Post by: bearpaw on August 04, 2014, 03:29:29 AM
Post by: bearpaw on August 04, 2014, 04:38:25 AM
Post by: bearpaw on August 04, 2014, 04:41:36 AM
Post by: huntnnw on August 04, 2014, 05:11:19 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 04, 2014, 06:41:26 AM
This should provide proof to the ones saying elk hunting is still great in ID :chuckle:
No, the resident wolf lovers will claim it's all habitat loss and has nothing to do with the wolves. According to them, the wolves are the only reason there are any elk left at all. It's disgusting to me that our government has forced this on us and that a segment of the population refuses to see the harm.
Post by: jasnt on August 04, 2014, 07:23:29 AM
This should provide proof to the ones saying elk hunting is still great in ID :chuckle:
No, the resident wolf lovers will claim it's all habitat loss and has nothing to do with the wolves. According to them, the wolves are the only reason there are any elk left at all. It's disgusting to me that our government has forced this on us and that a segment of the population refuses to see the harm.
:yeah:
This gets me wondering what the last 10 years look like in NE Washington. I'm wondering if we may be already starting this kind of trend here as well. Ill have to look in to it
Post by: Jacque on August 04, 2014, 07:35:27 AM
Post by: jasnt on August 04, 2014, 07:54:54 AM
Post by: wolfbait on August 04, 2014, 08:19:33 AM
This should provide proof to the ones saying elk hunting is still great in ID :chuckle:
No, the resident wolf lovers will claim it's all habitat loss and has nothing to do with the wolves. According to them, the wolves are the only reason there are any elk left at all. It's disgusting to me that our government has forced this on us and that a segment of the population refuses to see the harm.
:yeah:
This gets me wondering what the last 10 years look like in NE Washington. I'm wondering if we may be already starting this kind of trend here as well. Ill have to look in to it
The hunting and ungulates will end up just like the Lolo elk herd, with WDFW refusing to acknowledge that their wolves and other uncontrolled predators are having any impact on the game herds. "For the amount of hunters that showed up, the season was a great success" WDFW biologist in the Methow Valley.
Post by: nwwanderer on August 04, 2014, 08:52:15 AM
Post by: Bob33 on August 04, 2014, 09:09:11 AM
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/planElk.pdf (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/planElk.pdf)
"Elk populations and IDFG are facing new and ever changing opportunities and challenges, including:
1) the return of wolves to the landscape;
2) continued declines or instability of elk herds in the backcountry;
3) elk population expansion in southern Idaho, limited by the amount of crop and property damage that can be sustained;
4) habitat loss and modification;
5) declining elk hunter numbers; and
6) increased importance of the social aspects of elk hunting to elk hunters."
Post by: WA hunter14 on August 04, 2014, 09:13:55 AM
Post by: bearpaw on August 04, 2014, 10:38:55 AM
Elk are doing well in zones that have not been impacted by wolves, some of those zones have robust and growing elk herds. So the wolf supporters like to combine those zones counts with the wolf impacted zone counts and say that wolves have not impacted elk herds in Idaho.
The habitat excuse, there is no doubt that some of the wolf impacted zones that used to support larger herds do not have as good of habitat due to USFS limiting logging, but some of these wolf impacted zones are wilderness that was never logged and Idaho has had many forest fires in the last 10 years in some of these wolf impacted zones, so the habitat issue doesn't hold much credibility when you compare one wolf impacted zone to another. The biggest common factor is wolves in these impacted areas.
If the lack of logging or fire was the biggest factor limiting elk herds why are the zones without many wolves producing high elk counts? That's right, because wolves are the biggest factor. It's not so much cougar or bear as wolves because Idaho has been intensively managing cougar and bear for several years to try and absorb the newly emerged wolf impacts.
The bright side for Idaho is that wolves are being managed heavily and brought under control in many areas and most everyone (hunters and outfitters I know) agree that some of the damaged herds are beginning to come back.
Now the million dollar questions:
With wolves multiplying, will WDFW manage cougars and bear more intensively to prevent increased predator impacts?
What will Washington due when wolves get delisted?
the moose were also hit realy hard too probably worse
Yes wolves hit the moose hard plus there have been some parasite/disease issues for moose in areas without many wolves. Moose are down everywhere in the Rockies, but are especially low in numbers in wolf impacted areas. If you notice, WDFW has already started reducing moose permit numbers in the Selkirk GMU, moose numbers are dropping in that GMU. (where we have had wolves the longest).
Post by: huntnphool on August 04, 2014, 11:13:09 AM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on August 04, 2014, 11:20:04 AM
Excerpt from IDFG's elk plan:#5 nailed it .. :dunno: That's what they want to hear !
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/planElk.pdf (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/planElk.pdf)
"Elk populations and IDFG are facing new and ever changing opportunities and challenges, including:
1) the return of wolves to the landscape;
2) continued declines or instability of elk herds in the backcountry;
3) elk population expansion in southern Idaho, limited by the amount of crop and property damage that can be sustained;
4) habitat loss and modification;
5) declining elk hunter numbers; and
6) increased importance of the social aspects of elk hunting to elk hunters."
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on August 04, 2014, 11:23:56 AM
That's my experience, I know people that hunted Lolo who no longer find elk in their old hunting grounds, just wolves. I also know people that hunt McCall that are successful yearly, but also find wolves. I think Idaho has a head start on getting the population to a manageable level, where they wont annihilate a herd because there are to many, but live off the sick and weak that should die anyways. If they can achieve and maintain that population level, we shouldn't have to worry about the wolves wiping anything out. We hunters who willing to take advantage of some very generous wolf seasons will play a big part of reaching that level.
Post by: Bob33 on August 04, 2014, 11:29:37 AM
How much of the reduction in overall harvest is due to fewer hunters, versus the same number of hunters killing fewer animals?
Post by: walleye1 on August 04, 2014, 11:37:28 AM
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on August 04, 2014, 11:53:18 AM
93 94 winter kills have something to do with these numbers. But the wolves are not helping
I noticed this also, some big swings in the numbers in the late 80's early 90's prior to the wolves.
Post by: AspenBud on August 04, 2014, 01:38:30 PM
It would be helpful to see the data normalized for hunter numbers. If harvest decreased by 50%, and hunter numbers decreased by 50% the per hunter harvest would be unchanged.
How much of the reduction in overall harvest is due to fewer hunters, versus the same number of hunters killing fewer animals?
That was the question that came to my mind. That and how many simply chose to hunt in areas unaffected by wolves rather than those that were? Did those areas see an increased harvest? :dunno:
Post by: idaho guy on August 04, 2014, 02:25:38 PM
Post by: idaho guy on August 04, 2014, 02:34:15 PM
Post by: Bob33 on August 04, 2014, 02:34:34 PM
wolves kill elk-lots of them and you cant twist the stats with gee maybe less guys are hunting!Are you saying that Idaho has the same number of elk hunters now that it did before wolves were introduced? If so, what incentive does IDFG have to address wolves?
Post by: jasnt on August 04, 2014, 03:04:40 PM
I would say to prevent the other areas from dramatic losses!wolves kill elk-lots of them and you cant twist the stats with gee maybe less guys are hunting!Are you saying that Idaho has the same number of elk hunters now that it did before wolves were introduced? If so, what incentive does IDFG have to address wolves?
Post by: AspenBud on August 04, 2014, 03:26:11 PM
wolves kill elk-lots of them and you cant twist the stats with gee maybe less guys are hunting!Are you saying that Idaho has the same number of elk hunters now that it did before wolves were introduced? If so, what incentive does IDFG have to address wolves?
That's what's interesting. I did some checking and the number of licensed hunters, state wide, doesn't appear to have changed up or down by much over the years. The number of tags sold has varied, but fundamentally that has stayed steady as well. In fact I think the state has been trying to find ways to increase license sales as they have been rather flat for years.
This report, which only goes back to 2004, shows what I'm talking about...
http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/LicenseInfo/HuntingLicCertHistory20042013.pdf (http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/LicenseInfo/HuntingLicCertHistory20042013.pdf)
Post by: idaho guy on August 04, 2014, 03:43:02 PM
:yeah:I would say to prevent the other areas from dramatic losses!wolves kill elk-lots of them and you cant twist the stats with gee maybe less guys are hunting!Are you saying that Idaho has the same number of elk hunters now that it did before wolves were introduced? If so, what incentive does IDFG have to address wolves?
exactly, maybe to save a few elk? Its Idaho fish& GAME-they are funded by tag sales but their job is to manage and sustain wildlife for everyone not just sell elk tags. NO there are not as many hunters either-I believe out of state tag sales are down from a few years ago. So there is less hunters but that is not a signifigant reason for the massive harvest declines. The percentage decline in hunters does not match up with the massive harvest decrease. Look at the map where wolves were planted and follow the migration north. Harvest stats tell the story and so do population surveys. Wolves kill elk and I think playing games with theorys about less hunters etc does not help address the problem. Wolves kill elk and we need to manage them aggresively. I think in Idaho we have the chance to do that and we will continue to have good elk huntingalong with wolves its just sad that once awesome areas have already been decimated.
Post by: idaho guy on August 04, 2014, 04:00:27 PM
Post by: bearpaw on August 04, 2014, 04:35:27 PM
93 94 winter kills have something to do with these numbers. But the wolves are not helping
I noticed this also, some big swings in the numbers in the late 80's early 90's prior to the wolves.
It's normal for herds to cycle with weather/winters, during a hard winter herd numbers may decline then in years afterward the numbers rebuild, unless of course there is a predator pit preventing ungulate herds from rebounding. It certainly can be argued that wolves, bears, coyotes, and cougars combined may create a more intense predator pit.
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=27635
Quote
We suspect that cougar predation can keep a prey population at an unnaturally low density (a “predator pit”).
Holling (1959) demonstrated that additive mortality due to predation could interact with density-dependent prey dynamics (Figure 2.2) to create either 1 or 2 stable equilibrium densities for the prey population. The theoretical basis is strong, and it is
plausible that such dynamics exist for some predator-prey systems. In vertebrate predator-prey systems, the higher equilibrium (near but somewhat below the carrying capacity set by food resources) is considered the natural state of affairs, but following a catastrophe (such as severe winter weather, drought, a tornado, a disease epidemic, or isolation of a population segment by a freeway), mortality from predation can, in theory at least, keep prey at an equilibrium far below food-based K – a situation referred to as a “predator pit” (Haber 1977, Bergerud et al. 1983, Messier 1994).
The northern YNP elk herd is a perfect example of wolves increasing already present predator impacts. This herd once provided the premier late elk hunt in the west. Montana has had to completely eliminate the late hunts on this migrating elk herd to try and save it. There are no longer any late hunts yet the herd continues to decline. Arguably the same "predator pit" scenario has likely occurred in certain impacted areas of Idaho.
Post by: bearpaw on August 04, 2014, 04:50:18 PM
I would say to prevent the other areas from dramatic losses!wolves kill elk-lots of them and you cant twist the stats with gee maybe less guys are hunting!Are you saying that Idaho has the same number of elk hunters now that it did before wolves were introduced? If so, what incentive does IDFG have to address wolves?
I think the Idaho F&G Dept/Commission is very aware of wolf and other predator impacts, thus the reason you see increasingly aggressive cougar, bear, and wolf management/seasons in Idaho. They are not going to allow herds to continue in decline, they are most certainly acting as needed. Many areas have spring bear seasons from April to June or July plus fall bear hunting with bait and hounds allowed in both seasons, Sept-March 31 for cougar with hounds allowed when ungulate seasons close, wolf hunting/trapping ranges from 6-12 months with up to 5 tags in many areas. Yet there is caution to prevent over harvest by having harvest quotas in many zones for cougar and wolves.
Post by: bearpaw on August 04, 2014, 05:06:33 PM
should have read that post first- I change my answer NO there are not less hunters in idaho! I did read that out of state tag sales were down though
You are correct, Non-Res sales are down, hunter numbers are also down in many of the wolf impacted units too. For example the Lolo Zone elk herd is 10% to 20% of former herd size and hunter numbers are greatly reduced by IDFG implementing a tag sales quota in that zone to try and allow the herd to grow. Wolf control action has also been taken. In several other zones IDFG has limited tag numbers to decrease the number of hunters greatly because herd counts are down and previous harvest levels cannot be supported while trying to recover those herds. Anyone claiming harvest is down only because of fewer hunters certainly hasn't studied to see that IDFG had to reduce hunter numbers to save certain herds which could not support the continued harvest.
Not all zones have been impacted by predators and there are good herds to hunt in many units where wolves have not impacted herds. But, that doesn't mean the wolf impacted zones have healthy herds too, F&G has had to reduce elk hunting opportunity and implement aggressive predator seasons to save these impacted herds. I'm appalled that some seemingly intelligent hunters cannot understand this. :dunno:
Post by: Bob33 on August 04, 2014, 05:36:48 PM
Post by: bearpaw on August 04, 2014, 05:48:07 PM
A hunter would have to look real hard to find any good news in that data.
I'm very optimistic about Idaho, they now understand their problems and are taking corrective actions. :tup:
Washington is another story, our WDFW seems to still believe the Disney science and conclusions in the wolf plan and used by Wielgus from WSU in his cougar study. :bash:
Post by: Bob33 on August 04, 2014, 06:00:39 PM
Post by: bearpaw on August 04, 2014, 06:11:33 PM
I quit hunting Idaho for elk in 2005, primarily because of wolves. I hope to return some day
It's undermanaged predator numbers that cause herds to decline. Idaho is past that and getting control of predators. Just watch herd counts and hunt somewhere other than the most depressed units.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 04, 2014, 06:57:39 PM
The presentation of data for most of the units bearpaw posted requires some caveats so they can be more accurately interpreted:
1. We had 2 very severe winters in 92-93 and 96-97
2. The late 1980s was the high point or pinnacle for most elk zones in terms of elk numbers...as in historic highs...largely the result of land management practices in the 50's and 60's (this would be that habitat thing I bring up occassionally :chuckle: )
3. Many of the units reported became zoned hunts with capped tag numbers in the late 90's. Responses to increasing demand in specific units, harsh winters, and changing management priorities placed units and zones with otc tags or antlerless harvest into restricted zones causing significant declines in harvest for both social and biological reasons.
So, what all these caveats mean is that a graph showing declining elk harvest from 1989-2012 is not in all cases a "smoking gun" that wolves are to blame...I would consider it more the straw that broke the camels back in some units...harsh winters, coming off historic highs, poor habitat, and a new predator...that is what caused declines in the Lolo. If we had the habitat and climate conditions of the early 1980s with wolves in the Lolo zone there would still be a lot of elk...much like the zones in Idaho today where wolves are plentiful and so are the elk.
One last point in response to this quote:
I have always supported IDFG on their wolf management efforts. While some folks are finally starting to pull their head out of the sand I want to remind folks that the key staff responsible for predator management has not changed...its almost entirely the same staff IDFG had when wolf numbers started to ramp up. Their philosophies, science, priorities, etc. are virtually unchanged as well. It wasn't any more popular in 2004 in Idaho when I would tell people IDFG are Idaho sportsmens biggest allies than now in 2014 when I say the same about WDFW. WDFW actually has some better information and experience to work with in managing wolves in this state, but they have many challenges (mostly political) that IDFG managers did not have to worry about. I predict a similar outcome for WA...wolves will impact some areas, particularly those with poor habitat, have a mild effect in others, and have little or no impact on a lot of gmus.
I'm very optimistic about Idaho, they now understand their problems and are taking corrective actions. :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on August 04, 2014, 07:36:48 PM
Post by: bearpaw on August 04, 2014, 07:41:49 PM
Basically what needs to happen in WDFW, a little correction in certain management.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 04, 2014, 07:54:50 PM
FYI - You leave out a great many important points Idahohntr, including the fact that many in IDFG had to learn the hard knocks about wolf management just as they are in WA now. The people of Idaho and Governor Otter had to tell IDFG to manage wolves, Otter prevented IDFG from pursuing wolf poachers, IDFG was headed down the same road of denial as WDFW is doing now, that's all documented in the many pages of wolf topics on this forum. :twocents:Bearpaw- Please don't make me go track down the post where I already pointed out the complete fallacy you tried to push on here about Otter being elected because of his promises of wolf management...the most famous of which he made AFTER the election.
IDFG was not "told" by the people of Idaho or by Otter to do anything differently than they intended to do all along in service of the sportsmen and women who enjoy Idaho's outdoors. Idaho is a right to work state...if somebody in Idaho was managing wolves in a way that was displeasing to Otter they would not have a job then or today.
You also misconstrue what Otter said about pursuing wolf poachers...the message was to USFWS and the Feds that since wolves were re-listed then Idaho was not going to spend a dime managing them (including enforcement)...it was the result of frustration with lawsuits and judges...USFWS wanted to de-list them as well as IDFG and most Idahoans...it was lawsuits from the enviro crowd and a federal judge that caused us the headaches.
Those are the facts whether you choose to believe them or not.
But most of this is meaningless when it comes to WA wolf management, which is where the focus should really be at. WDFW faces many challenges that ID, MT, WY did not have....and I am pleased the commission denied the wolf groups petition to limit lethal take, but the realities are that the politics of this state are a very different animal that will require great finesse...and frankly, I think WDFW biologists on up to their director have sportsmen's interests at heart...whether or not the majority of hunters recognize how much we need wdfw to have successful management of wolves... :dunno: I can assure you...there is no path to a favorable outcome on wolf and elk/deer management in this state that does not require the support of current wdfw staff. They are the biggest ally we have in this state.
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on August 04, 2014, 08:45:57 PM
Wolves have an impact on elk numbers and behavior. The impacts of wolves have been and continue to be exaggerated by many folks in *most* zones of Idaho. Whats funny is the guys who clearly do this to try and steer folks away from their units :chuckle: :chuckle: Additionally, there are a whole bunch of units in Idaho which have experienced no impacts due to wolves.
The presentation of data for most of the units bearpaw posted requires some caveats so they can be more accurately interpreted:
1. We had 2 very severe winters in 92-93 and 96-97
2. The late 1980s was the high point or pinnacle for most elk zones in terms of elk numbers...as in historic highs...largely the result of land management practices in the 50's and 60's (this would be that habitat thing I bring up occassionally :chuckle: )
3. Many of the units reported became zoned hunts with capped tag numbers in the late 90's. Responses to increasing demand in specific units, harsh winters, and changing management priorities placed units and zones with otc tags or antlerless harvest into restricted zones causing significant declines in harvest for both social and biological reasons.
So, what all these caveats mean is that a graph showing declining elk harvest from 1989-2012 is not in all cases a "smoking gun" that wolves are to blame...I would consider it more the straw that broke the camels back in some units...harsh winters, coming off historic highs, poor habitat, and a new predator...that is what caused declines in the Lolo. If we had the habitat and climate conditions of the early 1980s with wolves in the Lolo zone there would still be a lot of elk...much like the zones in Idaho today where wolves are plentiful and so are the elk.
One last point in response to this quote:I have always supported IDFG on their wolf management efforts. While some folks are finally starting to pull their head out of the sand I want to remind folks that the key staff responsible for predator management has not changed...its almost entirely the same staff IDFG had when wolf numbers started to ramp up. Their philosophies, science, priorities, etc. are virtually unchanged as well. It wasn't any more popular in 2004 in Idaho when I would tell people IDFG are Idaho sportsmens biggest allies than now in 2014 when I say the same about WDFW. WDFW actually has some better information and experience to work with in managing wolves in this state, but they have many challenges (mostly political) that IDFG managers did not have to worry about. I predict a similar outcome for WA...wolves will impact some areas, particularly those with poor habitat, have a mild effect in others, and have little or no impact on a lot of gmus.
I'm very optimistic about Idaho, they now understand their problems and are taking corrective actions. :tup:
There is always more than just one factor. Thank you for pointing this out. It sounds like you have seen the changes here first hand. It is obvious that the land management practices have been forgotten. That is one thing I would love to see Idaho put as much effort into as they have managing the wolf population. We need better management of our timber lands.
And the elk hunting is still good here, put your work into it and you will be successful. It is still much better than Washington and the primary reason I left that state.
Post by: bearpaw on August 04, 2014, 08:58:59 PM
FYI - You leave out a great many important points Idahohntr, including the fact that many in IDFG had to learn the hard knocks about wolf management just as they are in WA now. The people of Idaho and Governor Otter had to tell IDFG to manage wolves, Otter prevented IDFG from pursuing wolf poachers, IDFG was headed down the same road of denial as WDFW is doing now, that's all documented in the many pages of wolf topics on this forum. :twocents:Bearpaw- Please don't make me go track down the post where I already pointed out the complete fallacy you tried to push on here about Otter being elected because of his promises of wolf management...the most famous of which he made AFTER the election.
IDFG was not "told" by the people of Idaho or by Otter to do anything differently than they intended to do all along in service of the sportsmen and women who enjoy Idaho's outdoors. Idaho is a right to work state...if somebody in Idaho was managing wolves in a way that was displeasing to Otter they would not have a job then or today.
You also misconstrue what Otter said about pursuing wolf poachers...the message was to USFWS and the Feds that since wolves were re-listed then Idaho was not going to spend a dime managing them (including enforcement)...it was the result of frustration with lawsuits and judges...USFWS wanted to de-list them as well as IDFG and most Idahoans...it was lawsuits from the enviro crowd and a federal judge that caused us the headaches.
Those are the facts whether you choose to believe them or not.
But most of this is meaningless when it comes to WA wolf management, which is where the focus should really be at. WDFW faces many challenges that ID, MT, WY did not have....and I am pleased the commission denied the wolf groups petition to limit lethal take, but the realities are that the politics of this state are a very different animal that will require great finesse...and frankly, I think WDFW biologists on up to their director have sportsmen's interests at heart...whether or not the majority of hunters recognize how much we need wdfw to have successful management of wolves... :dunno: I can assure you...there is no path to a favorable outcome on wolf and elk/deer management in this state that does not require the support of current wdfw staff. They are the biggest ally we have in this state.
You can try to discredit what I say all you want. Anyone who has watched the whole wolf process in Idaho knows how it went down and what happened, most of it's documented on this forum. Whether you even know or not, there were certain persons who were pushed out of IDFG. I'm not going to get into another pointless discussion with you, where you will ask me to cite my sources which as I have told you before I will not do, that is confidential but absolutely true, so we'll just have to disagree, you can call me a liar again or anything you want, that only shows your lack of professionalism.
If you want to massage the shoulders of everyone at WDFW for some potential Atta boy that is your choice. I prefer to offer informative data and thank those in WDFW who have earned praise by doing a good job of managing all species of wildlife and those who support the hunters and fishers of WA that pay the bills, fortunately we still have many good people in WDFW, but there could be a few changes that would benefit Washington. I'm not talking about the director, even though I disagree with some of his decisions, I think Phil Anderson is the best director we've had in a few decades.
I too am pleased with the Commission regarding their decision to reject the wolf group's petition. That doesn't mean I support their every decision, I am not at all pleased and neither are most people in NE WA with the commission's adoption of the most liberal wolf plan in the west. That was a serious mistake and I'm not going to say otherwise just to sugarcoat the wolf issue.
While you may choose to endorse the WDFW unilaterally thinking that will gain favoritism, I choose to offer informative data and offer my thanks for positive actions, but I will critique decisions and actions that are bad for wildlife or hunters/fishers. An agency needs to hear honest input from stakeholders so they know when they are going down the right or wrong path!
Have a great day! :)
Post by: bearpaw on August 04, 2014, 09:05:17 PM
There is always more than just one factor. Thank you for pointing this out. It sounds like you have seen the changes here first hand. It is obvious that the land management practices have been forgotten. That is one thing I would love to see Idaho put as much effort into as they have managing the wolf population. We need better management of our timber lands.
And the elk hunting is still good here, put your work into it and you will be successful. It is still much better than Washington and the primary reason I left that state.
Just in case you missed it (see the bottom line):
Post by: mfswallace on August 04, 2014, 10:53:52 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on August 05, 2014, 04:27:49 AM
Yes, we are just going to have to disagree on idfg personnel...you can't cite names but I can. Moore, Kiefer, Unsworth, Rachael, Compton....all still there and those are the folks making policy decisions and managing wolves. They are still there and have been for a long time. Maybe a pee on was fired :dunno: but nobody making big decisions was removed.FYI - You leave out a great many important points Idahohntr, including the fact that many in IDFG had to learn the hard knocks about wolf management just as they are in WA now. The people of Idaho and Governor Otter had to tell IDFG to manage wolves, Otter prevented IDFG from pursuing wolf poachers, IDFG was headed down the same road of denial as WDFW is doing now, that's all documented in the many pages of wolf topics on this forum. :twocents:Bearpaw- Please don't make me go track down the post where I already pointed out the complete fallacy you tried to push on here about Otter being elected because of his promises of wolf management...the most famous of which he made AFTER the election.
IDFG was not "told" by the people of Idaho or by Otter to do anything differently than they intended to do all along in service of the sportsmen and women who enjoy Idaho's outdoors. Idaho is a right to work state...if somebody in Idaho was managing wolves in a way that was displeasing to Otter they would not have a job then or today.
You also misconstrue what Otter said about pursuing wolf poachers...the message was to USFWS and the Feds that since wolves were re-listed then Idaho was not going to spend a dime managing them (including enforcement)...it was the result of frustration with lawsuits and judges...USFWS wanted to de-list them as well as IDFG and most Idahoans...it was lawsuits from the enviro crowd and a federal judge that caused us the headaches.
Those are the facts whether you choose to believe them or not.
But most of this is meaningless when it comes to WA wolf management, which is where the focus should really be at. WDFW faces many challenges that ID, MT, WY did not have....and I am pleased the commission denied the wolf groups petition to limit lethal take, but the realities are that the politics of this state are a very different animal that will require great finesse...and frankly, I think WDFW biologists on up to their director have sportsmen's interests at heart...whether or not the majority of hunters recognize how much we need wdfw to have successful management of wolves... :dunno: I can assure you...there is no path to a favorable outcome on wolf and elk/deer management in this state that does not require the support of current wdfw staff. They are the biggest ally we have in this state.
You can try to discredit what I say all you want. Anyone who has watched the whole wolf process in Idaho knows how it went down and what happened, most of it's documented on this forum. Whether you even know or not, there were certain persons who were pushed out of IDFG. I'm not going to get into another pointless discussion with you, where you will ask me to cite my sources which as I have told you before I will not do, that is confidential but absolutely true, so we'll just have to disagree, you can call me a liar again or anything you want, that only shows your lack of professionalism.
If you want to massage the shoulders of everyone at WDFW for some potential Atta boy that is your choice. I prefer to offer informative data and thank those in WDFW who have earned praise by doing a good job of managing all species of wildlife and those who support the hunters and fishers of WA that pay the bills, fortunately we still have many good people in WDFW, but there could be a few changes that would benefit Washington. I'm not talking about the director, even though I disagree with some of his decisions, I think Phil Anderson is the best director we've had in a few decades.
I too am pleased with the Commission regarding their decision to reject the wolf group's petition. That doesn't mean I support their every decision, I am not at all pleased and neither are most people in NE WA with the commission's adoption of the most liberal wolf plan in the west. That was a serious mistake and I'm not going to say otherwise just to sugarcoat the wolf issue.
While you may choose to endorse the WDFW unilaterally thinking that will gain favoritism, I choose to offer informative data and offer my thanks for positive actions, but I will critique decisions and actions that are bad for wildlife or hunters/fishers. An agency needs to hear honest input from stakeholders so they know when they are going down the right or wrong path!
Have a great day! :)
So just how does me posting anonymously gain 'favoritism' with wdfw?? That is a good one...I don't understand why folks can't accept that I don't have some secret agenda. I'm not even sure what you are remotely implying...they going to draw my name or give me some discount coupons? (;
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on August 05, 2014, 08:29:08 AM
I look forward to seeing this carried out.There is always more than just one factor. Thank you for pointing this out. It sounds like you have seen the changes here first hand. It is obvious that the land management practices have been forgotten. That is one thing I would love to see Idaho put as much effort into as they have managing the wolf population. We need better management of our timber lands.
And the elk hunting is still good here, put your work into it and you will be successful. It is still much better than Washington and the primary reason I left that state.
Just in case you missed it (see the bottom line):
Post by: idaho guy on August 05, 2014, 11:29:13 AM
I look forward to seeing this carried out.There is always more than just one factor. Thank you for pointing this out. It sounds like you have seen the changes here first hand. It is obvious that the land management practices have been forgotten. That is one thing I would love to see Idaho put as much effort into as they have managing the wolf population. We need better management of our timber lands.
And the elk hunting is still good here, put your work into it and you will be successful. It is still much better than Washington and the primary reason I left that state.
Just in case you missed it (see the bottom line):
I think they are already doing this, where they can, they did a bunch of logging and then a controlled burn on the forest service land behind my house this year. It needed it badly. No one is saying idaho elk hunting is still not really good in most areas-some areas have been decimated. The point I want to make is why do we have to look at facts presented by bearpaw clearly showing uncontrolled wolves kill too many elk and come up with alternative reasons for the elk decline? Too many wolves kill too many elk-end of story.
Post by: mfswallace on August 05, 2014, 11:30:54 AM
I look forward to seeing this carried out.There is always more than just one factor. Thank you for pointing this out. It sounds like you have seen the changes here first hand. It is obvious that the land management practices have been forgotten. That is one thing I would love to see Idaho put as much effort into as they have managing the wolf population. We need better management of our timber lands.
And the elk hunting is still good here, put your work into it and you will be successful. It is still much better than Washington and the primary reason I left that state.
Just in case you missed it (see the bottom line):
I think they are already doing this, where they can, they did a bunch of logging and then a controlled burn on the forest service land behind my house this year. It needed it badly. No one is saying idaho elk hunting is still not really good in most areas-some areas have been decimated. The point I want to make is why do we have to look at facts presented by bearpaw clearly showing uncontrolled wolves kill too many elk and come up with alternative reasons for the elk decline? Too many wolves kill too many elk-end of story.
:yeah:
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on August 05, 2014, 12:54:31 PM
I look forward to seeing this carried out.There is always more than just one factor. Thank you for pointing this out. It sounds like you have seen the changes here first hand. It is obvious that the land management practices have been forgotten. That is one thing I would love to see Idaho put as much effort into as they have managing the wolf population. We need better management of our timber lands.
And the elk hunting is still good here, put your work into it and you will be successful. It is still much better than Washington and the primary reason I left that state.
Just in case you missed it (see the bottom line):
I think they are already doing this, where they can, they did a bunch of logging and then a controlled burn on the forest service land behind my house this year. It needed it badly. No one is saying idaho elk hunting is still not really good in most areas-some areas have been decimated. The point I want to make is why do we have to look at facts presented by bearpaw clearly showing uncontrolled wolves kill too many elk and come up with alternative reasons for the elk decline? Too many wolves kill too many elk-end of story.
I don't think it clearly shows that at all. What year were the wolves introduced in the units, or when was their presence first reported? That is no where on the graphs, unless I am completely missing that? I also see a large over all decline from the late 80's to now is some units. I don't recall hearing about wolves back then, maybe I am wrong though? I think the point others and myself are trying to make, is that these graphs show only hunter success rates which take into account many different variables that has been mentioned. It would be nice to see these graphs overlay-ed with the introduction and rise in the wolf population. Better yet, elk populations by unit overlay-ed with wolf populations over the years starting in the late 80's. Then we would start to see more specific information relating to the point trying to be made. We could then see what populations were doing pre and post introduction.
Post by: AspenBud on August 05, 2014, 01:45:17 PM
Post by: mfswallace on August 05, 2014, 02:13:59 PM
at some point heads need to come out of the sand :bash:
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on August 05, 2014, 03:10:00 PM
Deny, deny, more stuies needed, deny, deny, different information needed, deny, deny,......
at some point heads need to come out of the sand :bash:
Who the heck is denying anything? I'm trying to show that the wrong statistics are being used to show their direct impact on elk. We all know wolves kill elk and have changed hunter success rates, but these charts aren't going to prove anything to someone who doesn't believe they impact the populations as much as they really do. There is to much information missing to come to any sort of a conclusion as to why hunter success rates have diminished, unless you are only showing it to like minded individuals, then yes it works.
Post by: wolfbait on August 05, 2014, 04:23:10 PM
I look forward to seeing this carried out.There is always more than just one factor. Thank you for pointing this out. It sounds like you have seen the changes here first hand. It is obvious that the land management practices have been forgotten. That is one thing I would love to see Idaho put as much effort into as they have managing the wolf population. We need better management of our timber lands.
And the elk hunting is still good here, put your work into it and you will be successful. It is still much better than Washington and the primary reason I left that state.
Just in case you missed it (see the bottom line):
I think they are already doing this, where they can, they did a bunch of logging and then a controlled burn on the forest service land behind my house this year. It needed it badly. No one is saying idaho elk hunting is still not really good in most areas-some areas have been decimated. The point I want to make is why do we have to look at facts presented by bearpaw clearly showing uncontrolled wolves kill too many elk and come up with alternative reasons for the elk decline? Too many wolves kill too many elk-end of story.
I don't think it clearly shows that at all. What year were the wolves introduced in the units, or when was their presence first reported? That is no where on the graphs, unless I am completely missing that? I also see a large over all decline from the late 80's to now is some units. I don't recall hearing about wolves back then, maybe I am wrong though? I think the point others and myself are trying to make, is that these graphs show only hunter success rates which take into account many different variables that has been mentioned. It would be nice to see these graphs overlay-ed with the introduction and rise in the wolf population. Better yet, elk populations by unit overlay-ed with wolf populations over the years starting in the late 80's. Then we would start to see more specific information relating to the point trying to be made. We could then see what populations were doing pre and post introduction.
Look at the impact wolves have had on livestock since the wolf introduction, we all know that isn't an equal comparison. But before the introduction there were very few wolf problems, the habitat was still the same, climate the same, the only factor that changed was an added predator that was protected above all else. In some case the wolves were killed for livestock predation, but it was open season on the elk etc.
I don't believe anyone can honestly discount the wolves as the reason for the impact and decline of the elk herds, knowing the facts since the wolf introduction.
Post by: mfswallace on August 05, 2014, 04:31:41 PM
Deny, deny, more stuies needed, deny, deny, different information needed, deny, deny,......
at some point heads need to come out of the sand :bash:
Who the heck is denying anything? I'm trying to show that the wrong statistics are being used to show their direct impact on elk. We all know wolves kill elk and have changed hunter success rates, but these charts aren't going to prove anything to someone who doesn't believe they impact the populations as much as they really do. There is to much information missing to come to any sort of a conclusion as to why hunter success rates have diminished, unless you are only showing it to like minded individuals, then yes it works.
:sry:
deflect, deflect, we need more studies, deflect, deflect, different information needed, deflect, deflect....
yes, individuals with a mind do see the connection of 800-1000 wolves and significantly less elk :yike:
Post by: idahohuntr on August 05, 2014, 07:00:48 PM
I don't think it clearly shows that at all. What year were the wolves introduced in the units, or when was their presence first reported? That is no where on the graphs, unless I am completely missing that? I also see a large over all decline from the late 80's to now is some units. I don't recall hearing about wolves back then, maybe I am wrong though? I think the point others and myself are trying to make, is that these graphs show only hunter success rates which take into account many different variables that has been mentioned. It would be nice to see these graphs overlay-ed with the introduction and rise in the wolf population. Better yet, elk populations by unit overlay-ed with wolf populations over the years starting in the late 80's. Then we would start to see more specific information relating to the point trying to be made. We could then see what populations were doing pre and post introduction.:yeah:
I mostly think some folks are insecure about their beliefs or understanding and so when other people point out very valid and obvious reasons the graphs bearpaw posted to "show" what wolves do to elk herds as incomplete at best, they get very defensive. I don't understand why...I even go to great lengths now to state the obvious...wolves do indeed eat elk...before I explained why the graphs do not justify the title of this thread as some would have you believe.
No one is saying idaho elk hunting is still not really good in most areas-some areas have been decimated. The point I want to make is why do we have to look at facts presented by bearpaw clearly showing uncontrolled wolves kill too many elk and come up with alternative reasons for the elk decline? Too many wolves kill too many elk-end of story.You are being far too simplistic. If ungulate numbers were only a function of predator numbers life would be easy for game managers...very easy. Its not. It is very complex and so you can't just post a graph and suggest you know the answer to managing an elk herd (and bearpaw didn't do this..although his thread title was somewhat misleading). We have to look at all factors in order to effectively manage the resource...while some try to spin that as blaming anything but wolves I see it as being thorough...there are a whole lot of units in the west that have decreased deer and elk herds and it is not just wolves, wolves, wolves.
Post by: KFhunter on August 05, 2014, 07:29:44 PM
They harass them non-stop.
This affects calf recruitment and makes whole herds more susceptible to winterkill - expending calories running from wolves instead of surviving a bad winter.
A pack of wolves coming into a calving area can run wet cows out of a whole valley, leaving a bunch of starving calves for the bears/yotes to come clean up.
You're the one whose over simplifying things here. If *only* the wolves just ate elk :bash: :bash:
Post by: idahohuntr on August 05, 2014, 08:23:33 PM
Wolves do more than "eat elk"I am the one trying to explain how complex things are...I never said the only impacts wolves have is physically eating them...I was just pointing out the absurd lengths I go to now because when I would post these complexities people would chime in that I was trying to cover up the notion that wolves eat elk.
They harass them non-stop.
This affects calf recruitment and makes whole herds more susceptible to winterkill - expending calories running from wolves instead of surviving a bad winter.
A pack of wolves coming into a calving area can run wet cows out of a whole valley, leaving a bunch of starving calves for the bears/yotes to come clean up.
You're the one whose over simplifying things here. If *only* the wolves just ate elk :bash: :bash:
If you go back to my first post in this thread you will see where I very clearly state in the first line: wolves have impacts on elk numbers and behavior...this would obviously encompass all of the things you mention above, but you clearly missed what I said...happens to all of us :tup:
Post by: KFhunter on August 05, 2014, 08:39:25 PM
Wolves do more than "eat elk"I am the one trying to explain how complex things are...I never said the only impacts wolves have is physically eating them...I was just pointing out the absurd lengths I go to now because when I would post these complexities people would chime in that I was trying to cover up the notion that wolves eat elk.
They harass them non-stop.
This affects calf recruitment and makes whole herds more susceptible to winterkill - expending calories running from wolves instead of surviving a bad winter.
A pack of wolves coming into a calving area can run wet cows out of a whole valley, leaving a bunch of starving calves for the bears/yotes to come clean up.
You're the one whose over simplifying things here. If *only* the wolves just ate elk :bash: :bash:
If you go back to my first post in this thread you will see where I very clearly state in the first line: wolves have impacts on elk numbers and behavior...this would obviously encompass all of the things you mention above, but you clearly missed what I said...happens to all of us :tup:
When an otherwise intelligent person is loosing a debate they tend to go to great lengths make things absurdly complex.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 05, 2014, 08:46:50 PM
Post by: bearpaw on August 05, 2014, 09:25:31 PM
Late hunts on winter range outside the park have been curtailed, logging shouldn't be a factor, I don't think development is a factor with this herd.
Herd continues to decline....
Post by: Dan-o on August 05, 2014, 09:46:48 PM
Eventually, the wolves should get it trimmed down to a couple hundred really healthy elk.
Post by: KFhunter on August 05, 2014, 09:52:19 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-PKcO4i6x6IA%2FTisC9cCffsI%2FAAAAAAAABTc%2FEC_qsylto3E%2Fs320%2FElk%2Bin%2BMammoth%2B%2B%2B7-18.JPG&hash=20adf8c1a416452af1f9a96cc2903cef703f008e)
Post by: Dan-o on August 05, 2014, 09:55:38 PM
Either way, I'm sure that the data shown in that last elk population graph is in no way related to the the wolf population (inset graph).
In statistics, these graphs are what we call "spurious data".
Post by: KFhunter on August 05, 2014, 09:57:41 PM
Post by: Bob33 on August 05, 2014, 10:13:05 PM
When an otherwise intelligent person is loosing a debate they tend to go to great lengths make things absurdly complex.Personally speaking, in debates I tend to side more with those that present their views without resorting to name calling or insults. :twocents:
Post by: wolfbait on August 05, 2014, 11:06:04 PM
When an otherwise intelligent person is loosing a debate they tend to go to great lengths make things absurdly complex.Personally speaking, in debates I tend to side more with those that present their views without resorting to name calling or insults. :twocents:
You must do a lot of fence leaping with the wolf debates, eh? :chuckle: Have you ever slipped and got to acres for free?
Of all the wolf info post on this site, and others, 18 plus years, it's hard to understand that some folks still try to down play the impact wolves have had where ever they end up. Every state that wolves end up "migrating" to, have the same impacts on livestock and ungulates as MT, WY, and Idaho. More studies will not change the outcome, wolves kill and breed, thats the only things they do.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 06, 2014, 04:23:16 AM
I feel like some folks have a hard time differentiating attacking logic, ideas and data from personal attacks (and I'm not suggesting that's you bob33). It is not a personal attack to point out misinformation or provide different perspectives and interpretations. I feel like I always attack the logic/idea...but then I almost always get a response trying to attack my credibility (he's not a hunter, he works for wdfw etc.). I'm not a conflict averse person so I usually do get sucked into the back and forth and that is my fault. I actually think *most* of the time bearpaw does set the example pretty well for how to respond to people who disagree with the logic, data etc. that he posts...he doesn't back down but he usually tries hard to focus on the topic, not the individual.When an otherwise intelligent person is loosing a debate they tend to go to great lengths make things absurdly complex.Personally speaking, in debates I tend to side more with those that present their views without resorting to name calling or insults. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on August 06, 2014, 06:27:37 AM
I feel like some folks have a hard time differentiating attacking logic, ideas and data from personal attacks (and I'm not suggesting that's you bob33). It is not a personal attack to point out misinformation or provide different perspectives and interpretations. I feel like I always attack the logic/idea...but then I almost always get a response trying to attack my credibility (he's not a hunter, he works for wdfw etc.). I'm not a conflict averse person so I usually do get sucked into the back and forth and that is my fault. I actually think *most* of the time bearpaw does set the example pretty well for how to respond to people who disagree with the logic, data etc. that he posts...he doesn't back down but he usually tries hard to focus on the topic, not the individual.When an otherwise intelligent person is loosing a debate they tend to go to great lengths make things absurdly complex.Personally speaking, in debates I tend to side more with those that present their views without resorting to name calling or insults. :twocents:
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, you've done as much name calling and or made demeaning/insulting comments as anyone on this forum. KFhunter used to have a very small sampling of your finesse in his signature. You have called me names and insulted on uncountable occasions, I am learning to ignore your low level of communication and not get drawn to that level, but occasionally it is hard to ignore your insults/name calling and human reaction gets the best of me!
Post by: grundy53 on August 06, 2014, 06:30:49 AM
:yeah:I feel like some folks have a hard time differentiating attacking logic, ideas and data from personal attacks (and I'm not suggesting that's you bob33). It is not a personal attack to point out misinformation or provide different perspectives and interpretations. I feel like I always attack the logic/idea...but then I almost always get a response trying to attack my credibility (he's not a hunter, he works for wdfw etc.). I'm not a conflict averse person so I usually do get sucked into the back and forth and that is my fault. I actually think *most* of the time bearpaw does set the example pretty well for how to respond to people who disagree with the logic, data etc. that he posts...he doesn't back down but he usually tries hard to focus on the topic, not the individual.When an otherwise intelligent person is loosing a debate they tend to go to great lengths make things absurdly complex.Personally speaking, in debates I tend to side more with those that present their views without resorting to name calling or insults. :twocents:
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, you've done as much name calling and or made demeaning/insulting comments as anyone on this forum. KFhunter used to have a very small sampling of your finesse in his signature. You have called me names and insulted on uncountable occasions, I am learning to ignore your low level of communication and not get drawn to that level, but occasionally it is hard to ignore your insults/name calling and human reaction gets the best of me!
sent from my typewriter
Post by: AspenBud on August 06, 2014, 06:32:38 AM
or Elk smart enough to hang out in the parking lots hob knobbing with the tourists.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-PKcO4i6x6IA%2FTisC9cCffsI%2FAAAAAAAABTc%2FEC_qsylto3E%2Fs320%2FElk%2Bin%2BMammoth%2B%2B%2B7-18.JPG&hash=20adf8c1a416452af1f9a96cc2903cef703f008e)
Bad example, there are many many many instances of elk walking into peoples' yards and causing problems in places with no wolves in sight.
Post by: AspenBud on August 06, 2014, 06:36:07 AM
Greater Yellowstone Elk Herd
Late hunts on winter range outside the park have been curtailed, logging shouldn't be a factor, I don't think development is a factor with this herd.
Herd continues to decline....
So do the wolves in the park. What has happened there is exactly what was advertised when they turned them loose there. They made no secret of the expected results.
Post by: bearpaw on August 06, 2014, 06:39:02 AM
Greater Yellowstone Elk Herd
Late hunts on winter range outside the park have been curtailed, logging shouldn't be a factor, I don't think development is a factor with this herd.
Herd continues to decline....
So do the wolves in the park. What has happened there is exactly what was advertised when they turned them loose there. They made no secret of the expected results.
Thankyou, BINGO, that is certainly their intended purpose for wolves everywhere! Reduce herds!
Some people fail to see the ultimate goal! ;)
Greater Yellowstone Elk Herd
Late hunts on winter range outside the park have been curtailed, logging shouldn't be a factor, I don't think development is a factor with this herd.
Herd continues to decline....
Could it be that park visitors and Iphones are scaring the elk to death, perhaps we need to gate off the park so the elk don't see humans and Iphones and then remove the roads. Gating and removing roads and reducing human recreational opportunity seems to be the answer always claimed by the other side to solve the problem?
Post by: AspenBud on August 06, 2014, 07:27:18 AM
Elk might have survived and appeared to have suitable habitat in areas before wolves came along but I very much doubt anyone here really knows what good escape cover suitable for getting away from wolves looks like. I know I don't.
There is also the matter of inferior animals surviving in the absence of a predator like a wolf. What appears to be an otherwise healthy animal may in fact be less able to escape, or fight off, wolves. Not all elk are born equal and in the absence of an effective predator like a wolf the gene pool gets watered down because more than just the strong survive. No one knows what kind of damage was done genetically over decades without a predator like the wolf.
Let me state that again because I know someone will want to argue it. Just because an animal looks healthy does not mean it was born with the tools it needs to survive wolves. It's like Navy SEAL dogs. Most that enter the program wash out, but a small slice of the gene pool make it and inevitably those are the dogs you breed. Most elk born are not tough enough to survive in the presence of wolves either, but some are. In dog breeding you breed best of breed together to get the best results consistently. If you don't you start to get inconsistent and inferior results. The same applies in nature depending on circumstances.
The point is those graphs probably do show that wolves have caused those declines. But the question you have to ask is what other factors may have contributed to that? I realize this is a section about wolves and that's the focus but if we're going to be serious about elk we need to look at everything that could be leading to their demise.
The simple and obvious solution is to shoot wolves, but I think the point others have tried to make is there is likely more to the problem than just wolves. One question is does anyone care to find out? In a lot of ways what the pro wolf folks have done is play with eugenics as it relates to elk. The elk were fine before wolves, there might have been too many in some places but that could have been handled. But what is happening now is wholesale culling by way of wolves, for those who wanted that they got it. But not everyone wanted to see that experiment happen. But it has and now we have to look at the grand picture because wolves are here to stay, hunted or not, so it's wise to look at other potential contributing factors to elk decline. :twocents:
Post by: AspenBud on August 06, 2014, 07:35:38 AM
Arguably the same applies to elk. Drop predators like wolves into an area full of elk that have never seen wolves before and have bred for generations without their presence and 99% will most likely fail to survive because of circumstances and genetics.
Field trailers often want to know what made that 1% different. We should be asking the same with regards to surviving elk as long as we have wolves running around.
Post by: Gringo31 on August 06, 2014, 07:39:38 AM
With this wishy washy type of thinking. Lets double the harvest rate and blame "other" factors and pat ourselves on the back to be helping the genetics of elk as we only kill the dumb ones. :o
Post by: AspenBud on August 06, 2014, 08:49:49 AM
Sounds like a politician.
With this wishy washy type of thinking. Lets double the harvest rate and blame "other" factors and pat ourselves on the back to be helping the genetics of elk as we only kill the dumb ones. :o
There's nothing wishy washy about it and you're right the matter is very political. I hate to put it this way, but releasing wolves on the existing elk populations in the lower 48 was the equivalent of sending small pox infested blankets to Native Americans who had never ever been exposed to such a disease. The kill rate is horrifically high.
The thing is, we had the political will to eradicate small pox in the long run. But we don't have such will with wolves these days so in the face of that you have to look into what increases elk survival rates. What causes them to fall prey to wolves? What can be done to limit that? The obvious answer is to manage wolves, but what over and above that can be done?
It's no secret that forest management practices in this country, particularly on National Forest lands, have gone down the toilet. I can likely find a graph that would similarly show the decline of forest management and a correlation with decreasing elk numbers in some of those affected areas in Idaho.
Again, I recognize this is a wolf forum and as such other factors aren't the focus, but serious elk management in the age of wolves requires looking beyond the predator.
Post by: bearpaw on August 06, 2014, 09:58:19 AM
Sounds like a politician.
With this wishy washy type of thinking. Lets double the harvest rate and blame "other" factors and pat ourselves on the back to be helping the genetics of elk as we only kill the dumb ones. :o
There's nothing wishy washy about it and you're right the matter is very political. I hate to put it this way, but releasing wolves on the existing elk populations in the lower 48 was the equivalent of sending small pox infested blankets to Native Americans who had never ever been exposed to such a disease. The kill rate is horrifically high.
The thing is, we had the political will to eradicate small pox in the long run. But we don't have such will with wolves these days so in the face of that you have to look into what increases elk survival rates. What causes them to fall prey to wolves? What can be done to limit that? The obvious answer is to manage wolves, but what over and above that can be done?
It's no secret that forest management practices in this country, particularly on National Forest lands, have gone down the toilet. I can likely find a graph that would similarly show the decline of forest management and a correlation with decreasing elk numbers in some of those affected areas in Idaho.
Again, I recognize this is a wolf forum and as such other factors aren't the focus, but serious elk management in the age of wolves requires looking beyond the predator.
I agree with your post, excessive hunting seasons and reduced logging in the Lolo caused the initial elk decline and similarly in some other units. However, we can't forget that smallpox (and wolves) is a fatal disease, we need to continually immunize for smallpox (and wolves) to keep the disease from getting out of hand.
Post by: AspenBud on August 06, 2014, 10:13:27 AM
Sounds like a politician.
With this wishy washy type of thinking. Lets double the harvest rate and blame "other" factors and pat ourselves on the back to be helping the genetics of elk as we only kill the dumb ones. :o
There's nothing wishy washy about it and you're right the matter is very political. I hate to put it this way, but releasing wolves on the existing elk populations in the lower 48 was the equivalent of sending small pox infested blankets to Native Americans who had never ever been exposed to such a disease. The kill rate is horrifically high.
The thing is, we had the political will to eradicate small pox in the long run. But we don't have such will with wolves these days so in the face of that you have to look into what increases elk survival rates. What causes them to fall prey to wolves? What can be done to limit that? The obvious answer is to manage wolves, but what over and above that can be done?
It's no secret that forest management practices in this country, particularly on National Forest lands, have gone down the toilet. I can likely find a graph that would similarly show the decline of forest management and a correlation with decreasing elk numbers in some of those affected areas in Idaho.
Again, I recognize this is a wolf forum and as such other factors aren't the focus, but serious elk management in the age of wolves requires looking beyond the predator.
I agree with your post, excessive hunting seasons and reduced logging in the Lolo caused the initial elk decline and similarly in some other units. However, we can't forget that smallpox (and wolves) is a fatal disease, we need to continually immunize for smallpox (and wolves) to keep the disease from getting out of hand.
Agreed.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 06, 2014, 05:26:12 PM
I'm confused...I said I am at fault too so I don't understand your pot/kettle comment. You and kf have said a whole lot of derogatory and condescending things about me as well...dont even try to suggest you guys are some saints. My point is it is not a personal attack to say someone is wrong or to disagree.I feel like some folks have a hard time differentiating attacking logic, ideas and data from personal attacks (and I'm not suggesting that's you bob33). It is not a personal attack to point out misinformation or provide different perspectives and interpretations. I feel like I always attack the logic/idea...but then I almost always get a response trying to attack my credibility (he's not a hunter, he works for wdfw etc.). I'm not a conflict averse person so I usually do get sucked into the back and forth and that is my fault. I actually think *most* of the time bearpaw does set the example pretty well for how to respond to people who disagree with the logic, data etc. that he posts...he doesn't back down but he usually tries hard to focus on the topic, not the individual.When an otherwise intelligent person is loosing a debate they tend to go to great lengths make things absurdly complex.Personally speaking, in debates I tend to side more with those that present their views without resorting to name calling or insults. :twocents:
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, you've done as much name calling and or made demeaning/insulting comments as anyone on this forum. KFhunter used to have a very small sampling of your finesse in his signature. You have called me names and insulted on uncountable occasions, I am learning to ignore your low level of communication and not get drawn to that level, but occasionally it is hard to ignore your insults/name calling and human reaction gets the best of me!
Post by: KFhunter on August 06, 2014, 06:00:15 PM
or Elk smart enough to hang out in the parking lots hob knobbing with the tourists.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-PKcO4i6x6IA%2FTisC9cCffsI%2FAAAAAAAABTc%2FEC_qsylto3E%2Fs320%2FElk%2Bin%2BMammoth%2B%2B%2B7-18.JPG&hash=20adf8c1a416452af1f9a96cc2903cef703f008e)
Bad example, there are many many many instances of elk walking into peoples' yards and causing problems in places with no wolves in sight.
These Elk are still counted in the stats that Bearpaw is providing adding to the total herd of YNP. They're very relevant in that regard.
Remove/Ignore all the parking lot Elk habituated to people and the charts would be even worse.
Post by: wolfbait on August 07, 2014, 06:03:38 AM
or Elk smart enough to hang out in the parking lots hob knobbing with the tourists.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-PKcO4i6x6IA%2FTisC9cCffsI%2FAAAAAAAABTc%2FEC_qsylto3E%2Fs320%2FElk%2Bin%2BMammoth%2B%2B%2B7-18.JPG&hash=20adf8c1a416452af1f9a96cc2903cef703f008e)
Bad example, there are many many many instances of elk walking into peoples' yards and causing problems in places with no wolves in sight.
These Elk are still counted in the stats that Bearpaw is providing adding to the total herd of YNP. They're very relevant in that regard.
Remove/Ignore all the parking lot Elk habituated to people and the charts would be even worse.
Wolves seem to have this affect on deer also, take Twisp and Winthrop as a perfect example, this spring/summer Does were having fawns in the orchard behind Hanks Market.
Post by: bearpaw on August 07, 2014, 09:39:56 AM
I'm confused...I said I am at fault too so I don't understand your pot/kettle comment. You and kf have said a whole lot of derogatory and condescending things about me as well...dont even try to suggest you guys are some saints. My point is it is not a personal attack to say someone is wrong or to disagree.I feel like some folks have a hard time differentiating attacking logic, ideas and data from personal attacks (and I'm not suggesting that's you bob33). It is not a personal attack to point out misinformation or provide different perspectives and interpretations. I feel like I always attack the logic/idea...but then I almost always get a response trying to attack my credibility (he's not a hunter, he works for wdfw etc.). I'm not a conflict averse person so I usually do get sucked into the back and forth and that is my fault. I actually think *most* of the time bearpaw does set the example pretty well for how to respond to people who disagree with the logic, data etc. that he posts...he doesn't back down but he usually tries hard to focus on the topic, not the individual.When an otherwise intelligent person is loosing a debate they tend to go to great lengths make things absurdly complex.Personally speaking, in debates I tend to side more with those that present their views without resorting to name calling or insults. :twocents:
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, you've done as much name calling and or made demeaning/insulting comments as anyone on this forum. KFhunter used to have a very small sampling of your finesse in his signature. You have called me names and insulted on uncountable occasions, I am learning to ignore your low level of communication and not get drawn to that level, but occasionally it is hard to ignore your insults/name calling and human reaction gets the best of me!
I guess I misunderstood part of your post and thought you were blaming others. We all need to attempt to take higher ground in these discussions. I agree it's perfectly acceptable to disagree in a respectable manner, that's how people express themselves and can learn from others. :tup:
Post by: AspenBud on August 07, 2014, 09:57:12 AM
or Elk smart enough to hang out in the parking lots hob knobbing with the tourists.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-PKcO4i6x6IA%2FTisC9cCffsI%2FAAAAAAAABTc%2FEC_qsylto3E%2Fs320%2FElk%2Bin%2BMammoth%2B%2B%2B7-18.JPG&hash=20adf8c1a416452af1f9a96cc2903cef703f008e)
Bad example, there are many many many instances of elk walking into peoples' yards and causing problems in places with no wolves in sight.
These Elk are still counted in the stats that Bearpaw is providing adding to the total herd of YNP. They're very relevant in that regard.
Remove/Ignore all the parking lot Elk habituated to people and the charts would be even worse.
Wolves seem to have this affect on deer also, take Twisp and Winthrop as a perfect example, this spring/summer Does were having fawns in the orchard behind Hanks Market.
I guess what I find strange is that you find that strange. My folks have had deer drop fawns on their property for years. All they have is an acre lot, half of which they use for nothing, and they are three houses outside the city limits and have nothing but houses around them. Heck I see them in some of the green belts near where I live. Wolves didn't cause them to move into town, they have always just been a part of the landscape.
Maybe I'm missing some context here. :dunno:
Post by: AspenBud on August 07, 2014, 10:13:06 AM
or Elk smart enough to hang out in the parking lots hob knobbing with the tourists.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-PKcO4i6x6IA%2FTisC9cCffsI%2FAAAAAAAABTc%2FEC_qsylto3E%2Fs320%2FElk%2Bin%2BMammoth%2B%2B%2B7-18.JPG&hash=20adf8c1a416452af1f9a96cc2903cef703f008e)
Bad example, there are many many many instances of elk walking into peoples' yards and causing problems in places with no wolves in sight.
These Elk are still counted in the stats that Bearpaw is providing adding to the total herd of YNP. They're very relevant in that regard.
Remove/Ignore all the parking lot Elk habituated to people and the charts would be even worse.
I see where you're coming from when you put it like that. There are more and more studies out there that show a lot of different animals actually fair better on the margins of civilization than they do in more remote locations. You're right, there is some protection from predators, but a lot of it also has to do with a steady food supply and favorable cover. People don't just let nature sort it out near their homes. They kill or run off predators, garden, cut trees, remove brush, leave out trash, or let areas go for a while before clearing it out again. It's managed land in the total package.
Post by: buglebrush on August 07, 2014, 10:14:18 AM
Like to elk hunt? You had better start making a serious committment to predator hunting! We can all make a difference. Every time I kill a bear I think about the elk calves I have saved. Maybe one is a future herd bull I will kill! :IBCOOL: :twocents:
Post by: buglebrush on August 07, 2014, 10:29:30 AM
Post by: buglebrush on August 07, 2014, 10:31:07 AM
This drainage was my families honeyhole for years. This year we continue the search for a new one :bash:
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on August 07, 2014, 02:49:24 PM
One other bit of background. I have hunted Idaho for over 20 years, with the lifetime license continue hunting elk there. To you who say the wolves haven't impacted the panhandle thank God they haven't found your particular little honey hole yet. They moved into mine a couple years ago, and there has definitely been a devastating impact. Wolves aren't everywhere at once, but in the drainages a pack resides it is a mess. >:(
Further south around the Joe, its not good. I know they are further north, but haven't impacted them as much as they have on the Joe. Some areas down there that were once prime elk country now feel like ghost towns.
Post by: jasnt on August 08, 2014, 05:15:57 AM
Aspenbud
It looks like a river that's just deeper than a wolf is tall. This is why a while back we were talking about over grazed rivers in Yellowstone area. The elk run in to the river where the wolf has to swim. Then the elk can drown a wolf that gets close.
Post by: AspenBud on August 08, 2014, 09:53:32 AM
Elk might have survived and appeared to have suitable habitat in areas before wolves came along but I very much doubt anyone here really knows what good escape cover suitable for getting away from wolves looks like. I know I don't.
Aspenbud
It looks like a river that's just deeper than a wolf is tall. This is why a while back we were talking about over grazed rivers in Yellowstone area. The elk run in to the river where the wolf has to swim. Then the elk can drown a wolf that gets close.
This is where I disagree. Wolves and elk lived together on this continent before European settlers showed up and they coexist in the north of North America to this day. We can talk about how much more open space there is up there, and I think that has some validity. We can even talk about how they hunt wolves up there, that has some validity too. But I'm betting if you take a closer look at the habitat it has got something going for it in the elk's favor that a lot of places don't have here either by virtue of the landscape or lack of management. The way you talk, there shouldn't be any elk left in Alberta either and that is just not the case.
And again, the elk up there have been living with wolves all along, not so with those down here. Outside of a small percentage they have neither the experience and/or quite possibly the genetics to survive them. Particularly imported wolves that were practiced elk killers to begin with. That's the case in every new area that wolves move into because for the prey animals in those areas wolves are something they have never encountered before and a lot of them are not physically equipped to handle that kind of pressure let alone fight them off. They may look physically fit but they may not be genetically optimal under the hood, if you will, when wolves force them to burn more energy evading them or when the fight is on or simply knowing how to get away from them.
Wolves aren't going away in the lower 48, at least not in this political climate. Managing them is certainly going to be necessary but if you're truly serious about saving elk you'll want to look at what other things can be done to help them out.
Post by: jasnt on August 10, 2014, 11:07:25 AM
Post by: wolfbait on August 11, 2014, 03:01:41 PM
Refuses to Control Wolves Decimating Elk Herds
By George Dovel
In January 1999 I attended a predator symposium in Boise co-sponsored by the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Assn., Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game and eight other groups. Like many of the 17 panel members whose unsupported testimony claimed wolves would have limited impact on deer, elk and moose numbers, Wolf Education Center’s David Langhorst claimed poachers kill 10 times as much game as wolves do.
But Wildlife Ecologist Dr. Charles Kay provided facts to support his testimony – that the wolves transplanted from Canada would eventually drive Idaho’s already declining big game populations into a predator pit.
Beginning with his August 1993 Petersen’s Hunting article titled, “Wolves in the West – what the government does not want you to know about wolf recovery,” Dr. Kay had published extensive research exposing federal and many state biologists’ false claim that protecting wolves would create healthy game populations.
Biologist Can’t Refute Facts – Attacks Messenger
Unable to refute any of Dr. Kay’s expert testimony, one biologist publicly confronted him and implied that his testimony was not valid because he was not a biologist.
But Dr. Kay snapped back at him, “I’d be ashamed to admit it if I was, the way you biologists have destroyed our wildlife.”
Pretending that a simple degree in wildlife biology bestows the wisdom, integrity and judgment needed to recommend real solutions ignores reality. And attacking the credibility of the messenger is a tactic used by those who lack facts to defend their position.
These two observations are based on half a century of working alongside and closely observing wildlife biologists. Deceiving the citizen hunters who pay their wages has become a specialty with most of them.
Geist - Wolves Caused ~90% Decline in Deer Harvest
But like Dr. Kay, Dr. Valerius Geist, the featured speaker at the 1999 Symposium, strived to enlighten rather than deceive. He spent a couple of hours patiently explaining to those in attendance how the return of wolves
to Vancouver Island resulted in nearly a 90% decline in the number of black-tailed deer harvested each year by hunters.
He warned the audience that strict control of wolf numbers in Idaho must occur to prevent a similar decline in Idaho big game populations. IDFG Director Steve Mealy, who was the Symposium facilitator, summed up the consensus that wolf predation is largely additive and wolves must be limited to preserve healthy game populations.
Despite being provided ample opportunity to question Dr. Geist, Idaho biologists and Commissioners remained quiet. Yet a group of them confronted me a few minutes later and said, “He told us what was going to happen but he didn’t tell us what to do.”
Two months later, Mealey was fired by a 4-to-3 vote, and replaced with a series of pro-wolf Directors. But on Jan. 5 2006 Interior Secretary Gale Norton signed an agreement with Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne designating Idaho to act as its agent, and directing IDFG to “implement lethal control or translocation of wolves to reduce impacts on wild ungulates in accordance with the process outlined in the amended 10J Rule.” (emphasis added)
That was seven years ago and during those seven years, IDFG has had the authority and the duty to lethally control wolves to reduce their impact on elk, moose and deer – either using the 10J Rule with the 2002 Wolf Plan as a guide – or following the 2002 Wolf Plan during the two periods, including now, when the wolves were/are delisted.
So How Many Total Wolves Has Idaho Lethally Controlled to Reduce the Impact on Wild Ungulates During the Past Seven Years?
The answer is only nineteen – all in the Lolo Zone.
That 19, plus the few wolves harvested by hunters and outfitters in the Lolo Zone, failed to halt the dramatic annual decline in its elk population and harvest. Yet in the following exchange of communications dated Jan. 21, 2013, Moore tells Viola sportsman Jim Hagedorn that many people have simply not been exposed to the Department “science” on managing wolf predation on Idaho’s elk.
IDFG Refuses to Control Wolves – cont. from pg. 1 TV Interviewed Moore, Stone – Ignored Citizens
On Jan. 17, 2013 KTVB published interviews with IDFG Director Moore and Defenders of Wildlife wolf promoter Suzanne Stone at IDFG Headquarters in Boise. Moore said hunters have done a good job controlling wolves in farm and ranch areas, but said wolves are increasing and further reducing elk populations in back country areas “like the Clearwater, Lolo and Selway.”
He announced the F&G Commission had removed $50,000 from a research project and directed it to be spent killing and trapping wolves in remote areas like these. Of course Stone disagreed and said the $50,000 should be spent on non-lethal methods which she falsely claimed were more effective than lethal control.
As always happens in the urban media, KTVB ignored the majority of Idaho citizens who share ownership of the wildlife resource, and the multi-million dollar loss the exploitation of that resource by both Moore and Stone is costing them every year. This understandably upset Viola sportsman leader Jim Hagedorn who, along with many others, contributes a great deal of time and money seeking honest scientific wildlife management.
On Jan. 20, the following letter from Hagedorn to Director Moore appeared in the Forever Free Press:
A direct question for Virgil Moore:
"[IDFG's] job is actually to conserve wolves," says
Suzanne Stone with Defenders of Wildlife. "We propose that commission use the money for non-lethal tools that are more effective in reducing livestock losses, and certainly more effective in reducing the impact on wildlife, including wolves," Stone said.
"Moore says he's putting together opportunities for advocates like Stone to talk to Fish and Game biologists about their management techniques."
Director Moore, would you please explain to me why you would waste your time, your IDFG employees' time, and MY MONEY, by opening a channel of communication to your (or MY) employees so a clearly deranged individual (Stone) who can NEVER seem to get her facts straight with the media, or anyone else for that matter, can have ANYTHING to do with advising FISH and GAME management in Idaho?
------
The following day, Hagedorn emailed a copy to
Moore and to several legislators, commissioners and other knowledgeable individuals. The subject line said simply, “How about an answer Virgil?
He quickly received the following response from Moore:
Jim,
I decided to go over the science that wolves are
important predators to elk. Based on the testimony at the
Commission meeting last week by 16 individuals it is apparent to the Commission that many people simply have not been exposed to the Department science on managing predation on Idaho’s elk. The meeting with folks concerned about our wolf reduction efforts is to allow a more in-depth opportunity to present Department information and answer questions that could not be addressed at the public meeting.
Ms. Stone is looking for an opportunity to do more of the non-lethal management that has been tried in the Blain (sic) County area. It certainly will not work for wildlife depredation and does not work in most livestock grazing situations either. Her statements do not represent what we are trying to accomplish by providing the correct information on hunting, trapping and aerial methods of reducing wolf numbers.
Jim – I believe some of these folks can be moderated by the correct information based on my discussion with some of them at the Commission meeting- as they do not have the correct information to judge the Department program properly. I do not believe, as you do, that Defenders of Wildlife can be convinced though but the discussion of what we are planning is open to public discussion and public input and we do have an obligation to meet with folks when appropriate.
I hope this helps. Let me know if we need to talk and I’ll give you a call.
Virgil
------
The Facts
The Department “science” on managing wolf predation of elk is a myth.
Every authority on wolf-ungulate management – including L. David Mech – who has advised IDFG on this issue, has warned that 70-80% of wolves must be removed initially, and the reduced numbers maintained for at least five years in order to restore healthy ungulate populations.
When the Lolo elk herd was still estimated at about 4,000 animals, IDFG biologists carefully prepared a 10J Plan to lethally remove 75% of the wolves from the Lolo Zone the first year, and kill enough wolves for the next four years to maintain 20-30% of the original number. But instead of implementing the plan to rebuild the Lolo elk herd, the Commission voted to use it only as “leverage” (i.e. blackmail) to FWS to insure they would be allowed to manage wolves as game animals.
They got the “on again – off again” right to hold a wolf hunting season but hunters killed only 13 Lolo wolves and the Lolo elk population went down the tube. Anyone who takes the time to compare IDFG’s published annual elk harvest statistics will find that elk harvests have also nose-dived every year in all back country units since the Commission approved the 10J plan – but refused to use it.
And Moore’s promise to the Commissioners and the public when he was hired as Director two years ago –that he would also implement wolf control in 2011 in the Selway and other units where wolves were also impacting elk – was never kept. Between 2006 and 2011, both of Moore’s predecessors, Steve Huffaker and Cal Groen, made similar promises that were also never kept.
It is worth noting that at the same time former Director Steve Mealey was telling a packed Commission Meeting audience that wolves were having a detrimental effect on Idaho elk herds, his Wildlife Bureau Chief Huffaker was standing in the back of that room telling a reporter that wolves had co-evolved with elk for ten thousand years and would “reach a balance” without man’s interference.
In February of 2006 when the IDFG plan to remove 75% of the Lolo Zone wolves was being “scoped” by the public, a letter writing campaign by radical pro-wolf groups supplied then Director Huffaker with the excuses he needed to convince the Commission not to control the wolves.
A Feb. 14, 2006 letter from Tami Williams of Wolf Haven International at Tenino, Washington, reminded Huffaker of the large cost of paying (Wildlife Services) to control 75% of the Lolo wolves. She speculated IDFG would get a hunting season if it waited and said, “With patience, wolf control could end up as a revenue generator rather than a revenue drain for IDFG.”
Instead of obeying Idaho Wildlife Policy in I.C. Sec. 36-103 (to preserve, protect, perpetuate and manage all wildlife), Huffaker and his biologists chose to listen to the wolf advocates and sacrifice the Lolo elk herd. Large Carnivore Coordinator Steve Nadeau prepared a 2006 10J wolf control plan claiming that declining habitat – not over- harvesting and later wolf predation – was the primary cause of the elk decline.
Nadeau’s lie ignored Clearwater elk research biologist George Pauley’s long-term and well documented research concluding that allowing hunters to kill too many bull elk was the cause of the steady decline in Lolo elk from 1986 – 2005. Read “IDFG – No Evidence Links Lolo Elk Loss to Habitat!” on Pages 6-8 of Outdoorsman No. 40.
Ignoring Pauley’s 1996 warning to stop over- harvesting bull elk, Clearwater Region Supervisor Herb Pollard increased the number of 1996 antlerless elk permits in the Lolo Zone from 350 to 1,900! In Dec. of 1996 when Steve Mealey was hired as IDFG Director, he replaced Pollard with Natural Resources Policy Director Cal Groen to halt the deliberate over-harvest.
But in 1997, Groen reduced the 1,900 antlerless permits by only 50 and changed 525 permits so hunts would end on Nov. 30 instead of Nov. 13. See results of Pollard’s and Groen’s mismanagement in harvest chart below:
IDFG Lolo Zone Elk Harvest Statistics
Year 1989 1992 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 2011
Female 156 200 223 166 277 277 7 0
Antlered 1819 1447 1268 1759 316 316 264 83
Total 1975 1647 1491 1925 1237 593 271 83
The 2006 10J wolf control plan could easily have been corrected by replacing Nadeau’s false claims with Pauley’s facts, and then submitting it to FWS. But even two years later, in 2008, IDFG Director Groen and F&G Commissioner Gary Power told the Legislature and the media that IDFG had no intention of controlling wolves in Idaho’s wilderness areas.
The appointment of Groen to the Governor’s staff in 2007 was apparently seen as an opportunity for IDFG to ignore Idaho law and the Legislature. Groen’s direction to Nadeau, to write an IDFG Wolf Plan containing massive changes to the only wolf plan approved by the Legislature, and Groen’s failure to transmit that plan for legislative approval or rejection, reflects his willingness to ignore state law and the welfare of Idaho wildlife.
The IDFG conspiracy that bypassed the lawful process and resulted in Groen, Otter and Otter’s Office of Species Conservation telling FWS Director Dale Hall that IDFG will manage for five times as many wolves as agreed to in the FWS Recovery Plan, happened without public or legislative input.
Idaho’s 2002 wolf plan emphasizes several times on pages 21 and 23 how extremely important it is for IDFG to conduct an annual census of selected important prey species. The Lolo Zone elk met every criterion for annual monitoring – yet in the 11 years since that plan was approved by the Legislature – IDFG has conducted only two counts in Unit 10 and three counts in Unit 12!
And when Nadeau wrote the *censored* wolf plan in 2007 – approved unanimously by the F&G Commission on March 6, 2008 – the “annual count” language was changed to once every three to five years, plus it allowed biologists to wait another three years before taking any action! On May 22, 2008 Groen gave Nadeau an “Employee of the Year” Award for “outstanding management/leadership.”
In February of 2009, Pauley met with Montana sportsmen and the media and said there were 130-150 wolves in the Lolo Zone. He advised that the State of Idaho was making a request to shoot about 80% (104-120) of them, and would leave a minimum of 25 wolves.
Although Pauley said the 10J proposal would be presented to FWS shortly and Unsworth confirmed it, neither had any intention of controlling wolves. This was simply designed to show hard core wolf advocates they had better not oppose delisting or IDFG would kill 100 wolves in one location.
Even after Senator Jeff Siddoway forced IDFG to commit to control Lolo Zone wolves during the 2011-2012 winter, Deputy Director Unsworth ordered the helicopter control halted on the third day despite ideal conditions. Only 14 wolves were taken in that brief control action and Wildlife Services told me I would have to talk to Unsworth to find out why. The wolf control figures Unsworth claimed would reduce big game predation in the Lolo Zone were far too low to have any measurable impact.
http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/The_Outdoorsman_No_51_Dec_2012_-_Mar_2013.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/The_Outdoorsman_No_51_Dec_2012_-_Mar_2013.pdf)
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml)
Post by: jasnt on August 11, 2014, 05:22:00 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on August 11, 2014, 07:45:19 PM
Post by: wolfbait on August 12, 2014, 07:09:39 AM
I don't understand what that long-winded post is even trying to say?? IDFG is doing a bad job and there are no elk left in Idaho? Idaho is conspiring to exterminate hunting? It rambles so many different directions it's hard to follow what the point is. Maybe my eyes are tired from pouring over all the maps where I will be elk hunting in Idaho this fall and I missed the point :dunno:
Maybe you need to get some new glasses? Maybe you have been in the smoke too long? Maybe the facts have rendered your mind into a state of blankness? :chuckle:
Post by: idaho guy on August 12, 2014, 09:29:11 AM
One other bit of background. I have hunted Idaho for over 20 years, with the lifetime license continue hunting elk there. To you who say the wolves haven't impacted the panhandle thank God they haven't found your particular little honey hole yet. They moved into mine a couple years ago, and there has definitely been a devastating impact. Wolves aren't everywhere at once, but in the drainages a pack resides it is a mess. >:(:yeah:
Finally someone else that has seen firsthand what wolves do too honey holes in Idaho.(sorry they got into your spot)This is the exact point I have been trying to make. You can argue other factors all you want but if you spend enough time in the Idaho woods you will see with your own eyes exactly what wolves can do. Aspen bud your genetically inferior elk argument is exactly what the enviro pro wolfers have been saying since wolves were reintroduced. There were plenty of predators before wolves that could cull the inferior animails but they actually regulated their killing to keep the herds large and healthy, They were called hunters. But thats what this wolf thing is all about anyways introducing a new predator to reduce the herds so there is no surplus and eventually eliminate the need for human hunters. Reducing the wolf has to be the focal point on helping elk -habitat all that is important too but we need to control wolves. Yes Idaho elk huntting is still good and we are controlling wolves so we will be fine. But we need to QUIT trying to deflect the blame of wolves it is counterproductive to helping our elk
Post by: idahohuntr on August 12, 2014, 10:14:10 AM
But we need to QUIT trying to deflect the blame of wolves it is counterproductive to helping our elkIts not deflecting blame, its keeping all of the factors that influence elk abundance in proportion to the magnitude of the effect. The reality is the effects of wolves on elk have been greatly exxagerated by some and significantly downplayed by others. Reality is wolves impact elk differently in different areas...and those impacts range from virtually 0 to fairly substantial. I would argue that where wolves have the largest impacts also correlate to areas with relatively poor habitat (e.g., Lolo)...is there a link there? :dunno: It is just as bad to ignore the impacts of wolves as it is to ignore all of the other factors (ag, habitat, poaching, weather, etc.) that have a collectively more significant impact on elk. Hunters tend to get really spun up on wolves, but where is the habitat thread? The ag practices thread? the depredation claims thread? All of these have profound impacts on elk abundance but get none of the attention that a few hundred wolves do. Frankly...hunting turning into a rich mans sport is about a million times more likely to prevent the average joe from hunting in the future than any predator population....wolves, lions, bears whatever.
Post by: mfswallace on August 12, 2014, 12:15:37 PM
But we need to QUIT trying to deflect the blame of wolves it is counterproductive to helping our elkIts not deflecting blame, its keeping all of the factors that influence elk abundance in proportion to the magnitude of the effect. The reality is the effects of wolves on elk have been greatly exxagerated by some and significantly downplayed by others. Reality is wolves impact elk differently in different areas...and those impacts range from virtually 0 to fairly substantial. I would argue that where wolves have the largest impacts also correlate to areas with relatively poor habitat (e.g., Lolo)...is there a link there? :dunno: It is just as bad to ignore the impacts of wolves as it is to ignore all of the other factors (ag, habitat, poaching, weather, etc.) that have a collectively more significant impact on elk. Hunters tend to get really spun up on wolves, but where is the habitat thread? The ag practices thread? the depredation claims thread? All of these have profound impacts on elk abundance but get none of the attention that a few hundred wolves do. Frankly...hunting turning into a rich mans sport is about a million times more likely to prevent the average joe from hunting in the future than any predator population....wolves, lions, bears whatever.
Your right again it's not wolves it's everything else :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: idaho guy on August 12, 2014, 12:23:49 PM
:yeah:But we need to QUIT trying to deflect the blame of wolves it is counterproductive to helping our elkIts not deflecting blame, its keeping all of the factors that influence elk abundance in proportion to the magnitude of the effect. The reality is the effects of wolves on elk have been greatly exxagerated by some and significantly downplayed by others. Reality is wolves impact elk differently in different areas...and those impacts range from virtually 0 to fairly substantial. I would argue that where wolves have the largest impacts also correlate to areas with relatively poor habitat (e.g., Lolo)...is there a link there? :dunno: It is just as bad to ignore the impacts of wolves as it is to ignore all of the other factors (ag, habitat, poaching, weather, etc.) that have a collectively more significant impact on elk. Hunters tend to get really spun up on wolves, but where is the habitat thread? The ag practices thread? the depredation claims thread? All of these have profound impacts on elk abundance but get none of the attention that a few hundred wolves do. Frankly...hunting turning into a rich mans sport is about a million times more likely to prevent the average joe from hunting in the future than any predator population....wolves, lions, bears whatever.
Your right again it's not wolves it's everything else :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: kentrek on August 12, 2014, 12:31:17 PM
But we need to QUIT trying to deflect the blame of wolves it is counterproductive to helping our elkIts not deflecting blame, its keeping all of the factors that influence elk abundance in proportion to the magnitude of the effect. The reality is the effects of wolves on elk have been greatly exxagerated by some and significantly downplayed by others. Reality is wolves impact elk differently in different areas...and those impacts range from virtually 0 to fairly substantial. I would argue that where wolves have the largest impacts also correlate to areas with relatively poor habitat (e.g., Lolo)...is there a link there? :dunno: It is just as bad to ignore the impacts of wolves as it is to ignore all of the other factors (ag, habitat, poaching, weather, etc.) that have a collectively more significant impact on elk. Hunters tend to get really spun up on wolves, but where is the habitat thread? The ag practices thread? the depredation claims thread? All of these have profound impacts on elk abundance but get none of the attention that a few hundred wolves do. Frankly...hunting turning into a rich mans sport is about a million times more likely to prevent the average joe from hunting in the future than any predator population....wolves, lions, bears whatever.
:yeah: everything is conected in one way or another.....i think the key thing is thing to remember is that wolves "tipped" the scale over...everything was pretty balanced prior to there introduction and now its in the process of re balancing its self...some areas re balance faster than others
im still gona kill elk in some pretty wolf infested areas and im hopefully gona kill every dang dog i see :tup:
also....i think hunters restricting hunters is gona have a greater impact than wolves every thought of having
Post by: bearpaw on August 12, 2014, 01:20:38 PM
But we need to QUIT trying to deflect the blame of wolves it is counterproductive to helping our elkIts not deflecting blame, its keeping all of the factors that influence elk abundance in proportion to the magnitude of the effect. The reality is the effects of wolves on elk have been greatly exxagerated by some and significantly downplayed by others. Reality is wolves impact elk differently in different areas...and those impacts range from virtually 0 to fairly substantial. I would argue that where wolves have the largest impacts also correlate to areas with relatively poor habitat (e.g., Lolo)...is there a link there? :dunno: It is just as bad to ignore the impacts of wolves as it is to ignore all of the other factors (ag, habitat, poaching, weather, etc.) that have a collectively more significant impact on elk. Hunters tend to get really spun up on wolves, but where is the habitat thread? The ag practices thread? the depredation claims thread? All of these have profound impacts on elk abundance but get none of the attention that a few hundred wolves do. Frankly...hunting turning into a rich mans sport is about a million times more likely to prevent the average joe from hunting in the future than any predator population....wolves, lions, bears whatever.
Wolves have a huge impact, simple math tells the story. Each wolf kills the equivalent of 44 deer or 17 elk per year, but most often a mix of elk/moose/deer and whatever else they catch. An area with 1 pack of ten wolves is going to lose the equivalent of 440 deer or 170 elk/moose to wolves annually. If a region has 100 wolves that is 4,400 deer or 1700 elk/moose. When you 1000 or more wolves like Idaho, then you have numerous units below management objective. Those predation numbers come from a government study in YNP where they physically inspected kills to confirm how many animals the wolves killed, that is what they found, nobody knows how many kills they did not find.
The worst impacts by wolves are in more remote areas and units with fewer human inhabitants to thin the wolf numbers, look at the map of Idaho with the heaviest wolf impacts! :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on August 12, 2014, 02:23:50 PM
Yes, wolves do eat elk and deer. However the math is not as simple as you seem to suggest and the numbers you present are easily misconstrued. Compensatory mortality is a big factor in almost all scenarios and so it is not accurate to suggest an elk herd would decrease in size by 170 animals annually as long as a pack of 10 wolves is present. If that were remotely accurate there would be almost no elk in large swaths of Idaho given wolves have been present for 20 years...I think you and I agree nothing could be further from the truth...most of Idaho is actually doing pretty well.But we need to QUIT trying to deflect the blame of wolves it is counterproductive to helping our elkIts not deflecting blame, its keeping all of the factors that influence elk abundance in proportion to the magnitude of the effect. The reality is the effects of wolves on elk have been greatly exxagerated by some and significantly downplayed by others. Reality is wolves impact elk differently in different areas...and those impacts range from virtually 0 to fairly substantial. I would argue that where wolves have the largest impacts also correlate to areas with relatively poor habitat (e.g., Lolo)...is there a link there? :dunno: It is just as bad to ignore the impacts of wolves as it is to ignore all of the other factors (ag, habitat, poaching, weather, etc.) that have a collectively more significant impact on elk. Hunters tend to get really spun up on wolves, but where is the habitat thread? The ag practices thread? the depredation claims thread? All of these have profound impacts on elk abundance but get none of the attention that a few hundred wolves do. Frankly...hunting turning into a rich mans sport is about a million times more likely to prevent the average joe from hunting in the future than any predator population....wolves, lions, bears whatever.
Wolves have a huge impact, simple math tells the story. Each wolf kills the equivalent of 44 deer or 17 elk per year, but most often a mix of elk/moose/deer and whatever else they catch. An area with 1 pack of ten wolves is going to lose the equivalent of 440 deer or 170 elk/moose to wolves annually. If a region has 100 wolves that is 4,400 deer or 1700 elk/moose. When you 1000 or more wolves like Idaho, then you have numerous units below management objective. Those predation numbers come from a government study in YNP where they physically inspected kills to confirm how many animals the wolves killed, that is what they found, nobody knows how many kills they did not find.
The worst impacts by wolves are in more remote areas and units with fewer human inhabitants to thin the wolf numbers, look at the map of Idaho with the heaviest wolf impacts! :twocents:
Post by: elkoholic1 on August 12, 2014, 03:29:19 PM
Seems to me the decline started right after Obama took office, but its likely Bush's fault, not the wolves. :chuckle:
:yeah: