Post by: wolfbait on December 03, 2020, 06:21:36 AM
Coloradans unleash wolves on their neighbors: A fitting metaphor for COVID
Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/11/coloradans_unleash_wolves_on_their_neighbors_a_fitting_metaphor_for_covid.html#ixzz6fZSRqEWY
Post by: Smokeploe on December 03, 2020, 07:04:35 AM
Smokeploe
Post by: Miles on December 03, 2020, 08:27:01 AM
Post by: KFhunter on December 05, 2020, 03:41:25 PM
Yea two cities decided to vote prop 114 in, the rest of the state voted against it. I see a solution for western Colorado, they can use the PITA solution against them! PITA does not want to kill the wolves just trap them and move them. Ok trap the wolves that are problems then transport them to a different area, Denver and Boulder and release them in the downtown area. Watch how fast they will demand something be done. Trapping or ?
Smokeploe
Did they use Dominion?
Post by: Hydrophilic on December 30, 2020, 09:23:38 AM
Yea two cities decided to vote prop 114 in, the rest of the state voted against it. I see a solution for western Colorado, they can use the PITA solution against them! PITA does not want to kill the wolves just trap them and move them. Ok trap the wolves that are problems then transport them to a different area, Denver and Boulder and release them in the downtown area. Watch how fast they will demand something be done. Trapping or ?
Smokeploe
What data are you looking at for your assertion? I see wolf supporters in every county.
https://elections.denverpost.com/results/county-break-down/?Prop-114/7699
Post by: highside74 on December 30, 2020, 10:15:52 AM
Yea two cities decided to vote prop 114 in, the rest of the state voted against it. I see a solution for western Colorado, they can use the PITA solution against them! PITA does not want to kill the wolves just trap them and move them. Ok trap the wolves that are problems then transport them to a different area, Denver and Boulder and release them in the downtown area. Watch how fast they will demand something be done. Trapping or ?
Smokeploe
What data are you looking at for your assertion? I see wolf supporters in every county.
https://elections.denverpost.com/results/county-break-down/?Prop-114/7699
Same Data you posted makes his argument. 64 counties and 51 of them said no. Boulder and Denver Counties population wipes out all of the no votes. This is why we have the electoral college for the USA so California and New York can't decide for the whole nation. Just like 3 countries in Washington state.
Post by: Limhangerslayer on December 30, 2020, 10:22:58 AM
just shows there are dumb people in every county. Nice first post, hopefully it’s one of your last. This is a hunting forum, register yesterday and first post is pro wolf. I’ll take you as serious as 5 year old saying he’s running away!!😂Yea two cities decided to vote prop 114 in, the rest of the state voted against it. I see a solution for western Colorado, they can use the PITA solution against them! PITA does not want to kill the wolves just trap them and move them. Ok trap the wolves that are problems then transport them to a different area, Denver and Boulder and release them in the downtown area. Watch how fast they will demand something be done. Trapping or ?
Smokeploe
What data are you looking at for your assertion? I see wolf supporters in every county.
https://elections.denverpost.com/results/county-break-down/?Prop-114/7699
Post by: Hydrophilic on December 30, 2020, 12:22:46 PM
Yea two cities decided to vote prop 114 in, the rest of the state voted against it. I see a solution for western Colorado, they can use the PITA solution against them! PITA does not want to kill the wolves just trap them and move them. Ok trap the wolves that are problems then transport them to a different area, Denver and Boulder and release them in the downtown area. Watch how fast they will demand something be done. Trapping or ?
Smokeploe
What data are you looking at for your assertion? I see wolf supporters in every county.
https://elections.denverpost.com/results/county-break-down/?Prop-114/7699
Same Data you posted makes his argument. 64 counties and 51 of them said no. Boulder and Denver Counties population wipes out all of the no votes. This is why we have the electoral college for the USA so California and New York can't decide for the whole nation. Just like 3 countries in Washington state.
“ Yea two cities decided to vote prop 114 in, the rest of the state voted against it”
This original statement, to which I responded, has little to do with your statement.
The data I provided shows it is a false statement. The measure would not have passed based on the vote from those 2 cities alone. It would have failed without thousands of additional yes votes from different counties around the state.
Your electoral college reference makes little sense. Most states tally the popular vote and award electoral votes to the popular vote winner. Measure 114 was a state issue, not a federal issue.
Post by: highside74 on December 30, 2020, 12:52:24 PM
Yea two cities decided to vote prop 114 in, the rest of the state voted against it. I see a solution for western Colorado, they can use the PITA solution against them! PITA does not want to kill the wolves just trap them and move them. Ok trap the wolves that are problems then transport them to a different area, Denver and Boulder and release them in the downtown area. Watch how fast they will demand something be done. Trapping or ?
Smokeploe
What data are you looking at for your assertion? I see wolf supporters in every county.
https://elections.denverpost.com/results/county-break-down/?Prop-114/7699
Same Data you posted makes his argument. 64 counties and 51 of them said no. Boulder and Denver Counties population wipes out all of the no votes. This is why we have the electoral college for the USA so California and New York can't decide for the whole nation. Just like 3 countries in Washington state.
“ Yea two cities decided to vote prop 114 in, the rest of the state voted against it”
This original statement, to which I responded, has little to do with your statement.
The data I provided shows it is a false statement. The measure would not have passed based on the vote from those 2 cities alone. It would have failed without thousands of additional yes votes from different counties around the state.
Your electoral college reference makes little sense. Most states tally the popular vote and award electoral votes to the popular vote winner. Measure 114 was a state issue, not a federal issue.
Okay brainyack,
I know it was a state issue. I was making a point that a few counties shouldn't be able to control a whole state and that is my point with the electoral college. The popular vote doesn't always win. You have 51 of 64 counties voting no but the top 5 largest counties in Colorado voted yes. Margin of yes votes in those 5 counties looks to be 10% or so but the margin of no votes in the 51 counties is 35-50% or more.
The places that are going to be most affected don't have the population to beat the top 5 counties that have 50% of the population and get to vote on something that will affect their daily life very little but the others counties are going to have to deal with wolves now.
Post by: Hydrophilic on December 30, 2020, 05:21:19 PM
Yea two cities decided to vote prop 114 in, the rest of the state voted against it. I see a solution for western Colorado, they can use the PITA solution against them! PITA does not want to kill the wolves just trap them and move them. Ok trap the wolves that are problems then transport them to a different area, Denver and Boulder and release them in the downtown area. Watch how fast they will demand something be done. Trapping or ?
Smokeploe
What data are you looking at for your assertion? I see wolf supporters in every county.
https://elections.denverpost.com/results/county-break-down/?Prop-114/7699
Same Data you posted makes his argument. 64 counties and 51 of them said no. Boulder and Denver Counties population wipes out all of the no votes. This is why we have the electoral college for the USA so California and New York can't decide for the whole nation. Just like 3 countries in Washington state.
“ Yea two cities decided to vote prop 114 in, the rest of the state voted against it”
This original statement, to which I responded, has little to do with your statement.
The data I provided shows it is a false statement. The measure would not have passed based on the vote from those 2 cities alone. It would have failed without thousands of additional yes votes from different counties around the state.
Your electoral college reference makes little sense. Most states tally the popular vote and award electoral votes to the popular vote winner. Measure 114 was a state issue, not a federal issue.
Okay brainyack,
I know it was a state issue. I was making a point that a few counties shouldn't be able to control a whole state and that is my point with the electoral college. The popular vote doesn't always win. You have 51 of 64 counties voting no but the top 5 largest counties in Colorado voted yes. Margin of yes votes in those 5 counties looks to be 10% or so but the margin of no votes in the 51 counties is 35-50% or more.
The places that are going to be most affected don't have the population to beat the top 5 counties that have 50% of the population and get to vote on something that will affect their daily life very little but the others counties are going to have to deal with wolves now.
So what exactly is your proposal? Wildlife resources are held in trust for all citizens. This is based on the worlds most successful system for safeguarding fish and wildlife.
Post by: Miles on December 30, 2020, 06:36:19 PM
Post by: hunt6226 on December 30, 2020, 08:41:14 PM
Post by: mburrows on December 30, 2020, 09:14:45 PM
Post by: mburrows on December 30, 2020, 09:18:23 PM
Post by: Hydrophilic on December 30, 2020, 09:23:54 PM
The proposal should be put all the wolves in the cities where their protection is voted in :twocents:
Well fortunately federal land is geared toward multi use and placed in trust for all citizens, and our wildlife is also placed in trust for the public. It seems fitting to me the public having input on how their trust lands and wildlife are managed. That is the beautiful thing about this country, thank you Mr. Roosevelt.
Post by: Hydrophilic on December 30, 2020, 09:33:00 PM
And My proposal, don’t allow wildlife to be managed by a ballot, manage by science. Wolves are already in Colorado and will continue their migration there via Wyoming naturally.
I agree to an extent but its hard to find an answer in science at all times. For instance, what is the science that says we should save a critically endangered flower that has a poorly understood ecological role? There are different factors in management including cultural.
Also, in many situations the science yields suggestions certain user groups don’t want to see. For instance, I read a research paper the other day regarding combined predation on ungulates in a section of Montana. Wolves had very minimal impact on calves. In that particular unit cougars were an issue, and the primary one. I have read quite a few other studies that suggest when the habitat is good, predation doesn’t matter. These are things hunters do not want to hear, from my experience.
Post by: highside74 on December 30, 2020, 09:49:37 PM
Post by: Hydrophilic on December 30, 2020, 11:06:19 PM
Unfortunately tree huggers want to manage habitat by keeping a hands off approach. In doing this you have multiple adverse effects. Such as wildfires and poor forage do to mismanagement of forests. This creates zones of zero animals and they congregate in areas with better food supply. Then you add predators into the equation and the prey animals have only so many places to go where they can eat and survive but since you add wolves into the mix you have lower birth rates and lower calf survival. It is a vicious cycle and it's time to stop management by heart strings and start to manage by science.
Nonsense. I attached a brief excerpt on the history of fire suppression in this country, straight from a well respected, new textbook. You blaming fire suppression on tree huggers is an emotional fantasy and shows your obvious bias. Show me good, high quality data if you want me to take that claim seriously.
As for most of your other comments, I won't even engage, they are also meaningless.
Post by: highside74 on December 30, 2020, 11:27:06 PM
By not allowing thinning/logging or forest clean up you create forests so thick that forage can't grow. This creates forests void of ungulates because there is nothing there for them. Wolves lovers say look at the North East of Washington with all those forests for the deer and elk to live in. There is plenty of space for them all to live. That just isn't true becuase the land won't support the ungulates properly.
Post by: Smokeploe on December 31, 2020, 07:05:12 AM
In California the Sierra Club and other tree huggers ilk have suppressed the correct management of the forest for about 50 years. Put fire out as fast as you can, no tree thinning, no clearing with small controlled burns during the winter and many, many other such things to list here. Here is one thing to think about before white man came to the west coast there were No major wild fires in this area! The native Indians bid the greatest job of managing the forest and wildlife ever! They look at and lived the land managed clearing of the underbrush and only taking and controlling wildlife as needed or hundreds of years. Can the White man say he has done that!
Now the CA. Dept. of forestry is now realizing that was all wrong! It only took them 40+ years to find this out. Tree huggers did this to California to make them selves feel good! Not only management of the forest but also to the wildlife, that is why Washington, California and other states that follow this pattern are losing forest land and wildlife! If you think I am wrong, then you are blind and cannot see the trees because of the forest, I lived thru it! I have watched good hunting areas and fishing places become empty and barren because of tree huggers, and environmentalist!
Wolves do have their place in wildlife, but when they threaten human life then they need to be controlled. You cannot release a wild animal that has been known to attack and kill animals and people small than they are! You cannot believe or just tell the wolves: “Do not hurt and kill the lambs, baby cows and kids” that is a tree hugger mentallity.
A good point I was trying to make in my first post is look at I639 all the votes that caused this to pass were cast in the Olympia-Seattle metro area, not the rest of the state! If passage went by county by county then I639, then the election of Insley would not have happened! This might be a good idea to get passed for the right things to happen! Something to think about.
Post by: Smokeploe on December 31, 2020, 07:23:40 AM
Yes he may be a respected book writer and and excellent professor in a college. But that is where he is in a office and a classroom. I respected a gentleman that never sat a day in a classroom or studied books! He knew more about the forest and wildlife in his area than any professor or tree hugger, because he lived out there! He understood what was needed and what needed to be done and he did it. He was an Indian from the Mewok tribe, he was not pure Indian but enough. Books do not make an expert, experience does, living does.
You want facts just look at California since the founding of the tree hugging Serria Club and their influence the wildfires in California has gotten worse every year! Have you ever seen glass out in the forest! I have, it is because the fire burned so hot that the crushed granite and sand melted and fused and became glass. The soil was so sterile that nothing grew there until they replanted!
Books are great to read and there are a great many very good books. Don’t take one person view as the great way of doing things, because that is their view of doing things, wrong or right. Living out in the great outdoors is the best knowledge you can get.
Do yourself and us a favor go get a backpack and live in the great outdoors for 20 years out there, then come back and then you have the right to tell us who is right or is wrong
Post by: Hydrophilic on December 31, 2020, 10:58:17 AM
Who said anything about fire suppression? Normal wildfire is necessary. I'm talking about wildfires that rage up and down the west coast because environmental groups won't allow forests to be thinned or windfall to be harvested creating wildfires that are hard to contain and deadly.
By not allowing thinning/logging or forest clean up you create forests so thick that forage can't grow. This creates forests void of ungulates because there is nothing there for them. Wolves lovers say look at the North East of Washington with all those forests for the deer and elk to live in. There is plenty of space for them all to live. That just isn't true becuase the land won't support the ungulates properly.
Wildfires rage up and down the west coast primarily because of poor forest management. Dense thickets of Doug fir's were never meant to replace sprawling Oak Savannah and other similar ecotypes.
"In 1905, the newly formed Forest Service was given responsibility for managing the Forest Reserves, but neither the reserves or the Forest Service were popular across all political parties at that time. This changed following the 1910 Great Fire complex of Idaho and Montana that burned approximately 3 million acres. The trauma of this big blowup lead the Forest Service to adopt a "Zero Tolerance" policy for wildland fire and the goal of complete suppression...
....Suppression still remains the dominant fire management policy today"."
Pointing your finger to blame one group of people is absurd and shows you aren't versed in history enough to understand how flawed your mindset is. Of course there are some irresponsible environmental groups. In my experiences there are plenty who are doing a service to this country, i.e. actually facilitating controlled burns on private property with various tribal groups, helping to protect and enhance migration corridors for migrating game, or even allowing hunting with valid permit on their property.
Am I to look at GPS collar surveys where doe mortality (gunshot/arrow) is highest during legal hunting season (despite no doe tags issued, and no tribal harvest) and come to the conclusion that all hunters are poachers? No. That is absurd. And nobody would take me seriously. Just like nobody will take you seriously, outside of this echo chamber, unless you show credible DATA, or for starters, any data.
Post by: Smokeploe on January 01, 2021, 07:21:05 AM
Yes if you know your history the look at the history and follow the line they started in 1892. They influenced and paid for the way the forest service was run. Yes they at first did many great things, they they got into politics and it went down hill from there. They were the one who supported and paid for the total suppression of fires, never controlled burns. To keep the forest floor healthy you needed controlled burns. Mother Nature will do what she wants make fires when she wants them to clean, but certain men did not they wanted just to let things happen and put out all fires.
My mind set is this and it has work for thousand of years
If an person wants to be an engineer then they need to turn wrenches for 10 to 15 years before picking up a pencil to create and draw. You can change the profession but not the timing. Book learning is good, get the mind thinking but you need to out in the field working and seeing how things really work. Mother Nature will do what she wants and if man get in her way watch out! One book does not mean that something is the right way to do things nor is the only way. My experience has been that books by college professors has been that they are way in the left and support the environmentalist.
Post by: Hydrophilic on January 02, 2021, 01:58:22 PM
The way I see things is not flawed! I worked and lived and watched the how the political B/S worked by the environmentalist worked—-deep pockets bought and paid for the way the California forestry service and fish and game was told to run. Wealthy environmentalists raised millions of dollars to pay for elections and sway the voters especially the young left sided voters to elect certain people. Then persuaded their political friends to place people in certain positions to run that department the way they wanted. I had many friends in the California forestry department, and watched them get eliminated one by one because they did not follow the guideline by the environmentalist group.
Yes if you know your history the look at the history and follow the line they started in 1892. They influenced and paid for the way the forest service was run. Yes they at first did many great things, they they got into politics and it went down hill from there. They were the one who supported and paid for the total suppression of fires, never controlled burns. To keep the forest floor healthy you needed controlled burns. Mother Nature will do what she wants make fires when she wants them to clean, but certain men did not they wanted just to let things happen and put out all fires.
My mind set is this and it has work for thousand of years
If an person wants to be an engineer then they need to turn wrenches for 10 to 15 years before picking up a pencil to create and draw. You can change the profession but not the timing. Book learning is good, get the mind thinking but you need to out in the field working and seeing how things really work. Mother Nature will do what she wants and if man get in her way watch out! One book does not mean that something is the right way to do things nor is the only way. My experience has been that books by college professors has been that they are way in the left and support the environmentalist.
Provide data to back up your baseless and subjective claims, especially when I quoted a textbook, and could easily quote more. Stories and beliefs add nothing to a conversation, other than entertainment value.
The American environmental movement was not even underway in the late 1800's with the exception of a few outliers that have been lumped in such as Henry David Thoreau and George Perkins. The environmental movement as we know it began in the 1960's. The American Conservation movement was active during the mid to late 1800's. Aldo Leopold, George Grinnell, Teddy Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot were all figureheads for this movement and most of them were ardent hunters. John Muir was a preservationist. There wasn't even a strong anti-environmentalist movement until the 1970's or so. Not sure how the extreme environmentalists infiltrated the upper echelons of government before there was such a thing as extreme environmentalists but I will give you a chance to prove your point.
https://photos.state.gov/libraries/mumbai/498320/fernandesma/June_2012_001.pdf
https://documents.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/antienvironmentalism.html#:~:text=Anti%2Denvironmentalism%20refers%20to%20the,politicians%20against%20increased%20environmental%20regulation.
Also, your claim of 'on the ground' experience is just an attempt to discredit the actual data I am providing. Common characteristics of denial are refutes such as "The science was bought and paid for" or "on the ground experience is what actually counts", without providing any meaningful and relevant information in return. These statements can be regurgitated by anyone who can type and mean nothing, other than to try and reinforce your own confirmation biases, which is a waste of both your time and my time.
Science uses observations in order to build and organize knowledge into testable theories and predictions. "On the ground" surgical experience, for example, only has certain value because they cannot observe molecular interactions. So, yes, they can become proficient at certain surgical procedures which the surgical student cannot, but that is a ridiculous reason to ignore well respected scientific journals and textbooks. In fact, that would result in malpractice. If you end up in the hospital in need of cardiac surgery, who do you want working on you, the ancient, stubborn surgeon who still lays massive, unnecessary open flaps the way he was taught in the 1950's, or the surgeon who stays up to date on the latest techniques (research) and can complete the surgery more efficiently, safer, with minimally invasive procedures and a better prognosis? How about the dentist who was trained in procedures without using local anesthesia? Maybe you can find one still that refuses to use lidocaine for root canals because he believes on the ground experience is better than listening to a textbook.
There is a reason all state fish and wildlife agencies incorporate science, research, and textbooks into their professions, some more than others. Your argument of ignoring my data because it is simply academic and not "on the ground", without yourself providing a shred of data to support your own position, is nothing more than a waste of type which no reasonable professional would take seriously.
Post by: KFhunter on January 02, 2021, 02:19:13 PM
Keep it on topic.
Post by: idaho guy on January 02, 2021, 08:45:57 PM
The proposal should be put all the wolves in the cities where their protection is voted in :twocents:
Well fortunately federal land is geared toward multi use and placed in trust for all citizens, and our wildlife is also placed in trust for the public. It seems fitting to me the public having input on how their trust lands and wildlife are managed. That is the beautiful thing about this country, thank you Mr. Roosevelt.
Teddy Roosevelt is probably rolling over in his grave over the stupidity of this one. Ballot box wildlife management was never part of the North American wildlife model, which I agree is most successful wildlife management plan in the world. Ballot box wildlife management will be the ruin of what mr Roosevelt’s gift to us was. There is over 25 years of firsthand documented facts that disprove every lie the biologist told us in Idaho 25 years ago. They are using the EXACT talking points to reintroduce wolves to Colorado right now. It’s all been shown to be bullcrap which we thought anyways but now it’s proven with decades of on the ground evidence. It’s a shame to see this but oh well have fun with the wolves Colorado.
Post by: idaho guy on January 02, 2021, 09:24:31 PM
The way I see things is not flawed! I worked and lived and watched the how the political B/S worked by the environmentalist worked—-deep pockets bought and paid for the way the California forestry service and fish and game was told to run. Wealthy environmentalists raised millions of dollars to pay for elections and sway the voters especially the young left sided voters to elect certain people. Then persuaded their political friends to place people in certain positions to run that department the way they wanted. I had many friends in the California forestry department, and watched them get eliminated one by one because they did not follow the guideline by the environmentalist group.
Yes if you know your history the look at the history and follow the line they started in 1892. They influenced and paid for the way the forest service was run. Yes they at first did many great things, they they got into politics and it went down hill from there. They were the one who supported and paid for the total suppression of fires, never controlled burns. To keep the forest floor healthy you needed controlled burns. Mother Nature will do what she wants make fires when she wants them to clean, but certain men did not they wanted just to let things happen and put out all fires.
My mind set is this and it has work for thousand of years
If an person wants to be an engineer then they need to turn wrenches for 10 to 15 years before picking up a pencil to create and draw. You can change the profession but not the timing. Book learning is good, get the mind thinking but you need to out in the field working and seeing how things really work. Mother Nature will do what she wants and if man get in her way watch out! One book does not mean that something is the right way to do things nor is the only way. My experience has been that books by college professors has been that they are way in the left and support the environmentalist.
Provide data to back up your baseless and subjective claims, especially when I quoted a textbook, and could easily quote more. Stories and beliefs add nothing to a conversation, other than entertainment value.
The American environmental movement was not even underway in the late 1800's with the exception of a few outliers that have been lumped in such as Henry David Thoreau and George Perkins. The environmental movement as we know it began in the 1960's. The American Conservation movement was active during the mid to late 1800's. Aldo Leopold, George Grinnell, Teddy Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot were all figureheads for this movement and most of them were ardent hunters. John Muir was a preservationist. There wasn't even a strong anti-environmentalist movement until the 1970's or so. Not sure how the extreme environmentalists infiltrated the upper echelons of government before there was such a thing as extreme environmentalists but I will give you a chance to prove your point.
https://photos.state.gov/libraries/mumbai/498320/fernandesma/June_2012_001.pdf
https://documents.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/antienvironmentalism.html#:~:text=Anti%2Denvironmentalism%20refers%20to%20the,politicians%20against%20increased%20environmental%20regulation.
Also, your claim of 'on the ground' experience is just an attempt to discredit the actual data I am providing. Common characteristics of denial are refutes such as "The science was bought and paid for" or "on the ground experience is what actually counts", without providing any meaningful and relevant information in return. These statements can be regurgitated by anyone who can type and mean nothing, other than to try and reinforce your own confirmation biases, which is a waste of both your time and my time.
Science uses observations in order to build and organize knowledge into testable theories and predictions. "On the ground" surgical experience, for example, only has certain value because they cannot observe molecular interactions. So, yes, they can become proficient at certain surgical procedures which the surgical student cannot, but that is a ridiculous reason to ignore well respected scientific journals and textbooks. In fact, that would result in malpractice. If you end up in the hospital in need of cardiac surgery, who do you want working on you, the ancient, stubborn surgeon who still lays massive, unnecessary open flaps the way he was taught in the 1950's, or the surgeon who stays up to date on the latest techniques (research) and can complete the surgery more efficiently, safer, with minimally invasive procedures and a better prognosis? How about the dentist who was trained in procedures without using local anesthesia? Maybe you can find one still that refuses to use lidocaine for root canals because he believes on the ground experience is better than listening to a textbook.
There is a reason all state fish and wildlife agencies incorporate science, research, and textbooks into their professions, some more than others. Your argument of ignoring my data because it is simply academic and not "on the ground", without yourself providing a shred of data to support your own position, is nothing more than a waste of type which no reasonable professional would take seriously.
What a joke. Trees die, if you don’t manage the forest they become massive deadfall and fuel for the next massive fire that didn’t need to happen if we would have actually logged and managed the forest. Tree huggers and other environmental groups stopped almost all logging on national forest. The most liberal western states now have massive forest fires burning hotter than normal. Sorry I didn’t google a bunch of studies and read 10 books on the subject but seems kinda obvious what happened. You will dismiss this because I didn’t quote any peer reviewed studies of course. Sometimes 1 plus 1 does just equal 2 despite all your studies
Post by: Hydrophilic on January 02, 2021, 10:01:14 PM
The proposal should be put all the wolves in the cities where their protection is voted in :twocents:
Well fortunately federal land is geared toward multi use and placed in trust for all citizens, and our wildlife is also placed in trust for the public. It seems fitting to me the public having input on how their trust lands and wildlife are managed. That is the beautiful thing about this country, thank you Mr. Roosevelt.
Teddy Roosevelt is probably rolling over in his grave over the stupidity of this one. Ballot box wildlife management was never part of the North American wildlife model, which I agree is most successful wildlife management plan in the world. Ballot box wildlife management will be the ruin of what mr Roosevelt’s gift to us was. There is over 25 years of firsthand documented facts that disprove every lie the biologist told us in Idaho 25 years ago. They are using the EXACT talking points to reintroduce wolves to Colorado right now. It’s all been shown to be bullcrap which we thought anyways but now it’s proven with decades of on the ground evidence. It’s a shame to see this but oh well have fun with the wolves Colorado.
To respect the mod I will not respond to your other post. Its hard for me to stay on topic when there is so much low hanging fruit.
Your opinion is not shared with the majority of people. And here is a life long hunter who supports wolf reintroduction, available for discussion, lucky you. I elk hunt with wolves and have not noticed a change in success, although I don’t doubt it could happen. I support science driven wolf management if needed, but refute predator hate. Good on you Colorado.
“We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes—something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters’ paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view.”
— Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac, 1949
Post by: highside74 on January 02, 2021, 10:58:33 PM
Post by: highside74 on January 02, 2021, 11:02:35 PM
Post by: highside74 on January 02, 2021, 11:12:19 PM
Anyone, Anyone? Oh that's right wolves in 95. But the book photocopying science guy will say that has nothing to do with it.
Wait for it, wait for it...
Post by: Hydrophilic on January 02, 2021, 11:18:43 PM
Such a tool. You elk hunt with wolves, yeah right.
Not sure what is unbelievable about that. I hunt in the same watershed as an elk pack. Not literally hunt with wolves. If that clarifies.
Post by: Hydrophilic on January 02, 2021, 11:25:44 PM
And elk numbers in Yellowstone were at there peak in the early 90s and have been on a decline since the late 90s. May I ask the class what changed in Yellowstone in the mid 90s?
Anyone, Anyone? Oh that's right wolves in 95. But the book photocopying science guy will say that has nothing to do with it.
Wait for it, wait for it...
This is about Colorado, not Yellowstone, completely different. You have dragged me off topic multiple times, mainly because it was too tempting not to respond to your off topic comments, but I will stay on topic the rest of this thread. Please refrain from personal attacks, attacking my argument is one thing, attacking me personally by calling me a tool is another. Please refrain, thanks.
Post by: highside74 on January 02, 2021, 11:29:00 PM
Post by: Hydrophilic on January 02, 2021, 11:29:56 PM
And everything you quote is from the 50s and 60s. Go ask the fish and game scientists from the 80s and 90s if they still think it's a good idea to make loggers clean every stream and river they log by or get fined. Now they get fined if they don't put log jams back. Science changes with knowledge and uniformed voters shouldn't vote on wolf introduction.
I can’t believe I have to say this but please quote my references I used from the 50’s and 60’s? I won’t go off topic again but I am just honestly curious how you think a 2019 textbook, an article from 2011, an article from 2012, and Colorado voting results from 2020 are from the 1950’s?
Post by: KFhunter on January 02, 2021, 11:33:33 PM
You hunt Oregon hydro? From your avatar it looks like it going off elk species and understory.
You've got *a lot* to learn about wolves.
I appreciate your passion for the outdoors, but you're about 10 years behind E Washington and 15 behind Idaho.
You could learn here, or you could piss everyone off. Your choice.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: Hydrophilic on January 02, 2021, 11:39:19 PM
I didn't go off topic. Yellowstone is a place where wolves were reintroduced and the elk populations have declined ever since and people in Colorado are ignoring 20 years of wolf and elk science because they are misinformed by people with an arterial motive.
Ulterior.
Post by: Hydrophilic on January 03, 2021, 12:05:19 AM
He's right about personal attacks, if nothing else highside
You hunt Oregon hydro? From your avatar it looks like it going off elk species and understory.
You've got *a lot* to learn about wolves.
I appreciate your passion for the outdoors, but you're about 10 years behind E Washington and 15 behind Idaho.
You could learn here, or you could piss everyone off. Your choice.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Yes, I’m in Oregon and hunt a few other states as well.
I’m open to learning and I hope everyone else here is as well. All I ask for are decent citations and critical thought.
Whether I piss everyone off is of no concern to me. If hunters get mad at facts and observations that is their problem and not my own. I have a folder of studies used by state wildlife agencies to dictate their management decisions, or personal opinions. If hunters want science, I can do science. If this is a science based management forum, as a couple posters have claimed, then hopefully the cognitive dissonance is kept to a minimum.
About me: I chase 20 lb steelhead, big morels, big elk, and big deer. But I’m happy with 10 lb steelhead, small morels, small elk, and small deer. I love the outdoors. Cheers.
Post by: KFhunter on January 03, 2021, 12:12:10 AM
Not to stereotype all steelheaders, but from your posts I think you'd be this type.
I am going somewhere with this...
Post by: Hydrophilic on January 03, 2021, 12:14:08 AM
Post by: greenhead_killer on January 03, 2021, 12:19:23 AM
elk pack...hahahahahahahahahahaahaha. You got us. Go troll somewhere else. Somewhere where your rhetoric might actually be believable.Such a tool. You elk hunt with wolves, yeah right.
Not sure what is unbelievable about that. I hunt in the same watershed as an elk pack. Not literally hunt with wolves. If that clarifies.
Post by: Hydrophilic on January 03, 2021, 12:20:26 AM
You got me.
Post by: greenhead_killer on January 03, 2021, 12:23:01 AM
Post by: Hydrophilic on January 03, 2021, 12:36:48 AM
Nice recovery bubbo. Again, troll somewhere else.
Maybe you can vote to add a rule and keep dissenting opinions out.
Freedom of speech sucks sometimes.
Post by: greenhead_killer on January 03, 2021, 12:40:57 AM
Post by: greenhead_killer on January 03, 2021, 12:45:06 AM
Post by: greenhead_killer on January 03, 2021, 12:59:02 AM
Post by: lokidog on January 03, 2021, 04:51:28 AM
The proposal should be put all the wolves in the cities where their protection is voted in :twocents:
Well fortunately federal land is geared toward multi use and placed in trust for all citizens, and our wildlife is also placed in trust for the public. It seems fitting to me the public having input on how their trust lands and wildlife are managed. That is the beautiful thing about this country, thank you Mr. Roosevelt.
Teddy Roosevelt is probably rolling over in his grave over the stupidity of this one. Ballot box wildlife management was never part of the North American wildlife model, which I agree is most successful wildlife management plan in the world. Ballot box wildlife management will be the ruin of what mr Roosevelt’s gift to us was. There is over 25 years of firsthand documented facts that disprove every lie the biologist told us in Idaho 25 years ago. They are using the EXACT talking points to reintroduce wolves to Colorado right now. It’s all been shown to be bullcrap which we thought anyways but now it’s proven with decades of on the ground evidence. It’s a shame to see this but oh well have fun with the wolves Colorado.
This is the key point right here! Whether you like or dislike wolves, THIS IS IT!
Ballot box wildlife management was never part of the North American wildlife model, which I agree is most successful wildlife management plan in the world. Ballot box wildlife management will be the ruin of what mr Roosevelt’s gift to us was.
Post by: nwwanderer on January 03, 2021, 06:00:58 AM
Post by: idaho guy on January 03, 2021, 09:19:37 AM
And elk numbers in Yellowstone were at there peak in the early 90s and have been on a decline since the late 90s. May I ask the class what changed in Yellowstone in the mid 90s?
Anyone, Anyone? Oh that's right wolves in 95. But the book photocopying science guy will say that has nothing to do with it.
Wait for it, wait for it...
This is about Colorado, not Yellowstone, completely different. You have dragged me off topic multiple times, mainly because it was too tempting not to respond to your off topic comments, but I will stay on topic the rest of this thread. Please refrain from personal attacks, attacking my argument is one thing, attacking me personally by calling me a tool is another. Please refrain, thanks.
This is off topic? WTH this is an exact blueprint for what will happen in Colorado. I know your romantic quote about green eyed wolves is super scientific but this is actual evidence,wow maybe even a study, of what happens to massive elk herds when you reintroduced wolves. I know it really doesn’t fit your narrative so keep quoting studies from places as far away from the west as possible. You want science!!! There it is 25 years in Yellowstone without Any co factors of predators like hunting. Explain based on this exact “experiment” of re introduced wolves makes a good case for introducing them into Colorado? You are quoting the same EXACT crap they spewed 25 years ago. Look at Yellowstone nothing could be more ON topic. Before you post new numbers of elk like last 5 years you better research how far they extended the boundaries of where the original Yellowstone elk herds now resides. But hey! The elk quit eating the stream side bushes so the fishing is better!! Yippee that’s what the same science is touting as their Yellowstone success with wolves. My grandpa who lived his whole life in Rifle Colorado told me you can’t argue with a fool. Wow was he right. Seeing the same talking points used as SCIENCE 25 years later is exhausting and irritating.
Post by: Born2late on January 03, 2021, 10:19:09 AM
It's a excellent book and he was a man That hunted and observed the impact wolves had on the landscape in alaska as they increased and was one of the most respected and knowledgable persons with first hand experience on wolves.
It will really give you a glimpse of whats to come i think.
I remember one part in the book were he talked about when the wolves would move into a valley they would kill everything in there. He said those valleys never recovered from it and were void of animals for the many years he lived and passed through them.
Post by: highside74 on January 03, 2021, 10:32:00 AM
I didn't go off topic. Yellowstone is a place where wolves were reintroduced and the elk populations have declined ever since and people in Colorado are ignoring 20 years of wolf and elk science because they are misinformed by people with an arterial motive.
Ulterior.
You call a herd of elk a pack and correct my poor spelling of the correct use of a word. Nice.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 03, 2021, 10:36:41 AM
A central tenet of the NAMWC is that the wildlife are owned by the people - a stark contrast to the days of game being owned by the king. In that sense, I disagree with these proclamations that 'ballot box management' is not part of the NAMWC. If the people who own the wildlife choose to do something by a vote of the people, that is their prerogative...however strenuously I or other hunters may dislike the outcome. Reintroducing wolves, banning bear baiting and hounds, allocating a certain percentage of elk tags to non-residents are all value judgments which will vary based on the electorate...the 'owners'. While science may provide information about how introducing an apex predator will effect other species and their habitat, it really is up to the 'owners' to decide what they prefer...in Colorado (and probably Washington if there were ever a similar vote!) a majority prefer wolves on the landscape, even if that means fewer elk and deer.The proposal should be put all the wolves in the cities where their protection is voted in :twocents:
Well fortunately federal land is geared toward multi use and placed in trust for all citizens, and our wildlife is also placed in trust for the public. It seems fitting to me the public having input on how their trust lands and wildlife are managed. That is the beautiful thing about this country, thank you Mr. Roosevelt.
Teddy Roosevelt is probably rolling over in his grave over the stupidity of this one. Ballot box wildlife management was never part of the North American wildlife model, which I agree is most successful wildlife management plan in the world. Ballot box wildlife management will be the ruin of what mr Roosevelt’s gift to us was. There is over 25 years of firsthand documented facts that disprove every lie the biologist told us in Idaho 25 years ago. They are using the EXACT talking points to reintroduce wolves to Colorado right now. It’s all been shown to be bullcrap which we thought anyways but now it’s proven with decades of on the ground evidence. It’s a shame to see this but oh well have fun with the wolves Colorado.
This is the key point right here! Whether you like or dislike wolves, THIS IS IT!
Ballot box wildlife management was never part of the North American wildlife model, which I agree is most successful wildlife management plan in the world. Ballot box wildlife management will be the ruin of what mr Roosevelt’s gift to us was.
Post by: Hydrophilic on January 03, 2021, 10:49:59 AM
I'd suggest reading a book called "Alaskas wolf man" the 1915-55 wilderness adventures of frank glaser
It's a excellent book and he was a man That hunted and observed the impact wolves had on the landscape in alaska as they increased and was one of the most respected and knowledgable persons with first hand experience on wolves.
It will really give you a glimpse of whats to come i think.
I remember one part in the book were he talked about when the wolves would move into a valley they would kill everything in there. He said those valleys never recovered from it and were void of animals for the many years he lived and passed through them.
Thank you for offering a resource and posting a civil reply, even if we disagree. I will add that to my reading list.
Post by: KFhunter on January 03, 2021, 10:51:50 AM
I would settle for management, the degree of desired management is the argument.
Same is true with other predators
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: Hydrophilic on January 03, 2021, 10:52:34 AM
A central tenet of the NAMWC is that the wildlife are owned by the people - a stark contrast to the days of game being owned by the king. In that sense, I disagree with these proclamations that 'ballot box management' is not part of the NAMWC. If the people who own the wildlife choose to do something by a vote of the people, that is their prerogative...however strenuously I or other hunters may dislike the outcome. Reintroducing wolves, banning bear baiting and hounds, allocating a certain percentage of elk tags to non-residents are all value judgments which will vary based on the electorate...the 'owners'. While science may provide information about how introducing an apex predator will effect other species and their habitat, it really is up to the 'owners' to decide what they prefer...in Colorado (and probably Washington if there were ever a similar vote!) a majority prefer wolves on the landscape, even if that means fewer elk and deer.The proposal should be put all the wolves in the cities where their protection is voted in :twocents:
Well fortunately federal land is geared toward multi use and placed in trust for all citizens, and our wildlife is also placed in trust for the public. It seems fitting to me the public having input on how their trust lands and wildlife are managed. That is the beautiful thing about this country, thank you Mr. Roosevelt.
Teddy Roosevelt is probably rolling over in his grave over the stupidity of this one. Ballot box wildlife management was never part of the North American wildlife model, which I agree is most successful wildlife management plan in the world. Ballot box wildlife management will be the ruin of what mr Roosevelt’s gift to us was. There is over 25 years of firsthand documented facts that disprove every lie the biologist told us in Idaho 25 years ago. They are using the EXACT talking points to reintroduce wolves to Colorado right now. It’s all been shown to be bullcrap which we thought anyways but now it’s proven with decades of on the ground evidence. It’s a shame to see this but oh well have fun with the wolves Colorado.
This is the key point right here! Whether you like or dislike wolves, THIS IS IT!
Ballot box wildlife management was never part of the North American wildlife model, which I agree is most successful wildlife management plan in the world. Ballot box wildlife management will be the ruin of what mr Roosevelt’s gift to us was.
Well stated.
Post by: 10thmountainarcher on January 03, 2021, 10:55:52 AM
A central tenet of the NAMWC is that the wildlife are owned by the people - a stark contrast to the days of game being owned by the king. In that sense, I disagree with these proclamations that 'ballot box management' is not part of the NAMWC. If the people who own the wildlife choose to do something by a vote of the people, that is their prerogative...however strenuously I or other hunters may dislike the outcome. Reintroducing wolves, banning bear baiting and hounds, allocating a certain percentage of elk tags to non-residents are all value judgments which will vary based on the electorate...the 'owners'. While science may provide information about how introducing an apex predator will effect other species and their habitat, it really is up to the 'owners' to decide what they prefer...in Colorado (and probably Washington if there were ever a similar vote!) a majority prefer wolves on the landscape, even if that means fewer elk and deer.The proposal should be put all the wolves in the cities where their protection is voted in :twocents:
Well fortunately federal land is geared toward multi use and placed in trust for all citizens, and our wildlife is also placed in trust for the public. It seems fitting to me the public having input on how their trust lands and wildlife are managed. That is the beautiful thing about this country, thank you Mr. Roosevelt.
Teddy Roosevelt is probably rolling over in his grave over the stupidity of this one. Ballot box wildlife management was never part of the North American wildlife model, which I agree is most successful wildlife management plan in the world. Ballot box wildlife management will be the ruin of what mr Roosevelt’s gift to us was. There is over 25 years of firsthand documented facts that disprove every lie the biologist told us in Idaho 25 years ago. They are using the EXACT talking points to reintroduce wolves to Colorado right now. It’s all been shown to be bullcrap which we thought anyways but now it’s proven with decades of on the ground evidence. It’s a shame to see this but oh well have fun with the wolves Colorado.
This is the key point right here! Whether you like or dislike wolves, THIS IS IT!
Ballot box wildlife management was never part of the North American wildlife model, which I agree is most successful wildlife management plan in the world. Ballot box wildlife management will be the ruin of what mr Roosevelt’s gift to us was.
I’m not certain how Colorado works their management for wildlife, but it seems a ballot box approach is only taken on some subjects. We voted for (against) hounds and baiting for bears/cougars, but almost everything else seems it’s done based on “science and data” (I really despise those terms...thanks Inslee). Baiting and hounds were well before I was of age to vote so I may be incorrect, but let’s be realistic neither had anything to do with data and science. Hound hunting being outlawed was for nothing but the feelings of people. I do remember the ads of dogs attacking bears after the shot being played on television.
Anyone who says wolves don’t have a significant impact on wildlife has absolutely ZERO credibility with me. I’ve seen the effects first hand, I don’t care what your textbook tells you.
*Edit to add* I guess what I’m saying/asking, how come only some management items go to a vote of the people? It seems the items that go to vote are the ones that feelings get in the way of the right answers.
Post by: idaho guy on January 03, 2021, 11:19:17 AM
A central tenet of the NAMWC is that the wildlife are owned by the people - a stark contrast to the days of game being owned by the king. In that sense, I disagree with these proclamations that 'ballot box management' is not part of the NAMWC. If the people who own the wildlife choose to do something by a vote of the people, that is their prerogative...however strenuously I or other hunters may dislike the outcome. Reintroducing wolves, banning bear baiting and hounds, allocating a certain percentage of elk tags to non-residents are all value judgments which will vary based on the electorate...the 'owners'. While science may provide information about how introducing an apex predator will effect other species and their habitat, it really is up to the 'owners' to decide what they prefer...in Colorado (and probably Washington if there were ever a similar vote!) a majority prefer wolves on the landscape, even if that means fewer elk and deer.The proposal should be put all the wolves in the cities where their protection is voted in :twocents:
Well fortunately federal land is geared toward multi use and placed in trust for all citizens, and our wildlife is also placed in trust for the public. It seems fitting to me the public having input on how their trust lands and wildlife are managed. That is the beautiful thing about this country, thank you Mr. Roosevelt.
Teddy Roosevelt is probably rolling over in his grave over the stupidity of this one. Ballot box wildlife management was never part of the North American wildlife model, which I agree is most successful wildlife management plan in the world. Ballot box wildlife management will be the ruin of what mr Roosevelt’s gift to us was. There is over 25 years of firsthand documented facts that disprove every lie the biologist told us in Idaho 25 years ago. They are using the EXACT talking points to reintroduce wolves to Colorado right now. It’s all been shown to be bullcrap which we thought anyways but now it’s proven with decades of on the ground evidence. It’s a shame to see this but oh well have fun with the wolves Colorado.
This is the key point right here! Whether you like or dislike wolves, THIS IS IT!
Ballot box wildlife management was never part of the North American wildlife model, which I agree is most successful wildlife management plan in the world. Ballot box wildlife management will be the ruin of what mr Roosevelt’s gift to us was.
I’m not certain how Colorado works their management for wildlife, but it seems a ballot box approach is only taken on some subjects. We voted for (against) hounds and baiting for bears/cougars, but almost everything else seems it’s done based on “science and data” (I really despise those terms...thanks Inslee). Baiting and hounds were well before I was of age to vote so I may be incorrect, but let’s be realistic neither had anything to do with data and science. Hound hunting being outlawed was for nothing but the feelings of people. I do remember the ads of dogs attacking bears after the shot being played on television.
Anyone who says wolves don’t have a significant impact on wildlife has absolutely ZERO credibility with me. I’ve seen the effects first hand, I don’t care what your textbook tells you.
*Edit to add* I guess what I’m saying/asking, how come only some management items go to a vote of the people? It seems the items that go to vote are the ones that feelings get in the way of the right answers.
My point exactly well said. Either we entrust management to those hired and trained to do so or we don’t. This piece meal approach where only sensitive emotional issues get voted on by the public is the worst of all world’s
Post by: idahohuntr on January 03, 2021, 11:29:09 AM
We don't put up ballot measures for smaller, less significant issues (e.g., to adjust quality elk permits in the colockum) but there is still a public process for setting those numbers. We may not get what we individually want, but in general the NAMWC facilitates public input on the management of public resources...and as we all know, even one user group (hunters) do not uniformly agree on any given set of values or decisions...which can make things tough even for well intentioned wildlife managers.
Post by: KFhunter on January 03, 2021, 11:29:57 AM
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: idaho guy on January 03, 2021, 11:39:28 AM
A central tenet of the NAMWC is that the wildlife are owned by the people - a stark contrast to the days of game being owned by the king. In that sense, I disagree with these proclamations that 'ballot box management' is not part of the NAMWC. If the people who own the wildlife choose to do something by a vote of the people, that is their prerogative...however strenuously I or other hunters may dislike the outcome. Reintroducing wolves, banning bear baiting and hounds, allocating a certain percentage of elk tags to non-residents are all value judgments which will vary based on the electorate...the 'owners'. While science may provide information about how introducing an apex predator will effect other species and their habitat, it really is up to the 'owners' to decide what they prefer...in Colorado (and probably Washington if there were ever a similar vote!) a majority prefer wolves on the landscape, even if that means fewer elk and deer.The proposal should be put all the wolves in the cities where their protection is voted in :twocents:
Well fortunately federal land is geared toward multi use and placed in trust for all citizens, and our wildlife is also placed in trust for the public. It seems fitting to me the public having input on how their trust lands and wildlife are managed. That is the beautiful thing about this country, thank you Mr. Roosevelt.
Teddy Roosevelt is probably rolling over in his grave over the stupidity of this one. Ballot box wildlife management was never part of the North American wildlife model, which I agree is most successful wildlife management plan in the world. Ballot box wildlife management will be the ruin of what mr Roosevelt’s gift to us was. There is over 25 years of firsthand documented facts that disprove every lie the biologist told us in Idaho 25 years ago. They are using the EXACT talking points to reintroduce wolves to Colorado right now. It’s all been shown to be bullcrap which we thought anyways but now it’s proven with decades of on the ground evidence. It’s a shame to see this but oh well have fun with the wolves Colorado.
This is the key point right here! Whether you like or dislike wolves, THIS IS IT!
Ballot box wildlife management was never part of the North American wildlife model, which I agree is most successful wildlife management plan in the world. Ballot box wildlife management will be the ruin of what mr Roosevelt’s gift to us was.
I didn’t say as owners we shouldn’t have a say we shouldn’t ask the game departments to manage all the wildlife on our behalf but cherry pick certain decisions that we get to decide. Game departments are either given authority to manage the resources or they are not. Picking highly emotional issues that have massive implications shouldn’t be independently “managed” by a bunch of city people who spend almost no time in the woods. If we can vote on all these predators we should vote on deer and elk seasons ALL of them.I have a vote for the state of Washington right now. All those Trophy elk areas you are waiting 20 years to draw but native Americans can hunt with no limits(one of which is an Idaho tribe not even living there) vote on open season for all hunters until the tribes decide to also regulate their harvest? Why aren’t we voting on these seasons if we get to vote on all the predator issues.? Key tenant of North American wildlife model is public ownership of wildlife but historically we had the wisdom to defer management to a paid group of professionals. If we need to vote on predators we need to vote on prey seasons too. You defer management or you don’t as an owner. I pray we collectively defer management as much as we all can find fault in our game departments
Post by: bearpaw on January 03, 2021, 11:46:47 AM
I elk hunt with wolves and have not noticed a change in success
This in itself is a testament to either your lack of knowledge, gullibility to false narrative, or lack of experience!
You might fool the nonhunting public with such fallacies but you are wasting your time here, members here have seen the damage inflicted by wolves, and history is bound to repeat itself in Colorado just as it has in every other wolf infested state and province, enough said! :twocents:
Post by: h20hunter on January 03, 2021, 12:02:00 PM
Again, enough said.
Post by: idaho guy on January 03, 2021, 12:05:04 PM
Why do some things go to the ballot and others not? There is no bright clear line and of course it varies by state, but its usually bigger, statewide policy issues of political importance/significance/interest. The 'feely/emotional' stuff typically arrives out of political interest.
We don't put up ballot measures for smaller, less significant issues (e.g., to adjust quality elk permits in the colockum) but there is still a public process for setting those numbers. We may not get what we individually want, but in general the NAMWC facilitates public input on the management of public resources...and as we all know, even one user group (hunters) do not uniformly agree on any given set of values or decisions...which can make things tough even for well intentioned wildlife managers.
This won’t work and why it will be the end of the North American wildlife model. Input should be gathered just like it is now with ultimate authority for the decision left to those responsible for the results. You can’t give someone responsibility for an outcome but not the authority to make crucial decisions. Simple analogy I own a farm but know nothing on how to run one. I hire you as the manager and ask that you create as much alfalfa as the land can yield to sale at top dollar. You do all the work and use the profits to improve the land install irrigation etc. it works great until I the owner fall in love with the little flowers on knapweed and decide because I am emotional on the little flowers that I need to make that decision. Doesn’t matter what facts you provide I love knapweed and will make that decision no matter what you say. Does that work? Or does it fail? Our wildlife model works because we managed historically for maximum game populations and license revenue went back to sustain and improve those herds for the future. Now we are taking critical predator decisions away from them at a time when habitat is being lost daily to development? That’s like my farm analogy I still want to sell the same tonnage of alfalfa but I introduced knapweed and by the way I sold 1/2 the acreage. You can make a theoretical argument that we will only vote on the emotional issues but you can’t disagree with my statement that it will be the end of the North American wildlife model. As owners we really can decide it’s fate or we can argue little points of what we should do as owners and by the way we have the right to do this or that. If we care about wildlife we really need to look at the big 100 year picture fights over wether we can hand select management decisions will do nothing to save the model for our kids and grandkids
Post by: idahohuntr on January 03, 2021, 12:14:14 PM
Professionals are not where major policy decisions come from and data and science don't dictate the public's values (e.g., predators, hounds, baiting etc.). Once the professionals know the public's desires/goals, they can manage accordingly.A central tenet of the NAMWC is that the wildlife are owned by the people - a stark contrast to the days of game being owned by the king. In that sense, I disagree with these proclamations that 'ballot box management' is not part of the NAMWC. If the people who own the wildlife choose to do something by a vote of the people, that is their prerogative...however strenuously I or other hunters may dislike the outcome. Reintroducing wolves, banning bear baiting and hounds, allocating a certain percentage of elk tags to non-residents are all value judgments which will vary based on the electorate...the 'owners'. While science may provide information about how introducing an apex predator will effect other species and their habitat, it really is up to the 'owners' to decide what they prefer...in Colorado (and probably Washington if there were ever a similar vote!) a majority prefer wolves on the landscape, even if that means fewer elk and deer.The proposal should be put all the wolves in the cities where their protection is voted in :twocents:
Well fortunately federal land is geared toward multi use and placed in trust for all citizens, and our wildlife is also placed in trust for the public. It seems fitting to me the public having input on how their trust lands and wildlife are managed. That is the beautiful thing about this country, thank you Mr. Roosevelt.
Teddy Roosevelt is probably rolling over in his grave over the stupidity of this one. Ballot box wildlife management was never part of the North American wildlife model, which I agree is most successful wildlife management plan in the world. Ballot box wildlife management will be the ruin of what mr Roosevelt’s gift to us was. There is over 25 years of firsthand documented facts that disprove every lie the biologist told us in Idaho 25 years ago. They are using the EXACT talking points to reintroduce wolves to Colorado right now. It’s all been shown to be bullcrap which we thought anyways but now it’s proven with decades of on the ground evidence. It’s a shame to see this but oh well have fun with the wolves Colorado.
This is the key point right here! Whether you like or dislike wolves, THIS IS IT!
Ballot box wildlife management was never part of the North American wildlife model, which I agree is most successful wildlife management plan in the world. Ballot box wildlife management will be the ruin of what mr Roosevelt’s gift to us was.
I didn’t say as owners we shouldn’t have a say we shouldn’t ask the game departments to manage all the wildlife on our behalf but cherry pick certain decisions that we get to decide. Game departments are either given authority to manage the resources or they are not. Picking highly emotional issues that have massive implications shouldn’t be independently “managed” by a bunch of city people who spend almost no time in the woods. If we can vote on all these predators we should vote on deer and elk seasons ALL of them.I have a vote for the state of Washington right now. All those Trophy elk areas you are waiting 20 years to draw but native Americans can hunt with no limits(one of which is an Idaho tribe not even living there) vote on open season for all hunters until the tribes decide to also regulate their harvest? Why aren’t we voting on these seasons if we get to vote on all the predator issues.? Key tenant of North American wildlife model is public ownership of wildlife but historically we had the wisdom to defer management to a paid group of professionals. If we need to vote on predators we need to vote on prey seasons too. You defer management or you don’t as an owner. I pray we collectively defer management as much as we all can find fault in our game departments
Also, you are free to attempt to put up a ballot initiative so non-tribal hunters have seasons equivalent to Native American Treaty tribes...have at it...there is absolutely no reason (other than your own ambition or desires) you cannot do this. It would require the same effort as any other ballot initiative (e.g., hounds and baiting).
Post by: idaho guy on January 03, 2021, 12:20:06 PM
A central tenet of the NAMWC is that the wildlife are owned by the people - a stark contrast to the days of game being owned by the king. In that sense, I disagree with these proclamations that 'ballot box management' is not part of the NAMWC. If the people who own the wildlife choose to do something by a vote of the people, that is their prerogative...however strenuously I or other hunters may dislike the outcome. Reintroducing wolves, banning bear baiting and hounds, allocating a certain percentage of elk tags to non-residents are all value judgments which will vary based on the electorate...the 'owners'. While science may provide information about how introducing an apex predator will effect other species and their habitat, it really is up to the 'owners' to decide what they prefer...in Colorado (and probably Washington if there were ever a similar vote!) a majority prefer wolves on the landscape, even if that means fewer elk and deer.The proposal should be put all the wolves in the cities where their protection is voted in :twocents:
Well fortunately federal land is geared toward multi use and placed in trust for all citizens, and our wildlife is also placed in trust for the public. It seems fitting to me the public having input on how their trust lands and wildlife are managed. That is the beautiful thing about this country, thank you Mr. Roosevelt.
Teddy Roosevelt is probably rolling over in his grave over the stupidity of this one. Ballot box wildlife management was never part of the North American wildlife model, which I agree is most successful wildlife management plan in the world. Ballot box wildlife management will be the ruin of what mr Roosevelt’s gift to us was. There is over 25 years of firsthand documented facts that disprove every lie the biologist told us in Idaho 25 years ago. They are using the EXACT talking points to reintroduce wolves to Colorado right now. It’s all been shown to be bullcrap which we thought anyways but now it’s proven with decades of on the ground evidence. It’s a shame to see this but oh well have fun with the wolves Colorado.
This is the key point right here! Whether you like or dislike wolves, THIS IS IT!
Ballot box wildlife management was never part of the North American wildlife model, which I agree is most successful wildlife management plan in the world. Ballot box wildlife management will be the ruin of what mr Roosevelt’s gift to us was.
Well stated.
I want hydrophilic to explain Yellowstone and all the features and benefits wolves provided. It’s the closest recent example of wolf reintroduction and what Colorado is doing. Both huge elk herds in the Rockies.25 years with wolves and 25 years without. What does the science tell us about the Health of the elk herds in Yellowstone and Colorado? with the benefit of 25 years of hindsight?
Post by: KFhunter on January 03, 2021, 12:32:08 PM
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: KFhunter on January 03, 2021, 12:33:00 PM
If the ballot box said to eradicate all wolves in their respective state, such as Wyoming, then would idahohunter and hydro support that?IDH?
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Hydro?
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on January 03, 2021, 12:36:56 PM
If the ballot box said to eradicate all wolves in their respective state, such as Wyoming, then would idahohunter and hydro support that?IDH?
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Hydro?
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
:yeah: Good question, let's hear some answers?
Post by: KFhunter on January 03, 2021, 01:10:20 PM
We've had these wolf discussions for years here on HW, and for years we've had members saying wolves won't impact hunting, yet here we're now seeing APR restrictions in dist 1 for whitetail deer limiting to 4pt and above which is unprecedented, our herds are collapsing.
We've seen big reductions to moose permits, and lost most cow elk hunts. Youth moose has (1) permit available lol.
And we're not done yet, the next 3 year cycle will see more reductions yet.
Read through some of the mega threads dating back 8-10 years in the wolf section and see who says what, most of these very vocal pro-wolf members from the past are now silent on the issue.
Post by: bearpaw on January 03, 2021, 01:44:04 PM
Post by: idaho guy on January 03, 2021, 02:11:50 PM
For Hydro
We've had these wolf discussions for years here on HW, and for years we've had members saying wolves won't impact hunting, yet here we're now seeing APR restrictions in dist 1 for whitetail deer limiting to 4pt and above which is unprecedented, our herds are collapsing.
We've seen big reductions to moose permits, and lost most cow elk hunts. Youth moose has (1) permit available lol.
And we're not done yet, the next 3 year cycle will see more reductions yet.
Read through some of the mega threads dating back 8-10 years in the wolf section and see who says what, most of these very vocal pro-wolf members from the past are now silent on the issue.
:yeah: Crickets. Funny how most of the negative effects that were feared have already happened but none of the pro wolfers ever talk about it anymore. It’s all going to be ok they said we all just need to become better hunters :chuckle: funny part is killing Idaho elk in some ways got easier they all moved to town! To get away from the wolves but great backcountry habitat is almost devoid of any elk or deer. It doesn’t matter I guess I live in Idaho and we’re practically to the point of hunting and trapping them year around. It’s helping but some areas will never ever be the same. It’s sad to see Colorado get sucked into the same mess.
Post by: Miles on January 03, 2021, 02:16:28 PM
Post by: Hydrophilic on January 03, 2021, 02:41:19 PM
If the ballot box said to eradicate all wolves in their respective state, such as Wyoming, then would idahohunter and hydro support that?
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
For a moderator I expected better from you. How are you going to moderate in an unbiased fashion if you are clearly and regularly trying to engage me with your bias? So far there have been personal attacks against me that have not been moderated. Am I to assume this is because of your bias? In which case, is this how this forum is supposed to be moderated?
https://www.fws.gov/hunting/north-american-model-of-wildlife-conservation.html
Number 1,4,6,7.
A) Explain to me how that would be remotely plausible, let alone legal.
B) Federal land.
C) This scenario in general is why so many other user groups genuinely dislike hunters.
114 was Colorado proposition, as such it pertained to Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Parks_and_Wildlife
The feds and federal lands have their own processes. States have their own endangered/sensitive listings, Feds have the ESA, of which the grey wolf is no longer listed. A species can be state listed but not fed listed. Aside from a conservation argument, an ethical argument, and a federal lands argument, the state of Wyoming would be highly suspect if it refused to enforce it's OWN current wolf plan, and it's not even a question of whether your suggested intentional extirpation ballot proposition is remotely plausible. That's just a long winded way for me to say - That's irrelevant.
https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Wildlife/Large%20Carnivore/WYWOLF_MANAGEMENT_PLAN_FINAL.pdf
https://www.fws.gov/wyominges/species_concern.php
"Population Objectives: Upon delisting, Wyoming will maintain at least 10 breeding pairs and
at least 100 wolves within the state outside YNP and the WRR"
Post by: idahohuntr on January 03, 2021, 03:13:03 PM
Look no further than the Lolo zone in Idaho or the Yellowstone herd in MT for answers. Both of those herds used to provide some of the best elk hunting in the world, now the hunting seasons in those areas that once provided trophy animals and freezers full of meat have greatly reduced seasons and in some cases the seasons have been eliminated entirely.The Northern Idaho Panhandle is the top producing elk zone in Idaho.
Post by: KFhunter on January 03, 2021, 03:15:02 PM
Ballot box is only ok if you happen to agree with the result.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: KFhunter on January 03, 2021, 03:18:55 PM
Thanks to F4WM and citizens of Idaho.Look no further than the Lolo zone in Idaho or the Yellowstone herd in MT for answers. Both of those herds used to provide some of the best elk hunting in the world, now the hunting seasons in those areas that once provided trophy animals and freezers full of meat have greatly reduced seasons and in some cases the seasons have been eliminated entirely.The Northern Idaho Panhandle is the top producing elk zone in Idaho.
We dont get that in WA.
You can't hardly go anywhere in Idaho without running into a trap line. My buddy stepped on one this year hunting elk lol.
He thought it was all horrible and it could have taken his foot off! Oh the drama! He didn't realize you could stick your hand in it and it wouldn't break a bone, let alone a boot.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: idaho guy on January 03, 2021, 03:37:57 PM
Look no further than the Lolo zone in Idaho or the Yellowstone herd in MT for answers. Both of those herds used to provide some of the best elk hunting in the world, now the hunting seasons in those areas that once provided trophy animals and freezers full of meat have greatly reduced seasons and in some cases the seasons have been eliminated entirely.The Northern Idaho Panhandle is the top producing elk zone in Idaho.
I live in the northern panhandle. He said the LOLO zone. We now have a December muzzleloader cow hunt in the panhandle due to so called depredation. What really happened is the elk were pushed into town. I did it the first year and it was like shooting fish in a barrel. I had a group of 8-10 located doing same thing every day and chose to leave them alone this year we had plenty of elk meat from Montana and leftover from last season. They cows got shot to heck eventually anyways this year. I don’t personally think harvest numbers always reflect the health of the elk herd. In this case for the panhandle it’s the addition of a late season cow tag and hundreds of depredation tags for cows that go from August till December 31. If you can’t fill that tag just go to the store. Do you think all the successful cow harvest are indicative of a thriving elk herd? It’s not sustainable but what can fish and game do when the wolves push all the elk to town? If I remember correctly you thought all the ungulate problems revolved around habitat and wolves would only have minimal impacts. What do you think now ? Do you see any correlation between wolves and major declines in deer and elk in Washington? How about the blues?
Post by: idahohuntr on January 03, 2021, 06:13:56 PM
So the Panhandle zone has lots of wolves and the lolo zone has lots of wolves. Some claim the Panhandle is the top producing elk zone in Idaho. If they both have a good number of wolves wouldn't the difference in elk abundance be attributable to other factors? Habitat and forage availability??Look no further than the Lolo zone in Idaho or the Yellowstone herd in MT for answers. Both of those herds used to provide some of the best elk hunting in the world, now the hunting seasons in those areas that once provided trophy animals and freezers full of meat have greatly reduced seasons and in some cases the seasons have been eliminated entirely.The Northern Idaho Panhandle is the top producing elk zone in Idaho.
I live in the northern panhandle. He said the LOLO zone. We now have a December muzzleloader cow hunt in the panhandle due to so called depredation. What really happened is the elk were pushed into town. I did it the first year and it was like shooting fish in a barrel. I had a group of 8-10 located doing same thing every day and chose to leave them alone this year we had plenty of elk meat from Montana and leftover from last season. They cows got shot to heck eventually anyways this year. I don’t personally think harvest numbers always reflect the health of the elk herd. In this case for the panhandle it’s the addition of a late season cow tag and hundreds of depredation tags for cows that go from August till December 31. If you can’t fill that tag just go to the store. Do you think all the successful cow harvest are indicative of a thriving elk herd? It’s not sustainable but what can fish and game do when the wolves push all the elk to town? If I remember correctly you thought all the ungulate problems revolved around habitat and wolves would only have minimal impacts. What do you think now ? Do you see any correlation between wolves and major declines in deer and elk in Washington? How about the blues?
Post by: KFhunter on January 03, 2021, 06:19:36 PM
Or perhaps wolves have more deer in the panhandle vs open areas
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: KFhunter on January 03, 2021, 06:20:33 PM
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on January 03, 2021, 07:18:25 PM
So the Panhandle zone has lots of wolves and the lolo zone has lots of wolves. Some claim the Panhandle is the top producing elk zone in Idaho. If they both have a good number of wolves wouldn't the difference in elk abundance be attributable to other factors? Habitat and forage availability??Look no further than the Lolo zone in Idaho or the Yellowstone herd in MT for answers. Both of those herds used to provide some of the best elk hunting in the world, now the hunting seasons in those areas that once provided trophy animals and freezers full of meat have greatly reduced seasons and in some cases the seasons have been eliminated entirely.The Northern Idaho Panhandle is the top producing elk zone in Idaho.
I live in the northern panhandle. He said the LOLO zone. We now have a December muzzleloader cow hunt in the panhandle due to so called depredation. What really happened is the elk were pushed into town. I did it the first year and it was like shooting fish in a barrel. I had a group of 8-10 located doing same thing every day and chose to leave them alone this year we had plenty of elk meat from Montana and leftover from last season. They cows got shot to heck eventually anyways this year. I don’t personally think harvest numbers always reflect the health of the elk herd. In this case for the panhandle it’s the addition of a late season cow tag and hundreds of depredation tags for cows that go from August till December 31. If you can’t fill that tag just go to the store. Do you think all the successful cow harvest are indicative of a thriving elk herd? It’s not sustainable but what can fish and game do when the wolves push all the elk to town? If I remember correctly you thought all the ungulate problems revolved around habitat and wolves would only have minimal impacts. What do you think now ? Do you see any correlation between wolves and major declines in deer and elk in Washington? How about the blues?
The Lolo zone is the hardest hit zone in Idaho, the Panhandle is somewhat saved by all the wolf hunting going on, you should know that! The Yellowstone herd pretty well destroys your narrative about habitat verses wolves impacting elk. Habitat has been steady at YNP since it was made into a park, the elk herds were robust until wolves were introduced. Now many of the hunting seasons have been ended and the herd still struggles, habitat has been constant, wolves are the sole variable!
Post by: Dan-o on January 03, 2021, 07:26:59 PM
So the Panhandle zone has lots of wolves and the lolo zone has lots of wolves. Some claim the Panhandle is the top producing elk zone in Idaho. If they both have a good number of wolves wouldn't the difference in elk abundance be attributable to other factors? Habitat and forage availability??Look no further than the Lolo zone in Idaho or the Yellowstone herd in MT for answers. Both of those herds used to provide some of the best elk hunting in the world, now the hunting seasons in those areas that once provided trophy animals and freezers full of meat have greatly reduced seasons and in some cases the seasons have been eliminated entirely.The Northern Idaho Panhandle is the top producing elk zone in Idaho.
I live in the northern panhandle. He said the LOLO zone. We now have a December muzzleloader cow hunt in the panhandle due to so called depredation. What really happened is the elk were pushed into town. I did it the first year and it was like shooting fish in a barrel. I had a group of 8-10 located doing same thing every day and chose to leave them alone this year we had plenty of elk meat from Montana and leftover from last season. They cows got shot to heck eventually anyways this year. I don’t personally think harvest numbers always reflect the health of the elk herd. In this case for the panhandle it’s the addition of a late season cow tag and hundreds of depredation tags for cows that go from August till December 31. If you can’t fill that tag just go to the store. Do you think all the successful cow harvest are indicative of a thriving elk herd? It’s not sustainable but what can fish and game do when the wolves push all the elk to town? If I remember correctly you thought all the ungulate problems revolved around habitat and wolves would only have minimal impacts. What do you think now ? Do you see any correlation between wolves and major declines in deer and elk in Washington? How about the blues?
The Lolo zone is the hardest hit zone in Idaho, the Panhandle is somewhat saved by all the wolf hunting going on, you should know that! The Yellowstone herd pretty well destroys your narrative about habitat verses wolves impacting elk. Habitat has been steady at YNP since it was made into a park, the elk herds were robust until wolves were introduced. Now many of the hunting seasons have been ended and the herd still struggles, habitat has been constant, wolves are the sole variable!
Wasn't it just a handful of yeas ago that IDFG paid for lethal removal (shooting from helicopters) of 50+ wolves just in the LOLO?
I remember thinking that the LOLO was a pretty small unit to have 50 wolves commercially removed.
Made me wonder how many were in there, if they were able to shoot 50 from helicopters........
And if I recall correctly, they stated the removal was due to the huge impact they were having on the once-legendary LOLO elk herd.
Post by: bearpaw on January 03, 2021, 07:33:11 PM
So the Panhandle zone has lots of wolves and the lolo zone has lots of wolves. Some claim the Panhandle is the top producing elk zone in Idaho. If they both have a good number of wolves wouldn't the difference in elk abundance be attributable to other factors? Habitat and forage availability??Look no further than the Lolo zone in Idaho or the Yellowstone herd in MT for answers. Both of those herds used to provide some of the best elk hunting in the world, now the hunting seasons in those areas that once provided trophy animals and freezers full of meat have greatly reduced seasons and in some cases the seasons have been eliminated entirely.The Northern Idaho Panhandle is the top producing elk zone in Idaho.
I live in the northern panhandle. He said the LOLO zone. We now have a December muzzleloader cow hunt in the panhandle due to so called depredation. What really happened is the elk were pushed into town. I did it the first year and it was like shooting fish in a barrel. I had a group of 8-10 located doing same thing every day and chose to leave them alone this year we had plenty of elk meat from Montana and leftover from last season. They cows got shot to heck eventually anyways this year. I don’t personally think harvest numbers always reflect the health of the elk herd. In this case for the panhandle it’s the addition of a late season cow tag and hundreds of depredation tags for cows that go from August till December 31. If you can’t fill that tag just go to the store. Do you think all the successful cow harvest are indicative of a thriving elk herd? It’s not sustainable but what can fish and game do when the wolves push all the elk to town? If I remember correctly you thought all the ungulate problems revolved around habitat and wolves would only have minimal impacts. What do you think now ? Do you see any correlation between wolves and major declines in deer and elk in Washington? How about the blues?
The Lolo zone is the hardest hit zone in Idaho, the Panhandle is somewhat saved by all the wolf hunting going on, you should know that! The Yellowstone herd pretty well destroys your narrative about habitat verses wolves impacting elk. Habitat has been steady at YNP since it was made into a park, the elk herds were robust until wolves were introduced. Now many of the hunting seasons have been ended and the herd still struggles, habitat has been constant, wolves are the sole variable!
Wasn't it just a handful of yeas ago that IDFG paid for lethal removal (shooting from helicopters) of 50+ wolves just in the LOLO?
I remember thinking that the LOLO was a pretty small unit to have 50 wolves commercially removed.
Made me wonder how many were in there, if they were able to shoot 50 from helicopters........
And if I recall correctly, they stated the removal was due to the huge impact they were having on the once-legendary LOLO elk herd.
:yeah: They didn't remove 50, it was less than that, but they have removed wolves twice that I know of to help the elk herd. Idahohntr knows this too, but he's not going to provide that info!
Post by: Dan-o on January 03, 2021, 07:52:01 PM
So the Panhandle zone has lots of wolves and the lolo zone has lots of wolves. Some claim the Panhandle is the top producing elk zone in Idaho. If they both have a good number of wolves wouldn't the difference in elk abundance be attributable to other factors? Habitat and forage availability??Look no further than the Lolo zone in Idaho or the Yellowstone herd in MT for answers. Both of those herds used to provide some of the best elk hunting in the world, now the hunting seasons in those areas that once provided trophy animals and freezers full of meat have greatly reduced seasons and in some cases the seasons have been eliminated entirely.The Northern Idaho Panhandle is the top producing elk zone in Idaho.
I live in the northern panhandle. He said the LOLO zone. We now have a December muzzleloader cow hunt in the panhandle due to so called depredation. What really happened is the elk were pushed into town. I did it the first year and it was like shooting fish in a barrel. I had a group of 8-10 located doing same thing every day and chose to leave them alone this year we had plenty of elk meat from Montana and leftover from last season. They cows got shot to heck eventually anyways this year. I don’t personally think harvest numbers always reflect the health of the elk herd. In this case for the panhandle it’s the addition of a late season cow tag and hundreds of depredation tags for cows that go from August till December 31. If you can’t fill that tag just go to the store. Do you think all the successful cow harvest are indicative of a thriving elk herd? It’s not sustainable but what can fish and game do when the wolves push all the elk to town? If I remember correctly you thought all the ungulate problems revolved around habitat and wolves would only have minimal impacts. What do you think now ? Do you see any correlation between wolves and major declines in deer and elk in Washington? How about the blues?
The Lolo zone is the hardest hit zone in Idaho, the Panhandle is somewhat saved by all the wolf hunting going on, you should know that! The Yellowstone herd pretty well destroys your narrative about habitat verses wolves impacting elk. Habitat has been steady at YNP since it was made into a park, the elk herds were robust until wolves were introduced. Now many of the hunting seasons have been ended and the herd still struggles, habitat has been constant, wolves are the sole variable!
Wasn't it just a handful of yeas ago that IDFG paid for lethal removal (shooting from helicopters) of 50+ wolves just in the LOLO?
I remember thinking that the LOLO was a pretty small unit to have 50 wolves commercially removed.
Made me wonder how many were in there, if they were able to shoot 50 from helicopters........
And if I recall correctly, they stated the removal was due to the huge impact they were having on the once-legendary LOLO elk herd.
:yeah: They didn't remove 50, it was less than that, but they have removed wolves twice that I know of to help the elk herd. Idahohntr knows this too, but he's not going to provide that info!
You are right.
A quick internet search show they removed 23 in 2014, and have done similar removals in some subsequent years..... removing over 50 wolves in total from the LOLO in that string of 5 or 6 years.
Post by: bearpaw on January 03, 2021, 07:53:13 PM
So the Panhandle zone has lots of wolves and the lolo zone has lots of wolves. Some claim the Panhandle is the top producing elk zone in Idaho. If they both have a good number of wolves wouldn't the difference in elk abundance be attributable to other factors? Habitat and forage availability??Look no further than the Lolo zone in Idaho or the Yellowstone herd in MT for answers. Both of those herds used to provide some of the best elk hunting in the world, now the hunting seasons in those areas that once provided trophy animals and freezers full of meat have greatly reduced seasons and in some cases the seasons have been eliminated entirely.The Northern Idaho Panhandle is the top producing elk zone in Idaho.
I live in the northern panhandle. He said the LOLO zone. We now have a December muzzleloader cow hunt in the panhandle due to so called depredation. What really happened is the elk were pushed into town. I did it the first year and it was like shooting fish in a barrel. I had a group of 8-10 located doing same thing every day and chose to leave them alone this year we had plenty of elk meat from Montana and leftover from last season. They cows got shot to heck eventually anyways this year. I don’t personally think harvest numbers always reflect the health of the elk herd. In this case for the panhandle it’s the addition of a late season cow tag and hundreds of depredation tags for cows that go from August till December 31. If you can’t fill that tag just go to the store. Do you think all the successful cow harvest are indicative of a thriving elk herd? It’s not sustainable but what can fish and game do when the wolves push all the elk to town? If I remember correctly you thought all the ungulate problems revolved around habitat and wolves would only have minimal impacts. What do you think now ? Do you see any correlation between wolves and major declines in deer and elk in Washington? How about the blues?
The Lolo zone is the hardest hit zone in Idaho, the Panhandle is somewhat saved by all the wolf hunting going on, you should know that! The Yellowstone herd pretty well destroys your narrative about habitat verses wolves impacting elk. Habitat has been steady at YNP since it was made into a park, the elk herds were robust until wolves were introduced. Now many of the hunting seasons have been ended and the herd still struggles, habitat has been constant, wolves are the sole variable!
Wasn't it just a handful of yeas ago that IDFG paid for lethal removal (shooting from helicopters) of 50+ wolves just in the LOLO?
I remember thinking that the LOLO was a pretty small unit to have 50 wolves commercially removed.
Made me wonder how many were in there, if they were able to shoot 50 from helicopters........
And if I recall correctly, they stated the removal was due to the huge impact they were having on the once-legendary LOLO elk herd.
:yeah: They didn't remove 50, it was less than that, but they have removed wolves twice that I know of to help the elk herd. Idahohntr knows this too, but he's not going to provide that info!
You are right.
A quick internet search show they removed 23 in 2014, and have done similar removals in some subsequent years..... removing over 50 wolves in total from the LOLO in that string of 5 or 6 years.
thanks for verifying :tup:
Post by: idaho guy on January 03, 2021, 08:11:01 PM
So the Panhandle zone has lots of wolves and the lolo zone has lots of wolves. Some claim the Panhandle is the top producing elk zone in Idaho. If they both have a good number of wolves wouldn't the difference in elk abundance be attributable to other factors? Habitat and forage availability??Look no further than the Lolo zone in Idaho or the Yellowstone herd in MT for answers. Both of those herds used to provide some of the best elk hunting in the world, now the hunting seasons in those areas that once provided trophy animals and freezers full of meat have greatly reduced seasons and in some cases the seasons have been eliminated entirely.The Northern Idaho Panhandle is the top producing elk zone in Idaho.
I live in the northern panhandle. He said the LOLO zone. We now have a December muzzleloader cow hunt in the panhandle due to so called depredation. What really happened is the elk were pushed into town. I did it the first year and it was like shooting fish in a barrel. I had a group of 8-10 located doing same thing every day and chose to leave them alone this year we had plenty of elk meat from Montana and leftover from last season. They cows got shot to heck eventually anyways this year. I don’t personally think harvest numbers always reflect the health of the elk herd. In this case for the panhandle it’s the addition of a late season cow tag and hundreds of depredation tags for cows that go from August till December 31. If you can’t fill that tag just go to the store. Do you think all the successful cow harvest are indicative of a thriving elk herd? It’s not sustainable but what can fish and game do when the wolves push all the elk to town? If I remember correctly you thought all the ungulate problems revolved around habitat and wolves would only have minimal impacts. What do you think now ? Do you see any correlation between wolves and major declines in deer and elk in Washington? How about the blues?
The panhandle is not the top producing elk unit to start with. That’s beside the point but the unit I live in for last report success was like 11 or 12 percent it USED to run in the 20 plus percent zone. My other point was that the success rate is inflated due to new cow tags and a late cow season that didn’t even exist when success was 20 percent plus. The cow tag from August 1st to December 31 should be as close to guaranteeing a wild elk harvest as you can get. Even with that success had plummeted Idaho elk are doing ok thanks to very aggressive hunting and trapping. None of that really matters you always want to get in the weeds of areas with elk and wolves and the elk seem to be ok. Answer the question how have ungulates faired in your state after wolves? Washington has tons of habitat with very few deer and elk. Tell me how the blues elk are faring with wolves. You had the same arguments before Washington had a lot of wolves and promised everyone that everything would be fine. Is it ? Quit talking about units in Idaho we get it here and will be trapping and hunting year around before too long. We can already hunt private land year round for wolves. Tell the truth about what’s going on right in front of you. Walla walla? That’s close to the blues is everything working out great ?
Post by: idahohuntr on January 03, 2021, 08:33:53 PM
So are you wrong or is bearpaw wrong? My earlier post was simply a verbatim quote from his outfitters website.So the Panhandle zone has lots of wolves and the lolo zone has lots of wolves. Some claim the Panhandle is the top producing elk zone in Idaho. If they both have a good number of wolves wouldn't the difference in elk abundance be attributable to other factors? Habitat and forage availability??Look no further than the Lolo zone in Idaho or the Yellowstone herd in MT for answers. Both of those herds used to provide some of the best elk hunting in the world, now the hunting seasons in those areas that once provided trophy animals and freezers full of meat have greatly reduced seasons and in some cases the seasons have been eliminated entirely.The Northern Idaho Panhandle is the top producing elk zone in Idaho.
I live in the northern panhandle. He said the LOLO zone. We now have a December muzzleloader cow hunt in the panhandle due to so called depredation. What really happened is the elk were pushed into town. I did it the first year and it was like shooting fish in a barrel. I had a group of 8-10 located doing same thing every day and chose to leave them alone this year we had plenty of elk meat from Montana and leftover from last season. They cows got shot to heck eventually anyways this year. I don’t personally think harvest numbers always reflect the health of the elk herd. In this case for the panhandle it’s the addition of a late season cow tag and hundreds of depredation tags for cows that go from August till December 31. If you can’t fill that tag just go to the store. Do you think all the successful cow harvest are indicative of a thriving elk herd? It’s not sustainable but what can fish and game do when the wolves push all the elk to town? If I remember correctly you thought all the ungulate problems revolved around habitat and wolves would only have minimal impacts. What do you think now ? Do you see any correlation between wolves and major declines in deer and elk in Washington? How about the blues?
The panhandle is not the top producing elk unit to start with. That’s beside the point but the unit I live in for last report success was like 11 or 12 percent it USED to run in the 20 plus percent zone. My other point was that the success rate is inflated due to new cow tags and a late cow season that didn’t even exist when success was 20 percent plus. The cow tag from August 1st to December 31 should be as close to guaranteeing a wild elk harvest as you can get. Even with that success had plummeted Idaho elk are doing ok thanks to very aggressive hunting and trapping. None of that really matters you always want to get in the weeds of areas with elk and wolves and the elk seem to be ok. Answer the question how have ungulates faired in your state after wolves? Washington has tons of habitat with very few deer and elk. Tell me how the blues elk are faring with wolves. You had the same arguments before Washington had a lot of wolves and promised everyone that everything would be fine. Is it ? Quit talking about units in Idaho we get it here and will be trapping and hunting year around before too long. We can already hunt private land year round for wolves. Tell the truth about what’s going on right in front of you. Walla walla? That’s close to the blues is everything working out great ?
https://bearpawoutfitters.com/idaho_elk_hunting_combo.html
Post by: KFhunter on January 03, 2021, 08:43:43 PM
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on January 03, 2021, 09:07:19 PM
So are you wrong or is bearpaw wrong? My earlier post was simply a verbatim quote from his outfitters website.So the Panhandle zone has lots of wolves and the lolo zone has lots of wolves. Some claim the Panhandle is the top producing elk zone in Idaho. If they both have a good number of wolves wouldn't the difference in elk abundance be attributable to other factors? Habitat and forage availability??Look no further than the Lolo zone in Idaho or the Yellowstone herd in MT for answers. Both of those herds used to provide some of the best elk hunting in the world, now the hunting seasons in those areas that once provided trophy animals and freezers full of meat have greatly reduced seasons and in some cases the seasons have been eliminated entirely.The Northern Idaho Panhandle is the top producing elk zone in Idaho.
I live in the northern panhandle. He said the LOLO zone. We now have a December muzzleloader cow hunt in the panhandle due to so called depredation. What really happened is the elk were pushed into town. I did it the first year and it was like shooting fish in a barrel. I had a group of 8-10 located doing same thing every day and chose to leave them alone this year we had plenty of elk meat from Montana and leftover from last season. They cows got shot to heck eventually anyways this year. I don’t personally think harvest numbers always reflect the health of the elk herd. In this case for the panhandle it’s the addition of a late season cow tag and hundreds of depredation tags for cows that go from August till December 31. If you can’t fill that tag just go to the store. Do you think all the successful cow harvest are indicative of a thriving elk herd? It’s not sustainable but what can fish and game do when the wolves push all the elk to town? If I remember correctly you thought all the ungulate problems revolved around habitat and wolves would only have minimal impacts. What do you think now ? Do you see any correlation between wolves and major declines in deer and elk in Washington? How about the blues?
The panhandle is not the top producing elk unit to start with. That’s beside the point but the unit I live in for last report success was like 11 or 12 percent it USED to run in the 20 plus percent zone. My other point was that the success rate is inflated due to new cow tags and a late cow season that didn’t even exist when success was 20 percent plus. The cow tag from August 1st to December 31 should be as close to guaranteeing a wild elk harvest as you can get. Even with that success had plummeted Idaho elk are doing ok thanks to very aggressive hunting and trapping. None of that really matters you always want to get in the weeds of areas with elk and wolves and the elk seem to be ok. Answer the question how have ungulates faired in your state after wolves? Washington has tons of habitat with very few deer and elk. Tell me how the blues elk are faring with wolves. You had the same arguments before Washington had a lot of wolves and promised everyone that everything would be fine. Is it ? Quit talking about units in Idaho we get it here and will be trapping and hunting year around before too long. We can already hunt private land year round for wolves. Tell the truth about what’s going on right in front of you. Walla walla? That’s close to the blues is everything working out great ?
https://bearpawoutfitters.com/idaho_elk_hunting_combo.html
Not everyone realizes it, but if you add harvest numbers that are readily available on the IDFG website, my quote is much more than just correct, I'm sure you know that too. I think Idaho guy was referring to success rate, he mentions success, it's true that the Panhandle does not have the highest hunter success rate!
Post by: bearpaw on January 03, 2021, 09:14:36 PM
So the Panhandle zone has lots of wolves and the lolo zone has lots of wolves. Some claim the Panhandle is the top producing elk zone in Idaho. If they both have a good number of wolves wouldn't the difference in elk abundance be attributable to other factors? Habitat and forage availability??Look no further than the Lolo zone in Idaho or the Yellowstone herd in MT for answers. Both of those herds used to provide some of the best elk hunting in the world, now the hunting seasons in those areas that once provided trophy animals and freezers full of meat have greatly reduced seasons and in some cases the seasons have been eliminated entirely.The Northern Idaho Panhandle is the top producing elk zone in Idaho.
I live in the northern panhandle. He said the LOLO zone. We now have a December muzzleloader cow hunt in the panhandle due to so called depredation. What really happened is the elk were pushed into town. I did it the first year and it was like shooting fish in a barrel. I had a group of 8-10 located doing same thing every day and chose to leave them alone this year we had plenty of elk meat from Montana and leftover from last season. They cows got shot to heck eventually anyways this year. I don’t personally think harvest numbers always reflect the health of the elk herd. In this case for the panhandle it’s the addition of a late season cow tag and hundreds of depredation tags for cows that go from August till December 31. If you can’t fill that tag just go to the store. Do you think all the successful cow harvest are indicative of a thriving elk herd? It’s not sustainable but what can fish and game do when the wolves push all the elk to town? If I remember correctly you thought all the ungulate problems revolved around habitat and wolves would only have minimal impacts. What do you think now ? Do you see any correlation between wolves and major declines in deer and elk in Washington? How about the blues?
The Lolo zone is the hardest hit zone in Idaho, the Panhandle is somewhat saved by all the wolf hunting going on, you should know that! The Yellowstone herd pretty well destroys your narrative about habitat verses wolves impacting elk. Habitat has been steady at YNP since it was made into a park, the elk herds were robust until wolves were introduced. Now many of the hunting seasons have been ended and the herd still struggles, habitat has been constant, wolves are the sole variable!
Idahohntr:
Just curious what your reasoning is for the massive drop of elk numbers in the yellowstone herd? Habitat has remained constant for decades, wolves are the new variable when elk numbers began dropping substantially? Hunting seasons have in many cases been completely stopped, yet the herd struggles?
Post by: KFhunter on January 03, 2021, 09:23:00 PM
https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/management/bison-management.htm
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: idahohuntr on January 03, 2021, 09:46:49 PM
Idahohntr:Predators. They have clearly had a large impact on elk in the yellowstone herd (not just wolves either)
Just curious what your reasoning is for the massive drop of elk numbers in the yellowstone herd? Habitat has remained constant for decades, wolves are the new variable when elk numbers began dropping substantially? Hunting seasons have in many cases been completely stopped, yet the herd struggles?
I think the Lolo and a few other areas actually experience more bear predation than possibly even wolves. Not certain, but there are a lot of units where bear just seem to be out of control and a lot of elk calf mortality data point the finger at black bears over wolves. I'd wager this is the bigger difference between Lolo and Panhandle. In the Panhandle, every 2nd year californian is out running baits in the spring keeping bears in check right during calving season...lolo does not get this additional bear (or wolf) hunting help.
But while we are on the Lolo elk herd...I think its also critical to the discussion to acknowledge the zone was in decline well before wolves were really taking hold. I guess its a baseline thing...what some considered 'really good' in the 90's was really sad to older generations that knew what the area was capable of historically. Its even worse now but I've not spent much time there recently, so I hesitate to say much about current hunting status. I know a few folks still do pretty well with a lot of effort.
Unless (or until) we see massive fires (or insane increases in timber harvest) the Lolo will never recover...I don't care how many wolves are killed. I think in the half dozen or more times we've argued about the Lolo and wolves, it boils down to general agreement that both habitat and predators have really hammered the elk...the difference is you believe wolves are the primary and most significant factor, I believe habitat plays a larger role...in the end neither of us has a changed position...its the one constant in this ever changing world :chuckle:
I hope you had a good hunting season.
Post by: KFhunter on January 03, 2021, 09:47:50 PM
Pulling them out of dens
This pic is from the panhandle, its not mine.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210104/d831653ced8229cd7fff86d6a22b0a92.jpg)
Post by: bearpaw on January 03, 2021, 11:01:28 PM
Idahohntr:Predators. They have clearly had a large impact on elk in the yellowstone herd (not just wolves either)
Just curious what your reasoning is for the massive drop of elk numbers in the yellowstone herd? Habitat has remained constant for decades, wolves are the new variable when elk numbers began dropping substantially? Hunting seasons have in many cases been completely stopped, yet the herd struggles?
I think the Lolo and a few other areas actually experience more bear predation than possibly even wolves. Not certain, but there are a lot of units where bear just seem to be out of control and a lot of elk calf mortality data point the finger at black bears over wolves. I'd wager this is the bigger difference between Lolo and Panhandle. In the Panhandle, every 2nd year californian is out running baits in the spring keeping bears in check right during calving season...lolo does not get this additional bear (or wolf) hunting help.
But while we are on the Lolo elk herd...I think its also critical to the discussion to acknowledge the zone was in decline well before wolves were really taking hold. I guess its a baseline thing...what some considered 'really good' in the 90's was really sad to older generations that knew what the area was capable of historically. Its even worse now but I've not spent much time there recently, so I hesitate to say much about current hunting status. I know a few folks still do pretty well with a lot of effort.
Unless (or until) we see massive fires (or insane increases in timber harvest) the Lolo will never recover...I don't care how many wolves are killed. I think in the half dozen or more times we've argued about the Lolo and wolves, it boils down to general agreement that both habitat and predators have really hammered the elk...the difference is you believe wolves are the primary and most significant factor, I believe habitat plays a larger role...in the end neither of us has a changed position...its the one constant in this ever changing world :chuckle:
I hope you had a good hunting season.
Thankyou for answering and for your ideas and thoughts. I'll point out again that wolves are the new variable in Yellowstone, the habitat has remained constant, bear and cougar have been a constant, the new variable is wolves. In fact, wolves are the new variable across the west. Certainly these very hungry wolves that eat roughly 10 pounds of meat per day per wolf have an additive effect on predation, this additive impact is a significant factor, in fact the increases in wolf numbers parallels the declines in elk numbers in areas suffering the most from predation.
An IDFG elk predation study in the panhandle indicated cougar actually killed more elk than wolves in that study area, bear are also a significant factor, undoubtedly some of the reason Idaho now has 2 cougar bag limits and 2 bear bag limits in many elk units. Even in areas with heavy predation by cats and bear the new and additive variable is that wolves are now also eating elk in the west, the increase in wolf numbers parallels the decline in elk numbers.
Its not that I am opposed to improving habitat, I plant all sorts of food plots to improve habitat for wildlife every year, but habitat is an old worn out narrative used by wolf groups to justify declines in elk and other ungulate numbers, used to deflect wolf impacts, and totally misleading. When you start preaching that way it sounds like you subscribe to their agenda and oppose hunter's interest in maintaining flourishing game herds that provide quality hunting opportunities.
We had a pretty fair season, thanks for your positive support.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 04, 2021, 08:01:59 AM
Post by: KFhunter on January 04, 2021, 09:12:38 AM
So when you have cougars, bear, and wolves preying on deer, elk, moose, sheep, etc its a no win situation for game animals. When it comes time for wolves to start self regulating their population size its already too late. Predator pit has already happened by then. How do we go about turning things around, with such an up hill battle? We can't expect Wa to head in the same direction as ID when it comes to wolf management.= we're screwed
Post by: idaho guy on January 04, 2021, 12:32:10 PM
So are you wrong or is bearpaw wrong? My earlier post was simply a verbatim quote from his outfitters website.So the Panhandle zone has lots of wolves and the lolo zone has lots of wolves. Some claim the Panhandle is the top producing elk zone in Idaho. If they both have a good number of wolves wouldn't the difference in elk abundance be attributable to other factors? Habitat and forage availability??Look no further than the Lolo zone in Idaho or the Yellowstone herd in MT for answers. Both of those herds used to provide some of the best elk hunting in the world, now the hunting seasons in those areas that once provided trophy animals and freezers full of meat have greatly reduced seasons and in some cases the seasons have been eliminated entirely.The Northern Idaho Panhandle is the top producing elk zone in Idaho.
I live in the northern panhandle. He said the LOLO zone. We now have a December muzzleloader cow hunt in the panhandle due to so called depredation. What really happened is the elk were pushed into town. I did it the first year and it was like shooting fish in a barrel. I had a group of 8-10 located doing same thing every day and chose to leave them alone this year we had plenty of elk meat from Montana and leftover from last season. They cows got shot to heck eventually anyways this year. I don’t personally think harvest numbers always reflect the health of the elk herd. In this case for the panhandle it’s the addition of a late season cow tag and hundreds of depredation tags for cows that go from August till December 31. If you can’t fill that tag just go to the store. Do you think all the successful cow harvest are indicative of a thriving elk herd? It’s not sustainable but what can fish and game do when the wolves push all the elk to town? If I remember correctly you thought all the ungulate problems revolved around habitat and wolves would only have minimal impacts. What do you think now ? Do you see any correlation between wolves and major declines in deer and elk in Washington? How about the blues?
The panhandle is not the top producing elk unit to start with. That’s beside the point but the unit I live in for last report success was like 11 or 12 percent it USED to run in the 20 plus percent zone. My other point was that the success rate is inflated due to new cow tags and a late cow season that didn’t even exist when success was 20 percent plus. The cow tag from August 1st to December 31 should be as close to guaranteeing a wild elk harvest as you can get. Even with that success had plummeted Idaho elk are doing ok thanks to very aggressive hunting and trapping. None of that really matters you always want to get in the weeds of areas with elk and wolves and the elk seem to be ok. Answer the question how have ungulates faired in your state after wolves? Washington has tons of habitat with very few deer and elk. Tell me how the blues elk are faring with wolves. You had the same arguments before Washington had a lot of wolves and promised everyone that everything would be fine. Is it ? Quit talking about units in Idaho we get it here and will be trapping and hunting year around before too long. We can already hunt private land year round for wolves. Tell the truth about what’s going on right in front of you. Walla walla? That’s close to the blues is everything working out great ?
https://bearpawoutfitters.com/idaho_elk_hunting_combo.html
Not everyone realizes it, but if you add harvest numbers that are readily available on the IDFG website, my quote is much more than just correct, I'm sure you know that too. I think Idaho guy was referring to success rate, he mentions success, it's true that the Panhandle does not have the highest hunter success rate!
this is correct -panhandle has always been top producing elk zone in total numbers of elk harvested. My point is the success rate in many of the units plummetted after wolves arrived in large numbers. I think last time I looked one unit was only 8 percent and it used to be outstanding as far as hunter success. My other point is even with the success rate being half of what it was. Even with less success I think the lower number is inflated because of the addition of december cow season and a lot more depradation tags that are a lot easier tags to fill. Without these new seasons and tags the success rate would be even worse. Idahohunter you still have not adressed the blues? I remember you using the lolo argument years ago and that its habitat not wolves. Lets talk about some new areas where habitat is not a factor but wolves are. Yellowstone is good but what about your backyard how are things going for washington elk with the new wolves?
Post by: idaho guy on January 04, 2021, 12:43:56 PM
Idahohntr:Predators. They have clearly had a large impact on elk in the yellowstone herd (not just wolves either)
Just curious what your reasoning is for the massive drop of elk numbers in the yellowstone herd? Habitat has remained constant for decades, wolves are the new variable when elk numbers began dropping substantially? Hunting seasons have in many cases been completely stopped, yet the herd struggles?
I think the Lolo and a few other areas actually experience more bear predation than possibly even wolves. Not certain, but there are a lot of units where bear just seem to be out of control and a lot of elk calf mortality data point the finger at black bears over wolves. I'd wager this is the bigger difference between Lolo and Panhandle. In the Panhandle, every 2nd year californian is out running baits in the spring keeping bears in check right during calving season...lolo does not get this additional bear (or wolf) hunting help.
But while we are on the Lolo elk herd...I think its also critical to the discussion to acknowledge the zone was in decline well before wolves were really taking hold. I guess its a baseline thing...what some considered 'really good' in the 90's was really sad to older generations that knew what the area was capable of historically. Its even worse now but I've not spent much time there recently, so I hesitate to say much about current hunting status. I know a few folks still do pretty well with a lot of effort.
Unless (or until) we see massive fires (or insane increases in timber harvest) the Lolo will never recover...I don't care how many wolves are killed. I think in the half dozen or more times we've argued about the Lolo and wolves, it boils down to general agreement that both habitat and predators have really hammered the elk...the difference is you believe wolves are the primary and most significant factor, I believe habitat plays a larger role...in the end neither of us has a changed position...its the one constant in this ever changing world :chuckle:
I hope you had a good hunting season.
Thankyou for answering and for your ideas and thoughts. I'll point out again that wolves are the new variable in Yellowstone, the habitat has remained constant, bear and cougar have been a constant, the new variable is wolves. In fact, wolves are the new variable across the west. Certainly these very hungry wolves that eat roughly 10 pounds of meat per day per wolf have an additive effect on predation, this additive impact is a significant factor, in fact the increases in wolf numbers parallels the declines in elk numbers in areas suffering the most from predation.
An IDFG elk predation study in the panhandle indicated cougar actually killed more elk than wolves in that study area, bear are also a significant factor, undoubtedly some of the reason Idaho now has 2 cougar bag limits and 2 bear bag limits in many elk units. Even in areas with heavy predation by cats and bear the new and additive variable is that wolves are now also eating elk in the west, the increase in wolf numbers parallels the decline in elk numbers.
Its not that I am opposed to improving habitat, I plant all sorts of food plots to improve habitat for wildlife every year, but habitat is an old worn out narrative used by wolf groups to justify declines in elk and other ungulate numbers, used to deflect wolf impacts, and totally misleading. When you start preaching that way it sounds like you subscribe to their agenda and oppose hunter's interest in maintaining flourishing game herds that provide quality hunting opportunities.
We had a pretty fair season, thanks for your positive support.
Bearpaw this is a sincere question. With the guiding you do in the panhandle for bears and lions does that study make any sense. I value you your opinion so I am not questioning that you would mention it. It just does not jive with what I have seen. Most of the lion kills we find are whitetails but we do find elk just the majority are deer. Most of the wolf kills are elk? this has been consistent for decades. Also we seemed to have WAY more lions and bears in the early 90s but also WAY more elk. It didnt seem like the elk really changed or numbers went down until we had a signifigant number of wolves. I dont know but that lion study didnt jive with what we typically see and I was wondering what your experience has been? thanks! I typically hunt only 2 or 3 drainages regular and then hunt other areas sporadic so maybe thats why i dont see the massive elk kills by lions? We find a lot more wolf killed elk. The main thing is how many more lion tracks i cut in the 90's versus now and there was or I at least encountered twice as many elk in the 90s. :dunno:
Post by: idahohuntr on January 04, 2021, 03:11:02 PM
Its not that I am opposed to improving habitat, I plant all sorts of food plots to improve habitat for wildlife every year, but habitat is an old worn out narrative used by wolf groups to justify declines in elk and other ungulate numbers, used to deflect wolf impacts, and totally misleading. When you start preaching that way it sounds like you subscribe to their agenda and oppose hunter's interest in maintaining flourishing game herds that provide quality hunting opportunities.I get the disdain towards whatever groups misuse information...in wolf debates it happens on both sides. Some claim wolves are wonderful and do no harm, only eat the weak etc., and others exaggerate equally delusionally with respect to the impact of wolves on wildlife. The reality I would like injected into any of these discussions is the complex and interacting factors that drive animal abundance. I am deeply interested in maintaining flourishing game herds - which is why I cringe at the idea of dismissing ANY major cause of decline. If in one herd its wolves, then lets address it. If in another herd its habitat, or a different predator (bears), lets address it. If its a combination of factors (like the Lolo) - addressing one and not the other won't do a damn bit of good. Hunters identifying other critically significant issues affecting abundance is not intended to mislead or marginalize effects of predators, its a desire to ensure we have huntable populations of game and frankly it requires a big picture look that encompasses more than teeth and claws.
A relevant example since folks like to talk Yellowstone/Wyoming is CWD. Through a lot of habitat loss, winter range in parts of western wyoming have been developed/altered etc. and Wyoming has been reliant on winter feeding to maintain or improve elk numbers given the loss/reduction of important winter range. With recent lawsuits and concerns of CWD spread at feedgrounds I'm concerned winter feeding will be pushed aside (not overnight, but the end is in sight)...and what will happen to those elk herds? If migratory animals lose their winter range, then you take away supplemental feeding due to disease spread...that doesn't end well for hunters. And its not as though Wyoming is the only area with supplemental feeding to offset lost winter range...think CWD might come to WA someday? I think so...how important does habitat on winter range become when lawsuits end feeding? Is being concerned about winter range habitat mutually exclusive of predator concerns? NO. Is being concerned about winter range an attempt to marginalize previous effects of wolves? NO. Is this an example of why a hunter interested in flourishing game herds might also be concerned with habitat, even in areas where wolves are present? YES.
Idahohunter you still have not adressed the blues? I remember you using the lolo argument years ago and that its habitat not wolves. Lets talk about some new areas where habitat is not a factor but wolves are. Yellowstone is good but what about your backyard how are things going for washington elk with the new wolves?First, habitat is ALWAYS a factor. It may not be a contributor to animal declines in certain areas, but animals simply cannot live without habitat. Animals survive all the time in the presence of predators, but they cease to exist if they lose their habitat. Your tag says you live in Hayden...it would take me weeks to show you some areas that used to hold phenomenal deer hunting that are now covered in developments in the hayden/rathdrum area...areas that will never hold a huntable population of deer again. I've never completely lost a hunting area to wolves (e.g., Lolo) - I have permanently lost many hunting areas to development/habitat loss.
As for the blues, I think there are a number of issues, and wolves are in the mix but I'm not convinced its all (or even mostly) wolves. Permit numbers speak for themselves. Bear numbers are outrageous and if other studies apply here, I think wolves are additive but bears are the elephant in the room. Cougars too. Frankly, the guys (i think some frequent this forum) who are pushing increased bear limits and season dates for much of WA are going to be a huge help to blues elk hunters...they've done good things with bear regs for us hunters, and like most efforts it is probably under appreciated. Other issues...I think in some units, depredation permits and crop damage issues overly constrain elk numbers. Recent winters definitely hurt, but probably had a vastly more significant effect on deer than elk...and if you combine high predator density on a bad winter, life gets tough. I don't see too many recent habitat issues, and certainly nothing to explain the declines I've observed in just the past 6 or so years. Tribal harvest, sure its a factor in some areas, but I've also seen declines in parts of the Blues with little or no tribal hunting. Anyways, thats my take...for a variety of reasons I'd rather not comment on my recent elk hunting experience in the area - and its really not valuable to this broader discussion.
Post by: KFhunter on January 04, 2021, 03:25:46 PM
How are we not screwed?
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: KFhunter on January 04, 2021, 03:31:11 PM
We can't do anything about urban sprawl, and, we can't do anything about wolves either.
I don't see any way "I" can help other than help Idaho, which I do by joining F4WM and filling my predator tags here in WA.
With our two new commissioners I don't see any help there, opposite. WDFW "looking to expand their tent" means not hunters.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: Hydrophilic on January 04, 2021, 05:23:12 PM
Its not that I am opposed to improving habitat, I plant all sorts of food plots to improve habitat for wildlife every year, but habitat is an old worn out narrative used by wolf groups to justify declines in elk and other ungulate numbers, used to deflect wolf impacts, and totally misleading. When you start preaching that way it sounds like you subscribe to their agenda and oppose hunter's interest in maintaining flourishing game herds that provide quality hunting opportunities.I get the disdain towards whatever groups misuse information...in wolf debates it happens on both sides. Some claim wolves are wonderful and do no harm, only eat the weak etc., and others exaggerate equally delusionally with respect to the impact of wolves on wildlife. The reality I would like injected into any of these discussions is the complex and interacting factors that drive animal abundance. I am deeply interested in maintaining flourishing game herds - which is why I cringe at the idea of dismissing ANY major cause of decline. If in one herd its wolves, then lets address it. If in another herd its habitat, or a different predator (bears), lets address it. If its a combination of factors (like the Lolo) - addressing one and not the other won't do a damn bit of good. Hunters identifying other critically significant issues affecting abundance is not intended to mislead or marginalize effects of predators, its a desire to ensure we have huntable populations of game and frankly it requires a big picture look that encompasses more than teeth and claws.
A relevant example since folks like to talk Yellowstone/Wyoming is CWD. Through a lot of habitat loss, winter range in parts of western wyoming have been developed/altered etc. and Wyoming has been reliant on winter feeding to maintain or improve elk numbers given the loss/reduction of important winter range. With recent lawsuits and concerns of CWD spread at feedgrounds I'm concerned winter feeding will be pushed aside (not overnight, but the end is in sight)...and what will happen to those elk herds? If migratory animals lose their winter range, then you take away supplemental feeding due to disease spread...that doesn't end well for hunters. And its not as though Wyoming is the only area with supplemental feeding to offset lost winter range...think CWD might come to WA someday? I think so...how important does habitat on winter range become when lawsuits end feeding? Is being concerned about winter range habitat mutually exclusive of predator concerns? NO. Is being concerned about winter range an attempt to marginalize previous effects of wolves? NO. Is this an example of why a hunter interested in flourishing game herds might also be concerned with habitat, even in areas where wolves are present? YES.Idahohunter you still have not adressed the blues? I remember you using the lolo argument years ago and that its habitat not wolves. Lets talk about some new areas where habitat is not a factor but wolves are. Yellowstone is good but what about your backyard how are things going for washington elk with the new wolves?First, habitat is ALWAYS a factor. It may not be a contributor to animal declines in certain areas, but animals simply cannot live without habitat. Animals survive all the time in the presence of predators, but they cease to exist if they lose their habitat. Your tag says you live in Hayden...it would take me weeks to show you some areas that used to hold phenomenal deer hunting that are now covered in developments in the hayden/rathdrum area...areas that will never hold a huntable population of deer again. I've never completely lost a hunting area to wolves (e.g., Lolo) - I have permanently lost many hunting areas to development/habitat loss.
As for the blues, I think there are a number of issues, and wolves are in the mix but I'm not convinced its all (or even mostly) wolves. Permit numbers speak for themselves. Bear numbers are outrageous and if other studies apply here, I think wolves are additive but bears are the elephant in the room. Cougars too. Frankly, the guys (i think some frequent this forum) who are pushing increased bear limits and season dates for much of WA are going to be a huge help to blues elk hunters...they've done good things with bear regs for us hunters, and like most efforts it is probably under appreciated. Other issues...I think in some units, depredation permits and crop damage issues overly constrain elk numbers. Recent winters definitely hurt, but probably had a vastly more significant effect on deer than elk...and if you combine high predator density on a bad winter, life gets tough. I don't see too many recent habitat issues, and certainly nothing to explain the declines I've observed in just the past 6 or so years. Tribal harvest, sure its a factor in some areas, but I've also seen declines in parts of the Blues with little or no tribal hunting. Anyways, thats my take...for a variety of reasons I'd rather not comment on my recent elk hunting experience in the area - and its really not valuable to this broader discussion.
Habitat is huge. Quite a few studies which suggest predation is compensatory if habitat is intact. Predation can also be very additive if habitat is poor, bad winter, etc. A recent Eastman's podcast on mule deer migration corridors also acknowledges this. It all depends on the unit and the data. Without the data you can believe you are controlling a predator to help ungulates but you may just as likely be out for a trophy hunt of no significance to deer or elk.
I can talk for ages about habitat. As I have mentioned it depends on the unit and the data, but if habitat received half the focus from hunters as the fanged predators it would be a different world. Cheatgrass and medusahead are the dominant grasses on many large swaths of public and private land. These grasses are of little or no use to mule deer, for example. What's more worrisome? Infested areas are growing at rates of up to 15% per year. Then you add our strong affinity for unfettered development, and our inclination to assume the government will fix the habitat why bother helping, what are we left with? Simply put, we can't have infinite growth on finite resources, and as hunters we cannot afford not be able to identify the top invasive grasses and plants.
Regarding Yellowstone, nobody who looks at the data will argue the wolves are not having an impact. For some reason it's the default "gotcha" rebuke in all wolf conversations with hunters. The wolves were supposed to have an impact in Yellowstone, period. Yellowstone is an entirely different management strategy than Colorado. Just like Colorado is entirely different from Wyoming, and so on, and so forth.
"For 50 years this debate focused on the prospect that there were too many elk overgrazing their winter range (Houston 1982, Barmore2003). As a result, the United States National Park Service(NPS) implemented intensive population reduction efforts during 1932–1968.A new management policy was initiated by NPS in 1969(Cole 1971). Elk culling in the Park ceased and managers allowed elk abundance to fluctuate without any manipulation inside the park (Houston 1982). Under this ‘‘natural regulation’’ policy, elk numbers increased rapidly, which led to further controversy about overgrazing (National ResearchCouncil [NRC] 2002).
A Seventy-Year History of Trends in Yellowstone’s Northern Elk Herd, EBERHARDT,WHITE, GARROTT, HOUSTON
Is hunting allowed inside Yellowstone? If it isn't, why would hunters as a collective user group expect such a large influence over the publics national park?
My remarks and questions are not directed toward you necessarily, just anyone in general. I appreciate your posts so far.
Post by: KFhunter on January 04, 2021, 05:38:39 PM
Dashiell had a lot of sheep, he made a deal with private timber company to use his sheep to remove undesirable plants and weeds unstead of using chemical pesticides.
Wolves started really eating these sheep, soon it was impossible to control the depredations, WDFW and several conservation groups held this sheep rancher as a model for conservation and conflict resolution.
But conflict resolution didn't work, no amount of range riders or fladdery or other non-lethal methods would work.
WDFW would have to kill the wolves in accordance with the wolf plan
Dashiell is a bad guy now, he should die.
He pulled his sheep off that private timber ground, WDFW all but demanded he do so.
No one runs sheep on timber ground, only in fenced paddocks near their house
Now they spray chemicals to control weeds
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: idahohuntr on January 04, 2021, 05:50:51 PM
Good info - per your question, it boils down to animals moving in and out of the park. Both elk and wolves. There are a number of hunts that have targeted or relied upon elk that reside at least part of the year in Yellowstone. If elk decline, those hunts are reduced or eliminated and I believe bearpaw named some of those hunts which have indeed been stopped with the decline. But I agree, groups other than hunters have a strong interest in issues affecting national treasures like yellowstone.
Is hunting allowed inside Yellowstone? If it isn't, why would hunters as a collective user group expect such a large influence over the publics national park?
Post by: Buckhunter24 on January 04, 2021, 05:56:39 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 04, 2021, 05:57:49 PM
Good info - per your question, it boils down to animals moving in and out of the park. Both elk and wolves. There are a number of hunts that have targeted or relied upon elk that reside at least part of the year in Yellowstone. If elk decline, those hunts are reduced or eliminated and I believe bearpaw named some of those hunts which have indeed been stopped with the decline. But I agree, groups other than hunters have a strong interest in issues affecting national treasures like yellowstone.
Is hunting allowed inside Yellowstone? If it isn't, why would hunters as a collective user group expect such a large influence over the publics national park?
Hunters want to help control the Bison in YNP, most of the public don't want them slaughtered.
But they're driven to the local tribes, where they are slaughtered
The park don't want Hunters because animals won't be so easy to view, fearing humans.
A good example of the public not getting what they want ya?
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210105/7921cf0917452fce01db25d19dac335e.jpg)
Post by: Hydrophilic on January 05, 2021, 08:28:00 PM
Good info - per your question, it boils down to animals moving in and out of the park. Both elk and wolves. There are a number of hunts that have targeted or relied upon elk that reside at least part of the year in Yellowstone. If elk decline, those hunts are reduced or eliminated and I believe bearpaw named some of those hunts which have indeed been stopped with the decline. But I agree, groups other than hunters have a strong interest in issues affecting national treasures like yellowstone.
Is hunting allowed inside Yellowstone? If it isn't, why would hunters as a collective user group expect such a large influence over the publics national park?
I agree and understand that.
https://www.distinctlymontana.com/montana-thirty-years-wolves
Post by: Hydrophilic on January 05, 2021, 09:39:08 PM
People refer to Yellowstone because its a slam dunk example of what wolves do to ungulate populations with all other variables staying relatively constant. Wolves have destroyed ungulate populations everywhere they go. I saw the populations change firsthand out around the Clearwater and up the Joe, and now in NE Washington. The stress from running them in the winter has a terrible impact along with the obvious killing. I'm sure there's research out there to show otherwise, done by someone who loves wolves.
That's a blanket statement, and clearly not true. You don't have to cite research but please cite F&W quality data from the respective states. You will need a lot of it. Without data your assertions mean nothing, and you can dislike me saying this but it doesn't change the fact it's true.
One of my favorites is when a hunter proclaims they have seen a lot of (insert predator here) kills and tracks in their unit and therefore management is badly needed. Most of the time when pressed on the issue they can't even cite management objectives, the estimated game population, or estimated predator numbers for the particular unit, let alone other factors. That's akin to me walking into the units I hunt, not seeing any predator sign, seeing lots of elk sign, and proclaiming we need to cull the elk to boost predator numbers. That's emotional and irrational, there is no data involved. That's ridiculous.
For starters, one of the units I hunt in Oregon has had wolf activity for at least 8 years. It is not a pack on record with ODFW, who knows why, despite photo evidence of adults and offspring. This unit has a better estimated elk population than it did decades ago. It exceeds MO, even with Oregon's healthy cougar population. 2019 harvest was essentially right on par with pre wolf 2004 data. Why is this?
I've attached historic annual bull elk harvest provided by a previous ODFW document. 2019 total bull harvest (archery and rifle) was 9,597 ( out of 15,299 total elk harvested). Plot the point on the figure I attached and evaluate the data. How does it look in comparison? Have the wolves destroyed everything in their wake? These numbers were possible in conjunction with heathy cougar populations and a high antlerless harvest rate, both can decimate given the right situation. A correct response isn't to ignore everything I've just said and to say "oh, give the wolves more time". That may or may not be true but, again, it isn't based on meaningful data and therefore means nothing.
Also, as I requested earlier, please post the data to backup your initial claim of wolves destroying ungulate populations everywhere they go. Thats a big statement so make your case to me with data from all western states please.
https://myodfw.com/articles/big-game-hunting-harvest-statistics
Post by: Buckhunter24 on January 05, 2021, 10:39:30 PM
People refer to Yellowstone because its a slam dunk example of what wolves do to ungulate populations with all other variables staying relatively constant. Wolves have destroyed ungulate populations everywhere they go. I saw the populations change firsthand out around the Clearwater and up the Joe, and now in NE Washington. The stress from running them in the winter has a terrible impact along with the obvious killing. I'm sure there's research out there to show otherwise, done by someone who loves wolves.
That's a blanket statement, and clearly not true. You don't have to cite research but please cite F&W quality data from the respective states. You will need a lot of it. Without data your assertions mean nothing, and you can dislike me saying this but it doesn't change the fact it's true.
One of my favorites is when a hunter proclaims they have seen a lot of (insert predator here) kills and tracks in their unit and therefore management is badly needed. Most of the time when pressed on the issue they can't even cite management objectives, the estimated game population, or estimated predator numbers for the particular unit, let alone other factors. That's akin to me walking into the units I hunt, not seeing any predator sign, seeing lots of elk sign, and proclaiming we need to cull the elk to boost predator numbers. That's emotional and irrational, there is no data involved. That's ridiculous.
For starters, one of the units I hunt in Oregon has had wolf activity for at least 8 years. It is not a pack on record with ODFW, who knows why, despite photo evidence of adults and offspring. This unit has a better estimated elk population than it did decades ago. It exceeds MO, even with Oregon's healthy cougar population. 2019 harvest was essentially right on par with pre wolf 2004 data. Why is this?
I've attached historic annual bull elk harvest provided by a previous ODFW document. 2019 total bull harvest (archery and rifle) was 9,597 ( out of 15,299 total elk harvested). Plot the point on the figure I attached and evaluate the data. How does it look in comparison? Have the wolves destroyed everything in their wake? These numbers were possible in conjunction with heathy cougar populations and a high antlerless harvest rate, both can decimate given the right situation. A correct response isn't to ignore everything I've just said and to say "oh, give the wolves more time". That may or may not be true but, again, it isn't based on meaningful data and therefore means nothing.
Also, as I requested earlier, please post the data to backup your initial claim of wolves destroying ungulate populations everywhere they go. Thats a big statement so make your case to me with data from all western states please.
https://myodfw.com/articles/big-game-hunting-harvest-statistics
I'm not here to write a research paper for you. Wolves only decrease ungulate populations. The more wolves there are in an area the less ungulates there are.
Post by: Miles on January 06, 2021, 04:39:17 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 06, 2021, 05:21:00 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 06, 2021, 09:48:40 AM
Post by: Loup Loup on January 06, 2021, 10:19:29 AM
To paraphrase Dr. Valerius Geist: When wolves move into an area, they vacuum that area clean of game.
Post by: bearpaw on January 06, 2021, 10:24:44 AM
People refer to Yellowstone because its a slam dunk example of what wolves do to ungulate populations with all other variables staying relatively constant. Wolves have destroyed ungulate populations everywhere they go. I saw the populations change firsthand out around the Clearwater and up the Joe, and now in NE Washington. The stress from running them in the winter has a terrible impact along with the obvious killing. I'm sure there's research out there to show otherwise, done by someone who loves wolves.
That's a blanket statement, and clearly not true. You don't have to cite research but please cite F&W quality data from the respective states. You will need a lot of it. Without data your assertions mean nothing, and you can dislike me saying this but it doesn't change the fact it's true.
One of my favorites is when a hunter proclaims they have seen a lot of (insert predator here) kills and tracks in their unit and therefore management is badly needed. Most of the time when pressed on the issue they can't even cite management objectives, the estimated game population, or estimated predator numbers for the particular unit, let alone other factors. That's akin to me walking into the units I hunt, not seeing any predator sign, seeing lots of elk sign, and proclaiming we need to cull the elk to boost predator numbers. That's emotional and irrational, there is no data involved. That's ridiculous.
For starters, one of the units I hunt in Oregon has had wolf activity for at least 8 years. It is not a pack on record with ODFW, who knows why, despite photo evidence of adults and offspring. This unit has a better estimated elk population than it did decades ago. It exceeds MO, even with Oregon's healthy cougar population. 2019 harvest was essentially right on par with pre wolf 2004 data. Why is this?
I've attached historic annual bull elk harvest provided by a previous ODFW document. 2019 total bull harvest (archery and rifle) was 9,597 ( out of 15,299 total elk harvested). Plot the point on the figure I attached and evaluate the data. How does it look in comparison? Have the wolves destroyed everything in their wake? These numbers were possible in conjunction with heathy cougar populations and a high antlerless harvest rate, both can decimate given the right situation. A correct response isn't to ignore everything I've just said and to say "oh, give the wolves more time". That may or may not be true but, again, it isn't based on meaningful data and therefore means nothing.
Also, as I requested earlier, please post the data to backup your initial claim of wolves destroying ungulate populations everywhere they go. Thats a big statement so make your case to me with data from all western states please.
https://myodfw.com/articles/big-game-hunting-harvest-statistics
Per your own proclamation, you will need to show us where ODFW says there are wolves in that unit or they aren't there! Your suggested data and assertions are useless and unverifiable!
Post by: vandeman17 on January 06, 2021, 10:36:34 AM
Folks - can we stop with the baseless personal attacks that too frequently creep into these discussions? Hydro is expressing an opinion and supporting it with data...feel free to rebut but lets drop these ridiculous personal attacks and accusations he's not a hunter. :twocents:
A member who recently joined and has only posted on this particular thread with old data while demanding people with opposing views produce new data... color me skeptical. If it walks like a troll and acts like a troll... :twocents:
Post by: Buckhunter24 on January 06, 2021, 10:44:10 AM
Post by: Crunchy on January 06, 2021, 10:49:39 AM
Post by: KopperBuck on January 06, 2021, 10:54:54 AM
Post by: MR5x5 on January 06, 2021, 10:59:39 AM
Do wolves eat? Yes, a lot. Therefor they have an annul impact that is pretty easy to estimate and it is not insignificant. Are bear and cougar numbers up? Yes. Do they eat. Yes. I get all the other factors. But there is no way to deny that adding another apex taker into the mix does not have a net negative effect. Add it up. How many deer/elk do 3000+ plus wolves in Idaho eat year after year? Then tell me again what the load of poles sold to Idaho called for in terms of the target wolf population...
There is a darn good reason to be frustrated.
Post by: vandeman17 on January 06, 2021, 11:00:19 AM
Mt Emily is gonna be a desert soon. Mark my words.
A unit we have drawn 3 times now in NE Oregon, first 2 years were about 5 years ago and on those trips we saw multiple herds of 10+ elk during our hunts. This last year in the same area, we only saw one herd that was over 4 elk. Talked to a guy while he was stocking one of the little trout ponds that was born and raised in the area. He said the wolves have been hammering his normal areas
Post by: KFhunter on January 06, 2021, 11:15:05 AM
Post by: headshot5 on January 06, 2021, 11:25:37 AM
I have it from a verifiable source -with much data to prove it- that a wolf herd has negligible effect on elk packs.
That made me laugh pretty hard.
Post by: vandeman17 on January 06, 2021, 11:27:35 AM
I have it from a verifiable source -with much data to prove it- that a wolf herd has negligible effect on elk packs.
Follow the science
Post by: idahohuntr on January 06, 2021, 11:39:11 AM
So you already confirmed (and advertise on your outfitter website), using state verified/provided elk harvest data, that the Panhandle of Idaho is Idaho's top producing elk zone.People refer to Yellowstone because its a slam dunk example of what wolves do to ungulate populations with all other variables staying relatively constant. Wolves have destroyed ungulate populations everywhere they go. I saw the populations change firsthand out around the Clearwater and up the Joe, and now in NE Washington. The stress from running them in the winter has a terrible impact along with the obvious killing. I'm sure there's research out there to show otherwise, done by someone who loves wolves.
That's a blanket statement, and clearly not true. You don't have to cite research but please cite F&W quality data from the respective states. You will need a lot of it. Without data your assertions mean nothing, and you can dislike me saying this but it doesn't change the fact it's true.
One of my favorites is when a hunter proclaims they have seen a lot of (insert predator here) kills and tracks in their unit and therefore management is badly needed. Most of the time when pressed on the issue they can't even cite management objectives, the estimated game population, or estimated predator numbers for the particular unit, let alone other factors. That's akin to me walking into the units I hunt, not seeing any predator sign, seeing lots of elk sign, and proclaiming we need to cull the elk to boost predator numbers. That's emotional and irrational, there is no data involved. That's ridiculous.
For starters, one of the units I hunt in Oregon has had wolf activity for at least 8 years. It is not a pack on record with ODFW, who knows why, despite photo evidence of adults and offspring. This unit has a better estimated elk population than it did decades ago. It exceeds MO, even with Oregon's healthy cougar population. 2019 harvest was essentially right on par with pre wolf 2004 data. Why is this?
I've attached historic annual bull elk harvest provided by a previous ODFW document. 2019 total bull harvest (archery and rifle) was 9,597 ( out of 15,299 total elk harvested). Plot the point on the figure I attached and evaluate the data. How does it look in comparison? Have the wolves destroyed everything in their wake? These numbers were possible in conjunction with heathy cougar populations and a high antlerless harvest rate, both can decimate given the right situation. A correct response isn't to ignore everything I've just said and to say "oh, give the wolves more time". That may or may not be true but, again, it isn't based on meaningful data and therefore means nothing.
Also, as I requested earlier, please post the data to backup your initial claim of wolves destroying ungulate populations everywhere they go. Thats a big statement so make your case to me with data from all western states please.
https://myodfw.com/articles/big-game-hunting-harvest-statistics
Per your own proclamation, you will need to show us where ODFW says there are wolves in that unit or they aren't there! Your suggested data and assertions are useless and unverifiable!
We also know the Panhandle has a HUGE number of wolves, of which some portion are harvested annually, likely a small portion, because there are an absolute ton of wolves in the Panhandle.
Not directed you at bearpaw, but I have a hard time with people wanting to personally attack hydro and call him a troll when he questions a member who says wolves have destroyed ungulates everywhere they go. Especially when you in this very thread have demonstrated unequivocally that is not true.
Maybe folks want to argue that allowing hunters to kill a small fraction of wolves is what it takes to prevent such destruction, or maybe by 'destroy' folks mean something else?
Either way, I see hydro pushing for more informed debate on these matters and that is a good thing. If hunters sound like a collective bunch of uninformed folks who exaggerate impacts, that will not lead to improved predator management...it makes it easier for people in power to dismiss us as a bunch of idiots. If we collectively can discuss these issues with supporting data and examples that withstand some level of scrutiny we can better make our case.
Post by: hughjorgan on January 06, 2021, 12:03:06 PM
I have it from a verifiable source -with much data to prove it- that a wolf herd has negligible effect on elk packs.
Follow the science
Can you guys please sight your sources, maybe take a picture of a textbook and post it on an online forum so you can show your verifiable source to the rest of us that these wolf herds are having an impact. It will make you look really smrt!
Post by: Buckhunter24 on January 06, 2021, 12:11:12 PM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 06, 2021, 12:24:47 PM
:yeah:I have it from a verifiable source -with much data to prove it- that a wolf herd has negligible effect on elk packs.
Follow the science
Can you guys please sight your sources, maybe take a picture of a textbook and post it on an online forum so you can show your verifiable source to the rest of us that these wolf herds are having an impact. It will make you look really smart!
Post by: buckfvr on January 06, 2021, 12:32:48 PM
No need to reinvent the wheel here.
To paraphrase Dr. Valerius Geist: When wolves move into an area, they vacuum that area clean of game.
If you dont believe Dr. Geist, chances are you are beyond help. :yeah:
Post by: highcountry_hunter on January 06, 2021, 03:23:30 PM
I grew up in Ferry county with my parents house bordering the Colville national forest. From our back door I could have walked from Lake Roosevelt to Republic and only crossed 1 maintained road. As a teenager in the early 2000’s I would wander aimlessly throughout hunting season, often times making way too much noise, rarely paying attention to the wind, and practically 0 scouting; I tagged out every year. In fact if I didn’t run into at least 20 deer a day then something was off. Fast forward to today, I have multiple cameras out for scouting year round, I watch the moon cycles like a werewolf, I pay more attention to the wind than any sane person should, I sneak through the forest like a ninja at snails speed and sit for hours on end like a statue; if I see more than 5 deer in a day it is considered a success.
In my opinion the odds are stacked so greatly against deer and elk it’s amazing any of them reach maturity.
In the late 80’s the USFS decided to listen to extremist groups on how to manage our forests and bring logging and prescribed burns on forest service land to an abrupt halt which in turn has resulted in thousands of acres of uninhabitable land, lodgepole thickets that are so dense that there is absolutely no undergrowth of grasses and brush that deer and elk thrive on. The enormous timber sales you see today on forest service land, paired up with Vaagen Brothers Lumber, is a catch up game that cannot be won. They let it go for too long (tho I applaud Vaagens for working with USFS on harvesting a large amount of this otherwise useless ground. Their mill is set up to handle smaller logs, the land is healthier, and they are keeping a large portion of the community in steady work).
In the 90’s voters (which is how this entire thread began) decided with their hearts instead of their heads, that managing predators with the use of hounds and bait should be illegal. I have a sneaking suspicion none of them were aware of how difficult it is to harvest a lion or mature black bear without the aid of dogs or bait. Therefore, lion and bear numbers flourished having a great impact on not only adult ungulates but especially fawns and calves.
We also have development. I can’t count how many of the large farms and ranches (100+ aces) in Stevens and Ferry county have been bought by banks and split into 5 acre lots so that Sally City Girl can live “the country life”. More houses in the country=less places for game to feed. What was once a 50 acre alfalfa or grass hay field is now full of 2 story houses with a Suburban in the driveway and 2 dogs in the back yard.
And then to top it all off, the wolves arrived (all on their own as we have been told over and over...). With the odds already stacked against the deer and elk, an apex predator that was protected at all costs by state and federal government was thrown into the mix. Nobody can reasonably expect game numbers to maintain their current status or ever flourish in these conditions.
Look at it like this; lock 10 deer into a 100 acres of grass, timber and brush. 2 months later you will likely have 10 healthy deer. Now cut it down to 50 acres. Now kill half of that grass. Now add 1 cougar, 1 black bear, 1 coyote and 1 wolf. How many deer will remain in 2 months?
Who knows, maybe I’m dead wrong. I haven’t scoured numbers and books, I’ve just lived here for 32 years. The animals were already fighting an up hill battle, and then another enemy joined the fight against them.
Post by: Hydrophilic on January 06, 2021, 03:41:16 PM
Folks - can we stop with the baseless personal attacks that too frequently creep into these discussions? Hydro is expressing an opinion and supporting it with data...feel free to rebut but lets drop these ridiculous personal attacks and accusations he's not a hunter. :twocents:
A member who recently joined and has only posted on this particular thread with old data while demanding people with opposing views produce new data... color me skeptical. If it walks like a troll and acts like a troll... :twocents:
What old data am I using? Historical bull elk harvest? That’s the point, and I gave a new data point to plot for comparison, do you want more? Because I can provide it, just let me know.
Post by: hughjorgan on January 06, 2021, 03:56:36 PM
Folks - can we stop with the baseless personal attacks that too frequently creep into these discussions? Hydro is expressing an opinion and supporting it with data...feel free to rebut but lets drop these ridiculous personal attacks and accusations he's not a hunter. :twocents:
A member who recently joined and has only posted on this particular thread with old data while demanding people with opposing views produce new data... color me skeptical. If it walks like a troll and acts like a troll... :twocents:
What old data am I using? Historical bull elk harvest? That’s the point, and I gave a new data point to plot for comparison, do you want more? Because I can provide it, just let me know.
I am sure this data they have says elk and deer numbers are doing so great that they need to limit the amount of hunters in Oregon with controlled hunts for deer and elk during general seasons. Has nothing to do with more predators like wolves on the landscape. Sounds like NE Oregon is just fine. :rolleyes:
Post by: Hydrophilic on January 06, 2021, 04:01:53 PM
Well since someone here mentioned Oregon wolves I will chime in with my first hand experience. I have hunted the same unit for the last 15 years in Eastern Oregon. About 4-5 years ago wolves moved in and decimated the elk numbers. Found an ODFW trail cam with pack 47 or 49 written on it. In the same area found 3 fairly fresh wolf kills in a .5 mile square area. Got wolves on my own trail camera. To say that wolves will not decimate an area of deer and elk is just a lie. I called ODFW and left a message to talk about the wolf impact but no return call. I emailed them the pictures of the elk kills and info about the elk numbers since the wolves moved in. You would think that they would want to know first hand knowledge about what a wolf pack has been doing to the elk and deer numbers, but it does not appear that they do.
Walla Walla
2002: 1,500
2005: 1,450
2008: 1,500
2011: 1,500
2014: 1,690
2016: 1,700
2019: 1,700
Minam
2002: 1,800
2005: 2,000
2008: 2,100
2011: 2,100
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,500
2019: 2,500
Wenaha
2002: 1300
2005: 1350
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
2019: 2,700
These units all have wolves, some for over 10 years. Data is directly from ODFW, contact them if interested. I have more data of interest but have no inclination with sharing it further because the users on this thread are incapable of having a factual, reasonable discussion without personal attacks that go unmoderated by a biased moderator. Beyond the research I have provided, the articles, the data, and now a direct contact line to find the data yourselves, I can't do much more.
Thank you for your time.
Post by: KopperBuck on January 06, 2021, 04:23:23 PM
Post by: KopperBuck on January 06, 2021, 04:27:18 PM
Post by: Hydrophilic on January 06, 2021, 04:49:49 PM
I also ponder about why WDFW/ODFW/insert agency gets a more of nod to their numbers than our observations. Is it because they're scientists, or professionals? I also spend more time pooping in the woods than some of these experts spend their entire work life. I didn't and don't need a degree to observe the obvious. Although, given the current state, I could charge good money for it.
...We need data to make game management decisions. Are you honestly going to refute that? That is a key tenant of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and the basis behind why we STILL have hunting opportunities with 300+ million people.
Would you let a janitor treat your cancer? Or would you want someone who received an education (textbooks, science) and evaluates data to see what type of cancer you have or what treatment method will work best for your specific cancer? Or are you going to bash me for supporting my opinions with data but go running to a physician when you have a health emergency and let his decisions based on data save your life? That's called cognitive dissonance. READ.
Post by: KopperBuck on January 06, 2021, 05:14:16 PM
I also ponder about why WDFW/ODFW/insert agency gets a more of nod to their numbers than our observations. Is it because they're scientists, or professionals? I also spend more time pooping in the woods than some of these experts spend their entire work life. I didn't and don't need a degree to observe the obvious. Although, given the current state, I could charge good money for it.
...We need data to make game management decisions. Are you honestly going to refute that? That is a key tenant of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and the basis behind why we STILL have hunting opportunities with 300+ million people.
Would you let a janitor treat your cancer? Or would you want someone who received an education (textbooks, science) and evaluates data to see what type of cancer you have or what treatment method will work best for your specific cancer? Or are you going to bash me for supporting my opinions with data but go running to a physician when you have a health emergency and let his decisions based on data save your life? That's called cognitive dissonance. READ.
LOL. I can read well, thank you. I'm saying that I don't believe everything they come out with. Because I literally see it everyday.
No, I wouldn't let a janitor treat my cancer. But I might listen to him if he told me the weeds were getting out of control.
Post by: KFhunter on January 06, 2021, 05:34:22 PM
This is getting ridiculous :rolleyes:
I don't know why you're engaging some Portlander Kopper
Post by: Miles on January 06, 2021, 06:01:07 PM
Folks - can we stop with the baseless personal attacks that too frequently creep into these discussions? Hydro is expressing an opinion and supporting it with data...feel free to rebut but lets drop these ridiculous personal attacks and accusations he's not a hunter. :twocents:
A member who recently joined and has only posted on this particular thread with old data while demanding people with opposing views produce new data... color me skeptical. If it walks like a troll and acts like a troll... :twocents:
Glad to see someone else sees what is happening here.
Post by: idaho guy on January 06, 2021, 06:38:28 PM
So you already confirmed (and advertise on your outfitter website), using state verified/provided elk harvest data, that the Panhandle of Idaho is Idaho's top producing elk zone.People refer to Yellowstone because its a slam dunk example of what wolves do to ungulate populations with all other variables staying relatively constant. Wolves have destroyed ungulate populations everywhere they go. I saw the populations change firsthand out around the Clearwater and up the Joe, and now in NE Washington. The stress from running them in the winter has a terrible impact along with the obvious killing. I'm sure there's research out there to show otherwise, done by someone who loves wolves.
That's a blanket statement, and clearly not true. You don't have to cite research but please cite F&W quality data from the respective states. You will need a lot of it. Without data your assertions mean nothing, and you can dislike me saying this but it doesn't change the fact it's true.
One of my favorites is when a hunter proclaims they have seen a lot of (insert predator here) kills and tracks in their unit and therefore management is badly needed. Most of the time when pressed on the issue they can't even cite management objectives, the estimated game population, or estimated predator numbers for the particular unit, let alone other factors. That's akin to me walking into the units I hunt, not seeing any predator sign, seeing lots of elk sign, and proclaiming we need to cull the elk to boost predator numbers. That's emotional and irrational, there is no data involved. That's ridiculous.
For starters, one of the units I hunt in Oregon has had wolf activity for at least 8 years. It is not a pack on record with ODFW, who knows why, despite photo evidence of adults and offspring. This unit has a better estimated elk population than it did decades ago. It exceeds MO, even with Oregon's healthy cougar population. 2019 harvest was essentially right on par with pre wolf 2004 data. Why is this?
I've attached historic annual bull elk harvest provided by a previous ODFW document. 2019 total bull harvest (archery and rifle) was 9,597 ( out of 15,299 total elk harvested). Plot the point on the figure I attached and evaluate the data. How does it look in comparison? Have the wolves destroyed everything in their wake? These numbers were possible in conjunction with heathy cougar populations and a high antlerless harvest rate, both can decimate given the right situation. A correct response isn't to ignore everything I've just said and to say "oh, give the wolves more time". That may or may not be true but, again, it isn't based on meaningful data and therefore means nothing.
Also, as I requested earlier, please post the data to backup your initial claim of wolves destroying ungulate populations everywhere they go. Thats a big statement so make your case to me with data from all western states please.
https://myodfw.com/articles/big-game-hunting-harvest-statistics
Per your own proclamation, you will need to show us where ODFW says there are wolves in that unit or they aren't there! Your suggested data and assertions are useless and unverifiable!
We also know the Panhandle has a HUGE number of wolves, of which some portion are harvested annually, likely a small portion, because there are an absolute ton of wolves in the Panhandle.
Not directed you at bearpaw, but I have a hard time with people wanting to personally attack hydro and call him a troll when he questions a member who says wolves have destroyed ungulates everywhere they go. Especially when you in this very thread have demonstrated unequivocally that is not true.
Maybe folks want to argue that allowing hunters to kill a small fraction of wolves is what it takes to prevent such destruction, or maybe by 'destroy' folks mean something else?
Either way, I see hydro pushing for more informed debate on these matters and that is a good thing. If hunters sound like a collective bunch of uninformed folks who exaggerate impacts, that will not lead to improved predator management...it makes it easier for people in power to dismiss us as a bunch of idiots. If we collectively can discuss these issues with supporting data and examples that withstand some level of scrutiny we can better make our case.
Look up the success rates historically and current success rates for units in the panhandle and then you will understand. Recent Success rate for archery in unit 2 and 4a were both 1 percent not a typo that’s right 1%. Archery in those units used to run high teens and I remember 4a when it was 20 to 30 percent every year. Most panhandle units would run in the 20 plus percent category. 5 and 6 had ok success for rifle but most of the elk in 5 are shot on private ground not public. And there are very little if any wolves in 5 and wolves are getting trapped like crazy in 6. My freind who lives in 6 gets 5-8every year last 4-5 years. The panhandle is a top producing zone in terms of numbers of elk harvested and it’s also gigantic stretching from st joe Clearwater divide to Canada. Does 1 percent success sound like a top elk destination to you. Look up success rates from the 90s even early 2000 and the whole story is there. It’s not my job to post all the facts if you really care about this topic look up success before and after wolves. The evidence is there
Post by: KFhunter on January 06, 2021, 06:41:36 PM
We be screwed in WA
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: idaho guy on January 06, 2021, 07:06:51 PM
Post by: idaho guy on January 06, 2021, 07:07:34 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 06, 2021, 07:08:29 PM
Hydro keep looking up why wolves are good I will keep doing this and my kids will still have a place to hunt elkGood wolf
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: idaho guy on January 06, 2021, 07:10:22 PM
Post by: idaho guy on January 06, 2021, 07:12:45 PM
Post by: idaho guy on January 06, 2021, 07:18:17 PM
Post by: idaho guy on January 06, 2021, 07:39:13 PM
Folks - can we stop with the baseless personal attacks that too frequently creep into these discussions? Hydro is expressing an opinion and supporting it with data...feel free to rebut but lets drop these ridiculous personal attacks and accusations he's not a hunter. :twocents:
A member who recently joined and has only posted on this particular thread with old data while demanding people with opposing views produce new data... color me skeptical. If it walks like a troll and acts like a troll... :twocents:
What old data am I using? Historical bull elk harvest? That’s the point, and I gave a new data point to plot for comparison, do you want more? Because I can provide it, just let me know.
One more thing :chuckle that letter from the biologist is proof many of them can’t be trusted
Post by: Platensek-po on January 06, 2021, 07:58:07 PM
Post by: hughjorgan on January 06, 2021, 09:25:25 PM
Folks - can we stop with the baseless personal attacks that too frequently creep into these discussions? Hydro is expressing an opinion and supporting it with data...feel free to rebut but lets drop these ridiculous personal attacks and accusations he's not a hunter. :twocents:
A member who recently joined and has only posted on this particular thread with old data while demanding people with opposing views produce new data... color me skeptical. If it walks like a troll and acts like a troll... :twocents:
What old data am I using? Historical bull elk harvest? That’s the point, and I gave a new data point to plot for comparison, do you want more? Because I can provide it, just let me know.
One more thing :chuckle that letter from the biologist is proof many of them can’t be trusted
Idaho you are 100 percent speaking the truth! I have a friend that used to work for IDFG and he is a hunter, a very good one too and he worked under a pro wolf biologist in Idaho. She wasn’t really happy when he happened to double up on a couple wolves one year.
Plenty of folks in the game department aren’t for sportsman’s and until we rid the departments of these people we will get skewed data.
Nice work on the predator control Idaho guy!
Post by: idaho guy on January 07, 2021, 05:15:35 AM
Folks - can we stop with the baseless personal attacks that too frequently creep into these discussions? Hydro is expressing an opinion and supporting it with data...feel free to rebut but lets drop these ridiculous personal attacks and accusations he's not a hunter. :twocents:
A member who recently joined and has only posted on this particular thread with old data while demanding people with opposing views produce new data... color me skeptical. If it walks like a troll and acts like a troll... :twocents:
What old data am I using? Historical bull elk harvest? That’s the point, and I gave a new data point to plot for comparison, do you want more? Because I can provide it, just let me know.
One more thing :chuckle that letter from the biologist is proof many of them can’t be trusted
Idaho you are 100 percent speaking the truth! I have a friend that used to work for IDFG and he is a hunter, a very good one too and he worked under a pro wolf biologist in Idaho. She wasn’t really happy when he happened to double up on a couple wolves one year.
Plenty of folks in the game department aren’t for sportsman’s and until we rid the departments of these people we will get skewed data.
Nice work on the predator control Idaho guy!
:tup:
Post by: trophyhunt on January 07, 2021, 05:19:26 AM
Hydro keep looking up why wolves are good I will keep doing this and my kids will still have a place to hunt elklove it!
Post by: trophyhunt on January 07, 2021, 05:20:26 AM
Hydro and this all 2020 predators taken out except wolfGreat looking cat, is that at the taxi place I just saw? The 150 lber?
Post by: idaho guy on January 07, 2021, 05:24:25 AM
Hydro and this all 2020 predators taken out except wolfGreat looking cat, is that at the taxi place I just saw? The 150 lber?
Yes 👍
Post by: trophyhunt on January 07, 2021, 05:26:31 AM
Bad azz, thanks again, cool guys.Hydro and this all 2020 predators taken out except wolfGreat looking cat, is that at the taxi place I just saw? The 150 lber?
Yes 👍
Post by: bearpaw on January 07, 2021, 08:02:15 AM
So you already confirmed (and advertise on your outfitter website), using state verified/provided elk harvest data, that the Panhandle of Idaho is Idaho's top producing elk zone.People refer to Yellowstone because its a slam dunk example of what wolves do to ungulate populations with all other variables staying relatively constant. Wolves have destroyed ungulate populations everywhere they go. I saw the populations change firsthand out around the Clearwater and up the Joe, and now in NE Washington. The stress from running them in the winter has a terrible impact along with the obvious killing. I'm sure there's research out there to show otherwise, done by someone who loves wolves.
That's a blanket statement, and clearly not true. You don't have to cite research but please cite F&W quality data from the respective states. You will need a lot of it. Without data your assertions mean nothing, and you can dislike me saying this but it doesn't change the fact it's true.
One of my favorites is when a hunter proclaims they have seen a lot of (insert predator here) kills and tracks in their unit and therefore management is badly needed. Most of the time when pressed on the issue they can't even cite management objectives, the estimated game population, or estimated predator numbers for the particular unit, let alone other factors. That's akin to me walking into the units I hunt, not seeing any predator sign, seeing lots of elk sign, and proclaiming we need to cull the elk to boost predator numbers. That's emotional and irrational, there is no data involved. That's ridiculous.
For starters, one of the units I hunt in Oregon has had wolf activity for at least 8 years. It is not a pack on record with ODFW, who knows why, despite photo evidence of adults and offspring. This unit has a better estimated elk population than it did decades ago. It exceeds MO, even with Oregon's healthy cougar population. 2019 harvest was essentially right on par with pre wolf 2004 data. Why is this?
I've attached historic annual bull elk harvest provided by a previous ODFW document. 2019 total bull harvest (archery and rifle) was 9,597 ( out of 15,299 total elk harvested). Plot the point on the figure I attached and evaluate the data. How does it look in comparison? Have the wolves destroyed everything in their wake? These numbers were possible in conjunction with heathy cougar populations and a high antlerless harvest rate, both can decimate given the right situation. A correct response isn't to ignore everything I've just said and to say "oh, give the wolves more time". That may or may not be true but, again, it isn't based on meaningful data and therefore means nothing.
Also, as I requested earlier, please post the data to backup your initial claim of wolves destroying ungulate populations everywhere they go. Thats a big statement so make your case to me with data from all western states please.
https://myodfw.com/articles/big-game-hunting-harvest-statistics
Per your own proclamation, you will need to show us where ODFW says there are wolves in that unit or they aren't there! Your suggested data and assertions are useless and unverifiable!
We also know the Panhandle has a HUGE number of wolves, of which some portion are harvested annually, likely a small portion, because there are an absolute ton of wolves in the Panhandle.
Not directed you at bearpaw, but I have a hard time with people wanting to personally attack hydro and call him a troll when he questions a member who says wolves have destroyed ungulates everywhere they go. Especially when you in this very thread have demonstrated unequivocally that is not true.
Maybe folks want to argue that allowing hunters to kill a small fraction of wolves is what it takes to prevent such destruction, or maybe by 'destroy' folks mean something else?
Either way, I see hydro pushing for more informed debate on these matters and that is a good thing. If hunters sound like a collective bunch of uninformed folks who exaggerate impacts, that will not lead to improved predator management...it makes it easier for people in power to dismiss us as a bunch of idiots. If we collectively can discuss these issues with supporting data and examples that withstand some level of scrutiny we can better make our case.
Hydro is just another uninformed wolf troll that has listened to wolf advocating biologists and spews their talking points. He had the gall to claim his data is based on a unit where he knows there are wolves but ODFG has not confirmed them and in another post condemns anyone else who makes any claims based on personal experience. That's typical wolf lover double talk hypocrisy! He disses others for basing comments on their personal experiences and then bases his own arguments on personal experiences. I cannot type this without chuckling to myself!
Idahohntr I fully expected you to bring my business into this conversation somehow and then you say it's not directed at me, you are a real prize little buddy!
Many Panhandle areas have been hit hard by wolves, much more so in some areas than in other areas, most notable are the areas furthest from human habitation. Check out the historic elk harvest stats for the more remote panhandle units 7 & 9 to clarify what I am saying? I agree with Idaho Guy that a lot of the elk have moved closer to humans for protection and survival, more or less to a reasonable extent the closer you get to humans the more elk there are, for that reason most of north Idaho has faired better than other more remote elk zones like the Lolo or Selway. Please feel free to show where those two elk zones are doing better than the Panhandle! I will be waiting for that!
As a businessman I looked at Idaho and I looked at what the market demand is for hunts, in the end we have settled into Idaho's top elk and predator zones and one of Idaho's best mule deer regions. It has worked really well for us!
Perhaps in my next post I will bring your career into this conversation and suggest how your career has impacted your opinion of wolves, I'm sure the members would enjoy that! We could both play that game! :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on January 07, 2021, 08:49:35 AM
As for your threats about discussing my career...I assume you are talking about my past education and experience as a fish biologist. I know you and some other folks have come up with some hilarious and false ideas of my past...I really liked the PM you sent me once where you had me pegged as someone who manufacturers feed troughs for WDFW. I no longer work as a biologist, but yes, I would agree many of my positions on wildlife management issues are informed by my background and education in fish and wildlife management. I believe my positions are more informed by many decades of hunting big game in every western state and being a 5th generation Idahoan - but no doubt my fish and wildlife degrees also shape my views.
I hope you have a good hunting season. I'm already looking forward to mine.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 07, 2021, 09:15:50 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 07, 2021, 09:16:28 AM
Idahohntr:Predators. They have clearly had a large impact on elk in the yellowstone herd (not just wolves either)
Just curious what your reasoning is for the massive drop of elk numbers in the yellowstone herd? Habitat has remained constant for decades, wolves are the new variable when elk numbers began dropping substantially? Hunting seasons have in many cases been completely stopped, yet the herd struggles?
I think the Lolo and a few other areas actually experience more bear predation than possibly even wolves. Not certain, but there are a lot of units where bear just seem to be out of control and a lot of elk calf mortality data point the finger at black bears over wolves. I'd wager this is the bigger difference between Lolo and Panhandle. In the Panhandle, every 2nd year californian is out running baits in the spring keeping bears in check right during calving season...lolo does not get this additional bear (or wolf) hunting help.
But while we are on the Lolo elk herd...I think its also critical to the discussion to acknowledge the zone was in decline well before wolves were really taking hold. I guess its a baseline thing...what some considered 'really good' in the 90's was really sad to older generations that knew what the area was capable of historically. Its even worse now but I've not spent much time there recently, so I hesitate to say much about current hunting status. I know a few folks still do pretty well with a lot of effort.
Unless (or until) we see massive fires (or insane increases in timber harvest) the Lolo will never recover...I don't care how many wolves are killed. I think in the half dozen or more times we've argued about the Lolo and wolves, it boils down to general agreement that both habitat and predators have really hammered the elk...the difference is you believe wolves are the primary and most significant factor, I believe habitat plays a larger role...in the end neither of us has a changed position...its the one constant in this ever changing world :chuckle:
I hope you had a good hunting season.
Thankyou for answering and for your ideas and thoughts. I'll point out again that wolves are the new variable in Yellowstone, the habitat has remained constant, bear and cougar have been a constant, the new variable is wolves. In fact, wolves are the new variable across the west. Certainly these very hungry wolves that eat roughly 10 pounds of meat per day per wolf have an additive effect on predation, this additive impact is a significant factor, in fact the increases in wolf numbers parallels the declines in elk numbers in areas suffering the most from predation.
An IDFG elk predation study in the panhandle indicated cougar actually killed more elk than wolves in that study area, bear are also a significant factor, undoubtedly some of the reason Idaho now has 2 cougar bag limits and 2 bear bag limits in many elk units. Even in areas with heavy predation by cats and bear the new and additive variable is that wolves are now also eating elk in the west, the increase in wolf numbers parallels the decline in elk numbers.
Its not that I am opposed to improving habitat, I plant all sorts of food plots to improve habitat for wildlife every year, but habitat is an old worn out narrative used by wolf groups to justify declines in elk and other ungulate numbers, used to deflect wolf impacts, and totally misleading. When you start preaching that way it sounds like you subscribe to their agenda and oppose hunter's interest in maintaining flourishing game herds that provide quality hunting opportunities.
We had a pretty fair season, thanks for your positive support.
Bearpaw this is a sincere question. With the guiding you do in the panhandle for bears and lions does that study make any sense. I value you your opinion so I am not questioning that you would mention it. It just does not jive with what I have seen. Most of the lion kills we find are whitetails but we do find elk just the majority are deer. Most of the wolf kills are elk? this has been consistent for decades. Also we seemed to have WAY more lions and bears in the early 90s but also WAY more elk. It didnt seem like the elk really changed or numbers went down until we had a signifigant number of wolves. I dont know but that lion study didnt jive with what we typically see and I was wondering what your experience has been? thanks! I typically hunt only 2 or 3 drainages regular and then hunt other areas sporadic so maybe thats why i dont see the massive elk kills by lions? We find a lot more wolf killed elk. The main thing is how many more lion tracks i cut in the 90's versus now and there was or I at least encountered twice as many elk in the 90s. :dunno:
idaho guy that is a really good question that I will answer to the best of my ability. My son and I were both surprised by the outcome of the elk study, we agree with you that mt lions typically focus on deer more than elk and have found far more deer kills than elk kills. We have watched packs of wolves follow certain herds of elk day after day, focusing on that particular herd. I don't remember the specifics of the study, perhaps mt lions are focusing more on calves and making the big impact there? At any rate were were also surprised by the results of the study indicating lions killed more elk than wolves. I suspicion that it is somehow flawed to some extent but have no smoking gun type of proof that it is flawed. Unless another study is done proving otherwise that is the IDFG data we are stuck with that will dictate panhandle management for the foreseeable future!
Wolves
I will say this about wolves in our area, we have never seen so many trappers and wolf hunters, and we hear about wolves that are being taken, they are getting quite a few wolves. We are not seeing as many of the larger packs either, there are more singles and doubles, I think that will result in the wolves eating more small game and not being as effective at taking down elk, at least I hope that is the case. I'm hoping for an increase in elk numbers as a result of the recently lowered wolf population.
Bear
We think bear numbers are holding pretty strong, even though it seems like there are fewer bear when you are trying to hound hunt with strike dogs, we think that is because there are so many bait sites and many bear are living around these bait sites and don't need to travel looking for food, basically the hounds don't have much chance of finding a bear that feeds all night on bait and curls up a few hundred yards away and sleeps all day. So far we have not seen any decrease in our bear hunting success.
Cougar
We don't see as many cougar as we did years ago either. The liberal seasons are somewhat accomplishing what F&G wanted to accomplish, fewer lions. We still have good luck hunting when the weather cooperates, as you know the last few years has not been the best for cat hunting weather, the hounds don't do so well when its pouring down rain. For that reason I don't think the liberal seasons have been as effective as F&G would prefer. But I can tell you this for certain, the cougar density is higher in units in southern Idaho where quotas close the cougar season pretty quickly, I wished they would let us kill a few more cats in southern Idaho.
Elk
Compared to other elk zones the Panhandle still has the most elk, even though we think elk numbers are half or less in many areas, and overall hunter success has dropped, the Panhandle overall is still the top in Idaho for elk numbers and harvest. We see elk pretty much every day when we elk hunt, but again as I have explained to Idahohntr, we are pretty focused about where we elk hunt. The total amount of hunters in north Idaho is off the charts, there are a ton of hunters and a lot of them are not seeing many elk. There are certain herds we watch year around, these herds are all fewer than they were in the past, it's easy to get a pretty good count on them on winter range every year and compare from year to year. Our elk counts parallel with IDFG counts, the reason IDFG is actively hunting bear, cougar, and wolves and allowing multiple tags for each type of predator! Elk are pretty winter hardy, we don't see the big winter kills like deer sometimes have, we think the predator impact (including humans and wolves, there a a lot of both) is the main issue for elk numbers.
Deer
The bad winter a few years ago impacted the deer badly, it seemed we lost 2/3 of the deer herd that winter. We think they are slowly coming back, each year we are seeing more deer, we got quite a few more deer this year than the previous couple years. The deer herd seems to be more quickly impacted by winters than by predators, although the predator impact really slows the herd from rebuilding to their previous numbers.
Idaho guy there is a lot of value in your observations, you have hunted the same areas year after year for decades, we don't have as many years to compare observations as you do, and there is no doubt in my mind that hunting was better several decades ago before there were many wolves. Even though there is still some good hunting I certainly can see reductions during our more limited time in the area.
Post by: idaho guy on January 07, 2021, 09:46:50 AM
Idahohntr:Predators. They have clearly had a large impact on elk in the yellowstone herd (not just wolves either)
Just curious what your reasoning is for the massive drop of elk numbers in the yellowstone herd? Habitat has remained constant for decades, wolves are the new variable when elk numbers began dropping substantially? Hunting seasons have in many cases been completely stopped, yet the herd struggles?
I think the Lolo and a few other areas actually experience more bear predation than possibly even wolves. Not certain, but there are a lot of units where bear just seem to be out of control and a lot of elk calf mortality data point the finger at black bears over wolves. I'd wager this is the bigger difference between Lolo and Panhandle. In the Panhandle, every 2nd year californian is out running baits in the spring keeping bears in check right during calving season...lolo does not get this additional bear (or wolf) hunting help.
But while we are on the Lolo elk herd...I think its also critical to the discussion to acknowledge the zone was in decline well before wolves were really taking hold. I guess its a baseline thing...what some considered 'really good' in the 90's was really sad to older generations that knew what the area was capable of historically. Its even worse now but I've not spent much time there recently, so I hesitate to say much about current hunting status. I know a few folks still do pretty well with a lot of effort.
Unless (or until) we see massive fires (or insane increases in timber harvest) the Lolo will never recover...I don't care how many wolves are killed. I think in the half dozen or more times we've argued about the Lolo and wolves, it boils down to general agreement that both habitat and predators have really hammered the elk...the difference is you believe wolves are the primary and most significant factor, I believe habitat plays a larger role...in the end neither of us has a changed position...its the one constant in this ever changing world :chuckle:
I hope you had a good hunting season.
Thankyou for answering and for your ideas and thoughts. I'll point out again that wolves are the new variable in Yellowstone, the habitat has remained constant, bear and cougar have been a constant, the new variable is wolves. In fact, wolves are the new variable across the west. Certainly these very hungry wolves that eat roughly 10 pounds of meat per day per wolf have an additive effect on predation, this additive impact is a significant factor, in fact the increases in wolf numbers parallels the declines in elk numbers in areas suffering the most from predation.
An IDFG elk predation study in the panhandle indicated cougar actually killed more elk than wolves in that study area, bear are also a significant factor, undoubtedly some of the reason Idaho now has 2 cougar bag limits and 2 bear bag limits in many elk units. Even in areas with heavy predation by cats and bear the new and additive variable is that wolves are now also eating elk in the west, the increase in wolf numbers parallels the decline in elk numbers.
Its not that I am opposed to improving habitat, I plant all sorts of food plots to improve habitat for wildlife every year, but habitat is an old worn out narrative used by wolf groups to justify declines in elk and other ungulate numbers, used to deflect wolf impacts, and totally misleading. When you start preaching that way it sounds like you subscribe to their agenda and oppose hunter's interest in maintaining flourishing game herds that provide quality hunting opportunities.
We had a pretty fair season, thanks for your positive support.
Bearpaw this is a sincere question. With the guiding you do in the panhandle for bears and lions does that study make any sense. I value you your opinion so I am not questioning that you would mention it. It just does not jive with what I have seen. Most of the lion kills we find are whitetails but we do find elk just the majority are deer. Most of the wolf kills are elk? this has been consistent for decades. Also we seemed to have WAY more lions and bears in the early 90s but also WAY more elk. It didnt seem like the elk really changed or numbers went down until we had a signifigant number of wolves. I dont know but that lion study didnt jive with what we typically see and I was wondering what your experience has been? thanks! I typically hunt only 2 or 3 drainages regular and then hunt other areas sporadic so maybe thats why i dont see the massive elk kills by lions? We find a lot more wolf killed elk. The main thing is how many more lion tracks i cut in the 90's versus now and there was or I at least encountered twice as many elk in the 90s. :dunno:
idaho guy that is a really good question that I will answer to the best of my ability. My son and I were both surprised by the outcome of the elk study, we agree with you that mt lions typically focus on deer more than elk and have found far more deer kills than elk kills. We have watched packs of wolves follow certain herds of elk day after day, focusing on that particular herd. I don't remember the specifics of the study, perhaps mt lions are focusing more on calves and making the big impact there? At any rate were were also surprised by the results of the study indicating lions killed more elk than wolves. I suspicion that it is somehow flawed to some extent but have no smoking gun type of proof that it is flawed. Unless another study is done proving otherwise that is the IDFG data we are stuck with that will dictate panhandle management for the foreseeable future!
Wolves
I will say this about wolves in our area, we have never seen so many trappers and wolf hunters, and we hear about wolves that are being taken, they are getting quite a few wolves. We are not seeing as many of the larger packs either, there are more singles and doubles, I think that will result in the wolves eating more small game and not being as effective at taking down elk, at least I hope that is the case. I'm hoping for an increase in elk numbers as a result of the recently lowered wolf population.
Bear
We think bear numbers are holding pretty strong, even though it seems like there are fewer bear when you are trying to hound hunt with strike dogs, we think that is because there are so many bait sites and many bear are living around these bait sites and don't need to travel looking for food, basically the hounds don't have much chance of finding a bear that feeds all night on bait and curls up a few hundred yards away and sleeps all day. So far we have not seen any decrease in our bear hunting success.
Cougar
We don't see as many cougar as we did years ago either. The liberal seasons are somewhat accomplishing what F&G wanted to accomplish, fewer lions. We still have good luck hunting when the weather cooperates, as you know the last few years has not been the best for cat hunting weather, the hounds don't do so well when its pouring down rain. For that reason I don't think the liberal seasons have been as effective as F&G would prefer. But I can tell you this for certain, the cougar density is higher in units in southern Idaho where quotas close the cougar season pretty quickly, I wished they would let us kill a few more cats in southern Idaho.
Elk
Compared to other elk zones the Panhandle still has the most elk, even though we think elk numbers are half or less in many areas, and overall hunter success has dropped, the Panhandle overall is still the top in Idaho for elk numbers and harvest. We see elk pretty much every day when we elk hunt, but again as I have explained to Idahohntr, we are pretty focused about where we elk hunt. The total amount of hunters in north Idaho is off the charts, there are a ton of hunters and a lot of them are not seeing many elk. There are certain herds we watch year around, these herds are all fewer than they were in the past, it's easy to get a pretty good count on them on winter range every year and compare from year to year. Our elk counts parallel with IDFG counts, the reason IDFG is actively hunting bear, cougar, and wolves and allowing multiple tags for each type of predator! Elk are pretty winter hardy, we don't see the big winter kills like deer sometimes have, we think the predator impact (including humans and wolves, there a a lot of both) is the main issue for elk numbers.
Deer
The bad winter a few years ago impacted the deer badly, it seemed we lost 2/3 of the deer herd that winter. We think they are slowly coming back, each year we are seeing more deer, we got quite a few more deer this year than the previous couple years. The deer herd seems to be more quickly impacted by winters than by predators, although the predator impact really slows the herd from rebuilding to their previous numbers.
Idaho guy there is a lot of value in your observations, you have hunted the same areas year after year for decades, we don't have as many years to compare observations as you do, and there is no doubt in my mind that hunting was better several decades ago before there were many wolves. Even though there is still some good hunting I certainly can see reductions during our more limited time in the area.
:tup: Thank you for detailed response. It’s interesting that your experience is same as mine on the lion study. It just doesn’t make sense based on what I have seen but I am just out there recreational hunting and you guys are out there full time as a job. Thanks for the response I respect your opinions. I would agree panhandle has good to great elk hunting still but a lot of areas have really been decimated. I’m glad we have outfitters like you operating in Idaho
Post by: bearpaw on January 07, 2021, 10:19:59 AM
@bearpaw The part where I said it was not directed at you was that I wanted to be clear I was not saying you were personally attacking hydro. Now that you have called him names, belittled him, and made personal attacks against him I withdraw that statement. I had hopes that you would encourage a more respectful discussion where people can disagree and debate without name calling and personal attacks. I see that is not the case.
As for your threats about discussing my career...I assume you are talking about my past education and experience as a fish biologist. I know you and some other folks have come up with some hilarious and false ideas of my past...I really liked the PM you sent me once where you had me pegged as someone who manufacturers feed troughs for WDFW. I no longer work as a biologist, but yes, I would agree many of my positions on wildlife management issues are informed by my background and education in fish and wildlife management. I believe my positions are more informed by many decades of hunting big game in every western state and being a 5th generation Idahoan - but no doubt my fish and wildlife degrees also shape my views.
I hope you have a good hunting season. I'm already looking forward to mine.
What I said was true, he discounted anyone who used their personal experiences but then uses his own personal experiences and admitted ODFG had not verified wolves in the area that he was using as an example, please google fu the meaning of hypocrisy!
Actually I don't remember any message accusing you of what you claim? Maybe it was another member?
Quote
Perhaps in my next post I will bring your career into this conversation and suggest how your career has impacted your opinion of wolves, I'm sure the members would enjoy that! We could both play that game!
That was a "what if" type of comment because you decided to bring my business into the conversation! You are responsible for doing that! I didn't actually offer any of your info, it's on you for providing your info to the members.
Additionally please remember, it was you who messaged me in the past regarding certain members offering personal info about you on the forum and I stopped it, maybe you forgot that.
Post by: Hydrophilic on January 07, 2021, 01:20:08 PM
@bearpaw The part where I said it was not directed at you was that I wanted to be clear I was not saying you were personally attacking hydro. Now that you have called him names, belittled him, and made personal attacks against him I withdraw that statement. I had hopes that you would encourage a more respectful discussion where people can disagree and debate without name calling and personal attacks. I see that is not the case.
As for your threats about discussing my career...I assume you are talking about my past education and experience as a fish biologist. I know you and some other folks have come up with some hilarious and false ideas of my past...I really liked the PM you sent me once where you had me pegged as someone who manufacturers feed troughs for WDFW. I no longer work as a biologist, but yes, I would agree many of my positions on wildlife management issues are informed by my background and education in fish and wildlife management. I believe my positions are more informed by many decades of hunting big game in every western state and being a 5th generation Idahoan - but no doubt my fish and wildlife degrees also shape my views.
I hope you have a good hunting season. I'm already looking forward to mine.
What's a guy like you doing hanging out in a place like this? :tup: Nice to meet you. One of my favorite books is written by a Washington fish biologist - Salmon without rivers. If you haven't read it I would highly recommend it, kinda grim.
Post by: Hydrophilic on January 07, 2021, 02:17:44 PM
@bearpaw The part where I said it was not directed at you was that I wanted to be clear I was not saying you were personally attacking hydro. Now that you have called him names, belittled him, and made personal attacks against him I withdraw that statement. I had hopes that you would encourage a more respectful discussion where people can disagree and debate without name calling and personal attacks. I see that is not the case.
As for your threats about discussing my career...I assume you are talking about my past education and experience as a fish biologist. I know you and some other folks have come up with some hilarious and false ideas of my past...I really liked the PM you sent me once where you had me pegged as someone who manufacturers feed troughs for WDFW. I no longer work as a biologist, but yes, I would agree many of my positions on wildlife management issues are informed by my background and education in fish and wildlife management. I believe my positions are more informed by many decades of hunting big game in every western state and being a 5th generation Idahoan - but no doubt my fish and wildlife degrees also shape my views.
I hope you have a good hunting season. I'm already looking forward to mine.
What I said was true, he discounted anyone who used their personal experiences but then uses his own personal experiences and admitted ODFG had not verified wolves in the area that he was using as an example, please google fu the meaning of hypocrisy!
Actually I don't remember any message accusing you of what you claim? Maybe it was another member?QuotePerhaps in my next post I will bring your career into this conversation and suggest how your career has impacted your opinion of wolves, I'm sure the members would enjoy that! We could both play that game!
That was a "what if" type of comment because you decided to bring my business into the conversation! You are responsible for doing that! I didn't actually offer any of your info, it's on you for providing your info to the members.
Additionally please remember, it was you who messaged me in the past regarding certain members offering personal info about you on the forum and I stopped it, maybe you forgot that.
You are confused about the content of this thread, almost everyone is using their personal experiences EXCLUSIVELY, despite my repeated attempts asking for data to support multiple blanket statements and hyperboles.
Rather than focusing on one statement I made regarding an "unverified" wolf pack, throw it out, and focus on the other statements I have made which clearly demonstrate growing elk populations cohabitated by wolves. There are many other scenarios where this is happening, elk herds are above MO, and the state is issuing extra antlerless tags or trying to figure out ways to reduce the population. Also scenarios where the wolves are in fact detrimental, in some cases very detrimental, and I could list data for that too...and I might as well because it would be a better use of my time to argue with myself, using data, than to argue with the hunters here who would like to manage the publics wildlife with their personal observations and emotions.
Post by: vandeman17 on January 07, 2021, 02:25:02 PM
@bearpaw The part where I said it was not directed at you was that I wanted to be clear I was not saying you were personally attacking hydro. Now that you have called him names, belittled him, and made personal attacks against him I withdraw that statement. I had hopes that you would encourage a more respectful discussion where people can disagree and debate without name calling and personal attacks. I see that is not the case.
As for your threats about discussing my career...I assume you are talking about my past education and experience as a fish biologist. I know you and some other folks have come up with some hilarious and false ideas of my past...I really liked the PM you sent me once where you had me pegged as someone who manufacturers feed troughs for WDFW. I no longer work as a biologist, but yes, I would agree many of my positions on wildlife management issues are informed by my background and education in fish and wildlife management. I believe my positions are more informed by many decades of hunting big game in every western state and being a 5th generation Idahoan - but no doubt my fish and wildlife degrees also shape my views.
I hope you have a good hunting season. I'm already looking forward to mine.
What I said was true, he discounted anyone who used their personal experiences but then uses his own personal experiences and admitted ODFG had not verified wolves in the area that he was using as an example, please google fu the meaning of hypocrisy!
Actually I don't remember any message accusing you of what you claim? Maybe it was another member?QuotePerhaps in my next post I will bring your career into this conversation and suggest how your career has impacted your opinion of wolves, I'm sure the members would enjoy that! We could both play that game!
That was a "what if" type of comment because you decided to bring my business into the conversation! You are responsible for doing that! I didn't actually offer any of your info, it's on you for providing your info to the members.
Additionally please remember, it was you who messaged me in the past regarding certain members offering personal info about you on the forum and I stopped it, maybe you forgot that.
You are confused about the content of this thread, almost everyone is using their personal experiences EXCLUSIVELY, despite my repeated attempts asking for data to support multiple blanket statements and hyperboles.
Rather than focusing on one statement I made regarding an "unverified" wolf pack, throw it out, and focus on the other statements I have made which clearly demonstrate growing elk populations cohabitated by wolves. There are many other scenarios where this is happening, elk herds are above MO, and the state is issuing extra antlerless tags or trying to figure out ways to reduce the population. Also scenarios where the wolves are in fact detrimental, in some cases very detrimental, and I could list data for that too...and I might as well because it would be a better use of my time to argue with myself, using data, than to argue with the hunters here who would like to manage the publics wildlife with their personal observations and emotions.
Best idea you have had so far
You keep preaching data but also say "Well fortunately federal land is geared toward multi use and placed in trust for all citizens, and our wildlife is also placed in trust for the public. It seems fitting to me the public having input on how their trust lands and wildlife are managed." Are you telling me that all the people voting for these things are basing their vote on data?
Post by: Platensek-po on January 07, 2021, 02:47:05 PM
Can you provide stable showing the populations of game animals and wolves over the last years from any area? Showing harvest numbers by themselves is proof of nothing other than what hunters self report. I know guys who lie on those reports every year. Is there actual data on population numbers? Also if scientists say that wolves are coming in naturally then why the need for introduction of wolves from outside? Also many scientists have expressed concern over the Mexican wolf that inhabits the southern portion of Colorado and is often killed by its larger cousins. Should they not have a chance of surviving and establishing a foothold before having larger wolves thrown on top of them? All of this from the mouths of biologists studying wolves. The fact of the matter is this was a decision not based on any science at all but on a ballot initiative, which I’m sure was not read by over half the people who voted on it. Also science has many times stated that wolves have met and exceeded their recovery goals in various locations yet they will not be delisted because of feelings. Do you agree with that posture? The major thing that most of the science doesn’t deal with is how to manage these populations to also coexist with humans and humans expansion. If you only manage one side of the predator prey dynamic then it’s going to be hard to have a balanced ecosystem.@bearpaw The part where I said it was not directed at you was that I wanted to be clear I was not saying you were personally attacking hydro. Now that you have called him names, belittled him, and made personal attacks against him I withdraw that statement. I had hopes that you would encourage a more respectful discussion where people can disagree and debate without name calling and personal attacks. I see that is not the case.
As for your threats about discussing my career...I assume you are talking about my past education and experience as a fish biologist. I know you and some other folks have come up with some hilarious and false ideas of my past...I really liked the PM you sent me once where you had me pegged as someone who manufacturers feed troughs for WDFW. I no longer work as a biologist, but yes, I would agree many of my positions on wildlife management issues are informed by my background and education in fish and wildlife management. I believe my positions are more informed by many decades of hunting big game in every western state and being a 5th generation Idahoan - but no doubt my fish and wildlife degrees also shape my views.
I hope you have a good hunting season. I'm already looking forward to mine.
What I said was true, he discounted anyone who used their personal experiences but then uses his own personal experiences and admitted ODFG had not verified wolves in the area that he was using as an example, please google fu the meaning of hypocrisy!
Actually I don't remember any message accusing you of what you claim? Maybe it was another member?QuotePerhaps in my next post I will bring your career into this conversation and suggest how your career has impacted your opinion of wolves, I'm sure the members would enjoy that! We could both play that game!
That was a "what if" type of comment because you decided to bring my business into the conversation! You are responsible for doing that! I didn't actually offer any of your info, it's on you for providing your info to the members.
Additionally please remember, it was you who messaged me in the past regarding certain members offering personal info about you on the forum and I stopped it, maybe you forgot that.
You are confused about the content of this thread, almost everyone is using their personal experiences EXCLUSIVELY, despite my repeated attempts asking for data to support multiple blanket statements and hyperboles.
Rather than focusing on one statement I made regarding an "unverified" wolf pack, throw it out, and focus on the other statements I have made which clearly demonstrate growing elk populations cohabitated by wolves. There are many other scenarios where this is happening, elk herds are above MO, and the state is issuing extra antlerless tags or trying to figure out ways to reduce the population. Also scenarios where the wolves are in fact detrimental, in some cases very detrimental, and I could list data for that too...and I might as well because it would be a better use of my time to argue with myself, using data, than to argue with the hunters here who would like to manage the publics wildlife with their personal observations and emotions.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 07, 2021, 04:01:02 PM
I can't imagine anyone cares about my background/education and I certainly don't see it as all that relevant. You will certainly never hear me discuss it as any kind of support for any argument I make. If you or others want to refer to it as to why I'm wrong (he's been indoctrinated by those liberal academics...) have at it. Again, I have no issue with sharing educational/professional background (as I posted earlier) - where I draw the line, and when I asked you to engage, is when former members were actively seeking to openly distribute my home address, name, phone, email etc. in an attempt to threaten and harass my family and I. I'm sure you stopped it because I have no doubt you and most others here, whether I disagree on any given topic or not, are decent human beings...all legal consequences aside.QuotePerhaps in my next post I will bring your career into this conversation and suggest how your career has impacted your opinion of wolves, I'm sure the members would enjoy that! We could both play that game!
That was a "what if" type of comment because you decided to bring my business into the conversation! You are responsible for doing that! I didn't actually offer any of your info, it's on you for providing your info to the members.
Additionally please remember, it was you who messaged me in the past regarding certain members offering personal info about you on the forum and I stopped it, maybe you forgot that.
I struggle to understand why you are defensive about mentioning your outfitting business. You own this forum, you own your outfitting website, you advertise your business on this forum. I certainly don't see any parallel to me mentioning a direct quote from your publicly advertised outfitting website as contradictory or hypocritical of my desire to not have personal details published which would enable crazies to illegally harass and threaten my family or I.
Post by: Miles on January 07, 2021, 04:18:49 PM
Post by: Brute on January 07, 2021, 04:26:25 PM
The newest troll stirs things up, then checks in occasionally to see to it that what he instigated is still progressing. Classic...
Nothing different here. He does the same thing on ifish :bash:
Post by: idaho guy on January 07, 2021, 04:28:57 PM
The newest troll stirs things up, then checks in occasionally to see to it that what he instigated is still progressing. Classic...
:yeah: Uses same argument and dishonest talking points they have been spewing for 25 years in Idaho. I said I was out on this but I can’t quit checking :chuckle I’m not going to argue the obvious with hydro or idahohunter anymore though.
Post by: KFhunter on January 07, 2021, 04:56:25 PM
Trust me, they won't change their mind or learn a dam thing. I been arguing with IDH for YEARSThe newest troll stirs things up, then checks in occasionally to see to it that what he instigated is still progressing. Classic...
:yeah: Uses same argument and dishonest talking points they have been spewing for 25 years in Idaho. I said I was out on this but I can’t quit checking :chuckle I’m not going to argue the obvious with hydro or idahohunter anymore though.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on January 07, 2021, 05:28:14 PM
I can't imagine anyone cares about my background/education and I certainly don't see it as all that relevant. You will certainly never hear me discuss it as any kind of support for any argument I make. If you or others want to refer to it as to why I'm wrong (he's been indoctrinated by those liberal academics...) have at it. Again, I have no issue with sharing educational/professional background (as I posted earlier) - where I draw the line, and when I asked you to engage, is when former members were actively seeking to openly distribute my home address, name, phone, email etc. in an attempt to threaten and harass my family and I. I'm sure you stopped it because I have no doubt you and most others here, whether I disagree on any given topic or not, are decent human beings...all legal consequences aside.QuotePerhaps in my next post I will bring your career into this conversation and suggest how your career has impacted your opinion of wolves, I'm sure the members would enjoy that! We could both play that game!
That was a "what if" type of comment because you decided to bring my business into the conversation! You are responsible for doing that! I didn't actually offer any of your info, it's on you for providing your info to the members.
Additionally please remember, it was you who messaged me in the past regarding certain members offering personal info about you on the forum and I stopped it, maybe you forgot that.
I struggle to understand why you are defensive about mentioning your outfitting business. You own this forum, you own your outfitting website, you advertise your business on this forum. I certainly don't see any parallel to me mentioning a direct quote from your publicly advertised outfitting website as contradictory or hypocritical of my desire to not have personal details published which would enable crazies to illegally harass and threaten my family or I.
I could care less if my business is mentioned, I advertise widely. Your twisting of my business info to benefit your narrative becomes a problem, but you know that already, so you can drop the innocent act!
I don't remember your family being threatened, but none the less we don't allow members to share private info publicly about other members. Even though we disagree on many issues I respect everyone's privacy if they choose to remain anonymous, I have said nothing about your past or current career.
Our fall/winter season is still ongoing so I need to go. I'll let the rest of you wrestle around with the Colorado wolf discussion.
Post by: Hydrophilic on January 07, 2021, 08:55:44 PM
Can you provide stable showing the populations of game animals and wolves over the last years from any area? Showing harvest numbers by themselves is proof of nothing other than what hunters self report. I know guys who lie on those reports every year. Is there actual data on population numbers? Also if scientists say that wolves are coming in naturally then why the need for introduction of wolves from outside? Also many scientists have expressed concern over the Mexican wolf that inhabits the southern portion of Colorado and is often killed by its larger cousins. Should they not have a chance of surviving and establishing a foothold before having larger wolves thrown on top of them? All of this from the mouths of biologists studying wolves. The fact of the matter is this was a decision not based on any science at all but on a ballot initiative, which I’m sure was not read by over half the people who voted on it. Also science has many times stated that wolves have met and exceeded their recovery goals in various locations yet they will not be delisted because of feelings. Do you agree with that posture? The major thing that most of the science doesn’t deal with is how to manage these populations to also coexist with humans and humans expansion. If you only manage one side of the predator prey dynamic then it’s going to be hard to have a balanced ecosystem.@bearpaw The part where I said it was not directed at you was that I wanted to be clear I was not saying you were personally attacking hydro. Now that you have called him names, belittled him, and made personal attacks against him I withdraw that statement. I had hopes that you would encourage a more respectful discussion where people can disagree and debate without name calling and personal attacks. I see that is not the case.
As for your threats about discussing my career...I assume you are talking about my past education and experience as a fish biologist. I know you and some other folks have come up with some hilarious and false ideas of my past...I really liked the PM you sent me once where you had me pegged as someone who manufacturers feed troughs for WDFW. I no longer work as a biologist, but yes, I would agree many of my positions on wildlife management issues are informed by my background and education in fish and wildlife management. I believe my positions are more informed by many decades of hunting big game in every western state and being a 5th generation Idahoan - but no doubt my fish and wildlife degrees also shape my views.
I hope you have a good hunting season. I'm already looking forward to mine.
What I said was true, he discounted anyone who used their personal experiences but then uses his own personal experiences and admitted ODFG had not verified wolves in the area that he was using as an example, please google fu the meaning of hypocrisy!
Actually I don't remember any message accusing you of what you claim? Maybe it was another member?QuotePerhaps in my next post I will bring your career into this conversation and suggest how your career has impacted your opinion of wolves, I'm sure the members would enjoy that! We could both play that game!
That was a "what if" type of comment because you decided to bring my business into the conversation! You are responsible for doing that! I didn't actually offer any of your info, it's on you for providing your info to the members.
Additionally please remember, it was you who messaged me in the past regarding certain members offering personal info about you on the forum and I stopped it, maybe you forgot that.
You are confused about the content of this thread, almost everyone is using their personal experiences EXCLUSIVELY, despite my repeated attempts asking for data to support multiple blanket statements and hyperboles.
Rather than focusing on one statement I made regarding an "unverified" wolf pack, throw it out, and focus on the other statements I have made which clearly demonstrate growing elk populations cohabitated by wolves. There are many other scenarios where this is happening, elk herds are above MO, and the state is issuing extra antlerless tags or trying to figure out ways to reduce the population. Also scenarios where the wolves are in fact detrimental, in some cases very detrimental, and I could list data for that too...and I might as well because it would be a better use of my time to argue with myself, using data, than to argue with the hunters here who would like to manage the publics wildlife with their personal observations and emotions.
I've already done that in this thread, minus the wolf info. But I will repost it for you, with the wolf info. And I will add some goodies at the end from other states.
Walla Walla
2002: 1,500
2005: 1,450
2008: 1,500
2011: 1,500
2014: 1,690
2016: 1,700
2019: 1,700
Minam
2002: 1,800
2005: 2,000
2008: 2,100
2011: 2,100
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,500
2019: 2,500
Wenaha
2002: 1300
2005: 1350
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
2019: 2,700
Source: ODFW
Direct link showing INCREASING wolf numbers for each unit.
https://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/population.asp
Do you believe in having a fair conversation? Or are you simply going to cover your eyes and start attacking the messenger pigeon like everyone else here? I can go away, but that doesn't mean the data will.
Idaho Elk population
1995 (year wolves were reintroduced): 112,333
Current: 120,000
Source: IDFG
Post by: idaho guy on January 07, 2021, 09:28:39 PM
Trust me, they won't change their mind or learn a dam thing. I been arguing with IDH for YEARSThe newest troll stirs things up, then checks in occasionally to see to it that what he instigated is still progressing. Classic...
:yeah: Uses same argument and dishonest talking points they have been spewing for 25 years in Idaho. I said I was out on this but I can’t quit checking :chuckle I’m not going to argue the obvious with hydro or idahohunter anymore though.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Me too I guess I’m a slow learner :chuckle:
Post by: Platensek-po on January 07, 2021, 09:34:46 PM
Wenaha went from 2600 to 1350 in the last 4 years with an objective of 4K.
Minam went from 2600 to 1700 in the last 5 years and has objective of 7k.
Walla walla declined from 1900 to 1500 with an objective of 1900.
Also that same data says that walla walla has a 100% fawn winter survival rate.
That’s gotta be good data.
Also keep in mind those numbers are all estimated.
Wenaha has a management objective of 4K for elk in that unit. It’s currently half that.
The calf to cow ratio in minam and wenaha has gone down. As has the ratio of calf to cows for Roosevelt elk in general.
So looking at the data put forth by ODFW there are places where the elk are now above MO and places that are well below. Would be interesting to see a correlation of ag or private land vs wild.
https://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/2019_Oregon_Wolf_Plan.pdf
In the odfw wolf management plan they state they have reached the management objective in the eastern part of the state and according to their own numbers are 3 times above the population goal for the area they inhabit. So by their own admission they are above objective and they also state that human take could increase by 5 to 10 percent without causing a population decline. Meaning they could have a hunting and trapping season to manage The population that is above population goals but they don’t. In their management plan I found no mention of civilian control of population at all. Curious as they admitted to having multiple problems with wolf interactions. They also state the goal to manage wolves like other game animals in the state but they are not doing that. So they are not even sticking to their own management plan. Montana and Idaho have stable wolf populations even with hunting and trapping. So why not include that as a management plan for a species that is 3x above its population numbers?
Post by: Hydrophilic on January 07, 2021, 09:48:23 PM
Did you look at the data for mule deer populations in those units???
Wenaha went from 2600 to 1350 in the last 4 years with an objective of 4K.
Minam went from 2600 to 1700 in the last 5 years and has objective of 7k.
Walla walla declined from 1900 to 1500 with an objective of 1900.
Also that same data says that walla walla has a 100% fawn winter survival rate.
That’s gotta be good data.
Also keep in mind those numbers are all estimated.
Wenaha has a management objective of 4K for elk in that unit. It’s currently half that.
The calf to cow ratio in minam and wenaha has gone down. As has the ratio of calf to cows for Roosevelt elk in general.
So looking at the data put forth by ODFW there are places where the elk are now above MO and places that are well below. Would be interesting to see a correlation of ag or private land vs wild.
https://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/2019_Oregon_Wolf_Plan.pdf
In the odfw wolf management plan they state they have reached the management objective in the eastern part of the state and according to their own numbers are 3 times above the population goal for the area they inhabit. So by their own admission they are above objective and they also state that human take could increase by 5 to 10 percent without causing a population decline. Meaning they could have a hunting and trapping season to manage The population that is above population goals but they don’t. In their management plan I found no mention of civilian control of population at all. Curious as they admitted to having multiple problems with wolf interactions. They also state the goal to manage wolves like other game animals in the state but they are not doing that. So they are not even sticking to their own management plan. Montana and Idaho have stable wolf populations even with hunting and trapping. So why not include that as a management plan for a species that is 3x above its population numbers?
And what about Zebra in Africa? Mule Deer are an entirely different conversation.
Wenaha has had a large elk MO for a long time, it doesn't mean the herd is unhealthy, it means there is a Management objective for where they would like the herd to be, depending on many situations. Quality hunting opportunity, land owner complaints, over browsing sensitive habitat, etc. Wenaha used to have a pretty lousy elk population way back when...decades before the wolves. It has been increasing steadily.
Please, what are your thoughts on increasing elk populations in those 3 units with wolf populations? What are your thoughts on Idahos current elk population compared to the 1995 elk population when wolves were reintroduced. And what are your thoughts on record levels of elk harvest in Idaho - "For the sixth straight year, Idaho elk hunters harvested more than 20,000 elk, good for the second best stretch in the state's history"? Don't dodge me. Let's have a discussion.
Idaho Elk population
1995 (year wolves were reintroduced): 112,333
Current: 120,000
Source: IDFG
Post by: Platensek-po on January 07, 2021, 10:08:27 PM
Did you look at the data for mule deer populations in those units???
Wenaha went from 2600 to 1350 in the last 4 years with an objective of 4K.
Minam went from 2600 to 1700 in the last 5 years and has objective of 7k.
Walla walla declined from 1900 to 1500 with an objective of 1900.
Also that same data says that walla walla has a 100% fawn winter survival rate.
That’s gotta be good data.
Also keep in mind those numbers are all estimated.
Wenaha has a management objective of 4K for elk in that unit. It’s currently half that.
The calf to cow ratio in minam and wenaha has gone down. As has the ratio of calf to cows for Roosevelt elk in general.
So looking at the data put forth by ODFW there are places where the elk are now above MO and places that are well below. Would be interesting to see a correlation of ag or private land vs wild.
https://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/2019_Oregon_Wolf_Plan.pdf
In the odfw wolf management plan they state they have reached the management objective in the eastern part of the state and according to their own numbers are 3 times above the population goal for the area they inhabit. So by their own admission they are above objective and they also state that human take could increase by 5 to 10 percent without causing a population decline. Meaning they could have a hunting and trapping season to manage The population that is above population goals but they don’t. In their management plan I found no mention of civilian control of population at all. Curious as they admitted to having multiple problems with wolf interactions. They also state the goal to manage wolves like other game animals in the state but they are not doing that. So they are not even sticking to their own management plan. Montana and Idaho have stable wolf populations even with hunting and trapping. So why not include that as a management plan for a species that is 3x above its population numbers?
And what about Zebra in Africa? Mule Deer are an entirely different conversation.
Wenaha has had a large elk MO for a long time, it doesn't mean the herd is unhealthy, it means there is a Management objective for where they would like the herd to be, depending on many situations. Quality hunting opportunity, land owner complaints, over browsing sensitive habitat, etc. Wenaha used to have a pretty lousy elk population way back when...decades before the wolves. It has been increasing steadily.
Please, what are your thoughts on increasing elk populations in those 3 units with wolf populations? What are your thoughts on Idahos current elk population compared to the 1995 elk population when wolves were reintroduced. And what are your thoughts on record levels of elk harvest in Idaho - "For the sixth straight year, Idaho elk hunters harvested more than 20,000 elk, good for the second best stretch in the state's history"? Don't dodge me. Let's have a discussion.
I’m sorry I guess I didn’t realize that wolves don’t eat mule deer. I said it before and I’ll tell you again. Harvest numbers are not scientific. They are based on self reporting by hunters. There are a bunch of factors that can increase harvest numbers. License sales increase, better opportunity because of elk being pressured into more accessible areas. Let’s look at the actual data from ODFW. Did you notice that the bull and calf to cow ratios are down? Meaning that the weakest members are being picked off creating a different herd dynamic. Again do you believe that mule deer fawns had a 100% survival rate in walla walla for 5 straight years? ODFW does. Why are you dodging me on the population numbers of wolves and their management objective? It clearly states they have 158 wolves and their objective is 48-49. Are we talking about IDaho or Oregon or Colorado? You want to talk data but then dismiss other data put forth from the same source. I asked you about scientists asking for a natural migration of wolves into Colorado instead of a forced introduction and.... it would seem you are dodging me not vice versa. Idaho also manages its populations and has a steady population of wolves. Pregón admits to having more wolves than their objective but doesn’t touch them. Did you even read the management plan??
Post by: ne kid on January 08, 2021, 12:05:40 AM
Post by: Miles on January 08, 2021, 06:50:25 AM
I laugh at all these government statistics from "educated " people. That right now are arguing over how many genders there are. :chuckle:
Exactly!
Post by: vandeman17 on January 08, 2021, 08:39:35 AM
Post by: KFhunter on January 08, 2021, 08:41:45 AM
Hey Hydro, still waiting for you to answer my question. If game animals are owned by the voters and thus, the decisions on their management done per ballot initiatives, are you assuming those same voters study data?And if those same voters decide they don't want anymore wolves at all, should they be allowed by voter initive to kill em all?
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: vandeman17 on January 08, 2021, 08:43:12 AM
Hey Hydro, still waiting for you to answer my question. If game animals are owned by the voters and thus, the decisions on their management done per ballot initiatives, are you assuming those same voters study data?And if those same voters decide they don't want anymore wolves at all, should they be allowed by voter initive to kill em all?
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Exactly!
Post by: Miles on January 08, 2021, 09:11:25 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 08, 2021, 10:15:29 AM
How the voters want to manage their wildlife is policy - and whether its science/data based or not is irrelevant. Voters could absolutely change the policy on wolves or any wildlife or any other public resource.
Science and data do not set/decide policy...science and data inform policy and management. Once there is an established policy, science can inform how best to achieve such policy, giving information on costs/benefits/risks/consequences etc.
Example:
Voters, through initiative and/or selection of elected officials, decide they don't want wolves.
Policy = no more wolves (per initiative, or modification of all the necessary state and federal laws)
Science = how best to eradicate wolves (poison, trap, aerial gunning...what are the costs, efficacy, risks of each method etc.)
Post by: vandeman17 on January 08, 2021, 10:17:24 AM
Again, don't confuse science with policy.
How the voters want to manage their wildlife is policy - and whether its science/data based or not is irrelevant. Voters could absolutely change the policy on wolves or any wildlife or any other public resource.
Science and data do not set/decide policy...science and data inform policy and management. Once there is an established policy, science can inform how best to achieve such policy, giving information on costs/benefits/risks/consequences etc.
Example:
Voters, through initiative and/or selection of elected officials, decide they don't want wolves.
Policy = no more wolves (per initiative, or modification of all the necessary state and federal laws)
Science = how best to eradicate wolves (poison, trap, aerial gunning...what are the costs, efficacy, risks of each method etc.)
Then why would one continue to present data as their justification for introduction of wolves?
Post by: idahohuntr on January 08, 2021, 10:40:47 AM
For all the same reasons people present data as their justification for not introducing wolves.Again, don't confuse science with policy.
How the voters want to manage their wildlife is policy - and whether its science/data based or not is irrelevant. Voters could absolutely change the policy on wolves or any wildlife or any other public resource.
Science and data do not set/decide policy...science and data inform policy and management. Once there is an established policy, science can inform how best to achieve such policy, giving information on costs/benefits/risks/consequences etc.
Example:
Voters, through initiative and/or selection of elected officials, decide they don't want wolves.
Policy = no more wolves (per initiative, or modification of all the necessary state and federal laws)
Science = how best to eradicate wolves (poison, trap, aerial gunning...what are the costs, efficacy, risks of each method etc.)
Then why would one continue to present data as their justification for introduction of wolves?
Post by: vandeman17 on January 08, 2021, 10:45:26 AM
For all the same reasons people present data as their justification for not introducing wolves.Again, don't confuse science with policy.
How the voters want to manage their wildlife is policy - and whether its science/data based or not is irrelevant. Voters could absolutely change the policy on wolves or any wildlife or any other public resource.
Science and data do not set/decide policy...science and data inform policy and management. Once there is an established policy, science can inform how best to achieve such policy, giving information on costs/benefits/risks/consequences etc.
Example:
Voters, through initiative and/or selection of elected officials, decide they don't want wolves.
Policy = no more wolves (per initiative, or modification of all the necessary state and federal laws)
Science = how best to eradicate wolves (poison, trap, aerial gunning...what are the costs, efficacy, risks of each method etc.)
Then why would one continue to present data as their justification for introduction of wolves?
Majority of voters don't educate themselves on stats, no matter what side of the aisle they sit on, especially on items like these where they have little to no skin in the game. :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on January 08, 2021, 10:55:04 AM
For all the same reasons people present data as their justification for not introducing wolves.Again, don't confuse science with policy.
How the voters want to manage their wildlife is policy - and whether its science/data based or not is irrelevant. Voters could absolutely change the policy on wolves or any wildlife or any other public resource.
Science and data do not set/decide policy...science and data inform policy and management. Once there is an established policy, science can inform how best to achieve such policy, giving information on costs/benefits/risks/consequences etc.
Example:
Voters, through initiative and/or selection of elected officials, decide they don't want wolves.
Policy = no more wolves (per initiative, or modification of all the necessary state and federal laws)
Science = how best to eradicate wolves (poison, trap, aerial gunning...what are the costs, efficacy, risks of each method etc.)
Then why would one continue to present data as their justification for introduction of wolves?
Majority of voters don't educate themselves on stats, no matter what side of the aisle they sit on, especially on items like these where they have little to no skin in the game. :twocents:
:chuckle:
Hence my initial statement: How the voters want to manage their wildlife is policy - and whether its science/data based or not is irrelevant. :tup:
Post by: vandeman17 on January 08, 2021, 10:57:34 AM
For all the same reasons people present data as their justification for not introducing wolves.Again, don't confuse science with policy.
How the voters want to manage their wildlife is policy - and whether its science/data based or not is irrelevant. Voters could absolutely change the policy on wolves or any wildlife or any other public resource.
Science and data do not set/decide policy...science and data inform policy and management. Once there is an established policy, science can inform how best to achieve such policy, giving information on costs/benefits/risks/consequences etc.
Example:
Voters, through initiative and/or selection of elected officials, decide they don't want wolves.
Policy = no more wolves (per initiative, or modification of all the necessary state and federal laws)
Science = how best to eradicate wolves (poison, trap, aerial gunning...what are the costs, efficacy, risks of each method etc.)
Then why would one continue to present data as their justification for introduction of wolves?
Majority of voters don't educate themselves on stats, no matter what side of the aisle they sit on, especially on items like these where they have little to no skin in the game. :twocents:
:chuckle:
Hence my initial statement: How the voters want to manage their wildlife is policy - and whether its science/data based or not is irrelevant. :tup:
exactly so when our personal, first hand experiences with how wolves are impacting areas we hunt are being discounted and "data" is the rebuttal, its garbage.
Post by: Platensek-po on January 08, 2021, 11:14:59 AM
For all the same reasons people present data as their justification for not introducing wolves.Again, don't confuse science with policy.
How the voters want to manage their wildlife is policy - and whether its science/data based or not is irrelevant. Voters could absolutely change the policy on wolves or any wildlife or any other public resource.
Science and data do not set/decide policy...science and data inform policy and management. Once there is an established policy, science can inform how best to achieve such policy, giving information on costs/benefits/risks/consequences etc.
Example:
Voters, through initiative and/or selection of elected officials, decide they don't want wolves.
Policy = no more wolves (per initiative, or modification of all the necessary state and federal laws)
Science = how best to eradicate wolves (poison, trap, aerial gunning...what are the costs, efficacy, risks of each method etc.)
Then why would one continue to present data as their justification for introduction of wolves?
Majority of voters don't educate themselves on stats, no matter what side of the aisle they sit on, especially on items like these where they have little to no skin in the game. :twocents:
:chuckle:
Hence my initial statement: How the voters want to manage their wildlife is policy - and whether its science/data based or not is irrelevant. :tup:
exactly so when our personal, first hand experiences with how wolves are impacting areas we hunt are being discounted and "data" is the rebuttal, its garbage.
Not to mention that the science and data suggested that introduction of wolves is unnecessary is Colorado and could even be detrimental to the Mexican wolf population.
Post by: ribka on January 08, 2021, 02:06:29 PM
https://earthjustice.org/blog/2015-july/how-wolves-saved-the-foxes-mice-and-rivers-of-yellowstone-national-park
:chuckle: :chuckle:
Again, don't confuse science with policy.
How the voters want to manage their wildlife is policy - and whether its science/data based or not is irrelevant. Voters could absolutely change the policy on wolves or any wildlife or any other public resource.
Science and data do not set/decide policy...science and data inform policy and management. Once there is an established policy, science can inform how best to achieve such policy, giving information on costs/benefits/risks/consequences etc.
Example:
Voters, through initiative and/or selection of elected officials, decide they don't want wolves.
Policy = no more wolves (per initiative, or modification of all the necessary state and federal laws)
Science = how best to eradicate wolves (poison, trap, aerial gunning...what are the costs, efficacy, risks of each method etc.)
Post by: ribka on January 08, 2021, 02:12:15 PM
Why are you targeting an over pressured and endangered endangered fish like steelhead? Sounds pretty selfish an arrogant to me. These precious and beautiful fish belong to everyone from Portland to Miami. Remember Roosevelt's legacy please.
Leave them alone and let them recovers. There are plenty of lakes with stocked trout. sheesh
He's right about personal attacks, if nothing else highside
You hunt Oregon hydro? From your avatar it looks like it going off elk species and understory.
You've got *a lot* to learn about wolves.
I appreciate your passion for the outdoors, but you're about 10 years behind E Washington and 15 behind Idaho.
You could learn here, or you could piss everyone off. Your choice.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Yes, I’m in Oregon and hunt a few other states as well.
I’m open to learning and I hope everyone else here is as well. All I ask for are decent citations and critical thought.
Whether I piss everyone off is of no concern to me. If hunters get mad at facts and observations that is their problem and not my own. I have a folder of studies used by state wildlife agencies to dictate their management decisions, or personal opinions. If hunters want science, I can do science. If this is a science based management forum, as a couple posters have claimed, then hopefully the cognitive dissonance is kept to a minimum.
About me: I chase 20 lb steelhead, big morels, big elk, and big deer. But I’m happy with 10 lb steelhead, small morels, small elk, and small deer. I love the outdoors. Cheers.
Post by: Hydrophilic on January 08, 2021, 06:31:45 PM
Did you look at the data for mule deer populations in those units???
Wenaha went from 2600 to 1350 in the last 4 years with an objective of 4K.
Minam went from 2600 to 1700 in the last 5 years and has objective of 7k.
Walla walla declined from 1900 to 1500 with an objective of 1900.
Also that same data says that walla walla has a 100% fawn winter survival rate.
That’s gotta be good data.
Also keep in mind those numbers are all estimated.
Wenaha has a management objective of 4K for elk in that unit. It’s currently half that.
The calf to cow ratio in minam and wenaha has gone down. As has the ratio of calf to cows for Roosevelt elk in general.
So looking at the data put forth by ODFW there are places where the elk are now above MO and places that are well below. Would be interesting to see a correlation of ag or private land vs wild.
https://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/2019_Oregon_Wolf_Plan.pdf
In the odfw wolf management plan they state they have reached the management objective in the eastern part of the state and according to their own numbers are 3 times above the population goal for the area they inhabit. So by their own admission they are above objective and they also state that human take could increase by 5 to 10 percent without causing a population decline. Meaning they could have a hunting and trapping season to manage The population that is above population goals but they don’t. In their management plan I found no mention of civilian control of population at all. Curious as they admitted to having multiple problems with wolf interactions. They also state the goal to manage wolves like other game animals in the state but they are not doing that. So they are not even sticking to their own management plan. Montana and Idaho have stable wolf populations even with hunting and trapping. So why not include that as a management plan for a species that is 3x above its population numbers?
And what about Zebra in Africa? Mule Deer are an entirely different conversation.
Wenaha has had a large elk MO for a long time, it doesn't mean the herd is unhealthy, it means there is a Management objective for where they would like the herd to be, depending on many situations. Quality hunting opportunity, land owner complaints, over browsing sensitive habitat, etc. Wenaha used to have a pretty lousy elk population way back when...decades before the wolves. It has been increasing steadily.
Please, what are your thoughts on increasing elk populations in those 3 units with wolf populations? What are your thoughts on Idahos current elk population compared to the 1995 elk population when wolves were reintroduced. And what are your thoughts on record levels of elk harvest in Idaho - "For the sixth straight year, Idaho elk hunters harvested more than 20,000 elk, good for the second best stretch in the state's history"? Don't dodge me. Let's have a discussion.
I’m sorry I guess I didn’t realize that wolves don’t eat mule deer. I said it before and I’ll tell you again. Harvest numbers are not scientific. They are based on self reporting by hunters. There are a bunch of factors that can increase harvest numbers. License sales increase, better opportunity because of elk being pressured into more accessible areas. Let’s look at the actual data from ODFW. Did you notice that the bull and calf to cow ratios are down? Meaning that the weakest members are being picked off creating a different herd dynamic. Again do you believe that mule deer fawns had a 100% survival rate in walla walla for 5 straight years? ODFW does. Why are you dodging me on the population numbers of wolves and their management objective? It clearly states they have 158 wolves and their objective is 48-49. Are we talking about IDaho or Oregon or Colorado? You want to talk data but then dismiss other data put forth from the same source. I asked you about scientists asking for a natural migration of wolves into Colorado instead of a forced introduction and.... it would seem you are dodging me not vice versa. Idaho also manages its populations and has a steady population of wolves. Pregón admits to having more wolves than their objective but doesn’t touch them. Did you even read the management plan??
I'll be glad to talk about Mule deer later but first we need to resolve our conversation about elk because so much misinformation is spread here it should be illegal and against the AUP.
Did you read the data I provided? I included population numbers, not just harvest numbers. I can only do so much aside from holding your eyes open to make you read the data which I am getting directly from each states Fish and Game dept.
I'll just start lugging all of it around on all of my posts until someone reads it. Maybe I'll add Wyoming as well, just because I'm feeling nice tonight.
I am not intending to dodge your wolf data. If a state has a management objective for wolves then it is reasonable to follow it, I am fine with that and I argued against an environmental group who tried to weasel out of the wolf plan they helped design some years earlier. This Elk herd in Montana is 800% over MO, it needs to be managed too.
https://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/snowy-mountains-elk-herd-800-over-population-shows-montanas-challenge-managing-elk/article_161227e0-0ba1-5cf8-8235-a12d34666536.html
MY DATA - PLEASE READ AND RESPOND
Oregon
Walla Walla
2002: 1,500
2005: 1,450
2008: 1,500
2011: 1,500
2014: 1,690
2016: 1,700
2019: 1,700
Minam
2002: 1,800
2005: 2,000
2008: 2,100
2011: 2,100
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,500
2019: 2,500
Wenaha
2002: 1300
2005: 1350
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
2019: 2,700
THIS INCREASE IN ELK HAS BEEN ACCOMPANIED BY INCREASING WOLVES
https://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/population.asp
Source: ODFW
--------------------
Idaho
Elk population
1995 (year wolves were reintroduced): 112,333
Current: 120,000
Source: IDFG
---------------------
Wyoming
Elk Population
2004: 88,614
2020: 112,900
Source: WGFD (also attached below)
2020 article proclaiming "The Decade of Elk" in Wyoming
https://capcity.news/latest-news/2020/09/22/decade-of-the-elk-for-hunters-as-herds-top-goals-by-32/
Post by: KFhunter on January 08, 2021, 08:14:33 PM
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: h20hunter on January 08, 2021, 08:19:19 PM
"You are wasting your time here"
Post by: idaho guy on January 08, 2021, 08:35:47 PM
Did you look at the data for mule deer populations in those units???
Wenaha went from 2600 to 1350 in the last 4 years with an objective of 4K.
Minam went from 2600 to 1700 in the last 5 years and has objective of 7k.
Walla walla declined from 1900 to 1500 with an objective of 1900.
Also that same data says that walla walla has a 100% fawn winter survival rate.
That’s gotta be good data.
Also keep in mind those numbers are all estimated.
Wenaha has a management objective of 4K for elk in that unit. It’s currently half that.
The calf to cow ratio in minam and wenaha has gone down. As has the ratio of calf to cows for Roosevelt elk in general.
So looking at the data put forth by ODFW there are places where the elk are now above MO and places that are well below. Would be interesting to see a correlation of ag or private land vs wild.
https://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/2019_Oregon_Wolf_Plan.pdf
In the odfw wolf management plan they state they have reached the management objective in the eastern part of the state and according to their own numbers are 3 times above the population goal for the area they inhabit. So by their own admission they are above objective and they also state that human take could increase by 5 to 10 percent without causing a population decline. Meaning they could have a hunting and trapping season to manage The population that is above population goals but they don’t. In their management plan I found no mention of civilian control of population at all. Curious as they admitted to having multiple problems with wolf interactions. They also state the goal to manage wolves like other game animals in the state but they are not doing that. So they are not even sticking to their own management plan. Montana and Idaho have stable wolf populations even with hunting and trapping. So why not include that as a management plan for a species that is 3x above its population numbers?
And what about Zebra in Africa? Mule Deer are an entirely different conversation.
Wenaha has had a large elk MO for a long time, it doesn't mean the herd is unhealthy, it means there is a Management objective for where they would like the herd to be, depending on many situations. Quality hunting opportunity, land owner complaints, over browsing sensitive habitat, etc. Wenaha used to have a pretty lousy elk population way back when...decades before the wolves. It has been increasing steadily.
Please, what are your thoughts on increasing elk populations in those 3 units with wolf populations? What are your thoughts on Idahos current elk population compared to the 1995 elk population when wolves were reintroduced. And what are your thoughts on record levels of elk harvest in Idaho - "For the sixth straight year, Idaho elk hunters harvested more than 20,000 elk, good for the second best stretch in the state's history"? Don't dodge me. Let's have a discussion.
Idaho Elk population
1995 (year wolves were reintroduced): 112,333
Current: 120,000
Source: IDFG
Thats too stupid so I’m back in. Wow your harvest graphs are an excellent example of the exact effects wolves had on success rates in Idaho. 1994 record harvest 30000 elk. 2011 15000 elk harvested exactly a 50 percent decline. What changed wolves had been in and spread throughout Idaho. 2019 back to 20000 elk harvested. Again what changed ? Agressive hunting and trapping of wolves. We went from a short season with a few tags to someplaces a year around steady with a combined 30 tags available for hunting and trapping. Thanks for posting the excellent examples of exactly what wolves did to success rates before they were managed aggressively and after the whole story is there in your graphs. Total elk population means less than you think when talking wolf impact. Probably half of Idaho elk live on or near private land now.(post wolves) You want to have a serious debate on elk populations with the presence of wolves study the wilderness zones like the selway. Wolves are harder to trap because of remoteness and the elk populations have plummeted. Look at unit 7 and 9 in the panhandle which is also more remote. Thanks for proving my point on our experience with wolves here in Idaho :tup:
Post by: idaho guy on January 08, 2021, 08:45:50 PM
Did you look at the data for mule deer populations in those units???
Wenaha went from 2600 to 1350 in the last 4 years with an objective of 4K.
Minam went from 2600 to 1700 in the last 5 years and has objective of 7k.
Walla walla declined from 1900 to 1500 with an objective of 1900.
Also that same data says that walla walla has a 100% fawn winter survival rate.
That’s gotta be good data.
Also keep in mind those numbers are all estimated.
Wenaha has a management objective of 4K for elk in that unit. It’s currently half that.
The calf to cow ratio in minam and wenaha has gone down. As has the ratio of calf to cows for Roosevelt elk in general.
So looking at the data put forth by ODFW there are places where the elk are now above MO and places that are well below. Would be interesting to see a correlation of ag or private land vs wild.
https://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/2019_Oregon_Wolf_Plan.pdf
In the odfw wolf management plan they state they have reached the management objective in the eastern part of the state and according to their own numbers are 3 times above the population goal for the area they inhabit. So by their own admission they are above objective and they also state that human take could increase by 5 to 10 percent without causing a population decline. Meaning they could have a hunting and trapping season to manage The population that is above population goals but they don’t. In their management plan I found no mention of civilian control of population at all. Curious as they admitted to having multiple problems with wolf interactions. They also state the goal to manage wolves like other game animals in the state but they are not doing that. So they are not even sticking to their own management plan. Montana and Idaho have stable wolf populations even with hunting and trapping. So why not include that as a management plan for a species that is 3x above its population numbers?
And what about Zebra in Africa? Mule Deer are an entirely different conversation.
Wenaha has had a large elk MO for a long time, it doesn't mean the herd is unhealthy, it means there is a Management objective for where they would like the herd to be, depending on many situations. Quality hunting opportunity, land owner complaints, over browsing sensitive habitat, etc. Wenaha used to have a pretty lousy elk population way back when...decades before the wolves. It has been increasing steadily.
Please, what are your thoughts on increasing elk populations in those 3 units with wolf populations? What are your thoughts on Idahos current elk population compared to the 1995 elk population when wolves were reintroduced. And what are your thoughts on record levels of elk harvest in Idaho - "For the sixth straight year, Idaho elk hunters harvested more than 20,000 elk, good for the second best stretch in the state's history"? Don't dodge me. Let's have a discussion.
I’m sorry I guess I didn’t realize that wolves don’t eat mule deer. I said it before and I’ll tell you again. Harvest numbers are not scientific. They are based on self reporting by hunters. There are a bunch of factors that can increase harvest numbers. License sales increase, better opportunity because of elk being pressured into more accessible areas. Let’s look at the actual data from ODFW. Did you notice that the bull and calf to cow ratios are down? Meaning that the weakest members are being picked off creating a different herd dynamic. Again do you believe that mule deer fawns had a 100% survival rate in walla walla for 5 straight years? ODFW does. Why are you dodging me on the population numbers of wolves and their management objective? It clearly states they have 158 wolves and their objective is 48-49. Are we talking about IDaho or Oregon or Colorado? You want to talk data but then dismiss other data put forth from the same source. I asked you about scientists asking for a natural migration of wolves into Colorado instead of a forced introduction and.... it would seem you are dodging me not vice versa. Idaho also manages its populations and has a steady population of wolves. Pregón admits to having more wolves than their objective but doesn’t touch them. Did you even read the management plan??
Platensek you can’t argue with a fool and win. You are spot on and are arguing for wolf management not elimination. He just proved your point with his Idaho success rates 1994 30000 elk harvested. 1995 wolves planted and left largely unmanaged for 15 years and harvest success in 2011 is 15000 a 50 percent decrease. Aggressive wolf management for 10 years we are back to 20000. He made your point that both predators and prey have to be managed. Ask him to show the elk populations every year since wolves in Idaho and you will see similar story but the real answer there is WHERE the elk are. Traditional greatest habitat for elk in Idaho our wilderness areas have had elk populations decimated. A lot of elk are in town now or crowded on ag land due to wolf pressure in the high country.
Post by: ne kid on January 08, 2021, 08:56:37 PM
Post by: Platensek-po on January 08, 2021, 09:09:50 PM
Did you look at the data for mule deer populations in those units???
Wenaha went from 2600 to 1350 in the last 4 years with an objective of 4K.
Minam went from 2600 to 1700 in the last 5 years and has objective of 7k.
Walla walla declined from 1900 to 1500 with an objective of 1900.
Also that same data says that walla walla has a 100% fawn winter survival rate.
That’s gotta be good data.
Also keep in mind those numbers are all estimated.
Wenaha has a management objective of 4K for elk in that unit. It’s currently half that.
The calf to cow ratio in minam and wenaha has gone down. As has the ratio of calf to cows for Roosevelt elk in general.
So looking at the data put forth by ODFW there are places where the elk are now above MO and places that are well below. Would be interesting to see a correlation of ag or private land vs wild.
https://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/2019_Oregon_Wolf_Plan.pdf
In the odfw wolf management plan they state they have reached the management objective in the eastern part of the state and according to their own numbers are 3 times above the population goal for the area they inhabit. So by their own admission they are above objective and they also state that human take could increase by 5 to 10 percent without causing a population decline. Meaning they could have a hunting and trapping season to manage The population that is above population goals but they don’t. In their management plan I found no mention of civilian control of population at all. Curious as they admitted to having multiple problems with wolf interactions. They also state the goal to manage wolves like other game animals in the state but they are not doing that. So they are not even sticking to their own management plan. Montana and Idaho have stable wolf populations even with hunting and trapping. So why not include that as a management plan for a species that is 3x above its population numbers?
And what about Zebra in Africa? Mule Deer are an entirely different conversation.
Wenaha has had a large elk MO for a long time, it doesn't mean the herd is unhealthy, it means there is a Management objective for where they would like the herd to be, depending on many situations. Quality hunting opportunity, land owner complaints, over browsing sensitive habitat, etc. Wenaha used to have a pretty lousy elk population way back when...decades before the wolves. It has been increasing steadily.
Please, what are your thoughts on increasing elk populations in those 3 units with wolf populations? What are your thoughts on Idahos current elk population compared to the 1995 elk population when wolves were reintroduced. And what are your thoughts on record levels of elk harvest in Idaho - "For the sixth straight year, Idaho elk hunters harvested more than 20,000 elk, good for the second best stretch in the state's history"? Don't dodge me. Let's have a discussion.
I’m sorry I guess I didn’t realize that wolves don’t eat mule deer. I said it before and I’ll tell you again. Harvest numbers are not scientific. They are based on self reporting by hunters. There are a bunch of factors that can increase harvest numbers. License sales increase, better opportunity because of elk being pressured into more accessible areas. Let’s look at the actual data from ODFW. Did you notice that the bull and calf to cow ratios are down? Meaning that the weakest members are being picked off creating a different herd dynamic. Again do you believe that mule deer fawns had a 100% survival rate in walla walla for 5 straight years? ODFW does. Why are you dodging me on the population numbers of wolves and their management objective? It clearly states they have 158 wolves and their objective is 48-49. Are we talking about IDaho or Oregon or Colorado? You want to talk data but then dismiss other data put forth from the same source. I asked you about scientists asking for a natural migration of wolves into Colorado instead of a forced introduction and.... it would seem you are dodging me not vice versa. Idaho also manages its populations and has a steady population of wolves. Pregón admits to having more wolves than their objective but doesn’t touch them. Did you even read the management plan??
I'll be glad to talk about Mule deer later but first we need to resolve our conversation about elk because so much misinformation is spread here it should be illegal and against the AUP.
Did you read the data I provided? I included population numbers, not just harvest numbers. I can only do so much aside from holding your eyes open to make you read the data which I am getting directly from each states Fish and Game dept.
I'll just start lugging all of it around on all of my posts until someone reads it. Maybe I'll add Wyoming as well, just because I'm feeling nice tonight.
I am not intending to dodge your wolf data. If a state has a management objective for wolves then it is reasonable to follow it, I am fine with that and I argued against an environmental group who tried to weasel out of the wolf plan they helped design some years earlier. This Elk herd in Montana is 800% over MO, it needs to be managed too.
https://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/snowy-mountains-elk-herd-800-over-population-shows-montanas-challenge-managing-elk/article_161227e0-0ba1-5cf8-8235-a12d34666536.html
MY DATA - PLEASE READ AND RESPOND
Oregon
Walla Walla
2002: 1,500
2005: 1,450
2008: 1,500
2011: 1,500
2014: 1,690
2016: 1,700
2019: 1,700
Minam
2002: 1,800
2005: 2,000
2008: 2,100
2011: 2,100
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,500
2019: 2,500
Wenaha
2002: 1300
2005: 1350
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
2019: 2,700
THIS INCREASE IN ELK HAS BEEN ACCOMPANIED BY INCREASING WOLVES
https://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/population.asp
Source: ODFW
--------------------
Idaho
Elk population
1995 (year wolves were reintroduced): 112,333
Current: 120,000
Source: IDFG
---------------------
Wyoming
Elk Population
2004: 88,614
2020: 112,900
Source: WGFD (also attached below)
2020 article proclaiming "The Decade of Elk" in Wyoming
https://capcity.news/latest-news/2020/09/22/decade-of-the-elk-for-hunters-as-herds-top-goals-by-32/
Wait now we are talking about Wyoming?? This whole thing is crazy. What are the plus minus numbers on the population data for elk? A difference between 112 and 120k might even be within the plus minus. Also it’s very likely that if elk are being pushed out of the wilderness onto ag and private then they would be easier to count and their numbers would appear to increase. Hard to tell from a very non scientific power point graph. Wyoming’s elk is a special case. They have the lowest human population, the most parks and wilderness and great management. The fact that elk populations could be increasing along with that of wolves is irrelevant. The fact is they need to be managed per ODFWs plan. Washington’s wolves are also above objective. Idaho and Montana have proven that hunting can be an effective tool for managing wolves. Let’s start there and work out.
Post by: Platensek-po on January 08, 2021, 09:21:42 PM
Did you look at the data for mule deer populations in those units???
Wenaha went from 2600 to 1350 in the last 4 years with an objective of 4K.
Minam went from 2600 to 1700 in the last 5 years and has objective of 7k.
Walla walla declined from 1900 to 1500 with an objective of 1900.
Also that same data says that walla walla has a 100% fawn winter survival rate.
That’s gotta be good data.
Also keep in mind those numbers are all estimated.
Wenaha has a management objective of 4K for elk in that unit. It’s currently half that.
The calf to cow ratio in minam and wenaha has gone down. As has the ratio of calf to cows for Roosevelt elk in general.
So looking at the data put forth by ODFW there are places where the elk are now above MO and places that are well below. Would be interesting to see a correlation of ag or private land vs wild.
https://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/2019_Oregon_Wolf_Plan.pdf
In the odfw wolf management plan they state they have reached the management objective in the eastern part of the state and according to their own numbers are 3 times above the population goal for the area they inhabit. So by their own admission they are above objective and they also state that human take could increase by 5 to 10 percent without causing a population decline. Meaning they could have a hunting and trapping season to manage The population that is above population goals but they don’t. In their management plan I found no mention of civilian control of population at all. Curious as they admitted to having multiple problems with wolf interactions. They also state the goal to manage wolves like other game animals in the state but they are not doing that. So they are not even sticking to their own management plan. Montana and Idaho have stable wolf populations even with hunting and trapping. So why not include that as a management plan for a species that is 3x above its population numbers?
And what about Zebra in Africa? Mule Deer are an entirely different conversation.
Wenaha has had a large elk MO for a long time, it doesn't mean the herd is unhealthy, it means there is a Management objective for where they would like the herd to be, depending on many situations. Quality hunting opportunity, land owner complaints, over browsing sensitive habitat, etc. Wenaha used to have a pretty lousy elk population way back when...decades before the wolves. It has been increasing steadily.
Please, what are your thoughts on increasing elk populations in those 3 units with wolf populations? What are your thoughts on Idahos current elk population compared to the 1995 elk population when wolves were reintroduced. And what are your thoughts on record levels of elk harvest in Idaho - "For the sixth straight year, Idaho elk hunters harvested more than 20,000 elk, good for the second best stretch in the state's history"? Don't dodge me. Let's have a discussion.
I’m sorry I guess I didn’t realize that wolves don’t eat mule deer. I said it before and I’ll tell you again. Harvest numbers are not scientific. They are based on self reporting by hunters. There are a bunch of factors that can increase harvest numbers. License sales increase, better opportunity because of elk being pressured into more accessible areas. Let’s look at the actual data from ODFW. Did you notice that the bull and calf to cow ratios are down? Meaning that the weakest members are being picked off creating a different herd dynamic. Again do you believe that mule deer fawns had a 100% survival rate in walla walla for 5 straight years? ODFW does. Why are you dodging me on the population numbers of wolves and their management objective? It clearly states they have 158 wolves and their objective is 48-49. Are we talking about IDaho or Oregon or Colorado? You want to talk data but then dismiss other data put forth from the same source. I asked you about scientists asking for a natural migration of wolves into Colorado instead of a forced introduction and.... it would seem you are dodging me not vice versa. Idaho also manages its populations and has a steady population of wolves. Pregón admits to having more wolves than their objective but doesn’t touch them. Did you even read the management plan??
Platensek you can’t argue with a fool and win. You are spot on and are arguing for wolf management not elimination. He just proved your point with his Idaho success rates 1994 30000 elk harvested. 1995 wolves planted and left largely unmanaged for 15 years and harvest success in 2011 is 15000 a 50 percent decrease. Aggressive wolf management for 10 years we are back to 20000. He made your point that both predators and prey have to be managed. Ask him to show the elk populations every year since wolves in Idaho and you will see similar story but the real answer there is WHERE the elk are. Traditional greatest habitat for elk in Idaho our wilderness areas have had elk populations decimated. A lot of elk are in town now or crowded on ag land due to wolf pressure in the high country.
That’s all I really want. I want wolves on the landscape and I want them managed correctly. Seems to me every time someone suggests that wolves be managed someone says no because of feelings and not facts. I don’t know if Oregon and Washington are at the same level as Idaho or Montana yet but they have populations that could be managed and allowing hunters to participate in that management would do wonders for everyone but die hard wolf lovers.
Post by: idaho guy on January 08, 2021, 09:33:09 PM
Did you look at the data for mule deer populations in those units???
Wenaha went from 2600 to 1350 in the last 4 years with an objective of 4K.
Minam went from 2600 to 1700 in the last 5 years and has objective of 7k.
Walla walla declined from 1900 to 1500 with an objective of 1900.
Also that same data says that walla walla has a 100% fawn winter survival rate.
That’s gotta be good data.
Also keep in mind those numbers are all estimated.
Wenaha has a management objective of 4K for elk in that unit. It’s currently half that.
The calf to cow ratio in minam and wenaha has gone down. As has the ratio of calf to cows for Roosevelt elk in general.
So looking at the data put forth by ODFW there are places where the elk are now above MO and places that are well below. Would be interesting to see a correlation of ag or private land vs wild.
https://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/2019_Oregon_Wolf_Plan.pdf
In the odfw wolf management plan they state they have reached the management objective in the eastern part of the state and according to their own numbers are 3 times above the population goal for the area they inhabit. So by their own admission they are above objective and they also state that human take could increase by 5 to 10 percent without causing a population decline. Meaning they could have a hunting and trapping season to manage The population that is above population goals but they don’t. In their management plan I found no mention of civilian control of population at all. Curious as they admitted to having multiple problems with wolf interactions. They also state the goal to manage wolves like other game animals in the state but they are not doing that. So they are not even sticking to their own management plan. Montana and Idaho have stable wolf populations even with hunting and trapping. So why not include that as a management plan for a species that is 3x above its population numbers?
And what about Zebra in Africa? Mule Deer are an entirely different conversation.
Wenaha has had a large elk MO for a long time, it doesn't mean the herd is unhealthy, it means there is a Management objective for where they would like the herd to be, depending on many situations. Quality hunting opportunity, land owner complaints, over browsing sensitive habitat, etc. Wenaha used to have a pretty lousy elk population way back when...decades before the wolves. It has been increasing steadily.
Please, what are your thoughts on increasing elk populations in those 3 units with wolf populations? What are your thoughts on Idahos current elk population compared to the 1995 elk population when wolves were reintroduced. And what are your thoughts on record levels of elk harvest in Idaho - "For the sixth straight year, Idaho elk hunters harvested more than 20,000 elk, good for the second best stretch in the state's history"? Don't dodge me. Let's have a discussion.
I’m sorry I guess I didn’t realize that wolves don’t eat mule deer. I said it before and I’ll tell you again. Harvest numbers are not scientific. They are based on self reporting by hunters. There are a bunch of factors that can increase harvest numbers. License sales increase, better opportunity because of elk being pressured into more accessible areas. Let’s look at the actual data from ODFW. Did you notice that the bull and calf to cow ratios are down? Meaning that the weakest members are being picked off creating a different herd dynamic. Again do you believe that mule deer fawns had a 100% survival rate in walla walla for 5 straight years? ODFW does. Why are you dodging me on the population numbers of wolves and their management objective? It clearly states they have 158 wolves and their objective is 48-49. Are we talking about IDaho or Oregon or Colorado? You want to talk data but then dismiss other data put forth from the same source. I asked you about scientists asking for a natural migration of wolves into Colorado instead of a forced introduction and.... it would seem you are dodging me not vice versa. Idaho also manages its populations and has a steady population of wolves. Pregón admits to having more wolves than their objective but doesn’t touch them. Did you even read the management plan??
I'll be glad to talk about Mule deer later but first we need to resolve our conversation about elk because so much misinformation is spread here it should be illegal and against the AUP.
Did you read the data I provided? I included population numbers, not just harvest numbers. I can only do so much aside from holding your eyes open to make you read the data which I am getting directly from each states Fish and Game dept.
I'll just start lugging all of it around on all of my posts until someone reads it. Maybe I'll add Wyoming as well, just because I'm feeling nice tonight.
I am not intending to dodge your wolf data. If a state has a management objective for wolves then it is reasonable to follow it, I am fine with that and I argued against an environmental group who tried to weasel out of the wolf plan they helped design some years earlier. This Elk herd in Montana is 800% over MO, it needs to be managed too.
https://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/snowy-mountains-elk-herd-800-over-population-shows-montanas-challenge-managing-elk/article_161227e0-0ba1-5cf8-8235-a12d34666536.html
MY DATA - PLEASE READ AND RESPOND
Oregon
Walla Walla
2002: 1,500
2005: 1,450
2008: 1,500
2011: 1,500
2014: 1,690
2016: 1,700
2019: 1,700
Minam
2002: 1,800
2005: 2,000
2008: 2,100
2011: 2,100
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,500
2019: 2,500
Wenaha
2002: 1300
2005: 1350
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
2019: 2,700
THIS INCREASE IN ELK HAS BEEN ACCOMPANIED BY INCREASING WOLVES
https://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/population.asp
Source: ODFW
--------------------
Idaho
Elk population
1995 (year wolves were reintroduced): 112,333
Current: 120,000
Source: IDFG
---------------------
Wyoming
Elk Population
2004: 88,614
2020: 112,900
Source: WGFD (also attached below)
2020 article proclaiming "The Decade of Elk" in Wyoming
https://capcity.news/latest-news/2020/09/22/decade-of-the-elk-for-hunters-as-herds-top-goals-by-32/
Wait now we are talking about Wyoming?? This whole thing is crazy. What are the plus minus numbers on the population data for elk? A difference between 112 and 120k might even be within the plus minus. Also it’s very likely that if elk are being pushed out of the wilderness onto ag and private then they would be easier to count and their numbers would appear to increase. Hard to tell from a very non scientific power point graph. Wyoming’s elk is a special case. They have the lowest human population, the most parks and wilderness and great management. The fact that elk populations could be increasing along with that of wolves is irrelevant. The fact is they need to be managed per ODFWs plan. Washington’s wolves are also above objective. Idaho and Montana have proven that hunting can be an effective tool for managing wolves. Let’s start there and work out.
Proven fact that a large number of elk are being pushed onto ag and out of the high country from wolf pressure. So bad that Idaho had to pay a farmer over 1 million due to depredation of crops. It’s actually making Idaho’s harvest numbers higher because the answer they came up with are cow tags that are rifle tags with an August 1 st to December 31 season. Those tags should run close to 100 percent success. It’s a 5 month rifle cow tag
Post by: idaho guy on January 08, 2021, 09:36:21 PM
Did you look at the data for mule deer populations in those units???
Wenaha went from 2600 to 1350 in the last 4 years with an objective of 4K.
Minam went from 2600 to 1700 in the last 5 years and has objective of 7k.
Walla walla declined from 1900 to 1500 with an objective of 1900.
Also that same data says that walla walla has a 100% fawn winter survival rate.
That’s gotta be good data.
Also keep in mind those numbers are all estimated.
Wenaha has a management objective of 4K for elk in that unit. It’s currently half that.
The calf to cow ratio in minam and wenaha has gone down. As has the ratio of calf to cows for Roosevelt elk in general.
So looking at the data put forth by ODFW there are places where the elk are now above MO and places that are well below. Would be interesting to see a correlation of ag or private land vs wild.
https://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/2019_Oregon_Wolf_Plan.pdf
In the odfw wolf management plan they state they have reached the management objective in the eastern part of the state and according to their own numbers are 3 times above the population goal for the area they inhabit. So by their own admission they are above objective and they also state that human take could increase by 5 to 10 percent without causing a population decline. Meaning they could have a hunting and trapping season to manage The population that is above population goals but they don’t. In their management plan I found no mention of civilian control of population at all. Curious as they admitted to having multiple problems with wolf interactions. They also state the goal to manage wolves like other game animals in the state but they are not doing that. So they are not even sticking to their own management plan. Montana and Idaho have stable wolf populations even with hunting and trapping. So why not include that as a management plan for a species that is 3x above its population numbers?
And what about Zebra in Africa? Mule Deer are an entirely different conversation.
Wenaha has had a large elk MO for a long time, it doesn't mean the herd is unhealthy, it means there is a Management objective for where they would like the herd to be, depending on many situations. Quality hunting opportunity, land owner complaints, over browsing sensitive habitat, etc. Wenaha used to have a pretty lousy elk population way back when...decades before the wolves. It has been increasing steadily.
Please, what are your thoughts on increasing elk populations in those 3 units with wolf populations? What are your thoughts on Idahos current elk population compared to the 1995 elk population when wolves were reintroduced. And what are your thoughts on record levels of elk harvest in Idaho - "For the sixth straight year, Idaho elk hunters harvested more than 20,000 elk, good for the second best stretch in the state's history"? Don't dodge me. Let's have a discussion.
I’m sorry I guess I didn’t realize that wolves don’t eat mule deer. I said it before and I’ll tell you again. Harvest numbers are not scientific. They are based on self reporting by hunters. There are a bunch of factors that can increase harvest numbers. License sales increase, better opportunity because of elk being pressured into more accessible areas. Let’s look at the actual data from ODFW. Did you notice that the bull and calf to cow ratios are down? Meaning that the weakest members are being picked off creating a different herd dynamic. Again do you believe that mule deer fawns had a 100% survival rate in walla walla for 5 straight years? ODFW does. Why are you dodging me on the population numbers of wolves and their management objective? It clearly states they have 158 wolves and their objective is 48-49. Are we talking about IDaho or Oregon or Colorado? You want to talk data but then dismiss other data put forth from the same source. I asked you about scientists asking for a natural migration of wolves into Colorado instead of a forced introduction and.... it would seem you are dodging me not vice versa. Idaho also manages its populations and has a steady population of wolves. Pregón admits to having more wolves than their objective but doesn’t touch them. Did you even read the management plan??
Platensek you can’t argue with a fool and win. You are spot on and are arguing for wolf management not elimination. He just proved your point with his Idaho success rates 1994 30000 elk harvested. 1995 wolves planted and left largely unmanaged for 15 years and harvest success in 2011 is 15000 a 50 percent decrease. Aggressive wolf management for 10 years we are back to 20000. He made your point that both predators and prey have to be managed. Ask him to show the elk populations every year since wolves in Idaho and you will see similar story but the real answer there is WHERE the elk are. Traditional greatest habitat for elk in Idaho our wilderness areas have had elk populations decimated. A lot of elk are in town now or crowded on ag land due to wolf pressure in the high country.
That’s all I really want. I want wolves on the landscape and I want them managed correctly. Seems to me every time someone suggests that wolves be managed someone says no because of feelings and not facts. I don’t know if Oregon and Washington are at the same level as Idaho or Montana yet but they have populations that could be managed and allowing hunters to participate in that management would do wonders for everyone but die hard wolf lovers.
Hydro proved your point for you with his fancy Idaho graphs :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: brew on January 08, 2021, 09:52:17 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 08, 2021, 10:07:29 PM
Hey everyone has their own opinions but what bothers me the most is the personal attacks on Hydro and even the owner of the site calling him names--that just incites the crowd. You want to have a conversation that's fine but lets be adults:yeah:
A lot more productive discussion can happen if we all focus on the topic and not the people.
Platensek-po I appreciate the dialogue you and hydro have had...largely respectful and focused on the topic without a bunch of unnecessary attacks - even though there is strong disagreement. I've learned a bit from your exchanges and I appreciate points you both have made.
Post by: KFhunter on January 08, 2021, 10:32:08 PM
You can get 30 tags this year for the 20-21 season, so why have tags? Just do coyote rules.
They keep increasing them because they aren't keeping up.
https://idfg.idaho.gov/press/fg-commission-increases-number-wolf-tags-hunters-and-trappers-can-purchase#:~:text=23%2C%20the%20Idaho%20Fish%20and,and%20trapping%20seasons%20and%20rules.
Quote
Hunting harvest rates on gray wolves are generally very low. In 2019, more than 45,000 wolf tags were sold in Idaho, and hunters harvested 188 wolves — a success rate of 0.4 percent.
I told ya'll this years ago here on HW. Hunting and Trapping aren't good enough! With such low harvest rates there's NO REASON for WDFW to not allow hunting!
and we can't even trap the things here
Hunting Won't make a dent!
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 09, 2021, 06:25:24 AM
Post by: nwwanderer on January 09, 2021, 07:15:09 AM
Post by: idaho guy on January 09, 2021, 07:25:46 AM
Post by: idaho guy on January 09, 2021, 07:35:30 AM
Hey everyone has their own opinions but what bothers me the most is the personal attacks on Hydro and even the owner of the site calling him names--that just incites the crowd. You want to have a conversation that's fine but lets be adults:yeah:
A lot more productive discussion can happen if we all focus on the topic and not the people.
Platensek-po I appreciate the dialogue you and hydro have had...largely respectful and focused on the topic without a bunch of unnecessary attacks - even though there is strong disagreement. I've learned a bit from your exchanges and I appreciate points you both have made.
I know you think uniformed citizens should vote on these issues. Let’s not debate that again. Do you think spending tax payer money to dump wolves in Colorado where they are migrating naturally is a good idea? Regardless of wether the owners(the public) have the right to decide is this a good idea? Or a total dumpster fire decision by Colorado
Post by: idahohuntr on January 09, 2021, 09:27:56 AM
Hey everyone has their own opinions but what bothers me the most is the personal attacks on Hydro and even the owner of the site calling him names--that just incites the crowd. You want to have a conversation that's fine but lets be adults:yeah:
A lot more productive discussion can happen if we all focus on the topic and not the people.
Platensek-po I appreciate the dialogue you and hydro have had...largely respectful and focused on the topic without a bunch of unnecessary attacks - even though there is strong disagreement. I've learned a bit from your exchanges and I appreciate points you both have made.
I know you think uniformed citizens should vote on these issues. Let’s not debate that again. Do you think spending tax payer money to dump wolves in Colorado where they are migrating naturally is a good idea? Regardless of wether the owners(the public) have the right to decide is this a good idea? Or a total dumpster fire decision by Colorado
No, I would not have voted for this initiative were I a CO resident, primarily for 2 reasons already mentioned: 1. wolves are already in CO, so like WA, just leave it to whatever naturally colonizes. 2. It does create a significant resource drain - biologists and staff working on mule deer and CWD and other important issues are going to get sucked into the same wolf bs you see WDFW sucked into.
If I were advising policy makers in western CO I would be torn over how to handle this from a strategic standpoint. Do you stall, delay, seek another initiative to overturn this one (given it was such a close vote). sue under ESA and NEPA and try to stop it from ultimately happening...or, given the current political makeup, do you move quickly to establish and codify hunting seasons, depredation plans etc. that allow for more successful management in the future. CO is a purple state, trending blue. In a decade they may be solid blue like WA and at that time they will be in the same boat as WA...no chance for any hunting seasons or substantive lethal control measures.
If wolves are ultimately reintroduced I expect it will be similar to all the other western states. The impacts and distribution of wolves will be variable, some areas (particularly NW Colorado) are likely to have the greatest concentration of wolves, and how this will impact ungulate herds will be a function of many other variables as well. It will not 'destroy' deer and elk hunting by any stretch, but it will have impacts on game numbers, distribution, and behavior.
Post by: KFhunter on January 09, 2021, 09:58:28 AM
So you admit WA wolves were planted!
😆 🤣
And you admit CO already has wolves
But for some reason hasn't taken off like in all other western states (where wolves were introduced) *
*except WA (where they "weren't introduced" of course) just a big anomaly
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: Buckhunter24 on January 09, 2021, 10:31:06 AM
Hey everyone has their own opinions but what bothers me the most is the personal attacks on Hydro and even the owner of the site calling him names--that just incites the crowd. You want to have a conversation that's fine but lets be adults:yeah:
A lot more productive discussion can happen if we all focus on the topic and not the people.
Platensek-po I appreciate the dialogue you and hydro have had...largely respectful and focused on the topic without a bunch of unnecessary attacks - even though there is strong disagreement. I've learned a bit from your exchanges and I appreciate points you both have made.
I know you think uniformed citizens should vote on these issues. Let’s not debate that again. Do you think spending tax payer money to dump wolves in Colorado where they are migrating naturally is a good idea? Regardless of wether the owners(the public) have the right to decide is this a good idea? Or a total dumpster fire decision by Colorado
No, I would not have voted for this initiative were I a CO resident, primarily for 2 reasons already mentioned: 1. wolves are already in CO, so like WA, just leave it to whatever naturally colonizes. 2. It does create a significant resource drain - biologists and staff working on mule deer and CWD and other important issues are going to get sucked into the same wolf bs you see WDFW sucked into.
If I were advising policy makers in western CO I would be torn over how to handle this from a strategic standpoint. Do you stall, delay, seek another initiative to overturn this one (given it was such a close vote). sue under ESA and NEPA and try to stop it from ultimately happening...or, given the current political makeup, do you move quickly to establish and codify hunting seasons, depredation plans etc. that allow for more successful management in the future. CO is a purple state, trending blue. In a decade they may be solid blue like WA and at that time they will be in the same boat as WA...no chance for any hunting seasons or substantive lethal control measures.
If wolves are ultimately reintroduced I expect it will be similar to all the other western states. The impacts and distribution of wolves will be variable, some areas (particularly NW Colorado) are likely to have the greatest concentration of wolves, and how this will impact ungulate herds will be a function of many other variables as well. It will not 'destroy' deer and elk hunting by any stretch, but it will have impacts on game numbers, distribution, and behavior.
Can you describe your predicted impact on game numbers? Positive or negative and to what extent?
Observations in the field are very important. Sampling is also important but subject to bias. Intentional or not it is important to evaluate the possibity of a biased sample. This includes not just the data and how it is collected, but also the people who collect the data. Before I take the data seriously I would like to see the framework for the sampling process, who wrote wrote the sampling plan and who collected the data. Overly simplified graphs and numbers are great for convincing an uneducated mass but that is all they are good for.
Post by: Hydrophilic on January 09, 2021, 12:53:12 PM
Did you look at the data for mule deer populations in those units???
Wenaha went from 2600 to 1350 in the last 4 years with an objective of 4K.
Minam went from 2600 to 1700 in the last 5 years and has objective of 7k.
Walla walla declined from 1900 to 1500 with an objective of 1900.
Also that same data says that walla walla has a 100% fawn winter survival rate.
That’s gotta be good data.
Also keep in mind those numbers are all estimated.
Wenaha has a management objective of 4K for elk in that unit. It’s currently half that.
The calf to cow ratio in minam and wenaha has gone down. As has the ratio of calf to cows for Roosevelt elk in general.
So looking at the data put forth by ODFW there are places where the elk are now above MO and places that are well below. Would be interesting to see a correlation of ag or private land vs wild.
https://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/2019_Oregon_Wolf_Plan.pdf
In the odfw wolf management plan they state they have reached the management objective in the eastern part of the state and according to their own numbers are 3 times above the population goal for the area they inhabit. So by their own admission they are above objective and they also state that human take could increase by 5 to 10 percent without causing a population decline. Meaning they could have a hunting and trapping season to manage The population that is above population goals but they don’t. In their management plan I found no mention of civilian control of population at all. Curious as they admitted to having multiple problems with wolf interactions. They also state the goal to manage wolves like other game animals in the state but they are not doing that. So they are not even sticking to their own management plan. Montana and Idaho have stable wolf populations even with hunting and trapping. So why not include that as a management plan for a species that is 3x above its population numbers?
And what about Zebra in Africa? Mule Deer are an entirely different conversation.
Wenaha has had a large elk MO for a long time, it doesn't mean the herd is unhealthy, it means there is a Management objective for where they would like the herd to be, depending on many situations. Quality hunting opportunity, land owner complaints, over browsing sensitive habitat, etc. Wenaha used to have a pretty lousy elk population way back when...decades before the wolves. It has been increasing steadily.
Please, what are your thoughts on increasing elk populations in those 3 units with wolf populations? What are your thoughts on Idahos current elk population compared to the 1995 elk population when wolves were reintroduced. And what are your thoughts on record levels of elk harvest in Idaho - "For the sixth straight year, Idaho elk hunters harvested more than 20,000 elk, good for the second best stretch in the state's history"? Don't dodge me. Let's have a discussion.
I’m sorry I guess I didn’t realize that wolves don’t eat mule deer. I said it before and I’ll tell you again. Harvest numbers are not scientific. They are based on self reporting by hunters. There are a bunch of factors that can increase harvest numbers. License sales increase, better opportunity because of elk being pressured into more accessible areas. Let’s look at the actual data from ODFW. Did you notice that the bull and calf to cow ratios are down? Meaning that the weakest members are being picked off creating a different herd dynamic. Again do you believe that mule deer fawns had a 100% survival rate in walla walla for 5 straight years? ODFW does. Why are you dodging me on the population numbers of wolves and their management objective? It clearly states they have 158 wolves and their objective is 48-49. Are we talking about IDaho or Oregon or Colorado? You want to talk data but then dismiss other data put forth from the same source. I asked you about scientists asking for a natural migration of wolves into Colorado instead of a forced introduction and.... it would seem you are dodging me not vice versa. Idaho also manages its populations and has a steady population of wolves. Pregón admits to having more wolves than their objective but doesn’t touch them. Did you even read the management plan??
I'll be glad to talk about Mule deer later but first we need to resolve our conversation about elk because so much misinformation is spread here it should be illegal and against the AUP.
Did you read the data I provided? I included population numbers, not just harvest numbers. I can only do so much aside from holding your eyes open to make you read the data which I am getting directly from each states Fish and Game dept.
I'll just start lugging all of it around on all of my posts until someone reads it. Maybe I'll add Wyoming as well, just because I'm feeling nice tonight.
I am not intending to dodge your wolf data. If a state has a management objective for wolves then it is reasonable to follow it, I am fine with that and I argued against an environmental group who tried to weasel out of the wolf plan they helped design some years earlier. This Elk herd in Montana is 800% over MO, it needs to be managed too.
https://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/snowy-mountains-elk-herd-800-over-population-shows-montanas-challenge-managing-elk/article_161227e0-0ba1-5cf8-8235-a12d34666536.html
MY DATA - PLEASE READ AND RESPOND
Oregon
Walla Walla
2002: 1,500
2005: 1,450
2008: 1,500
2011: 1,500
2014: 1,690
2016: 1,700
2019: 1,700
Minam
2002: 1,800
2005: 2,000
2008: 2,100
2011: 2,100
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,500
2019: 2,500
Wenaha
2002: 1300
2005: 1350
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
2019: 2,700
THIS INCREASE IN ELK HAS BEEN ACCOMPANIED BY INCREASING WOLVES
https://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/population.asp
Source: ODFW
--------------------
Idaho
Elk population
1995 (year wolves were reintroduced): 112,333
Current: 120,000
Source: IDFG
"For the sixth straight year, Idaho elk hunters harvested more than 20,000 elk. That’s the second best stretch in the state's history."
https://idfg.idaho.gov/press/harvest-hunter-numbers-down-deer-and-elk-2019
---------------------
Wyoming
Elk Population
2004: 88,614
2020: 112,900
Source: WGFD (also attached below)
2020 article proclaiming "The Decade of Elk" in Wyoming
https://capcity.news/latest-news/2020/09/22/decade-of-the-elk-for-hunters-as-herds-top-goals-by-32/
Wait now we are talking about Wyoming?? This whole thing is crazy. What are the plus minus numbers on the population data for elk? A difference between 112 and 120k might even be within the plus minus. Also it’s very likely that if elk are being pushed out of the wilderness onto ag and private then they would be easier to count and their numbers would appear to increase. Hard to tell from a very non scientific power point graph. Wyoming’s elk is a special case. They have the lowest human population, the most parks and wilderness and great management. The fact that elk populations could be increasing along with that of wolves is irrelevant. The fact is they need to be managed per ODFWs plan. Washington’s wolves are also above objective. Idaho and Montana have proven that hunting can be an effective tool for managing wolves. Let’s start there and work out.
Your own statement
“The places with the greatest abundance of elk are also the places with the greatest abundance of wolves.” Really??? I cannot believe a biologist used that as an explanation of anything other than the obvious. You mean the wolves hang around their food source??? Are they supposed to be combing the beaches looking for seals? If anything that statement proves that wolves are having an effect on the herds. I personally would like to continue seeing wolves in the wild. For that to happen they have to be managed like everything else. You can’t try to manage some parts of the ecosystem and not others. It doesn’t work. That said that letter from the bio is devoid of anything but seriously basic information."
To be very clear, Your bold initial statement is what I am responding to, nothing else. Your statement in conjunction with all of the baseless comments on this thread and forum which state Wolves are destroying ungulates everywhere they go.
I am showing you and everyone else DATA where wolves are NOT impacting elk herds or statewide populations negatively, or in an additive way. You keep dodging me one way or another. In fact, some of the data I have shown you is from UNMANAGED WOLVES and the elk populations are growing like crazy. How many examples do I have to cite for you to retract your statement? Or perhaps your meant something else and I have misunderstood you. Please explain.
I am personally not arguing for a position where wolves aren't managed. I have argued against an environmental group and FOR removing wolf protections in a certain state where proposed recovery numbers were realized. What I'm arguing for, in the latter half of this thread - to be extremely clear - is that wolves are not destroying elk, or having a significant impact on them in many places. In fact, Elk hunting has never been better in some states which have some of the highest elk numbers despite wolf reintroduction in the 90's, etc. Elk populations have been growing along with wolf populations.
Go back through this thread and read all of the misinformed comments such as "Anyone who says wolves don’t have a significant impact on wildlife has absolutely ZERO credibility with me", or Bearpaw's "members here have seen the damage inflicted by wolves, and history is bound to repeat itself in Colorado just as it has in every other wolf infested state and province, enough said!" or " Certainly these very hungry wolves that eat roughly 10 pounds of meat per day per wolf have an additive effect on predation, this additive impact is a significant factor, in fact the increases in wolf numbers parallels the declines in elk numbers in areas suffering the most from predation."
I simply don't have the time to copy all of them here. So, please use the data I'm providing to clarify your initial statement, and if you agree with me that wolves are not decimating elk everywhere they go, or exist, then what is your response to all of the statements I take issue with in this thread? Since Wyoming data weirded you out I will take a break on my data drop.
DATA
Oregon
Walla Walla
2002: 1,500
2005: 1,450
2008: 1,500
2011: 1,500
2014: 1,690
2016: 1,700
2019: 1,700
Minam
2002: 1,800
2005: 2,000
2008: 2,100
2011: 2,100
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,500
2019: 2,500
Wenaha
2002: 1300
2005: 1350
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
2019: 2,700
THIS INCREASE IN ELK HAS BEEN ACCOMPANIED BY INCREASING WOLVES
https://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/population.asp
Source: ODFW
--------------------
Idaho
Elk population
1995 (year wolves were reintroduced): 112,333
Current: 120,000
Source: IDFG
"For the sixth straight year, Idaho elk hunters harvested more than 20,000 elk. That’s the second best stretch in the state's history."
https://idfg.idaho.gov/press/harvest-hunter-numbers-down-deer-and-elk-2019
---------------------
Wyoming
Elk Population
2004: 88,614
2020: 112,900
Source: WGFD (also attached below)
2020 article proclaiming "The Decade of Elk" in Wyoming
https://capcity.news/latest-news/2020/09/22/decade-of-the-elk-for-hunters-as-herds-top-goals-by-32/
Post by: idaho guy on January 09, 2021, 02:24:45 PM
Hey everyone has their own opinions but what bothers me the most is the personal attacks on Hydro and even the owner of the site calling him names--that just incites the crowd. You want to have a conversation that's fine but lets be adults:yeah:
A lot more productive discussion can happen if we all focus on the topic and not the people.
Platensek-po I appreciate the dialogue you and hydro have had...largely respectful and focused on the topic without a bunch of unnecessary attacks - even though there is strong disagreement. I've learned a bit from your exchanges and I appreciate points you both have made.
I know you think uniformed citizens should vote on these issues. Let’s not debate that again. Do you think spending tax payer money to dump wolves in Colorado where they are migrating naturally is a good idea? Regardless of wether the owners(the public) have the right to decide is this a good idea? Or a total dumpster fire decision by Colorado
No, I would not have voted for this initiative were I a CO resident, primarily for 2 reasons already mentioned: 1. wolves are already in CO, so like WA, just leave it to whatever naturally colonizes. 2. It does create a significant resource drain - biologists and staff working on mule deer and CWD and other important issues are going to get sucked into the same wolf bs you see WDFW sucked into.
If I were advising policy makers in western CO I would be torn over how to handle this from a strategic standpoint. Do you stall, delay, seek another initiative to overturn this one (given it was such a close vote). sue under ESA and NEPA and try to stop it from ultimately happening...or, given the current political makeup, do you move quickly to establish and codify hunting seasons, depredation plans etc. that allow for more successful management in the future. CO is a purple state, trending blue. In a decade they may be solid blue like WA and at that time they will be in the same boat as WA...no chance for any hunting seasons or substantive lethal control measures.
If wolves are ultimately reintroduced I expect it will be similar to all the other western states. The impacts and distribution of wolves will be variable, some areas (particularly NW Colorado) are likely to have the greatest concentration of wolves, and how this will impact ungulate herds will be a function of many other variables as well. It will not 'destroy' deer and elk hunting by any stretch, but it will have impacts on game numbers, distribution, and behavior.
:tup: Fair enough! I can agree with a lot of that.
Post by: idaho guy on January 09, 2021, 02:32:31 PM
Did you look at the data for mule deer populations in those units???
Wenaha went from 2600 to 1350 in the last 4 years with an objective of 4K.
Minam went from 2600 to 1700 in the last 5 years and has objective of 7k.
Walla walla declined from 1900 to 1500 with an objective of 1900.
Also that same data says that walla walla has a 100% fawn winter survival rate.
That’s gotta be good data.
Also keep in mind those numbers are all estimated.
Wenaha has a management objective of 4K for elk in that unit. It’s currently half that.
The calf to cow ratio in minam and wenaha has gone down. As has the ratio of calf to cows for Roosevelt elk in general.
So looking at the data put forth by ODFW there are places where the elk are now above MO and places that are well below. Would be interesting to see a correlation of ag or private land vs wild.
https://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/2019_Oregon_Wolf_Plan.pdf
In the odfw wolf management plan they state they have reached the management objective in the eastern part of the state and according to their own numbers are 3 times above the population goal for the area they inhabit. So by their own admission they are above objective and they also state that human take could increase by 5 to 10 percent without causing a population decline. Meaning they could have a hunting and trapping season to manage The population that is above population goals but they don’t. In their management plan I found no mention of civilian control of population at all. Curious as they admitted to having multiple problems with wolf interactions. They also state the goal to manage wolves like other game animals in the state but they are not doing that. So they are not even sticking to their own management plan. Montana and Idaho have stable wolf populations even with hunting and trapping. So why not include that as a management plan for a species that is 3x above its population numbers?
And what about Zebra in Africa? Mule Deer are an entirely different conversation.
Wenaha has had a large elk MO for a long time, it doesn't mean the herd is unhealthy, it means there is a Management objective for where they would like the herd to be, depending on many situations. Quality hunting opportunity, land owner complaints, over browsing sensitive habitat, etc. Wenaha used to have a pretty lousy elk population way back when...decades before the wolves. It has been increasing steadily.
Please, what are your thoughts on increasing elk populations in those 3 units with wolf populations? What are your thoughts on Idahos current elk population compared to the 1995 elk population when wolves were reintroduced. And what are your thoughts on record levels of elk harvest in Idaho - "For the sixth straight year, Idaho elk hunters harvested more than 20,000 elk, good for the second best stretch in the state's history"? Don't dodge me. Let's have a discussion.
I’m sorry I guess I didn’t realize that wolves don’t eat mule deer. I said it before and I’ll tell you again. Harvest numbers are not scientific. They are based on self reporting by hunters. There are a bunch of factors that can increase harvest numbers. License sales increase, better opportunity because of elk being pressured into more accessible areas. Let’s look at the actual data from ODFW. Did you notice that the bull and calf to cow ratios are down? Meaning that the weakest members are being picked off creating a different herd dynamic. Again do you believe that mule deer fawns had a 100% survival rate in walla walla for 5 straight years? ODFW does. Why are you dodging me on the population numbers of wolves and their management objective? It clearly states they have 158 wolves and their objective is 48-49. Are we talking about IDaho or Oregon or Colorado? You want to talk data but then dismiss other data put forth from the same source. I asked you about scientists asking for a natural migration of wolves into Colorado instead of a forced introduction and.... it would seem you are dodging me not vice versa. Idaho also manages its populations and has a steady population of wolves. Pregón admits to having more wolves than their objective but doesn’t touch them. Did you even read the management plan??
I'll be glad to talk about Mule deer later but first we need to resolve our conversation about elk because so much misinformation is spread here it should be illegal and against the AUP.
Did you read the data I provided? I included population numbers, not just harvest numbers. I can only do so much aside from holding your eyes open to make you read the data which I am getting directly from each states Fish and Game dept.
I'll just start lugging all of it around on all of my posts until someone reads it. Maybe I'll add Wyoming as well, just because I'm feeling nice tonight.
I am not intending to dodge your wolf data. If a state has a management objective for wolves then it is reasonable to follow it, I am fine with that and I argued against an environmental group who tried to weasel out of the wolf plan they helped design some years earlier. This Elk herd in Montana is 800% over MO, it needs to be managed too.
https://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/snowy-mountains-elk-herd-800-over-population-shows-montanas-challenge-managing-elk/article_161227e0-0ba1-5cf8-8235-a12d34666536.html
MY DATA - PLEASE READ AND RESPOND
Oregon
Walla Walla
2002: 1,500
2005: 1,450
2008: 1,500
2011: 1,500
2014: 1,690
2016: 1,700
2019: 1,700
Minam
2002: 1,800
2005: 2,000
2008: 2,100
2011: 2,100
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,500
2019: 2,500
Wenaha
2002: 1300
2005: 1350
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
2019: 2,700
THIS INCREASE IN ELK HAS BEEN ACCOMPANIED BY INCREASING WOLVES
https://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/population.asp
Source: ODFW
--------------------
Idaho
Elk population
1995 (year wolves were reintroduced): 112,333
Current: 120,000
Source: IDFG
"For the sixth straight year, Idaho elk hunters harvested more than 20,000 elk. That’s the second best stretch in the state's history."
https://idfg.idaho.gov/press/harvest-hunter-numbers-down-deer-and-elk-2019
---------------------
Wyoming
Elk Population
2004: 88,614
2020: 112,900
Source: WGFD (also attached below)
2020 article proclaiming "The Decade of Elk" in Wyoming
https://capcity.news/latest-news/2020/09/22/decade-of-the-elk-for-hunters-as-herds-top-goals-by-32/
Wait now we are talking about Wyoming?? This whole thing is crazy. What are the plus minus numbers on the population data for elk? A difference between 112 and 120k might even be within the plus minus. Also it’s very likely that if elk are being pushed out of the wilderness onto ag and private then they would be easier to count and their numbers would appear to increase. Hard to tell from a very non scientific power point graph. Wyoming’s elk is a special case. They have the lowest human population, the most parks and wilderness and great management. The fact that elk populations could be increasing along with that of wolves is irrelevant. The fact is they need to be managed per ODFWs plan. Washington’s wolves are also above objective. Idaho and Montana have proven that hunting can be an effective tool for managing wolves. Let’s start there and work out.
Your own statement
“The places with the greatest abundance of elk are also the places with the greatest abundance of wolves.” Really??? I cannot believe a biologist used that as an explanation of anything other than the obvious. You mean the wolves hang around their food source??? Are they supposed to be combing the beaches looking for seals? If anything that statement proves that wolves are having an effect on the herds. I personally would like to continue seeing wolves in the wild. For that to happen they have to be managed like everything else. You can’t try to manage some parts of the ecosystem and not others. It doesn’t work. That said that letter from the bio is devoid of anything but seriously basic information."
To be very clear, Your bold initial statement is what I am responding to, nothing else. Your statement in conjunction with all of the baseless comments on this thread and forum which state Wolves are destroying ungulates everywhere they go.
I am showing you and everyone else DATA where wolves are NOT impacting elk herds or statewide populations negatively, or in an additive way. You keep dodging me one way or another. In fact, some of the data I have shown you is from UNMANAGED WOLVES and the elk populations are growing like crazy. How many examples do I have to cite for you to retract your statement? Or perhaps your meant something else and I have misunderstood you. Please explain.
I am personally not arguing for a position where wolves aren't managed. I have argued against an environmental group and FOR removing wolf protections in a certain state where proposed recovery numbers were realized. What I'm arguing for, in the latter half of this thread - to be extremely clear - is that wolves are not destroying elk, or having a significant impact on them in many places. In fact, Elk hunting has never been better in some states which have some of the highest elk numbers despite wolf reintroduction in the 90's, etc. Elk populations have been growing along with wolf populations.
Go back through this thread and read all of the misinformed comments such as "Anyone who says wolves don’t have a significant impact on wildlife has absolutely ZERO credibility with me", or Bearpaw's "members here have seen the damage inflicted by wolves, and history is bound to repeat itself in Colorado just as it has in every other wolf infested state and province, enough said!" or " Certainly these very hungry wolves that eat roughly 10 pounds of meat per day per wolf have an additive effect on predation, this additive impact is a significant factor, in fact the increases in wolf numbers parallels the declines in elk numbers in areas suffering the most from predation."
I simply don't have the time to copy all of them here. So, please use the data I'm providing to clarify your initial statement, and if you agree with me that wolves are not decimating elk everywhere they go, or exist, then what is your response to all of the statements I take issue with in this thread? Since Wyoming data weirded you out I will take a break on my data drop.
DATA
Oregon
Walla Walla
2002: 1,500
2005: 1,450
2008: 1,500
2011: 1,500
2014: 1,690
2016: 1,700
2019: 1,700
Minam
2002: 1,800
2005: 2,000
2008: 2,100
2011: 2,100
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,500
2019: 2,500
Wenaha
2002: 1300
2005: 1350
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
2019: 2,700
THIS INCREASE IN ELK HAS BEEN ACCOMPANIED BY INCREASING WOLVES
https://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/population.asp
Source: ODFW
--------------------
Idaho
Elk population
1995 (year wolves were reintroduced): 112,333
Current: 120,000
Source: IDFG
"For the sixth straight year, Idaho elk hunters harvested more than 20,000 elk. That’s the second best stretch in the state's history."
https://idfg.idaho.gov/press/harvest-hunter-numbers-down-deer-and-elk-2019
---------------------
Wyoming
Elk Population
2004: 88,614
2020: 112,900
Source: WGFD (also attached below)
2020 article proclaiming "The Decade of Elk" in Wyoming
https://capcity.news/latest-news/2020/09/22/decade-of-the-elk-for-hunters-as-herds-top-goals-by-32/
Explain Yellowstone, then selway and lolo of Idaho. All places with 25 years of wolves. Yellowstone first go !
Post by: idaho guy on January 09, 2021, 02:44:30 PM
Post by: idaho guy on January 09, 2021, 02:46:18 PM
Post by: idaho guy on January 09, 2021, 02:57:57 PM
Post by: idaho guy on January 09, 2021, 02:59:22 PM
Post by: idaho guy on January 09, 2021, 03:36:49 PM
Did you look at the data for mule deer populations in those units???
Wenaha went from 2600 to 1350 in the last 4 years with an objective of 4K.
Minam went from 2600 to 1700 in the last 5 years and has objective of 7k.
Walla walla declined from 1900 to 1500 with an objective of 1900.
Also that same data says that walla walla has a 100% fawn winter survival rate.
That’s gotta be good data.
Also keep in mind those numbers are all estimated.
Wenaha has a management objective of 4K for elk in that unit. It’s currently half that.
The calf to cow ratio in minam and wenaha has gone down. As has the ratio of calf to cows for Roosevelt elk in general.
So looking at the data put forth by ODFW there are places where the elk are now above MO and places that are well below. Would be interesting to see a correlation of ag or private land vs wild.
https://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/2019_Oregon_Wolf_Plan.pdf
In the odfw wolf management plan they state they have reached the management objective in the eastern part of the state and according to their own numbers are 3 times above the population goal for the area they inhabit. So by their own admission they are above objective and they also state that human take could increase by 5 to 10 percent without causing a population decline. Meaning they could have a hunting and trapping season to manage The population that is above population goals but they don’t. In their management plan I found no mention of civilian control of population at all. Curious as they admitted to having multiple problems with wolf interactions. They also state the goal to manage wolves like other game animals in the state but they are not doing that. So they are not even sticking to their own management plan. Montana and Idaho have stable wolf populations even with hunting and trapping. So why not include that as a management plan for a species that is 3x above its population numbers?
And what about Zebra in Africa? Mule Deer are an entirely different conversation.
Wenaha has had a large elk MO for a long time, it doesn't mean the herd is unhealthy, it means there is a Management objective for where they would like the herd to be, depending on many situations. Quality hunting opportunity, land owner complaints, over browsing sensitive habitat, etc. Wenaha used to have a pretty lousy elk population way back when...decades before the wolves. It has been increasing steadily.
Please, what are your thoughts on increasing elk populations in those 3 units with wolf populations? What are your thoughts on Idahos current elk population compared to the 1995 elk population when wolves were reintroduced. And what are your thoughts on record levels of elk harvest in Idaho - "For the sixth straight year, Idaho elk hunters harvested more than 20,000 elk, good for the second best stretch in the state's history"? Don't dodge me. Let's have a discussion.
I’m sorry I guess I didn’t realize that wolves don’t eat mule deer. I said it before and I’ll tell you again. Harvest numbers are not scientific. They are based on self reporting by hunters. There are a bunch of factors that can increase harvest numbers. License sales increase, better opportunity because of elk being pressured into more accessible areas. Let’s look at the actual data from ODFW. Did you notice that the bull and calf to cow ratios are down? Meaning that the weakest members are being picked off creating a different herd dynamic. Again do you believe that mule deer fawns had a 100% survival rate in walla walla for 5 straight years? ODFW does. Why are you dodging me on the population numbers of wolves and their management objective? It clearly states they have 158 wolves and their objective is 48-49. Are we talking about IDaho or Oregon or Colorado? You want to talk data but then dismiss other data put forth from the same source. I asked you about scientists asking for a natural migration of wolves into Colorado instead of a forced introduction and.... it would seem you are dodging me not vice versa. Idaho also manages its populations and has a steady population of wolves. Pregón admits to having more wolves than their objective but doesn’t touch them. Did you even read the management plan??
I'll be glad to talk about Mule deer later but first we need to resolve our conversation about elk because so much misinformation is spread here it should be illegal and against the AUP.
Did you read the data I provided? I included population numbers, not just harvest numbers. I can only do so much aside from holding your eyes open to make you read the data which I am getting directly from each states Fish and Game dept.
I'll just start lugging all of it around on all of my posts until someone reads it. Maybe I'll add Wyoming as well, just because I'm feeling nice tonight.
I am not intending to dodge your wolf data. If a state has a management objective for wolves then it is reasonable to follow it, I am fine with that and I argued against an environmental group who tried to weasel out of the wolf plan they helped design some years earlier. This Elk herd in Montana is 800% over MO, it needs to be managed too.
https://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/snowy-mountains-elk-herd-800-over-population-shows-montanas-challenge-managing-elk/article_161227e0-0ba1-5cf8-8235-a12d34666536.html
MY DATA - PLEASE READ AND RESPOND
Oregon
Walla Walla
2002: 1,500
2005: 1,450
2008: 1,500
2011: 1,500
2014: 1,690
2016: 1,700
2019: 1,700
Minam
2002: 1,800
2005: 2,000
2008: 2,100
2011: 2,100
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,500
2019: 2,500
Wenaha
2002: 1300
2005: 1350
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
2019: 2,700
THIS INCREASE IN ELK HAS BEEN ACCOMPANIED BY INCREASING WOLVES
https://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/population.asp
Source: ODFW
--------------------
Idaho
Elk population
1995 (year wolves were reintroduced): 112,333
Current: 120,000
Source: IDFG
"For the sixth straight year, Idaho elk hunters harvested more than 20,000 elk. That’s the second best stretch in the state's history."
https://idfg.idaho.gov/press/harvest-hunter-numbers-down-deer-and-elk-2019
---------------------
Wyoming
Elk Population
2004: 88,614
2020: 112,900
Source: WGFD (also attached below)
2020 article proclaiming "The Decade of Elk" in Wyoming
https://capcity.news/latest-news/2020/09/22/decade-of-the-elk-for-hunters-as-herds-top-goals-by-32/
Wait now we are talking about Wyoming?? This whole thing is crazy. What are the plus minus numbers on the population data for elk? A difference between 112 and 120k might even be within the plus minus. Also it’s very likely that if elk are being pushed out of the wilderness onto ag and private then they would be easier to count and their numbers would appear to increase. Hard to tell from a very non scientific power point graph. Wyoming’s elk is a special case. They have the lowest human population, the most parks and wilderness and great management. The fact that elk populations could be increasing along with that of wolves is irrelevant. The fact is they need to be managed per ODFWs plan. Washington’s wolves are also above objective. Idaho and Montana have proven that hunting can be an effective tool for managing wolves. Let’s start there and work out.
Your own statement
“The places with the greatest abundance of elk are also the places with the greatest abundance of wolves.” Really??? I cannot believe a biologist used that as an explanation of anything other than the obvious. You mean the wolves hang around their food source??? Are they supposed to be combing the beaches looking for seals? If anything that statement proves that wolves are having an effect on the herds. I personally would like to continue seeing wolves in the wild. For that to happen they have to be managed like everything else. You can’t try to manage some parts of the ecosystem and not others. It doesn’t work. That said that letter from the bio is devoid of anything but seriously basic information."
To be very clear, Your bold initial statement is what I am responding to, nothing else. Your statement in conjunction with all of the baseless comments on this thread and forum which state Wolves are destroying ungulates everywhere they go.
I am showing you and everyone else DATA where wolves are NOT impacting elk herds or statewide populations negatively, or in an additive way. You keep dodging me one way or another. In fact, some of the data I have shown you is from UNMANAGED WOLVES and the elk populations are growing like crazy. How many examples do I have to cite for you to retract your statement? Or perhaps your meant something else and I have misunderstood you. Please explain.
I am personally not arguing for a position where wolves aren't managed. I have argued against an environmental group and FOR removing wolf protections in a certain state where proposed recovery numbers were realized. What I'm arguing for, in the latter half of this thread - to be extremely clear - is that wolves are not destroying elk, or having a significant impact on them in many places. In fact, Elk hunting has never been better in some states which have some of the highest elk numbers despite wolf reintroduction in the 90's, etc. Elk populations have been growing along with wolf populations.
Go back through this thread and read all of the misinformed comments such as "Anyone who says wolves don’t have a significant impact on wildlife has absolutely ZERO credibility with me", or Bearpaw's "members here have seen the damage inflicted by wolves, and history is bound to repeat itself in Colorado just as it has in every other wolf infested state and province, enough said!" or " Certainly these very hungry wolves that eat roughly 10 pounds of meat per day per wolf have an additive effect on predation, this additive impact is a significant factor, in fact the increases in wolf numbers parallels the declines in elk numbers in areas suffering the most from predation."
I simply don't have the time to copy all of them here. So, please use the data I'm providing to clarify your initial statement, and if you agree with me that wolves are not decimating elk everywhere they go, or exist, then what is your response to all of the statements I take issue with in this thread? Since Wyoming data weirded you out I will take a break on my data drop.
DATA
Oregon
Walla Walla
2002: 1,500
2005: 1,450
2008: 1,500
2011: 1,500
2014: 1,690
2016: 1,700
2019: 1,700
Minam
2002: 1,800
2005: 2,000
2008: 2,100
2011: 2,100
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,500
2019: 2,500
Wenaha
2002: 1300
2005: 1350
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
2019: 2,700
THIS INCREASE IN ELK HAS BEEN ACCOMPANIED BY INCREASING WOLVES
https://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/population.asp
Source: ODFW
--------------------
Idaho
Elk population
1995 (year wolves were reintroduced): 112,333
Current: 120,000
Source: IDFG
"For the sixth straight year, Idaho elk hunters harvested more than 20,000 elk. That’s the second best stretch in the state's history."
https://idfg.idaho.gov/press/harvest-hunter-numbers-down-deer-and-elk-2019
---------------------
Wyoming
Elk Population
2004: 88,614
2020: 112,900
Source: WGFD (also attached below)
2020 article proclaiming "The Decade of Elk" in Wyoming
https://capcity.news/latest-news/2020/09/22/decade-of-the-elk-for-hunters-as-herds-top-goals-by-32/
Will you discuss all the data out there or only what compliments your argument? Anything that disagrees with you is a baseless claim or off topic? Explain your Idaho harvest statistics. 1994 record harvest almost 30000. 1995 wolves planted. 2011 harvest 15000 and Idaho gets a wolf hunting and trapping season. 2019 back to 20000. Does this verify that wolves have no impact on deer and elk? Like the statement we find the greatest amount of wolves around the greatest amount of elk. Wait! what? Wolves hang around their food source? Incredible! Unless you can debate Yellowstone, lolo and the selway wolf and elk population dynamics ALL of your other cherry picked information is useless. That is ground zero for the first wolf introduction those 3 areas. That’s exactly where the wolves were dropped how are the elk faring 25 years later. If you can’t discuss these 3 areas it’s obvious you don’t want too look at data or have a real debate on this topic. Yellowstone,lolo, and selway let’s hear it.
Post by: idaho guy on January 09, 2021, 03:53:56 PM
Post by: idaho guy on January 09, 2021, 04:04:05 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on January 09, 2021, 04:18:29 PM
Post by: idaho guy on January 09, 2021, 04:25:17 PM
Post by: idaho guy on January 09, 2021, 04:31:39 PM
Hydrophilic This is why you’re statewide elk population estimates are so DISHONEST regarding wolf impact. Below objective units are mostly wilderness and where wolves were planted to start with and where the greatest amount of wolves are present. Above objective units are mostly areas without or with smaller numbers of wolves. They are also more ag land in general than below objective units. Do some real homework and overlay wolf populations with this elk chart then you will understand the total dishonesty of citing state wide numbers. Even parts of Idaho Montana and Wyoming have ZERO wolves. So again tell me about the elk herds I mentioned. I want you to prove to me the wolves don’t destroy elk herds. 25 years Yellowstone, lolo, selway and Jackson hole.
Hydrophilic if you are unsure where they dumped wolves put a circle right in the middle of the blue units. That’s ground zero for wolf re introduction. I have actually been there and saw the cages where they kept them initially. Yes blue means all those units are below population objective for elk 25 years later. I would like to discuss this data with you
Post by: idaho guy on January 09, 2021, 07:16:15 PM
Post by: highside74 on January 09, 2021, 07:33:16 PM
Post by: idaho guy on January 09, 2021, 08:07:35 PM
And elk numbers in Yellowstone were at there peak in the early 90s and have been on a decline since the late 90s. May I ask the class what changed in Yellowstone in the mid 90s?
Anyone, Anyone? Oh that's right wolves in 95. But the book photocopying science guy will say that has nothing to do with it.
Wait for it, wait for it...
This is about Colorado, not Yellowstone, completely different. You have dragged me off topic multiple times, mainly because it was too tempting not to respond to your off topic comments, but I will stay on topic the rest of this thread. Please refrain from personal attacks, attacking my argument is one thing, attacking me personally by calling me a tool is another. Please refrain, thanks.
First dodge of any discussion Yellowstone elk! It was off topic but elk herds in Oregon, Idaho and Montana are right on topic? Only if you can skew data to support your case . Hydro please refrain from dodging real Data!
Post by: lokidog on January 09, 2021, 08:08:54 PM
Hydrophilic direct quote from you to platensek. “I am showing you and everyone else data where wolves are NOT impacting elk negatively. You keep dodging me in one way or another” let me ask you the same question- I am showing you and everyone else data where wolves HAVE impacted elk negatively. You keep dodging me in one way or another. What gives a study more validity? 5 years or 25 years ? I know your google machine can’t easily pull up talking points on Yellowstone,lolo,selway. Those herds are real life 25 year studies of elk herds living with wolves. Do you want to explain how wolves have not had MASSIVE negative impacts on these elk or retract your prior statements? Help me understand
Must be the moderators that don't agree with his opinion oppressing him..... :dunno: :hello: :chuckle:
Post by: idaho guy on January 09, 2021, 08:23:18 PM
Give him a few minutes. He is photocopying old text books to post.
From the 1950’s :chuckle:
Post by: idaho guy on January 09, 2021, 08:38:12 PM
And elk numbers in Yellowstone were at there peak in the early 90s and have been on a decline since the late 90s. May I ask the class what changed in Yellowstone in the mid 90s?
Anyone, Anyone? Oh that's right wolves in 95. But the book photocopying science guy will say that has nothing to do with it.
Wait for it, wait for it...
This is about Colorado, not Yellowstone, completely different. You have dragged me off topic multiple times, mainly because it was too tempting not to respond to your off topic comments, but I will stay on topic the rest of this thread. Please refrain from personal attacks, attacking my argument is one thing, attacking me personally by calling me a tool is another. Please refrain, thanks.
This is off topic? WTH this is an exact blueprint for what will happen in Colorado. I know your romantic quote about green eyed wolves is super scientific but this is actual evidence,wow maybe even a study, of what happens to massive elk herds when you reintroduced wolves. I know it really doesn’t fit your narrative so keep quoting studies from places as far away from the west as possible. You want science!!! There it is 25 years in Yellowstone without Any co factors of predators like hunting. Explain based on this exact “experiment” of re introduced wolves makes a good case for introducing them into Colorado? You are quoting the same EXACT crap they spewed 25 years ago. Look at Yellowstone nothing could be more ON topic. Before you post new numbers of elk like last 5 years you better research how far they extended the boundaries of where the original Yellowstone elk herds now resides. But hey! The elk quit eating the stream side bushes so the fishing is better!! Yippee that’s what the same science is touting as their Yellowstone success with wolves. My grandpa who lived his whole life in Rifle Colorado told me you can’t argue with a fool. Wow was he right. Seeing the same talking points used as SCIENCE 25 years later is exhausting and irritating.
Second time hydrophilic wouldn’t discuss Yellowstone elk. Come on science guy I really want to understand how wolves and elk can grow in numbers together!
Post by: idaho guy on January 09, 2021, 08:40:05 PM
A central tenet of the NAMWC is that the wildlife are owned by the people - a stark contrast to the days of game being owned by the king. In that sense, I disagree with these proclamations that 'ballot box management' is not part of the NAMWC. If the people who own the wildlife choose to do something by a vote of the people, that is their prerogative...however strenuously I or other hunters may dislike the outcome. Reintroducing wolves, banning bear baiting and hounds, allocating a certain percentage of elk tags to non-residents are all value judgments which will vary based on the electorate...the 'owners'. While science may provide information about how introducing an apex predator will effect other species and their habitat, it really is up to the 'owners' to decide what they prefer...in Colorado (and probably Washington if there were ever a similar vote!) a majority prefer wolves on the landscape, even if that means fewer elk and deer.The proposal should be put all the wolves in the cities where their protection is voted in :twocents:
Well fortunately federal land is geared toward multi use and placed in trust for all citizens, and our wildlife is also placed in trust for the public. It seems fitting to me the public having input on how their trust lands and wildlife are managed. That is the beautiful thing about this country, thank you Mr. Roosevelt.
Teddy Roosevelt is probably rolling over in his grave over the stupidity of this one. Ballot box wildlife management was never part of the North American wildlife model, which I agree is most successful wildlife management plan in the world. Ballot box wildlife management will be the ruin of what mr Roosevelt’s gift to us was. There is over 25 years of firsthand documented facts that disprove every lie the biologist told us in Idaho 25 years ago. They are using the EXACT talking points to reintroduce wolves to Colorado right now. It’s all been shown to be bullcrap which we thought anyways but now it’s proven with decades of on the ground evidence. It’s a shame to see this but oh well have fun with the wolves Colorado.
This is the key point right here! Whether you like or dislike wolves, THIS IS IT!
Ballot box wildlife management was never part of the North American wildlife model, which I agree is most successful wildlife management plan in the world. Ballot box wildlife management will be the ruin of what mr Roosevelt’s gift to us was.
Well stated.
I want hydrophilic to explain Yellowstone and all the features and benefits wolves provided. It’s the closest recent example of wolf reintroduction and what Colorado is doing. Both huge elk herds in the Rockies.25 years with wolves and 25 years without. What does the science tell us about the Health of the elk herds in Yellowstone and Colorado? with the benefit of 25 years of hindsight?
Third time! Can’t find any liberal google talking points?
Post by: idahohuntr on January 09, 2021, 09:00:39 PM
No, I can't. A lot of factors can influence game numbers. In remote, forested areas, particularly if habitat and productivity are poor - I'd estimate solid declines. Other areas - marginal to no impacts. But I don't have a good enough handle on a lot of important factors to put much faith in any of my vague predictions.Hey everyone has their own opinions but what bothers me the most is the personal attacks on Hydro and even the owner of the site calling him names--that just incites the crowd. You want to have a conversation that's fine but lets be adults:yeah:
A lot more productive discussion can happen if we all focus on the topic and not the people.
Platensek-po I appreciate the dialogue you and hydro have had...largely respectful and focused on the topic without a bunch of unnecessary attacks - even though there is strong disagreement. I've learned a bit from your exchanges and I appreciate points you both have made.
I know you think uniformed citizens should vote on these issues. Let’s not debate that again. Do you think spending tax payer money to dump wolves in Colorado where they are migrating naturally is a good idea? Regardless of wether the owners(the public) have the right to decide is this a good idea? Or a total dumpster fire decision by Colorado
No, I would not have voted for this initiative were I a CO resident, primarily for 2 reasons already mentioned: 1. wolves are already in CO, so like WA, just leave it to whatever naturally colonizes. 2. It does create a significant resource drain - biologists and staff working on mule deer and CWD and other important issues are going to get sucked into the same wolf bs you see WDFW sucked into.
If I were advising policy makers in western CO I would be torn over how to handle this from a strategic standpoint. Do you stall, delay, seek another initiative to overturn this one (given it was such a close vote). sue under ESA and NEPA and try to stop it from ultimately happening...or, given the current political makeup, do you move quickly to establish and codify hunting seasons, depredation plans etc. that allow for more successful management in the future. CO is a purple state, trending blue. In a decade they may be solid blue like WA and at that time they will be in the same boat as WA...no chance for any hunting seasons or substantive lethal control measures.
If wolves are ultimately reintroduced I expect it will be similar to all the other western states. The impacts and distribution of wolves will be variable, some areas (particularly NW Colorado) are likely to have the greatest concentration of wolves, and how this will impact ungulate herds will be a function of many other variables as well. It will not 'destroy' deer and elk hunting by any stretch, but it will have impacts on game numbers, distribution, and behavior.
Can you describe your predicted impact on game numbers? Positive or negative and to what extent?
Observations in the field are very important. Sampling is also important but subject to bias. Intentional or not it is important to evaluate the possibity of a biased sample. This includes not just the data and how it is collected, but also the people who collect the data. Before I take the data seriously I would like to see the framework for the sampling process, who wrote wrote the sampling plan and who collected the data. Overly simplified graphs and numbers are great for convincing an uneducated mass but that is all they are good for.
I appreciate your comments on sampling. Considering the data, how it was collected, and what biases and errors might exist is always a good practice.
Post by: idaho guy on January 09, 2021, 09:10:51 PM
Can you provide stable showing the populations of game animals and wolves over the last years from any area? Showing harvest numbers by themselves is proof of nothing other than what hunters self report. I know guys who lie on those reports every year. Is there actual data on population numbers? Also if scientists say that wolves are coming in naturally then why the need for introduction of wolves from outside? Also many scientists have expressed concern over the Mexican wolf that inhabits the southern portion of Colorado and is often killed by its larger cousins. Should they not have a chance of surviving and establishing a foothold before having larger wolves thrown on top of them? All of this from the mouths of biologists studying wolves. The fact of the matter is this was a decision not based on any science at all but on a ballot initiative, which I’m sure was not read by over half the people who voted on it. Also science has many times stated that wolves have met and exceeded their recovery goals in various locations yet they will not be delisted because of feelings. Do you agree with that posture? The major thing that most of the science doesn’t deal with is how to manage these populations to also coexist with humans and humans expansion. If you only manage one side of the predator prey dynamic then it’s going to be hard to have a balanced ecosystem.@bearpaw The part where I said it was not directed at you was that I wanted to be clear I was not saying you were personally attacking hydro. Now that you have called him names, belittled him, and made personal attacks against him I withdraw that statement. I had hopes that you would encourage a more respectful discussion where people can disagree and debate without name calling and personal attacks. I see that is not the case.
As for your threats about discussing my career...I assume you are talking about my past education and experience as a fish biologist. I know you and some other folks have come up with some hilarious and false ideas of my past...I really liked the PM you sent me once where you had me pegged as someone who manufacturers feed troughs for WDFW. I no longer work as a biologist, but yes, I would agree many of my positions on wildlife management issues are informed by my background and education in fish and wildlife management. I believe my positions are more informed by many decades of hunting big game in every western state and being a 5th generation Idahoan - but no doubt my fish and wildlife degrees also shape my views.
I hope you have a good hunting season. I'm already looking forward to mine.
What I said was true, he discounted anyone who used their personal experiences but then uses his own personal experiences and admitted ODFG had not verified wolves in the area that he was using as an example, please google fu the meaning of hypocrisy!
Actually I don't remember any message accusing you of what you claim? Maybe it was another member?QuotePerhaps in my next post I will bring your career into this conversation and suggest how your career has impacted your opinion of wolves, I'm sure the members would enjoy that! We could both play that game!
That was a "what if" type of comment because you decided to bring my business into the conversation! You are responsible for doing that! I didn't actually offer any of your info, it's on you for providing your info to the members.
Additionally please remember, it was you who messaged me in the past regarding certain members offering personal info about you on the forum and I stopped it, maybe you forgot that.
You are confused about the content of this thread, almost everyone is using their personal experiences EXCLUSIVELY, despite my repeated attempts asking for data to support multiple blanket statements and hyperboles.
Rather than focusing on one statement I made regarding an "unverified" wolf pack, throw it out, and focus on the other statements I have made which clearly demonstrate growing elk populations cohabitated by wolves. There are many other scenarios where this is happening, elk herds are above MO, and the state is issuing extra antlerless tags or trying to figure out ways to reduce the population. Also scenarios where the wolves are in fact detrimental, in some cases very detrimental, and I could list data for that too...and I might as well because it would be a better use of my time to argue with myself, using data, than to argue with the hunters here who would like to manage the publics wildlife with their personal observations and emotions.
I've already done that in this thread, minus the wolf info. But I will repost it for you, with the wolf info. And I will add some goodies at the end from other states.
Walla Walla
2002: 1,500
2005: 1,450
2008: 1,500
2011: 1,500
2014: 1,690
2016: 1,700
2019: 1,700
Minam
2002: 1,800
2005: 2,000
2008: 2,100
2011: 2,100
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,500
2019: 2,500
Wenaha
2002: 1300
2005: 1350
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
2019: 2,700
Source: ODFW
Direct link showing INCREASING wolf numbers for each unit.
https://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/population.asp
Do you believe in having a fair conversation? Or are you simply going to cover your eyes and start attacking the messenger pigeon like everyone else here? I can go away, but that doesn't mean the data will.
Idaho Elk population
1995 (year wolves were reintroduced): 112,333
Current: 120,000
Source: IDFG
Do you read your own charts? The Oregon wolf table shows declining numbers for wolves for example wenaha shows a high of 12 wolves and in 2019 5 wolves? 5 wolves is laughable time and numbers will do that herd in if wolves are left to grow. which they will just like a wild dog with large litters yearly
Post by: idaho guy on January 09, 2021, 09:28:18 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 09, 2021, 10:01:55 PM
I'm not aware of anyone saying wolves don't have impacts on elk herds. In fact I believe everyone has acknowledged wolves have no doubt contributed to significant declines in certain herds. There is cherry picking going on with data both sides are presenting, but I also think both sides are presenting reasonable data that does provide some value in discussing the magnitude (and variation) of wolf impacts on elk herds and elk hunting.
A point I've disagreed with is when folks say wolves 'destroy' all herds and clean out all game like a vacuum. I disagree with those exaggerations because even 25 years after reintroductions and even in areas where herds have faced significant reduction, there is still elk hunting (and killing). I also do not accept that wolves are the only (or in some cases most significant) causes of declines, where declines have been observed. Its all case by case. The Lolo is not the same as yellowstone which is not the same as the panhandle which is not the same as the blues.
So lets not waste any more time setting up these false arguments about whether wolves have ever impacted a herd of elk. Of course they have...they eat the *censored* things all the time.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 10, 2021, 04:16:44 AM
Post by: idaho guy on January 10, 2021, 06:55:04 AM
I've not read through all the banter of these last few pages - but I think folks are talking past each other and twisting arguments into something that nobody is actually arguing.
I'm not aware of anyone saying wolves don't have impacts on elk herds. In fact I believe everyone has acknowledged wolves have no doubt contributed to significant declines in certain herds. There is cherry picking going on with data both sides are presenting, but I also think both sides are presenting reasonable data that does provide some value in discussing the magnitude (and variation) of wolf impacts on elk herds and elk hunting.
A point I've disagreed with is when folks say wolves 'destroy' all herds and clean out all game like a vacuum. I disagree with those exaggerations because even 25 years after reintroductions and even in areas where herds have faced significant reduction, there is still elk hunting (and killing). I also do not accept that wolves are the only (or in some cases most significant) causes of declines, where declines have been observed. Its all case by case. The Lolo is not the same as yellowstone which is not the same as the panhandle which is not the same as the blues.
So lets not waste any more time setting up these false arguments about whether wolves have ever impacted a herd of elk. Of course they have...they eat the *censored* things all the time.
Paraphrasing your last comment-of course they (wolves) have (impacted elk). they eat the things (elk). That’s an honest statement. I wanted to disengage from this whole thread but made the mistake of looking a little closer at hydrophilic “data”. He had stated and cherry picked information to make the case that wolves and elk numbers could increase TOGETHER. His own Oregon stats to prove this do show increased elk herds but actually decreasing wolf numbers. It’s like he didn’t even look at it before posting. His harvest stats from Idaho he thought proved his point that elk hunting got better after wolves. They in fact are a good representation of the effect wolves did have on hunter success. Summary 1994 almost 30000 elk harvested then 1995 wolves planted. 15 years later harvest success in 2011 is cut roughy in half to 15000. What else happened in 2011? We got a wolf hunting and trapping season and now recent success is up to 20000. No one who minimize wolf depredation of elk herds will talk about Yellowstone. Other than to say yes that 1 situation wolves really impacted elk but everywhere else it’s habitat etc. hydro posted overall elk population in Idaho to claim Idaho elk have GROWN since wolves. You know how dishonest this is so I posted Idaho elk units with population objective. Every unit around ground zero for wolf re introduction is BELOW objective. We both know there are places in Idaho with ZERO or very few wolves. In general these units are above objective. I am asking hydro or anyone else to address elk herds 25 years after wolves. Yellowstone of course but include lolo and selway and in Wyoming Jackson hole herd and elk around Gardiner Montana (Yellowstone area but outside the park and was once referred to as the elk capital of Montana)Look at any of the herds around the initial wolf dumping spot and elk have been hammered. Are there other factors at play. Mostly yes but there is one common denominator for all those herds 25 years of wolves. Why did hydrophilic come on here and start posting google searches to prove wolves have very little effect on wolves.?? He actually posted an Oregon biologist letter stating that very thing wolves have had minimal impact on elk and goes on to say they find the most wolves around the bigger elk herds. That is exactly why some biologist can’t be trusted. If someone wants to debate wolves and elk they NEED to talk about those herds listed. I already know lolo it will be lack of logging or bears or lions. You don’t go from 16000 elk to 1,000 because we didn’t cut down enough trees( I agree this was and is a problem it’s just not THE problem) bears and lions were always there and those zones were the first to get 2 bear tags 2 lion tags and extended season. There is less bears today than 25 years ago I think. Where is hydrophilic? When you bring up data he did not personally google he disappears yet says he wants to have a fair debate based on science and “data” but only data he provided. Twice his “data” actually made the case against his argument. He did say wolves have negligible effects on elk and he hunts with a wolf herd and had noticed no difference in the elk pack.
Post by: Buckhunter24 on January 10, 2021, 07:59:41 AM
I've not read through all the banter of these last few pages - but I think folks are talking past each other and twisting arguments into something that nobody is actually arguing.
I'm not aware of anyone saying wolves don't have impacts on elk herds. In fact I believe everyone has acknowledged wolves have no doubt contributed to significant declines in certain herds. There is cherry picking going on with data both sides are presenting, but I also think both sides are presenting reasonable data that does provide some value in discussing the magnitude (and variation) of wolf impacts on elk herds and elk hunting.
A point I've disagreed with is when folks say wolves 'destroy' all herds and clean out all game like a vacuum. I disagree with those exaggerations because even 25 years after reintroductions and even in areas where herds have faced significant reduction, there is still elk hunting (and killing). I also do not accept that wolves are the only (or in some cases most significant) causes of declines, where declines have been observed. Its all case by case. The Lolo is not the same as yellowstone which is not the same as the panhandle which is not the same as the blues.
So lets not waste any more time setting up these false arguments about whether wolves have ever impacted a herd of elk. Of course they have...they eat the *censored* things all the time.
Paraphrasing your last comment-of course they (wolves) have (impacted elk). they eat the things (elk). That’s an honest statement. I wanted to disengage from this whole thread but made the mistake of looking a little closer at hydrophilic “data”. He had stated and cherry picked information to make the case that wolves and elk numbers could increase TOGETHER. His own Oregon stats to prove this do show increased elk herds but actually decreasing wolf numbers. It’s like he didn’t even look at it before posting. His harvest stats from Idaho he thought proved his point that elk hunting got better after wolves. They in fact are a good representation of the effect wolves did have on hunter success. Summary 1994 almost 30000 elk harvested then 1995 wolves planted. 15 years later harvest success in 2011 is cut roughy in half to 15000. What else happened in 2011? We got a wolf hunting and trapping season and now recent success is up to 20000. No one who minimize wolf depredation of elk herds will talk about Yellowstone. Other than to say yes that 1 situation wolves really impacted elk but everywhere else it’s habitat etc. hydro posted overall elk population in Idaho to claim Idaho elk have GROWN since wolves. You know how dishonest this is so I posted Idaho elk units with population objective. Every unit around ground zero for wolf re introduction is BELOW objective. We both know there are places in Idaho with ZERO or very few wolves. In general these units are above objective. I am asking hydro or anyone else to address elk herds 25 years after wolves. Yellowstone of course but include lolo and selway and in Wyoming Jackson hole herd and elk around Gardiner Montana (Yellowstone area but outside the park and was once referred to as the elk capital of Montana)Look at any of the herds around the initial wolf dumping spot and elk have been hammered. Are there other factors at play. Mostly yes but there is one common denominator for all those herds 25 years of wolves. Why did hydrophilic come on here and start posting google searches to prove wolves have very little effect on wolves.?? He actually posted an Oregon biologist letter stating that very thing wolves have had minimal impact on elk and goes on to say they find the most wolves around the bigger elk herds. That is exactly why some biologist can’t be trusted. If someone wants to debate wolves and elk they NEED to talk about those herds listed. I already know lolo it will be lack of logging or bears or lions. You don’t go from 16000 elk to 1,000 because we didn’t cut down enough trees( I agree this was and is a problem it’s just not THE problem) bears and lions were always there and those zones were the first to get 2 bear tags 2 lion tags and extended season. There is less bears today than 25 years ago I think. Where is hydrophilic? When you bring up data he did not personally google he disappears yet says he wants to have a fair debate based on science and “data” but only data he provided. Twice his “data” actually made the case against his argument. He did say wolves have negligible effects on elk and he hunts with a wolf herd and had noticed no difference in the elk pack.
This is a great post, I suspect it will fall on deaf ears though.
Post by: Hydrophilic on January 10, 2021, 12:00:30 PM
Can you provide stable showing the populations of game animals and wolves over the last years from any area? Showing harvest numbers by themselves is proof of nothing other than what hunters self report. I know guys who lie on those reports every year. Is there actual data on population numbers? Also if scientists say that wolves are coming in naturally then why the need for introduction of wolves from outside? Also many scientists have expressed concern over the Mexican wolf that inhabits the southern portion of Colorado and is often killed by its larger cousins. Should they not have a chance of surviving and establishing a foothold before having larger wolves thrown on top of them? All of this from the mouths of biologists studying wolves. The fact of the matter is this was a decision not based on any science at all but on a ballot initiative, which I’m sure was not read by over half the people who voted on it. Also science has many times stated that wolves have met and exceeded their recovery goals in various locations yet they will not be delisted because of feelings. Do you agree with that posture? The major thing that most of the science doesn’t deal with is how to manage these populations to also coexist with humans and humans expansion. If you only manage one side of the predator prey dynamic then it’s going to be hard to have a balanced ecosystem.@bearpaw The part where I said it was not directed at you was that I wanted to be clear I was not saying you were personally attacking hydro. Now that you have called him names, belittled him, and made personal attacks against him I withdraw that statement. I had hopes that you would encourage a more respectful discussion where people can disagree and debate without name calling and personal attacks. I see that is not the case.
As for your threats about discussing my career...I assume you are talking about my past education and experience as a fish biologist. I know you and some other folks have come up with some hilarious and false ideas of my past...I really liked the PM you sent me once where you had me pegged as someone who manufacturers feed troughs for WDFW. I no longer work as a biologist, but yes, I would agree many of my positions on wildlife management issues are informed by my background and education in fish and wildlife management. I believe my positions are more informed by many decades of hunting big game in every western state and being a 5th generation Idahoan - but no doubt my fish and wildlife degrees also shape my views.
I hope you have a good hunting season. I'm already looking forward to mine.
What I said was true, he discounted anyone who used their personal experiences but then uses his own personal experiences and admitted ODFG had not verified wolves in the area that he was using as an example, please google fu the meaning of hypocrisy!
Actually I don't remember any message accusing you of what you claim? Maybe it was another member?QuotePerhaps in my next post I will bring your career into this conversation and suggest how your career has impacted your opinion of wolves, I'm sure the members would enjoy that! We could both play that game!
That was a "what if" type of comment because you decided to bring my business into the conversation! You are responsible for doing that! I didn't actually offer any of your info, it's on you for providing your info to the members.
Additionally please remember, it was you who messaged me in the past regarding certain members offering personal info about you on the forum and I stopped it, maybe you forgot that.
You are confused about the content of this thread, almost everyone is using their personal experiences EXCLUSIVELY, despite my repeated attempts asking for data to support multiple blanket statements and hyperboles.
Rather than focusing on one statement I made regarding an "unverified" wolf pack, throw it out, and focus on the other statements I have made which clearly demonstrate growing elk populations cohabitated by wolves. There are many other scenarios where this is happening, elk herds are above MO, and the state is issuing extra antlerless tags or trying to figure out ways to reduce the population. Also scenarios where the wolves are in fact detrimental, in some cases very detrimental, and I could list data for that too...and I might as well because it would be a better use of my time to argue with myself, using data, than to argue with the hunters here who would like to manage the publics wildlife with their personal observations and emotions.
I've already done that in this thread, minus the wolf info. But I will repost it for you, with the wolf info. And I will add some goodies at the end from other states.
Walla Walla
2002: 1,500
2005: 1,450
2008: 1,500
2011: 1,500
2014: 1,690
2016: 1,700
2019: 1,700
Minam
2002: 1,800
2005: 2,000
2008: 2,100
2011: 2,100
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,500
2019: 2,500
Wenaha
2002: 1300
2005: 1350
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
2019: 2,700
Source: ODFW
Direct link showing INCREASING wolf numbers for each unit.
https://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/population.asp
Do you believe in having a fair conversation? Or are you simply going to cover your eyes and start attacking the messenger pigeon like everyone else here? I can go away, but that doesn't mean the data will.
Idaho Elk population
1995 (year wolves were reintroduced): 112,333
Current: 120,000
Source: IDFG
Do you read your own charts? The Oregon wolf table shows declining numbers for wolves for example wenaha shows a high of 12 wolves and in 2019 5 wolves? 5 wolves is laughable time and numbers will do that herd in if wolves are left to grow. which they will just like a wild dog with large litters yearly
I have not paid much attention to you because you cannot form a reasonable argument or adequately eval data. Since you took issue with the data I provided showing a wolf decrease, I adjusted both sets of data so they aligned, it took me 5 seconds, a basic skill. Still a wolf increase and an elk increase over the same time span.
Wenaha Elk
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
Wenaha Wolves
2009: 4
2010: 6
2011: 5
2012: 11
2013: 9
2014: 11
2015: 12
2016: 12
The primary cause for elk decline in Yellowstone was wolves, like I stated at the start, few people will argue that. That was intentional. Before wolves the park was having to cull the elk and the surrounding areas had a very high antlerless harvest. Plus, the public really wanted the wolves back.
The Jackson herd was deliberately decreased. Do you see that red line? It represents MO, management objective, where the state wants the herd numbers to be. That was an intentional decrease. See attachment, or call them directly, whatever you'd like. I can show you a lot of intentional elk decreases due to land owner conflicts, habitat degradation, etc...very common.
Lolo zone decline is primarily predation. Cougar, Black Bear and more recently wolves. Elk population was declining before wolves showed up. What's your point? It seems like you are suggesting a faulty generalization, that you would like to extrapolate a handful of wolf predation examples onto the rest of the west?
I have demonstrated there are many areas where predators are coinciding with growing elk numbers and hunting opportunity. Each region and unit is completely different with completely different needs, that's why DATA MATTERS. In the Oregon data I provided, which I will again copy below, this includes one of the healthiest, if not the healthiest, growing cougar population in the Western states. So, not only were the wolves increasing, but the cougars and Elk were increasing as well. Does this make sense to you? Or do I need to do a data compilation for you as well?
You will notice the last attachment I added the state increased the total MO for elk and after several years they achieved their goal, primarily through manipulating hunter harvest.
Walla Walla
2002: 1,500
2005: 1,450
2008: 1,500
2011: 1,500
2014: 1,690
2016: 1,700
2019: 1,700
Minam
2002: 1,800
2005: 2,000
2008: 2,100
2011: 2,100
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,500
2019: 2,500
Wenaha
2002: 1300
2005: 1350
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
2019: 2,700
Source: ODFW
Post by: Buckhunter24 on January 10, 2021, 02:55:48 PM
Can you provide stable showing the populations of game animals and wolves over the last years from any area? Showing harvest numbers by themselves is proof of nothing other than what hunters self report. I know guys who lie on those reports every year. Is there actual data on population numbers? Also if scientists say that wolves are coming in naturally then why the need for introduction of wolves from outside? Also many scientists have expressed concern over the Mexican wolf that inhabits the southern portion of Colorado and is often killed by its larger cousins. Should they not have a chance of surviving and establishing a foothold before having larger wolves thrown on top of them? All of this from the mouths of biologists studying wolves. The fact of the matter is this was a decision not based on any science at all but on a ballot initiative, which I’m sure was not read by over half the people who voted on it. Also science has many times stated that wolves have met and exceeded their recovery goals in various locations yet they will not be delisted because of feelings. Do you agree with that posture? The major thing that most of the science doesn’t deal with is how to manage these populations to also coexist with humans and humans expansion. If you only manage one side of the predator prey dynamic then it’s going to be hard to have a balanced ecosystem.@bearpaw The part where I said it was not directed at you was that I wanted to be clear I was not saying you were personally attacking hydro. Now that you have called him names, belittled him, and made personal attacks against him I withdraw that statement. I had hopes that you would encourage a more respectful discussion where people can disagree and debate without name calling and personal attacks. I see that is not the case.
As for your threats about discussing my career...I assume you are talking about my past education and experience as a fish biologist. I know you and some other folks have come up with some hilarious and false ideas of my past...I really liked the PM you sent me once where you had me pegged as someone who manufacturers feed troughs for WDFW. I no longer work as a biologist, but yes, I would agree many of my positions on wildlife management issues are informed by my background and education in fish and wildlife management. I believe my positions are more informed by many decades of hunting big game in every western state and being a 5th generation Idahoan - but no doubt my fish and wildlife degrees also shape my views.
I hope you have a good hunting season. I'm already looking forward to mine.
What I said was true, he discounted anyone who used their personal experiences but then uses his own personal experiences and admitted ODFG had not verified wolves in the area that he was using as an example, please google fu the meaning of hypocrisy!
Actually I don't remember any message accusing you of what you claim? Maybe it was another member?QuotePerhaps in my next post I will bring your career into this conversation and suggest how your career has impacted your opinion of wolves, I'm sure the members would enjoy that! We could both play that game!
That was a "what if" type of comment because you decided to bring my business into the conversation! You are responsible for doing that! I didn't actually offer any of your info, it's on you for providing your info to the members.
Additionally please remember, it was you who messaged me in the past regarding certain members offering personal info about you on the forum and I stopped it, maybe you forgot that.
You are confused about the content of this thread, almost everyone is using their personal experiences EXCLUSIVELY, despite my repeated attempts asking for data to support multiple blanket statements and hyperboles.
Rather than focusing on one statement I made regarding an "unverified" wolf pack, throw it out, and focus on the other statements I have made which clearly demonstrate growing elk populations cohabitated by wolves. There are many other scenarios where this is happening, elk herds are above MO, and the state is issuing extra antlerless tags or trying to figure out ways to reduce the population. Also scenarios where the wolves are in fact detrimental, in some cases very detrimental, and I could list data for that too...and I might as well because it would be a better use of my time to argue with myself, using data, than to argue with the hunters here who would like to manage the publics wildlife with their personal observations and emotions.
I've already done that in this thread, minus the wolf info. But I will repost it for you, with the wolf info. And I will add some goodies at the end from other states.
Walla Walla
2002: 1,500
2005: 1,450
2008: 1,500
2011: 1,500
2014: 1,690
2016: 1,700
2019: 1,700
Minam
2002: 1,800
2005: 2,000
2008: 2,100
2011: 2,100
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,500
2019: 2,500
Wenaha
2002: 1300
2005: 1350
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
2019: 2,700
Source: ODFW
Direct link showing INCREASING wolf numbers for each unit.
https://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/population.asp
Do you believe in having a fair conversation? Or are you simply going to cover your eyes and start attacking the messenger pigeon like everyone else here? I can go away, but that doesn't mean the data will.
Idaho Elk population
1995 (year wolves were reintroduced): 112,333
Current: 120,000
Source: IDFG
Do you read your own charts? The Oregon wolf table shows declining numbers for wolves for example wenaha shows a high of 12 wolves and in 2019 5 wolves? 5 wolves is laughable time and numbers will do that herd in if wolves are left to grow. which they will just like a wild dog with large litters yearly
I have not paid much attention to you because you cannot form a reasonable argument or adequately eval data. Since you took issue with the data I provided showing a wolf decrease, I adjusted both sets of data so they aligned, it took me 5 seconds, a basic skill. Still a wolf increase and an elk increase over the same time span.
Wenaha Elk
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
Wenaha Wolves
2009: 4
2010: 6
2011: 5
2012: 11
2013: 9
2014: 11
2015: 12
2016: 12
The primary cause for elk decline in Yellowstone was wolves, like I stated at the start, few people will argue that. That was intentional. Before wolves the park was having to cull the elk and the surrounding areas had a very high antlerless harvest. Plus, the public really wanted the wolves back.
The Jackson herd was deliberately decreased. Do you see that red line? It represents MO, management objective, where the state wants the herd numbers to be. That was an intentional decrease. See attachment, or call them directly, whatever you'd like. I can show you a lot of intentional elk decreases due to land owner conflicts, habitat degradation, etc...very common.
Lolo zone decline is primarily predation. Cougar, Black Bear and more recently wolves. Elk population was declining before wolves showed up. What's your point? It seems like you are suggesting a faulty generalization, that you would like to extrapolate a handful of wolf predation examples onto the rest of the west?
I have demonstrated there are many areas where predators are coinciding with growing elk numbers and hunting opportunity. Each region and unit is completely different with completely different needs, that's why DATA MATTERS. In the Oregon data I provided, which I will again copy below, this includes one of the healthiest, if not the healthiest, growing cougar population in the Western states. So, not only were the wolves increasing, but the cougars and Elk were increasing as well. Does this make sense to you? Or do I need to do a data compilation for you as well?
You will notice the last attachment I added the state increased the total MO for elk and after several years they achieved their goal, primarily through manipulating hunter harvest.
Walla Walla
2002: 1,500
2005: 1,450
2008: 1,500
2011: 1,500
2014: 1,690
2016: 1,700
2019: 1,700
Minam
2002: 1,800
2005: 2,000
2008: 2,100
2011: 2,100
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,500
2019: 2,500
Wenaha
2002: 1300
2005: 1350
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
2019: 2,700
Source: ODFW
The wolves in Yellowstone drastically reduced the elk population, as you stated above. This area is heavily observed and well known for elk. The population decrease was widely noticed and documented, there was no denying the effect wolves had on the elk.
Many areas with a lot less popularity are essentially out of site out of mind, a simple graph like the one you posted put the general population at ease with that upward trend. What I question is how they come to those numbers and how the sampling process has accounted for an introduced bias such as wolves affecting elk habits, ie forcing them down low. What you are claiming is 180 from what I and many others see out in the woods.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 10, 2021, 06:24:27 PM
You've provided cherry picked data as well...its not a coincidence you like to start data sets in the early 90's when game numbers were at their highest in many decades. You also fail to mention in any of your posts the extraordinary winters in 1996 and 2008 in the areas you like to discuss. Animal abundance is never static, so when you start at a record high, then attribute all future declines to wolves it's not that simple. You also fail to mention that 25 years after wolf introduction, the opportunity to harvest an elk in Idaho is about as high as its ever been - and this is probably also true for WY and MT. And again, this is not to say there have not been substantial impacts to various herds...but all can still be hunted OTC, so the preponderance of the evidence, 25 years post introduction, is not the doom and gloom some like to portray.I've not read through all the banter of these last few pages - but I think folks are talking past each other and twisting arguments into something that nobody is actually arguing.
I'm not aware of anyone saying wolves don't have impacts on elk herds. In fact I believe everyone has acknowledged wolves have no doubt contributed to significant declines in certain herds. There is cherry picking going on with data both sides are presenting, but I also think both sides are presenting reasonable data that does provide some value in discussing the magnitude (and variation) of wolf impacts on elk herds and elk hunting.
A point I've disagreed with is when folks say wolves 'destroy' all herds and clean out all game like a vacuum. I disagree with those exaggerations because even 25 years after reintroductions and even in areas where herds have faced significant reduction, there is still elk hunting (and killing). I also do not accept that wolves are the only (or in some cases most significant) causes of declines, where declines have been observed. Its all case by case. The Lolo is not the same as yellowstone which is not the same as the panhandle which is not the same as the blues.
So lets not waste any more time setting up these false arguments about whether wolves have ever impacted a herd of elk. Of course they have...they eat the *censored* things all the time.
Paraphrasing your last comment-of course they (wolves) have (impacted elk). they eat the things (elk). That’s an honest statement. I wanted to disengage from this whole thread but made the mistake of looking a little closer at hydrophilic “data”. He had stated and cherry picked information to make the case that wolves and elk numbers could increase TOGETHER. His own Oregon stats to prove this do show increased elk herds but actually decreasing wolf numbers. It’s like he didn’t even look at it before posting. His harvest stats from Idaho he thought proved his point that elk hunting got better after wolves. They in fact are a good representation of the effect wolves did have on hunter success. Summary 1994 almost 30000 elk harvested then 1995 wolves planted. 15 years later harvest success in 2011 is cut roughy in half to 15000. What else happened in 2011? We got a wolf hunting and trapping season and now recent success is up to 20000. No one who minimize wolf depredation of elk herds will talk about Yellowstone. Other than to say yes that 1 situation wolves really impacted elk but everywhere else it’s habitat etc. hydro posted overall elk population in Idaho to claim Idaho elk have GROWN since wolves. You know how dishonest this is so I posted Idaho elk units with population objective. Every unit around ground zero for wolf re introduction is BELOW objective. We both know there are places in Idaho with ZERO or very few wolves. In general these units are above objective. I am asking hydro or anyone else to address elk herds 25 years after wolves. Yellowstone of course but include lolo and selway and in Wyoming Jackson hole herd and elk around Gardiner Montana (Yellowstone area but outside the park and was once referred to as the elk capital of Montana)Look at any of the herds around the initial wolf dumping spot and elk have been hammered. Are there other factors at play. Mostly yes but there is one common denominator for all those herds 25 years of wolves. Why did hydrophilic come on here and start posting google searches to prove wolves have very little effect on wolves.?? He actually posted an Oregon biologist letter stating that very thing wolves have had minimal impact on elk and goes on to say they find the most wolves around the bigger elk herds. That is exactly why some biologist can’t be trusted. If someone wants to debate wolves and elk they NEED to talk about those herds listed. I already know lolo it will be lack of logging or bears or lions. You don’t go from 16000 elk to 1,000 because we didn’t cut down enough trees( I agree this was and is a problem it’s just not THE problem) bears and lions were always there and those zones were the first to get 2 bear tags 2 lion tags and extended season. There is less bears today than 25 years ago I think. Where is hydrophilic? When you bring up data he did not personally google he disappears yet says he wants to have a fair debate based on science and “data” but only data he provided. Twice his “data” actually made the case against his argument. He did say wolves have negligible effects on elk and he hunts with a wolf herd and had noticed no difference in the elk pack.
Post by: idaho guy on January 11, 2021, 01:33:25 PM
You've provided cherry picked data as well...its not a coincidence you like to start data sets in the early 90's when game numbers were at their highest in many decades. You also fail to mention in any of your posts the extraordinary winters in 1996 and 2008 in the areas you like to discuss. Animal abundance is never static, so when you start at a record high, then attribute all future declines to wolves it's not that simple. You also fail to mention that 25 years after wolf introduction, the opportunity to harvest an elk in Idaho is about as high as its ever been - and this is probably also true for WY and MT. And again, this is not to say there have not been substantial impacts to various herds...but all can still be hunted OTC, so the preponderance of the evidence, 25 years post introduction, is not the doom and gloom some like to portray.I've not read through all the banter of these last few pages - but I think folks are talking past each other and twisting arguments into something that nobody is actually arguing.
I'm not aware of anyone saying wolves don't have impacts on elk herds. In fact I believe everyone has acknowledged wolves have no doubt contributed to significant declines in certain herds. There is cherry picking going on with data both sides are presenting, but I also think both sides are presenting reasonable data that does provide some value in discussing the magnitude (and variation) of wolf impacts on elk herds and elk hunting.
A point I've disagreed with is when folks say wolves 'destroy' all herds and clean out all game like a vacuum. I disagree with those exaggerations because even 25 years after reintroductions and even in areas where herds have faced significant reduction, there is still elk hunting (and killing). I also do not accept that wolves are the only (or in some cases most significant) causes of declines, where declines have been observed. Its all case by case. The Lolo is not the same as yellowstone which is not the same as the panhandle which is not the same as the blues.
So lets not waste any more time setting up these false arguments about whether wolves have ever impacted a herd of elk. Of course they have...they eat the *censored* things all the time.
Paraphrasing your last comment-of course they (wolves) have (impacted elk). they eat the things (elk). That’s an honest statement. I wanted to disengage from this whole thread but made the mistake of looking a little closer at hydrophilic “data”. He had stated and cherry picked information to make the case that wolves and elk numbers could increase TOGETHER. His own Oregon stats to prove this do show increased elk herds but actually decreasing wolf numbers. It’s like he didn’t even look at it before posting. His harvest stats from Idaho he thought proved his point that elk hunting got better after wolves. They in fact are a good representation of the effect wolves did have on hunter success. Summary 1994 almost 30000 elk harvested then 1995 wolves planted. 15 years later harvest success in 2011 is cut roughy in half to 15000. What else happened in 2011? We got a wolf hunting and trapping season and now recent success is up to 20000. No one who minimize wolf depredation of elk herds will talk about Yellowstone. Other than to say yes that 1 situation wolves really impacted elk but everywhere else it’s habitat etc. hydro posted overall elk population in Idaho to claim Idaho elk have GROWN since wolves. You know how dishonest this is so I posted Idaho elk units with population objective. Every unit around ground zero for wolf re introduction is BELOW objective. We both know there are places in Idaho with ZERO or very few wolves. In general these units are above objective. I am asking hydro or anyone else to address elk herds 25 years after wolves. Yellowstone of course but include lolo and selway and in Wyoming Jackson hole herd and elk around Gardiner Montana (Yellowstone area but outside the park and was once referred to as the elk capital of Montana)Look at any of the herds around the initial wolf dumping spot and elk have been hammered. Are there other factors at play. Mostly yes but there is one common denominator for all those herds 25 years of wolves. Why did hydrophilic come on here and start posting google searches to prove wolves have very little effect on wolves.?? He actually posted an Oregon biologist letter stating that very thing wolves have had minimal impact on elk and goes on to say they find the most wolves around the bigger elk herds. That is exactly why some biologist can’t be trusted. If someone wants to debate wolves and elk they NEED to talk about those herds listed. I already know lolo it will be lack of logging or bears or lions. You don’t go from 16000 elk to 1,000 because we didn’t cut down enough trees( I agree this was and is a problem it’s just not THE problem) bears and lions were always there and those zones were the first to get 2 bear tags 2 lion tags and extended season. There is less bears today than 25 years ago I think. Where is hydrophilic? When you bring up data he did not personally google he disappears yet says he wants to have a fair debate based on science and “data” but only data he provided. Twice his “data” actually made the case against his argument. He did say wolves have negligible effects on elk and he hunts with a wolf herd and had noticed no difference in the elk pack.
Really I picked the early 90s because there was an abundance of game populations? Or did I pick that time frame because thats WHEN WOLVES were reintroduced? It was the latter of course. You above all know that there is multitude of factors which affect game populations the one thing that smooths out hard winters, lack of logging, fires etc effect so you can see the impact of 1 individual factor is TIME. Think about the irony of that statement-"You cherry picked the early 90s when game populations were at an all time high." when in fact I chose it because that is exactly when wolves showed up. I posted the idaho game units and elk objective specifically to demonstrate the areas where wolves were reintroduced and where the greatest amount of wolves reside are BELOW objective. I never predicted the end of hunting I always felt they would be detrimental to our herds and the evidence is certainly there. If wolves are not strongly managed in other states it could and will dramatically effect hunting. It already has. Dont forget that Idaho is very aggressive in wolf management. Year around seasons on private land,30 tags per person per year, 1000 dollar bounty(reimbursement through fwim) and fish and game has spent their own money to hire sharpshooters to kill wolves out of helicopters. What would Idaho look like today without these measures. Wolves have not been the yawn they wont make much difference event that was promised. I do take issue with Hydro coming on here claiming reliance on data and science but only using google talking points provided by extremely pro wolf groups. Its the same exact false information that was provided 25 years ago. Im fine with wolves in Idaho now and feel very optimistic with the measures fish and game has taken. 25 years later you have to ask was it really worth it to bring these wolves here? I dont know but fear for other states with liberal leaning game departments
Post by: idaho guy on January 11, 2021, 01:46:29 PM
Can you provide stable showing the populations of game animals and wolves over the last years from any area? Showing harvest numbers by themselves is proof of nothing other than what hunters self report. I know guys who lie on those reports every year. Is there actual data on population numbers? Also if scientists say that wolves are coming in naturally then why the need for introduction of wolves from outside? Also many scientists have expressed concern over the Mexican wolf that inhabits the southern portion of Colorado and is often killed by its larger cousins. Should they not have a chance of surviving and establishing a foothold before having larger wolves thrown on top of them? All of this from the mouths of biologists studying wolves. The fact of the matter is this was a decision not based on any science at all but on a ballot initiative, which I’m sure was not read by over half the people who voted on it. Also science has many times stated that wolves have met and exceeded their recovery goals in various locations yet they will not be delisted because of feelings. Do you agree with that posture? The major thing that most of the science doesn’t deal with is how to manage these populations to also coexist with humans and humans expansion. If you only manage one side of the predator prey dynamic then it’s going to be hard to have a balanced ecosystem.@bearpaw The part where I said it was not directed at you was that I wanted to be clear I was not saying you were personally attacking hydro. Now that you have called him names, belittled him, and made personal attacks against him I withdraw that statement. I had hopes that you would encourage a more respectful discussion where people can disagree and debate without name calling and personal attacks. I see that is not the case.
As for your threats about discussing my career...I assume you are talking about my past education and experience as a fish biologist. I know you and some other folks have come up with some hilarious and false ideas of my past...I really liked the PM you sent me once where you had me pegged as someone who manufacturers feed troughs for WDFW. I no longer work as a biologist, but yes, I would agree many of my positions on wildlife management issues are informed by my background and education in fish and wildlife management. I believe my positions are more informed by many decades of hunting big game in every western state and being a 5th generation Idahoan - but no doubt my fish and wildlife degrees also shape my views.
I hope you have a good hunting season. I'm already looking forward to mine.
What I said was true, he discounted anyone who used their personal experiences but then uses his own personal experiences and admitted ODFG had not verified wolves in the area that he was using as an example, please google fu the meaning of hypocrisy!
Actually I don't remember any message accusing you of what you claim? Maybe it was another member?QuotePerhaps in my next post I will bring your career into this conversation and suggest how your career has impacted your opinion of wolves, I'm sure the members would enjoy that! We could both play that game!
That was a "what if" type of comment because you decided to bring my business into the conversation! You are responsible for doing that! I didn't actually offer any of your info, it's on you for providing your info to the members.
Additionally please remember, it was you who messaged me in the past regarding certain members offering personal info about you on the forum and I stopped it, maybe you forgot that.
You are confused about the content of this thread, almost everyone is using their personal experiences EXCLUSIVELY, despite my repeated attempts asking for data to support multiple blanket statements and hyperboles.
Rather than focusing on one statement I made regarding an "unverified" wolf pack, throw it out, and focus on the other statements I have made which clearly demonstrate growing elk populations cohabitated by wolves. There are many other scenarios where this is happening, elk herds are above MO, and the state is issuing extra antlerless tags or trying to figure out ways to reduce the population. Also scenarios where the wolves are in fact detrimental, in some cases very detrimental, and I could list data for that too...and I might as well because it would be a better use of my time to argue with myself, using data, than to argue with the hunters here who would like to manage the publics wildlife with their personal observations and emotions.
I've already done that in this thread, minus the wolf info. But I will repost it for you, with the wolf info. And I will add some goodies at the end from other states.
Walla Walla
2002: 1,500
2005: 1,450
2008: 1,500
2011: 1,500
2014: 1,690
2016: 1,700
2019: 1,700
Minam
2002: 1,800
2005: 2,000
2008: 2,100
2011: 2,100
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,500
2019: 2,500
Wenaha
2002: 1300
2005: 1350
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
2019: 2,700
Source: ODFW
Direct link showing INCREASING wolf numbers for each unit.
https://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/population.asp
Do you believe in having a fair conversation? Or are you simply going to cover your eyes and start attacking the messenger pigeon like everyone else here? I can go away, but that doesn't mean the data will.
Idaho Elk population
1995 (year wolves were reintroduced): 112,333
Current: 120,000
Source: IDFG
Do you read your own charts? The Oregon wolf table shows declining numbers for wolves for example wenaha shows a high of 12 wolves and in 2019 5 wolves? 5 wolves is laughable time and numbers will do that herd in if wolves are left to grow. which they will just like a wild dog with large litters yearly
I have not paid much attention to you because you cannot form a reasonable argument or adequately eval data. Since you took issue with the data I provided showing a wolf decrease, I adjusted both sets of data so they aligned, it took me 5 seconds, a basic skill. Still a wolf increase and an elk increase over the same time span.
Wenaha Elk
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
Wenaha Wolves
2009: 4
2010: 6
2011: 5
2012: 11
2013: 9
2014: 11
2015: 12
2016: 12
The primary cause for elk decline in Yellowstone was wolves, like I stated at the start, few people will argue that. That was intentional. Before wolves the park was having to cull the elk and the surrounding areas had a very high antlerless harvest. Plus, the public really wanted the wolves back.
The Jackson herd was deliberately decreased. Do you see that red line? It represents MO, management objective, where the state wants the herd numbers to be. That was an intentional decrease. See attachment, or call them directly, whatever you'd like. I can show you a lot of intentional elk decreases due to land owner conflicts, habitat degradation, etc...very common.
Lolo zone decline is primarily predation. Cougar, Black Bear and more recently wolves. Elk population was declining before wolves showed up. What's your point? It seems like you are suggesting a faulty generalization, that you would like to extrapolate a handful of wolf predation examples onto the rest of the west?
I have demonstrated there are many areas where predators are coinciding with growing elk numbers and hunting opportunity. Each region and unit is completely different with completely different needs, that's why DATA MATTERS. In the Oregon data I provided, which I will again copy below, this includes one of the healthiest, if not the healthiest, growing cougar population in the Western states. So, not only were the wolves increasing, but the cougars and Elk were increasing as well. Does this make sense to you? Or do I need to do a data compilation for you as well?
You will notice the last attachment I added the state increased the total MO for elk and after several years they achieved their goal, primarily through manipulating hunter harvest.
Walla Walla
2002: 1,500
2005: 1,450
2008: 1,500
2011: 1,500
2014: 1,690
2016: 1,700
2019: 1,700
Minam
2002: 1,800
2005: 2,000
2008: 2,100
2011: 2,100
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,500
2019: 2,500
Wenaha
2002: 1300
2005: 1350
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
2019: 2,700
Source: ODFW
Wow!-Manipulating data is a basic skill. I could cherry pick any time frame of ANY statistics to prove any point I wanted to make. Your original "data" showed increasing elk and decreasing wolves over time. Do you really want to pretend to have and honest debate based on science and pick small windows of data to prove your point. That is meaningless. The longer time frame we have to observe any natural interaction the more valid it becomes. You are the king of there is a myriad of factors that affect game populations. The only thing that smooths out all the other factors so you can determine the real trend of one individual impact (wolves) is time. You want to base your sample on 8 years and 2000 elk and somewhere beetwenn 5 and 12 wolves! thats a joke and you know it if you really study data. Lets conduct a scientific study but I get to choose the time period and I want the shortest time period available and I want to make the pool as small as possible. Is that a scientific approach?
Yellowstone-Ok I give your credit you at least addresed it. Thank you. You were spouting the benefits of the north american wildlife model but seem to not understand how it works. They were culling animals out of yellowstone with hunts to reduce the population . The model functions because we managed for surplus game to sell tags to raise revenue to then increase habitat etc and manage for future surplus game. They INTENTIONALLY introduced wolves to eliminate surplus game and by doing that broke the model. Those hunts for migrating elk were some of the most sought after tags in Montana. Most of those hunts have been eliminated-where is the revenue coming from to manage elk? Oh wait we need to take more money out even though there is now less money to study and manage wolves? Do you only appreciate the portion of that model when it comes to ownership of wildlife and our ability to vote on very impactful decisions or do you appreciate what funds it? You cant have both if we keep using ballot box wildlife management -I will comment on the other areas you adressd later
Post by: idahohuntr on January 11, 2021, 02:04:15 PM
As I stated earlier, you and hydro have both provided data that is of value to a discussion like this, but you are presenting information in a way that is biased to fit your narrative.
Somebody posted a time series of data for the Jackson, WY elk herd I believe...from like the early 80's to 2015 or something close to that...it tells quite a different story than if you just show herd numbers starting in 1994.
But make no mistake - I do commend you for posting data to inform these discussions. Focusing on such information and attacking the data, the way it was collected, biases that might exist in the way it was collected...all much more enlightening than those who simply resort to childish personal attacks and name calling.
Post by: bearpaw on January 11, 2021, 02:09:36 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on January 11, 2021, 02:15:09 PM
Post by: idaho guy on January 11, 2021, 02:26:12 PM
If you wanted to fairly represent the magnitude of 1 factor over TIME as you claim, you would be looking for data sets that extend prior to the peaks that were common in many herds in the early 90's. Showing a handful of years before wolves does not give a very complete picture, but its a great way to cherry pick and present an incomplete story. Data sets extending 25+ years prior to wolf reintroduction would provide a great deal more insight.
As I stated earlier, you and hydro have both provided data that is of value to a discussion like this, but you are presenting information in a way that is biased to fit your narrative.
Somebody posted a time series of data for the Jackson, WY elk herd I believe...from like the early 80's to 2015 or something close to that...it tells quite a different story than if you just show herd numbers starting in 1994.
But make no mistake - I do commend you for posting data to inform these discussions. Focusing on such information and attacking the data, the way it was collected, biases that might exist in the way it was collected...all much more enlightening than those who simply resort to childish personal attacks and name calling.
OK-I am not here to write a term paper but I picked my time frame because it was when there were actually wolves on the landscape. The topic here is wolves. Its ironic that the date coincided with peak herd levels. Or is it? That aside, does Hydros data make sense to you. He said I cant make a basic argument but he aligned(manipulated) his time frame of wolves and elk graphs to show elk and wolf populations do grow together. Choosing an 8 year period from 2008 to 2016? and limiting his sample to around 1500-2600 elk and 5-12 wolves. Is this short period of time(hand selected with bias) and small sample usefull to extrapolate to the rest of the american west? Is this a good way to evaluate data? You disclosed your background in this area. Would you ever accept that as a reliable study? or data that you would make blanket decisions on for the rest of the western U.S. ?
Post by: idahohuntr on January 11, 2021, 03:15:26 PM
I agree with you there are certainly issues with extrapolating hydros data. I thought he was showing that data in response to a claim that elk herds always go down over time if wolves are present and he used that data as at least one example of that not being the case. As you point out, cause/effect can take a little time to play out so certainly a longer time frame with elk/wolf numbers would be more enlightening...and your other points about how far you can really extrapolate that data (e.g., the western US) are absolutely valid IMO.If you wanted to fairly represent the magnitude of 1 factor over TIME as you claim, you would be looking for data sets that extend prior to the peaks that were common in many herds in the early 90's. Showing a handful of years before wolves does not give a very complete picture, but its a great way to cherry pick and present an incomplete story. Data sets extending 25+ years prior to wolf reintroduction would provide a great deal more insight.
As I stated earlier, you and hydro have both provided data that is of value to a discussion like this, but you are presenting information in a way that is biased to fit your narrative.
Somebody posted a time series of data for the Jackson, WY elk herd I believe...from like the early 80's to 2015 or something close to that...it tells quite a different story than if you just show herd numbers starting in 1994.
But make no mistake - I do commend you for posting data to inform these discussions. Focusing on such information and attacking the data, the way it was collected, biases that might exist in the way it was collected...all much more enlightening than those who simply resort to childish personal attacks and name calling.
OK-I am not here to write a term paper but I picked my time frame because it was when there were actually wolves on the landscape. The topic here is wolves. Its ironic that the date coincided with peak herd levels. Or is it? That aside, does Hydros data make sense to you. He said I cant make a basic argument but he aligned(manipulated) his time frame of wolves and elk graphs to show elk and wolf populations do grow together. Choosing an 8 year period from 2008 to 2016? and limiting his sample to around 1500-2600 elk and 5-12 wolves. Is this short period of time(hand selected with bias) and small sample usefull to extrapolate to the rest of the american west? Is this a good way to evaluate data? You disclosed your background in this area. Would you ever accept that as a reliable study? or data that you would make blanket decisions on for the rest of the western U.S. ?
Back to your data...I know the topic is wolves...they are the variable we are discussing. To most objectively evaluate the impact you want to see data pre and post-treatment...the treatment in this case being reintroduction of wolves. We've got 25 annual data points for post-wolves...what did the same herds look like for the 25 years pre wolves? That helps inform the discussion IMO. I have no idea what some of that data may show...for the Lolo, its possibly more extreme (as in, the highs in the early 80's might be way higher than 1994)...I truly don't know.
And as you are pointing out in some of this...and the point I often try to make...when you really start objectively looking at the data, acknowledging that in addition to just pre/post wolf numbers, you've also got to acknowledge winters, droughts, hunter numbers/harvest, other predator numbers...its a much more complex picture than just looking at what elk numbers have done post wolves...well, its complex if you are trying to objectively evaluate the magnitude of impacts...there's no complexity to just acknowledging wolves have some level of impact just as many other variables do.
Post by: idaho guy on January 11, 2021, 03:16:57 PM
Can you provide stable showing the populations of game animals and wolves over the last years from any area? Showing harvest numbers by themselves is proof of nothing other than what hunters self report. I know guys who lie on those reports every year. Is there actual data on population numbers? Also if scientists say that wolves are coming in naturally then why the need for introduction of wolves from outside? Also many scientists have expressed concern over the Mexican wolf that inhabits the southern portion of Colorado and is often killed by its larger cousins. Should they not have a chance of surviving and establishing a foothold before having larger wolves thrown on top of them? All of this from the mouths of biologists studying wolves. The fact of the matter is this was a decision not based on any science at all but on a ballot initiative, which I’m sure was not read by over half the people who voted on it. Also science has many times stated that wolves have met and exceeded their recovery goals in various locations yet they will not be delisted because of feelings. Do you agree with that posture? The major thing that most of the science doesn’t deal with is how to manage these populations to also coexist with humans and humans expansion. If you only manage one side of the predator prey dynamic then it’s going to be hard to have a balanced ecosystem.@bearpaw The part where I said it was not directed at you was that I wanted to be clear I was not saying you were personally attacking hydro. Now that you have called him names, belittled him, and made personal attacks against him I withdraw that statement. I had hopes that you would encourage a more respectful discussion where people can disagree and debate without name calling and personal attacks. I see that is not the case.
As for your threats about discussing my career...I assume you are talking about my past education and experience as a fish biologist. I know you and some other folks have come up with some hilarious and false ideas of my past...I really liked the PM you sent me once where you had me pegged as someone who manufacturers feed troughs for WDFW. I no longer work as a biologist, but yes, I would agree many of my positions on wildlife management issues are informed by my background and education in fish and wildlife management. I believe my positions are more informed by many decades of hunting big game in every western state and being a 5th generation Idahoan - but no doubt my fish and wildlife degrees also shape my views.
I hope you have a good hunting season. I'm already looking forward to mine.
What I said was true, he discounted anyone who used their personal experiences but then uses his own personal experiences and admitted ODFG had not verified wolves in the area that he was using as an example, please google fu the meaning of hypocrisy!
Actually I don't remember any message accusing you of what you claim? Maybe it was another member?QuotePerhaps in my next post I will bring your career into this conversation and suggest how your career has impacted your opinion of wolves, I'm sure the members would enjoy that! We could both play that game!
That was a "what if" type of comment because you decided to bring my business into the conversation! You are responsible for doing that! I didn't actually offer any of your info, it's on you for providing your info to the members.
Additionally please remember, it was you who messaged me in the past regarding certain members offering personal info about you on the forum and I stopped it, maybe you forgot that.
You are confused about the content of this thread, almost everyone is using their personal experiences EXCLUSIVELY, despite my repeated attempts asking for data to support multiple blanket statements and hyperboles.
Rather than focusing on one statement I made regarding an "unverified" wolf pack, throw it out, and focus on the other statements I have made which clearly demonstrate growing elk populations cohabitated by wolves. There are many other scenarios where this is happening, elk herds are above MO, and the state is issuing extra antlerless tags or trying to figure out ways to reduce the population. Also scenarios where the wolves are in fact detrimental, in some cases very detrimental, and I could list data for that too...and I might as well because it would be a better use of my time to argue with myself, using data, than to argue with the hunters here who would like to manage the publics wildlife with their personal observations and emotions.
I've already done that in this thread, minus the wolf info. But I will repost it for you, with the wolf info. And I will add some goodies at the end from other states.
Walla Walla
2002: 1,500
2005: 1,450
2008: 1,500
2011: 1,500
2014: 1,690
2016: 1,700
2019: 1,700
Minam
2002: 1,800
2005: 2,000
2008: 2,100
2011: 2,100
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,500
2019: 2,500
Wenaha
2002: 1300
2005: 1350
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
2019: 2,700
Source: ODFW
Direct link showing INCREASING wolf numbers for each unit.
https://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/population.asp
Do you believe in having a fair conversation? Or are you simply going to cover your eyes and start attacking the messenger pigeon like everyone else here? I can go away, but that doesn't mean the data will.
Idaho Elk population
1995 (year wolves were reintroduced): 112,333
Current: 120,000
Source: IDFG
Do you read your own charts? The Oregon wolf table shows declining numbers for wolves for example wenaha shows a high of 12 wolves and in 2019 5 wolves? 5 wolves is laughable time and numbers will do that herd in if wolves are left to grow. which they will just like a wild dog with large litters yearly
I have not paid much attention to you because you cannot form a reasonable argument or adequately eval data. Since you took issue with the data I provided showing a wolf decrease, I adjusted both sets of data so they aligned, it took me 5 seconds, a basic skill. Still a wolf increase and an elk increase over the same time span.
Wenaha Elk
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
Wenaha Wolves
2009: 4
2010: 6
2011: 5
2012: 11
2013: 9
2014: 11
2015: 12
2016: 12
The primary cause for elk decline in Yellowstone was wolves, like I stated at the start, few people will argue that. That was intentional. Before wolves the park was having to cull the elk and the surrounding areas had a very high antlerless harvest. Plus, the public really wanted the wolves back.
The Jackson herd was deliberately decreased. Do you see that red line? It represents MO, management objective, where the state wants the herd numbers to be. That was an intentional decrease. See attachment, or call them directly, whatever you'd like. I can show you a lot of intentional elk decreases due to land owner conflicts, habitat degradation, etc...very common.
Lolo zone decline is primarily predation. Cougar, Black Bear and more recently wolves. Elk population was declining before wolves showed up. What's your point? It seems like you are suggesting a faulty generalization, that you would like to extrapolate a handful of wolf predation examples onto the rest of the west?
I have demonstrated there are many areas where predators are coinciding with growing elk numbers and hunting opportunity. Each region and unit is completely different with completely different needs, that's why DATA MATTERS. In the Oregon data I provided, which I will again copy below, this includes one of the healthiest, if not the healthiest, growing cougar population in the Western states. So, not only were the wolves increasing, but the cougars and Elk were increasing as well. Does this make sense to you? Or do I need to do a data compilation for you as well?
You will notice the last attachment I added the state increased the total MO for elk and after several years they achieved their goal, primarily through manipulating hunter harvest.
Walla Walla
2002: 1,500
2005: 1,450
2008: 1,500
2011: 1,500
2014: 1,690
2016: 1,700
2019: 1,700
Minam
2002: 1,800
2005: 2,000
2008: 2,100
2011: 2,100
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,500
2019: 2,500
Wenaha
2002: 1300
2005: 1350
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
2019: 2,700
Source: ODFW
Ok let your comment sink in for a minute. Yellowstone they intentionally introduced wolves to reduce the elk population! But I cant make a basic argument or evaluate data :chuckle: Ok buddy-no graphs in that statement but sounds like you are agreeing wolves decimate elk populations. but you seem to be making an argument that wolves,lions and elk can all grow in population TOGETHER. Your answer to the devastation in yellowstone is that they introduced wolves on purpose to REDUCE the elk population. So its ok in yellowston but in Oregon wolves,lions and elk all increase in number together.
You want to tout the great benefit of the north american wildlife model but either dont comprehend or choose to ignore how it works or is funded? You said they introduced the wolves in yellowstone because of the necessary hunts and unusually HIGH antlerless harvest? Does that sound like a bad thing? High harvest rates sounds like something that needs to be ended to an elk hunter? Who understands how the "model" is funded through tag sales
LOLO-you said whats my point? :chuckle: You said I want to take a hand full of wolf depredations and generalize to the rest of the west . Does a herd of 16000 elk being reduced to 1,000 sound like a hand full? You are trying to take a 2000 plus or minus elk herd in oregon that has lived with 4 to 12 wolves and generalize that to the rest of the west.
Look at the idaho hunting units-the ones below objective are where wolves were planted and also where the greatest number of wolves reside. Using statewide populations is dishonest-every state still has areas with ZERO wolves.
Your arguments are tired talking points. I have refuted every single one of them with actual DATA. You need to concede this tired game of wolves don't really impact elk populations. Why did you come on this site? Do you really think you can or have convinced anyone that wolves are not extremely detrimental to elk? We have all mostly seen it first hand where we hunt. you are wasting your time. The only member who partially might agree with some points is idahohunter. Idahohunter said it best "of course wolves impact elk populations they eat the things(elk). Wolves eat elk. I would like to see a deer population graph along with your "healthy" lion graph. My experience is lions eat more deer. You have convinced no one that wolves are "no big deal" and all wildlife will flourish together. You succeeded in pissing me off and we have both wasted time.I would like 1 response-How can you make that statement about yellowstone and make the argument that wolves dont dramatically reduce elk? or better yet that elk packs actually grow in the presence of wolf herds? Cognitive dissonance?
Post by: idaho guy on January 11, 2021, 03:28:03 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on January 11, 2021, 03:44:55 PM
And as you are pointing out in some of this...and the point I often try to make...when you really start objectively looking at the data, acknowledging that in addition to just pre/post wolf numbers, you've also got to acknowledge winters, droughts, hunter numbers/harvest, other predator numbers...its a much more complex picture than just looking at what elk numbers have done post wolves...well, its complex if you are trying to objectively evaluate the magnitude of impacts...there's no complexity to just acknowledging wolves have some level of impact just as many other variables do.
Are you saying that the years before 1995, when Idaho Guy started his data, there there were no winters, droughts, elk being killed by hunters/bears/cats etc? All those factors were there pre-wolf so the elk were able to adapt and overcome and I am sure if you looked long term, you would see high numbers and lower numbers. The introduction of wolves in the mid 90's is the variable that can pretty be isolated and thus I think is the only relevant way to evaluate the impact on wolves to elk populations.
Post by: NRA4LIFE on January 11, 2021, 03:56:28 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 11, 2021, 04:09:56 PM
Are you saying that the years before 1995, when Idaho Guy started his data, there there were no winters, droughts, elk being killed by hunters/bears/cats etc? All those factors were there pre-wolf so the elk were able to adapt and overcome and I am sure if you looked long term, you would see high numbers and lower numbers. The introduction of wolves in the mid 90's is the variable that can pretty be isolated and thus I think is the only relevant way to evaluate the impact on wolves to elk populations.No, I'm saying those are all factors that can and do affect elk abundance. We can better understand individual herd impacts from wolves if we understand what elk abundance was doing over a longer period of time before wolves were present. This in no way isolates or completely controls for those other factors (winter, harvest, drought...) but gives us a better sense than just starting immediately prior to introductions.
Post by: vandeman17 on January 11, 2021, 05:30:51 PM
Post by: Miles on January 11, 2021, 05:43:45 PM
Post by: Hydrophilic on January 11, 2021, 08:02:58 PM
Can you provide stable showing the populations of game animals and wolves over the last years from any area? Showing harvest numbers by themselves is proof of nothing other than what hunters self report. I know guys who lie on those reports every year. Is there actual data on population numbers? Also if scientists say that wolves are coming in naturally then why the need for introduction of wolves from outside? Also many scientists have expressed concern over the Mexican wolf that inhabits the southern portion of Colorado and is often killed by its larger cousins. Should they not have a chance of surviving and establishing a foothold before having larger wolves thrown on top of them? All of this from the mouths of biologists studying wolves. The fact of the matter is this was a decision not based on any science at all but on a ballot initiative, which I’m sure was not read by over half the people who voted on it. Also science has many times stated that wolves have met and exceeded their recovery goals in various locations yet they will not be delisted because of feelings. Do you agree with that posture? The major thing that most of the science doesn’t deal with is how to manage these populations to also coexist with humans and humans expansion. If you only manage one side of the predator prey dynamic then it’s going to be hard to have a balanced ecosystem.@bearpaw The part where I said it was not directed at you was that I wanted to be clear I was not saying you were personally attacking hydro. Now that you have called him names, belittled him, and made personal attacks against him I withdraw that statement. I had hopes that you would encourage a more respectful discussion where people can disagree and debate without name calling and personal attacks. I see that is not the case.
As for your threats about discussing my career...I assume you are talking about my past education and experience as a fish biologist. I know you and some other folks have come up with some hilarious and false ideas of my past...I really liked the PM you sent me once where you had me pegged as someone who manufacturers feed troughs for WDFW. I no longer work as a biologist, but yes, I would agree many of my positions on wildlife management issues are informed by my background and education in fish and wildlife management. I believe my positions are more informed by many decades of hunting big game in every western state and being a 5th generation Idahoan - but no doubt my fish and wildlife degrees also shape my views.
I hope you have a good hunting season. I'm already looking forward to mine.
What I said was true, he discounted anyone who used their personal experiences but then uses his own personal experiences and admitted ODFG had not verified wolves in the area that he was using as an example, please google fu the meaning of hypocrisy!
Actually I don't remember any message accusing you of what you claim? Maybe it was another member?QuotePerhaps in my next post I will bring your career into this conversation and suggest how your career has impacted your opinion of wolves, I'm sure the members would enjoy that! We could both play that game!
That was a "what if" type of comment because you decided to bring my business into the conversation! You are responsible for doing that! I didn't actually offer any of your info, it's on you for providing your info to the members.
Additionally please remember, it was you who messaged me in the past regarding certain members offering personal info about you on the forum and I stopped it, maybe you forgot that.
You are confused about the content of this thread, almost everyone is using their personal experiences EXCLUSIVELY, despite my repeated attempts asking for data to support multiple blanket statements and hyperboles.
Rather than focusing on one statement I made regarding an "unverified" wolf pack, throw it out, and focus on the other statements I have made which clearly demonstrate growing elk populations cohabitated by wolves. There are many other scenarios where this is happening, elk herds are above MO, and the state is issuing extra antlerless tags or trying to figure out ways to reduce the population. Also scenarios where the wolves are in fact detrimental, in some cases very detrimental, and I could list data for that too...and I might as well because it would be a better use of my time to argue with myself, using data, than to argue with the hunters here who would like to manage the publics wildlife with their personal observations and emotions.
I've already done that in this thread, minus the wolf info. But I will repost it for you, with the wolf info. And I will add some goodies at the end from other states.
Walla Walla
2002: 1,500
2005: 1,450
2008: 1,500
2011: 1,500
2014: 1,690
2016: 1,700
2019: 1,700
Minam
2002: 1,800
2005: 2,000
2008: 2,100
2011: 2,100
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,500
2019: 2,500
Wenaha
2002: 1300
2005: 1350
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
2019: 2,700
Source: ODFW
Direct link showing INCREASING wolf numbers for each unit.
https://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/population.asp
Do you believe in having a fair conversation? Or are you simply going to cover your eyes and start attacking the messenger pigeon like everyone else here? I can go away, but that doesn't mean the data will.
Idaho Elk population
1995 (year wolves were reintroduced): 112,333
Current: 120,000
Source: IDFG
Do you read your own charts? The Oregon wolf table shows declining numbers for wolves for example wenaha shows a high of 12 wolves and in 2019 5 wolves? 5 wolves is laughable time and numbers will do that herd in if wolves are left to grow. which they will just like a wild dog with large litters yearly
I have not paid much attention to you because you cannot form a reasonable argument or adequately eval data. Since you took issue with the data I provided showing a wolf decrease, I adjusted both sets of data so they aligned, it took me 5 seconds, a basic skill. Still a wolf increase and an elk increase over the same time span.
Wenaha Elk
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
Wenaha Wolves
2009: 4
2010: 6
2011: 5
2012: 11
2013: 9
2014: 11
2015: 12
2016: 12
The primary cause for elk decline in Yellowstone was wolves, like I stated at the start, few people will argue that. That was intentional. Before wolves the park was having to cull the elk and the surrounding areas had a very high antlerless harvest. Plus, the public really wanted the wolves back.
The Jackson herd was deliberately decreased. Do you see that red line? It represents MO, management objective, where the state wants the herd numbers to be. That was an intentional decrease. See attachment, or call them directly, whatever you'd like. I can show you a lot of intentional elk decreases due to land owner conflicts, habitat degradation, etc...very common.
Lolo zone decline is primarily predation. Cougar, Black Bear and more recently wolves. Elk population was declining before wolves showed up. What's your point? It seems like you are suggesting a faulty generalization, that you would like to extrapolate a handful of wolf predation examples onto the rest of the west?
I have demonstrated there are many areas where predators are coinciding with growing elk numbers and hunting opportunity. Each region and unit is completely different with completely different needs, that's why DATA MATTERS. In the Oregon data I provided, which I will again copy below, this includes one of the healthiest, if not the healthiest, growing cougar population in the Western states. So, not only were the wolves increasing, but the cougars and Elk were increasing as well. Does this make sense to you? Or do I need to do a data compilation for you as well?
You will notice the last attachment I added the state increased the total MO for elk and after several years they achieved their goal, primarily through manipulating hunter harvest.
Walla Walla
2002: 1,500
2005: 1,450
2008: 1,500
2011: 1,500
2014: 1,690
2016: 1,700
2019: 1,700
Minam
2002: 1,800
2005: 2,000
2008: 2,100
2011: 2,100
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,500
2019: 2,500
Wenaha
2002: 1300
2005: 1350
2008: 1,600
2011: 1,600
2014: 2,450
2016: 2,600
2019: 2,700
Source: ODFW
Ok let your comment sink in for a minute. Yellowstone they intentionally introduced wolves to reduce the elk population! But I cant make a basic argument or evaluate data :chuckle: Ok buddy-no graphs in that statement but sounds like you are agreeing wolves decimate elk populations. but you seem to be making an argument that wolves,lions and elk can all grow in population TOGETHER. Your answer to the devastation in yellowstone is that they introduced wolves on purpose to REDUCE the elk population. So its ok in yellowston but in Oregon wolves,lions and elk all increase in number together.
You want to tout the great benefit of the north american wildlife model but either dont comprehend or choose to ignore how it works or is funded? You said they introduced the wolves in yellowstone because of the necessary hunts and unusually HIGH antlerless harvest? Does that sound like a bad thing? High harvest rates sounds like something that needs to be ended to an elk hunter? Who understands how the "model" is funded through tag sales
LOLO-you said whats my point? :chuckle: You said I want to take a hand full of wolf depredations and generalize to the rest of the west . Does a herd of 16000 elk being reduced to 1,000 sound like a hand full? You are trying to take a 2000 plus or minus elk herd in oregon that has lived with 4 to 12 wolves and generalize that to the rest of the west.
Look at the idaho hunting units-the ones below objective are where wolves were planted and also where the greatest number of wolves reside. Using statewide populations is dishonest-every state still has areas with ZERO wolves.
Your arguments are tired talking points. I have refuted every single one of them with actual DATA. You need to concede this tired game of wolves don't really impact elk populations. Why did you come on this site? Do you really think you can or have convinced anyone that wolves are not extremely detrimental to elk? We have all mostly seen it first hand where we hunt. you are wasting your time. The only member who partially might agree with some points is idahohunter. Idahohunter said it best "of course wolves impact elk populations they eat the things(elk). Wolves eat elk. I would like to see a deer population graph along with your "healthy" lion graph. My experience is lions eat more deer. You have convinced no one that wolves are "no big deal" and all wildlife will flourish together. You succeeded in pissing me off and we have both wasted time.I would like 1 response-How can you make that statement about yellowstone and make the argument that wolves dont dramatically reduce elk? or better yet that elk packs actually grow in the presence of wolf herds? Cognitive dissonance?
Idahoguy - I fish, drink, and work in no particular order so apologies if I cannot keep up with your posts.
Please read all of my posts and if you can still formulate an argument from me that states wolves do not have an impact on game then I'll be very impressed because I did not say that anywhere. You seem to have a hard time understanding this so I will sum it up in one sentence, as I did with another poster recently.
My responses, and my data, were aimed at blanket statements stating wolves always destroy elk or have a drastic effect on them.
Blanket statements such as those are completely false and unreasonable and need to be called out. I could provide quite a bit more data, research, and statements from each states Fish and Game that says the same but I see little point. There no doubt exists units that are being detrimentally harmed by one predator or another, just like there are units where habitat is the primary issue, and other units were disease outbreaks, development, energy/extraction, etc are the primary issue. Every unit is completely different and requires a completely different management perspective and goal. I'm a big fan of the biologists who devote their careers to this and I believe they do a very good job as I usually take an animal of some sort every year or two. This wouldn't be possible without them.
The Wenaha elk population has increased with 8 years straight of increasing wolves, and 3 years of decreasing wolves, or 11 years total of wolves present. The elk population was increasing well before the wolves arrived, the complete year to year data I have, goes back to 2002. The arrival of wolves did nothing to halt the population growth. In fact, the elk population saw it's highest % gain of 31% in 2012-2013 (1800-2350) after the wolves had been there for 4 years and doubled! An argument might be the wolves haven't been there 25 years which is certainly something to consider, but the Blue Mtns have some of the highest cougar densities in the state, and the state very likely has the highest cougar population in the nation. Little to no cougar harvest in these areas. Surely 10 years or so of combined predation from bears, cougars, and wolves would 'decimate the herd' or 'vacuum them up' or 'be very additive'. But the herd is still increasing as of the latest survey. In fact, it's more than doubled in the last 18 years. There are other examples of this. And yes, it can all change from one bad winter that throws the balance off, I am not arguing that and never have been.
If it's acceptable for others to cite yellowstone and make faulty generalizations about the rest of the West based on Yellowstone, etc., why isn't someone else allowed to cite contrary examples? Granted, it's hard to compare anything with yellowstone and all units are different with different herd sizes, MO's, etc. The truth lies in the middle and ANY reasonable person will agree. Unreasonable people make blanket statements. And unreasonable people don't call them out on it.
Thats my only point I'm trying to make, nothing else.
I've attached some yellowstone history below. The park biologists wanted to keep removing elk in the 60's because that's what the science was showing them and the range was completely torn up. They even brought hunters and reporters out there to show them, and everyone agreed the elk needed to be culled, this was when the population was already at one the lowest numbers it had been, if you've seen the graph you know what spot I'm talking about. Eventually The hunters interjected and the elk culling was stopped, a move not supported by science. This caused a massive explosion in the elk population which was not sustainable, unless you happened to be a hunter that wanted unlimited elk on everyone else's public resource. The wolves were badly needed and the resulting decline was definitely due to the wolves, this was intentional, but the degree of the decline was probably not. The severity of decline was also caused by a moderate - liberal antlerless harvest until 2004.
This is a good article. Even the scientist who places more of the blame on the wolves states they are not completely at fault, a moderate to liberal harvest policy was also to blame.
https://www.yellowstonepark.com/news/elk-populations-decline
Post by: idaho guy on January 12, 2021, 09:56:51 AM
This had 3 major impacts. Some of the most sought after tags in Montana no longer exist. This breaks the model you claim to love by eliminating part of the actual funding of it.
2. There are no more elk to transplant to bolster other herds or fill suitable habitat with new herds(which was done with huge success in north Idaho).
3. Those same wolves killed a majority of the Yellowstone elk and eventually migrated to the st joe and decimated that herd which was created from the surplus elk of Yellowstone.
Massive amounts of our game department budget had to be diverted to managing wolves instead of other wildlife last 25 years. 25 years later WAS THIS WORTH IT? Did it make sense?
I still don’t understand what your point is honestly. You have a small microcosm in Oregon that shows for a short period of time wolves and elk increases. That is just a matter of time and numbers 5-10 wolves is not much. Just wait. I have presented data showing what happens after 25 years of elk and wolves living together. You can’t paint a state population with a broad brush even Idaho has large areas with zero wolves.The evidence is there if you want to look at it without bias. You have contempt prior to investigation.
When I see the exact talking points they used 25 years ago I get upset. Wolves eat elk. If you let wolves loose on the landscape you will have less elk. If you don’t manage the wolves they will decimate your elk herds. Again look at the harvest success rates you posted for Idaho. Harvest plummeted after wolves and started to rebound when we got a hunting and trapping season. I really didn’t want to get sucked in on another wolf discussion but I don’t like the being lied too and so will provide evidence when I feel the public is being lied too. (Again) . You have argued for the North American wildlife model but then supported Yellowstone wolves as a way to destroy it. (We could have kept selling tags and used revenue to transplant elk to other habitat). You subsequently agreed that areas where wolves have been for 25 years elk have been decimated while arguing elk can grow with wolves(look I found 8 years in Oregon but actually wolf populations are cut in half in last 3 years). Let’s omit the last 3 years or I mean “align “ the data to make your point.
Again we have both wasted time here. If you wanted to convince any hunters on here that wolves don’t have large impacts on elk you did not. Any hunter on here that hunts areas where wolves have been present for a LONG period of time knows different. You can’t and biologist can no longer tell us we can’t believe our lying eyes. Most western hunters have seen the effects of wolves personally and the talking points have been exposed as pure bullcrap. Most of us knew they were but now we have on the ground first hand experience. I have been blessed to live and hunt in Idaho for 30 years and lived and hunted in Montana before that. That’s 53 years of almost year around hunting if I choose to in 2 amazing states. Idaho fish and game gets it and with their predator management we will have good hunting I think for the rest of my life. Washington, Oregon and maybe Colorado could be screwed with already liberal politics affecting game policies. If you keep spouting liberal talking points on wolves you are part of the problem. I want to be part of the solution so I will probably always debate lies on the internet about wolves. I’m not anti predator either. I love to hunt lions and bears. I have caught 2 lions this year and let them go. I love to hunt it all and want to hunt and manage predators but don’t want them gone. When I look back at 25 years with wolves. Between the decimated elk herds, the money and time, lawsuits It was not worth it. I’m ok with wolves in Idaho now but I don’t think they ever should have introduced them. It was a mistake
Post by: idaho guy on January 12, 2021, 10:05:06 AM
So what if I pick a starting year where the elk were at a peak and you pick to start at a year they were in a decline, who would be right? Is that not cherry picking to make one’s case stronger? Instead, we have 25 years of numbers that start in the year the variable in discussion was introduced. That seems like the most logical, non cherry picked year to draw any type of correlation from. :twocents:
:tup: Kinda hard to study a variable when it’s not there :chuckle:
Post by: idaho guy on January 12, 2021, 10:07:31 AM
Again, hate to break it to you all, but wolves are already here.
:tup: I was aware of that I think most members are. It really just makes this decision by voters double stupid :chuckle :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: idaho guy on January 12, 2021, 10:32:35 AM
Post by: Hydrophilic on January 12, 2021, 11:44:07 AM
Hydrophilic one more question. Honest question and then I think we can go our separate ways :chuckle: . Do you think introducing wolves into Yellowstone was the right thing to do ? Regardless of wether you think the people should decide. FYI Idaho was strongly opposed to wolves right up to our fish and game but feds strong armed Idaho and did it anyways. I would appreciate your answer to include the North American wildlife model and how it’s funded. But also the opportunity we had to transplant more elk to other areas suitable for elk but where none were present. I just want to know if you honestly believe looking back 25 years with other options was this a good decision. I won’t argue the point but I would really appreciate knowing how you view this and why.
Thank you for your kinder responses this go around. We can agree to disagree, that is certainly fine with me, and I'm glad you have a good time hunting Lions, etc. Where I come from I saw a lot of pure hate for predators, it was very sad, from a stewardship perspective and a plain human perspective. Purposeful gut shots, illegal spotlighting, etc. I really think that type of hunter is a terrible representative of an already struggling user group.
Personally, I can take off my hunting hat and put my conservation hat on very easily. When I'm not hunting, I'm fishing, backpacking, hiking, bird watching, picking mushrooms, botany, restoring habitat, etc. I appreciate all of these respective user groups I get to know and I also appreciate the guy stuck in an office for 40 years who knows a wild place such as yellowstone exists, and that gives him some hope and reassurance in this crazy, over developed, and over populated world. Places like yellowstone are the beating, wild heart of America. As soon as you tame something, or try to make it predictable, it is not wild. I would certainly have not done it any other way.
As far as the NAMWC - all user groups need to be represented, it is not a model strictly for hunters. WC = wildlife conservation. While it would be nice, it is not possible to maximize hunter benefit everywhere if we are also taking the publics input, which we definitely should. From this standpoint I look at Idaho, Wyoming and see their record elk harvests in recent times, 25 years after wolf reintroduction, as a great thing. Some units have been altered but the overall success is fantastic. In Oregon, as I mentioned, same thing. I have noticed very little change in the elk hunting in 20+ years in my particular unit, even with the exploding mountain lion population, the official data also suggests my personal observations match the real trend. The one thing that tugs at my heart strings is mule deer, but as I told someone else that's a different conversation.
Here is one of my favorite stories. A hunter shared this with me recently and it quickly became one of my all time favorites. Colorado Div of Wildlife estimated a certain Mule deer population of 7,000-7,300. The hunters vehemently disagreed stating their "on the ground experience", casual observations put the population much lower at 1,750. The state invited the hunters to help devise a study to validate these results. The hunters helped design a study and analyze / interpret the results. Their results confirmed the Colorado Div. of Wildlife estimates and hunters STILL disagreed and refused to accept the results. As a result, sportsmen's credibility plummeted with other stakeholders. I listen to the consensus of scientists and biologists and this is the primary reason - a fair amount of hunters do not truly believe in science based management, they believe in science based management that benefits them, and if it doesn't benefit them they resort to emotional fits. So that is my perspective and where I come from. As a user group hunters are going to get steamrolled if they don't get their act together.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3784816?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Post by: idahohuntr on January 12, 2021, 11:45:46 AM
If you want to assess the effects of a variable (wolves) you need to have some sort of control. Looking at a period of time pre-wolves is one way to better assess the effects of this new variable (wolves). Its still not perfect (nothing ever is in natural environments), but its a much more objective evaluation than starting and really only looking at data while wolves are present.So what if I pick a starting year where the elk were at a peak and you pick to start at a year they were in a decline, who would be right? Is that not cherry picking to make one’s case stronger? Instead, we have 25 years of numbers that start in the year the variable in discussion was introduced. That seems like the most logical, non cherry picked year to draw any type of correlation from. :twocents:
:tup: Kinda hard to study a variable when it’s not there :chuckle:
My statements only apply for those interested in scientific and objective considerations/discussions. There is no need to consider any of this for folks who want to make value based emotional arguments or voting decisions.
Post by: vandeman17 on January 12, 2021, 11:50:57 AM
If you want to assess the effects of a variable (wolves) you need to have some sort of control. Looking at a period of time pre-wolves is one way to better assess the effects of this new variable (wolves). Its still not perfect (nothing ever is in natural environments), but its a much more objective evaluation than starting and really only looking at data while wolves are present.So what if I pick a starting year where the elk were at a peak and you pick to start at a year they were in a decline, who would be right? Is that not cherry picking to make one’s case stronger? Instead, we have 25 years of numbers that start in the year the variable in discussion was introduced. That seems like the most logical, non cherry picked year to draw any type of correlation from. :twocents:
:tup: Kinda hard to study a variable when it’s not there :chuckle:
My statements only apply for those interested in scientific and objective considerations/discussions. There is no need to consider any of this for folks who want to make value based emotional arguments or voting decisions.
Which is exactly what has happened in many western states
Post by: Buckhunter24 on January 12, 2021, 12:03:16 PM
Post by: idaho guy on January 12, 2021, 02:26:38 PM
If you want to assess the effects of a variable (wolves) you need to have some sort of control. Looking at a period of time pre-wolves is one way to better assess the effects of this new variable (wolves). Its still not perfect (nothing ever is in natural environments), but its a much more objective evaluation than starting and really only looking at data while wolves are present.So what if I pick a starting year where the elk were at a peak and you pick to start at a year they were in a decline, who would be right? Is that not cherry picking to make one’s case stronger? Instead, we have 25 years of numbers that start in the year the variable in discussion was introduced. That seems like the most logical, non cherry picked year to draw any type of correlation from. :twocents:
:tup: Kinda hard to study a variable when it’s not there :chuckle:
My statements only apply for those interested in scientific and objective considerations/discussions. There is no need to consider any of this for folks who want to make value based emotional arguments or voting decisions.
I agree in a perfect setting you want a control group or multiple control groups with all the other variables constant. As you said that will never happen in nature because of habitat,hard or easy winters, fires on and on. I think for this discussion looking at wolf and elk populations over 25 years(in areas where they are living together) is pretty valid. We can argue methodology all day long but sometimes 1 plus 1 just equals 2.
Post by: idaho guy on January 12, 2021, 02:33:44 PM
If you want to assess the effects of a variable (wolves) you need to have some sort of control. Looking at a period of time pre-wolves is one way to better assess the effects of this new variable (wolves). Its still not perfect (nothing ever is in natural environments), but its a much more objective evaluation than starting and really only looking at data while wolves are present.So what if I pick a starting year where the elk were at a peak and you pick to start at a year they were in a decline, who would be right? Is that not cherry picking to make one’s case stronger? Instead, we have 25 years of numbers that start in the year the variable in discussion was introduced. That seems like the most logical, non cherry picked year to draw any type of correlation from. :twocents:
:tup: Kinda hard to study a variable when it’s not there :chuckle:
My statements only apply for those interested in scientific and objective considerations/discussions. There is no need to consider any of this for folks who want to make value based emotional arguments or voting decisions.
Which is exactly what has happened in many western states
That last statement is interesting about emotional arguments or voting decisions. That's really what kicked this whole thing off a group of colorado voters made a really emotional decision and voted to import more wolves on top of the ones already there and the many more that will migrate there. l guess we have come full circle. Mostly city dwelling voters made an emotional decision that will impact all their rural neighbors forever. Just because we have the right to do something doesn't mean we should.
Post by: idaho guy on January 12, 2021, 02:49:00 PM
Hydrophilic one more question. Honest question and then I think we can go our separate ways :chuckle: . Do you think introducing wolves into Yellowstone was the right thing to do ? Regardless of wether you think the people should decide. FYI Idaho was strongly opposed to wolves right up to our fish and game but feds strong armed Idaho and did it anyways. I would appreciate your answer to include the North American wildlife model and how it’s funded. But also the opportunity we had to transplant more elk to other areas suitable for elk but where none were present. I just want to know if you honestly believe looking back 25 years with other options was this a good decision. I won’t argue the point but I would really appreciate knowing how you view this and why.
Thank you for your kinder responses this go around. We can agree to disagree, that is certainly fine with me, and I'm glad you have a good time hunting Lions, etc. Where I come from I saw a lot of pure hate for predators, it was very sad, from a stewardship perspective and a plain human perspective. Purposeful gut shots, illegal spotlighting, etc. I really think that type of hunter is a terrible representative of an already struggling user group.
Personally, I can take off my hunting hat and put my conservation hat on very easily. When I'm not hunting, I'm fishing, backpacking, hiking, bird watching, picking mushrooms, botany, restoring habitat, etc. I appreciate all of these respective user groups I get to know and I also appreciate the guy stuck in an office for 40 years who knows a wild place such as yellowstone exists, and that gives him some hope and reassurance in this crazy, over developed, and over populated world. Places like yellowstone are the beating, wild heart of America. As soon as you tame something, or try to make it predictable, it is not wild. I would certainly have not done it any other way.
As far as the NAMWC - all user groups need to be represented, it is not a model strictly for hunters. WC = wildlife conservation. While it would be nice, it is not possible to maximize hunter benefit everywhere if we are also taking the publics input, which we definitely should. From this standpoint I look at Idaho, Wyoming and see their record elk harvests in recent times, 25 years after wolf reintroduction, as a great thing. Some units have been altered but the overall success is fantastic. In Oregon, as I mentioned, same thing. I have noticed very little change in the elk hunting in 20+ years in my particular unit, even with the exploding mountain lion population, the official data also suggests my personal observations match the real trend. The one thing that tugs at my heart strings is mule deer, but as I told someone else that's a different conversation.
Here is one of my favorite stories. A hunter shared this with me recently and it quickly became one of my all time favorites. Colorado Div of Wildlife estimated a certain Mule deer population of 7,000-7,300. The hunters vehemently disagreed stating their "on the ground experience", casual observations put the population much lower at 1,750. The state invited the hunters to help devise a study to validate these results. The hunters helped design a study and analyze / interpret the results. Their results confirmed the Colorado Div. of Wildlife estimates and hunters STILL disagreed and refused to accept the results. As a result, sportsmen's credibility plummeted with other stakeholders. I listen to the consensus of scientists and biologists and this is the primary reason - a fair amount of hunters do not truly believe in science based management, they believe in science based management that benefits them, and if it doesn't benefit them they resort to emotional fits. So that is my perspective and where I come from. As a user group hunters are going to get steamrolled if they don't get their act together.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3784816?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Ok thanks for the honest response.I think I understand how you are viewing the north american wildlife model and you see the value primarily in the public owning wildlife and having THE final say in management. We will have to disagree on the north american wildlife model and thats ok. You have to have surplus game to hunt and sell tags to create revenue to then fund management and create surplus game for the future. The U.S. took the approach of favoring antlered or horned game over fangs and claws. It worked wonderfull for 100 years. There's actually studies on our approach versus other countries and the U.S. model has been by far the most successfull. Thats why after 100 years of population growth and loss of habitat we still have more elk,deer and ducks etc than we had 100 years ago. If we decide that we value apex predators above all others the model is broke. Its over as we know it. WE the american people have the right to do this but it doesn't mean we should. I can take my hunter hat off too and appreciate the value in just wild places but I will fight to save the north american wildlife model as it now exists. Our kids ability to hunt depends on it
Post by: highcountry_hunter on January 12, 2021, 05:29:14 PM
Post by: idaho guy on January 12, 2021, 06:13:20 PM
Deer, elk and moose are wolves primary food source. There is no doubt that they decrease ungulate populations where they reside. The question is how much do they decrease the population. Is the effect linear as wolf population increases? As wolf population increases does secondary mortality and lower calving rates increase due to stress? In a state where options for controlling wolf population is very limited its troubling because wolf populations will grow for many years to come and the effects will likely compound.
:yeah: that’s the sad part of it. Washington,Oregon and maybe Colorado Will be screwed on this since liberal politics are already influencing game management
Post by: Hydrophilic on January 12, 2021, 07:57:15 PM
Deer, elk and moose are wolves primary food source. There is no doubt that they decrease ungulate populations where they reside. The question is how much do they decrease the population. Is the effect linear as wolf population increases? As wolf population increases does secondary mortality and lower calving rates increase due to stress? In a state where options for controlling wolf population is very limited its troubling because wolf populations will grow for many years to come and the effects will likely compound.
:yeah: that’s the sad part of it. Washington,Oregon and maybe Colorado Will be screwed on this since liberal politics are already influencing game management
It's not as simple as that. Everyone has heard the pendulum example in politics. It sways one way with certain force, it will soon sway back the other way with equal force.
Wolves were extirpated from many states and cougars were hunted down to 200 in Oregon, in the late 1960's.
https://myodfw.com/big-game-hunting/species/cougar
For a hunter who cares about nothing else than horns or meat that was probably fantastic. For the average citizen, scientist, conservationist, national geographic reader, etc., it was a tragedy, and now they have caught the pendulum where they have been able to, more liberal states, and are holding it for the moment, I can't honestly blame them. The logical place is somewhere in between. Healthy predator populations that support the best hunting opportunities possible. That doesn't mean plugging every forest with as many elk as possible and it also doesn't mean culling the predators by 50% every time the elk enter a down cycle.
I would very seriously entertain studies on the relationship between cougars and mule deer in Oregon, given we have such a healthy cougar population. Not because I think they are the primary cause of the decline, but because they could potentially be a huge additive factor in it. Right now there are 30% less in utero fawn rates than there should be for a normal population -- that's insane. A lot of deer are dying from starvation in the summer when they should be fat. That's not predators, thats the mess we have created, not one side or the other, but everyone. This info is from a biologist, and I relate to his info after seeing fields and fields of cheat grass, medusahead, in what used to be native bunch grass , shrub prairies. Terrifying.
On a side note - for those who don't like sharing federal public lands and public resources with other user groups you can support an organization known as American Lands Council which would love to transfer federal land back to the states. This position was also recently added to a prominent platform in this country so it's gaining steam.
Post by: KFhunter on January 12, 2021, 08:09:46 PM
Take your rubbish elsewhere
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: Hydrophilic on January 13, 2021, 08:16:18 AM
Post by: KFhunter on January 13, 2021, 08:44:59 AM
ALC is not dead and those words are still on the official platform so we will see in 2024 if they have enough sense to remove them. I sincerely hope you are correct sir.It is dead, the main thrust of federal lands transferred to the states died with the Bundy's.
The push back came from both sides of the political spectrum, including me.
It was explored, the public made their voices heard, it died. Get over it.
Yet conservation orgs still use it to drive membership and $$
Its a non-issue and disingenuous to keep pushing it.
And Trump is out anyways, its time to move on.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: highcountry_hunter on January 13, 2021, 09:40:43 AM
ALC is not dead and those words are still on the official platform so we will see in 2024 if they have enough sense to remove them. I sincerely hope you are correct sir.It is dead, the main thrust of federal lands transferred to the states died with the Bundy's.
The push back came from both sides of the political spectrum, including me.
It was explored, the public made their voices heard, it died. Get over it.
Yet conservation orgs still use it to drive membership and $$
Its a non-issue and disingenuous to keep pushing it.
And Trump is out anyways, its time to move on.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
For cripes sakes, hydro agrees with you that he hopes ALC is removed and you still feel the need to come off as a prick to him. I’ve never felt the need to tell someone who’s in agreement with me on an issue to “get over it”
Post by: KFhunter on January 13, 2021, 11:59:28 AM
ALC has been thrown in our faces for years, those who are to the right side of the spectrum in regards to conservation. It goes back to the tired old BHA arguments we've had on this forum.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: idaho guy on January 13, 2021, 06:52:21 PM
Deer, elk and moose are wolves primary food source. There is no doubt that they decrease ungulate populations where they reside. The question is how much do they decrease the population. Is the effect linear as wolf population increases? As wolf population increases does secondary mortality and lower calving rates increase due to stress? In a state where options for controlling wolf population is very limited its troubling because wolf populations will grow for many years to come and the effects will likely compound.
:yeah: that’s the sad part of it. Washington,Oregon and maybe Colorado Will be screwed on this since liberal politics are already influencing game management
It's not as simple as that. Everyone has heard the pendulum example in politics. It sways one way with certain force, it will soon sway back the other way with equal force.
Wolves were extirpated from many states and cougars were hunted down to 200 in Oregon, in the late 1960's.
https://myodfw.com/big-game-hunting/species/cougar
For a hunter who cares about nothing else than horns or meat that was probably fantastic. For the average citizen, scientist, conservationist, national geographic reader, etc., it was a tragedy, and now they have caught the pendulum where they have been able to, more liberal states, and are holding it for the moment, I can't honestly blame them. The logical place is somewhere in between. Healthy predator populations that support the best hunting opportunities possible. That doesn't mean plugging every forest with as many elk as possible and it also doesn't mean culling the predators by 50% every time the elk enter a down cycle.
I would very seriously entertain studies on the relationship between cougars and mule deer in Oregon, given we have such a healthy cougar population. Not because I think they are the primary cause of the decline, but because they could potentially be a huge additive factor in it. Right now there are 30% less in utero fawn rates than there should be for a normal population -- that's insane. A lot of deer are dying from starvation in the summer when they should be fat. That's not predators, thats the mess we have created, not one side or the other, but everyone. This info is from a biologist, and I relate to his info after seeing fields and fields of cheat grass, medusahead, in what used to be native bunch grass , shrub prairies. Terrifying.
On a side note - for those who don't like sharing federal public lands and public resources with other user groups you can support an organization known as American Lands Council which would love to transfer federal land back to the states. This position was also recently added to a prominent platform in this country so it's gaining steam.
I agree alc is dead not interested. I will leave you with this tidbit on your cougar and mule deer study.lions eat 52 deer per year on average. I will leave it at that and again I am a hound hunter who values some lions in the woods and let treed cats go on a regular basis in Idaho where they are hunted hard . But you cant have an exploding cat population and healthy deer herds at the same time. You CAN have lions AND deer if its balanced and they are both appropriately managed. Bring back hounds if you can besides its the only form of hunting where its truly possible to "catch and release". I don't want to debate this as it would totally derail this thread even more. Just think about that -52 deer per year on average.
Post by: Hydrophilic on January 13, 2021, 07:29:58 PM
Deer, elk and moose are wolves primary food source. There is no doubt that they decrease ungulate populations where they reside. The question is how much do they decrease the population. Is the effect linear as wolf population increases? As wolf population increases does secondary mortality and lower calving rates increase due to stress? In a state where options for controlling wolf population is very limited its troubling because wolf populations will grow for many years to come and the effects will likely compound.
:yeah: that’s the sad part of it. Washington,Oregon and maybe Colorado Will be screwed on this since liberal politics are already influencing game management
It's not as simple as that. Everyone has heard the pendulum example in politics. It sways one way with certain force, it will soon sway back the other way with equal force.
Wolves were extirpated from many states and cougars were hunted down to 200 in Oregon, in the late 1960's.
https://myodfw.com/big-game-hunting/species/cougar
For a hunter who cares about nothing else than horns or meat that was probably fantastic. For the average citizen, scientist, conservationist, national geographic reader, etc., it was a tragedy, and now they have caught the pendulum where they have been able to, more liberal states, and are holding it for the moment, I can't honestly blame them. The logical place is somewhere in between. Healthy predator populations that support the best hunting opportunities possible. That doesn't mean plugging every forest with as many elk as possible and it also doesn't mean culling the predators by 50% every time the elk enter a down cycle.
I would very seriously entertain studies on the relationship between cougars and mule deer in Oregon, given we have such a healthy cougar population. Not because I think they are the primary cause of the decline, but because they could potentially be a huge additive factor in it. Right now there are 30% less in utero fawn rates than there should be for a normal population -- that's insane. A lot of deer are dying from starvation in the summer when they should be fat. That's not predators, thats the mess we have created, not one side or the other, but everyone. This info is from a biologist, and I relate to his info after seeing fields and fields of cheat grass, medusahead, in what used to be native bunch grass , shrub prairies. Terrifying.
On a side note - for those who don't like sharing federal public lands and public resources with other user groups you can support an organization known as American Lands Council which would love to transfer federal land back to the states. This position was also recently added to a prominent platform in this country so it's gaining steam.
I agree alc is dead not interested. I will leave you with this tidbit on your cougar and mule deer study.lions eat 52 deer per year on average. I will leave it at that and again I am a hound hunter who values some lions in the woods and let treed cats go on a regular basis in Idaho where they are hunted hard . But you cant have an exploding cat population and healthy deer herds at the same time. You CAN have lions AND deer if its balanced and they are both appropriately managed. Bring back hounds if you can besides its the only form of hunting where its truly possible to "catch and release". I don't want to debate this as it would totally derail this thread even more. Just think about that -52 deer per year on average.
Think about 30% less in utero fawn rates and deer starving in the summer. It can hardly be blamed on one factor - I would love to talk about this some other time. Cheers
Post by: wolfbait on January 14, 2021, 08:08:48 PM
Deer, elk and moose are wolves primary food source. There is no doubt that they decrease ungulate populations where they reside. The question is how much do they decrease the population. Is the effect linear as wolf population increases? As wolf population increases does secondary mortality and lower calving rates increase due to stress? In a state where options for controlling wolf population is very limited its troubling because wolf populations will grow for many years to come and the effects will likely compound.
:yeah: that’s the sad part of it. Washington,Oregon and maybe Colorado Will be screwed on this since liberal politics are already influencing game management
It's not as simple as that. Everyone has heard the pendulum example in politics. It sways one way with certain force, it will soon sway back the other way with equal force.
Wolves were extirpated from many states and cougars were hunted down to 200 in Oregon, in the late 1960's.
https://myodfw.com/big-game-hunting/species/cougar
For a hunter who cares about nothing else than horns or meat that was probably fantastic. For the average citizen, scientist, conservationist, national geographic reader, etc., it was a tragedy, and now they have caught the pendulum where they have been able to, more liberal states, and are holding it for the moment, I can't honestly blame them. The logical place is somewhere in between. Healthy predator populations that support the best hunting opportunities possible. That doesn't mean plugging every forest with as many elk as possible and it also doesn't mean culling the predators by 50% every time the elk enter a down cycle.
I would very seriously entertain studies on the relationship between cougars and mule deer in Oregon, given we have such a healthy cougar population. Not because I think they are the primary cause of the decline, but because they could potentially be a huge additive factor in it. Right now there are 30% less in utero fawn rates than there should be for a normal population -- that's insane. A lot of deer are dying from starvation in the summer when they should be fat. That's not predators, thats the mess we have created, not one side or the other, but everyone. This info is from a biologist, and I relate to his info after seeing fields and fields of cheat grass, medusahead, in what used to be native bunch grass , shrub prairies. Terrifying.
On a side note - for those who don't like sharing federal public lands and public resources with other user groups you can support an organization known as American Lands Council which would love to transfer federal land back to the states. This position was also recently added to a prominent platform in this country so it's gaining steam.
I agree alc is dead not interested. I will leave you with this tidbit on your cougar and mule deer study.lions eat 52 deer per year on average. I will leave it at that and again I am a hound hunter who values some lions in the woods and let treed cats go on a regular basis in Idaho where they are hunted hard . But you cant have an exploding cat population and healthy deer herds at the same time. You CAN have lions AND deer if its balanced and they are both appropriately managed. Bring back hounds if you can besides its the only form of hunting where its truly possible to "catch and release". I don't want to debate this as it would totally derail this thread even more. Just think about that -52 deer per year on average.
Over 52 deer per years since wolves, as wolves drive cougars off their kills, I have seen the sign multiple times...Continue, you are doing a great job explaining wolf predation etc, :tup:
Post by: idaho guy on January 14, 2021, 08:35:11 PM
Deer, elk and moose are wolves primary food source. There is no doubt that they decrease ungulate populations where they reside. The question is how much do they decrease the population. Is the effect linear as wolf population increases? As wolf population increases does secondary mortality and lower calving rates increase due to stress? In a state where options for controlling wolf population is very limited its troubling because wolf populations will grow for many years to come and the effects will likely compound.
:yeah: that’s the sad part of it. Washington,Oregon and maybe Colorado Will be screwed on this since liberal politics are already influencing game management
It's not as simple as that. Everyone has heard the pendulum example in politics. It sways one way with certain force, it will soon sway back the other way with equal force.
Wolves were extirpated from many states and cougars were hunted down to 200 in Oregon, in the late 1960's.
https://myodfw.com/big-game-hunting/species/cougar
For a hunter who cares about nothing else than horns or meat that was probably fantastic. For the average citizen, scientist, conservationist, national geographic reader, etc., it was a tragedy, and now they have caught the pendulum where they have been able to, more liberal states, and are holding it for the moment, I can't honestly blame them. The logical place is somewhere in between. Healthy predator populations that support the best hunting opportunities possible. That doesn't mean plugging every forest with as many elk as possible and it also doesn't mean culling the predators by 50% every time the elk enter a down cycle.
I would very seriously entertain studies on the relationship between cougars and mule deer in Oregon, given we have such a healthy cougar population. Not because I think they are the primary cause of the decline, but because they could potentially be a huge additive factor in it. Right now there are 30% less in utero fawn rates than there should be for a normal population -- that's insane. A lot of deer are dying from starvation in the summer when they should be fat. That's not predators, thats the mess we have created, not one side or the other, but everyone. This info is from a biologist, and I relate to his info after seeing fields and fields of cheat grass, medusahead, in what used to be native bunch grass , shrub prairies. Terrifying.
On a side note - for those who don't like sharing federal public lands and public resources with other user groups you can support an organization known as American Lands Council which would love to transfer federal land back to the states. This position was also recently added to a prominent platform in this country so it's gaining steam.
I agree alc is dead not interested. I will leave you with this tidbit on your cougar and mule deer study.lions eat 52 deer per year on average. I will leave it at that and again I am a hound hunter who values some lions in the woods and let treed cats go on a regular basis in Idaho where they are hunted hard . But you cant have an exploding cat population and healthy deer herds at the same time. You CAN have lions AND deer if its balanced and they are both appropriately managed. Bring back hounds if you can besides its the only form of hunting where its truly possible to "catch and release". I don't want to debate this as it would totally derail this thread even more. Just think about that -52 deer per year on average.
Over 52 deer per years since wolves, as wolves drive cougars off their kills, I have seen the sign multiple times...Continue, you are doing a great job explaining wolf predation etc, :tup:
That’s a fact on wolves forcing lions off their kills. Thanks for pointing that out
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 15, 2021, 06:18:00 AM