Post by: Rockholm66 on April 11, 2010, 02:38:58 PM
Keep in mind that a healthy elk population grows by 10% on an average year when under stress from wolves or other large scale pressures....
Wolve numbers on the other hand have proven to grow by 25% annually despite efforts to control their population.
That said-- In 2008 Idaho's elk population was estimated at around 110,000. While the wolf population was approaching 1000-- a very conservative number.
SO: 110,000 x 10% growth gives us 121,000 elk... and 1000 wolves x 25% growth=1250 wolves
However each wolf eats 2 elk per month so thats 24 elk per year per wolf.
So 24 elk x 1250 wolves= 30,000 elk killed that year by wolves alone.
so 121,000 elk - 30,000 killed by wolves leaves 91,000 elk in 2009
that year the elk again grow by 10% and the wolves by 25% = 100,000 elk & 1563 wolves
but those wolves also eat 2 elk per month only leaving 62,112 elk in 2010
repeat those numbers and the wolves grow to 1953 in 2011 eating 46,872 elk that year leaving total of 15,240 elk after the elks 10% growth...
so then in 2012 the wolves grow to 2441 and need to eat 58,584 elk to survive.... but there are only 15,240 elk left to eat.... so then what happens???
Disease? Starvation? unpredictable behaviors-- like the poor teacher that was just hunted down and killed by wolves up north?????
YOU DO THE MATH!!!!
The reason this happened, was because of the wolf cult, and environmental organizations using false science.
Why do you love wolves (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKoP2h56-e0#ws)
Post by: h2ofowlr on April 11, 2010, 03:21:26 PM
Post by: Michelle_Nelson on April 11, 2010, 04:05:58 PM
Post by: Bob33 on April 11, 2010, 04:30:18 PM
Post by: Wacenturion on April 11, 2010, 04:35:46 PM
Post by: Hunterman on April 11, 2010, 04:38:41 PM
Hunterman(Tony)
Post by: Shootmoore on April 11, 2010, 04:41:45 PM
From 20,000 to 6,000 in 14 years, man there sure was a lot of old and sick elk in that herd. Its not only the wolf, cougar and bear kills on the elk, its the constant pressure dropping calf recruitment. I wonder at what point people wake up and say holy crap, no wonder our forefathers wiped out the wolves. Probably when it is to late, and we have to put the elk and deer on the ESA.
Shootmoore
Post by: Tony 270WSM on April 11, 2010, 04:42:17 PM
Post by: Wacenturion on April 11, 2010, 05:33:00 PM
I bet that is exactly what the anti's want. Too few elk, not allowed to hunt them. Deer to follow.
Bingo........you got it. Couple that with Indian hunting rights and where do you think hunters fit into the equation....they don't. You won't be able to justify hunting as a means to harvest the surplus....there will be no surplus. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on April 11, 2010, 06:23:37 PM
Some of the folks on this forum need to hear what you have seen happens with wolves.
Post by: bearpaw on April 11, 2010, 06:27:29 PM
Here's a very informative site based in Idaho: http://www.saveelk.com (http://www.saveelk.com)
Post by: wolfbait on April 11, 2010, 09:15:44 PM
Post by: Rockholm66 on April 11, 2010, 10:08:05 PM
I guess I need to explain what it is I do. I have been fighting for hunting right's, and battling the anti hunting groups for year's. I found a way to smack them across the head, and You Tube was the tool to do it. I have traveled all across the Western states, and heard, and seen first hand what is happening to our game. I try to use the power of video to get that message out. If you all would make a You Tube account, and from time to time throw a little support, it would be greatly appreciated. I think this site will take up a considerable amount of my time, and I look forward to getting to know you all. If you have a wolf sighting, or have a wolf kill story, let me know. I travel allot to get these stories, and then I put it out to counter the biased media.
Post by: stout on April 16, 2010, 11:33:51 AM
Quote
Keep in mind that a healthy elk population grows by 10% on an average year when under stress from wolves or other large scale pressures....
What that sentence tells me is that even after the predatation of wolves the elk herd still grows, so by subtracting out the number of elk per wolf after that 10% growth in the herd number, you are in fact subtracting out the number of elk killed by wolves twice. Once with the only 10% growth instead of a higher percentage without wolf kills, and again after the fact by subtracting the number of elk per wolf.
I have not in any way checked your statistics or numbers and am only looking at how you applied the numbers based on the information you provided, and I do believe that the wolves are very detrimental to future hunting endeavors. I just want to make sure information like this is presented properly and without flaws. A simple flaw can ruin a whole subject's basis and therefore credibility.
Now maybe I am reading this wrong, and I also believe a lot of other factors are not mentioned or at the very least spelled out.
-Stout
Post by: wolfbait on April 16, 2010, 11:55:16 AM
Post by: seth30 on April 16, 2010, 11:58:40 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on April 16, 2010, 12:01:51 PM
Post by: carpsniperg2 on April 16, 2010, 12:04:01 PM
Post by: bowtech721 on April 16, 2010, 03:30:27 PM
That makes total sense. I havent really thought about it that way but really its the only explanation. Definatly no good :(I bet that is exactly what the anti's want. Too few elk, not allowed to hunt them. Deer to follow.
Bingo........you got it. Couple that with Indian hunting rights and where do you think hunters fit into the equation....they don't. You won't be able to justify hunting as a means to harvest the surplus....there will be no surplus. :twocents:
Post by: wolfbait on April 16, 2010, 09:28:10 PM
That makes total sense. I havent really thought about it that way but really its the only explanation. Definatly no good :(I bet that is exactly what the anti's want. Too few elk, not allowed to hunt them. Deer to follow.
Bingo........you got it. Couple that with Indian hunting rights and where do you think hunters fit into the equation....they don't. You won't be able to justify hunting as a means to harvest the surplus....there will be no surplus. :twocents:
SSS
Post by: bobcat on February 11, 2015, 12:24:02 AM
The prediction is that there will be no elk left in Idaho by 2012.
It's now 2015... are there any elk in Idaho? :chuckle:
Post by: huntnnw on February 11, 2015, 03:36:07 AM
Post by: DIYARCHERYJUNKIE on February 11, 2015, 04:27:06 AM
Post by: dreamunelk on February 11, 2015, 04:53:23 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 11, 2015, 04:56:17 AM
Rockholm66 and his numbers do not lie.
hah hah, And yet here we are in 2015 and the elk hunting in Idaho still goes on. He must have forgotten to carry the 3, and then divide by the square root of the number of toes in the wolf population. (don't forget a few of them have lost a couple toes getting them pinched in traps)
Still waiting for that big Hydatid epidemic too. Biggest failure since Y2K.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 11, 2015, 05:02:38 AM
Not that I am pro wolf in any way, but I believe I see a mistake you have made in your post, providing some misleading information. From this sentence:QuoteKeep in mind that a healthy elk population grows by 10% on an average year when under stress from wolves or other large scale pressures....
What that sentence tells me is that even after the predatation of wolves the elk herd still grows, so by subtracting out the number of elk per wolf after that 10% growth in the herd number, you are in fact subtracting out the number of elk killed by wolves twice. Once with the only 10% growth instead of a higher percentage without wolf kills, and again after the fact by subtracting the number of elk per wolf.
I have not in any way checked your statistics or numbers and am only looking at how you applied the numbers based on the information you provided, and I do believe that the wolves are very detrimental to future hunting endeavors. I just want to make sure information like this is presented properly and without flaws. A simple flaw can ruin a whole subject's basis and therefore credibility.
Now maybe I am reading this wrong, and I also believe a lot of other factors are not mentioned or at the very least spelled out.
-Stout
Well, he did leave out the 15,000 or so elk killed by hunters each year and however many bears and cats take too. Then a few calves probably get taken out by coyotes. Those darned elk should have been gone by mid 2011 at the latest. They must be moving back into Idaho from Colorado or some other wolf free State, faster than the wolves can eat them.
Post by: Bob33 on February 11, 2015, 06:28:26 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on February 11, 2015, 08:51:45 AM
Rockholm66 and his numbers do not lie.:chuckle: :chuckle:
Huh...so rockholm and wolfbait predicted no elk by 2012 in Idaho...who could ever imagine those 2 could be so wrong? :hello:
Thanks bobcat...this is the funniest thing I've seen all week.
Post by: ipkus on February 11, 2015, 01:32:19 PM
Classy.
Post by: ipkus on February 11, 2015, 03:06:14 PM
I think it's hypocritical for someone to joke about wolve impacts, exaggerated or not, in one breath but be vehemently against living amongst them in the next.
The wolves are here in the numbers that they are, and still unmanaged, because of a wolf plan that was pushed for and adopted according to the wishes of the population base west of the crest. Those of you that wanted them should have them. If you can't follow that logic, I'm not sure what else is easier to understand?
Post by: Bob33 on February 11, 2015, 03:20:53 PM
You would be incorrect, I'm not mad.Nine of the 18 working wolf group members that developed the plan were from Eastern Washington.
I think it's hypocritical for someone to joke about wolve impacts, exaggerated or not, in one breath but be vehemently against living amongst them in the next.
The wolves are here in the numbers that they are, and still unmanaged, because of a wolf plan that was pushed for and adopted according to the wishes of the population base west of the crest. Those of you that wanted them should have them. If you can't follow that logic, I'm not sure what else is easier to understand?
Post by: Curly on February 11, 2015, 03:29:37 PM
You would be incorrect, I'm not mad.
I think it's hypocritical for someone to joke about wolve impacts, exaggerated or not, in one breath but be vehemently against living amongst them in the next.
The wolves are here in the numbers that they are, and still unmanaged, because of a wolf plan that was pushed for and adopted according to the wishes of the population base west of the crest. Those of you that wanted them should have them. If you can't follow that logic, I'm not sure what else is easier to understand?
I don't know of anyone on this site (now that Humanure is gone) that likes the wolf plan. I hope you're not complaining about anyone on this site wanting wolves in this state.
A lot of the support for wolves in this state came from people out of state. I'm sure others that supported the plan live in cities like Spokane, Richland and Yakima......probably not much support from anyone that wants to hunt big game in this state.
And besides all that, those that wanted them are most likely living in Cities. Those people are not going to encounter wolves anywhere near where they live. BTW - Tri Cities and Yakima are in the same wolf management zone as Olympia. Some wolves in the Yakima or Tri Cities vicinity are going to count toward reaching the management goals as if they were in the Olympia area. :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on February 11, 2015, 04:46:34 PM
You joke and yet you still don't want them on your side of the state.To whom are you directing this statement towards?
Classy.
Post by: grundy53 on February 11, 2015, 06:59:39 PM
You would be incorrect, I'm not mad.I'm from the west side and don't want them. I was also against the wolf plan. I also know I'm not alone over here. So maybe you shouldn't make such broad statements. They make you sound ill informed.
I think it's hypocritical for someone to joke about wolve impacts, exaggerated or not, in one breath but be vehemently against living amongst them in the next.
The wolves are here in the numbers that they are, and still unmanaged, because of a wolf plan that was pushed for and adopted according to the wishes of the population base west of the crest. Those of you that wanted them should have them. If you can't follow that logic, I'm not sure what else is easier to understand?
Post by: billythekidrock on February 11, 2015, 07:04:54 PM
I just came across this 5 year old thread, and find it a bit humorous.
The prediction is that there will be no elk left in Idaho by 2012.
It's now 2015... are there any elk in Idaho? :chuckle:
Too funny..but remember to consider the source.
Post by: MtnMuley on February 11, 2015, 07:19:26 PM
Post by: ipkus on February 11, 2015, 08:36:09 PM
Nine of the 18 working wolf group members that developed the plan were from Eastern Washington.
And 90% give or take of the in favor of testimony came from westside public meetings.
Post by: ipkus on February 11, 2015, 08:45:17 PM
To whom are you directing this statement towards?
Anyone that lives on the westside and feels that waiting on the wolf plan's version of repopulation migration is the right way to go vs. transplanting to speed up the timeline. There was a thread that covered it not that long ago. Those that are willing to accept the sham that the wolf plan is to this point, but have no will to work toward speeding up the timeline toward active management because it would affect their backyard.
Pretty simple criteria, you can do a self test and fess up if you qualify.
Post by: ipkus on February 11, 2015, 08:52:57 PM
I'm from the west side and don't want them. I was also against the wolf plan. I also know I'm not alone over here. So maybe you shouldn't make such broad statements. They make you sound ill informed.
Well, I'm from the eastside and along with the majority of residents over here I didn't approve of the wolf plan. I still got them. Why shouldn't the geographical area of the state that wanted them get them too?
Do the self test I listed above. If you don't qualify, I wasn't talking to you.
Ill informed? Please.
Post by: bobcat on February 11, 2015, 08:53:19 PM
I agree with neither. I don't like the idea of wasting money on moving wolves anywhere, when they're fully capable of relocating themselves with their own four feet.
If they get to the west side of the state on their own, so be it. But, the wolf plan does not even require that, as many of you seem to think. We only need wolves south of I-90 according to the plan.
I actually brought this thread back up to the top because I really wanted an answer to my question: "Are there any elk left in Idaho." Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen anyone answer that question yet. :dunno:
Post by: kentrek on February 11, 2015, 09:12:23 PM
I'm buying two bull tags next year over there I think
Post by: idahohuntr on February 11, 2015, 09:14:22 PM
I actually brought this thread back up to the top because I really wanted an answer to my question: "Are there any elk left in Idaho." Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen anyone answer that question yet. :dunno:
No. The last one was eaten by a wolf a couple years ago. It was tragic. We all cried.
Post by: ipkus on February 11, 2015, 09:17:02 PM
Actually I feel it's hypocritical for people to NOT agree with the original introduction of wolves into the Rocky Mountain states, but then be in favor of moving them around within Washington state.
So...after witnessing how the first 20 years of re-introduction has gone you think its hypocritical for someone to think we should try to do something different to speed up a state's ability to manage another blossoming out of control situation? That's not hypocrisy, it's insanity.
I actually brought this thread back up to the top because I really wanted an answer to my question: "Are there any elk left in Idaho." Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen anyone answer that question yet. :dunno:
You couldn't figure that out without asking the H-W board? And your :chuckle: didn't show that you already knew the answer?
Post by: idahohuntr on February 11, 2015, 09:19:51 PM
there are lots of elk, hung out with the idaho fishgame booth today, they were telling me how they can't kill Enough elk !:yike: He's kidding...by Idaho he means New Mexico.
I'm buying two bull tags next year over there I think
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 11, 2015, 09:20:01 PM
I actually brought this thread back up to the top because I really wanted an answer to my question: "Are there any elk left in Idaho." Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen anyone answer that question yet. :dunno:
According to the Idaho 2014-2024 Elk Plan, there are still over 107,000 elk still in Idaho.
Post by: bobcat on February 11, 2015, 09:20:43 PM
I actually brought this thread back up to the top because I really wanted an answer to my question: "Are there any elk left in Idaho." Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen anyone answer that question yet. :dunno:
You couldn't figure that out without asking the H-W board? And your :chuckle: didn't show that you already knew the answer?
I thought I knew the answer, but wanted to hear it from those who are experts on the subject, like wolfbait and Rockholm66.
Post by: pope on February 11, 2015, 09:24:42 PM
http://www.phschool.com/atschool/phbio/active_art/predator_prey_simulation/index.html (http://www.phschool.com/atschool/phbio/active_art/predator_prey_simulation/index.html)
Post by: idahohuntr on February 11, 2015, 09:28:51 PM
:yike: Stop it. Sitka is also joking of course...see, there are 1000 wolves and each wolf eats 35 elk per year so 1000x35 = 35000 elk so 107,000 elk in 2010 and you subtract 35000 each year and they went extinct in 2012.I actually brought this thread back up to the top because I really wanted an answer to my question: "Are there any elk left in Idaho." Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen anyone answer that question yet. :dunno:
According to the Idaho 2014-2024 Elk Plan, there are over 107,000 elk still in Idaho.
Post by: 724wd on February 11, 2015, 09:45:47 PM
And besides all that, those that wanted them are most likely living in Cities. Those people are not going to encounter wolves anywhere near where they live.
Gosh, Walla Walla must be a million miles away! And the wolves seen out by Touchet. Or the dogs that left fist-sized prints outside Burbank that I've seen first hand. Yup, no wolves by Tri-Cities...
Post by: huntnnw on February 11, 2015, 09:49:18 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 11, 2015, 09:52:35 PM
According to the Idaho 2014-2024 Elk Plan, there are over 107,000 elk still in Idaho.:yike: Stop it. Sitka is also joking of course...see, there are 1000 wolves and each wolf eats 35 elk per year so 1000x35 = 35000 elk so 107,000 elk in 2010 and you subtract 35000 each year and they went extinct in 2012.
Here's something more to worry about idahohuntr........ Apparently there is a wolf zombie apocalypse uprising going on right under our noses and I sure haven't seen the leftist tree hugging media reporting on it. It's being covered up by the feds and it's all Obama's fault.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/study-wolf-attacks-still-leading-cause-of-death-in,32170/ (http://www.theonion.com/articles/study-wolf-attacks-still-leading-cause-of-death-in,32170/)
Post by: kentrek on February 11, 2015, 09:55:07 PM
Theres a draw unit in ID that has exceeded the carrying capacity for elk the area is over 2,500 elk! and I have seen wolves and heard them everytime! I hunt the panhandle too and its fantastic! I had over 21 bulls on 1 cam
ya but you obviously moved the camera to 21 different locations :chuckle:
Post by: huntnnw on February 11, 2015, 11:20:50 PM
Post by: Brushbuster on February 12, 2015, 01:12:49 AM
Post by: M_ray on February 12, 2015, 04:31:45 AM
You joke and yet you still don't want them on your side of the state.
Classy.
I don't see where anyone wanted them anywhere east or west so whats the point of this statement? :dunno:
Post by: kentrek on February 12, 2015, 04:33:57 AM
:tup:
Post by: Machias on February 12, 2015, 07:12:18 AM
Post by: DIYARCHERYJUNKIE on February 12, 2015, 07:36:52 AM
Post by: Machias on February 12, 2015, 07:37:40 AM
Post by: DIYARCHERYJUNKIE on February 12, 2015, 10:21:43 AM
Post by: bearpaw on February 13, 2015, 02:42:12 PM
This is all funny as heck unless you live and hunt or had a business in one of the many Idaho zones significantly impacted by wolves. The wolf promoters love to say there are over 100,000 elk in Idaho and try to advertise that wolves have not harmed herds, what they avoid telling you about are the herds that were significantly reduced and the many businesses in small towns near these areas that no longer exist and there is little mention of the ranchers who lost thousands when hungry packs of wolves devoured their livestock because there wasn't enough wild game to be found. The wolfers also do not mention that it has taken nearly year around hunting seasons, trapping seasons, and government arial gunning to stop the increase of wolf numbers and reverse the decline of Idaho's big game herds. If aggressive wolf management not taken place it is very arguable that many more herds would have been impacted.
RMEF has made strong statements for managing wolves and IDFG has acknowledged the damage in numerous units by wolves. As a result IDFG implemented the needed management to reduce wolves, bear, and cougar numbers to save herds. This is all mentioned in the Idaho state management plans.
If some of you are foolish enough to believe wolves did not cause any damage to herds in Idaho and will not cause any damage to any herds in WA then so be it, have a great day. :chuckle:
A reduced population of wolves might fit in the lower 48 if numbers are prevented from getting too large in any area. After all there have been wolves in Alaska and Canada all along. But the Alaskans and Canadians manage wolves heavily at times with extensive culling efforts when needed and essentially that is what Idaho is doing to save their herds. Idaho has implemented heavy predator control for all large predators with multiple cougar, bear, and wolf tags on sale and very long seasons in the zones where herds have been decimated. This has resulted in some of those game herds beginning to bounce back. Yes, wolves might fit in if predator numbers are reduced like has occurred in Canada and Idaho.
It sure seems pretty intentionally misleading for anyone to suggest that wolves did not harm Idaho's game herds or that more herds would not have been damaged if Idaho had not started significant lethal management of all large predators to reverse the declining trend of many Idaho herds.
FACT: IDFG has published data supporting the fact that wolves and other large predators did impact Idaho big game herds. :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on February 13, 2015, 03:05:09 PM
Post by: Machias on February 13, 2015, 03:08:37 PM
Nobody has said wolves don't kill elk. The thing is, why exaggerate and say there will be absolutely no elk left in the state of Idaho in 2012? That was the title of this thread.
Sure wish you would use that reasoning with the Global Warming issue.
Post by: bearpaw on February 13, 2015, 03:20:19 PM
Nobody has said wolves don't kill elk. The thing is, why exaggerate and say there will be absolutely no elk left in the state of Idaho in 2012? That was the title of this thread.
I definitely agree that the title is a stretch and does not help with the facts.
I also get very tired of the other extreme side who try to infer there are no impacts.
Post by: bobcat on February 13, 2015, 03:21:46 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on February 13, 2015, 03:22:25 PM
Nobody has said wolves don't kill elk. The thing is, why exaggerate and say there will be absolutely no elk left in the state of Idaho in 2012? That was the title of this thread.Hmmm...lets look at a little line from the OP: If you all would make a You Tube account, and from time to time throw a little support, it would be greatly appreciated.
Bold, terrifiying predictions are used by all sides on controversial topics to line their pockets. Its not unique to enviro whackos. A lot of fringe groups use tactics like this :puke:
Post by: bearpaw on February 13, 2015, 03:31:19 PM
Nobody has said wolves don't kill elk. The thing is, why exaggerate and say there will be absolutely no elk left in the state of Idaho in 2012? That was the title of this thread.Hmmm...lets look at a little line from the OP: If you all would make a You Tube account, and from time to time throw a little support, it would be greatly appreciated.
Bold, terrifiying predictions are used by all sides on controversial topics to line their pockets. Its not unique to enviro whackos. A lot of fringe groups use tactics like this :puke:
I agree, it's unfortunate that happens so often.
Post by: Machias on February 13, 2015, 04:22:27 PM
Why would you care what I think about globs warming, and what does that have to do with wolves?
Because you and a couple of other guys buy in lock stock and barrel when the Global Warming nut jobs come out with the same outlandish claims you are now making fun of. The irony is amazing!!
Post by: bobcat on February 13, 2015, 04:32:44 PM
:jacked:
Post by: bearpaw on February 13, 2015, 04:37:36 PM
Why would you care what I think about globs warming, and what does that have to do with wolves?
Because you and a couple of other guys buy in lock stock and barrel when the Global Warming nut jobs come out with the same outlandish claims you are now making fun of. The irony is amazing!!
A little FYI - I recently read a news report somewhere saying that scientists lied about recorded temperatures last year. They adjusted them up by a degree to make temps better fit their earth warming narrative. Reminds me of the lynx study! :chuckle:
Post by: Dan-o on February 13, 2015, 04:53:06 PM
Why would you care what I think about globs warming, and what does that have to do with wolves?
Because you and a couple of other guys buy in lock stock and barrel when the Global Warming nut jobs come out with the same outlandish claims you are now making fun of. The irony is amazing!!
A little FYI - I recently read a news report somewhere saying that scientists lied about recorded temperatures last year. They adjusted them up by a degree to make temps better fit their earth warming narrative. Reminds me of the lynx study! :chuckle:
Government grant funded scientists fudging their data to reflect the politically correct answer??????
Well, knock me over with a feather!
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on February 13, 2015, 05:20:14 PM
Post by: Machias on February 13, 2015, 05:41:09 PM
Machias, sounds like you know me better than I know myself! I still don't really get what you're saying. I do tend to believe in scientists more than I believe in conspiracy theorists. I don't even know what to think about global warming, and I don't think you or anyone else knows the cause of global warming either. Even the scientists don't know what is causing it. And again, what this has to do with wolves, I don't have a clue.
:jacked:
Never mind brother, it wasn't about wolves and it wasn't about global warming. It was about YOU cracking on a guy for making outlandish claims....when in fact in the past you're all in on other guys doing the exact same thing. But I'm guessing you won't get that either. :)
Post by: bobcat on February 13, 2015, 05:44:07 PM
Post by: Machias on February 13, 2015, 05:49:18 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 13, 2015, 06:02:07 PM
.
Since you like to laugh at predictions laugh at this one:
Washington will not be as aggressive in protecting our Elk numbers as Idaho has been in protecting their Elk.
Post by: DIYARCHERYJUNKIE on February 13, 2015, 06:18:09 PM
Good luck over there, if you need any help let me know, I've spent quite a bit of time over there hunting them.
I'd could use a pm as to where to go in Idaho. And I don't believe in that global warming crap so :tup: !
Post by: Machias on February 13, 2015, 06:19:34 PM
Good luck over there, if you need any help let me know, I've spent quite a bit of time over there hunting them.
I'd could use a pm as to where to go in Idaho. And I don't believe in that global warming crap so :tup: !
:chuckle: Shoot me a PM anytime.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 13, 2015, 06:20:41 PM
Rockholm66 couldn't have predicted 5 years ago Idaho would be so aggressive in wolf management, allowing us all to "laugh" at this prediction today. Back then Malloy was a big factor, Idaho was judicially limited in protecting Elk. That Idaho is where it is today with hunt-able Elk is a testament to the amount of money, time and effort Idaho has spent in protecting their Elk herds.It was clear when he made his prediction the direction IDFG was taking wolf management. The only uncertainty was around judicial rulings. However, between state and feds, even with ESA protection afforded for most of that period 804 wolves were killed in Idaho between 2003-2010. Even if Idaho put an armed guard to protect every wolf pack in the state from harm there would still be a bunch of elk in Idaho today making his prediction dead wrong no matter what happens.
.
Since you like to laugh at predictions laugh at this one:
Washington will not be as aggressive in protecting our Elk numbers as Idaho has been in protecting their Elk.
As for your "prediction"...how bold... :chuckle:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on February 13, 2015, 10:16:38 PM
Post by: wolfbait on February 18, 2015, 09:09:37 PM
I just came across this 5 year old thread, and find it a bit humorous.
The prediction is that there will be no elk left in Idaho by 2012.
It's now 2015... are there any elk in Idaho? :chuckle:
You find it humorous while most of us consider it good news.
And your point was?
Post by: bobcat on February 18, 2015, 09:18:06 PM
I just came across this 5 year old thread, and find it a bit humorous.
The prediction is that there will be no elk left in Idaho by 2012.
It's now 2015... are there any elk in Idaho? :chuckle:
You find it humorous while most of us consider it good news.
And your point was?
My point? Isn't it obvious? The point is, the prediction was wrong. There are still elk in Idaho.
Post by: Dan-o on February 18, 2015, 09:24:50 PM
I just came across this 5 year old thread, and find it a bit humorous.
The prediction is that there will be no elk left in Idaho by 2012.
It's now 2015... are there any elk in Idaho? :chuckle:
You find it humorous while most of us consider it good news.
And your point was?
My point? Isn't it obvious? The point is, the prediction was wrong. There are still elk in Idaho.
Are you sure?????
Post by: wolfbait on February 18, 2015, 09:28:48 PM
I just came across this 5 year old thread, and find it a bit humorous.
The prediction is that there will be no elk left in Idaho by 2012.
It's now 2015... are there any elk in Idaho? :chuckle:
You find it humorous while most of us consider it good news.
And your point was?
My point? Isn't it obvious? The point is, the prediction was wrong. There are still elk in Idaho.
How long has this prediction been eating at you?
Post by: wolfbait on February 18, 2015, 09:35:36 PM
I just came across this 5 year old thread, and find it a bit humorous.
The prediction is that there will be no elk left in Idaho by 2012.
It's now 2015... are there any elk in Idaho? :chuckle:
You find it humorous while most of us consider it good news.
And your point was?
My point? Isn't it obvious? The point is, the prediction was wrong. There are still elk in Idaho.
How long has this prediction been eating at you?
Do these predictions bother you as well or do you find them "humorous"?
Wolf impacts underestimated
According to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service grossly underestimated the impact of a reintroduced population of wolves.
• The wolf population in the Greater Yellowstone area in 2005 was at least 3.3 times the original environmental impact statement prediction for a recovered population.
• The number of breeding pairs of wolves in the GYA in 2005 was at least twice as high as the original EIS prediction and the number of breeding pairs in 2004 was at least 3.1 times the original EIS prediction.
• In 2005, the wolf population in Wyoming outside Yellowstone National Park exceeded the recovery criteria for the entire region and continues to increase rapidly.
• The estimated annual predation rate (22 ungulates per wolf) is 1.8 times the annual predation rate (12 ungulates per wolf) predicted in the EIS.
• The estimated number of ungulates taken by 325 wolves in a year (7,150) is six times higher than the original EIS prediction.
• The percent of the northern Yellowstone elk harvest during the 1980s currently taken by wolves (50 percent) is 6.3 times the original estimate of eight percent projected in the EIS.
• The actual decline in the northern Yellowstone elk herd (more than 50 percent) is 1.7 times the maximum decline originally forecast in the EIS.
• The actual decline in cow harvest in the northern Yellowstone elk herd (89 percent) is 3.3 times the decline originally forecast in the EIS.
• The actual decline in bull harvest in the northern Yellowstone elk herd is 75 percent, whereas the 1994 EIS predicted bull harvests would be “unaffected.”
• Since wolf introduction, average ratios of calf elk to cow elk have been greatly \depressed in the northern Yellowstone elk herd and in the Wyoming elk herds impacted by wolves. In the northern Yellowstone elk herd and in the Sunlight unit of the Clarks Fork herd, calf:cow rations have been suppressed to unprecedented levels below 15 calves per 100. The impact of wolves on calf recruitment was not addressed by the 1994 EIS.
WG&F stated: “Despite research findings in Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone Area, and monitoring evidence in Wyoming that indicate wolf predation is having an impact on ungulate populations that will reduce hunter opportunity if the current impact levels persist, the Service continues to rigidly deny wolf predation is a problem.”
The 1994 EIS predicted that presence of wolves would result in a 5-10 percent increase in annual visitation to Yellowstone National Park. On this basis, the EIS forecast wolves in the region would generate $20 million in revenue to the states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. WG&F reports that annual park visitation remained essentially unchanged after wolf introduction, and has decreased 2.6 percent since the wolf population reached recovery goals in 2000.
“ Since park visitation did not increase as originally forecast, the Service cannot legitimately conclude presence of wolves has had any appreciable effect on net tourism revenues,” WG&F stated.
WG&F stated: “Wolf presence can be ecologically compatible in the GYA only to the extent that the distribution and numbers of wolves are controlled and maintained at approximately the levels originally predicted by the 1994 EIS –100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs.” WG&F maintained that FWS “has a permanent, legal obligation to manage wolves at the levels on which the wolf recovery program was originally predicated, the levels described by the impact analysis in the 1994 EIS.”
http://www.pinedaleonline.com/wolf/wolfimpacts.htm (http://www.pinedaleonline.com/wolf/wolfimpacts.htm)
Post by: Dan-o on February 18, 2015, 09:40:38 PM
I fear we're in for the same or worse.
Post by: wolfbait on February 18, 2015, 10:02:13 PM
Those stats/predictions are just ugly.
I fear we're in for the same or worse.
We don't have to make any "predictions" for WA, all we have to do is look at Idaho and their past history, compare WA's ungulate population to Idaho's at the start of "wolf recovery" and then look at where we are right now.
According to WDFW wolves started "migrating" into WA in 2002, that makes 13 years worth of wolf recovery. Look at where IDFG was 13 years into wolf recovery.
(of course WDFW are ignoring the wolves of the 1970's-1990's)
Monitoring
Our 2008 annual report on Wolf Conservation and Management in Idaho is available on our website at: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/manage/. (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/manage/.) The minimum year-end population estimate for 2008 was 846 wolves, 88 packs, with 39 documented breeding pairs. The 2009 annual report is being prepared and will be available in March.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/reportMonthly09.pdf (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/reportMonthly09.pdf)
Monitoring
Our 2009 annual report on Wolf Conservation and Management in Idaho is available on our website at: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/manage/. (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/manage/.) The year-end minimum population estimate for 2009 was 835 wolves in 94 packs with 49 breeding pairs confirmed (breeding pair is defined as an adult male and female with at least tow pups that survived to December 31). The 2009 year-end minimum estimate of 835 wolves compares to the 2008 year-end minimum population estimate of 856 wolves in 88 packs, with 39 documented breeding pairs.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/reportMonthly10.pdf (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/reportMonthly10.pdf)
The Idaho Fish and Game Commission, Monday, August 17, 2009 set harvest limits for Idaho's first public wolf hunting season this fall.
Fish and Game models indicate Idaho now has at least 1,000 wolves. The population increases at a rate of about 20 percent a year, without hunting.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/news3.pdf (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/news3.pdf)
August 5, 2010 - Gray wolves in Idaho, and the Northern Rocky Mountains are returned to endangered species status. U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy ruled that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's delisting rule does not comply with the Endangered Species Act.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/ruling1.pdf (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/ruling1.pdf)
Post by: idahohuntr on February 18, 2015, 10:19:59 PM
Post by: jasnt on February 19, 2015, 07:48:57 AM
Despite being wrong they had the best intentions and it's obvious they care about our wildlife,and our future of hunting........most people are only right less than 50% of the time
:tup:
:chuckle::yeah:
This is all funny as heck unless you live and hunt or had a business in one of the many Idaho zones significantly impacted by wolves. The wolf promoters love to say there are over 100,000 elk in Idaho and try to advertise that wolves have not harmed herds, what they avoid telling you about are the herds that were significantly reduced and the many businesses in small towns near these areas that no longer exist and there is little mention of the ranchers who lost thousands when hungry packs of wolves devoured their livestock because there wasn't enough wild game to be found. The wolfers also do not mention that it has taken nearly year around hunting seasons, trapping seasons, and government arial gunning to stop the increase of wolf numbers and reverse the decline of Idaho's big game herds. If aggressive wolf management not taken place it is very arguable that many more herds would have been impacted.
RMEF has made strong statements for managing wolves and IDFG has acknowledged the damage in numerous units by wolves. As a result IDFG implemented the needed management to reduce wolves, bear, and cougar numbers to save herds. This is all mentioned in the Idaho state management plans.
If some of you are foolish enough to believe wolves did not cause any damage to herds in Idaho and will not cause any damage to any herds in WA then so be it, have a great day. :chuckle:
A reduced population of wolves might fit in the lower 48 if numbers are prevented from getting too large in any area. After all there have been wolves in Alaska and Canada all along. But the Alaskans and Canadians manage wolves heavily at times with extensive culling efforts when needed and essentially that is what Idaho is doing to save their herds. Idaho has implemented heavy predator control for all large predators with multiple cougar, bear, and wolf tags on sale and very long seasons in the zones where herds have been decimated. This has resulted in some of those game herds beginning to bounce back. Yes, wolves might fit in if predator numbers are reduced like has occurred in Canada and Idaho.
It sure seems pretty intentionally misleading for anyone to suggest that wolves did not harm Idaho's game herds or that more herds would not have been damaged if Idaho had not started significant lethal management of all large predators to reverse the declining trend of many Idaho herds.
FACT: IDFG has published data supporting the fact that wolves and other large predators did impact Idaho big game herds. :twocents:
Post by: Special T on February 19, 2015, 10:56:07 AM
Fact is hunting is not nearly as good in ID as it was even 5 years ago.
ID has many more tools at its disposal than WA, and many people in ID resent the Feds and the IDFW for forcing this on the people. MANY Id residents shot wolves despite how illegal it was. I would bet the general feeling about wolves was negative in ID
WA has no real trapping. WA has a huge block of people who have no vested interest in the game herds or the rural way of living. The overall political climate favors those who wish to protect wolves in this state. As a % of the population Wa has WAY less hunters and trappers than ID.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 19, 2015, 11:07:56 AM
Do you base this statement on personal experience...or?? I think you are way off the mark on this. I doubt many who have actually hunted Idaho for years (and still hunt Idaho) would agree with your statement.
Fact is hunting is not nearly as good in ID as it was even 5 years ago.
Post by: nwwanderer on February 19, 2015, 11:21:12 AM
Post by: Special T on February 19, 2015, 11:31:12 AM
If the hunting has gotten better why have they changed the many of the units in the panhandle to Antlered only?
There is no doubt that hunting has gotten better in some units due the the fact that wolves have pushed elk to lower elevations making it "easier" to kill one... I dont how ever think it has made hunting better.
My favorite hunting memorie was the first iem i went elk hunting on a guided hunt in the back country on horse back in MT. It was the Definition of great hunting. That outfitter is out of business and hunting in that are has suffered due to wolves.
Guides dont leave/let thier lic lap or go out of business if hunting is great. If anything there is more demand to use one... I dont doubt that hunting is ID is better than WA, since that is not difficult to surpass.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 19, 2015, 11:33:33 AM
Just looking at tag sales and reg changes, something is going on in Idaho. Gee, I wonder what :bash:I agree, its clear deer and elk numbers are definitely increasing. Did you see all those new hunts and permit level increases proposed for 2015 in Idaho?
Post by: Special T on February 19, 2015, 11:37:45 AM
Post by: AspenBud on February 19, 2015, 11:46:00 AM
Once you get beyond the fringes most people in the middle get that. The elk won't disappear. There might be fewer, but they won't go away. Why? Because if people want wolves in numbers prey animals have to exist in numbers. If people want game to hunt you have to have game in numbers.
The question in my mind isn't one of whether elk and other ungulates will disappear, it's when will the goals of the wolf people and of big game hunters finally meet in the middle because both recognize the need for game to support their interests. That day of reckoning is coming, but things might get fairly bleak for a while before everyone wakes up.
Post by: AspenBud on February 19, 2015, 11:47:59 AM
Yes and i also saw that ID will be raising rates since many out of state hunters are not comeing to the state in the numbers they once did. Some because the areas they know and hunted are now void of elk numbers. Some are more hisitant at dropping a decent chunk of change when the likely hood of hitting a dead zone has greatly increased and only have a week to hunt.
The recession also put a damper on a lot of hunting trips. With out of state hunters wolves and any damage they have done is likely more additive than causal.
Post by: Special T on February 19, 2015, 11:53:35 AM
Yes and i also saw that ID will be raising rates since many out of state hunters are not comeing to the state in the numbers they once did. Some because the areas they know and hunted are now void of elk numbers. Some are more hisitant at dropping a decent chunk of change when the likely hood of hitting a dead zone has greatly increased and only have a week to hunt.
The recession also put a damper on a lot of hunting trips. With out of state hunters wolves and any damage they have done is likely more additive than causal.
When resources are scarce people look for other options.... I managed to go to KS to hunt... Ive been to AS, Possible headed to MO...I think people still go I just think they change where they spend that $ and realize that there are MORE options for spending that cash in areas with a better return on Investment.
There will always be wolves..... But how much are they bringing in the way of tourist dollars? Oh ya... they are COSTING jobs and the IDFG $ not generating any for those "Habitat Improvement" projects...
Post by: bearpaw on February 19, 2015, 12:10:57 PM
Do you base this statement on personal experience...or?? I think you are way off the mark on this. I doubt many who have actually hunted Idaho for years (and still hunt Idaho) would agree with your statement.
Fact is hunting is not nearly as good in ID as it was even 5 years ago.
I can tell you quite a bit about Idaho based on our personal experiences, knowing many outfitters who operate or used to operate in wolf impacted areas, and based on published IDFG data.
Numerous elk herds were significantly impacted by wolves, the most notable being the lolo herd, but also herds were impacted in the clearwater, selway, payette, boise river, salmon, st joe, and coeur d'alene drainages, that does not include some other less impacted herds.
It's a favorite ploy of wolf groups to lump all of Idaho's units together in one lump sum total number of elk. The elk are doing very well in areas which have not been impacted by wolves and by lumping the good data with the bad data it evens out and appears elk hunting is still as good in Idaho. It's a very clever way of hiding the real impacts of wolves reducing herds in numerous elk zones.
Some of those herds are beginning to rebound because aggressive large predator management has been taking place for several years now. We know people who have been counting herds in some of those units and the IDFG data tells the story in some of these units. By giving hunters and trappers 5 wolf tags, two cougar tags, and two bear tags, IDFG has lowered the bear and cougar population in some areas so that the wolf impacts are not as significant while at the same time working to reduce the wolf population by issue thousands of wolf tags to hunters and trappers. Additionally an Idaho Sportsmen group reimburses wolf trappers up to $500 for each wolf trapped to encourage more trapping, this is because it's such an expensive endeavor for trappers to trap wolves.
I also did not include the fact that many Idahoans took wolf management into their own hands after Malloy shut down wolf hunting the first time. I stand behind that as fact which can be verified with local residents in nearly any small town near wolf impacted elk herds. Citizens openly talk about helping take care of the problem. Unfortunately that is what happens when officials refuse to help the people in these areas.
I think it's more than fair to say that very aggressive lethal wolf management Idaho is saving some of these wolf impacted big game herds and preventing additional herds from being impacted. When the OP originally posted his prediction this aggressive wolf management had not taken place and herds were still declining, so his prediction (even though it's pretty impossible to wipe out every elk) would not have been that far off base regarding wolves impacting most of Idaho's elk herds. I doubt he meant every single elk would be killed but more likely that most herds would have been impacted!
Thankfully Idahoans pushed for aggressive management which altered the trend of more and more declining herds that was occurring at the time of this topic was first posted. :twocents:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 19, 2015, 12:26:19 PM
Yes and i also saw that ID will be raising rates since many out of state hunters are not comeing to the state in the numbers they once did. Some because the areas they know and hunted are now void of elk numbers. Some are more hisitant at dropping a decent chunk of change when the likely hood of hitting a dead zone has greatly increased and only have a week to hunt.
That doesn't make sense on face value. If people are not coming to hunt because it isn't worth it, you raise the prices and that somehow makes it more worth it?
What I do know for a fact, last year in Idaho, you could buy a second non res elk or deer tag for $100 off the price of the first one. They were discounting tags to sell them. That makes more sense.
I believe the economy and gas prices was the major cause of out of State hunting decreases.
Post by: bearpaw on February 19, 2015, 12:40:38 PM
Yes and i also saw that ID will be raising rates since many out of state hunters are not comeing to the state in the numbers they once did. Some because the areas they know and hunted are now void of elk numbers. Some are more hisitant at dropping a decent chunk of change when the likely hood of hitting a dead zone has greatly increased and only have a week to hunt.
That doesn't make sense on face value. If people are not coming to hunt because it isn't worth it, you raise the prices and that somehow makes it more worth it?
What I do know for a fact, last year in Idaho, you could buy a second non res elk or deer tag for $100 off the price of the first one. They were discounting tags to sell them. That makes more sense.
I believe the economy and gas prices was the major cause of out of State hunting decreases.
The hunting industry is what I do. I talk to roughly 5 to 15 hunters from across the nation almost every day of the year. Hunters across the country know that wolves have impacted Idaho herds and many tell me that they were on hunts in some of those impacted areas and saw no elk or elk sign, they say they will never go back to those impacted areas.
Wolves are definitely what impacted Idaho sales the most.
Montana has sold out or nearly sold out every year, but Montana doesn't have as many impacted areas as Idaho. Utah which has almost no wolves has more people applying for tags than they had 5 years ago.
Post by: Bean Counter on February 19, 2015, 12:42:14 PM
Yes and i also saw that ID will be raising rates since many out of state hunters are not comeing to the state in the numbers they once did. Some because the areas they know and hunted are now void of elk numbers. Some are more hisitant at dropping a decent chunk of change when the likely hood of hitting a dead zone has greatly increased and only have a week to hunt.
That doesn't make sense on face value. If people are not coming to hunt because it isn't worth it, you raise the prices and that somehow makes it more worth it?
It's called elasticity of demand. Econ 101, Francis.
http://m.sparknotes.com/economics/micro/elasticity/section1.rhtml (http://m.sparknotes.com/economics/micro/elasticity/section1.rhtml)
Post by: bearpaw on February 19, 2015, 12:45:24 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 19, 2015, 01:06:26 PM
Another outfitter I know purchased the business a few years ago for about $40,000. This year he gave up on it and put it up for sale. There is some decent bear hunting, I heard he sold it for about $30,000.
We have a friend who had a restaurant along the Payette River. His business consisted of rafters in the summer and elk hunters in the fall. The rest of the year they just made ends meet so they could benefit during the good times. When the wolves multiplied and elk herds really declined and the elk hunters quit coming, after a couple years they had to shut down the business. He took a job out of town to feed his family. I can tell you that guy has no use for wolves at all.
That is precisely how businesses have been impacted in some of these wolf areas.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on February 19, 2015, 01:10:38 PM
In 1995 a hunter from California bought a Lolo outfitting business for $250,000 cash. He had hunted with the outfitter for several years and the elk hunting was excellent. The business did fine for a few more years and then the wolf impacts befgan happening, in a few short years his hunters were not killing any elk and most quit coming.Just sad ! :bash:
Another outfitter I know purchased the business a few years ago for about $40,000. This year he gave up on it and put it up for sale. There is some decent bear hunting, I heard he sold it for about $30,000.
We have a friend who had a restaurant along the Payette River. His business consisted of rafters in the summer and elk hunters in the fall. The rest of the year they just made ends meet so they could benefit during the good times. When the wolves multiplied and elk herds really declined and the elk hunters quit coming, after a couple years they had to shut down the business. He took a job out of town to feed his family. I can tell you that guy has no use for wolves at all.
That is precisely how businesses have been impacted in some of these wolf areas.
Post by: Special T on February 19, 2015, 01:14:14 PM
Yes and i also saw that ID will be raising rates since many out of state hunters are not comeing to the state in the numbers they once did. Some because the areas they know and hunted are now void of elk numbers. Some are more hisitant at dropping a decent chunk of change when the likely hood of hitting a dead zone has greatly increased and only have a week to hunt.
That doesn't make sense on face value. If people are not coming to hunt because it isn't worth it, you raise the prices and that somehow makes it more worth it?
It's called elasticity of demand. Econ 101, Francis.
http://m.sparknotes.com/economics/micro/elasticity/section1.rhtml (http://m.sparknotes.com/economics/micro/elasticity/section1.rhtml)
You may (or perhaps not) be surprised that, when i was at college a few snows ago, Half the business class failed the test on Supply and Demand in my course.
I have not seen that "technical" term used in quite some time... I would also have to say that the IDFG have no idea what it means or how to operate thier pricing in regaurds to it. :twocents:
Post by: AspenBud on February 19, 2015, 01:42:27 PM
Now, realistically, I don't think the recession impacted wealthier clients. But those saving their pennies for that once in a lifetime hunt etc...they took a hit and wolves were probably the least of their reasons for not going.
From 2007 to 2014 you had the perfect storm.
This should not be construed to mean wolves have not had an impact. But objectively when I look at the facts beyond wolves it's what I see. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on February 19, 2015, 01:50:34 PM
The problem is, as far as I can tell, everything being said here is anecdotal when it comes to wolves and their impact on potential outfitting clients and the businesses surrounding some of those areas. A lot of that lost business occurred when wolves were expanding and having an impact AND when the economy took the worst nose dive since the Great Depression AND when the highest gas prices ever seen in this country appeared.
Now, realistically, I don't think the recession impacted wealthier clients. But those saving their pennies for that once in a lifetime hunt etc...they took a hit and wolves were probably the least of their reasons for not going.
From 2007 to 2014 you had the perfect storm.
This should not be construed to mean wolves have not had an impact. But objectively when I look at the facts beyond wolves it's what I see. :twocents:
And specifically what is your position/knowledge of the hunting industry.
I stand by my statements having been in the business since 1978 including through many economic downturns.
Please explain why there are still more and more applicants for tags in states with no wolves?
Please explain why the states with the most wolf impacts have lost the most license sales?
Post by: mfswallace on February 19, 2015, 01:52:30 PM
The problem is, as far as I can tell, everything being said here is anecdotal when it comes to wolves and their impact on potential outfitting clients and the businesses surrounding some of those areas. A lot of that lost business occurred when wolves were expanding and having an impact AND when the economy took the worst nose dive since the Great Depression AND when the highest gas prices ever seen in this country appeared.
Now, realistically, I don't think the recession impacted wealthier clients. But those saving their pennies for that once in a lifetime hunt etc...they took a hit and wolves were probably the least of their reasons for not going.
From 2007 to 2014 you had the perfect storm.
This should not be construed to mean wolves have not had an impact. But objectively when I look at the facts beyond wolves it's what I see. :twocents:
So 90% wolves and 10% other ???
Post by: Special T on February 19, 2015, 01:53:00 PM
The problem is, as far as I can tell, everything being said here is anecdotal when it comes to wolves and their impact on potential outfitting clients and the businesses surrounding some of those areas. A lot of that lost business occurred when wolves were expanding and having an impact AND when the economy took the worst nose dive since the Great Depression AND when the highest gas prices ever seen in this country appeared.
Now, realistically, I don't think the recession impacted wealthier clients. But those saving their pennies for that once in a lifetime hunt etc...they took a hit and wolves were probably the least of their reasons for not going.
From 2007 to 2014 you had the perfect storm.
This should not be construed to mean wolves have not had an impact. But objectively when I look at the facts beyond wolves it's what I see. :twocents:
Wolves of course are not the SOLE reason for less hunters... BUT it is a far cry (and a bunch of BS) to say that hunting has gotten better.
People go to extra ordinary measures for great products/experiences. They will forgo other "things", go into debt, work more etc... If booked outfitter hunts are increasing in places like UT and other non wolf related areas for elk, that would tell me that Wolves are a HUGE part of the issue.
If ID really wanted to do something good for thier herds they would offer out of state predator packs. Wolf, bear, cougar tags at a huge discount to out of state hunters...
I wish WA would do the same thing. Small game W/ bear and Cougar tags for $50-60... It would help out the herds a bunch, but instead they are choosing the opposite approach.
Post by: Bean Counter on February 19, 2015, 01:53:43 PM
You may (or perhaps not) be surprised that, when i was at college a few snows ago, Half the business class failed the test on Supply and Demand in my course.
I have not seen that "technical" term used in quite some time... I would also have to say that the IDFG have no idea what it means or how to operate thier pricing in regaurds to it. :twocents:
Yep. this is nothing new under the sun, sadly. :dunno:
An example of government stupid insofar as demand elasticity regards bus fares. Often the metro bus system will attempt to raise revenues by increasing bus fares. Only to :bash: :bash: :bash: when revenue plummets. Morons. Sometimes you get more money when you LOWER prices because more people consume the product and the loss in revenue per transaction is far outstripped by the overall increase in new business.
Tobacco by contrast is usually demand inelastic. so while raising prices will cause a very small segment to stop smoking, most will pay the higher price and the loss in a few customers is far outstripped by the additional revenue per pack.
Post by: bearpaw on February 19, 2015, 02:04:30 PM
I know and understand it's not the same satisfaction as a wild hunt, but the fact remains, more and more hunters are turning to game ranches and spending their money there. I have friends who are elk ranchers and each year their businesses have grown considerably despite the economic downturn.
The bottom line is that hunters want to have a successful hunt when they go hunting, after a couple/few unsuccessful hunts they simply quit or go elsewhere.
Post by: AspenBud on February 19, 2015, 02:29:34 PM
The problem is, as far as I can tell, everything being said here is anecdotal when it comes to wolves and their impact on potential outfitting clients and the businesses surrounding some of those areas. A lot of that lost business occurred when wolves were expanding and having an impact AND when the economy took the worst nose dive since the Great Depression AND when the highest gas prices ever seen in this country appeared.
Now, realistically, I don't think the recession impacted wealthier clients. But those saving their pennies for that once in a lifetime hunt etc...they took a hit and wolves were probably the least of their reasons for not going.
From 2007 to 2014 you had the perfect storm.
This should not be construed to mean wolves have not had an impact. But objectively when I look at the facts beyond wolves it's what I see. :twocents:
And specifically what is your position/knowledge of the hunting industry.
I stand by my statements having been in the business since 1978 including through many economic downturns.
Please explain why there are still more and more applicants for tags in states with no wolves?
Please explain why the states with the most wolf impacts have lost the most license sales?
Who represents the majority of your clients? Wealthier people or folks who saved their pennies? If the latter represents a substantial portion the recession took a giant chunk out of your business whether you know it or not. Your industry has never had to face a downturn like this last one, particularly since 1978.
I'm basing my comments on what I saw. I knew fellow hunters who had to start being more strategic in how often and where they hunted simply because they went from paying $36.00 for a tank of gas to $72.00. Guys who would make a two hour one way drive to hit the woods every weekend for two days cut back. I knew hunters who had to sell everything they owned, including their bird dogs, because they lost their jobs. I knew others who simply stopped spending extra because they wanted to save in case they got unemployed too (I was one). The Northwest was pretty insulated from the worst of the recession compared to the rest of the country, it really was. But if many of your clients are out of state you got hit by what was happening elsewhere.
At this point I am sure wolves now have had an impact on where people choose to hunt. That makes sense, big game numbers are down in some areas and the constant negative advertising from places as simple as this forum feed that fire (sorry). Idaho is also doing a terrible job advertising these days imo. But there has been more to the decline in business than wolves in recent years, a lot more.
Post by: AspenBud on February 19, 2015, 02:34:27 PM
The problem is, as far as I can tell, everything being said here is anecdotal when it comes to wolves and their impact on potential outfitting clients and the businesses surrounding some of those areas. A lot of that lost business occurred when wolves were expanding and having an impact AND when the economy took the worst nose dive since the Great Depression AND when the highest gas prices ever seen in this country appeared.
Now, realistically, I don't think the recession impacted wealthier clients. But those saving their pennies for that once in a lifetime hunt etc...they took a hit and wolves were probably the least of their reasons for not going.
From 2007 to 2014 you had the perfect storm.
This should not be construed to mean wolves have not had an impact. But objectively when I look at the facts beyond wolves it's what I see. :twocents:
People go to extra ordinary measures for great products/experiences. They will forgo other "things", go into debt, work more etc... If booked outfitter hunts are increasing in places like UT and other non wolf related areas for elk, that would tell me that Wolves are a HUGE part of the issue.
I have a news flash for you. Access to credit was a huge problem and there was no such thing as working more when employers were cutting staff and going out of business.
Post by: MR5x5 on February 19, 2015, 05:03:06 PM
Again, I really don't understand the argument. Simply look to the Yellowstone for the answer.
Post by: Special T on February 19, 2015, 05:06:04 PM
I have a news flash for you. Access to credit was a huge problem and there was no such thing as working more when employers were cutting staff and going out of business.
Well I see plenty of people put things on the card that are not necessary and they tell me that they dont really have the cash but...
I didnt say it was right, smart, or always possible... The simple fact is that people DO spend $ on quality.
I also realize that it is not easy to make more $ like it has in the past. Picking up a little overtime is pretty easy in comparison to starting a side job or something else of that nature.... That said I know several people that are making good money on the side. They have had to think outside of the box, invest some $ and time... Not only is it good insurance against a layoff, but its a great way to pay for a hobby, Like hunting. :twocents:
Post by: idaho guy on February 19, 2015, 05:57:09 PM
Do you base this statement on personal experience...or?? I think you are way off the mark on this. I doubt many who have actually hunted Idaho for years (and still hunt Idaho) would agree with your statement.
Fact is hunting is not nearly as good in ID as it was even 5 years ago.
I agree 100% with special t statement and I hunt all seasons in idaho every year. If you hunt all the different seasons you are in the woods hunting something at least 10 months out of the year. Dont twist it by saying guys still kill elk, some areas elk are increasing. Elk hunting in Idaho is still good but no denying in most areas it is not as good as 5 years ago and definitely not like ten years or more ago
Post by: idaho guy on February 19, 2015, 06:13:31 PM
Just looking at tag sales and reg changes, something is going on in Idaho. Gee, I wonder what :bash:I agree, its clear deer and elk numbers are definitely increasing. Did you see all those new hunts and permit level increases proposed for 2015 in Idaho?
I did not notice all the new tags and permits. I guess I was still praying they would bring back the week of archery season we lost and add the days back to the end of the rifle hunt we had or possibly bring back the muzzleloader elk season to the st joe . Or maybe bring back either sex archery elk or the week of either sex rifle season. We had all of these hunt opportunitys in the panhandle but they have been taken away since the wolf. Are we getting these back? I hope I missed something exciting with "all these new hunts "but I doubt it
Post by: idaho guy on February 19, 2015, 06:20:26 PM
Why debate the what ifs when you have the perfect environmental experiment to understand the wolf cycle impact. , i.e. Yellowstone. Rough numbers; since the 1996 reintroduction of wolves the elk are down from 18,000 to 3,000, moose are down from 1000 to 10's. Don't want to here the rough winter BS. Pretty sure there was a rough one or two before wolves. The single new variable is wolves. They ate it out, then they moved on. They will do it here too. Washington, with it's politics is already lost. Only question now is how long it will take to complete the cycle.
Again, I really don't understand the argument. Simply look to the Yellowstone for the answer.
:yeah:The perfect case study! Same few members want to deflect any blame off the wolf and onto habitat,weather,economy probably the moon phase too. Facts are out the argument should is over.
Post by: jasnt on February 19, 2015, 07:07:28 PM
Why debate the what ifs when you have the perfect environmental experiment to understand the wolf cycle impact. , i.e. Yellowstone. Rough numbers; since the 1996 reintroduction of wolves the elk are down from 18,000 to 3,000, moose are down from 1000 to 10's. Don't want to here the rough winter BS. Pretty sure there was a rough one or two before wolves. The single new variable is wolves. They ate it out, then they moved on. They will do it here too. Washington, with it's politics is already lost. Only question now is how long it will take to complete the cycle.
Again, I really don't understand the argument. Simply look to the Yellowstone for the answer.
Why debate the what ifs when you have the perfect environmental experiment to understand the wolf cycle impact. , i.e. Yellowstone. Rough numbers; since the 1996 reintroduction of wolves the elk are down from 18,000 to 3,000, moose are down from 1000 to 10's. Don't want to here the rough winter BS. Pretty sure there was a rough one or two before wolves. The single new variable is wolves. They ate it out, then they moved on. They will do it here too. Washington, with it's politics is already lost. Only question now is how long it will take to complete the cycle.
Again, I really don't understand the argument. Simply look to the Yellowstone for the answer.
:yeah: all the facts are right there in front of there faces and yet they still spew out the same old crap. Washington will not fair as well as any of these other states.Why debate the what ifs when you have the perfect environmental experiment to understand the wolf cycle impact. , i.e. Yellowstone. Rough numbers; since the 1996 reintroduction of wolves the elk are down from 18,000 to 3,000, moose are down from 1000 to 10's. Don't want to here the rough winter BS. Pretty sure there was a rough one or two before wolves. The single new variable is wolves. They ate it out, then they moved on. They will do it here too. Washington, with it's politics is already lost. Only question now is how long it will take to complete the cycle.
Again, I really don't understand the argument. Simply look to the Yellowstone for the answer.
:yeah:The perfect case study! Same few members want to deflect any blame off the wolf and onto habitat,weather,economy probably the moon phase too. Facts are out the argument should is over.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 19, 2015, 07:34:38 PM
Elk hunting in Idaho is still goodThat is my biggest point in all of these threads. :tup:
Post by: Bob33 on February 19, 2015, 07:38:06 PM
F&G considering these changes; rules will be set in March.
ROGER PHILLIPS, BOISE - THE IDAHO STATESMAN
February 3, 2015
ROGER PHILLIPS — Idaho Statesman
Idaho Fish and Game is proposing changes for the 2015 deer and elk hunts and here's a look at what's being considered. Fish and Game will seek public comment in mid February on these proposals through its website and also at regional meetings around the state.
F&G commissioners will set seasons and rules in March.
Here's a look at what's in store:
Statewide
* Consider setting big game seasons and rules for a two-year cycle.
* Standardize general deer season by closing date in Southern Idaho to Oct. 31.
Southwest Region
* Consider new extra anterless hunt in Unit 32 to address depredation issues.
* Consider increase in deer controlled hunts for bucks in Unit 22.
* Address depredation concerns with elk throughout the region.
* Increase controlled hunt bull elk opportunity in the McCall Zone.
* Consider converting Unit 39 antlerless controlled hunts to either sex.
* Consider proposal for September controlled archery deer hunt in Unit 39.
* Offer more bull elk controlled hunt opportunities in the Owyhee Zone.
Magic Valley
* Reduce late November antlerless deer tags in Unit 45.
* Rotate muzzleloader deer hunt from Units 55, 56, and 57 to Unit 45.
* Add early archery deer hunt in Unit 44.
* Adjust landowner permission controlled elk hunts to address depredation.
* Increase elk opportunity in region in response to population growth and increased depredations.
Clearwater Region
* Increase extra antlerless tags in existing hunts.
* Increase length of antlerless whitetail seasons in Units 13, 14 and 18.
* Evaluate proposal to implement trophy buck management in Palouse area.
* Expand late quality/high quality mule deer hunting in Lower Salmon units.
* Consider adding controlled hunts, possibly for youth, for mule deer.
* Review elk season structure in Hells Canyon relative to hunter crowding complaints.
* Evaluate elk hunting seasons in the Palouse area to address depredation problems.
Panhandle
* Increase whitetail deer harvest opportunities in Units 1 and 3.
* Increase elk opportunity with B-tag muzzleloader hunt, youth controlled hunts and increased controlled hunts.
Southeast Region
* Consider 10 controlled hunts tags for antlered deer in November in Units 66A, 70 and 73.
* Convert Unit 73 unlimited deer controlled hunt with "first choice only."
* Add either sex controlled deer hunts in Units 75 and 76.
* Add antlerless deer controlled hunt in Unit 77.
* Add muzzleloader deer controlled hunt in Unit 68.
Upper Snake
* Consider reducing harvest in Unit 63A archery deer hunt.
* Consider addition of greenfield hunt in Unit 50 to address depredation.
Salmon Region
* Consider region-wide extra antlerless elk landowner permission hunts with 300 tags to address depredation.
* Adjust elk tags in Units 30 and 30A.
* Consider additional antlerless elk tags in Unit 36A.
www.idahostatesman.com/2015/02/03/3625862/heres-a-sneak-peak-at-2015-deer.html (http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/02/03/3625862/heres-a-sneak-peak-at-2015-deer.html)
Post by: jasnt on February 19, 2015, 07:46:19 PM
the problem is some areas are bad that used to be good. Some of the good areas used to be great! My biggest point in all these threads is to point out the truth, the BS, and inform the ill-formed. I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that wolves have not negatively affected elk, moose, and deer in Idaho or any other state for that matter.Elk hunting in Idaho is still goodThat is my biggest point in all of these threads. :tup:
Post by: idahohuntr on February 19, 2015, 07:51:15 PM
I am unaware of anyone ever suggesting wolves don't eat elk or that wolves have no impact on ungulate populations. Who has ever suggested such an absurd thing? Are you referring to some fringe folks from DoW or something?the problem is some areas are bad that used to be good. Some of the good areas used to be great! My biggest point in all these threads is to point out the truth, the BS, and inform the ill-formed. I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that wolves have not negatively affected elk, moose, and deer in Idaho or any other state for that matter.Elk hunting in Idaho is still goodThat is my biggest point in all of these threads. :tup:
Post by: jasnt on February 19, 2015, 07:59:08 PM
:lol4: no I'm referring to those that claim habitat or weather is the reason for declines. I don't need to mention names. Most of us know who I'm talking about.I am unaware of anyone ever suggesting wolves don't eat elk or that wolves have no impact on ungulate populations. Who has ever suggested such an absurd thing? Are you referring to some fringe folks from DoW or something?the problem is some areas are bad that used to be good. Some of the good areas used to be great! My biggest point in all these threads is to point out the truth, the BS, and inform the ill-formed. I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that wolves have not negatively affected elk, moose, and deer in Idaho or any other state for that matter.Elk hunting in Idaho is still goodThat is my biggest point in all of these threads. :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on February 19, 2015, 08:02:05 PM
the problem is some areas are bad that used to be good. Some of the good areas used to be great! My biggest point in all these threads is to point out the truth, the BS, and inform the ill-formed. I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that wolves have not negatively affected elk, moose, and deer in Idaho or any other state for that matter.Elk hunting in Idaho is still goodThat is my biggest point in all of these threads. :tup:
:yeah: That is exactly right and the most frustrating thing is to see some people try to claim wolves had little or no impact when agencies have been admitting and documenting wolf impacts.
Anyone who knows the seasons Idaho historically had knows that even if all the season additions are approved that are proposed, seasons still will not be as generous as hunting opportunities used to be in Idaho before wolves. There are many units, some of the previous best elk hunting areas that all cow elk hunting had to be taken away to save herds. Most of that cow elk hunting is still not being proposed because those herds are still depressed or just beginning to recover.
Thankfully Idaho implemented intense agressive predator management and some of those depressed herds are starting to come back.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 19, 2015, 08:16:49 PM
On the flip side there are an awful lot of folks that substantially exaggerate the impacts of wolves. Such as those who predicted elk would be extinct in Idaho in 2012 :chuckle: I mean how can people be so ignorant? Its kind of like saying habitat and weather don't affect ungulate populations...you really have to wonder if those kind of people have ever actually hunted or whether they just type about hunting on the internet. :chuckle:the problem is some areas are bad that used to be good. Some of the good areas used to be great! My biggest point in all these threads is to point out the truth, the BS, and inform the ill-formed. I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that wolves have not negatively affected elk, moose, and deer in Idaho or any other state for that matter.Elk hunting in Idaho is still goodThat is my biggest point in all of these threads. :tup:
:yeah: That is exactly right and the most frustrating thing is to see some people try to claim wolves had little or no impact when agencies have been admitting and documenting wolf impacts.
Post by: bearpaw on February 19, 2015, 08:23:19 PM
On the flip side there are an awful lot of folks that substantially exaggerate the impacts of wolves. Such as those who predicted elk would be extinct in Idaho in 2012 :chuckle: I mean how can people be so ignorant? Its kind of like saying habitat and weather don't affect ungulate populations...you really have to wonder if those kind of people have ever actually hunted or whether they just type about hunting on the internet. :chuckle:the problem is some areas are bad that used to be good. Some of the good areas used to be great! My biggest point in all these threads is to point out the truth, the BS, and inform the ill-formed. I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that wolves have not negatively affected elk, moose, and deer in Idaho or any other state for that matter.Elk hunting in Idaho is still goodThat is my biggest point in all of these threads. :tup:
:yeah: That is exactly right and the most frustrating thing is to see some people try to claim wolves had little or no impact when agencies have been admitting and documenting wolf impacts.
Obviously it seems the laws of nature would cause the wolves to starve or eat each other before they found and killed the last elk. I'm not sure if he actually believed that or was just throwing out an off the cuff statement. Hard to say! I do know he didn't last long on this forum and I am aware of frictions which occurred between various Idaho sports groups.
Post by: jasnt on February 19, 2015, 08:29:29 PM
and with out aggressive management Idaho would be suffering, much like yellow stone now 1/6th it's pre-wolf elk numbers. I realize what you are saying about them going. Extinct. No they did not go extinct but if Idaho had not managed wolves aggressively in some areas they may have been close. I'd say if Idaho had lost over 80% of its pre-wolf population like Yellowstone has in would say that's endangered.On the flip side there are an awful lot of folks that substantially exaggerate the impacts of wolves. Such as those who predicted elk would be extinct in Idaho in 2012 :chuckle: I mean how can people be so ignorant? Its kind of like saying habitat and weather don't affect ungulate populations...you really have to wonder if those kind of people have ever actually hunted or whether they just type about hunting on the internet. :chuckle:the problem is some areas are bad that used to be good. Some of the good areas used to be great! My biggest point in all these threads is to point out the truth, the BS, and inform the ill-formed. I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that wolves have not negatively affected elk, moose, and deer in Idaho or any other state for that matter.Elk hunting in Idaho is still goodThat is my biggest point in all of these threads. :tup:
:yeah: That is exactly right and the most frustrating thing is to see some people try to claim wolves had little or no impact when agencies have been admitting and documenting wolf impacts.
Post by: jasnt on February 19, 2015, 08:56:53 PM
Here is some conservative numbers for you to try to wrap your mind around...idahoforwildlife.com quote
Keep in mind that a healthy elk population grows by 10% on an average year when under stress from wolves or other large scale pressures....
Wolve numbers on the other hand have proven to grow by 25% annually despite efforts to control their population.
That said-- In 2008 Idaho's elk population was estimated at around 110,000. While the wolf population was approaching 1000-- a very conservative number.
SO: 110,000 x 10% growth gives us 121,000 elk... and 1000 wolves x 25% growth=1250 wolves
However each wolf eats 2 elk per month so thats 24 elk per year per wolf.
So 24 elk x 1250 wolves= 30,000 elk killed that year by wolves alone.
so 121,000 elk - 30,000 killed by wolves leaves 91,000 elk in 2009
that year the elk again grow by 10% and the wolves by 25% = 100,000 elk & 1563 wolves
but those wolves also eat 2 elk per month only leaving 62,112 elk in 2010
repeat those numbers and the wolves grow to 1953 in 2011 eating 46,872 elk that year leaving total of 15,240 elk after the elks 10% growth...
so then in 2012 the wolves grow to 2441 and need to eat 58,584 elk to survive.... but there are only 15,240 elk left to eat.... so then what happens???
Disease? Starvation? unpredictable behaviors-- like the poor teacher that was just hunted down and killed by wolves up north?????
YOU DO THE MATH!!!!
The reason this happened, was because of the wolf cult, and environmental organizations using false science.
Why do you love wolves (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKoP2h56-e0#ws)
"When Idaho For Wildlife was first organized, we created a very powerful mission statement relating to fighting against anti-hunting groups and holding state and Federal agencies accountable who have anti-hunting/radical environmental agendas which are threatening sportsmen and our 2nd amendment rights. Never in a million years did we believe we would be having to warn and protect honest sportsman from potential internet cyber thugs who were trolling the web on the prowl for $ from innocent sportsmen! We have learned that Save Western Wildlife founder and leader Scott Rockholm is someone to stay clear of! He is extremely cunning and crafty at taking advantage of the trusting qualities of most people. Mr. Rockholm uses "Cult" like leadership tactics to control his people and attract new naive cyber followers. He has become well known to bully, ridicule and attack anyone that doesn't abide by his desires and demand, (Those who have suffered his wrath know exactly what I ‘am talking about!) He uses coercion and psychological isolation tactics to keep his cyber followers in check. Once his followers submit to him they are treated well but if they get out of line they had better "Watch Out! By fabricating blatant lies about his enemies who may expose him, he insulates his followers from knowing the truth. When Rockholm first came on the scene, I watched him boldly attack and fabricate a story about a friend of mine and for a while I believed Rockholm because normal people don’t act like this. The tragedy is many good people can be deceived in the short term with his tactics."
His math equation was all screwed up any way. He stated "
Keep in mind that a healthy elk population grows by 10% on an average year when under stress from wolves or other large scale pressures"
So even with wolves it was growing by 10%. As the wolf population grew that growth rate dropped in heavy wolf areas to the point of lowering elk numbers in those areas. More wolves more elk eaten that's a no brainer. Control wolf numbers you control elk growth or decline
Like I said "truth, BS , informing the ill-informed"
Post by: idahohuntr on February 19, 2015, 09:01:14 PM
1. Units where wolves simply don't occur and thus have no impacts
2. Units where wolves and other predators are putting significant pressure on existing elk populations
3. Units where wolves and other predators are present in decent numbers but their impacts vary locally and are not so profound as to cause huge depressions in elk numbers.
My observations on the difference between category 2 and 3 has been habitat differences...I'm sure there's more complexity than that. Because the state is large and diverse it is difficult to paint a picture of Idaho as though one single management action (or lack thereof) would individually cause something like an 80% population decline in elk imo...perhaps in large part because we have units that fit into category 1.
With a little work and an open mind you can find good OTC elk hunting in Idaho...quite a few areas actually. Frankly, the Lolo zone gets bashed all the time...but I would take hunting their over probably just about any OTC Wa tag and maybe 1/2 the bull and quality permit hunts in WA...if I weren't fortunate enough to hunt many states each year. There are in fact still elk in that zone, there are very few hunters, you can kill branch bulls (or any bull for that matter!) and its beautiful country. If I were an outfitter I would be investing in the Lolo Zone...buy low, sell high. I think many factors are going to result in pretty decent hunting in the future in that zone...I am more optimistic than some.
Post by: jasnt on February 19, 2015, 09:27:43 PM
I think you could put Idaho's elk units into 3 broad categories:every where there are elk in Idaho there are wolves so number 1 dosent really make any difference. The 80% decline was over 20 year span without aggressive management. If what you say about the Lolo zone being better than Washington then we already have low elk numbers that are being predated on by un-managed wolves. Sounds like we can't afford a 1% decline. :bash:
1. Units where wolves simply don't occur and thus have no impacts
2. Units where wolves and other predators are putting significant pressure on existing elk populations
3. Units where wolves and other predators are present in decent numbers but their impacts vary locally and are not so profound as to cause huge depressions in elk numbers.
My observations on the difference between category 2 and 3 has been habitat differences...I'm sure there's more complexity than that. Because the state is large and diverse it is difficult to paint a picture of Idaho as though one single management action (or lack thereof) would individually cause something like an 80% population decline in elk imo...perhaps in large part because we have units that fit into category 1.
With a little work and an open mind you can find good OTC elk hunting in Idaho...quite a few areas actually. Frankly, the Lolo zone gets bashed all the time...but I would take hunting their over probably just about any OTC Wa tag and maybe 1/2 the bull and quality permit hunts in WA...if I weren't fortunate enough to hunt many states each year. There are in fact still elk in that zone, there are very few hunters, you can kill branch bulls (or any bull for that matter!) and its beautiful country. If I were an outfitter I would be investing in the Lolo Zone...buy low, sell high. I think many factors are going to result in pretty decent hunting in the future in that zone...I am more optimistic than some.
Post by: Bean Counter on February 19, 2015, 09:32:41 PM
Thankfully Idaho implemented intense agressive predator management and some of those depressed herds are starting to come back.
BP,
What is the latest as to the survey numbers? I'm curious how the hardest hit herds have dropped and recovered, by the numbers of course 8)
Post by: mountainman on February 19, 2015, 09:38:03 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on February 19, 2015, 09:38:20 PM
My preference to hunt the Lolo over pretty much any general WA elk tag is not necessarily because the Lolo has more elk than any otc unit in Wa...that certainly is not the case. My preference is based on a) very few hunters b) I can shoot any bull I see c) its an otc tag and d) gorgeous/remote country.
Post by: idaho guy on February 19, 2015, 09:51:36 PM
F&G considering these changes; rules will be set in March.
ROGER PHILLIPS, BOISE - THE IDAHO STATESMAN
February 3, 2015
ROGER PHILLIPS — Idaho Statesman
Idaho Fish and Game is proposing changes for the 2015 deer and elk hunts and here's a look at what's being considered. Fish and Game will seek public comment in mid February on these proposals through its website and also at regional meetings around the state.
F&G commissioners will set seasons and rules in March.
Here's a look at what's in store:
Statewide
* Consider setting big game seasons and rules for a two-year cycle.
* Standardize general deer season by closing date in Southern Idaho to Oct. 31.
Southwest Region
* Consider new extra anterless hunt in Unit 32 to address depredation issues.
* Consider increase in deer controlled hunts for bucks in Unit 22.
* Address depredation concerns with elk throughout the region.
* Increase controlled hunt bull elk opportunity in the McCall Zone.
* Consider converting Unit 39 antlerless controlled hunts to either sex.
* Consider proposal for September controlled archery deer hunt in Unit 39.
* Offer more bull elk controlled hunt opportunities in the Owyhee Zone.
Magic Valley
* Reduce late November antlerless deer tags in Unit 45.
* Rotate muzzleloader deer hunt from Units 55, 56, and 57 to Unit 45.
* Add early archery deer hunt in Unit 44.
* Adjust landowner permission controlled elk hunts to address depredation.
* Increase elk opportunity in region in response to population growth and increased depredations.
Clearwater Region
* Increase extra antlerless tags in existing hunts.
* Increase length of antlerless whitetail seasons in Units 13, 14 and 18.
* Evaluate proposal to implement trophy buck management in Palouse area.
* Expand late quality/high quality mule deer hunting in Lower Salmon units.
* Consider adding controlled hunts, possibly for youth, for mule deer.
* Review elk season structure in Hells Canyon relative to hunter crowding complaints.
* Evaluate elk hunting seasons in the Palouse area to address depredation problems.
Panhandle
* Increase whitetail deer harvest opportunities in Units 1 and 3.
* Increase elk opportunity with B-tag muzzleloader hunt, youth controlled hunts and increased controlled hunts.
Southeast Region
* Consider 10 controlled hunts tags for antlered deer in November in Units 66A, 70 and 73.
* Convert Unit 73 unlimited deer controlled hunt with "first choice only."
* Add either sex controlled deer hunts in Units 75 and 76.
* Add antlerless deer controlled hunt in Unit 77.
* Add muzzleloader deer controlled hunt in Unit 68.
Upper Snake
* Consider reducing harvest in Unit 63A archery deer hunt.
* Consider addition of greenfield hunt in Unit 50 to address depredation.
Salmon Region
* Consider region-wide extra antlerless elk landowner permission hunts with 300 tags to address depredation.
* Adjust elk tags in Units 30 and 30A.
* Consider additional antlerless elk tags in Unit 36A.
www.idahostatesman.com/2015/02/03/3625862/heres-a-sneak-peak-at-2015-deer.html (http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/02/03/3625862/heres-a-sneak-peak-at-2015-deer.html)
[/quote
Thanks for posting :tup:in the panhandle i don't see how or why they would increase harvest opportunity for white tails they already have 2 full months of archer and 2 full months for rifle including all of the rut. Season lasts from sept to jan? In the panhandle I don't see anything coming back for elk the muzzy b tag is probably the spike only hunt we used to have in dec.
Post by: KFhunter on February 19, 2015, 09:52:41 PM
Post by: jasnt on February 19, 2015, 09:53:06 PM
A wolf can occur anywhere in Idaho, no doubt. Most units below I-84 wolves are very rare...this is southern Idaho. This is category 1. Yea, a wolf could move through those units, but they really aren't established there and thus have no impacts.there are callered wolves in southern Idaho and probably more than just callered wolves there as well. I'm sure they are more spred out in that open country but they are there. I would say there are areas in Idaho with few wolves and areas with lots. Areas with heavy, medium , low wolf predation.
My preference to hunt the Lolo over pretty much any general WA elk tag is not necessarily because the Lolo has more elk than any otc unit in Wa...that certainly is not the case. My preference is based on a) very few hunters b) I can shoot any bull I see c) its an otc tag and d) gorgeous/remote country.
Post by: idaho guy on February 19, 2015, 10:05:54 PM
the problem is some areas are bad that used to be good. Some of the good areas used to be great! My biggest point in all these threads is to point out the truth, the BS, and inform the ill-formed. I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that wolves have not negatively affected elk, moose, and deer in Idaho or any other state for that matter.Elk hunting in Idaho is still goodThat is my biggest point in all of these threads. :tup:
:yeah: That is exactly right and the most frustrating thing is to see some people try to claim wolves had little or no impact when agencies have been admitting and documenting wolf impacts.
Anyone who knows the seasons Idaho historically had knows that even if all the season additions are approved that are proposed, seasons still will not be as generous as hunting opportunities used to be in Idaho before wolves. There are many units, some of the previous best elk hunting areas that all cow elk hunting had to be taken away to save herds. Most of that cow elk hunting is still not being proposed because those herds are still depressed or just beginning to recover.
Thankfully Idaho implemented intense agressive predator management and some of those depressed herds are starting to come back.
:yeah:in one of my spots they having been hitting the wolves hard and from my experience the elk are coming back in there good. Hope it continues Think controlling wolves is going to be a never ending battle
Post by: bearpaw on February 20, 2015, 12:07:15 AM
"I understand and share the frustration of Idahoans over the impact wolves have had across our state in the past 16 years."
Governor Butch Otter
Post by: bearpaw on February 20, 2015, 09:15:17 AM
Thankfully Idaho implemented intense agressive predator management and some of those depressed herds are starting to come back.
BP,
What is the latest as to the survey numbers? I'm curious how the hardest hit herds have dropped and recovered, by the numbers of course 8)
I think IDFG is trying very hard to recover herds. They only survey each herd about every 3 years due to costs. I don't know if this was a year that IDFG surveyed the Payette but locals count those elk every year. There is a particular stretch of river canyon they always count. Before wolves impacted the area that stretch would winter 1200-1500 elk most years, at the worst time 4 or 5 years ago it was down to only 300-400, last year I believe they counted about 600 and this year they counted nearly 800 elk.
I've been hearing positive reports from outfitters in some other areas as well. I talked to a guy yesterday about the salmon and he said they are seeing and killing more animals there.
I have not heard anything recently about unit 10 but herds are beginning to look better in unit 7 and unit 6, the St Joe. This winter IDFG counted elk in the Joe and saw more calves than they have in several years.
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2015/feb/10/surveys-st-joe-elk-show-signs-increase/ (http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2015/feb/10/surveys-st-joe-elk-show-signs-increase/)
Quote
With no single cure-all prescription available for Panhandle elk woes, Wakkinen said the agency addressed the elk decline in several steps:
Eliminating the general season on antlerless elk. An unpopular move, but it increased cow survival to preserve breeding stock necessary to rebuild herds.
Liberalizing predator seasons. Black bear and mountain lion seasons have been lengthened and in some units hunters can use electronic calls and a second tag. Wolf hunting and trapping seasons have been lengthened region-wide and hunters and trappers can take multiple wolves.
Working to improve the quality of elk habitat.
"Elk prefer younger forests that provide nutritious browse," Wakkinen said. "The 1910 fire and large fires in the 1920s and 1930s created expansive shrubfields that were conducive to a growing elk herd. That, coupled with widespread predator reductions, resulted in a very robust elk population starting in the 1950s."
However, those forests have matured. They don’t provide enough nutrition and in some area's they're so thick that elk become more vulnerable to predation.
The agency is working with the U.S. Forest service and other major landowners to give moose,elk and deer more consideration in forest management, he said. Prescribed fire and well-designed timber harvest are key to the effort.
Wakkinen said he sees progress.
"During winter surveys in the Panhandle, IDFG uses a ratio of 30 calves per 100 cows as a yardstick for a healthy elk herd. As recently as 2008, ratios were as high as 43 to100 in Unit 7 in the St Joe drainage, but ratios declined following the harsh winters of 2007-09.
"This isn’t unusual following a hard winter, but typically the ratio bounces back within a couple of years. Unfortunately, calf-cow ratios remained low in Unit 7, with winter surveys finding 9, 12 and 13 calves per 100 cows in 2012, 2013, and 2014."
The elk apparently were trapped what's known as a “predator pit,” he said.
For example, Central Montana pronghorn populations devastated by bad winters and disease have been struggling for years to recover partly because of a predator pit. Coyotes apparently are keying on the fewer number of does when they're dropping their fawns. In more normal times, say, 100 does might scatter to drop their fawns. Coyotes might sniff out and kill 20 fawns during the brief period when they're worth the effort to hunt instead of focusing on rodents. But if the herd has been reduced to 30 does having fawns, coyotes may still kill 20, but it's a much higher percentage of the crop and the herd cannot grow.
In the case of North Idaho elk, numbers were reduced by the winters, but predator numbers remained high because prolific white-tailed deer recovered quickly provided enough prey to support the bears, cougars and wolves. "The high number of predators can take enough elk to keep elk numbers low," Wakkinen said.
But surveys conducted this winter gave wildlife managers encouragement.
Ratios in Unit 7 above Avery averaged 30 calves per 100 cows and Unit 6 around Calder had more than 40 calves per 100 cows, Wakkinen said.
"Just like the cause of the decline, it is probably a combination of things," he said. Three consecutive mild winters certainly helped and liberal hunting seasons on predators and have likely helped elk escape from the predator pit, he added.
"If the current conditions remain the same or improve, we may see a continued improvement in the St Joe elk herds."
Even brighter is the report from two zones farther south where herds are at or above objective. The Boise River zone is a zone that locals complained about wolf impacts, the cow/calf ratio isn't the best yet in that zone, but the herd is doing better. I had not heard complaints about the Smoky herd, it may have never had a serious predator problem, it seems to be doing very well.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/media/viewNewsRelease.cfm?newsID=7513 (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/media/viewNewsRelease.cfm?newsID=7513)
Quote
Wildlife Crews Find Robust Elk Populations
Recent survey flights by Idaho Fish and Game wildlife staffers confirmed that elk populations in two local elk "zones" are in great shape. For several days in early January, Fish and Game biologists flew large portions of the Boise River Zone and the adjacent Smoky-Bennett Zone, counting and classifying elk in each area.
In the Boise River Zone, elk numbers totaled 7,769 animals, with cow elk (5,417) and calf elk (1,317) making up the majority of the count. More than 1,000 bulls were part of the total, and classified as follows: 448 spikes, 240 raghorn bulls and 347 mature bulls.
The calf/cow index, used to gauge the health and growth status of an elk herd, was calculated at 24 calves/100 cows. The bull/cow ratio penciled out at 19 bulls/100 cows.
Wildlife biologist Jake Powell, who spent several days in a Bell 47G helicopter counting elk, provided some perspective on the numbers.
"In reference to the Department's elk management plan, these figures exceed the population objectives for this elk herd," Powell explained. "For example, our total cow elk objective for the Boise River Zone is a range between 3,200 and 4,800 animals. The 5,417 figure is obviously well above that which might translate into increased hunter opportunity this fall." Powell also noted that the poor snow conditions made surveying elk a bit difficult. "We saw animals as high as 7,000 feet which required additional time and effort to survey," Powell said.
The Smoky-Bennett Zone is new for 2015, combining the former Smoky Zone with the adjacent Bennett Hills Zone based on elk movements between the two areas. A January survey of this zone produced equally encouraging numbers.
The Smoky-Bennett Zone elk herd totaled 4,871 animals, with cow elk (2,712) and calf elk (1,173) making up the majority of the count. Nearly 1,000 bulls were part of the total, and classified as follows: 337 spikes, 349 raghorn bulls and 300 mature bulls.
The Smoky-Bennett Zone calf/cow index was calculated at 43 calves/100 cows, while the bull/cow ratio was calculated at 36 bulls/100 cows.
"Both the calf/cow and bull/cow ratios are encouraging," Fish and Game wildlife manager Daryl Meints noted. "Both ratios are signs of a very healthy elk herd."
When the Smoky-Bennett Zone was established in 2014, new population objectives were developed as well.
"Objectives for this zone, as laid out in the elk plan call for 2,000 to 3,000 cow elk, 620 to 930 total bulls and 400 to 595 adult bulls," Meints said. "Our January counts have this herd at the top end of the cow elk objective and over objective in both bull categories. That bodes well for the 2015 elk season."
In order to better quantify elk numbers across both the Boise River and Smoky-Bennett Zones, the two were flown simultaneously to account for some elk that move between these zones during winter months. Conducting the survey in this fashion resulted in a more representative calculation of elk numbers within and across the two zones.
Because both zones are above population objectives, increased harvest opportunity for elk in both areas has been proposed. Review and comment on 2015 big game hunting season proposals on the Fish and Game website at https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/content/public-involvement. (https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/content/public-involvement.)
Post by: M_ray on February 20, 2015, 04:13:01 PM
You may (or perhaps not) be surprised that, when i was at college a few snows ago, Half the business class failed the test on Supply and Demand in my course.
I have not seen that "technical" term used in quite some time... I would also have to say that the IDFG have no idea what it means or how to operate thier pricing in regaurds to it. :twocents:
Yep. this is nothing new under the sun, sadly. :dunno:
An example of government stupid insofar as demand elasticity regards bus fares. Often the metro bus system will attempt to raise revenues by increasing bus fares. Only to :bash: :bash: :bash: when revenue plummets. Morons. Sometimes you get more money when you LOWER prices because more people consume the product and the loss in revenue per transaction is far outstripped by the overall increase in new business.
Tobacco by contrast is usually demand inelastic. so while raising prices will cause a very small segment to stop smoking, most will pay the higher price and the loss in a few customers is far outstripped by the additional revenue per pack.
Most of the time you have you facts straight but you should know Metro doesn't and can't raise or lower prices as they wish. Metro is owned by King County there for the county council votes on a price increase or decrease. You should know Metro advised heavily against any increase citing elderly, student and disabled persons on fixed incomes ... The County council voted in favor regardless, but of coarse the finger gets pointed at Metro. So you may want to re-think who the morons are? I think you're smart enough to understand that fares are connected to the cost of doing business too in that when fuel and the cost of goods and services go up or down it affects the cost of providing infrastructure ... its funny how some only think these things only apply to the private sector and that some how Gov programs are exempt from the effects of the price of doing business. :rolleyes: WTH are these professors teaching you guys these days?
Back on subject though Im not sure why some of you think a state wouldn't raise their fees when the demand goes down? Thats exactly what Montana FWP did. Five years ago or so Montana was not selling out the allocation of Deer and Elk tags and there was a shortfall of $$$. MFWP raised prices to make up the gap, A Combo deer and Elk tag went in the neighborhood of $635 (If I remember right) to 990!!! And many including myself were able to buy a tag right up until OCT which was not the norm back in the day... Sooooo??? :dunno:
Post by: Bean Counter on February 20, 2015, 05:41:58 PM
I spent many an hour waiting on that route 174 in my youth though. :rolleyes:
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkwanghui.com%2Fmecon%2Fvalue%2Fmedia%2520%2520files%2Fstatic%2520graphics%2Fjpegs%2FSegment%25204%2F4_2_static_elastic_inelastic_demand_curves.jpg&hash=6198a44638f9d70703bfbcb89c54dc63223fba9c)
Post by: jasnt on February 20, 2015, 07:49:40 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on February 20, 2015, 08:29:01 PM
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: M_ray on February 21, 2015, 12:52:26 AM
"... He started it"
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Really? I think not ... you did by trying to bring up examples that you didn't have all your facts straight and I pointed that out ... at least in my post I commented on the original thread you on the other hand tried to give us a lesson in economics 101 ... so
who started it? :dunno:
Back on subject though Im not sure why some of you think a state wouldn't raise their fees when the demand goes down? Thats exactly what Montana FWP did. Five years ago or so Montana was not selling out the allocation of Deer and Elk tags and there was a shortfall of $$$. MFWP raised prices to make up the gap, A Combo deer and Elk tag went in the neighborhood of $635 (If I remember right) to 990!!! And many including myself were able to buy a tag right up until OCT which was not the norm back in the day... Sooooo??? :dunno:
Post by: Bean Counter on February 21, 2015, 02:01:13 AM
Post by: wolfbait on February 23, 2015, 04:00:11 PM
http://tomremington.com/2013/11/02/the-2013-elk-plan-idfg-biologists-continue-to-blame-gross-mismanagement-on-declining-habitat/ (http://tomremington.com/2013/11/02/the-2013-elk-plan-idfg-biologists-continue-to-blame-gross-mismanagement-on-declining-habitat/)
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on February 23, 2015, 04:25:04 PM
I think he actually thought that and was trying to convince others. I have seen quite a bit of shady math on here in the way of population estimates and forecasts. There is no doubt that wolves will impact game herds. I think that's been well established. What we have trouble modeling is how serious that impact will be. Habitat is far easier to manage than populations. We can manage habitat to support maximum numbers of animals, but we don't.On the flip side there are an awful lot of folks that substantially exaggerate the impacts of wolves. Such as those who predicted elk would be extinct in Idaho in 2012 :chuckle: I mean how can people be so ignorant? Its kind of like saying habitat and weather don't affect ungulate populations...you really have to wonder if those kind of people have ever actually hunted or whether they just type about hunting on the internet. :chuckle:the problem is some areas are bad that used to be good. Some of the good areas used to be great! My biggest point in all these threads is to point out the truth, the BS, and inform the ill-formed. I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that wolves have not negatively affected elk, moose, and deer in Idaho or any other state for that matter.Elk hunting in Idaho is still goodThat is my biggest point in all of these threads. :tup:
:yeah: That is exactly right and the most frustrating thing is to see some people try to claim wolves had little or no impact when agencies have been admitting and documenting wolf impacts.
Obviously it seems the laws of nature would cause the wolves to starve or eat each other before they found and killed the last elk. I'm not sure if he actually believed that or was just throwing out an off the cuff statement. Hard to say! I do know he didn't last long on this forum and I am aware of frictions which occurred between various Idaho sports groups.
The argument that more habitat means more wildlife is tried and true. It's a fact. It does not mean predators won't have an affect, it means that they won't have as significant of an effect and the habitat will continue to serve its purpose and provide calving/fawning habitat and escape habitat.
Post by: wolfbait on February 23, 2015, 04:40:51 PM
I think he actually thought that and was trying to convince others. I have seen quite a bit of shady math on here in the way of population estimates and forecasts. There is no doubt that wolves will impact game herds. I think that's been well established. What we have trouble modeling is how serious that impact will be. Habitat is far easier to manage than populations. We can manage habitat to support maximum numbers of animals, but we don't.On the flip side there are an awful lot of folks that substantially exaggerate the impacts of wolves. Such as those who predicted elk would be extinct in Idaho in 2012 :chuckle: I mean how can people be so ignorant? Its kind of like saying habitat and weather don't affect ungulate populations...you really have to wonder if those kind of people have ever actually hunted or whether they just type about hunting on the internet. :chuckle:the problem is some areas are bad that used to be good. Some of the good areas used to be great! My biggest point in all these threads is to point out the truth, the BS, and inform the ill-formed. I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that wolves have not negatively affected elk, moose, and deer in Idaho or any other state for that matter.Elk hunting in Idaho is still goodThat is my biggest point in all of these threads. :tup:
:yeah: That is exactly right and the most frustrating thing is to see some people try to claim wolves had little or no impact when agencies have been admitting and documenting wolf impacts.
Obviously it seems the laws of nature would cause the wolves to starve or eat each other before they found and killed the last elk. I'm not sure if he actually believed that or was just throwing out an off the cuff statement. Hard to say! I do know he didn't last long on this forum and I am aware of frictions which occurred between various Idaho sports groups.
The argument that more habitat means more wildlife is tried and true. It's a fact. It does not mean predators won't have an affect, it means that they won't have as significant of an effect and the habitat will continue to serve its purpose and provide calving/fawning habitat and escape habitat.
"The argument that more habitat means more wildlife is tried and true"
Actually your statement has been proven false several times over, look at the Yellowstone as a simple example. Unless the "Habitat" is fenced off from predators or strict predator management is instilled, the outcome will always be the same, plenty of habitat with less game and on into the predator pit.
Unless of course your habitat is one of those new computer models, then anything is possible as we have seen with the wolf introduction.
Post by: bearpaw on February 23, 2015, 04:45:39 PM
I think he actually thought that and was trying to convince others. I have seen quite a bit of shady math on here in the way of population estimates and forecasts. There is no doubt that wolves will impact game herds. I think that's been well established. What we have trouble modeling is how serious that impact will be. Habitat is far easier to manage than populations. We can manage habitat to support maximum numbers of animals, but we don't.On the flip side there are an awful lot of folks that substantially exaggerate the impacts of wolves. Such as those who predicted elk would be extinct in Idaho in 2012 :chuckle: I mean how can people be so ignorant? Its kind of like saying habitat and weather don't affect ungulate populations...you really have to wonder if those kind of people have ever actually hunted or whether they just type about hunting on the internet. :chuckle:the problem is some areas are bad that used to be good. Some of the good areas used to be great! My biggest point in all these threads is to point out the truth, the BS, and inform the ill-formed. I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that wolves have not negatively affected elk, moose, and deer in Idaho or any other state for that matter.Elk hunting in Idaho is still goodThat is my biggest point in all of these threads. :tup:
:yeah: That is exactly right and the most frustrating thing is to see some people try to claim wolves had little or no impact when agencies have been admitting and documenting wolf impacts.
Obviously it seems the laws of nature would cause the wolves to starve or eat each other before they found and killed the last elk. I'm not sure if he actually believed that or was just throwing out an off the cuff statement. Hard to say! I do know he didn't last long on this forum and I am aware of frictions which occurred between various Idaho sports groups.
The argument that more habitat means more wildlife is tried and true. It's a fact. It does not mean predators won't have an affect, it means that they won't have as significant of an effect and the habitat will continue to serve its purpose and provide calving/fawning habitat and escape habitat.
:yeah: I agree 100% with needing good habitat and predator management. :tup:
Post by: idahohuntr on February 23, 2015, 05:20:04 PM
:yeah: We all agree!!!! :brew:I think he actually thought that and was trying to convince others. I have seen quite a bit of shady math on here in the way of population estimates and forecasts. There is no doubt that wolves will impact game herds. I think that's been well established. What we have trouble modeling is how serious that impact will be. Habitat is far easier to manage than populations. We can manage habitat to support maximum numbers of animals, but we don't.On the flip side there are an awful lot of folks that substantially exaggerate the impacts of wolves. Such as those who predicted elk would be extinct in Idaho in 2012 :chuckle: I mean how can people be so ignorant? Its kind of like saying habitat and weather don't affect ungulate populations...you really have to wonder if those kind of people have ever actually hunted or whether they just type about hunting on the internet. :chuckle:the problem is some areas are bad that used to be good. Some of the good areas used to be great! My biggest point in all these threads is to point out the truth, the BS, and inform the ill-formed. I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that wolves have not negatively affected elk, moose, and deer in Idaho or any other state for that matter.Elk hunting in Idaho is still goodThat is my biggest point in all of these threads. :tup:
:yeah: That is exactly right and the most frustrating thing is to see some people try to claim wolves had little or no impact when agencies have been admitting and documenting wolf impacts.
Obviously it seems the laws of nature would cause the wolves to starve or eat each other before they found and killed the last elk. I'm not sure if he actually believed that or was just throwing out an off the cuff statement. Hard to say! I do know he didn't last long on this forum and I am aware of frictions which occurred between various Idaho sports groups.
The argument that more habitat means more wildlife is tried and true. It's a fact. It does not mean predators won't have an affect, it means that they won't have as significant of an effect and the habitat will continue to serve its purpose and provide calving/fawning habitat and escape habitat.
:yeah: I agree 100% with needing good habitat and predator management. :tup:
Post by: The scout on February 23, 2015, 05:32:57 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 23, 2015, 05:38:31 PM
:yeah: We all agree!!!! :brew:
no we don't, not at all.
I want high hunter success rates, robust herds of Elk and lot's of moose.
I want people to be able to graze their private land and lease private timber lands for sheep/cattle
I want to continue public grazing.
I don't want small struggling Elk herds that turn good habitat into bad, because they can't make use of what they already have.
Underutilized habitat is bad habitat with poor nutrition.
I don't see a lot of agreement here.
Post by: Bob33 on February 23, 2015, 05:44:39 PM
You don't agree with needing good habitat and predator management?:yeah: We all agree!!!! :brew:
no we don't, not at all.
I want high hunter success rates, robust herds of Elk and lot's of moose.
I want people to be able to graze their private land and lease private timber lands for sheep/cattle
I want to continue public grazing.
I don't want small struggling Elk herds that turn good habitat into bad, because they can't make use of what they already have.
Underutilized habitat is bad habitat with poor nutrition.
I don't see a lot of agreement here.
Post by: jasnt on February 23, 2015, 06:56:00 PM
:yeah::yeah: We all agree!!!! :brew:
no we don't, not at all.
I want high hunter success rates, robust herds of Elk and lot's of moose.
I want people to be able to graze their private land and lease private timber lands for sheep/cattle
I want to continue public grazing.
I don't want small struggling Elk herds that turn good habitat into bad, because they can't make use of what they already have.
Underutilized habitat is bad habitat with poor nutrition.
I don't see a lot of agreement here.
We need more logging, public land grazing, and extreme predator management! Use it or loose it!
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on February 23, 2015, 06:58:48 PM
Post by: Bob33 on February 23, 2015, 07:06:20 PM
Surely there's got to be something here to disagree with. :o:yeah: I agree 100% with needing good habitat and predator management. :tup::yeah: We all agree!!!! :brew:
Post by: KFhunter on February 23, 2015, 07:17:53 PM
Because public land grazing is soooo good for wildlife habitat??? I'm not following your logic?
In a nutshell, yes. Responsible grazing improves habitat.
Habitat that has little to no grazing is much poorer in quality than habitat that is regularly turned over, in the absence of vast herds of Elk cattle do well to help this.
Post by: KFhunter on February 23, 2015, 07:21:19 PM
Post by: jasnt on February 23, 2015, 07:30:46 PM
WAcoyotehunter go thumb through the deer section and find all the threads complaining about cattle being left on range too long, and ask yourself why they're hunting in cattle graze areas to begin with.exactly! All benificial brush, shrubbery , grasses, ect. Are stimulated to new growth by pruning (eating) and new growth is the most nutritious. It keeps everything from getting choked out and helps keep saplings from getting so thick they choke even them selves out
Post by: KFhunter on February 23, 2015, 07:35:47 PM
Post by: Special T on February 23, 2015, 08:04:54 PM
We used to slash burn old clear cuts and that was actually good for the ecosystem but doing it right takes funds continuously where as Fed funds for study and purchase of lands is "Free" money.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 23, 2015, 08:15:21 PM
"Management" requires $. I think we have plenty of land but there isn't nearly enough logging and small projects that help increase the ability to have productive land.
We used to slash burn old clear cuts and that was actually good for the ecosystem but doing it right takes funds continuously where as Fed funds for study and purchase of lands is "Free" money.
Actually, burning ended because of complaints about bad air if I remember correctly.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 23, 2015, 09:09:29 PM
Is there an axe-grinding emoticon? :chuckle:You don't agree with needing good habitat and predator management?:yeah: We all agree!!!! :brew:
no we don't, not at all.
I want high hunter success rates, robust herds of Elk and lot's of moose.
I want people to be able to graze their private land and lease private timber lands for sheep/cattle
I want to continue public grazing.
I don't want small struggling Elk herds that turn good habitat into bad, because they can't make use of what they already have.
Underutilized habitat is bad habitat with poor nutrition.
I don't see a lot of agreement here.
Post by: wolfbait on February 23, 2015, 09:38:50 PM
http://idahoforwildlife.com/Charles%20Kay/85-Kaibab%20deer%20inciddent-myths-lies%20and%20scientific%20fraud.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/Charles%20Kay/85-Kaibab%20deer%20inciddent-myths-lies%20and%20scientific%20fraud.pdf)
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 23, 2015, 11:46:21 PM
Post by: M_ray on February 24, 2015, 03:41:03 AM
Is there an axe-grinding emoticon? :chuckle:You don't agree with needing good habitat and predator management?:yeah: We all agree!!!! :brew:
no we don't, not at all.
I want high hunter success rates, robust herds of Elk and lot's of moose.
I want people to be able to graze their private land and lease private timber lands for sheep/cattle
I want to continue public grazing.
I don't want small struggling Elk herds that turn good habitat into bad, because they can't make use of what they already have.
Underutilized habitat is bad habitat with poor nutrition.
I don't see a lot of agreement here.
Its your fault!!! :bash: you had to go and say we all agree!!! :chuckle:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on February 24, 2015, 07:18:43 AM
WAcoyotehunter go thumb through the deer section and find all the threads complaining about cattle being left on range too long, and ask yourself why they're hunting in cattle graze areas to begin with.
WAcoyotehunter go thumb through the deer section and find all the threads complaining about cattle being left on range too long, and ask yourself why they're hunting in cattle graze areas to begin with.exactly! All benificial brush, shrubbery , grasses, ect. Are stimulated to new growth by pruning (eating) and new growth is the most nutritious. It keeps everything from getting choked out and helps keep saplings from getting so thick they choke even them selves out
So.... help me get this straight. Cattle eating the deer/elk browse is good for deer and elk because it stimulates the browse?? You guys are kidding right?
Don't get me wrong- I'm not necessarily anti public grazing. I think it has a place on the landscape. But to claim that it's good for the habitat is very ignorant.
I have seen (literally) millions spent on restoration projects on public land due to grazing. That's millions of PUBLIC dollars to restore PUBLIC land due to PRIVATE grazing. The effect that cattle have on streams, meadows, young trees, and riparian areas costs the taxpayers a small fortune.
Public grazing has it's place, but not under the guise of habitat improvement.
Post by: Special T on February 24, 2015, 07:20:51 AM
"Management" requires $. I think we have plenty of land but there isn't nearly enough logging and small projects that help increase the ability to have productive land.
We used to slash burn old clear cuts and that was actually good for the ecosystem but doing it right takes funds continuously where as Fed funds for study and purchase of lands is "Free" money.
Actually, burning ended because of complaints about bad air if I remember correctly.
There is some "Controlled Burns" But not nearly enough in my mind. Im no fire expert but i would imagine winter/early spring burns would do the most good with the least amount of damage. Im guessing they do lots of it in the fall so that they can let the rain put them out?
Post by: bobcat on February 24, 2015, 08:17:13 AM
Quote
So.... help me get this straight. Cattle eating the deer/elk browse is good for deer and elk because it stimulates the browse?? You guys are kidding right?
:yeah:
It's amazing to me that anybody can say that grazing benefits wildlife habitat with a straight face. Why do you think bighorn sheep numbers are only a very small fraction of what they were in the past? That's just one example. For those who say grazing benefits wildlife habitat, which college did you go to and what did you study?
Post by: idahohuntr on February 24, 2015, 08:31:07 AM
:yeah:QuoteSo.... help me get this straight. Cattle eating the deer/elk browse is good for deer and elk because it stimulates the browse?? You guys are kidding right?
:yeah:
It's amazing to me that anybody can say that grazing benefits wildlife habitat with a straight face. Why do you think bighorn sheep numbers are only a very small fraction of what they were in the past? That's just one example. For those who say grazing benefits wildlife habitat, which college did you go to and what did you study?
On multiple use public rangeland - grazing has its place among the competing uses for those public resources. Managed properly, the negative impacts of grazing on the public's fish and wildlife can be minimized. For someone to say grazing is good for wildlife is just another egregious example of how some will distort the truth and try to pull the wool over sportsmens eyes. Bighorn sheep interactions with domestic sheep are a classic example of a few benefiting at the demise of an extraordinary public resource.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 24, 2015, 08:31:24 AM
Always saw a lot more deer on ranches with cattle than on areas not grazed. Cattle would focus more on grasses and some of the broad leafs. Seemed the browse could come up, rather than be choked out by three foot tall grass.QuoteSo.... help me get this straight. Cattle eating the deer/elk browse is good for deer and elk because it stimulates the browse?? You guys are kidding right?
:yeah:
It's amazing to me that anybody can say that grazing benefits wildlife habitat with a straight face. Why do you think bighorn sheep numbers are only a very small fraction of what they were in the past? That's just one example. For those who say grazing benefits wildlife habitat, which college did you go to and what did you study?
Post by: wolfbait on February 24, 2015, 09:03:52 AM
:tup:Always saw a lot more deer on ranches with cattle than on areas not grazed. Cattle would focus more on grasses and some of the broad leafs. Seemed the browse could come up, rather than be choked out by three foot tall grass.QuoteSo.... help me get this straight. Cattle eating the deer/elk browse is good for deer and elk because it stimulates the browse?? You guys are kidding right?
:yeah:
It's amazing to me that anybody can say that grazing benefits wildlife habitat with a straight face. Why do you think bighorn sheep numbers are only a very small fraction of what they were in the past? That's just one example. For those who say grazing benefits wildlife habitat, which college did you go to and what did you study?
The benefits of grazing
Through a variety of wildlife management techniques, the Work Family Ranch has more than 300 different species thriving there, including tule elk, which at one time were nearly extinct. Along with that, there are several hundred head of beef cattle and a small herd of horses.
Pelayo Alvarez, Defenders of Wildlife program manager based in Sacramento, says that in California the grazing season is short, compared to other areas in the United States, so grazing has to be carefully managed for positive environmental outcomes.
“But grazing isn’t the only thing that impacts the range. A big problem we have in California is invasive species,” he said. “Grazing is probably one of the most important tools we have for controlling things like yellow starthistle. Cows, sheep and goats all eat it.”
A native of Eurasia, yellow starthistle was introduced accidentally sometime around 1849. Alvarez says it is by far the fastest-spreading and most-invasive nonnative plant the state has ever seen.
“One of the things I’d like to stress is that we need the ranchers in order to have effective rangeland conservation,” he said. “It’s not just about various interests—the public, environmentalists, government agencies and ranchers—getting along. It’s that we need each other to restore and protect our native grassland and savannahs.
“The idea that you can protect the land—and at the same time farmers and ranchers can make a living—that’s just great, especially when it adds up to a positive effect on our environment,” Alvarez said.
Work offers another example of how cattle improve the rangeland. To begin a habitat restoration project, the family used their cattle to knock down invasive, fire-prone brush and allow a greater variety of native plants to return. They tossed some alfalfa hay into the area they wanted cleared and turned the cattle in.
“In two feedings of about 15 minutes each, the hungry cattle crushed the brush with their excited behavior,” he said. “No land-scarring firebreak needed, no burn permit, no air pollution and no fire scarring of the landscape to clear it. The trampled brush provided ground cover to prevent winter erosion from runoff and spring brought a resurgence of perennial grasses and tender sprouts, which was wonderful deer feed.”
What’s sometimes misunderstood, ranchers say, is that California’s vital grasslands aren’t beautiful and healthy by accident. Restoring and maintaining this native environment takes a lot of thought and commitment.
The California Farm Bureau Federation has joined the California Cattlemen’s Association, ranchers, environmentalists, university and government researchers and a number of state and federal agencies to form the California Rangeland Conservation Coalition. The coalition is united by the understanding that nearly all species of grassland birds, most native plants and threatened vernal pool species benefit from responsible grazing practices. http://www.californiabountiful.com/features/article.aspx?arID=561 (http://www.californiabountiful.com/features/article.aspx?arID=561)
Livestock Grazing On The National Forests Why continue to do it?
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5401590.pdf (http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5401590.pdf)
Where Cattle Roam and Wild Grasses Grow
managed grazing can help create better wildlife habitat on some public lands
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mcvmagazine/issues/2013/jul-aug/cattle.html (http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mcvmagazine/issues/2013/jul-aug/cattle.html)
Livestock Grazing Benefits Public Lands
http://www.americancowboychronicles.com/2014/04/livestock-grazing-benefits-public-lands.html (http://www.americancowboychronicles.com/2014/04/livestock-grazing-benefits-public-lands.html)
Contrary to GAO report, public lands grazing provides numerous benefits
https://www.beef.org/uDocs/grazing293.pdf (https://www.beef.org/uDocs/grazing293.pdf)
Benefits of Grazing Animals
Grazing animals can be an important factor in maintaining balanced and diverse ecosystems.
Fire Hazard Reduction
Benefits to Plant Life
Benefits to Wildlife
http://www.ebparks.org/about/stewardship/grazing/benefits (http://www.ebparks.org/about/stewardship/grazing/benefits)
Grazing as a Public Good
Rangeland science backs up Hoch’s contention. Studies in numerous states show that conservation grazing can as much as double plant diversity in an area—it not only prevents overgrazing but the cattle’s manure and urine helps recharge the soil’s biology. Hoch and other habitat experts working in western Minnesota have observed how grazing has increased native plant communities by knocking back invasive cool season plants like Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome. Such invasives can blanket the land with a homogeneous cover, which limits the diversity wildlife such as deer, waterfowl, shorebirds and grassland songbirds require. Such grasses also tend to go dormant in hot weather and provide limited habitat and foraging areas for pollinators.
Cattle are also being used to thin out cattails and reed-canary grass around wetlands, providing the open areas many waterfowl prefer when keeping a lookout for predators. And controlled grazing of riparian areas is proving to be an effective way to stabilize areas along waterways and lakes.
The science has become so convincing that conservation groups such as the Nature Conservancy and the National Audubon Society have changed their once decidedly negative view of cattle and now see them as an effective habitat management tool.
http://landstewardshipproject.org/posts/627 (http://landstewardshipproject.org/posts/627)
Post by: wolfbait on February 24, 2015, 11:36:11 AM
:yeah:QuoteSo.... help me get this straight. Cattle eating the deer/elk browse is good for deer and elk because it stimulates the browse?? You guys are kidding right?
:yeah:
It's amazing to me that anybody can say that grazing benefits wildlife habitat with a straight face. Why do you think bighorn sheep numbers are only a very small fraction of what they were in the past? That's just one example. For those who say grazing benefits wildlife habitat, which college did you go to and what did you study?
On multiple use public rangeland - grazing has its place among the competing uses for those public resources. Managed properly, the negative impacts of grazing on the public's fish and wildlife can be minimized. For someone to say grazing is good for wildlife is just another egregious example of how some will distort the truth and try to pull the wool over sportsmens eyes. Bighorn sheep interactions with domestic sheep are a classic example of a few benefiting at the demise of an extraordinary public resource.
Grazing as a Habitat Management Tool
http://www.landsoftexasmagazine.com/articles/grazing-as-a-habitat-management-tool (http://www.landsoftexasmagazine.com/articles/grazing-as-a-habitat-management-tool)
USDA partnership improving sage-grouse habitat, grazing lands
"American ranchers are working with us to help sage-grouse because they know they are helping an at-risk bird while also improving the food available for their livestock," Bonnie said. "As the saying goes, 'What's good for the bird is good for the herd." http://beefproducer.com/story-usda-partnership-improving-sage-grouse-habitat-grazing-lands-10-123952 (http://beefproducer.com/story-usda-partnership-improving-sage-grouse-habitat-grazing-lands-10-123952)
Cattle Can Improve Sagebrush Habitat With a Little Training
http://onpasture.com/2015/01/26/cattle-can-improve-sagebrush-habitat-with-a-little-training/#sthash.51sqmpCb.dpuf (http://onpasture.com/2015/01/26/cattle-can-improve-sagebrush-habitat-with-a-little-training/#sthash.51sqmpCb.dpuf)
Fall Grazing With Sheep To Improve Sage-Grouse Habitat
https://extension.usu.edu/rangelands/htm/utah-projects/jmsspw/improving-sagegrouse-habitat/ (https://extension.usu.edu/rangelands/htm/utah-projects/jmsspw/improving-sagegrouse-habitat/)
Conservation Grazing for Land Stewardship
http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/86641.html (http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/86641.html)
Planned Grazing 8 - Wildlife in the Mix
http://www.thecattlemanmagazine.com/archives/2010/08/planned_grazing_8.html (http://www.thecattlemanmagazine.com/archives/2010/08/planned_grazing_8.html)
CATTLE MANAGEMENT TO ENHANCE WILDLIFE HABITAT IN SOUTH TEXAS
http://krirm.tamuk.edu/text/Resources/CattleManagement_OrtegaandBryant.pdf (http://krirm.tamuk.edu/text/Resources/CattleManagement_OrtegaandBryant.pdf)
Using Cows to Improve Wildlife Habitat and Increase Pronghorn
http://circleranchtx.com/cows-and-pronghorn/ (http://circleranchtx.com/cows-and-pronghorn/)
Improving Quality of Winter Forage for Elk by cattle Grazing
http://www.gardnerfiles.com/23-i%20%20%20Improving%20Winter%20Forage%20by%20Grazing%20Cattle.pdf (http://www.gardnerfiles.com/23-i%20%20%20Improving%20Winter%20Forage%20by%20Grazing%20Cattle.pdf)
Improving Elk Habitat Characteristics with Livestock Grazing
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/eoarc/sites/default/files/publication/404.pdf (http://oregonstate.edu/dept/eoarc/sites/default/files/publication/404.pdf)
Elk and Cattle Grazing Can Be Complementary
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2111/RANGELANDS-D-12-00068.1 (http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2111/RANGELANDS-D-12-00068.1)
Post by: bearpaw on February 24, 2015, 11:56:50 AM
Always saw a lot more deer on ranches with cattle than on areas not grazed. Cattle would focus more on grasses and some of the broad leafs. Seemed the browse could come up, rather than be choked out by three foot tall grass.QuoteSo.... help me get this straight. Cattle eating the deer/elk browse is good for deer and elk because it stimulates the browse?? You guys are kidding right?
:yeah:
It's amazing to me that anybody can say that grazing benefits wildlife habitat with a straight face. Why do you think bighorn sheep numbers are only a very small fraction of what they were in the past? That's just one example. For those who say grazing benefits wildlife habitat, which college did you go to and what did you study?
Most of the professors in our universities are opposed to predator management, opposed to logging, opposed to grazing, and in general opposed to most any use of the land. They teach students that all these uses are bad for our lands so all the students believe that is true and after graduating are hired into biologist positions believing all use and predator management is bad. I don't blame individual biologists for being misinformed because that is what they were taught to get their degree so they can get a job.
I simply ask that anyone with an open mind look at the facts:
Look at each state and compare wilderness areas to logged or grazed areas. The best game populations in most any state are on the lands that are farmed, ranched, and/or logged. In most cases the lowest carrying capacity is in remote areas with no use.
In Washington where are the highest deer populations? GMU's in northeast WA that are farmed, grazed, and/or logged heavily!
In Washington where are the highest elk populations? GMU's in southwest WA that are logged heavily!
In Washington where are the highest bear populations? GMU's on the OP, in the Southwest, in the northwest, and in the Northeast, most of which have been logged and/or grazed for many years.
You can do the same thing in each of the western states and it quickly becomes apparent that logging, proper grazing, farming, and even gas and oil development is very compatible with wildlife when done properly. Obviously extreme use will have a detrimental effect just as no use seems to have a detrimental effect on herds.
Simply look at the facts for the truth!
Post by: Bob33 on February 24, 2015, 12:12:43 PM
I think it's a question of which came first. Do deer live on ground that is grazed because grazing made it better, or do cattle graze on land because it's richer in food than surrounding habitat, and therefore also attracks deer?
Post by: bobcat on February 24, 2015, 12:15:46 PM
Post by: Special T on February 24, 2015, 12:18:32 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on February 24, 2015, 12:28:36 PM
"You can do the same thing in each of the western states and it quickly becomes apparent that logging, proper grazing, farming, and even gas and oil development is very compatible with wildlife when done properly. "There are many factors that influence the distribution of animals on the landscape. Bob33 and bobcat make excellent points. Those that reference seeing more deer on grazed land must also consider other external factors - a big one being hunting pressure...is said grazing land open to public hunting? Or is it private land with restricted hunter numbers? That can have a much bigger influence than habitat quality on animal distribution during hunting seasons.
I think it's a question of which came first. Do deer live on ground that is grazed because grazing made it better, or do cattle graze on land because it's richer in food than surrounding habitat, and therefore also attracks deer?
As I stated earlier, grazing has its place on multi-use public lands. While we are focusing very narrowly on deer and elk, let us not forget the impacts grazing can have on fish, riparian habitats, and other large scale factors like the introduction and spread of invasive species (noxious weeds etc.) and diseases...wild sheep? Hoof Rot?
Lots to consider.
Post by: wolfbait on February 24, 2015, 01:00:48 PM
"You can do the same thing in each of the western states and it quickly becomes apparent that logging, proper grazing, farming, and even gas and oil development is very compatible with wildlife when done properly. "There are many factors that influence the distribution of animals on the landscape. Bob33 and bobcat make excellent points. Those that reference seeing more deer on grazed land must also consider other external factors - a big one being hunting pressure...is said grazing land open to public hunting? Or is it private land with restricted hunter numbers? That can have a much bigger influence than habitat quality on animal distribution during hunting seasons.
I think it's a question of which came first. Do deer live on ground that is grazed because grazing made it better, or do cattle graze on land because it's richer in food than surrounding habitat, and therefore also attracks deer?
As I stated earlier, grazing has its place on multi-use public lands. While we are focusing very narrowly on deer and elk, let us not forget the impacts grazing can have on fish, riparian habitats, and other large scale factors like the introduction and spread of invasive species (noxious weeds etc.) and diseases...wild sheep? Hoof Rot?
Lots to consider.
Grazing as a Public Good
Rangeland science backs up Hoch’s contention. Studies in numerous states show that conservation grazing can as much as double plant diversity in an area—it not only prevents overgrazing but the cattle’s manure and urine helps recharge the soil’s biology. Hoch and other habitat experts working in western Minnesota have observed how grazing has increased native plant communities by knocking back invasive cool season plants like Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome. Such invasives can blanket the land with a homogeneous cover, which limits the diversity wildlife such as deer, waterfowl, shorebirds and grassland songbirds require. Such grasses also tend to go dormant in hot weather and provide limited habitat and foraging areas for pollinators.
Cattle are also being used to thin out cattails and reed-canary grass around wetlands, providing the open areas many waterfowl prefer when keeping a lookout for predators. And controlled grazing of riparian areas is proving to be an effective way to stabilize areas along waterways and lakes.
The science has become so convincing that conservation groups such as the Nature Conservancy and the National Audubon Society have changed their once decidedly negative view of cattle and now see them as an effective habitat management tool.
http://landstewardshipproject.org/posts/627 (http://landstewardshipproject.org/posts/627)
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,48084.150.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,48084.150.html)
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on February 24, 2015, 01:50:33 PM
It's not fair to compare wildife numbers in wilderness areas to other areas. Most, if not all, wilderness areas are wilderness because it's the most unproductive land and when this country was settled, nobody wanted it. It wasn't good for farming, grazing, or logging. Almost all of the official wilderness areas in Washington state are high elevation, and made up of more rock than anything else. Of course those areas don't have a high density population of deer and elk. It's not due to a lack of cattle grazing in those areas! Obviously deer and elk are going to do better in areas with good soil where there is plenty to eat. And, coincidentally, that is also where domestic livestock does the best.Thank you!
Post by: Bob33 on February 24, 2015, 01:52:32 PM
That is interesting. Thank you."You can do the same thing in each of the western states and it quickly becomes apparent that logging, proper grazing, farming, and even gas and oil development is very compatible with wildlife when done properly. "There are many factors that influence the distribution of animals on the landscape. Bob33 and bobcat make excellent points. Those that reference seeing more deer on grazed land must also consider other external factors - a big one being hunting pressure...is said grazing land open to public hunting? Or is it private land with restricted hunter numbers? That can have a much bigger influence than habitat quality on animal distribution during hunting seasons.
I think it's a question of which came first. Do deer live on ground that is grazed because grazing made it better, or do cattle graze on land because it's richer in food than surrounding habitat, and therefore also attracks deer?
As I stated earlier, grazing has its place on multi-use public lands. While we are focusing very narrowly on deer and elk, let us not forget the impacts grazing can have on fish, riparian habitats, and other large scale factors like the introduction and spread of invasive species (noxious weeds etc.) and diseases...wild sheep? Hoof Rot?
Lots to consider.
Grazing as a Public Good
Rangeland science backs up Hoch’s contention. Studies in numerous states show that conservation grazing can as much as double plant diversity in an area—it not only prevents overgrazing but the cattle’s manure and urine helps recharge the soil’s biology. Hoch and other habitat experts working in western Minnesota have observed how grazing has increased native plant communities by knocking back invasive cool season plants like Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome. Such invasives can blanket the land with a homogeneous cover, which limits the diversity wildlife such as deer, waterfowl, shorebirds and grassland songbirds require. Such grasses also tend to go dormant in hot weather and provide limited habitat and foraging areas for pollinators.
Cattle are also being used to thin out cattails and reed-canary grass around wetlands, providing the open areas many waterfowl prefer when keeping a lookout for predators. And controlled grazing of riparian areas is proving to be an effective way to stabilize areas along waterways and lakes.
The science has become so convincing that conservation groups such as the Nature Conservancy and the National Audubon Society have changed their once decidedly negative view of cattle and now see them as an effective habitat management tool.
http://landstewardshipproject.org/posts/627 (http://landstewardshipproject.org/posts/627)
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,48084.150.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,48084.150.html)
Post by: bearpaw on February 24, 2015, 01:58:52 PM
It's not fair to compare wildife numbers in wilderness areas to other areas. Most, if not all, wilderness areas are wilderness because it's the most unproductive land and when this country was settled, nobody wanted it. It wasn't good for farming, grazing, or logging. Almost all of the official wilderness areas in Washington state are high elevation, and made up of more rock than anything else. Of course those areas don't have a high density population of deer and elk. It's not due to a lack of cattle grazing in those areas! Obviously deer and elk are going to do better in areas with good soil where there is plenty to eat. And, coincidentally, that is also where domestic livestock does the best.
Quote"You can do the same thing in each of the western states and it quickly becomes apparent that logging, proper grazing, farming, and even gas and oil development is very compatible with wildlife when done properly. "
I think it's a question of which came first. Do deer live on ground that is grazed because grazing made it better, or do cattle graze on land because it's richer in food than surrounding habitat, and therefore also attracks deer?
I can certainly further clarify by pointing out the many USFS lands that were once logged, mined, and grazed. The very same ground that held very few deer, moose, bear, and elk centuries ago became far more productive with multiple use during the last century, now that logging has been curtailed the very same ground once again does not hold as many elk, moose, bear, or deer as forests age and choke out growth on the forest floor.
Think about it, once the USFS quit most logging, grazing, and other multiple use activities, the herds in those areas diminished as forests matured! This is evident all over WA, ID, MT, and OR.
I think it's pretty proven, our herds are more robust on active multiple use lands. As has been demonstrated in many states in many specific management units, when you implement multiple use the herds increase and when you stop multiple use the herds decline! :dunno:
Post by: wolfbait on February 24, 2015, 02:06:24 PM
It's not fair to compare wildife numbers in wilderness areas to other areas. Most, if not all, wilderness areas are wilderness because it's the most unproductive land and when this country was settled, nobody wanted it. It wasn't good for farming, grazing, or logging. Almost all of the official wilderness areas in Washington state are high elevation, and made up of more rock than anything else. Of course those areas don't have a high density population of deer and elk. It's not due to a lack of cattle grazing in those areas! Obviously deer and elk are going to do better in areas with good soil where there is plenty to eat. And, coincidentally, that is also where domestic livestock does the best.Quote"You can do the same thing in each of the western states and it quickly becomes apparent that logging, proper grazing, farming, and even gas and oil development is very compatible with wildlife when done properly. "
I think it's a question of which came first. Do deer live on ground that is grazed because grazing made it better, or do cattle graze on land because it's richer in food than surrounding habitat, and therefore also attracks deer?
I can certainly further clarify by pointing out the many USFS lands that were once logged, mined, and grazed. The very same ground that held very few deer, moose, bear, and elk centuries ago became far more productive with multiple use during the last century, now that logging has been curtailed the very same ground once again does not hold as many elk, moose, bear, or deer as forests age and choke out growth on the forest floor.
Think about it, once the USFS quit most logging, grazing, and other multiple use activities, the herds in those areas diminished as forests matured! This is evident all over WA, ID, MT, and OR.
I think it's pretty proven, our herds are more robust on active multiple use lands. As has been demonstrated in many states in many specific management units, when you implement multiple use the herds increase and when you stop multiple use the herds decline! :dunno:
Elk and Cattle Grazing Can Be Complementary
Elk Response to a 19-Year Exclusion of Cattle Grazing
Beth Burritt and Roger Banner
Authors are Extension Assistant Professor, beth.burritt@usu.edu (Burritt), and Extension Rangeland Specialist (Banner), Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University Extension, Logan, UT 84322, USA.
On the Ground
In 1990, cattle grazed private land in Utah's Book Cliff Mountains until late July. Elk in the area ate about 50% of the forage regrowth on this land from late July to mid-September.
This private land mentioned was sold in 1990 and managed for elk. At the same time cattle were permanently removed from the area.
By 2009, repeat photography showed that vegetation in the area had changed and was dominated by dense stands of mature vegetation and weeds. In 2009 there were no signs of elk, whereas in 1990 many elk and signs of elk were observed in the area.
Based on this study and many others, carefully managed cattle grazing can be a lost-cost method to improve forage quality for elk.
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2111/RANGELANDS-D-12-00068.1 (http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2111/RANGELANDS-D-12-00068.1)
Post by: Bob33 on February 24, 2015, 02:18:48 PM
I can certainly further clarify by pointing out the many USFS lands that were once logged, mined, and grazed. The very same ground that held very few deer, moose, bear, and elk centuries ago became far more productive with multiple use during the last century, now that logging has been curtailed the very same ground once again does not hold as many elk, moose, bear, or deer as forests age and choke out growth on the forest floor.It's easy to see that logging creates more productive habitat for most wildlife. It's harder to prove that cattle grazing improves habitat for deer and elk.
Think about it, once the USFS quit most logging, grazing, and other multiple use activities, the herds in those areas diminished as forests matured! This is evident all over WA, ID, MT, and OR.
Personally, I think lumping them together overstates the value of grazing, and understates the value of logging. :twocents:
Post by: jasnt on February 24, 2015, 02:20:52 PM
:yeah:It's not fair to compare wildife numbers in wilderness areas to other areas. Most, if not all, wilderness areas are wilderness because it's the most unproductive land and when this country was settled, nobody wanted it. It wasn't good for farming, grazing, or logging. Almost all of the official wilderness areas in Washington state are high elevation, and made up of more rock than anything else. Of course those areas don't have a high density population of deer and elk. It's not due to a lack of cattle grazing in those areas! Obviously deer and elk are going to do better in areas with good soil where there is plenty to eat. And, coincidentally, that is also where domestic livestock does the best.Quote"You can do the same thing in each of the western states and it quickly becomes apparent that logging, proper grazing, farming, and even gas and oil development is very compatible with wildlife when done properly. "
I think it's a question of which came first. Do deer live on ground that is grazed because grazing made it better, or do cattle graze on land because it's richer in food than surrounding habitat, and therefore also attracks deer?
I can certainly further clarify by pointing out the many USFS lands that were once logged, mined, and grazed. The very same ground that held very few deer, moose, bear, and elk centuries ago became far more productive with multiple use during the last century, now that logging has been curtailed the very same ground once again does not hold as many elk, moose, bear, or deer as forests age and choke out growth on the forest floor.
Think about it, once the USFS quit most logging, grazing, and other multiple use activities, the herds in those areas diminished as forests matured! This is evident all over WA, ID, MT, and OR.
I think it's pretty proven, our herds are more robust on active multiple use lands. As has been demonstrated in many states in many specific management units, when you implement multiple use the herds increase and when you stop multiple use the herds decline! :dunno:
Post by: bobcat on February 24, 2015, 02:24:07 PM
Post by: Special T on February 24, 2015, 02:48:33 PM
Post by: wolfbait on February 24, 2015, 03:25:22 PM
I can certainly further clarify by pointing out the many USFS lands that were once logged, mined, and grazed. The very same ground that held very few deer, moose, bear, and elk centuries ago became far more productive with multiple use during the last century, now that logging has been curtailed the very same ground once again does not hold as many elk, moose, bear, or deer as forests age and choke out growth on the forest floor.It's easy to see that logging creates more productive habitat for most wildlife. It's harder to prove that cattle grazing improves habitat for deer and elk.
Think about it, once the USFS quit most logging, grazing, and other multiple use activities, the herds in those areas diminished as forests matured! This is evident all over WA, ID, MT, and OR.
Personally, I think lumping them together overstates the value of grazing, and understates the value of logging. :twocents:
Actually even though grazing and logging are to different processes that improve wildlife habitat they do go together. In many areas we logged, after the brush was piled and burned or in the cases of line logging with controlled burns, these areas were then seeded to grass for erosion control, wildlife and cattle grazing.
Post by: bearpaw on February 25, 2015, 02:03:09 AM
I can certainly further clarify by pointing out the many USFS lands that were once logged, mined, and grazed. The very same ground that held very few deer, moose, bear, and elk centuries ago became far more productive with multiple use during the last century, now that logging has been curtailed the very same ground once again does not hold as many elk, moose, bear, or deer as forests age and choke out growth on the forest floor.It's easy to see that logging creates more productive habitat for most wildlife. It's harder to prove that cattle grazing improves habitat for deer and elk.
Think about it, once the USFS quit most logging, grazing, and other multiple use activities, the herds in those areas diminished as forests matured! This is evident all over WA, ID, MT, and OR.
Personally, I think lumping them together overstates the value of grazing, and understates the value of logging. :twocents:
Actually even though grazing and logging are to different processes that improve wildlife habitat they do go together. In many areas we logged, after the brush was piled and burned or in the cases of line logging with controlled burns, these areas were then seeded to grass for erosion control, wildlife and cattle grazing.
In NE WA the two (grazing and logging) are almost synonymous. Areas that are logged are also grazed and vice versa. In some areas I understand that the two do not always go together. For example wolfbait posted info about the Book Cliffs. I have spent many days, weeks, and even months in the Book Cliffs and know it extremely well. I know three of the few landowners, as it is mostly public land. I think I know which piece of land they are describing which was sold and grazing removed because they thought that would make it better elk habitat. The areas where I see the most elk are all grazed areas. (There is little or no logging in the Books because there aren't many desirable species for logging.) I suppose there are areas in western WA that are logged and not grazed so I can see why some members from the wetside would think the two have nothing to do with each other.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 25, 2015, 08:41:51 AM
Post by: AspenBud on February 25, 2015, 08:47:47 AM
I can certainly further clarify by pointing out the many USFS lands that were once logged, mined, and grazed. The very same ground that held very few deer, moose, bear, and elk centuries ago became far more productive with multiple use during the last century, now that logging has been curtailed the very same ground once again does not hold as many elk, moose, bear, or deer as forests age and choke out growth on the forest floor.It's easy to see that logging creates more productive habitat for most wildlife. It's harder to prove that cattle grazing improves habitat for deer and elk.
Think about it, once the USFS quit most logging, grazing, and other multiple use activities, the herds in those areas diminished as forests matured! This is evident all over WA, ID, MT, and OR.
Personally, I think lumping them together overstates the value of grazing, and understates the value of logging. :twocents:
Actually even though grazing and logging are to different processes that improve wildlife habitat they do go together. In many areas we logged, after the brush was piled and burned or in the cases of line logging with controlled burns, these areas were then seeded to grass for erosion control, wildlife and cattle grazing.
In NE WA the two (grazing and logging) are almost synonymous. Areas that are logged are also grazed and vice versa. In some areas I understand that the two do not always go together. For example wolfbait posted info about the Book Cliffs. I have spent many days, weeks, and even months in the Book Cliffs and know it extremely well. I know three of the few landowners, as it is mostly public land. I think I know which piece of land they are describing which was sold and grazing removed because they thought that would make it better elk habitat. The areas where I see the most elk are all grazed areas. (There is little or no logging in the Books because there aren't many desirable species for logging.) I suppose there are areas in western WA that are logged and not grazed so I can see why some members from the wetside would think the two have nothing to do with each other.
In all my time in western Washington I've never seen cows grazing on logged land. The same held true when I lived in Michigan (it may be different in the UP however, I don't know).
What I do know is I see a lot fewer deer here than I did back in the 80's and that decline has largely come with the logging restrictions that have been imposed over the years. When I was in MI the better areas to hunt were mixed age forest where logging was occurring in a regular rotation. The worst possible hunting I could find was in mature forest where the ground was effectively bare and the sun and rain had a hard time coming through, I've largely experienced the same thing here as well.
Grazing or no grazing, the lack of cutting is causing a lot of problems these days.
Post by: KFhunter on February 25, 2015, 09:11:03 AM
grazing might well be a mute point, too much livestock losses to continue that practice for much longer. Unfortunately this also curtails PRIVATE land grazing, more livestock looses have occurred on private lands than public in WA. To me this is a loss of private property rights.
Without cattle I hope they do more slash and burn, but they like to spray chemicals now don't they.
Post by: Special T on February 25, 2015, 10:04:42 AM
To some of you guys in the Know... How high are High fence operations that keep deer elk and Wolves out? How much is it to put the fencing in?
Will we see certain "Game" related issues go away because more farmers fence and pen thier animals and grow the feed out side the wire?
Post by: idahohuntr on February 25, 2015, 10:15:41 AM
grazing might well be a mute point, too much livestock losses to continue that practice for much longer. Unfortunately this also curtails PRIVATE land grazing, more livestock looses have occurred on private lands than public in WA. To me this is a loss of private property rights.So in keeping with the theme of this thread, are you projecting there will be no more open grazing in NE Wa soon because of wolves?
Post by: idaho guy on February 25, 2015, 10:19:03 AM
Always saw a lot more deer on ranches with cattle than on areas not grazed. Cattle would focus more on grasses and some of the broad leafs. Seemed the browse could come up, rather than be choked out by three foot tall grass.QuoteSo.... help me get this straight. Cattle eating the deer/elk browse is good for deer and elk because it stimulates the browse?? You guys are kidding right?
:yeah:
It's amazing to me that anybody can say that grazing benefits wildlife habitat with a straight face. Why do you think bighorn sheep numbers are only a very small fraction of what they were in the past? That's just one example. For those who say grazing benefits wildlife habitat, which college did you go to and what did you study?
Most of the professors in our universities are opposed to predator management, opposed to logging, opposed to grazing, and in general opposed to most any use of the land. They teach students that all these uses are bad for our lands so all the students believe that is true and after graduating are hired into biologist positions believing all use and predator management is bad. I don't blame individual biologists for being misinformed because that is what they were taught to get their degree so they can get a job.
I simply ask that anyone with an open mind look at the facts:
grazing, farming, and even gas and oil development is very compatible with wildlife when done properly. Obviously extreme use will have a detrimental effect just as no use seems to have a detrimental effect on herds.
Simply look at the facts for the truth!
:yeah: Thats the problem with all the qoutes I see from biologist and studies etc. They can write whatever they want but I am inclined to believe what I see and have seen with my own eyes. I think this is part of what bearpaw and others are saying too. They have spent a lot of time in the outdoors and can SEE the effects of things over time. Contrary to the modern thinking coming out of universities man can improve on nature and is and integral part of the equation-we always have been. The biggest problem I see is they are convincing people that man was never part of nature and that anything a man does in the woods is somehow harmfull. Can we be harmfull to the environment? Yes but done right we can and have been great stewards of the outdoors and often have made things better . I read one report where a biologist suggested cattle were essential to eastern montana and other grass/prairie land because they were replacing what bison did when millions grazed all that land. This is one bioligist I could agree with! I would think also that logging and grazing go hand in hand in most areas. We loggged some of our propety last year to open it up and plant it for grazing! We have horses and cows on it but the deer like it alot better too. There is something too eat besides pine needles now!
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on February 25, 2015, 12:36:13 PM
Stop thinking only about ungulates.
Post by: Special T on February 25, 2015, 12:51:47 PM
How about increasing the numbers and distrobution of one of the finest meals out there... Opossum! :chuckle:
Post by: Bob33 on February 25, 2015, 01:01:51 PM
Well if the the WDFW doesnt care about Deer and Elk some one has to... At least deer and elk taste good...Careful now. My friend values them highly and uses them for emergency navigational purposes in survival situations. He keeps one in his backpack when hunting alone. If he gets lost, he turns it loose – it will always go straight to a road.
How about increasing the numbers and distrobution of one of the finest meals out there... Opossum! :chuckle:
Post by: Special T on February 25, 2015, 02:42:17 PM
Post by: AspenBud on February 25, 2015, 02:44:55 PM
I know that this might seem blasphemous to some of the folks on here, but HABITAT is not just deer and elk habitat. We should care for the land in a way that encourages other species as well... i.e. martens, fishers needing forests..... black footed ferrets needing grasslands with squirrels.....
Stop thinking only about ungulates.
Good grouse habitat typically also holds deer and elk and bear and cats and any number of other animals. Mixed age forest doesn't mean creating a monoculture of forest that serves one subset. That's the thing, everyone has lost track of what a healthy forest looks like. You can't log everything at once and you can't just leave it alone, at least not so long as we put out forest fires.
Post by: wolfbait on February 25, 2015, 05:06:25 PM
I know that this might seem blasphemous to some of the folks on here, but HABITAT is not just deer and elk habitat. We should care for the land in a way that encourages other species as well... i.e. martens, fishers needing forests..... black footed ferrets needing grasslands with squirrels.....
Stop thinking only about ungulates.
Wolf Predation
What the world needs to learn from the Slate Islands is that wolves, not habitat, limit ungulate populations.
http://idahoforwildlife.com/Charles%20Kay/76-wolf%20predation-more%20bad%20news.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/Charles%20Kay/76-wolf%20predation-more%20bad%20news.pdf)
Post by: bearpaw on February 25, 2015, 05:25:26 PM
I know that this might seem blasphemous to some of the folks on here, but HABITAT is not just deer and elk habitat. We should care for the land in a way that encourages other species as well... i.e. martens, fishers needing forests..... black footed ferrets needing grasslands with squirrels.....
Stop thinking only about ungulates.
Good grouse habitat typically also holds deer and elk and bear and cats and any number of other animals. Mixed age forest doesn't mean creating a monoculture of forest that serves one subset. That's the thing, everyone has lost track of what a healthy forest looks like. You can't log everything at once and you can't just leave it alone, at least not so long as we put out forest fires.
I'm not aware of anyone saying that all lands should be logged and grazed, or that all lands should be logged at once. I appreciate the assorted land uses and the wildernesses that we have, but like thousands of other citizens, I'm tired of the continual push to eliminate multiple use and make everything wilderness!
Post by: AspenBud on February 25, 2015, 05:32:01 PM
I know that this might seem blasphemous to some of the folks on here, but HABITAT is not just deer and elk habitat. We should care for the land in a way that encourages other species as well... i.e. martens, fishers needing forests..... black footed ferrets needing grasslands with squirrels.....
Stop thinking only about ungulates.
Wolf Predation
What the world needs to learn from the Slate Islands is that wolves, not habitat, limit ungulate populations.
http://idahoforwildlife.com/Charles%20Kay/76-wolf%20predation-more%20bad%20news.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/Charles%20Kay/76-wolf%20predation-more%20bad%20news.pdf)
I find it interesting that the author points to never before seen elk and moose numbers, as in never before seen success in the last 12,000 years, as a trigger that has caused wolves to be too successful and thereby pushing some species to the brink. That actually makes some sense.
Not to start a firestorm, but based on that article one could argue that the caribou's predicament is largely a result of poor big game management (not enough being harvested) compounded by the reintroduction of the wolf. That means everyone is culpable. Interesting.
Post by: AspenBud on February 25, 2015, 05:33:27 PM
I know that this might seem blasphemous to some of the folks on here, but HABITAT is not just deer and elk habitat. We should care for the land in a way that encourages other species as well... i.e. martens, fishers needing forests..... black footed ferrets needing grasslands with squirrels.....
Stop thinking only about ungulates.
Good grouse habitat typically also holds deer and elk and bear and cats and any number of other animals. Mixed age forest doesn't mean creating a monoculture of forest that serves one subset. That's the thing, everyone has lost track of what a healthy forest looks like. You can't log everything at once and you can't just leave it alone, at least not so long as we put out forest fires.
I'm not aware of anyone saying that all lands should be logged and grazed, or that all lands should be logged at once. I appreciate the assorted land uses and the wildernesses that we have, but like thousands of other citizens, I'm tired of the continual push to eliminate multiple use and make everything wilderness!
I agree with you there. Or rather, I'm tired of people assuming man should not be a part of the ecosystem and how it evolves. We have a role to play in managing it.
Post by: KFhunter on February 25, 2015, 10:28:51 PM
With the Kinds of losses experienced in "Fee range" cattle I would expect that the Feed Lot business would be a much better financial move...
To some of you guys in the Know... How high are High fence operations that keep deer elk and Wolves out? How much is it to put the fencing in?
Will we see certain "Game" related issues go away because more farmers fence and pen thier animals and grow the feed out side the wire?
fencing that will deter wolves will also deter deer, elk, moose and anything else too big to squeeze through or agile enough to climb over.
We don't want to checkerboard the forest with high fence do we?
Post by: KFhunter on February 25, 2015, 10:40:42 PM
grazing might well be a mute point, too much livestock losses to continue that practice for much longer. Unfortunately this also curtails PRIVATE land grazing, more livestock looses have occurred on private lands than public in WA. To me this is a loss of private property rights.So in keeping with the theme of this thread, are you projecting there will be no more open grazing in NE Wa soon because of wolves?
Ask Dave Dashiell if he'll run his sheep out on private Hancock land again, I almost bet Hancock drops their lease programs and just sprays instead.
They had the sheep out there to help with some invasive weed but with all the media attention I'll wager they resort to herbicides and forgo grazing.
As yet I don't know any ranchers giving up their leases.
I guess the ball is in WDFW's court and if you're asking me to predict if they'll manage wolves to a level that grazing can happen with minimal conflict...I'm dubious.
Post by: AspenBud on February 26, 2015, 06:55:58 AM
grazing might well be a mute point, too much livestock losses to continue that practice for much longer. Unfortunately this also curtails PRIVATE land grazing, more livestock looses have occurred on private lands than public in WA. To me this is a loss of private property rights.So in keeping with the theme of this thread, are you projecting there will be no more open grazing in NE Wa soon because of wolves?
Ask Dave Dashiell if he'll run his sheep out on private Hancock land again, I almost bet Hancock drops their lease programs and just sprays instead.
They had the sheep out there to help with some invasive weed but with all the media attention I'll wager they resort to herbicides and forgo grazing.
As yet I don't know any ranchers giving up their leases.
I guess the ball is in WDFW's court and if you're asking me to predict if they'll manage wolves to a level that grazing can happen with minimal conflict...I'm dubious.
I'll wager that someone with some money would be willing to scoop up those leases and throw cows on them. There is a point where, if the operation is big enough, a lot of loss can be absorbed and money still made. For now at least I'm guessing this is more of a small herd problem??? :dunno:
Post by: Special T on February 26, 2015, 08:18:15 AM
With the Kinds of losses experienced in "Fee range" cattle I would expect that the Feed Lot business would be a much better financial move...
To some of you guys in the Know... How high are High fence operations that keep deer elk and Wolves out? How much is it to put the fencing in?
Will we see certain "Game" related issues go away because more farmers fence and pen thier animals and grow the feed out side the wire?
fencing that will deter wolves will also deter deer, elk, moose and anything else too big to squeeze through or agile enough to climb over.
We don't want to checkerboard the forest with high fence do we?
Of course i dont think that is what we want.... But lets be realistic... A market steer or cow calf is worth how much? I thought i heard some where that a Market steer is worth $2-3k. How much fencing does that buy? And how many seasons does it last? It would seem to me in Wolf prone areas It might pay off in the long run. It doesnt appear that wolves are going anywhere soon, at least in WA state...
Im not a big fan of High Fence Operations for hunting but It would seem a Win Win for bigger operations saving nice elk AND protecting the cattle. Once you reach a certain size, Farming/Cattle is just a numbers game... Investment Vs reward. If you have a hostile political environment and a less than committed WDFW then what other options are there? How many times have we heard on here that if farmers dont want animal damage perhaps they should protect their crops with fences... The Apple orchards do it...
Post by: bobcat on February 26, 2015, 08:26:05 AM
Post by: Special T on February 26, 2015, 08:37:20 AM
Im not really expecting this to happen much but i can tell you IF i was a cattlemen id really be looking into this.
I have heard MANY times on here that if a Farmer doesnt like damage to his crops he should protect it with a fence... Well I would bet certain counties have a higher likely hood of changing fence regulations in wolf areas... If the Cattlemens association pushed hard in areas they have influence you might see a difference.
Post by: KFhunter on February 26, 2015, 08:50:10 AM
To say they're floating in money now so they could afford losses to wolves is somewhat a slap in the face to ranchers, any profit they've made during this high trend will have to be held on tightly to get them through a rough down trend when it finally comes. That's when I'll jump back in the cattle business, right now dang :o
Post by: Special T on February 26, 2015, 09:20:10 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 26, 2015, 09:38:41 AM
Post by: AspenBud on February 26, 2015, 09:44:36 AM
Whats the joke? If a farmer has a good year he buys a new truck... If a racher has a good year they buy new tires! :chuckle:
Unless you're in Whitman county. A bad year there means you buy a Lincoln instead of a Cadillac. :chuckle:
Post by: Special T on February 26, 2015, 09:54:27 AM
I know nothing of cattle, but know there are many ways to skin a wolf! :chuckle:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 26, 2015, 09:59:48 AM
Post by: Special T on February 26, 2015, 10:08:19 AM
So a completly different question... Possibly for BP... if you put up a high fence operation do you have to vacate animals from your property before you fence it? Is there a specific eviciton process for the states unwanted game?
Your not allowed to "Farm" deer or elk in wa.... so???
Post by: Curly on February 26, 2015, 10:41:32 AM
Post by: Special T on February 26, 2015, 10:45:46 AM
The State has already made the case that it is the responciblity of the land owner to protect thier property from agricultural damage Visa V Hay, orchards and such... If it was done for agricultural damage purposes you think they would deny it? Perhaps not in the Okanogan but there is PLENTY of precedence elsewhere to do so...
Post by: idahohuntr on February 26, 2015, 10:49:11 AM
And I've found anything more than about 1/4 mile of fencing work in a day with my wife in tow = bad news. :chuckle:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 26, 2015, 01:52:56 PM
The perimeter of 40 acres is one mile of fence...160 acres = 2 miles of fence.
And I've found anything more than about 1/4 mile of fencing work in a day with my wife in tow = bad news. :chuckle:
That would be 2 miles if it was square, 1/2 mile x 1/2 mile x 1/2 mile x 1/2 mile.
It could also be 1 mile x 1/4 mile x 1 mile, x 1/4 mile. That would make a 2 1/2 mile perimeter.
Or some other shape.
Post by: Bob33 on February 26, 2015, 02:01:46 PM
I think Idahuntr is correct.The perimeter of 40 acres is one mile of fence...160 acres = 2 miles of fence.
And I've found anything more than about 1/4 mile of fencing work in a day with my wife in tow = bad news. :chuckle:
That would be 2 miles if it was square, 1/2 mile x 1/2 mile x 1/2 mile x 1/2 mile.
It could also be 1 mile x 1/4 mile x 1 mile, x 1/4 mile. That would make a 2 1/2 mile perimeter.
Or some other shape.
One acre is 43,560 square feet.
If the acre is square, each side is the the square root of 43,560 which is 208.7'.
If the 40 acres are a square plat, the sides are 6.32 x 6.32 acres. A side of 6.32 acres is 1320 feet ( 6.32 x 208).
If each side is 1320', the total length of fencing is 1320' x 4 = 5280' = one mile.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 26, 2015, 02:21:13 PM
I think Idahuntr is correct.The perimeter of 40 acres is one mile of fence...160 acres = 2 miles of fence.
And I've found anything more than about 1/4 mile of fencing work in a day with my wife in tow = bad news. :chuckle:
That would be 2 miles if it was square, 1/2 mile x 1/2 mile x 1/2 mile x 1/2 mile.
It could also be 1 mile x 1/4 mile x 1 mile, x 1/4 mile. That would make a 2 1/2 mile perimeter.
Or some other shape.
One acre is 43,560 square feet.
If the acre is square, each side is the the square root of 43,560 which is 208.7'.
If the 40 acres are a square plat, the sides are 6.32 x 6.32 acres. A side of 6.32 acres is 1320 feet ( 6.32 x 208).
If each side is 1320', the total length of fencing is 1320' x 4 = 5280' = one mile.
Bob, imagine a square 1 mile by 1 mile. That is a section or 640 acres. Now you can divide it into quarters by making 4 squares each with the dimensions of1/2 mile x 1/2 mile which is idahohuntr's example or you could divide it into 4 rectangles 1 mile x 1/4 mile each, which is my example. 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4. 1 x 1/4 = 1/4. Both dimensions are a 1/4 section, but in my example the perimeter is 2 1/2 miles long or 25% longer than in idahohuntr's example.
Post by: idaho guy on February 26, 2015, 02:27:39 PM
So a completly different question... Possibly for BP... if you put up a high fence operation do you have to vacate animals from your property before you fence it? Is there a specific eviciton process for the states unwanted game?
Your not allowed to "Farm" deer or elk in wa.... so???
This might (or not) answer your queston, but a guy in Id put up a high fence(he is farming elk and bison maybe deer). He had to have all the native game (deer mostly) out of there and have an inspection. If there were any left inside the fence I was told it was a big deal as in large fine or something. I dont know how he got all the deer out but he did and they inspected it. Its a decent size area from the looks of it maybe a few hundred acres and some mountainous and heavily treed. Seems like it would have been easy for a few deer to hide.
Post by: Bob33 on February 26, 2015, 02:29:28 PM
"The perimeter of 40 acres is one mile of fence". If the property is square, that is a true statement.I think Idahuntr is correct.The perimeter of 40 acres is one mile of fence...160 acres = 2 miles of fence.
And I've found anything more than about 1/4 mile of fencing work in a day with my wife in tow = bad news. :chuckle:
That would be 2 miles if it was square, 1/2 mile x 1/2 mile x 1/2 mile x 1/2 mile.
It could also be 1 mile x 1/4 mile x 1 mile, x 1/4 mile. That would make a 2 1/2 mile perimeter.
Or some other shape.
One acre is 43,560 square feet.
If the acre is square, each side is the the square root of 43,560 which is 208.7'.
If the 40 acres are a square plat, the sides are 6.32 x 6.32 acres. A side of 6.32 acres is 1320 feet ( 6.32 x 208).
If each side is 1320', the total length of fencing is 1320' x 4 = 5280' = one mile.
Bob, imagine a square 1 mile by 1 mile. That is a section or 640 acres. Now you can divide it into quarters by making 4 squares each with the dimensions of1/2 mile x 1/2 mile which is idahohuntr's example or you could divide it into 4 rectangles 1 mile x 1/4 mile each, which is my example. 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4. 1 x 1/4 = 1/4. Both dimensions are a 1/4 acre, but in my example the perimeter is 2 1/2 miles long or 25% longer than in idahohuntr's example.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 26, 2015, 02:51:16 PM
"The perimeter of 40 acres is one mile of fence". If the property is square, that is a true statement.
This is true, but many times land is not divided up into squares, but into rectangles and sometimes in odd shapes.
What is funny is, 160 acres is 4 times as large as 40 acres but if you made 160 acres square or 1/2 mile x 1/2 mile square, the perimeter is not 4 times as long as 40 acres which would be 4 miles of fence, but it is only 2 times as long or 2 miles.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 26, 2015, 02:52:45 PM
Post by: Bob33 on February 26, 2015, 02:56:49 PM
My whole point was, depending on the shape of the property in question, there could be a lot more fencing needed than the guys were figuring.That's correct. A square plat requires the least amount of fencing. :tup:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 26, 2015, 03:08:12 PM
My whole point was, depending on the shape of the property in question, there could be a lot more fencing needed than the guys were figuring.That's correct. A square plat requires the least amount of fencing. :tup:
Actually, a round plot would, but I won't quibble over that. lol :tung:
That's why people get paid big bucks to figure out what dimensions to make product containers. Round containers use less materials saving on cost, but they don't stack as well and take up more space than rectangular containers. Somewhere there is a guy deciding what shaped container a new product will use to save the company money by comparing material costs vs shipping and storage costs. Then they have to figure out things like volume and weight of the product too.
I think I remember reading about somebody breeding square tomatoes because they would take up less space ad ship easier.
Post by: Bob33 on February 26, 2015, 03:19:59 PM
(4679' to be precise.)My whole point was, depending on the shape of the property in question, there could be a lot more fencing needed than the guys were figuring.That's correct. A square plat requires the least amount of fencing. :tup:
Actually, a round plot would, but I won't quibble over that. lol :tung:
Post by: idaho guy on February 26, 2015, 04:25:52 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 26, 2015, 04:32:47 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on February 26, 2015, 05:06:36 PM
Now it's about demonizing the "welfare rancher", unfortunately right or wrong people know what they know and no amount of truth or common sense is going to change their minds.Demonizing? :rolleyes:
Post by: Miles on February 26, 2015, 05:13:31 PM
Post by: Bob33 on February 26, 2015, 05:15:44 PM
i thought this was about wolves? :chuckle:…and logging, and grouse, and WDFW, and high fences, and new cars, and global warming, and Government grant funded scientists, and the recession of 2008, and metro buses, and supply and demand, and gas prices, and access to credit, and moon phases, and…
So what’s new? ;)
Post by: Miles on February 26, 2015, 05:16:39 PM
i thought this was about wolves? :chuckle:…and logging, and grouse, and WDFW, and high fences, and new cars, and global warming, and Government grant funded scientists, and the recession of 2008, and metro buses, and supply and demand, and gas prices, and access to credit, and moon phases, and…
So what’s new? ;)
The potatoes.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 26, 2015, 05:23:28 PM
Nothing. ALL socio-political and economic issues are directly impacted by wolves. :chuckle:i thought this was about wolves? :chuckle:…and logging, and grouse, and WDFW, and high fences, and new cars, and global warming, and Government grant funded scientists, and the recession of 2008, and metro buses, and supply and demand, and gas prices, and access to credit, and moon phases, and…
So what’s new? ;)
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on February 26, 2015, 05:42:18 PM
Post by: Bob33 on February 26, 2015, 05:51:42 PM
There - now this thread can continue on for another three years.
Post by: jasnt on February 26, 2015, 06:09:07 PM
Post by: M_ray on February 26, 2015, 10:42:18 PM
This reminds me of a Monte Python skit about swallows... This thread should rest in peace. It's clear that elk are not gone from Idaho.
There are Elk in Idaho? :o
Post by: bearpaw on February 28, 2015, 09:06:40 AM
grazing might well be a mute point, too much livestock losses to continue that practice for much longer. Unfortunately this also curtails PRIVATE land grazing, more livestock looses have occurred on private lands than public in WA. To me this is a loss of private property rights.So in keeping with the theme of this thread, are you projecting there will be no more open grazing in NE Wa soon because of wolves?
Ask Dave Dashiell if he'll run his sheep out on private Hancock land again, I almost bet Hancock drops their lease programs and just sprays instead.
They had the sheep out there to help with some invasive weed but with all the media attention I'll wager they resort to herbicides and forgo grazing.
As yet I don't know any ranchers giving up their leases.
I guess the ball is in WDFW's court and if you're asking me to predict if they'll manage wolves to a level that grazing can happen with minimal conflict...I'm dubious.
I'll wager that someone with some money would be willing to scoop up those leases and throw cows on them. There is a point where, if the operation is big enough, a lot of loss can be absorbed and money still made. For now at least I'm guessing this is more of a small herd problem??? :dunno:
Horn hunters are still finding Dashiel's dead sheep. It's really disgusting to hear someone say it's a small herd problem, it shouldn't matter how small your herd is, you should be able to graze on private land.
Stupid people are the real problem! :twocents:
McIrvins are the largest cattle ranchers in NE WA. Wolves cost them over $100,000 in a single summer, they cannot withstand that every year. Their neighbor is not as large but he still depends on his cattle for an income and what I'm hearing is if he has another year with big losses to wolves he will have to give up. He will have been run out of business by wolves attacking his cattle on his own land.
Stupid people are the real problem! :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on February 28, 2015, 09:14:22 AM
This reminds me of a Monte Python skit about swallows... This thread should rest in peace. It's clear that elk are not gone from Idaho.
True.... Thanks to a change in wolf management, multiple wolf tags, and up to year round wolf seasons in some areas, Idaho is now beginning to rebound in some of the wolf impacted areas! No doubt the title was overstated and likely impossible, but if serious wolf management not been allowed after this topic was started, nobody knows how many more herds would have been impacted. :twocents:
Post by: wolfbait on February 28, 2015, 09:52:00 AM
:yeah:QuoteSo.... help me get this straight. Cattle eating the deer/elk browse is good for deer and elk because it stimulates the browse?? You guys are kidding right?
:yeah:
It's amazing to me that anybody can say that grazing benefits wildlife habitat with a straight face. Why do you think bighorn sheep numbers are only a very small fraction of what they were in the past? That's just one example. For those who say grazing benefits wildlife habitat, which college did you go to and what did you study?
On multiple use public rangeland - grazing has its place among the competing uses for those public resources. Managed properly, the negative impacts of grazing on the public's fish and wildlife can be minimized. For someone to say grazing is good for wildlife is just another egregious example of how some will distort the truth and try to pull the wool over sportsmens eyes. Bighorn sheep interactions with domestic sheep are a classic example of a few benefiting at the demise of an extraordinary public resource.
Grazing as a Habitat Management Tool
http://www.landsoftexasmagazine.com/articles/grazing-as-a-habitat-management-tool (http://www.landsoftexasmagazine.com/articles/grazing-as-a-habitat-management-tool)
USDA partnership improving sage-grouse habitat, grazing lands
"American ranchers are working with us to help sage-grouse because they know they are helping an at-risk bird while also improving the food available for their livestock," Bonnie said. "As the saying goes, 'What's good for the bird is good for the herd." http://beefproducer.com/story-usda-partnership-improving-sage-grouse-habitat-grazing-lands-10-123952 (http://beefproducer.com/story-usda-partnership-improving-sage-grouse-habitat-grazing-lands-10-123952)
Cattle Can Improve Sagebrush Habitat With a Little Training
http://onpasture.com/2015/01/26/cattle-can-improve-sagebrush-habitat-with-a-little-training/#sthash.51sqmpCb.dpuf (http://onpasture.com/2015/01/26/cattle-can-improve-sagebrush-habitat-with-a-little-training/#sthash.51sqmpCb.dpuf)
Fall Grazing With Sheep To Improve Sage-Grouse Habitat
https://extension.usu.edu/rangelands/htm/utah-projects/jmsspw/improving-sagegrouse-habitat/ (https://extension.usu.edu/rangelands/htm/utah-projects/jmsspw/improving-sagegrouse-habitat/)
Conservation Grazing for Land Stewardship
http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/86641.html (http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/86641.html)
Planned Grazing 8 - Wildlife in the Mix
http://www.thecattlemanmagazine.com/archives/2010/08/planned_grazing_8.html (http://www.thecattlemanmagazine.com/archives/2010/08/planned_grazing_8.html)
CATTLE MANAGEMENT TO ENHANCE WILDLIFE HABITAT IN SOUTH TEXAS
http://krirm.tamuk.edu/text/Resources/CattleManagement_OrtegaandBryant.pdf (http://krirm.tamuk.edu/text/Resources/CattleManagement_OrtegaandBryant.pdf)
Using Cows to Improve Wildlife Habitat and Increase Pronghorn
http://circleranchtx.com/cows-and-pronghorn/ (http://circleranchtx.com/cows-and-pronghorn/)
Improving Quality of Winter Forage for Elk by cattle Grazing
http://www.gardnerfiles.com/23-i%20%20%20Improving%20Winter%20Forage%20by%20Grazing%20Cattle.pdf (http://www.gardnerfiles.com/23-i%20%20%20Improving%20Winter%20Forage%20by%20Grazing%20Cattle.pdf)
Improving Elk Habitat Characteristics with Livestock Grazing
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/eoarc/sites/default/files/publication/404.pdf (http://oregonstate.edu/dept/eoarc/sites/default/files/publication/404.pdf)
Elk and Cattle Grazing Can Be Complementary
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2111/RANGELANDS-D-12-00068.1 (http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2111/RANGELANDS-D-12-00068.1)
Some of us learned that grazing is beneficial to ungulates and other wildlife. :tup:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on February 28, 2015, 04:38:27 PM
This thread still reminds me of a monte python skit.... The one where the knight (wolfbait in this case) is guarding the bridge! ;)
Post all the links and evidence you want about how good cows CAN be for habitat. WHEN PASTURED PROPERLY they can provide some benefits. That is virtually never the case. Public grazing costs the taxpayers and stakeholders millions of dollars every year in WA state. Because its not done the way all the links and data you provide call for.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 28, 2015, 10:08:38 PM
Post by: wolfbait on February 28, 2015, 10:20:40 PM
http://www.cof.orst.edu/hart/hartimages.html (http://www.cof.orst.edu/hart/hartimages.html)
This thread still reminds me of a monte python skit.... The one where the knight (wolfbait in this case) is guarding the bridge! ;)
Post all the links and evidence you want about how good cows CAN be for habitat. WHEN PASTURED PROPERLY they can provide some benefits. That is virtually never the case. Public grazing costs the taxpayers and stakeholders millions of dollars every year in WA state. Because its not done the way all the links and data you provide call for.
What ever you say Wacoyote, I'm sure you know it all.
You seem concerned with taxpayer money, I wonder if you have any idea how much the wolves will cost the taxpayers of WA by the time WA is allowed to manage wolves? If that ever happens.
Post by: bearpaw on February 28, 2015, 10:36:25 PM
So a completly different question... Possibly for BP... if you put up a high fence operation do you have to vacate animals from your property before you fence it? Is there a specific eviciton process for the states unwanted game?
Your not allowed to "Farm" deer or elk in wa.... so???
This might (or not) answer your queston, but a guy in Id put up a high fence(he is farming elk and bison maybe deer). He had to have all the native game (deer mostly) out of there and have an inspection. If there were any left inside the fence I was told it was a big deal as in large fine or something. I dont know how he got all the deer out but he did and they inspected it. Its a decent size area from the looks of it maybe a few hundred acres and some mountainous and heavily treed. Seems like it would have been easy for a few deer to hide.
:yeah: That is the law in Idaho.
In Washington you can't game farm deer or elk but you can high fence your property and hunt the wild deer and elk within during regular seasons if you are a licensed hunter.
Post by: mountainman on February 28, 2015, 10:46:37 PM
Topics like the wolf issue, or the many other topics found on sites like this, are often led astray by internet jockeys posting" I read this" or" I heard this somewhere"..I choose to believe what my own eyes see, and growing up in the mountains during a time with no wolves, managed logging, controlled burning, open range grazing, it was country FULL of some of the best hunting, game numbers, trophy animals, and prime habitat. Wolfbait and I both remember cattle in the hills, and some of the biggest mulies came from the" Driveway" where sheep were driven throughout the summer months. The" habitat" now is only a remnant of what it was. So is it wildlife. Sad...
Post by: idaho guy on March 01, 2015, 11:22:01 AM
Don't know about "reports" and" studies"..most times it just a bunch of jibberish used to justify someone's paycheck. And answers are normally drug out as long as possible so as to keep those paychecks coming as long as possible..by that time, the damage sometimes cannot be undone, where in lies the irony of this whole topic...
Topics like the wolf issue, or the many other topics found on sites like this, are often led astray by internet jockeys posting" I read this" or" I heard this somewhere"..I choose to believe what my own eyes see, and growing up in the mountains during a time with no wolves, managed logging, controlled burning, open range grazing, it was country FULL of some of the best hunting, game numbers, trophy animals, and prime habitat. Wolfbait and I both remember cattle in the hills, and some of the biggest mulies came from the" Driveway" where sheep were driven throughout the summer months. The" habitat" now is only a remnant of what it was. So is it wildlife. Sad...
[/quo
:yeah:well said I agree 100 percent
Post by: KFhunter on March 01, 2015, 04:18:39 PM
grazing might well be a mute point, too much livestock losses to continue that practice for much longer. Unfortunately this also curtails PRIVATE land grazing, more livestock looses have occurred on private lands than public in WA. To me this is a loss of private property rights.So in keeping with the theme of this thread, are you projecting there will be no more open grazing in NE Wa soon because of wolves?
Ask Dave Dashiell if he'll run his sheep out on private Hancock land again, I almost bet Hancock drops their lease programs and just sprays instead.
They had the sheep out there to help with some invasive weed but with all the media attention I'll wager they resort to herbicides and forgo grazing.
As yet I don't know any ranchers giving up their leases.
I guess the ball is in WDFW's court and if you're asking me to predict if they'll manage wolves to a level that grazing can happen with minimal conflict...I'm dubious.
I'll wager that someone with some money would be willing to scoop up those leases and throw cows on them. There is a point where, if the operation is big enough, a lot of loss can be absorbed and money still made. For now at least I'm guessing this is more of a small herd problem??? :dunno:
Horn hunters are still finding Dashiel's dead sheep. It's really disgusting to hear someone say it's a small herd problem, it shouldn't matter how small your herd is, you should be able to graze on private land.
Stupid people are the real problem! :twocents:
McIrvins are the largest cattle ranchers in NE WA. Wolves cost them over $100,000 in a single summer, they cannot withstand that every year. Their neighbor is not as large but he still depends on his cattle for an income and what I'm hearing is if he has another year with big losses to wolves he will have to give up. He will have been run out of business by wolves attacking his cattle on his own land.
Stupid people are the real problem! :twocents:
:yeah: We can debate public lands grazing with the anti's that's one thing, but most the wolf attacks are happening on private ground.
It's unacceptable to not be able to utilize a person's own private lands to raise livestock.
Post by: bobcat on March 01, 2015, 05:00:24 PM
Even if wolves were taken off the state's endangered species list, and if there was an open hunting season on wolves, would that really change anything?
Would just having a hunting season all of a sudden stop all livestock loss to wolves? I very much doubt it.
Post by: KFhunter on March 01, 2015, 05:28:56 PM
I point to Idaho for an example, without action by both the state and landowners (SSS too) the wolf problem would be far worse. They were hit by wolves harder than WA and they've been able to keep functioning both in running livestock and keeping some decent Elk hunts going.
They've paved the way, all we need to do is learn from their example.
Post by: Special T on March 01, 2015, 05:41:23 PM
Post by: KFhunter on March 01, 2015, 06:33:12 PM
Not gona happen KFHunter... Even tho I wish it would... They say Fences make good neighbors so Im Guessing that they will make better neighbors in Wa than Id. :twocents:
I know I'm trying to push rope uphill. There's just too big of a disconnect from W to E WA.
Post by: jasnt on March 02, 2015, 06:19:56 AM
its like a whole different country over there :chuckle: the nerve we have for wanting to control predator numbers :bash: we're supposed to just shut up and deal with it :bash:Not gona happen KFHunter... Even tho I wish it would... They say Fences make good neighbors so Im Guessing that they will make better neighbors in Wa than Id. :twocents:
I know I'm trying to push rope uphill. There's just too big of a disconnect from W to E WA.
Post by: idaho guy on March 04, 2015, 05:00:42 AM
I agree it's unfortunate, if someone feels they can no longer afford to raise livestock on their land because of wolves. But I'm not sure how it can be said that it's "unacceptable."
Even if wolves were taken off the state's endangered species list, and if there was an open hunting season on wolves, would that really change anything?
Would just having a hunting season all of a sudden stop all livestock loss to wolves? I very much doubt it.
[/quot
Kf is right at the very least a hunting season would put the fear of man into wolves and that alone would make them less bold. Give the rancher a chance to shoot on sight a wolf wether it's attacking something or not and livestock losses go way down not eliminated but greatly decreased. Add hunters doing their part and all of a sudden livestock losses are manageable again if your livelihood was taken away from your family for no logical reason I am pretty sure you would find that unacceptable not just unfortunate
Post by: bobcat on March 04, 2015, 06:33:23 AM
Will they even know they're being hunted? And how long would the wolf hunting season be if we did have one? Maybe a couple months?
Bears, cougars, and coyotes are all hunted and they still cause problems. Why would wolves be any different?
Post by: mfswallace on March 04, 2015, 09:46:22 AM
I guess I just don't feel that having a hunting season on wolves would make all that much difference in changing anything. I mean, they still have to eat.
Will they even know they're being hunted? And how long would the wolf hunting season be if we did have one? Maybe a couple months?
Bears, cougars, and coyotes are all hunted and they still cause problems. Why would wolves be any different?
Yes they are all hunted but because of that they are double quick to get the yell out of dodge if humans are in the vicinity. So some change is better than throwing your hands up and doing nothing to effect any change :twocents:
Post by: wolfbait on March 04, 2015, 02:27:27 PM
:tup:I guess I just don't feel that having a hunting season on wolves would make all that much difference in changing anything. I mean, they still have to eat.
Will they even know they're being hunted? And how long would the wolf hunting season be if we did have one? Maybe a couple months?
Bears, cougars, and coyotes are all hunted and they still cause problems. Why would wolves be any different?
Yes they are all hunted but because of that they are double quick to get the yell out of dodge if humans are in the vicinity. So some change is better than throwing your hands up and doing nothing to effect any change :twocents:
Wolves should be hunted the same as coyotes.
The Rest of the Story
70% Human Kill Needed to Reduce Wolf Population
Two months after the 2008-2012 F&G Wolf plan was adopted by the Commission, wolf preservationists petitioned Montana Judge Donald Molloy to halt the 2008 wolf hunt before it began FWS wolf expert Dr. David Mech responded in a written statement to the court: “...28- 50% of a wolf population must be killed by humans per year (on top of natural mortality) to even hold a wolf population stationery.”(emphasis added)
Mech’s 22-page “Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury” continued: “Indeed, the agencies outside the NRM (Northern Rocky Mountains) which are seeking to reduce wolf populations try to kill 70% per year (Fuller et al. 2003). Such extreme taking of the kind necessary to effectively reduce wolf populations is done via concerted and expensive government agency (Alaska, Y ukon Territories for example) programs using helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. Normal regulated public harvest such as is contemplated in the NRM is usually unable to reduce wolf populations (Mech 2001).”
F&G Knew <20% Harvest Would Not Reduce Wolves
Idaho biologists were aware that five scientists conducting a six year study of sport hunting and trapping of wolves in Alaska’s Brooks Range recorded removal of only ~29% of the wolves each year in addition to all other causes of death. They also knew that the liberal hunting and trapping seasons with multiple bag limits did not even reduce the rate of wolf population increase.
In his testimony to the Court, Mech explained: “Every year, most wolf populations almost double in the spring through the birth of pups [Mech 1970]. For example in May 2008, there will not be 1,500 wolves, but 3,000! (Wolf population estimates are usually made in winter when animals are at their nadir [lowest number]. This approach serves to provide conservative estimates and further insure that management remains conservative).”
Dr. Kay: “Stop Spreading Misinformation”
In that article in the August 1993 issue of Petersen’s Hunting, Dr. Kay urged sportsmen, livestock operators and other concerned citizens to send their comments on the 1993 Wolf Environmental Impact Statement to FWS with copies to their Congressman and Senators. He emphasized that citizens should demand that the government stop spreading misinformation and begin telling the public the true impact of wolf recovery.
Yet for the next 15 years, federal, state and non- governmental wolf advocates continued to misrepresent the inevitable impact of wolves on our economy and our way of life and insist that wolf reintroduction was necessary to restore “healthy” ecosystems throughout the West. Only in the past few months have Idaho and Montana begun to admit that wolves are decimating some elk and deer herds and costing local economies millions of dollars every year in lost revenue.
http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2035%20July-Nov%202009.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2035%20July-Nov%202009.pdf)
Post by: idaho guy on March 05, 2015, 05:47:04 AM
I guess I just don't feel that having a hunting season on wolves would make all that much difference in changing anything. I mean, they still have to eat.
Will they even know they're being hunted? And how long would the wolf hunting season be if we did have one? Maybe a couple months?
Bears, cougars, and coyotes are all hunted and they still cause problems. Why would wolves be any different?
[/quote.
Fortunately bobcat we don't have to speculate on this. When the Feds stopped our first wolf hunt they were really bold . Wolves ate somebody's dog in their backyard out by wolf lodge. bow hunting for elk we spread apart to do some calling and a wolf came running in and my partner shot it. 2 days later a wolf chased a miulie right by us.a rancher freind who lives close to town had many sheep killed. since we have had a few seasons wolves do not act like this anymore. Unfortunately for hunting them they won't come running into any call anymore and definitely know they are being hunted, my rancher freind has had no more livestock losses. 3 wolves were killed by his place so that helps.And I don't hear anymore stories about wolves eating someone's pet in the backyard. there is even less hounds men losing dogs to wolves now which is great because I run dogs and most of the time you are running around wolves here wether you know it or not. so there are the facts based on what I have seen with our wolf season it does work. In fact the only wolf that acted bold and stupid was the one shot recently on rathdrum mt and I was wondering if he just came back over from Washington!
Post by: AspenBud on March 05, 2015, 06:56:14 AM
In places where dogs can be used on bear and cougar, that's where real lessons are taught. You hear dogs as a cat or a bear, you run, and since hound hunters often run their dogs during and out of season in a lot of places you get a lot of animals that aren't necessarily killed but get the hell scared out of them. They make the connection.
Post by: bobcat on March 05, 2015, 07:06:58 AM
Post by: AspenBud on March 05, 2015, 07:27:27 AM
Aren't the less weary wolves already being shot? Just because it's not legal doesn't mean it's not happening.
My guess is some holes have been dug and filled on some farms and ranches, yes. I'm convinced WDFW knows that will happen given the political mindset of eastern WA which is why they have such a high bar for delisting. One wolf is one too many for some so anything short of 0 means wolves will get shot. They are mitigating losses that they know will happen and never be reported. Stupid people run after wolves in a pickup and shoot them, stupid people try to send wolf pelts to Canada. Smarter ones keep a lower profile and a shovel handy. The state knows that I'm sure.
Post by: mfswallace on March 05, 2015, 07:40:50 AM
Aren't the less weary wolves already being shot? Just because it's not legal doesn't mean it's not happening.
My guess is some holes have been dug and filled on some farms and ranches, yes. I'm convinced WDFW knows that will happen given the political mindset of eastern WA which is why they have such a high bar for delisting. One wolf is one too many for some so anything short of 0 means wolves will get shot. They are mitigating losses that they know will happen and never be reported.
Stupid people run after wolves in a pickup and shoot them, stupid people try to send wolf pelts to Canada. Smarter ones keep a lower profile and a shovel handy. The state knows that I'm sure.
U must have meant Western Washington or rather Seattleites :bash:
what a ridiculously unscientific methodology :drool:
I think those you are assuming SSS are just trying to keep family safe and way of life intact
Post by: idahohuntr on March 05, 2015, 07:42:42 AM
Lets not leave out the really, really stupid people who put out poison.Aren't the less weary wolves already being shot? Just because it's not legal doesn't mean it's not happening.
Stupid people run after wolves in a pickup and shoot them, stupid people try to send wolf pelts to Canada.
Post by: AspenBud on March 05, 2015, 08:40:38 AM
U must have meant Western Washington :bash:
I think those you are assuming SSS are just trying to keep family safe and way of life intact :twocents:
You bet. If the political poles were geographically different I'm betting you would see a different wolf plan. You'd also still have a problem with them.
Smarter people who see themselves as trying to keep family safe and life intact aren't reporting wolves they see to WDFW and they aren't making what they do visible to the world. They do what they think they should, dig a hole, and move on with life. It is no more unique than people who shoot hawks to protect chickens, shoot herons to protect $1,000 koi in a pond, whack sharks they catch on the head when fishing in the Sound, etc etc etc. Those things happen, the state knows it, and they make wildlife decisions with that in the calculus.
Post by: mfswallace on March 05, 2015, 08:55:43 AM
U must have meant Western Washington :bash:
I think those you are assuming SSS are just trying to keep family safe and way of life intact :twocents:
You bet. If the political poles were geographically different I'm betting you would see a different wolf plan. You'd also still have a problem with them.
Smarter people who see themselves as trying to keep family safe and life intact aren't reporting wolves they see to WDFW and they aren't making what they do visible to the world. They do what they think they should, dig a hole, and move on with life. It is no more unique than people who shoot hawks to protect chickens, shoot herons to protect $1,000 koi in a pond, whack sharks they catch on the head when fishing in the Sound, etc etc etc. Those things happen, the state knows it, and they make wildlife decisions with that in the calculus.
I don't have a problem with wolves. I have a problem with WDFW wolf plan and anti's who won't let real control happen on all predators!! Minimum numbers are being used to continue protection of a predator that obviously doesn't need it because there are "possibly up to 200 wolves in Washington" already. This apex predator needs to be managed now not in another 6-7 yrs :twocents:
Post by: wolfbait on March 05, 2015, 09:15:32 AM
Lets not leave out the really, really stupid people who put out poison.Aren't the less weary wolves already being shot? Just because it's not legal doesn't mean it's not happening.
Stupid people run after wolves in a pickup and shoot them, stupid people try to send wolf pelts to Canada.
I would have to agree with you there I-h, poison kills too many other critters and attracts unwanted attention, the wolf recipes of this day in age are more sophisticated at targeting wolves only. :tup:
Post by: AspenBud on March 05, 2015, 10:43:41 AM
U must have meant Western Washington :bash:
I think those you are assuming SSS are just trying to keep family safe and way of life intact :twocents:
You bet. If the political poles were geographically different I'm betting you would see a different wolf plan. You'd also still have a problem with them.
Smarter people who see themselves as trying to keep family safe and life intact aren't reporting wolves they see to WDFW and they aren't making what they do visible to the world. They do what they think they should, dig a hole, and move on with life. It is no more unique than people who shoot hawks to protect chickens, shoot herons to protect $1,000 koi in a pond, whack sharks they catch on the head when fishing in the Sound, etc etc etc. Those things happen, the state knows it, and they make wildlife decisions with that in the calculus.
I don't have a problem with wolves. I have a problem with WDFW wolf plan and anti's who won't let real control happen on all predators!! Minimum numbers are being used to continue protection of a predator that obviously doesn't need it because there are "possibly up to 200 wolves in Washington" already. This apex predator needs to be managed now not in another 6-7 yrs :twocents:
The problem is you have a whole generation of people who have grown up with no real predators. Many west side folks, and even folks in places like Spokane, have never seen a bear in the wild let alone a cougar. Coyotes are a big deal to them. They don't understand, but want a say.
The state should have set a goal based on numbers, not BP's per region.
Post by: mfswallace on March 05, 2015, 12:13:46 PM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,171393.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,171393.0.html)
Post by: idaho guy on March 05, 2015, 12:47:18 PM
Lets not leave out the really, really stupid people who put out poison.Aren't the less weary wolves already being shot? Just because it's not legal doesn't mean it's not happening.
Stupid people run after wolves in a pickup and shoot them, stupid people try to send wolf pelts to Canada.
I would have to agree with you there I-h, poison kills too many other critters and attracts unwanted attention, the wolf recipes of this day in age are more sophisticated at targeting wolves only. :tup:
:yeah:This may be a first :chuckle: but I also agree with Idaho hunter. Way to many incidental kills. Guys are doing it in Idaho and it really sucks. We have enough tools to do it the right way and target wolves only. I have a freind who had two hunting dogs die and we think it was poison. Really stupid,stupid,stupid people!
Post by: Curly on March 05, 2015, 01:33:13 PM
Post by: AspenBud on March 05, 2015, 02:22:27 PM
Here's a simple question I've been hesitant to ask: Is the parvo vaccine 100% effective for our beloved canines that are up on their shots? :dunno:
Assuming the dog gets the 2-3 shot course that goes with it along with any boosters down the road they should be good to go. That said nothing is 100%, there is always an edge case.
But honestly, wolves have a lot more to worry about than dogs. Dog parks, sporting dog events, anywhere pet dogs congregate in numbers there is a high risk of contracting it in unvaccinated canines. It's why people are advised not to take puppies to such places until they've had all their vaccines.