Post by: bearpaw on January 26, 2014, 02:21:03 PM
http://www.westernconfluence.org/?p=131 (http://www.westernconfluence.org/?p=131)
Post by: villageidiot on January 26, 2014, 09:08:02 PM
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 26, 2014, 10:38:05 PM
“The wolf is neither a saint nor a sinner except to those who want to make it so,” wrote L. David Mech of the U.S. Geological Survey in his 2012 paper, “Is science in danger of sanctifying the wolf?” He suggests that even scientists have become so attached to the iconic cachet of the wolf story that they credit the species with ecological roles beyond what research has shown for them.
Post by: KFhunter on January 26, 2014, 10:51:52 PM
They move them around constantly and out of the deep dark holes where they escaped hunters, so hunters see them and think "WOW!, ID/MT Elk hunting is fine, better than fine it's GRRRRRREAAT!" (my Tony the tiger impression)
meanwhile the overall Elk numbers are tanking. Guides that used to have good/great success are going under because they knew where the herd escaped the bulk of the hunters and horsed them into drop camps. Now the Elk are no longer reliably on their permitted areas of operation having been dispersed by wolves.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 27, 2014, 08:34:45 AM
They move them around constantly and out of the deep dark holes where they escaped hunters, so hunters see them and think "WOW!, ID/MT Elk hunting is fine, better than fine it's GRRRRRREAAT!" (my Tony the tiger impression)Very generally, I would say there are 3 "types" of areas in Idaho when it comes to elk hunting: 1. Areas that have almost no influence from wolves 2. Areas that have wolves present but the elk hunting is still reasonably good...some behavior has changed but there are still a lot of elk to hunt and 3. Areas where the presence of wolves, usually in combination with other major factors like habitat changes, have resulted in big declines (e.g. Lolo zone). In some areas I would say wolves have improved "access" to the elk, which is what you seem to be describing above...this seems particularly true in the Panhandle of Idaho, so maybe this is something to anticipate happening in NE Wa. I also believe the guides and outfitters have been disproportionately affected by wolf predation on elk...many of the areas below objectives are difficult to access like the Selway and Middle Fork where guides have traditionally operated. Given that we have seen a leveling off of wolf numbers in Idaho and most units are still producing good elk hunts, I do not subscribe to any belief that elk hunting is going down the tubes in Idaho.
meanwhile the overall Elk numbers are tanking.
Elk hunting is hard work. I know a lot of guys who kill nice whitetail bucks every year in Idaho that have never killed a bull. They didn't kill bulls in the 70's, 80's or early 90's and they don't kill bulls now...but its the wolves fault of course. :chuckle:
Guides that used to have good/great success are going under because they knew where the herd escaped the bulk of the hunters and horsed them into drop camps. Now the Elk are no longer reliably on their permitted areas of operation having been dispersed by wolves.In business, sometimes you have to adapt...or you don't survive. I am less concerned with guides going under...its when I see a family that had a camp and hunted these areas for multiple generations pulling out their camps with no expectation of returning that breaks my heart...its the little guy who hunts close to home. Outfitters come and go, some local, some from far away. They can potentially move to another area...usually not a choice for many rural Idaho families. So, bottom line, all these sob stories about guides going under...just not real high on my list of concerns...its too bad for them, but no different than the other millions of hard working Americans who lose jobs or are out of work. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on January 27, 2014, 08:57:55 AM
Sadly, some people will say anything to try and justify wolf impacts even when the reality is written in black and white. :rolleyes:
Just keep on telling everyone that wolves have little impact. :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on January 27, 2014, 09:31:48 AM
Gardiner elk hunt falls victim to wolves
GARDINER - One of the consequences of "Living with Wolves" is the elimination of a special late season elk hunt near Gardiner that has been part of the Montana hunting scene for the past 35 years. The January hunt was firstconducted in 1976, to help manage elk migrating out of Yellowstone National Park. At that time, the park's northern herd had reached as many as 12-thousand animals.
But once wolves were reintroduced to the park, the northern herd's numbers started declining. In 2005, game managers counted 9,545 elk. Three years later that figure had dropped to 3,912 animals, and by 2009 the herd's population was down to 3,511 elk. This year, FWP's aerial surveys of the northern herd outside the park's boundaries counted only 2,236 animals.
Last week, Montana's Fish and Game Commission voted to end the late season hunt citing elk numbers that had fallen below target levels due to predation mainly from wolves, but also from grizzly bears. The Montana Elk Plan established in 2004 called for a population of between 3-thousand to 5-thousand elk in the portion of the Northern elk herd that winters in Montana.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 27, 2014, 09:39:44 AM
Just keep on telling everyone that wolves have little impact. :chuckle:Just keep telling everyone there are only a few elk left in Idaho :tup: It will leave more for me.
Post by: bearpaw on January 27, 2014, 09:40:37 AM
http://www.idahostatejournal.com/news/local/article_639aacda-1232-11df-87ef-001cc4c03286.html (http://www.idahostatejournal.com/news/local/article_639aacda-1232-11df-87ef-001cc4c03286.html)
Fish and Game commissioner: Wolves hurt elk numbers
Quote
“From a wildlife perspective, there’s no question that this growing wolf population has had a devastating impact on our elk populations and our moose populations,” he said. “Our scientists’ and biologists’ studies on all these collared packs indicate that each wolf eats an average of 16 elk per year, so if you do the math and are being conservative, our 1,000 wolves are eating 16,000 elk per year.”
He said 295 sheep, 76 cattle and 14 dogs were also confirmed to have been killed by wolves in 2009.
Budge said the state’s biggest and historically most stable elk herd in the Lolo Pass area has gone from 11,000-13,000 elk to under 2,000 since wolves began to inhabit the area.
“Put wolves into the equation, it tipped the balance,” he said.
This impact resonates beyond Idaho’s borders, according to Budge.
“Our out-of-state hunting numbers were down 25 percent in 2008, 31 percent in 2009,” he said.
Fish and Game polled previous visitors to the state to find out if the economy was the culprit or if it was some other reason.
“The No. 1 reason listed for not coming to Idaho was, ‘You haven’t taken care of your wolves and your wild animal populations are down,’” Budge recounted, “and the No. 2 reason was, ‘Your license fees are unfair.”
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 27, 2014, 09:45:44 AM
So, bottom line, all these sob stories about guides going under...just not real high on my list of concerns...its too bad for them, but no different than the other millions of hard working Americans who lose jobs or are out of work. :twocents:
The demise of outfitters may not concern you, even though you're allowed to post on this website by one. However, the failures of outfitters reflect the changes in ungulate populations. They wouldn't be going out of business with abundant ungulates. They're going out of business because of the last straw - wolves added to a system that was already balanced, using man as a game management tool.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 27, 2014, 09:50:14 AM
THIS IS A DIRECT QUOTE FROM YOUR WEBPAGE :bash: :bash: :bash:
Sounds like you would actually agree with my assessment??
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 27, 2014, 09:51:30 AM
Idaho offers some of the best elk hunting in the country and Bearpaw Outfitters have several excellent elk hunting options in Southeast Idaho - BEARPAW OUTFITTERS
THIS IS A DIRECT QUOTE FROM YOUR WEBPAGE :bash: :bash: :bash:
Sounds like you would actually agree with my assessment??
He doesn't say it's as good as it was just a few years ago and it's not.
Post by: Dan-o on January 27, 2014, 09:52:44 AM
Was there any part of SOUTHEAST IDAHO that you weren't able to comprehend?
Post by: bearpaw on January 27, 2014, 09:55:56 AM
Idaho offers some of the best elk hunting in the country and Bearpaw Outfitters have several excellent elk hunting options in Southeast Idaho - BEARPAW OUTFITTERS
THIS IS A DIRECT QUOTE FROM YOUR WEBPAGE :bash: :bash: :bash:
Sounds like you would actually agree with my assessment??
Just keep on telling everyone that wolves have little impact. :chuckle:Just keep telling everyone there are only a few elk left in Idaho :tup: It will leave more for me.
We all know there are units in Idaho that wolves have not yet impacted heavily. However, 1/3 of the state has been impacted extensively and wolves are moving into new areas. No other single factor has impacted elk and moose herds to the magnitude as wolves. This has taken away from countless local families, outfitters, and hunters from around the country.
Feel free to try and say wolves have little impact, the documented proof speaks for itself.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 27, 2014, 09:59:12 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 27, 2014, 10:06:09 AM
Idaho offers some of the best elk hunting in the country and Bearpaw Outfitters have several excellent elk hunting options in Southeast Idaho - BEARPAW OUTFITTERS
THIS IS A DIRECT QUOTE FROM YOUR WEBPAGE :bash: :bash: :bash:
Sounds like you would actually agree with my assessment??
Just keep on telling everyone that wolves have little impact. :chuckle:Just keep telling everyone there are only a few elk left in Idaho :tup: It will leave more for me.
We all know there are units in Idaho that wolves have not yet impacted heavily. However, 1/3 of the state has been impacted extensively and wolves are moving into new areas. No other single factor has impacted elk and moose herds to the magnitude as wolves. This has taken away from countless local families, outfitters, and hunters from around the country.
Feel free to try and say wolves have little impact, the documented proof speaks for itself.
You need to re-read my post. I clearly state there are areas that are impacted by wolves, usually in combination with other factors. I specifically mention the lolo zone. However, there are large areas of Idaho where elk hunting is still good...as described on your outfitter website. :bash:
The wolf lover groups always try to hide the real localized impacts of wolves by saying overall state harvest has not been impacted and blaming habitat. You sound almost exactly like you are one of "them". :chuckle:
Post by: AspenBud on January 27, 2014, 10:13:00 AM
http://www.ktvq.com/news/gardiner-elk-hunt-falls-victim-to-wolves/ (http://www.ktvq.com/news/gardiner-elk-hunt-falls-victim-to-wolves/)
Gardiner elk hunt falls victim to wolves
GARDINER - One of the consequences of "Living with Wolves" is the elimination of a special late season elk hunt near Gardiner that has been part of the Montana hunting scene for the past 35 years. The January hunt was firstconducted in 1976, to help manage elk migrating out of Yellowstone National Park. At that time, the park's northern herd had reached as many as 12-thousand animals.
But once wolves were reintroduced to the park, the northern herd's numbers started declining. In 2005, game managers counted 9,545 elk. Three years later that figure had dropped to 3,912 animals, and by 2009 the herd's population was down to 3,511 elk. This year, FWP's aerial surveys of the northern herd outside the park's boundaries counted only 2,236 animals.
Last week, Montana's Fish and Game Commission voted to end the late season hunt citing elk numbers that had fallen below target levels due to predation mainly from wolves, but also from grizzly bears. The Montana Elk Plan established in 2004 called for a population of between 3-thousand to 5-thousand elk in the portion of the Northern elk herd that winters in Montana.
For whatever it's worth, the populations do seem to rise and fall together...
"Overall, Yellowstone’s wolf population has declined by roughly 50 percent since 2007, when 171 wolves roamed the park.
The wolves in Yellowstone’s northern range suffered the largest losses in 2012. This decline coincided with a drop in elk numbers in the same area. Wolves primarily prey on elk, and researchers calculated elk comprised 62 percent of all 2012 Yellowstone wolf kills."
http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2014/01/report-yellowstone-wolf-populations-declines-predators-target-bison (http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2014/01/report-yellowstone-wolf-populations-declines-predators-target-bison)
Post by: bearpaw on January 27, 2014, 10:30:24 AM
For whatever it's worth, the populations do seem to rise and fall together...
"Overall, Yellowstone’s wolf population has declined by roughly 50 percent since 2007, when 171 wolves roamed the park.
The wolves in Yellowstone’s northern range suffered the largest losses in 2012. This decline coincided with a drop in elk numbers in the same area. Wolves primarily prey on elk, and researchers calculated elk comprised 62 percent of all 2012 Yellowstone wolf kills."
http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2014/01/report-yellowstone-wolf-populations-declines-predators-target-bison (http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2014/01/report-yellowstone-wolf-populations-declines-predators-target-bison)
Completely agree, from the beginning I have said if wolf groups would support wolf management it would result in stable herds and more wolves in the end, if herds drop they can't support as many wolves, but most wolf lovers can't think that well, and the rest are using wolves to curtail hunting. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on January 27, 2014, 10:41:26 AM
You need to re-read my post. I clearly state there are areas that are impacted by wolves, usually in combination with other factors. I specifically mention the lolo zone. However, there are large areas of Idaho where elk hunting is still good...as described on your outfitter website. :bash:
In your statements you use the zones that still have elk to try and say that hunting is still just as good in Idaho when we can all read about the significant localized impacts. :dunno:
Please keep in mind as you are typing away trying to convince us that wolves are nothing to worry about, the governor of Idaho has a hired trapper removing wolves from the Idaho wilderness to try and save the elk herds. :twocents:
Post by: KFhunter on January 27, 2014, 10:44:17 AM
It's what they do, breed and disperse. Pretty soon they'll have dispersed everywhere and established packs anywhere there is enough game and habitat...but they'll continure to breed anyways and we'll be inundated with sub adults constantly in populated areas with domestic livestock, pets and kids catching the school bus - Sub adults that are half starved and going for anything it can get into it's mouth.
That's the future and I see it clearly.
Post by: bearpaw on January 27, 2014, 10:55:07 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 27, 2014, 11:03:14 AM
In your statements you use the zones that still have elk to try and say that hunting is still just as good in Idaho when we can all read about the significant localized impacts. :dunno:You continue to distort what I say...I really don't see where we disagree much about the status of elk hunting in Idaho. You said about 1/3 of Idaho has had extensive impact from wolves...which means about 2/3 of the state is doing alright...this is largely what I believe when I described 3 "types" of areas in Idaho. :dunno:
Please keep in mind as you are typing away trying to convince us that wolves are nothing to worry about, the governor of Idaho has a hired trapper removing wolves from the Idaho wilderness to try and save the elk herds. :twocents:
Post by: AspenBud on January 27, 2014, 11:11:02 AM
They're still breeding Aspen, they're just driving off the sub adults and they disperse into area's with more game.
It's what they do, breed and disperse. Pretty soon they'll have dispersed everywhere and established packs anywhere there is enough game and habitat...but they'll continure to breed anyways and we'll be inundated with sub adults constantly in populated areas with domestic livestock, pets and kids catching the school bus - Sub adults that are half starved and going for anything it can get into it's mouth.
That's the future and I see it clearly.
I see it a little differently. I think you're right, but I suspect the influx of sub adults will ebb and flow with the prey populations. You'll have some years that are more dangerous to be out there than others. A wolf population coming off a boom and heading into decline will make for more dangerous individuals such as the sub adults you're talking about. A population in decline however will be producing fewer pups that even make it to that stage. When the prey numbers go back up, the wolves eat better and the cycle restarts until the next decline.
Completely agree, from the beginning I have said if wolf groups would support wolf management it would result in stable herds and more wolves in the end, if herds drop they can't support as many wolves, but most wolf lovers can't think that well, and the rest are using wolves to curtail hunting. :twocents:
Along the lines of my response to KFHunter's comment above, this method, what you're proposing here Bearpaw, would likely also produce more predictable and fewer dangerous individuals. I agree.
I would rather see a managed population of wolves that can find all the food they need than a group that is so desperate for food that they'll do just about anything. It's the desperate times for wolves that lead to bad press, that and the impact on livestock owners.
Post by: KFhunter on January 27, 2014, 12:02:27 PM
If you look at the graph jon.brown509 tossed up the answer is no. If it were stock market graph it'd be a bear market for sure.
If YNP is the test pond of what we'll be seeing then I see no indication of the possibility of Elk populations increasing with the introduction of wolves. As yourself have stated the wolves have leveled out in YNP - yet the Elk continue to decline.
I've used your evidence against you.
Post by: KFhunter on January 27, 2014, 12:08:10 PM
They're still breeding Aspen, they're just driving off the sub adults and they disperse into area's with more game.
It's what they do, breed and disperse. Pretty soon they'll have dispersed everywhere and established packs anywhere there is enough game and habitat...but they'll continure to breed anyways and we'll be inundated with sub adults constantly in populated areas with domestic livestock, pets and kids catching the school bus - Sub adults that are half starved and going for anything it can get into it's mouth.
That's the future and I see it clearly.
I see it a little differently. I think you're right, but I suspect the influx of sub adults will ebb and flow with the prey populations. You'll have some years that are more dangerous to be out there than others. A wolf population coming off a boom and heading into decline will make for more dangerous individuals such as the sub adults you're talking about. A population in decline however will be producing fewer pups that even make it to that stage. When the prey numbers go back up, the wolves eat better and the cycle restarts until the next decline.Completely agree, from the beginning I have said if wolf groups would support wolf management it would result in stable herds and more wolves in the end, if herds drop they can't support as many wolves, but most wolf lovers can't think that well, and the rest are using wolves to curtail hunting. :twocents:
Along the lines of my response to KFHunter's comment above, this method, what you're proposing here Bearpaw, would likely also produce more predictable and fewer dangerous individuals. I agree.
I would rather see a managed population of wolves that can find all the food they need than a group that is so desperate for food that they'll do just about anything. It's the desperate times for wolves that lead to bad press, that and the impact on livestock owners.
Then what management tool do you suggest I use? I'd be more than happy to do my part in managing the wolves in a legal way.
I've asked this question many times and no one has answered it.
What can we do as sportsmen to help manage wolves in WA?
WDFW isn't confirming packs, we're already well beyond the required packs established in the "wolf plan". WDFW isn't going to gun them from helicopters ever again. Traps are illegal, poison illegal everywhere.
The management tools are NOT in place - thus we will see sub adults and rogue packs and continued decline of Elk.
Post by: Humptulips on January 27, 2014, 12:16:20 PM
They're still breeding Aspen, they're just driving off the sub adults and they disperse into area's with more game.
It's what they do, breed and disperse. Pretty soon they'll have dispersed everywhere and established packs anywhere there is enough game and habitat...but they'll continure to breed anyways and we'll be inundated with sub adults constantly in populated areas with domestic livestock, pets and kids catching the school bus - Sub adults that are half starved and going for anything it can get into it's mouth.
That's the future and I see it clearly.
I see it a little differently. I think you're right, but I suspect the influx of sub adults will ebb and flow with the prey populations. You'll have some years that are more dangerous to be out there than others. A wolf population coming off a boom and heading into decline will make for more dangerous individuals such as the sub adults you're talking about. A population in decline however will be producing fewer pups that even make it to that stage. When the prey numbers go back up, the wolves eat better and the cycle restarts until the next decline.Completely agree, from the beginning I have said if wolf groups would support wolf management it would result in stable herds and more wolves in the end, if herds drop they can't support as many wolves, but most wolf lovers can't think that well, and the rest are using wolves to curtail hunting. :twocents:
Along the lines of my response to KFHunter's comment above, this method, what you're proposing here Bearpaw, would likely also produce more predictable and fewer dangerous individuals. I agree.
I would rather see a managed population of wolves that can find all the food they need than a group that is so desperate for food that they'll do just about anything. It's the desperate times for wolves that lead to bad press, that and the impact on livestock owners.
I think you make a mistake when you assume that prey numbers will cycle up when wolf numbers are forced down by lack of prey.
As long as there are wolves out there prey populations will stay down. Ever heard the term predator pit. I think that is what you will have without intervention by man.
Post by: AspenBud on January 27, 2014, 12:18:23 PM
YNP has been doing this for 20 years, has there been any instance of the Elk population increasing?
If you look at the graph jon.brown509 tossed up the answer is no. If it were stock market graph it'd be a bear market for sure.
If YNP is the test pond of what we'll be seeing then I see no indication of the possibility of Elk populations increasing with the introduction of wolves. As yourself have stated the wolves have leveled out in YNP - yet the Elk continue to decline.
I've used your evidence against you.
Hm, and up until 2007 the wolves in the park kept gaining in number and since then their numbers have decreased. Or rather, their numbers have fallen off a cliff.
If I had a crystal ball I would tell you when equilibrium is reached, but I don't and I can't. That's the big problem along with many other things in this, it's all one big experiment.
So no, you haven't used anything against me.
Post by: AspenBud on January 27, 2014, 12:21:53 PM
They're still breeding Aspen, they're just driving off the sub adults and they disperse into area's with more game.
It's what they do, breed and disperse. Pretty soon they'll have dispersed everywhere and established packs anywhere there is enough game and habitat...but they'll continure to breed anyways and we'll be inundated with sub adults constantly in populated areas with domestic livestock, pets and kids catching the school bus - Sub adults that are half starved and going for anything it can get into it's mouth.
That's the future and I see it clearly.
I see it a little differently. I think you're right, but I suspect the influx of sub adults will ebb and flow with the prey populations. You'll have some years that are more dangerous to be out there than others. A wolf population coming off a boom and heading into decline will make for more dangerous individuals such as the sub adults you're talking about. A population in decline however will be producing fewer pups that even make it to that stage. When the prey numbers go back up, the wolves eat better and the cycle restarts until the next decline.Completely agree, from the beginning I have said if wolf groups would support wolf management it would result in stable herds and more wolves in the end, if herds drop they can't support as many wolves, but most wolf lovers can't think that well, and the rest are using wolves to curtail hunting. :twocents:
Along the lines of my response to KFHunter's comment above, this method, what you're proposing here Bearpaw, would likely also produce more predictable and fewer dangerous individuals. I agree.
I would rather see a managed population of wolves that can find all the food they need than a group that is so desperate for food that they'll do just about anything. It's the desperate times for wolves that lead to bad press, that and the impact on livestock owners.
Then what management tool do you suggest I use? I'd be more than happy to do my part in managing the wolves in a legal way.
I've asked this question many times and no one has answered it.
What can we do as sportsmen to help manage wolves in WA?
WDFW isn't confirming packs, we're already well beyond the required packs established in the "wolf plan". WDFW isn't going to gun them from helicopters ever again. Traps are illegal, poison illegal everywhere.
The management tools are NOT in place - thus we will see sub adults and rogue packs and continued decline of Elk.
You're picking a fight where there is no fight to pick. You shoot them.
You might be sore because I utterly disagree with you on habitat but we share some common agreements on the wolf issue. Get over it.
Post by: AspenBud on January 27, 2014, 12:25:16 PM
They're still breeding Aspen, they're just driving off the sub adults and they disperse into area's with more game.
It's what they do, breed and disperse. Pretty soon they'll have dispersed everywhere and established packs anywhere there is enough game and habitat...but they'll continure to breed anyways and we'll be inundated with sub adults constantly in populated areas with domestic livestock, pets and kids catching the school bus - Sub adults that are half starved and going for anything it can get into it's mouth.
That's the future and I see it clearly.
I see it a little differently. I think you're right, but I suspect the influx of sub adults will ebb and flow with the prey populations. You'll have some years that are more dangerous to be out there than others. A wolf population coming off a boom and heading into decline will make for more dangerous individuals such as the sub adults you're talking about. A population in decline however will be producing fewer pups that even make it to that stage. When the prey numbers go back up, the wolves eat better and the cycle restarts until the next decline.Completely agree, from the beginning I have said if wolf groups would support wolf management it would result in stable herds and more wolves in the end, if herds drop they can't support as many wolves, but most wolf lovers can't think that well, and the rest are using wolves to curtail hunting. :twocents:
Along the lines of my response to KFHunter's comment above, this method, what you're proposing here Bearpaw, would likely also produce more predictable and fewer dangerous individuals. I agree.
I would rather see a managed population of wolves that can find all the food they need than a group that is so desperate for food that they'll do just about anything. It's the desperate times for wolves that lead to bad press, that and the impact on livestock owners.
I think you make a mistake when you assume that prey numbers will cycle up when wolf numbers are forced down by lack of prey.
As long as there are wolves out there prey populations will stay down. Ever heard the term predator pit. I think that is what you will have without intervention by man.
You can hug that concept close if you want, I don't have an answer for you. Again, the problem is it's all one big experiment. No one knows what ungulate populations will be thrown into a "predator pit" and which will not. They threw wolves into out of balance ecosystems and no one knows what the outcome will be. Abundant food can make a predator population grow wildly big wildly fast. What happens when you turn loose wolves on prey that haven't seen predation in years in areas where they either historically never existed or in numbers far above what they were pre-wolf extirpation is anyone's guess. It's literally a big gamble. You don't know, I don't know, and the the anti wolf hunting public does not know.
Bearpaw makes a very good point. Why not have the wolves, manage them, and keep everyone happy rather than letting the experiment run it's cycle win lose or draw? More bad blood will be created if the ungulates are hunted out, more bad blood will be created if half starved wolves go looking for food in places they shouldn't and become more unpredictable. That is a VERY reasonable argument in favor of managing them with lethal force.
Post by: Humptulips on January 27, 2014, 12:28:36 PM
I think that is why so many of them are so infatuated with wolves. It's their bread and butter.
Post by: KFhunter on January 27, 2014, 12:55:50 PM
You're picking a fight where there is no fight to pick. You shoot them.
You might be sore because I utterly disagree with you on habitat but we share some common agreements on the wolf issue. Get over it.
You only advocate shooting them because you know it's ineffective.
When WDFW tried to remove the wedge pack they contracted hunters and WITH THE AID of the tracking collars already in place they hunted for 28 days straight and managed to kill ONE sub-adult wolf.
In the last wolf derby there was not a wholesale slaughter of wolves, quite the opposite...ZERO wolves were killed during the derby.
Post by: AspenBud on January 27, 2014, 12:59:25 PM
As if you could just waltz out there and shoot them :rolleyes: :bash:
28 days, with the use of a tracking collar and the WDFW contracted hunters managed to drop ONE sub adult in the Wedge pack "removal".
The wolf derby netted zero wolf killed.
According to many here they are seen regularly in your neck of the woods. You just need the law changed.
Heck, it's so hard to find a wolf in this state we have a whole thread dedicated to wolf sightings complete with accounts of people who say they saw one or had a run in with them. Are you saying they are all liars? Do you think that none of them would have shot those wolves if it were legal to do so?
Post by: KFhunter on January 27, 2014, 01:16:37 PM
Seeing them, hearing one or finding a track is a lot different than actually shooting one.
You're just throwing the HW readers a bone in suggesting they be shot, you know damm well and good it's not effective. Just trying to not look like such a wolf lover.
Post by: KFhunter on January 27, 2014, 01:23:39 PM
YNP has been doing this for 20 years, has there been any instance of the Elk population increasing?
If you look at the graph jon.brown509 tossed up the answer is no. If it were stock market graph it'd be a bear market for sure.
If YNP is the test pond of what we'll be seeing then I see no indication of the possibility of Elk populations increasing with the introduction of wolves. As yourself have stated the wolves have leveled out in YNP - yet the Elk continue to decline.
I've used your evidence against you.
Hm, and up until 2007 the wolves in the park kept gaining in number and since then their numbers have decreased. Or rather, their numbers have fallen off a cliff.
If I had a crystal ball I would tell you when equilibrium is reached, but I don't and I can't. That's the big problem along with many other things in this, it's all one big experiment.
So no, you haven't used anything against me.
Yes I have, utterly refuted your habitat claims.
All measurable forms of habitat increased for Elk - willows, aspen suckers, cottonwood and everything else elk like to feed on has went up in quantity with the corresponding drop in herd sizes. According to your habitat argument Elk numbers should be on a steep incline, but they aren't even after 20 years of wolves in YNP.
Why is that??? BECAUSE HABITAT DON'T MEAN SHAT IF WOLVES ARE KILLING THEM ALL.
ya dink.
Post by: AspenBud on January 27, 2014, 01:32:57 PM
Seeing them, hearing one or finding a track is a lot different than actually shooting one.
According to many here who saw one they would have shot them if it were legal. Are you calling them liars?
If you would like me to agree that trapping is also needed, I think the facts speak for themselves in saying it is. Baby steps however, you don't even have the right to defend your cows free of legal hassle yet
Post by: KFhunter on January 27, 2014, 01:41:41 PM
Is it your position that trapping and recreational hunting will be enough to keep their populations in check? I got a bridge I'd like to sell you........
Post by: snowpack on January 27, 2014, 01:42:47 PM
Yes I have, utterly refuted your habitat claims.There's some interesting research out there about predation. One good one is from Arizona, called the Three Bar. Basically they monitored mule deer in an enclosed area that was made predator free and in the surrounding areas. They had a bear try to climb the fence once and it was quickly removed. Overall, the changes in habitat due to droughts or rainy years affected the enclosed deer very little. Nearly every year the animals went into the fall with nearly each doe having a fawn. Outside the enclosure, the deer were exposed to all the same factors except predators and the outside herds had about 1/5 the fawns with them by fall. They said their results were indicating that predator were more of a factor than they thought and more significant than habitat.
All measurable forms of habitat increased for Elk - willows, aspen suckers, cottonwood and everything else elk like to feed on has went up in quantity with the corresponding drop in herd sizes. According to your habitat argument Elk numbers should be on a steep incline, but they aren't even after 20 years of wolves in YNP.
Why is that??? BECAUSE HABITAT DON'T MEAN SHAT IF WOLVES ARE KILLING THEM ALL.
ya dink.
Post by: AspenBud on January 27, 2014, 01:48:20 PM
I don't doubt some people could have shot a wolf if it were legal, but not enough to do squat in terms of overall management.
Is it your position that trapping and recreational hunting will be enough to keep their populations in check? I got a bridge I'd like to sell you........
Depends on your definition of "in check" I guess.
Post by: AspenBud on January 27, 2014, 01:50:10 PM
Yes I have, utterly refuted your habitat claims.There's some interesting research out there about predation. One good one is from Arizona, called the Three Bar. Basically they monitored mule deer in an enclosed area that was made predator free and in the surrounding areas. They had a bear try to climb the fence once and it was quickly removed. Overall, the changes in habitat due to droughts or rainy years affected the enclosed deer very little. Nearly every year the animals went into the fall with nearly each doe having a fawn. Outside the enclosure, the deer were exposed to all the same factors except predators and the outside herds had about 1/5 the fawns with them by fall. They said their results were indicating that predator were more of a factor than they thought and more significant than habitat.
All measurable forms of habitat increased for Elk - willows, aspen suckers, cottonwood and everything else elk like to feed on has went up in quantity with the corresponding drop in herd sizes. According to your habitat argument Elk numbers should be on a steep incline, but they aren't even after 20 years of wolves in YNP.
Why is that??? BECAUSE HABITAT DON'T MEAN SHAT IF WOLVES ARE KILLING THEM ALL.
ya dink.
Makes sense to me. In the absence of predators animals can do fairly well even in poor habitat. They need just enough shelter and just enough to eat in those circumstances. Escape cover plays no role as it's not needed.
Post by: AspenBud on January 27, 2014, 02:20:35 PM
YNP has been doing this for 20 years, has there been any instance of the Elk population increasing?
If you look at the graph jon.brown509 tossed up the answer is no. If it were stock market graph it'd be a bear market for sure.
If YNP is the test pond of what we'll be seeing then I see no indication of the possibility of Elk populations increasing with the introduction of wolves. As yourself have stated the wolves have leveled out in YNP - yet the Elk continue to decline.
I've used your evidence against you.
Hm, and up until 2007 the wolves in the park kept gaining in number and since then their numbers have decreased. Or rather, their numbers have fallen off a cliff.
If I had a crystal ball I would tell you when equilibrium is reached, but I don't and I can't. That's the big problem along with many other things in this, it's all one big experiment.
So no, you haven't used anything against me.
Yes I have, utterly refuted your habitat claims.
All measurable forms of habitat increased for Elk - willows, aspen suckers, cottonwood and everything else elk like to feed on has went up in quantity with the corresponding drop in herd sizes. According to your habitat argument Elk numbers should be on a steep incline, but they aren't even after 20 years of wolves in YNP.
Why is that??? BECAUSE HABITAT DON'T MEAN SHAT IF WOLVES ARE KILLING THEM ALL.
ya dink.
Well, in the thread where I made the habitat argument I don't think I ever mentioned Yellowstone, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
I also think you're basing your knowledge of habitat to what worked pre-wolf.
The article that started this thread also made the point that the elk in Yellowstone are actually still over eating the aspen suckers etc that you mentioned as they go into those areas to hide. What you claimed here is patently false according to the article. Did you read it?
Post by: bearpaw on January 27, 2014, 03:40:35 PM
In your statements you use the zones that still have elk to try and say that hunting is still just as good in Idaho when we can all read about the significant localized impacts. :dunno:You continue to distort what I say...I really don't see where we disagree much about the status of elk hunting in Idaho. You said about 1/3 of Idaho has had extensive impact from wolves...which means about 2/3 of the state is doing alright...this is largely what I believe when I described 3 "types" of areas in Idaho. :dunno:
Please keep in mind as you are typing away trying to convince us that wolves are nothing to worry about, the governor of Idaho has a hired trapper removing wolves from the Idaho wilderness to try and save the elk herds. :twocents:
No, that's not at all what I said. I'll be more specific:
1/3 of Idaho hasn't been impacted too much yet as wolf numbers are still building in those areas, 1/3 of Idaho is starting to be impacted pretty good now because there are quite a few wolves, and 1/3 of Idaho has been devastated so badly that wolves are eating each other, dying, or leaving and moving into the other 2/3 of the state and into surrounding states that will end up just like the devastated 1/3 of Idaho unless people take care of business. Habitat is certainly always a concern, unfortunately it's the scapegoat used to hide the truth about the impacts of wolves. Wolf predation is very much additive to cougar, bear, and coyote predation, wolf predation is not compensatory as many bios try to say, which explains why 1/3 of Idaho is in a predator pit even though Idaho has greatly liberalized bear and cougar seasons to try and make up for wolf impacts.
Bottom line, the lower 48 states didn't need wolves to manage big game. Big game numbers could be completely managed with hunting seasons. Unfortunately we are now stuck with wolves, if F&G agencies want people to accept wolves and be more supportive of agencies, these agencies better start managing wolves better or they will continue taking the heat for destroying big game herds.
WDFW has promoted false wolf science to implement the most liberal wolf plan in the smallest western state. This wolf plan ignores the WA caribou herd and will result in dramatically reduced moose and elk herds and will also impact deer herds. WDFW has ignored documented experiences that have occurred in ID/MT/WY/BC/AB/AL. Idaho F&G started out with much of the same rubbish about wolves as WDFW. Now that millions have been lost in IDFG license sales IDFG is singing a different tune.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 27, 2014, 04:11:10 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 27, 2014, 04:15:54 PM
You should be kissing the boots of every Joe Bob you see with a little white SSS sticker on the back of their window.
:kneel:
Post by: AspenBud on January 27, 2014, 04:27:24 PM
You approve of wholesale SSS by Idaho residents? You're a direct beneficiary of massive state endorsed poaching.
You should be kissing the boots of every Joe Bob you see with a little white SSS sticker on the back of their window.
:kneel:
Wait a minute, you told me just shooting and trapping them won't make a difference! You're making this too easy. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: KFhunter on January 27, 2014, 04:31:39 PM
I don't want Washington's sportsmen to feel they have to resort to unlawful action to preserve their hunting heritage.
Thought you had me huh? Clearly you're out of your league, better pack a bigger lunch.
Post by: buckfvr on January 27, 2014, 04:37:23 PM
Now lets say pro wolf movement is wrong.........now we have too many wolves out of control, and declining ungulate herds where ever they are, cant get better, can and only will get worse, nothing in place to combat the devastating losses.
Where in this process do I see erroring on the safe side........which would be the side of the wild life we have worked for many years to manage successfully. All down the drain if pro wolf is wrong. :twocents:
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 28, 2014, 09:15:43 AM
YNP has been doing this for 20 years, has there been any instance of the Elk population increasing?
If you look at the graph jon.brown509 tossed up the answer is no. If it were stock market graph it'd be a bear market for sure.
If YNP is the test pond of what we'll be seeing then I see no indication of the possibility of Elk populations increasing with the introduction of wolves. As yourself have stated the wolves have leveled out in YNP - yet the Elk continue to decline.
:twocents: Your right Elk populations well never increas, YNP reached way above carrying capaticy for too long causing long term damage to the habitat in YNP,The population was bound to crash hard...But since the introduction to wolves they have stablzied the heard for the last 6 to 8 years around 4,000 they have never declined or incressed just stays around 4,000.The habitat in YNP well never support Elk numbers passed 8,000 even with out wolves around.May I ask where you found that they were declining ? As well as you should know wolves well only reproduce enough to support the food that is present around them which is why YNP has reached carrying capitcty for wolves as well.
Post by: bearpaw on January 28, 2014, 09:18:24 AM
http://www.ktvq.com/news/gardiner-elk-hunt-falls-victim-to-wolves/ (http://www.ktvq.com/news/gardiner-elk-hunt-falls-victim-to-wolves/)
Gardiner elk hunt falls victim to wolves
GARDINER - One of the consequences of "Living with Wolves" is the elimination of a special late season elk hunt near Gardiner that has been part of the Montana hunting scene for the past 35 years. The January hunt was firstconducted in 1976, to help manage elk migrating out of Yellowstone National Park. At that time, the park's northern herd had reached as many as 12-thousand animals.
But once wolves were reintroduced to the park, the northern herd's numbers started declining. In 2005, game managers counted 9,545 elk. Three years later that figure had dropped to 3,912 animals, and by 2009 the herd's population was down to 3,511 elk. This year, FWP's aerial surveys of the northern herd outside the park's boundaries counted only 2,236 animals.
Last week, Montana's Fish and Game Commission voted to end the late season hunt citing elk numbers that had fallen below target levels due to predation mainly from wolves, but also from grizzly bears. The Montana Elk Plan established in 2004 called for a population of between 3-thousand to 5-thousand elk in the portion of the Northern elk herd that winters in Montana.
I don't think wolves were needed at all. Hunting could have been used to control elk. If they wanted more elk killed just increase hunting seasons around the park and in the park if that is what was needed.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 28, 2014, 10:28:11 AM
You approve of wholesale SSS by Idaho residents? You're a direct beneficiary of massive state endorsed poaching.You are clueless if you think there was some massive state endorsed poaching that kept wolves in check in Idaho. They grew exponentially until just the last couple of years where they leveled off/declined slightly. Aspen correctly pointed out your contradictory statements...and you gave a vague response...please explain what illegal methods were effective in Idaho beyond hunting and trapping...since you say hunting and trapping will not be effective in controlling wolf populations.
You should be kissing the boots of every Joe Bob you see with a little white SSS sticker on the back of their window.
:kneel:
Did a few locals kill wolves in rural Idaho before they were de-listed...absolutely...did it have any effect on the population...NO. To suggest I am a "beneficiary" of some large scale poaching is beyond absurd. Not to mention, if you say I am a beneficiary are you then acknowledging that there is still good elk hunting to be had in Idaho 19 years afters wolves were introduced there?
Post by: KFhunter on January 28, 2014, 11:11:00 AM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/14/idaho-gives-oregon-apology-gets-no-snarling-over-w/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/14/idaho-gives-oregon-apology-gets-no-snarling-over-w/)
My point is ID had a massive anti wolf movement pretty much state wide, hunters took the cue from their governor (who wanted the first wolf tag) as a pretty much green light to SSS
WA will never duplicate ID in that since.
ID has a better chance at management due to traps, legal harvest, illegal methods it's all cumulative. Not to mention it's easier to see them in the bottom 2/3 of the state.
Panhandle is going to struggle just like the bulk of WA will - except they have trapping and co-op funded bounty on them.
WA is screwed, the only possibility is recreational hunting, and that is coming VERY slowly due to lack of proactive management and verification of wolf packs.
WDFW is making absolutely sure they're fully established before they give us the green light.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi0.wp.com%2Fwww.montanaoutdoor.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F08%2FIMG_0259.jpg%3Fresize%3D291%252C300&hash=1d652727365b75f0ac4231bd76db32ce9a81f99f)
Post by: idahohuntr on January 28, 2014, 11:22:15 AM
But my point is SSS did not have an effect on wolf numbers...I am undecided on just how much effect hunting/trapping will have on wolf numbers...I think it increases social tolerance of wolves but I don't know how effective it is on reducing their numbers. Aerial gunning and targeted removals can have some effect...but just relying on your average elk and deer hunter to kill a wolf probably isn't going to do a whole lot...harvesting 200 or so a year in Idaho doesn't hurt :dunno:
Post by: KFhunter on January 28, 2014, 11:26:12 AM
Like Alberta in 1962 dropping horse meat laced with strychnine out of helicopters, that's how it's done.
That'll never happen in the US again though with USFWS at the reigns.
Just for clarity I'm lumping all vigilante wolf control in the SSS category.
releasing dogs with parvo, poaching, poison carcasses, xylitol etc etc
Post by: AspenBud on January 28, 2014, 11:58:21 AM
Aspen bit off more than he could chew so called his big brother huh
Naw, you back peddled on your prior statements and I let you sit.
Post by: AspenBud on January 28, 2014, 12:01:05 PM
Just for clarity I'm lumping all vigilante wolf control in the SSS category.
releasing dogs with parvo, poaching, poison carcasses, xylitol etc etc
Better keep your Brittany at home.
Post by: KFhunter on January 28, 2014, 12:09:03 PM
came close to loosing her to a cat once, big tom wanted her bad.
Post by: AspenBud on January 28, 2014, 01:05:56 PM
She's spoiled :chuckle:
kids got her on a pedestal
:chuckle:
It's a "whoa chair."
Post by: jstokes12 on January 28, 2014, 01:31:30 PM
Post by: villageidiot on January 28, 2014, 10:31:50 PM
Then why do some on here call a man that kills a wolf a poacher? When he is trying to protect his livestock or save the deer or elk herd from getting wiped out, is he evil? This once was called wildlife management when the game agencies tried to keep a balance and allow hunters as their number one tool to keep the populations balanced. If you are a man that would just stand and watch someone rape your daughter and smile and just say "thats O.K., because its just natural" then you can surely be qualified to call someone that kills a wolf a poacher.
Post by: bearpaw on January 28, 2014, 11:24:38 PM
Aspen bit off more than he could chew so called his big brother huh
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/14/idaho-gives-oregon-apology-gets-no-snarling-over-w/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/14/idaho-gives-oregon-apology-gets-no-snarling-over-w/)
My point is ID had a massive anti wolf movement pretty much state wide, hunters took the cue from their governor (who wanted the first wolf tag) as a pretty much green light to SSS
WA will never duplicate ID in that since.
ID has a better chance at management due to traps, legal harvest, illegal methods it's all cumulative. Not to mention it's easier to see them in the bottom 2/3 of the state.
Panhandle is going to struggle just like the bulk of WA will - except they have trapping and co-op funded bounty on them.
WA is screwed, the only possibility is recreational hunting, and that is coming VERY slowly due to lack of proactive management and verification of wolf packs.
WDFW is making absolutely sure they're fully established before they give us the green light.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi0.wp.com%2Fwww.montanaoutdoor.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F08%2FIMG_0259.jpg%3Fresize%3D291%252C300&hash=1d652727365b75f0ac4231bd76db32ce9a81f99f)
You nailed it KFH, in Idaho the locals worked together to eliminate wolves. It was a community effort in many areas to reduce the wolf population and it was essentially supported by the governor with his decree that IDFG could not pass wolf poaching info to the feds. The reason there is a paid trapper in the Frank right now is because there are no locals living in the Frank and no year around hunting pressure on wolves. Idahohntr will never admit it, but as an elk hunter in Idaho he is most definitely a beneficiary of state sponsored SSS. :twocents:
Honestly, this whole wolf introduction time period has not been healthy for modern wildlife management in too many ways to list, but the truth is when things get to a certain point the people will react in despair. That's what happened in Idaho, especially after Judge Malloy shut down wolf hunting. It might even be a good thing that Malloy happened, that single act by Malloy really opened a lot of peoples eyes to the anti-hunting corruption in wildlife management. :twocents:
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 29, 2014, 06:21:13 AM
You nailed it KFH, in Idaho the locals worked together to eliminate wolves. It was a community effort in many areas to reduce the wolf population and it was essentially supported by the governor with his decree that IDFG could not pass wolf poaching info to the feds. The reason there is a paid trapper in the Frank right now is because there are no locals living in the Frank and no year around hunting pressure on wolves. Idahohntr will never admit it, but as an elk hunter in Idaho he is most definitely a beneficiary of state sponsored SSS. :twocents:
Honestly, this whole wolf introduction time period has not been healthy for modern wildlife management in too many ways to list, but the truth is when things get to a certain point the people will react in despair. That's what happened in Idaho, especially after Judge Malloy shut down wolf hunting. It might even be a good thing that Malloy happened, that single act by Malloy really opened a lot of peoples eyes to the anti-hunting corruption in wildlife management. :twocents:
Too bad there pulling out that trapper http://hosted.verticalresponse.com/435877/85b41d5ddd/1454001502/4271a9384b/ (http://hosted.verticalresponse.com/435877/85b41d5ddd/1454001502/4271a9384b/)
[/quote]
Post by: idahohuntr on January 29, 2014, 09:57:55 AM
If a parent shoots a man for raping his daughter, do we call him a murderer or a hero? If a man shoots another man for molesting his kids, do we call him a low life killer or a man with convictions and integrity.Wow. Your post disgusts me. There are a lot of views on wolf management and plenty of good, strong debate on various view points...but comparing wolf predation/harvest/poaching whatever to child rape and molestation is beyond disgusting. :bash: :bash:
Then why do some on here call a man that kills a wolf a poacher? When he is trying to protect his livestock or save the deer or elk herd from getting wiped out, is he evil? This once was called wildlife management when the game agencies tried to keep a balance and allow hunters as their number one tool to keep the populations balanced. If you are a man that would just stand and watch someone rape your daughter and smile and just say "thats O.K., because its just natural" then you can surely be qualified to call someone that kills a wolf a poacher.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 29, 2014, 10:15:26 AM
You nailed it KFH, in Idaho the locals worked together to eliminate wolves. It was a community effort in many areas to reduce the wolf population and it was essentially supported by the governor with his decree that IDFG could not pass wolf poaching info to the feds. The reason there is a paid trapper in the Frank right now is because there are no locals living in the Frank and no year around hunting pressure on wolves. Idahohntr will never admit it, but as an elk hunter in Idaho he is most definitely a beneficiary of state sponsored SSS. :twocents:So, again, if I am a beneficiary of "state sponsored SSS" (which is a joke btw), then you must be back to admitting that there is good elk hunting in most of Idaho? You flip-flop more than John Kerry so its hard for me to keep track of what your position is on any given hour.
Again, no "state sponsored SSS" as you call it had any real effect on wolf numbers...they grew exponentially until about 2010 and then leveled off and have decreased slightly.
And finally, it is beyond laughable that you and KF think you have a frickin clue about my elk hunting in Idaho...or the last several generations of my family that have elk hunted in Idaho...and as I pointed out earlier, if you think you are getting reliable information from small communities in rural Idaho as a NON-RESIDENT GUIDE... :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Special T on January 29, 2014, 10:53:32 AM
Idahohuntr since you live there i don't really have to tell you how distrustful N ID residents are of the Feds or even the state gov. When i hunted there i was told that most people don't call the cops, they handle problems on thier own...
Post by: buckfvr on January 29, 2014, 11:03:34 AM
We will need to be diligent about accountability. :twocents:
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on January 29, 2014, 11:16:28 AM
I just hope usfw and wdfw persons involved in this lunacy are held accountable and prosecuted to the man/woman to the fullest extent.
We will need to be diligent about accountability. :twocents:
BY who, all there bosses love the work they did for the wolves. :bash:
Post by: Special T on January 29, 2014, 11:20:24 AM
Post by: 3nails on January 29, 2014, 11:22:44 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 29, 2014, 12:30:50 PM
You nailed it KFH, in Idaho the locals worked together to eliminate wolves. It was a community effort in many areas to reduce the wolf population and it was essentially supported by the governor with his decree that IDFG could not pass wolf poaching info to the feds. The reason there is a paid trapper in the Frank right now is because there are no locals living in the Frank and no year around hunting pressure on wolves. Idahohntr will never admit it, but as an elk hunter in Idaho he is most definitely a beneficiary of state sponsored SSS. :twocents:So, again, if I am a beneficiary of "state sponsored SSS" (which is a joke btw), then you must be back to admitting that there is good elk hunting in most of Idaho? You flip-flop more than John Kerry so its hard for me to keep track of what your position is on any given hour.
Again, no "state sponsored SSS" as you call it had any real effect on wolf numbers...they grew exponentially until about 2010 and then leveled off and have decreased slightly.
And finally, it is beyond laughable that you and KF think you have a frickin clue about my elk hunting in Idaho...or the last several generations of my family that have elk hunted in Idaho...and as I pointed out earlier, if you think you are getting reliable information from small communities in rural Idaho as a NON-RESIDENT GUIDE... :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
:rolleyes: Go on siding with the enviro whackos and their philosophies. :chuckle:
I'll have far more friends in Idaho as a non-res outfitter who supports local economies and understands local problems than you ever will as an out-of-state wolf lover. I wonder how popular that is? :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on January 29, 2014, 12:36:06 PM
QuoteYou nailed it KFH, in Idaho the locals worked together to eliminate wolves. It was a community effort in many areas to reduce the wolf population and it was essentially supported by the governor with his decree that IDFG could not pass wolf poaching info to the feds. The reason there is a paid trapper in the Frank right now is because there are no locals living in the Frank and no year around hunting pressure on wolves. Idahohntr will never admit it, but as an elk hunter in Idaho he is most definitely a beneficiary of state sponsored SSS. :twocents:
Honestly, this whole wolf introduction time period has not been healthy for modern wildlife management in too many ways to list, but the truth is when things get to a certain point the people will react in despair. That's what happened in Idaho, especially after Judge Malloy shut down wolf hunting. It might even be a good thing that Malloy happened, that single act by Malloy really opened a lot of peoples eyes to the anti-hunting corruption in wildlife management. :twocents:
Too bad there pulling out that trapper http://hosted.verticalresponse.com/435877/85b41d5ddd/1454001502/4271a9384b/ (http://hosted.verticalresponse.com/435877/85b41d5ddd/1454001502/4271a9384b/)
Sorry to hear that.
However, maybe this trapper should apply with WDFW so we can get more wolves collared. Did WDFW catch any last summer?
Post by: idahohuntr on January 29, 2014, 01:49:41 PM
idahohntr- Trying to follow along a bit here and I have an idea of the experience and age of some of the other posters. I am curious of your age and credentials to speak with authority on this subject. For posterity, not to be rude. Thanks.Age: probably on the younger side of folks on here and credentials: 4th generation idaho elk hunter is all that matters :chuckle:
I don't have any more or less authority on these issues than anyone else posting on an internet forum...the issues are much bigger than the individuals posting and I think its more valuable to consider the logic, data, explanation provided in a post than age/credentials of who specifically posted it.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 29, 2014, 01:56:32 PM
:rolleyes: Go on siding with the enviro whackos and their philosophies. :chuckle:If only I sided with enviro whackos and loved wolves some of your post might be true!
I'll have far more friends in Idaho as a non-res outfitter who supports local economies and understands local problems than you ever will as an out-of-state wolf lover. I wonder how popular that is? :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
When your family has lived in Idaho as long as mine has...current residency isn't such a big deal...except for when the guys take the WA lic plates off my truck when I get to elk camp...this year they nailed em to a tree about 20 feet off the ground out behind camp. :chuckle: :chuckle: had to cut the tree down to get them back!
Post by: KFhunter on January 29, 2014, 02:15:34 PM
As other area's have done already.
In NE WA they went to antlered only already (which I advocated for 10 years ago prior to wolves), next will be special draw permit or just eliminated.
Post by: bearpaw on January 29, 2014, 03:34:36 PM
The ecology of fear: Elk responses to wolves in Yellowstone are not what we thought
http://www.westernconfluence.org/?p=131 (http://www.westernconfluence.org/?p=131)
:bumpin: this was the original topic if anyone is interested.... :dunno:
Post by: JLS on February 01, 2014, 01:45:03 PM
Quote
But wolves hunt all over the landscape, continually moving from place to place. And they often pursue elk without killing them. According to data from the Yellowstone Wolf Project, as many as 80 percent of elk that are pursued and attacked by wolves escape alive. “Elk can’t know where wolves are, so they don’t have this preemptive behavior of avoiding areas where wolves are going to attack them,” Kauffman said. “Wolves are sort of everywhere, so for an elk they are nowhere.”
Wouldn't this tend to disprove the thought that elk completely leave areas because of wolves?
Quote
Elk may avoid a valley or riparian area for a few days while wolves are present, but as soon as the wolves move elsewhere, the elk return. Over the course of a winter, elk don’t avoid certain areas consistently enough for reduced browsing to translate to higher growth rates of aspen. In fact, research by Scott Creel and David Christianson in Yellowstone published in 2009 found that “elk consumed significantly more willow when wolves were present … contrary to the behaviorally mediated trophic cascade hypothesis.” They suggest this may be a result of elk seeking cover in the willows rather than staying out in the open grasslands when wolves are around.
Additionally, there is a key difference, according to Kauffman, between how elk respond to wolves and how grasshoppers respond to spiders. Elk browse aspen in winter, when they live off dwindling fat reserves, progressively losing weight as the months go by. “It’s well-supported in the literature that animals that are near death by starvation basically ignore predation completely,” Kauffman explained. “If you are in really poor condition it’s worth the risk to feed in a risky place because you have to feed or you will die.”
Elk don't completely leave areas because of wolves. If there is good habitat, they will stay there. This quote directly supports that.
Certainly elk hunting can be harder for outfitters and private camps when the elk aren't in the same meadow every day. However, my experiences lead me to believe they don't abandon the area, they just move around in the same way they do when they are overpressured by humans.
Quote
“The trick is trying to understand the feedbacks of the system,” he said. His research has examined how factors such as shifting winter snowpack, increasing aridity in Yellowstone, and a dramatically lengthened growing season since the time of wolf reintroduction can all influence elk behavior and shrub recovery. He cautions against any ideas that simplify the system, including strong adherence to either a top-down or bottom-up interpretation of ecosystem structure.
There's that dirty insinuation of climate change, which is directly in line with some of the preliminary findings of the Absoraka Elk Study done by Wyoming G&F.
Good to see the labels and insult slinging is still in full effect here......
Post by: bearpaw on February 03, 2014, 12:15:17 PM
QuoteBut wolves hunt all over the landscape, continually moving from place to place. And they often pursue elk without killing them. According to data from the Yellowstone Wolf Project, as many as 80 percent of elk that are pursued and attacked by wolves escape alive. “Elk can’t know where wolves are, so they don’t have this preemptive behavior of avoiding areas where wolves are going to attack them,” Kauffman said. “Wolves are sort of everywhere, so for an elk they are nowhere.”
Wouldn't this tend to disprove the thought that elk completely leave areas because of wolves?
I wouldn't say that elk completely leave the area, most are eaten and stay in the area in the form of wolf feces. :chuckle:QuoteElk may avoid a valley or riparian area for a few days while wolves are present, but as soon as the wolves move elsewhere, the elk return. Over the course of a winter, elk don’t avoid certain areas consistently enough for reduced browsing to translate to higher growth rates of aspen. In fact, research by Scott Creel and David Christianson in Yellowstone published in 2009 found that “elk consumed significantly more willow when wolves were present … contrary to the behaviorally mediated trophic cascade hypothesis.” They suggest this may be a result of elk seeking cover in the willows rather than staying out in the open grasslands when wolves are around.
Additionally, there is a key difference, according to Kauffman, between how elk respond to wolves and how grasshoppers respond to spiders. Elk browse aspen in winter, when they live off dwindling fat reserves, progressively losing weight as the months go by. “It’s well-supported in the literature that animals that are near death by starvation basically ignore predation completely,” Kauffman explained. “If you are in really poor condition it’s worth the risk to feed in a risky place because you have to feed or you will die.”
Elk don't completely leave areas because of wolves. If there is good habitat, they will stay there. This quote directly supports that.
No doubt that good habitat will support elk and that a small population of elk that the wolves are unable to find and kill will remain in an area. :dunno:
Certainly elk hunting can be harder for outfitters and private camps when the elk aren't in the same meadow every day. However, my experiences lead me to believe they don't abandon the area, they just move around in the same way they do when they are overpressured by humans.
Not sure why you singled out outfitters and private camps. When there are fewer elk the hunting is tougher for everyone, except maybe for you and Idahohntr who both seem to claim wolves haven't affected hunting much. :rolleyes:
Post by: AspenBud on February 03, 2014, 01:43:28 PM
Not sure why you singled out outfitters and private camps. When there are fewer elk the hunting is tougher for everyone,
In some hunting circles outfitters are not viewed with kindness. I have no idea if it remains true, but a lot of private land in places like Montana got locked up at one point and made off limits to average hunters when ranchers starting selling leases to outfitters who in turn sold hunts for greatly inflated prices.
While I understand the gripe, I can't blame the ranchers, some hunters are real slobs and when outfitters can effectively be private game wardens it's a win/win.
Sometimes I think these discussions often have less to do with wolves and more to do with cash and hard feelings.
Post by: JLS on February 03, 2014, 02:06:50 PM
Not sure why you singled out outfitters and private camps. When there are fewer elk the hunting is tougher for everyone, except maybe for you and Idahohntr who both seem to claim wolves haven't affected hunting much. :rolleyes:
I have no idea where you derived that I am singling out anybody. Outfitters and private camps, don't those two entities pretty much include all hunters? What else would there be, private commuter hunters maybe? :rolleyes:
I am largely indifferent to outfitters and have no grudge against them. I know some that are outstanding and contribute to their local communities. I know others that are as crooked as a snake and do nothing for the local communities.
I've never hunted with one and doubt I ever will.
Still seeing the need for passive aggressive jabs are we?
Post by: idahohuntr on February 03, 2014, 09:40:54 PM
Let me help you with the wording for your outfitter website since it is so inconsistent with your chatter on this website:
"Elk hunts offered in Idaho...there are fewer elk and the hunting is tougher for everyone." :chuckle:
Let me know how sales go. :tup:
Post by: JLS on February 03, 2014, 09:48:42 PM
Not sure why you singled out outfitters and private camps. When there are fewer elk the hunting is tougher for everyone,
In some hunting circles outfitters are not viewed with kindness. I have no idea if it remains true, but a lot of private land in places like Montana got locked up at one point and made off limits to average hunters when ranchers starting selling leases to outfitters who in turn sold hunts for greatly inflated prices.
While I understand the gripe, I can't blame the ranchers, some hunters are real slobs and when outfitters can effectively be private game wardens it's a win/win.
Sometimes I think these discussions often have less to do with wolves and more to do with cash and hard feelings.
Even as such, it's still the rancher who makes the decision and I don't fault the outfitter for offering the money. Some ranchers will turn it down, others won't. In the end it's usually based on core philosophy, although sometimes enough money will sway a decision.
I don't fault the ranchers either. It's their land and their decision.
Much of the better land in Montana has been leased up for over 15-20 years now.
Post by: bearpaw on February 03, 2014, 11:14:08 PM
Well bearpaw, you claim wolves haven't affected hunting much either...at least not on the website where you sell Idaho Elk hunts. :rolleyes:
Let me help you with the wording for your outfitter website since it is so inconsistent with your chatter on this website:
"Elk hunts offered in Idaho...there are fewer elk and the hunting is tougher for everyone." :chuckle:
Let me know how sales go. :tup:
Actually that's exactly the position many outfitters in wolf affected areas have been put in. You said it yourself, thank you for making my point. How disgusting that you find that funny. :(
Post by: bearpaw on February 03, 2014, 11:23:33 PM
Not sure why you singled out outfitters and private camps. When there are fewer elk the hunting is tougher for everyone, except maybe for you and Idahohntr who both seem to claim wolves haven't affected hunting much. :rolleyes:
I have no idea where you derived that I am singling out anybody. Outfitters and private camps, don't those two entities pretty much include all hunters? What else would there be, private commuter hunters maybe? :rolleyes:
I am largely indifferent to outfitters and have no grudge against them. I know some that are outstanding and contribute to their local communities. I know others that are as crooked as a snake and do nothing for the local communities.
I've never hunted with one and doubt I ever will.
Still seeing the need for passive aggressive jabs are we?
Apparently I misunderstood your post, I thought you were making the jab.
However, you do continuously claim that hunting is just fine for you as if wolves have had no effect. That sir is patently false as can be proven by statistics that are a matter of record. I can point out numerous quotes you've made to that effect in case you can't seem to remember.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 04, 2014, 07:11:53 AM
I was quoting what you said earlier about fewer elk and tougher hunting for everybody and laughing at how it is not at all how your outfitter website describes the hunting for the ELK HUNTS YOU SELL IN IDAHO!!! I find it sad that you say one thing to one group of people on this website and then turn around and tell others a completely different story on a different website.Well bearpaw, you claim wolves haven't affected hunting much either...at least not on the website where you sell Idaho Elk hunts. :rolleyes:
Let me help you with the wording for your outfitter website since it is so inconsistent with your chatter on this website:
"Elk hunts offered in Idaho...there are fewer elk and the hunting is tougher for everyone." :chuckle:
Let me know how sales go. :tup:
Actually that's exactly the position many outfitters in wolf affected areas have been put in. You said it yourself, thank you for making my point. How disgusting that you find that funny. :(
Post by: bearpaw on February 04, 2014, 07:27:22 AM
I was quoting what you said earlier about fewer elk and tougher hunting for everybody and laughing at how it is not at all how your outfitter website describes the hunting for the ELK HUNTS YOU SELL IN IDAHO!!! I find it sad that you say one thing to one group of people on this website and then turn around and tell others a completely different story on a different website.Well bearpaw, you claim wolves haven't affected hunting much either...at least not on the website where you sell Idaho Elk hunts. :rolleyes:
Let me help you with the wording for your outfitter website since it is so inconsistent with your chatter on this website:
"Elk hunts offered in Idaho...there are fewer elk and the hunting is tougher for everyone." :chuckle:
Let me know how sales go. :tup:
Actually that's exactly the position many outfitters in wolf affected areas have been put in. You said it yourself, thank you for making my point. How disgusting that you find that funny. :(
Can you actually be that challenged? Fortunately I do not have any confirmed wolf packs in my area (per IDFG) and the elk herd is stable as noted by IDFG population counts, that's the difference in Idaho areas. JEESH
As everyone knows, it's the units with lots of wolves that have been impacted, also an IDFG documented fact.
Post by: JLS on February 04, 2014, 08:00:08 AM
Not sure why you singled out outfitters and private camps. When there are fewer elk the hunting is tougher for everyone, except maybe for you and Idahohntr who both seem to claim wolves haven't affected hunting much. :rolleyes:
I have no idea where you derived that I am singling out anybody. Outfitters and private camps, don't those two entities pretty much include all hunters? What else would there be, private commuter hunters maybe? :rolleyes:
I am largely indifferent to outfitters and have no grudge against them. I know some that are outstanding and contribute to their local communities. I know others that are as crooked as a snake and do nothing for the local communities.
I've never hunted with one and doubt I ever will.
Still seeing the need for passive aggressive jabs are we?
Apparently I misunderstood your post, I thought you were making the jab.
However, you do continuously claim that hunting is just fine for you as if wolves have had no effect. That sir is patently false as can be proven by statistics that are a matter of record. I can point out numerous quotes you've made to that effect in case you can't seem to remember.
You can quote me all you want. My stance hasn't changed one bit, and my stance is based on what I have observed with my own eyes.
I am pretty well convinced at this point that you cannot even read my posts objectively, as you were able to take the statement I made and twist it into an insult.
I'll second Idaho, you just keep telling everyone that the elk population in Montana went down the toilet and will never come back. We all know wolves eat everything until they are wallowing without food and the whole population starves to death. Happens all the time, right?
While everyone else is believing this I'll still be hunting elk.
Post by: bearpaw on February 04, 2014, 12:23:19 PM
Not sure why you singled out outfitters and private camps. When there are fewer elk the hunting is tougher for everyone, except maybe for you and Idahohntr who both seem to claim wolves haven't affected hunting much. :rolleyes:
I have no idea where you derived that I am singling out anybody. Outfitters and private camps, don't those two entities pretty much include all hunters? What else would there be, private commuter hunters maybe? :rolleyes:
I am largely indifferent to outfitters and have no grudge against them. I know some that are outstanding and contribute to their local communities. I know others that are as crooked as a snake and do nothing for the local communities.
I've never hunted with one and doubt I ever will.
Still seeing the need for passive aggressive jabs are we?
Apparently I misunderstood your post, I thought you were making the jab.
However, you do continuously claim that hunting is just fine for you as if wolves have had no effect. That sir is patently false as can be proven by statistics that are a matter of record. I can point out numerous quotes you've made to that effect in case you can't seem to remember.
You can quote me all you want. My stance hasn't changed one bit, and my stance is based on what I have observed with my own eyes.
I am pretty well convinced at this point that you cannot even read my posts objectively, as you were able to take the statement I made and twist it into an insult.
I'll second Idaho, you just keep telling everyone that the elk population in Montana went down the toilet and will never come back. We all know wolves eat everything until they are wallowing without food and the whole population starves to death. Happens all the time, right?
While everyone else is believing this I'll still be hunting elk.
Who's twisting the facts?
Eastern Montana has excellent elk populations with little impacts by wolves. Western Montana has significantly lower elk populations since wolves and cougar over populated. It's common to see wolf advocates trying to say wolves have not affected elk hunting in Montana by combining the eastern herds together with the western herds and claiming wolves have had no impact, in this way localized impacts are hidden. The herd counts, success rates, reduced seasons, and eliminated elk seasons in western Montana prove the localized impacts. Sure the wolves can't get every elk, but they have caused significant impacts, no question about that.
http://www.ktvq.com/news/gardiner-elk-hunt-falls-victim-to-wolves/ (http://www.ktvq.com/news/gardiner-elk-hunt-falls-victim-to-wolves/)
Gardiner elk hunt falls victim to wolves
GARDINER - One of the consequences of "Living with Wolves" is the elimination of a special late season elk hunt near Gardiner that has been part of the Montana hunting scene for the past 35 years. The January hunt was firstconducted in 1976, to help manage elk migrating out of Yellowstone National Park. At that time, the park's northern herd had reached as many as 12-thousand animals.
But once wolves were reintroduced to the park, the northern herd's numbers started declining. In 2005, game managers counted 9,545 elk. Three years later that figure had dropped to 3,912 animals, and by 2009 the herd's population was down to 3,511 elk. This year, FWP's aerial surveys of the northern herd outside the park's boundaries counted only 2,236 animals.
Last week, Montana's Fish and Game Commission voted to end the late season hunt citing elk numbers that had fallen below target levels due to predation mainly from wolves, but also from grizzly bears. The Montana Elk Plan established in 2004 called for a population of between 3-thousand to 5-thousand elk in the portion of the Northern elk herd that winters in Montana.
Post by: KFhunter on February 04, 2014, 01:07:18 PM
Not sure why you singled out outfitters and private camps. When there are fewer elk the hunting is tougher for everyone, except maybe for you and Idahohntr who both seem to claim wolves haven't affected hunting much. :rolleyes:
I have no idea where you derived that I am singling out anybody. Outfitters and private camps, don't those two entities pretty much include all hunters? What else would there be, private commuter hunters maybe? :rolleyes:
I am largely indifferent to outfitters and have no grudge against them. I know some that are outstanding and contribute to their local communities. I know others that are as crooked as a snake and do nothing for the local communities.
I've never hunted with one and doubt I ever will.
Still seeing the need for passive aggressive jabs are we?
Apparently I misunderstood your post, I thought you were making the jab.
However, you do continuously claim that hunting is just fine for you as if wolves have had no effect. That sir is patently false as can be proven by statistics that are a matter of record. I can point out numerous quotes you've made to that effect in case you can't seem to remember.
You can quote me all you want. My stance hasn't changed one bit, and my stance is based on what I have observed with my own eyes.
I am pretty well convinced at this point that you cannot even read my posts objectively, as you were able to take the statement I made and twist it into an insult.
I'll second Idaho, you just keep telling everyone that the elk population in Montana went down the toilet and will never come back. We all know wolves eat everything until they are wallowing without food and the whole population starves to death. Happens all the time, right?
While everyone else is believing this I'll still be hunting elk.
You might not ever be severely impacted as MT (and ID) is very proactive in wolf management. I've got a good idea where you hunt and in that area the wolf management (I imagine) is very robust as they've been dealing with wolves dispersing from YNP for a long time.
Eventually you'll probably have to submit for a special drawing, or more antler restrictions, but the Elk hunting may well continue for you.
I prefer to hunt in my back yard and feel WDFW has abandoned our herds here in the NE corner. I wish WA would take care of the Elk herds here, but history shows they will not. I'm also very concerned about our wolf plan requiring more wolves than ID or MT which have much bigger Elk herds. In reality I don't think it matters what the wolf plan is, as ID and MT both have far exceeded their quota's for wolves and WA already has, but they won't be confirmed. WDFW should have been on wolf sightings like stank on a wet turd, but they ran the other way. They could have trapped and collared aggressively but they did not. This is going to work against them as people turn away from WDFW for lack of trust.
I applaud MT, ID and WY for their efforts, and condemn WA for their lack of.
Post by: JLS on February 04, 2014, 04:16:30 PM
Not sure why you singled out outfitters and private camps. When there are fewer elk the hunting is tougher for everyone, except maybe for you and Idahohntr who both seem to claim wolves haven't affected hunting much. :rolleyes:
I have no idea where you derived that I am singling out anybody. Outfitters and private camps, don't those two entities pretty much include all hunters? What else would there be, private commuter hunters maybe? :rolleyes:
I am largely indifferent to outfitters and have no grudge against them. I know some that are outstanding and contribute to their local communities. I know others that are as crooked as a snake and do nothing for the local communities.
I've never hunted with one and doubt I ever will.
Still seeing the need for passive aggressive jabs are we?
Apparently I misunderstood your post, I thought you were making the jab.
However, you do continuously claim that hunting is just fine for you as if wolves have had no effect. That sir is patently false as can be proven by statistics that are a matter of record. I can point out numerous quotes you've made to that effect in case you can't seem to remember.
You can quote me all you want. My stance hasn't changed one bit, and my stance is based on what I have observed with my own eyes.
I am pretty well convinced at this point that you cannot even read my posts objectively, as you were able to take the statement I made and twist it into an insult.
I'll second Idaho, you just keep telling everyone that the elk population in Montana went down the toilet and will never come back. We all know wolves eat everything until they are wallowing without food and the whole population starves to death. Happens all the time, right?
While everyone else is believing this I'll still be hunting elk.
Who's twisting the facts?
Eastern Montana has excellent elk populations with little impacts by wolves. Western Montana has significantly lower elk populations since wolves and cougar over populated. It's common to see wolf advocates trying to say wolves have not affected elk hunting in Montana by combining the eastern herds together with the western herds and claiming wolves have had no impact, in this way localized impacts are hidden. The herd counts, success rates, reduced seasons, and eliminated elk seasons in western Montana prove the localized impacts. Sure the wolves can't get every elk, but they have caused significant impacts, no question about that.http://www.ktvq.com/news/gardiner-elk-hunt-falls-victim-to-wolves/ (http://www.ktvq.com/news/gardiner-elk-hunt-falls-victim-to-wolves/)
Gardiner elk hunt falls victim to wolves
GARDINER - One of the consequences of "Living with Wolves" is the elimination of a special late season elk hunt near Gardiner that has been part of the Montana hunting scene for the past 35 years. The January hunt was firstconducted in 1976, to help manage elk migrating out of Yellowstone National Park. At that time, the park's northern herd had reached as many as 12-thousand animals.
But once wolves were reintroduced to the park, the northern herd's numbers started declining. In 2005, game managers counted 9,545 elk. Three years later that figure had dropped to 3,912 animals, and by 2009 the herd's population was down to 3,511 elk. This year, FWP's aerial surveys of the northern herd outside the park's boundaries counted only 2,236 animals.
Last week, Montana's Fish and Game Commission voted to end the late season hunt citing elk numbers that had fallen below target levels due to predation mainly from wolves, but also from grizzly bears. The Montana Elk Plan established in 2004 called for a population of between 3-thousand to 5-thousand elk in the portion of the Northern elk herd that winters in Montana.
I'm not twisting anything.
Read up on HB 42 and Debbie Barrett, and you might gain a better understanding of elk numbers in MT. Thousands of elk died in the Missouri Breaks because numbers were "over objective". I've never heard you complain about that. Many elk died in MT because of very aggressive antlerless hunts that were a result of HB 42, including the Madison Valley, Big Hole, and Bitterroot.
What do I know though? I'm so oblivious that I've been fooling myself over the last 15 years, thinking that elk hunting was still good. I must not have killed the elk that I did, because they couldn't have been there since you've shown me the "statistics". Wow, I now be edumacated.
Edit: I will reassert my opinion that you cannot take anything I type objectively. Note your statement about me twisting facts and you reference the Gardiner late hunt. I did not even state any facts, only observations I've made. Apparently, that is twisting the facts :rolleyes:
Post by: JLS on February 04, 2014, 04:27:15 PM
You might not ever be severely impacted as MT (and ID) is very proactive in wolf management. I've got a good idea where you hunt and in that area the wolf management (I imagine) is very robust as they've been dealing with wolves dispersing from YNP for a long time.
Montana was actually quite conservative in their first years of wolf hunting, and if you'll remember their commission made a knee jerk reaction to close a hunt district after a well known collared wolf was shot.
Eventually you'll probably have to submit for a special drawing, or more antler restrictions, but the Elk hunting may well continue for you.
I highly doubt the areas I hunt will ever become a special drawing or an antler restriction.
I prefer to hunt in my back yard and feel WDFW has abandoned our herds here in the NE corner.
Hard to call it abandoned when it was an any elk hunt 20 years ago, wouldn't you say?
I wish WA would take care of the Elk herds here, but history shows they will not. I'm also very concerned about our wolf plan requiring more wolves than ID or MT which have much bigger Elk herds. In reality I don't think it matters what the wolf plan is, as ID and MT both have far exceeded their quota's for wolves and WA already has, but they won't be confirmed. WDFW should have been on wolf sightings like stank on a wet turd, but they ran the other way. They could have trapped and collared aggressively but they did not. This is going to work against them as people turn away from WDFW for lack of trust.
I applaud MT, ID and WY for their efforts, and condemn WA for their lack of.
Obviously none of you guys really read what I type, or you would remember that I have stated numerous times that I wrote letters to the commission opposing Washington's wolf plan for various reasons, one of them being I felt they were being much too conservative.
[/quote]
Post by: KFhunter on February 04, 2014, 04:46:32 PM
The panhandle, NE/WA Elk are harder to hunt so they left it any Elk otc tags. The habitat will support a much bigger herd size than currently.
predators, OTC any elk tags have kept them suppressed prior to wolves. Now add wolves what do we see?
Same with moose. Think our OIL tag numbers are going to increase anytime soon?
Post by: sagewalker on February 04, 2014, 05:12:56 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 04, 2014, 09:13:59 PM
Not sure why you singled out outfitters and private camps. When there are fewer elk the hunting is tougher for everyone, except maybe for you and Idahohntr who both seem to claim wolves haven't affected hunting much. :rolleyes:
I have no idea where you derived that I am singling out anybody. Outfitters and private camps, don't those two entities pretty much include all hunters? What else would there be, private commuter hunters maybe? :rolleyes:
I am largely indifferent to outfitters and have no grudge against them. I know some that are outstanding and contribute to their local communities. I know others that are as crooked as a snake and do nothing for the local communities.
I've never hunted with one and doubt I ever will.
Still seeing the need for passive aggressive jabs are we?
Apparently I misunderstood your post, I thought you were making the jab.
However, you do continuously claim that hunting is just fine for you as if wolves have had no effect. That sir is patently false as can be proven by statistics that are a matter of record. I can point out numerous quotes you've made to that effect in case you can't seem to remember.
You can quote me all you want. My stance hasn't changed one bit, and my stance is based on what I have observed with my own eyes.
I am pretty well convinced at this point that you cannot even read my posts objectively, as you were able to take the statement I made and twist it into an insult.
I'll second Idaho, you just keep telling everyone that the elk population in Montana went down the toilet and will never come back. We all know wolves eat everything until they are wallowing without food and the whole population starves to death. Happens all the time, right?
While everyone else is believing this I'll still be hunting elk.
Who's twisting the facts?
Eastern Montana has excellent elk populations with little impacts by wolves. Western Montana has significantly lower elk populations since wolves and cougar over populated. It's common to see wolf advocates trying to say wolves have not affected elk hunting in Montana by combining the eastern herds together with the western herds and claiming wolves have had no impact, in this way localized impacts are hidden. The herd counts, success rates, reduced seasons, and eliminated elk seasons in western Montana prove the localized impacts. Sure the wolves can't get every elk, but they have caused significant impacts, no question about that.http://www.ktvq.com/news/gardiner-elk-hunt-falls-victim-to-wolves/ (http://www.ktvq.com/news/gardiner-elk-hunt-falls-victim-to-wolves/)
Gardiner elk hunt falls victim to wolves
GARDINER - One of the consequences of "Living with Wolves" is the elimination of a special late season elk hunt near Gardiner that has been part of the Montana hunting scene for the past 35 years. The January hunt was firstconducted in 1976, to help manage elk migrating out of Yellowstone National Park. At that time, the park's northern herd had reached as many as 12-thousand animals.
But once wolves were reintroduced to the park, the northern herd's numbers started declining. In 2005, game managers counted 9,545 elk. Three years later that figure had dropped to 3,912 animals, and by 2009 the herd's population was down to 3,511 elk. This year, FWP's aerial surveys of the northern herd outside the park's boundaries counted only 2,236 animals.
Last week, Montana's Fish and Game Commission voted to end the late season hunt citing elk numbers that had fallen below target levels due to predation mainly from wolves, but also from grizzly bears. The Montana Elk Plan established in 2004 called for a population of between 3-thousand to 5-thousand elk in the portion of the Northern elk herd that winters in Montana.
I'm not twisting anything.
Read up on HB 42 and Debbie Barrett, and you might gain a better understanding of elk numbers in MT. Thousands of elk died in the Missouri Breaks because numbers were "over objective". I've never heard you complain about that. Many elk died in MT because of very aggressive antlerless hunts that were a result of HB 42, including the Madison Valley, Big Hole, and Bitterroot.
What do I know though? I'm so oblivious that I've been fooling myself over the last 15 years, thinking that elk hunting was still good. I must not have killed the elk that I did, because they couldn't have been there since you've shown me the "statistics". Wow, I now be edumacated.
Edit: I will reassert my opinion that you cannot take anything I type objectively. Note your statement about me twisting facts and you reference the Gardiner late hunt. I did not even state any facts, only observations I've made. Apparently, that is twisting the facts :rolleyes:
My same feeling!
Please see the topic title, the discussion is about elk, wolves, and habitat in YNP. This is the wolf board, but I imagine you'll continue trying to change the subject from wolves, try to blame habitat, try to blame hunters, you can even continue to claim how unfair I am to you because I don't accept your wolf ideology. I suppose that's to be expected since the numbers and facts refute many of your claims that elk hunting is as good as ever. "I'm certainly not surprised or fooled by the direction you and a few others try to steer all the wolf topics!" :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on February 04, 2014, 09:16:28 PM
The ecology of fear: Elk responses to wolves in Yellowstone are not what we thought
http://www.westernconfluence.org/?p=131 (http://www.westernconfluence.org/?p=131)
Post by: JLS on February 04, 2014, 09:23:53 PM
My same feeling!
Please see the topic title, the discussion is about elk, wolves, and habitat in YNP. This is the wolf board, but I imagine you'll continue trying to change the subject from wolves, try to blame habitat, try to blame hunters, you can even continue to claim how unfair I am to you because I don't accept your wolf ideology. I suppose that's to be expected since the numbers and facts refute many of your claims that elk hunting is as good as ever. "I'm certainly not surprised or fooled by the direction you and a few others try to steer all the wolf topics!" :chuckle:
Let's see, my first comment in this topic was DIRECTLY related to the article until you decided I was "singling out" outfitters and private camps and decided to take issue with it..
When have I ever said you are unfair? Get real man. Your habit of putting words in my mouth is getting a little bit out there.
I could care less if you accept my wolf ideology. I could care less if you agree with my real world experiences. My only point was that there is a lot more to the equation than wolves, no matter how badly some folks want to pin it on one single factor.
Post by: bearpaw on February 04, 2014, 09:30:41 PM
My same feeling!
Please see the topic title, the discussion is about elk, wolves, and habitat in YNP. This is the wolf board, but I imagine you'll continue trying to change the subject from wolves, try to blame habitat, try to blame hunters, you can even continue to claim how unfair I am to you because I don't accept your wolf ideology. I suppose that's to be expected since the numbers and facts refute many of your claims that elk hunting is as good as ever. "I'm certainly not surprised or fooled by the direction you and a few others try to steer all the wolf topics!" :chuckle:
Let's see, my first comment in this topic was DIRECTLY related to the article until you decided I was "singling out" outfitters and private camps and decided to take issue with it..
When have I ever said you are unfair? Get real man. Your habit of putting words in my mouth is getting a little bit out there.
I could care less if you accept my wolf ideology. I could care less if you agree with my real world experiences. My only point was that there is a lot more to the equation than wolves, no matter how badly some folks want to pin it on one single factor.
Of course wolves are not the only single factor every time, but in many cases wolves are the primary factor upsetting the balance we've had for years and causing elk numbers to drop or preventing elk numbers from recovering from other factors. I wished you would get real man, it's documented fact!
Post by: JLS on February 04, 2014, 09:58:38 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 04, 2014, 10:04:38 PM