Post by: bearpaw on January 24, 2015, 04:10:12 PM
Quote
Jim Hayden, Idaho Fish and Game’s head wolf biologist, said teams have surveyed 30 of the state’s 107 known wolf packs, and 22 breeding pairs were found within them.
The minimum requirement for breeding pairs set by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is 15 for the entire state. “At this point, there are 77 more packs that we have not examined,” he told The Spokesman-Review on Thursday.
In a briefing to the Fish and Game Commission in Boise last week, Hayden estimated Idaho holds roughly 1,000 wolves and probably many more breeding pairs than have been confirmed so far.
read more: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/jan/23/idaho-wolf-survey-reveals-thriving-breeding/ (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/jan/23/idaho-wolf-survey-reveals-thriving-breeding/)
Post by: huntnphool on January 24, 2015, 04:21:37 PM
Post by: 3nails on January 24, 2015, 04:58:20 PM
Oh my goodness! :lol4: The stupidity is so funny it hurts! :lol4:
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on January 24, 2015, 07:45:34 PM
A final estimate for the total number of wolves currently in Idaho won’t be made until April. But Hayden said that through mid-January it appears the wolf population has declined slightly from the estimate of 1,036 wolves as of Jan. 1, 2014.
Post by: jasnt on January 24, 2015, 07:59:23 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 29, 2015, 05:49:44 PM
Post by: wolfbait on January 29, 2015, 06:08:31 PM
Idaho wolf survey reveals thriving breeding numbersQuoteJim Hayden, Idaho Fish and Game’s head wolf biologist, said teams have surveyed 30 of the state’s 107 known wolf packs, and 22 breeding pairs were found within them.
The minimum requirement for breeding pairs set by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is 15 for the entire state. “At this point, there are 77 more packs that we have not examined,” he told The Spokesman-Review on Thursday.
In a briefing to the Fish and Game Commission in Boise last week, Hayden estimated Idaho holds roughly 1,000 wolves and probably many more breeding pairs than have been confirmed so far.
read more: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/jan/23/idaho-wolf-survey-reveals-thriving-breeding/ (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/jan/23/idaho-wolf-survey-reveals-thriving-breeding/)
"In a briefing to the Fish and Game Commission in Boise last week, Hayden estimated Idaho holds roughly 1,000 wolves and probably many more breeding pairs"
Idaho's wolf population never seems to grow, I wonder where all the offspring end up?
Human Harvest Does Not Halt Wolf Increases
On page 8 of the Jan-March 2008 article, I reported the Alaska study in Denali National Park where biologists found they had been underestimating total wolf numbers by 50% by documenting primarily packs of wolves instead of also documenting dispersing and transient wolves. Yet Idaho biologists continue to ignore the Alaska research and pretend that pups, yearlings and older wolves that emigrate from packs suddenly disappear from the face of the earth just because they are not wearing a radio-tracking collar.
A six-year study of the impact of hunting and trapping on wolf populations in Alaska’s Central Brooks Range by Layne Adams and four other scientists concluded that liberal harvest by hunters and trappers of 29% or less of a wolf population has no impact (yes I said NO impact) on wolf population increases. If you doubt that, I suggest you read more about this study, published in the May 2008 issue of Wildlife Monographs, later in this article.
As part of the FWS May 9, 2008 Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (to halt wolf management by the three states) Mech wrote the following in his 22-page “Declaration under penalty of perjury:”
“Every year, most wolf populations almost double in the spring through the birth of pups [Mech 1970]. For example in May 2008, there will not be 1,500 wolves, but 3,000! (Wolf population estimates are usually made in winter when animals are at their nadir*. This approach serves to provide conservative estimates and further insure that management remains conservative).”
(*lowest point)
“70% Kill Needed to Reduce Wolf Population”
Mech continued, “As indicated above, 28-50% of a wolf population must be killed by humans per year (on top of natural mortality) to even hold a wolf population stationery. Indeed, the agencies outside the NRM which are seeking to reduce wolf populations try to kill 70% per year (Fuller et al. 2003).” (emphasis added)
“Such extreme taking of the kind necessary to effectively reduce wolf populations is done via concerted and expensive government agency (Alaska, Y ukon Territories for example) programs using helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. Normal regulated public harvest such as is contemplated in the NRM is usually unable to reduce wolf populations (Mech 2001).” (emphasis added)
In his Declaration, Mech also refuted the 1,500 NRM (three-state) minimum wolf estimate as follows: Read more @ http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No.28%20May%202008%20FWS%20Biologist%20Says%20Wolf%20Numbers%20Underestimated%20Mech%20Says%203,000%20Wolves%20Exist%20in%20ID,%20MT%20&%20WY.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No.28%20May%202008%20FWS%20Biologist%20Says%20Wolf%20Numbers%20Underestimated%20Mech%20Says%203,000%20Wolves%20Exist%20in%20ID,%20MT%20&%20WY.pdf)
Post by: HntnFsh on January 29, 2015, 06:30:24 PM
Post by: jasnt on January 29, 2015, 06:44:05 PM
This what I been saying for few years. Hmmmm Washington has little compation and no wolf hunting. Pretty safe if your a wolf
Post by: idahohuntr on January 29, 2015, 07:35:34 PM
Isn't this Unworth's baby, you know, the one that Washington hunters have started to praise for his great work in Idaho ?Yes, I'm glad you recognize the good work Unsworth has been a part of in Idaho. Navigating the state to a position where they can manage wolves, not be hampered by federal restrictions, no longer ESA listed, send trappers and helicopters to kill wolves in areas where predation is significant on big game...the list goes on and on. In all of the states with wolves I would have a hard time finding one that has done it better than Idaho.
Post by: wolfbait on January 30, 2015, 04:57:09 AM
Isn't this Unworth's baby, you know, the one that Washington hunters have started to praise for his great work in Idaho ?Yes, I'm glad you recognize the good work Unsworth has been a part of in Idaho. Navigating the state to a position where they can manage wolves, not be hampered by federal restrictions, no longer ESA listed, send trappers and helicopters to kill wolves in areas where predation is significant on big game...the list goes on and on. In all of the states with wolves I would have a hard time finding one that has done it better than Idaho.
Reading the info below, it seems to me that Unsworth protected wolves, and ignored the impact of wolves on the game herds, blaming habitat as the reason for the decline instead of wolves. WDFW are on the same track, it's all about more habitat instead of predator control.
Killing 14 Wolves Insured Continued Elk Decline
During the Feb. 3, 2012 winter feeding hearing by the Senate Resource Committee, Senator Siddoway kept asking Wildlife Bureau Chief Jeff Gould if F&G planned to have Wildlife Services kill any wolves. When Sen. Siddoway emphasized his question by tone and demeanor, Gould finally said they would kill “some” wolves in the Lolo Zone.
Later when I asked the Wildlife Services Director in Idaho why they stopped with killing just 14 wolves in the Lolo Zone, he referred me to IDFG Deputy Director Jim Unsworth who he said was running the operation. In a Feb. 22 news release, Unsworth said the reason they shut down the control at just 14 wolves was that their minimum resident Lolo Zone wolf estimate was 76 wolves and they decided with 22 killed by hunters and trappers and six killed nearly a year earlier, removing a total of 42 wolves was appropriate.
The six wolves taken by WS nearly one year earlier did not affect the Dec. 16 2011 minimum estimate of 76-100 wolves in the Lolo Zone – which did not include the border packs roaming back and forth between Idaho and Montana. Killing only 36 total wolves assured wolves will continue to increase and destroy Lolo elk.
Montana has refused to allow trapping in its 2012- 2013 wolf “control” effort and, despite the frank admission by MTFWP that wolves have already caused some elk herds to become extinct, it obviously has no intention of reducing wolf numbers. Read the shocking supplement to this article in the July 2012 Outdoorsman.
http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2048%20April%202012-Native%20wolves.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2048%20April%202012-Native%20wolves.pdf)
F&G Fails to Monitor Elk Populations
The Idaho Legislature did not allow IDFG to manage wolves for eight years after it violated Idaho law by secretly approving the FWS plan and issuing FWS a permit allowing them to transplant wolves into Idaho. But even after the Legislature rewrote and then approved the 17th IDFG draft of its wolf plan in 2002, F&G failed to follow even the provisions it had written into that plan,
For example Page 23 of the 2002 State Wolf Plan requires IDFG to conduct a census every year of selected prey populations, including at least population size and sex and age ratio, with additional information required when concerns are raised about wolf predation (emphasis added). Instead, biologists conducted these mandatory counts only once every 3-5 years and did nothing to assess the impact of wolf predation for several years.
F&G Denied Winter Losses, Increased Cow Permits
Despite peer reviewers‘ concurrence with counting total deer and elk and then comparing the numbers with pre-wolf counts to determine the impact of wolves, biologists also ignored that input. They also ignored the 19 years of research in the Clearwater and all of the research elsewhere implicating predators, and denied any adverse impact from the 1992-93 winter and the 1996-97 winter.
For a year after the severe 1996-97 winter they continued to claim cow elk losses were less than normal in Lewiston Tribune articles and increased the number of antlerless permits in the 1997 elk season! They continued to insist that declining calf survival since 1992 resulted from aging brush fields that were being replaced by forest. Zager Spent 20 years Trying to Prove the Habitat Myth
That is the same excuse other biologists used 40 years earlier with the same results. The famous Clearwater elk herds have continued to decline for the second time, but instead of seeking the truth as happened in 1964, research biologist Pete Zager and his helpers have wasted nearly two decades and countless dollars unsuccessfully trying to find some evidence to support their habitat excuse as they allowed the elk herd to be decimated.
The UN – Nature Conservancy – IDFG philosophy of reintroducing wolves into ecosystems to create a ―natural balance‖ prohibited biologists from killing wolves and from admitting the truth – that uncontrolled wolves ultimately destroy healthy elk herds and leave them in a predator pit from which they cannot recover without help.
IDFG 2005 Wolf Control Proposal Violated 10J
When former Idaho Gov. Kempthorne signed the Agreement with the Secretary of Interior on January 5, 2006 to manage wolves, Idaho biologists‘ proposal to kill 43-50 wolves in the Lolo Zone was written so it could not be approved by FWS (see ―10J Wolf Control Plan Sabotaged” on Page 10 of Outdoorsman Bulletin No.38 at: http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Outdoorsman.html (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Outdoorsman.html) ). The Proposal falsely claimed (without offering any proof) that ―Forest Maturation‖ was the sole primary cause of elk declines, with bear and lion predation causing calf declines and wolf predation likely contributing to low cow survival.
Rather than rewrite their Proposal to include facts instead of the habitat myth, Idaho biologists insisted that habitat is always the primary cause of wild ungulate declines. FWS Wolf Leader Ed Bangs suggested IDFG hold the proposal and took two years to re-write and get final approval of another 10J version which allowed control if wolves were just a contributor to elk declines.
But that same 10J version by Bangs included the lie that predation is never the primary cause of prey declines despite the results of uncontested long-term scientific studies that prove just the opposite is true.
Meanwhile in 2007, Idaho biologists wrote their own version of an Idaho wolf plan, upping the minimum requirement for each state to leave at least 20 breeding pairs intact before any control of wolves impacting big game can be approved. Bangs included that in the final 10J 0proposal published on Jan. 28, 2008 even before it was finally approved by the Idaho F&G Commission in March,
Habitat Had Little or No Impact on Elk Decline
Read more @ http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2040%20-%20The%20Whole%20Truth%20about%20the%20Radical%20Declines%20in%20Idaho%20Big%20Game%20Harvests.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2040%20-%20The%20Whole%20Truth%20about%20the%20Radical%20Declines%20in%20Idaho%20Big%20Game%20Harvests.pdf)
F&G Ignores Warnings from Experts
Also in 2002, the most experienced researcher of the impact of wolves on wild ungulates in North America, Tom Bergerud, told the Idaho Fish and Game Commission wolves would cause a major decline in Idaho elk herds. He described watching herd after herd of caribou become extinct across Canada and said wolves will concentrate on one prey species until it is depressed, then move on to another that is available.
Bergerud insisted that wolves must be reduced over a wide area and for a long period of time, but Panhandle biologist Jim Hayden suggested this and other similar advice “must be taken with a grain of salt.” He provided the Commission with a computer model he designed alleging that it would not be necessary to manage wolves if bear, lion and human take is regulated.
He did this despite the fact that his computer solution was already proven a 100% failure in the adjacent Clearwater Region in the Lolo Zone. It is that attitude, ignoring 40 years of painstaking wolf research by legitimate scientists in Canada and Alaska, which characterizes those who are destroying our wildlife and our way of life.
Unable to defend or even debate their so-called “restoration of native ecosystems,” they protect large carnivores in a network of man-made wilderness areas connected by a system of man-made predator corridors. And our Western Governors not only endorse but are facilitating the projects while no one (except a few top wildlife scientists in North America) is willing to discuss what happens once the carnivores decimate their prey.
#38 Idaho F&G Director Warns F&G Commission Not to Show Controversial Wolf Documents to Public
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Outdoorsman-38.html (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Outdoorsman-38.html)
Post by: idahohuntr on January 30, 2015, 07:51:44 AM
I think Unsworth has done a fine job with working to harvest wolves in key areas, particularly where they are a limiting factor. Unlike you, Unsworth has actually spent time in the Lolo. The fact that he, like everyone else that knows anything about that area, can tell you habitat is a real problem in that zone is not surprising. That he has worked to address both predation and habitat issues in the Lolo should be encouraging to all hunters. I don't get your fascination with a zone in Idaho you have no understanding of...I seriously do not know a single person who has ever been to or hunted the Lolo zone who would disagree that habitat is also a significant factor affecting elk numbers. Even the most anti-wolf zealots I know who actually have hunting experience in that zone will NOT dismiss the habitat component.
Post by: mountainman on January 30, 2015, 09:02:20 AM
I doubt any director would make you happy wolfbait. The articles you frequently reference and quote are not based in fact, they are written by someone who is jealous or has some complex with specific IDFG staff and just likes to make personal attacks against.and you have years of experience (a lifetime I might add) hunting the west Okanagon (Twisp/Carlton) area?? Just curious... :dunno:
I think Unsworth has done a fine job with working to harvest wolves in key areas, particularly where they are a limiting factor. Unlike you, Unsworth has actually spent time in the Lolo. The fact that he, like everyone else that knows anything about that area, can tell you habitat is a real problem in that zone is not surprising. That he has worked to address both predation and habitat issues in the Lolo should be encouraging to all hunters. I don't get your fascination with a zone in Idaho you have no understanding of...I seriously do not know a single person who has ever been to or hunted the Lolo zone who would disagree that habitat is also a significant factor affecting elk numbers. Even the most anti-wolf zealots I know who actually have hunting experience in that zone will NOT dismiss the habitat component.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 30, 2015, 09:06:02 AM
Post by: mountainman on January 30, 2015, 09:35:07 AM
No. But I dont see the relevance of your comment. Perhaps you could clarify.Unlike you, Unsworth has actually spent time in the Lolo.
Unlike you, Wolfbait and others have spent a lifetime in the Methow. .either those in the field have credibility or they don't.. :dunno:
Post by: bobcat on January 30, 2015, 09:50:20 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 30, 2015, 10:16:38 AM
I still don't see any relevance to your comment :dunno: Are you suggesting I have made comments about the Methow that are in direct conflict with scientific evidence and observations? If so, perhaps you could cite them for me. To my knowledge I have not made any comments about any specific situation in the Methow. This is not comparable to wolfbait who constantly derides any biologist who suggests there is more to Lolo elk declines than just wolves.No. But I dont see the relevance of your comment. Perhaps you could clarify.Unlike you, Unsworth has actually spent time in the Lolo.
Unlike you, Wolfbait and others have spent a lifetime in the Methow. .either those in the field have credibility or they don't.. :dunno:
I don't see where Unsworth advocated killing NO wolves. So what's the issue ? I don't get it.That makes at least 2 of us.
Post by: wolfbait on January 30, 2015, 12:36:01 PM
I doubt any director would make you happy wolfbait. The articles you frequently reference and quote are not based in fact, they are written by someone who is jealous or has some complex with specific IDFG staff and just likes to make personal attacks against.
I think Unsworth has done a fine job with working to harvest wolves in key areas, particularly where they are a limiting factor. Unlike you, Unsworth has actually spent time in the Lolo. The fact that he, like everyone else that knows anything about that area, can tell you habitat is a real problem in that zone is not surprising. That he has worked to address both predation and habitat issues in the Lolo should be encouraging to all hunters. I don't get your fascination with a zone in Idaho you have no understanding of...I seriously do not know a single person who has ever been to or hunted the Lolo zone who would disagree that habitat is also a significant factor affecting elk numbers. Even the most anti-wolf zealots I know who actually have hunting experience in that zone will NOT dismiss the habitat component.
I think what bothers you and the rest of the pro-wolf people on W-H, is that Jim Unsworth's Idaho history is coming into view, and his shine is rubbing off.
To say that IDFG did a great job of managing their game herds with the introduction of wolves, only shows that you either have a very short memory, or you know nothing about IDFG and their past history.
In the 1980's I helicopter logged on Lolo pass, we stayed at the Lochsa lodge, we had no problem seeing nice bulls etc. on both side of the river and sometimes moose.
I include a piece from someone who hunted and hiked the Lolo for forty years.
Habitat:
While IDFG was blaming poor habitat conditions instead of wolves for Idaho’s backcountry elk reduction, we saw that elk drastically changed their habits and browsing locations. For example we noticed in the Lolo, Selway and other backcountry regions with high wolf density that the elk were living in the steep, rocky, brushy finger ridges above the rivers. http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/elk%20plan/NRA%2010-2012%20article%20on%20Selway%20elk.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/elk%20plan/NRA%2010-2012%20article%20on%20Selway%20elk.pdf) the magazine writer took a bear hunt into the Selway and the Outfitter echoes exactly what we’ve witnessed regarding elk behaviour changes and the types of terrain and cover they have gravitated to for safety. The challenge is the academia IDFG and US forest service continues to have the same pre-wolf mindset from 20 years ago that these finger ridges need to be burned off to improve elk habitat. We’ve seen prescribed burns in the Selway the past few years that are burning up the elk’s hiding and security locations from the wolves actually making the elk more vulnerable to wolf predation.
Back in 2007, Ecologist Dr. Charles Kay informed us that Canadian biologists had learned that blaming habitat in high wolf density regions was futile. Dr. Charles Kay put me in touch with Canadian biologist Cliff White who provided me with elk data from Banff National Park. Mr. White emailed me elk count data from Banf where elk are not hunted that revealed a drastic decline in elk. After years of Canadian control measures to eliminate wolves, Banff had its first re-established wolf pack in 1986. (Click here for the Banf elk data) http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/elk%20plan/banff.JPG (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/elk%20plan/banff.JPG) closely models the downward trajectory of the Lolo, Selway and other Idaho backcountry elk zones.
2006 Plan to remove 43 wolves to help the Lolo Elk was designed to fail from the beginning:
(Click here) http://www.hcn.org/issues/320/16239 (http://www.hcn.org/issues/320/16239) read the following news article, where it states, “Some biologists and conservation groups question the science behind the plan,” (To remove the 43 wolves in the Lolo). Those biologists worked for IDFG and most still do. In fact current IDFG Deputy Director Jim Unsworth was quoted in this article when he was the Wildlife bureau Chief that, “When you have great habitat," he says, "predators aren't an issue." In fact Doctor Unsworth and Suzanne Stone of Defenders of Wildlife closely echoed the same conclusion why the Lolo elk populations were dropping in the Lolo.
Vigilant Sportsmen fought desperately to save the Lolo elk Zone against a radical pro-predator environmental agenda that could not be stopped:
Sportsmen realize the importance of quality habitat for elk. The Fires in the Lolo region of 1910, 1919 and 1934 created incredible forage for elk to flourish in the 20th century. However in retrospect many now don’t believe the elk populations would have grown like they did with the presence of high wolf populations. After witnessing the damage wolves create even with good habitat many now believe the early 20th century wolf bounties accompanied by the fires were the primary reasons the elk numbers flourished. Our family has been hunting and hiking the Lolo zone for over 40 years and we’ve seen the habit change drastically. Even with the habitat challenges in the Lolo, IDFG has finally admitted the elk numbers are way below the habitat carrying capacity. In areas of the Clearwater where elk numbers have plummeted, IDFG Biologists and managers have historically blamed habitat primarily and predation lastly for the cause of the elk decline.
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/component/content/article/2-content/36-idfg-elk-managment-plan (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/component/content/article/2-content/36-idfg-elk-managment-plan)
Post by: idahohuntr on January 30, 2015, 01:06:37 PM
Post by: huntnphool on January 30, 2015, 01:31:54 PM
so why don't you tell us who you would like to have seen hired as director if Unsworth is such a bad choice?
That may have been a valid question, had the list of applicants been shared. ;)
Post by: hirshey on January 30, 2015, 02:42:57 PM
Isn't this Unworth's baby, you know, the one that Washington hunters have started to praise for his great work in Idaho ?Yes, I'm glad you recognize the good work Unsworth has been a part of in Idaho. Navigating the state to a position where they can manage wolves, not be hampered by federal restrictions, no longer ESA listed, send trappers and helicopters to kill wolves in areas where predation is significant on big game...the list goes on and on. In all of the states with wolves I would have a hard time finding one that has done it better than Idaho.
I agree with you, Idahohuntr.. Sadly the same plan implementation will not be sustainable in Washington with all the bleeding hearts in Seattle-Olympia that govern based on emotions and not science. Even the "wolf experts" we support and employ in this state called that article an "opinion piece" and then went on to spotlight another article on the British Columbia wolf culling to protect woodland caribou, calling it "murder". The way we frame the issue in Washington is different than Idaho. We employ people who established wolves in Idaho and work with Wolf Haven and pretend a conflict of interest doesn't exist.
Post by: jasnt on January 30, 2015, 03:17:08 PM
very well saidIsn't this Unworth's baby, you know, the one that Washington hunters have started to praise for his great work in Idaho ?Yes, I'm glad you recognize the good work Unsworth has been a part of in Idaho. Navigating the state to a position where they can manage wolves, not be hampered by federal restrictions, no longer ESA listed, send trappers and helicopters to kill wolves in areas where predation is significant on big game...the list goes on and on. In all of the states with wolves I would have a hard time finding one that has done it better than Idaho.
I agree with you, Idahohuntr.. Sadly the same plan implementation will not be sustainable in Washington with all the bleeding hearts in Seattle-Olympia that govern based on emotions and not science. Even the "wolf experts" we support and employ in this state called that article an "opinion piece" and then went on to spotlight another article on the British Columbia wolf culling to protect woodland caribou, calling it "murder". The way we frame the issue in Washington is different than Idaho. We employ people who established wolves in Idaho and work with Wolf Haven and pretend a conflict of interest doesn't exist.
Post by: mountainman on January 30, 2015, 04:27:28 PM
ditto!very well saidIsn't this Unworth's baby, you know, the one that Washington hunters have started to praise for his great work in Idaho ?Yes, I'm glad you recognize the good work Unsworth has been a part of in Idaho. Navigating the state to a position where they can manage wolves, not be hampered by federal restrictions, no longer ESA listed, send trappers and helicopters to kill wolves in areas where predation is significant on big game...the list goes on and on. In all of the states with wolves I would have a hard time finding one that has done it better than Idaho.
I agree with you, Idahohuntr.. Sadly the same plan implementation will not be sustainable in Washington with all the bleeding hearts in Seattle-Olympia that govern based on emotions and not science. Even the "wolf experts" we support and employ in this state called that article an "opinion piece" and then went on to spotlight another article on the British Columbia wolf culling to protect woodland caribou, calling it "murder". The way we frame the issue in Washington is different than Idaho. We employ people who established wolves in Idaho and work with Wolf Haven and pretend a conflict of interest doesn't exist.
Post by: wolfbait on January 30, 2015, 06:30:51 PM
Isn't this Unworth's baby, you know, the one that Washington hunters have started to praise for his great work in Idaho ?Yes, I'm glad you recognize the good work Unsworth has been a part of in Idaho. Navigating the state to a position where they can manage wolves, not be hampered by federal restrictions, no longer ESA listed, send trappers and helicopters to kill wolves in areas where predation is significant on big game...the list goes on and on. In all of the states with wolves I would have a hard time finding one that has done it better than Idaho.
I agree with you, Idahohuntr.. Sadly the same plan implementation will not be sustainable in Washington with all the bleeding hearts in Seattle-Olympia that govern based on emotions and not science. Even the "wolf experts" we support and employ in this state called that article an "opinion piece" and then went on to spotlight another article on the British Columbia wolf culling to protect woodland caribou, calling it "murder". The way we frame the issue in Washington is different than Idaho. We employ people who established wolves in Idaho and work with Wolf Haven and pretend a conflict of interest doesn't exist.
Hirshey, if you are saying that you agreed with IDFG's wolf management? Then you should be happy with WDFW's wolf management to date.
WDFW at six plus years later with five BP's, it would appear WDFW are managing for more wolves also
I can't see how WA will fair too well when we compare WA and Idaho"s game herds before wolf introduction.
When it's all said an done how will WA be different then ID, MT, and WY with environmental lawsuits?
IDFG's illegal permit authorized additional wolves to be "translocated" and injected into rich Central Idaho elk herds:
Due to the special permit and letter that IDFG illegally signed this allowed the USFWS to not only bring in the initial wolves in 1995, but gave them the authority “Translocate” additional "Problem" wolves all over Idaho’s back country. In fact the USFWS translocated 117 wolves into then NRM from 1998-2001 and many of these additional wolves were released throughout Idaho’s elk rich backcountry devastating these elk populations.
IDFG Resists accepting Wolf collars offered by RMEF
In early June of 2013, David Allen the president of RMEF phoned me indicting he was very frustrated with IDFG as they were dragging their feet on accepting $50,000 for free wolf collars. RMEF recognized a legitimate high risk threat for Idaho due to not having enough collared wolves on the ground. Mr. Allen was concerned that as of this Spring, IDFG had only about 40 collared wolves in the state. If Idaho cannot substantiate it has sufficient wolf numbers this could risk a review and potential relisting of the wolves by the Feds and we could lose state management. One long-term very knowledgeable legislator assumed the reason IDFG was against accepting the wolf collars is because this would result in more dead wolves. In fact “Wolves of the Rockies” spokeswomen Kim Bean said “wolf advocates would never buy tags because they fund only collaring and lethal control." I’m guessing the dept. is also against spending the $ to collar wolves because they can gain traction by claiming they are low on funds and will use this as another “Sequester” political posturing tool to scare legislators into giving them another fee increase for 2014. We had to contact the office of species conservation, legislators and IDFG commissioners before IDFG would finally accept the $ for these collars. To overcome the spending excuse to trap wolves to be collared, volunteers have agreed to trap the wolves for free but IDFG officials have refused this offer. This resistance to accept this $50K from RMEF and not having more collared wolves clearly raises red flags. Some may question is the motive purely environmental as Director Moore has been attempting to appease these groups in order to secure alternative funding? http://idahoforwildlife.com/component/content/article/2-content/36-idfg-elk-managment-plan (http://idahoforwildlife.com/component/content/article/2-content/36-idfg-elk-managment-plan)
"But regardless of what IDFG may say now as more Idahoans are learning the extent of the extreme wolf damage to our deer and elk herds, Director Groen, Deputy Director Unsworth and virtually every other IDFG official have made it abundantly clear that their only goal concerning wolves has been to build a huntable population of wolves as a big game trophy species and ignore their impact on Idaho wildlife and rural Idaho citizens."
http://graywolfnews.com/pdf/Outdoorsman_No_38_Feb-April_2010_IdahoFG_Director_Warns_FG_Commission_Not_to_Show_Controversial_Wolf_Documents_to_Public.pdf (http://graywolfnews.com/pdf/Outdoorsman_No_38_Feb-April_2010_IdahoFG_Director_Warns_FG_Commission_Not_to_Show_Controversial_Wolf_Documents_to_Public.pdf)
Post by: wolfbait on January 31, 2015, 01:17:23 PM
I.C.Section 36-104 (b) 2 requires the Idaho F&G Commission to hold hearings to determine whether or not any wildlife species may be taken without depleting it. If it finds that an open season may be declared without endangering the supply of any species, it shall make a temporary rule in respect to when, under what circumstances, in which localities, by what means, what sex, and in what amounts the wildlife may be taken.
If the Commission finds that a normally unprotected predatory species such as coyotes are in such short supply that the take must be controlled, this Code Section allows it to set a season with bag limits and methods of take, including trapping and snaring. However it can no longer allow mountain lions to be trapped or snared without going through a process of altering their big game classification by exception or reclassification.
Armed with all of this information, the Senators who wrote the Idaho Wolf Plan included the following: “The designation of the wolf as a big game species, furbearer or special classification of predator that provides for controlled take provides legal authorization for Idaho Department of Fish and Game to manage the species.”
USFWS officials approved the special predator classification “as long as it is a managed predator with set seasons and take” when the plan was written. Inclusion of the predator classification is the reason the wolf plan was approved by a majority of both houses of the Idaho Legislature, because it was consistent with their intent that the wolves be removed from Idaho, or carefully limited to the federally mandated minimum if they are not removed.
The Office of Species Conservation followed up on that language recently and the Idaho Plan was again approved by USFWS for delisting. It appeared that delisting would soon allow Idaho to cut the already excessive number of wolves in half but one thing was overlooked: the private goal of IDFG biologists to create and maintain a large population of wolves which may not be controlled as other predators are.
When the Draft Wolf EIS was written in 1993, IDFG Wolf Biologists justified wolf introduction by providing prey population estimates that were 600% higher than actually existed. When the Legislature learned of this misrepresentation, it amended I.C. Sec.36-715, specifically forbidding IDFG from expending funds or entering into a cooperative agreement with any agency, department or entity of the United States government concerning wolves unless expressly authorized by state statute.
Yet on September 27, 1994, while a USFWS public hearing was being held in Boise to determine whether or not Canadian wolves should be relocated in Idaho, IDFG Director Jerry Conley and Wildlife Bureau Chief Tom Reinecker quietly issued USFWS a special permit allowing the wolves to be released in Idaho. The permit was accompanied by a letter from Conley endorsing the strict federal wolf plan and agreeing to work with the federal wolf team to introduce Canadian wolves into Idaho, including providing IDFG staff support.
Shortly before the first wolves were released in Idaho, IDFG Wolf Biologist Jon Rachael wrote a Wolf Position Statement, which included the following:
“The IDFG supports wolf recovery in Idaho, believing that wolf recovery is compatible with all other natural resource interests in the state and that it will not have a negative impact on Idaho‟s economy. After delisting, the IDFG will probably manage wolves as game animals similar to lions and black bears.”
Read More @ http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%202%20April%202004.IDFG%20protects%20wolves,rattlesnakes.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%202%20April%202004.IDFG%20protects%20wolves,rattlesnakes.pdf)
Post by: timberfaller on January 31, 2015, 02:21:16 PM
Word of warning, "Biologist" CAREFUL when you interject them into you side!
I've been around many, working and ordering supply's for them, MOST don't know the difference between a fart and a hole in the wall :yike: just my :twocents: and experience!
Too many story's to prove my point :sry:
Continue on! ;)
Post by: wolfbait on January 31, 2015, 03:07:07 PM
Isn't this Unworth's baby, you know, the one that Washington hunters have started to praise for his great work in Idaho ?Yes, I'm glad you recognize the good work Unsworth has been a part of in Idaho. Navigating the state to a position where they can manage wolves, not be hampered by federal restrictions, no longer ESA listed, send trappers and helicopters to kill wolves in areas where predation is significant on big game...the list goes on and on. In all of the states with wolves I would have a hard time finding one that has done it better than Idaho.
2013--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.
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:
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)
Post by: mfswallace on January 31, 2015, 05:32:48 PM
Have you ever compiled all these articles, studies and ungulate herd numbers and presented the massive amount of material to any one in a position of authority that could take it further than hunt-wa?? Rep. Kretz or others whom seem to understand what is going to happen if wolves are not managed now instead of later.....
Post by: idahohuntr on January 31, 2015, 06:12:59 PM
Interesting...the real number is 89 wolves killed by IDFG during the 7 years from 2013 and prior. But 19 sounds better if your goal is to diminish the work of IDFG in managing wolves to peddle more unfounded wolf hysteria.Isn't this Unworth's baby, you know, the one that Washington hunters have started to praise for his great work in Idaho ?Yes, I'm glad you recognize the good work Unsworth has been a part of in Idaho. Navigating the state to a position where they can manage wolves, not be hampered by federal restrictions, no longer ESA listed, send trappers and helicopters to kill wolves in areas where predation is significant on big game...the list goes on and on. In all of the states with wolves I would have a hard time finding one that has done it better than Idaho.
2013--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.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/summary2013.pdf (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/summary2013.pdf)
Those numbers also do not reflect the 9 wolves killed by an IDFG hired trapper in the Frank Church last year (2014):
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-01-29/news/sns-rt-usa-wolves-20140129_1_wolves-central-idaho-frank-church-river (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-01-29/news/sns-rt-usa-wolves-20140129_1_wolves-central-idaho-frank-church-river)
And last but not least, these numbers do not include the 419 wolves killed by wildlife services largely in response to depredations nor the 760 wolves killed in 2013 and prior as part of the IDFG managed hunting and trapping seasons across most of the state.
Wolfbait,It would do no good to compile the lengthy articles wolfbait frequently posts...legislators and policy makers largely seek credible and verifiable information. A huge portion of what wolfbait copies and posts is from very non-credible fringe authors who really are clueless...and as I very easily point out...are often so far off the mark its impossible to even try and defend...although I'm sure that wont stop all from trying to explain away the 89 v. 19 discrepancy.
Have you ever compiled all these articles, studies and ungulate herd numbers and presented the massive amount of material to any one in a position of authority that could take it further than hunt-wa?? Rep. Kretz or others whom seem to understand what is going to happen if wolves are not managed now instead of later.....
As IDFG Director pointed out in a recent Op-Ed, the misinformation and exaggerations spread by these fringe advocacy groups should trouble anyone who has a sincere interest in the conservation of huntable populations of wildlife.
Post by: wolfbait on January 31, 2015, 09:13:10 PM
Interesting...the real number is 89 wolves killed by IDFG during the 7 years from 2013 and prior. But 19 sounds better if your goal is to diminish the work of IDFG in managing wolves to peddle more unfounded wolf hysteria.Isn't this Unworth's baby, you know, the one that Washington hunters have started to praise for his great work in Idaho ?Yes, I'm glad you recognize the good work Unsworth has been a part of in Idaho. Navigating the state to a position where they can manage wolves, not be hampered by federal restrictions, no longer ESA listed, send trappers and helicopters to kill wolves in areas where predation is significant on big game...the list goes on and on. In all of the states with wolves I would have a hard time finding one that has done it better than Idaho.
2013--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.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/summary2013.pdf (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/summary2013.pdf)
Those numbers also do not reflect the 9 wolves killed by an IDFG hired trapper in the Frank Church last year (2014):
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-01-29/news/sns-rt-usa-wolves-20140129_1_wolves-central-idaho-frank-church-river (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-01-29/news/sns-rt-usa-wolves-20140129_1_wolves-central-idaho-frank-church-river)
And last but not least, these numbers do not include the 419 wolves killed by wildlife services largely in response to depredations nor the 760 wolves killed in 2013 and prior as part of the IDFG managed hunting and trapping seasons across most of the state.Wolfbait,It would do no good to compile the lengthy articles wolfbait frequently posts...legislators and policy makers largely seek credible and verifiable information. A huge portion of what wolfbait copies and posts is from very non-credible fringe authors who really are clueless...and as I very easily point out...are often so far off the mark its impossible to even try and defend...although I'm sure that wont stop all from trying to explain away the 89 v. 19 discrepancy.
Have you ever compiled all these articles, studies and ungulate herd numbers and presented the massive amount of material to any one in a position of authority that could take it further than hunt-wa?? Rep. Kretz or others whom seem to understand what is going to happen if wolves are not managed now instead of later.....
As IDFG Director pointed out in a recent Op-Ed, the misinformation and exaggerations spread by these fringe advocacy groups should trouble anyone who has a sincere interest in the conservation of huntable populations of wildlife.
I-h wolf control for predation on livestock wasn't any part of my post, I guess you miss that part. Show me where you came up with 89 wolves killed to reduce the wolf impact on ungulates, I only get 27. Which were posted in my last post
#4- Wolves taken as authorized by IDFG to address unacceptable predation on ungulates and/or public safety concerns.= 27 wolves http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/summary2013.pdf (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/summary2013.pdf)
"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."
"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."
"Those numbers also do not reflect the 9 wolves killed by an IDFG hired trapper in the Frank Church last year (2014):"
If you take a little time and read what I posted you will see the date is 7 years from 2013, so no it doesn't include 2014. Adding the 2014's 9 to the 27 wolves killed, doesn't make IDFG sound that much better with a total of 36 wolves killed to lesson the impact on ungulates, and it shows in Idaho's hunting where wolves exist.
Post by: mfswallace on February 01, 2015, 08:18:03 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 01, 2015, 08:48:16 PM
IDFG has done a great job with the hand they were dealt. Also the predator and habitat issues are not mutually exclusive. I get that the facts don't fit the hysteria you frequently try to peddle, so why don't you tell us who you would like to have seen hired as director if Unsworth is such a bad choice?
Wolfbait won't answer that question. I already asked him.
Post by: wolfbait on February 01, 2015, 09:19:09 PM
IDFG has done a great job with the hand they were dealt. Also the predator and habitat issues are not mutually exclusive. I get that the facts don't fit the hysteria you frequently try to peddle, so why don't you tell us who you would like to have seen hired as director if Unsworth is such a bad choice?
Wolfbait won't answer that question. I already asked him.
It's a stupid question. Hunter etc. will never get a legitimate WDFW directer as long as the current administration is in charge, we need changes from the top down starting with the governor.
As for the habitat issue.
Wolf Predation, More Bad News
So we have islands that are poor caribou habitat, but which have no predators versus a nearby national park that is excellent caribou habitat but which contains wolves. Now according to what many biologists and pro-wolf advocates would have you believe , habitat is the most important factor in maintaining healthy ungulate populations, while predation can largely be ignored. Well nothing could be further from the truth. Habitat, as it turns, is irrelevant and ecologists have been, at best, brain-dead for years
Despite the supposedly "poor" habitat in the Slate Islands, Bergerud and his research team recorded the highest densities of caribou ever found anywhere in North America. Read more @
http://idahoforwildlife.com/Charles%20Kay/76-wolf%20predation-more%20bad%20news.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/Charles%20Kay/76-wolf%20predation-more%20bad%20news.pdf)
Post by: idahohuntr on February 01, 2015, 10:28:18 PM
Habitat = food, water, shelter.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 02, 2015, 06:15:34 AM
IDFG has done a great job with the hand they were dealt. Also the predator and habitat issues are not mutually exclusive. I get that the facts don't fit the hysteria you frequently try to peddle, so why don't you tell us who you would like to have seen hired as director if Unsworth is such a bad choice?
Wolfbait won't answer that question. I already asked him.
It's a stupid question. Hunter etc. will never get a legitimate WDFW directer as long as the current administration is in charge, we need changes from the top down starting with the governor.
And now we get to the just of Wolfbait's whole argument. "There aren't any legitimate candidates" So he is justified trashing anyone who gets the job, regardless of what their credentials are, their training, what they are capable of, and how good of a job they do.
How about this. We make you, Wolfbait, Governor of Washington. You hand pick your wildlife commission. Now who do they pick for the Director of WDFW?
Post by: wolfbait on February 02, 2015, 06:01:57 PM
IDFG has done a great job with the hand they were dealt. Also the predator and habitat issues are not mutually exclusive. I get that the facts don't fit the hysteria you frequently try to peddle, so why don't you tell us who you would like to have seen hired as director if Unsworth is such a bad choice?
Wolfbait won't answer that question. I already asked him.
It's a stupid question. Hunter etc. will never get a legitimate WDFW directer as long as the current administration is in charge, we need changes from the top down starting with the governor.
And now we get to the just of Wolfbait's whole argument. "There aren't any legitimate candidates" So he is justified trashing anyone who gets the job, regardless of what their credentials are, their training, what they are capable of, and how good of a job they do.
How about this. We make you, Wolfbait, Governor of Washington. You hand pick your wildlife commission. Now who do they pick for the Director of WDFW?
S-b it would appear as though you are not interested in any of Unsworth's past history. Do you suppose the Wildlife commission hired Unsworth for his looks or because of his history with IDFG?
I have never heard anyones history called "trash" until you came along.
Two-Thirds of Idaho Wolf Carcasses Examined Have Thousands of Hydatid Disease Tapeworms
On December 13, 2009 in Idaho Hunting Today and other Black Bear Blog websites, Tom Remington first revealed the results of the Washington laboratory checking Idaho and Montana wolf intestines for E. granulosus tapeworms. Mr. Remington was probably not aware of the 10-page September 2006 IDFG Wildlife Health Laboratory (WHL) Report which included only the following sentence about IDFG’s discovery of hydatid disease in mule deer, elk and a mountain goat during necropsy (post mortem) examinations of various species:
“In addition, 1 mountain goat and several mule deer and elk were found to have hydatid cysts in the lungs (Echinococcus granulosa), likely with wolves as the definitive host of this previously unrecognized parasite in the state.”
The report states: “Wolf necropsies indicated the presence of lice,” but makes no mention of finding E. granulosus eggs in the wolf feces or adult worms in the wolf intestines. It also mentions examining fecal samples from 10 live wolves that were captured but again there is no mention of the existence of the eggs which resulted in the deer, elk and a goat being infected with hydatid disease.
The report, published by IDFG Director Steve Huffaker, was signed by IDFG Veterinarians Mark Drew and Phil Mamer and approved by IDFG Wildlife Program Coordinator Dale Toweill and IDFG Wildlife Bureau Chief (now Deputy Director) Jim Unsworth.
Yet the September 2007 WHL Report published by new IDFG Director Cal Groen and signed by the same four IDFG officials states:
“Wolf necropsies indicated the continued presence of lice (Trichodectes canis) and tape worm (Echinococcus), previously detected last year in Idaho. Wolves are most likely the definitive host of this previously unrecognized parasite in the state”. (emphasis added)
In other words this 2007 Report admitted the worms were discovered in wolves in 2005-2006 but failed to mention the hydatid cysts that were also discovered in mule deer, elk and the mountain goat. The 2008 IDFG WHL Report contained exactly the same sentence about tapeworms in wolves as the 2007 report but again failed to mention the diseased deer and elk.
To most of us the announcement of one more tapeworm found in a canine, especially a tiny one whose name we can neither pronounce nor remember, hardly merits a second glance. But when that worm is a new biotype that has never been reported south of the U.S-Canadian border, is already infecting deer and elk with a disease known to range from benign to debilitating to occasionally fatal in humans, and is obviously being spread by wolves across thousands of square miles, that would raise red flags of concern in most intelligent people.
Read More @ http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/01/06/two-thirds-of-idaho-wolf-carcasses-examined-have-thousands-of-hydatid-disease-tapeworms/ (http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/01/06/two-thirds-of-idaho-wolf-carcasses-examined-have-thousands-of-hydatid-disease-tapeworms/)
Post by: idahohuntr on February 02, 2015, 06:25:10 PM
This definitely highlights his desire to only be a critic and complainer and not provide solutions to complex problems.IDFG has done a great job with the hand they were dealt. Also the predator and habitat issues are not mutually exclusive. I get that the facts don't fit the hysteria you frequently try to peddle, so why don't you tell us who you would like to have seen hired as director if Unsworth is such a bad choice?
Wolfbait won't answer that question. I already asked him.
It's a stupid question. Hunter etc. will never get a legitimate WDFW directer as long as the current administration is in charge, we need changes from the top down starting with the governor.
And now we get to the just of Wolfbait's whole argument. "There aren't any legitimate candidates" So he is justified trashing anyone who gets the job, regardless of what their credentials are, their training, what they are capable of, and how good of a job they do.
How about this. We make you, Wolfbait, Governor of Washington. You hand pick your wildlife commission. Now who do they pick for the Director of WDFW?
Post by: jasnt on February 02, 2015, 07:16:48 PM
why are we talking about wolfbait instead of Idahos thriving wolf numbers? Isn't this the same thing you complain about ID? Your infamous quote is coming to mindThis definitely highlights his desire to only be a critic and complainer and not provide solutions to complex problems.IDFG has done a great job with the hand they were dealt. Also the predator and habitat issues are not mutually exclusive. I get that the facts don't fit the hysteria you frequently try to peddle, so why don't you tell us who you would like to have seen hired as director if Unsworth is such a bad choice?
Wolfbait won't answer that question. I already asked him.
It's a stupid question. Hunter etc. will never get a legitimate WDFW directer as long as the current administration is in charge, we need changes from the top down starting with the governor.
And now we get to the just of Wolfbait's whole argument. "There aren't any legitimate candidates" So he is justified trashing anyone who gets the job, regardless of what their credentials are, their training, what they are capable of, and how good of a job they do.
How about this. We make you, Wolfbait, Governor of Washington. You hand pick your wildlife commission. Now who do they pick for the Director of WDFW?
Post by: hirshey on February 02, 2015, 10:11:53 PM
why are we talking about wolfbait instead of Idahos thriving wolf numbers? Isn't this the same thing you complain about ID? Your infamous quote is coming to mindThis definitely highlights his desire to only be a critic and complainer and not provide solutions to complex problems.IDFG has done a great job with the hand they were dealt. Also the predator and habitat issues are not mutually exclusive. I get that the facts don't fit the hysteria you frequently try to peddle, so why don't you tell us who you would like to have seen hired as director if Unsworth is such a bad choice?
Wolfbait won't answer that question. I already asked him.
It's a stupid question. Hunter etc. will never get a legitimate WDFW directer as long as the current administration is in charge, we need changes from the top down starting with the governor.
And now we get to the just of Wolfbait's whole argument. "There aren't any legitimate candidates" So he is justified trashing anyone who gets the job, regardless of what their credentials are, their training, what they are capable of, and how good of a job they do.
How about this. We make you, Wolfbait, Governor of Washington. You hand pick your wildlife commission. Now who do they pick for the Director of WDFW?
Agreed. :jacked: :brew:
Post by: wolfbait on February 02, 2015, 10:26:45 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on February 02, 2015, 10:36:24 PM
I also don't have a lot of patience for those who attack public servants in false and misinformed ways as some on this forum are very prone to do. :sry:
Post by: wolfbait on February 02, 2015, 11:08:49 PM
IDFG has done a great job with the hand they were dealt. Also the predator and habitat issues are not mutually exclusive. If folks want to make every wolf topic a referendum on Jim Unsworth...then I think its fair to ask who should have been hired as director. If they don't want to answer the simple question then I find it appropriate to point out while some constantly complain about Unsworth they are not providing a viable candidate who should have been hired.
I also don't have a lot of patience for those who attack public servants in false and misinformed ways as some on this forum are very prone to do. :sry:
"IDFG has done a great job with the hand they were dealt"
When the Draft Wolf EIS was written in 1993, IDFG Wolf Biologists justified wolf introduction by providing prey population estimates that were 600% higher than actually existed.
you can read more @ http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,169210.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,169210.0.html)
Post by: CAMPMEAT on February 03, 2015, 08:12:46 AM
quote " I think it's pretty obvious that Wolfbait wouldn't like any director "
I'm with wolfbait bobcat, we don't like being lied to, by any corrupt government agency, which is all of them.
Post by: Special T on February 03, 2015, 08:15:15 AM
If folks want to make every wolf topic a referendum on Jim Unsworth...then I think its fair to ask who should have been hired as director. If they don't want to answer the simple question then I find it appropriate to point out while some constantly complain about Unsworth they are not providing a viable candidate who should have been hired.
I think that is an interesting question. Im not sure how many other people have western states experience AND would be willing to move to Washington. I would argue that most of the people we NEED would be unwilling to leave they state they are working in to come to a department with VERY low staff morale, and the political situation we have in this state.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on February 03, 2015, 08:29:53 AM
If folks want to make every wolf topic a referendum on Jim Unsworth...then I think its fair to ask who should have been hired as director. If they don't want to answer the simple question then I find it appropriate to point out while some constantly complain about Unsworth they are not providing a viable candidate who should have been hired.
I think that is an interesting question. Im not sure how many other people have western states experience AND would be willing to move to Washington. I would argue that most of the people we NEED would be unwilling to leave they state they are working in to come to a department with VERY low staff morale, and the political situation we have in this state.
[/quote
Very well said Special T. Everything about this state stinks. I'm putting my house up for sale in the spring and getting the hell out of here.
Post by: MtnMuley on February 03, 2015, 08:35:07 AM
so why don't you tell us who you would like to have seen hired as director if Unsworth is such a bad choice?
That may have been a valid question, had the list of applicants been shared. ;)
IDFG has done a great job with the hand they were dealt. Also the predator and habitat issues are not mutually exclusive. I get that the facts don't fit the hysteria you frequently try to peddle, so why don't you tell us who you would like to have seen hired as director if Unsworth is such a bad choice?
Wolfbait won't answer that question. I already asked him.
How could he or anybody else answer this question when they don't know who their choices were?? Some big secret list that apparently some know of......I call BS. Otherwise the question would have been answered after the third time it was asked. ;)
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on February 03, 2015, 08:45:45 AM
Very well said.If folks want to make every wolf topic a referendum on Jim Unsworth...then I think its fair to ask who should have been hired as director. If they don't want to answer the simple question then I find it appropriate to point out while some constantly complain about Unsworth they are not providing a viable candidate who should have been hired.
I think that is an interesting question. Im not sure how many other people have western states experience AND would be willing to move to Washington. I would argue that most of the people we NEED would be unwilling to leave they state they are working in to come to a department with VERY low staff morale, and the political situation we have in this state.
Post by: hirshey on February 03, 2015, 09:01:19 AM
Isn't this Unworth's baby, you know, the one that Washington hunters have started to praise for his great work in Idaho ?Yes, I'm glad you recognize the good work Unsworth has been a part of in Idaho. Navigating the state to a position where they can manage wolves, not be hampered by federal restrictions, no longer ESA listed, send trappers and helicopters to kill wolves in areas where predation is significant on big game...the list goes on and on. In all of the states with wolves I would have a hard time finding one that has done it better than Idaho.
I agree with you, Idahohuntr.. Sadly the same plan implementation will not be sustainable in Washington with all the bleeding hearts in Seattle-Olympia that govern based on emotions and not science. Even the "wolf experts" we support and employ in this state called that article an "opinion piece" and then went on to spotlight another article on the British Columbia wolf culling to protect woodland caribou, calling it "murder". The way we frame the issue in Washington is different than Idaho. We employ people who established wolves in Idaho and work with Wolf Haven and pretend a conflict of interest doesn't exist.
Hirshey, if you are saying that you agreed with IDFG's wolf management? Then you should be happy with WDFW's wolf management to date.
WDFW at six plus years later with five BP's, it would appear WDFW are managing for more wolves also
I can't see how WA will fair too well when we compare WA and Idaho"s game herds before wolf introduction.
When it's all said an done how will WA be different then ID, MT, and WY with environmental lawsuits?
I think your last question is precisely what I addressed in my previous comment. Idaho fish and game post-introduction has been very proactive in wolf management. Lawsuits have prevented them from managing the population to their most effective abilities (ending the trapper's season in the Frank Church, for example) but that was not an IDFG issue.. That was a law suit issue put forth by wolf advocates. Their voices are louder in WA so we won't be able to manage based on science as well as Idaho has. The resounding fact is wolves are here to stay.. So what can we do to support our game herds into the future?
Post by: wolfbait on February 03, 2015, 09:09:05 AM
Very well said.If folks want to make every wolf topic a referendum on Jim Unsworth...then I think its fair to ask who should have been hired as director. If they don't want to answer the simple question then I find it appropriate to point out while some constantly complain about Unsworth they are not providing a viable candidate who should have been hired.
I think that is an interesting question. Im not sure how many other people have western states experience AND would be willing to move to Washington. I would argue that most of the people we NEED would be unwilling to leave they state they are working in to come to a department with VERY low staff morale, and the political situation we have in this state.
"some constantly complain about Unsworth"
No one in WA has any complaints about Jim Unsworth yet, what has happened is information of some of his history with IDFG has been shared, it's called vetting.
Who were the other candidates that ran for the job? Why is it a "big" secret, where only the "privileged" can access the information?
Post by: wolfbait on February 03, 2015, 09:21:55 AM
Isn't this Unworth's baby, you know, the one that Washington hunters have started to praise for his great work in Idaho ?Yes, I'm glad you recognize the good work Unsworth has been a part of in Idaho. Navigating the state to a position where they can manage wolves, not be hampered by federal restrictions, no longer ESA listed, send trappers and helicopters to kill wolves in areas where predation is significant on big game...the list goes on and on. In all of the states with wolves I would have a hard time finding one that has done it better than Idaho.
I agree with you, Idahohuntr.. Sadly the same plan implementation will not be sustainable in Washington with all the bleeding hearts in Seattle-Olympia that govern based on emotions and not science. Even the "wolf experts" we support and employ in this state called that article an "opinion piece" and then went on to spotlight another article on the British Columbia wolf culling to protect woodland caribou, calling it "murder". The way we frame the issue in Washington is different than Idaho. We employ people who established wolves in Idaho and work with Wolf Haven and pretend a conflict of interest doesn't exist.
Hirshey, if you are saying that you agreed with IDFG's wolf management? Then you should be happy with WDFW's wolf management to date.
WDFW at six plus years later with five BP's, it would appear WDFW are managing for more wolves also
I can't see how WA will fair too well when we compare WA and Idaho"s game herds before wolf introduction.
When it's all said an done how will WA be different then ID, MT, and WY with environmental lawsuits?
I think your last question is precisely what I addressed in my previous comment. Idaho fish and game post-introduction has been very proactive in wolf management. Lawsuits have prevented them from managing the population to their most effective abilities (ending the trapper's season in the Frank Church, for example) but that was not an IDFG issue.. That was a law suit issue put forth by wolf advocates. Their voices are louder in WA so we won't be able to manage based on science as well as Idaho has. The resounding fact is wolves are here to stay.. So what can we do to support our game herds into the future?
Lawsuits didn't force IDFG to blame habitat for the decline in the Lolo elk herd, or from using the 10j rule to reduce wolf impacts of game herds, or the underestimation of wolves. You read up on IDFG and their wolf management and you will see where WDFW are following in their footsteps.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 03, 2015, 09:26:53 AM
The resounding fact is wolves are here to stay.. So what can we do to support our game herds into the future?Exactly. And the answer to your question without a doubt is Habitat protection and restoration.
Post by: hirshey on February 03, 2015, 09:36:28 AM
Post by: wolfbait on February 03, 2015, 09:37:11 AM
The resounding fact is wolves are here to stay.. So what can we do to support our game herds into the future?Exactly. And the answer to your question without a doubt is Habitat protection and restoration.
Back to habitat>>Priceless
Post by: mfswallace on February 03, 2015, 09:42:00 AM
The resounding fact is wolves are here to stay.. So what can we do to support our game herds into the future?Exactly. And the answer to your question without a doubt is Habitat protection and restoration.
Why not reduce wolves?? Don't the facts show that even if habitat is limited game herds can survive and even thrive where there are no/less wolves? You can build the biggest and best hen house but once a Fox gets in, its over unless you eliminate the Fox, right? :beatdeadhorse:
U can't tell me idhunt that if wolves were eliminated from the Lolo elk wouldn't rebound with the "limited" habitat that is there...
While I'm not a biologist doesn't common sense come in to play at some point :dunno:
Post by: wolfbait on February 03, 2015, 10:19:01 AM
http://idahoforwildlife.com/Charles%20Kay/82-Predation%20and%20the%20ecology%20of%20fear.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/Charles%20Kay/82-Predation%20and%20the%20ecology%20of%20fear.pdf)
Post by: idahohuntr on February 03, 2015, 10:46:27 AM
AND wolf hunting. AND removal of problem animals and packs. AND managing based on sound science, not agenda. From EITHER side.. But wolves will not be exterminated even with year-round open seasons. I've seen wolves in Washington 5 times now, and have gone wolf hunting in Idaho and have eaten my $64 in tags each year. They are smart, and elusive, and were only removed the first time by poison and any avenue available. They're here. Set up a season and it'll prove me right. No amount of tags will remove them from the ecosystem. And I hate the BS about clear cuts ruining the ungulate habitat. The herds have thrived with parcels of clear cuts for a long time.. In fact when you discuss FOOD, water, shelter... The best browse is in 2-4 year old clear cuts. Dynamic habitat has been preserved and created through logging for a long time. And you can't blame the declining ungulate numbers in the Lolo on habitat loss.. The carrying capacity for that area is much higher than the population.. Hence the reason helicopter removal of some of those animals was enacted.Yes, but as you already pointed out, which I have stated for several years now...the wolf management of Idaho will not be politically tolerated here in WA. So while we can hope for wolf seasons and control actions, we also need to be thinking what else we can do to help ungulates.
To your last couple of points...I'm not aware of anyone suggesting clear cuts and low intensity fires are not beneficial to ungulates...its a big reason the 70's and 80's were a boom for elk in Idaho. Maybe some ultra green group has said this, but no one credible would argue clearcuts aren't usually a benefit to ungulates.
On Lolo...both habitat and predation are major factors in low elk numbers. Again, Im not aware of anyone credible that doesn't acknowledge habitat and predation are extremely limiting to elk in the Lolo. Its why elk numbers started declining well before wolves were ever reintroduced in the Lolo.
U can't tell me idhunt that if wolves were eliminated from the Lolo elk wouldn't rebound with the "limited" habitat that is there...Im not telling you any such thing. If there were no wolves, no lions, and no bears, absolutely I would expect increased elk numbers...it still would not be what folks remember from the 70's and 80's though. We can all agree wolves will never be eliminated from the Lolo area...with predation management and large habitat improvement projects, we could see sizeable gains in elk numbers though. I want to reiterate to you and Hirshey, predation and habitat issues are not mutually exclusive...it can be both and in the Lolo it is definitely both.
While I'm not a biologist doesn't common sense come in to play at some point :dunno:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 03, 2015, 10:54:44 AM
so why don't you tell us who you would like to have seen hired as director if Unsworth is such a bad choice?
That may have been a valid question, had the list of applicants been shared. ;)IDFG has done a great job with the hand they were dealt. Also the predator and habitat issues are not mutually exclusive. I get that the facts don't fit the hysteria you frequently try to peddle, so why don't you tell us who you would like to have seen hired as director if Unsworth is such a bad choice?
Wolfbait won't answer that question. I already asked him.
How could he or anybody else answer this question when they don't know who their choices were?? Some big secret list that apparently some know of......I call BS. Otherwise the question would have been answered after the third time it was asked. ;)
As far as I'm concerned, he could name anyone on the planet. All I want to know is who he would find acceptable? It doesn't have to be anyone on any list. Hes already told us ad nauseum why he doesn't like/trust Unsworth. Who would he like/trust? Pretty simple question.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 03, 2015, 11:06:30 AM
When the Draft Wolf EIS was written in 1993, IDFG Wolf Biologists justified wolf introduction by providing prey population estimates that were 600% higher than actually existed.
I guess if the prey populations were overestimated by 600%, there haven't really been any declines in their population then. Just more realistic estimates.
Post by: Special T on February 03, 2015, 01:52:08 PM
AND wolf hunting. AND removal of problem animals and packs. AND managing based on sound science, not agenda. From EITHER side.. But wolves will not be exterminated even with year-round open seasons. I've seen wolves in Washington 5 times now, and have gone wolf hunting in Idaho and have eaten my $64 in tags each year. They are smart, and elusive, and were only removed the first time by poison and any avenue available. They're here. Set up a season and it'll prove me right. No amount of tags will remove them from the ecosystem. And I hate the BS about clear cuts ruining the ungulate habitat. The herds have thrived with parcels of clear cuts for a long time.. In fact when you discuss FOOD, water, shelter... The best browse is in 2-4 year old clear cuts. Dynamic habitat has been preserved and created through logging for a long time. And you can't blame the declining ungulate numbers in the Lolo on habitat loss.. The carrying capacity for that area is much higher than the population.. Hence the reason helicopter removal of some of those animals was enacted.
IF Good science had prevailed from the start the state would have done several things. They would have OKed shooting a wolf molesting cattle or pets. They would have taken the $ and support from the cattlemen to hire an experienced trapper. There are numerious things that they could have done that would have made allies of sportsmen by using science instead of saddling up to anti hunting groups trying to appease them.
I AM hopeful that Unsworth will turn the corner on MANY issues in Wa. Being a SKEPTIC is not the same as attacking. If Unsworth cannot handle sportsmen being skeptics, and understand WHY there is little trust in the department, then it wont matter is WB, Me or anyone else complains...
Post by: Bob33 on February 03, 2015, 02:08:34 PM
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/03/04/3060578/nez-perce-calls-lolo-wolf-killing.html (http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/03/04/3060578/nez-perce-calls-lolo-wolf-killing.html)
The first time Nez Perce Tribal Natural Resources Director Aaron Miles heard that the federal government and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game were killing wolves in his backyard was late Friday.
Lewiston Tribune reporter Eric Barker called him and told him that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services had killed 23 wolves in the North Fork of the Clearwater River watershed under contract for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. The tribe gets federal funds to monitor wolves and was the primary manager of the wolves in the early years of reintroduction. It didn’t get a courtesy call, Miles said Monday.
“It took me by surprise,” he said. “It’s bold and it’s arrogant.”
Fish and Game Wildlife Bureau Chief Jeff Gould said his agency coordinates annually with the Nez Perce and had made it clear it would continue to aggressively reduce wolf numbers in the Lolo zone to boost elk populations.
“It’s no surprise,” Gould said. “It’s an area where we have a problem.”
....
Idaho Fish and Game biologists said the population will not rise unless wolf, black bear and mountain lion predation is reduced. The tribe believes that poor habitat, not predators, is the primary problem, Miles said."
Post by: elkboy on February 03, 2015, 02:22:58 PM
AND wolf hunting. AND removal of problem animals and packs. AND managing based on sound science, not agenda. From EITHER side.. But wolves will not be exterminated even with year-round open seasons. I've seen wolves in Washington 5 times now, and have gone wolf hunting in Idaho and have eaten my $64 in tags each year. They are smart, and elusive, and were only removed the first time by poison and any avenue available. They're here. Set up a season and it'll prove me right. No amount of tags will remove them from the ecosystem. And I hate the BS about clear cuts ruining the ungulate habitat. The herds have thrived with parcels of clear cuts for a long time.. In fact when you discuss FOOD, water, shelter... The best browse is in 2-4 year old clear cuts. Dynamic habitat has been preserved and created through logging for a long time. And you can't blame the declining ungulate numbers in the Lolo on habitat loss.. The carrying capacity for that area is much higher than the population.. Hence the reason helicopter removal of some of those animals was enacted.
Well said! We manage almost every vertebrate larger than an opossum in one way or another! Wolves are no exception, and certainly they will require plenty of management, especially with juveniles dispersing into new territory. I would add that when we do get high-severity fire on public lands to NOT rush to replant it where deer and elk are a priority. Rushing a burned landscape back to a closed-canopy condition is not going to give us enduring elk and deer habitat.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on February 03, 2015, 03:05:45 PM
Post by: hirshey on February 03, 2015, 03:06:05 PM
https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/reduceProposal.pdfAND wolf hunting. AND removal of problem animals and packs. AND managing based on sound science, not agenda. From EITHER side.. But wolves will not be exterminated even with year-round open seasons. I've seen wolves in Washington 5 times now, and have gone wolf hunting in Idaho and have eaten my $64 in tags each year. They are smart, and elusive, and were only removed the first time by poison and any avenue available. They're here. Set up a season and it'll prove me right. No amount of tags will remove them from the ecosystem. And I hate the BS about clear cuts ruining the ungulate habitat. The herds have thrived with parcels of clear cuts for a long time.. In fact when you discuss FOOD, water, shelter... The best browse is in 2-4 year old clear cuts. Dynamic habitat has been preserved and created through logging for a long time. And you can't blame the declining ungulate numbers in the Lolo on habitat loss.. The carrying capacity for that area is much higher than the population.. Hence the reason helicopter removal of some of those animals was enacted.Yes, but as you already pointed out, which I have stated for several years now...the wolf management of Idaho will not be politically tolerated here in WA. So while we can hope for wolf seasons and control actions, we also need to be thinking what else we can do to help ungulates.
To your last couple of points...I'm not aware of anyone suggesting clear cuts and low intensity fires are not beneficial to ungulates...its a big reason the 70's and 80's were a boom for elk in Idaho. Maybe some ultra green group has said this, but no one credible would argue clearcuts aren't usually a benefit to ungulates.
On Lolo...both habitat and predation are major factors in low elk numbers. Again, Im not aware of anyone credible that doesn't acknowledge habitat and predation are extremely limiting to elk in the Lolo. Its why elk numbers started declining well before wolves were ever reintroduced in the Lolo.U can't tell me idhunt that if wolves were eliminated from the Lolo elk wouldn't rebound with the "limited" habitat that is there...Im not telling you any such thing. If there were no wolves, no lions, and no bears, absolutely I would expect increased elk numbers...it still would not be what folks remember from the 70's and 80's though. We can all agree wolves will never be eliminated from the Lolo area...with predation management and large habitat improvement projects, we could see sizeable gains in elk numbers though. I want to reiterate to you and Hirshey, predation and habitat issues are not mutually exclusive...it can be both and in the Lolo it is definitely both.
While I'm not a biologist doesn't common sense come in to play at some point :dunno:
ALL Lolo and Selwau assessments from 2009-present show BELOW CARRYING CAPACITY. That means the habitat available should and could support more. Poor habitat is an excuse utilized to leverage less control actions.
Post by: hirshey on February 03, 2015, 03:13:41 PM
Post by: jasnt on February 03, 2015, 04:03:05 PM
:yeah:
Post by: bobcat on February 03, 2015, 04:43:04 PM
Post by: hirshey on February 03, 2015, 04:47:01 PM
I'm pretty sure when the IDFG kills wolves, it is not cheap. I don't think it's realistic to expect them to always keep wolf numbers at a level that will allow deer and elk to be at carrying capacity in all areas 100% of the time. With the main limiting factor on wolf control being money, who's going to pay for it?
Hunters pay with tag fees... As soon as you lose the hunting revenue... Your question becomes even more pointed. Who then? The environmental groups? ;)
Post by: mfswallace on February 03, 2015, 04:47:43 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 03, 2015, 04:50:53 PM
I'm pretty sure when the IDFG kills wolves, it is not cheap. I don't think it's realistic to expect them to always keep wolf numbers at a level that will allow deer and elk to be at carrying capacity in all areas 100% of the time. With the main limiting factor on wolf control being money, who's going to pay for it?
Hunters pay with tag fees... As soon as you lose the hunting revenue... Your question becomes even more pointed. Who then? The environmental groups? ;)
Idaho currently has the lowest priced non-resident elk tags available, of any of the western states. I'd prefer they stay that way.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 03, 2015, 05:01:49 PM
I will again repeat, habitat and predation are not mutually exclusive issues and are very likely interrelated. I do not know of a single knowledgeable person on the subject, including several IDFG biologists who were involved in the writing of the document you posted, that believe habitat is simply an "excuse" in the Lolo zone. Current wolf numbers (but lets not forget black bears and lions are also significant) may well be the primary factor holding back a rebound in elk numbers at today's very low levels...but is the goal to get just a little higher than where we are at today? Or is it to make meaningful and significant improvements in elk numbers? Habitat changes that have reduced availalbe forage are also believed to provide higher predator success, particularly on calf elk. This is not an either/or issue...I would think all hunters would want both issues addressed...I know I do. The desire by some to want to make everything a black and white issue and pretend that if you bring up any other cause of elk declines besides wolves that you are pro-wolf or whatever is unfortunate. There will always be wolves, bears, and lions in the Lolo...just like there will always be wolves, bear, and lions in WA state. A question posed earlier regarding what hunters can do is still salient to all of these areas; we can demand (or in WA's case hope for) wolf management actions and we can seek improvement in habitat conditions where habitat is an issue (like it is in the Lolo). It will certainly take addressing both problems to return the Lolo to the glory days of the 1980's. And if we accept the likely reality of the future of WA state wolf management, habitat improvement and protection is our best defense to protecting ungulates and our hunting heritage.
Post by: hirshey on February 03, 2015, 08:03:16 PM
I'm pretty sure when the IDFG kills wolves, it is not cheap. I don't think it's realistic to expect them to always keep wolf numbers at a level that will allow deer and elk to be at carrying capacity in all areas 100% of the time. With the main limiting factor on wolf control being money, who's going to pay for it?
Hunters pay with tag fees... As soon as you lose the hunting revenue... Your question becomes even more pointed. Who then? The environmental groups? ;)
Idaho currently has the lowest priced non-resident elk tags available, of any of the western states. I'd prefer they stay that way.
Yes.. And less tag revenue would likely mean higher tag prices to pay for the continued fight... Idaho resident tag fees were proposed to increase for the first time in a long time this next season.. Unless you "lock in" your price by getting tags every year. It's coming, like it or not. :twocents:
Post by: wolfbait on February 03, 2015, 08:59:13 PM
AND wolf hunting. AND removal of problem animals and packs. AND managing based on sound science, not agenda. From EITHER side.. But wolves will not be exterminated even with year-round open seasons. I've seen wolves in Washington 5 times now, and have gone wolf hunting in Idaho and have eaten my $64 in tags each year. They are smart, and elusive, and were only removed the first time by poison and any avenue available. They're here. Set up a season and it'll prove me right. No amount of tags will remove them from the ecosystem. And I hate the BS about clear cuts ruining the ungulate habitat. The herds have thrived with parcels of clear cuts for a long time.. In fact when you discuss FOOD, water, shelter... The best browse is in 2-4 year old clear cuts. Dynamic habitat has been preserved and created through logging for a long time. And you can't blame the declining ungulate numbers in the Lolo on habitat loss.. The carrying capacity for that area is much higher than the population.. Hence the reason helicopter removal of some of those animals was enacted.Yes, but as you already pointed out, which I have stated for several years now...the wolf management of Idaho will not be politically tolerated here in WA. So while we can hope for wolf seasons and control actions, we also need to be thinking what else we can do to help ungulates.
To your last couple of points...I'm not aware of anyone suggesting clear cuts and low intensity fires are not beneficial to ungulates...its a big reason the 70's and 80's were a boom for elk in Idaho. Maybe some ultra green group has said this, but no one credible would argue clearcuts aren't usually a benefit to ungulates.
On Lolo...both habitat and predation are major factors in low elk numbers. Again, Im not aware of anyone credible that doesn't acknowledge habitat and predation are extremely limiting to elk in the Lolo. Its why elk numbers started declining well before wolves were ever reintroduced in the Lolo.U can't tell me idhunt that if wolves were eliminated from the Lolo elk wouldn't rebound with the "limited" habitat that is there...Im not telling you any such thing. If there were no wolves, no lions, and no bears, absolutely I would expect increased elk numbers...it still would not be what folks remember from the 70's and 80's though. We can all agree wolves will never be eliminated from the Lolo area...with predation management and large habitat improvement projects, we could see sizeable gains in elk numbers though. I want to reiterate to you and Hirshey, predation and habitat issues are not mutually exclusive...it can be both and in the Lolo it is definitely both.
While I'm not a biologist doesn't common sense come in to play at some point :dunno:
Lets Blame Habitat on the Idaho Lolo Zone elk devastation!
I understand the positive effects of the 1910, 1919 and 1934’s fires (and no wolves) in creating the once famous elk population in the Lolo. Contrary to the enviro’s and IDFG’s claims that Lolo elk numbers were experiencing a steep or even slow decline in numbers due to habitat conditions the real data suggests a completely different story. A 22-year Clearwater Elk Ecology Study (1964-1985) proved the elk in the Lolo were only consuming 25% of available winter forage. IDFG blamed poor calf recruitment on having to many old cow elk in the Lolo so they increased cow tags significantly. In my opinion, the reason the calf recruitment was low was uncontrolled predators, primarily black bears, were killing too many newborn calves. Bear and wolf loving biologist Steve Nadeau had even closed the fall black bear season in the mid 1990’s because he was afraid to many mature boars were being taken! Also recent studies (2006), showed no indication elk populations were being negatively impacted by poor habitat. The 1994-1995 IDFG aerial counts of the Lolo Zone showed elk numbers stable and or increasing! The truth is the Lolo had ample habitat and still does. The terrible winter of 96-97 produced over 200% snowpack in the upper Lolo zone and that one year cut the Lolo elk numbers by 50% or greater. IDFG director Jerry Conley blamed the winter kill of 96-97 to just poor habitat even though the elk’s habitat was covered up with snow for 6 months! No doubt that the poor calf recruitment was due to unmanaged bears. In my opinion, this one terrible winter precipitated the Crapo elk initiativewhere Senator Mike Crapo brought groups together to work on projects to stop the declining elk populations. Below is the IDFG Lolo elk population data from 1989-2010. In unit 10 the elk count went from 7,745 in 1992 to 9,729 in 1994! Unit 12 the elk count went from 3,763 in 1989 to 3,832 in 1995.Due to uncontrolled wolf populations and the rugged terrain and remoteness, the Lolo elk population will never recover unless IDFG finally decides to aggressively control wolves and bears.
Read More @
http://idahoforwildlife.com/component/content/article/2-content/36-idfg-elk-managment-plan (http://idahoforwildlife.com/component/content/article/2-content/36-idfg-elk-managment-plan)
Predator-Mediated Competition
http://idahoforwildlife.com/Charles%20Kay/83-Predator%20mediated%20competition.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/Charles%20Kay/83-Predator%20mediated%20competition.pdf)
Post by: idahohuntr on February 03, 2015, 09:25:04 PM
2nd NR elk tag fees have been reduced by about $100. They won't be increasing NR fees anytime soon...it backfired in a huge way when the legislature did that in 2009. The increase in resident fees is appropriate...hopefully it passes. Also, the NR demand is still too weak to support a price increase as a means of increasing revenue...if anything, a price cut would be the best shot at increased revenue. 2 years ago IDFG considered floating this idea...but then decided not to pursue it knowing a state legislative body elected by Residents would not support decreasing NR fees!I'm pretty sure when the IDFG kills wolves, it is not cheap. I don't think it's realistic to expect them to always keep wolf numbers at a level that will allow deer and elk to be at carrying capacity in all areas 100% of the time. With the main limiting factor on wolf control being money, who's going to pay for it?
Hunters pay with tag fees... As soon as you lose the hunting revenue... Your question becomes even more pointed. Who then? The environmental groups? ;)
Idaho currently has the lowest priced non-resident elk tags available, of any of the western states. I'd prefer they stay that way.
Yes.. And less tag revenue would likely mean higher tag prices to pay for the continued fight... Idaho resident tag fees were proposed to increase for the first time in a long time this next season.. Unless you "lock in" your price by getting tags every year. It's coming, like it or not. :twocents:
And some info RE: cost of wolf control...this was a hotly debated issue that passed last year -
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/feb/03/new-idaho-board-has-spent-140k-kill-31-wolves/ (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/feb/03/new-idaho-board-has-spent-140k-kill-31-wolves/)
Post by: CAMPMEAT on February 03, 2015, 09:32:05 PM
Type in Unsworth and you'll see how much Idaho loved him. They hated his guts because he's pro-wolfer from what they have found out.
I belong to this site and they have facts, just like wolfbait does and they don't go after fellow hunters and try and prove a point just to be right, unlike this forum.
Post by: hirshey on February 03, 2015, 09:49:59 PM
2nd NR elk tag fees have been reduced by about $100. They won't be increasing NR fees anytime soon...it backfired in a huge way when the legislature did that in 2009. The increase in resident fees is appropriate...hopefully it passes. Also, the NR demand is still too weak to support a price increase as a means of increasing revenue...if anything, a price cut would be the best shot at increased revenue. 2 years ago IDFG considered floating this idea...but then decided not to pursue it knowing a state legislative body elected by Residents would not support decreasing NR fees!I'm pretty sure when the IDFG kills wolves, it is not cheap. I don't think it's realistic to expect them to always keep wolf numbers at a level that will allow deer and elk to be at carrying capacity in all areas 100% of the time. With the main limiting factor on wolf control being money, who's going to pay for it?
Hunters pay with tag fees... As soon as you lose the hunting revenue... Your question becomes even more pointed. Who then? The environmental groups? ;)
Idaho currently has the lowest priced non-resident elk tags available, of any of the western states. I'd prefer they stay that way.
Yes.. And less tag revenue would likely mean higher tag prices to pay for the continued fight... Idaho resident tag fees were proposed to increase for the first time in a long time this next season.. Unless you "lock in" your price by getting tags every year. It's coming, like it or not. :twocents:
And some info RE: cost of wolf control...this was a hotly debated issue that passed last year -
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/feb/03/new-idaho-board-has-spent-140k-kill-31-wolves/ (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/feb/03/new-idaho-board-has-spent-140k-kill-31-wolves/)
Well, maybe they should sell the pelts. I know a guy that payed a handsome sum fr two full mounted wolves... $4,600 a wolf would have been darn near cut in half! :chuckle:. I don't mind the cost.. How much money did they misappropriate to introduce them, again? ;)
Post by: hirshey on February 03, 2015, 09:53:49 PM
Post by: wolfbait on February 05, 2015, 01:12:17 PM
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/jan/23/idaho-wolf-survey-reveals-thriving-breeding/ (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/jan/23/idaho-wolf-survey-reveals-thriving-breeding/)
In 2007 the minimum population estimate was 732 (Appendix A)
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/reportAnnual07.pdf (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/reportAnnual07.pdf)
liberal harvest by hunters and trappers of 29% or less of a wolf population has no impact (yes I said NO impact) on wolf population increases. http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No.28%20May%202008%20FWS%20Biologist%20Says%20Wolf%20Numbers%20Underestimated%20Mech%20Says%203,000%20Wolves%20Exist%20in%20ID,%20MT%20&%20WY.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No.28%20May%202008%20FWS%20Biologist%20Says%20Wolf%20Numbers%20Underestimated%20Mech%20Says%203,000%20Wolves%20Exist%20in%20ID,%20MT%20&%20WY.pdf)
Where are all of Idaho's wolves going?
The Predator Death Spiral…
We’re continuing to see an alarming trend in Western wildlife management. I am calling it the “Predator Death Spiral.” The underlying cause of this phenomina is when a wildlife agency attempts to hide or “pad” their big game population estimates when over predation begins to take hold. This in turn creates a downward spiral that cannot easily be avoided, and is often not even noticed until the state hits both a financial and PR rock bottom. Idaho was the first state to hit the wall with the “Spiral” followed by Montana and now Wyoming has begun to slip into the Spiral’s grip. The wolf situation has caused these three Western states to slide down the jagged slope of diminishing herds, shrinking revenues and bad PR among their customers and financial lifeline…out-of-state hunters.
The details of the spiral start out very subtle. The wolves, cougars and grizzly bears start to take a few more elk and moose each year as their unchecked populations grow and expand. The state does not react at first with cuts in the tag quotas. This would mean a decrease in revenue that would have to be met with either more tags somewhere else or even worse, budget cuts. So they do what most Government agencies would do in this situation…nothing! After a few years of turning a blind eye to the situation a bad winter like the winter we had in 2006 and 2011 hit and further accelerated the problem. But, the bad winter was even worse than imagined from a wildlife management perspective. The increased snowpack and cold temps caused far more than the usual winter kill. The predators did extremely well because of the increased snowpack that gathered the herds even tighter than usual, on heavy snow accumulations that created a wolves dream come true scenario. A concentrated food source stuck in a snow bank that cannot escape…perfect. After the long cold winter is over the elk and deer that did survive go into the spring in tough shape. Many of the cows and does have aborted their young in order to survive.
The post winter mortality counts come back into the department as an alarming number. But budgets have to be met. So being ever optimistic the state decides to give the remaining quotas just one more year to see if they might bounce back. After-all, the counts could have been flawed, there is no way we could have lost that many big game assets in one year, right?
The next fall the hunters are complaining, the harvest stats are coming back very low and things are not looking good on the PR front. Many non-resident hunters are threatening not to apply the following year and the outfitters are starting to make their voices heard.
The state reacts, and cuts the elk tags inside the wolf and winter zones. But the money has to be made up somewhere, after all a few hundred non-resident elk tags equate to big money. So the state moves to increase the quotas on elk outside the wolf zone and increase the deer and antelope tags substantially in an effort to compensate for the loss in revenue.
As wolves continue to take their toll, state Game and Fish Departments struggle to make their budgets as big game populations plummet and demand for non-resident licenses crash.
A second harsh winter strikes and wipes out the antelope and deer herd excesses. Things are looking bad, but the state budgeteers don’t give up easily. Someone recommends the idea of raising license costs to all hunters, after all supply and demand economics formulas say a non-resident elk tag should go for over $2,500. But the resident tag increases get shot down by the commission but everyone likes the idea of sticking to the non-resident hunter a bit more. They can afford it, have you seen how much a house in California is worth? (pre-2008 of course). The following fall the hunters don’t see near the game they did even the previous year. Things are getting bad. Thanks to the internet the word gets out and many of the non-resident hunters move their camps and non-resident dollars to Colorado and New Mexico to hunt elk and deer.
The next thing the state knows, they are sitting on millions of dollars worth of unclaimed and unwanted non-resident tags. Now with the wildlife resource in shambles and a multi-million dollar budget shortfall the state is finally forced to wake up and smell the coffee. This isn’t the 1970’s…it’s no surprise to us that a non-resident hunter who pays over $1,000 for an elk tag expects a good elk hunt, why should it come as a surprise to the state Game and Fish Commission? But it does. What the state fails to realize is, that once they began to charge that kind of money for tags and preference points they in affect gave up the option to simply brush it off as a “bad winter, try again next year” excuse that worked so well in the past. In the information age non-resident hunters no longer accept excuses easily.
This is the bottom. A state is stuck to come clean and admit they are in a real hole. They don’t have the wildlife any longer to support their budgetary needs and their customers know it. This is the type of situation where a little fudge in numbers here and there has created a beast that cannot be controlled and is getting bigger, badder and uglier every year until the bottom is hit.
Why? Because it would mean that the states would have to admit to contributing to their own financial demise. Some Western Fish and Game Departments have in fact become a wolf in sheep’s clothing to their constituants. Some inside the departments have, although reluctantly, in some cases went along with the Federal Government’s master plan to re-introduce super predators back into the ecosystem to eventually control big game herds without the use of hunters. It’s almost as if the state neglected to realize that this would, in fact, slit their own throats by gutting their departments of the necessary funding to run.
And this is not just a Wyoming, Montana and Idaho problem. Wolves have already begun to take hold in Washington, Oregon and Utah. Nevada, and Colorado are certainly next. And for all of you midwest whitetail hunters out there, sorry, your not safe either. The government has devised a plan to expand the Mexican wolf North from Arizona and New Mexico into Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, North and South Dakota and Nebraska to connect with the upper midwest wolf populations in Minnesota and Wisconsin. This would give super predators a way to control whitetail deer populations minus the use of hunting as a management tool.
This is a critical situation but all is not lost yet. There have been huge strides made in the recent wolf debate and wolves are starting to be controlled now in Montana and Idaho. We all as hunters need to keep pressure on our politicians and state agencies to make sure they do the right thing for our wildlife. We pay them to manage our wildlife resource in a responsible manner, make them earn their money. Taking the easy way out is not good enough. They need to do better, our big game wildlife resource depends on it.
Drop me a line and let me know what your thoughts are…maybe I’m just a conspiracy theorist…who knows. I know what I’ve heard and seen first hand so far, though, and it’s not looking good.
Guy
http://blog.eastmans.com/the-predator-death-spiral/ (http://blog.eastmans.com/the-predator-death-spiral/)
20 moose tags added to North Idaho hunts
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2015/jan/26/20-moose-tags-added-north-idaho-hunts/ (http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2015/jan/26/20-moose-tags-added-north-idaho-hunts/)
Poor Attendance at “Idaho Wildlife Summit” Reflects
Citizen Mistrust of F&G Refusal to Manage Wildlife
http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2050%20Sept%202012-Summit.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2050%20Sept%202012-Summit.pdf)
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 05, 2015, 04:44:02 PM
Here is something "Guy" missed in his rant. In the 50s and 60s, Idaho's deer and elk populations had climbed to great heights. Yearly harvests of deer were in the 60,000 to high 70,000 range. The high was over 78,000 in 1968. There were no wolves and a fair number of bears and a few lions in those days. And yet the deer herds crashed. Spectacularly! If you cant blame it on predators, what can you blame it on? Bad winters, and habitat. By 1976, the deer harvest had dropped to just over 25,000.
Same with elk. From the mid 50s, Idaho was regularly having elk harvests in the 12,000-17,000 range with a high also in 1968 of just over 17,000. Then by 1976, the harvest had dropped to just over 4,000 elk. Again, you cannot blame wolves or predators. natural conditions and habitat did that.
Then both deer and elk started to come back again until the late 80s for deer with a harvest of 95,000 in 1989 and elk peaked in 1994 with a harvest of almost 30,000. Then another downward trend started for both species. You could try to blame it on the introduction of wolves, but it was more than likely once again a habitat issue. The 80s and early 90s coincided with high timber prices and aggressive logging which opened up the land to produce good graze for both deer and elk. As those openings grew into thick reprod, graze was lost and subsequently the habitat couldn't support as many animals. Throw in a few bad winters and what we saw was normal up and down activity in herd dynamics. A few areas with marginal habitat are still in a downward trend, others have stabilized. Herds will continue to go up and down as always in spite of predators which will also go up and down.
The other thing "Guy" left out was disease. Part of the decline seen in the last couple decades was due to diseases such as chronic wasting disease, blue tongue, brucellosis, and other diseases. Here is where wolves can actually help. I will be the first one to tell you, wolves don't just take weak and sick animals. They also take healthy animals when they can and need to. But wolves will take out the weak, sick, injured, and old first as a general rule. They want to eat, and want to do it the easiest way with the least risk of being injured or killed themselves. They often "test" prey animals to see if there will be much resistance. They will take out the easiest targets first. That's one reason predators go after newborns. There isn't near as much food there, but it's much easier and less risky to kill them. The point being, wolves can be a good governor when it comes to disease. They can take out the weak and sick before they spread whatever disease they are carrying. They also keep prey herds broken into smaller groups and spread out which in turn also limits the spread of disease.
In reality, instead of being a negative, wolves can be a neutral, especially if they end up neutralizing other predators in the area. One of my predictions is that game birds will thrive once wolves get to work on local coyote populations. Deer fawns should actually get a break from fewer coyotes too.
As long as Idaho keeps managing wolves with hunting, trapping, and lethal removal where necessary, the worst is past.
Post by: wolfbait on February 05, 2015, 11:40:14 PM
On Feb. 7, 2012 I received emails from several concerned citizens containing a criticism by Idaho Rep. Marv Hagedorn for their blaming IDFG for problems that began 18 years ago. Rep. Hagedorn’s 460-word post, reportedly on the Lobo Watch Facebook blog, included the following opening paragraph:
“Remember, the people that were involved in this are gone (Connelly died a few years ago, but was out as the Director soon after this happened). Continuing to blame the people that are in the department now for deeds done by others 18 years ago isn't the answer to fixing the problem.”
Conley did not die until Oct. 5, 2012 and continued to influence game management from his return to Idaho until shortly before his death – see IDFG photo below:
Birds of a Feather
2010 photo of Jerry Conley with then Director Cal Groen and Idaho Statesman Environmental Reporter Rocky Barker.
Cal Groen was taught his duties as Director of the Nature Conservancy’s Idaho Conservation Data Center, and hired by Conley in 1990 to assume those duties. IDFG Staff who supported Conley’s illegal Agreement and Permit to FWS to transplant larger Canadian wolves into existing territory of smaller native wolves, included Groen, Lonn Kuck, Steve Huffaker Virgil Moore and many others.
While it is true that Conley left Idaho for Missouri as part of an alleged agreement not to be fired, in 2008 his former IDFG accomplices, including Cal Groen as Director, quadrupled the minimum number of wolves IDFG agreed to maintain. That illegal wolf plan, which was never approved by the legislature as the law required, was sent to FWS by Idaho Gov. Otter, along with exhibits and his letter promising to manage for more than four times as many wolves as had been approved by FWS.
Even after our repeated publication of this illegal activity forced Gov. Otter to stop supporting this debacle in Dec. 2010, IDFG officials refused to kill enough wolves to halt the mule deer and elk decline.
Promises F&G Had No Intention of Keeping
In Feb. 2009 Research Biologist George Pauley promised hunters in both Idaho and Montana that IDFG would use Wildlife Services to kill 80% of the Lolo Zone wolves each year for five years – leaving only 20-30 remaining wolves in 3-5 packs each year. In March 2010, after a helicopter census found the Lolo Zone elk had declined by another 57%, Director Groen’s op-ed news release said: “Fish and Game will do what it takes to restore the health of the Lolo herd.”
In his May 17, 2011 “Business Plan” new Director Virgil Moore promised the Commission and Idaho big game hunters that F&G would also initiate wolf control in other zones in 2012 “where wolf predation is known to be preventing achievement of ungulate goals.”
Wolf Estimate Indicates Removing 80-100 Wolves
On Dec. 16, 2011, IDFG estimated there were from 75-100* resident wolves and at least seven packs in the Lolo Zone. Only three of those packs were actually counted and they totaled “at least” 31 wolves – less three wolves that were later killed.
(* includes estimated wolves that were not part of packs – but does not include wolves in 6 of the 8 border packs that hunt in both states, but are claimed by Montana)
If Idaho added even one-third of the shared wolves in Montana’s border packs and their non-pack members to its 75-100 Lolo Zone estimate, the estimated wolf total would have increased to 100-125. The combined 80% kill by hunters, trappers and Wildlife Services would then be 80-100, leaving 20-30 wolves as planned.
By mid-February 2012 when the Wildlife Services helicopter gunner crew was called in to remove the wolves, hunters and trappers in Idaho had killed only 22 wolves in the Lolo Zone. More than half of those were killed before the year-end estimate of 75-100 wolves was calculated and published on Dec. 16th, and would not have changed that estimate.
From mid-February, during the remaining month and a half of trapping season and 4-1/2 months of hunting season, only six more wolves were killed in the Lolo Zone by hunters and trappers. Even if we ignore the wolf kill that occurred before the end-of-year December 16th population estimate, subtracting the entire 28 killed from the 80-100 (80%) that should have been killed would still have resulted in Wildlife Services having to kill between 52 and 72 wolves.
Instead, Deputy Director Unsworth told Wildlife Services to stop killing wolves on the third day, after it had killed only 14. Killing only 42 total wolves in the 2011-12 season protected the rest of the wolf population, including all of the 2012 pup increase, from humans.
Although only 14% of the Lolo Zone is wilderness and the wolf hunting and trapping seasons are 10 months and 4-1/2 months long, the fact that hunters were only able to kill 12 wolves and trappers only 16 is more evidence that the restrictions placed on sport hunting and trapping make it impossible to make a dent in the wolf population.
What Could Have Been – But Isn’t
Biologists’ 2008 plan to reduce Lolo wolf numbers by 80% and maintain ~25 wolves per year for five years meant killing about 105 wolves initially. But it also meant that an estimated 3,600 or more of the 5,110 Lolo elk that were counted in 2006 would still be alive.
If bears and lions were strictly controlled, the ratio of 25 wolves to 3,600 elk – one wolf for at least 144 elk for the next five years – would have allowed enough elk calves to survive to get a good start at rebuilding the declining Lolo elk herd. Instead, the 2011 Lolo Zone elk harvest was down 95% from the highs of 1989 and 1995!
The biologists’ repeated failure to recommend a legitimate wolf control action and their years of false promises, posturing, and misrepresentation of facts, should make it obvious to everyone that IDFG officials have no intention of controlling wolves to restore healthy game populations in the Lolo Zone, or anywhere else.
Instead they spent thousands of dollars of sportsmen license fees trying to convince hunters to attend the “Wildlife Summit” and then ask elected officials to fund their anti-hunting agenda with general tax revenues.
Read more @ http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2050%20Sept%202012-Summit.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2050%20Sept%202012-Summit.pdf)
Post by: huntnphool on February 05, 2015, 11:57:16 PM
January 23, 2015 "In a briefing to the Fish and Game Commission in Boise last week, Hayden estimated Idaho holds roughly 1,000 wolves and probably many more breeding pairs than have been confirmed so far."
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/jan/23/idaho-wolf-survey-reveals-thriving-breeding/ (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/jan/23/idaho-wolf-survey-reveals-thriving-breeding/)
In 2007 the minimum population estimate was 732 (Appendix A)
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/reportAnnual07.pdf (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/reportAnnual07.pdf)
liberal harvest by hunters and trappers of 29% or less of a wolf population has no impact (yes I said NO impact) on wolf population increases. http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No.28%20May%202008%20FWS%20Biologist%20Says%20Wolf%20Numbers%20Underestimated%20Mech%20Says%203,000%20Wolves%20Exist%20in%20ID,%20MT%20&%20WY.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No.28%20May%202008%20FWS%20Biologist%20Says%20Wolf%20Numbers%20Underestimated%20Mech%20Says%203,000%20Wolves%20Exist%20in%20ID,%20MT%20&%20WY.pdf)
Where are all of Idaho's wolves going?
The Predator Death Spiral…
We’re continuing to see an alarming trend in Western wildlife management. I am calling it the “Predator Death Spiral.” The underlying cause of this phenomina is when a wildlife agency attempts to hide or “pad” their big game population estimates when over predation begins to take hold. This in turn creates a downward spiral that cannot easily be avoided, and is often not even noticed until the state hits both a financial and PR rock bottom. Idaho was the first state to hit the wall with the “Spiral” followed by Montana and now Wyoming has begun to slip into the Spiral’s grip. The wolf situation has caused these three Western states to slide down the jagged slope of diminishing herds, shrinking revenues and bad PR among their customers and financial lifeline…out-of-state hunters.
The details of the spiral start out very subtle. The wolves, cougars and grizzly bears start to take a few more elk and moose each year as their unchecked populations grow and expand. The state does not react at first with cuts in the tag quotas. This would mean a decrease in revenue that would have to be met with either more tags somewhere else or even worse, budget cuts. So they do what most Government agencies would do in this situation…nothing! After a few years of turning a blind eye to the situation a bad winter like the winter we had in 2006 and 2011 hit and further accelerated the problem. But, the bad winter was even worse than imagined from a wildlife management perspective. The increased snowpack and cold temps caused far more than the usual winter kill. The predators did extremely well because of the increased snowpack that gathered the herds even tighter than usual, on heavy snow accumulations that created a wolves dream come true scenario. A concentrated food source stuck in a snow bank that cannot escape…perfect. After the long cold winter is over the elk and deer that did survive go into the spring in tough shape. Many of the cows and does have aborted their young in order to survive.
The post winter mortality counts come back into the department as an alarming number. But budgets have to be met. So being ever optimistic the state decides to give the remaining quotas just one more year to see if they might bounce back. After-all, the counts could have been flawed, there is no way we could have lost that many big game assets in one year, right?
The next fall the hunters are complaining, the harvest stats are coming back very low and things are not looking good on the PR front. Many non-resident hunters are threatening not to apply the following year and the outfitters are starting to make their voices heard.
The state reacts, and cuts the elk tags inside the wolf and winter zones. But the money has to be made up somewhere, after all a few hundred non-resident elk tags equate to big money. So the state moves to increase the quotas on elk outside the wolf zone and increase the deer and antelope tags substantially in an effort to compensate for the loss in revenue.
As wolves continue to take their toll, state Game and Fish Departments struggle to make their budgets as big game populations plummet and demand for non-resident licenses crash.
A second harsh winter strikes and wipes out the antelope and deer herd excesses. Things are looking bad, but the state budgeteers don’t give up easily. Someone recommends the idea of raising license costs to all hunters, after all supply and demand economics formulas say a non-resident elk tag should go for over $2,500. But the resident tag increases get shot down by the commission but everyone likes the idea of sticking to the non-resident hunter a bit more. They can afford it, have you seen how much a house in California is worth? (pre-2008 of course). The following fall the hunters don’t see near the game they did even the previous year. Things are getting bad. Thanks to the internet the word gets out and many of the non-resident hunters move their camps and non-resident dollars to Colorado and New Mexico to hunt elk and deer.
The next thing the state knows, they are sitting on millions of dollars worth of unclaimed and unwanted non-resident tags. Now with the wildlife resource in shambles and a multi-million dollar budget shortfall the state is finally forced to wake up and smell the coffee. This isn’t the 1970’s…it’s no surprise to us that a non-resident hunter who pays over $1,000 for an elk tag expects a good elk hunt, why should it come as a surprise to the state Game and Fish Commission? But it does. What the state fails to realize is, that once they began to charge that kind of money for tags and preference points they in affect gave up the option to simply brush it off as a “bad winter, try again next year” excuse that worked so well in the past. In the information age non-resident hunters no longer accept excuses easily.
This is the bottom. A state is stuck to come clean and admit they are in a real hole. They don’t have the wildlife any longer to support their budgetary needs and their customers know it. This is the type of situation where a little fudge in numbers here and there has created a beast that cannot be controlled and is getting bigger, badder and uglier every year until the bottom is hit.
Why? Because it would mean that the states would have to admit to contributing to their own financial demise. Some Western Fish and Game Departments have in fact become a wolf in sheep’s clothing to their constituants. Some inside the departments have, although reluctantly, in some cases went along with the Federal Government’s master plan to re-introduce super predators back into the ecosystem to eventually control big game herds without the use of hunters. It’s almost as if the state neglected to realize that this would, in fact, slit their own throats by gutting their departments of the necessary funding to run.
And this is not just a Wyoming, Montana and Idaho problem. Wolves have already begun to take hold in Washington, Oregon and Utah. Nevada, and Colorado are certainly next. And for all of you midwest whitetail hunters out there, sorry, your not safe either. The government has devised a plan to expand the Mexican wolf North from Arizona and New Mexico into Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, North and South Dakota and Nebraska to connect with the upper midwest wolf populations in Minnesota and Wisconsin. This would give super predators a way to control whitetail deer populations minus the use of hunting as a management tool.
This is a critical situation but all is not lost yet. There have been huge strides made in the recent wolf debate and wolves are starting to be controlled now in Montana and Idaho. We all as hunters need to keep pressure on our politicians and state agencies to make sure they do the right thing for our wildlife. We pay them to manage our wildlife resource in a responsible manner, make them earn their money. Taking the easy way out is not good enough. They need to do better, our big game wildlife resource depends on it.
Drop me a line and let me know what your thoughts are…maybe I’m just a conspiracy theorist…who knows. I know what I’ve heard and seen first hand so far, though, and it’s not looking good.
Guy
http://blog.eastmans.com/the-predator-death-spiral/ (http://blog.eastmans.com/the-predator-death-spiral/)
20 moose tags added to North Idaho hunts
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2015/jan/26/20-moose-tags-added-north-idaho-hunts/ (http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2015/jan/26/20-moose-tags-added-north-idaho-hunts/)
Poor Attendance at “Idaho Wildlife Summit” Reflects
Citizen Mistrust of F&G Refusal to Manage Wildlife
http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2050%20Sept%202012-Summit.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2050%20Sept%202012-Summit.pdf)
You left out the best part.
"F&W Directors finally see the writing on the wall and jump ship, to take control and make the same mistake in the next misguided liberal state."