Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 27, 2011, 10:12:17 PM
Montana total deer harvest
2001 ----- 111,991 total deer (19,801 taken by non res hunters)
2008 ----- 124,140 total deer (20,507 taken by non res hunters)
Montana total Elk Harvest
1999 ----- 18,209 total elk (Not divided into res & non res)
2008 ----- 23,916 total elk (3846 taken by NR hunters)
So Montana, (in spite of a growing human population and associated loss of hunting areas, and in spite of an ever expanding wolf population), actually had a higher harvest total of both deer and elk than it had when wolves were still getting established. Hard to believe isn't it?
Idaho total Deer Harvest
2000 ----- 42,950
2010 ----- 35,764
Idaho total Elk Harvest
2000 ----- 16,601
2010 ----- 16,766
So in Idaho, elk has remained fairly constant overall, and the deer harvest has dropped a bit, but is still well withing historic ranges pre wolf. And anyone paying attention knows the deer in the Panhandle got knocked down pretty hard by the winters of 2007-08 and 2008-09 the same as in northeast Washington. My friends in that area tell me that deer are coming back now.
So let 'er rip and try to explain to me how hunting really isn't as good as it used to be and how it's all because of the wolves. Because the fact is, the people who are pushing the BIG WOLF SCARE are people who have ulterior motives that include money, and power and influence. If you're going to give your money and time and support to organizations, at least have the facts and don't do it out of fear.
Post by: JoeE on December 27, 2011, 10:35:04 PM
Post by: high country on December 27, 2011, 10:40:30 PM
Post by: frostman on December 27, 2011, 10:55:17 PM
The management strategy employed by the state managers in Idaho may have something to do with the stable harvest numbers.
Montana has a similar management strategy.
Thing is, they are not near the quota. Without proper management, these killing machines WOULD make Idaho and Montana like Yellowstone.
Check out the status of the Northern Yellowstone herd. They are not allowed to manage wolves there.
Good on Mt & Id for proper management of a species not so endangered, anymore.
Post by: wraithen on December 27, 2011, 11:01:14 PM
Post by: Duffer on December 27, 2011, 11:06:22 PM
In Idaho, statewide, in 1994, 28000 elk were harvested.
In Idaho, statewide, in 2008, 15994 elk were harvested.
Hmmmm............. What does this mean? :dunno:
It means that I picked numbers that match my beliefs. Simple. :yeah:
(more to come)
Post by: Duffer on December 27, 2011, 11:14:16 PM
2002, 16361 harvested, 19.5% hunter success rate
2003, 18442 harvested, 21.8% hunter success
2004, 19251 harvested, 22.5% hunter success
2005, 20619 harvested, 23.7% hunter success
2006, 19174 harvested, 22.3% hunter success
2007, 18901 harvested, 19.2% hunter success
2008, 15994 harvested, 16.5% hunter success
2009, 15788 harvested, 20.0% hunter success
(just a bit more)
Post by: KillBilly on December 27, 2011, 11:16:36 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 27, 2011, 11:17:36 PM
Guys, the easiest thing to do is put Sitka_wolftail on ignore and you won't see his fur lined posts.
Oh, but what fun would that be? :chuckle:
Post by: wraithen on December 27, 2011, 11:20:50 PM
Post by: KillBilly on December 27, 2011, 11:22:33 PM
Post by: Duffer on December 27, 2011, 11:29:21 PM
2002 number of hunters 83712
2003 number of hunters 84782
2004 number of hunters 85686
2005 number of hunters 86829
2006 number of hunters 85992
2007 number of hunters 98266
2008 number of hunters 96763
2009 number of hunters 78841
Interesting causation, if not correlation.
after a few years, around mid-decade, of high and rising success rates, there is a HUGE surge in hunters; '07 & '08. Then success rate plummets and hunters respond as expected and you see a huge drop in 2009.
Like most of us, I can only depend on the local experts' reports and studies concerning this topic.
Concerning Idaho elk anyway, it's folks with 'boots on the ground' who are finding thru scientific method that (given the desire to increase elk population in Idaho) weather and predation are the two biggest impediments to reaching their goal.
.......which one can they attempt to control?
Post by: Bonedar208 on December 27, 2011, 11:34:51 PM
Post by: wraithen on December 27, 2011, 11:38:52 PM
Let's also not forget who started this financial tactic... ALF, ELF, HSUS, DoW, Etc. Bout time we made it not so cheap for them to shove their lifestyle and mentality down the throats of the young and feeble minded populace that thinks dogs being mistreated is sad instead of sick.
Oh, and what exactly to harvest numbers represent here? We all know they don't actually show show how many animals are somewhere. It just shows how many are gone from that area from licensed hunters. That's like using their wolf harvest reports to show that the wolves are soooo numerous just a couple years after they were extinct.
And I'm fairly certain that seeing a wolf and being able to safely legally shoot one are two different topics. I've been hunting coyotes for months... they must be extinct!
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 27, 2011, 11:47:30 PM
As for animals being harvested in different areas..... that's the way it's always been. If I hunted the same area of Washington I did 25 years ago, I wouldn't even see a deer let alone harvest one. As habitat changes, you have to change how and where you hunt. Heck, the Panhandle of Idaho hardly had an elk in the days of Lewis and Clark. It took some huge forest fires to create the habitat they needed. Logging mimics fires now days. Hunt that heavy reprod, and you don't have much of a chance. Find the areas with good light to the forest floor and you;re in business.
My only reason for this post is to open some minds. A lot of closed ones with locks on tight. It's not as bad as you have been told.
Post by: JJB11B on December 27, 2011, 11:52:46 PM
Post by: JJB11B on December 27, 2011, 11:53:31 PM
Post by: wraithen on December 28, 2011, 12:00:58 AM
Post by: bearpaw on December 28, 2011, 12:04:22 AM
No cherry picking going on guys. As I said, I took the first year on each game dept web site and I took the last. If there was a real problem it would show. Harvests go up and down naturally and they did so before the wolves. Habitat and severity of winter are the two main limitations of deer. Habitat and roads are the two biggest ones for elk.
As for animals being harvested in different areas..... that's the way it's always been. If I hunted the same area of Washington I did 25 years ago, I wouldn't even see a deer let alone harvest one. As habitat changes, you have to change how and where you hunt. Heck, the Panhandle of Idaho hardly had an elk in the days of Lewis and Clark. It took some huge forest fires to create the habitat they needed. Logging mimics fires now days. Hunt that heavy reprod, and you don't have much of a chance. Find the areas with good light to the forest floor and you;re in business.
My only reason for this post is to open some minds. A lot of closed ones with locks on tight. It's not as bad as you have been told.
Sitka you are so full of it: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Please expalin IDFG and MFWP own counts in the units affected by wolves like the Bitterroot, Lolo, Northern Yellowstone, Payette, etc?
No effect by wolves eh! :chuckle:
Post by: JJB11B on December 28, 2011, 12:04:25 AM
Post by: wraithen on December 28, 2011, 12:07:05 AM
Post by: NWBREW on December 28, 2011, 12:07:39 AM
Eastern Washington Residents only.
Now why would you say that? :dunno:
Sitka......have you looked into what has happened to the Lolo valley elk populations? That decline is because of the wolf. What about the yellowstone herd or the Bitteroot herd? Look at those as well. Compare the elk population now to what it was at the time of wolf introduction to Yellowstone. Now look at the small businesses that have suffered or closed due to the lack of game and hunters. There is more to it then what you may think. just my :twocents:
Post by: JJB11B on December 28, 2011, 12:07:49 AM
Post by: bearpaw on December 28, 2011, 12:08:15 AM
One rancher missing two dozen cattle in a GMU with wolves in northeast WA. :chuckle:
Same rancher had 200 cow calf pairs in another nearby GMU with no wolf activity and is only missing one calf there. :chuckle:
Please explain....
Post by: JJB11B on December 28, 2011, 12:08:29 AM
Post by: NWBREW on December 28, 2011, 12:09:26 AM
because all the tree insemenators live on the west side
But not all that live over here are what you say.
Post by: JJB11B on December 28, 2011, 12:11:42 AM
Crap! They have coyotes too! :bash: Next you're gonna tell me there's fricken bears and cougars too!Yeah we saw some this year 2 different times (I was only there for one of the sightings) They were well over 120 lb animals too and their tracks were huge too
Post by: bearpaw on December 28, 2011, 12:12:19 AM
The problem is that this does no good, wolves will have to be controlled by other means. Idaho is learning that the hard way, which expalins why they are going to start arial gunning again.
Sitka-blacktail you may fool some of the people some of the time, you cannot fool all the people all the time.... and it's obvious you aren't fooling many on this forum. Are you on the Defenders of Wildlife payroll.... or the WDFW payroll.... :chuckle:
Post by: JJB11B on December 28, 2011, 12:12:30 AM
Post by: NWBREW on December 28, 2011, 12:15:06 AM
so how about only people who have purchased hunting licenses in the last 15 years get to vote?
There ya go. ;)
Post by: wraithen on December 28, 2011, 12:16:33 AM
Post by: NWBREW on December 28, 2011, 12:18:35 AM
Anti's been buying licenses for a while now, that won't change much. I think the state should split. I'm stuck on the wetside but I can always dream about that paradise people refer to when they talk about the great "East Washington."
Buy some land over there. That's what i did 20 years ago. I WILL retire over there. :chuckle:
Post by: wraithen on December 28, 2011, 12:21:02 AM
Post by: bearpaw on December 28, 2011, 01:18:27 AM
Post by: huntnnw on December 28, 2011, 06:01:59 AM
Break your study down to specific gmu's. You will see that there is a shift in harvest locations. I spoke to guys in the Joe that have killed elk for decades from the same camps and now they see few to none, yet right in cda there were gobs of elk. I know that Idaho as a state has lost a ton of money due to predation and they would not be so activly seeking ways to reduce the wolf population were it not harming the herd.
:yeah:
Post by: huntnnw on December 28, 2011, 06:12:17 AM
Post by: ICEMAN on December 28, 2011, 06:17:03 AM
So in Idaho, elk has remained fairly constant overall, and the deer harvest has dropped a bit, but is still well withing historic ranges pre wolf. And anyone paying attention knows the deer in the Panhandle got knocked down pretty hard by the winters of 2007-08 and 2008-09 the same as in northeast Washington. My friends in that area tell me that deer are coming back now.
So let 'er rip and try to explain to me how hunting really isn't as good as it used to be and how it's all because of the wolves. Because the fact is, the people who are pushing the BIG WOLF SCARE are people who have ulterior motives that include money, and power and influence. If you're going to give your money and time and support to organizations, at least have the facts and don't do it out of fear.
Ok Sitka, so how many wolves are in these areas? What is the commonly accepted figure for how many big game animals they kill. How many animals do they actually eat to survive. What are they eating?
Post by: huntnnw on December 28, 2011, 06:21:09 AM
Post by: bearpaw on December 28, 2011, 06:44:30 AM
So in Idaho, elk has remained fairly constant overall, and the deer harvest has dropped a bit, but is still well withing historic ranges pre wolf. And anyone paying attention knows the deer in the Panhandle got knocked down pretty hard by the winters of 2007-08 and 2008-09 the same as in northeast Washington. My friends in that area tell me that deer are coming back now.
Not true, in 7 units, the most heavily wolf impacted units, elk are far below management level. In the lolo zone the herd of nearly 20,000 elk is nearly gone, now less than 2,000. Six additional zones are in steady decline. Nice try at hiding the wolf impacts.... :chuckle:
IDFG has increased seasons and harvest in other zones to try and reduce the impact of reduced harvest the wolf impacted zones, but that could likely result in a negative effect on the statewide herd.
Post by: high country on December 28, 2011, 06:54:38 AM
If alpha predators roaming was no big deal, why did we have to shoot all the lions, tigers and bears recently released from the zoo in Ohio?
Post by: boneaddict on December 28, 2011, 08:14:44 PM
Quote
Quite obvious this individual hasnt spent much time in the wolf woods
Those were my thoughts. I'd suggest logging off and stepping outside. Shouldn't have to spend much time out there to see what effect they are having.
Post by: wraithen on December 28, 2011, 08:26:23 PM
Post by: huntnnw on December 28, 2011, 10:23:03 PM
Post by: wraithen on December 29, 2011, 06:40:17 AM
Post by: seth30 on December 29, 2011, 06:52:40 AM
Post by: boneaddict on December 29, 2011, 07:15:04 AM
Post by: wraithen on December 29, 2011, 07:41:53 AM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on December 29, 2011, 08:49:28 AM
No cherry picking going on guys. As I said, I took the first year on each game dept web site and I took the last. If there was a real problem it would show. Harvests go up and down naturally and they did so before the wolves. Habitat and severity of winter are the two main limitations of deer. Habitat and roads are the two biggest ones for elk.
As for animals being harvested in different areas..... that's the way it's always been. If I hunted the same area of Washington I did 25 years ago, I wouldn't even see a deer let alone harvest one. As habitat changes, you have to change how and where you hunt. Heck, the Panhandle of Idaho hardly had an elk in the days of Lewis and Clark. It took some huge forest fires to create the habitat they needed. Logging mimics fires now days. Hunt that heavy reprod, and you don't have much of a chance. Find the areas with good light to the forest floor and you;re in business.
My only reason for this post is to open some minds. A lot of closed ones with locks on tight. It's not as bad as you have been told.
Dude have you hugged your tree this am? Why would you want to be PRO WOLF, nothing to be gained from thier reintoduction but mahiem! :bash: :bash:
Post by: Pathfinder101 on December 29, 2011, 09:44:46 AM
I don't want him banned. This guy is great info on what we will have to fight. I say let him stay so we can practice.
My thoughts exactly :yeah:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 29, 2011, 10:11:56 AM
Sitka you are so full of it: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Please expalin IDFG and MFWP own counts in the units affected by wolves like the Bitterroot, Lolo, Northern Yellowstone, Payette, etc?
No effect by wolves eh! :chuckle:
I never said no effect. I said it's not as bad as you've been told. There are a lot more issues as far as survival goes that affect deer and elk populations. The biggest is habitat. Besides all the outside influences that people have on habitat, an unchecked herd of elk or deer can be their own worst enemy. They can literally eat themselves out of house and home and do so much damage that it takes years for recovery. Go back in history pre wolf introduction and you will see harvest levels rise and fall dramatically in some cases. It's the classic feast or famine scenario in wildlife. Good management can level things out a bit and get rid of the high and low curves and make things more consistent. But there are those who believe you can redline the highs and prevent the lows from happening. That won't happen. Eventually the highs take too much toll on the habitat and everything falls apart. Then the recoveries take longer. Wolves and other predators can actually help prevent some of that. A healthy herd that is trimmed naturally tends to throw more twins. Females in stressed herds that have maxed out their habitat tend to have singles. Take out too many males through hunting and you get females that don't get bred on top of it and it's a double whammy to the herd. So if you have habitat issues in a certain area, it's crazy to think you can keep hunting the males hard taking the same amount of animals year after year and protect the females and somehow the herd will bounce back. You end up with a bunch of old cows and few males to breed them. So it's better to disperse the hunting to other areas where the habitat is better. Instead of saying "I've always killed my animal in unit xxx and I should be able to forever", hunters should be saying "Where can I hunt that will have the least impact while the animals in Unit xxx recover". And."what can I do to help unit xxx recover"? Maybe support road closures, promote sound logging practices, maybe temporarily reduce predator numbers, maybe reduce the number of bulls taken in that unit, etc. , but when the habitat comes back, numbers will increase. It's happened time and again and there's no two ways about it.
If you think insulting people who disagree with you is gonna change that fact, you're living in a dream world.
As to the Lolo zone, here's some reading for you. Go down to page 22 and start with the historical perspective then the habitat issues, then the biological issues. This zone has had a problem since the late 80's. That is before wolves were introduced. Poor calf recruitment. That speaks to habitat issues. Have wolves added to the problem there? Probably. But until habitat issues are addressed, it's not going to matter much. Interesting to note, historically, that unit had few elk.
https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Elk%20Statewide%20PR10.pdf
Post by: Bob33 on December 29, 2011, 10:13:42 AM
There are hunters that are pro wolf. I honestly don't understand that myself, but I know some.
Post by: Bean Counter on December 29, 2011, 10:27:43 AM
Post by: Machias on December 29, 2011, 10:48:57 AM
Post by: CedarPants on December 29, 2011, 10:55:46 AM
Besides all the outside influences that people have on habitat, an unchecked herd of elk or deer can be their own worst enemy. They can literally eat themselves out of house and home and do so much damage that it takes years for recovery.
Would it be fair to say that wolves do this exact same thing?
Post by: wraithen on December 29, 2011, 10:56:50 AM
As for the ungulates benefiting from another apex predator, this is only true in specific circumstances. The apex predator can also spread disease around just as easily as picking out the weak ones and basically eating away the disease.
The population used poisons on a massive scale combined with constant hunting and trapping to eradicate the wolves. There aren't many animals that could stay around as long as the wolf with that kind of pressure. People aren't advocating that here anyway. Wolves are good at staying away from people as long as they are kept in check. The more people try to see them the more used to people these animals will become if we don't keep them in check. The wolf lovers will create an atmosphere that could become dangerous and needlessly have disastrous consequences. Once that happens the pendulum will swing the other direction and people will push closer for eradication again.
Instead we need to keep these animals in numbers that work for the wild, not against them. We have some great areas for wolves in this state that nobody would worry about what they did and they wouldn't receive a lot of pressure. These areas that aren't disputed are also probably the last ones that will have wolf tracks.
Overall most of us want responsible management in place with a good solid plan that works. Why don't you?
Post by: Dhoey07 on December 29, 2011, 11:09:48 AM
No cherry picking going on guys. As I said, I took the first year on each game dept web site and I took the last. If there was a real problem it would show. Harvests go up and down naturally and they did so before the wolves. Habitat and severity of winter are the two main limitations of deer. Habitat and roads are the two biggest ones for elk.
As for animals being harvested in different areas..... that's the way it's always been. If I hunted the same area of Washington I did 25 years ago, I wouldn't even see a deer let alone harvest one. As habitat changes, you have to change how and where you hunt. Heck, the Panhandle of Idaho hardly had an elk in the days of Lewis and Clark. It took some huge forest fires to create the habitat they needed. Logging mimics fires now days. Hunt that heavy reprod, and you don't have much of a chance. Find the areas with good light to the forest floor and you;re in business.
My only reason for this post is to open some minds. A lot of closed ones with locks on tight. It's not as bad as you have been told.
Dude have you hugged your tree this am? Why would you want to be PRO WOLF, nothing to be gained from thier reintoduction but mahiem! :bash: :bash:
Sitka is just offereing a different opinion than yours, does that offend you in some way that you need to resort to name calling/insulting people? Ingorance is ugly. I am not pro wolf, but it was an interesting read and he brought up some questions that i've asked myself.
I do think he is spot on about closed minds regarding wolves. Maybe i missed some parts of the conversation, with editing or deleting, but calling for him to be banned and attempting to insult people make US hunters look bad. Just my :twocents:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 29, 2011, 11:31:44 AM
If deer and elk numbers were destroying their habitat prior to the wolves then it's the Fish and Game's fault for not liberalizing seasons to bring those herds back to proper levels.
Habitat, habitat, habitat Machias. What part of that don't you understand? In the case of the Lolo zone, it's likely getting overgrown so there isn't enough feed to support a bigger herd, just like it was in the past. In that case, trimming the herd doesn't change the amount of feed available.
I know it's it's "common Knowledge" in the hunting community that "wolves are bad!" "Common knowledge" can be wrong. Case in point....... The earth is flat. Or....No man will ever set foot on the moon.
A better case in point in this situation.......Forest fires are bad! Drilled into our heads when we were little kids. Stop all forest fires at any cost........
Except now we know that forest fires are actually beneficial. They open the forest canopy and allow browse to grow. They add nutrients to the soil. They cause some species of trees' seeds to sprout. They kill bug infestations. And suppressing them for decades make the fires worse when they do occur from built up dried debris on the forest floor.
Animals love burned over units. They will often time be feeding in areas where fires are still smoldering. The Idaho Panhandle wouldn't have become a premier elk area without them. Part of the reason the Kenai Peninsula was such a fine area for moose in the 70's was the resulting browse from a huge forest fire. There are documented cases everywhere you look.
So hunters need to decide if they are blindly following "common knowledge". The only way to do that is to educate yourself. I'm not here to insult anyone. I'm just saying there are way more things to consider than most hunters think about. And I'm not afraid to show the other side of the coin.
I cringe when I see hunters boldly posting on public websites about SSS and denigrating wolves offhand. All that shows the public is the intolerant, uneducated, illegal side of things. If that's how hunters want to be perceived by the general public, I feel sorry for them as a whole because they are digging the hole to bury themselves. And they are taking the rest of us with them.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 29, 2011, 11:39:06 AM
Would it be fair to say that wolves do this exact same thing?
It's fair to a point. I've never advocated not managing wolves as part of the overall scenario. When it's prudent, trim them down. But they will never wipe out a healthy herd that has healthy habitat. It's not the way nature developed them. Predators have built in limitations. It's not in their biological best interest to wipe out their food supply.
Saying wolves will wipe out game populations just by the fact of being somewhere is like saying "because there are sharks in the ocean and killer whales, our oceans will soon be out of fish." I'm here to tell you, that line of reasoning is plain wrong.
Post by: NWBREW on December 29, 2011, 11:39:11 AM
I'm not trying to be an A$$. Just asking that you open your mind as you want some others to do.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on December 29, 2011, 11:41:37 AM
Post by: CedarPants on December 29, 2011, 11:44:24 AM
I also think a lot of the problem with this ongoing debate is that people on both sides, when disagreed with, claim that the other side is "uneducated". One side always claims supreme knowledge and that everything they say is fact while the other side knows nothing and are ill informed.
Also - Jay Kehne, is that you? :chuckle:
Post by: Dhoey07 on December 29, 2011, 11:47:18 AM
It seems to me your mind is closed Sitka. Are you saying the wolf had nothing to do with the loss of elk in yellowstone, Bighorn, Bitteroot and Lolo. You want us to open our minds....I ask you to do the same. We are looking for a GOOD MANAGEMENT PLAN. GOOD MANAGEMENT IS THE KEY. Open your ears and listen.
I'm not trying to be an A$$. Just asking that you open your mind as you want some others to do.
He never said that wolves had "no effect" .
Post by: NWBREW on December 29, 2011, 11:49:45 AM
In those areas I mentioned...how much did the wolf affect the decline of the herds? Honest question.
Post by: Dhoey07 on December 29, 2011, 11:52:32 AM
So the wolf effect was minimal? Is that what he meant?
Don't want to speak for the guy, but this is a quote on the previous page
"I never said no effect. I said it's not as bad as you've been told. There are a lot more issues as far as survival goes that affect deer and elk populations. The biggest is habitat"
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 29, 2011, 11:52:42 AM
Overall most of us want responsible management in place with a good solid plan that works. Why don't you?
I have no problem with responsible management. I have no problem with killing problem wolves or even with hunting or trapping them.
You have to admit, there are many in the hunting community that don't want to see them even in those great areas for wolves that you are talking about. Wolf eradication is not responsible management. Advocating SSS is not responsible management. You can't advocate taking them out and then hope to be taken seriously when you talk about responsible management.
The population used poisons on a massive scale combined with constant hunting and trapping to eradicate the wolves. There aren't many animals that could stay around as long as the wolf with that kind of pressure.
Our ancestors wiped out just about everything that lived in the wild, buffalo, deer, elk, beavers, predators, etc. with their ignorance. It's one reason we have great management today. It wasn't wolves that took everything out. Wolves were persecuted mostly by ranchers who were worried about their livestock. The same way eagles were persecuted for taking lambs. Well darn, we wiped out all the native animals they fed on, so all they had left was farm animals to eat, so wipe them out too. Great logic huh?
Post by: Dhoey07 on December 29, 2011, 11:54:46 AM
So your line of reasoning is that ungulates are biologically programmed to eat themselves out of house and home (not a strong survival tactic to develop) and that they do this in fluctuations over time , but that wolves do not do this because its not in their best interest to do so? Why would one species develop this characteristic and not another, in the same ecosystem? Doesn't make much sense to me. Just curious, not being confrontational.
I also think a lot of the problem with this ongoing debate is that people on both sides, when disagreed with, claim that the other side is "uneducated". One side always claims supreme knowledge and that everything they say is fact while the other side knows nothing and are ill informed.
Also - Jay Kehne, is that you? :chuckle:
In my opinion only, the whole "need to hunt or animals would ruin themselves" arguement is a poor one. There are a ton of species that are not hunted that seem to "manage" themselves fine.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on December 29, 2011, 11:57:22 AM
So the wolf effect was minimal? Is that what he meant?
Don't want to speak for the guy, but this is a quote on the previous page
"I never said no effect. I said it's not as bad as you've been told. There are a lot more issues as far as survival goes that affect deer and elk populations. The biggest is habitat"
A habitat (which is Latin for "in inhabits") is an ecological or environmental area that is inhabited by a particular species of animal, plant or other type of organism.[1][2] It is the natural environment in which an organism lives, or the physical environment that surrounds (influences and is utilized by) a species population.
Gee wolves are part of the habitat.
Post by: CedarPants on December 29, 2011, 11:58:12 AM
So your line of reasoning is that ungulates are biologically programmed to eat themselves out of house and home (not a strong survival tactic to develop) and that they do this in fluctuations over time , but that wolves do not do this because its not in their best interest to do so? Why would one species develop this characteristic and not another, in the same ecosystem? Doesn't make much sense to me. Just curious, not being confrontational.
I also think a lot of the problem with this ongoing debate is that people on both sides, when disagreed with, claim that the other side is "uneducated". One side always claims supreme knowledge and that everything they say is fact while the other side knows nothing and are ill informed.
Also - Jay Kehne, is that you? :chuckle:
In my opinion only, the whole "need to hunt or animals would ruin themselves" arguement is a poor one. There are a ton of species that are not hunted that seem to "manage" themselves fine.
I wasn't making that argument :dunno:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 29, 2011, 12:00:34 PM
Post by: Elkslayer on December 29, 2011, 12:18:55 PM
So your line of reasoning is that ungulates are biologically programmed to eat themselves out of house and home (not a strong survival tactic to develop) and that they do this in fluctuations over time , but that wolves do not do this because its not in their best interest to do so? Why would one species develop this characteristic and not another, in the same ecosystem? Doesn't make much sense to me. Just curious, not being confrontational.
:yeah: I was thinking the same thing.
Maybe the wolves are smart enough to realize when they have taken enough game out of one unit to move to the next so as to not decimate that herd. :dunno:
Post by: Dhoey07 on December 29, 2011, 12:24:00 PM
So your line of reasoning is that ungulates are biologically programmed to eat themselves out of house and home (not a strong survival tactic to develop) and that they do this in fluctuations over time , but that wolves do not do this because its not in their best interest to do so? Why would one species develop this characteristic and not another, in the same ecosystem? Doesn't make much sense to me. Just curious, not being confrontational.
I also think a lot of the problem with this ongoing debate is that people on both sides, when disagreed with, claim that the other side is "uneducated". One side always claims supreme knowledge and that everything they say is fact while the other side knows nothing and are ill informed.
Also - Jay Kehne, is that you? :chuckle:
In my opinion only, the whole "need to hunt or animals would ruin themselves" arguement is a poor one. There are a ton of species that are not hunted that seem to "manage" themselves fine.
I wasn't making that argument :dunno:
Just adding my :twocents: to your question. Wasn't trying to say that you were making an arguement either way.
Post by: jackmaster on December 29, 2011, 12:24:20 PM
Post by: CedarPants on December 29, 2011, 12:26:08 PM
So your line of reasoning is that ungulates are biologically programmed to eat themselves out of house and home (not a strong survival tactic to develop) and that they do this in fluctuations over time , but that wolves do not do this because its not in their best interest to do so? Why would one species develop this characteristic and not another, in the same ecosystem? Doesn't make much sense to me. Just curious, not being confrontational.
I also think a lot of the problem with this ongoing debate is that people on both sides, when disagreed with, claim that the other side is "uneducated". One side always claims supreme knowledge and that everything they say is fact while the other side knows nothing and are ill informed.
Also - Jay Kehne, is that you? :chuckle:
In my opinion only, the whole "need to hunt or animals would ruin themselves" arguement is a poor one. There are a ton of species that are not hunted that seem to "manage" themselves fine.
I wasn't making that argument :dunno:
Just adding my :twocents: to your question. Wasn't trying to say that you were making an arguement either way.
My bad :brew:
Post by: Machias on December 29, 2011, 12:57:22 PM
Let me ask you another question then Sitka, why is it, the folks who live in these areas are forced to live with a creature that they don't want to live with? Forced into this situation by people who live in big concrete jungles and generally get close to nature when they watch a Jeep commercial. Ranchers, farmers, rural folks they are being made to live with the danger, the depredation, the loss of income, etc... While a big portion of the folks who are forcing this issue and the numbers do not have to deal with any of the consequences. Want wolves so bad, release them in YOUR neighborhoods and see how fast the scream for management get pretty loud, pretty fast.
Post by: Bob33 on December 29, 2011, 01:09:07 PM
Just curious, why is it every time I type the three s it gets censored? I'm certainly not advocating it. And I see others encouraging it all over this board and others.The letter after "R", when three are strung together with no spaces between them, typically refers to illegal behavior. This site does not condone illegal behavior.
Post by: ICEMAN on December 29, 2011, 01:52:38 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 29, 2011, 02:29:32 PM
The letter after "R", when three are strung together with no spaces between them, typically refers to illegal behavior. This site does not condone illegal behavior.
I see. So it can't even be mentioned to argue against the practice huh? Even tho those who condone it and encourage it find plenty of creative ways to get around the ban?
Pretty cheesy argument if you ask me. I wonder if I say bank robbing is a horrible thing if bank robbing will be censored since it's an illegal activity?
Or what about poaching? I see lots of posts and even threads here that talk about poaching and that is an illegal activity. Shouldn't the word poaching be banned too?
Why not just say any post that advocates an illegal activity gets nuked? Then hunters could discuss issues related to an illegal activity, like say how to prevent it or what the punishment could be for it?
But thanks for the explanation!
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 29, 2011, 02:33:23 PM
Sitka, please post your credentials.
Why? Do my credentials make my opinion and the facts I dig up any more or less valid? If so, then maybe everybody who posts here should post their credentials.
Post by: ICEMAN on December 29, 2011, 02:51:25 PM
Sitka, please post your credentials.
Why? Do my credentials make my opinion and the facts I dig up any more or less valid? If so, then maybe everybody who posts here should post their credentials.
Sheesh, touchy....
I will provide my credentials;
I did not study but a few bio classes in college, but rather political science and criminal justice.
I have not worked in any field related to wildlife or any similar venture, but rather HVAC, construction, and "criminal justice" related fields.
Every thing I espouse is related to what I have simply observed in the wild, in society and in government.
You have differing opinions than I, and you argue them differently. I am simply interested in where you have gained your knowledge or experiences from. Pretty simple.
Post by: Bob33 on December 29, 2011, 02:53:25 PM
To be honest, it's a lot easier to simply ban members that continue to intentionally take actions that are counter productive.
The letter after "R", when three are strung together with no spaces between them, typically refers to illegal behavior. This site does not condone illegal behavior.
I see. So it can't even be mentioned to argue against the practice huh? Even tho those who condone it and encourage it find plenty of creative ways to get around the ban?
Pretty cheesy argument if you ask me. I wonder if I say bank robbing is a horrible thing if bank robbing will be censored since it's an illegal activity?
Or what about poaching? I see lots of posts and even threads here that talk about poaching and that is an illegal activity. Shouldn't the word poaching be banned too?
Why not just say any post that advocates an illegal activity gets nuked? Then hunters could discuss issues related to an illegal activity, like say how to prevent it or what the punishment could be for it?
But thanks for the explanation!
Post by: NWBREW on December 29, 2011, 03:01:00 PM
Sitka, please post your credentials.
Why? Do my credentials make my opinion and the facts I dig up any more or less valid?
They may....since you are the one who started this thread. If you can please answer the question I asked earlier.
How much of an impact did the wolf have in the decline of the Bitteroot, Bighorn and Yellowstone elk herds? Seems to be a valid question.
Post by: deerslyr on December 29, 2011, 03:04:24 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on December 29, 2011, 03:08:34 PM
Just curious, why is it every time I type the three s it gets censored? I'm certainly not advocating it. And I see others encouraging it all over this board and others.The letter after "R", when three are strung together with no spaces between them, typically refers to illegal behavior. This site does not condone illegal behavior.
That's what I do in the morning:
S***, Shower and Shave :tup: I hope the man doesn't bust down my door :IBCOOL:
Post by: furbearer365 on December 29, 2011, 03:12:29 PM
Post by: JohnVH on December 29, 2011, 03:20:19 PM
It's one reason we have great management today.
:stup:
Post by: Knocker of rocks on December 29, 2011, 03:25:04 PM
Sitka, please post your credentials.That would be in the pre'cis forum
Post by: CedarPants on December 29, 2011, 03:28:17 PM
Keep in mind, what is "fact" to one group may not be to another. One group cites the "fact" that there were x number of elk in a certain region prior to wolves and now that there are wolves there are way fewer than x elk in said region and that hunting opportunities are diminishing. That's a fact, and it can be proven.
Another group can say sure, there were not wolves in a certain region before and now there are - but the elk numbers in said region are just in a normal fluctuation state when viewed historically, and that wolves are not causing an unacceptable decline and that the elk numbers are at successful management levels. That is a fact and can be proven.
So which fact is correct, and which fact is false? Neither - and both. It all depends on your opinion and your viewpoint. If you don't hunt and don't care if hunting is affected by wolves, then your facts are accurate. If you do hunt and see your heritage taking a hit, then your facts are accurate. At the end of the day its a matter of opinion, and you can't tell someone their opinion is wrong simply because you hold an opposing viewpoint.
Rambling, I know - my point is we can tell each other we're wrong till we're blue in the face and it solves nothing. Nobody wins in the long run
Post by: jackmaster on December 29, 2011, 03:57:41 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 29, 2011, 04:07:43 PM
One group cites the "fact" that there were x number of elk in a certain region prior to wolves and now that there are wolves there are way fewer than x elk in said region and that hunting opportunities are diminishing. That's a fact, and it can be proven.I consider your first example a fact: "x" elk then, "y" elk now. I don't consider the second example a fact because an "unacceptable decline", "wolves not causing..", and "successful management levels" are matters of opinion. To some, no elk may be acceptable, and that's the problem: a portion of those who want to increase wolf populations don't care if game animals suffer severely.
Another group can say sure, there were not wolves in a certain region before and now there are - but the elk numbers in said region are just in a normal fluctuation state when viewed historically, and that wolves are not causing an unacceptable decline and that the elk numbers are at successful management levels. That is a fact and can be proven.
Your point is well taken. Thanks.
Post by: CedarPants on December 29, 2011, 04:14:38 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 29, 2011, 04:52:36 PM
I heard there were people who really liked the idea of wolves being brought back but you sir (sitka) take the cake. How dare you name yourself after a deer and in the same breath argue FOR wolves.
For your information, I picked my name after an animal I love hunting and I love eating. Not so different from a lot of other names here. I haven't seen you with your shirt off, but I'm willing to guess your name isn't because you look like a beaver. But heck, I could be wrong there.
For those wanting my credentials, I'm willing to share that I'm a hunter with close to 50 years of hunting experience. A good portion of that hunting has been in Alaska where my prey has also been affected by many different predators. I've also seen many rises and falls in game herds. My favorite species to hunt is the Sitka Blacktail not to mention the Columbian Blacktail. I have taken many deer in my life, I honestly have no idea how many, but would put it at a conservative 150 to 200. Deer limits in Alaska where I have hunted have been between 4 and 7 per year. Add to that many years I also hunted for others who couldn't hunt under the proxy hunting laws in Alaska. I also have some good friends involved in game management and learn a lot from them. Other stuff is from reading what I can to expand my knowledge and observing what goes on in the wild. I've also spent winters trapping.
Now then furbearer, since you know so much about Sitkas, where is the best place to hunt them for a trophy buck and also a fairly stable herd? I'll give you a clue. It's an Island that is infested with both wolves and black bears. It also has a fair amount of logging on it but still has a bit of old growth.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 29, 2011, 04:55:55 PM
what wins in the long run is leave the wolves the hell out of washington, i dont remember getting to vote on the reintroduction of wolves, its nice to know that are goverment only lets us vote on cetain things, its time to vote out are current managemant at wdfw and vote people in that actually care about the survival of are deer and elk heards, and vote people in that want to create jobs by logging and creating more habitat, and the wolves were eradicated by people with obviosly alot more damn common sense
You're in favor of voting on wolves being in Washington? That's as crazy as letting anti's vote against hunting with hounds and trapping. #1, you're going to lose that vote. #2 biology, not voting should determine game management, not emotions or voting. Political pressure shouldn't be part of the equation on either side.
Post by: Machias on December 29, 2011, 05:11:42 PM
what wins in the long run is leave the wolves the hell out of washington, i dont remember getting to vote on the reintroduction of wolves, its nice to know that are goverment only lets us vote on cetain things, its time to vote out are current managemant at wdfw and vote people in that actually care about the survival of are deer and elk heards, and vote people in that want to create jobs by logging and creating more habitat, and the wolves were eradicated by people with obviosly alot more damn common sense
You're in favor of voting on wolves being in Washington? That's as crazy as letting anti's vote against hunting with hounds and trapping. #1, you're going to lose that vote. #2 biology, not voting should determine game management, not emotions or voting. Political pressure shouldn't be part of the equation on either side.
AMEN!!
Post by: ICEMAN on December 29, 2011, 05:12:44 PM
what wins in the long run is leave the wolves the hell out of washington, i dont remember getting to vote on the reintroduction of wolves, its nice to know that are goverment only lets us vote on cetain things, its time to vote out are current managemant at wdfw and vote people in that actually care about the survival of are deer and elk heards, and vote people in that want to create jobs by logging and creating more habitat, and the wolves were eradicated by people with obviosly alot more damn common sense
You're in favor of voting on wolves being in Washington? That's as crazy as letting anti's vote against hunting with hounds and trapping. #1, you're going to lose that vote. #2 biology, not voting should determine game management, not emotions or voting. Political pressure shouldn't be part of the equation on either side.
This is where I differ from you. I do not want the bio's either as the sole determining factor because this lets their own personal political bias influence decision making. Do liberal college professors affect their students learning? Bios are educated in a political environment of a university. Some bio's lean left, some lean right. Some would consider the re-establishment of wolf populations as a good thing while others would consider it a bad thing. Political pressure is currently doing what for our state? It has eliminated hound hunting for the most part, baiting for bears, etc... Wolves eat the game populations that we hunters like to pursue. I want to personally help to control game populations. Nobody will argue that wolves do not kill and eat deer and elk. They do. And this simple fact is the reason I want the wolves taken out, atleast to such a degree that they make no discernable impact on human hunting of ungulates.
More wolves = more dead deer and elk = less opportunity for human hunters.
Simple fact.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 29, 2011, 05:50:26 PM
This is where I differ from you. I do not want the bio's either as the sole determining factor because this lets their own personal political bias influence decision making.
So who do you want to be the determining factor? Who are you willing to trust?
It appears that the only people most on this site trust is people who say Wolf=bad. If someone says Wolf can be good or neutral, most here start looking for an excuse to discredit the opinion or the fact.
Post by: bullcanyon on December 29, 2011, 05:53:12 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 29, 2011, 05:58:01 PM
I would be content to put it to a vote of those who provide a vast source of hunting for wildlife: hunters.This is where I differ from you. I do not want the bio's either as the sole determining factor because this lets their own personal political bias influence decision making.
So who do you want to be the determining factor? Who are you willing to trust?
It appears that the only people most on this site trust is people who say Wolf=bad. If someone says Wolf can be good or neutral, most here start looking for an excuse to discredit the opinion or the fact.
Post by: CedarPants on December 29, 2011, 05:59:53 PM
It appears that the only people most on this site trust is people who say Wolf=bad. If someone says Wolf can be good or neutral, most here start looking for an excuse to discredit the opinion or the fact.
That is an absolutely false statement Sitka. There are nearly 10,000 members on this site - out of that 10,000 how many would you say fall into your "wolf=bad" group? 50? I'd be hard pressed to come up with 100. That's 1%, at most.
If you want to talk and debate, that is perfectly fine and in fact I enjoy the conversation. It really undermines your credibility and opinion though if you only wish to come on and say a few things, state they are facts, tell everyone they are wrong if they disagree with you, and claim that everyone here falls into your preconceived idea of uneducated villians out to get the big bad wolf. You've had a handful of people disagree with you - as would be expected (this is a hunting forum in case you forgot), but just a handful. I was hoping you weren't one of the dime a dozen types I come across regarding this issue, but statements like you just made have me waivering. Prove me wrong
Post by: Dan-o on December 29, 2011, 06:00:27 PM
I personally HATE to see wolves getting such a good foothold in our state. This past fall was the first time I came across wolf tracks. I was pretty disappointed to find them in my deer hunting area.
I also REALLLLLY HATE that people in New York get to think that people out West need wolves. If they want wolves, plant them in Central Park. It's totally bogus for them to stick us with wolves (should be a state decision).
But : Much of what Sitka has said really isn't inflammatory to me. He's pointing out some things that are good food for thought, so I don't understand the dog pile mentality. Some of the replies back to him have been down right ignorant, and he's been taking them in good humor.
It seems like this forum is the perfect place for a guy like Sitka to be able to post. I DON'T WANT WOLVES, but I can appreciate the thoughtfulness he brings to the argument and I'd rather hear from him than some namby pamby moron who just loves wolves because they are so cute and cuddly looking.
Just my :twocents:
Post by: wraithen on December 29, 2011, 06:03:11 PM
Post by: CedarPants on December 29, 2011, 06:06:36 PM
Post by: Dan-o on December 29, 2011, 06:12:51 PM
Famous (and banned) on so many forums..... :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Made me laugh out loud :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: NWBREW on December 29, 2011, 06:17:48 PM
Post by: elkboy on December 29, 2011, 07:14:35 PM
-Top carnivores are their own worst enemy, in that when competition for prey, mates, or any other limiting factor becomes intense, they will most happily kill each other (as seen in the last few years in the Greater Yellowstone). This is a control mechanism absent from most herbivores. That's why herbivores can "eat themselves out of house and home" (think Kaibab Plateau, 1920's, with mule deer), and things usually break down a lot sooner- and more violently- for the carnivores.
-Food availability is almost always going to carry the day when it comes to numbers of herbivores in a landscape. For deer, elk, and other ungulates, a nice mixed-severity fire that opens up the landscape for herb and shrub production will be the dominant factor, and there is essentially no predator assemblage (wolf+cougar+whatever) that is going to hold a population increase down under those circumstances (Tillamook burn, 1910 fires in northern Rockies, etc.). Did wolves mean a big negative for wolves in the Lolo? Yes, certainly. Was it independent of landscape context? No. The forest communities that established in the wake of 1910 closed up, and forage declined. The remaining elk had wolves to contend with. So go ahead, hunt the wolves heavily. But the habitat factor needs to be addressed, or we need to wait for a repeat of 1910 for herbivores to "recover to desirable levels".
-Final comment- and this is an opinion- pick some units, maybe those dominated by wilderness or National Park areas, and let wolves reach a relatively higher density there. Pick other units, maybe ones with more ranching, etc., and establish very aggressive wolf harvest quotas. Go ahead and hammer 'em! But let's not pursue the same approach everywhere across the landscape! Only at regional scales can we accomplish our overall wildlife management goals. Which, like it or not, for most of society, include having some toothy critters around. The same toothy critters that helped turn elk and deer into the graceful and strong animals we hunt and love.
*About me: Hunting is my primary source of protein. I have an undergrad and a doctorate in forest resource management, neither from "liberal" universities. I'm not anti-predator, but I am pro-predator management.*
Post by: furbearer365 on December 29, 2011, 07:27:54 PM
Post by: CedarPants on December 29, 2011, 07:31:07 PM
Post by: seth30 on December 29, 2011, 07:32:20 PM
Sitka, if you love sitka blacktail then hunt Alaska. I case you dont know these columbian blacktail. You must make words up as you read cause nowhere in my post did i say i was a sitka expert and never will be. But i do know columbian and all the other game that live in this state, NOT ALASKA. The eco system of Alaska has lived with wolves for ever and has been able to adapt over the years to coincide. For a species as prolific as wolves to be "reintroduced" to an environment that has survived many many years without them you would have to prove to me that not only the wolves will not have a bad effect on our existing game, but would contribute in a good way. What GOOD comes from wolves. Are wolves so important that it is worth diminishing our deer, elk, moose, sheep, and others small game such as coyotes. For you to argue that wolves would not effect our game is as ignorant as is it is wrong. To only look at harvest numbers as a means to an arguement is a dead end. Just because there are still people filling tags doesnt mean that the number of game is remaining steady. Many are shooting animals that are smaller than what they would normally take because the numbers and quality are just not there. Get off the intenet and get out and talk to the ones that live in wolf country and then come back with an opinion.Well put
Post by: bow-n-head on December 29, 2011, 08:04:13 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on December 29, 2011, 08:33:54 PM
This is where I differ from you. I do not want the bio's either as the sole determining factor because this lets their own personal political bias influence decision making.
So who do you want to be the determining factor? Who are you willing to trust?
It appears that the only people most on this site trust is people who say Wolf=bad. If someone says Wolf can be good or neutral, most here start looking for an excuse to discredit the opinion or the fact.
To be honest with you, I would like to look back to the way it was not too long ago, a citizenry which understood that humans and wolves do not mix well. They understood that in order for small farms to raise sheep and cattle, in order to be able to go to the woods to harvest an occasional deer or elk for your families table, and in order for humans to safely travel into the wilderness safely, that humans would have to take out the wolf. I trust the mentality of our predecessors on this point. I would trust the very folk who live in the areas that the wolves are returning to, ranchers, farmers and normal town folk. This is who I would trust.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 29, 2011, 09:26:23 PM
Get off the intenet and get out and talk to the ones that live in wolf country and then come back with an opinion.
Now that's funny! I told you, I lived in wolf country for most of my adult life. So I guess I get to have an opinion after all.
PS I'll help you out. If you ever want to go after a really big Sitka, head to Prince of Wales Island. As a bonus you can hunt for big black bears and wolves too.
And I know the difference between a Sitka and a Columbian. I grew up hunting Columbians and still chase them around.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 29, 2011, 09:32:43 PM
If hunters would think about it, there are a lot more pressing issues as far as time, energy and money where our animals are concerned. The biggest are habitat maintenance and access. As the population grows and more private property is placed off limits to hunters, our choices become more limited.
Post by: ICEMAN on December 29, 2011, 09:45:37 PM
Post by: wraithen on December 29, 2011, 10:04:16 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on December 29, 2011, 10:25:51 PM
Very interesting thread so far. Some comments:And also demonstrated in WWI, WWII, etc etc
-Top carnivores are their own worst enemy, in that when competition for prey, mates, or any other limiting factor becomes intense, they will most happily kill each other (as seen in the last few years in the Greater Yellowstone).
-Final comment- and this is an opinion- pick some units, maybe those dominated by wilderness or National Park areas, and let wolves reach a relatively higher density there. Pick other units, maybe ones with more ranching, etc., and establish very aggressive wolf harvest quotas. Go ahead and hammer 'em! But let's not pursue the same approach everywhere across the landscape! Only at regional scales can we accomplish our overall wildlife management goals. Which, like it or not, for most of society, include having some toothy critters around. The same toothy critters that helped turn elk and deer into the graceful and strong animals we hunt and love.Very good idea
Even though you lack a Masters in HVAC technology, I think even Iceman would feel that your credentials were worthy of this site. From now on, you're Dr. Elkboy
*About me: Hunting is my primary source of protein. I have an undergrad and a doctorate in forest resource management, neither from "liberal" universities.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on December 29, 2011, 10:30:00 PM
what wins in the long run is leave the wolves the hell out of washington, i dont remember getting to vote on the reintroduction of wolves, its nice to know that are goverment only lets us vote on cetain things, its time to vote out are current managemant at wdfw and vote people in that actually care about the survival of are deer and elk heards, and vote people in that want to create jobs by logging and creating more habitat, and the wolves were eradicated by people with obviosly alot more damn common sense
You're in favor of voting on wolves being in Washington? That's as crazy as letting anti's vote against hunting with hounds and trapping. #1, you're going to lose that vote. #2 biology, not voting should determine game management, not emotions or voting. Political pressure shouldn't be part of the equation on either side.
AMEN!!
:yeah:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 29, 2011, 11:15:58 PM
What do you mean habitat maintenance, man caused habitat maintenance? I was under the impression that most who want wolves reinstated into the ecosystem, also want mankind out of the ecosystem...Closed up, locked out, finite'?
You're welcome to your opinion.
But yes I'm very much in favor of human caused maintenance where prudent, whether it's logging, letting naturally caused fires burn more, or even using controlled burns. I'm certainly not the one to decide which method is best in different situations and there are other methods available. That's for someone who has studied situations like this to decide.
Post by: bearpaw on December 30, 2011, 08:26:51 AM
-Illegal funds from Pittman-Robertson were used for wolf introduction. (a new specie is an introduction)
-The wolves introduced are a lager sub-specie than the native wolf, hunt in larger packs, and are more effective hunters.
-The people were lied to regarding the target number of wolves for delisting.
-The introduction was illegally permitted in Idaho against the will of the people and the Idaho legislature by a rogue agency director.
-The northwest US area is not a vast wilderness, in Washington alone, 6 million people have to factored into the wolf carrying capacity.
-Wolves were not needed to control ungulate numbers, hunting seasons for nearly a century have carefully regulating ungulate numbers.
-Agencies being run by managers educated by pro-wolf college professors ignored proven on the ground science in determining wolf plans.
-These managers poorly calculated wolf plans caused a population explosion of wolves which has devastated herds in many areas.
-Washington managers ignored the new science coming out of Idaho and Montana proving too many wolves impacted herds too heavily.
Now with all that said, Sitka how much time have you spent on the ground in the affected areas of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming? I am going to take a shot in the dark and say you probably have little or no on the ground experience. How on earth can you come on here and preach to hundreds of hunters who regularly hunt in the affected areas and have seen the devastation. Honestly I don't think it looks very intelligent. Actually I consider it quite hypocritical to talk as if you know what you are talking about, but in reality you only think you know.
Here's the reality of the situation we are in now. The people who have devised the Washington wolf plan and people like Sitka will only be educated to the reality of this wolf mismanagement plan when wolves have overpopulated in Washington and done the same harm to many of Washington's herds as they have done in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Then you will see them all scratching their heads wondering why our herds are disapearing and suggesting that hunting seasons will have to be reduced. If you don't believe me, simply look at the affected areas in Idaho and Montana, some seasons have been completely eliminated, that is a FACT that can be proven by looking in past and current hunting regulations.
We are stuck with wolves and with a Washington Wolf Mismanagement Plan, there's little we can do to change that. The worst part of this is that Washington only has one (moderately successful) trapper to confirm wolf numbers in Washington and the agency does not appear to care if they confirm wolves or not.
People who call in wolf sightings are called up by agency personnel and confronted on the phone, that is a fact because I had that happen to me. I recieved a nasty call saying it was coyotes even though the agency had not finished checking out the report. Somehow we have got to get wolves confirmed or it doesn't matter if the wolf plan calls for 15 bp's or 100 bp's. According to many citizen reports, many very reliable, there are more than 100 wolves in Washington and in the spring with new pups on the ground that number is going to spike again.
We've already lost this argument about how many wolves we need or if we even need wolves. We must look forward and concentrate on forcing the WDFW to monitor wolves. Currently that is not happening. :twocents: :twocents: :twocents:
Post by: Machias on December 30, 2011, 08:46:45 AM
We've already lost this argument about how many wolves we need or if we even need wolves. We must look forward and concentrate on forcing the WDFW to monitor wolves. Currently that is not happening. :twocents: :twocents: :twocents:
Sadly that's not going to happen, there is no funding and with shrinking budgets for the foreseeable future....the future is very bleak, no matter how rosie folks like Sitka want to color it. It's crazy, they point to a few harvest photos and say SEE everything is fine, the wolves have little effect and what effect they have is all positive. :bash:
Post by: CedarPants on December 30, 2011, 08:51:28 AM
We've already lost this argument about how many wolves we need or if we even need wolves. We must look forward and concentrate on forcing the WDFW to monitor wolves. Currently that is not happening. :twocents: :twocents: :twocents:
Sadly that's not going to happen, there is no funding and with shrinking budgets for the foreseeable future....the future is very bleak, no matter how rosie folks like Sitka want to color it. It's crazy, they point to a few harvest photos and say SEE everything is fine, the wolves have little effect and what effect they have is all positive. :bash:
I was involved in a discussion about this topic online a couple days back and a rather vocal wolf supporter (the name calling, i'm more educated than you because i'm taking some college classes right now about this subject type) claimed to be involved with the Inland Northwest Wildlife Council about an orchestrated plan to capture and collar wolves this coming spring.
Anyone hear of INWC's involvement in this type of project? I'm all for it if they are really doing it.
Either way though I highly doubt the INWC wants people like the individual I was speaking to representing them on public forums
Post by: bearpaw on December 30, 2011, 08:52:11 AM
I will agree that habitat is important and if the huggers could be prevented from stopping logging, we could have higher game populations in many areas where thick overaged forests stifle wildlife populations.
On one hand these huggers say we can't have any logging because it unnatural, then on the other hand you see them saying habitat is the problem with game numbers, they are more or less admitting game numbers are already low in some areas, and then they say wolves will have no effect. :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on December 30, 2011, 08:55:52 AM
Same rancher had another 200 head grazing a different GMU in an area with no wolf activity and only 1 calf is missing. I guess that's just a coincidence. :chuckle:
Post by: DaveBTS on December 30, 2011, 09:28:25 AM
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for a liberal hunting season and feel ranchers should be able to shoot any wolf they see on their property. I cant wait to fill my first tag!
Post by: furbearer365 on December 30, 2011, 04:24:13 PM
PS I'll help you out. If you ever want to go after a really big Sitka, head to Prince of Wales Island. As a bonus you can hunt for big black bears and wolves too.
And I know the difference between a Sitka and a Columbian. I grew up hunting Columbians and still chase them around.
[/quote]
Sitka, you continue to sidestep the point of peoples post. I agreed that wolves are able to live with the animals of Alaska because they have done so for hundreds of years. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT REINTRODUCED WOLVES THAT OUR LOCAL GAME HAVE NOT HAD TO SHARE THEIR HOMES WITH. Get in now, you can not compare the two. Hell, bring some jaguars and african lions over because there are still game like impala and kudu so how could it effect our game. I also meant talking with people that live in the "reintroductive wolf country." I.E. Idaho or Montana. Once again, not a comparison to Alaska.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 30, 2011, 07:14:35 PM
Sitka, you continue to sidestep the point of peoples post. I agreed that wolves are able to live with the animals of Alaska because they have done so for hundreds of years. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT REINTRODUCED WOLVES THAT OUR LOCAL GAME HAVE NOT HAD TO SHARE THEIR HOMES WITH. Get in now, you can not compare the two.
Prince of Wales deer have been there for a lot longer than the wolves. Wolves showed up on the Island about 2,000 years ago, deer have been there much longer. The deer there adapted to the predation. Just like the deer and elk here will.
Deer and elk aren't stupid. They go all year without getting hunted, they are easy to find in the off season ,and after the first day of season, they get a lot harder to find. Why is that? Because they change their habits to survive. They head to the thick brush, they turn nocturnal, they go to private property or parks that don't allow hunting. They figure these things out. As I said, they aren't dumb. That is what they are also doing in response to wolf predation. That is actually one of the reasons wolves are beneficial as they force game animals to move around more and not be sedentary. They are much less likely to stay in one area and overgraze because that makes them more likely to be preyed upon.
Of course, that makes them harder to find for hunters who are used to finding them in easy to spot places. You have to change your hunting tactics, but they are still around.
Post by: ICEMAN on December 30, 2011, 07:18:10 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 30, 2011, 08:52:49 PM
Now I wonder what sitka has to say about the 27 head of cattle missing from McIrvins herd where the wolves have moved into GMU 105?
I've already said I advocate killing problem wolves. If this was done by wolves and can be proven, take them out, and compensate the rancher for his cattle. But I'm not into taking action on hearsay.
Say I live in a neighborhood and your family moved in. I see you walking past my house. Driving around town. Then a series of burglaries starts taking place. I talk to a friend in the last town you live in and he says there was a series of burglaries there too, but they stopped after you left. And I talk to a friend in another town you've never been to as far as I know and he says they haven't had a burglary as long as he can remember.
Now if I was a suspicious guy, my wheels might get turning. I might say, hmmmm that's a pretty good coincidence. I might be a little wary of you. I might even tell my suspicions to the local police officer. I might keep my eyes on you to see what you're up to. I might even make small talk with you to try to get a feel for you. But I'm sure as heck not going to accuse you of something without darn good proof. And I certainly wouldn't expect the police to arrest you on my suspicions even tho I hear you were out on parole. And I'd be the first one to defend you if someone else said arrest him, it's clear he's responsible. They catch you in the act or with the goods, that's a different story.
Post by: Bob33 on December 30, 2011, 08:58:35 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 30, 2011, 09:00:15 PM
Sitka, how many deer or elk are killed each year by a single wolf?
I don't know Iceman tell me how many? I know it's a lot smaller number than are eaten by wolves. And I know they eat a lot of animals besides deer, elk, moose, and caribou. I've seen one eating a roadkill moose in a ditch, I've seen one trying to catch ground squirrels in an old gravel pit. Running from hole to hole as a squirrel would pop out. Bet I saw it go after 20 squirrels and not get one, but it didn't quit trying.
Now here's one for you. How many deer or elk are killed in a year by autos?
Post by: wraithen on December 30, 2011, 09:01:26 PM
Compensating ranchers is on paper a fine idea. The real world hasn't worked well for that. They want the wolf to hang around on the kill as proof. Then they run out of money. What's the grand scheme to fix that?
Lastly there are 3 bios. One of them speaks truths and doesn't try to justify their opinion beforehand. The other 2 are the pros and antis. They both are usually trying to further the agenda they have. How do we weed them out? Let's get solutions instead of finding problems.
Autos kill very few wildlife in this state compared to others I've lived in. Herds aren't there to cause the issues many other states have.
Post by: seth30 on December 30, 2011, 09:04:17 PM
Sitka, whether or not he can prove it his 27 cattle are dead. When wolves kill cattle but the owner cant prove it, who compensates him? Are you telling us that never happens?dont forget that a herd of cattle that is harassed by wolves gets overstressed and the cattles health and weight drop causing more issues for the rancher. The ranchers should be paid for that loss as well :twocents:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 30, 2011, 09:05:00 PM
Sitka, whether or not he can prove it his 27 cattle are dead. When wolves kill cattle but the owner cant prove it, who compensates him? Are you telling us that never happens?
I thought they were gone, not dead? Nobody knows if they are dead, even if there is a high probability. Wolves leave evidence, bones and hides. For all anyone knows they were rustled or found a way to escape. I'm not saying they were or weren't killed by wolves. I'm saying, where is the proof?
Post by: wraithen on December 30, 2011, 09:06:50 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 30, 2011, 09:16:13 PM
Sitka, whether or not he can prove it his 27 cattle are dead. When wolves kill cattle but the owner cant prove it, who compensates him? Are you telling us that never happens?
I don't know, maybe a program like this. http://www.mtexpress.com/2003/03-03-05/03-03-05wolfkill.htm
or this http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2011/12/oregon_begins_compensation_pro.html
Or maybe the same people (DNR?) that pay ranchers for deer and elk damage to their crops. Same darn ranchers that won't let hunters help keep the herd trimmed on their land. Well unless you pay them a fee maybe.
Post by: bobcat on December 30, 2011, 09:22:44 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 30, 2011, 09:23:29 PM
Here's the latest:
Announcement -
Wolf Depredation Compensation Program:
In September 2010, Defenders of Wildlife ended its wolf depredation compensation program in Idaho, thus shifting the entire livestock compensation responsibility to the State of Idaho. The State was recently awarded a new federal wolf depredation compensation grant titled the Wolf Livestock Demonstration project. The State of Idaho, through the Governor's Office of Species Conservation, is now accepting claims for verified and unverified wolf-related livestock losses. Claims for verified losses will take priority and will be paid at market value. Payments for unverified or missing livestock will be allocated on a pro rata basis
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 30, 2011, 09:53:08 PM
Wouldn't be DNR paying for deer and elk damage. It would be the WDFW.
That would be this program. http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/damage/
On this audit from 2004 I found this on page 3.
http://www.leg.wa.gov/JLARC/AuditAndStudyReports/2004/Documents/04-5.pdf
"Up to $150,000 per year is available to the Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW) to assess and pay small damage claims. Claims for more than
$10,000 go to the state Office of Risk Management and are decided and
authorized by the Legislature as sundry claims."
"An average of 50 claims per year have been submitted totaling just
under half a million dollars annually."
I'm thinking there is another program also, but haven't located it.
Post by: Jack Diamond on December 30, 2011, 10:15:52 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 30, 2011, 10:23:44 PM
nobody in this state will be paid for animal loss, just wishful thinking.Even if you take the $150k figure quoted, it is insufficient for what is coming. Thats about 100 head? Montana lost an estimated 450 head in 2010.
Remind me again: what benefit are we getting from the wolves?
Post by: bearpaw on December 31, 2011, 06:31:24 AM
Wolves numbered some 50,000 to 60,000 in North America alone and were not endangered in any way. Governmemnts have made a huge error, sensitive species of caribou and shiras moose are being systematically eaten by expanding wolf populations. When the small caribou herd in Washington and Idaho has been eaten, when the shiras moose have been nearly all eaten, when elk herds in Washington are in as much trouble as they are in the Lolo, Bitterroot, and Northern Yellowstone, will WDFW finally understand that they have erred, or will they somehow shift the blame to auto collisions or some other factor as sitka_blacktail is more or less trying to do.
The simple fact of the matter is that we had a fairly good system of regulating game populations while at the same time providing recreation and healthy table fare for hunters. Wolves simply were not needed.
Even more importantly, unmonitored and unmanaged numbers of wolves were not needed and will be a detriment of wildlife management and livestock production in Washington. No doubt the state could support small numbers of wolves without huge impacts. But the WDFW simply does not have the capacity to find and confirm the wolves that already exist in Washington. We have members on this forum reporting wolves on a weekly basis. How can WDFW possibly keep up with monitoring reproduction if they only acknowledge 10% to 20% of the number of wolves that are actually in this state. This is a laughable situation, the WDFW has approved a wolf plan they cannot monitor.
Wolf reports: http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,79244.0.html
To get wolves documented, this state needs no less than 1 WDFW wolf agent in each county. 2 or 3 small counties might be grouped together for 1 agent, but a large county with several wolf packs like Okanogan needs at least 2 or 3 agents. Pend Orielle County has at least 3 wolf packs, Stevens County has at a minimum 4 wolf packs and possibly as many as 7 or 8 wolf packs. Ferry County has at a minimum 2 wolf packs and possibly as many as 4 or more wolf packs. There are wolves turning up all over the state and we are only getting started. Every year the number will increase due to reproduction.
A dozen wolf agents will have a hard time documenting the wolves in this state. Currently I am told that WDFW has 1 wolf trapper.
Fellow hunters our state has certainly been fed to the wolves...
Post by: Killmore on December 31, 2011, 08:04:37 AM
Post by: frostman on December 31, 2011, 09:28:18 AM
When you ask them where does this money come from to "compensate" for this and that, I expect to hear - "I don't know, from obamas stash?"
Post by: bobcat on December 31, 2011, 01:59:19 PM
I am still trying to figure out the benefit of bringing wolves back to heavily human populated states to cause trouble and upset the balance of wildlife management and livestock production that helped make this country great. At a time when our economy is suffering, I can not think of a worse time to be promoting wolves.
That right there sums my feelings up really well. This is simply a cost right now we can't afford, AND with no benefit whatsoever. We've already got enough predators, why add another one to the mix?
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 31, 2011, 03:45:41 PM
I am still trying to figure out the benefit of bringing wolves back to heavily human populated states to cause trouble and upset the balance of wildlife management and livestock production that helped make this country great.
Funny you should mention livestock production since that very activity contributed greatly to some of the biggest problems in wildlife management. Farm animals spread brucellosis into our wild game animals, not to mention other diseases. Farms take up valuable range land. Water taken for farm animals and crops is water that isn't there for wild fish and animals. Wetlands are plowed up. In Washington, one of the most liberal deer and elk seasons is in unit 501. The deer and elk are hammered in that unit, especially the elk to protect some pea farmers' crops and some private forest land. Damage control hunts on winter ranges are set to protect farm crops. So instead of managing for more animals like most hunters would like to see, these hunts are actually trying to reduce the amount of animals. The way I look at it, farms and ranches reduce our hunting opportunities, not expand them, except in limited cases. Heck, if it wasn't for farms and ranches, we could all be hunting Bison in the Great Plains. There's one animal they'll never let come back to historic levels.
will WDFW finally understand that they have erred, or will they somehow shift the blame to auto collisions or some other factor as sitka_blacktail is more or less trying to do.
Not shifting the blame to autos. Just pointing out that autos kill more animals than wolves ever will. And I suspect roadkill (if it's left in the area) will be a significant part of wolves diets.
Post by: Bob33 on December 31, 2011, 03:50:57 PM
Just pointing out that autos kill more animals than wolves ever will.Source, please.
That is flat out false. Data I've read indicates that total wildlife/vehicle collisions in Washington annually are around 1100. Many of the animals are not killed. Assume half are. That's 500 per year. One wolf eats between 10 and 25 elk per year. Grab a calculator and tell me how many elk 100 wolves eat in a year.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 31, 2011, 03:57:37 PM
Just pointing out that autos kill more animals than wolves ever will.Source, please.
That is flat out false. Data I've read indicates that total wildlife/vehicle collisions in Washington annually are around 1100. Many of the animals are not killed. Assume half are. That's 500 per year. One wolf eats between 10 and 25 elk per year. Grab a calculator and tell me how many elk 100 wolves eat in a year.
Source please.
Post by: Bob33 on December 31, 2011, 04:04:33 PM
http://www.thenorthernlight.com/news/article.exm/2011-10-12_fall_car_care_special_section__steering_clear_of_deer
"According to the Washington Department of Transportation, more than 1,100 wildlife/vehicle collisions are reported to the Washington State Patrol every year, resulting in nearly 1,200 injuries. "
Now what is your source?
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 31, 2011, 04:36:51 PM
Reported multiple places. Try Google. Here is one:
http://www.thenorthernlight.com/news/article.exm/2011-10-12_fall_car_care_special_section__steering_clear_of_deer
"According to the Washington Department of Transportation, more than 1,100 wildlife/vehicle collisions are reported to the Washington State Patrol every year, resulting in nearly 1,200 injuries. "
Now what is your source?
Try this one for size. From the Washington DOT
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/701.1.pdf
A couple quotes and my comments in parenthesis.
"Approximately 3,000 deer and 85 elk carcasses are removed by WSDOT personnel from Washington state highways annually. The report provides an analysis of temporal and spatial relationships associated with carcass removal sites."
(These are only the CARCASSES "removed" by DOT. In many places I've seen them lay in ditches and nearby to become carrion. Especially in rural areas. This also doesn't count animals that are hit and manage to make it somewhere only to die.)
"The WDOT dataset and the accidents they represent are most likely minimum estimates; documented removals of deer and elk carcasses from Washington state highways probably represent only a portion of an unknown number of road kills that actually occur."
(Only a portion of an unknown number. In many states, the number of road killed animals rivals that of animals killed by hunters. I wouldn't be surprised if it's close to that in Washington also. And besides deer and elk, there are many other animals killed by autos. Dogs, cats, porcupines, possums, beavers, birds, etc. It's all a food source to wolves.)
"Vehicle collisions with deer and elk on state and federal highways in Washington State killed at least 14,969 deer and 415 elk between 2000-2004. These totals include only deer and elk that were recovered from state and federal highways and do not include animals hit by vehicles that died away from the roadway or any deer or elk killed on county or city roadways."
(Again making my point that a lot more animals are killed by autos than the above mentioned numbers. The over three thousand deer per year are only those removed by the state from State and federal highways. Lots of roads in deer and elk country are county roads.)
"by comparing numbers of carcass possession tags issued for road killed deer with estimates of actual deer-vehicle collisions within their study area, estimated that for every deer recovered from the roadway as a result of a vehicle collision in New York, 5 deer were hit and not recovered or reported."
(I would guess that the 5 to one hit and reported or recovered is a conservative estimate. But that is only my OPINION. An educated guess you might say.)
(Then there is the damage to life and property that collisions with game animals cause.)
"Nationally, such accidents result in approximately 200 people killed (Conover et al. 1995) and insurance costs of nearly 2 billion dollars each year (Sudharson 2006)."
(and the loss of habitat from constructing highways)
"The direct costs of habitat loss associated with highways bisecting deer and elk ranges, and human and animal suffering as accidents occur, are obvious. But other effects, particularly to the native ungulates, can be more insidious.
For example, a migration corridor blocked by a fence near Rawlins, WY resulted in approximately 1,000 pronghorn dying by starvation and exposure before the situation was remedied"
(I can tell you for a fact that I-5 and I-90 for starters are problems for migrating game. The St Helens Herd is cut off from migrating west of I-5 for starters, so it limits the wintering grounds for them.)
So you see, your sources weren't very helpful and painted a way better situation than is really happening.
Good information is our friend. Even if it's an eye opener.
Post by: wraithen on December 31, 2011, 04:41:02 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 31, 2011, 04:42:44 PM
Post by: seth30 on December 31, 2011, 04:46:55 PM
Wonder what the damage does from an impact with a wolf :dunno:Oh I cant wait to here the facts and figures on this one :chuckle:
Post by: huntnnw on December 31, 2011, 04:54:42 PM
Post by: seth30 on December 31, 2011, 04:55:57 PM
0 reasons for wolves in lower 48... your justifications and rhetoric is just that..guess whatever u have to tell yourself to sleep at night. Your reasoning and OPINION are also just that..and to say wolves have taken no opportunities away is effing hilarious!!
Post by: furbearer365 on December 31, 2011, 08:20:46 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 31, 2011, 10:58:01 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 31, 2011, 11:08:08 PM
Post by: DoubleJ on December 31, 2011, 11:26:34 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 31, 2011, 11:40:15 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 31, 2011, 11:50:36 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 31, 2011, 11:53:57 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 31, 2011, 11:55:29 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 01, 2012, 12:02:37 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 01, 2012, 12:03:56 AM
Post by: Bob33 on January 01, 2012, 12:05:43 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 01, 2012, 12:06:46 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 01, 2012, 12:09:01 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 01, 2012, 12:10:31 AM
Post by: Bob33 on January 01, 2012, 12:13:17 AM
Ketscher estimated that the wolves ate less than five pounds of meat off the cow before leaving the carcass. The wolves attacked the open (not pregnant) cow biting through the vulva while the animal was still alive. When they found no fetus they left the cow behind. The site of the wolf attack was less than one-third of a mile from the Ketschers’ house.
Charity told WVO how frustrating and scary it is to let her kids and dogs outside by themselves on their own private property.
The second cow confirmed killed by wolves was a bred heifer, found about three miles east of the Ketschers, belonging to Gaylon Dawson on private property owned by Bob Lathrop. According to WVO sources, the wolves attacked the pregnant cow only to extract the unborn fetus while the animal was still alive and leaving the body of the mother cow behind .
Post by: bearpaw on January 01, 2012, 12:20:37 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 01, 2012, 12:23:20 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 01, 2012, 12:29:12 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 01, 2012, 12:38:42 AM
Post by: ANDERWAGON on January 01, 2012, 08:58:16 AM
What we need is a "since he wont be back thread".
http://www.saveelk.com/wolf_002.htm
Post by: boneaddict on January 01, 2012, 09:05:34 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 01, 2012, 09:25:17 AM
I have to say, for nearly a half century the lower 48 has done well without wolves, why are they needed, what good can come of their introduction into heavily human populated, modernized, and farmed lands, unless there is another agenda that isn't being stated. :twocents:
Post by: KillBilly on January 01, 2012, 09:36:17 AM
Quote
I have to say, for nearly a decade the lower 48 has done well without wolves, why are they needed, what good can come of their introduction into heavily human populated, modernized, and farmed lands, unless there is another agenda that isn't being stated.
Other than the fact that they are introducing themselves to our state, there is this thing called the Endangered Species Act that does not allow us to stop them.... We also have a large group that keeps introducing themselves from the South.... in my opinion they are both a plague on our landscape...hmmm maybe we should introduce them to each other.
Post by: furbearer365 on January 01, 2012, 09:40:36 AM
Post by: ANDERWAGON on January 01, 2012, 09:51:16 AM
thank you bearpaw for taking the time to post all of those videos. Some i have seen and some i have not. I would like to think that hard evidence such as these videos would be enough to change the minds of people with pro-wolf motives. But sometimes i feel that the no matter what, their opinions are set unless they truely get it in their face. It sucks all the way around. All i want is for someone to prove to me why it is a good idea, and not just a fun project for a bunch of biologists.
Bearpaw, thank you for taking on this fight and educating others. :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on January 01, 2012, 10:27:08 AM
QuoteI have to say, for nearly a half century the lower 48 has done well without wolves, why are they needed, what good can come of their introduction into heavily human populated, modernized, and farmed lands, unless there is another agenda that isn't being stated.
Other than the fact that they are introducing themselves to our state, there is this thing called the Endangered Species Act that does not allow us to stop them.... We also have a large group that keeps introducing themselves from the South.... in my opinion they are both a plague on our landscape...hmmm maybe we should introduce them to each other.
:sry: I should have clarified the government introduction in Idaho and YNP, which has now migrated to E WA.
I agree that they are migrating into WA, but I also know private individuals have released hybrids in GMU 121. Would not be surprised if the same hasn't occurred on the west side. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on January 01, 2012, 10:33:47 AM
He talked about a white van dropping off wolves, I think that it's very likely some wolf groups were at work. I agree with Pianoman at this point, I don't think the government planted them, but I have no reason to not believe that wolf groups may have planted wolves. :twocents:
Post by: 3nails on January 01, 2012, 10:53:22 AM
A question not asked...until now
By Montana Senator Greg Hinkle
A few weeks ago I was talking with Hot Springs area rancher Kim Baker, President of Montana Cattlemen's Association, about depredation of livestock. Since we have seen an increase in wolf depredation in Montana I was wondering if there was a relationship with other predator livestock losses. Kim told me she would see if those figures were available from predator control specialists. I wanted to compare the preceding years with current statistics. Kim went to John Steuber, State Director/Supervisory Wildlife Biologist (USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services) to have a look at those figures. I have received those figures for 2006 and 2010. What I see is more than alarming and it is a side of the wolf issue that has not been adequately addressed.
Mr.Steuber stated in an email, "The attachment shows all verified and report predator damage for the years 2006 and 2010. I'm stunned at the increase in depredations from 2006 to 2010." "Remember that this includes damage that was reported to us as well as damage we verified. I'm guessing that one of the reasons other predator damage went up is because we were forced to spend more and more time trying to deal with the exploding wolf population and the damage wolves do. Wolves have made it almost impossible to do much preventative work on coyotes, that is work to prevent livestock depredations before they occur. We are just not able to get up on summer range ahead of the cattle and sheep anymore since we are so busy with wolf work. During this same time period we did not get any additional money from the Federal government or from the state (Fish, Wildlife and Parks). We are losing the battle. I am appalled that the number of livestock killed by predators has increased so dramatically."
To give you an idea of the problem, here are a few comparisons. In 2006 coyotes killed 111 calves and 698 lambs, in 2010 (to date) there have been 1,348 calves and 2,488 lambs killed. This is about a 474% increase in four years! There has been a tenfold increase with the same type livestock killed by grizzly bears. Black bears are responsible for a 150% increase in the same time period. I also have the figures for lion, and fox kills. These show dramatic increases as well. As the wolf continues to decimate game animals the other predators will be forced to seek other food sources such as livestock and pets. The problem is going get much worse if the wolf population is not controlled soon.
On top of that are the funding problems Wildlife Services are experiencing. Resources have been diverted to mitigate wolf depredation. This has resulted in less aircraft control of coyotes and less time on the ground by control specialists. In this year alone, collections paid by stock growers amounted to $251,660 and expenditures are estimated to be $528,250. Per-capita fees, 100% paid by livestock producers, are used for predator control and it should be noted that predator control is the only benefit some ranchers may get for the taxes they pay. I find it unconscionable that they are experiencing a dramatic increase in livestock losses and a decrease in the protection they pay for. To put it another way, the per-capita paid has increased while the predator control has decreased. The control of coyotes by aircraft is in jeopardy which will further compound the losses to Montana's livestock industry.
Our elected leaders are slow to resolve the issue. I have been convinced for years that the wolf introduction/protection will prove to be a ecological disaster that will take decades to recover from, if ever. Montana's ranchers and sportsmen deserve better and the wolf should be treated like the vermin it is.
Post by: KillBilly on January 01, 2012, 10:53:43 AM
QuoteI have to say, for nearly a half century the lower 48 has done well without wolves, why are they needed, what good can come of their introduction into heavily human populated, modernized, and farmed lands, unless there is another agenda that isn't being stated.
Other than the fact that they are introducing themselves to our state, there is this thing called the Endangered Species Act that does not allow us to stop them.... We also have a large group that keeps introducing themselves from the South.... in my opinion they are both a plague on our landscape...hmmm maybe we should introduce them to each other.
:sry: I should have clarified the government introduction in Idaho and YNP, which has now migrated to E WA.
I agree that they are migrating into WA, but I also know private individuals have released hybrids in GMU 121. Would not be surprised if the same hasn't occurred on the west side. :twocents:
And my post was meant in a humorous attitude, not in argument to Dales post. Hmmm I hate to admit I may never make it in the comedy world..
Post by: 3nails on January 01, 2012, 10:55:25 AM
This is it. The attachment shows all verified and report predator damage for the years 2006 and 2010. I'm stunned at the increase in depredations from 2006 to 2010. It's in black and white in our database. Remember that this includes damage that was reported to us as well as damage we verified. I'm guessing that one of the reasons other predator damage went up is because we were forced to spend more and more time trying to deal with the exploding wolf population and the damage wolves do. Wolves have made it almost impossible to do much preventative work on coyotes, that is work to prevent livestock depredations before they occur. We are just not able to get up on summer range ahead of the cattle and sheep anymore since we are so busy with wolf work. During this same time period we did not get any additional money from the Federal government or from the state (Fish, Wildlife and Parks).
We are losing the battle. I am appalled that the number of livestock killed by predators has increased so dramatically. Of course the wolves also affect this in another way in that we cannot use M-44's or neck snares in occupied wolf country and have to check our traps (all traps including coyote traps) daily. That is as big of an affect as the actual wolf work.
Post by: 3nails on January 01, 2012, 10:56:31 AM
Coyotes $174,492 $634,008
Adult cattle 1 killed 4 killed
Calves 111 killed, 2 injured 1,348 killed, 7 injured
Adult sheep 135 killed, 7 injured 422 killed, 2 injured
Lambs 698 killed, 14 injured 2,488 killed, 13 injured
Adult goats 1 killed 9 killed
Kid goats 31 killed 14 killed
Chickens 19 killed 12 killed
Geese 8 killed 2 killed
Turkeys 5 killed 0
Wolves $73,269 $512,981
Adult cattle 17 killed, 2 injured 156 killed
Calves 51 killed, 2 injured 454 killed
Adult sheep 22 killed 728 killed
Lambs 6 killed 48 killed
Adult goats 0 2 killed
Horses 6 injured 36 killed, 1 injured
Llamas 4 killed, 1 injured 3 killed
Guard dogs 0 3 killed, 2 injured
Pet dogs 0 1 killed
Grizzly bears $5,126 $21,481
Adult cattle 1 killed 4 killed
Calves 5 killed 32 killed
Adult sheep 2 killed 29 killed
Lambs 0 12 killed
Adult goats 1 killed 4 killed
Kid goats 0 3 killed
Black bears $23,450 $75,785
Adult cattle 2 killed, 1 injured 14 killed
Calves 8 killed, 1 injured 32 killed
Adult sheep 43 killed 106 killed, 2 injured
Lambs 2 killed 13 killed
Adult goats 4 killed 3 killed, 1 injured
Pigs 10 killed 0
Llamas 7 killed 0
Chickens 0 15 killed
Bee hives 17 destroyed 99 destroyed
Post by: bearpaw on January 01, 2012, 11:38:05 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 01, 2012, 01:34:11 PM
Sitka, i will just say that i believe you are wrong. Granted you have the right to an opinion but your reasons for why you think the wolves should be brought back are just plain ignorant. You know that they kill what they will see as food, no matter what it is.
There's a lot of taking things out of context here and that is an example. I never said one way or the other that I think wolves should be brought back. I have just consistently said that things won't be as bad as most of the naysayers think they will and I've been pointing out the reasons I believe this. Will there be some individual cases where something unfortunate happens, say some farm animals or pets get killed? Yes. Will there be cases where wolves slow the recovery of a localized herd or even cause it to dip? yes But overall, in the long run, they won't cause the destruction of our game herds. And they can do some good.
It's past time to worry about whether they should be brought back. They are back. Where our efforts need to go now is to management and mitigating the damage that they do cause on a case by case basis.
Post by: bearpaw on January 01, 2012, 01:57:46 PM
No Thanks for your lack of compassion and consideration for those people and animals which are affected by the poor decisions of people who are out of touch with the realities and impacts of wolves. :yike:
The one thing I will agree, wolves are here and someone in WDFW better get the lead out and hire some competent help to start confirming wolves. :twocents:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 01, 2012, 02:18:09 PM
I guess if you don't live where you have to fear walking to your mailbox, if you aren't the rancher who loses a year's income to wolves, if you aren't the one who finds your dog's skeleton that's still warm
No Thanks for your lack of compassion and consideration for those people and animals
Ahhhh the dreaded mailbox stalking wolves. I'd forgotten about those. I may have to reconsider my whole position.
While I'm doing that, I guess I'm going to have to find all the dog attack videos and info I can to compare with your wolf attack videos. Ask a farmer to honestly tell you about the damage dogs do to his animals? Not to mention dog attacks on humans.
I can tell you about a dog attack I saw the results of. Pulled up to a friend's house on Kodiak Island, out at Bells Flats. His neighbors were frantically trying to comfort their pet goat. Two large dogs had come onto their property and attacked the goat grabbing the fur by the neck, They had ripped the hide loose at the neck and litterally skinned the goat alive. It was standing there quivering with it's hide hanging from it's side. It's back was bare all the way back to it's hind end.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 01, 2012, 02:25:07 PM
Post by: JackOfAllTrades on January 01, 2012, 02:27:36 PM
-Steve
Post by: Wenatcheejay on January 01, 2012, 02:42:04 PM
I guess if you don't live where you have to fear walking to your mailbox, if you aren't the rancher who loses a year's income to wolves, if you aren't the one who finds your dog's skeleton that's still warm
No Thanks for your lack of compassion and consideration for those people and animals
Ahhhh the dreaded mailbox stalking wolves. I'd forgotten about those. I may have to reconsider my whole position.
While I'm doing that, I guess I'm going to have to find all the dog attack videos and info I can to compare with your wolf attack videos. Ask a farmer to honestly tell you about the damage dogs do to his animals? Not to mention dog attacks on humans.
I can tell you about a dog attack I saw the results of. Pulled up to a friend's house on Kodiak Island, out at Bells Flats. His neighbors were frantically trying to comfort their pet goat. Two large dogs had come onto their property and attacked the goat grabbing the fur by the neck, They had ripped the hide loose at the neck and litterally skinned the goat alive. It was standing there quivering with it's hide hanging from it's side. It's back was bare all the way back to it's hind end.
A dog which does that needs to be put down. Thank you for the comparison to wolves that attack pets and livestock. I totally agree with you.
Post by: furbearer365 on January 01, 2012, 02:48:03 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 01, 2012, 02:54:58 PM
"415 elk between 2000-2004. " That's about 80 per year. That's the equivalent of what a handful of wolves will kill.
Bob, again, read the part where they said this is only a small portion of the actual UNKNOWN total.
If you go with the new york study where for every 1 deer killed that is reported, 5 others die, you come up with 6 times the reported amount. Now I doubt with elk it is that high for a couple reasons, the main one being that elk are so much larger, the accidents are generally more serious so are brought to the attention of the authorities. But with deer, that turns 3,000 reported dead deer per year into 18,000 dead deer per year. and again that is just on State and Federal highways. The hunter take for 2009 and 2010 was right about 33,000. My guess from what I see on this DOT report is that Washington probably has at least 20 to 30 thousand deer killed a year by vehicles. Pretty eye opening isn't it?
Add in the county and city roads. You might not think that city kill is that much, but I have personally seen two auto killed deer within a block of my house in the last 4 years. One was right across the street. A new phenomenon in recent years is deer populations exploding withing many city limits. Victoria BC is really up to their eyeballs in deer for example. ( http://www.rivermenrodandgunclub.com/3/post/2011/11/victoria-overrun-by-deer-as-some-locals-propose-cull.html)
Then there are the PRIVATE roads which I would guess the vast majority are logging roads. I wonder how many deer or elk are taken out each year by log trucks and others on log roads. I have a good friend who drives a dump truck on a log road building and maintenance crew. He told me he's killed two this year, one a doe, and the other a nice fork horn a week before season started up the Wynooche. He's a hunter himself and it really pained him, but as he told me, on those tight roads, if it's the deer or me, it's gonna be the deer.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 01, 2012, 02:59:25 PM
A dog which does that needs to be put down. Thank you for the comparison to wolves that attack pets and livestock. I totally agree with you.
And Jay, I totally agree with you. I also agree that wolves that do the same need to be dealt with aggressively. Take out the ones that cause trouble before they cause more trouble or teach others to cause trouble. That should be the rule for all animals and humans.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on January 01, 2012, 03:08:05 PM
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Idaho-grizzly-killed-threatened/2011/08/26/id/408746
Remember that case. Enough, it has to change. If you follow other States this is very hostile, as it should be. Many here want to avoid that senerio but it is enveitable. ESA needs to be abolished. PERIOD
Post by: furbearer365 on January 01, 2012, 03:15:38 PM
Post by: elkboy on January 01, 2012, 03:15:45 PM
Good summary in the following document. Happy New Year, everyone!
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wolves/docs/ParasiteFlyer.pdf
Post by: furbearer365 on January 01, 2012, 03:19:05 PM
WHAT FACTUAL GOODS THAT COME FROM WOLVES WILL WE SEE IN THE NEXT 10 - 15 YEARS. Please answer it, because you havent already done so. Leave out the words I BELIEVE,I THINK, OR MAYBE.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on January 01, 2012, 03:19:50 PM
A dog which does that needs to be put down. Thank you for the comparison to wolves that attack pets and livestock. I totally agree with you.
And Jay, I totally agree with you. I also agree that wolves that do the same need to be dealt with aggressively. Take out the ones that cause trouble before they cause more trouble or teach others to cause trouble. That should be the rule for all animals and humans.
If more of this had happened with wolves, if it would happen without lawsuits, the hunting community would support it as it once did. We did not change the goal posts, the Fed's did, DFW did. All most want is a sensible MANAGEMENT. Humans, livestock, and pets above wild animals for a start. A sustainable deer, moose and elk population. Again and again evidence shows unmanaged wolves are a disaster. There is no plan to deal with it, never was. But I have to admit, when I look at WDFW there is no clear mandate for them to manage anything for Big Game hunting. So, until there is what's the point of talking about anything else? The animals are there for biologists to do as they please.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 01, 2012, 10:18:14 PM
If more of this had happened with wolves, if it would happen without lawsuits, the hunting community would support it as it once did. We did not change the goal posts, the Fed's did, DFW did. All most want is a sensible MANAGEMENT. Humans, livestock, and pets above wild animals for a start. A sustainable deer, moose and elk population. Again and again evidence shows unmanaged wolves are a disaster. There is no plan to deal with it, never was. But I have to admit, when I look at WDFW there is no clear mandate for them to manage anything for Big Game hunting. So, until there is what's the point of talking about anything else? The animals are there for biologists to do as they please.
Again I agree with you. And that is where our efforts need to go, towards good and sensible management. Anything else is wasted time, money and effort.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 01, 2012, 10:30:52 PM
Sitka, yes there are many variables that lead to the deaths of our game such as car wrecks etc. But why are you comparing a completely accidental wreck to our biologists deliberately planting wolves.
Because I believe that wolves will never get to a point where they will threaten hunting. I also believe they will take other predators out. I also believe a lot of what they eat will be carrion such as animals killed by autos and animals that die after being shot and escaping. They are opportunistic. So I believe in the long run they will be a push as far as the size of game herds.
Predators tho are going to take a hit from them. They will even take on bears when it comes to food. anybody who spends time in the Washington woods knows that this state is overrun by coyotes. Just by knocking them down wolves will be deserving of what they eat.
Why do I believe that wolves won't overpopulate the State? Because wolves are very territorial. It's a built in limiting factor that cervids don't have. They will actively hunt down and kill other wolves that invade their territory. Also, wolves live a tough life. Besides other wolves, wolves get killed or mortally wounded by the game they hunt.
Post by: huntnnw on January 01, 2012, 10:37:23 PM
WOW! you must not read or been to areas that once were full of elk and moose
Post by: wraithen on January 01, 2012, 10:47:02 PM
Huntnnw, he believes those animals simply went to better places and that herds don't stay in one place historically for forever.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 01, 2012, 11:10:42 PM
Sitka, do you condone hunting wolves?
I have said before here, I not only condone hunting but trapping wolves.
So what's your point?
Post by: wraithen on January 01, 2012, 11:13:59 PM
Post by: huntnnw on January 01, 2012, 11:44:34 PM
Sitka, do you condone hunting wolves?
Huntnnw, he believes those animals simply went to better places and that herds don't stay in one place historically for forever.
haha...just magically 25,000 head of elk in the Big hole valley just moved away...christ.. :bash:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on January 01, 2012, 11:51:29 PM
If more of this had happened with wolves, if it would happen without lawsuits, the hunting community would support it as it once did. We did not change the goal posts, the Fed's did, DFW did. All most want is a sensible MANAGEMENT. Humans, livestock, and pets above wild animals for a start. A sustainable deer, moose and elk population. Again and again evidence shows unmanaged wolves are a disaster. There is no plan to deal with it, never was. But I have to admit, when I look at WDFW there is no clear mandate for them to manage anything for Big Game hunting. So, until there is what's the point of talking about anything else? The animals are there for biologists to do as they please.
Again I agree with you. And that is where our efforts need to go, towards good and sensible management. Anything else is wasted time, money and effort.
OK "sensible" management.
Was and is Yellowstone an example of that?
Is the Lolo unit in Idaho sensible example?
Is it sensible to wait until herds are at levels so low they are not recoverable?
I ask because so far that has been management.
But somehow, that is not going to happen here. So they say. And they refuse to have a plan if it happens. Accept to manage through restriction certian user groups. (The Average Washington Big Game Hunter) That is the only WDFW mandate here.
Post by: huntnnw on January 01, 2012, 11:54:47 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 02, 2012, 04:21:26 AM
Sitka, yes there are many variables that lead to the deaths of our game such as car wrecks etc. But why are you comparing a completely accidental wreck to our biologists deliberately planting wolves.
Because I believe that wolves will never get to a point where they will threaten hunting. I also believe they will take other predators out. I also believe a lot of what they eat will be carrion such as animals killed by autos and animals that die after being shot and escaping. They are opportunistic. So I believe in the long run they will be a push as far as the size of game herds.
Predators tho are going to take a hit from them. They will even take on bears when it comes to food. anybody who spends time in the Washington woods knows that this state is overrun by coyotes. Just by knocking them down wolves will be deserving of what they eat.
Why do I believe that wolves won't overpopulate the State? Because wolves are very territorial. It's a built in limiting factor that cervids don't have. They will actively hunt down and kill other wolves that invade their territory. Also, wolves live a tough life. Besides other wolves, wolves get killed or mortally wounded by the game they hunt.
Sitka_Blacktail thank you for showing us precisely how misguided wildlife managers and many unsuspecting residents are in Washington. You are patently wrong about the effects on hunting. Hunters in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are experiencing the "threat to hunting". 2000 Gardner late cow elk hunts have been completely eliminated, the northern Yellowstone elk herd has gone form nearly 20,000 to less than 5,000 since wolves were introduced. The portion of that herd that lives off the park has gone from nearly 12,000 to a little more than 2200. Certain seasons in many areas of the Rocky Mountain states have been greatly reduced or completely eliminated due to wolves being a primary factor in dramatic herd decline. Success rates in numerous units are at record lows. Many families depended on annual success from these hunts to fill their freezers.
Fact: I am an outfitter in Idaho and Montana, I used to get most of my hunters from urban areas but I'm getting an increasing number of hunters from central Idaho, western Montana and Wyoming who are calling me wanting to book deer hunts in Washington or Utah, cow elk hunts in Utah, or bison hunts on private ranches because they are having no success elk and deer hunting where they live and they want to eat something other than domestic meat.
Last week a guy from Libby Montana called and said he hasn't gotten an elk in 4 years since the wolves have overpopulated northwest Montana, he booked a bison hunt on a private ranch so he could fill his freezer. I have nearly more interest in meat hunts from wolf affected areas now as I do from urban areas. 10 years ago I never had a call from hunters in these formerly prime hunting areas.
Sitka_Blacktail your replies lack any facts, instead you speak exactly like a brainwashed F&G biologist citing "Defenders Of Wildlife" wilderness-like theory that wolves will self regulate and have little effect. You completely sidestep the facts and numbers coming out of wolf affected areas in the Rocky Mtn states. Unfortunately self-regulation means wolves starve to death or eat each other and numbers drop because there is not enough wild game to support such high wolf numbers. The problem in today's modern ecosystems in the lower 48 states is that much of the landscape is human inhabited with pets and livestock. The wolves simply switch their diet to stay alive. The livestock loss numbers presented to you have proven this true. The videos posted have shown this to be true. The following news story further proves you are patently wrong, wolves do threaten hunting!
http://www.ktvq.com/news/gardiner-elk-hunt-falls-victim-to-wolves/
Gardiner elk hunt falls victim to wolves
Posted: Feb 18, 2010 11:00 PM by Jay Kohn
GARDINER - One of the consequences of "Living with Wolves" is the elimination of a special late season elk hunt near Gardiner that has been part of the Montana hunting scene for the past 35 years. The January hunt was firstconducted in 1976, to help manage elk migrating out of Yellowstone National Park. At that time, the park's northern herd had reached as many as 12-thousand animals.
But once wolves were reintroduced to the park, the northern herd's numbers started declining. In 2005, game managers counted 9,545 elk. Three years later that figure had dropped to 3,912 animals, and by 2009 the herd's population was down to 3,511 elk. This year, FWP's aerial surveys of the northern herd outside the park's boundaries counted only 2,236 animals.
Last week, Montana's Fish and Game Commission voted to end the late season hunt citing elk numbers that had fallen below target levels due to predation mainly from wolves, but also from grizzly bears. The Montana Elk Plan established in 2004 called for a population of between 3-thousand to 5-thousand elk in the portion of the Northern elk herd that winters in Montana.
Post by: bearpaw on January 02, 2012, 05:44:07 AM
http://www.healthandwelfare.idaho.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=yrb8A0GvnMI%3D&tabid=682
Quote
Foreyt et al2 reported finding E. granulosus in 62% of Idaho wolves evaluated between 2006 and 2008. E. granulosus was also detected in elk, deer, and a mountain goat. The authors consider this the first report of E. granulosus in a wildlife cycle in Idaho.
HHHMMMMMM, I guess it's only a co-incidence!
Having proven that a high percentage of Idaho wolves are infected "wolf worms" I can suggest with assumed accuracy there is a 62% chance the single wolf "who's pack originated from Idaho", that is traveling through Oregon to California has been depositing "wolf worm" eggs along the entire route.
I can also suggest with assumed accuracy that 62% of the wolves in Washington that originated from Idaho and Oregon are depositing eggs across Washington's landscape in virtually every piece of wolf scat dropped.
Does anyone think that no dog or local coyote will ever sniff a piece of wolf scat "terd" from one of our newly residing wolves? Does anyone think that no wild ungulate or no livestock animal will sniff a "terd" while grazing? Does anyone think it's impossible for a small child petting and playing with the family dog to be infected? Does anyone think that a person who works or recreates with livestock or wild animals that have grazed cannot become infected?
There are two new cases of E Granulosus infection in humans in Idaho. A person in Elk City and I have heard the other person is in Bonners Ferry. Granted the odds are low, but it's a bummer if you or your child is the one that gets infected....
____________________________________
In other countries the authorities are far more concerned about advising and protecting their citizens from infections. In the lower 48 states the authorities are more concerned about minimizing the effects and possibility of infection so wolves are accepted by the public.
Argentina: http://vet.unne.edu.ar/revista/22-1%202011/RevVet_vol_22_nro_1_2011-04_Lavallen.pdf
Abstract
Lavallén, C.M.; Dopchiz, M.C.; Lobianco, E.; Hollmann, P.; Denegri, G.: Intestinal
parasites of zoonotic importance in dogs from the District of General Pueyrredón (Buenos
Aires, Argentina). Rev. vet. 22: 1, 19–24, 2011. Dog feces harbouring infective parasitic
forms (larves, eggs, cysts of helminths and oocysts of protozoan) are potential sources of environmental
contamination, representing a high risk of infection for people. The feces of 46
dogs housed at the Municipal Centre of Zoonoses of Mar del Plata City were analyzed to determine
the prevalence of intestinal parasitic forms. The overall prevalence of parasites was
89.13%. Detected parasites were Ancylostoma caninum (71.74%), Toxocara canis (63.04%),
Trichuris vulpis (45.65%), Uncinaria stenocephala (41.30%), Capillaria aerophila (17.39%),
Echinococcus granulosus (8.69%), Giardia spp. (10.87%) and Isospora spp. (2.17%). The
geographical characteristics and the wet weather of the region under consideration, together
with the cultural habits and the socio–economic situation of the population may favor transmission.
The prevalences of stray and domesticated infected dogs were 88% and 95.24%,
respectively. Because stray dogs are often free–roaming, environmental contamination with
parasite forms had likely already occurred. The prevalences of A. caninum and T. vulpis
were significantly higher in < 6 years–old dogs rather than in older animals. Parasite–specific
immunity is usually acquired during development, probably as a consequence of single
or repeated exposures. Multiple infections were more frequent (80%) than infections with
a single parasite (20%) and the most common parasite association (21.87%) was among A.
caninum, T. vulpis, T. canis and U. stenocephala. The high prevalence of poly–parasitized
animals together with the zoonotic potential of the parasites found in the samples, indicate
that dog feces could be the source of several parasite infections for human as well as canine
populations of the region under study. The parasite zoonoses transmitted by dogs are still a
sanitary problem in the District of General Pueyrredón.
Turkey
_____________________________________________
I am in no way trying to say this issue should dominate our wolf discussion, but in my opinion it's another negative and an important issue regarding wolves and our Washington agencies should at least be educating people to be cautious.
Post by: bearpaw on January 02, 2012, 06:05:50 AM
My main concern at this point is how to influence the WDFW to monitor wolves in Washington. Our agency is way behind the curve, there appears to be well over 100 wolves in Washington and WDFW thinks there is no more than 30 wolves and only has one moderately successful trapper. Somehow we must influence the state to hire some capable trappers to get these wolves verified. Natural proven reproduction rates in Idaho and Montana suggest that our wolf population will grow by 24% per year. It would be easy for WA to have as many wolves and problems as Idaho if we don't get on top of monitoring our wolf numbers.
This video shows where the Rocky Mountain states are now, and where we will be soon:
(please keep in mind they are talking about the areas surrounding yellowstone, they are not talking about having wolves in every county of the state)
Post by: furbearer365 on January 02, 2012, 09:35:02 AM
Post by: huntnnw on January 02, 2012, 11:34:15 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 05, 2012, 01:01:22 PM
he hasnt addressed anything on here..just avoids them..I personally think he is just stirring the pot
Really? I see you guys screaming for facts, but when I post them, you overlook them. Facts aren't very convenient when they disagree with you are they?
I already showed how hunter harvest for deer and elk has gone up as wolves increased in Montana. And I showed that while deer harvest dropped a bit in Idaho, (mainly from back to back bad winters) The elk harvest has remained fairly steady as wolf numbers grow. And I pointed out the Idaho biology report on elk that has very in depth analysis on wolves and habitat and the history of elk in Idaho. https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Elk%20Statewide%20PR10.pdf This report also shows that there was a problem with the elk herds before the wolves were ever released in Yellowstone in units such as Lolo due to habitat issues.
Since you don't want to educate yourselves, I'll help you. We'll take a look at Wisconsin deer hunting since wolves have found their way back there from Minnesota.
Here's an interesting link from the Wisconsin DNR. http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/mammals/wolf/wolf_facts.htm#History%20in%20Wisconsin
And a couple quotes from it.
("Before Wisconsin was settled in the 1830s, wolves lived throughout the state. Nobody knows how many wolves there were, but best estimates would be 3,000-5,000 animals. Explorers, trappers and settlers transformed Wisconsin's native habitat into farmland, hunted elk and bison to extirpation, and reduced deer populations. As their prey species declined, wolves began to feed on easy-to-capture livestock. As might be expected, this was unpopular among farmers.")
Hmmm I see another common theme here, humans wiping out everything in their path.
("By 1960, wolves were declared extirpated from Wisconsin. Ironically, studies have shown that wolves have minimal negative impact on deer populations, since they feed primarily on weak, sick, or disabled individuals.")
I know I know, they also kill healthy animals when they can't find any weak ones. So? They do what they need to do to eat. They also eat lots of small game and varmints.
("By 1960, few wolves remained in the lower 48 states (only 350-500 in Minnesota and about 20 on Isle Royale in Michigan). In 1974, however, the value of timber wolves was recognized on the federal level and they were given protection under the Endangered Species Act (Exit DNR). With protection, the Minnesota wolf population in-creased and several individuals dispersed into northern Wisconsin in the mid-1970s. In 1975, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources declared timber wolves endangered. A wolf research program was initiated in 1979.")
OK, so by the mid 70's wolves were making a comeback in Wisconsin from wolves that dispersed there from Minnesota. I have another link that provides a nice chronology of deer hunting in Wisconsin. http://host.madison.com/sports/recreation/outdoors/article_66e3c206-ed41-11df-a141-001cc4c002e0.html It shows that in 1978 while wolves were gaining a foothold in Wisconsin, 150,845 deer were taken by hunters. The DNR fact sheet show that the population of wolves there has grown to about 650 at present. So if all you anti wolf people are correct, Wisconsin's deer population should have plummeted from that point forward and hunting should be ruined forever. Let's see how that went then? Again on the chronology link we find that the harvest in Wisconsin went up to over 255,000 in 1984. (I must be cherry picking again, right?) Then by 1990 it was an all time record of over 350,000. (lots of cherries on that tree to pick)
Then in 1992 we have this.....
("1992 -- Though kill fourth highest on record, 288,820, many hunters voice discontent over lack of success and claim DNR raised expectations by pre-hunt harvest prediction of around 370,000")
Those ungrateful hunters.... 4th highest year ever and they're complaining....Must be the wolves right?
Whoops! in 1995 it was up to 398,000 harvested deer. What is going on here? This has to be smoke and mirrors......
It drops a little for a couple years then.....2000 a record 528,000 and change are killed. Yessireebob, wolves are ruining hunting in Wisconsin.
In 2004, hunters are required to kill a doe before they can harvest a buck and over 400,000 does are harvested. This herd is getting out of control. In 2007( "402,563 deer killed during all gun seasons is the third highest total on record" ) In spite of all the effort to reduce the herd.
By 2009, they are getting the herd back under control and the harvest was around 242,000.
It must have been those darn wolves! Because we all know when there are wolves around, the deer population goes down. It has to....... because wolves eat deer, It has to. It has to. That's the only thing that makes sense!
Time to get your heads out of the sand fellows.
Post by: villageidiot on January 05, 2012, 01:06:25 PM
Post by: wraithen on January 05, 2012, 01:09:06 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on January 05, 2012, 01:13:15 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 05, 2012, 01:13:38 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 05, 2012, 01:17:13 PM
I get it! So all the numbers you posted prove without a doubt that more wolves equals more deer and elk! That's amazing!
Nope. But they do show that wolves don't automatically mean bad news for hunters. I could show you the same thing in Michigan or in Minnesota. In fact even with large hunter harvests and a pretty large wolf kill of deer, (Minnesota has about 3,000 wolves) Minnesota managers are still concerned about controling deer numbers. (not wolf numbers)
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200211/18_steilm_deerherd/
Post by: Broken Arrow on January 05, 2012, 01:22:17 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on January 05, 2012, 01:27:21 PM
Washington doesn't exactly have a deer or elk problem. We have the most elk hunters per elk in the West. We also do not have massive tracts of land that are remote.
If wolves don't automatically mean "bad news for hunters" are you making the argument it could be good? Or can you honestly make the statement that you really believe that this will have a net zero difference to our game populations?
Let me ask you this way....real simple...
Do you believe in predator management? Why or why not?
Post by: wraithen on January 05, 2012, 01:31:44 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on January 05, 2012, 01:36:18 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 05, 2012, 02:07:30 PM
After reading the entire report from the link you posted for the Idaho Department of Fish and Wildlife, I am throughly convinsed you either need glasses, did not read the report, or refuse to comprehend 99% of which you did not "choose" to comment on.
Be specific.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 05, 2012, 02:16:20 PM
So many things are screwed up with your line of thinking here Sitka....
Washington doesn't exactly have a deer or elk problem. We have the most elk hunters per elk in the West. We also do not have massive tracts of land that are remote.
Habitat, habitat, habitat. You're going to have issues like this as long as the human population continues to grow.
Do you believe in predator management? Why or why not?
I don't have a problem with it where it can be shown to have a beneficial effect. I have no problem with taking out wolves that threaten farm animals or humans. I have no problem with trapping them or hunting them. And in the case where there is good habitat, but something like a bad winter reduced the prey animals, a temporary reduction in predators to jump start a recovery can be acceptable.
Bottom line, if you don't have the habitat, you won't have the herds you want.
Post by: wraithen on January 05, 2012, 02:18:58 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on January 05, 2012, 02:31:06 PM
Quote
I have no problem with taking out wolves that threaten farm animals or humans. I have no problem with trapping them or hunting them.
So kill all the wolves that leave Yellowstone? What do you suggest as a solution to personal property losses because of these wolves?
Post by: Wenatcheejay on January 05, 2012, 03:40:46 PM
Sitka,
There has been a constant question that is the reason for all the pages. Why wolves?
You give data about a needed balance but again, why wolves? There are other means, so why wolves?
Why not increase human harvests? Why wolves?
What is the reason to restore the status of a creature that is so hard to control?
That is really the answer isn't it.
Words are a funny thing. They create pictures. So, balance on this board is a way to carry on and allow a predator to have a nitch while carrying on with the "North American Model."
However, to others, "Balance" is a "Natural" thing. "Void of Man." Balance means that the Ecosystem is self sustaining but not sustaining in the "North American Model" sense. It is in the old "Preservation" sense.
What people need to understand is your perception, like many who post on FB is not the perception that dominates here. You are good at controlling the argument. I see it on FB with people like you, I see it here. I do wonder how long it will sustain itself thought.
There are many people on this board who realize it is a matter of law, a mandate of Government that controls this argument. That is why there is such a need to work with the Legislators on this issue to redraft the Mission of WDFW in this State if we wish to hold on to this heritage. It is the only way. So, for showing such a clear picture of what we are up against I thank you.
Post by: Machias on January 05, 2012, 03:58:28 PM
Sitka,
There has been a constant question that is the reason for all the pages. Why wolves?
You give data about a needed balance but again, why wolves? There are other means, so why wolves?
Why not increase human harvests? Why wolves?
What is the reason to restore the status of a creature that is so hard to control?
That is really the answer isn't it.
Words are a funny thing. They create pictures. So, balance on this board is a way to carry on and allow a predator to have a nitch while carrying on with the "North American Model."
However, to others, "Balance" is a "Natural" thing. "Void of Man." Balance means that the Ecosystem is self sustaining but not sustaining in the "North American Model" sense. It is in the old "Preservation" sense.
What people need to understand is your perception, like many who post on FB is not the perception that dominates here. You are good at controlling the argument. I see it on FB with people like you, I see it here. I do wonder how long it will sustain itself thought.
There are many people on this board who realize it is a matter of law, a mandate of Government that controls this argument. That is why there is such a need to work with the Legislators on this issue to redraft the Mission of WDFW in this State if we wish to hold on to this heritage. It is the only way. So, for showing such a clear picture of what we are up against I thank you.
Can I get an AMEN......AMEN!!!
Post by: furbearer365 on January 05, 2012, 04:08:11 PM
Post by: seth30 on January 05, 2012, 04:43:07 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 05, 2012, 06:12:10 PM
Sitka,
There has been a constant question that is the reason for all the pages. Why wolves?
Why not increase human harvests? Why wolves?
So, for showing such a clear picture of what we are up against I thank you.
Jay, I'm not posting to be the bearer of bad tidings, quite the opposite. I'm trying to show other hunters that wolves aren't the end of hunting. They can be just another animal in the woods. I've showed example after example where herds either went up or stayed stable with wolves in the picture. If your mind is made up, nothing I can show you will change your mind. That doesn't make these examples false tho. It's there to see if you take an honest look at it.
Why wolves? why not humans? For starters, humans have a different selection process when hunting. Many hunt for trophies, which means they are trying to take the biggest healthiest animals out of the herd. In many cases, they are taking out the animals with the best genetics. Because of sheer numbers and modern weaponry and gadgets such as rangefinders, powerful scopes, game cams, etc, man only hunts a small part of the year. They are way more efficient than any other predator. Because of short seasons they don't do any weeding out at all most of the year.
And man generally passes on the small and the weak/sick/injured. Wolves specifically target those animals. They can limit disease outbreaks. Wolves are continually sizing up prospective meals. Biologically, it's not in a wolf's best interest to work any harder than it has to to kill something. Strong healthy animals are dangerous to a wolf. A kick in the jaw or ribs can be crippling or even fatal. Do they take healthy animals? sure they do, but if there's a weak one and a healthy one, the weak one gets taken out most of the time.
If a hunter has a choice, they take the biggest strongest one first almost every time. (my brother is an exception to this rule, his choice is does first, spikes and small forkies second, and I can't remember the last time he took a large buck. He still lives in Alaska. When he has his choice moose hunting, he goes for a cow also. He doesn't care a bit about antlers. He's out to fill his freezer with good eating meat.)
Post by: furbearer365 on January 05, 2012, 07:14:26 PM
Post by: Machias on January 05, 2012, 07:21:07 PM
And man generally passes on the small and the weak/sick/injured. Wolves specifically target those animals. They can limit disease outbreaks. Wolves are continually sizing up prospective meals. Biologically, it's not in a wolf's best interest to work any harder than it has to to kill something. Strong healthy animals are dangerous to a wolf. A kick in the jaw or ribs can be crippling or even fatal. Do they take healthy animals? sure they do, but if there's a weak one and a healthy one, the weak one gets taken out most of the time.
If a hunter has a choice, they take the biggest strongest one first almost every time. (my brother is an exception to this rule, his choice is does first, spikes and small forkies second, and I can't remember the last time he took a large buck. He still lives in Alaska. When he has his choice moose hunting, he goes for a cow also. He doesn't care a bit about antlers. He's out to fill his freezer with good eating meat.)
Now that is straight up total PETA/HSUS/Animal Rights :bs: Complete fairy tale what you just typed there.
Post by: ICEMAN on January 05, 2012, 07:29:00 PM
For most of us, this discussion is new. I feel that is is not a new topic to you. Sorry, but I do not buy your arguement, and I do feel that you are agenda driven and are wasting your time. I do not believe you will convince many here.
Post by: furbearer365 on January 05, 2012, 07:36:08 PM
Post by: Turner89 on January 05, 2012, 07:42:44 PM
I appreciate the well written and thought out info. I dont have a clue about wolves be side what i have read on this thread.
I would rather we didnt have to worry about wolves in washington at all, but it seems we will be regardless. Alot of what you have posted makes sense. It is just a risk most (hunters, myself included) are not willing to take. There isnt anyone that is native to washington state that has lived with a local wolf population for very long.
I lived at prince of Wales for a year right out of high school building logging roads. I saw my first and only wolves up there along the beach. We also had deer walking around our camp like dogs. So I know that deer will be ok, and I ASSUME elk would also. :dunno:
I sympathise with the ranchers and others that loose live stock though. If the state would be a little more pro active with the tracking of wolves and the management plan I think that would help. (let ranchers protect stock)
I really think that transplanting wolves here is wrong. If people want to live amongst wolves move to where the wolves are.
Thanks for a different side of issue. :tup:
Post by: furbearer365 on January 05, 2012, 08:01:17 PM
Post by: seth30 on January 05, 2012, 08:02:13 PM
Lets lay out the plan so far. Reintroduce them, pray they dont eat cattle and only kill sick deer and elk, hope they dont overpopulate, and if they do, fight the federal government and every activist to delist them and put a management plan in place. All that just to have a NON NATIVE animal among us. That is what we know and that is what guys like Sitka are wanting us to stand behind. Sorry man, cant do it.:yeah:
Post by: Machias on January 05, 2012, 08:15:05 PM
By George Dovel, editor/publisher The Outdoorsman
Shortly after World War II ended, the Washington, D.C. based Wildlife Management Institute recommended the Idaho F&G Commission invite thousands of out-of-state hunters to harvest “trophy” Idaho big game animals in remote backcountry areas allegedly to prevent damage to habitat. The result of similar recommendations to other western states is evident in the sudden big game harvest increases during the 1950s followed by eventual severe harvest declines during the mid-1960s and early 70s.
Elk Study Proves Habitat Did Not Cause Decline
By 1964, elk harvests in the Clearwater had declined dramatically so the “Clearwater Elk Ecology Study” was launched – with the first five years devoted to evaluating habitat quantity, quality and elk use. The next four years found high conception and calf birth rates but very poor survival during the first two weeks after birth.
The result of the first nine years of careful study was that 13 years of extended either-sex hunting seasons and too few surviving calves – not habitat – were responsible for the mid-1960s elk decline.
The next 10-years of study proved that reduced cow elk numbers could no longer provide enough newborn calves to feed the black bears during the brief calving period, plus feed other predators later and still provide replacements for the elk that die each year. Trapping and relocating 75 bears in 1976 tripled the number of surviving elk calves, and doubling the bear bag limit in year-around seasons restored the elk in a few years.
The 19-year study and a dozen similarly extensive peer-reviewed studies in Canada, Alaska and the Great Lakes all arrived at the same conclusion. Where multiple predators, including wolves, existed with alternate prey species, it was necessary to reduce the number of predators dramatically once prey populations were reduced – regardless of whether the prey reduction was natural or man-caused (as in excessive hunter harvests).
By 1985 even wolf expert David Mech admitted he was responsible for resurrecting the “balance of nature” myth as a graduate student and wrote “Far from being ‘balanced,’ ratios of wolves and prey animals can fluctuate wildly – and sometimes catastrophically.” He illustrated the necessity to dramatically reduce wolf numbers whenever their prey declined and F&G agencies in the Northern Rockies promised wolf numbers would be carefully monitored and controlled if they were introduced.
F&G Fails to Monitor Elk Populations
The Idaho Legislature did not allow IDFG to manage wolves for eight years after it violated Idaho law by secretly approving the FWS plan and issuing FWS a permit allowing them to transplant wolves into Idaho. But even after the Legislature rewrote and then approved the 17th IDFG draft of its wolf plan in 2002, F&G failed to follow even the provisions it had written into that plan.
For example, Page 23 of the 2002 State Wolf Plan requires IDFG to conduct a census every year of selected prey populations, including at least population size and sex and age ratio, with additional information required when concerns are raised about wolf predation (emphasis added). Instead, biologists conducted these mandatory counts only once every 3-5 years and did nothing to assess the impact of wolf predation for several years.
F&G Denied Winter Losses, Increased Cow Permits
Despite peer reviewers’ concurrence with counting total deer and elk and then comparing the numbers with pre-wolf counts to determine the impact of wolves, biologists also ignored that input. They also ignored the 19 years of research in the Clearwater and all of the research elsewhere implicating predators, and denied any adverse impact from the 1992-93 winter and the 1996-97 winter.
For a year after the severe 1996-97 winter they continued to claim cow elk losses were less than normal in Lewiston Tribune articles and increased the number of antlerless permits in the 1997 elk season! They continued to insist that declining calf survival since 1992 resulted from aging brush fields that were being replaced by forest.
Zager Spent 20 years Trying to Prove the Habitat Myth
That is the same excuse other biologists used 40 years earlier with the same results. The famous Clearwater elk herds have continued to decline for the second time, but instead of seeking the truth as happened in 1964, research biologist Pete Zager and his helpers have wasted nearly two decades and countless dollars unsuccessfully trying to find some evidence to support their habitat excuse as they allowed the elk herd to be decimated.
The UN – Nature Conservancy – IDFG philosophy of reintroducing wolves into ecosystems to create a “natural balance” prohibited biologists from killing wolves and from admitting the truth – that uncontrolled wolves ultimately destroy healthy elk herds and leave them in a predator pit from which they cannot recover without help.
IDFG 2005 Wolf Control Proposal Violated 10J
When former Idaho Gov. Kempthorne signed the Agreement with the Secretary of Interior on January 5, 2006 to manage wolves, Idaho biologists’ proposal to kill 43-50 wolves in the Lolo Zone was written so it could not be approved by FWS (see “10J Wolf Control Plan Sabotaged” on Page 10 of The Outdoorsman Bulletin No.38 at: http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Outdoorsman.html ). The Proposal falsely claimed (without offering any proof) that “Forest Maturation” was the sole primary cause of elk declines, with bear and lion predation causing calf declines and wolf predation likely contributing to low cow survival.
Rather than rewrite their Proposal to include facts instead of the habitat myth, Idaho biologists insisted that habitat is always the primary cause of wild ungulate declines. FWS Wolf Leader Ed Bangs suggested IDFG hold the proposal and took two years to re-write and get final approval of another 10J version which allowed control if wolves were just a contributor to elk declines.
But that same 10J version by Bangs included the lie that predation is never the primary cause of prey declines despite the results of uncontested long-term scientific studies that prove just the opposite is true.
Meanwhile in 2007, Idaho biologists wrote their own version of an Idaho wolf plan, upping the minimum requirement for each state to leave at least 20 breeding pairs intact before any control of wolves impacting big game can be approved. Bangs included that in the final 10J proposal published on Jan. 28, 2008 even before it was finally approved by the Idaho F&G Commission in March.
Habitat Had Little or No Impact on Elk Decline
When Judge Molloy canceled Idaho’s proposed 2008 wolf hunt on July 18, 2008, Clearwater Region Biologist George Pauley gathered factual information from numerous long term peer-reviewed studies proving that habitat was not a cause of prey declines. These included research in the Clearwater by Pauley back in 1995, which was included in a 2008 10J proposal to lethally remove an average of 105 wolves for five years.
The Outdoorsman has published much of this data for several years and it was a pleasant surprise to see a written admission by IDFG officials that declining habitat was not a significant cause of elk declines in either the Lolo Zone or elsewhere in Idaho. As this issue is printed the 2010 Proposal is still available on the F&G website at http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/apps/surveys/10tenj/10j.pdf . But for readers without internet access, I am publishing the following comments from that 26-page proposal.
The comments include F&G conclusions from scientific studies in the Lolo Zone, throughout Idaho and in other states and provinces, that habitat has had little or no impact on the decline of big game populations (where alternate prey species and multiple predators exist). They are published here with the reminder that “density dependence” refers to elk numbers being controlled by the quantity or quality of available habitat.
Comments in Idaho Rule 10(j) Proposal, Lolo Zone
At its peak in 1989, the Lolo Zone elk population was estimated to number 16,054 elk. Elk calf recruitment rates at that time ranged from 25 to 31 calves per 100 cows, while (annual) cow elk survival was estimated at 88.6%. Those vital rates were sufficient to support moderate population growth, despite sustained annual cow elk harvest. Informal assessment of forage utilization suggested that the elk population had not exceeded or even reached habitat potential at that time.
Beginning in 1992, recruitment rates dropped to levels at or below 20 calves (per) 100 cows, and low recruitment has been chronic since then. Biologists speculated that the recruitment decline might be a density dependent response caused by the elk population growing near habitat potential in the late 1980s. Consequently, the population objective range was established below the peak of 16,054 elk to address that possibility. The minimum objective population with 30 calves per 100 cows would be 9,230 which is 57% of the peak population estimated in 1989.
Despite the substantial abundance decline in the Lolo Zone, calf recruitment failed to respond in a density dependent fashion, but rather responded in an inverse density dependent manner to declining abundance in the Lolo Zone, a pattern common to other Idaho elk populations. (Pauley 2007). Pauley (2007) examined recruitment trends in Idaho elk populations following harvest-caused population declines and population declines caused by low recruitment.
Following harvest-caused population declines, recruitment rates declined from a mean of 37 calves:100 cows to 29:100. Furthermore, recruitment rates remained low and failed to return to pre-decline levels for 6 years.
Following recruitment-caused abundance declines, recruitment rates declined further from a mean of 26 calves:100 cows to 18:100.
While the Lolo Zone elk population declined sharply from the peak in the 1989 to the 1997-1998 estimate of 7,746 elk, the estimated calf recruitment rate also declined sharply from 28.6 to 6.6 calves:100 cows. Thus, estimated density declined by 53% while estimated recruitment declined by 77%. Such strong inverse density dependence casts serious doubt on the prospect that the Lolo Zone elk population is limited by density dependent mechanisms. Pauley (2007) revealed a similar pattern of inverse density dependence in other Idaho elk populations.
White and Garrott (2005) failed to detect a density effect on recruitment in the Northern Yellowstone elk herd. They suggested that the Northern Yellowstone herd did not reach carrying capacity and questioned the conclusions of others in that regard.
Data on elk body condition in the Lolo Zone suggests that nutrition is not limiting elk population performance. Some evidence of significant malnutrition would be expected if elk populations were limited by food quantity.
IDFG measured body condition score via palpation and ultrasonography on adult cow elk in GMU 10 during December 2005, January 2009, and January 2010. We found mean body fat composition levels of 12.8% in 2005, 11.7% in 2009, and 12.6% in 2010. Research with captive elk suggests that the observed body fat composition levels would not likely be associated with deaths or reduced productivity from malnutrition (Cook et al. 2004).
Additionally, there was little evidence of malnutrition among wolf-killed elk. Of the 37 adult cow elk killed by wolves, malnutrition was identified as a potential predisposing factor in only four deaths. Of the 21 calf elk killed by wolves malnutrition was identified as a potential predisposing factor in only one death.
Pregnancy was determined for 112 adult (& 2 years age) cow elk captured during 2002-10. The mean pregnancy rate across all years and areas was 0.84.
Research in Yellowstone National Park revealed that wolves tend to prey on older cows (Smith et al. 2004) that have lower survival rates (Raithel et al. 2005), lower fecundity (Raithel et al. 2005), and consequently, lower reproductive value (Wright et al. 2006) than prime-aged cow elk, suggesting an element of compensation.
Of the 28 cow elk killed by wolves in the Lolo zone during 2005-2007, year-specific ages were available for 13 cows. The mean age at death of those cow elk was 8.1 years. Eight were prime-aged ( 10 years). It is apparent that wolves were not exclusively preying on older elk.
After wolf reintroduction, annual cow elk survival declined to much lower levels without the occurrence of human-caused mortality among radio-collared elk. Across GMU’s 10 and 12, the mean survival during 2002-2009 was 80%, and survival appears to decline with increasing wolf-caused mortality. Reduced survival with the addition of wolf-caused mortality would demonstrate an additive effect.
Given the demographic circumstances, the reproductive portion of the population (cow elk) will continue to decline, and, consequently, will not reach the Lolo Zone cow elk abundance objectives. Wolf-caused mortality is the major factor limiting growth of cow elk abundance, and achievement of State objectives.
Over-Harvesting Healthy Herds Destroyed Productivity
In other words, Elk Researcher Pauley and others who prepared the current 10-J Wolf Reduction Proposal have admitted in writing that over-harvesting healthy elk herds that were restored in the 1970s and 80s caused declining recruitment – rather than preventing it. Killing off even more cows to “increase production” – despite no evidence the elk were anywhere near carrying capacity – merely hastened the inevitable destruction by wolves.
Killing more breeding females in the misguided belief that it will somehow magically increase fecundity and juvenile survival might be compared to accidentally hitting your thumb while hammering – and then deliberately hitting your other thumb with the hammer to treat the original wound.
Since the late 1950s, I have watched each new generation of Idaho biologists destroy healthy deer and elk herds by killing too many – and then kill even more in a futile effort to correct what they caused. Doing this, instead of vigorously protecting the remaining breeding stock and reducing the number of predators to a level that will quickly restore optimum production of their prey, reveals blind ignorance of both recent history and science.
Over-Harvesting Caused Calf Declines in Other Elk
The “harvest-caused population declines” found in other Idaho elk herds by Pauley are the result of wildlife managers selling extra hunting opportunity instead of managing wildlife. According to recent counts, in nearly all of the elk zones that formerly produced most of Idaho’s elk harvests, bull and/or cow numbers are either barely meeting the minimum or are below it.
Pauley’s 2007 report that over-harvesting caused calf-to-cow ratios in other Idaho elk herds to decline from 37:100 to 29:100, and then to 18:100 from predation, etc., shows what is really happening since IDFG began pretending to manage habitat and ecosystems. Yet Pauley sent similar widely circulated information to Clearwater Wildlife Manager Jay Crenshaw 14 years ago, in a memo dated April 30, 1996, but it was essentially ignored.
The 2010 Proposal also states, “Mid-winter surveys of at least 20 to 25 calves:100 cows is typically necessary to maintain population stability in the absence of hunting,” yet neither the Commission nor IDFG biologists, including Director Groen, have taken steps to halt these calf declines which ultimately eliminate human harvest.
F&G Director Continued to Repeat the Habitat Lie
In Groen’s January 2009 meeting with JFAC (the Idaho legislature’s Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee) he repeated Pauley’s finding that wolves were causing a 15% annual decline in elk populations. Yet in a meeting in his office with me and Deputy Director Unsworth two weeks later, Groen discussed the same decline but angrily shouted, “It’s the habitat!”
Instead of listening to Groen, McDermott, and other biologists and commissioners who use “declining habitat” and “federal wolves” as excuses for their failure to perpetuate our wildlife resource, a reality check is in order. Even if wolves were magically removed from Idaho, the practice of selling excessive harvest opportunity while ignoring the signs of excessive harvests would continue to destroy healthy game populations and the abundant healthy forage that proper use formerly created.
In the real world virtually everything that is not run by government bureaucrats or manipulated by powerful special interests is performance-based. Instead of paying our state game managers more money for producing 40% less game to harvest, why not cut their budget by 40% until sustained increased harvests justify added revenue?
Biologists Continue to Repeat the Habitat Lie
At the same time the Aug. 2010 Lolo Wolf Control Proposal on the IDFG website told the world there was no evidence habitat reduced the number of wolves in the Lolo Zone, page 3 of their August 2010 Idaho Fish and Game News on the same website said “In the Lolo Zone deteriorating habitat and other factors contributed to a long population decline, dropping from about 16,000 in 1988 to fewer than 8,000 elk in 1998.” (emphasis added).
Until citizens convince their elected officials to force these bureaucrats to stop using habitat as an excuse and obey the laws we already have, new legislation won’t solve the real problem. Do it now – before it’s too late.
Post by: wraithen on January 06, 2012, 05:48:54 AM
Post by: Gringo31 on January 06, 2012, 05:57:43 AM
Quote
I told you Machias, i truely think this dude is PETA. No way a hunter could come up with this garbage.:yeah:
Quote
And man generally passes on the small and the weak/sick/injured. Wolves specifically target those animals. They can limit disease outbreaks. Wolves are continually sizing up prospective meals. Biologically, it's not in a wolf's best interest to work any harder than it has to to kill something. Strong healthy animals are dangerous to a wolf. A kick in the jaw or ribs can be crippling or even fatal. Do they take healthy animals? sure they do, but if there's a weak one and a healthy one, the weak one gets taken out most of the time.
The way I read this is the same I've read the crap coming from the wolf huggers. They want to "open our eyes" to how good they are for the deer and elk populations. They bring up this very novel idea that they eat the weak, limit disease outbreaks (if you are against disease, why aren't you arguing for putting a stop to the feeding stations?), and that strong healthy animals are dangerous to a wolf (we'll leave out what happens when there is a pack of wolves).
My point is that these pro-wolfers seem to forget that we already had predators that do this very same thing. So the deer/elk herd is not getting a "bonus" from wolf intoduction. If habitat is limited, so is carrying capacity. If then we add a bunch of other animals that eat said deer and elk (I'll leave off the waste and joy kills) we will have less of them, especially when they kill what they kill with no regulation. Silly libs want more and more regulation on EVERYTHING, but not animals. THey are good and supporting laws and rules that affect "other" people as long as they feel better about it.
I will agree that wolves aren't the end to hunging IF WE MANAGE THEM! They are here to stay as is the coyote. If we were to treat/manage them the same as a coyote today, they are here to stay. The longer we wait, the more out of whack this thing will get and eventually we will be to where we will be trying to kill em all.
But, we havent screwed the whole thing up enough yet or pissed off enough hunters who "hopefully" will walk away from their heritage forever.
I see guys like Sitka as being good intentioned but horribly wrong. They say we are hard headed and don't get it. My point is that I think we get it perfectly. We just want to protect what we have. We believe in conservation not the preservation idea that we should walk away, never to touch, enter, or let alone harvest, watching from a distance in awe.
:bash:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on January 06, 2012, 08:36:32 AM
Good read! We needed some bio backup that the world isn't fluffy as some people make it out to be. Guys, it's obvious sitka's responses are well thought out and laid out, even the false ones. The argument is well placed and nearly complete until some of you choose to test it by pulling a string. It's obvious sitka is what he is and has been since page one. I like to opportunity to hone an argument against the anti's and sitka provides that practice. Sitka, you still never said what we have to gain by having wolves here again.
Well, actually what I gleened was that wolves only cull the weakest in a herd. My take on that would be wolves eat pregnant cows for one. I guess all the evidence I have seen of killed branched antler bulls and young cows were photoshoped?
Sitka also said that tags could be issued but we hunters ONLY take the largest animals in the herd. No human hunter would ever take a cow, spike, true spike, or young bull. Every person is a trophy horn hunter accept for Sitka's brother. That is definatly a scientific rooted believe not an opinion or emotional one.
If Sitka simply was honest and said "Yes" we seek to and are suceeding end the current model of Wild Game Management and Ranching practices I'd leave her alone, that we could agree on. This is 100% political. For now she and her's own the State and WDFW. It does not matter if there is still an honest Bio or LE left in that Department, like any soldier they do as the Law or directive order. It is the mandate that will change the direction.
Post by: Machias on January 06, 2012, 08:41:11 AM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on January 06, 2012, 11:02:00 AM
The Clearwater herd must have been nothing but sick and weak elk. They went from 16,000+ elk to a little over 2,000 elk....I guess there were 14,000+ that were all just old, sick and weak.
Lolo Elk Herd, Idaho
Before Wolf Introduction: 20,000
After Wolf Introduction: 1,700
Gallitan Valley Elk Herd
Before Wolf Introduction: 1,500
After Wolf Introduction: 200
Yellowstone Elk Herd
Before Wolf Introduction: 20,000
After Wolf Introduction: 6,500
Jackson, WY Shiras Moose
Before Wolf Introduction: 1,200
After Wolf Introduction: 120
(Source B.G.F.)
All also sick weak and old? Perhaps, the definition of "the weak" are those that were eaten or ran into the ground.
The goal? Distroy the abundance of wildlife that is the cornerstone of The North American Model of Game Management.
Anyone get a count on NE deer populations? How are they fairing? Oh wait, they are not doing studies there.
Post by: JJB11B on January 06, 2012, 11:18:08 AM
And the Blue Mountain Herd in Washington has Vanished too!The Clearwater herd must have been nothing but sick and weak elk. They went from 16,000+ elk to a little over 2,000 elk....I guess there were 14,000+ that were all just old, sick and weak.
Lolo Elk Herd, Idaho
Before Wolf Introduction: 20,000
After Wolf Introduction: 1,700
Gallitan Valley Elk Herd
Before Wolf Introduction: 1,500
After Wolf Introduction: 200
Yellowstone Elk Herd
Before Wolf Introduction: 20,000
After Wolf Introduction: 6,500
Jackson, WY Shiras Moose
Before Wolf Introduction: 1,200
After Wolf Introduction: 120
(Source B.G.F.)
All also sick weak and old? Perhaps, the definition of "the weak" are those that were eaten or ran into the ground.
The goal? Distroy the abundance of wildlife that is the cornerstone of The North American Model of Game Management.
Anyone get a count on NE deer populations? How are they fairing? Oh wait, they are not doing studies there.
Post by: Gringo31 on January 06, 2012, 11:18:56 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 06, 2012, 11:28:25 AM
And man generally passes on the small and the weak/sick/injured.True spikes? Cow tags? Does?
Post by: JJB11B on January 06, 2012, 11:30:15 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 06, 2012, 12:30:36 PM
(if you are against disease, why aren't you arguing for putting a stop to the feeding stations?),
As a matter of fact, I am against feeding stations. Besides unnaturally congregating animals in one spot where disease is easily spread, it also turns them into a shooting gallery for some. ;^)
Post by: Machias on January 06, 2012, 12:32:50 PM
(if you are against disease, why aren't you arguing for putting a stop to the feeding stations?),
As a matter of fact, I am against feeding stations. Besides unnaturally congregating animals in one spot where disease is easily spread, it also turns them into a shooting gallery for some. ;^)
There we go, finally something we agree on! :tup:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 06, 2012, 12:51:48 PM
There we go, finally something we agree on! :tup:
Here's a quote from an article about the Jackson Hole feeding program.
"The refuge and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department try to delay the onset of supplemental feeding as long as possible to reduce the amount of time the animals spend crowded together on feed lines. Researchers say crowded conditions increase the chance diseases like brucellosis are transmitted.
“We have to balance those [disease] concerns against other objectives, which is to minimize conflicts and commingling with livestock ... and minimizing winter elk starvation,” Cole said.
Elk have not yet begun to leave the refuge for livestock operations. Cole called this year’s start date a pre-emptive effort to keep elk away from cattle."
Looks like they are walking a fine line between trying to keep elk and cattle apart and keeping disease from spreading back and forth between them and concentrating the elk together in one spot for too long.
I don't doubt we have many other things we agree on Machias. Just because we have a fundamental disagreement over the effects of wolves doesn't mean there aren't a lot of other things we agree on.
Post by: Machias on January 06, 2012, 01:07:08 PM
I don't doubt we have many other things we agree on Machias. Just because we have a fundamental disagreement over the effects of wolves doesn't mean there aren't a lot of other things we agree on.
I think you might just be right. I was closer to your position on the wolves several years ago...until I started spending more and more time in the Lolo, the Joe and other parts of Idaho, then I saw first hand, it is as bad as many had predicted. :(
Post by: bearpaw on January 06, 2012, 02:18:13 PM
Post by: jackmaster on January 06, 2012, 02:30:28 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 06, 2012, 02:40:56 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 06, 2012, 05:05:50 PM
Sitka is no hunter, these Peta guys love to claim they are hunters so they can push their agenda by baiting hunters into their thinking, don't be fooled. Go through this topic, there is an abundance of data from many of us and opinion from sitka. The only value of this topic is that he is providing a good education to you guys about how the wolf lovers think and work. :twocents:
If you're as far off on your other opinions as you are on this one bearpaw, I can see your problem.
I'm in my 50's and have hunted since I was 10. I got my two deer in Washington this year. A doe that I drew a second tag for and a buck. Didn't get an elk tho.
The real value has been I'm showing you that wolves aren't the end of the world. I'm a glass half full kind of guy.
Post by: stuckalot on January 06, 2012, 05:51:13 PM
[/quote]
The real value has been I'm showing you that wolves aren't the end of the world. I'm a glass half full kind of guy.
[/quote]
Let a smile be your umbrella and your ass will be soaking wet!
Post by: Jack Diamond on January 06, 2012, 06:33:50 PM
The "truth" is only the product of the responding party and their view of the facts, so depending solely on where you live and work, your view of the "facts" will probably be different than mine.
Having said that , your view is relevant to where you live,if you live in a area where Wolves are an oddity, you will be happy to see one, however if you reside where the wolves live and witness the destruction , your views may change.
Your view changes in a huge way when the predators are "protected " and your life evolves around your livestock and game animals that have found refuge on your property, and in the area in which you reside.
Ranchers and all other livestock producers have fed more elk and deer than the state ever has, and if they are succesful with their livestock, they have been better stewards of the land than the state.
My question to you is where do you currently live, and how does that make you an expert, and how is your opinion superior to mine and others?
Granted there are people here on this site that are only concerned with their hunting opportunity's however there are also people that are concerned with their land ,livestock, and game that enriches the citizens of the evergreen state.
I do not dislike you , however your views do not reflect the views of the populace that will first be impacted by the state's decision.
I would be willing to see your view if only you were willing to see mine.
And lastly the state of Alaska and the state of Washington, are so completely different that it is insane to say they have much in common , when it comes to wolve's.
Post by: furbearer365 on January 06, 2012, 08:59:04 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 06, 2012, 10:26:51 PM
Sitka , you and others have spewed a lot of data, the problem I have with data is that it can and will be skewed to meet the desired end. I can take quotes from the bible and prove you should be driving a Honda, 'they all came of one Accord"
The "truth" is only the product of the responding party and their view of the facts, so depending solely on where you live and work, your view of the "facts" will probably be different than mine.
I can't help what you choose to believe. I've given you hard data. If you think I somehow twisted it, go to the different State websites that have wolves and look at the harvest reports. Explain how deer harvest in Wisconsin went from 155,000 to around a half a million all while the wolf population went from a small hand full to 650. And explain how I misreported that or how the numbers were skewed? I even provided links, but if you don't trust me, find your own links. Good luck! try Michigan too. Similar situation there.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 06, 2012, 10:43:49 PM
Sitka, the point you are not getting is that you do know for sure what you are arguing. How do you know that the wolves will not practically end hunting as we know it. I would like to think they wouldnt be but how do i know. Can you guarantee me that when the wolves are brought back that there will be a management plan put into effect, no you cant?
How do you know wolves will end hunting? Somebody told you that? you figured it out yourself? I've lived and hunted most of my life around wolves, so I have some experience in the matter. Granted on Kodiak there are no wolves, but I've hunted deer on the mainland in Prince William Sound and there are wolves there. And once in a while they get to one or two of the islands in the Sound. I've hunted moose in a few areas of Alaska and all of them had wolves. The main limiter of game in Alaska is bad winters. And this one is going to be a bad one up there. Prince William Sound has already had 12 to 17 feet of snow depending on the location. Other than brown and black bears, and a few coyotes, there aren't really many predators there. Kodiak only has Brown bears and that herd fluctuates wildly. Bears aren't very good deer predators so they don't do much herd trimming until after the weather kills the deer. I've watched a Kodiak Brownie stalk three deer, but he never got withing 150 yards of them. They knew he was there the whole time and they knew he was after them and they stayed away. He followed every twist they put in their trail too. He was relentless, but never sped up as he tracked them. I was on the top of a mountain deer hunting when I saw this and they were down in a valley. Was very interesting to watch them interact. But this winter, if the weather doesn't have a major change, is going to take a toll on the Prince William Sound herd. Then the bears and birds will have a feast in the spring.
Post by: GrainfedMuley on January 07, 2012, 04:53:47 AM
Sitka, the point you are not getting is that you do know for sure what you are arguing. How do you know that the wolves will not practically end hunting as we know it. I would like to think they wouldnt be but how do i know. Can you guarantee me that when the wolves are brought back that there will be a management plan put into effect, no you cant?
How do you know wolves will end hunting? Somebody told you that? you figured it out yourself? I've lived and hunted most of my life around wolves, so I have some experience in the matter. Granted on Kodiak there are no wolves, but I've hunted deer on the mainland in Prince William Sound and there are wolves there. And once in a while they get to one or two of the islands in the Sound. I've hunted moose in a few areas of Alaska and all of them had wolves. The main limiter of game in Alaska is bad winters. And this one is going to be a bad one up there. Prince William Sound has already had 12 to 17 feet of snow depending on the location. Other than brown and black bears, and a few coyotes, there aren't really many predators there. Kodiak only has Brown bears and that herd fluctuates wildly. Bears aren't very good deer predators so they don't do much herd trimming until after the weather kills the deer. I've watched a Kodiak Brownie stalk three deer, but he never got withing 150 yards of them. They knew he was there the whole time and they knew he was after them and they stayed away. He followed every twist they put in their trail too. He was relentless, but never sped up as he tracked them. I was on the top of a mountain deer hunting when I saw this and they were down in a valley. Was very interesting to watch them interact. But this winter, if the weather doesn't have a major change, is going to take a toll on the Prince William Sound herd. Then the bears and birds will have a feast in the spring.
Here you are on this thread also..........GO AWAY
Post by: wraithen on January 07, 2012, 01:47:41 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 07, 2012, 02:24:00 PM
Here you are on this thread also..........GO AWAY
Ummmm I started this thread.
Post by: bearpaw on January 07, 2012, 02:59:42 PM
Sitka is no hunter, these Peta guys love to claim they are hunters so they can push their agenda by baiting hunters into their thinking, don't be fooled. Go through this topic, there is an abundance of data from many of us and opinion from sitka. The only value of this topic is that he is providing a good education to you guys about how the wolf lovers think and work. :twocents:
If you're as far off on your other opinions as you are on this one bearpaw, I can see your problem.
I'm in my 50's and have hunted since I was 10. I got my two deer in Washington this year. A doe that I drew a second tag for and a buck. Didn't get an elk tho.
The real value has been I'm showing you that wolves aren't the end of the world. I'm a glass half full kind of guy.
Yes you are right, that is my opinion and I still believe you are only a wolf wolver posing as a hunter, and probably getting paid.
Wisconsin
As most info wolf lovers provide, they don't tell you the real details. The norrthern Wisconsin areas where the wolves are at have dropping deer numbers. Only because of good management in the rest of the state where wolves do not exist, has the overall harvest looked good.
Minnesota
Officials struggle to determine why moose numbers are decoing in northern Minnesota. Many hunter quit going north for their annual deer hunts becuase the wolves have impacted the northern units.
Montana/Idaho
These states maintain that their elk numbers are steady or increasing.
The truth is that in all the areas with heavy wolf numbers the big game herds are in decline. Anyone who has hunted those areas know this to be the truth. I don't need to post all the links here to prove this as everyone has already seen the proof both in print and in person. Thus the reason Idaho was unable to sell all their tags this year. Hun ters are giving up on Idaho.
Sitka, you are just like all the other wolf lovers. :chuckle:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 08, 2012, 09:28:58 PM
Yes you are right, that is my opinion and I still believe you are only a wolf wolver posing as a hunter, and probably getting paid.
Sitka, you are just like all the other wolf lovers. :chuckle:
Funny stuff Bear Paw. I wish somebody was paying me. :chuckle: Don't have to look too hard to find the conspiracy theorists around here.
I'm neither a wolf lover, or a wolf hater. I can take 'em or leave 'em. But I'm not afraid of them or what they do in the woods. I have to admit tho, it is pretty cool to see them or hear them. Something about a wolf howling on a moonlit night that gets the adrenaline flowing.
When I figure out how to get my pictures successfully uploaded here, I'll post some hunting stories for you. Having issues with it right now.
Post by: Gringo31 on January 09, 2012, 12:13:20 PM
And no, I don't believe for a second that the best manangement is to do nothing and see what happens or let nature find it's own balance, as that will eliminate our bounty or harvest which defeats the purpose.
Post by: elkboy on January 09, 2012, 05:53:17 PM
Like it or not (and I get the feeling, most on here don't), wolves are going to be part of the critter list here in WA. As sportsmen, we need to rally around the pragmatic agenda at this point- argue and advocate (based on science, not just passion or frustration) for aggressive management of a predator that has annual rates of increase 2-5 times the annual rates of increase of their prey. This is not the landscape of 200 years ago.
And last thought- can we ease off on bashing each other? I appreciate that nobody's apathetic on here about wildlife issues. But accusing each other being PETA plants or undercover greenies, etc. is not going to forward the dialogue between us hunters, and it sure doesn't look good to the rest of society. My two cents. (Seems two cents don't go quite as far as they used to- inflation, eh?)
Post by: Bob33 on January 09, 2012, 08:06:55 PM
http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2012/01/09/idaho-fish-and-game-contempt-corruption-collusion-or-just-outright-incompetence/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=idaho-fish-and-game-contempt-corruption-collusion-or-just-outright-incompetence
Post by: NWBREW on January 10, 2012, 02:01:12 AM
A guest blog by Barry Coe –
Having been born and raised in Idaho and as a lifelong sportsman of this state, I have had many issues with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) over the years. I have witnessed their actions on several issues that have directly lead to diminished fish and wildlife, and diminished sporting opportunities. In attempting to be involved and to protect our culture and interests, I have had one very consistent attitude and response from the agency that has become very proficient at taking whatever position they seem to think will best further their own agenda. That attitude is pure and raw contempt. And no other issue has exposed and proven this contempt more than the Canadian wolf introduction has.
IDFG has attempted to take the ‘we hold no blame’ position concerning wolves in this state. I feel it has been well proven that they, in fact, hold a large percentage of blame. A prior director actually wrote support letters to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and drafted an illegal permit that allowed the Canadian wolves to be dumped into this state in a blaring contempt for Idaho state code. It was so contemptuous that the Idaho state legislature actually reacted to the action, although they failed to implement accountability. Yet those were the days before the Internet and the ability to transfer information quickly and thoroughly throughout the population. Those were the days of running under the radar and outright collusion between state and federal agencies. There is little doubt in my mind, and I suspect anyone with more than a cursory knowledge of this issue would agree, that outright collusion between IDFG and the USFWS did, and continue, to take place. Wolves, grizzly bears, soon to be wolverines and all other claimed endangered species are a vast source of federal dollars and we all know, IDFG loves nothing like they love the federal dollar.
In a recent article, Jim (salt shaker) Hayden (IDFG Panhandle Regional Wildlife Manager) made yet another revealing comment. In this interview “Salt Shaker” Hayden seemed surprised that about 50% of the wolves harvested in this current wolf season have come from areas that IDFG didn’t even know contained wolves. Now, on the surface this comment may seem unimportant, yet when one considers the past 16 years, it’s importance is almost undefinable.
I have to ask this question of Mr. Hayden. Just exactly how can you manage a declining elk population when you obviously have no concept of the level of predation impacting those elk?
For years IDFG took the politically correct avenue of clinging onto the obviously and intentionally low official numbers of wolves. As hunters and outdoorsmen screamed from the rafters that those numbers were so far off it was incredible, IDFG turned a blind eye and a deaf ear. After all, the federal bucks were rolling in and the hunters were still buying licenses and tags. All was well and good at IDFG. Biologists were being hired (most directly out of the wolf introduction program) and the rumblings were contained to a small population of people who never knew how to get the truth out, especially in the face of IDFG and green eco-groups. The old tactic of ignoring and marginalizing was rolling along just fine.
It was only in the last year or two that IDFG was forced to admit that, ‘well, golly, okay, so our wolf population is around 1000 wolves’. Again the sportsmen and sportswomen of Idaho claimed that number was also an intentional down playing of the actual number of wolves in Idaho. As we witnessed the great elk herds disappear from first hand observation, IDFG still clung to the deceit that all was fine. They twisted a few numbers here, changed a few “objectives” there, rewrote a few algorithms, adjusted some seasons and continued to play both sides of the fence. After all, this has always been the status quo for this department. The level of contempt IDFG obviously has for anyone outside of the department or the federal system is amazingly apparent.
Wolf math just is not that hard. They breed like rabbits, yet have no predators. The lie just became too hard to cover up anymore and so, the science changed – I use science here with my tongue stuffed soundly into my cheek. For a decade we had manipulated science stuffed down our throats that exonerated their revenue generating wolves from any cause of any problem we were experiencing anywhere in the state they inhabited. When it became obvious that the truth was coming out, and that delisting was imminent, in spite of the department’s best efforts to keep them listed, and even drafting and submitting an illegal wolf management plan, they decided to flip over. In typical IDFG fashion, the wolves were now the cause of it all! Boy, aren’t we happy that they finally have seen the light! After all we have been telling them this for 10 years.
But, they now face a wiser and more connected sportspeople. We’re not buying it and they know it. We are now very informed and politically connected; we have communication outlets and media connections. But again, in true IDFG fashion, they have decided to try another avenue to generate their revenue. They want nothing worse than to have the hunters of this state out of the equation. We no longer forget past actions or play in the manner they want us to, paying more for less. They now turn to the tactic of pandering and collusion.
In what seems on the surface to be a politically correct action of seeking information concerning wildlife management in the state of Idaho, they have committed a few obvious mistakes that exposed their true intention. Their highly publicized ‘Summit’ was rolled out as that meeting. Conducted DURING hunting season, and with invitations extended to several anti-hunting, eco-green groups, and a group of actual past and present IDFG employees, IDFG now wants input on wildlife management. And, they want that input from everyone that doesn’t pay for it or expect the department to do anything other than perpetuate predators and sustain their job at all costs.
Rumor has it that this little summit has caused a rift in the ranks. It seems to have been generated right from the new director Virgil Moore; or at least that is where all the fingers are pointing. It seems that this long-time employee of IDFG, and new director, is attempting to return to the status quo of ignore and move forward. Instead of moving in the direction of attempting to get out from under the wolf issue, he now seems to want to change gears and get back in bed with the green, wildlands agenda, and he wants their money. Public input on management? How quaint! If only it didn’t reek of corruption, contempt and collusion. If, in fact, this is the brain child of Mr. Moore, he just flatly needs to go; it is far past time to get a director that is not a long time member of the IDFG’s good old boys club. We have flatly had enough! I suspect if our legislature is not willing to overhaul this department, the time has come to turn to the citizen and the ballot box. We have one very powerful tool at our disposal; initiatives, which are binding if passed and can be used to circumvent a lack of appropriate action by those in government. They do have the ability to change this department in ways that will both form the department in a manner the citizens of Idaho want and to also bring accountability to this long-time rogue department. The good old boys club must be dismantled.
Actual wolf numbers? Let’s return to Jim “Salt Shaker” Hayden for a few moments. I have heard sportsmen and women, who spend an immense amount of time in the outdoors, claim the wolf numbers in Idaho are at least double what IDFG claims. It now seems “Salt Shaker” Hayden has validated those claims. And in that claim, his statement speaks volumes. It is very sad that a department that is charged with the management of Idaho’s wildlife have failed so miserably, and stayed the course of ignoring sportspeople to the extent they have. There are but a few explanations for this miserable failure: Corruption, Collusion or outright incompetence. I will leave it to you to decide which it is or how much longer you are going to stand for it.
Barry Coe
Save Western Wildlife
Post by: bearpaw on January 10, 2012, 08:34:14 AM
Sitka is no hunter, these Peta guys love to claim they are hunters so they can push their agenda by baiting hunters into their thinking, don't be fooled. Go through this topic, there is an abundance of data from many of us and opinion from sitka. The only value of this topic is that he is providing a good education to you guys about how the wolf lovers think and work. :twocents:
If you're as far off on your other opinions as you are on this one bearpaw, I can see your problem.
I'm in my 50's and have hunted since I was 10. I got my two deer in Washington this year. A doe that I drew a second tag for and a buck. Didn't get an elk tho.
The real value has been I'm showing you that wolves aren't the end of the world. I'm a glass half full kind of guy.
Obviously I have no proof you are a plant or that you are being paid, but your head appears to be so incredibly deep in the sand that you are either a member or being paid by a wolf group like Jay Kehne "the newly appointed commissioner", or you are simply fooled by all the "disney-like" propaganda regarding wolves.
There has been a preponderance of data shown to refute your claims that wolves will simply "fit in" or that man is somehow to blame for herd declines in these other states. You and elkboy can say whatever you like, I still think you are a Defenders of Wildife member or employee or perhaps a similar group. I see elkboy is new to the forum also, perhaps he is just one of your "Defenders" buddies.
Recent history in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and YNP show us that you are completely and utterly wrong about wolves not impacting big game herds significantly. One of my examples previously mentioned, the gardner late hunts have been completely eliminated due to wolf caused declines in the elk herds.
The facts undisputedly speak for themself. :twocents:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 10, 2012, 09:31:05 AM
My question to you is where do you currently live, and how does that make you an expert, and how is your opinion superior to mine and others?
No answer yet.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 10, 2012, 09:40:11 AM
Very interesting indeed.
A guest blog by Barry Coe –
In what seems on the surface to be a politically correct action of seeking information concerning wildlife management in the state of Idaho, they have committed a few obvious mistakes that exposed their true intention. Their highly publicized ‘Summit’ was rolled out as that meeting. Conducted DURING hunting season, and with invitations extended to several anti-hunting, eco-green groups, and a group of actual past and present IDFG employees, IDFG now wants input on wildlife management. And, they want that input from everyone that doesn’t pay for it or expect the department to do anything other than perpetuate predators and sustain their job at all costs.
Rumor has it that this little summit has caused a rift in the ranks. It seems to have been generated right from the new director Virgil Moore; or at least that is where all the fingers are pointing. It seems that this long-time employee of IDFG, and new director, is attempting to return to the status quo of ignore and move forward. Instead of moving in the direction of attempting to get out from under the wolf issue, he now seems to want to change gears and get back in bed with the green, wildlands agenda, and he wants their money. Public input on management? How quaint! If only it didn’t reek of corruption, contempt and collusion. If, in fact, this is the brain child of Mr. Moore, he just flatly needs to go; it is far past time to get a director that is not a long time member of the IDFG’s good old boys club. We have flatly had enough! I suspect if our legislature is not willing to overhaul this department, the time has come to turn to the citizen and the ballot box. We have one very powerful tool at our disposal; initiatives, which are binding if passed and can be used to circumvent a lack of appropriate action by those in government. They do have the ability to change this department in ways that will both form the department in a manner the citizens of Idaho want and to also bring accountability to this long-time rogue department. The good old boys club must be dismantled.
Barry Coe
Save Western Wildlife
sounds familiar, libbies moving east with the Washington
wildlife department model.
Post by: elkboy on January 10, 2012, 01:13:25 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 10, 2012, 01:48:52 PM
Do-nothing management scenarios are definitely not the answer. It is so easy to get wrapped up in worst-case scenarios ("end of all hunting", "decimated herds", etc.), that we forget that this is a system that can be tweaked via management. Aggressively hunt (AND trap) wolves in units where game numbers are down, or where max production of game animals is the objective, or where livestock concerns carry the day.
Like it or not (and I get the feeling, most on here don't), wolves are going to be part of the critter list here in WA. As sportsmen, we need to rally around the pragmatic agenda at this point- argue and advocate (based on science, not just passion or frustration) for aggressive management of a predator.......
And last thought- can we ease off on bashing each other? I appreciate that nobody's apathetic on here about wildlife issues. But accusing each other being PETA plants or undercover greenies, etc. is not going to forward the dialogue between us hunters, and it sure doesn't look good to the rest of society. My two cents. (Seems two cents don't go quite as far as they used to- inflation, eh?)
I agree with you elkboy. Whatever else happens, wolves are here to stay, so we need to learn to deal with them and manage them, not sit and wring our hands and give a wink and a nod to those who advocate killing all wolves. All that attitude does is hand ammunition to the opposition and create more problems for hunters.
Post by: Gringo31 on January 10, 2012, 02:55:18 PM
YOU CAN'T KILL ALL WOLVES. The things they used in the past will never be allowed again. Please look at the coyote and tell me how we are going to kill all coyotes even though I personally try my best. It can NOT be done. I want the wolf plan to be the same as the coyote plan.....and guess what.....wolves will still be here.
Post by: furbearer365 on January 10, 2012, 02:56:21 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 10, 2012, 03:01:19 PM
A guest blog by Barry Coe –
I Wolves, grizzly bears, soon to be wolverines and all other claimed endangered species are a vast source of federal dollars and we all know, IDFG loves nothing like they love the federal dollar.
A source of Federal dollars? Do tell?
In a recent article, Jim (salt shaker) Hayden (IDFG Panhandle Regional Wildlife Manager) made yet another revealing comment. In this interview “Salt Shaker” Hayden seemed surprised that about 50% of the wolves harvested in this current wolf season have come from areas that IDFG didn’t even know contained wolves.
Hardly surprising. wolves travel great distances. They don't usually stay in one place for long
The level of contempt IDFG obviously has for anyone outside of the department or the federal system is amazingly apparent.
Hmmmm My memory is that Idaho fought the Feds over managing the wolves. The legislature FORBADE the Idaho Department of Fish and Game from having anything to do with wolf management, control, reintroduction. So how do you blame the Department? That was on the legislators. And how did that work out for Idaho? For one thing it delayed the delisting of wolves in Idaho. The Feds went around Idaho and contracted wolf management to the Nez Pierce tribe. The legislature finally realized if they wanted State management of wolves that they had to play along with the Feds and they finally passed a final wolf plan in 2002. The Feds approved that plan and Montana's in 2003 but found Wyoming's to be defective, which held up Idaho and Montana's being able to take over management as originally, all three States had to be on board. So that delay was on Wyoming, not Idaho F&G. In 2004 the Feds modified their plan to separate Idaho and Montana from Wyoming so that Idaho and Montana could start managing wolves on their own. Wyoming refused to co-operate and how is that working for them? Still no State management. To put the delays in managing wolves on the Idaho Dept of Fish and Game is ridiculous.
Wolf math just is not that hard. They breed like rabbits, yet have no predators.
Very false statement. Wolves breed nothing like rabbits. Rabbits all breed, wolves in a pack, only the alpha pair breeds. Rabbits or hares can breed up to three times in a year wolves only once. And they do have predators. Each other, and other predators such as cougars. And now that Idaho has taken over managing wolves, humans.
They (Idaho Dept of F&G) want nothing worse than to have the hunters of this state out of the equation.
I doubt that is a true statement either. It is not in the Dept of F&G's best interest just for starters.
I suspect if our legislature is not willing to overhaul this department, the time has come to turn to the citizen and the ballot box. We have one very powerful tool at our disposal; initiatives, which are binding if passed and can be used to circumvent a lack of appropriate action by those in government.
Barry Coe
Save Western Wildlife
All I can say to Barry is....Look what happened when the Legislature first injected themselves into this process. Things went south for Idaho. To put the blame on the Department for the Legislature's meddling is wrong thinking. And to put wildlife management up for a vote will be the death of hunting. Don't kid yourself.
Post by: jackmaster on January 10, 2012, 03:38:29 PM
Post by: firefighter4607 on January 10, 2012, 04:19:43 PM
I agree with you elkboy. Whatever else happens, wolves are here to stay, so we need to learn to deal with them and manage them, not sit and wring our hands and give a wink and a nod to those who advocate killing all wolves. All that attitude does is hand ammunition to the opposition and create more problems for hunters.
Then why are you stating false facts on how wolves are impacting heard populations??? As stating many times on here show what units you are talking about in Mont and ID. People on this site know we will have to deal with wolves in this state and know that the state is not ready to handle the wolf population correctly. You have made comments on here that pissed people off and you are wanting everyone to rally behind you? Really! I don't see many people telling the state to KILL KILL KILL all the wolves in Washington. What I see is alot of people stating FACTS, about the WDFW isn't ready and doesn't have the money or manpower to manage the wolves. That is what everyone is up in arms about.
So you and elkboy must both APPROVE of the current wolve plan? You think its right to have 15 bp's in certain areas of the state before WDFW will have a season on wolves? Ohh yeah that's right even you stated that wolves move and don't stay in one place for too long. So how would you count that pair if they are constantly moving from one area to another? Which would mean it would be hard to keep a pair in that area for a long enough to count as a bp.
Do-nothing management scenarios are definitely not the answer. It is so easy to get wrapped up in worst-case scenarios ("end of all hunting", "decimated herds", etc.), that we forget that this is a system that can be tweaked via management. Aggressively hunt (AND trap) wolves in units where game numbers are down, or where max production of game animals is the objective, or where livestock concerns carry the day.I don't see anyone on this thread saying we shouldn't do anything? Please show me where you are seeing that. You talk about aggressive hunting and trapping? Guess what it will never happen in this state. We have had aggressive hunting on coyotes and cougars until 1996. Now the population of cougars and coyotes are very high also they are starting to be seen in areas around Seattle and other cities where they have never been see before. They are killing pet animals and stocking childern. So how long would it before the wolves are the same? Everyone else on this thread seem to united but you and sitka are the ones that are the odd balls of this group.
Like it or not (and I get the feeling, most on here don't), wolves are going to be part of the critter list here in WA. As sportsmen, we need to rally around the pragmatic agenda at this point- argue and advocate (based on science, not just passion or frustration) for aggressive management of a predator.......
Post by: Pathfinder101 on January 10, 2012, 04:40:28 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 10, 2012, 04:47:11 PM
Sitka is no hunter, these Peta guys love to claim they are hunters so they can push their agenda by baiting hunters into their thinking, don't be fooled. Go through this topic, there is an abundance of data from many of us and opinion from sitka. The only value of this topic is that he is providing a good education to you guys about how the wolf lovers think and work. :twocents:
If you're as far off on your other opinions as you are on this one bearpaw, I can see your problem.
I'm in my 50's and have hunted since I was 10. I got my two deer in Washington this year. A doe that I drew a second tag for and a buck. Didn't get an elk tho.
The real value has been I'm showing you that wolves aren't the end of the world. I'm a glass half full kind of guy.
Obviously I have no proof you are a plant or that you are being paid, but your head appears to be so incredibly deep in the sand that you are either a member or being paid by a wolf group like Jay Kehne "the newly appointed commissioner", or you are simply fooled by all the "disney-like" propaganda regarding wolves.
There has been a preponderance of data shown to refute your claims that wolves will simply "fit in" or that man is somehow to blame for herd declines in these other states. You and elkboy can say whatever you like, I still think you are a Defenders of Wildife member or employee or perhaps a similar group. I see elkboy is new to the forum also, perhaps he is just one of your "Defenders" buddies.
Recent history in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and YNP show us that you are completely and utterly wrong about wolves not impacting big game herds significantly. One of my examples previously mentioned, the gardner late hunts have been completely eliminated due to wolf caused declines in the elk herds.
The facts undisputedly speak for themself. :twocents:
________________________________
elkboy, just because you post some photos of someone who hunted doesn't mean you are not a Defender's member or employee. As I mentioned Jay Kehn claims he's a hunter but has also admitted he's on the Defender's payroll. Posting a few photos also does not refute all the evidence that has been shown supporting the fact that wolves do not fit into our modern ecosystems in Washington, Idaho, MT, etc.
________________________________
You are both welcome to believe as you wish, but don't try to post your disney dreams "of wolves frolicking with the butterflies" on this hunting forum and not expect to be countered with the facts showing how wolves in fact decimate big game herds and livestock.
Sitka you have continueously failed to disprove the actual facts and data presented showing the many wolf impacts on big game herds. At the same time you have failed to support your claim wolves will not have heavy impacts.
FYI - I am committed to working with people to document wolves in WA so there is data available showing where wolves are located. Hopefully the WDFW chooses to use this info. The system currently employed by WDFW is ineffective and in my opinion next to worthless as most citizens do not want contact with the WDFW. I hope the WDFW will anaylize and upgrade their reporting system to better involve hunters and ranchers in monitoring wolves. Currently WDFW has ignored and alienated the very people (hunters and ranchers) who can most help with locating wolves.
Please have a good look at some wolf damage, the rancher who owns this cow (and many others which he has lost) had to put her down and lost all future reproduction in his herd from this cow and from the others. You do the math at $1.20 pound over many generations. But, I guess you are not a rancher so it probably doesn't resonate or matter. The other photos are wildlife killed by wolves, many of them sport killed and not eaten, somehow I imagine (like most wolf lovers) you will say this isn't an impact on the herds.
Post by: bearpaw on January 10, 2012, 04:56:22 PM
One dog is still on his chain in the backyard...... another dog is still alive after being attacked and half eaten by wolves :yike:
hhhhmmmmm no impact: (sorry, my apologies, there's just no way to sugar coat these factual photos)
Post by: wraithen on January 10, 2012, 05:56:16 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 10, 2012, 06:53:11 PM
http://www.lagrandeobserver.com/News/Local-News/Range-rider-put-back-to-work
Range rider put back to work
Written by Katy Nesbitt, The Observer January 09, 2012 05:19 pm
Will Voss will attempt to keep wolves out of Wallowa County cattle pastures
After the state confirmed the 21st cattle death to wolves by the Imnaha pack, it put range rider Will Voss back in the saddle to monitor wolves and alert ranchers and biologists of their whereabouts.
The inability to kill problem wolves due to a stay placed by the Oregon Court of Appeals in October has Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife attempting non-lethal deterrents to quell wolf-caused livestock loss.
The Imnaha pack moved down from higher elevations in the Wallowa-Whitman National to the Wallowa Valley in recent days, according to global positioning system collar information from OR-4, the pack’s alpha male.
Saturday at 5 a.m. wolf biologist Roblyn Brown called Scott Shear of the Triple Creek Ranch on Tucker Down Road outside of Joseph. She told him OR-4 was in the vicinity of his cattle near Kinney Lake, a regular route used by the pack between the forest and the Zumwalt Prairie.
At 5:20 a.m. Shear found a dead heifer 200 yards behind his neighbors’ house in a pasture of 75 replacement heifers scheduled to be bred this spring. The rest of the heifers were bunched up and the fence was mashed in, Shear said.
The dead cow was still warm, Shear said, and he believes he scared the wolves off the kill because five wolves were seen in the area later that day from an airplane. On the ground, tracks of four or five wolves were easily seen in the snow, Rod Childers, Oregon Cattlemen’s Association wolf committee chairman said.
After the investigation, Pat Matthews of Fish and Wildlife took the carcass to the Ant Flat dump to deter the wolves from returning to the ranch. At 11 p.m. Saturday, the wolves were detected in a pasture where Triple Creek Ranch bulls were located.
Shear requested that the state put Voss back on the job as a range rider, a job he performed last summer and fall. Voss will be working overnight to try and keep wolves out of cattle pastures.
Shear said he will also be given a radio-activated guard box to scare away wolves, and fladry, electrified, flagged fencing, will soon again adorn calving pastures around the Wallowa Valley in an attempt to prevent wolf/livestock interaction. Yet Shear, who has a lot of experience with wolves on his ranch, is frustrated.
“The Upper Valley is no place for wolves; this isn’t working,” said Shear.
Many of the ranchers from the Divide Country between Big Sheep Creek and the Imnaha River west to the Zumwalt Prairie don’t believe that non-lethal deterrents are enough. Todd Nash grazes in the high country outside of Joseph and has lost numerous cows to wolves.
“There’s been quite a lot of criticism about the idea of taking out the Imnaha pack. Does that sound more reasonable now? It should,” said Nash.
The state cannot fulfill its own order to kill the alpha male and one other wolf because of a lawsuit filed in September by activist groups. However, the state mailed out renewals of its “Caught in the Act” permits that give ranchers and their agents the ability to shoot a wolf in the act of chasing, harassing or biting livestock.
Nash said he hopes other counties don’t have to endure what Wallowa County has the past two years. Until September, Defenders of Wildlife compensated ranchers for wolf-killed livestock. In August, Governor John Kitzhaber signed a bill into law that would fill the gap, but has put a halt to funding all new projects until the legislature approves a budget in the upcoming short session.
“We are a testing ground so no one else has to go through what we’ve gone through,” Nash said.
Post by: bearpaw on January 10, 2012, 06:56:03 PM
Post by: Pathfinder101 on January 10, 2012, 08:44:05 PM
Yellowstone reports that wolves kill cougars. At least once a year on average there judging by their evidence. They like to torture the kittens to get momma runnin into their ambush apparently.
Interesting. I have never heard that. Not saying that I don't believe it, just that I had never heard it...
Post by: sebek556 on January 10, 2012, 08:56:05 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on January 10, 2012, 09:00:07 PM
I'm writing him off as a liberal idiot who likes to argue. Maybe his real name is Dallas? LOL
Post by: seth30 on January 10, 2012, 09:07:37 PM
sitka stop preaching your oh alaska has no problem with wolves, I'm from there and your full of *censored*. GMU's in alaska ahve become know as predator pits due to the fact that is all that is found there now. oh and michigan, yah wife's family is there and tribal members guess what they are raising deer on tribal ground and releasing them to help suplament numbers. Wolves are a smart predator, guess what so is man, if I know my preys numbers have been wiped out in one spot I go somewhere else guess what the kill numbers reported to the state are the same, just a different area. Expample this year I hunted 124, instead of my normal 117 due to the antler restriction so I would improve my chances. and you know what the state reports 1 deer killed, only when you dig deeper do you see the changes. And with the way you talk I know why you are not in alaska anymore, you would be in the tundra face down. They dont play nice with your kind up there:yeah:X2
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 10, 2012, 09:26:29 PM
Cougars kill wolves...? Haven't heard that before. Anybody...? :dunno:
B4F, was female who migrated to Montana from Idaho after being introduced there, and lived in the mountains just east of Missoula, near Rock Creek, until she was killed by cougar in the winter of 1996.
There's one for you. and as a bonus there were a couple more killed by elk. One was the alpha female of the Wildhorse Pack in 2002.
Post by: bearpaw on January 10, 2012, 09:32:30 PM
Yellowstone reports that wolves kill cougars. At least once a year on average there judging by their evidence. They like to torture the kittens to get momma runnin into their ambush apparently.
Interesting. I have never heard that. Not saying that I don't believe it, just that I had never heard it...
FYI - I know the houndman who they used for the park cougar study. He told me that they have found every animal imaginable in wolf scat including cougar and bear. He said they eat everything that gets in their way, when the wolves move into a basin, everything pours out away from the wolves.
Post by: sebek556 on January 10, 2012, 09:37:33 PM
hmm sounds alot like Canada... want more caribou kill more wolves.. anyone else seeing a trend here? or is it just the people with common sense? :chuckle:
Post by: sebek556 on January 10, 2012, 09:39:55 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 10, 2012, 10:02:01 PM
sitka stop preaching your oh alaska has no problem with wolves, I'm from there and your full of *censored*. GMU's in alaska ahve become know as predator pits due to the fact that is all that is found there now. And with the way you talk I know why you are not in alaska anymore, you would be in the tundra face down. They dont play nice with your kind up there
Alaska has 10,000 wolves. And guess what, overall, cervid #s go up and down depending on how bad the winters are. This particular winter is shaping up to be a bad one there and there will probably be a significant winter kill in many areas. But they will come back like they always do with time.
As far as predators go, bears, particularly black bears seem to cause the biggest problems up there as far as newborn moose go.
The problem Alaska Dept of Game has right now is it has been infiltrated by the SFW in the form of Corey Rossi and he is pushing an agenda of maxing game herds to their limits, by killing predators. The trouble is, as most old time Alaskans know, it doesn't matter how many prey animals you can produce in the summer that matters, it's how many you can get through the winter with as little damage to the habitat as you can. Many biologists with ADF&G are unhappy over this approach. And many former biologists wrote a letter protesting it. The current bios are afraid if they speak out, they'll lose their jobs. It's a sad day when the people with the real knowledge are afraid to speak their minds. Rossi and his backers will find out how little they know of game management, but it will be the herds and hunters who suffer from it. You put too many animals into a winter like this one is shaping up to be and not only do more of them die, but they do serious long term damage to the winter carrying capacity before they do.
I've survived this long in Alaska, I'm not too worried about my future there when I return. ;)
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 10, 2012, 10:10:19 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17735990/ns/us_news-environment/t/alaska-puts-bounty-wolves/
hmm sounds alot like Canada... want more caribou kill more wolves.. anyone else seeing a trend here? or is it just the people with common sense? :chuckle:
Just so we get it straight, the State of Alaska lost.
"About 40 wolves were killed after the bounty was offered, but the payments were never made to hunters. The judge struck down the incentive program 10 days after it was announced"
"The release contends the payment isn’t a “bounty,” but that’s a matter of semantics. An Alaskan judge who later declared the payments illegal called it a “bounty, pure and simple” in his ruling. "
Post by: sebek556 on January 10, 2012, 10:16:05 PM
Post by: Pathfinder101 on January 10, 2012, 10:32:36 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 11, 2012, 03:05:54 AM
sitka stop preaching your oh alaska has no problem with wolves, I'm from there and your full of *censored*. GMU's in alaska ahve become know as predator pits due to the fact that is all that is found there now. And with the way you talk I know why you are not in alaska anymore, you would be in the tundra face down. They dont play nice with your kind up there
Alaska has 10,000 wolves. And guess what, overall, cervid #s go up and down depending on how bad the winters are. This particular winter is shaping up to be a bad one there and there will probably be a significant winter kill in many areas. But they will come back like they always do with time.
As far as predators go, bears, particularly black bears seem to cause the biggest problems up there as far as newborn moose go.
The problem Alaska Dept of Game has right now is it has been infiltrated by the SFW in the form of Corey Rossi and he is pushing an agenda of maxing game herds to their limits, by killing predators. The trouble is, as most old time Alaskans know, it doesn't matter how many prey animals you can produce in the summer that matters, it's how many you can get through the winter with as little damage to the habitat as you can. Many biologists with ADF&G are unhappy over this approach. And many former biologists wrote a letter protesting it. The current bios are afraid if they speak out, they'll lose their jobs. It's a sad day when the people with the real knowledge are afraid to speak their minds. Rossi and his backers will find out how little they know of game management, but it will be the herds and hunters who suffer from it. You put too many animals into a winter like this one is shaping up to be and not only do more of them die, but they do serious long term damage to the winter carrying capacity before they do.
I've survived this long in Alaska, I'm not too worried about my future there when I return. ;)
WRONG Sitka, here's proof Alaska F&G supports arial wolf hunts and has for several years because it increases herd numbers. In this same article you can see where guys like Sitka use every imaginable arguement against wolf hunting, but the bottom line is that wolf control benefits herds.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2009859073_apusalaskawolfcontrol.html
Alaska: Wolf, bear hunts increasing moose, caribou
An Alaska wildlife management program in which wolves are shot from low-flying airplanes and black bears are baited and snared is helping to increase the numbers of moose and caribou, state wildlife officials say.
By MARY PEMBERTON
Associated Press Writer
ANCHORAGE, Alaska —
An Alaska wildlife management program in which wolves are shot from low-flying airplanes and black bears are baited and snared is helping to increase the numbers of moose and caribou, state wildlife officials say.
The program has long been the target of wildlife conservation groups who view it as state-sponsored slaughter. Last fall, one of those groups launched an ad criticizing then-Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, for expanding the program.
State officials contend the program is aimed at helping rural Alaskans, who rely on hunting to survive and had complained there wasn't enough game to hunt and eat.
The program began under Palin's predecessor, Gov. Frank Murkowski. Private citizens are permitted to shoot wolves from the air or conduct land-and-shoot hunting of wolves in six rural areas of the state.
Since the program began in 2003, over 1,000 wolves and hundreds of black bears have been killed in an effort to drive down the number of predators.
"I think there are some real success stories here," Bruce Bartley, a spokesman for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, said.
The agency recently released its 2008-2009 predation management summary that indicates that moose and caribou numbers in six predator control areas have increased. The agency points to two areas in particular as examples of where the program is showing strong results: the Nelchina Basin area and the southern Alaska Peninsula.
The program is getting substantive results in the McGrath area, where it began in December 2003. Last winter and spring, 28 wolves were killed in the McGrath area. Nineteen were taken under the program and nine were hunted and trapped.
The agency said the moose population there has grown from 2,774 in 2004 to an estimated 5,500 moose now. The goal is to reach 6,000 to 8,000 moose.
"Moose numbers have come up substantially," Bartley said.
In the Nelchina Basin area - one of the more contentious predator control areas because it is accessible to urban hunters from the Anchorage area - 119 wolves were killed. Fifty-five of those were taken under the control program and the other 64 were hunted or trapped.
That, the state said, helped the moose population increase 27 percent. The harvest, meanwhile, went up 18 percent.
The situation is so improved in the Nelchina Basin that for the first time in more than a decade nonresident hunters will be allowed to hunt bull moose.
Bartley said the 50-permit, nonresident hunt should not interfere with the supply of moose for Alaskans because it is being allowed in more remote areas only. Nonresident hunters have been "frozen out" of hunting in that area of the state for years, Bartley said, and there is a benefit to the state to have them in it.
"Everybody loves to beat up on the ugly, old nonresident but the fact is they pay a lot of the game management bills in Alaska," he said.
Critics say the nonresident hunt being allowed in the Nelchina Basin reveals the true intent of predator control in Alaska. They have said the predator control program is nothing more than a front for big game guides who pay big fees to the state and need trophies for their out-of-state clients.
"Predator control programs are simply perpetual killing events designed to give nonresident trophy hunters access to Alaska as a game farm," said John Toppenberg, director of the 1,200-member Alaska Wildlife Alliance, a conservation group.
The program is meant to meet the needs of commercial guides and nonresident trophy hunters - not the subsistence needs of rural Alaskans, he said.
Wade Willis, a former Fish and Game biologist and outspoken critic of the program, agrees. It looks like predator control is never going to end, he said.
"It is a perpetual predator control program, artificial manipulation of the game to create nothing short of a game farm," said Willis, who was formerly associated with Defenders of Wildlife in Alaska.
It is up to the Alaska Board of Game to end predator control, but Bartley said the board likely won't stop intensive management in the control areas anytime soon.
"I think the board wants to see that they do function normally for a number of years in a row," he said.
Post by: bearpaw on January 11, 2012, 04:56:20 AM
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3802065
The Journal of Wildlife Management © 1996 Allen Press
Abstract
Short-term studies in our study area and southeast Yukon have previously documented substantial increases in moose (Alces alces) and caribou (Rangifer tarandus) following wolf (Canis lupus) control. To provide long-term information, we present a 20-year history beginning autumn 1975 when precontrol wolf density was 14 wolves/1,000 km2. Private harvest and agency control kept the late-winter wolf density 55-80% (x̄ = 69%) below the precontrol density during each of the next 7 years. Wolf numbers subsequently recovered in ≤4 years in most of the study area and increased further to between 15 and 16 wolves/1,000 km2 during a period of deep snowfall winters. The post-hunt moose population increased rapidly from 183 to 481 moose/1,000 km2 during the 7 years of wolf control (finite rate of increase, $\lambda _{\text{r}}$ = 1.15) and increased more slowly during the subsequent 12 years ($\lambda _{\text{r}}$ = 1.05) reaching a density of 1,020 moose/1,000 km2 by 1994. The Delta caribou herd increased rapidly during wolf control ($\lambda _{\text{r}}$ = 1.16), more slowly during the subsequent 7 years ($\lambda _{\text{r}}$ = 1.06), then declined for 4 years ($\lambda _{\text{r}}$ = 0.78) from a peak density of 890 caribou/1,000 km2. This decline coincided with declines in 2 adjacent, low-density herds (240-370 caribou/1,000 km2). These caribou declines probably resulted from the synergistic effects of adverse weather and associated increases in wolf numbers. Reduced caribou natality and calf weights were associated with adverse weather. Wolf control was reauthorized to halt the Delta herd's decline in 1993. Similar subarctic, noncoastal systems without effective wolf control have supported densities of 45-417 moose/1,000 km2 (x̄ = 148, n = 20), 100-500 caribou/1,000 km2, and 2-18 wolves/1,000 km2 (x̄ = 9, n = 15) in recent decades. In our 20-year history, 7 initial winters of wolf control and 14 initial years of favorable weather apparently resulted in 19 years of growth in moose, 14 years of growth in caribou populations, and a high average autumn wolf density after control ended (12 wolves/1,000 km2). Benefits to humans included enjoyment of more wolves, moose, and caribou and harvests of several thousand additional moose and caribou than predicted if wolf control had not occurred. We conclude from historical data that controlling wolf populations, in combination with favorable weather, can enhance long-term abundance of wolves and their primary prey, and benefits to humans can be substantial.
Post by: ICEMAN on January 11, 2012, 06:03:45 AM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on January 11, 2012, 08:10:41 AM
Reading through this thread, I think I am starting to lean towards Bearpaw's theory. Sitka seems to be a little more "informed" than just your average concerned hunter that is all for "managing" the wolves, but is really just a "glass is half full kinda guy", that is trying to show that wolves aren't the end of the world. If that were the case, I think by this point he would have said "OK guys, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree..." and gone on to comment on some blacktail hunting threads or something. He just seems a little too concerned that we all come around to his way of thinking... :dunno:
Sikta is using a form of debate called "agitation propaganda." It is designed to stir emotional response in detractors of a point of view making it easy to point out emotional behavior while dismissing their ideology or their stance all together. It is Marxist in nature usually. (Or that is where it orginated.)
Sitka, regardless of anything else is obviously a wolf propagandist. I do however agree that black bears hurt young deer and elk in their first few weeks of life. That is why I support a general spring bear hunt (not permit only) in Washington. Cougar season should be alligned with it in an open season to aid it the recruitment of the young into herds. I have advocated for this in 2011 at WDFW meetings and am on record as doing so.
The label "Wolf Propagandist" is more fitting in my opinion for people who only speak from their side of the debate. We also have to understand wolves are a tool. Truth is a funny thing. The Government claims only one livestock animal was killed by wolves in Washington? No other confict offically exists? (So sayith the Government.) But, is that truth when the people know different? Nazi's said the Jews just moved on. (So sayith the Government.) We can not take Conservation Northwest and Defenders of Wildlife at their word. They have an agenda. They are admittedly bias to the North American Model of Game management. These same folk don't even want to allow members of the NRA to buy license plates to fund hunter's education in this State. They want that money for their agendas exclusively. That is how they get millions and we help fund them.
Just think about this, if 200,000 Washington hunters did not by one special permit this year and instead choice to fund a pro-hunting advocacy group with that $7.10. We would have $1.5 million dollars to counter Wolf Propaganda with real data. But we don't realize our power. People like the Defenders and Con ideology have funds from all over the world. We used to have funds from the Pittman Roberston. What we have not all realized is these folks have redirected these funds to their causes, and those causes are to undermine ours.
Post by: grundy53 on January 11, 2012, 08:14:01 AM
Reading through this thread, I think I am starting to lean towards Bearpaw's theory. Sitka seems to be a little more "informed" than just your average concerned hunter that is all for "managing" the wolves, but is really just a "glass is half full kinda guy", that is trying to show that wolves aren't the end of the world. If that were the case, I think by this point he would have said "OK guys, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree..." and gone on to comment on some blacktail hunting threads or something. He just seems a little too concerned that we all come around to his way of thinking... :dunno:
Sikta is using a form of debate called "agitation propaganda." It is designed to stir emotional response in detractors of a point of view making it easy to point out emotional behavior while dismissing their ideology or their stance all together. It is Marxist in nature usually. (Or that is where it orginated.)
Sitka, regardless of anything else is obviously a wolf propagandist. I do however agree that black bears hurt young deer and elk in their first few weeks of life. That is why I support a general spring bear hunt (not permit only) in Washington. Cougar season should be alligned with it in an open season to aid it the recruitment of the young into herds. I have advocated for this in 2011 at WDFW meetings and am on record as doing so.
The label "Wolf Propagandist" is more fitting in my opinion for people who only speak from their side of the debate. We also have to understand wolves are a tool. Truth is a funny thing. The Government claims only one livestock animal was killed by wolves in Washington? No other confict offically exists? (So sayith the Government.) But, is that truth when the people know different? Nazi's said the Jews just moved on. (So sayith the Government.) We can not take Conservation Northwest and Defenders of Wildlife at their word. They have an agenda. They are admittedly bias to the North American Model of Game management. These same folk don't even want to allow members of the NRA to buy license plates to fund hunter's education in this State. They want that money for their agendas exclusively. That is how they get millions and we help fund them.
Just think about this, if 200,000 Washington hunters did not by one special permit this year and instead choice to fund a pro-hunting advocacy group with that $7.10. We would have $1.5 million dollars to counter Wolf Propaganda with real data. But we don't realize our power. People like the Defenders and Con ideology have funds from all over the world. We used to have funds from the Pittman Roberston. What we have not all realized is these folks have redirected these funds to their causes, and those causes are to undermine ours.
I totally agree!
Post by: wraithen on January 11, 2012, 08:51:25 AM
Post by: sebek556 on January 11, 2012, 09:01:31 AM
It would help if we could have a bankroll fund starter to run emotional campaigns to counter those of the anti's. I didn't know there was an actual term for sitka's methods but they were easy enough to spot. Seems like the same way a big chunk of politicians are running their campaigns. I never understood why we make it so easy to be infiltrated but we can't seem to infiltrate them.to have them fit in with us is easy throw on some camo grab a coffee and hang out, for us to fit in with them, we kinda stick out wearing hip waders and a air freshener to put up with all the :bs: floating around filling up the room :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: seth30 on January 11, 2012, 09:20:16 AM
Post by: furbearer365 on January 11, 2012, 05:59:37 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 11, 2012, 06:20:55 PM
WRONG Sitka, here's proof Alaska F&G supports arial wolf hunts and has for several years because it increases herd numbers. In this same article you can see where guys like Sitka use every imaginable arguement against wolf hunting, but the bottom line is that wolf control benefits herds.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2009859073_apusalaskawolfcontrol.html
Alaska: Wolf, bear hunts increasing moose, caribou
An Alaska wildlife management program in which wolves are shot from low-flying airplanes and black bears are baited and snared is helping to increase the numbers of moose and caribou, state wildlife officials say.
Wrong Bear Paw. This was forced on the bios by people higher up who were put in charge to try to prove they can ramp up cervid populations by taking out predators.
Will it work? Sure in the short term. But as I've said before, especially in Alaska of all places, it's not how many animals you can produce, it's how many you can get through the winter. It's all about winter carrying capacity and what that is, is different from year to year. The more snow, the less that is. You could get rid of every predator there is and it won't change the fact that One bad winter will take out most of your herd, especially if it is overloaded with animals. And the damage they do before they die takes decades to repair.
Alaska learned this lesson once before. Predator populations was knocked down to next to nothing and moose and caribou herds grew to all time highs. Then the inevitable happened, a series of bad winters wiped out the great herds and it took many years of careful management to bring them back. Predators were recognized as an important part of the whole dynamic. Now a group has gotten in control and thinks they don't have to believe the lessons of the past. They've been encouraged by a series of relatively mild winters that have allowed herds to rebuild. But it's just a matter of time before the old lessons become apparent again. And the way this winter is starting, this could be the year that teaches them.
And believe me, not all Alaskan hunters agree with this "new" approach.
From a very Alaskan hunting forum.
http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/showthread.php/95256-Brown-Bear-Snaring
And I've been asked about my comments about SFW. As I said, they have been infiltrating management in Alaska as well as other western states. Either through getting "their guys" into the upper echelons of management, or by greasing the right wheels. Their reward is getting policies they favor passed, plus they get awarded coveted tags to auction at their annual meetings that help them raise the funds they grease the wheels with. And it's not just a few tags either.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50889688-76/wildlife-deer-percent-utah.html.csp
They preach that they are pushing for changes that will help the common hunter, but it hasn't exactly turned out that way.
Post by: Gringo31 on January 11, 2012, 06:35:46 PM
This is NOT a debate if winter kill happens!
This is NOT a discussion if hard winters affect game populations!
I think the part you can't understand is this......WITH ALL OTHER ASPECTS BEING THE SAME, WHAT EFFECT DO WOLVES HAVE ON UNGULATE POPULATIONS?
IF we can agree that they eat and waste more than we would like predators to take, and then we reduce said predators, would that or would that not leave more harvest for us?
Let me put it this way....
Deer/elk/moose are a crop. We want to protect that crop so we can harvest it. The more the fungus, bugs, disease etc. eat of our crop, the less we get to harvest for our efforts. We don't grow crops to feed the catepillers! Does this mean I want every bug in the world killed??? No. But, we want to put in the work to protect our crop, better the habitat so we can all enjoy a sustainable harvest. Every farmer has hard years, often weather related! But, they also pull weeds :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 11, 2012, 06:36:56 PM
Post by: seth30 on January 11, 2012, 06:42:24 PM
Post by: Jack Diamond on January 11, 2012, 07:37:59 PM
Post by: sebek556 on January 11, 2012, 07:41:12 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on January 11, 2012, 09:21:48 PM
I can't let it go.... >:(
This is NOT a debate if winter kill happens!
This is NOT a discussion if hard winters affect game populations!
I think the part you can't understand is this......WITH ALL OTHER ASPECTS BEING THE SAME, WHAT EFFECT DO WOLVES HAVE ON UNGULATE POPULATIONS?
IF we can agree that they eat and waste more than we would like predators to take, and then we reduce said predators, would that or would that not leave more harvest for us?
Let me put it this way....
Deer/elk/moose are a crop. We want to protect that crop so we can harvest it. The more the fungus, bugs, disease etc. eat of our crop, the less we get to harvest for our efforts. We don't grow crops to feed the catepillers! Does this mean I want every bug in the world killed??? No. But, we want to put in the work to protect our crop, better the habitat so we can all enjoy a sustainable harvest. Every farmer has hard years, often weather related! But, they also pull weeds :bash: :bash: :bash:
See Gringo, this is the apex of what we fail to see. In the North American Model ungulates are managed with hunting a major factor in animal populations and trends. We fund the program. As such we have expected a return. In the model that has been thrust upon us that is irrelevant. WE are irrelevant to ecosystem management. The spirit of hunting will go on but not the North American Model if Sikta and ilk have their way. And unfortunately for now they are winning at blitzkrieg speed. I see where it seems IDFG is caving to this mentality dispite direct mandates against it.
Sitka is dead wrong to say that killing wolves does not work. It already did when they were removed. What is correct is without proper management the animals starve. If hunting them is not allowed then yes, they overpopulate and die in winters, disease, and other ways. More and more hunting is restricted in undefendable ways. PC is far over played on both sides. It stems from user group selfishness as much as those who hate humans. We have to decide if we are going to managed for ecosystems that are self sustaining or the North American Model. I am disappointed that this point is not agreed upon.
If we are going manage for ecosystems then end general hunting and the management that goes with it. If we are going to keep the North American Model then there needs to be a total shakup inside all departments that manage Big Game. That won't happen until there is new leadership at the State and Federal level. (If Ever)
Post by: bearpaw on January 12, 2012, 07:43:50 PM
http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/fwp-may-seek-wolf-season-extension-for-west-fork-of/article_8d023b24-0739-56a5-b43d-991209cd593a.html?print=1
FWP may seek wolf season extension for West Fork of the Bitterroot
By PERRY BACKUS - Ravalli Republic | Posted: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 10:15 pm
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks officials plan to ask for another extension to the wolf hunting season in the West Fork of the Bitterroot.
So far, hunters have only killed three of the 18 wolves allowed in the area. All of those three were killed before the state's general season ended in November.
"We feel like we need to reach that quota," said FWP Region 2 Director Mack Long. "We think it's very important to get predators in that area under control."
The proposal that will be offered the FWP Commission this month would extend the season in the West Fork wolf hunting unit to April 1, or until the quota is met.
Long said the department will be looking at other alternatives that might be used to make that happen.
"Our No. 1 priority was to have sportsmen accomplish the harvest," Long said. "We're very supportive of a season extension. We are hoping people will support that."
The state has already extended the wolf hunting season to Feb. 15 in units where quotas have not been filled.
In this second-ever wolf hunting season in Montana, Long said the state is learning that wolves can be challenging for sportsmen to hunt.
"I think it depends on a lot of different environmental factors," Long said. "HD 250 might be a textbook example of a landscape that is hard to operate in."
Local sportsmen want the state to do more to ensure the quota is met.
Ravalli County Fish and Wildlife Association president Tony Jones said that while that organization is happy the state is considering extending the season, it believes that FWP needs to allow sportsmen to use trapping, baiting and electronic calls to harvest wolves.
Jones said the state was on board with allowing the federal government to use whatever means it had at its disposal to reduce wolf numbers to 12 in the west fork before wolves were delisted under the 10(j) rule.
"These extensions are not getting it done," he said. "FWP is not doing anything other than extending the season. We would like them to do more."
"There is no reason to think that an extension by itself is going to work," Jones said. "Where is the spike going to come from? Hunters just aren't getting it done with the tools that they have."
Marc Cooke of the National Wolf Watchers Coalition said that group is adamantly opposed to extending the season.
"It's just unjust," he said. "Why are they shutting it down everywhere else and keeping it open here? They are appeasing special interest groups, like hunters, livestock producers and county commissioners."
Cooke said keeping the season open longer could provide a black eye for Ravalli County.
"Pregnant wolves getting ready to den are going to be killed," he said. "It's not going to look good one bit for Ravalli County hunters to be out there hunting pregnant wolves."
Reach reporter Perry Backus at 363-3300 or pbackus@ravallirepublic.com.
Post by: 3nails on January 12, 2012, 09:14:48 PM
he came up with a new name..:chuckle:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 12, 2012, 10:38:33 PM
Sitka is dead wrong to say that killing wolves does not work. It already did when they were removed. What is correct is without proper management the animals starve. If hunting them is not allowed then yes, they overpopulate and die in winters, disease, and other ways.
You'd be surprised that I agree with you, but not in the way you'd like perhaps. This whole thread was started to point out that wolves aren't the end of hunting or even the downfall of hunting. I have never said not to manage them and control them.
Killing wolves can give a pop to your herds, but it isn't the long term solution. Good habitat is. We manage all the other animals we have, why do you believe we can't manage wolves?
Many hunters now days seem to want 100% success. THAT isn't possible. What is possible is to figure out what long term carrying capacity is and try to stay in that range and prevent the big highs and the little lows. That won't be a static number as the landscape changes. The best we can do as hunters is to see that managers stay on top of things.
There are things that will affect your ability to hunt in the future way more than wolves. The biggest in my opinion is access.
Post by: bearpaw on January 13, 2012, 12:23:34 AM
There are things that will affect your ability to hunt in the future way more than wolves. The biggest in my opinion is access.
Are you suggesting that access has anything to do with elk hunting declining sharply in the Lolo, the Payette, the bitterroot, the St Joe, the north fork clearwater, the salmon, elk city, the selway, the thouroughfare, and the late gardner hunts have been completely eliminated? :dunno:
Post by: jager on January 13, 2012, 05:21:58 AM
Sitka is dead wrong to say that killing wolves does not work. It already did when they were removed. What is correct is without proper management the animals starve. If hunting them is not allowed then yes, they overpopulate and die in winters, disease, and other ways.
You'd be surprised that I agree with you, but not in the way you'd like perhaps. This whole thread was started to point out that wolves aren't the end of hunting or even the downfall of hunting. I have never said not to manage them and control them.
Killing wolves can give a pop to your herds, but it isn't the long term solution. Good habitat is. We manage all the other animals we have, why do you believe we can't manage wolves?
Many hunters now days seem to want 100% success. THAT isn't possible. What is possible is to figure out what long term carrying capacity is and try to stay in that range and prevent the big highs and the little lows. That won't be a static number as the landscape changes. The best we can do as hunters is to see that managers stay on top of things.
There are things that will affect your ability to hunt in the future way more than wolves. The biggest in my opinion is access.
I don't understand your thinking..... :bash:
Killing wolves is not going to solve all of the problems our herds face... But it will help with wolf predation on the herds!!
We can only address each issue affecting populations separately...Marginal habitat and continuing limited access will continue to increase due to the inevitable fact that man does exist on this earth! That will not go away, nor are we able to control our human population. That is not going to change.
Our problem now, that is going to affect the population of the herds most radically right now are the wolves. We need to address that immediately. Plain and simple!
I believe we wont be able to manage the wolves because it's been proven all over the entire world. There is plenty of documentation to that affect!
Hunting and trapping wolves on the ground is not a viable control method. But left unchecked..were screwed!
Post by: Wenatcheejay on January 13, 2012, 08:40:10 AM
Sitka is dead wrong to say that killing wolves does not work. It already did when they were removed. What is correct is without proper management the animals starve. If hunting them is not allowed then yes, they overpopulate and die in winters, disease, and other ways.
You'd be surprised that I agree with you, but not in the way you'd like perhaps. This whole thread was started to point out that wolves aren't the end of hunting or even the downfall of hunting. I have never said not to manage them and control them.
Killing wolves can give a pop to your herds, but it isn't the long term solution. Good habitat is. We manage all the other animals we have, why do you believe we can't manage wolves?
Many hunters now days seem to want 100% success. THAT isn't possible. What is possible is to figure out what long term carrying capacity is and try to stay in that range and prevent the big highs and the little lows. That won't be a static number as the landscape changes. The best we can do as hunters is to see that managers stay on top of things.
There are things that will affect your ability to hunt in the future way more than wolves. The biggest in my opinion is access.
Sitka, here is the thing I don't understand, you are obviously educated. I have repeatedly said that "hunting" will not end. I have said the "model" used for 80 years will. You bring complex arguments from your side regarding wolf and elk statistics but then simplistic opinions of what hunters bring as conservationists. Who here has ever claimed they expect 100% sucess rate? Show me the statistics where every hunter is 100% sucessful and I will take my place next to you. (Outside of YOUR opinion no such statistic exists.) I looked up statistics for bulls and cows and they are almost equal (3/4k ratio?) in WDFW harvest statistics for 2009. The sucess rate currently is dismal. So your argument that hunters only kill trophy bulls in any number is also false. This constant anti-hunter (not anti-hunting) mantra of yours is either horribly misinformed or outright propaganda. I am sorry but that is a fact.
There are sensible alternatives to the wolf plan that were not adopted. That does not equal unreasonable people. That we have not just given up and gone into a corner clining to our guns and praying to God seems to really upset some people. I think the fight is just getting started. I don't feel like sitting down and being a good little socialist. :bfg:
Post by: sebek556 on January 13, 2012, 09:20:44 PM
Also, in pro-hippie, pro-bunny hugger(aka leaf licker) WA we will never be able to properly manage wolves, so using these models of look at this and that won't work.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 14, 2012, 11:52:32 AM
There are things that will affect your ability to hunt in the future way more than wolves. The biggest in my opinion is access.
Are you suggesting that access has anything to do with elk hunting declining sharply in the Lolo, the Payette, the bitterroot, the St Joe, the north fork clearwater, the salmon, elk city, the selway, the thouroughfare, and the late gardner hunts have been completely eliminated? :dunno:
Nope. I'm suggesting that access to a place to hunt will be a bigger problem than wolves. Wolves didn't change most of the Copalis unit to lease hunting. Rayonier did. Wolves didn't cause urban sprawl or put up no trespassing or no hunting signs. People did. There are large chunks of land I've hunted since I was a boy that aren't accessible to me any more. The wolves didn't do that.
Post by: dreamunelk on January 14, 2012, 12:08:14 PM
There are things that will affect your ability to hunt in the future way more than wolves. The biggest in my opinion is access.
Are you suggesting that access has anything to do with elk hunting declining sharply in the Lolo, the Payette, the bitterroot, the St Joe, the north fork clearwater, the salmon, elk city, the selway, the thouroughfare, and the late gardner hunts have been completely eliminated? :dunno:
Nope. I'm suggesting that access to a place to hunt will be a bigger problem than wolves. Wolves didn't change most of the Copalis unit to lease hunting. Rayonier did. Wolves didn't cause urban sprawl or put up no trespassing or no hunting signs. People did. There are large chunks of land I've hunted since I was a boy that aren't accessible to me any more. The wolves didn't do that.
Exactly! Loss of access is far more of a threat to our fishing and hunting heritage than wolves at this time. Unless hunters and fisherman get very vocal NOW we will have no access to most of our traditional areas.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 14, 2012, 12:09:50 PM
Nope. I'm suggesting that access to a place to hunt will be a bigger problem than wolves. Wolves didn't change most of the Copalis unit to lease hunting. Rayonier did. Wolves didn't cause urban sprawl or put up no trespassing or no hunting signs. People did. There are large chunks of land I've hunted since I was a boy that aren't accessible to me any more. The wolves didn't do that.Not yet anyways. When there is ample game for enough of the hunters, very few will want to pay for something they get for 'free'. As hunter success begins to drop, hunters will be more willing to pay that extra amount for access to more exclusive areas. Would you rather pay license/tag/permit/gas/camp/quad/truck to have a 3%(?) harvest rate or the aforementioned costs PLUS lease fee and have a 10%(?) or 20%(?) or higher harvest rate? The WDFW wolf plan said the wolves would likely take an amount equal to hunter harvest. The wolf promoter Jay Kehne said in one article, that humans will just have to become better hunters. So, I don't find it too far-fetched to believe that wolves will take enough game to also lower human chances at game (harvet rates). Those wanting to maintain success will find a way, either through working harder or smarter. I think SOME of those in the 'work smarter' camp will opt for restricting access to others (leases). If you can reduce human competition, you increase your own odds of success. You don't post honey holes online, do you? So, in a way I think wolves might (emphasis on might) play a role in restricting access.
Post by: dreamunelk on January 14, 2012, 12:43:58 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 14, 2012, 12:53:58 PM
So those that can afford to lease will become the better hunters?Thanks for misinterpreting. That's not my implication. Those that can afford leases/guides/etc are likely to be more successful. If anything, you could argue the exact opposite of your assumption of what I said. Think about it....if you hunt an area where all the displaced hunters are sent and can still be successful amid more competition for fewer and fewer animals.
I can't afford a lease, but know a few that can...and when the opportunity comes around my area if things aren't getting better, would probably buy into one. Most cases still cheaper than going out of state on a guided hunt.
Post by: bearpaw on January 14, 2012, 12:58:10 PM
There are things that will affect your ability to hunt in the future way more than wolves. The biggest in my opinion is access.
Are you suggesting that access has anything to do with elk hunting declining sharply in the Lolo, the Payette, the bitterroot, the St Joe, the north fork clearwater, the salmon, elk city, the selway, the thouroughfare, and the late gardner hunts have been completely eliminated? :dunno:
Nope. I'm suggesting that access to a place to hunt will be a bigger problem than wolves. Wolves didn't change most of the Copalis unit to lease hunting. Rayonier did. Wolves didn't cause urban sprawl or put up no trespassing or no hunting signs. People did. There are large chunks of land I've hunted since I was a boy that aren't accessible to me any more. The wolves didn't do that.
First, Rayonier is privately owned land. You seem to think that private landowners have no right to control access to their land. As a small landowner I find your comment preposterous. If I want to limit access or charge for access to my land that is my right.
This state is roughly 50% public land, there are plenty of public lands to hunt that used to be free to hunt until liberals passed legislation and started charging for access to public lands too.
Access is no problem as long as we keep the liberals in check on public land access.
Back to wolves, this really has nothing to do with the fact that wolves have been proven to be destroying the herds in Idaho/Montana/Wyoming. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on January 14, 2012, 01:03:17 PM
So those that can afford to lease will become the better hunters?
Thanks for misinterpreting. That's not my implication. Those that can afford leases/guides/etc are likely to be more successful. If anything, you could argue the exact opposite of your assumption of what I said. Think about it....if you hunt an area where all the displaced hunters are sent and can still be successful amid more competition for fewer and fewer animals.
I can't afford a lease, but know a few that can...and when the opportunity comes around my area if things aren't getting better, would probably buy into one. Most cases still cheaper than going out of state on a guided hunt.
Do you have a problem with guides? Of course a person hunting with a guide likely has a better opportunity, that is why they hire a guide.
Why do you hire a builder to build a house? Why do you hire a lawyer to represent you in court? Why do you hire a well driller to find water?
If you don't want to lease ground, simply visit some landowners or drive to your nearest public lands, but please don't tell me or anyone else what we have to do with our private land.... :twocents:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 14, 2012, 01:28:19 PM
Hypothetical--if there were 400" bulls and 200" bucks all over and easy to access, how many would even put in for multiseason tags/special permits/use guides/get up 2 extra hours early or 4 or..?
Guides and leases have a market to fill. I don't care if someone who has extra cash utilizes them. Do what you need to legally do to fill your tag. What I'm seeing in the future is when the wolves reduce the game herds more and more, the human hunters will become even more competitive amongst each other for the remaining game. Competition will eventually make it good sense for a landowner to convert to a lease. I wouldn't blame them for it, I'd do the same if I had land. Really surprised more HAVEN'T!
I think we're on the same page, just not sure my wording is reflecting that.
(Wolves--less game--more competitive humans--people willing to pay more (competition)--more leases--less access) so it think (wolves--less access).
Post by: Wenatcheejay on January 14, 2012, 02:05:33 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 14, 2012, 03:20:13 PM
No, bearpaw. No problem with guides what-so-ever, I use them when I can. Or leases. I fully support the leases for private land and guides for public and private. I am simply pointing out that when wolves have taken root here and knock down the amount of available game, if someone wants an animal that is one of the ways to go.
Hypothetical--if there were 400" bulls and 200" bucks all over and easy to access, how many would even put in for multiseason tags/special permits/use guides/get up 2 extra hours early or 4 or..?
Guides and leases have a market to fill. I don't care if someone who has extra cash utilizes them. Do what you need to legally do to fill your tag. What I'm seeing in the future is when the wolves reduce the game herds more and more, the human hunters will become even more competitive amongst each other for the remaining game. Competition will eventually make it good sense for a landowner to convert to a lease. I wouldn't blame them for it, I'd do the same if I had land. Really surprised more HAVEN'T!
I think we're on the same page, just not sure my wording is reflecting that.
(Wolves--less game--more competitive humans--people willing to pay more (competition)--more leases--less access) so it think (wolves--less access).
my mistake for misinterpreting.... :sry:
Post by: bearpaw on January 14, 2012, 03:22:21 PM
Sitka, while your debate over public use of land for hunting and the access of private land has merit as a debate if it were to stand on it's own it does not in the context of this debate. In fact, I would argue that in inability for people to manage their land, their leases, and guides all suffer from the current wolf mismanagement. That is the purpose of this thread. Please, explain how unmanaged wolves will help and or benifit landowners and guides, leases and public land access?
I agree, it's a common tactic to change the subject to avoid the hard questions. :chuckle:
Post by: jdurham on January 15, 2012, 10:40:29 AM
Break your study down to specific gmu's. You will see that there is a shift in harvest locations. I spoke to guys in the Joe that have killed elk for decades from the same camps and now they see few to none, yet right in cda there were gobs of elk. I know that Idaho as a state has lost a ton of money due to predation and they would not be so activly seeking ways to reduce the wolf population were it not harming the herd.:tup: :tup: :tup: I have friends that live in and hunt the Joe. You should hear what they have experienced. I agree with you 110%.
Post by: jdurham on January 15, 2012, 10:43:42 AM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on January 15, 2012, 07:06:22 PM
http://www.nraila.org/Hunting/Read/HuntingArticles.aspx?ID=469
Nestled in the Pacific Ocean approximately 30 miles from the mainland of Santa Barbara sits a beautiful island where majestic Roosevelt elk and Kaibab mule deer roam free. Ferried across a treacherous channel, these grand species were brought to Santa Rosa Island some 80 years ago, but their days are officially numbered. A complete slaughter of these magnificent animals is scheduled to occur before the midnight tide rises on Dec. 31, 2011. Sharpshooters will be en route to the island soon to comply with a 1996 court settlement and 2007 legislation that reinstated the extermination order.
The 83-square-mile island was privately owned for more than a century before being sold to the National Park Service in 1986 for $30 million. Used as a cattle and sheep ranch for much of its modern history, overgrazing disrupted the balance of the island`s ecosystem. The 1996 lawsuit settlement required the removal of all cattle, sheep and feral hogs from the island, followed by a phased reduction of elk and mule deer to culminate at the end of 2011 with complete extermination.
As this is a government-mandated animal slaughter, you may ask where the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have been in the process. They have been curiously absent, giving us a clear picture of their definition of "conservation." In fact, HSUS` congressional allies, U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and U.S. Rep. Lois Capps, blocked NRA`s efforts to prevent the slaughter in 2007 by inserting a provision into the omnibus appropriations bill that reinstated the extermination order. The animal-saving law blocked by the three lawmakers would have allowed disabled veterans to hunt the majestic elk and mule deer based on biologists` harvest recommendations.
The battle over Santa Rosa Island illustrates diverging definitions of "conservation." Theodore Roosevelt was largely responsible for sparking America`s conservation movement after witnessing the detritus left behind by the 19th century`s commercial big game slaughter. An avid hunter throughout his life, Roosevelt could not countenance big game populations dwindling below sustainable hunting levels. He helped to create the North American Wildlife Conservation Model, which used regulated hunting as an essential tool to bring back numerous species from the brink of extinction and help them thrive again.
Regulated hunting of Roosevelt elk and Kaibab mule deer on Santa Rosa Island has been employed and celebrated for decades, keeping populations in check that have no natural predators. Although the presence of such majestic beasts enriches the experience of all who visit the island, HSUS and PETA seem to prefer total extermination of the elk and deer populations rather than allowing one more hunter to take to the field. Again, these anti-hunting extremists refuse to acknowledge that hunters are largely responsible for preserving America`s wild lands and the wild things that Roosevelt held sacrosanct.
Animal "rights" extremists have tried to seize the word "conservation" and change its definition to remove hunting as a tool. Unfortunately, they have had some success and Santa Rosa Island may be their next victory.
The impact that domestic cattle and sheep, and feral hogs, can have on a unique landscape such as Santa Rosa Island is well known. A total of 1,175 hogs were killed during the `90s, but estimates put the number of hogs as high as 3,200 prior to a major drought in the late `80s. With voracious appetites, it is no wonder that the flora and fauna suffered tremendously. Some states see significant habitat impacts with similar hog populations. After the removal of domestic cattle, sheep and feral hogs, Santa Rosa`s ecosystem dramatically rebounded.
So why have the elk and mule deer been sentenced to die when the island`s ecosystem is rebounding? No reasonable answer has been given; the only explanation is that the two ungulate species are "non-native." Allowing the North American Wildlife Conservation Model to prevail through elk and mule deer management would mean a modicum of impact on the island`s environment. That is apparently too tall an order for HSUS and PETA because it would mean continued hunting of a few animals. The animal "rights" folks instead sit idly by as government-paid sharpshooters are scheduled to perform a 19th century-style slaughter, with the modern twist of using helicopters instead of horses.
There are only three native terrestrial mammals on Santa Rosa: the deer mouse, island fox and spotted skunk. With the domestic cattle, sheep and feral hogs gone from the island, a proper ecosystem could be easily maintained with the continued inclusion of scientifically managed elk and deer herds.
Roosevelt elk and Kaibab mule deer are only found in a small segment of North America and they are a celebrated part of Santa Rosa for a multitude of visitors from hikers to hunters. The isolated island population of these magnificent animals represents an important insurance policy if disease ever broke out on the mainland that could lead either species to extinction. Having an isolated species pool, a Noah`s Ark of sorts, can prove invaluable as proper elk and mule deer habitat on the mainland continues to erode because of urbanization, leaving species` health prone to widespread disease events.
President Roosevelt eloquently wrote of elk in 1902:
"Surely all men who care for nature, no less than all men who care for big game hunting, should combine to try to see that not merely the states but the Federal authorities make every effort, and are given every power, to prevent the extermination of this stately and beautiful animal, the lordliest of the deer kind in the entire world."
I believe that the president who sparked the American conservation movement would write the very same words about the Santa Rosa slaughter today. The elk and mule deer herds could be so managed through hunting and other means as to have minimal impact on the island`s various flora and fauna with a continued existence as balanced members of the island`s ecosystem. This would continue the North American Wildlife Conservation Model that has become the envy of the world, albeit to the angst of the animal "rights" crowd simply because hunting would continue. It makes one wonder if these anti-hunting extremists would prefer to see more animals exterminated so that, in their twisted minds, no "suffering" would exist. It is hard to see any other way they would be satisfied given their inaction on Santa Rosa.
Rest assured that NRA will continue the fight to save the Santa Rosa elk and mule deer to the final hour. Join the fight; contact your United States senators and representative and ask them to call off the sharpshooters. If all concerned NRA members join forces, perhaps we can prevent the senseless slaughter of these remarkable animal populations and keep the animal "rights" extremists from taking hunting out of conservation.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 15, 2012, 07:26:45 PM
Not yet anyways. When there is ample game for enough of the hunters, very few will want to pay for something they get for 'free'. As hunter success begins to drop, hunters will be more willing to pay that extra amount for access to more exclusive areas. Would you rather pay license/tag/permit/gas/camp/quad/truck to have a 3%(?) harvest rate or the aforementioned costs PLUS lease fee and have a 10%(?) or 20%(?) or higher harvest rate?
Personally, I'd hunt the public land. I'm not into buying a better success rate. I realize that many don't mind doing that. But if it comes down to lease hunting, or no hunting, my hunting days are over.
While I'm basically a meat hunter and I like to be successful, I also love the experience and I'm still gonna get the experience even if my success rate goes down. That just means there is a bigger challenge to overcome to be successful. That just puts a bigger smile on my face when I get one.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 15, 2012, 07:31:51 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 15, 2012, 07:39:45 PM
First, Rayonier is privately owned land. You seem to think that private landowners have no right to control access to their land. As a small landowner I find your comment preposterous. If I want to limit access or charge for access to my land that is my right.
This state is roughly 50% public land, there are plenty of public lands to hunt that used to be free to hunt until liberals passed legislation and started charging for access to public lands too.
Access is no problem as long as we keep the liberals in check on public land access.
If timber companies had bought what was once PUBLIC LAND from the state for a fair price, I might not argue that point with you Bear Paw. But most timber lands in this state that are private were given to the timber companies by land grants. The understood reason was, the timber companies were going to provide jobs for the local economy. They are also given tax breaks for the land they own. Part of the reason for that is because the timber companies provide a public service by keeping these lands open to the public. I was also told by an old teacher, many years ago, that at least some of the land grants stipulated that the land given the timber companies had to be open to public use for recreation. They can close roads, and close areas for safety reasons, such as active logging and fire danger. But they can't flat out forbid recreation. I'm still researching that.
But timber companies have sold the local workers down the drain exporting mill jobs overseas. Now they are starting to charge lease fees. So maybe it's time to change the tax structure they live under.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 15, 2012, 08:05:02 PM
Roosevelt elk and Kaibab mule deer are only found in a small segment of North America and they are a celebrated part of Santa Rosa for a multitude of visitors from hikers to hunters. The isolated island population of these magnificent animals represents an important insurance policy if disease ever broke out on the mainland that could lead either species to extinction. Having an isolated species pool, a Noah`s Ark of sorts, can prove invaluable as proper elk and mule deer habitat on the mainland continues to erode because of urbanization, leaving species` health prone to widespread disease events.
I find it ironic that they are using loss of habitat on the mainland as an argument to save this herd. I also find it ironic that people who decry the reintroduction of wolves as a "non native species" have a problem with removing a non native species.
Now here's another different view than the one your article presented. And a couple quotes and my comments.
http://independent.com/news/2011/aug/17/santa-rosa-islands-final-hunts/
[/quote]"The family sold the island to the park in 1986 for $29.5 million and removed their cattle in 1998, but retained the right to run commercial elk and deer hunts as well as stay in the island’s buildings until the end of 2011. That era comes to an end this year, and the hunts have intensified since 2008 in order to gradually draw down the elk and deer populations, which Menard noted are the private property of the (Vail & Vickers,) family."[/quote]
So these animals were private property of the family that sold the island to the Park Service. They received 29.6 million and agreed to the animal removal as part of the deal. Do you have a problem with them making a deal for the elimination of their own animals?
[/quote]Perhaps more significantly than the ecological impacts, however, is that the presence of deer and elk and the annual hunts effectively shut off 90 percent of Santa Rosa Island for visitors for five months out of the every year. And that’s a big reason as to why the park always wanted them removed. “Hunting is not authorized in national parks,” said Menard. “National parks are set aside to preserve the natural environment. [/quote]
So the hunts wouldn't have been allowed under National Park rules. This means if the deer and elk weren't removed, they had no natural predation and would have once again become a problem on the island's flora and fauna.
Bottom line, this was a private introduced herd and the family that owned them basically sold them. The NRA used this to drum up a story that conservationists are bad. They certainly didn't include the whole truth in their story.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 15, 2012, 08:23:02 PM
Then just a couple days ago, this story broke. I'm including a couple blogs and articles including one from an Alaskan hunting blog, with more comments and info about the story. Maybe this will help you see my problem with the organization. This has to do with wolves as Mr Rossi helped force in the current predator control programs that are in effect in Alaska. Some on this thread have pointed to these rules as proof that Alaska is gung ho for predator control. But actually it was pressed by two groups, SFW and the Alaska Outdoor Council. Most Alaskans aren't against predator control, but they are against predator extermination to try to boost game populations as it has been shown to be a temporary fix at best.
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/alaska-wildlife-conservation-director-charged-helping-illegally-kill-bears
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/wildlife-chiefs-resignation-resonates-alaska-biologists
http://www.adn.com/2010/03/24/1197979/wildlife-conservation-director.html
http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/showthread.php/109640-Corey-Rossi-charged-with-guiding-violations-%28merged-threads%29
http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID5/18890.html
http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=249475
Post by: sebek556 on January 15, 2012, 08:25:56 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on January 15, 2012, 08:35:37 PM
Post by: summit creek on January 15, 2012, 09:54:33 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on January 15, 2012, 10:30:17 PM
talked to an outfitter in chales idaho he cant hardly book a elk hunt in the selway 4 elk anymore he said even the small buisneses r going out of business do 2 low elk numbers and no non resident bookings he told me he wants to relocate and start outfiting in oregon or wyoming good luck 2 them
All part of the program sitka speaks so fondly of my friend. :tup:
edit..
You know, really this has come full circle. The reason to oppose wolf introduction, the reason to oppose wolf reintroduction in the first place is the same reason to oppose national parks being created. They have no place in the current system. They create their own system. Groups sitka supports opposed the system we speak of in every way. If sitka and company prevails there will be little to no place for general hunting. As National Parks expand there will be less. That is their plan and it always was.
If you accept sitka's premise that man is bad. That we prey on the strong, we disrupt migrations and ruts. And you accept that somehow wolves don't do this at all, that they only cull the old and the sick, that calf recruitment is irrelevent and ignore the fact that only when when they exhaust their food source will they die, it makes sense. Remember, if you support national parks, living self sustaining ecosytems and it is agreed that hunting is unacceptable for the reasons spoke of. Man is bad, can't control himself, disrupts the natural ecosystem, and that wolves are a perfect solution. The same logic can be applied to all public lands. And that is the ideology we must wake up to. Because that is where this is going.
Notice that arial killing of elk and deer are socially acceptable but arial killing of wolves is horrid and not.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 16, 2012, 10:21:48 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 16, 2012, 12:31:03 PM
Groups sitka supports opposed the system we speak of in every way. If sitka and company prevails there will be little to no place for general hunting.
Jay, name one group that I support. And just what is it you think I'm trying to prevail at? It's certainly not to end hunting.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on January 16, 2012, 12:58:49 PM
Groups sitka supports opposed the system we speak of in every way. If sitka and company prevails there will be little to no place for general hunting.
Jay, name one group that I support. And just what is it you think I'm trying to prevail at? It's certainly not to end hunting.
When people ask you questions why do you not answer them?
Post by: huntnnw on January 17, 2012, 10:09:57 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on January 18, 2012, 01:43:49 PM
Sitka, you make several references to Alaska and wolves. Take a look at what they approved in the last couple days.
Aerial gunning of Brown Bears!
Post by: wraithen on January 24, 2012, 07:30:53 AM