Post by: bearpaw on December 22, 2013, 07:26:54 PM
Salmon, Idaho's 1st Annual predator Derby, December 28-29, 2013!
This is an incredible opportunity to team up with your son or daughter during Christmas break and spend some quality time in the gorgeous Salmon, Idaho Country!
Even though we don't expect to harvest a lot of wolves we hope to take quite a few coyotes. Wolves in Idaho are considered a big game animal just like a deer or elk. Coyotes are classified as an unprotected predator and can be hunted year around. Youth hunters who are 12 years of age or older, and have received their hunters education certificate and have a valid hunting license and wolf tag may hunt wolves. Youth that are 10 years or older who have passed hunters education and have a valid hunting license can hunt coyotes as long as they have a mentoring parent or adult.
One of our goals is to also increase the awareness of wolf diseases and to educate the public on taking the proper safety measures and precautions while in wolf country. In the past few years, 100% of the wolves harvested in the Salmon Valley have tested positive for these horrible diseases that can spread to humans.
We are grateful for our right to hunt and fish in Idaho and we can never take these rights for granted! We are also aware that Idaho has a statute (36-1510) that reads, " No person shall Harass, intimidate or threaten by any means including, but not limited to, personal or written contact, or via telephone, e-mail or website, any person who is or was engaged in the lawful taking or control of fish or wildlife any Interference with hunting, fishing, trapping or wildlife control."
We are grateful for the Idaho Fish and Game, Idaho Legislature and the IDFG commission for providing fair chase hunting opportunities such as what will occur during this event as a vehicle to attempt to keep wolves in check. Idaho’s elk populations have been devastated in high wolf density regions of the state due to wolf predation. Since wolves don’t self-regulate, they can reduce the prey populations so low they can fall into “Predator Pits.”
Wolves can actually "Wink" out of the ecosystem once they have eliminated the prey base. Prudent wildlife managers in Alaska and Canada realize the importance of wolf control. As an example, the providence of Alberta has a current bounty on wolves with year around hunting in many areas. Canada has had far more experience with wolf management than the Lower 48 states and understands the devastation wolves cause to their big game populations and the livestock industry. The radical animal rights groups such as Defenders of Wildlife oppose this derby and are spreading misinformation all over the web about a feared wolf slaughter and mass killings of predators for no reason! Defenders of wildlife thrives on exploiting these wonderful traditional hunting opportunities with friends and family for the opportunity to raise more dollars to fight againt our hunting heritage.
One of the local Salmon outfitters had over 40 different hunters in his camp this year and only 1 hunter saw a wolf and he took a shot and missed the wolf. Wolf experts know that sport hunting is not an effective wolf control measure and this two day derby will not negatively impact the wolf population in this area.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on December 22, 2013, 07:42:16 PM
Post by: sebek556 on December 22, 2013, 07:45:53 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 22, 2013, 07:48:00 PM
Did you hear all the death threats they are receiving ? The worst one being from a Canadian :dunno: :yike:
Yes, it's all over the news in Idaho. :bdid:
Post by: bearpaw on December 22, 2013, 07:53:01 PM
Post by: sebek556 on December 22, 2013, 08:01:41 PM
Post by: actionshooter on December 22, 2013, 08:26:37 PM
Post by: bobdog86 on December 22, 2013, 08:40:25 PM
The sheriffs office would not confirm they were investigating death threats? That's bs
No kidding. Not surprising, doubt they are investigating. Probably saving their resources for investigating the towns people running the derby.
Post by: 6x6in6 on December 22, 2013, 08:46:03 PM
The sheriffs office would not confirm they were investigating death threats? That's bs
No kidding. Not surprising, doubt they are investigating. Probably saving their resources for investigating the towns people running the derby.
Or, maybe they are choosing not to divulge information while they are investigating the origin and validity of the threats.
Post by: JLS on December 22, 2013, 08:48:21 PM
The sheriffs office would not confirm they were investigating death threats? That's bs
No kidding. Not surprising, doubt they are investigating. Probably saving their resources for investigating the towns people running the derby.
Glad the law enforcement strategists are analyzing this for us. :rolleyes:
Just because they won't confirm it, doesn't mean they are doing it. Hardly anything to merit the cynical comments above.
Post by: Duffer on December 22, 2013, 11:23:32 PM
The sheriffs office would not confirm they were investigating death threats? That's bs
No kidding. Not surprising, doubt they are investigating. Probably saving their resources for investigating the towns people running the derby.
It's easy to become cynical if you've grown up in Washington, but this is Idaho. I think they are turning a corner over there. They are done with this wolf crap and are implementing measures (slowly but steadily) to 'fix' the situation. Cudos to them :tup:
Post by: idahohuntr on December 23, 2013, 08:57:58 AM
I think they are turning a corner over there. They are done with this wolf crap and are implementing measures (slowly but steadily) to 'fix' the situation.What? Idaho has had a reasonable wolf plan for years...what do you mean they are just "turning a corner"?
Post by: Gringo31 on December 23, 2013, 10:40:18 AM
Even though the state is messed up do to these vermin.
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on December 23, 2013, 10:45:12 AM
Post by: denali on December 23, 2013, 04:03:01 PM
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/FILED-Complaint-WD-copy.pdf (http://www.thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/FILED-Complaint-WD-copy.pdf)
Post by: Duffer on December 23, 2013, 10:21:45 PM
I think they are turning a corner over there. They are done with this wolf crap and are implementing measures (slowly but steadily) to 'fix' the situation.What? Idaho has had a reasonable wolf plan for years...what do you mean they are just "turning a corner"?
What I meant is that Idaho is implementing, step by step, more and more successful methods of thinning the packs. 1st A hunting tag. Then trapping. Then multiple hunting tags. Then hired guns. Ect.
why is everyone so testy this time of year. Geez. :rolleyes:
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on December 25, 2013, 07:50:30 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 28, 2013, 12:33:44 AM
http://www.sfgate.com/news/science/article/Federal-judge-allows-Idaho-wolf-derby-on-FS-land-5096286.php (http://www.sfgate.com/news/science/article/Federal-judge-allows-Idaho-wolf-derby-on-FS-land-5096286.php)
Federal judge allows Idaho wolf derby to proceed
By JOHN MILLER, Associated Press
Updated 1:31 pm, Friday, December 27, 2013
BOISE, Idaho (AP) — A federal judge Friday allowed a wolf- and coyote-shooting derby to proceed on public land in Idaho this weekend, ruling its organizers aren't required to get a special permit from the U.S. Forest Service.
U.S. District Magistrate Judge Candy Wagahoff Dale issued the ruling in Boise hours after a morning hearing.
WildEarth Guardians and other environmental groups had sought to stop the derby, arguing the Forest Service was ignoring its own rules that require permits for competitive events.
The agency, meanwhile, countered no permit was needed, concluding while hunting would take place in the forest on Saturday and Sunday, the competitive portion of the event — where judges determine the $1,000 prize winner for the biggest wolf killed — would take place on private land.
Dale decided derby promoters were encouraging use of the forest for a lawful activity.
"The derby hunt is not like a foot race or ski race, where organizers would require the use of a loop or track for all participants to race upon," she wrote, of events that might require such permits. "Rather, hunters will be dispersed throughout the forest, hunting at their own pace and in their own preferred territory, and not in a prescribed location within a designated perimeter."
Steve Alder, an organizer of Idaho's derby, said dozens of people had already arrived in Salmon to participate. He was elated following the decision.
"We won," Alder said. "You've got a lot of people who have driven from far distances to Salmon, today. A lot of motels have a lot of occupants; a lot of money has been expended for this event. It's good for Salmon, but I don't want to send them packing home."
Every year, predator derbies are staged across the West and much of the rest of the country, where hunters compete to bag the most coyote, fox and other animals.
But wolves — and the notion that hundreds of armed sportsmen might head to the hills to shoot at them for cash — captured the passions of wildlife advocates on a landscape scale after they learned of the Idaho derby.
It's been just two years since Endangered Species Act protections were lifted, and WildEarth Guardians executive director John Hornung said many people believe the big carnivores still face existential threats that are compounded when they're hunted for prizes.
"To go from that position a mere two years ago, to contest hunts, is just incredibly dissonant to groups like ours, and I think, a lot of the public. It just doesn't make sense," Hornung said from his office in Santa Fe, N.M., adding he believes contest hunts are "all about a scorched earth approach to these native carnivores."
In Friday's telephone hearing, WildEarth Guardians' attorney told Dale that a wolf derby taking place on Forest Service land that surrounds Salmon should be required to get the same kind of special permit as any other competitive gathering, including running races or snowmobile events.
"People are trying to kill as many animals as they can in two days in order to win the prize," Sarah McMillan told the judge.
Meanwhile, attorneys for the U.S. Forest Service countered that no permit was needed.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Joshua Hurwit also said hunters could be in the woods and fields near Salmon this weekend shooting wolves and coyotes — regardless of whether their excursions were associated with a contest.
"There's nothing to stop people who intended to participate in the derby, from going forward and taking the same action, killing coyotes and wolves, and just not participating in the derby," Hurwit told Dale. "The derby doesn't change hunting, hunting will happen throughout the season regardless of this lawsuit. The derby hunters will have to comply with state regulations."
Wolves became big game animals in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming after federal Endangered Species Act protections were lifted starting in 2011. There are annual hunting and trapping seasons.
After reintroduction in the state in the mid-1990s, Idaho has about 680 wolves, according to 2012 estimates.
Post by: huntnphool on December 28, 2013, 12:40:12 AM
Post by: bearpaw on December 28, 2013, 01:02:52 AM
Post by: madmack76 on December 28, 2013, 01:09:43 AM
Post by: rasbo on December 28, 2013, 03:48:15 AM
Post by: boneaddict on December 28, 2013, 05:25:46 AM
I am more excited about the judge than the hunt itself. I am glad there is still some light out there.
Post by: mulehunter on December 28, 2013, 06:11:41 AM
:yeah:
Post by: teanawayslayer on December 28, 2013, 06:11:52 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 28, 2013, 06:45:16 AM
Post by: lewy on December 28, 2013, 06:53:16 AM
Post by: bearpaw on December 29, 2013, 06:34:12 PM
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS December 28, 2013
BOISE, Idaho — Organizers of a wolf- and coyote-shooting derby in central Idaho say about 200 people signed up but only about 50 or 60 are hunters and the rest are just offering support for the event.
Steve Alder says no wolves had been reported shot late Saturday, the first day of the event that ends late Sunday afternoon.
He says one hunter's vehicle was vandalized with paint and scraping, and that authorities are investigating.
A federal judge Friday allowed the derby to proceed on public land after ruling its organizers aren't required to get a special permit from the U.S. Forest Service.
WildEarth Guardians and other environmental groups had sought to stop the derby, arguing the Forest Service was ignoring its own rules that require permits for competitive events.
Post by: sebek556 on December 29, 2013, 06:41:19 PM
Post by: JLS on December 29, 2013, 07:05:04 PM
Not to mention, the purpose of the education efforts from the event sponsors was for hydatid disease, which really is not a pressing issue in terms of wolf management. They could at least focus on true conservation education and not try to perpetuate fear from a disease that is pretty much a non-factor in the human world.
The cost-benefit analysis is off the charts (to the wrong end) on this one.
Post by: bearpaw on December 31, 2013, 02:31:19 PM
I personally think these derbies do more harm than good. You can bet your bottom dollar that this derby will be a tremendous revenue generator for pro-wolf and anti-hunting groups.
Not to mention, the purpose of the education efforts from the event sponsors was for hydatid disease, which really is not a pressing issue in terms of wolf management. They could at least focus on true conservation education and not try to perpetuate fear from a disease that is pretty much a non-factor in the human world.
The cost-benefit analysis is off the charts (to the wrong end) on this one.
I think you've drank the F&G wolf lover's koolaid to think that hydatid disease is no danger to humans. People who have had the disease, their opinion would likely differ. I have personally found what appears to be E. granulosus tapeworm cysts on a Washington moose liver last year and numerous other infected ungulates have been found in the NW since the introduction of Canadian wolves. Like it or not Echinococcosis is a real threat, there are already two human cases in Idaho, but that has been pretty well covered up so people won't be opposed to wolves.
Post by: Special T on December 31, 2013, 02:39:50 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 31, 2013, 02:42:44 PM
Echinococcus granulosus in gray wolves and ungulates in Idaho and Montana, USA.
Foreyt WJ, Drew ML, Atkinson M, McCauley D.
Abstract
We evaluated the small intestines of 123 gray wolves (Canis lupus) that were collected from Idaho, USA (n=63), and Montana, USA (n=60), between 2006 and 2008 for the tapeworm Echinococcus granulosus. The tapeworm was detected in 39 of 63 wolves (62%) in Idaho, USA, and 38 of 60 wolves (63%) in Montana, USA. The detection of thousands of tapeworms per wolf was a common finding. In Idaho, USA, hydatid cysts, the intermediate form of E. granulosus, were detected in elk (Cervus elaphus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and a mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus). In Montana, USA, hydatid cysts were detected in elk. To our knowledge, this is the first report of adult E. granulosus in Idaho, USA, or Montana, USA. It is unknown whether the parasite was introduced into Idaho, USA, and southwestern Montana, USA, with the importation of wolves from Alberta, Canada, or British Columbia, Canada, into Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, USA, and central Idaho, USA, in 1995 and 1996, or whether the parasite has always been present in other carnivore hosts, and wolves became a new definitive host. Based on our results, the parasite is now well established in wolves in these states and is documented in elk, mule deer, and a mountain goat as intermediate hosts.
Post by: MLBowhunting on December 31, 2013, 03:00:35 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 31, 2013, 03:09:03 PM
http://health.utah.gov/epi/fact_sheets/echino.pdf (http://health.utah.gov/epi/fact_sheets/echino.pdf)
Quote
Who gets echinococcosis?
Anyone can get echinococcosis by swallowing the eggs of the E. granulosus or E. multilocularis tapeworm.
Echinococcal infections among humans occur worldwide, although they are rare. The primary areas where E.
granulosus has been found in North America include sheep-raising regions of Utah, California, Arizona and New
Mexico. The primary areas where E. multilocularis has been found in North America include the north central
region from eastern Montana to central Ohio, as well as Alaska and Canada.
How is echinococcosis spread?
Dogs, coyotes, wolves, dingos and jackals get infected with E. granulosus when they eat the viscera of infected
sheep or other animals. Once they become infected, they will pass the eggs in their stool. These very tiny eggs are
directly infectious to other animals and humans.
Quote
How soon after exposure do symptoms appear?
Because the cysts are usually slow-growing, infection may not produce symptoms for years. Symptoms usually
reflect the size and location of the cysts.
How is echinococcosis diagnosed?
Echinococcosis is diagnosed by a blood test that can detect the presence of antibodies to the parasite. The disease
may also be diagnosed by directly identifying the parasite in fluid or tissue samples.
What is the treatment for echinococcosis?
Surgery is the most common form of treatment for echinococcosis. Removal of the cyst may not be 100%
effective, and medication may be necessary to keep the cyst from growing back.
Quote
If in an area where E. multilocularis is found, take the following precautions:
- Don't touch a wild canine, dead or alive, without wearing gloves.
- Don't keep wild canines as pets or encourage them to come close to your home.
- Don't allow your cats and dogs to wander or to capture and eat rodents.
- If you think that your pet may have eaten rodents, consult your veterinarian about the possible need for
preventive treatments.
Cystic echinococcosis - Kist hidatik (subtitle in English) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foAaFti_13U#)
Post by: bearpaw on December 31, 2013, 03:26:39 PM
Idaho For Wildlife Predator Derby results
By Steve Alder, Director for Idaho for Wildlife
December 29. 2013 5:05 PM
ZERO wolves were harvested during this predator derby! 21 Coyotes were taken.
We had 236 hunters in the field for two days. Let this be an educational moment for the radical anti-hunter environmental groups. Sport hunting for wolves is not a very effective tool to manage wolves. This is why IDFG has implemented trapping and other control methods to better manage wolves. World renowned wolf expert Dr. David Mech has admitted, "That to hold a wolf population stationary it requires an annual take of 28-50% per year." Dr. Mech also stated that “Normal regulated public harvest such as is contemplated in the NRM is usually unable to reduce wolf populations. IDFG’s own 2011 Idaho IDFG Predation management Plan for the Lolo and Selway Elk Zones that isn't being followed claims, “Wolf removal rates of 30-35% or less typically do not cause any long-term changes in wolf abundance, while sustained removals of 40% or more may cause long-term reductions.” I can assure you that in the last two days while this derby was taking place, more wolves and wolf pups died in Idaho’s back country due to starvation and or cannibalism from other wolves due to the depleted prey base. Since the well being of wolves is predicated on the ungulate prey base, once that prey base is eliminated, the wolves will kill themselves off or starve. They do not self regulate. The urbanites and wolf advocates need to understand the ungulate prey base controls wolves. Wolves do not control the prey. This is why wolves must be controlled and yes killed!
Attached are elk hunter harvest graphs in the vicinity of where the Salmon wolf derby took place. These graphs contain elk harvest numbers from 1989-2012. This data reveals why Salmon Sportsmen are frustrated with the damages caused by wolves. The average Salmon medium household income is approximately $12,000 below the average Idaho income. In 2009, the income of Salmon residents was 35.5% below the national poverty level.
Elk are very important to rural Idahoans. Sustenance hunting is still very crucial to those who are financially strapped. The Attached PDF, (Wolves) contains a 2009 study that suggests wolves are costing Idaho approximately 7-24 million per year in revenue. Idaho Fish and game revenues are down considerably for this reason. It is estimated that each elk provides an average of $750.00 in value to Idahoans.
We want to apologize in advance to the radical anti-hunting enviro’s. We will not be publishing or flaunting any photos of dead animals so you can exploit this opportunity to play upon the emotions of the naïve for your next fund raising campaign.
Good hunting,
Steve
Post by: JLS on December 31, 2013, 04:10:57 PM
Like it or not Echinococcosis is a real threat, there are already two human cases in Idaho, but that has been pretty well covered up so people won't be opposed to wolves.
Of course, everything is a cover up to validate your opinions? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbook/2014/chapter-3-infectious-diseases-related-to-travel/echinococcosis (http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbook/2014/chapter-3-infectious-diseases-related-to-travel/echinococcosis)
I didn't say it isn't dangerous. Note the US isn't even mentioned in the WHO report? Sure it's here, but people aren't dying left and right from it. Personally, I'd be much more concerned about Bubonic Plague.
Post by: idahohuntr on December 31, 2013, 07:56:24 PM
I personally think these derbies do more harm than good. You can bet your bottom dollar that this derby will be a tremendous revenue generator for pro-wolf and anti-hunting groups.:yeah:
The cost-benefit analysis is off the charts (to the wrong end) on this one.
Post by: idahohuntr on December 31, 2013, 08:14:23 PM
We want to apologize in advance to the radical anti-hunting enviro’s. We will not be publishing or flaunting any photos of dead animals so you can exploit this opportunity to play upon the emotions of the naïve for your next fund raising campaign.What a moron. He clearly acknowledges the ill-effect of this publicity stunt...but thinks not posting photos from the event will keep anti's from exploiting this derby for fundraising purposes? Thats a level of stupid I have a hard time comprehending.
Good hunting,
Steve
Post by: bearpaw on December 31, 2013, 11:45:03 PM
We want to apologize in advance to the radical anti-hunting enviro’s. We will not be publishing or flaunting any photos of dead animals so you can exploit this opportunity to play upon the emotions of the naïve for your next fund raising campaign.What a moron. He clearly acknowledges the ill-effect of this publicity stunt...but thinks not posting photos from the event will keep anti's from exploiting this derby for fundraising purposes? Thats a level of stupid I have a hard time comprehending.
Good hunting,
Steve
Regarding your first sentence, perhaps you should look in a mirror, if you had the intellect you think you do you might see the point that they have made. I'll let you ponder on that one. :chuckle:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 01, 2014, 02:30:54 AM
ZERO wolves were harvested during this predator derby! 21 Coyotes were taken.
Maybe what this really proves is coyotes are a much more pervasive and bigger problem than wolves will ever be. Coyotes are smaller and mostly solitary creatures so are much harder to find than a pack of wolves if wolves were in the area being hunted. The fact that 21 coyotes were taken and zero wolves tells me that coyotes are way more of a problem than wolves in this area. The results also tell me that having this hunt blasted all over and rubbed in anti hunter noses was only good news for antis as they will use it as a recruiting and fund raising tool. Hunters in the area didn't gain anything as far as wolves go from this hunt being advertised. All they got was a black eye.
The urbanites and wolf advocates need to understand the ungulate prey base controls wolves. Wolves do not control the prey. This is why wolves must be controlled and yes killed!
If wolves don't "control" the prey base (I agree with that and so does science) , then wolves certainly don't cause predator pits. Predator numbers are a side effect of prey numbers going up and down. In other words, predator numbers go up and down with the feed available. Just like prey numbers do.
Despite all the anti wolf people's wishes, a predator pit is only possible in the most extreme and limited circumstances, and it would take outside influences to create the conditions to make it possible. Some wolf haters believe that just the existence of wolves creates a predator pit. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If that was a fact, Alaska would be a barren wasteland by now.
You need to read about the wolves and moose of Isle Royale.
http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/http%3A//www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.shtml (http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/http%3A//www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.shtml)
http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/overview/overview/at_a_glance.html (http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/overview/overview/at_a_glance.html)
Post by: Gringo31 on January 01, 2014, 07:26:05 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 01, 2014, 08:19:07 AM
A couple quotes in your article stand out Dale.ZERO wolves were harvested during this predator derby! 21 Coyotes were taken.
Maybe what this really proves is coyotes are a much more pervasive and bigger problem than wolves will ever be. Coyotes are smaller and mostly solitary creatures so are much harder to find than a pack of wolves if wolves were in the area being hunted. The fact that 21 coyotes were taken and zero wolves tells me that coyotes are way more of a problem than wolves in this area. The results also tell me that having this hunt blasted all over and rubbed in anti hunter noses was only good news for antis as they will use it as a recruiting and fund raising tool. Hunters in the area didn't gain anything as far as wolves go from this hunt being advertised. All they got was a black eye.
I expect you would have the same take as other wolf lovers on the forum. To someone looking at this from another angle I think this derby further proves that wolves cannot be controlled with sport hunting. The numbers of coyotes/wolves taken further emphasizes the same ratios being harvested statewide of coyotes and wolves. This is more proof that wolf season could likely be open year around and that wolf derbies will have no real impact on wolf populations and could be allowed on a regular basis with little effect on wolves. You may not see it or care, but the two hundred hunters who spent the weekend in Salmon helped the local economy. In eastern Montana the small towns take turns hosting coyote derbies all winter, it's great for the local businesses.The urbanites and wolf advocates need to understand the ungulate prey base controls wolves. Wolves do not control the prey. This is why wolves must be controlled and yes killed!
If wolves don't "control" the prey base (I agree with that and so does science) , then wolves certainly don't cause predator pits. Predator numbers are a side effect of prey numbers going up and down. In other words, predator numbers go up and down with the feed available. Just like prey numbers do.
Despite all the anti wolf people's wishes, a predator pit is only possible in the most extreme and limited circumstances, and it would take outside influences to create the conditions to make it possible. Some wolf haters believe that just the existence of wolves creates a predator pit. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If that was a fact, Alaska would be a barren wasteland by now.
I know exactly what a predator pit is and it can occur whenever an ungulate population is reduced below carrying capacity by bad winters or other circumstances and there exists too many wolves or other predators which prevent the ungulate population to recover to carrying capacity levels. Too help you understand better, there is some great info here:
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1538&context=icwdm_usdanwrc (http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1538&context=icwdm_usdanwrc)
THE ROLE OF PREDATION IN WILDLIFE POPULATION DYNAMICSQuoteOther terms commonly used when
describing predator-prey relationships are
"compensatory" and "additive" mortality.
Ballard et al. (2001) defined additive
mortality as occurring when the "additional
risk of death does not cause reductions in
other forms of mortality, but rather increases
overall mortality rate." On the other hand,
for compensatory mortality, the "additional
risk of death causes a reduction in other
forms of mortality so that overall mortality
either does not change or is less than it
would be if additive." Kunkel and Pletscher
(1999) suggested that predation on cewids
by several predatory species (mainly wolf
and cougar, Puma concolor) was additive in
northwestern Montana. Two terms also
worthy of definition are "obligate" and
"facultative" predator. An obligate predator
is one that specializes on one primary prey
species. Hence changes in the levels of the
primary prey will generally influence a
numerical change in the obligate predator.
In contrast, a facultative predator is a dietary
generalist that switches among prey species
and is thus buffered by changes in
abundance of any one prey species. A
facultative predator in a multi-prey system
can limit one prey species to low levels
because other prey maintain the predator
population.QuotePredator control can enhance prey[/color]
populations if prey is at low densities
relative to carrying capacity. In Alaska,
predator removal programs brought about
irruptions of moose, which allowed for
increased human harvest of moose
(Gasaway et al. 1983, 1992, Ballard et al.
1991). In British Columbia, following
reduction of wolf numbers, recruitment was
enhanced 2-5 times for 4 ungulate species
and all populations increased (Bergerud and
Elliott 1998). Similarly, deer populations in
south Texas increased following an
intensive coyote removal program (Beasom
1974).
You need to read about the wolves and moose of Isle Royale.
http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/http%3A//www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.shtml (http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/http%3A//www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.shtml)
http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/overview/overview/at_a_glance.html (http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/overview/overview/at_a_glance.html)
I read about Isle Royale years ago. But that's hardly comparable to the northwest. The Isle Royal model essentially involves one prey specie and one predator with limited additional factors. The northwest involves multiple prey species and multiple predators and many additional influences on populations. Isle Royale is hardly a viable comparison.
I'll stand by my previous statements about predator pits. The evidence shows that wolves have caused predator pits in certain areas of Idaho. Hard winters, halted logging practices, and increased hunting seasons reduced herds and now introduced wolves combined with already present predators are preventing ungulate herds from recovering to carrying capacity. It's really not that hard to understand if you look at the whole picture.
I will also stand by my statements that NE WA is in a predator pit. This is due to back to back hard winters and high predator numbers (cougar, coyotes, bear, etc) mostly caused by WDFW predator management policies. The addition of wolves on the landscape will only lengthen and likely enhance this predator pit.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 01, 2014, 08:42:26 AM
Post by: Curly on January 01, 2014, 08:47:26 AM
:tup:
I am more excited about the judge than the hunt itself. I am glad there is still some light out there.
:yeah:
It's refreshing to see a judge make a good decision.
Post by: villageidiot on January 01, 2014, 11:13:54 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 01, 2014, 04:05:49 PM
Anyone know how many have been checked in?
There were two topics so I merged them.
236 hunters in the field for two days got 23 coyotes and 0 wolves. Look back a few posts to read the results.
Post by: JLS on January 01, 2014, 04:27:14 PM
If you guys can't get a perfect shot like one should on a deer then just throw lead. The whole objective is to thin the packs. If you don't get a trophy to put on the wall then you might have to settle for a sorry shot that at least thins the pack. Sorta like shooting at a rapist or child abuser. You'd love to see him hit the deck but anything is better than letting him get away and rape more kids. :mgun: :mgun: :mgun:
Wow, great analogy, comparing wolves to rapists and child abusers.
Comparing natural predation to pedophilia? :rolleyes:
Post by: Dan-o on January 01, 2014, 04:34:53 PM
If you guys can't get a perfect shot like one should on a deer then just throw lead. The whole objective is to thin the packs. If you don't get a trophy to put on the wall then you might have to settle for a sorry shot that at least thins the pack. Sorta like shooting at a rapist or child abuser. You'd love to see him hit the deck but anything is better than letting him get away and rape more kids. :mgun: :mgun: :mgun:
Wow, great analogy, comparing wolves to rapists and child abusers.
Comparing natural predation to pedophilia? :rolleyes:
Just curious: Which do you think is worse?
Post by: idahohuntr on January 01, 2014, 05:13:18 PM
I expect you would have the same take as other wolf lovers on the forum.Label me however you want but when I see folks do things that undermine the ability of hunters and states to manage their own wildlife and perpetuate the hunting heritage it pisses me off. :tup:
On the wolf disease thing...there was a pretty good quote/article from an IDFG regional manager a few years ago on reducing human health risks: "...human health risk is quite low, provided you avoid consuming things like canid [canine] feces..." Given how full of "feces" most of the extremists on both sides of the wolf issue are I think this is a good reminder. :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: JLS on January 01, 2014, 09:41:06 PM
If you guys can't get a perfect shot like one should on a deer then just throw lead. The whole objective is to thin the packs. If you don't get a trophy to put on the wall then you might have to settle for a sorry shot that at least thins the pack. Sorta like shooting at a rapist or child abuser. You'd love to see him hit the deck but anything is better than letting him get away and rape more kids. :mgun: :mgun: :mgun:
Wow, great analogy, comparing wolves to rapists and child abusers.
Comparing natural predation to pedophilia? :rolleyes:
Just curious: Which do you think is worse?
I am hoping your question is in jest?
Given that one is an animal that has been on this earth for a long time, and lacks any cognitive thought process other than feeding itself and perpetuating its species, and that the other is a human that has full cognitive abilities and preys on helpless children by using intimidation, shame, guilt, and fear to satisfy his/her own sexual fantasies I think you know full well which one is worse. To try and compare them, is in my humble opinion, a direct insult to anyone that has suffered from rape or child abuse.
Post by: JLS on January 01, 2014, 09:51:24 PM
Call it "kool-aid" or whatever you want Dale. I won't stoop to making condescending insults at you because that's not my style. I'm surprised it's yours, but whatever floats your boat.
Once again, you and your homies demonstrate the need to categorized by black and white. Anyone that doesn't march in lock step with the Lobo Watch mantra is a wolf lover and drinking kool-aid. If something contradicts that mantra, then it must be a cover up.
Like Idahohunter, I am extremely passionate about passing on my hunting heritage. It is a never ending quest of mine to expose people to hunting in a favorable light that shows them the true meaning of the hunt, why we do it, and why we care. It pisses me off to no end also when people do stuff that makes us all look like a bunch of knuckle dragging rednecks.
How you can say the nonsense that "wolves can never be managed", when Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have all reduced their wolf populations in several years through sport hunting and trapping? All without the negative publicity that this derby stunt generated all in the name of "educating" people about a disease that can be avoided simply by washing your hands after you touch wolf crap.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 01, 2014, 10:03:07 PM
I'll stand by my previous statements about predator pits. The evidence shows that wolves have caused predator pits in certain areas of Idaho. Hard winters, halted logging practices, and increased hunting seasons reduced herds and now introduced wolves combined with already present predators are preventing ungulate herds from recovering to carrying capacity. It's really not that hard to understand if you look at the whole picture.
I will also stand by my statements that NE WA is in a predator pit. This is due to back to back hard winters and high predator numbers (cougar, coyotes, bear, etc) mostly caused by WDFW predator management policies. The addition of wolves on the landscape will only lengthen and likely enhance this predator pit.
A predator pit would be a situation where predators prevent a herd from recovering from some other negative natural event such as a bad winter. The winters of 07-08 and 08-09 knocked the NE herd down, but I don't think you can make the case predators are preventing the herds from coming back. Harvest numbers for hunters were up in 2012 and I'm guessing we will see another upward trend for 2013. There would have probably been an increase in 2011 also except the new 4 pt only rule in 117 and 121 caused a corresponding drop in buck harvest numbers. Another reason for lower harvest numbers since 2010 would be the severe curtailing of doe harvest. Barring another bad winter, population trends should be generally up in the 100 units as long as there are no new habitat issues.
Which brings us to this question. Maybe part of the problem isn't a predator pit, maybe there is a habitat pit.
From the "Game Status and Trend Report " for 2013 by the is this.
"More insidious than occasional bad winters in northeastern Washington is the on-going conversion of farm and forest lands into rural-residential developments along with the loss of alfalfa and cereal grain production on established agricultural ground. Between 1985 and 2008 production of cereal grains and alfalfa hay within Stevens and Pend Oreille
Counties declined approximately 45% (Source:National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA). This change in agricultural production in combination with occasional severe winters and prolonged summer droughts has probably led to a reduction in white-tailed deer abundance but not their overall distribution."
Yes, in hard times predators can cause a temporary decline in cervid populations, but in almost all cases, with good habitat, the cervids will bounce back.
From an Alaska study on wolves and deer.....
"Theoretically, if the fecundity of a deer population declines below a threshold level, a rapid decline in deer density is likely
to result, with predation as the proximate cause (Van Ballenberghe and Hanley1984).
But their recommendation? Do you think it was to concentrate on wolves? You'd be wrong.
"Management practices that lower the carrying capacity of the habitat can initiate population declines. Management to maintain habitat and prevent declines in deer populations seems more logical than trying to reverse deer declines by
controlling wolves (Van Ballenberghe and Hanley 1984).
In other words, protect or improve habitat, and the rest will take care of itself.
Post by: stevemiller on January 01, 2014, 10:16:15 PM
Post by: JLS on January 01, 2014, 10:24:44 PM
JLS,I have read thru all the post in this thread and hear both sides pretty clear.The only question I have is do you think it is diff.to hunt wolves than coyotes,or any other game for that matter?Not being a smart --- or anything just want to know thats all.
I can't speak to this directly, as I've not hunted wolves due to time and budgetary constraints. Randy Newberg from On Your Own Adventures/Fresh Tracks stated that they are very difficult to hunt, which would be my guess.
If I were going to hunt wolves, I would devise a calling system that sounded like hounds baying at a tree, and I would have a partner (or two) to cover more shooting lanes. I would use a treestand, and I think this would really change the odds in favor of the hunter.
I would hang stands about 75 yards out from the caller in an arc where the wolves would try to circle downwind of the caller.
I think the mere physical nature and environmental conditions of the hunt are a big factor in reducing hunter success.
Post by: stevemiller on January 01, 2014, 10:29:23 PM
Post by: JLS on January 01, 2014, 10:31:36 PM
Sorry not what I meant in my question,I mean ethically.
I fully support hunting carnivores, and I fully intend to shoot a wolf in the very near future. And when I do, I will be proud of how I did it and make no apologies to anyone.
Post by: KFhunter on January 01, 2014, 10:32:40 PM
Post by: stevemiller on January 01, 2014, 10:35:33 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 01, 2014, 10:48:45 PM
I'll stand by my previous statements about predator pits. The evidence shows that wolves have caused predator pits in certain areas of Idaho. Hard winters, halted logging practices, and increased hunting seasons reduced herds and now introduced wolves combined with already present predators are preventing ungulate herds from recovering to carrying capacity. It's really not that hard to understand if you look at the whole picture.
I will also stand by my statements that NE WA is in a predator pit. This is due to back to back hard winters and high predator numbers (cougar, coyotes, bear, etc) mostly caused by WDFW predator management policies. The addition of wolves on the landscape will only lengthen and likely enhance this predator pit.
A predator pit would be a situation where predators prevent a herd from recovering from some other negative natural event such as a bad winter. The winters of 07-08 and 08-09 knocked the NE herd down, but I don't think you can make the case predators are preventing the herds from coming back. Harvest numbers for hunters were up in 2012 and I'm guessing we will see another upward trend for 2013. There would have probably been an increase in 2011 also except the new 4 pt only rule in 117 and 121 caused a corresponding drop in buck harvest numbers. Another reason for lower harvest numbers since 2010 would be the severe curtailing of doe harvest. Barring another bad winter, population trends should be generally up in the 100 units as long as there are no new habitat issues.
Which brings us to this question. Maybe part of the problem isn't a predator pit, maybe there is a habitat pit.
From the "Game Status and Trend Report " for 2013 by the is this.
"More insidious than occasional bad winters in northeastern Washington is the on-going conversion of farm and forest lands into rural-residential developments along with the loss of alfalfa and cereal grain production on established agricultural ground. Between 1985 and 2008 production of cereal grains and alfalfa hay within Stevens and Pend Oreille
Counties declined approximately 45% (Source:National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA). This change in agricultural production in combination with occasional severe winters and prolonged summer droughts has probably led to a reduction in white-tailed deer abundance but not their overall distribution."
Yes, in hard times predators can cause a temporary decline in cervid populations, but in almost all cases, with good habitat, the cervids will bounce back.
From an Alaska study on wolves and deer.....
"Theoretically, if the fecundity of a deer population declines below a threshold level, a rapid decline in deer density is likely
to result, with predation as the proximate cause (Van Ballenberghe and Hanley1984).
But their recommendation? Do you think it was to concentrate on wolves? You'd be wrong.
"Management practices that lower the carrying capacity of the habitat can initiate population declines. Management to maintain habitat and prevent declines in deer populations seems more logical than trying to reverse deer declines by
controlling wolves (Van Ballenberghe and Hanley 1984).
In other words, protect or improve habitat, and the rest will take care of itself.
You've described one aspect but missed several others that are equally important.
Along about the time all the farms quit raising hay and selling out to California transplants a couple of other things happened at the same time.
trapping. So many trappers were instantly cut off at the knees with the loss of foot hold traps. There is no ideal way to bring down the coyote population in the mountains and woodlands. Coyotes won't go in a cage. Our coyote population has grown but a ton and they eat at lot of fawns. today trappers would have a heyday with coyotes if footholds were allowed statewide - we can dream right?
hounds. Houndsmen were driving the bears away from human populations, anywhere there was a road and easy access there was a strike dog on the hood of an old truck. This kept bear away from the best deer habitat - farmlands. Now we got bear everywhere and they're really good at finding fawns.
So you increase predation and decrease feed, I'm surprised there are as many deer as there are really.
Post by: Duffer on January 01, 2014, 11:04:26 PM
....
How you can say the nonsense that "wolves can never be managed", when Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have all reduced their wolf populations in several years through sport hunting and trapping? .....
Could you kindly point me to your reference info showing a reduction in the Idaho wolf population?
Thank you
Post by: JLS on January 01, 2014, 11:09:04 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 01, 2014, 11:11:07 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 01, 2014, 11:20:22 PM
Quote
While the number of wolf packs increased, the average size of the packs decreased, Rachael said.
“That is exactly what we would expect to see with wolves being harvested by hunters and trappers,” he said. “Average pack size peaked in 2008 prior to our first hunting season, when we estimated an average of slightly more than eight wolves per pack, and has declined since then to about five wolves per pack now.”
Washington can't trap them, and it's harder to hunt a wolf in timber and brush than in wide open ground where you can see a long ways.
Washington has less Elk, and the herds are much smaller and spread out. The wolves will be very hard on a small herd of Elk bumping them all winter long so they never rest and feed.
We are setup for a lot of conflict in the coming years.
Post by: KFhunter on January 01, 2014, 11:23:11 PM
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/apr/03/idaho-wolf-population-decreased-by-11-percent-in/ (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/apr/03/idaho-wolf-population-decreased-by-11-percent-in/)This story pretty much proves some of what was said(although only a couple of hunting seasons have been held for them so far)they will be very hard to manage.
So far this winter we are experiencing really low snow levels, so far the wolves don't have much increased advantage due to it.
Hopefully the Elk will be able to cover ground better.
Post by: Duffer on January 01, 2014, 11:26:54 PM
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/apr/03/idaho-wolf-population-decreased-by-11-percent-in/ (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/apr/03/idaho-wolf-population-decreased-by-11-percent-in/)
Thank you
Post by: idahohuntr on January 01, 2014, 11:49:57 PM
We are setup for a lot of conflict in the coming years.Now we are coming full circle here...the rhetoric and stunts like :wolf derbies" don't make any difference in Idaho wolf numbers (none were harvested), yet they generate a lot of negative publicity and raise serious revenue for anti hunting groups. Fortunately, regardless of the fascinations of the anti-hunt groups, hunting wolves in Idaho is here to stay.
But what state might be trying to initiate wolf hunts in the not too distant future? I personally think any wolf hunt proposal in Washington will make Idaho/Montana wolf stuff look like a pillow fight. It is so critical in WA that hunters convince the reasonable non-hunting public in this state that wolf management (inclusive of hunting) can be done responsibly or we don't stand a chance.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 02, 2014, 01:06:32 AM
We are setup for a lot of conflict in the coming years.Now we are coming full circle here...the rhetoric and stunts like :wolf derbies" don't make any difference in Idaho wolf numbers (none were harvested), yet they generate a lot of negative publicity and raise serious revenue for anti hunting groups. Fortunately, regardless of the fascinations of the anti-hunt groups, hunting wolves in Idaho is here to stay.
But what state might be trying to initiate wolf hunts in the not too distant future? I personally think any wolf hunt proposal in Washington will make Idaho/Montana wolf stuff look like a pillow fight. It is so critical in WA that hunters convince the reasonable non-hunting public in this state that wolf management (inclusive of hunting) can be done responsibly or we don't stand a chance.
Amen brother.
It will do hunters no good to alienate non hunters in Washington. Look what's already happened to hunting with dogs and trapping in this state. Instead of being obstinate and throwing things in non hunters' faces, hunters will be better served by patiently getting good facts to share and showing we are reasonable, responsible people who care about the resources we use. What we don't want is to out crazy the anti hunting crazies. Let them have the unreasonable low road.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 02, 2014, 05:20:21 AM
Post by: deerslyr on January 02, 2014, 05:26:05 AM
We are setup for a lot of conflict in the coming years.Now we are coming full circle here...the rhetoric and stunts like :wolf derbies" don't make any difference in Idaho wolf numbers (none were harvested), yet they generate a lot of negative publicity and raise serious revenue for anti hunting groups. Fortunately, regardless of the fascinations of the anti-hunt groups, hunting wolves in Idaho is here to stay.
But what state might be trying to initiate wolf hunts in the not too distant future? I personally think any wolf hunt proposal in Washington will make Idaho/Montana wolf stuff look like a pillow fight. It is so critical in WA that hunters convince the reasonable non-hunting public in this state that wolf management (inclusive of hunting) can be done responsibly or we don't stand a chance.
:yeah: Well said brother.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 02, 2014, 06:11:54 AM
Post by: JLS on January 02, 2014, 07:16:39 AM
JLS, since wolves reproduce at a rate of up to 40% annually, an 11% harvest (like the one you cited), means the wolves are not being managed to maintain population numbers, but their increase is only being slowed. :dunno:
A rate of up to does not mean that it always is that rate. It has already been documented that some packs have had very few pups in certain years. Also, killing an alpha male or female that is in the prime breeding years will have a greater impact on population that killing an adolescent.
Wyoming experienced the same drop in population.
http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming-game-and-fish-proposes-cutting-wolf-quotas-by-half/article_c07266ae-cadf-5ad5-87d1-9c8b0b2f2354.html (http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming-game-and-fish-proposes-cutting-wolf-quotas-by-half/article_c07266ae-cadf-5ad5-87d1-9c8b0b2f2354.html)
Post by: bearpaw on January 02, 2014, 07:17:38 AM
Aaah, the good old "wolf lover" shots. Funny how those always come out of the woodwork from the same folks whenever someone tends to disagree with the anti-wolf rhetoric that can be so pervasive around here.
Call it "kool-aid" or whatever you want Dale. I won't stoop to making condescending insults at you because that's not my style. I'm surprised it's yours, but whatever floats your boat.
Once again, you and your homies demonstrate the need to categorized by black and white. Anyone that doesn't march in lock step with the Lobo Watch mantra is a wolf lover and drinking kool-aid. If something contradicts that mantra, then it must be a cover up.
Like Idahohunter, I am extremely passionate about passing on my hunting heritage. It is a never ending quest of mine to expose people to hunting in a favorable light that shows them the true meaning of the hunt, why we do it, and why we care. It pisses me off to no end also when people do stuff that makes us all look like a bunch of knuckle dragging rednecks.
How you can say the nonsense that "wolves can never be managed", when Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have all reduced their wolf populations in several years through sport hunting and trapping? All without the negative publicity that this derby stunt generated all in the name of "educating" people about a disease that can be avoided simply by washing your hands after you touch wolf crap.
JLS, I would say that your comments are rather contradictory and that you are not quite as righteous as you try to appear. :chuckle:
I would also say that I see nothing wrong with derbies. We have coyote derbies all over Washington and fishing derbies too. Les Schwab tires even has a big buck derby every year that draws in a ton of business to their stores. So are you also opposed to all these derbies, some of which the members enjoy right here on this forum. Coyote Madness is one of our most popular topics every year on H-W. Or could it be that you are only opposed to having a derby for wolves for some special reason?
I think the more you try to cover up hunting the more it will be unacceptable and that is what has been happening in WA. Your strategy which is the same as WDFW is backfiring, you can't hide hunting and expect people to accept it. :twocents:
Post by: JLS on January 02, 2014, 07:28:43 AM
And no, I don't like hunting derbies across the board. I've never entered a big buck contest and have no plans to.
I don't hide hunting. I seriously don't know where you come up with this nonsense. I don't cover it up, I don't sterilize it, I tell and show it for what it is. I KILL ANIMALS. And, I show this to people that DO NOT HUNT. I have had two adults ask me this year if I would teach them to hunt. Both of them come from non-hunting families and have non-hunting friends. So, you tell me that my approach is backfiring.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 02, 2014, 07:31:43 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 02, 2014, 07:37:50 AM
I've got news for them, it's not working. Washington is the prime example, the more we try to make hunters look like we are ever sensitive to the anti-hunter, the more it works in the anti-hunters favor and the general public thinks hunting must not be that great of thing if we have to pamper it's appearance.
We need derbies on a regular basis and we need to talk about the ill effects of wolves, coyotes, cougars, and other predators. We also need to advertise hunting in many more ways than we do. It's a great family activity that benefits and strengthens the family. We humans are all animals, just like any other animal we must find other food to eat and hunting is at the heart of that basic need.
I'm not saying we need to remove predators from the face of the earth, but we do need to do a heck of a lot better job of managing them. The Washington model of pampering hunting to make it look better to the non-hunting public is backfiring and I think the present state of affairs in this state verses the state of affairs in Idaho or Montana where hunting and the need for hunting is more commonly talked about is proof of that. :twocents:
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 02, 2014, 07:54:08 AM
Ok I am game, your approach is back firing.:chuckle: :chuckle: x2
Post by: boneaddict on January 02, 2014, 07:55:00 AM
Post by: JLS on January 02, 2014, 08:00:50 AM
I'm a little tired of pu$$y footing around myself. I am sick of their feelings. They need to know what is happening. I happen to enjoy the outdoors and these bunny chasers don't have a clue. Isnt there a whale somewhere that needs protecting or a starfish dieing off.
I don't pu$$y foot around either Doug. I helped one of my daughters make a photo collage of her deer hunt this year for when she was the highlighted student of the month. One photo included a dead deer of all things. Her teacher thought it was a very tasteful display and complimented her on it.
I could care less about the anti hunters. I care very much about the majority of the population that does not hunt, but can certainly support and accept it (and votes).
Post by: JLS on January 02, 2014, 08:03:08 AM
Some members always seem to try and paint other members as "knuckle dragging Neanderthals" or something of the sort when they are opposed to the "preferred" wolf management practices of the states.
When someone tries to equate wolves with child molesters and rapists, then yes they are behaving as a knuckle dragging redneck.
Also, I fully support open wolf hunting as ID, WY, and MT do. I have very vocally supported the same in WA.
Post by: bearpaw on January 02, 2014, 08:10:45 AM
The goal should be to get 1 million people involved in some type of hunting or fishing derby/contest. That will familiarize more people with hunting and fishing if these derbies are promoted in the right way in support of the need and logical reasons for hunting and fishing. This in turn will also increase acceptance of hunting and fishing with non-participants.
Who cares what the antis think, they hate us no matter what we do. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on January 02, 2014, 08:12:11 AM
Post by: KFhunter on January 02, 2014, 09:47:21 AM
Coyote derby's in WA bring awareness to the coyote problems. How many friendships were forged on a HW coyote derby? How many new coyote hunters does HW coyote derby's create? I've seen quite a few first time coyote hunters posting on the coyote threads. A derby is a fantastic way for them to get out and learn from the pro's.
A wolf derby will work in Idaho if your goal is to bring wolf awareness to those that wish to control wolves. It networks successful hunters to new wolf hunters, idea's are shared and it gets people in the right frame of mind to get outdoors and hunt wolves. Idaho's wolf derby probably even brought in a few out of state hunters but I can't verify that.
The wolf anti's are going to be against wolf hunting derby or no derby, that the derby won out in the courtroom also says a lot for Idaho. Those who are non-hunters can be reached by positive outreach. Yes some will fall on the wrong side of the fence but if it's due to a derby they were lost to hunters anyways.
It'll be a long time before we see a wolf derby in WA, but the way was paved for us to do so by Idaho. Idaho's fight is Washington's fight as well, the're like our big brother in this smoothing the way for us. If there was a derby for wolves I'd join it in NE/WA, and I'd take people out and educate them on how best to hunt wolves.
I'd gain new friends who were also "knuckle dragging rednecks".
Post by: idahohuntr on January 02, 2014, 10:05:35 AM
This is the kind of message that resonates very well with the non-hunting public.
It's a great family activity that benefits and strengthens the family. We humans are all animals, just like any other animal we must find other food to eat and hunting is at the heart of that basic need.
The Washington model of pampering hunting to make it look better to the non-hunting public is backfiring and I think the present state of affairs in this state verses the state of affairs in Idaho or Montana where hunting and the need for hunting is more commonly talked about is proof of that. :twocents:What exactly do you mean by this? How does WA "pamper hunting" that ID and MT does not?
Post by: snowpack on January 02, 2014, 12:02:10 PM
JLS, since wolves reproduce at a rate of up to 40% annually, an 11% harvest (like the one you cited), means the wolves are not being managed to maintain population numbers, but their increase is only being slowed. :dunno:One of the articles implies a reproduction rate of 100%! So double every year. It said that the wolf professor Mech says that a harvest rate of up to 50% can still maintain a stable wolf population. :yike:
Post by: Gringo31 on January 02, 2014, 12:16:22 PM
I think you guys need to get off the fence and decide which side you are on. Either you are going to stand for true conservation, put solid efforts to manage our natural resources and follow some fairly black and white differences
OR
You can continue to ride the fence and be hated by both sides.
As a general rule, predator management is lacking. This goes from coyotes, wolves, bears, lions all the way to pelicans, cormorants and sea lions.
Adding an apex predator into a natural resource that we pay to protect will only reduce our harvest. I'd rather feed the hunting families that pay the way than to sit back and feel good that the wild is more better :chuckle:
We have gone too far from simple truths and I think it is a foolish mistake to try and appease the animal rights whacko groups. Let local areas govern their local areas. Let the greenie weirdo from Portland or Colorado have a voice in their own back yards. :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on January 02, 2014, 12:30:38 PM
This debate kinda pisses me off....I am certainly not sitting on any fence in this debate. I am black and white saying that publicity stunts like a wolf derby hinder long-term predator management. Period. I have no interest in appeasing anti-hunters. They are extremists who won't be convinced of anything so it is not worth worrying about them. What I am concerned with is how the majority of the voting, non-hunting public perceives hunting. That voting, non-hunting majority is what stripped hound hunting in washington. They will take away other hunting methods, tools, etc. if they perceive hunting as nothing more than a contest to win a prize or brag about a big animal. :twocents:
I think you guys need to get off the fence and decide which side you are on. Either you are going to stand for true conservation, put solid efforts to manage our natural resources and follow some fairly black and white differences
OR
You can continue to ride the fence and be hated by both sides.
As a general rule, predator management is lacking. This goes from coyotes, wolves, bears, lions all the way to pelicans, cormorants and sea lions.
Adding an apex predator into a natural resource that we pay to protect will only reduce our harvest. I'd rather feed the hunting families that pay the way than to sit back and feel good that the wild is more better :chuckle:
We have gone too far from simple truths and I think it is a foolish mistake to try and appease the animal rights whacko groups. Let local areas govern their local areas. Let the greenie weirdo from Portland or Colorado have a voice in their own back yards. :twocents:
Post by: Northway on January 02, 2014, 02:06:56 PM
The WDFW tries to hide coyote derbies and other contests in this state. I think they should be supporting these coyote derbies, fishing contests, and big buck derbies.
The goal should be to get 1 million people involved in some type of hunting or fishing derby/contest. That will familiarize more people with hunting and fishing if these derbies are promoted in the right way in support of the need and logical reasons for hunting and fishing. This in turn will also increase acceptance of hunting and fishing with non-participants.
Who cares what the antis think, they hate us no matter what we do. :twocents:
I'm not sure that a coyote derby is the gateway activity for new hunters. If you had a room full of non-hunters, and you were tasked with trying to sell the sport to them, would coyote derbies be one of the central themes of your presentation?
The largest available pool of non-hunters is in urban/suburban areas. I believe that selling hunting as a way to get away from the city life, enjoy the public lands that are so important to those of us in the west, or to participate in a noble sport with a strong history in North America could be more fruitful? There are a lot of people stuck in urban areas for periods of time for whatever reason, and a lot of us need an outlet – hunting should be one of those outlets.
What many might not understand is that it feels like there are high barriers to entry for someone new to the sport and without strong connections to it. You need to acquire appropriate gear, develop some level of marksmanship, have someone or a network of people to help you learn strategy, to learn how to handle your game after you are successful, etc. Of course there are probably plenty of hunters out there who would be willing to help further the sport, but how do you connect with the folks who are only at the point of casually day-dreaming about hunting? I can say as someone with outdoor experience that has always wanted to get more into hunting, that one of the things that I have lacked is someone to truly mentor me through the process.
I think it's a great idea to get more hunters out there, especially hunters who enjoy using public lands. There are deep divides between different public lands advocacy groups, but ultimately getting more folks caring about and using public lands is a good thing for the conservation movement as a whole, imo.
Post by: Special T on January 02, 2014, 02:20:24 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 02, 2014, 10:01:06 PM
The Washington model of pampering hunting to make it look better to the non-hunting public is backfiring and I think the present state of affairs in this state verses the state of affairs in Idaho or Montana where hunting and the need for hunting is more commonly talked about is proof of that. :twocents:What exactly do you mean by this? How does WA "pamper hunting" that ID and MT does not?
I started a big long explanation but decided if you really can't see this, I am probably wasting my time. :bash: :bdid:
Post by: JLS on January 02, 2014, 10:12:35 PM
that the derby won out in the courtroom also says a lot for Idaho.
Actually, all it really says is that the Forest Service didn't violate their permitting rules/process.
Post by: bearpaw on January 02, 2014, 10:19:10 PM
As I mentioned before, the Coyote Madness (contest) is one of the most popular topics every year. Other popular topics are the catfishing weekend and the summer picnic. It's these fun activities that will draw people to our ranks, I am amazed that there are people who call themselves hunters who are actually opposed to promoting our sports. However, I will not be discouraged by this, we will continue to have contests on this forum and I actually hope to increase the number of activities that we promote. This will only increase the popularity of our sports, as I mentioned before, the goal should be to involve one million people in Washington in hunting and fishing contests.
If we ever reach that goal, then two million should become the next goal. :twocents:
Post by: kentrek on January 02, 2014, 10:21:06 PM
As much as a like getting away from other hunters we need numbers to keep laws from turning us addicts into outlaws
Post by: kentrek on January 02, 2014, 10:27:08 PM
Keep up the good work :tup:
Post by: GoPlayOutside on January 02, 2014, 10:35:01 PM
Post by: JLS on January 02, 2014, 10:35:19 PM
My original opinion was that the wolf derby would do more harm than good. I stand behind that. I don't like derbies in general, and stand behind that too. I have no desire to make them illegal, but neither will I participate in them for my own idealogical reasons.
I don't care how WDFW markets to hunters. I can't control that. I don't care if you promote contests. I can't control that. I can control how I represent myself and every other hunter out there when I share with them my passion for hunting and the opportunity to pass that along to my kids. When parents of my kids' classmates ask me about hunting out of the blue, that tells me that the message is getting across. When I have acquaintances come up and ask me about hunting out of the blue, that tells me the message is getting across.
It does no good to recruit 100 new hunters via a derby if you alienate 10000 non hunters in the process.
Post by: haus on January 02, 2014, 11:03:12 PM
That being said I'm not opposed to the wack-a-coyote/wolf events nor am I concerned that such events burning the ears of anti-hunting individuals are somehow counterproductive in the long term. Just ensure such events proceeds go to a conservation project that helps all wildlife, that'll help keep the fence sitters from leaning towards believing the propaganda from an anti-hunter.
Post by: GoPlayOutside on January 02, 2014, 11:04:44 PM
I don't see it as alienating 10,000 (or any so called amount) hunters by recruiting 100 hunters.
I see it as promoting our sport and heritage to a younger and/or different population. In a time when our hunting privileges and "times a field" are being sucked out from under us with each passing year, and with the uncontrollable cost increases to do so....this is one route to open this heritage up for more to enjoy and get excited about.
Anti's will always be anti....Haters will Hate....PETA TYPE GROUPS WILL NEVER NEED AMMUNITION!
You know what got me hooked to Fishing (which in turn got me hooked to the Outdoors and eventually Hunting) when I was 4, 5, and 6 years old? It was when my Grandpa would take me to Five Mile Lake Park for an annual fishing Derby. There, I was surrounded by 100's of Kids that were catching fish, and having fun.
Post by: KFhunter on January 03, 2014, 10:38:37 AM
I think he should try a few out before he passes judgment.
What say you JLS? think you can tilt your chin down a little bit and mingle with the slope heads? You might like it :chuckle:
Post by: JLS on January 03, 2014, 08:32:57 PM
JLS thinks derby's are unethical.
I think he should try a few out before he passes judgment.
What say you JLS? think you can tilt your chin down a little bit and mingle with the slope heads? You might like it :chuckle:
Thanks, but no. I have absolutely no desire to enter a contest that offers prizes and rewards for killing the most or the biggest animals. For me it is for the meat and/or the love and enjoyment of the hunt. If I happen to share the experience with a friend or family member, that's a bonus.
There is no chin up here. My hunts are as blue collar and pedestrian as they come.
Post by: GoPlayOutside on January 03, 2014, 09:27:41 PM
Post by: JLS on January 03, 2014, 09:31:35 PM
Well then do your ethical job to control the Predator population when it's out of balance. Or, don't pass judgement on others that do their job and yours....so that we all can enjoy the future of hunting for Meat.
How do you know I don't?
Post by: GoPlayOutside on January 03, 2014, 09:39:24 PM
But don't tell people you believe that a predator control device is "hurting" the Hunting Heritage.
Post by: JLS on January 03, 2014, 09:53:09 PM
Some control device, it resulted in zero dead wolves. It prompted an editorial in the NY Times and will be the impetus for increased fundraising efforts by groups that oppose the killing of wolves.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/29/opinion/sunday/wolf-haters.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/29/opinion/sunday/wolf-haters.html?_r=0)
It did (IMO) nothing to raise nationwide awareness about wolf populations and their ability to withstand a high degree of hunting and trapping pressure. It did nothing to educate the public about the dispersal and growth of wolf populations that show it does not need further protection under the Endangered Species Act. It did nothing to raise awareness about the habitat work and winter range acquistions across the Rocky Mountains, paid for by hunters, that contribute to the deer and elk herds that support the wolf population. It did nothing to further educate many of the American public that hunters have paid the way to restore game populations from ground zero, and continue to do so. It did nothing to educate the public about the North American model of wildlife management and its foundation principles.
Instead, we "raise awareness" about a disease that is a whole lot more fear mongering than it is reality, and can be avoided by practicing decent hygiene.
Post by: GoPlayOutside on January 03, 2014, 10:14:22 PM
Their goal was not to "educate the public" or "raise awareness".
Their goal was to Kill Predatory animals for the sake of the areas Game Populations.
These days, there seems to be too many "talkers", "educators", "bloggers", "gossipers", "think tanks", etc.
When the rubber meets the road.....Someone needs to actually DO WORK and take action.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 03, 2014, 10:29:18 PM
I'll tell them what I believe, and in this case I think the derby will do/did do much more harm than good.Well said.
Some control device, it resulted in zero dead wolves. It prompted an editorial in the NY Times and will be the impetus for increased fundraising efforts by groups that oppose the killing of wolves.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/29/opinion/sunday/wolf-haters.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/29/opinion/sunday/wolf-haters.html?_r=0)
It did (IMO) nothing to raise nationwide awareness about wolf populations and their ability to withstand a high degree of hunting and trapping pressure. It did nothing to educate the public about the dispersal and growth of wolf populations that show it does not need further protection under the Endangered Species Act. It did nothing to raise awareness about the habitat work and winter range acquistions across the Rocky Mountains, paid for by hunters, that contribute to the deer and elk herds that support the wolf population. It did nothing to further educate many of the American public that hunters have paid the way to restore game populations from ground zero, and continue to do so. It did nothing to educate the public about the North American model of wildlife management and its foundation principles.
Instead, we "raise awareness" about a disease that is a whole lot more fear mongering than it is reality, and can be avoided by practicing decent hygiene.
Post by: GoPlayOutside on January 03, 2014, 10:32:16 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 03, 2014, 11:04:49 PM
Don't worry JLS....I still respect your opinions and believe you're on the right side of the Big Picture.
As do I.
JLS are you against hog hunting in southern states via helicopters, trapping or derby's?
The wolves as perceived by a lot of Idahoan's are more akin to culling hog numbers in TX then trophy hunting.