Post by: bearpaw on April 28, 2014, 11:35:27 PM
Wolf control action completed in the lolo zone
Idaho Fish and Game, in cooperation with the USDA Wildlife Services, has completed another wolf control action in northern Idaho's Lolo elk zone near the Idaho/Montana border to improve poor elk survival in the area.
In February, Wildlife Services agents killed 23 wolves from a helicopter. The action is consistent with Idaho's predation management plan for the Lolo elk zone, where predation is the major reason elk population numbers are considerably below management objectives.
The Lolo predation management plan is posted on the Fish and Game website: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/?getPage=325 (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/?getPage=325)
This is the sixth agency control action taken in Lolo zone during the last four years. Twenty-five wolves were taken in the previous five actions.
Fish and Game authorizes control actions where wolves are causing conflicts with people or domestic animals, or are a significant factor in prey population declines. Such control actions are consistent with Idaho's 2002 Wolf Conservation and Management Plan approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Idaho Legislature.
Fish and Game prefers to manage wolf populations using hunters and trappers and only authorizes control actions where harvest has been insufficient to meet management goals. The Lolo zone is steep, rugged country that is difficult to access, especially in winter.
In addition to the animals killed in this control action, 17 wolves have been taken by hunters and trappers in the Lolo zone during the 2013-14 season - 7 by hunting and 10 by trapping. The trapping season ends March 31, the hunting season ends June 30.
Fish and Game estimates there were 75 -100 wolves in the Lolo zone at the start of the 2013 hunting season with additional animals crossing back and forth between Idaho and Montana and from other Idaho elk zones. Fish and Game's goal is to reduce that Lolo zone wolf population by 70 percent.
The Lolo elk population has declined drastically from 16,000 elk in 1989 to roughly 2,100 elk in 2010, when Fish and Game last surveyed the zone. Restoring the Lolo elk population will require liberal bear, mountain lion, and wolf harvest through hunting and trapping (in the case of wolves), and control actions in addition to improving elk habitat. The short-term goals in Fish and Game's 2014 Elk Plan are to stabilize the elk population and begin to help it grow.
Here's a link to the new Elk Plan: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/?getpage=324 (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/?getpage=324)
Helicopter crews are now capturing and placing radio collars on elk, moose, and wolves in the Lolo zone in order to continue monitoring to see whether prey populations increase in response to regulated wolf hunting, trapping and control actions.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 29, 2014, 08:15:18 AM
We're headed for some tough times in the NE corner. :bash:
Post by: deltaops on April 29, 2014, 08:22:29 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 29, 2014, 08:25:13 AM
I think that is sad that they killed them wolves. I am sure it cost less to terminate them, but I would have rather seen them relocated to downtown Seattle Parks so they could at least have place to call home. :chuckle:
Since they only feed on the sick and injured, that'd probably be a great place for them.
Post by: jackmaster on April 29, 2014, 08:25:30 AM
Post by: timberfaller on April 29, 2014, 08:55:01 AM
Back in the day, when wolf hunting was trashed(early 70's) it was the "use" of air power that got the "ban's" put in place. The bleeding hearts thought that was not "sportsmen like" killings!! :cryriver:
Post by: JLS on April 29, 2014, 09:06:49 AM
Hopefully this helps in some fashion, but the Lolo herd has been hurting for a very long time.
Post by: wolfbait on April 29, 2014, 11:00:16 AM
Wolves killed 13,900 in 21 years, figure that out in deer, and then add the protection of predators> it won't take 21 years for WA to be in much worse shape then Idaho etc.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 29, 2014, 11:05:38 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on April 29, 2014, 11:10:00 AM
A good napalm drop would have likely been much more beneficial to the elk in the long run.:yeah: predator control will help with short-term losses and stabilization of population at low levels. Habitat improvement is what is needed to get the population to get back to 1970's/80's levels.
Hopefully this helps in some fashion, but the Lolo herd has been hurting for a very long time.
Post by: JLS on April 29, 2014, 11:10:51 AM
The silence is deafening from the wolf lovers on the forum. I know sooner or later we're going to hear about poachers and habitat really being the cause and it's just a coincidence with the timing that it's being blamed on the wolves.
Well, with the Lolo zone in particular I am entirely comfortable in saying that a major forest fire would have far greater impacts on future elk populations than killing some wolves. Certainly that will affect short term numbers, but it won't provide near the long term benefit of major habitat alteration.
I am stating this from my personal experience hunting in the Lolo zone, and professional opinions from Idaho Conservation Officers that have hunted and/or worked the Lolo zone.
Go back and look at population data. That herd crashed hard in the middle to late 90's, long before wolves were heavily established in that area.
Post by: Special T on April 29, 2014, 11:24:01 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 29, 2014, 11:42:28 AM
The silence is deafening from the wolf lovers on the forum. I know sooner or later we're going to hear about poachers and habitat really being the cause and it's just a coincidence with the timing that it's being blamed on the wolves.
Well, with the Lolo zone in particular I am entirely comfortable in saying that a major forest fire would have far greater impacts on future elk populations than killing some wolves. Certainly that will affect short term numbers, but it won't provide near the long term benefit of major habitat alteration.
I am stating this from my personal experience hunting in the Lolo zone, and professional opinions from Idaho Conservation Officers that have hunted and/or worked the Lolo zone.
Go back and look at population data. That herd crashed hard in the middle to late 90's, long before wolves were heavily established in that area.
But because of the moratorium on clear cut logging in the NFs, the habitat is what it is - thank the greenies for that. The wolves are not sitting on their haunches eating bunnies. The greenies are responsible for the habitat problem AND the wolves. My question is: what do the greenies have against our ungulates?
Post by: singleshot12 on April 29, 2014, 11:47:43 AM
Post by: jackmaster on April 29, 2014, 11:49:29 AM
true but habitat will never be the same unless they restrict building and start letting tree companies slash burn and control burn, it makes for great habitat and the serious control of pesticides and herbacides, but encroaching into habitat and subdividing and pounding out huge housing complexes has to stop :tup:A good napalm drop would have likely been much more beneficial to the elk in the long run.:yeah: predator control will help with short-term losses and stabilization of population at low levels. Habitat improvement is what is needed to get the population to get back to 1970's/80's levels.
Hopefully this helps in some fashion, but the Lolo herd has been hurting for a very long time.
Post by: bearpaw on April 29, 2014, 12:33:14 PM
The silence is deafening from the wolf lovers on the forum. I know sooner or later we're going to hear about poachers and habitat really being the cause and it's just a coincidence with the timing that it's being blamed on the wolves.
Well, with the Lolo zone in particular I am entirely comfortable in saying that a major forest fire would have far greater impacts on future elk populations than killing some wolves. Certainly that will affect short term numbers, but it won't provide near the long term benefit of major habitat alteration.
I am stating this from my personal experience hunting in the Lolo zone, and professional opinions from Idaho Conservation Officers that have hunted and/or worked the Lolo zone.
Go back and look at population data. That herd crashed hard in the middle to late 90's, long before wolves were heavily established in that area.
I would agree that logging or burning the lolo could benefit elk. However, the USFS isn't going to do that anytime right away. In the meantime the data shows that the elk herds were still healthy with something like 10,000 elk prior to wolf impacts and until winterkill impacted the herds. Then it has been shown that wolf predation has played a major role in preventing herds from recovering to prior numbers that were still being supported in the lolo prior to the winterkill.
This is called a predator pit and wolves are the #1 documented cause of this predator pit. Once wolf numbers and other predators are reduced enough, the small remaining elk herd (2000 or less remaining) will be able to raise enough young to begin increasing herd numbers. :twocents:
Post by: JLS on April 29, 2014, 01:31:21 PM
I last hunted the Lochsa in 1999. I was amazed, and not in a good way, by how poor the habitat was. The ceanothus was 8-10 tall and interwoven to the point you could not walk through it in many places. Even the upper basins were overgrown with it. The lower slopes grew about as many noxious weeds as they did grass.
This was right on the heels of the winterkills of 96-97-98. It hasn't changed much since then, so I fail to see how anyone would expect things to suddenly turn for the better.
jackmaster,
Subdivisions are absolutely not a concern in the Lochsa.
Special T,
Fine with me. I bet I could pass the coffee can around to cover the helicopter time if this would ever be allowed to happen.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 29, 2014, 01:54:54 PM
:tup: on the napalm strike as long as it was on top of a pack of wolves!I would support that, as long as there was a "let it burn" policy for a little while...
See guys- we can all compromise here! :) :)
Post by: wolfbait on April 29, 2014, 01:57:42 PM
The silence is deafening from the wolf lovers on the forum. I know sooner or later we're going to hear about poachers and habitat really being the cause and it's just a coincidence with the timing that it's being blamed on the wolves.
Not along wait eh, it just has to be the habitat or climate change, it sure couldn't be uncontrolled wolves that put the hurt on elk herds, after all wolves are the only thing that has changed in the last 80 years. Nope it has the be habitat.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 29, 2014, 02:02:27 PM
Obviously wolves are having an impact. I don't think anyone is arguing that. It would be totally ignorant to deny that the habitat needs improved to get the elk back to historic (PRE WOLF + GOOD HABITAT) levels. Get it? :tup:
Post by: AspenBud on April 29, 2014, 02:07:56 PM
you don't think habitat might have changed in the last 80 years? :beatdeadhorse:
Obviously wolves are having an impact. I don't think anyone is arguing that. It would be totally ignorant to deny that the habitat needs improved to get the elk back to historic (PRE WOLF + GOOD HABITAT) levels. Get it? :tup:
Habitat isn't on his horizon because he's worried about cows, not elk or any other wild ungulate.
Post by: JLS on April 29, 2014, 02:22:52 PM
The silence is deafening from the wolf lovers on the forum. I know sooner or later we're going to hear about poachers and habitat really being the cause and it's just a coincidence with the timing that it's being blamed on the wolves.
Not along wait eh, it just has to be the habitat or climate change, it sure couldn't be uncontrolled wolves that put the hurt on elk herds, after all wolves are the only thing that has changed in the last 80 years. Nope it has the be habitat.
So let me guess. Immediately after the Lolo burned in the 1940s, it was instantly overgrown with a decadent crown forests and 10' tall stands of ceanothus? And the elk herds flourished in this habitat until 50 years later?
Yes, wolves are the only thing that's changed in 80 years :rolleyes:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 29, 2014, 02:24:01 PM
you don't think habitat might have changed in the last 80 years? :beatdeadhorse:
Obviously wolves are having an impact. I don't think anyone is arguing that. It would be totally ignorant to deny that the habitat needs improved to get the elk back to historic (PRE WOLF + GOOD HABITAT) levels. Get it? :tup:
Habitat isn't on his horizon because he's worried about cows, not elk or any other wild ungulate.
Even cows need habitat. If he managed pastures like he proposes management of federal lands his cows would starve to death long before a wolf got to them.
Post by: bearpaw on April 29, 2014, 05:16:37 PM
The silence is deafening from the wolf lovers on the forum. I know sooner or later we're going to hear about poachers and habitat really being the cause and it's just a coincidence with the timing that it's being blamed on the wolves.
Well, with the Lolo zone in particular I am entirely comfortable in saying that a major forest fire would have far greater impacts on future elk populations than killing some wolves. Certainly that will affect short term numbers, but it won't provide near the long term benefit of major habitat alteration.
I am stating this from my personal experience hunting in the Lolo zone, and professional opinions from Idaho Conservation Officers that have hunted and/or worked the Lolo zone.
Go back and look at population data. That herd crashed hard in the middle to late 90's, long before wolves were heavily established in that area.
I would agree that logging or burning the lolo could benefit elk. However, the USFS isn't going to do that anytime right away. In the meantime the data shows that the elk herds were still healthy with something like 10,000 elk prior to wolf impacts and until winterkill impacted the herds. Then it has been shown that wolf predation has played a major role in preventing herds from recovering to prior numbers that were still being supported in the lolo prior to the winterkill.
This is called a predator pit and wolves are the #1 documented cause of this predator pit. Once wolf numbers and other predators are reduced enough, the small remaining elk herd (2000 or less remaining) will be able to raise enough young to begin increasing herd numbers. :twocents:
Even after the forest matured there were still plenty of elk until the winterkill, now wolves have prevented the elk from recovering to pre winter-kill numbers. You guys arguing this sound utterly stupid, IDFG has documented that wolves are killing to many elk for a recovery to happen. That is precisely why the management action is being taken, to reduce wolf numbers. Elk could recover to that 10,000 range.
If we improved the habitat and if wolf and other predator numbers are low enough, then elk might recover to 15,000-20,000. :twocents:
To continue to say wolves do not impact elk numbers is just idiotic. :twocents:
Post by: JLS on April 29, 2014, 05:57:24 PM
To continue arguing the habitat is fine and could support thousands more elk is completely stupid.
Post by: JLS on April 29, 2014, 06:01:21 PM
Well, with the Lolo zone in particular I am entirely comfortable in saying that a major forest fire would have far greater impacts on future elk populations than killing some wolves. Certainly that will affect short term numbers, but it won't provide near the long term benefit of major habitat alteration.
I am stating this from my personal experience hunting in the Lolo zone, and professional opinions from Idaho Conservation Officers that have hunted and/or worked the Lolo zone.
Go back and look at population data. That herd crashed hard in the middle to late 90's, long before wolves were heavily established in that area.
Here, I bolded it for you. One of many similar comments I have made. I challenge you to find me one time I've said that wolves don't impact elk numbers.
If you read this real slow, and within context, you'll understand that I am saying that killing the wolves will provide a short term improvement. To think it's a long term solution, without addressing the issue of habitat, is folly.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on April 29, 2014, 06:36:23 PM
Someone needs to show the greenies a pic of a wolf pack pulling a fawn or elk calf out of the mothers uterus. Maybe then they would change their perspective on these predators :dunno:They could careless ...that's a natural event for a wolf :dunno: I think when our ancestors left this country they would have liked to think that the next generation would take things into their own hands ...when they whipped them out I believe they never intended them to return :dunno: not much of a generation left like our fathers before us but I would think the few that are here would put a stop to this BS ! I NEVER SEEN A WOLF SO IT MUST BE A COYOTE :dunno: :yike:
Post by: wolfbait on April 29, 2014, 06:44:01 PM
you don't think habitat might have changed in the last 80 years? :beatdeadhorse:
Obviously wolves are having an impact. I don't think anyone is arguing that. It would be totally ignorant to deny that the habitat needs improved to get the elk back to historic (PRE WOLF + GOOD HABITAT) levels. Get it? :tup:
Habitat isn't on his horizon because he's worried about cows, not elk or any other wild ungulate.
Even cows need habitat. If he managed pastures like he proposes management of federal lands his cows would starve to death long before a wolf got to them.
With wolves there are much less cows etc., therefore more habitat, I believe the average wolf predation in cows that are confirm is one in eight, in the Methow there hasn't been a confirm wolf kill yet, I think that will change now with some honesty kicking in from a new wolf specialist. But then you already know this, you just keep playing the habitat card for WDFW.
Post by: bearpaw on April 29, 2014, 09:41:09 PM
Also included in the graphs are linear trend lines for the cow count. In Zone 10 the number of cows has declined from 7,692 in 1989 to 824 in 2010, or 89 percent. In Zone 12 the number of cows has declined from 3,059 in 1986 to 534 in 2010, or 83 percent.
In Zone 10 the number of calves has declined from 2,298 in 1989 to 144 in 2010, or 94 percent. In Zone 12 the number of calves has declined from 856 in 1985 to 38 in 2010, or 96 percent.
Clearly, the elk populations have crashed in these zones.
The reason is not a lack of fecundity: calf/cow ratios have varied from 6 per 100 to 30 per 100 and were reported to be 17 per 100 in Zone 10 and 7 per 100 in Zone 12 in 2010. A calf/cow ratio of 15-20 per 100 is considered to be sufficient to replace the population under normal circumstances, and no trend in calf/cow ratio was detected over the counting period. As recently as 2006 the calf/cow ratios were 29 per 100 in Zone 10 and 20 per 100 in Zone 12.
The reason for the elk population crash is not hunting. All the animals taken are bulls, and that does not affect population dynamics as explained above. Furthermore, Lolo zone elk harvest has also decline precipitously, from over 1,500 in 1989 to less than 150 in 2008 in Zone 10 and from nearly 600 in 1992 to less than 100 in 2008 in Zone 12.
The principal reason for the crashing elk populations is undoubtedly the introduction of wolves in 1995, and the subsequent explosion of the wolf population.
As a result to offset the wolf explosion you can kill 2 bear and 2 cougar and elk hunting has been greatly restricted, but that still hasn't helped the elk because wolves are still eating too many elk so elk numbers continued to decline.
The math is pretty simple, if there are only 1358 cow elk and annual survival of cows is only 77% that means we are losing 23% of the cows each year, if calf survival is only 7 to 17 percent and half the calves are bulls then the herd is going to continue declining. The graphs show that wolf predation is the largest factor of cow mortality, so by greatly reducing the cow mortality and calf mortality with wolf removal and increased hunting of cougar and bear the math may be corrected. Please see the graphs to confirm the data.
IDFG is now reducing the wolf population. Some of us think elk numbers will respond and others say elk numbers will not respond until habitat is addressed. Let's watch and see if elk numbers begin to increase after these predator reductions.
Post by: bearpaw on April 29, 2014, 09:46:41 PM
Post by: Special T on April 29, 2014, 09:50:48 PM
Post by: bearpaw on April 29, 2014, 09:55:21 PM
Well, with the Lolo zone in particular I am entirely comfortable in saying that a major forest fire would have far greater impacts on future elk populations than killing some wolves. Certainly that will affect short term numbers, but it won't provide near the long term benefit of major habitat alteration.
I am stating this from my personal experience hunting in the Lolo zone, and professional opinions from Idaho Conservation Officers that have hunted and/or worked the Lolo zone.
Go back and look at population data. That herd crashed hard in the middle to late 90's, long before wolves were heavily established in that area.
Here, I bolded it for you. One of many similar comments I have made. I challenge you to find me one time I've said that wolves don't impact elk numbers.
If you read this real slow, and within context, you'll understand that I am saying that killing the wolves will provide a short term improvement. To think it's a long term solution, without addressing the issue of habitat, is folly.
The graphs show that there were 3 times as many elk before the winter kill and wolf explosion. Once enough predators are removed to allow the elk numbers to increase three fold, then habitat improvements may be needed to further increase elk numbers. If you read the plan you will learn that IDFG is attempting to improve habitat. But it doesn't matter how good the habitat is until you get the elk survival rate higher and the predation rate lower. It's really pretty simple if you can allow yourself to look at the whole picture.
Post by: JLS on April 29, 2014, 10:05:12 PM
Well, with the Lolo zone in particular I am entirely comfortable in saying that a major forest fire would have far greater impacts on future elk populations than killing some wolves. Certainly that will affect short term numbers, but it won't provide near the long term benefit of major habitat alteration.
I am stating this from my personal experience hunting in the Lolo zone, and professional opinions from Idaho Conservation Officers that have hunted and/or worked the Lolo zone.
Go back and look at population data. That herd crashed hard in the middle to late 90's, long before wolves were heavily established in that area.
Here, I bolded it for you. One of many similar comments I have made. I challenge you to find me one time I've said that wolves don't impact elk numbers.
If you read this real slow, and within context, you'll understand that I am saying that killing the wolves will provide a short term improvement. To think it's a long term solution, without addressing the issue of habitat, is folly.
The graphs show that there were 3 times as many elk before the winter kill and wolf explosion. Once enough predators are removed to allow the elk numbers to increase three fold, then habitat improvements may be needed to further increase elk numbers. If you read the plan you will learn that IDFG is attempting to improve habitat. But it doesn't matter how good the habitat is until you get the elk survival rate higher and the predation rate lower. It's really pretty simple if you can allow yourself to look at the whole picture.
So then how do you explain the fact that the decline started in the 1980s? The canary was in the coal mine. The two big die offs are indicative of what will happen again if the habitat isn't improved.
I'm looking at the whole picture just fine thank you.
You can argue the chicken or the egg all you want. I have no problem with attempting predator control to give the herds room to grow. But if you do it without improving the available habitat one will be sorely disappointed. I recall very liberal bear and cougar seasons in the mid to late 90s, but numbers still declined. The area certainly was not overrun with wolves in 1999, yet you didn't see a reversal in the decline, did you?
I am not saying that one event has to happen before the other. I could care less. I do care that dumping money and resources into predator control AS A LONG TERM SOLUTION is going to be a huge disappointment as to the results.
Post by: JLS on April 29, 2014, 10:06:47 PM
If you read the plan you will learn that IDFG is attempting to improve habitat.
Unfortunately, unless they are running roads on motorcycles and using drip torches, it's not going to have any substantial effect anytime soon.
Post by: bearpaw on April 29, 2014, 10:24:21 PM
If you read the plan you will learn that IDFG is attempting to improve habitat.
Unfortunately, unless they are running roads on motorcycles and using drip torches, it's not going to have any substantial effect anytime soon.
We both know they can't do that so we know habitat will be a slower process with USFS involved.
In the meantime great strides can be made with wolf and other predator control and recent history shows that the Lolo should be able to support 3x as many elk as it has now. So IDFG is moving in the right direction. :tup:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on April 29, 2014, 11:34:43 PM
Even after the forest matured there were still plenty of elk until the winterkill, now wolves have prevented the elk from recovering to pre winter-kill numbers. You guys arguing this sound utterly stupid, IDFG has documented that wolves are killing to many elk for a recovery to happen. That is precisely why the management action is being taken, to reduce wolf numbers. Elk could recover to that 10,000 range.
Look at what you just wrote Dale. Winterkill knocked the herd down. Think about that. A big part of the reason is that as the forest matured, it couldn't handle 10,000 elk any more, especially in a bad winter. And what is worse, if you send too many animals into a bad winter on marginal habitat, they likely severely damaged what was left and brought it to a point that even in a mild winter it can't support the animals it once did. And at that point, it is "utterly stupid" to use your term, to try to grow the herd by any method other than repairing the habitat, because if it won't support 3,000 elk, it surely won't support 10,000, wolves or no wolves. What you have there isn't a predator pit, it's a habitat pit.
Say a farmer has an area where 1,000 cows can graze. Then he raises his herd to 2,000 and the first year, a mild winter, he has relatively little trouble. Then he has a really bad couple of winters and not only does he lose some cows, but his grazing area is damaged and will barely support 500 cows. It does the farmer no good to put 2,000 animals back there, even though he got away with it one winter. Without a lot of supplemental feeding, he'll be lucky if he doesn't lose his whole herd. I don't know why you can't see that nature works the same way.
Post by: jackmaster on April 30, 2014, 06:45:06 AM
winter kill dont have jack squat to do with over populated habitat, it has everything to do with a hard winter that kills off way more than a normal winter, and with the wolves they make it impossible for the numbers to recover, whats so hard to understand about that, oh i know, if your a pro wolf lover, then anything is skewed in order to make the wolf come out smelling like roses, what also hard for you wolf lovers to understand is THIS ISNT ALASKA OR NORTHERN CANADA, this is the lower 48, completely differant places where the wolf is considered, and the fact that the wolf of today is how many times larger and more aggressive to the wolf that was originally erradicated from the lower 48 by people with a hell of alot more fore thought than the jacknobs of today :tup:
Even after the forest matured there were still plenty of elk until the winterkill, now wolves have prevented the elk from recovering to pre winter-kill numbers. You guys arguing this sound utterly stupid, IDFG has documented that wolves are killing to many elk for a recovery to happen. That is precisely why the management action is being taken, to reduce wolf numbers. Elk could recover to that 10,000 range.
Look at what you just wrote Dale. Winterkill knocked the herd down. Think about that. A big part of the reason is that as the forest matured, it couldn't handle 10,000 elk any more, especially in a bad winter. And what is worse, if you send too many animals into a bad winter on marginal habitat, they likely severely damaged what was left and brought it to a point that even in a mild winter it can't support the animals it once did. And at that point, it is "utterly stupid" to use your term, to try to grow the herd by any method other than repairing the habitat, because if it won't support 3,000 elk, it surely won't support 10,000, wolves or no wolves. What you have there isn't a predator pit, it's a habitat pit.
Say a farmer has an area where 1,000 cows can graze. Then he raises his herd to 2,000 and the first year, a mild winter, he has relatively little trouble. Then he has a really bad couple of winters and not only does he lose some cows, but his grazing area is damaged and will barely support 500 cows. It does the farmer no good to put 2,000 animals back there, even though he got away with it one winter. Without a lot of supplemental feeding, he'll be lucky if he doesn't lose his whole herd. I don't know why you can't see that nature works the same way.
Post by: JLS on April 30, 2014, 07:14:45 AM
winter kill dont have jack squat to do with over populated habitat, it has everything to do with a hard winter that kills off way more than a normal winter, and with the wolves they make it impossible for the numbers to recover, whats so hard to understand about that, oh i know, if your a pro wolf lover, then anything is skewed in order to make the wolf come out smelling like roses, what also hard for you wolf lovers to understand is THIS ISNT ALASKA OR NORTHERN CANADA, this is the lower 48, completely differant places where the wolf is considered, and the fact that the wolf of today is how many times larger and more aggressive to the wolf that was originally erradicated from the lower 48 by people with a hell of alot more fore thought than the jacknobs of today :tup:
You may want to rethink your winter kill statement.
No pro wolf lover here. I'm a pro elk hunter who would like to see things done in a sustainable manner.
Post by: JLS on April 30, 2014, 07:24:16 AM
I asked where I've ever said wolves don't negatively affect ungulate numbers, and all I'm hearin' is crickets.
I bet if you asked IDFG if they could do ANYTHING they wanted in the Lolo zone for elk, no questions asked and no restrictions, they would without hesitation embark on the largest "controlled" burn project you've ever seen.
Post by: wolfbait on April 30, 2014, 07:31:22 AM
You guys can continue to argue this amongst yourselves, I'm out. This is just another sad example of how whenever someone mentions the dreaded "H" word, Dale et al. lose all objectivity, call people idiots, grab their pitchforks and start putting words in people's mouths to reinforce their strawman argument.
I asked where I've ever said wolves don't negatively affect ungulate numbers, and all I'm hearin' is crickets.
I bet if you asked IDFG if they could do ANYTHING they wanted in the Lolo zone for elk, no questions asked and no restrictions, they would without hesitation embark on the largest "controlled" burn project you've ever seen.
I guess you didn't see the study that said improving habitat showed that it didn't affect the herds but instead showed that wolves killed more animals. Those who say habitat is the problem, instead of controlling predators are pushing WDFW's agenda of buying up land. I think from this point on I will just rename you hot air, or the wind. :chuckle:
Post by: AspenBud on April 30, 2014, 08:57:19 AM
You guys can continue to argue this amongst yourselves, I'm out. This is just another sad example of how whenever someone mentions the dreaded "H" word, Dale et al. lose all objectivity, call people idiots, grab their pitchforks and start putting words in people's mouths to reinforce their strawman argument.
I asked where I've ever said wolves don't negatively affect ungulate numbers, and all I'm hearin' is crickets.
I bet if you asked IDFG if they could do ANYTHING they wanted in the Lolo zone for elk, no questions asked and no restrictions, they would without hesitation embark on the largest "controlled" burn project you've ever seen.
Again, look at who is responding and where they live. They don't want to talk about habitat because the discussion has ZERO to do with elk and deer and EVERYTHING to do with cows. People interested in hunting a particular game animal will generally be thoughtful enough to look at the big picture and support predator management AND habitat improvement or expansion.
Post by: KFhunter on April 30, 2014, 09:34:35 AM
Even after the forest matured there were still plenty of elk until the winterkill, now wolves have prevented the elk from recovering to pre winter-kill numbers. You guys arguing this sound utterly stupid, IDFG has documented that wolves are killing to many elk for a recovery to happen. That is precisely why the management action is being taken, to reduce wolf numbers. Elk could recover to that 10,000 range.
Look at what you just wrote Dale. Winterkill knocked the herd down. Think about that. A big part of the reason is that as the forest matured, it couldn't handle 10,000 elk any more, especially in a bad winter. And what is worse, if you send too many animals into a bad winter on marginal habitat, they likely severely damaged what was left and brought it to a point that even in a mild winter it can't support the animals it once did. And at that point, it is "utterly stupid" to use your term, to try to grow the herd by any method other than repairing the habitat, because if it won't support 3,000 elk, it surely won't support 10,000, wolves or no wolves. What you have there isn't a predator pit, it's a habitat pit.
Say a farmer has an area where 1,000 cows can graze. Then he raises his herd to 2,000 and the first year, a mild winter, he has relatively little trouble. Then he has a really bad couple of winters and not only does he lose some cows, but his grazing area is damaged and will barely support 500 cows. It does the farmer no good to put 2,000 animals back there, even though he got away with it one winter. Without a lot of supplemental feeding, he'll be lucky if he doesn't lose his whole herd. I don't know why you can't see that nature works the same way.
You sure don't know much about cattle :chuckle:
Here's what's happening in one particular graze lease I know about, and anyone can verify the veracity of this little tidbit of information with a Sunday drive in the woods....
The wolves are keeping the cattle confined to a fraction of the lease causing serious over grazing in a small area while the rest of the lease goes almost untouched. The ranchers continually drive the cattle up higher on the lease, then overnight find the cattle back down low hugging the corrals and trucks.
You can literally drive through the range and see within a mile the grass go from stubble to 4 foot tall and untouched.
Then guess who comes along and looks at the over grazed small portion and goes "OMGosh look at the over grazing! We got to further restrict the number of cattle on this range!"
Post by: KFhunter on April 30, 2014, 09:46:51 AM
You guys can continue to argue this amongst yourselves, I'm out. This is just another sad example of how whenever someone mentions the dreaded "H" word, Dale et al. lose all objectivity, call people idiots, grab their pitchforks and start putting words in people's mouths to reinforce their strawman argument.
I asked where I've ever said wolves don't negatively affect ungulate numbers, and all I'm hearin' is crickets.
I bet if you asked IDFG if they could do ANYTHING they wanted in the Lolo zone for elk, no questions asked and no restrictions, they would without hesitation embark on the largest "controlled" burn project you've ever seen.
Again, look at who is responding and where they live. They don't want to talk about habitat because the discussion has ZERO to do with elk and deer and EVERYTHING to do with cows. People interested in hunting a particular game animal will generally be thoughtful enough to look at the big picture and support predator management AND habitat improvement or expansion.
Go to the deer and elk section on HW and dig up all the complaints about cattle being left on range too long. Why are these hunters hunting graze leases???
Oh ya, that's because there are more deer/elk on cattle range.
Post by: KFhunter on April 30, 2014, 09:57:48 AM
winter kill dont have jack squat to do with over populated habitat, it has everything to do with a hard winter that kills off way more than a normal winter, and with the wolves they make it impossible for the numbers to recover, whats so hard to understand about that, oh i know, if your a pro wolf lover, then anything is skewed in order to make the wolf come out smelling like roses, what also hard for you wolf lovers to understand is THIS ISNT ALASKA OR NORTHERN CANADA, this is the lower 48, completely differant places where the wolf is considered, and the fact that the wolf of today is how many times larger and more aggressive to the wolf that was originally erradicated from the lower 48 by people with a hell of alot more fore thought than the jacknobs of today :tup:
You may want to rethink your winter kill statement.
No pro wolf lover here. I'm a pro elk hunter who would like to see things done in a sustainable manner.
I see your point JLS, "habitat" is 365/year not just early summer.
What scares me is a deep snow year with cascade concrete, ungulates wallowing around in belly deep snow and wolves loping along on top.
It's instances like this where prey is so easy to come by they kill and leave carcass only partially eaten or not at all - just the stress of being ran is enough to turn a hard winter into a wolf induced "winter kill", like the 176 sheep piled up in Montana, only a few had actual bite marks.
Same with an Elk herd having a hard winter, wolves push them and they use up the energy reserves. Enough energy to turn a hard winter into a "winter kill"
Post by: AspenBud on April 30, 2014, 10:17:29 AM
You guys can continue to argue this amongst yourselves, I'm out. This is just another sad example of how whenever someone mentions the dreaded "H" word, Dale et al. lose all objectivity, call people idiots, grab their pitchforks and start putting words in people's mouths to reinforce their strawman argument.
I asked where I've ever said wolves don't negatively affect ungulate numbers, and all I'm hearin' is crickets.
I bet if you asked IDFG if they could do ANYTHING they wanted in the Lolo zone for elk, no questions asked and no restrictions, they would without hesitation embark on the largest "controlled" burn project you've ever seen.
Again, look at who is responding and where they live. They don't want to talk about habitat because the discussion has ZERO to do with elk and deer and EVERYTHING to do with cows. People interested in hunting a particular game animal will generally be thoughtful enough to look at the big picture and support predator management AND habitat improvement or expansion.
Go to the deer and elk section on HW and dig up all the complaints about cattle being left on range too long. Why are these hunters hunting graze leases???
Oh ya, that's because there are more deer/elk on cattle range.
Exactly my point
Post by: KFhunter on April 30, 2014, 10:21:43 AM
Again, look at who is responding and where they live. They don't want to talk about habitat because the discussion has ZERO to do with elk and deer and EVERYTHING to do with cows. People interested in hunting a particular game animal will generally be thoughtful enough to look at the big picture and support predator management AND habitat improvement or expansion.
Go to the deer and elk section on HW and dig up all the complaints about cattle being left on range too long. Why are these hunters hunting graze leases???
Oh ya, that's because there are more deer/elk on cattle range.
Exactly my point
So we should open more public lands to cattle grazing :chuckle:
either that or severely knock back predators so Elk/Deer rebound to big enough numbers to do the job cattle are doing on their respective ranges.
Post by: AspenBud on April 30, 2014, 10:27:21 AM
So we should open more public lands to cattle grazing :chuckle:
That's certainly an option to consider.
Post by: bearpaw on May 01, 2014, 08:05:57 AM
Well, with the Lolo zone in particular I am entirely comfortable in saying that a major forest fire would have far greater impacts on future elk populations than killing some wolves. Certainly that will affect short term numbers, but it won't provide near the long term benefit of major habitat alteration.
I am stating this from my personal experience hunting in the Lolo zone, and professional opinions from Idaho Conservation Officers that have hunted and/or worked the Lolo zone.
Go back and look at population data. That herd crashed hard in the middle to late 90's, long before wolves were heavily established in that area.
Here, I bolded it for you. One of many similar comments I have made. I challenge you to find me one time I've said that wolves don't impact elk numbers.
If you read this real slow, and within context, you'll understand that I am saying that killing the wolves will provide a short term improvement. To think it's a long term solution, without addressing the issue of habitat, is folly.
The graphs show that there were 3 times as many elk before the winter kill and wolf explosion. Once enough predators are removed to allow the elk numbers to increase three fold, then habitat improvements may be needed to further increase elk numbers. If you read the plan you will learn that IDFG is attempting to improve habitat. But it doesn't matter how good the habitat is until you get the elk survival rate higher and the predation rate lower. It's really pretty simple if you can allow yourself to look at the whole picture.
So then how do you explain the fact that the decline started in the 1980s? The canary was in the coal mine. The two big die offs are indicative of what will happen again if the habitat isn't improved.
I'm looking at the whole picture just fine thank you.
You can argue the chicken or the egg all you want. I have no problem with attempting predator control to give the herds room to grow. But if you do it without improving the available habitat one will be sorely disappointed. I recall very liberal bear and cougar seasons in the mid to late 90s, but numbers still declined. The area certainly was not overrun with wolves in 1999, yet you didn't see a reversal in the decline, did you?
I am not saying that one event has to happen before the other. I could care less. I do care that dumping money and resources into predator control AS A LONG TERM SOLUTION is going to be a huge disappointment as to the results.
You guys can continue to argue this amongst yourselves, I'm out. This is just another sad example of how whenever someone mentions the dreaded "H" word, Dale et al. lose all objectivity, call people idiots, grab their pitchforks and start putting words in people's mouths to reinforce their strawman argument.
I asked where I've ever said wolves don't negatively affect ungulate numbers, and all I'm hearin' is crickets.
I bet if you asked IDFG if they could do ANYTHING they wanted in the Lolo zone for elk, no questions asked and no restrictions, they would without hesitation embark on the largest "controlled" burn project you've ever seen.
JLS, I completely agree that elk numbers dropped prior to the winter kill, that's all documented. I also completely agree that habitat is a factor, but like many others I get sick and tired of seeing agencies and wolf groups use the "Habitat" excuse to cover for poor management decisions and as an excuse to say wolves are not a problem when in fact they have been documented to be a problem.
The initial decline was actually due to several reasons, for many years IDFG allowed excessive hunting seasons for bulls and cows, over harvest by humans was probably the #1 cause of the initial decline. Also logging was curtailed by USFS and that depleted the quality of habitat and at the same time wolf numbers peaked, so there definitely was a multitude of factors involved in the initial decline.
So then a bad winter took it's toll. It doesn't matter what type of habitat is on the ground, when snow is 5 feet deep with extended cold the animals can't eat enough and many will die. Bad winters happen every few years they are a fact of life. After bad winters game herds begin to expand and eventually should reach prior numbers if other factors have not changed.
Now we are several years past the bad winter but the herd continues to decline. Anyone prudent in reversing this trend must consider all factors. The habitat was already a problem before the winter kill occurred yet there were roughly 6000 elk occupying the Lolo in the bad habitat with excessive hunting seasons and predators. IDFG has since implemented second bear tags and second cougar tags and extended seasons on bear and cougar dramatically to reduce bear and cougar numbers. IDFG has reduced bull elk hunting seasons, eliminated cow elk hunting, and capped bull elk tag sales. The herd continues to decline even though there is only 2000 elk on the same habitat.
The only other factor is wolves and the fact that wolves are eating more elk than the herd can reproduce each year, thus the continued decline. The graphs and math tell the story. This is not only my thoughts, this is reinforced by IDFG.
Like it or not, this is called a predator pit when predators are eating more animals than are recruited by natural reproduction each year thus preventing a herd from recovering. Until the predator pit is resolved it does not matter how much lunch is on the table (habitat), the herd cannot recover. Resolve the predator pit while trying to fix the habitat problem and the herd will eventually recover. :twocents:
What I don't understand is why the same people who claim wilderness is such a good thing also imply this lack of forest stewardship (poor habitat) is the problem with elk numbers. I understand habitat is a problem, I just don't understand the double standard of the wilderness crowd. Which way do you say is best for wildlife, logging or no logging? :twocents:
The best thing that could happen in the Lolo is if predators are adequately thinned and logging is resumed to create jobs and habitat. Why should we burn all that timber when it has economic value? Log it, burn the slash, remove any new roads that were made while logging, same results as if it burned. We then provide jobs, gain habitat, and gain more elk because the predator numbers have been reduced as IDFG is now doing. Once the prey numbers increase then more predators can be supported, so everyone wins. It's all pretty simple when allowed to happen.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 01, 2014, 08:46:58 AM
Are you on drugs?? People hunt on grazing leases because most of the land is tied up in one! There is not "more wildlife" on a piece of ground because it is grazed!So we should open more public lands to cattle grazing :chuckle:
That's certainly an option to consider.
Even after the forest matured there were still plenty of elk until the winterkill, now wolves have prevented the elk from recovering to pre winter-kill numbers. You guys arguing this sound utterly stupid, IDFG has documented that wolves are killing to many elk for a recovery to happen. That is precisely why the management action is being taken, to reduce wolf numbers. Elk could recover to that 10,000 range.
Look at what you just wrote Dale. Winterkill knocked the herd down. Think about that. A big part of the reason is that as the forest matured, it couldn't handle 10,000 elk any more, especially in a bad winter. And what is worse, if you send too many animals into a bad winter on marginal habitat, they likely severely damaged what was left and brought it to a point that even in a mild winter it can't support the animals it once did. And at that point, it is "utterly stupid" to use your term, to try to grow the herd by any method other than repairing the habitat, because if it won't support 3,000 elk, it surely won't support 10,000, wolves or no wolves. What you have there isn't a predator pit, it's a habitat pit.
Say a farmer has an area where 1,000 cows can graze. Then he raises his herd to 2,000 and the first year, a mild winter, he has relatively little trouble. Then he has a really bad couple of winters and not only does he lose some cows, but his grazing area is damaged and will barely support 500 cows. It does the farmer no good to put 2,000 animals back there, even though he got away with it one winter. Without a lot of supplemental feeding, he'll be lucky if he doesn't lose his whole herd. I don't know why you can't see that nature works the same way.
YES! You nailed it. Elk populations plummeted because or multiple forces. Wolves were PART of that, habitat maturation/degradation was also a big part of it. Wolves added to the problem, but are not the only cause.
If anyone thinks that herd can rebound to the past high (10k?) without making amendments to the habitat, they are wrong. Killing wolves is a quick fix and a Band-Aid for the bigger problem, which needs to be addressed to finish the elk herd recovery.
Post by: bearpaw on May 01, 2014, 09:18:34 AM
YES! You nailed it. Elk populations plummeted because or multiple forces. Wolves were PART of that, habitat maturation/degradation was also a big part of it. Wolves added to the problem, but are not the only cause.
If anyone thinks that herd can rebound to the past high (10k?) without making amendments to the habitat, they are wrong. Killing wolves is a quick fix and a Band-Aid for the bigger problem, which needs to be addressed to finish the elk herd recovery.
I think I pretty much agreed with you in my previous post. Obviously no recovery can begin until the predator pit is resolved, then yes we need habitat improvements for a full recovery.
Are you on drugs?? People hunt on grazing leases because most of the land is tied up in one! There is not "more wildlife" on a piece of ground because it is grazed!So we should open more public lands to cattle grazing :chuckle:
That's certainly an option to consider.
Actually there is some info I've read that indicates that cattle grazing keeps new growth coming on plants and make them more palatable than over mature plants that haven't been grazed. From what I've seen on my leases which are all heavily grazed, the deer come off neighboring ungrazed areas to feed in close proximity to cattle. If the food is better in the ungrazed thick forest why do they come into the grazed areas at night to feed?
My hunting experience in also Utah (some of the best elk hunting anywhere) tells me that grazed range lands provide excellent elk habitat as well. I'm not saying over grazing is good, I'm talking about sensible grazing. There are good and bad grazing practices and from what I've seen reasonable grazing is not detrimental to wildlife.
Post by: AspenBud on May 01, 2014, 09:31:12 AM
YES! You nailed it. Elk populations plummeted because or multiple forces. Wolves were PART of that, habitat maturation/degradation was also a big part of it. Wolves added to the problem, but are not the only cause.
If anyone thinks that herd can rebound to the past high (10k?) without making amendments to the habitat, they are wrong. Killing wolves is a quick fix and a Band-Aid for the bigger problem, which needs to be addressed to finish the elk herd recovery.
I think I pretty much agreed with you in my previous post. Obviously no recovery can begin until the predator pit is resolved, then yes we need habitat improvements for a full recovery.Are you on drugs?? People hunt on grazing leases because most of the land is tied up in one! There is not "more wildlife" on a piece of ground because it is grazed!So we should open more public lands to cattle grazing :chuckle:
That's certainly an option to consider.
Actually there is some info I've read that indicates that cattle grazing keeps new growth coming on plants and make them more palatable than over mature plants that haven't been grazed. From what I've seen on my leases which are all heavily grazed, the deer come off neighboring ungrazed areas to feed in close proximity to cattle. If the food is better in the ungrazed thick forest why do they come into the grazed areas at night to feed?
My hunting experience in also Utah (some of the best elk hunting anywhere) tells me that grazed range lands provide excellent elk habitat as well. I'm not saying over grazing is good, I'm talking about sensible grazing. There are good and bad grazing practices and from what I've seen reasonable grazing is not detrimental to wildlife.
What would be interesting to know is what is on the ground in that thick forest. Clear cuts bring on increases in prey animals, ruffed grouse hunters and deer hunters seek out older cuts for that reason.
I'm guessing that a good look in that forest land would reveal either plant species that deer and elk don't favor as much or they contain bare forest bottoms. If sunlight isn't getting through the canopy there isn't much for ungulates to eat.
JLS is right, some of the areas where wolves are a problem would probably be well served with a napalm strike.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 01, 2014, 09:35:45 AM
I know this is a hunting forum and we want to see big (edible) wildlife, but we should also consider the smaller creatures when we discuss habitats. An old stand of trees with little understory might not be useful for elk/deer/moose, but it is critical for martens, fishers, birds, amphibians.... I know that is sometimes an unpopular position around here, but I think it's important to maintain those populations too.
Post by: bearpaw on May 01, 2014, 10:03:41 AM
YES! You nailed it. Elk populations plummeted because or multiple forces. Wolves were PART of that, habitat maturation/degradation was also a big part of it. Wolves added to the problem, but are not the only cause.
If anyone thinks that herd can rebound to the past high (10k?) without making amendments to the habitat, they are wrong. Killing wolves is a quick fix and a Band-Aid for the bigger problem, which needs to be addressed to finish the elk herd recovery.
I think I pretty much agreed with you in my previous post. Obviously no recovery can begin until the predator pit is resolved, then yes we need habitat improvements for a full recovery.Are you on drugs?? People hunt on grazing leases because most of the land is tied up in one! There is not "more wildlife" on a piece of ground because it is grazed!So we should open more public lands to cattle grazing :chuckle:
That's certainly an option to consider.
Actually there is some info I've read that indicates that cattle grazing keeps new growth coming on plants and make them more palatable than over mature plants that haven't been grazed. From what I've seen on my leases which are all heavily grazed, the deer come off neighboring ungrazed areas to feed in close proximity to cattle. If the food is better in the ungrazed thick forest why do they come into the grazed areas at night to feed?
My hunting experience in also Utah (some of the best elk hunting anywhere) tells me that grazed range lands provide excellent elk habitat as well. I'm not saying over grazing is good, I'm talking about sensible grazing. There are good and bad grazing practices and from what I've seen reasonable grazing is not detrimental to wildlife.
What would be interesting to know is what is on the ground in that thick forest. Clear cuts bring on increases in prey animals, ruffed grouse hunters and deer hunters seek out older cuts for that reason.
I'm guessing that a good look in that forest land would reveal either plant species that deer and elk don't favor as much or they contain bare forest bottoms. If sunlight isn't getting through the canopy there isn't much for ungulates to eat.
JLS is right, some of the areas where wolves are a problem would probably be well served with a napalm strike.
Vegetation is more limited and by late summer plants are very mature if not grazed. Not trying to say all lands should be grazed and logged but proper grazing and logging is not the evil that greenies try to portray it as.
:rolleyes: Why burn a forest with napalm when you could log it, burn the slash, remove any new roads made during the logging activity, and have the same end effect as a fire while at the same time providing jobs and forest products for our citizens? :dunno:
Cattle grazing certainly does help keep an area from senescing. I would prefer to see that browse caused by native ungulates though. Deer/elk/moose can do the same thing.
I know this is a hunting forum and we want to see big (edible) wildlife, but we should also consider the smaller creatures when we discuss habitats. An old stand of trees with little understory might not be useful for elk/deer/moose, but it is critical for martens, fishers, birds, amphibians.... I know that is sometimes an unpopular position around here, but I think it's important to maintain those populations too.
I appreciate all the animals as well and understand some species may need thick habitat. I do not think we need to graze or log all the countryside or our wilderness areas, some areas should remain as natural as possible. But there needs to be some reason in this sea of environmentalism. The greenies would have everything outside the I-5 corridor designated as wilderness if they could accomplish it. :twocents:
Post by: AspenBud on May 01, 2014, 10:28:52 AM
Vegetation is more limited and by late summer plants are very mature if not grazed. Not trying to say all lands should be grazed and logged but proper grazing and logging is not the evil that greenies try to portray it as.
:rolleyes: Why burn a forest with napalm when you could log it, burn the slash, remove any new roads made during the logging activity, and have the same end effect as a fire while at the same time providing jobs and forest products for our citizens? :dunno:
My napalm comment was intended as a metaphor. I agree with your thoughts here.
Cattle grazing certainly does help keep an area from senescing. I would prefer to see that browse caused by native ungulates though. Deer/elk/moose can do the same thing.
I know this is a hunting forum and we want to see big (edible) wildlife, but we should also consider the smaller creatures when we discuss habitats. An old stand of trees with little understory might not be useful for elk/deer/moose, but it is critical for martens, fishers, birds, amphibians.... I know that is sometimes an unpopular position around here, but I think it's important to maintain those populations too.
I appreciate all the animals as well and understand some species may need thick habitat. I do not think we need to graze or log all the countryside or our wilderness areas, some areas should remain as natural as possible. But there needs to be some reason in this sea of environmentalism. The greenies would have everything outside the I-5 corridor designated as wilderness if they could accomplish it. :twocents:
What you're calling for here is mixed age class forest land, something I also agree with. What the anti logging folks don't understand is in the absence of forest fires you're left with clear cutting. They want people to keep their hands off the land and let it manage itself, yet they want the forest service to put out fires which in effect means we're not taking a hands off approach to nature. They can't have it both ways.
Post by: wolfbait on May 01, 2014, 11:56:15 AM
Cattle grazing certainly does help keep an area from senescing. I would prefer to see that browse caused by native ungulates though. Deer/elk/moose can do the same thing.
I know this is a hunting forum and we want to see big (edible) wildlife, but we should also consider the smaller creatures when we discuss habitats. An old stand of trees with little understory might not be useful for elk/deer/moose, but it is critical for martens, fishers, birds, amphibians.... I know that is sometimes an unpopular position around here, but I think it's important to maintain those populations too.
Aw yes connecting corridors, I think thats what WDFW have plans for in their 30 year wildlands plan. You did notice there was NO mention of hunters in the plan.
Protect predators and then when the game herds etc. drop into the predator pit, blame it on not enough habitat, but first send their brain-washed biologists and DoW greenies to hunting sites etc. to promote "the more Habitat" BS. What a plan!
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 01, 2014, 12:37:52 PM
Post by: wolfbait on May 01, 2014, 12:45:03 PM
We are very lucky that you are not brainwashed like the rest of us numb wits. :tinfoil:
My guess is you mean't like the rest of the WDFW biologists, and this time you are correct. Mark one up for the habitat wind :tup: