Post by: bearpaw on February 10, 2014, 01:18:23 PM
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/planMiddleForkPredation.pdf (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/planMiddleForkPredation.pdf)
Page 1
DEFINITION OF PROBLEM
Total elk numbers in the MFZ declined from 7,485 to 6,958 (-7%) from 2002 to 2006, and then to 4,229 by 2011 (an additional 39% for a total loss of 43% since 2002). Cow elk and bull elk numbers in the MFZ have declined 35% and 45%, respectively, between the 2006 and 2011 aerial surveys and are below population management objectives. The ratio of calves to cow elk during in the 2011 winter survey was less than 13 calves per 100 cows, suggesting further decline beyond 2011.
This low level of reproductive success is well below that needed to recover the herd, and at its current level, the elk population will continue to decline. Based on research on causes of elk mortality conducted in the elk management zones immediately adjacent to MFZ to the north
(Lolo and Selway) and to the south (Sawtooth), wolves are likely a major source of juvenile and female elk mortality especially during winter, thus reducing the recruitment of juveniles into the herd and preventing the female elk component of the population from reaching management objectives (Pauley and Zager 2011). Based on population modeling, the MFZ elk population is expected to continue to decline at 3 to 7% annually if predation rates are not reduced.
Post by: KFhunter on February 10, 2014, 01:23:16 PM
hunting is better than ever, I heard it on HW.
Post by: bearpaw on February 10, 2014, 01:23:35 PM
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/planLoloSelwayPredation.pdf (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/planLoloSelwayPredation.pdf)
DEFINITION OF PROBLEM
Elk numbers are currently well below management objectives in the Lolo and Selway Zones. Since the early to mid 1990s, elk calf to cow ratios have continued to decline, and have been at levels too low to sustain elk populations. More recently, cow survival rates have also declined to problematic levels. A number of factors have been identified as contributors to this situation. Declining habitat conditions caused by a shift from early forest seral stages to much less productive mid to late seral stages have been a source of concern for decades. More recently, the spread of noxious weeds (especially spotted knapweed) has also contributed to the decline in elk habitat quality. A major winter event in 1996-97, with record snowfall more than 200% of normal, caused a severe winter die-off that resulted in a population decline. White et al. (2010) documented heavy predation on neonate elk calves by black bears as additive and the primary proximate mortality factor of neonate calves (age ≤ 90 days). Additionally, predation by mountain lions was prevalent on all age classes of elk (Zager et al. 2007a, Zager et al. 2007b, White et al. 2010). Currently wolves, which were not present during the early portion of this elk decline, are a major mortality factor on older calves (≥6-month old) and cow elk (Zager et al. 2007b, Pauley et al. 2009). Lower cow and calf survival due to wolves is continuing to suppress the elk population (Pauley et al. 2009, Pauley and Zager 2011).
Post by: bearpaw on February 10, 2014, 01:31:06 PM
but but but
hunting is better than ever, I heard it on HW.
To be fair there are zones with higher elk populations than 5 years ago. Obviously the wolfers like to lump those stats together with stats from the wolf infected areas to claim that wolves have no impact. :twocents:
Thankfully IDFG finally gets it, as they learn how wolves are impacting herds they are at least taking very positive actions. :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on February 10, 2014, 01:35:39 PM
page 3
Concerns over persistent low calf recruitment prompted the initiation of a research study in the Lolo Zone in 1997. Research findings revealed low calf recruitment was a function of low calf survival. The proximate cause of neonate (age ≤ 90 days) calf mortality was from black bears and mountain lions (White et al. 2010). Calf mortality from black bear predation was additive and manipulation of black bear densities through increased harvest resulted in higher calf survival (White et al. 2010). Additionally, elk calves with lower birth weight, which is typically tied to habitat condition, were likely pre-disposed to predation (White et al. 2010). After wolves had become well established in the Lolo zone, efforts to measure adult cow elk mortality and older (≥ 6-month) calf mortality between mid-December and June 1 revealed high mortality rates, largely caused by wolf predation(Zager et al 2007b, Pauley et al. 2009, Pauley and Zager 2011). For instance, during 2005-2007 and 2009-2010, >90% of known cause deaths of radio-marked cow elk were due to predation, of which 76% (37 of 49) were caused by wolves. During this same time period >88% of known- cause deaths of radio-marked older calves were due to predation, of which 73% (22 of 30) were caused by wolves. Of all calf and cow predator-related deaths, wolves were the primary cause for 75% (IDFG, unpublished data; Pauley and Zager 2011)
Clearly, several factors have contributed to these declining elk populations. At various times and at different population levels, these various factors have (and continue to) exert varying levels of impact. However, at the present time and at current elk population status, wolf-caused mortality is the major factor limiting calf recruitment and cow elk survival and, therefore, elk abundance and achievement of Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) objectives. These same factors are believed to be driving elk populations in the Selway Zone.
Post by: KFhunter on February 10, 2014, 01:43:35 PM
but but but
hunting is better than ever, I heard it on HW.
To be fair there are zones with higher elk populations than 5 years ago. Obviously the wolfers like to lump those stats together with stats from the wolf infected areas to claim that wolves have no impact. :twocents:
Thankfully IDFG finally gets it, as they learn how wolves are impacting herds they are at least taking very positive actions. :tup:
Sounds like a pretty good case that Elk DO move away from wolves huh? I've been stating that wolves move Elk around out of deep canyons and areas typically safe from the bulk of hunters, and into areas with better visibility and hunter access; gives the allusion of better Elk hunting in certain areas.
Post by: jon.brown509 on February 10, 2014, 03:16:21 PM
It's not just wolves though I guess from my understanding there has been a problem with juvenile bulls breeding at wrong times and harassing cows too much which was also adding to the calf mortality rate in the last 5 years. :dunno:
Post by: finnman on February 10, 2014, 11:56:46 PM
Quick unleash the wolves to reduce the darned nasty predatory elk!
I am stunned sometimes at the lack of logic in these threads!
Post by: bearpaw on February 11, 2014, 01:11:58 AM
but but but
hunting is better than ever, I heard it on HW.
To be fair there are zones with higher elk populations than 5 years ago. Obviously the wolfers like to lump those stats together with stats from the wolf infected areas to claim that wolves have no impact. :twocents:
Thankfully IDFG finally gets it, as they learn how wolves are impacting herds they are at least taking very positive actions. :tup:
Sounds like a pretty good case that Elk DO move away from wolves huh? I've been stating that wolves move Elk around out of deep canyons and areas typically safe from the bulk of hunters, and into areas with better visibility and hunter access; gives the allusion of better Elk hunting in certain areas.
I personally know one of the persons involved in the Yellowstone studies on cougars and wolves. You won't won't publish it widely if at all, but I was told that they found evidence of every type of resident animal in wolf scat, that includes all the ungulates, cats, coyotes, even grizzly bears, and that when a wolf pack moves into a drainage, they can watch radio collars on all the different types of animals moving out of the drainage in any direction to escape the wolves. It was put to me this way "When wolves move in, everything else moves out!"
Don't ask me to identify who this person is, I will not jeopardize their employment, but I can assure you this person has been involved in radio collar studies in and around the park. :twocents:
Post by: jon.brown509 on February 11, 2014, 05:00:21 AM
My god now where blaming elk for the elk numbers being reduced! :yike:
Quick unleash the wolves to reduce the darned nasty predatory elk!
I am stunned sometimes at the lack of logic in these threads!
:twocents:There's more factors than your mind could imagine,It's proven logic that juveniles breeding can screw things up faster than if a mature bull does most of the breeding .Now if you have to take a chopper out to do the job of a wolf than there's a problem I suggest you do some light reading.
Btw bear paw thats how it happens everything goes back to where it belongs and not where it shouldn't be .Not a lot of people use collars anymore though it's a tracker still, but its one that's put into the rumen for safe keeping until the animal dies lol May i ask why you would be jeopardizing there employment? :dunno: "at $200-300 a page to publish I wouldn't be in a hurry to publish also"
Post by: trophyhunt on February 11, 2014, 07:10:32 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on February 11, 2014, 07:40:52 AM
May i ask why you would be jeopardizing there employment? :dunno: "at $200-300 a page to publish I wouldn't be in a hurry to publish also"I can see not mentioning someones name on an internet forum full of who knows what kind of people for all kinds of reasons...but the reason bp gives about not wanting to jeopardize their employment is ridiculous.
jon.brown...almost every professional society and many of the journals associated with those societies will waive page charges if you do not have grant funds to cover publication costs...don't let those fees stop you if you have good work to publish.
Post by: bearpaw on February 11, 2014, 10:12:19 AM
May i ask why you would be jeopardizing there employment? :dunno: "at $200-300 a page to publish I wouldn't be in a hurry to publish also"I can see not mentioning someones name on an internet forum full of who knows what kind of people for all kinds of reasons...but the reason bp gives about not wanting to jeopardize their employment is ridiculous.
jon.brown...almost every professional society and many of the journals associated with those societies will waive page charges if you do not have grant funds to cover publication costs...don't let those fees stop you if you have good work to publish.
It is widely believed there is an agenda within wolf studies to support the agenda of this whole wolf introduction. That agenda is to promote wolves and eliminate hunting opportunity and ranching. I would not want to see this person fired because they provide insight about things learned during the study that were not mentioned in the study results. Remember the bogus lynx data in Colorado? I think the same thing is happening with wolf studies. Anyone who doubts this please consider that the former director of USFWS who oversaw much of the wolf fiasco has retired and is now working as the director of Defenders of Wildlife.
http://www.defenders.org/staff/jamie-rappaport-clark (http://www.defenders.org/staff/jamie-rappaport-clark)
Quote
Jamie Rappaport Clark
Jamie Rappaport Clark, President and CEO Jamie Rappaport Clark has been with Defenders of Wildlife since February 2004 as executive vice president. In October 2011, she took the reins as president and CEO.
Jamie’s lifelong commitment to wildlife and conservation led her to choose a career in wildlife biology. In her early college years, she released peregrine falcons into the wild as part of a successful recovery effort—so successful, in fact, that 20 years later, she had the honor of removing them from the list of endangered species as the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
Jamie came to Defenders after a 20-year career in conservation with the federal government, mostly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In recognition of her accomplishments and national leadership in this field, President Bill Clinton appointed her as director of the Service in 1997, a post she held until 2001. During her tenure as director, Jamie oversaw the establishment of 27 new refuges and the addition of over two million acres to the National Wildlife Refuge System and presided over the recovery of key endangered species such as the bald eagle, gray wolf and the Aleutian Canada goose.
To further understand the wolf conspiracy please read about the former USFWS employee who was the congressional whistle blower of the USFWS misappropriation of Pittman-Robertson funds used to illegally introduce wolves.
http://www.mtpioneer.com/2013-November-Non-Native-Wolves-Illegally.html (http://www.mtpioneer.com/2013-November-Non-Native-Wolves-Illegally.html)
Quote
Non Native Wolves Illegally Introduced, Says Whistleblower
Former USFWS Official Speaks of Malfeasance, Misappropriated Funds, and Transplanting Wrong Subspecies to Yellowstone
11/04/13
BY QUINCY ORHAI
Half a century after the last native Northern Rocky Mountain Timber Wolf, Canis lupus irremotus, was said to be hunted to extinction locally by public and private efforts, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, in 1995, under then Director Mollie Beattie, presided over the introduction of the Canadian Gray Wolf, Canis lupus occidentalis, into the Northern Rocky Mountain eco-system.
According to whistleblower Jim Beers (former USFWS Chief of National Wildlife Refuge Operations), after Congress denied funding for his agency to carry out the Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Project, the agency acted illegally as it brought the Canadian wolves into the Yellowstone ecosystem.
Speaking in Bozeman in May 2010, at the Gran Tree Inn, before Congress on wolf recovery issues in 1998 and 1999, and in October 2013 to the Montana Pioneer, Beers insisted that, after Congress denied USFWS funding for wolf recovery, the agency illegally expropriated Pitman-Robertson funds (federal excise taxes required by law to be distributed to the states as reimburse-ments), helping themselves to tens of millions of dollars.
When contacted by the Montana Pioneer for this article, Beers further stated, "The General Accoun-ting Office verified that at least $45 to $60 million was taken, diverted, by USFWS from P-R funds."
Beers went on to say that the Pittman-Robertson excise taxes, by law, could only be used by State wildlife agencies for their wildlife restoration projects. “These funds were then used primarily…to pay bonuses to top USFWS managers that had no right to such funds [and] to trap wolves in Canada, import them, and release them into Yellowstone National Park.”
Beers, a 32-year veteran USFWS biologist, whose job included overseeing the Pitman-Robertson funds, alleges that the agency misapprori-ated monies for the trapping and transportation of Canadian wolves into the U.S. To conceal its misuse of the funds spent on the project, the true number of wolves imported, and the subspecies brought in, USFWS intentionally did not file mandatory paperwork, according to Beers, that would have established a paper trail. Or, he speculates, somehow that paperwork mysteriously disappeared.
Beers also alleges USFWS failed to file an appropriate and accurate Environmental Impact Statement. In recent comments to the Montana Pioneer, he elaborated, saying, “The EIS was and remains a document of lies, misinformation and woefully incomplete coverage of the matter.”
In print and in public speaking engagements, Beers has claimed the Wolf Recovery Project deliberately dismissed established wolf science and research, including known wolf depredation impacts on livestock and wildlife, and ignored the dangers parasites and diseases carried by wolves present to wildlife, livestock, pets, and humans.
The Canadian Gray Wolf, introduced into Yellowstone Park by USFWS 18 years ago, is widely described in scientific literature as thirty to fifty percent larger than the said-to-be extinct local native timber wolf. The initial 14 and subsequent transplanted wolves were captured in Canada, although wolves that were more genetically similar were available from surplus populations in Minnesota, as reveal-ed by the Smithsonian Institution, in a scholarly work titled: Physiological Basis for Establishing a Northern Rocky Mountain DPS [Distinct Population Segment Area].
The importation of Canadian Gray Wolves was criticized at the time by American biologists who believed the larger wolves would kill more elk, a position many now say has proved correct, and that the introduction of a non-native sub-species was of questionable legality when the smaller-sized native populations were beginning to recover naturally, on their own, positions similar to those advanced by the Farm Bureau's of Idaho, Wyoming and Montana.
Although the official position of the government is that native wolves were locally extinct, according to Dr. Ralph Maughan, professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University, with specialties in natural resource politics and public opinion, USFWS reported 48 native wild wolves in Montana in 1994, the year before the controversial introduction of the Canadian Gray Wolf into Yellowstone National Park—mostly timber wolves traveling down from Canada.
On his website, The Wildlife News, Maughan writes: “It's reasonable to assume that without reintroduction, wolves would have naturally reestablished themselves in most of Montana [under the protection of the Endangered Species Act], but migration would have been slow with a lot of wolves up north before they made it to Yellowstone and Wyoming. Because these wolves were fully ‘endangered,’ rules governing them would have been a lot more strict than with those finally reintroduced in 1995.”
However, the larger and more aggressive central and northern Alberta, Canada wolves USFWS introduced here eliminated any survival chance of native wolves [as a result of competition or elimination], as USFWS knowingly violated the Endangered Species Act, according to Maughnan.
It was and is common scientific knowledge that the native male wolf (Canis lupus irremotus) of the Northern Rockies averaged 90 to 95 pounds at maturity. The wolf USFWS brought in as a replace-ment was a noticeably larger wolf (Canis lupus occidentalis) from north-central Alberta, with mature males topping 140 pounds, and some specimens weighing up to 175 pounds.
According to the Smithsonian study, the native wolf, which local residents claimed existed in small pockets in wilderness areas in the 1990s, generally roamed an area of about 100 square miles, hunting alone or in small groups of 4 or 5 at most. The non-native Canadian gray wolves USFWS introduced to the region typically hunted 300 or more square miles back in their home range, with packs often numbering 20 or more.
Under the direction of Mollie Beattie, USFWS developed the Environmental Impact Statement for the reintroduction of wolves. That EIS made a number of assumptions about bringing wolves back to Yellowstone and the Northern Rockies. Almost none of those assumptions has proven to be correct, according to Toby Bridges of the Montana Chapter of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife. Writing in 2010, on the group's website, Bridges says: “Instead of getting just the 150 wolves Montanans agreed to back in the mid 1990s, the state is now home to likely 1,000 to 1,200 wolves… This year a minimum of 43,500 elk will be eaten alive or killed and left behind by wolves in the Northern Rockies...”
Bridges also states that “The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manipulated science, and replaced the native wolf of this region with a totally non-native...larger...and more aggressive wolf, and has consistently underestimated wolf numbers by half or one third of actual numbers.”
According to USFWS, “As of December 31, 2012, the most recent minimum wolf population size determined for Montana was 625 wolves in 147 packs, 37 of which were confirmed breeding pairs.”
Those numbers are inaccurate, says Bridges, because for the annual wolf count USFWS typically ignores wolf sightings by anyone except agency biologists, who are understaffed. Also, wolves typically are active in timbered areas where they are impossible to count from the air, says Bridges. Thus, the deceptive wording of the report: “minimum wolf population size determined.”
Norm Colbert, a veteran wildlife tracker who lives near Nye, Mont., in the area of the Rosebud wolf pack, told the Pioneer in February 2012 that at least several wolves comprised the nearby local pack, based on his repeated sightings of tracks and wolf related activity, while the official count listed the Rosebud pack as having consisted of only two wolves, a discrepancy, accoridng to Colbert’s estimates, that may fall 300 percent short of the actual number of wolves in the pack.
According to Bridges, writing on LoboWatch, in an article titled Voodoo Math Still Haunts Montana Wolf Control: “Other well respected wolf biologists have claimed that ‘real wolf biology’ and ‘real wolf reproductive rates,’ and allowing for natural and man induced mortality, puts the current wolf population somewhere much closer to the 2,000 mark. The sportsmen of this state, based on the degree of damage done to elk and other big game populations, say it's even higher—perhaps as many as 3,000 wolves.”
One thing is clear to local ranchers losing livestock, and to local big game guides losing elk-hunting clients—the northern Yellowstone elk herd has declined by 80 percent from the 19,000 elk of 1995 (according to a Feb. 2013 aerial survey by the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks and the National Park Service), that 1995 number of elk having been part of the justification for bringing wolves to Yellowstone in the first place.
What was not made clear at the time of the Canadian Wolf introduction, according to wolf critic Bridges, writing on Lobo Watch, was that “The reality of living with wolves is that wolves are extremely non-discriminating predators, killing just about anything that gets in front of them—the young, the healthy, the pregnant and the prime…the sick and weak.”
Bridges charges that “agenda driven biologists” within wildlife agencies avoid acknowledging that each “average” wolf accounts for the loss of some 25, or so, big game animals (or head of livestock) annually, just for sustenance, that each “average” wolf also kills just about as much game, known as “surplus killing,” without eating the kill, and that wolves are the primary carrier of the Echinococcus granulosus tapeworm, a parasite that infects game, pets, and humans with Hydatid cysts “that in turn makes these living things sick and weak.”
In the recent documentary film Crying Wolf, Exposing the Wolf Reintroduction to Yellowstone National Park, David Allen, President of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, takes the issue a step further, stating, “The Northern Yellowstone elk herd was the showcase herd in the world…I believe that the reintroduction of wolves is, in many ways, an assault on the sportsmen and hunting culture. The North American model of wildlife conservation is built around the sportsman, since the days of Teddy Roosevelt. We have the most bountiful, successful wildlife resources in the world.”
With Crying Wolf, filmmaker Jeffrey King depicts the introduction of non-native Canadian gray wolves into the Northern Rockies ecosystem as destroying the livelihood of back-country residents by deva-stating free range ranching. According to the ranchers interviewed in the documentary, it is fast becoming uneconomical to raise livestock in areas where wolf packs range, and big game hunting and guiding opportunities and occupations are quickly disappearing from the rural Northern Rockies.
Veteran wolf biologist, John Gunson, formerly with the Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division, and also featured in Crying Wolf, echoed the concerns of sportsmen regarding elk hunting, saying, pointedly, "Really, there isn't any room for harvest by man if you have a healthy wolf population."
Regarding the introduction of wolves to the Northern Rockies, Ed Bangs, former Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is quoted as saying the following on the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks website, separating wolf science from wolf ideology: “Wolves and wolf management have nothing to do with wolves. I think the folks who didn't like them still don't like them, and the folks who did like them still do. Wolves are mainly a symbolic issue that relates to core human values…I think the only reason wolf reintroduction finally happened was that people with different values moved to Montana and diluted the strong agricultural influence. Plus, the economy changed from straight agriculture and natural resource consumption to areas such as tourism.”
Post by: AspenBud on February 11, 2014, 10:35:33 AM
Post by: KFhunter on February 11, 2014, 10:41:00 AM
Whistle blowing is only a viable option if your political enemies can't hurt you and/or you have options. Most people need to feed their families and will keep their mouths shut.
Not just political enemies, but your own agency, whistle blowers are NOT protected as intended by the whistleblower protection act.
The only time that act works if two conditions are met 1) big enough to garner national attention and 2) the media is on your side.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 11, 2014, 09:56:56 PM
Sounds like a lot of agendas :chuckle: :chuckle: There are a lot more serious threats to hunting (and ranching) than wolves.
It is widely believed there is an agenda within wolf studies to support the agenda of this whole wolf introduction. That agenda is to promote wolves and eliminate hunting opportunity and ranching.
I would not want to see this person fired because they provide insight about things learned during the study that were not mentioned in the study results.Only if this person works for some extremist, non-scientific group would this be likely. If they work for any respectable government agency or private organization there should be no issue in reporting all study results objectively. I have experience in this arena and rarely has any attempt to withhold or coverup study findings ever worked out for an agency in the long run...whats far more common is a disgruntled employee disagrees with their superiors and so they portray legitimate disagreements of data etc. as an attempt to "hide" information or data. Two very different things.
Post by: bearpaw on February 12, 2014, 04:59:04 AM
I would not want to see this person fired because they provide insight about things learned during the study that were not mentioned in the study results.Only if this person works for some extremist, non-scientific group would this be likely. If they work for any respectable government agency or private organization there should be no issue in reporting all study results objectively. I have experience in this arena and rarely has any attempt to withhold or coverup study findings ever worked out for an agency in the long run...
Exactly, I agree, myself and many other people view many of these wolf promoting biologist as extremists!
In the end the facts about wolves are coming out anyway, you simply cannot cover up facts forever, regardless of the faulty science presented by some wolf loving biologists, the facts about how wolves impact wildlife and livestock is what is driving the changes we are seeing in wolf management. :twocents:
whats far more common is a disgruntled employee disagrees with their superiors and so they portray legitimate disagreements of data etc. as an attempt to "hide" information or data. Two very different things.
I can assure you that is not the case. The person is very happy with the job, but has watched how all types of wildlife leaves a drainage when wolves move in. Wolf favoring researchers are not reporting this in their research. Very likely because it would have a negative effect on wolves.
There is a good read somewhere about how researchers become enamored by the animal they are researching and how hard it is for researchers to remain unbiased. I think wolves are a pretty good example of that.
Post by: bearpaw on February 12, 2014, 05:09:11 AM
Post by: finnman on February 12, 2014, 09:30:48 PM
:twocents:There's more factors than your mind could imagine,It's proven logic that juveniles breeding can screw things up faster than if a mature bull does most of the breeding .Now if you have to take a chopper out to do the job of a wolf than there's a problem I suggest you do some light reading.
Thanks for the advise, I do know how to read.
Factors, yes there are lots of them, but right now the only thing I want to read is the report on the Selway elk herd that says immature bulls doing the breeding is one of the main culprits hurting the herd growth??
In other words prove it with this herd.
Post by: jon.brown509 on February 12, 2014, 10:27:41 PM
:twocents:There's more factors than your mind could imagine,It's proven logic that juveniles breeding can screw things up faster than if a mature bull does most of the breeding .Now if you have to take a chopper out to do the job of a wolf than there's a problem I suggest you do some light reading.
Thanks for the advise, I do know how to read.
Factors, yes there are lots of them, but right now the only thing I want to read is the report on the Selway elk herd that says immature bulls doing the breeding is one of the main culprits hurting the herd growth??
In other words prove it with this herd.
"Nature is chaos" (Aronald leopold 1945) ,There is a pretty big study going on down there on calf survival rate,and one big factor is conception time do too early or late breeding instead of conception at optimal breeding time.
http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/ElkHuntForecast2011.aspx (http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/ElkHuntForecast2011.aspx)
http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/ceel/all.html (http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/ceel/all.html)
here's some interesting reads for the area
Post by: huntnnw on February 12, 2014, 10:38:49 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 13, 2014, 05:27:55 AM
:twocents:There's more factors than your mind could imagine,It's proven logic that juveniles breeding can screw things up faster than if a mature bull does most of the breeding .Now if you have to take a chopper out to do the job of a wolf than there's a problem I suggest you do some light reading.
Thanks for the advise, I do know how to read.
Factors, yes there are lots of them, but right now the only thing I want to read is the report on the Selway elk herd that says immature bulls doing the breeding is one of the main culprits hurting the herd growth??
In other words prove it with this herd.
"Nature is chaos" (Aronald leopold 1945) ,There is a pretty big study going on down there on calf survival rate,and one big factor is conception time do too early or late breeding instead of conception at optimal breeding time.
http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/ElkHuntForecast2011.aspx (http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/ElkHuntForecast2011.aspx)
http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/ceel/all.html (http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/ceel/all.html)
here's some interesting reads for the area
jon.brown, with all due respect, IDFG has already identified through studies they have already completed in which they inspected the cause of death on calves and cow elk and it was proven that wolves are the primary factor limiting the Selway and Lolo elk herds at this time.
Are you telling us the IDFG studies by Zager and by Pauley determining that wolves are the current limiting factor are incorrect?
Idaho: Predation Management Plan, Lolo and Selway Elk Zones
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/planLoloSelwayPredation.pdf (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/planLoloSelwayPredation.pdf)
DEFINITION OF PROBLEM
Elk numbers are currently well below management objectives in the Lolo and Selway Zones. Since the early to mid 1990s, elk calf to cow ratios have continued to decline, and have been at levels too low to sustain elk populations. More recently, cow survival rates have also declined to problematic levels. A number of factors have been identified as contributors to this situation. Declining habitat conditions caused by a shift from early forest seral stages to much less productive mid to late seral stages have been a source of concern for decades. More recently, the spread of noxious weeds (especially spotted knapweed) has also contributed to the decline in elk habitat quality. A major winter event in 1996-97, with record snowfall more than 200% of normal, caused a severe winter die-off that resulted in a population decline. White et al. (2010) documented heavy predation on neonate elk calves by black bears as additive and the primary proximate mortality factor of neonate calves (age ≤ 90 days). Additionally, predation by mountain lions was prevalent on all age classes of elk (Zager et al. 2007a, Zager et al. 2007b, White et al. 2010). Currently wolves, which were not present during the early portion of this elk decline, are a major mortality factor on older calves (≥6-month old) and cow elk (Zager et al. 2007b, Pauley et al. 2009). Lower cow and calf survival due to wolves is continuing to suppress the elk population (Pauley et al. 2009, Pauley and Zager 2011).
Post by: jon.brown509 on February 13, 2014, 07:56:50 AM
jon.brown, with all due respect, IDFG has already identified through studies they have already completed in which they inspected the cause of death on calves and cow elk and it was proven that wolves are the primary factor limiting the Selway and Lolo elk herds at this time.
Are you telling us the IDFG studies by Zager and by Pauley determining that wolves are the current limiting factor are incorrect?
Idaho: Predation Management Plan, Lolo and Selway Elk Zones
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/planLoloSelwayPredation.pdf (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/planLoloSelwayPredation.pdf)
Post by: bearpaw on February 13, 2014, 08:07:57 AM
Now did you ever ask why wolves were so successful at collecting calves ? I'm not gonna lie if IDFG said the sky was blue i would still look to see if there right lol :chuckle: IDFG has lost a lot of creditability in the wildlife world it's hard to justify and count on anything they do as proven wildlife facts"one reason there in the mess there in" until another sample group is done ,Now here's where you need to look past the wolf"predators" ,open your mind and start thinking deep around the subject.Never said that they were incorrect in their studies but again ask your self why do you think wolves are able to get such a high calf mortality rate? I know BP that your a great outfitter now take a ponder at how many heard and mature bull's you have seen to juveniles recently....Now if the heard has all their calves at the same time during optimal breeding time than calves well have a higher success rate from 16% where its at now in 2013 LOLO area to before at 35% 2010 LOLO area success because all the young are born at once and have a higher odds at being picked.Now lets stagger conception where we lower the odd's from 1 in 6 born about the same time or 1 in 12 to about a whole 1 in 4 ? predators not just wolves can pick off calves that are being born that sparingly . What's awesome is that there is a longer elk calf study being done over in Oregon for the last 3 years where calves were at about 86% mortality rate due to predation by cougars,One of the biggest factors they were finding in affecting the calves survival rate was conception period.If the cow elk all had there calves in a short window with in a day or two of each other they survived much stronger than the cow elk who got roughed up by a juvenile and had her calf too early or too late. :dunno: Does this make more sense now?
jon.brown, with all due respect, IDFG has already identified through studies they have already completed in which they inspected the cause of death on calves and cow elk and it was proven that wolves are the primary factor limiting the Selway and Lolo elk herds at this time.
Are you telling us the IDFG studies by Zager and by Pauley determining that wolves are the current limiting factor are incorrect?QuoteIdaho: Predation Management Plan, Lolo and Selway Elk Zones
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/planLoloSelwayPredation.pdf (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/planLoloSelwayPredation.pdf)
I can see what you are trying to say and will agree it could make some difference, but I think you are placing to much weight on your theory and ignoring documented facts. By inspecting elk kill sites the Idaho studies showed that wolves were eating large numbers of >6month calves as well as the adult cow elk at a rate that exceeds annual recruitment. So it really doesn't matter when the calf is born, it has a slim chance of not being eaten as a young calf, half grown calf, or even as an adult.
You are beginning to sound like you cannot get past your desire to prove that wolves don't affect elk populations by eating them. This is the problem with many biologists, they fall in love with the animal of their studies and the science gets tainted, don't get caught up that way. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on February 13, 2014, 08:26:34 AM
Additionally look at the Idaho elk plan statistics, it says 47% of the bulls harvested in the Lolo and 50% of the bulls harvested in the Selway are 6pt+ which indicates the bulls in both areas have good age structure. I would say your theory that young bulls are doing the majority of breeding in these areas is very likely faulty.
I believe it also said wolves are the primary predator (75% of elk kills) on >6 month calves and adult cows. It appears to me as it did to IDFG that wolves are the limiting factor.
Post by: jon.brown509 on February 13, 2014, 09:16:29 AM
You are beginning to sound like you cannot get past your desire to prove that wolves don't affect elk populations by eating them. This is the problem with many biologists, they fall in love with the animal of their studies and the science gets tainted, don't get caught up that way. :twocents:
[/quote]
My desire like :brew: I would say you don't know jack crap about my desire's for wildlife .My main animal I'm doing Right now for my studie is actually wolverines lol the honey bager of the north wes tlol also I'm also looking more into ecology than indvidual wildlife.My integrity well always be in tact :tup: I know wolves are a limiting factor i'm trying to explain as to why they are that is all :bash: For the record it's not my theory it's your guys Zager and Pauley that found it in there data :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on February 13, 2014, 01:18:02 PM
QuoteI can see what you are trying to say and will agree it could make some difference, but I think you are placing to much weight on your theory and ignoring documented facts. By inspecting elk kill sites the Idaho studies showed that wolves were eating large numbers of >6month calves as well as the adult cow elk at a rate that exceeds annual recruitment. So it really doesn't matter when the calf is born, it has a slim chance of not being eaten as a young calf, half grown calf, or even as an adult.
You are beginning to sound like you cannot get past your desire to prove that wolves don't affect elk populations by eating them. This is the problem with many biologists, they fall in love with the animal of their studies and the science gets tainted, don't get caught up that way. :twocents:
My desire like :brew: I would say you don't know jack crap about my desire's for wildlife .My main animal I'm doing Right now for my studie is actually wolverines lol the honey bager of the north wes tlol also I'm also looking more into ecology than indvidual wildlife.My integrity well always be in tact :tup: I know wolves are a limiting factor i'm trying to explain as to why they are that is all :bash: For the record it's not my theory it's your guys Zager and Pauley that found it in there data :chuckle:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your posts. I thought you were trying to say the low elk numbers were due to immature bulls doing the breeding. Now are you saying that's not your theory and that wolves are not your focus?
Post by: jon.brown509 on February 13, 2014, 01:43:52 PM
Second no way in :ban: that I would want to touch that boat with a 20ft pole and specialize in wolves.To crazy and too many nut jobs. But I would like to specialize in carnivores "so a lil bit of wolf knowledge needed" and how they effect the environment/ecosystem/ect . See a family friend out of Wallowa county Oregon is a biologist who specializes in carnivores in rural environments and all he does is study ways to reduce predators on livestock ,people, ect and also how they effect the ecosystem "My dream Job" if there ever is a problem he goes out and removes it.But for my study animal of choice threw the next 4 years tell i get my Doctrine is Wolverines there my focus animal you ever wanna talk about wolverines I can talk your ear off lol
I just like to talk to other hunters and see there points of views and show them what i've learned and hopefully help answer questions or produce more questions to help people find out more info. :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on February 13, 2014, 02:38:28 PM
No it's not 100% the fault of immature breeding there are so many factors that come in its ridiculous. But based on data results that have been found in LoLo was that wolves were chasing elk around as everyone knows but the thing is it has disrupting breeding times with mature bulls ,due to stress and collecting cow's "found in data collected" which in turn has allowed juveniles to harass more cows and started staggering conception and increasing the calf and cow mortality rate.It's not a theory it has been proven in more than one study group LoLo just happened to become part of the calf mortality group study of carnivores on elk calves
Second no way in :ban: that I would want to touch that boat with a 20ft pole and specialize in wolves.To crazy and too many nut jobs. But I would like to specialize in carnivores "so a lil bit of wolf knowledge needed" and how they effect the environment/ecosystem/ect . See a family friend out of Wallowa county Oregon is a biologist who specializes in carnivores in rural environments and all he does is study ways to reduce predators on livestock ,people, ect and also how they effect the ecosystem "My dream Job" if there ever is a problem he goes out and removes it.But for my study animal of choice threw the next 4 years tell i get my Doctrine is Wolverines there my focus animal you ever wanna talk about wolverines I can talk your ear off lol
I just like to talk to other hunters and see there points of views and show them what i've learned and hopefully help answer questions or produce more questions to help people find out more info. :tup:
Perhaps this is the reason cows are not all being bred on time?
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,75422.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,75422.0.html)
Post by: jon.brown509 on February 13, 2014, 04:05:58 PM