the Longview Country club years ago, wolves are nowhere near there. Lots of food however.
it ain't over by a long shot give it a few years and you'll be screaming for wolf management too
maybe I'll bake you a nice crow pie
Post by: AspenBud on February 20, 2014, 11:34:06 AM
My parents have had deer living on their near acre for years. Every Spring a doe shows up with a fawn or two (twins). Wolves are nowhere near the town they live in. Roosevelt elk moved into the Longview Country club years ago, wolves are nowhere near there. Lots of food however.
it ain't over by a long shot give it a few years and you'll be screaming for wolf management too
maybe I'll bake you a nice crow pie
I think it's inevitable that will happen. Coyotes will disappear and wolves will replace them, at least in the woods.
Post by: JLS on February 20, 2014, 11:34:41 AM
My parents have had deer living on their near acre for years. Every Spring a doe shows up with a fawn or two (twins). Wolves are nowhere near the town they live in. Roosevelt elk moved into the Longview Country club years ago, wolves are nowhere near there. Lots of food however.
it ain't over by a long shot give it a few years and you'll be screaming for wolf management too
maybe I'll bake you a nice crow pie
I don't recall anyone one here ever saying we shouldn't manage wolves.
Post by: KFhunter on February 20, 2014, 11:52:09 AM
My parents have had deer living on their near acre for years. Every Spring a doe shows up with a fawn or two (twins). Wolves are nowhere near the town they live in. Roosevelt elk moved into the Longview Country club years ago, wolves are nowhere near there. Lots of food however.
it ain't over by a long shot give it a few years and you'll be screaming for wolf management too
maybe I'll bake you a nice crow pie
I don't recall anyone one here ever saying we shouldn't manage wolves.
There is no management options available in WA for wolves.
WDFW will never gun them down via helicopter
WDFW will never have a bounty
Trappers cannot use body gripping traps
Poison is illegal everywhere
recreational hunting is ineffective
what wolf management are you talking about JLS? I'd like to hear your ideas for managing wolves in WA.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 20, 2014, 11:53:21 AM
Post by: idaho guy on February 20, 2014, 11:55:18 AM
My parents have had deer living on their near acre for years. Every Spring a doe shows up with a fawn or two (twins). Wolves are nowhere near the town they live in. Roosevelt elk moved into the Longview Country club years ago, wolves are nowhere near there. Lots of food however.
it ain't over by a long shot give it a few years and you'll be screaming for wolf management too
maybe I'll bake you a nice crow pie
I don't recall anyone one here ever saying we shouldn't manage wolves.
A doe and a fawn in the backyard? That has always been the case and I said whitetail deer adapt easily to living in in suburbs etc and probably have done so for an easy meal in someones garden. I also have my neighbors (most live on 20 acres or more) call me all year long about a female lion with a kitten they keep seeing and want me to chase with my dogs. I have not because I dont normally shoot female lions and one with a kitten is obviously not legal. When I lived in montana the elk would come down to the whitefish golf course for food. this was 25 years ago before wolf reintroduciton. So animails follow food no argument. If there is a lot of deer on the outskirts of town lions will be there. Since washington doesnt hunt lions with dogs you might have them in the middle of town I dont know but I am sure they are losing some of their fear of humans. Elk leaving the drainage on the national forest behind my house to live by the highway and the dump is not following a food source. I walked around in the small amount of timber there and it makes no sense other than running from the wolves who have established themselves on the national forest. I see the wolves tracks in the snow fairly regular when checking for cat tracks. I started seeing wolf tracks the elk moved to the dump. We can and try more often than do shoot wolves. They have not as of yet came that close to town. If they try and go from the national forest to the dump they will at least be shot at by more than a few peole. The elk around my house are not an exception and I have seen this with many different groups of elk in North Idaho.
Post by: KFhunter on February 20, 2014, 11:55:31 AM
My parents have had deer living on their near acre for years. Every Spring a doe shows up with a fawn or two (twins). Wolves are nowhere near the town they live in. Roosevelt elk moved into the Longview Country club years ago, wolves are nowhere near there. Lots of food however.
it ain't over by a long shot give it a few years and you'll be screaming for wolf management too
maybe I'll bake you a nice crow pie
I think it's inevitable that will happen. Coyotes will disappear and wolves will replace them, at least in the woods.
Who say's coyote will disappear? That's a misnomer coyote will still be here.
Even in heavily infested wolf areas of ID there's still plenty of coyote.
Even in YNP the Coyote population went down ya, 30-50% as of 2009 study but now they're saying the Coyote population is mostly recovered. They had a hard learning curve, but the coyote is exceptionally adaptable and learned to live with wolves.
Post by: JLS on February 20, 2014, 12:02:00 PM
There is no management options available in WA for wolves.
I guess we're all doomed then.
WDFW will never gun them down via helicopter
Already been done, and I expect it will happen again.
WDFW will never have a bounty
Agreed.
Trappers cannot use body gripping traps
Not likely to change either, how much effort has been put into repealing the initiative?
Poison is illegal everywhere
Point being?
recreational hunting is ineffective
Matter of opinion. It was effective enough in parts of Wyoming that they reduced their quota.
what wolf management are you talking about JLS? I'd like to hear your ideas for managing wolves in WA.
I've already stated thoughts and ideas. You likely weren't listening.
Post by: AspenBud on February 20, 2014, 12:13:37 PM
My parents have had deer living on their near acre for years. Every Spring a doe shows up with a fawn or two (twins). Wolves are nowhere near the town they live in. Roosevelt elk moved into the Longview Country club years ago, wolves are nowhere near there. Lots of food however.
it ain't over by a long shot give it a few years and you'll be screaming for wolf management too
maybe I'll bake you a nice crow pie
I think it's inevitable that will happen. Coyotes will disappear and wolves will replace them, at least in the woods.
Who say's coyote will disappear? That's a misnomer coyote will still be here.
Even in heavily infested wolf areas of ID there's still plenty of coyote.
Even in YNP the Coyote population went down ya, 30-50% as of 2009 study but now they're saying the Coyote population is mostly recovered. They had a hard learning curve, but the coyote is exceptionally adaptable and learned to live with wolves.
Interesting that they have recovered while the Yellowstone wolf population has gone down.
If wolves really break out in this state, you wait, coyote hunting won't be 365/24/7 for long, at least in some zones.
Fundamentally I agree with you though, coyotes will always be here.
Post by: KFhunter on February 20, 2014, 12:17:13 PM
There is no management options available in WA for wolves.
I guess we're all doomed then. Well, YA!
WDFW will never gun them down via helicopter
Already been done, and I expect it will happen again.It's already been stated it'll never happen again
WDFW will never have a bounty
Agreed.
Trappers cannot use body gripping traps
Not likely to change either, how much effort has been put into repealing the initiative?WSTA has been working towards this for many years, to say there is no effort is a slap in the face of WSTA. They've been successful getting certain body gripping traps on a very limited permit basis - I call that a big victory
Poison is illegal everywhere
Point being?My point being it was very successful in the past as a management tool
recreational hunting is ineffective
Matter of opinion. It was effective enough in parts of Wyoming that they reduced their quota.It took 28 days for wildlife services -with the aid of a tracking collar- to kill one young female in the wedge, they finally had to resort to a helicopter to "remove" the wedge wolf pack. You think the average hunter in WA will do a better job than the professionals using a tracking collar?
what wolf management are you talking about JLS? I'd like to hear your ideas for managing wolves in WA.
I've already stated thoughts and ideas. You likely weren't listening.missed it I guess, please do indulge me. Use bullet points if you like.
Listen, your little bit of hunting experience from Montana isn't going to translate well to NE/WA or the rest of the state for that matter.
It does not give you the expertise to speak with authority on what's happening in the NE corner of the state. I've indulged your opinion out of respect but you do not have the either the desire or will to learn, at any rate you lack an open mind. We've went round and round on this.
I'm about done trying to help you understand.
Post by: Bob33 on February 20, 2014, 12:19:12 PM
If wolves really break out in this state, you wait, coyote hunting won't be 365/24/7 for long, at least in someI think they are planning for that now. I heard a rumor that coyote hunting will be by permit only. There will be five coyote permit categories: Quality Coyote, Antlerless Coyote, Disabled Coyote, Youth Coyote, and Master Hunter Coyote.
Post by: KFhunter on February 20, 2014, 12:24:19 PM
If wolves really break out in this state, you wait, coyote hunting won't be 365/24/7 for long, at least in someI think they are planning for that now. I heard a rumor that coyote hunting will be by permit only. There will be five coyote permit categories: Quality Coyote, Antlerless Coyote, Disabled Coyote, Youth Coyote, and Master Hunter Coyote.
Thanks for the chuckle, when do I submit for the governors tag? :chuckle:
15 years from now I'll have to submit for OIL Coyote tag :chuckle:
Post by: JLS on February 20, 2014, 12:35:00 PM
There is no management options available in WA for wolves.
I guess we're all doomed then. Well, YA!
WDFW will never gun them down via helicopter
Already been done, and I expect it will happen again.It's already been stated it'll never happen again
WDFW will never have a bounty
Agreed.
Trappers cannot use body gripping traps
Not likely to change either, how much effort has been put into repealing the initiative?WSTA has been working towards this for many years, to say there is no effort is a slap in the face of WSTA. They've been successful getting certain body gripping traps on a very limited permit basis - I call that a big victory
What slap in the face are you talking about? I asked a simple question.
Poison is illegal everywhere
Point being?My point being it was very successful in the past as a management tool
recreational hunting is ineffective
Matter of opinion. It was effective enough in parts of Wyoming that they reduced their quota.It took 28 days for wildlife services -with the aid of a tracking collar- to kill one young female in the wedge, they finally had to resort to a helicopter to "remove" the wedge wolf pack. You think the average hunter in WA will do a better job than the professionals using a tracking collar?
I'm not saying a better job, but recreational hunting will certainly harvest wolves. Whether that amount is "acceptable" or not is entirely subjective.
what wolf management are you talking about JLS? I'd like to hear your ideas for managing wolves in WA.
I've already stated thoughts and ideas. You likely weren't listening.missed it I guess, please do indulge me. Use bullet points if you like.
No thanks. You are smarter than me, I'll leave you to freely pontificate our doom.
Listen, your little bit of hunting experience from Montana isn't going to translate well to NE/WA or the rest of the state for that matter.
It does not give you the expertise to speak with authority on what's happening in the NE corner of the state. I've indulged your opinion out of respect but you do not have the either the desire or will to learn, at any rate you lack an open mind. We've went round and round on this.
I'm about done trying to help you understand.
I'm sorry, I must have missed your profound expertise and authority. Indulge :rolleyes: Oh brother.
The only reason I "lack an open mind" is because I don't agree with you.
Shall I go stand on the stree corner with my sign that proclaims the coming apocalypse?
Your condescension only displays your ignorance of what others may be doing to try and help the situation.
Post by: KFhunter on February 20, 2014, 12:53:31 PM
Pretty well sum it up?
Post by: JLS on February 20, 2014, 01:04:07 PM
You're idea of helping everyone is to tell them "it'll be alright people, I'm still hunting Elk in Montana"
Pretty well sum it up?
Not hardly.
Post by: KFhunter on February 20, 2014, 01:14:45 PM
You've got my attention now (for a little longer anyways).
It would be a good time to let us all know JLS's idea of wolf management for WA.
Otherwise I'm just going to write it off and continue to do my thing on HW as I see fit.
I'll officially label you as a wolf lover and be done with it, others already have but I haven't (yet)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-NKHn7ISYN4A%2FUQcJQKX2B5I%2FAAAAAAAABMA%2FV8mmmKiUnA0%2Fs1600%2Fall%2Bears.jpg&hash=9702f228b1cde0dd1dd4c5fc9b8bed0a358d0dfb)
Post by: Jonathan_S on February 20, 2014, 01:18:40 PM
If wolves really break out in this state, you wait, coyote hunting won't be 365/24/7 for long, at least in someI think they are planning for that now. I heard a rumor that coyote hunting will be by permit only. There will be five coyote permit categories: Quality Coyote, Antlerless Coyote, Disabled Coyote, Youth Coyote, and Master Hunter Coyote.
Who would want to shoot a disabled coyote?
Sorry, I digress
I've asked you repeatedly to give us all examples of how we could manage wolves in WA and you dodge it each time.
You've got my attention now (for a little longer anyways).
It would be a good time to let us all know JLS's idea of wolf management for WA.
Otherwise I'm just going to write it off and continue to do my thing on HW as I see fit.
I'll officially label you as a wolf lover and be done with it, others already have but I haven't (yet)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-NKHn7ISYN4A%2FUQcJQKX2B5I%2FAAAAAAAABMA%2FV8mmmKiUnA0%2Fs1600%2Fall%2Bears.jpg&hash=9702f228b1cde0dd1dd4c5fc9b8bed0a358d0dfb)
:yeah:
Post by: Jonathan_S on February 20, 2014, 01:25:12 PM
My parents have had deer living on their near acre for years. Every Spring a doe shows up with a fawn or two (twins). Wolves are nowhere near the town they live in. Roosevelt elk moved into the Longview Country club years ago, wolves are nowhere near there. Lots of food however.
it ain't over by a long shot give it a few years and you'll be screaming for wolf management too
maybe I'll bake you a nice crow pie
I think it's inevitable that will happen. Coyotes will disappear and wolves will replace them, at least in the woods.
Who say's coyote will disappear? That's a misnomer coyote will still be here.
Even in heavily infested wolf areas of ID there's still plenty of coyote.
Even in YNP the Coyote population went down ya, 30-50% as of 2009 study but now they're saying the Coyote population is mostly recovered. They had a hard learning curve, but the coyote is exceptionally adaptable and learned to live with wolves.
Interesting that they have recovered while the Yellowstone wolf population has gone down.
If wolves really break out in this state, you wait, coyote hunting won't be 365/24/7 for long, at least in some zones.
Fundamentally I agree with you though, coyotes will always be here.
They have
Post by: JLS on February 20, 2014, 01:26:30 PM
I've asked you repeatedly to give us all examples of how we could manage wolves in WA and you dodge it each time.
You've got my attention now (for a little longer anyways).
It would be a good time to let us all know JLS's idea of wolf management for WA.
Otherwise I'm just going to write it off and continue to do my thing on HW as I see fit.
I'll officially label you as a wolf lover and be done with it, others already have but I haven't (yet)
There is a search function that most people know how to use.
In my perfect world, we would be hunting them right now. Beyond that, the options are limited. You've already stated that hunting will fail, so I see no need to go into any further detail.
I could care less what you label me. If it makes you feel better then go for it.
Post by: bearpaw on February 20, 2014, 01:38:38 PM
You're idea of helping everyone is to tell them "it'll be alright people, I'm still hunting Elk in Montana"
Pretty well sum it up?
That's pretty much what I've read. :dunno:
Post by: AspenBud on February 20, 2014, 01:39:26 PM
There is no management options available in WA for wolves.
WDFW will never gun them down via helicopter
WDFW will never have a bounty
Trappers cannot use body gripping traps
Poison is illegal everywhere
recreational hunting is ineffective
Practically speaking, how is that going to work? This is not Michigan or Alaska where people are swimming in state run lands. You have huge tracts of privately owned land. Even if WDFW was going to go for helicopter hunting they have to get past the land owners to be effective.
I can see it now,
"Dear Timber Company,
We would like you to suspend logging operations while we fly over and shoot the wolves eating the deer and elk that normally eat your saplings.
Signed,
WDFW"
Right.
You have a much bigger problem on your hands in this state than WDFW policy. You have a crap loads of private land where owners would most likely not allow such operations to be conducted and thus creating a safe haven for wolves.
Post by: KFhunter on February 20, 2014, 01:40:38 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 20, 2014, 01:45:29 PM
There is no management options available in WA for wolves.
WDFW will never gun them down via helicopter
WDFW will never have a bounty
Trappers cannot use body gripping traps
Poison is illegal everywhere
recreational hunting is ineffective
Practically speaking, how is that going to work? This is not Michigan or Alaska where people are swimming in state run lands. You have huge tracts of privately owned land. Even if WDFW was going to go for helicopter hunting they have to get past the land owners to be effective.
I can see it now,
"Dear Timber Company,
We would like you to suspend logging operations while we fly over and shoot the wolves eating the deer and elk that normally eat your saplings.
Signed,
WDFW"
Right.
You have a much bigger problem on your hands in this state than WDFW policy. You have a crap loads of private land where owners would most likely not allow such operations to be conducted and thus creating a safe haven for wolves.
huh? Private land holders have no say in WDFW operations, what are you babbling on about?
Post by: AspenBud on February 20, 2014, 01:45:43 PM
and with that dodge I guess we're done
Can you dispute it?
Post by: bearpaw on February 20, 2014, 01:46:28 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 20, 2014, 01:50:27 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 20, 2014, 01:50:38 PM
and with that dodge I guess we're done
Can you dispute it?
dispute what? There's nothing to dispute, he's a wolf lover and nothing I say or do is going to help him understand.
I might as well be arguing with Maggy over minimum wage increases.
Post by: JLS on February 20, 2014, 01:51:37 PM
and with that dodge I guess we're done
What need is there to go any further? You don't see hunting as a viable option.
I'm not dodging anything. Yes, Washington has very limited options. I dont see them as being completely ineffective because I don't believe wolves will completely annihilate all of the prey around them. They certainly won't improve hunting, but neither do I think they will end it.
We have different philosphies here. I can accept that.
Yours and Dale's "omniscience" as to what you think I do and and think about wolves is not near as accurate as you may lead yourselves to believe. However, I have no need to proclaim to the world what I have and will continue doing in regards to wolves. If that's dodging, so be it. If I wanted to share my personal life with you I would have a long time ago. Given your behavior here, I see no reason why I would ever want to.
I really don't get why you have to be so confrontational about this issue with people who dont' march in lock step with your opinions.
Signed,
A wolf lover :rolleyes:
Post by: AspenBud on February 20, 2014, 01:53:09 PM
Actually where the wolves are located it's mostly public land and the land owners mostly support wolf control. :twocents:
You're talking about right now. When they come west it's another ball game.
Post by: bearpaw on February 20, 2014, 01:56:07 PM
Actually where the wolves are located it's mostly public land and the land owners mostly support wolf control. :twocents:
You're talking about right now. When they come west it's another ball game.
So eastern WA doesn't matter? I see the way it is all the time! :bdid:
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 20, 2014, 01:58:20 PM
Actually where the wolves are located it's mostly public land and the land owners mostly support wolf control. :twocents:
You're talking about right now. When they come west it's another ball game.
You don't think that when wolves comes west more (because they've already started) people will find out they're not as great to have around as they originally thought? You're a dreamer.
Post by: bearpaw on February 20, 2014, 01:59:52 PM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,147923.msg1962541/topicseen.html#new (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,147923.msg1962541/topicseen.html#new)
Quote
An information paper prepared by IDFG’s Deputy Director, Sharon Kiefer, titled, “Idaho hunting license sales and revenue changes due to wolves”, dated December 7, 2010 was submitted to the Senate Natural Resource Committee. The purpose of the paper was to address the 2009 calendar year Idaho big game license sales decline by 2,634 nonresident elk tags, 4,460 nonresident deer tags and 4,405 nonresident hunting licenses compared to 2008 sales. Hunter concerns about the effect of wolves on their prospects of success and the reduction of specific big game populations combined with the Nation’s economic down turn and a nonresident fee increase were the reasons for decreased sales. In 2008 IDFG’s elk tag sales were 13,035 and in 2013 they were 8,020 a loss of approximately 40%.
This paper went on to discuss “Economic Impact Analysis of Gray Wolf Reintroduction-State Wide Assessment. “Using the most recent estimate from Cooper et al. (2002), a day of elk hunting in Idaho is worth $127.40/day for direct expenditures in 2008 dollars. The 1994 EIS estimated that between 14,619 and 21,928 hunter days would be lost due to wolf reintroductions in central Idaho. If the reduction in hunter days was linearly related to wolf populations then the loss of hunter days associated with 824 wolves (minimum number reported in 2008) would be between 120,400 and 180,686 resulting in an estimated value of the foregone benefits to hunters of between $15 and $24 million.” This $15 – 24 million represents loss income to the State of Idaho for the 2008 calendar year.
Assuming Idaho lost millions associated with the decrease in nonresident hunters coming to Idaho who suffered the loss? To answer this question one must look at areas of Idaho where wolves have severely impacted deer, elk and moose populations. Start in the Panhandle Region of North Idaho at St. Maries and move east across hunt units 6, 7 and 9. According to the Regional Biologist, Jim Hayden, elk numbers have been reduced 70% over the past five years in these units primarily as a result of wolf predation. IDFG was forced to terminate the general cow season that the Panhandle had been able to sustain for the past 40 years due to depressed elk number in these units. Turn south to the two Zones mentioned by RMEF’s David Allen and you cross Big Game Managements Units (BGMU) 10/12 referred to as the Lolo Zone. The Elk population in this Zone has been reduced by 90% (16,000 to 1,500) over the past 10 years again, primarily due to wolf predation.
Continue south through along the Idaho/Montana boarder through the Selway, Middle Fork, Salmon, Sawtooth portion of the Southern Mountains, Beaverhead and Island Park Zones then move west back across the center of the state through Fairfield to Idaho City to Cascade, Council, Riggins, Grangeville, Orofino and back to St. Maries to complete the circle. This circle describes what was at one time, prior to introduction of wolves, the premier elk hunting area in the country. It is now an area that, in some portions, is devoid of elk with cow/calf ratio’s among those that remain in the single digits.
If the area described above is the where the majority of the nonresident hunters who once hunted in Idaho, but now no longer return to Idaho, what has been the economic impact of their absence? I had a discussion with the owners, David and Tina of Banderob’s Wild Meat Processing Plant located in St. Maries, concerning the damage that wolves had caused to their small business. In 2005 the Banderob’s processed 205 elk, the majority for nonresident hunters. In 2013 they processed 31 elk for mostly resident hunters. Tina reported that nonresident elk hunters have quit coming to St, Maries because the elk are gone. The dollar cost to their meat cutting business comparing the two years of 2005 to 2013 is (174 X $250) $43,500. The state share of this loss at 6% was $2,600.Modify message
The St. Marie’s motel, gas stations, restaurants, grocery, sporting goods stores and local outfitters were similarly impacted. Assuming a 20% hunter harvest rate, the 205 nonresident hunters in 2005 came in groups of four and spent on average $127.43 per day for their 10 day elk camp experience in the St. Maries area. The overall dollar loss to small business in the St. Maries area becomes more significant and understandable. Apply the same analysis to similar businesses in Avery, Kellogg, St Regis, Lolo, Salmon, Rexburg, Stanley, Challis, McCall, Council, Riggins, Grangeville, Orofino, and back to St. Maries and you begin to understand that the negative economic impact and real cost of wolves to Idahoans is huge, in the range of $60 to $120 million over the five year period from 2008 to 2013.
Post by: KFhunter on February 20, 2014, 02:02:15 PM
Actually where the wolves are located it's mostly public land and the land owners mostly support wolf control. :twocents:
You're talking about right now. When they come west it's another ball game.
You don't think that when wolves comes west more (because they've already started) people will find out they're not as great to have around as they originally thought? You're a dreamer.
I'd like to know how private land holders can keep WDFW from conducting wildlife operations on their lands....
Post by: bearpaw on February 20, 2014, 02:04:42 PM
Actually where the wolves are located it's mostly public land and the land owners mostly support wolf control. :twocents:
You're talking about right now. When they come west it's another ball game.
This is a typical response that we see from too many people in Puget Sound, it's so obvious all too often they feel that Eastern WA doesn't really matter. >:(
Post by: AspenBud on February 20, 2014, 02:10:54 PM
Actually where the wolves are located it's mostly public land and the land owners mostly support wolf control. :twocents:
You're talking about right now. When they come west it's another ball game.
You don't think that when wolves comes west more (because they've already started) people will find out they're not as great to have around as they originally thought? You're a dreamer.
I don't think I said that, no, I know I didn't.
I said that for some it will be no skin off their nose if wolves kill off some elk and deer. In some cases it would be financially beneficial. If you doubt that you have your head in the sand.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 20, 2014, 02:11:05 PM
Actually where the wolves are located it's mostly public land and the land owners mostly support wolf control. :twocents:
You're talking about right now. When they come west it's another ball game.
You don't think that when wolves comes west more (because they've already started) people will find out they're not as great to have around as they originally thought? You're a dreamer.
I'd like to know how private land holders can keep WDFW from conducting wildlife operations on their lands....
I don't think they can. The wildlife belongs to the people of WA. Managing wildlife necessitates going where the wildlife is.
Post by: AspenBud on February 20, 2014, 02:25:25 PM
Actually where the wolves are located it's mostly public land and the land owners mostly support wolf control. :twocents:
You're talking about right now. When they come west it's another ball game.
You don't think that when wolves comes west more (because they've already started) people will find out they're not as great to have around as they originally thought? You're a dreamer.
I'd like to know how private land holders can keep WDFW from conducting wildlife operations on their lands....
I don't think they can. The wildlife belongs to the people of WA. Managing wildlife necessitates going where the wildlife is.
Please tell me when the last time was that the state told a land owner to buzz off and walked in to shoot a wild animal on their property without permission or a court order.
How many times have I seen the great conspiracy theories here about how wolves are perfect because they know no laws and obey no property boundaries.
You're getting silly now.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 20, 2014, 03:38:56 PM
Yes, Washington has very limited options. I dont see them as being completely ineffective because I don't believe wolves will completely annihilate all of the prey around them. They certainly won't improve hunting, but neither do I think they will end it.:yeah:
We have different philosphies here. I can accept that.
KF is trying to oversimplify the issue and wants to make it a black and white "wolves are going to end the world" argumnet and it just is not realistic.
Nearly 20 years after wolf re-introductions even Bearpaw and I can agree there is still good elk hunting opportunity in Idaho and Montana and Wyoming. Certain areas have been impacted quite severely, but there is not some mass destruction of elk herds statewide as has been predicted by the doomsday crowd.
Now, NE Washington is not ID, MT, WY...there are going to be difficulties in harvesting wolves if they are EVER de-listed in WA. Nobody disputes that...but it is not unreasonable to think that wolf hunting would not help, even in NE Wa. More importantly, even without hunting my experience tells me that it may reduce some opportunity and certain areas may not do as well but it will not be an end to all elk hunting in NE WA. It may require more flexibility and adjustment in how you hunt elk (or deer) but it will not be the end of all hunting or completely wipe out all deer and elk and moose. Last...I understand KF's frustration and fear...areas I grew up hunting in N. Idaho I was also frantic that wolves were going to destroy the hunting in areas I cared deeply about...but reality has been better than what I feared. Time will tell...but I think you are seriously underestimating elk if you think wolves are going to push their numbers down to a level you can no longer hunt them. Could it be better?? Yes...but hell, is there ever enough elk when you are out hunting?
Post by: bearpaw on February 20, 2014, 04:24:25 PM
Please remember, when they started hunting wolves in the Panhandle, half the wolves taken came from packs that IDFG did not know existed. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on February 20, 2014, 04:39:13 PM
Former IDFG Wildlife Commissioner
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,147923.msg1962541/topicseen.html#new (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,147923.msg1962541/topicseen.html#new)QuoteAn information paper prepared by IDFG’s Deputy Director, Sharon Kiefer, titled, “Idaho hunting license sales and revenue changes due to wolves”, dated December 7, 2010 was submitted to the Senate Natural Resource Committee. The purpose of the paper was to address the 2009 calendar year Idaho big game license sales decline by 2,634 nonresident elk tags, 4,460 nonresident deer tags and 4,405 nonresident hunting licenses compared to 2008 sales. Hunter concerns about the effect of wolves on their prospects of success and the reduction of specific big game populations combined with the Nation’s economic down turn and a nonresident fee increase were the reasons for decreased sales. In 2008 IDFG’s elk tag sales were 13,035 and in 2013 they were 8,020 a loss of approximately 40%.
This paper went on to discuss “Economic Impact Analysis of Gray Wolf Reintroduction-State Wide Assessment. “Using the most recent estimate from Cooper et al. (2002), a day of elk hunting in Idaho is worth $127.40/day for direct expenditures in 2008 dollars. The 1994 EIS estimated that between 14,619 and 21,928 hunter days would be lost due to wolf reintroductions in central Idaho. If the reduction in hunter days was linearly related to wolf populations then the loss of hunter days associated with 824 wolves (minimum number reported in 2008) would be between 120,400 and 180,686 resulting in an estimated value of the foregone benefits to hunters of between $15 and $24 million.” This $15 – 24 million represents loss income to the State of Idaho for the 2008 calendar year.
Assuming Idaho lost millions associated with the decrease in nonresident hunters coming to Idaho who suffered the loss? To answer this question one must look at areas of Idaho where wolves have severely impacted deer, elk and moose populations. Start in the Panhandle Region of North Idaho at St. Maries and move east across hunt units 6, 7 and 9. According to the Regional Biologist, Jim Hayden, elk numbers have been reduced 70% over the past five years in these units primarily as a result of wolf predation. IDFG was forced to terminate the general cow season that the Panhandle had been able to sustain for the past 40 years due to depressed elk number in these units. Turn south to the two Zones mentioned by RMEF’s David Allen and you cross Big Game Managements Units (BGMU) 10/12 referred to as the Lolo Zone. The Elk population in this Zone has been reduced by 90% (16,000 to 1,500) over the past 10 years again, primarily due to wolf predation.
Continue south through along the Idaho/Montana boarder through the Selway, Middle Fork, Salmon, Sawtooth portion of the Southern Mountains, Beaverhead and Island Park Zones then move west back across the center of the state through Fairfield to Idaho City to Cascade, Council, Riggins, Grangeville, Orofino and back to St. Maries to complete the circle. This circle describes what was at one time, prior to introduction of wolves, the premier elk hunting area in the country. It is now an area that, in some portions, is devoid of elk with cow/calf ratio’s among those that remain in the single digits.
If the area described above is the where the majority of the nonresident hunters who once hunted in Idaho, but now no longer return to Idaho, what has been the economic impact of their absence? I had a discussion with the owners, David and Tina of Banderob’s Wild Meat Processing Plant located in St. Maries, concerning the damage that wolves had caused to their small business. In 2005 the Banderob’s processed 205 elk, the majority for nonresident hunters. In 2013 they processed 31 elk for mostly resident hunters. Tina reported that nonresident elk hunters have quit coming to St, Maries because the elk are gone. The dollar cost to their meat cutting business comparing the two years of 2005 to 2013 is (174 X $250) $43,500. The state share of this loss at 6% was $2,600.Modify message
The St. Marie’s motel, gas stations, restaurants, grocery, sporting goods stores and local outfitters were similarly impacted. Assuming a 20% hunter harvest rate, the 205 nonresident hunters in 2005 came in groups of four and spent on average $127.43 per day for their 10 day elk camp experience in the St. Maries area. The overall dollar loss to small business in the St. Maries area becomes more significant and understandable. Apply the same analysis to similar businesses in Avery, Kellogg, St Regis, Lolo, Salmon, Rexburg, Stanley, Challis, McCall, Council, Riggins, Grangeville, Orofino, and back to St. Maries and you begin to understand that the negative economic impact and real cost of wolves to Idahoans is huge, in the range of $60 to $120 million over the five year period from 2008 to 2013.
In 2005 the Banderob’s processed 205 elk, the majority for nonresident hunters. In 2013 they processed 31 elk for mostly resident hunters. :yike:
Post by: KFhunter on February 20, 2014, 05:30:02 PM
Yes, Washington has very limited options. I dont see them as being completely ineffective because I don't believe wolves will completely annihilate all of the prey around them. They certainly won't improve hunting, but neither do I think they will end it.:yeah:
We have different philosphies here. I can accept that.
KF is trying to oversimplify the issue and wants to make it a black and white "wolves are going to end the world" argumnet and it just is not realistic.
Nearly 20 years after wolf re-introductions even Bearpaw and I can agree there is still good elk hunting opportunity in Idaho and Montana and Wyoming. Certain areas have been impacted quite severely, but there is not some mass destruction of elk herds statewide as has been predicted by the doomsday crowd.
Now, NE Washington is not ID, MT, WY...there are going to be difficulties in harvesting wolves if they are EVER de-listed in WA. Nobody disputes that...but it is not unreasonable to think that wolf hunting would not help, even in NE Wa. More importantly, even without hunting my experience tells me that it may reduce some opportunity and certain areas may not do as well but it will not be an end to all elk hunting in NE WA. It may require more flexibility and adjustment in how you hunt elk (or deer) but it will not be the end of all hunting or completely wipe out all deer and elk and moose. Last...I understand KF's frustration and fear...areas I grew up hunting in N. Idaho I was also frantic that wolves were going to destroy the hunting in areas I cared deeply about...but reality has been better than what I feared. Time will tell...but I think you are seriously underestimating elk if you think wolves are going to push their numbers down to a level you can no longer hunt them. Could it be better?? Yes...but hell, is there ever enough elk when you are out hunting?
The way I see it you two are hunting states with aggressive wolf controls and coming to a WA hunting forum to let us all know that hunting is just fine, no need to worry, we been down this road, the world didn't end, it'll be just fine.......... blah blah blah
Well WA doesn't have the Elk herds that MT/ID/WY has, nor do we have the means to even initiate effective wolf controls.
You think hunting will be good enough to control overpopulated wolves. I would laugh at the galling ignorance of that, but I'm saddened by it.
The wolves in the NE will obliterate our small herds of Elk, calf recruitment will be `nil. If the wolves miss a calf or two one of the overpopulated cats will be sure to get it. Furthermore, those guys who've been buying OIL moose tags are about to get cut off at the knees when WDFW figures out how many are dying.
What do you have to say to the guy maxed out in preference points for his OIL moose? :sry: tough luck.
So ya, I run around like chicken little screaming the sky is falling trying to educate and drum up public outrage so perhaps we can gain more effective means of wolf control in the future. Controls like MT/ID/WY enjoy, and you enjoy as well by having a few Elk to hunt thanks to their pro-active measures while WDFW sits on their laurels.
Your efforts at tamping down and tempering public outrage and calls for more wolf control is counter to my ramping it up.
Depending on which version of chicken little you prefer he's either ate by a fox or turns out to be a hero.
apt don'tcha think?
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 20, 2014, 05:50:25 PM
My parents have had deer living on their near acre for years. Every Spring a doe shows up with a fawn or two (twins). Wolves are nowhere near the town they live in. Roosevelt elk moved into the Longview Country club years ago, wolves are nowhere near there. Lots of food however.
it ain't over by a long shot give it a few years and you'll be screaming for wolf management too
maybe I'll bake you a nice crow pie
I don't recall anyone one here ever saying we shouldn't manage wolves.
There is no management options available in WA for wolves.
WDFW will never gun them down via helicopter
WDFW will never have a bounty
Trappers cannot use body gripping traps
Poison is illegal everywhere
recreational hunting is ineffective
what wolf management are you talking about JLS? I'd like to hear your ideas for managing wolves in WA.
You left out no leg hold traps and snares too.
But, Through a permitting process, padded jaw foothold traps, conibear type traps set under water and non-strangling foot snares are still legal for animal damage control. So maybe they will be trapped under a damage control permit.
But I think a real effort needs to be made to repeal the hound ban and the trap ban. Those two things have hurt management of predators in Washington more than anything. Those two things won't be overturned without a a change of attitude by hunters. All the hyperbolating and emotional outbursts and bravado in the world won't change non-hunters' minds. Hunters will have to make their case with real information and facts in an intelligent, reasonable manner. The hotheads aren't doing hunters any favors.
Post by: JLS on February 20, 2014, 05:58:10 PM
In 2005 the Banderob’s processed 205 elk, the majority for nonresident hunters. In 2013 they processed 31 elk for mostly resident hunters. :yike:
Wolves have certainly affected local businesses and I feel for the people like the Banderobs. Out of state hunters spend a lot of money through motels, restaurants, bars, processing, taxidermists, etc. I am not rich and am on a tight budget, but I always make a point to spend money in the community where I am hunting.
So answer this. Am I doing more to help local businesses by perpetuating the myth that the elk in Montana and Idaho are decimated, or do I try and tell people the truth that there is still very good hunting there? It amazes my how many people simply think there are no elk left and that's not true. I have no agenda and nothing to gain here, other than trying to help folks see that they can still hunt Idaho and Montana and have a good hunt.
Signed,
A wolf lover :rolleyes:
Post by: KFhunter on February 20, 2014, 06:00:57 PM
I would like a permit to set "conibear type traps set under water and non-strangling foot snares"
Sitka-Blacktail said they were legal for damage control.
Also could you send me a pamphlet describing these types of traps and how they work for wolves because I have no clue how an underwater conibear is suppost to capture a wolf, and don't even know what a "non-strangling foot snares" is....
~Thanks
KFhunter
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 20, 2014, 06:15:44 PM
Dear WDFW:
I would like a permit to set "conibear type traps set under water and non-strangling foot snares"
Sitka-Blacktail said they were legal for damage control.
Also could you send me a pamphlet describing these types of traps and how they work for wolves because I have no clue how an underwater conibear is suppost to capture a wolf, and don't even know what a "non-strangling foot snares" is....
~Thanks
KFhunter
Nice to see you still have the ability to spin a conversation.
A non strangling snare is just that one that catches an animal by the foot instead of the neck, like a bucket snare. Gee you mean you don't know everything?
And underwater conibear type traps are obviously for beaver. But you conveniently left out padded leg hold traps. ohhhhh that was part of your spin. Sorry to call you on it.
Post by: KFhunter on February 20, 2014, 06:27:39 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 20, 2014, 06:32:30 PM
In 2005 the Banderob’s processed 205 elk, the majority for nonresident hunters. In 2013 they processed 31 elk for mostly resident hunters. :yike:
Wolves have certainly affected local businesses and I feel for the people like the Banderobs. Out of state hunters spend a lot of money through motels, restaurants, bars, processing, taxidermists, etc. I am not rich and am on a tight budget, but I always make a point to spend money in the community where I am hunting.
So answer this. Am I doing more to help local businesses by perpetuating the myth that the elk in Montana and Idaho are decimated, or do I try and tell people the truth that there is still very good hunting there? It amazes my how many people simply think there are no elk left and that's not true. I have no agenda and nothing to gain here, other than trying to help folks see that they can still hunt Idaho and Montana and have a good hunt.
Signed,
A wolf lover :rolleyes:
One could argue you're driving away dollars from local business in WA by sending people to MT/ID/WY promising them awesome hunts.
How many people after reading you or Idahohntrs post said they would be hunting ID from now on and screw WA?
I remember quite a few, if I were a motel owner in a small hunting community I'd be irritated you're saying the hunting is just fine in MT.
I'd also be screaming for WDFW to ensure Elk hunting for future generations right here at home
Post by: JLS on February 20, 2014, 07:40:17 PM
One could argue you're driving away dollars from local business in WA by sending people to MT/ID/WY promising them awesome hunts.
How many people after reading you or Idahohntrs post said they would be hunting ID from now on and screw WA?
I remember quite a few, if I were a motel owner in a small hunting community I'd be irritated you're saying the hunting is just fine in MT.
I'd also be screaming for WDFW to ensure Elk hunting for future generations right here at home
So should I lie to folks about the hunting in MT and ID?
You seem to think that everything is mutually exclusive, and that just because I promote elk hunting in MT and ID I don't promote hunting in Washington. I spend plenty of money in local communities here on hunting trips.
Signed,
A wolf lover :rolleyes:
Post by: KFhunter on February 20, 2014, 07:49:29 PM
Wish I knew of some wolf free honey holes in NE/WA :'(
Post by: JLS on February 20, 2014, 08:02:28 PM
Well you could tell em all where the wolf free honey holes are :chuckle:
I have.
It's pretty obvious to me that your main interest is being snarky, given that we don't agree on what long term affect wolves will have in Washington and I've driven business from Washington to Montana and Idaho.
Signed,
A wolf lover :rolleyes:
Post by: KFhunter on February 20, 2014, 08:16:45 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 20, 2014, 08:32:09 PM
If hunters don't demand more from WDFW then they won't step up.
You know that in your profession, the media knocks on your sups door he/she sits up a little straighter in their chair and starts making phone calls.
Post by: Special T on February 21, 2014, 07:55:10 AM
People dont pay high prices to hunt out of state for mediocre hunting, I know I wont and that is likely one of the reasons why WA has so little out of state hunters here. There was a time when you could go Anywhere in Id and see pleny of elk.
I started my hunting as a duck hunter. I went deer hunting once but lost interest because there wasnt enough action/deer. For all of its double speak Wdfw doesnt do much to recruit hunters, but does plenty to frustrate the hunters it still.has.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 21, 2014, 09:14:07 AM
The reason why the ammount of wolves is important is because the effect opportunity. If people goout hunting and dont see animals they get discouraged. Some will give it a year or two, some will move to a different area and many will just hang up thier gear.
People dont pay high prices to hunt out of state for mediocre hunting, I know I wont and that is likely one of the reasons why WA has so little out of state hunters here. There was a time when you could go Anywhere in Id and see pleny of elk.
I started my hunting as a duck hunter. I went deer hunting once but lost interest because there wasn't enough action/deer. For all of its double speak Wdfw doesnt do much to recruit hunters, but does plenty to frustrate the hunters it still.has.
So hunting is all about success and not about challenging yourself? I guess that's probably why people hire a guide or hunt game ranches. They don't want to feel like a failure or don t want to make the effort to do what it takes to be successful. To me a successful hunt is being in the outdoors, maybe sharing a camp with good friends or family, and matching wits with whatever game is in the area. I have many times hunted an area with slim pickings and once hunted a Texas game farm by invitation. I guarantee you if I had to make a choice which I would rather do, I'd choose the slim pickings free range hunt 100% of the time. It's a lot more satisfying when you have success. No time spent in the woods should be considered failure, even when you come home empty handed.
Post by: KFhunter on February 21, 2014, 09:17:41 AM
The reason why the ammount of wolves is important is because the effect opportunity. If people goout hunting and dont see animals they get discouraged. Some will give it a year or two, some will move to a different area and many will just hang up thier gear.
People dont pay high prices to hunt out of state for mediocre hunting, I know I wont and that is likely one of the reasons why WA has so little out of state hunters here. There was a time when you could go Anywhere in Id and see pleny of elk.
I started my hunting as a duck hunter. I went deer hunting once but lost interest because there wasn't enough action/deer. For all of its double speak Wdfw doesnt do much to recruit hunters, but does plenty to frustrate the hunters it still.has.
So hunting is all about success and not about challenging yourself? I guess that's probably why people hire a guide or hunt game ranches. They don't want to feel like a failure or don t want to make the effort to do what it takes to be successful. To me a successful hunt is being in the outdoors, maybe sharing a camp with good friends or family, and matching wits with whatever game is in the area. I have many times hunted an area with slim pickings and once hunted a Texas game farm by invitation. I guarantee you if I had to make a choice which I would rather do, I'd choose the slim pickings free range hunt 100% of the time. It's a lot more satisfying when you have success. No time spent in the woods should be considered failure, even when you come home empty handed.
Translation:
Wolves will make you a better hunter.
What a disgusting ideology you hold, not everyone buys a fist full of tags just to go camping :rolleyes:
I buy tags to kill stuff and eat it.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 21, 2014, 09:20:34 AM
The reason why the ammount of wolves is important is because the effect opportunity. If people goout hunting and dont see animals they get discouraged. Some will give it a year or two, some will move to a different area and many will just hang up thier gear.
People dont pay high prices to hunt out of state for mediocre hunting, I know I wont and that is likely one of the reasons why WA has so little out of state hunters here. There was a time when you could go Anywhere in Id and see pleny of elk.
I started my hunting as a duck hunter. I went deer hunting once but lost interest because there wasn't enough action/deer. For all of its double speak Wdfw doesnt do much to recruit hunters, but does plenty to frustrate the hunters it still.has.
So hunting is all about success and not about challenging yourself? I guess that's probably why people hire a guide or hunt game ranches. They don't want to feel like a failure or don t want to make the effort to do what it takes to be successful. To me a successful hunt is being in the outdoors, maybe sharing a camp with good friends or family, and matching wits with whatever game is in the area. I have many times hunted an area with slim pickings and once hunted a Texas game farm by invitation. I guarantee you if I had to make a choice which I would rather do, I'd choose the slim pickings free range hunt 100% of the time. It's a lot more satisfying when you have success. No time spent in the woods should be considered failure, even when you come home empty handed.
Translation:
Wolves will make you a better hunter so be thankful for that.
Nope, translation, ...... Time in the woods makes you a better hunter, no matter what you come home with.
Post by: KFhunter on February 21, 2014, 09:31:08 AM
That's the future, already the tags are being restricted in the NE going to antlered bull only, that is a measurable decrease in hunter opportunity there hoss.
Next up it'll be off limits as the herd declines further like Lolo
What do you say to those who've been buying 30 years worth of OIL draw permits for moose when WDFW cuts that off?
But hey turkey is doing well, tell them all to just take up turkey hunting huh? Or how about fishing for trips!
We got a lot to be thankful for you're right sitka :rolleyes:
Post by: Special T on February 21, 2014, 09:32:43 AM
There are MANY opportunites for our free time and hunting is just one of them. I will use your example. If i can go experience the outdoor through camping and hinking why do i need to hunt? If there is little opportunity then why pack the gun and buy the tags, why not just take the camera out? Why not just travel to the 3D shoots around the state and shoot my bow at foam if its just for the experience?
IMO it is this competion for sportmens time AND $ that the WDFW seems to not Care about or take for granted. WDFW would like to look at it differently but sportmen are THE CUSTOMERS, and not treating them like one is arrogance. I payed to hunt N idaho with out of state tags, and i was rewarded with seeing deer every day multipal times. I Payed MORE for a better experience. I did not shoot a huge deer, but a nice little 4 point WT and i had a great time because i saw animals.
Most hunters that have the hunting bug can tell you thier experience when they became "hooked" on thier kind of hunting. I've never taked to a hunter that was passionate about hunting that didn't have opportunity. :twocents:
Post by: Odell on February 21, 2014, 10:00:18 AM
The reason why the ammount of wolves is important is because the effect opportunity. If people goout hunting and dont see animals they get discouraged. Some will give it a year or two, some will move to a different area and many will just hang up thier gear.
People dont pay high prices to hunt out of state for mediocre hunting, I know I wont and that is likely one of the reasons why WA has so little out of state hunters here. There was a time when you could go Anywhere in Id and see pleny of elk.
I started my hunting as a duck hunter. I went deer hunting once but lost interest because there wasn't enough action/deer. For all of its double speak Wdfw doesnt do much to recruit hunters, but does plenty to frustrate the hunters it still.has.
So hunting is all about success and not about challenging yourself? I guess that's probably why people hire a guide or hunt game ranches. They don't want to feel like a failure or don t want to make the effort to do what it takes to be successful. To me a successful hunt is being in the outdoors, maybe sharing a camp with good friends or family, and matching wits with whatever game is in the area. I have many times hunted an area with slim pickings and once hunted a Texas game farm by invitation. I guarantee you if I had to make a choice which I would rather do, I'd choose the slim pickings free range hunt 100% of the time. It's a lot more satisfying when you have success. No time spent in the woods should be considered failure, even when you come home empty handed.
Good for you. Guess what, you are not the standard all new hunters aspire to.
They want opportunity. They want to see game. I bet you did too when you started.
Your logic suggests that the best hunting would be in a place where the fewest game animals are. After all, its only about being outdoors and challenging yourself.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 21, 2014, 10:16:46 AM
OK Genius how do you suppose people aquire tags to hunt a dwindling supply of game animals if WDFW makes them permit only?Again, I think your pessimism is unfounded. What area has closed to hunting elk and deer because of wolves? Reduced opportunity...sure. Outright end to elk hunting in NE Wa...not going to happen...even if WDFW is not allowed to ever hunt/manage wolves in WA I do not believe your predictions are accurate. I'm not saying we should be happy with reduced opportunity but you need to wake up to reality here.
That's the future, already the tags are being restricted in the NE going to antlered bull only, that is a measurable decrease in hunter opportunity there hoss.
Next up it'll be off limits as the herd declines further like Lolo
What do you say to those who've been buying 30 years worth of OIL draw permits for moose when WDFW cuts that off?
But hey turkey is doing well, tell them all to just take up turkey hunting huh? Or how about fishing for trips!
We got a lot to be thankful for you're right sitka :rolleyes:
And don't go spouting lies that I don't support wolf control efforts in Washington...I hope they get de-listed and classified as a game animal so they can be hunted and managed. I agree that hunting won't reduce wolf populations much, but it can't hurt. If anything it will substantially increase social tolerance. Also, given how many people deer hunt in NE Wa...and how many stories are being posted about all these wolves chasing hunters up trees and chasing people and eating children up there I presume if we ever do get a legal season it will be a slaughter of wolves. Unless of course all these stories are gross exxagerations...but that seems inconceivable given wolfbait himself is reporting a lot of this.
You seem to cry that nothing is possible to control wolf numbers in NE Wa, that all elk are doomed in NE Wa, so what is your point? Seems to me like you should quit typing and just go hunt before the last elk is killed in the next 3 or 4 years. I guess maybe I'm a little more jaded to view points like yours because I've listened to clowns in Idaho preach for 20 years how wolves were going to end hunting there as well...guess what...those some guys are still predicting the end of the world on their barstools and I'm still hunting and killing elk right in the heart of wolf country. This tactic of predicting the end of the world is a page right out of the extremist environmental groups playbook...it's never worked for them and it's not going to work for you. One thing *most* guys who preach doom and gloom about wolves have in common...they don't get their fat @** off the ATV seat long enough to ever see an elk to begin with. :twocents:
Post by: Bob33 on February 21, 2014, 10:17:04 AM
You miss my point Sitka. Recruitment for hunters is LOW, and it is lowered by less OPPORTUNITY, i did not say harvest. That said there is a reason why the WDFW attempts to give Jr hunters a special shot at does and ducks in a kids only season.Hunting should and can be about much more than harvest, but suggesting that it does not play a factor in participation ignores factual reality. Non-residents pay thousands if not millions to hunt other states with more abundant species.
There are MANY opportunites for our free time and hunting is just one of them. I will use your example. If i can go experience the outdoor through camping and hinking why do i need to hunt? If there is little opportunity then why pack the gun and buy the tags, why not just take the camera out? Why not just travel to the 3D shoots around the state and shoot my bow at foam if its just for the experience?
IMO it is this competion for sportmens time AND $ that the WDFW seems to not Care about or take for granted. WDFW would like to look at it differently but sportmen are THE CUSTOMERS, and not treating them like one is arrogance. I payed to hunt N idaho with out of state tags, and i was rewarded with seeing deer every day multipal times. I Payed MORE for a better experience. I did not shoot a huge deer, but a nice little 4 point WT and i had a great time because i saw animals.
Most hunters that have the hunting bug can tell you thier experience when they became "hooked" on thier kind of hunting. I've never taked to a hunter that was passionate about hunting that didn't have opportunity. :twocents:
Post by: KFhunter on February 21, 2014, 10:37:21 AM
You miss my point Sitka. Recruitment for hunters is LOW, and it is lowered by less OPPORTUNITY, i did not say harvest. That said there is a reason why the WDFW attempts to give Jr hunters a special shot at does and ducks in a kids only season.Hunting should and can be about much more than harvest, but suggesting that it does not play a factor in participation ignores factual reality. Non-residents pay thousands if not millions to hunt other states with more abundant species.
There are MANY opportunites for our free time and hunting is just one of them. I will use your example. If i can go experience the outdoor through camping and hinking why do i need to hunt? If there is little opportunity then why pack the gun and buy the tags, why not just take the camera out? Why not just travel to the 3D shoots around the state and shoot my bow at foam if its just for the experience?
IMO it is this competion for sportmens time AND $ that the WDFW seems to not Care about or take for granted. WDFW would like to look at it differently but sportmen are THE CUSTOMERS, and not treating them like one is arrogance. I payed to hunt N idaho with out of state tags, and i was rewarded with seeing deer every day multipal times. I Payed MORE for a better experience. I did not shoot a huge deer, but a nice little 4 point WT and i had a great time because i saw animals.
Most hunters that have the hunting bug can tell you thier experience when they became "hooked" on thier kind of hunting. I've never taked to a hunter that was passionate about hunting that didn't have opportunity. :twocents:
Including Idahohntr
Post by: KFhunter on February 21, 2014, 10:54:42 AM
OK Genius how do you suppose people aquire tags to hunt a dwindling supply of game animals if WDFW makes them permit only?Again, I think your pessimism is unfounded. What area has closed to hunting elk and deer because of wolves? Reduced opportunity...sure. Outright end to elk hunting in NE Wa...not going to happen...even if WDFW is not allowed to ever hunt/manage wolves in WA I do not believe your predictions are accurate. I'm not saying we should be happy with reduced opportunity but you need to wake up to reality here.
That's the future, already the tags are being restricted in the NE going to antlered bull only, that is a measurable decrease in hunter opportunity there hoss.
Next up it'll be off limits as the herd declines further like Lolo
What do you say to those who've been buying 30 years worth of OIL draw permits for moose when WDFW cuts that off?
But hey turkey is doing well, tell them all to just take up turkey hunting huh? Or how about fishing for trips!
We got a lot to be thankful for you're right sitka :rolleyes:
Permit only with low draw odds isn't much different than closed areas. Give it time I'll be correct in my predictions because WA cannot manage wolves like ID, therefore our herds will be hit harder.
And don't go spouting lies that I don't support wolf control efforts in Washington...I hope they get de-listed and classified as a game animal so they can be hunted and managed. I agree that hunting won't reduce wolf populations much, but it can't hurt. If hunting won't reduce populations much -as you agree- then tell me again how that equates to wolf control? If anything it will substantially increase social tolerance. Also, given how many people deer hunt in NE Wa...and how many stories are being posted about all these wolves chasing hunters up trees and chasing people and eating children up there I presume if we ever do get a legal season it will be a slaughter of wolves. Unless of course all these stories are gross exxagerations...but that seems inconceivable given wolfbait himself is reporting a lot of this. There are more stories that can't or won't be recorded, are you calling Bearpaw a liar? Where are you going with this? I fail to find any net benefit for you to pursue this train of thought
You seem to cry that nothing is possible to control wolf numbers in NE Wa, that all elk are doomed in NE Wa, so what is your point?
As you stated above hunting won't do much, we agree on that. So beyond hunting what is available to control wolves in WA given that WDFW promised to never use helicopter gunning?
Seems to me like you should quit typing and just go hunt before the last elk is killed in the next 3 or 4 years. Elk season is closed right now
I guess maybe I'm a little more jaded to view points like yours because I've listened to clowns in Idaho preach for 20 years how wolves were going to end hunting there as well...guess what...those some guys are still predicting the end of the world on their barstools and I'm still hunting and killing elk right in the heart of wolf country. because you couldn't hack it in North Idaho anymore you moved your hunting to the middle of Idaho, just like you couldn't hack it in WA either
This tactic of predicting the end of the world is a page right out of the extremist environmental groups playbook...it's never worked for them and it's not going to work for you. I would say it's worked very well for them One thing *most* guys who preach doom and gloom about wolves have in common...they don't get their fat @** off the ATV seat long enough to ever see an elk to begin with. :twocents: Says the guy who can't even hunt here at home
One thing I find about wolf lovers is they don't even get outside at all, they send in their donations and feel all good about themselves in their urban jungle imposing their will on people like me who have to live near the dammed things.
If you want to toss around stereotypes an all.
Post by: KFhunter on February 21, 2014, 11:00:35 AM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-NKHn7ISYN4A%2FUQcJQKX2B5I%2FAAAAAAAABMA%2FV8mmmKiUnA0%2Fs1600%2Fall%2Bears.jpg&hash=9702f228b1cde0dd1dd4c5fc9b8bed0a358d0dfb)
Post by: KFhunter on February 21, 2014, 11:14:39 AM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/Themes/GreenBeanForSMF2/images/useroff.gif)Sitka_Blacktail
That's what I thought, logged off. Going gets tough for a wolf lover all the sudden you see a white square next to their names.
Tell you what. I'll give you a while to huddle up with all the other wolf lovers, see if you can come up with something worthy of arguing about.
Post by: KFhunter on February 21, 2014, 11:37:44 AM
You are sad and pathetic. I hunt in WA too you moron. I was part of 6 successful (in terms of harvest) buck hunts, one was my first muzzleloader kill, and 2 successful bull hunts...all in WA. Then I hunt Idaho and kill a bull and help my dad kill a muley. I did eat my Idaho deer tag this year...just never found one as big as I was after...but I had lots of opportunities.
So all your bs about not "hacking" it in Idaho or WA or wherever...give me a break. Sounds to me like you sit up in NE Wa and cry about hunting...my guess is your just a lousy hunter. I hunt multiple states for lots of reasons, and where I hunt has more to do with friends and family...almost nothing in my hunting plans revolve around wolves.
Last, we do agree on the efficacy of hunting to "control" wolves in NE Wa...the key difference is you think this will cause the extinction of elk and I think you don't know chit about elk if you believe that. :bash: :bash: :bash:
When you resort to personal attacks and anger vs sound reason and logic, you've lost.
Why don't you run off to the Defender's of Wildlife members only section and see if you can drum up some support, maybe someone there will have an epiphany then you can run back here and regurgitate it for my consideration.
Post by: KFhunter on February 21, 2014, 11:53:03 AM
good boy, make sure you find something good in the members only section of Defenders of Wildlife, I'll be right here.
Or maybe it's conservation northwest? Hell it's probably all of them :chuckle:
Post by: AspenBud on February 21, 2014, 11:56:16 AM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsportzfun.com%2Fphoto%2Fcache%2Fwrestling%2Fmighty-midget_500_copyright.jpg&hash=a4c472152f8a4d2dc72016e0d1ba4937548b3ff8)
:chuckle:
Post by: KFhunter on February 21, 2014, 11:58:03 AM
He probably won't take me hunting in Idaho now :'(
he might be upset with me
Post by: bearpaw on February 21, 2014, 12:01:22 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on February 21, 2014, 12:17:17 PM
Post by: wolfbait on February 21, 2014, 05:55:41 PM
A very good description of all the ignored impacts the pimps like Carter willfully leave out. Those ignored impacts are the tipping point of the declines in our wildlife populations that have created this steady downward trending that game departments attempt to over up in an attempt to sell something they no longer have.
Wolves are the second most destructive animal on an ecosystem outside of man. But at least man can be controlled and utilize reason, science and law to turn behaviors into positives, hence, our wildlife model that perpetuated game populations. Wolves possess no such ability. As 17 years has now proven, wolves create a steady negative growth trend for all prey species. Record low population now inhabit most ranges the wolves have been allowed to destroy.
Banff, Yellowstone, the Lolo of Idaho and the list goes on and on and on. The evidence is undeniable to all but the most closed minded. And even though every year wolf pimps like Doug Smith claim elk populations will stabilize and turn around, they, in fact, continue to fall. Their narcissistic belligerence in the denial of these facts pretty much eliminates any claims of them being an expert in anything but propaganda.
15 Years Experience Dealing With Wolves on Montana Ranch
http://tomremington.com/2013/10/09/15-y (http://tomremington.com/2013/10/09/15-y) … ana-ranch/
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 21, 2014, 06:24:56 PM
The reason why the ammount of wolves is important is because the effect opportunity. If people goout hunting and dont see animals they get discouraged. Some will give it a year or two, some will move to a different area and many will just hang up thier gear.
People dont pay high prices to hunt out of state for mediocre hunting, I know I wont and that is likely one of the reasons why WA has so little out of state hunters here. There was a time when you could go Anywhere in Id and see pleny of elk.
I started my hunting as a duck hunter. I went deer hunting once but lost interest because there wasn't enough action/deer. For all of its double speak Wdfw doesnt do much to recruit hunters, but does plenty to frustrate the hunters it still.has.
So hunting is all about success and not about challenging yourself? I guess that's probably why people hire a guide or hunt game ranches. They don't want to feel like a failure or don t want to make the effort to do what it takes to be successful. To me a successful hunt is being in the outdoors, maybe sharing a camp with good friends or family, and matching wits with whatever game is in the area. I have many times hunted an area with slim pickings and once hunted a Texas game farm by invitation. I guarantee you if I had to make a choice which I would rather do, I'd choose the slim pickings free range hunt 100% of the time. It's a lot more satisfying when you have success. No time spent in the woods should be considered failure, even when you come home empty handed.
Good for you. Guess what, you are not the standard all new hunters aspire to.
They want opportunity. They want to see game. I bet you did too when you started.
Your logic suggests that the best hunting would be in a place where the fewest game animals are. After all, its only about being outdoors and challenging yourself.
Special T and Odell,
Predators have never limited my opportunity to hunt. But logging companies have. Charging fees limiting the number of hunters on their tree farms have kept me and others out of the woods. New subdivisions have also kept me from hunting in old honey holes. Changes in ownership of land have kept me out of other traditional spots. ANILCA has prevented me from hunting in traditional haunts. Guides leasing up hunting rights have limited my choices of where to hunt. By far, all the limits to my OPPORTUNITY to hunt have been man made and have nothing to do with how many animals are in the area. A wolf or other predator has NEVER locked me out of the woods.
Post by: wolfbait on February 21, 2014, 06:32:34 PM
The reason why the ammount of wolves is important is because the effect opportunity. If people goout hunting and dont see animals they get discouraged. Some will give it a year or two, some will move to a different area and many will just hang up thier gear.
People dont pay high prices to hunt out of state for mediocre hunting, I know I wont and that is likely one of the reasons why WA has so little out of state hunters here. There was a time when you could go Anywhere in Id and see pleny of elk.
I started my hunting as a duck hunter. I went deer hunting once but lost interest because there wasn't enough action/deer. For all of its double speak Wdfw doesnt do much to recruit hunters, but does plenty to frustrate the hunters it still.has.
So hunting is all about success and not about challenging yourself? I guess that's probably why people hire a guide or hunt game ranches. They don't want to feel like a failure or don t want to make the effort to do what it takes to be successful. To me a successful hunt is being in the outdoors, maybe sharing a camp with good friends or family, and matching wits with whatever game is in the area. I have many times hunted an area with slim pickings and once hunted a Texas game farm by invitation. I guarantee you if I had to make a choice which I would rather do, I'd choose the slim pickings free range hunt 100% of the time. It's a lot more satisfying when you have success. No time spent in the woods should be considered failure, even when you come home empty handed.
Good for you. Guess what, you are not the standard all new hunters aspire to.
They want opportunity. They want to see game. I bet you did too when you started.
Your logic suggests that the best hunting would be in a place where the fewest game animals are. After all, its only about being outdoors and challenging yourself.
Special T and Odell,
Predators have never limited my opportunity to hunt. But logging companies have. Charging fees limiting the number of hunters on their tree farms have kept me and others out of the woods. New subdivisions have also kept me from hunting in old honey holes. Changes in ownership of land have kept me out of other traditional spots. ANILCA has prevented me from hunting in traditional haunts. Guides leasing up hunting rights have limited my choices of where to hunt. By far, all the limits to my OPPORTUNITY to hunt have been man made and have nothing to do with how many animals are in the area. A wolf or other predator has NEVER locked me out of the woods.
It won't matter whose land that is hunted, after wolves go through. Private or public, wolves don't care!
I guess you missed this bit of info.
A very good description of all the ignored impacts the pimps like Carter willfully leave out. Those ignored impacts are the tipping point of the declines in our wildlife populations that have created this steady downward trending that game departments attempt to over up in an attempt to sell something they no longer have.
Wolves are the second most destructive animal on an ecosystem outside of man. But at least man can be controlled and utilize reason, science and law to turn behaviors into positives, hence, our wildlife model that perpetuated game populations. Wolves possess no such ability. As 17 years has now proven, wolves create a steady negative growth trend for all prey species. Record low population now inhabit most ranges the wolves have been allowed to destroy.
Banff, Yellowstone, the Lolo of Idaho and the list goes on and on and on. The evidence is undeniable to all but the most closed minded. And even though every year wolf pimps like Doug Smith claim elk populations will stabilize and turn around, they, in fact, continue to fall. Their narcissistic belligerence in the denial of these facts pretty much eliminates any claims of them being an expert in anything but propaganda.
15 Years Experience Dealing With Wolves on Montana Ranch
http://tomremington.com/2013/10/09/15-y (http://tomremington.com/2013/10/09/15-y) … ana-ranch/
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 21, 2014, 06:36:09 PM
When you resort to personal attacks and anger vs sound reason and logic, you've lost.
I guess you lose then since you're the one who always resorts to name calling and anger and personal attacks. All most every post you've made on this thread exemplifies that.
I've hunted 50 years now and thirty in Alaska and I've never been shut out from hunting by predators. Never seen a season closed because of predators. I guess that's why I can see the glass is half full.
Post by: KFhunter on February 21, 2014, 06:45:03 PM
If you need a reminder of what a personal attack looks like I've added a few to my signature line below.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on February 21, 2014, 07:02:56 PM
The reason why the ammount of wolves is important is because the effect opportunity. If people goout hunting and dont see animals they get discouraged. Some will give it a year or two, some will move to a different area and many will just hang up thier gear.
People dont pay high prices to hunt out of state for mediocre hunting, I know I wont and that is likely one of the reasons why WA has so little out of state hunters here. There was a time when you could go Anywhere in Id and see pleny of elk.
I started my hunting as a duck hunter. I went deer hunting once but lost interest because there wasn't enough action/deer. For all of its double speak Wdfw doesnt do much to recruit hunters, but does plenty to frustrate the hunters it still.has.
So hunting is all about success and not about challenging yourself? I guess that's probably why people hire a guide or hunt game ranches. They don't want to feel like a failure or don t want to make the effort to do what it takes to be successful. To me a successful hunt is being in the outdoors, maybe sharing a camp with good friends or family, and matching wits with whatever game is in the area. I have many times hunted an area with slim pickings and once hunted a Texas game farm by invitation. I guarantee you if I had to make a choice which I would rather do, I'd choose the slim pickings free range hunt 100% of the time. It's a lot more satisfying when you have success. No time spent in the woods should be considered failure, even when you come home empty handed.
Good for you. Guess what, you are not the standard all new hunters aspire to.
They want opportunity. They want to see game. I bet you did too when you started.
Your logic suggests that the best hunting would be in a place where the fewest game animals are. After all, its only about being outdoors and challenging yourself.
Special T and Odell,
Predators have never limited my opportunity to hunt. But logging companies have. Charging fees limiting the number of hunters on their tree farms have kept me and others out of the woods. New subdivisions have also kept me from hunting in old honey holes. Changes in ownership of land have kept me out of other traditional spots. ANILCA has prevented me from hunting in traditional haunts. Guides leasing up hunting rights have limited my choices of where to hunt. By far, all the limits to my OPPORTUNITY to hunt have been man made and have nothing to do with how many animals are in the area. A wolf or other predator has NEVER locked me out of the woods.
Just wait it won't be to much longer and you will either be locked out or told no game to hunt because of those wolves you adore! :bash:
Post by: Odell on February 21, 2014, 07:07:56 PM
The reason why the ammount of wolves is important is because the effect opportunity. If people goout hunting and dont see animals they get discouraged. Some will give it a year or two, some will move to a different area and many will just hang up thier gear.
People dont pay high prices to hunt out of state for mediocre hunting, I know I wont and that is likely one of the reasons why WA has so little out of state hunters here. There was a time when you could go Anywhere in Id and see pleny of elk.
I started my hunting as a duck hunter. I went deer hunting once but lost interest because there wasn't enough action/deer. For all of its double speak Wdfw doesnt do much to recruit hunters, but does plenty to frustrate the hunters it still.has.
So hunting is all about success and not about challenging yourself? I guess that's probably why people hire a guide or hunt game ranches. They don't want to feel like a failure or don t want to make the effort to do what it takes to be successful. To me a successful hunt is being in the outdoors, maybe sharing a camp with good friends or family, and matching wits with whatever game is in the area. I have many times hunted an area with slim pickings and once hunted a Texas game farm by invitation. I guarantee you if I had to make a choice which I would rather do, I'd choose the slim pickings free range hunt 100% of the time. It's a lot more satisfying when you have success. No time spent in the woods should be considered failure, even when you come home empty handed.
Good for you. Guess what, you are not the standard all new hunters aspire to.
They want opportunity. They want to see game. I bet you did too when you started.
Your logic suggests that the best hunting would be in a place where the fewest game animals are. After all, its only about being outdoors and challenging yourself.
Special T and Odell,
Predators have never limited my opportunity to hunt. But logging companies have. Charging fees limiting the number of hunters on their tree farms have kept me and others out of the woods. New subdivisions have also kept me from hunting in old honey holes. Changes in ownership of land have kept me out of other traditional spots. ANILCA has prevented me from hunting in traditional haunts. Guides leasing up hunting rights have limited my choices of where to hunt. By far, all the limits to my OPPORTUNITY to hunt have been man made and have nothing to do with how many animals are in the area. A wolf or other predator has NEVER locked me out of the woods.
Again, with all respect Sitka, it's not only about you. Predators have limited other peoples ability to hunt. So just because it hasn't happened to you in the past is irrelevant. Do you not recognize that just because it hasn't yet happened to you doesn't mean it can't or won't happen in the future? It's already happening for others.
Post by: wolfbait on February 21, 2014, 07:14:27 PM
I realize I might be a bit abrasive at times but I've never attacked anyone personally on here.
If you need a reminder of what a personal attack looks like I've added a few to my signature line below.
KFhunter badges of honor:
"they don't get their fat @** off the ATV seat long enough to ever see an elk" -Idahohntr
"You are sad and pathetic" -Idahohntr
"you moron" - Idahohntr
"your just a lousy hunter"-Idahohntr
"you don't know chit about elk" -Idahohntr
The perfect example of people who are pushing the wolf agenda and those who introduce them, it's names like these that stand out as wolf lovers run out of argument. With 18 years of facts on the ground in ID, MT, Wy and all the lies the USFWS, and state game agencies have told exposed. The wolf lovers of today are now frantically trying to snow the public and losing daily. We see them on several hunting sites, names changed for some, and others with the same name. "calm down and wait for delisting" or "the wolves will balance the ecosystem". But as more people are informed and see the destruction, more wolf lovers scurry off, only to reappear when they feel their imput will somehow change facts on the ground.
How many WDFW biologists are posting on W-H? :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on February 21, 2014, 07:23:45 PM
Post by: deaner on February 21, 2014, 07:43:13 PM
How do we know that Sitka is even a hunter. He sounds exactly like the wolf lovers who try to pose as hunters to make it sound like hunters want more wolves. Everything he writes supports most everything the anti-hunters want. His points don't even make sense. He suggests that because he has hunted Alaska that predators won't limit hunting opportunity. He conveniently leaves out the fact that Alaska intensively manages wolves, using hunting, trapping, and even aircraft when needed to cull wolves. No wonder he has had some hunting success in Alaska, if in fact he is a hunter? :twocents:
even if you disregard alaskan predator control policies, it is so incredibly different up there in terms of population / habitat etc as to be totally incomparable to anywhere in the lower 48. the wolf lovers love to use the "habitat habitat" argument when it suits them, yet theyll say that if a place like alaska can have wolf populations that we can too.... while ignoring the gross discrepancy in available habitat between alaska and anywhere in the continental u.s.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 21, 2014, 07:45:19 PM
How do we know that Sitka is even a hunter.Oh goodness...not another witch hunt please. He is a hunter just like most every other person on this forum. Just because someone has a different viewpoint doesn't mean they are not a hunter. The world is not black and white.
Post by: hunter399 on February 21, 2014, 07:48:04 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 21, 2014, 07:50:57 PM
How do we know that Sitka is even a hunter.Oh goodness...not another witch hunt please. He is a hunter just like most every other person on this forum. Just because someone has a different viewpoint doesn't mean they are not a hunter. The world is not black and white.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but have you hunted with him? How would you know? Fact: It wouldn't be the first time we had a poser on this forum. :dunno:
Post by: KFhunter on February 21, 2014, 07:54:46 PM
I can tell u all feel very strongly about wolves and there damage on wildlife.But im not gonna risk my hunting rights or some 10000 dollor fine.For killing a wolf.So what is it u want us hunters to do.Im no wolf lover cant wait till they add the tag to the big game packages.But im not letting some CSI wanna be game warden pull my bullet out of a wolf. :dunno:
What I want is public outrage so strong and loud that rural WA cannot be ignored. This will have to come from multiple user groups all banded together to force WA legislature to follow Idaho's foot steps. Cattle producers are already in the fight but I don't see a lot from hunters other than HW. Politically most rural politicians are in the fight but they need more support. We need a changing of the guard in WDFW leadership AND Western WA politicians.
This is why I've been railing on HW over the wolf issues, there's 3-4 guys on here that constantly try to derail our efforts.
I do not condone illegal action.
Post by: hunter399 on February 21, 2014, 08:01:31 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 21, 2014, 08:02:16 PM
How do we know that Sitka is even a hunter.Oh goodness...not another witch hunt please. He is a hunter just like most every other person on this forum. Just because someone has a different viewpoint doesn't mean they are not a hunter. The world is not black and white.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but have you hunted with him? How would you know? Fact: It wouldn't be the first time we had a poser on this forum. :dunno:
Personally I'm not too concerned about it anymore, I used to be.
It's quite evident that even if they were paid advocates posing as hunters they cannot sustain a high pressure debate.
besides even if you banned their IP they could just generate a new one and be right back in 15 minutes.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 21, 2014, 08:02:36 PM
I have not hunted with anyone on this forum. I may be the only hunter on here :dunno: :chuckle: But I did exchange PM's with him and we discussed very specific details of Idaho elk hunts such that I am as certain as one can be without actually knowing the person.How do we know that Sitka is even a hunter.Oh goodness...not another witch hunt please. He is a hunter just like most every other person on this forum. Just because someone has a different viewpoint doesn't mean they are not a hunter. The world is not black and white.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but have you hunted with him? How would you know? Fact: It wouldn't be the first time we had a poser on this forum. :dunno:
Post by: hunter399 on February 21, 2014, 08:10:41 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 21, 2014, 08:12:46 PM
*IF* you happen to be correct then what's the down side? I mean what do you stand to loose? Why are you so passionate about wolves because if you're proven correct then there is no harm and no foul. Life went on and you get the satisfaction of being correct - the worst thing that happens is I get to eat crow.
If I'm correct then hunter opportunity in WA will go down the toilet, OIL tags for moose will be eliminated or so close to it whats the difference, cattle producers will take big big hits until the point it's no longer feesable to free range cattle destroying many people's way of life. I got skin in the game so to speak. All hunters have skin in the game even if they're pro-wolf.
Post by: KFhunter on February 21, 2014, 08:15:31 PM
Well untill WDFW do make hunting of wolves legal or somebody gets something on a ballot to vote on ,so we can all vote for the hunting of wolfs.Were pretty much stuck fighting with each other over instead of doing something about it.I woulnd sign something right now so we hunt them.Thats why it kinda makes mad that they get to hunt them on the res and not here i hope they do the right thing and fill all those tags since there the ones that get to have them.
Idahohntr and I are obviously opposed in this issue, yet we both agree hunting alone will not do much to bring wolf numbers down.
We need serious public pressure to bring about legislative emergency action to curb the growth of wolves.
Post by: bearpaw on February 21, 2014, 08:18:40 PM
I have not hunted with anyone on this forum. I may be the only hunter on here :dunno: :chuckle: But I did exchange PM's with him and we discussed very specific details of Idaho elk hunts such that I am as certain as one can be without actually knowing the person.How do we know that Sitka is even a hunter.Oh goodness...not another witch hunt please. He is a hunter just like most every other person on this forum. Just because someone has a different viewpoint doesn't mean they are not a hunter. The world is not black and white.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but have you hunted with him? How would you know? Fact: It wouldn't be the first time we had a poser on this forum. :dunno:
Maybe he is a hunter, although some of the wolf lovers have learned to be pretty convincing. Still wouldn't change the fact that his points are lacking!
Post by: hunter399 on February 21, 2014, 08:19:21 PM
Post by: hunter399 on February 21, 2014, 08:26:47 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 21, 2014, 08:31:38 PM
I have not hunted with anyone on this forum. I may be the only hunter on here :dunno: :chuckle: But I did exchange PM's with him and we discussed very specific details of Idaho elk hunts such that I am as certain as one can be without actually knowing the person.How do we know that Sitka is even a hunter.Oh goodness...not another witch hunt please. He is a hunter just like most every other person on this forum. Just because someone has a different viewpoint doesn't mean they are not a hunter. The world is not black and white.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but have you hunted with him? How would you know? Fact: It wouldn't be the first time we had a poser on this forum. :dunno:
Maybe he is a hunter, although some of the wolf lovers have learned to be pretty convincing. Still wouldn't change the fact that his points are lacking!How do we know that Sitka is even a hunter.He sounds exactly like the wolf lovers who try to pose as hunters to make it sound like hunters want more wolves. Everything he writes supports most everything the anti-hunters want.His points don't even make sense. He suggests that because he has hunted Alaska that predators won't limit hunting opportunity. He conveniently leaves out the fact that Alaska intensively manages wolves, using hunting, trapping, and even aircraft when needed to cull wolves. No wonder he has had some hunting success in Alaska,if in fact he is a hunter?:twocents:
I know you know this Dale, but we have many readers.
What the wolf advocates are doing is creating doubt and dividing hunters, delaying the outrage so the wolves can get fully established state wide.
They pretend to be hunters to do this, most of them pretend to be out of state hunters so they don't get trapped trying to speak with authority in local areas where it would be obvious they didn't know what they were talking about.
They throw hunters a bone by professing to be for recreational hunting of wolves, because they know how ineffective it truly is.
One thing they have in common is they don't post trophy pictures on HW, one of them tried that once....then I found the true owner of the image and Emailed him.
Post by: hunter399 on February 21, 2014, 08:36:38 PM
Post by: hunter399 on February 21, 2014, 08:42:29 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 21, 2014, 08:44:29 PM
If im a non-hunter because i dont agree with u on this then so be it but i will be out hunting coyote and cougar tomorow mouning as i am every weekend right here in loon lake/chewelah area and havent seen a wolf track yet.Im always checking on the deer and elk in my area.
I doubt there's any wolf haters posing to be hunters :chuckle:
Post by: KFhunter on February 21, 2014, 08:45:38 PM
Maybe you can help me understand Idahohntr;
*IF* you happen to be correct then what's the down side? I mean what do you stand to loose? Why are you so passionate about wolves because if you're proven correct then there is no harm and no foul. Life went on and you get the satisfaction of being correct - the worst thing that happens is I get to eat crow.
If I'm correct then hunter opportunity in WA will go down the toilet, OIL tags for moose will be eliminated or so close to it whats the difference, cattle producers will take big big hits until the point it's no longer feesable to free range cattle destroying many people's way of life. I got skin in the game so to speak. All hunters have skin in the game even if they're pro-wolf.
are you going to answer this Idahohnter? Or are you hoping it gets buried.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 21, 2014, 08:47:41 PM
Maybe you can help me understand Idahohntr;I see what your saying...the downside to me being wrong and convincing other hunters of my viewpoint could be catastrophic to hunters in the sense that wolves will annihilate elk populations...you were trying to fire them up to improve the probability of legislative action and here I am tamping the flames down. If your wrong, its actually a good thing...it means were all still hunting. Is that about right?
*IF* you happen to be correct then what's the down side? I mean what do you stand to loose? Why are you so passionate about wolves because if you're proven correct then there is no harm and no foul. Life went on and you get the satisfaction of being correct - the worst thing that happens is I get to eat crow.
If I'm correct then hunter opportunity in WA will go down the toilet, OIL tags for moose will be eliminated or so close to it whats the difference, cattle producers will take big big hits until the point it's no longer feesable to free range cattle destroying many people's way of life. I got skin in the game so to speak. All hunters have skin in the game even if they're pro-wolf.
I don't think it is bad at all to encourage hunters to speak up to legislators about concerns over wolves and to hold them accountable for fighting for the hunters in this state. I do think there is a point though if you push to far and too boldly, you lose credibility and then you just get cast aside. That is my biggest fear...if every hunter swears that wolves are going to end all elk hunting...politicians are going to see through this eventually...like the boy who cried wolf. :chuckle: And, if this were Idaho I would say CRY WOLF...because you would be in good company. But in WA, I think hunters might be our own worst enemy in terms of getting wolves de-listed so control actions will be easier because of the makeup of the legislature and the number of voters west of the cascades. :twocents:
Believe me, I thought exactly as you do about potential impacts of wolves in N. Idaho 10 or 15 years ago...it just didn't materialize so I am now more optimistic than you...I will also agree that it is NE Wa that is going to take the biggest hit from any wolf impacts and so regardless of who is right, your WA hunting is still probably going to suffer more than mine down here in SE Wa...and I fully acknowledge its easier for me to go sit on my property down here and glass bulls and watch bucks coming into my food plots and forget that it might not be so great for folks in the NE. It sounds like you've lived your whole life up there, which makes it particularly difficult to see declines in hunting opportunity. I'm not unsympathetic to your concerns, but I do believe you are more pessimistic than the evidence would support.
Post by: hunter399 on February 21, 2014, 08:53:19 PM
Post by: cougarbart on February 21, 2014, 09:00:03 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 21, 2014, 09:02:53 PM
How do we know that Sitka is even a hunter. He sounds exactly like the wolf lovers who try to pose as hunters to make it sound like hunters want more wolves. Everything he writes supports most everything the anti-hunters want. His points don't even make sense. He suggests that because he has hunted Alaska that predators won't limit hunting opportunity. He conveniently leaves out the fact that Alaska intensively manages wolves, using hunting, trapping, and even aircraft when needed to cull wolves. No wonder he has had some hunting success in Alaska, if in fact he is a hunter? :twocents:
even if you disregard alaskan predator control policies, it is so incredibly different up there in terms of population / habitat etc as to be totally incomparable to anywhere in the lower 48. the wolf lovers love to use the "habitat habitat" argument when it suits them, yet theyll say that if a place like alaska can have wolf populations that we can too.... while ignoring the gross discrepancy in available habitat between alaska and anywhere in the continental u.s.
Alaska not only has the most predators in the country, it also has the worst overall habitat and the worst winters. There are 7,000 -10,000 wolves in Alaska but they maintain a population of about 175,000 moose. But Alaska's habitat is so poor in most areas of the state that, that works out to one moose per about 3.8 square miles. Hardly a Serengeti full of game. The saving grace is Alaska is so big and there are pockets of decent habitat. The lower 48 has way more good habitat than Alaska. And wolves, they are nothing compared to the bears. The places I deer hunted there, Prince William Sound and Kodiak, you are always bumping into bears, Kodiak all brownies and PWS both brownies and blackies. That's hair raising enough, then you shoot a deer, or moose, or elk (on Afognak Is) and you have a battle some times trying to save your animal. The worst areas in the lower 48 are a piece of cake compared to hunting in Alaska. It's big boy hunting up there.
Post by: deaner on February 21, 2014, 09:12:26 PM
How do we know that Sitka is even a hunter. He sounds exactly like the wolf lovers who try to pose as hunters to make it sound like hunters want more wolves. Everything he writes supports most everything the anti-hunters want. His points don't even make sense. He suggests that because he has hunted Alaska that predators won't limit hunting opportunity. He conveniently leaves out the fact that Alaska intensively manages wolves, using hunting, trapping, and even aircraft when needed to cull wolves. No wonder he has had some hunting success in Alaska, if in fact he is a hunter? :twocents:
even if you disregard alaskan predator control policies, it is so incredibly different up there in terms of population / habitat etc as to be totally incomparable to anywhere in the lower 48. the wolf lovers love to use the "habitat habitat" argument when it suits them, yet theyll say that if a place like alaska can have wolf populations that we can too.... while ignoring the gross discrepancy in available habitat between alaska and anywhere in the continental u.s.
Alaska not only has the most predators in the country, it also has the worst overall habitat and the worst winters. There are 7,000 -10,000 wolves in Alaska but they maintain a population of about 175,000 moose. But Alaska's habitat is so poor in most areas of the state that, that works out to one moose per about 3.8 square miles. Hardly a Serengeti full of game. The saving grace is Alaska is so big and there are pockets of decent habitat. The lower 48 has way more good habitat than Alaska. And wolves, they are nothing compared to the bears. The places I deer hunted there, Prince William Sound and Kodiak, you are always bumping into bears, Kodiak all brownies and PWS both brownies and blackies. That's hair raising enough, then you shoot a deer, or moose, or elk (on Afognak Is) and you have a battle some times trying to save your animal. The worst areas in the lower 48 are a piece of cake compared to hunting in Alaska. It's big boy hunting up there.
couple problems with your logic. one is that you said the lower 48 has more habitat... come on, the lower FORTY EIGHT STATES, which have a total of at least double the land mass of alaska, has more good habitat? come on man, silly argument. and while this MIGHT be true, youre not only talking about twice as much land, but youre also obviously taking No account of human population versus available habitat. not to mention that the "higher amount of available habitat" available in the 48 consists of lots of small pockets of habitat amid tons of urban *censored*, whereas alaska is a few small pockets of urban *censored* amidst a large area of wildlife habitat. its apples and oranges. and even if alaska had the same square miles of good habitat as the rest of the country, it would be worth way more to animals due to the MUCH lower number of people messing around in it. also, youre saying how bears are so much worse than wolves.... on KODIAK ISLAND... no *censored*? you mean the ISLAND famous for giant bears? wow who woulda thunk it? come on dude, cant you come up with a logical valid argument? quit using comparisons that make no sense
Post by: KFhunter on February 21, 2014, 09:13:48 PM
Maybe you can help me understand Idahohntr;I see what your saying...the downside to me being wrong and convincing other hunters of my viewpoint could be catastrophic to hunters in the sense that wolves will annihilate elk populations...you were trying to fire them up to improve the probability of legislative action and here I am tamping the flames down. If your wrong, its actually a good thing...it means were all still hunting. Is that about right?
*IF* you happen to be correct then what's the down side? I mean what do you stand to loose? Why are you so passionate about wolves because if you're proven correct then there is no harm and no foul. Life went on and you get the satisfaction of being correct - the worst thing that happens is I get to eat crow.
If I'm correct then hunter opportunity in WA will go down the toilet, OIL tags for moose will be eliminated or so close to it whats the difference, cattle producers will take big big hits until the point it's no longer feesable to free range cattle destroying many people's way of life. I got skin in the game so to speak. All hunters have skin in the game even if they're pro-wolf.
I don't think it is bad at all to encourage hunters to speak up to legislators about concerns over wolves and to hold them accountable for fighting for the hunters in this state. I do think there is a point though if you push to far and too boldly, you lose credibility and then you just get cast aside. That is my biggest fear...if every hunter swears that wolves are going to end all elk hunting...politicians are going to see through this eventually...like the boy who cried wolf. :chuckle: And, if this were Idaho I would say CRY WOLF...because you would be in good company. But in WA, I think hunters might be our own worst enemy in terms of getting wolves de-listed so control actions will be easier because of the makeup of the legislature and the number of voters west of the cascades. :twocents:
Believe me, I thought exactly as you do about potential impacts of wolves in N. Idaho 10 or 15 years ago...it just didn't materialize so I am now more optimistic than you...I will also agree that it is NE Wa that is going to take the biggest hit from any wolf impacts and so regardless of who is right, your WA hunting is still probably going to suffer more than mine down here in SE Wa...and I fully acknowledge its easier for me to go sit on my property down here and glass bulls and watch bucks coming into my food plots and forget that it might not be so great for folks in the NE. It sounds like you've lived your whole life up there, which makes it particularly difficult to see declines in hunting opportunity. I'm not unsympathetic to your concerns, but I do believe you are more pessimistic than the evidence would support.
That was masterfully written, you deserve a golf clap for that.
It's still a deflection though. You know that the people of Idaho and their government is united in controlling wolf populations, this is why you're able to continue to hunt there.
At least you're willing to admit the NE is getting fed to the wolves. collateral damage.
It won't be just the NE though, any region with decent Elk is going to suffer if WDFW doesn't take some lessons from IDFG.
Post by: hunter399 on February 21, 2014, 09:14:53 PM
Post by: hunter399 on February 21, 2014, 09:23:24 PM
always remember about variables boys! you may have great hunting now on your food plots but if hunting is restricted in ne wa, hunting pressure could be put on other units like yours and then even tho your on private property the state will make your unit a draw unit and now you might only be able to hunt your property once every 5 years! variables and trickle effect can not yet even be determined!I just feed here, then let wander back onto the public land for a little fair chase then bamo in the frezer :chuckle:
Post by: JLS on February 21, 2014, 09:25:08 PM
This is why I've been railing on HW over the wolf issues, there's 3-4 guys on here that constantly try to derail our efforts.
Sorry you see it as trying to derail your efforts. If you want to make any sort of difference in wolf management, you may want to go armed with articuable facts and legitimate arguments.
You will never achieve a goal of poisoning, aerial gunning, and year round seasons. You will never achieve a goal of a minimal wolf population.
And, my philosophy is that you don't need to. I understand your is different and that's fine. We don't need to rehash that argument.
But, whether or not you agree with my outlook on it, I can guarantee you this. You have a snowball's chance in Hell of selling the people of this state on the wolf management approach you want. You have a very good chance at selling the approach that we should do everything we can to maximize the state's ability to grow and sustain ungulate herds.
Wolf populations will always be self limiting from a social standpoint, so to make continued predictions that Washington will be a wolf pit is, in my opinion, completely silly. Granted, we will never approach things the same way that Wyoming and Idaho do, but that's life. There are a lot more folks with very different political ideologies in this state that will win that battle.
I don't NEED to convince anyone of anything. I just hope that folks will at least go into this with an educated argument. Living in the past, worrying about what kind of wolf was released won't do anyone any good. If someone has proof of wrongdoing, do something with it. Otherwise, it's worth the same amount as newspaper on the bottom of a birdcage.
I am not saying in any way that sportsmen should not be proactive in regards to wolves. They should. They should be educating themselves with an open mind. If you think you are going to change wolf management with Lobowatch material then folks will be sorely disappointed. If you take the Toby Bridges and Scott Rockolms of the world, and compare their stuff to Howling for Justice and CBD, the truth is likely somewhere in the middle.
Signed,
A wolf lover and leader of the elk hunter exodus from Washington to Montana :rolleyes:
Post by: idahohuntr on February 21, 2014, 09:29:36 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 21, 2014, 09:30:48 PM
So when some one says there waiting for delisting,i think it means there waiting for a legal way of dealing with the problem,not that there a wolf lover or non-hunter.Some people care more about there hunting rights than wolves,maybe if i was deer hunting and seen a wolf attacking deer or elk i might feel diff.And had a rifle that coulnd punch all the way though,but even then they have collard wolves with GPS and all that so its a pretty big deal.
A breath of fresh air and some sanity.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 21, 2014, 09:49:01 PM
How do we know that Sitka is even a hunter.Oh goodness...not another witch hunt please. He is a hunter just like most every other person on this forum. Just because someone has a different viewpoint doesn't mean they are not a hunter. The world is not black and white.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but have you hunted with him? How would you know? Fact: It wouldn't be the first time we had a poser on this forum. :dunno:
You're brighter than that Dale. I've hunted deer the last three years up on Tiger Pass and been successful each year. I posted about the The Air Force SERE school that showed up off of Hanks Butte Rd the second day of late buck season. I even stopped in for brews and a burger at the Beaver Lodge a couple evenings. I even took some pictures and video of a cow moose up in Aspen Valley on the South Fork Mill Creek Rd. I wish I could remember the name of the Logging company that had their land all posted the day I drove through to the Aladdin Rd. It was over on the Aladdin side just before I hit the pavement. Then there's the cabin for sale across from the Black Lake Rd on the little Pend Oreille. Theres a chain across the driveway, at least there was when I was there. But it's OK, I don't care if you believe I hunt or not. I even posted a picture of the nice basket racked 3x3 I got last year. Of course it's all a hoax and I just grabbed a pic off the internet.
Post by: JLS on February 21, 2014, 09:53:10 PM
Post by: hunter399 on February 21, 2014, 10:37:14 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 22, 2014, 12:57:33 AM
This is why I've been railing on HW over the wolf issues, there's 3-4 guys on here that constantly try to derail our efforts.
Sorry you see it as trying to derail your efforts. If you want to make any sort of difference in wolf management, you may want to go armed with articuable facts and legitimate arguments.
articulable facts have no place in a kangaroo court :chuckle:
You will never achieve a goal of poisoning, aerial gunning, and year round seasons. You will never achieve a goal of a minimal wolf population.
poisoning is not my goal, my goal is to get them documented, fully delisted and hunted in conjunction with more Elk collaring and population studies on ungulates. I also want to change the MT.Lion plan. I also want generous hound permits and trapping (padded foot hold) permits in areas with too many wolves or cats (respectively), and declining Elk...none of that is happening and it makes me sad :'( When neccessary I want them gunned down with a helicopter if they get to eating pets, livestock or attack people. If you recall I was against the 2 million dollar Idaho plan to gun them down. Let the people do it, provide incentive if necessary. I don't like the idea of government killing animals if hunters/trappers can do it.
And, my philosophy is that you don't need to. I understand your is different and that's fine. We don't need to rehash that argument.
Keep putting words in my mouth and we'll never finish rehashing this argument, I got more skin in the game than you do because I hunt in WA not MT. If you're correct then so be it, no harm no fowl we're all still hunting and I'll owe you a beer or something. But if I'm right.............
But, whether or not you agree with my outlook on it, I can guarantee you this. You have a snowball's chance in Hell of selling the people of this state on the wolf management approach you want. You have a very good chance at selling the approach that we should do everything we can to maximize the state's ability to grow and sustain ungulate herds.
getting a handle on the wolf problem will help the ungulates, this makes no since.
Wolf populations will always be self limiting from a social standpoint, so to make continued predictions that Washington will be a wolf pit is, in my opinion, completely silly. Granted, we will never approach things the same way that Wyoming and Idaho do, but that's life. There are a lot more folks with very different political ideologies in this state that will win that battle.
Sorry NE WA, you're screwed - that's life, oh well get over it. You're buddy Idahohntr agrees that the NE corner of the state will be fed to the wolves, sounds like you agree too but don't care. Shame on you.
I don't NEED to convince anyone of anything. Yet here you are.... I just hope that folks will at least go into this with an educated argument. Living in the past,
No let's DO live in the past just for a second, what happened to Lolo Elk when ID had no wolf control going on due to malloy?? Oh ya 80% decline in Elk in that region.
worrying about what kind of wolf was released won't do anyone any good. If someone has proof of wrongdoing, do something with it. Otherwise, it's worth the same amount as newspaper on the bottom of a birdcage. Yup, I've said this all along - you talking to me?
I am not saying in any way that sportsmen should not be proactive in regards to wolves. They should.
They should be educating themselves with an open mind. If you think you are going to change wolf management with Lobowatch
I thought lobowatch was a wolf advocacy group until Dec 13 2013 when I made that stupid thread "DIY wolf managers find ally in lobowatch" ROFL I had to edit it really quick.
material then folks will be sorely disappointed. If you take the Toby Bridges and Scott Rockolms of the world, and compare their stuff to Howling for Justice and CBD took em a while to google them, kept getting Christian book delivery "CBD WOLF" worked though..., the truth is likely somewhere in the middle.
I didn't know those names, Toby Bridges or Scott Rockholm until you or Idahohntr mentioned them, I'll go look up their writings and see what they have to say. I haven't read any of their works that I know of :tup:
Signed,
A wolf lover and leader of the elk hunter exodus from Washington to Montana :rolleyes:
Post by: bearpaw on February 22, 2014, 02:14:17 AM
Former IDFG Wildlife Commissioner
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,147923.msg1962541/topicseen.html#new (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,147923.msg1962541/topicseen.html#new)QuoteAn information paper prepared by IDFG’s Deputy Director, Sharon Kiefer, titled, “Idaho hunting license sales and revenue changes due to wolves”, dated December 7, 2010 was submitted to the Senate Natural Resource Committee. The purpose of the paper was to address the 2009 calendar year Idaho big game license sales decline by 2,634 nonresident elk tags, 4,460 nonresident deer tags and 4,405 nonresident hunting licenses compared to 2008 sales. Hunter concerns about the effect of wolves on their prospects of success and the reduction of specific big game populations combined with the Nation’s economic down turn and a nonresident fee increase were the reasons for decreased sales. In 2008 IDFG’s elk tag sales were 13,035 and in 2013 they were 8,020 a loss of approximately 40%.
This paper went on to discuss “Economic Impact Analysis of Gray Wolf Reintroduction-State Wide Assessment. “Using the most recent estimate from Cooper et al. (2002), a day of elk hunting in Idaho is worth $127.40/day for direct expenditures in 2008 dollars. The 1994 EIS estimated that between 14,619 and 21,928 hunter days would be lost due to wolf reintroductions in central Idaho. If the reduction in hunter days was linearly related to wolf populations then the loss of hunter days associated with 824 wolves (minimum number reported in 2008) would be between 120,400 and 180,686 resulting in an estimated value of the foregone benefits to hunters of between $15 and $24 million.” This $15 – 24 million represents loss income to the State of Idaho for the 2008 calendar year.
Assuming Idaho lost millions associated with the decrease in nonresident hunters coming to Idaho who suffered the loss? To answer this question one must look at areas of Idaho where wolves have severely impacted deer, elk and moose populations. Start in the Panhandle Region of North Idaho at St. Maries and move east across hunt units 6, 7 and 9. According to the Regional Biologist, Jim Hayden, elk numbers have been reduced 70% over the past five years in these units primarily as a result of wolf predation. IDFG was forced to terminate the general cow season that the Panhandle had been able to sustain for the past 40 years due to depressed elk number in these units. Turn south to the two Zones mentioned by RMEF’s David Allen and you cross Big Game Managements Units (BGMU) 10/12 referred to as the Lolo Zone. The Elk population in this Zone has been reduced by 90% (16,000 to 1,500) over the past 10 years again, primarily due to wolf predation.
Continue south through along the Idaho/Montana boarder through the Selway, Middle Fork, Salmon, Sawtooth portion of the Southern Mountains, Beaverhead and Island Park Zones then move west back across the center of the state through Fairfield to Idaho City to Cascade, Council, Riggins, Grangeville, Orofino and back to St. Maries to complete the circle. This circle describes what was at one time, prior to introduction of wolves, the premier elk hunting area in the country. It is now an area that, in some portions, is devoid of elk with cow/calf ratio’s among those that remain in the single digits.
If the area described above is the where the majority of the nonresident hunters who once hunted in Idaho, but now no longer return to Idaho, what has been the economic impact of their absence? I had a discussion with the owners, David and Tina of Banderob’s Wild Meat Processing Plant located in St. Maries, concerning the damage that wolves had caused to their small business. In 2005 the Banderob’s processed 205 elk, the majority for nonresident hunters. In 2013 they processed 31 elk for mostly resident hunters. Tina reported that nonresident elk hunters have quit coming to St, Maries because the elk are gone. The dollar cost to their meat cutting business comparing the two years of 2005 to 2013 is (174 X $250) $43,500. The state share of this loss at 6% was $2,600.Modify message
The St. Marie’s motel, gas stations, restaurants, grocery, sporting goods stores and local outfitters were similarly impacted. Assuming a 20% hunter harvest rate, the 205 nonresident hunters in 2005 came in groups of four and spent on average $127.43 per day for their 10 day elk camp experience in the St. Maries area. The overall dollar loss to small business in the St. Maries area becomes more significant and understandable. Apply the same analysis to similar businesses in Avery, Kellogg, St Regis, Lolo, Salmon, Rexburg, Stanley, Challis, McCall, Council, Riggins, Grangeville, Orofino, and back to St. Maries and you begin to understand that the negative economic impact and real cost of wolves to Idahoans is huge, in the range of $60 to $120 million over the five year period from 2008 to 2013.
Post by: bearpaw on February 22, 2014, 02:18:11 AM
Wolves do affect business
http://mtstandard.com/news/opinion/columnists/wolves-do-affect-business/article_238be1b4-ec09-11e1-85ad-001a4bcf887a.html?print=true&cid=print (http://mtstandard.com/news/opinion/columnists/wolves-do-affect-business/article_238be1b4-ec09-11e1-85ad-001a4bcf887a.html?print=true&cid=print)
August 22, 2012 12:00 am • By Denver Bryan
A recent op-ed piece by Montana writer Todd Wilkinson claimed that hunting outfitters were “fibbing” about the negative impact high wolf populations are having on their businesses.
Wilkinson’s only support for his conclusion seemed to be the fact that he had no problem finding 50 outfitter websites in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho that advertise high elk hunting success rates.
In subsequent discussions with Wilkinson, I tried to explain that it’s easy to find outfitters with websites who are still in business. However, it’s not so easy to locate outfitters who have either gone out of business, are going out of business or who are having to change how their business operates.
Additionally, I asked him if he knew anyone hoping to stay in business who actually advertises that their business is doing poorly? Unfortunately, Wilkinson didn’t seem to see the logic and went on to challenge me to find even five outfitters who have gone out of business.
After several weeks and hearing back from a few dozen outfitters, I found considerably more than five who are either out of business or struggling to stay in business.
Here are a few comments from the few dozen that I received from outfitters regarding how high wolf populations and greatly diminished elk herds in their regions have impacted their businesses.
• From Lee Hart of Broken Heart Outfitters of Gallatin Gateway: “We used to guide 50-80 elk hunters every year up in the Gallatin Canyon region with good success. However, last year we had one hunter and so far none are booked for 2012.”
• From Dave Hettinger of Dillon: “I was an outfitter in Idaho for 19 years and ended up walking away from the business a few years ago (unable to sell it) due to the serious decline of the Lolo region elk herd.”
• From guide Rick Hafenfeld (also a certified wildlife biologist) out of Big Timber: “In our hunting area, where we previously booked four to five trips with four to six hunters on each, we now only book two hunts with only two clients on one hunt and four on the other.
“This amounts to a reduction in our business from 20-30 hunters to six or a 60 to 80 percent decrease. Contrary to environmentalists’ predictions, I know of no outfitters who have received inquiries about leading wolf watching safaris.”
• From Michael Story: “I outfit in Paradise Valley west of Emigrant. Before wolf introduction there were 16 outfitters in this region and now there are just seven still hanging on.”
• From Joe Cantrell of St. Regis: “Because high wolf numbers have significantly depleted the elk herd in the West Bitterroot hunting district, all of my businesses (outfitting, restaurant, bar and lodging) are down. The damage from wolves has already been done and our elk herd is down 60 percent. I still take a few hunters out but the day is coming for many outfitters when we won’t have enough elk to sustain both wolves and hunting.”
• From Liz Jackson of Cooke City: “The greater Yellowstone elk herd has been drastically reduced due primarily to wolf predation. We have experienced a phenomenal change in our hunting business.
“We are permitted by the Gallatin National Forest to take 18 hunters each fall. We used to be ‘fully booked’ every season but have only guided five, two and four hunters respectively over the past three years, and only harvested one bull in that time. We see the time in the near future when we will no longer be offering elk hunts in this region.”
I could relay similar comments from many other outfitters on this topic but space limitations here won’t allow for such. Suffice it to say, with well over a thousand outfitters in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, the livelihoods of many have been and are still being seriously impacted by high wolf populations.
— Denver Bryan is a wildlife biologist by training and a wildlife photographer by profession. He lives in Bozeman and his work has appeared on the cover of several outdoors magazines.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 22, 2014, 06:44:11 AM
There is a handful of wolf supporters/lovers, or however you choose to refer to them, who derail every single wolf topic no matter how much solid evidence is presented, they avoid any data presented to bring up the same old lame issues to attempt to discredit the individuals presenting the data and hijack the topic. I'm reposting this to bring this discussion back to topic::chuckle: Just about every time somebody posts something that is not in exact agreement with you, you make a statement like the one above about how the topic has been "derailed" by the wolf lovers. I guess by "derail" you mean somebody has inserted objective, logical statements into a wolf thread and you don't like it. You only want people to oooh and ahhh over whatever drivel you posted in the first place with no critical thought. :twocents:
Post by: JLS on February 22, 2014, 07:17:34 AM
KFHunter, I hunt in Washington also. Yes, I do have skin in the game. And no, I'm not saying screw NE Washington. I am saying that you will always be fighting against different political ideology that has a lot more votes than you do.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 22, 2014, 09:49:33 AM
couple problems with your logic. one is that you said the lower 48 has more habitat... come on, the lower FORTY EIGHT STATES, which have a total of at least double the land mass of alaska, has more good habitat? come on man, silly argument. and while this MIGHT be true, youre not only talking about twice as much land, but youre also obviously taking No account of human population versus available habitat. not to mention that the "higher amount of available habitat" available in the 48 consists of lots of small pockets of habitat amid tons of urban *censored*, whereas alaska is a few small pockets of urban *censored* amidst a large area of wildlife habitat. its apples and oranges. and even if alaska had the same square miles of good habitat as the rest of the country, it would be worth way more to animals due to the MUCH lower number of people messing around in it. also, youre saying how bears are so much worse than wolves.... on KODIAK ISLAND... no *censored*? you mean the ISLAND famous for giant bears? wow who woulda thunk it? come on dude, cant you come up with a logical valid argument? quit using comparisons that make no sense
I'll make it even easier for you to understand. Texas which is half the size of Alaska has more good game habitat than Alaska. Even with a population 80 times that of Alaska. And if you consider winter habitat which is critical in Alaska it's even worse.
Post by: deaner on February 22, 2014, 10:01:06 AM
Post by: ghosthunter on February 22, 2014, 10:07:07 AM
http://msnvideo.msn.com/?channelindex=4&from=en-us_msnhp#/video/6a4694ae-d81f-40de-8a50-ba37705b077a (http://msnvideo.msn.com/?channelindex=4&from=en-us_msnhp#/video/6a4694ae-d81f-40de-8a50-ba37705b077a)
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 22, 2014, 10:34:53 AM
You miss my point Sitka. Recruitment for hunters is LOW, and it is lowered by less OPPORTUNITY, i did not say harvest. That said there is a reason why the WDFW attempts to give Jr hunters a special shot at does and ducks in a kids only season.
Most hunters that have the hunting bug can tell you thier experience when they became "hooked" on thier kind of hunting. I've never taked to a hunter that was passionate about hunting that didn't have opportunity. :twocents:
In 2012 70,000+ elk hunters took over 9,000 elk in Washington. That's a 12.9% harvest success rate. Back in 1776-1978 Washington averaged 110,000 elk hunters and 12,000 elk killed. That's a 10.9% harvest success rate. Sure they took more animals back then, and more people hunted elk. But the chances of taking an elk in 2012 were 20% higher than back in the early 70s. So if a new hunter started out in 2012, they had a better chance of being "hooked" than in the early 70's if success is you measure of getting hooked on hunting. Those 40,000 extra hunters only took 3,000 more elk or a success rate of 7.5%. If 40,000 extra hunters went elk hunting today, you'd probably see similar results. But you'd probably see a shrinking resource too.
Some will argue, that we should have 110,000 elk hunters today. But maybe all that crowding in the woods turned a lot of people off to elk hunting? And it certainly didn't do the herds any good. It's the reason Washington went to the 5 elk tag system, with early and late tags and later declare your weapon tags. Something had to be done to take some of the pressure off the elk herds.
Here's a little reminder for the folks who weren't around then.
http://www.muledeerworkinggroup.com/Docs/Proceedings/1982-Western%20States%20Elk%20Workshop/Multiple%20Elk%20Tag%20System%20and%20its%20Effect%20on%20Elk%20Hunting%20Pressu.pdf (http://www.muledeerworkinggroup.com/Docs/Proceedings/1982-Western%20States%20Elk%20Workshop/Multiple%20Elk%20Tag%20System%20and%20its%20Effect%20on%20Elk%20Hunting%20Pressu.pdf)
Things aren't that bad for the people who still get out and elk hunt. At least compared to the "glory days".
Post by: bearpaw on February 22, 2014, 10:39:18 AM
There is a handful of wolf supporters/lovers, or however you choose to refer to them, who derail every single wolf topic no matter how much solid evidence is presented, they avoid any data presented to bring up the same old lame issues to attempt to discredit the individuals presenting the data and hijack the topic. I'm reposting this to bring this discussion back to topic::chuckle: Just about every time somebody posts something that is not in exact agreement with you, you make a statement like the one above about how the topic has been "derailed" by the wolf lovers. I guess by "derail" you mean somebody has inserted objective, logical statements into a wolf thread and you don't like it. You only want people to oooh and ahhh over whatever drivel you posted in the first place with no critical thought. :twocents:
Can't believe I am falling for another topic diversion.... :bash:
Regardless of what you may try to claim if anyone reviews most of the recent wolf topics, they will see the same handful of "wolf supporters or whatever you prefer to be called" who come into the topics and hijack the discussion and lead the discussion to an entirely different topic. I'm not saying that these wolf supporters can not offer their opinion about the topic, I'm saying they always change the discussion completely away from the original topic and usually present nothing of value or facts regarding the original topic. Their usual tactic is to infer that they are better hunters than everyone who opposes unmanaged wolves and that they never have problems filling their tags in Idaho or Montana so wolves must not impact herds. We've all heard it a million times how good of hunters you are, how many times do you guys have to say that? This topic was about wolf affects on business, not how great of hunters you think you are so there must not be any wolf impacts. :twocents:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 22, 2014, 10:39:48 AM
texas is mostly private land, much of which is high fenced, full of feeders, and no wolves at all. texas has absolutely no business in the wolf argument.
We were talking habitat Deaner. The feeders aren't what keep the game alive in Texas. That's just what draws them in for shooting. It's all the grasslands and brush and oak trees (acorns) and farmland that makes it good habitat. You were trying to tell us that Alaska has great habitat. Overall, that just isn't true.
Post by: deaner on February 22, 2014, 10:43:55 AM
texas is mostly private land, much of which is high fenced, full of feeders, and no wolves at all. texas has absolutely no business in the wolf argument.
We were talking habitat Deaner. The feeders aren't what keep the game alive in Texas. That's just what draws them in for shooting. It's all the grasslands and brush and oak trees (acorns) and farmland that makes it good habitat. You were trying to tell us that Alaska has great habitat. Overall, that just isn't true.
i was saying alaska is able to handle a wolf population, not only because of aggressive predator management but also because they have a lot more continuous habitat unbroken by urban areas than the northern rockies area. here we have parcels of habitat connecting between lots of human encroachment. talking about texas is a joke, has nothing to do with the conversation. in fact the conversation is supposed to be about wolves affecting business. once again where does texas fit into that?
Post by: bearpaw on February 22, 2014, 10:52:28 AM
Dale, you never answered my question a few pages ago as to how it would help businesses if I told them the elk hunting sucked?
KFHunter, I hunt in Washington also. Yes, I do have skin in the game. And no, I'm not saying screw NE Washington. I am saying that you will always be fighting against different political ideology that has a lot more votes than you do.
Obviously you can say what you want about the elk hunting. As a businessman and being an honest person I'm not going to lie about the elk herds in wolf affected areas and I'm trying to prevent the same from happening in Washington. From what I see most outfitters readily tell the public that elk herds are hurting and moose have practically disappeared from these wolf impacted areas. In fact the very first post outlines comments from numerous outfitters telling it like it is. I would add that F&G herd counts and studies confirm and prove what the outfitters are saying about wolf impacts.
Everyone understands there are more voters in western WA. :rolleyes:
Post by: bearpaw on February 22, 2014, 10:54:04 AM
texas is mostly private land, much of which is high fenced, full of feeders, and no wolves at all. texas has absolutely no business in the wolf argument.
We were talking habitat Deaner. The feeders aren't what keep the game alive in Texas. That's just what draws them in for shooting. It's all the grasslands and brush and oak trees (acorns) and farmland that makes it good habitat. You were trying to tell us that Alaska has great habitat. Overall, that just isn't true.
This is another perfect example of thread jacking a topic....
Post by: bearpaw on February 22, 2014, 11:01:29 AM
You miss my point Sitka. Recruitment for hunters is LOW, and it is lowered by less OPPORTUNITY, i did not say harvest. That said there is a reason why the WDFW attempts to give Jr hunters a special shot at does and ducks in a kids only season.
Most hunters that have the hunting bug can tell you thier experience when they became "hooked" on thier kind of hunting. I've never taked to a hunter that was passionate about hunting that didn't have opportunity. :twocents:
In 2012 70,000+ elk hunters took over 9,000 elk in Washington. That's a 12.9% harvest success rate. Back in 1776-1978 Washington averaged 110,000 elk hunters and 12,000 elk killed. That's a 10.9% harvest success rate. Sure they took more animals back then, and more people hunted elk. But the chances of taking an elk in 2012 were 20% higher than back in the early 70s. So if a new hunter started out in 2012, they had a better chance of being "hooked" than in the early 70's if success is you measure of getting hooked on hunting. Those 40,000 extra hunters only took 3,000 more elk or a success rate of 7.5%. If 40,000 extra hunters went elk hunting today, you'd probably see similar results. But you'd probably see a shrinking resource too.
Some will argue, that we should have 110,000 elk hunters today. But maybe all that crowding in the woods turned a lot of people off to elk hunting? And it certainly didn't do the herds any good. It's the reason Washington went to the 5 elk tag system, with early and late tags and later declare your weapon tags. Something had to be done to take some of the pressure off the elk herds.
Here's a little reminder for the folks who weren't around then.
http://www.muledeerworkinggroup.com/Docs/Proceedings/1982-Western%20States%20Elk%20Workshop/Multiple%20Elk%20Tag%20System%20and%20its%20Effect%20on%20Elk%20Hunting%20Pressu.pdf (http://www.muledeerworkinggroup.com/Docs/Proceedings/1982-Western%20States%20Elk%20Workshop/Multiple%20Elk%20Tag%20System%20and%20its%20Effect%20on%20Elk%20Hunting%20Pressu.pdf)
Things aren't that bad for the people who still get out and elk hunt. At least compared to the "glory days".
If the goal is to reduce the number of hunters in Washington I would agree the status quo is working, there are less hunters today! I'm wondering why the goal is not to improve the herds to benefit the number of hunters we used to have in Washington? Your strategy seems counter productive! The results are simply not smart business nor are the results very serving to hunters who support WDFW! Your strategy fails to account for the impact to thousands of hunters who quit hunting and the lost business to this state as a result.
Post by: JLS on February 22, 2014, 11:11:49 AM
Dale, you never answered my question a few pages ago as to how it would help businesses if I told them the elk hunting sucked?
KFHunter, I hunt in Washington also. Yes, I do have skin in the game. And no, I'm not saying screw NE Washington. I am saying that you will always be fighting against different political ideology that has a lot more votes than you do.
Obviously you can say what you want about the elk hunting. As a businessman and being an honest person I'm not going to lie about the elk herds in wolf affected areas and I'm trying to prevent the same from happening in Washington. From what I see most outfitters readily tell the public that elk herds are hurting and moose have practically disappeared from these wolf impacted areas. In fact the very first post outlines comments from numerous outfitters telling it like it is. I would add that F&G herd counts and studies confirm and prove what the outfitters are saying about wolf impacts.
Everyone understands there are more voters in western WA. :rolleyes:
Being an honest person myself, I am readily telling the public that there are many areas that have good to excellent elk hunting, and not always where you would expect it to be. People read about one affected area and assume that elk hunting sucks in the whole state. If I perpetuate that thought then I am doing a disservice to many other businesses.
Post by: bearpaw on February 22, 2014, 11:21:06 AM
Dale, you never answered my question a few pages ago as to how it would help businesses if I told them the elk hunting sucked?
KFHunter, I hunt in Washington also. Yes, I do have skin in the game. And no, I'm not saying screw NE Washington. I am saying that you will always be fighting against different political ideology that has a lot more votes than you do.
Obviously you can say what you want about the elk hunting. As a businessman and being an honest person I'm not going to lie about the elk herds in wolf affected areas and I'm trying to prevent the same from happening in Washington. From what I see most outfitters readily tell the public that elk herds are hurting and moose have practically disappeared from these wolf impacted areas. In fact the very first post outlines comments from numerous outfitters telling it like it is. I would add that F&G herd counts and studies confirm and prove what the outfitters are saying about wolf impacts.
Everyone understands there are more voters in western WA. :rolleyes:
Being an honest person myself, I am readily telling the public that there are many areas that have good to excellent elk hunting, and not always where you would expect it to be. People read about one affected area and assume that elk hunting sucks in the whole state. If I perpetuate that thought then I am doing a disservice to many other businesses.
That's a more reasonable response, although not entirely honest. There are actually numerous impacted herds in both Idaho and Montana, that would be a more honest appraisal. Yes, there are certainly areas with more elk where the wolves have not expanded their numbers yet. Yes if you consider private land units in E Montana where there are more elk then MT is doing fine. But most residents and non-residents do not have access to those private lands. Historically thousands of hunters depended on the public land hunts in the Bitteroot, Madison, Yellowstone, etc. Those areas and others have all suffered wolf impacts documented by F&G and in the Yellowstone all the late hunts have been eliminated. For you to infer that has not impacted hunter opportunity seems a bit dishonest to me.
Furthermore, these losses of hunter opportunity and resulting declines in hunters has heavily impacted rural businesses. :twocents:
Post by: Bob33 on February 22, 2014, 11:26:12 AM
More wolves eat more elk.
More elk eaten by wolves leaves fewer for harvest by hunters.
Hunters participate for many reasons, but to suggest that on an aggregate basis, harvest opportunity is no factor at all in what or where they hunt is rather silly.
Fewer hunters means less hunting related business in localized areas with fewer harvestable animals.
An argument could be made that the loss of hunting related business in one area is equally offset by an increase in hunting related business in another area. Can that be documented?
An argument could be made that the loss of hunting related business is equally offset by an increase in other outdoor activities, such as wolf watching. Can that be documented?
Post by: JLS on February 22, 2014, 11:35:27 AM
Dale, you never answered my question a few pages ago as to how it would help businesses if I told them the elk hunting sucked?
KFHunter, I hunt in Washington also. Yes, I do have skin in the game. And no, I'm not saying screw NE Washington. I am saying that you will always be fighting against different political ideology that has a lot more votes than you do.
Obviously you can say what you want about the elk hunting. As a businessman and being an honest person I'm not going to lie about the elk herds in wolf affected areas and I'm trying to prevent the same from happening in Washington. From what I see most outfitters readily tell the public that elk herds are hurting and moose have practically disappeared from these wolf impacted areas. In fact the very first post outlines comments from numerous outfitters telling it like it is. I would add that F&G herd counts and studies confirm and prove what the outfitters are saying about wolf impacts.
Everyone understands there are more voters in western WA. :rolleyes:
Being an honest person myself, I am readily telling the public that there are many areas that have good to excellent elk hunting, and not always where you would expect it to be. People read about one affected area and assume that elk hunting sucks in the whole state. If I perpetuate that thought then I am doing a disservice to many other businesses.
That's a more reasonable response, although not entirely honest. There are actually numerous impacted herds in both Idaho and Montana, that would be a more honest appraisal. Yes, there are certainly areas with more elk where the wolves have not expanded their numbers yet. Yes if you consider private land units in E Montana where there are more elk then MT is doing fine. But most residents and non-residents do not have access to those private lands. Historically thousands of hunters depended on the public land hunts in the Bitteroot, Madison, Yellowstone, etc. Those areas and others have all suffered wolf impacts documented by F&G and in the Yellowstone all the late hunts have been eliminated. For you to infer that has not impacted hunter opportunity seems a bit dishonest to me.
Furthermore, these losses of hunter opportunity and resulting declines in hunters has heavily impacted rural businesses. :twocents:
Dishonest, give me a break :rolleyes: I have absolutely NOTHING to gain in any way through all of this. It makes no difference to me, other than the fact that I want folks to look beyond the myths that would lead you to believe that elk hunting in Montana sucks.
I don't hunt private land. I don't hunt eastern Montana very often. I hunt public land in the western part of the state where wolves have been present for 15 years. I hunt resident elk herds that have stayed the same or increased over the last 10 years. A NR bowhunter killed a B&C bull less than five miles from where I hunt during bow season.
You are focusing on the negative. Note that I never said how many herds have been affected by wolves? I am focusing on the positives. For you to infer that the loss of the late Yellowstone hunt is indicative of the quality of elk hunting in the Madison is entirely dishonest to me. Take a look at the season structure there and you'll see for yourself. Cow elk are still being killed with OTC tags late into winter. Doesn't quite fit your argument does it?
Again, if I tell folks that there is still good elk hunting in wolf country (which there is) am I helping or hurting businesses? You can question my honesty all you want. The fact is I have direct experience there hunting that area and speak from that.
Post by: bearpaw on February 22, 2014, 12:05:26 PM
Dale, you never answered my question a few pages ago as to how it would help businesses if I told them the elk hunting sucked?
KFHunter, I hunt in Washington also. Yes, I do have skin in the game. And no, I'm not saying screw NE Washington. I am saying that you will always be fighting against different political ideology that has a lot more votes than you do.
Obviously you can say what you want about the elk hunting. As a businessman and being an honest person I'm not going to lie about the elk herds in wolf affected areas and I'm trying to prevent the same from happening in Washington. From what I see most outfitters readily tell the public that elk herds are hurting and moose have practically disappeared from these wolf impacted areas. In fact the very first post outlines comments from numerous outfitters telling it like it is. I would add that F&G herd counts and studies confirm and prove what the outfitters are saying about wolf impacts.
Everyone understands there are more voters in western WA. :rolleyes:
Being an honest person myself, I am readily telling the public that there are many areas that have good to excellent elk hunting, and not always where you would expect it to be. People read about one affected area and assume that elk hunting sucks in the whole state. If I perpetuate that thought then I am doing a disservice to many other businesses.
That's a more reasonable response, although not entirely honest. There are actually numerous impacted herds in both Idaho and Montana, that would be a more honest appraisal. Yes, there are certainly areas with more elk where the wolves have not expanded their numbers yet. Yes if you consider private land units in E Montana where there are more elk then MT is doing fine. But most residents and non-residents do not have access to those private lands. Historically thousands of hunters depended on the public land hunts in the Bitteroot, Madison, Yellowstone, etc. Those areas and others have all suffered wolf impacts documented by F&G and in the Yellowstone all the late hunts have been eliminated. For you to infer that has not impacted hunter opportunity seems a bit dishonest to me.
Furthermore, these losses of hunter opportunity and resulting declines in hunters has heavily impacted rural businesses. :twocents:
Dishonest, give me a break :rolleyes: Unlike you, I have absolutely NOTHING to gain in any way through all of this. It makes no difference to me, other than the fact that I want folks to look beyond the myths that would lead you to believe that elk hunting in Montana sucks.
I don't hunt private land. I don't hunt eastern Montana very often. I hunt public land in the western part of the state where wolves have been present for 15 years. I hunt resident elk herds that have stayed the same or increased over the last 10 years. A NR bowhunter killed a B&C bull less than five miles from where I hunt during bow season.
You are focusing on the negative. Note that I never said how many herds have been affected by wolves? I am focusing on the positives. For you to infer that the loss of the late Yellowstone hunt is indicative of the quality of elk hunting in the Madison is entirely dishonest to me. Take a look at the season structure there and you'll see for yourself. Cow elk are still being killed with OTC tags late into winter. Doesn't quite fit your argument does it?
Again, if I tell folks that there is still good elk hunting in wolf country (which there is) am I helping or hurting businesses? You can question my honesty all you want. The fact is I have direct experience there and you don't.
You can certainly deny whatever you want. The F&G statistics (which is what I like to deal with) all say there are numerous declining herds in Montana, perhaps I misidentified one of the declining herds?. Even the Yellowstone herd that used to number nearly 20,000 elk but now only numbers less than 4,000 elk probably has a handful of record class bulls. I am not arguing that at all. But the fact remains that exactly as I have stated the late hunts have been eliminated to try and save the remaining herd. No matter how you try to sidestep the issue wolves have resulted in losses of hunter opportunity and impacted local businesses.
In addition there are many other declining herds in MT and in ID with wolves identified by F&G as a limiting factor, hunter opportunity has been lost and businesses have suffered as a result. With these wolves impacting the herds if thousands of hunters didn't quit hunting on their own, the F&G agencies would likely need to limit hunter opportunity even more than they have in these public land areas to lessen herd declines just as they have in Yellowstone, Lolo, Middle Fork, and many other areas. The statistics and the agencies prove wolves as a primary limiting factor in many areas.
If there are too many elk in your hunting area you are certainly welcome to identify it specifically so some of the displaced hunters can help control these over populated elk.
I am not by any means saying every unit in ID/MT has been impacted by wolves, the statistics say otherwise. It's a lot of the former best elk areas that have been impacted. Again, yes there are elk and I'm certain there are a handful of record bulls in any area with a herd of elk, but that doesn't mean those herds have not been reduced greatly or that thousands of hunters have not lost opportunity.
Post by: JLS on February 22, 2014, 12:29:35 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 22, 2014, 12:43:08 PM
I have never debated or denied that hunter opportunity has been lost and businesses have suffered as a result.
OK, glad we agree on that. :tup: :brew:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 22, 2014, 01:39:29 PM
Furthermore, these losses of hunter opportunity and resulting declines in hunters has heavily impacted rural businesses. :twocents:
This business in Western Montana seems to have not been affected. Lots of elk and great success rate and nice bulls. Darn that Ted Turner. http://www.arnaudoutfitting.com/hunts/elk.html (http://www.arnaudoutfitting.com/hunts/elk.html)
Of course you have to have a bit of money to hunt with this business and they are probably self contained so they don't spread the cash around much to other businesses.
My 82 year old uncle and his group (all locals) took 12 elk off one ranch near Townsend Montana this year. That's about par for the course for them. A local rancher lets them thin the elk on his property to alleviate elk damage. Wolves aren't keeping them from hunting and being successful. But if some outfitter convinces the rancher he can significantly up his profit margin by leasing the hunting rights to him, my uncle's group might be out of luck.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 22, 2014, 01:42:20 PM
Montana Elk Herd 10-21-2012 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZCCIC6EnOY#ws)
Post by: bearpaw on February 22, 2014, 03:05:53 PM
However, again you are trying to tap a point that is probably useless in this discussion. To my knowledge, that elk herd hasn't suffered any wolf impacts yet, so it's sort of a useless post at best for this discussion. Just for a reminder, it's the wolf impacted herds that have reduced hunter opportunity and damaged local businesses.
Think Yellowstone, lolo, selway, middlefork, panhandle, etc,... and you will be more on target.
Post by: KFhunter on February 22, 2014, 03:08:11 PM
Sitka you are a persistent bugger, I'll give you that. :chuckle:
However, again you are trying to tap a point that is probably useless in this discussion. To my knowledge, that elk herd hasn't suffered any wolf impacts yet, so it's sort of a useless post at best for this discussion. Just for a reminder, it's the wolf impacted herds that have reduced hunter opportunity and damaged local businesses.
Think Yellowstone, lolo, selway, middlefork, panhandle, NE Washington etc,... and you will be more on target.
fixed
Post by: idahohuntr on February 22, 2014, 09:26:34 PM
Sitka you are a persistent bugger, I'll give you that. :chuckle:Just out of curiousity, do you hunt the selway, middlefork, lolo, or panhandle zones? Or do you have any experience in any of them?
However, again you are trying to tap a point that is probably useless in this discussion. To my knowledge, that elk herd hasn't suffered any wolf impacts yet, so it's sort of a useless post at best for this discussion. Just for a reminder, it's the wolf impacted herds that have reduced hunter opportunity and damaged local businesses.
Think Yellowstone, lolo, selway, middlefork, panhandle, etc,... and you will be more on target.
Post by: KFhunter on February 22, 2014, 11:27:42 PM
I'd just say there's plenty of guides in those areas out of work and perhaps he knows them personally. The outfitter world is pretty small.
Post by: bearpaw on February 23, 2014, 10:17:40 AM
Sitka you are a persistent bugger, I'll give you that. :chuckle:Just out of curiousity, do you hunt the selway, middlefork, lolo, or panhandle zones? Or do you have any experience in any of them?
However, again you are trying to tap a point that is probably useless in this discussion. To my knowledge, that elk herd hasn't suffered any wolf impacts yet, so it's sort of a useless post at best for this discussion. Just for a reminder, it's the wolf impacted herds that have reduced hunter opportunity and damaged local businesses.
Think Yellowstone, lolo, selway, middlefork, panhandle, etc,... and you will be more on target.
That's a reasonable question given that I shoot off my mouth so much!
First I would point out that my claims are based on IDFG statistics which are documented on the IDFG website, in the IDFG Predator Management Plans, and in numerous topics on this forum, and in most of these topics the same handful of "_____" members always derail the discussion. :jacked:
Next, my son is an Idaho resident and spends most of the year in wolf impacted Idaho units. He has been followed off the mountain by packs of howling wolves that skirted him and his dogs wanting to eat his dogs. That scares the dickins out of him, he will not go on the mountain without a gun. He has been on many winter ranges hunting lions and hunting wolves with clients for other outfitters. He also hunts spring bear in the higher areas in the spring and sees the herds then too. He probably has a better handle on many elk, deer, and moose herds than many people working for F&G. We knew about several of the undocumented panhandle wolf packs before wolf season opened and IDFG found out that half the wolves taken were killed from undocumented wolf packs.
Lastly, Yes, I have spent time in many of those zones myself and I almost purchased an elk hunting business in the Selway a few years ago, glad I backed out of that it just keeps getting worse. More recently I nearly purchased a business in the Lolo, two different businesses in the Coeur D Alenes, and two businesses in the St Joe, but backed off at the last minute because of the predator impacts. Just last year I tried to buy a business in the middle fork and a business in the southern hills, but both deals fell through because the outfitters had not done any business in the last three years and they lost the business back to the state due to non-use. I still have the correspondence to prove that.
There just isn't much value in the ungulate outfitting businesses in most of those units, if I can find a business that's cheap enough I will buy one for the predator hunts, but most of these outfitters are buried in businesses that they paid 4 to 6 times current value so they are trying to hold out. But I can tell you that many outfitting businesses are in the red with few if any hunters each year. In my search for additional outfitting businesses my son and I have probably talked to no less than 20 or 30 of the outfitters in wolf impacted areas in the last 1-3 years. We have also made scouting trips to check out these outfitting areas and when I talk about what outfitters say, in many cases that is coming directly from the mouth of outfitters (who have outfitted these areas for 10 or more years) when I have talked to them in search of buying their business.
Two years ago another outfitter friend purchased a Lolo outfitting business for just over $40,000. The previous owner of that business had paid $250,000 cash for that business in 1995. The new owner (friend) is doing predator hunts and hoping that IDFG can recover the elk herd with wolf control actions.
I can assure you that I know exactly what I am talking about when I discuss these wolf impacted areas. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on February 23, 2014, 10:35:58 AM
Post by: ribka on February 23, 2014, 10:44:02 AM
I guess we can start saving for a $ 8 k canned elk hunt on a MT ranch
Sitka you are a persistent bugger, I'll give you that. :chuckle:Just out of curiousity, do you hunt the selway, middlefork, lolo, or panhandle zones? Or do you have any experience in any of them?
However, again you are trying to tap a point that is probably useless in this discussion. To my knowledge, that elk herd hasn't suffered any wolf impacts yet, so it's sort of a useless post at best for this discussion. Just for a reminder, it's the wolf impacted herds that have reduced hunter opportunity and damaged local businesses.
Think Yellowstone, lolo, selway, middlefork, panhandle, etc,... and you will be more on target.
That's a reasonable question given that I shoot off my mouth so much!
First I would point out that my claims are based on IDFG statistics which are documented on the IDFG website, in the IDFG Predator Management Plans, and in numerous topics on this forum, and in most of these topics the same handful of "_____" members always derail the discussion. :jacked:
Next, my son is an Idaho resident and spends most of the year in wolf impacted Idaho units. He has been followed off the mountain by packs of howling wolves that skirted him and his dogs wanting to eat his dogs. That scares the dickins out of him, he will not go on the mountain without a gun. He has been on many winter ranges hunting lions and hunting wolves with clients for other outfitters. He also hunts spring bear in the higher areas in the spring and sees the herds then too. He probably has a better handle on many elk, deer, and moose herds than many people working for F&G. We knew about several of the undocumented panhandle wolf packs before wolf season opened and IDFG found out that half the wolves taken were killed from undocumented wolf packs.
Lastly, Yes, I have spent time in many of those zones myself and I almost purchased an elk hunting business in the Selway a few years ago, glad I backed out of that it just keeps getting worse. More recently I nearly purchased a business in the Lolo, two different businesses in the Coeur D Alenes, and two businesses in the St Joe, but backed off at the last minute because of the predator impacts. Just last year I tried to buy a business in the middle fork and a business in the southern hills, but both deals fell through because the outfitters had not done any business in the last three years and they lost the business back to the state due to non-use. I still have the correspondence to prove that.
There just isn't much value in the ungulate outfitting businesses in most of those units, if I can find a business that's cheap enough I will buy one for the predator hunts, but most of these outfitters are buried in businesses that they paid 4 to 6 times current value so they are trying to hold out. But I can tell you that many outfitting businesses are in the red with few if any hunters each year. In my search for additional outfitting businesses my son and I have probably talked to no less than 20 or 30 of the outfitters in wolf impacted areas in the last 1-3 years. We have also made scouting trips to check out these outfitting areas and when I talk about what outfitters say, in many cases that is coming directly from the mouth of outfitters (who have outfitted these areas for 10 or more years) when I have talked to them in search of buying their business.
Two years ago another outfitter friend purchased a Lolo outfitting business for just over $40,000. The previous owner of that business had paid $250,000 cash for that business in 1995. The new owner (friend) is doing predator hunts and hoping that IDFG can recover the elk herd with wolf control actions.
I can assure you that I know exactly what I am talking about when I discuss these wolf impacted areas. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on February 23, 2014, 11:22:53 AM
Obviously some outfitters in ID/MT are still getting hunters and have elk to hunt, but here's what is happening. A lot of outfitters are losing their businesses and surviving outfitters are doubling and tripling the size of their outfitting areas to survive. If you have a large enough portion of the Lolo, Selway, or some other wolf impacted area and know where the remaining elk herds hang out, you can still be successful as an outfitter or as a DIY public land hunter. But with fewer elk in these areas the hunters who do not get onto the specific remaining herds usually see little or nothing. That is why hunter numbers have dropped off in the wolf impacted areas. Fewer elk spells fewer opportunities.
We have a friend who lives/lived in Garden Valley Idaho. He is not a hunter, he hunted one time with my son and another friend and he shot a bear, that's it. He and his wife owned the restaurant along the main highway, he is a heck of a chef. Their restaurant was successful providing meals to rafters in the spring/summer and hunters in the fall/early winter. This is fairly close to the original wolf release site in Idaho. About 3 or 4 years ago after most of the late season hunts were reduced or eliminated and after many hunters quit coming to the area for the general seasons, he and his wife went broke, rafting season wasn't enough to support them all year, they had to shut down the restaurant. That man hates wolves, he now has to leave home for a month or two at a time to go work on drilling rigs to earn a living, he misses his family and his business. Small businesses all over rural Idaho have suffered the same "wrath of the wolf".
Post by: JLS on February 23, 2014, 04:14:46 PM
If there are too many elk in your hunting area you are certainly welcome to identify it specifically so some of the displaced hunters can help control these over populated elk.
I'll be posting my hunting area publicly on the web about the same time you offer unlimited free hunts on your private leases.
Post by: JLS on February 23, 2014, 04:41:19 PM
You can certainly deny whatever you want. The F&G statistics (which is what I like to deal with) all say there are numerous declining herds in Montana, perhaps I misidentified one of the declining herds?. Even the Yellowstone herd that used to number nearly 20,000 elk but now only numbers less than 4,000 elk probably has a handful of record class bulls. I am not arguing that at all.
For your view pleasure. I will be the first to admit that I think many of the objectives are too low in favor of agricultural interests, but if you want to talk data here is what we have to look at.
Intepret it how you wish, I see a lot of green and red in areas that have wolves.
Of course the loss of the late hunts had a significant commercial impact. It was a cash cow for outfitters like Broken Hart to take late season cow hunters out. But I've also talked to other outfitters while out hunting that are doing just fine.
Post by: JLS on February 23, 2014, 04:53:38 PM
Post by: JLS on February 23, 2014, 05:04:43 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on February 23, 2014, 10:17:45 PM
It wasn't a leading question...I was just curious what your experience was. There is a lot of good information one can get from IDFG data...but there are mountains of subtleties and knowledge you can only ever glean by actually putting boots on the ground. I will tell you something I know you won't like...but thats nothing new. I have very little sympathy for most outfitters in places like the Lolo and Selway zones. In the 80+ years my family has hunted the Lolo and Selway we have obviously run across a number of outfitters...it never ceases to amaze me either through direct feedback from immediate family or my own personal experience what jack@*** guides and outfitters can be on public land. Not all, but a healthy percentage of them act like they own the area they guide in...which IS BEYOND INSULTING. Usually it was the non-residents from California and Washington with no real tie to the area that were the WORST! I mean, take a non-resident guy like you for example...and you guys are dime a dozen, you buy some outfit for a low price, swoop in and try to turn a profit on an area you usually know little about and have not spent much time in. Most of the time they go broke or sell but while they are trying to turn a profit they act like a jack*** to DIY hunters. Now, thats not how every outfit operates and some are quite reputable. But a lot are not...so for the most part...I am not going to lose sleep over having fewer outfitters in many of these areas of Idaho. Its actually been one of the upsides to decreases in elk numbers in those units...the outfitters I have met and liked are all still operating...its mostly (*not all*) the fly by night jack@*** that have gone belly up and I am glad they did.Sitka you are a persistent bugger, I'll give you that. :chuckle:Just out of curiousity, do you hunt the selway, middlefork, lolo, or panhandle zones? Or do you have any experience in any of them?
However, again you are trying to tap a point that is probably useless in this discussion. To my knowledge, that elk herd hasn't suffered any wolf impacts yet, so it's sort of a useless post at best for this discussion. Just for a reminder, it's the wolf impacted herds that have reduced hunter opportunity and damaged local businesses.
Think Yellowstone, lolo, selway, middlefork, panhandle, etc,... and you will be more on target.
That's a reasonable question given that I shoot off my mouth so much!
First I would point out that my claims are based on IDFG statistics which are documented on the IDFG website, in the IDFG Predator Management Plans, and in numerous topics on this forum, and in most of these topics the same handful of "_____" members always derail the discussion. :jacked:
Next, my son is an Idaho resident and spends most of the year in wolf impacted Idaho units. He has been followed off the mountain by packs of howling wolves that skirted him and his dogs wanting to eat his dogs. That scares the dickins out of him, he will not go on the mountain without a gun. He has been on many winter ranges hunting lions and hunting wolves with clients for other outfitters. He also hunts spring bear in the higher areas in the spring and sees the herds then too. He probably has a better handle on many elk, deer, and moose herds than many people working for F&G. We knew about several of the undocumented panhandle wolf packs before wolf season opened and IDFG found out that half the wolves taken were killed from undocumented wolf packs.
Lastly, Yes, I have spent time in many of those zones myself and I almost purchased an elk hunting business in the Selway a few years ago, glad I backed out of that it just keeps getting worse. More recently I nearly purchased a business in the Lolo, two different businesses in the Coeur D Alenes, and two businesses in the St Joe, but backed off at the last minute because of the predator impacts. Just last year I tried to buy a business in the middle fork and a business in the southern hills, but both deals fell through because the outfitters had not done any business in the last three years and they lost the business back to the state due to non-use. I still have the correspondence to prove that.
There just isn't much value in the ungulate outfitting businesses in most of those units, if I can find a business that's cheap enough I will buy one for the predator hunts, but most of these outfitters are buried in businesses that they paid 4 to 6 times current value so they are trying to hold out. But I can tell you that many outfitting businesses are in the red with few if any hunters each year. In my search for additional outfitting businesses my son and I have probably talked to no less than 20 or 30 of the outfitters in wolf impacted areas in the last 1-3 years. We have also made scouting trips to check out these outfitting areas and when I talk about what outfitters say, in many cases that is coming directly from the mouth of outfitters (who have outfitted these areas for 10 or more years) when I have talked to them in search of buying their business.
Two years ago another outfitter friend purchased a Lolo outfitting business for just over $40,000. The previous owner of that business had paid $250,000 cash for that business in 1995. The new owner (friend) is doing predator hunts and hoping that IDFG can recover the elk herd with wolf control actions.
I can assure you that I know exactly what I am talking about when I discuss these wolf impacted areas. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on February 24, 2014, 12:56:36 AM
It wasn't a leading question...I was just curious what your experience was. There is a lot of good information one can get from IDFG data...but there are mountains of subtleties and knowledge you can only ever glean by actually putting boots on the ground. I will tell you something I know you won't like...but thats nothing new. I have very little sympathy for most outfitters in places like the Lolo and Selway zones. In the 80+ years my family has hunted the Lolo and Selway we have obviously run across a number of outfitters...it never ceases to amaze me either through direct feedback from immediate family or my own personal experience what jack@*** guides and outfitters can be on public land. Not all, but a healthy percentage of them act like they own the area they guide in...which IS BEYOND INSULTING. Usually it was the non-residents from California and Washington with no real tie to the area that were the WORST! I mean, take a non-resident guy like you for example...and you guys are dime a dozen, you buy some outfit for a low price, swoop in and try to turn a profit on an area you usually know little about and have not spent much time in. Most of the time they go broke or sell but while they are trying to turn a profit they act like a jack*** to DIY hunters. Now, thats not how every outfit operates and some are quite reputable. But a lot are not...so for the most part...I am not going to lose sleep over having fewer outfitters in many of these areas of Idaho. Its actually been one of the upsides to decreases in elk numbers in those units...the outfitters I have met and liked are all still operating...its mostly (*not all*) the fly by night jack@*** that have gone belly up and I am glad they did.
idahohntr, I've seen your attitude before, it pretty much explains your hostility towards myself, you've got a chip on your shoulder and labeling me as someone that you hate even though you've never met me. Do you also hate non-resident hunters? I will remind you that most western states and businesses welcome non-resident hunters and outfitters. Your comments seem to imply that because I am a non-resident outfitter I am a "____-___", as a non-resident yourself this seems pretty much like the pot calling the kettle black. FYI - I already knew you hated outfitters, it's regularly evident in your comments. For what it's worth I'm very sorry that you were mistreated by someone and that you now have this extreme hatred. :sry:
You did avoid or over looked the fact that fewer resident and non-resident hunters has significantly impacted many other local businesses (such as the friend I mentioned that had to close his restaurant) in many small towns in wolf affected areas. Do you have some sort of disliking for other businesses who cater to non-resident hunters and outfitters as well? :dunno:
Here's another worthy article forwarded by Toby Bridges which details wolf impacts in Montana:
Quote
Why Anti-Hunters Are Dead Wrong About Wolves
by David Hart | February 21st, 2014
Things were pretty good the first year Drew Johnson and a group of friends hunted elk in Montana’s Gallatin National Forest. He arrowed a 4×5 bull near the northern boundary of Yellowstone National Park in 2000, but things went down hill the next season.
“Every time we tried cow calling or bugling, we called in wolves. We saw quite a few elk carcasses, and we heard wolves howling around us every night,” recalls Johnson, a Farmville, Virginia, dentist. “We never saw an elk.”
He and his friends moved to a different part of Montana and had a few good years before the wolves eventually caught up to them again. The elk disappeared, so last fall Johnson and his friends booked a hunt with a New Mexico outfitter, a move they plan to make permanent.
“I’m not going back to Montana,” he says.
Johnson isn’t alone. Hunters are abandoning some parts of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, turning their attention instead to wolf-free states. The number of non-resident elk hunters traveling to Idaho was down 23 percent in 2011, and for the first time in 30 years, Montana did not sell all of its non-resident elk licenses during the general drawing in 2012.
No wonder. As wolf populations have increased, big-game numbers spiraled downward. There is no better example than the elk herd north of the Yellowstone border, the same region Johnson used to hunt. Land that once had 19,000 animals in 1995 now holds less than 4,000.
Elk numbers in other wolf territories are experiencing similar declines, despite assurances from some pro-wolf groups that the predators would only prey on the sick and weak. Turns out, they are taking a huge toll on elk calves, too. Cow-to-calf ratios in some parts of Montana have fallen to as low as 11 calves per 100 cows, a number too low to maintain current populations. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks cut the number of elk licenses in some units as a result.
Read more: http://www.petersenshunting.com/2014/02/21/anti-hunters-dead-wrong-about-wolves/#ixzz2uDwrAibs (http://www.petersenshunting.com/2014/02/21/anti-hunters-dead-wrong-about-wolves/#ixzz2uDwrAibs)
Post by: deaner on February 24, 2014, 01:07:20 AM
JLS, I've seen the Montana Charts before and would agree that some objectives are too low to satisfy farmers, this happens in some areas of most states, also please keep in mind that MFWP is still somewhat in denial about wolves and wolf impacts and still trying to blame other factors in much the same way as WDFW and some members on this forum. IDFG has been confronted with so much data and there has been some wolf lovers taken out of their ranks, finally IDFG is openly publishing their findings regarding wolf impacts. As certain wolfers are no longer in MFWP, that agency is coming around, but they are still somewhat behind the curve, but I'm confident they will continue to realize more of the impacts as wolves spread further across Montana.It wasn't a leading question...I was just curious what your experience was. There is a lot of good information one can get from IDFG data...but there are mountains of subtleties and knowledge you can only ever glean by actually putting boots on the ground. I will tell you something I know you won't like...but thats nothing new. I have very little sympathy for most outfitters in places like the Lolo and Selway zones. In the 80+ years my family has hunted the Lolo and Selway we have obviously run across a number of outfitters...it never ceases to amaze me either through direct feedback from immediate family or my own personal experience what jack@*** guides and outfitters can be on public land. Not all, but a healthy percentage of them act like they own the area they guide in...which IS BEYOND INSULTING. Usually it was the non-residents from California and Washington with no real tie to the area that were the WORST! I mean, take a non-resident guy like you for example...and you guys are dime a dozen, you buy some outfit for a low price, swoop in and try to turn a profit on an area you usually know little about and have not spent much time in. Most of the time they go broke or sell but while they are trying to turn a profit they act like a jack*** to DIY hunters. Now, thats not how every outfit operates and some are quite reputable. But a lot are not...so for the most part...I am not going to lose sleep over having fewer outfitters in many of these areas of Idaho. Its actually been one of the upsides to decreases in elk numbers in those units...the outfitters I have met and liked are all still operating...its mostly (*not all*) the fly by night jack@*** that have gone belly up and I am glad they did.
idahohntr, I've seen your attitude before, it pretty much explains your hostility towards myself, you've got a chip on your shoulder and labeling me as someone that you hate even though you've never met me. Do you also hate non-resident hunters? I will remind you that most western states and businesses welcome non-resident hunters and outfitters. Your comments seem to imply that because I am a non-resident outfitter I am a "____-___", as a non-resident yourself this seems pretty much like the pot calling the kettle black. FYI - I already knew you hated outfitters, it's regularly evident in your comments. For what it's worth I'm very sorry that you were mistreated by someone and that you now have this extreme hatred. :sry:
You did avoid or over looked the fact that fewer resident and non-resident hunters has significantly impacted many other local businesses (such as the friend I mentioned that had to close his restaurant) in many small towns in wolf affected areas. Do you have some sort of disliking for other businesses who cater to non-resident hunters and outfitters as well? :dunno:
Here's another worthy article forwarded by Toby Bridges which details wolf impacts in Montana:QuoteWhy Anti-Hunters Are Dead Wrong About Wolves
by David Hart | February 21st, 2014
Things were pretty good the first year Drew Johnson and a group of friends hunted elk in Montana’s Gallatin National Forest. He arrowed a 4×5 bull near the northern boundary of Yellowstone National Park in 2000, but things went down hill the next season.
“Every time we tried cow calling or bugling, we called in wolves. We saw quite a few elk carcasses, and we heard wolves howling around us every night,” recalls Johnson, a Farmville, Virginia, dentist. “We never saw an elk.”
He and his friends moved to a different part of Montana and had a few good years before the wolves eventually caught up to them again. The elk disappeared, so last fall Johnson and his friends booked a hunt with a New Mexico outfitter, a move they plan to make permanent.
“I’m not going back to Montana,” he says.
Johnson isn’t alone. Hunters are abandoning some parts of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, turning their attention instead to wolf-free states. The number of non-resident elk hunters traveling to Idaho was down 23 percent in 2011, and for the first time in 30 years, Montana did not sell all of its non-resident elk licenses during the general drawing in 2012.
No wonder. As wolf populations have increased, big-game numbers spiraled downward. There is no better example than the elk herd north of the Yellowstone border, the same region Johnson used to hunt. Land that once had 19,000 animals in 1995 now holds less than 4,000.
Elk numbers in other wolf territories are experiencing similar declines, despite assurances from some pro-wolf groups that the predators would only prey on the sick and weak. Turns out, they are taking a huge toll on elk calves, too. Cow-to-calf ratios in some parts of Montana have fallen to as low as 11 calves per 100 cows, a number too low to maintain current populations. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks cut the number of elk licenses in some units as a result.
Read more: http://www.petersenshunting.com/2014/02/21/anti-hunters-dead-wrong-about-wolves/#ixzz2uDwrAibs (http://www.petersenshunting.com/2014/02/21/anti-hunters-dead-wrong-about-wolves/#ixzz2uDwrAibs)
no dale, this is why anti-hunters are dead-RIGHT. look at the last line. CUT THE NUMBER OF ELK LICENSES. the anti-hunters are achieving their goal. they knew wolves would *censored* up elk numbers, at least the people behind the show did. the little "think theyre doing the right thing- have good intentions but no knowledge" type people who actually fund this *censored*, they have no idea that their cause is killing more animals than its protecting. they just drink the kool-aid and smile, because it gives them credibility with their friends, who are also know nothing urbanites with no knowledge of wildlife dynamics.
the "dead wrong" thing means youre underestimating these wily *censored*s.
Post by: JLS on February 24, 2014, 07:39:23 AM
JLS, I've seen the Montana Charts before and would agree that some objectives are too low to satisfy farmers, this happens in some areas of most states, also please keep in mind that MFWP is still somewhat in denial about wolves and wolf impacts and still trying to blame other factors in much the same way as WDFW and some members on this forum.
Blame other factors for what? That they hunted the crap out of cow elk in the Bitterroot and the Northern Yellowstone? That they are maintaining a trophy area for lions in the Bitterroot? That the Bitterroot went to permit only, but numbers are coming back?
Bottom line, there are still plenty of elk in Montana, even in a lot of units that have wolves. If you disagree with this statement then you are the one in denial. Look at HD 121. Right in the heart of wolf country, yet it's still producing elk far and above what the objective is, and numbers are increasing. So, I repeat, the lost of late season hunts in the Yellowstone and the Gallatin is not in any way reflective of the quality of elk hunting in the majority of the state.
Hunter access is still a far greater issue in Montana than wolves are or ever will be in my opinion.
Edit: Continue spinning this however, but this fact you cannot argue:
There are plenty of hunting districts in Montana that have plenty of elk. To imply broadly that the elk hunting in Montana sucks because of wolves is unfair to the businesses there that lose dollars because hunters go elsewhere thinking there are no elk.
Post by: bearpaw on February 24, 2014, 07:52:29 AM
JLS, I've seen the Montana Charts before and would agree that some objectives are too low to satisfy farmers, this happens in some areas of most states, also please keep in mind that MFWP is still somewhat in denial about wolves and wolf impacts and still trying to blame other factors in much the same way as WDFW and some members on this forum.
Blame other factors for what? That they hunted the crap out of cow elk in the Bitterroot and the Northern Yellowstone? That they are maintaining a trophy area for lions in the Bitterroot? That the Bitterroot went to permit only, but numbers are coming back?
Bottom line, there are still plenty of elk in Montana, even in a lot of units that have wolves. If you disagree with this statement then you are the one in denial. Look at HD 121. Right in the heart of wolf country, yet it's still producing elk far and above what the objective is, and numbers are increasing. So, I repeat, the lost of late season hunts in the Yellowstone and the Gallatin is not in any way reflective of the quality of elk hunting in the majority of the state.QuoteBlame other factors for what?Hunter access is still a far greater issue in Montana than wolves are or ever will be in my opinion.
You know exactly for what, for the decline of elk in the wolf impacted units.
For the umpteenth time I will remind you that I am addressing wolf impacted areas where herds are declining. You continually attempt to mix data of units above quotas to try and hide wolf impacts in declining herds.
I would add that it appears wolf management is beginning to work in some areas and herds are beginning to recover.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 24, 2014, 07:57:19 AM
I don't "Hate" you or any non-resident hunter. I am giving you honest feedback about what I have observed regarding a portion of outfitters in those units. If you or friends of yours guide on public land you can not possibly tell me you have not run across a portion of them that feel they "own" that public land.
idahohntr, I've seen your attitude before, it pretty much explains your hostility towards myself, you've got a chip on your shoulder and labeling me as someone that you hate even though you've never met me. Do you also hate non-resident hunters? I will remind you that most western states and businesses welcome non-resident hunters and outfitters. Your comments seem to imply that because I am a non-resident outfitter I am a "____-___", as a non-resident yourself this seems pretty much like the pot calling the kettle black. FYI - I already knew you hated outfitters, it's regularly evident in your comments. For what it's worth I'm very sorry that you were mistreated by someone and that you now have this extreme hatred. :sry:
You did avoid or over looked the fact that fewer resident and non-resident hunters has significantly impacted many other local businesses (such as the friend I mentioned that had to close his restaurant) in many small towns in wolf affected areas. Do you have some sort of disliking for other businesses who cater to non-resident hunters and outfitters as well? :dunno:
Restaurants and other businesses in towns that rely on hunters closed because hunter numbers dropped significantly in relation to elk numbers, economic recession, and increased elk tag prices. Those local businesses did not go under because non-resident guides lost their business...surely you are not making that point??
I obviously do not "hate" NR hunters as I am one. We do bring in a lot of money to rural communities every year. But this is not about me, or you, or non-resident hunters....you wanted to talk specifically about how wolves have effected business...and I would say there have been some positive effects for DIY public land hunters with a lot of these less than reputable guides going under. :tup:
Post by: JLS on February 24, 2014, 08:10:41 AM
You continually attempt to mix data of units above quotas to try and hide wolf impacts in declining herds.
I would add that it appears wolf management is beginning to work in some areas and herds are beginning to recover.
No, I am not trying to hide wolf impacts. I am stating that wolves do not just expand to fill every nook and cranny and eat every elk in the mountain range. Hence my point of showing that there can be units that are above objective that have wolves in them.
Post by: bearpaw on February 24, 2014, 08:15:54 AM
I don't "Hate" you or any non-resident hunter. I am giving you honest feedback about what I have observed regarding a portion of outfitters in those units. If you or friends of yours guide on public land you can not possibly tell me you have not run across a portion of them that feel they "own" that public land.
idahohntr, I've seen your attitude before, it pretty much explains your hostility towards myself, you've got a chip on your shoulder and labeling me as someone that you hate even though you've never met me. Do you also hate non-resident hunters? I will remind you that most western states and businesses welcome non-resident hunters and outfitters. Your comments seem to imply that because I am a non-resident outfitter I am a "____-___", as a non-resident yourself this seems pretty much like the pot calling the kettle black. FYI - I already knew you hated outfitters, it's regularly evident in your comments. For what it's worth I'm very sorry that you were mistreated by someone and that you now have this extreme hatred. :sry:
You did avoid or over looked the fact that fewer resident and non-resident hunters has significantly impacted many other local businesses (such as the friend I mentioned that had to close his restaurant) in many small towns in wolf affected areas. Do you have some sort of disliking for other businesses who cater to non-resident hunters and outfitters as well? :dunno:
Restaurants and other businesses in towns that rely on hunters closed because hunter numbers dropped significantly in relation to elk numbers, economic recession, and increased elk tag prices. Those local businesses did not go under because non-resident guides lost their business...surely you are not making that point??
I obviously do not "hate" NR hunters as I am one. We do bring in a lot of money to rural communities every year. But this is not about me, or you, or non-resident hunters....you wanted to talk specifically about how wolves have effected business...and I would say there have been some positive effects for DIY public land hunters with a lot of these less than reputable guides going under. :tup:
I've actually ran into more resident hunters who dislike anyone from outside of their license plate area. (In Idaho your county is on the license plate..) :twocents:
It sounds like you are using a pretty wide brush to paint an ugly picture of nr outfitters, exactly how many different outfitters have caused you grief, since they are out of business anyway, please name them?
It sounds like you are happier with less competition even though there are fewer elk for everyone to hunt. :yike:
Post by: bearpaw on February 24, 2014, 08:20:02 AM
You continually attempt to mix data of units above quotas to try and hide wolf impacts in declining herds.
I would add that it appears wolf management is beginning to work in some areas and herds are beginning to recover.
No, I am not trying to hide wolf impacts. I am stating that wolves do not just expand to fill every nook and cranny and eat every elk in the mountain range. Hence my point of showing that there can be units that are above objective that have wolves in them.
Yes, I would most definitely agree that if wolf populations are not too high they will not severely impact ungulate populations. That is the key, if wolf numbers increase in an area we need the flexibility to manage them and reduce wolf numbers before the damage is done. :tup:
Post by: KFhunter on February 24, 2014, 09:17:51 AM
they're hostile towards other ID plates that come from rival schools and such. I'm surprised ID still does this, if you're a high school aged kid driving around in a rival school district you could get singled out by your plate.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 24, 2014, 09:26:53 AM
I've actually ran into more resident hunters who dislike anyone from outside of their license plate area. (In Idaho your county is on the license plate..) :twocents:Yes...license plates are a big deal :chuckle: Just buy the wildlife plates and then you can't tell which county your from if you are a resident!
It sounds like you are using a pretty wide brush to paint an ugly picture of nr outfitters, exactly how many different outfitters have caused you grief, since they are out of business anyway, please name them?
It sounds like you are happier with less competition even though there are fewer elk for everyone to hunt. :yike:
Are you telling me you haven't observed or heard of outfitters mistreating or lying to DIY guys like they own public land??
And yes, there is more to an experience than killing an elk...I do believe less competition and fewer elk is not all bad...at least if you find some elk you don't have a posse of hunters trying to beat you to them. Of course this is a distant second to more elk and few/no other hunters :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on February 24, 2014, 09:32:41 AM
I've actually ran into more resident hunters who dislike anyone from outside of their license plate area. (In Idaho your county is on the license plate..) :twocents:Yes...license plates are a big deal :chuckle: Just buy the wildlife plates and then you can't tell which county your from if you are a resident!
It sounds like you are using a pretty wide brush to paint an ugly picture of nr outfitters, exactly how many different outfitters have caused you grief, since they are out of business anyway, please name them?
It sounds like you are happier with less competition even though there are fewer elk for everyone to hunt. :yike:
Are you telling me you haven't observed or heard of outfitters mistreating or lying to DIY guys like they own public land??
And yes, there is more to an experience than killing an elk...I do believe less competition and fewer elk is not all bad...at least if you find some elk you don't have a posse of hunters trying to beat you to them. Of course this is a distant second to more elk and few/no other hunters :chuckle:
Of course any group of people has the good and the bad, the same with hunters in the woods as with outfitters.
You avoided the question, how many nasty oufitters have treated you like you claim, please name them?
Post by: AspenBud on February 24, 2014, 10:42:46 AM
I've actually ran into more resident hunters who dislike anyone from outside of their license plate area. (In Idaho your county is on the license plate..) :twocents:Yes...license plates are a big deal :chuckle: Just buy the wildlife plates and then you can't tell which county your from if you are a resident!
It sounds like you are using a pretty wide brush to paint an ugly picture of nr outfitters, exactly how many different outfitters have caused you grief, since they are out of business anyway, please name them?
It sounds like you are happier with less competition even though there are fewer elk for everyone to hunt. :yike:
Are you telling me you haven't observed or heard of outfitters mistreating or lying to DIY guys like they own public land??
And yes, there is more to an experience than killing an elk...I do believe less competition and fewer elk is not all bad...at least if you find some elk you don't have a posse of hunters trying to beat you to them. Of course this is a distant second to more elk and few/no other hunters :chuckle:
Of course any group of people has the good and the bad, the same with hunters in the woods as with outfitters.
You avoided the question, how many nasty oufitters have treated you like you claim, please name them?
Sorry, just injecting a thought here...
The biggest complaint I've ever heard about outfitters is they lock up private land and generally only allow in those who can afford to pay. Personally I think that's a bit of an unfair characterization since it's the land owners who sell the leases that allow the outfitters to setup shop.
It does make me wonder however if this is lowering hunting pressure in some areas and leading to more food (ungulates) for wolves to chow on. But that's a different topic??
Post by: KFhunter on February 24, 2014, 10:44:42 AM
The owner does as they choose with it, should someone offer them a fist full of dollars for exclusive access then so be it.
In most cases it's a small handful of people being displaced who may have had access, but in a lot of other cases no one had access previously and the presence of an outfitter changes that.
Post by: AspenBud on February 24, 2014, 10:58:41 AM
how can you "lock up" private land, it's private!
The owner does as they choose with it, should someone offer them a fist full of dollars for exclusive access then so be it.
In most cases it's a small handful of people being displaced who may have had access, but in a lot of other cases no one had access previously and the presence of an outfitter changes that.
The complaints I read generally go like this. People used to be able to knock on doors and be allowed to hunt a lot of land in a lot of places in states like Montana. But in the last 20-30 years people have gotten tired of hunters mistreating their lands, saw an opportunity to make money, and started selling leases to outfitters who in turn act like private game wardens who take care of nuisance animals. The business has gotten more and more lucrative and more and more land has been locked up for the privileged people who can afford to pay.
Montana saw it as enough of a problem to have Initiative 161 pass.
http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/hunting/2010/09/montana-initiative-could-raise-license-fees-gut-outfitter-industry (http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/hunting/2010/09/montana-initiative-could-raise-license-fees-gut-outfitter-industry)
http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/columnists/i--a-success-but-outfitter-sponsored-bill-ravaging-revenue/article_a293fc26-a028-11e1-992a-0019bb2963f4.html (http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/columnists/i--a-success-but-outfitter-sponsored-bill-ravaging-revenue/article_a293fc26-a028-11e1-992a-0019bb2963f4.html)
Post by: idahohuntr on February 24, 2014, 11:16:52 AM
You avoided the question, how many nasty oufitters have treated you like you claim, please name them?It has happened with enough frequency that it is not an isolated instance. Most clam up when I tell them I am very familiar with what is/is not legal and they usually don't hand me their Drivers License...Of course, its easy to figure out who the outfitter is but I see no benefit to dragging someone through the mud that has gone out of business...If I run into any more that are still operating I will gladly post their names and describe my encounter in a topic on this forum...maybe there should be a new Topic on this forum "Businesses to stay away from" :chuckle:
If you are asking for names because you don't believe I hunt those units or have had experiences with shady outfitters...well, I guess that fits your tinfoil hat paranoia where you think anti-hunters come to your website in droves to mislead people who post on the internet :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: KFhunter on February 24, 2014, 11:21:41 AM
You're ideology is showing through.
Post by: bearpaw on February 24, 2014, 11:36:48 AM
how can you "lock up" private land, it's private!
The owner does as they choose with it, should someone offer them a fist full of dollars for exclusive access then so be it.
In most cases it's a small handful of people being displaced who may have had access, but in a lot of other cases no one had access previously and the presence of an outfitter changes that.
The complaints I read generally go like this. People used to be able to knock on doors and be allowed to hunt a lot of land in a lot of places in states like Montana. But in the last 20-30 years people have gotten tired of hunters mistreating their lands, saw an opportunity to make money, and started selling leases to outfitters who in turn act like private game wardens who take care of nuisance animals. The business has gotten more and more lucrative and more and more land has been locked up for the privileged people who can afford to pay.
Montana saw it as enough of a problem to have Initiative 161 pass.
http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/hunting/2010/09/montana-initiative-could-raise-license-fees-gut-outfitter-industry (http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/hunting/2010/09/montana-initiative-could-raise-license-fees-gut-outfitter-industry)
Fact: The Montana Board of Outfitters maintains a complete listing of all lands on which outfitters have leases. We cannot outfit on any private land without filing a form with the board. The amount of land leased by outfitters has been on a slow steady decline for nearly 10 years. Call the board and ask if you don't believe me.
Montana has a long history of urban hunters wanting to force rural landowners to open their lands to the public which is the reason I-161 passed, voters wanted to keep outfitters from leasing land. In my opinion the voters were pretty short sighted, I-161 eliminated outfitter sponsored licenses which were used to pay for the entire block management program (a program to get resident and nonresident DIY hunters on private land) so the cost of regular DIY non-resident licenses has gone up greatly to support the block management program which has resulted in fewer DIY non-resident hunter numbers which has hurt many rural businesses like motels and restaurants which in turn hurts local E Montana economies. Outfitters still lease land and still guide hunters, it appears that I-161 hurt DIY non-resident hunters and local economies more than it did outfitters. :dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on February 24, 2014, 11:59:17 AM
You avoided the question, how many nasty oufitters have treated you like you claim, please name them?It has happened with enough frequency that it is not an isolated instance. Most clam up when I tell them I am very familiar with what is/is not legal and they usually don't hand me their Drivers License...Of course, its easy to figure out who the outfitter is but I see no benefit to dragging someone through the mud that has gone out of business...If I run into any more that are still operating I will gladly post their names and describe my encounter in a topic on this forum...maybe there should be a new Topic on this forum "Businesses to stay away from" :chuckle:
If you are asking for names because you don't believe I hunt those units or have had experiences with shady outfitters...well, I guess that fits your tinfoil hat paranoia where you think anti-hunters come to your website in droves to mislead people who post on the internet :chuckle: :chuckle:
I like to deal in facts.
It's only a couple members who are possibly a concern, this scenario has been proven before twice, once with stolen hunter success photos posted by a poser, and once by a poser I banned who went on social media and bragged about posing under a specific username on this forum. :twocents:
Yes, I'm keeping you accountable for your statements, I don't think you have had that many different outfitters treat you poorly. Idaho has exclusive outfitter areas so only one outfitter can operate within an area. Also, perhaps you were trying to camp within a designated campsite that the outfitter has paid the forest or state a fee to have exclusive camping use. It's fair enough that you don't want to name outfitter names, please list how many different outfitters and the circumstances surrounding your claims.
I once had a dispute because my guides walked too close to some guy in a tree stand. He filed a complaint with the outfitter board and we had a meeting, him, myself, and a board officer. He wanted my license pulled because he hates outfitters sort of like you seem to, I volunteered to have my guides make a 400 yard detour around that stand whenever we hunted the area. The board accepted my proposal and all was settled. But that's the type of treatment outfitters are subject to from some hateful public hunters. Not saying you are necessarily that type, but I would like to see a complete list of your claimed abuse by so many outfitters.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 24, 2014, 12:01:41 PM
Way to paint everyone with a broad brush :rolleyes:What are you even rambling about??? I've never been on a guided hunt in my life and have no plans to.
You're ideology is showing through.
Hey I got an idea, why don't you book a hunt with Bearpaw outfitters - do it incognito, he doesn't know your real name.
It's evident you book a lot of hunts, perhaps that's the sole source of your success you ranted on about the other day, so booking with bearpaw wouldn't be out of the norm for you.
Post by: KFhunter on February 24, 2014, 12:07:20 PM
Way to paint everyone with a broad brush :rolleyes:What are you even rambling about??? I've never been on a guided hunt in my life and have no plans to.
You're ideology is showing through.
Hey I got an idea, why don't you book a hunt with Bearpaw outfitters - do it incognito, he doesn't know your real name.
It's evident you book a lot of hunts, perhaps that's the sole source of your success you ranted on about the other day, so booking with bearpaw wouldn't be out of the norm for you.
Guess I misunderstood, sounded like you had bad experiences with outfitters and I thought you were talking about as a client.
I went back and fixed it, my apologies for misunderstanding.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 24, 2014, 12:21:04 PM
You avoided the question, how many nasty oufitters have treated you like you claim, please name them?It has happened with enough frequency that it is not an isolated instance. Most clam up when I tell them I am very familiar with what is/is not legal and they usually don't hand me their Drivers License...Of course, its easy to figure out who the outfitter is but I see no benefit to dragging someone through the mud that has gone out of business...If I run into any more that are still operating I will gladly post their names and describe my encounter in a topic on this forum...maybe there should be a new Topic on this forum "Businesses to stay away from" :chuckle:
If you are asking for names because you don't believe I hunt those units or have had experiences with shady outfitters...well, I guess that fits your tinfoil hat paranoia where you think anti-hunters come to your website in droves to mislead people who post on the internet :chuckle: :chuckle:
I like to deal in facts.Thats funny :chuckle: Oh wait, you're being serious :yike:
Yes, I'm keeping you accountable for your statements, I don't think you have had that many different outfitters treat you poorly. I have had multiple encounters with poor outfitter behavior. It's the bads ones that stick out in my mind. I don't owe you any explanations or descriptions or whatever you think you need from me. Your not the IOGA or IDFG or whoever you think you are. You don't police outfitter behavior and I am citing my observations as to why I don't mind outfitters going out of business. I don't care if you like my opinion or not...it is based on my personal experiences and not your distorted view of the world where all outfitters are just wonderful people
Idaho has exclusive outfitter areas so only one outfitter can operate within an area. Also, perhaps you were trying to camp within a designated campsite that the outfitter has paid the forest or state a fee to have exclusive camping use. Nope. It was not over camp spots. It was outfitters deliberately trying to mislead or intimidate me into not going into specific areas they had planned to hunt as though they owned the area. Non-outfitters behave the same way sometimes.
It's fair enough that you don't want to name outfitter names, please list how many different outfitters and the circumstances surrounding your claims.Your insistence on details is falling on deaf ears. I was commenting on a general pattern I have observed as to why I am not too sad about NR outfitters going out of business because of declining elk herds in parts of Idaho...this is not a thread about a specific outfitter. I am sure you are just dying for me to give you a specific name so you can call some hack friend of yours and have him come on here and claim he remembers me and that I have distorted all the facts bla bla bla. I'm not going to play your little game. I will be HAPPY to provide details of ANY future negative encounters...seems a few have done that this year already. :tup:
Post by: AspenBud on February 24, 2014, 01:01:31 PM
You avoided the question, how many nasty oufitters have treated you like you claim, please name them?It has happened with enough frequency that it is not an isolated instance. Most clam up when I tell them I am very familiar with what is/is not legal and they usually don't hand me their Drivers License...Of course, its easy to figure out who the outfitter is but I see no benefit to dragging someone through the mud that has gone out of business...If I run into any more that are still operating I will gladly post their names and describe my encounter in a topic on this forum...maybe there should be a new Topic on this forum "Businesses to stay away from" :chuckle:
If you are asking for names because you don't believe I hunt those units or have had experiences with shady outfitters...well, I guess that fits your tinfoil hat paranoia where you think anti-hunters come to your website in droves to mislead people who post on the internet :chuckle: :chuckle:
I like to deal in facts.Thats funny :chuckle: Oh wait, you're being serious :yike:
Yes, I'm keeping you accountable for your statements, I don't think you have had that many different outfitters treat you poorly. I have had multiple encounters with poor outfitter behavior. It's the bads ones that stick out in my mind. I don't owe you any explanations or descriptions or whatever you think you need from me. Your not the IOGA or IDFG or whoever you think you are. You don't police outfitter behavior and I am citing my observations as to why I don't mind outfitters going out of business. I don't care if you like my opinion or not...it is based on my personal experiences and not your distorted view of the world where all outfitters are just wonderful people
Idaho has exclusive outfitter areas so only one outfitter can operate within an area. Also, perhaps you were trying to camp within a designated campsite that the outfitter has paid the forest or state a fee to have exclusive camping use. Nope. It was not over camp spots. It was outfitters deliberately trying to mislead or intimidate me into not going into specific areas they had planned to hunt as though they owned the area. Non-outfitters behave the same way sometimes.
It's fair enough that you don't want to name outfitter names, please list how many different outfitters and the circumstances surrounding your claims.Your insistence on details is falling on deaf ears. I was commenting on a general pattern I have observed as to why I am not too sad about NR outfitters going out of business because of declining elk herds in parts of Idaho...this is not a thread about a specific outfitter. I am sure you are just dying for me to give you a specific name so you can call some hack friend of yours and have him come on here and claim he remembers me and that I have distorted all the facts bla bla bla. I'm not going to play your little game. I will be HAPPY to provide details of ANY future negative encounters...seems a few have done that this year already. :tup:
To be fair, giving bad information about hunting spots or outright intimidation is not limited to outfitters. Lots of hunters lie about where honey holes are.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 24, 2014, 01:04:11 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 24, 2014, 01:06:19 PM
I feel like this guy, except I'm shoveling bullscat
Post by: idaho guy on February 24, 2014, 01:07:51 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 24, 2014, 01:11:30 PM
What's good for the goose is good for the gander huh?
Post by: bearpaw on February 24, 2014, 01:17:51 PM
You avoided the question, how many nasty oufitters have treated you like you claim, please name them?It has happened with enough frequency that it is not an isolated instance. Most clam up when I tell them I am very familiar with what is/is not legal and they usually don't hand me their Drivers License...Of course, its easy to figure out who the outfitter is but I see no benefit to dragging someone through the mud that has gone out of business...If I run into any more that are still operating I will gladly post their names and describe my encounter in a topic on this forum...maybe there should be a new Topic on this forum "Businesses to stay away from" :chuckle:
If you are asking for names because you don't believe I hunt those units or have had experiences with shady outfitters...well, I guess that fits your tinfoil hat paranoia where you think anti-hunters come to your website in droves to mislead people who post on the internet :chuckle: :chuckle:
I like to deal in facts.Thats funny :chuckle: Oh wait, you're being serious :yike:
Yes, I'm keeping you accountable for your statements, I don't think you have had that many different outfitters treat you poorly. I have had multiple encounters with poor outfitter behavior. It's the bads ones that stick out in my mind. I don't owe you any explanations or descriptions or whatever you think you need from me. Your not the IOGA or IDFG or whoever you think you are. You don't police outfitter behavior and I am citing my observations as to why I don't mind outfitters going out of business. I don't care if you like my opinion or not...it is based on my personal experiences and not your distorted view of the world where all outfitters are just wonderful people
Idaho has exclusive outfitter areas so only one outfitter can operate within an area. Also, perhaps you were trying to camp within a designated campsite that the outfitter has paid the forest or state a fee to have exclusive camping use. Nope. It was not over camp spots. It was outfitters deliberately trying to mislead or intimidate me into not going into specific areas they had planned to hunt as though they owned the area. Non-outfitters behave the same way sometimes.
It's fair enough that you don't want to name outfitter names, please list how many different outfitters and the circumstances surrounding your claims.Your insistence on details is falling on deaf ears. I was commenting on a general pattern I have observed as to why I am not too sad about NR outfitters going out of business because of declining elk herds in parts of Idaho...this is not a thread about a specific outfitter. I am sure you are just dying for me to give you a specific name so you can call some hack friend of yours and have him come on here and claim he remembers me and that I have distorted all the facts bla bla bla. I'm not going to play your little game. I will be HAPPY to provide details of ANY future negative encounters...seems a few have done that this year already. :tup:
I'm just a person who was giving you an chance to back up your claims that put NR outfitters in a bad light, I invited you to keep names anonymous. Truthfully, I think you are exaggerating, but no, you do not have any obligation at all to provide any real details to backup your claims. That choice is yours!
I agree...and note that these tactics are also used by non-outfitters in my response.
:yeah: I would expect that most hunters or outfitters to keep their honey holes in confidence, especially on the internet.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 24, 2014, 04:03:42 PM
Sitka you are a persistent bugger, I'll give you that. :chuckle:
However, again you are trying to tap a point that is probably useless in this discussion. To my knowledge, that elk herd hasn't suffered any wolf impacts yet, so it's sort of a useless post at best for this discussion. Just for a reminder, it's the wolf impacted herds that have reduced hunter opportunity and damaged local businesses.
Think Yellowstone, lolo, selway, middlefork, panhandle, etc,... and you will be more on target.
Ok Bearpaw explain this chart which tracks Idaho's big game harvest from 1935 to 2005. If not having wolves is such a panacea for game populations and harvest, why did Idaho's herds crash in the mid 70s and why did they go up and down similarly to the present, before there were any wolves "Introduced"?
http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/Statewide-Big-Game-Harvest.htm (http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/Statewide-Big-Game-Harvest.htm)
At least admit that fluctuating game populations can happen from other influences other than predators. The difference back then was that they didn't have wolves to blame for natural ups and downs in game population. I say all this focus on wolves takes attention away from other factors that can depress herds like weather and habitat and man made disturbances such as logging, farming, road building, and an ever growing population.
As it is elk harvest in Idaho shrunk from a high of 28,000 in 1994 to 17,000 in 1999 before wolves could have had any significant impact and climbed back to 21,500 in 2005 after wolves had become established and spread. It has ranged from 17,000 to 15,000 since. But even those numbers wouldn't be considered poor historically. In fact until 1988 when 20,000 were killed. The largest previous harvest was the year before, 1987, when 16,000 were killed. Nobody was crying about that then, but in 2012 when (only)16,000 elk are killed it's a hunting tragedy!
Same with deer. The harvest dropped from an all time high in 1990 of 72,000 to 38,6000 a few short years later in 1997, again well before wolves would have been any kind of measurable impact (being reintroduced in 1995). Then as the wolf population climbed and spread, against all of the logic you like to throw out about wolves ruining hunting, the harvest climbed again to about 50,000 in 2012.
I'm sorry my friend, but the results don't agree with your hypothesis. Can predators combine to affect game populations where other conditions are poor? Yes. But will they wipe out healthy populations of game that have the right natural conditions to prosper? Definitely no.
Hunt and trap wolves to your heart's content where legal. But unless the other limiting factors are addressed, the results will still be disheartening.
Post by: idaho guy on February 24, 2014, 04:37:53 PM
Post by: Bob33 on February 24, 2014, 04:45:42 PM
Sitka and others; can you truthfully state and factually confirm that wolves have had no negative impact on businesses in Idaho and Montana?
Post by: KFhunter on February 24, 2014, 04:53:30 PM
harvest went down because of the ice storm in 95 or 96 and bad winters. Yes weather effects big game. We have not had anything like that since and quite a few really mild winters for a lot of the 2000s in Idaho. lolo elk herd 20000 before wolves 1700 after, yellowstone 20000 before wolves 6500 after. Facts dont lie.
I've said this before too.
Can you imagine a severe winter with ice storms and wolves? Snow with a thick crust the wolves can lope across while the moose/elk wallow around getting cut up?
dang.
eventually this will happen. This winter has been another very mild winter, but this shoe is going to drop eventually.
Post by: hunter399 on February 24, 2014, 05:23:37 PM
Post by: idaho guy on February 24, 2014, 05:27:59 PM
Post by: hunter399 on February 24, 2014, 05:34:25 PM
Post by: hunter399 on February 24, 2014, 05:39:23 PM
Post by: idaho guy on February 24, 2014, 05:39:43 PM
Post by: idaho guy on February 24, 2014, 05:52:58 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 24, 2014, 05:53:09 PM
harvest went down because of the ice storm in 95 or 96 and bad winters. Yes weather effects big game. We have not had anything like that since and quite a few really mild winters for a lot of the 2000s in Idaho. l
What about 2007 and 2008? Herds were knocked down then in Idaho as well as Eastern Washington.
Post by: idaho guy on February 24, 2014, 06:03:31 PM
harvest went down because of the ice storm in 95 or 96 and bad winters. Yes weather effects big game. We have not had anything like that since and quite a few really mild winters for a lot of the 2000s in Idaho. l
What about 2007 and 2008? Herds were knocked down then in Idaho as well as Eastern Washington.
Are you talking about the winter in those years? We had some big snow years not sure if it was 07-08 but never had anything like the ice storm in the 2000s. Anyways, big snow doesnt always spell big winter kill. If the animails have time to migrate and dont get caught up high they can come out ok . Anyways not sure where youre going with the 07-08 thing
Post by: KFhunter on February 24, 2014, 06:06:20 PM
Are you talking about the winter in those years? We had some big snow years not sure if it was 07-08 but never had anything like the ice storm in the 2000s. Anyways, big snow doesnt always spell big winter kill. If the animails have time to migrate and dont get caught up high they can come out ok . Anyways not sure where youre going with the 07-08 thingharvest went down because of the ice storm in 95 or 96 and bad winters. Yes weather effects big game. We have not had anything like that since and quite a few really mild winters for a lot of the 2000s in Idaho. lWhat about 2007 and 2008? Herds were knocked down then in Idaho as well as Eastern Washington.
He goes anywhere he can to deflect the issue from wolves.
He's salivating at the turn of this topic so he can add winter kill to his argument instead of just tossing out habitat all the time like a broken record.
Post by: idaho guy on February 24, 2014, 06:15:15 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 24, 2014, 06:25:28 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 24, 2014, 09:26:15 PM
Sitka you are a persistent bugger, I'll give you that. :chuckle:
However, again you are trying to tap a point that is probably useless in this discussion. To my knowledge, that elk herd hasn't suffered any wolf impacts yet, so it's sort of a useless post at best for this discussion. Just for a reminder, it's the wolf impacted herds that have reduced hunter opportunity and damaged local businesses.
Think Yellowstone, lolo, selway, middlefork, panhandle, etc,... and you will be more on target.
Ok Bearpaw explain this chart which tracks Idaho's big game harvest from 1935 to 2005. If not having wolves is such a panacea for game populations and harvest, why did Idaho's herds crash in the mid 70s and why did they go up and down similarly to the present, before there were any wolves "Introduced"?
http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/Statewide-Big-Game-Harvest.htm (http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/Statewide-Big-Game-Harvest.htm)
At least admit that fluctuating game populations can happen from other influences other than predators. The difference back then was that they didn't have wolves to blame for natural ups and downs in game population. I say all this focus on wolves takes attention away from other factors that can depress herds like weather and habitat and man made disturbances such as logging, farming, road building, and an ever growing population.
As it is elk harvest in Idaho shrunk from a high of 28,000 in 1994 to 17,000 in 1999 before wolves could have had any significant impact and climbed back to 21,500 in 2005 after wolves had become established and spread. It has ranged from 17,000 to 15,000 since. But even those numbers wouldn't be considered poor historically. In fact until 1988 when 20,000 were killed. The largest previous harvest was the year before, 1987, when 16,000 were killed. Nobody was crying about that then, but in 2012 when (only)16,000 elk are killed it's a hunting tragedy!
Same with deer. The harvest dropped from an all time high in 1990 of 72,000 to 38,6000 a few short years later in 1997, again well before wolves would have been any kind of measurable impact (being reintroduced in 1995). Then as the wolf population climbed and spread, against all of the logic you like to throw out about wolves ruining hunting, the harvest climbed again to about 50,000 in 2012.
I'm sorry my friend, but the results don't agree with your hypothesis. Can predators combine to affect game populations where other conditions are poor? Yes. But will they wipe out healthy populations of game that have the right natural conditions to prosper? Definitely no.
Hunt and trap wolves to your heart's content where legal. But unless the other limiting factors are addressed, the results will still be disheartening.
I'm surprised you would use a "wolf lovers" website link for your reference. Ralph is a widely known wolf lover from Pocatello Idaho who regularly files lawsuits to stop ranching and wolf management in Idaho. Many Idaho hunters consider him one of the hunter's worst enemies. It's pretty convenient how his information you used ends in 2005, that's exactly when wolf impacts began getting the worst. (see IDFG graphs below)
Ralph's Wolf Recovery Foundation: http://www.forwolves.org/ (http://www.forwolves.org/)
I will offer you some quotes from IDFG about population variations. Of course there are many factors affecting elk populations but currently wolves have been identified as a limiting factor in some wolf impacted areas.
Idaho Elk Plan: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/elkPlan/approvedElkManagementPlan_FullBooklet.pdf (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/elkPlan/approvedElkManagementPlan_FullBooklet.pdf)
Quote
Early 1900s.— European settlement brought changes to the landscape. Millions of sheep, cattle, and horses were brought into southern Idaho. Black bear (Ursus americanus) and mountain lion (Puma concolor) populations generally received little or no protection and gray wolves (Canis lupus) were functionally extirpated by the early 1900s. In southern and parts of central Idaho, extreme overgrazing combined with fire suppression efforts turned what was primarily perennial grass ranges into shrubfields. Unregulated harvest and conversion of grass dominated ranges to shrubfields likely resulted in fewer elk in southern Idaho.
Similarly, landscape-level changes occurred in northern Idaho during the early 1900s. However, the impact was likely more positive for elk habitat and populations. Extensive wildfires created a mosaic of grass, shrubfields, and forested habitats. Nearly extirpated local elk populations were augmented with elk from Yellowstone National Park (YNP) following the large wildfires. Timber harvest also contributed to moving large portions of the forested landscape back towards a more early seral condition. Under these conditions elk flourished in northern Idaho.
Mid 1900s.— In north-central Idaho, elk populations probably peaked in the 1960s. As the newly created seral habitats aged and succession continued to move towards a climax state, habitat potential declined. Fire suppression efforts resulted in forest habitat advancing to later seral stages and preventing natural regeneration of early seral stages more favorable to elk.
By the 1970s, hunter numbers and access had increased to the point where restrictive seasons were necessary to reduce elk vulnerability to harvest. Either-sex bag limits throughout most of Idaho were replaced by antlered-only bag limits in 1976. Elk populations responded, and by the late 1980s elk were once again abundant enough to support more liberal antlerless opportunity. Predator populations were likely reduced or suppressed during the mid-1900s, but had some localized effects on elk in remote areas.
Late 1900s.— In portions of northern Idaho, the mid-1990s witnessed another downward cycle in elk numbers. Declining habitat potential in forested habitat, black bear and mountain lion predation, and the localized impacts of hard winters (1996 and 1997) all played a role. With protection and harvest restrictions implemented during the 1970-1990s, black bear and mountain lion populations likely stabilized and began to flourish, particularly in central mountain areas (commonly referred to as backcountry) where hunting access is difficult. Wolves became re-established in Idaho during the 1990s through USFWS reintroduction, and through wolves from southern Canada and northwest Montana naturally re-occupying historic wolf habitat. Wolf predation on elk has further accelerated declines in elk herds in many parts of northern Idaho.
In other portions of the state, including much of southern Idaho, elk numbers actually increased during this same timeframe. A change in grazing practices that promoted grass production, farming practices that favored resting farmland, and continued timber cuts that favored early seral habitat stages all enabled southern Idaho elk populations to grow to all-time record highs during the latter half of the 1900s. Today.— Elk herds in the southern part of the state are mostly robust and limited more by sociological constraints, such as damage to agricultural crops and property, than by habitat suitability. Elk herds in the central and northern mountains continue to be suppressed by predators and habitat declines. Elk herds in the prairies and agricultural areas of northern Idaho are mostly robust and population levels are constrained by crop and property damage. In total, Idaho’s elk population in early 2013 was estimated at approximately 107,000 animals.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 24, 2014, 09:30:49 PM
Let's stick to the original topic.Correct me if I'm wrong, but has anybody argued that wolves have no negative impacts? I sure have not seen any argument like that.
Sitka and others; can you truthfully state and factually confirm that wolves have had no negative impact on businesses in Idaho and Montana?
But I've got a better question for ya bob- can you truthfully state and factually confirm that other (non-predator) factors have had no negative impact on businesses in Idaho and Montana :dunno: :tup:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 24, 2014, 09:38:41 PM
I'm surprised you would use a "wolf lovers" website link for your reference. Ralph is a widely known wolf lover from Pocatello Idaho who regularly files lawsuits to stop ranching and wolf management in Idaho. Many Idaho hunters consider him one of the hunter's worst enemies. It's pretty convenient how his information you used ends in 2005, that's exactly when wolf impacts began getting the worst. (see IDFG graphs below)
It was the most complete set of harvest stats I could find Dale. On the Idaho Hunting site you can get the numbers, but have to total up each unit and by method of harvest and add in the draw hunts. Too much work for me with 76 units and three methods of harvest and then the draw tags. Do you have a problem with the harvest numbers posted? If not, why does it matter where I find the info I'm looking for? And if you have another source that shows these numbers, I'd be happy to quote them instead.
Post by: Bob33 on February 24, 2014, 09:45:50 PM
If you agree that wolves have affected businesses, then Dale has made his point.Let's stick to the original topic.Correct me if I'm wrong, but has anybody argued that wolves have no negative impacts? I sure have not seen any argument like that.
Sitka and others; can you truthfully state and factually confirm that wolves have had no negative impact on businesses in Idaho and Montana?
But I've got a better question for ya bob- can you truthfully state and factually confirm that other (non-predator) factors have had no negative impact on businesses in Idaho and Montana :dunno: :tup:
As for your question, although it is not the subject of this thread I agree that many factors have influenced elk including other predators such as bears.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 24, 2014, 09:49:05 PM
I'm sorry my friend, but the results don't agree with your hypothesis. Can predators combine to affect game populations where other conditions are poor? Yes. But will they wipe out healthy populations of game that have the right natural conditions to prosper? Definitely no.
Hunt and trap wolves to your heart's content where legal. But unless the other limiting factors are addressed, the results will still be disheartening.QuoteEarly 1900s.— European settlement brought changes to the landscape. Millions of sheep, cattle, and horses were brought into southern Idaho. Black bear (Ursus americanus) and mountain lion (Puma concolor) populations generally received little or no protection and gray wolves (Canis lupus) were functionally extirpated by the early 1900s. In southern and parts of central Idaho, extreme overgrazing combined with fire suppression efforts turned what was primarily perennial grass ranges into shrubfields. Unregulated harvest and conversion of grass dominated ranges to shrubfields likely resulted in fewer elk in southern Idaho.
Similarly, landscape-level changes occurred in northern Idaho during the early 1900s. However, the impact was likely more positive for elk habitat and populations. Extensive wildfires created a mosaic of grass, shrubfields, and forested habitats. Nearly extirpated local elk populations were augmented with elk from Yellowstone National Park (YNP) following the large wildfires. Timber harvest also contributed to moving large portions of the forested landscape back towards a more early seral condition. Under these conditions elk flourished in northern Idaho.
Mid 1900s.— In north-central Idaho, elk populations probably peaked in the 1960s. As the newly created seral habitats aged and succession continued to move towards a climax state, habitat potential declined. Fire suppression efforts resulted in forest habitat advancing to later seral stages and preventing natural regeneration of early seral stages more favorable to elk.
By the 1970s, hunter numbers and access had increased to the point where restrictive seasons were necessary to reduce elk vulnerability to harvest. Either-sex bag limits throughout most of Idaho were replaced by antlered-only bag limits in 1976. Elk populations responded, and by the late 1980s elk were once again abundant enough to support more liberal antlerless opportunity. Predator populations were likely reduced or suppressed during the mid-1900s, but had some localized effects on elk in remote areas.
Late 1900s.— In portions of northern Idaho, the mid-1990s witnessed another downward cycle in elk numbers. Declining habitat potential in forested habitat, black bear and mountain lion predation, and the localized impacts of hard winters (1996 and 1997) all played a role. With protection and harvest restrictions implemented during the 1970-1990s, black bear and mountain lion populations likely stabilized and began to flourish, particularly in central mountain areas (commonly referred to as backcountry) where hunting access is difficult. Wolves became re-established in Idaho during the 1990s through USFWS reintroduction, and through wolves from southern Canada and northwest Montana naturally re-occupying historic wolf habitat. Wolf predation on elk has further accelerated declines in elk herds in many parts of northern Idaho.
In other portions of the state, including much of southern Idaho, elk numbers actually increased during this same timeframe. A change in grazing practices that promoted grass production, farming practices that favored resting farmland, and continued timber cuts that favored early seral habitat stages all enabled southern Idaho elk populations to grow to all-time record highs during the latter half of the 1900s. Today.— Elk herds in the southern part of the state are mostly robust and limited more by sociological constraints, such as damage to agricultural crops and property, than by habitat suitability. Elk herds in the central and northern mountains continue to be suppressed by predators and habitat declines. Elk herds in the prairies and agricultural areas of northern Idaho are mostly robust and population levels are constrained by crop and property damage. In total, Idaho’s elk population in early 2013 was estimated at approximately 107,000 animals.
I agree with all that. And it also makes the case for my above comment.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 24, 2014, 09:53:09 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 24, 2014, 10:00:37 PM
It doesn't take into effect how many people just went out and shot and Elk when they needed one back in the 30's and 40's
doesn't take into effect more roads being built and improved access, better vehicles equipment and gear over the years either.
There is no correlation between the success rates depicted in the chart and overall Elk population either.
Here is an Elk population graph I found from a creditable source
Post by: JLS on February 24, 2014, 10:04:10 PM
That chart is pure BS
It doesn't take into effect how many people just went out and shot and Elk when they needed one back in the 30's and 40's
doesn't take into effect more roads being built and improved access, better vehicles equipment and gear over the years either.
I'd say it just takes into account how many elk got shot, but that's just me.
Signed,
A wolf lover and leader of the exodus of Washington elk hunters to Montana :rolleyes:
Post by: bearpaw on February 24, 2014, 10:05:45 PM
I'm surprised you would use a "wolf lovers" website link for your reference. Ralph is a widely known wolf lover from Pocatello Idaho who regularly files lawsuits to stop ranching and wolf management in Idaho. Many Idaho hunters consider him one of the hunter's worst enemies. It's pretty convenient how his information you used ends in 2005, that's exactly when wolf impacts began getting the worst. (see IDFG graphs below)
It was the most complete set of harvest stats I could find Dale. On the Idaho Hunting site you can get the numbers, but have to total up each unit and by method of harvest and add in the draw hunts. Too much work for me with 76 units and three methods of harvest and then the draw tags. Do you have a problem with the harvest numbers posted? If not, why does it matter where I find the info I'm looking for? And if you have another source that shows these numbers, I'd be happy to quote them instead.
As I mentioned, after you look at the charts I provided it seems pretty convenient that the state elk numbers you posted stopped at 2005.
I'm sort of wondering if that's a site that you regularly visit, it seems to parallel your beliefs?
For the record, I totally agree that many factors have reduced elk numbers, but the state has confirmed that wolves are now the limiting factor in several areas. This is known as a predator pit, when many factors may reduce a herd but predators prevent herds from recovering.
Also no matter how you try to argue the fact, reduced herds and reduced hunter numbers in those areas means reduced business for Idaho towns in those areas.
KFhunter has some good points about the early years on that Idahohntr chart, they also had no helicopters for accurate counts back then. :dunno:
Post by: KFhunter on February 24, 2014, 10:15:50 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 24, 2014, 10:16:18 PM
Let's stick to the original topic.
Sitka and others; can you truthfully state and factually confirm that wolves have had no negative impact on businesses in Idaho and Montana?
Bob, the graph I posted showing the ups and downs of hunter success in Idaho relates to this thread in this way. Dale is arguing that because of wolves, businesses are suffering because lower harvest has lead to less hunters coming to Idaho and spending money. But as the graph shows, hunting has gone up and down since records have been kept. In fact, THAT is the nature of wilderness and wild things and hunting, even without wolves. 1976 was the worst year for elk since 1945 and the worst for deer since 1950. And wolves weren't a part of that equation, habitat and weather were. So what happened then? Did people quit hunting in Idaho temporarily then? Yes they did. Did people lose money over that sudden downturn? You bet they did. But life went on and as things improved so did hunting and the crowds it draws. And eventually things went to all time highs in Idaho. One can not count on all time highs being continuous with wildlife. If you put all your eggs in that basket, you will eventually get burned. Is it sad that people are having a hard time at present? Yes it is. Do I believe it will get better again? Yes I do. But these lows of today are three times better than they were in 1976. You have to have some perspective. Are there problem areas where wolves are combining with other factors to keep cervid populations down? Yes. If other factors improve and wolf populations are maintained or lowered slightly will deer and elk come back in these depressed areas? I'm sure of it. It's happened over and over. And there will be opportunities for the locals to make money off of the non locals who come hunting. In the mean time, some will persevere like they did in 1976 and some won't. But the downturn also gives people like Dale an opportunity to branch out into new areas that weren't available to them when things were up.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 24, 2014, 10:23:26 PM
ya, I'm sure a lot of them old timers just emerging from the great depression went out and purchased a metal tag to hang on their winter meat :rolleyes:
So your point is, there were actually more elk taken back in the 30's, 40's, and 50's than were reported? I don't doubt that for a second. But that just makes the drop in the mid 70's more dramatic.
Post by: bearpaw on February 24, 2014, 10:25:35 PM
Let's stick to the original topic.
Sitka and others; can you truthfully state and factually confirm that wolves have had no negative impact on businesses in Idaho and Montana?
Bob, the graph I posted showing the ups and downs of hunter success in Idaho relates to this thread in this way. Dale is arguing that because of wolves, businesses are suffering because lower harvest has lead to less hunters coming to Idaho and spending money. But as the graph shows, hunting has gone up and down since records have been kept. In fact, THAT is the nature of wilderness and wild things and hunting, even without wolves. 1976 was the worst year for elk since 1945 and the worst for deer since 1950. And wolves weren't a part of that equation, habitat and weather were. So what happened then? Did people quit hunting in Idaho temporarily then? Yes they did. Did people lose money over that sudden downturn? You bet they did. But life went on and as things improved so did hunting and the crowds it draws. And eventually things went to all time highs in Idaho. One can not count on all time highs being continuous with wildlife. If you put all your eggs in that basket, you will eventually get burned. Is it sad that people are having a hard time at present? Yes it is. Do I believe it will get better again? Yes I do. But these lows of today are three times better than they were in 1976. You have to have some perspective. Are there problem areas where wolves are combining with other factors to keep cervid populations down? Yes. If other factors improve and wolf populations are maintained or lowered slightly will deer and elk come back in these depressed areas? I'm sure of it. It's happened over and over. And there will be opportunities for the locals to make money off of the non locals who come hunting. In the mean time, some will persevere like they did in 1976 and some won't. But the downturn also gives people like Dale an opportunity to branch out into new areas that weren't available to them when things were up.
The fact still remains that wolf impacted herds hurt many local businesses as I stated. I never said that the herds will not recover if we manage wolves. Provided wolves are heavily managed I agree that herds will begin to rebound, it's beginning to happen in a few areas already where wolf numbers have been reduced. The key is that wolves must be heavily managed.
Post by: KFhunter on February 24, 2014, 10:27:43 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 24, 2014, 10:29:55 PM
Post by: JLS on February 24, 2014, 10:30:23 PM
Post by: Bob33 on February 24, 2014, 10:30:32 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 24, 2014, 10:32:13 PM
There is no correlation between the success rates depicted in the chart and overall Elk population either.
No direct correlation. Not an animal to animal correlation. But how many times has it been argued here that lack of success is costing Idaho and other states hunters? So what is more important, how many elk Idaho has, or how many get harvested each year. I'd say as long as you can maintain it, harvest numbers are more important than total numbers. But that's just me.
Doesn't do you any good to have the woods full of animals if you can't harvest them.
Post by: bearpaw on February 24, 2014, 10:42:36 PM
There is no correlation between the success rates depicted in the chart and overall Elk population either.
No direct correlation. Not an animal to animal correlation. But how many times has it been argued here that lack of success is costing Idaho and other states hunters? So what is more important, how many elk Idaho has, or how many get harvested each year. I'd say as long as you can maintain it, harvest numbers are more important than total numbers. But that's just me.
Doesn't do you any good to have the woods full of animals if you can't harvest them.
Pretty simple math for me, if you have 50,000 cows that calf, with a 40% survival you probably add 20,000 calves to the elk population. Hunters can probably take 15,000 or more elk each year.
If that same elk population is reduced by wolves to 20,000 cows calving, and wolves are holding the calf survival down to 10%, then you only add 2,000 calves to the population. If hunters continue to take 15,000 or more elk each year the math isn't going to work very long. :twocents:
Post by: KFhunter on February 24, 2014, 10:43:33 PM
Recess is over, it's time to take your seat.
:chuckle:
bout time for me to hit the sack
Post by: idahohuntr on February 24, 2014, 10:45:38 PM
I do believe the long-term trends in any population data, whether its yellowstone or Lolo or Idaho as a whole gives a better sense of some of the points many folks try to make on these forums: elk numbers are dynamic and lots of factors contribute to those changes. I think we all generally agree on that :dunno: It is misleading to think that wolves aren't holding down elk numbers in specific units...it it equally misleading to think that elk numbers will rebound anywhere close to 1980s levels in the Lolo if we just get rid of/or significantly reduce wolves and other predators.
Post by: JLS on February 24, 2014, 10:49:44 PM
it it equally misleading to think that elk numbers will rebound anywhere close to 1980s levels in the Lolo if we just get rid of/or significantly reduce wolves and other predators.
Burn it to the ground and you might see some significant rebound.
Post by: bearpaw on February 24, 2014, 10:53:46 PM
KF- The graph I posted is from the IDFG elk management plan...the same plan/source data bearpaw is posting on recent harvest and population trends. But thats nice you can draw :tup:
I do believe the long-term trends in any population data, whether its yellowstone or Lolo or Idaho as a whole gives a better sense of some of the points many folks try to make on these forums: elk numbers are dynamic and lots of factors contribute to those changes. I think we all generally agree on that :dunno: It is misleading to think that wolves aren't holding down elk numbers in specific units...it it equally misleading to think that elk numbers will rebound anywhere close to 1980s levels in the Lolo if we just get rid of/or significantly reduce wolves and other predators.
It's in the Idaho plan to reduce wolves and improve habitat, can't agree more, but the wolves must be reduced too. :twocents:
FYI - We have the same problem in NE WA, over aged forests due to hugger control of our USFS. We need logging and wolf reduction. Why burn it when locals need employment?
Post by: idahohuntr on February 24, 2014, 11:02:40 PM
:yeah:it it equally misleading to think that elk numbers will rebound anywhere close to 1980s levels in the Lolo if we just get rid of/or significantly reduce wolves and other predators.
Burn it to the ground and you might see some significant rebound.
One of these days I'm going to go hand out fireworks and cases of beer to the camps I encounter when I'm up flyfishing on kelly cr. :chuckle: