States affected by wolves

M

mtmuley

Long Time Member
Messages
6,380
I just want honest opinions about how we, as hunters, should approach the current wolf plan in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. What are YOUR feelings and reccomendations? Have you observed an impact by wolves in your hunting area so far? Please, if you do not have input as to a serious nature of the question, do not reply. mtmuley
 
You know truthfully I don't think the impact on wildlife would be as much as people are complaining about...The main impact will be to livestock. We haven't had wolfs here in Utah for along time, I think I read somewhere about 1927 the last know wolf was killed in south eastern Utah. We have had 81 years of letting livestock range free with only a few being taken by cyotes and cougars. I dunno I just think we shouldn't have re introduced em period..But the job has been done and we will have to live with it.
 
The wolves are slaughtering elk. The impact is huge. Here is Idaho and north of the park in Montana. I can't state for certain knowledge in Wyoming, but it stands to reason. I know for sure around here. Thus far, the elk seem to be higher up on the agenda than deer. The lions like the deer.
 
I STOPPED HUNTING MY SPOT IN IDAHO, DUE TO LACK OF ELK. I ONLY SAW ONE WOLF BUT THEY MADE A BIGTIME IMPACT ON THE ELK POPULATION......YD.
 
How we as hunters should approach the wolf issue? The plans are already set as law in all three states. Each states plan has been well thought out and I think each state is headed in the right direction. Including my home state of Wyoming. I like Wyomings plan best, from day one the state has stood by thier idea, that in the park the wolf is well protected, when they exit the park they are fair game. And when they leave the "trophy game area" they become what they are, preditors! kill on sight, by almost any means. Nothing wrong with that plan, except the pro-wolf, anti-human, folks don't like it. And the vast majority of them are not from Wyoming.

They react with passion the same as hunters do, except 180 degrees out. So thier knee jerk reaction is to stop the hunting becuase they feel Wyomings plan is flawed. Well, to date, only 35 wolves have been killed, the feds killed over 150 last year. Instead of your tax dollars being spent trying to kill them, let anyone with a gun kill them. The feds in conjunction with the state also reduced wolf numbers very dramatically prior to delisiting so fewer wolves would be killed by hunters so as to not have more bad press. It worked, kind of, but as soon as 35 were killed the anti's come unglued. So, this is Wyoming's business, and no one else's, so they need to stay out of it!
 
I agree management of wolves is our buisiness and not the buisiness of people from California or New York or any where else for that matter. Did you see the article in the Casper Star earlier this week about 800 or so people calling the Governers office complaining about our wolf policy and only 2 or 3 were from Wyoming.
http://www.trib.com/articles/2008/05/01/news/wyoming/86ebfdfb6577b7fb8725743b00835959.txt

The wolf population is having a dramatic effect on at least 4 of the 8 major elk herds in Wyoming that surround Yellowstone. This just is not my opinion the Wyoming Game and Fish has completed studies that show this.

From the Wyoming game and fish,
"It is apparent wolves are causing significant declines in 4 herds (Green River, Gooseberry, Cody, and Clarks Fork). Calf:cow ratios in 3 of those 4 herds are below the 25:100 necessary to sustain stable elk populations and provide hunting opportunity (Gooseberry, Cody, and Clarks Fork)."

"Calf:cow ratios have been lower in all 8 herds since wolves occupied them. However, wolf reestablishment thus far appears not to be causing a measurably significant decline in calf:cow ratios in 4 of the 8 elk DAUs currently occupied by wolves (Jackson, Fall Creek, Piney, and Wiggins Fork; Table 3, Appendix A). Wolves appear to be significantly suppressing juvenile survival in the other 4 elk DAUs (Green River, Gooseberry, Cody, and Clarks Fork). To some degree, factors other than wolf predation contribute to declining calf:cow ratios based on analysis of calf:cow ratios in 5 of 13 non-wolf occupied DAUs (Table 4) and significant declines observed in 4 of 8 wolf-occupied DAUs before wolves were present (Table 3). However, the same factors (drought, disease, hunting, and other forms of predation) have had relatively minor impact on elk recruitment in herds without wolves. The only herds with recruitment rates that will not support hunting or possibly even stable populations, are the herds with significant wolf predation in addition to other factors."
http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/pdf/FinalElkCCRatios3-23-07.pdf
 
Zigga,

I probably walk just as far as you would in your wildest dreams. I've lived and hunted here as long as you....about 20 years longer. OK...big deal. The wolves are DRAMATICALLY reducing elk herds. That's fact. It is also fact, that the people who introduced the wolves have been shown to have no idea of what they were doing. In the beginning, their mantra was 300 wolves in 25 years and we'd be so lucky (THAT is about the only thing they got right; I hope there are only 300 wolves by that time.)

I hope that because we have 1500 (minimum) now and it's only been 10 years. The wolf numbers are increasing by 25% (or more) annually. There are many hundreds (documents all over) of dead elk, killed by wolves, and not even 10% of the carcass eaten.

Yes, the wolves are having a great impact. Yes, it has reduced hunting opportunities. Yes, they has reduced income to state fish & game departments and will continue to do so as the huntable numbers of elk (deer, too, but that's mostly cats) are further reduced every single year.

The wolf plans have NOT necessarily been so thoroughly thought out, as was stated. The plans were thought out by folks politicians (or those answering to politicians) who are trying to make politically-correct decisions by committee. That works very seldomly.

IF we had the ability to reduce the wolf numbers to 300 AND HOLD THEM and if we would reduce lion numbers by 30% to 40%, we would have dramatically increased herds, hunting opportunities, more income for state game departments, more mature animals with their appropriate head gear and the next generation would be much more apt to truly become recruited into the ranks of hunters. If that does not happen, 25 years from now (or sooner) hunting will not exist....not in any format similar to what we currently have. Our kids, or grandkids (depending on your age) will be hard-pressed to hunt annually. He will have no reason to WANT to inherit dad's rifle or any of the traditions that we cherish.

Something that we, as hunters or as concerned citizens (if you are concerned), should recognize is that the current population of wolves is killing as many elk as are hunters. One of the major differences is that wolves often kill the young....which are the animals that SHOULD be producing calves in a couple more years. The Montana game department has made some rather dire predictions of the status of the herd just north of Yellowstone. Wyoming the same. Here in Idaho, I've not heard the reports from F&G, but we've all seen the numbers greatly reduced. Unlike lots of guys, I've never followed Mike Eastman's mantra of hunting the same area year after year....I don't have a "honey hole". I enjoy hunting lots of different places. I visit several areas every year and talk with the friends and camps in those areas. I teach enough hunter ed classes and have been involved in various groups for long enough to have contacts all over the southern 2/3 of the state.

The wolves have made a huge impact on elk numbers. That's fact. It appears Zigga and I may have different beliefs about what should be done, if anything, but the fact is, the wolves are killing elk by the thousands. They are killing them faster than they can be replaced. That reduction is coming at a time when herd numbers were at a high point.....if the prey species cannot maintain itself from a high census count, it has little chance of maintaining when the breeding population has been reduced....that is happening, not just numerically, but also from the age of the herds.

I would love to be mistaken here; I'd love to think my youngest son and my grandkids will have hunting opportunities similar to those I've had. The numbers and biology work consistently enough, I just don't see how that's possible.
 
I've lived in Idaho my whole life, and have worked my entire working life in the outdoors in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana. Don't make me an expert, but I see what is happening. We in Idaho should follow Wyoming's example. These wolves will, and have in the central part of the state almost run out of large numbers of wildlife to kill. They will move to other parts and start their devastation in other areas if not stopped. Declare areas as wolf zone's and when they are outside of those zones then kill them any way you can! Still being able to hunt wolves in the wolf zones to maintain some kind of balance among the wildlife.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-04-08 AT 12:13PM (MST)[p] ZIGGY..... "WE"....WHAT ...DO YOU HAVE A TURD IN YOUR POCKET??? ZIGGY....AFTER YOUR ABOVE RANT IT SEEMS LIKE YOU ARE THE ONE NOT DEALING WITH THIS WOLF SITUATION VERY WELL...THANKS FOR ALL THE SWELL ADVICE.......LOL.....YD.
 
Zigga, I'm from Cali and I'm going to give my opinion whether you like it or not. We have too many fubar'd people in this state making horrible decisions for wildlife. You are beginning to sound like some of them. What the hell does road hunting have to do with the fact that wolves are adversely impacting wildlife herds in states where they have been reintroduced. Same old back woods close minded "don't hunt in my state" attitude. Get over it and stay focused on the real issue. Wolves are impacting wildlife adversely!

JR





























cail
 
Here is my 2cents, I live in Wy and ziggy expresses my feelings pretty well I am sure the wolves have quite an impact on elk but most folks in Wy are far too dramatic in my opinion, blaming every negative wildlife decline on wolves, even in places where wolves don't exist. in my opinion there are far greater dangers to the deer populations in southwestern Wy than wolves and lions, auto collisions,energy development,and mostly a changing climate, and if GB22 thinks that without wolves his grand kids are going to have hunting experiences like he had, he needs to share with us who his pharmacist is
 
>The wolf plans have NOT necessarily
>been so thoroughly thought out,
>as was stated. The
>plans were thought out by
>folks politicians (or those answering
>to politicians) who are trying
>to make politically-correct decisions by
>committee. That works very
>seldomly.
>


GB22:

I am not sure if you sat in on the meetings and committees where the wolf plans were hammered out, but in MT, I sat in on most of the meetings and had friends sitting on the committee. The MT plan was designed almost exclusively by hunters and ranchers. There was a token enviro asked to be on the committee, along with two legislators.

Once the citizen's committee came out with the their proposal, MT FWP and legislature adopted it, pretty much identical to what the committee proposed. If that is not what happened in ID, sorry.

Given that process, I would disagree with your comments above, at least as it pertains to MT. And, given that Wyoming's plan was the ire of all enviros, I doubt one could say that the WY plan was a politicaly correct plan. It seems to be a good plan that reflect WY perspectives, not some PC BS as your post would imply.

Like many have said, whether we like it or not, the wolves are here. They are having impacts. In some places dramatic, and in other places, minor. In all places, they have changed elk behavior.

From my observations, the elk are traveling in smaller groups, staying in the timber more, and staying higher on the mountain later in the day. Messes up the methods I used for hunting elk over the years, but such is how it goes.

The biggest concern I have is that if we shoot the chit out of them all, as some say we should do, the wolves will get "RE-listed" and the enviros will be able to say, "See, we told you those states can't manage predators." This will be strong evidence for the courts to give control back with the Feds, which is a disaster for everyone involved.

If we think we are in a pickle now, it is nothing compared to what will happen if RE-listing occurs. That is the last thing hunters want. There is criteria for re-listing, so management needs to be in place to make sure such re-listng criteria is not met. The popular "Kill them all" comment could be a management option, but certainly will result in re-listing.

I like that WY is shooting some of them now, but I hope it is within biological parameters of their management plan. If it is not, or the plan does not monitor such things, the enviros will use that as evidence for relisting. I hope the WY recovery plan addresses those things and has proper monitoring processes to prevent the enviros from doing such.

So we are stuck with wolves. If we wipe them out, they will get re-listed and crammed down our throats and up our a$$es. If we don't manage them, our wildlife will suffer, as will our hunting opportunity.

Given that, we need to focus even more on habitat protection, winter ranges, and demand better management from our agencies. As is always the case, hunters are footing the bill and getting a boot in the teeth.

I feel we are better off going forward in a manner that is constructive for our cause, rather than sniveling and moaning about our plight. Focusing on the things we can do to improve conditions for deer and elk will yeild more benefits than complaining about this predator, which will now be subject to state management (And thank God for that).

Just my two cents.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
LAST EDITED ON May-04-08 AT 04:15PM (MST)[p]zigga

<<<<<I wish it was open season on wolves outside park boundaries but it's not....sorry.>>>>>


Ahhhh dip stick, in Wyoming, the law is written and outside of jellystone, and the trophy game area, which is like from Cody down to gooseberry area, then back to forest service boundary, then south to the rez, then west and south. Outside of that, it is shoot on sight! 24/7! No biggeee, keep em where you tree whackers wanted them, in the park! So get over it.


piper; it is kind of interesting, in areas with out wolves, lets say the south eastern part of the state, elk cow/calf ratios are 35 to 100, in pretty much all of Wyoming, in non-wolf areas, cow/calf ratios are about the same or better, same drought, same developement, but guess what no wolves! In areas of heavey wolf populations, cow/calf ratios are less than 10 per 100. G&F say it takes 25 calves per 100 cows just to sustain the herds! The wolves have had no impact on deer, drought and oil and gas has. The elk are the sacrificial lamb, the hopes of the pro-wolf folks was to control bison in jellystone, not so much the elk and deer. Guess what it backfired, and they don't want any of their precious wolves killed. But the feds along with state and government trappers have killed on average, over 150 wolves every year, and yet the wolves have increased by 24%!!!!!!!! It's a wash, in fact if it is left up to hunters, probably less will be killed as they can not use aircraft to hunt from. So you and zigga can rest that hunters are not near the threat as your own government. So get over it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
I have hunted the gooseberry area for almost 20 years, and have seen a steady decline in elk numbers as well as calves, especially in the last 5 years. If, "IF" you can find 25 or 30 cows, you are lucky to see one or two calves. So there has been some impact and it will continue so until the wolf numbers are brought down. Fortunetly most of the gooseberry area falls in the shoot on sight zone.
 
In my Idahoan opinion, wolves have impacted elk behavior more so than elk populations. Having said that some areas have had population impacts. Many folks no longer find elk in their favorite honey hole "all the time". The elk are more mobile. However, they choose open places for escape cover which can help a hunter because they are visible rather than timbered up. Delisting is timely although maybe 2 years too late. I know I will buy a wolf tag this fall and will incidentally whack one if presented with an opportunity. Personally, a lot of time is devoted to hunting elk each fall and we are now in the "good old days" or possibly a year or two off the peak in elk populations. 5 months to go!
 
>In my Idahoan opinion, wolves have
>impacted elk behavior more so
>than elk populations. Having
>said that some areas have
>had population impacts. Many
>folks no longer find elk
>in their favorite honey hole
>"all the time". The
>elk are more mobile.
>However, they choose open places
>for escape cover which can
>help a hunter because they
>are visible rather than timbered
>up. Delisting is timely
>although maybe 2 years too
>late. I know I
>will buy a wolf tag
>this fall and will incidentally
>whack one if presented with
>an opportunity. Personally, a
>lot of time is devoted
>to hunting elk each fall
>and we are now in
>the "good old days" or
>possibly a year or two
>off the peak in elk
>populations. 5 months to
>go!



......so wolves don't actually kill and eat alot of elk, they just make them nervous and hide??hmmmm, interesting.

JB
 
I agree delisting was a good thing. But be realistic. Thus far 35 wolves (plus the last week) have been eliminated. The government was killing that many BEFORE delisting. Everything I said is true. And if ANYONE thinks hunting can't be perpetuated, he's smoking something...and can't do math. WE can do it, but not by assuming it can't be done.

If Montana really likes their plan, I guess I'm glad. Idaho didn't do so well....that's the opinion of almost everyone I know. It also hasn't eliminated a single wolf and there will be a great many more of them BEFORE any are legal to be shot.

The are here and that is reality. They are also a different species from the native wolf. That is reality and against the ESA. It is impossible to control wolf numbers with a hunting season and permits....ask the folks in Alaska. I would suggest following Wyoming's lead.

I didn't say eliminate them....I said we need to recognize the ecological changes they are bringing and DO SOMETHING to address it. If we don't, hunting will cease to exist.

I know it is very "accepted" to say that a lot of things have impacted game numbers; it's even true to some extent. However, the biggest current impact is predation. Several (not widely distributed, but very well done) scientific studies prove that. We can do something about this.

To illustrate. We have 285,000 hunting license holders in Idaho. If we demanded and took some political power, we could vote for and accomplish almost anything here. Elections in Idaho are not won by a margin anywhere near that. In order to do so, we need to stop listening to a lot of sources (even guys named GB22 on the internet) and read the science. We need to understand it all. My best partner knows, understands, experienced and completely unwilling to read and digest the actual data. He is unwilling to spend the time.

I love him dearly, but believe he is like WAY too many of us. I don't know whether the SFW group is all they claim to be, or all my son-in-law believes, but they are using political pressure. If we want this sport to continue, we had better use that pressure and lawsuits. Our time, effort and money has gone into habitat, for which we should pat ourselves on the back...for about 2 minutes, because we'd better do something about predation very soon.

The wolves are a huge threat, one that is increasing by 25% per year. How many of you shoot coyotes? They're not easy. The wolves will be at least as smart....only it will be tough to get a wolf tag.

We can perpetuate the outdoors, but we must fight as tenaciously and as "smart" as those who are trying to take our next generation out of the outdoor equation.
 
The Wolves ARE affecting the Elk population in Wyoming, especialy the units around or near the Yellowstone park area, anyone that hunts those regions have seen the effect over the past ten years, I have seen the effects first hand.

I to have set in meetings in Wyoming and Utah, the inviros pretended to be hunters and wanted a managment plan started, that was just a start for them. We dont need a management plan! We dont need another preditor! We the hunters are the dominate prediters for Elk, Deer, Sheep, Antelope & Moose outside the park, we dont need another.

Are Wolves here to stay? Maybe? But I for one will not resolve to this way of thinking, not if I have the chance to do something about it.

I am for the NO MANAGMENT PLAN!! I LIKE THE SHOOT ON SIGHT PLAN!! THE NO WOLVES ARE LEFT IN THE LOWER 48 STATES PLAN!!
 
FINALLY! Some intelligent responces and information. Not just idiots with no clue. Some posts were suspect, but not everyone has sense. Much less the common kind. This wolf issue is and will be the most important factor us hunters in the West will face for many years. It is not an issue to take lightly, or be stupid about. THE WOLVES ARE HERE TO STAY. Now it is up to us hunters to move the management in the right direction. mtmuley.
 
These wolf threads are all the same, everything that is wrong with elk, deer, sheep, moose, etc. populations is/was caused by wolves.

Its just not true...and I know, for a fact, without a moments hesitation that predators are definately not the, "number one problem" with prey populations and hunting.

How about address some major issues...like the FACT that Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho wardens and biologists estimate that poaching in all three states may equal or exceed the legal take of game in each state?

How many thousands of deer, elk, etc. are hit on highways in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho each year?

How many acres of habitat are lost each year to development?

How much impact is oil and gas development having on herds each year?

How much impact is mismanagement by the various G&F agencies having?

How much impact is drought having?

How much impact is fire suppression having?

How much impact are booming elk populations having on mule deer? How about more and more bighorn sheep in some areas competing with mule deer?

The simple fact is, these are things I thought of in about 2 minutes...theres other things that impact wildlife in localized areas as much or more than the things I just listed. There are MANY, MANY, factors that are negatively impacting wildlife...and that does include wolves, coyotes, lions, etc. But, thats ONE small part of a complex problem that very few people on this thread understand. Its just easier to find the scape goat dressed in a wolf suit than want to face the many, many problems associated with modern game management.

But, I think there is more paranoia, distortion, and flat out lies regarding wolves than any other issue effecting big-game management in the West.

I also fail to see how a few wolves will "end hunting as we know it".

Let me tell you...prior to wolf reintroduction in Montana I could not harvest more than one elk per year. I can now legally kill up to 3 each year. In Wyoming I can take 2 each year, and have quite a few years. In Idaho, I can take up to 2 elk a year. I can also shoot more deer and antelope in MT, ID, and WY than I care to even think about taking care of.

Maybe its just that I'm smart enough to change areas or that I get off the road...but finding elk, deer, and antelope to kill in Montana and Wyoming is borderline ridiculously easy.

The wolves have an impact, but from what I've found that impact is very minimal.

That being said, I dont have one bit of problem with a wolf season, dont have any problem with WY's wolf plan, and I will carry a wolf tag and will shoot one if I ever get the chance.

I'm just not at all concerned with having a few wolves around, I quit believing in fairy tales a long, long, time ago.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-04-08 AT 09:45PM (MST)[p]Hey Zigga you stated if you don't live here then keep your yap shut correct? Well then how come you hang around these fourms?

The next thing you stated you kill a elk each and every year. Well I don't know how to break this to you but those flop ear critters you shoot and tag are called JACKRABBITS. Not to be confused with A JACKASS, such as the donkey or the two legged version such as yourself.
 
Holy Sh*t Buzz, that sounded like an intellegent post from someone who actually might know something!! Every single one of those questions that you listed is a bigger concern to me than wolves. And wolves are an important issue, but I swear if I run into one more 300 pound, 50-year old guy in overalls driving abound on a mountain road whining about the wolves this season I might just loose it...
 
LAST EDITED ON May-05-08 AT 08:29AM (MST)[p]They are also
>a different species from the
>native wolf. That is
>reality and against the ESA.

Here we go again......

The ESA currently and always has listed Canis lupus -- the gray wolf -- and the states in the U.S. where it is endangered or in some cases now, threatened or delisted.

***
Canis lupus -- Gray wolf -- Mammals -- E;XN;DM -- AZ, CA, CO, CT, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, MA, ME, MI, MN, MO, MT, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SD, TX, UT, VT, WA, WI, WY

Wolf, gray Canis lupus

U.S.A., conterminous (lower 48) States, except: (1) Where listed as an experimental population below; (2) Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, eastern North Dakota (that portion north and east of the Missouri River upstream to Lake Sakakawea and east of the centerline of Highway 83 from Lake Sakakawea to the Canadian border), eastern South Dakota (that portion north and east of the Missouri River), northern Iowa, northern Illinois, and northern Indiana (those portions of IA, IL, and IN north of the centerline of Interstate Highway 80), and northwestern Ohio (that portion north of the centerline of Interstate Highway 80 and west of the Maumee River at Toledo); and (3) Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, eastern Washington (that portion of Washington east of the centerline of Highway 97 and Highway 17 north of Mesa and that portion of Washington east of the centerline of Highway 395 south of Mesa), eastern Oregon (portion of Oregon east of the centerline of Highway 395 and Highway 78 north of Burns Junction and that portion of Oregon east of the centerline of Highway 95 south of Burns Junction), and north-central Utah (that portion of Utah east of the centerline of Highway 84 and north of Highway 80). Mexico.


http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReport.do?spcode=A00D

***

The introduced wolves are the same species -- Canis lupus. -TONY
 
Buzz, I really don't think you have a clue. Yes wolves are not the only impact on wildlife populations, but Huck made a good point compare other parts of Wyoimng where there are no wolves. For example take the Laramie Peak area, it has all the same problems like drought, road kills, habitat fragmention (look at the jillion different land owners up there and all the little cabins and ranchettes), a serious conifer encroachment problem, as well as all the other problems that wildlife face. But guess what that elk herd is doing extremely well even in the given circumstances...but guess what no wolves there. When the G&F reports that herds in NW wyoming have as few as 7 calves per 100 cows, I don't think they are lieing. Not all elk herds are doing poorly in the wolf areas, but the ones that were just stable are now declining because of the wolf. Usually even in worst of conditions (w/out the addition of another predator) an elk herd is at least able to stay stable or only decline some. Just wait another 5 years or so when the older elk begin to die off with no younger elk to replace them. Unfortuneatly I fear that currently (or a few years ago) the elk hunting in NW wy is the best we're ever gonna see and it is only going to get worse from here. As somone said above we're experienceing the good ole' days right now and it likely will never be as good as it has been in the past 5-10 years. Fortuneatly in Wy we still have the rest of the state that is wolf free.
 
Hey I've got an idea for those who don't think wolves are having an impact. Why don't you put up or shut up. There are some outfitter's who are selling their businesses in the wolf infected area's. Go and buy them from them, now is your chance!
 
> Hey
>I've got an idea for
>those who don't think wolves
>are having an impact. Why
>don't you put up or
>shut up. There are some
>outfitter's who are selling their
>businesses in the wolf infected
>area's. Go and buy them
>from them, now is your
>chance!


+1 LOL
 
"if you do not have input as to a serious nature of the question, do not reply."


Some of you need to reread this part. Thanks.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-05-08 AT 09:15PM (MST)[p]Wyo,

Before you run off at the mouth and tell others they dont have a clue...maybe you should learn to read and find a clue yourself.

For the record...in my first post I said, "theres other things that impact wildlife in localized areas as much or more than the things I just listed."

Did you fail to read that or did it just pass right over your head?

I never said wolves dont have a significant impact in localized areas...again, thats why I said, "theres other things that impact wildlife in localized areas as much or more than the things I just listed."

That now makes THREE times I've stated the obvious.

Also, for the record, your example using the Peak for reference is pretty lame.

I wouldnt think that nearly unlimited winter range, elk that are unhuntable on private land most of the year, mild winters, etc. would have anything to do with the large number of elk in the Laramie Peak area...would it? Or the lack of a general season? Or the fact it's a limited quota area? Naaaa, its just that there arent wolves in the Laramie Peak area.

You're comparing two very, very, very, different elk herds, two completely different management schemes, etc.

Its a very poor comparison, yet you claim I'm the one without a clue?

What a joke.
 
>"if you do not have input
>as to a serious nature
>of the question, do not
>reply."
>
>
>Some of you need to reread
>this part. Thanks.


get back to your room zigga....

JB
 
buzz, I've spent I don't know how many countless hours reading as much as I can on the wolf issue and their effects. I've read plenty about both sides of the issue, so I feel like I have a pretty good grasp on the situation. What I am trying to say is that when all factors are considered, and a particular herd is struggling without wolves being present, then add wolves to the mix and they can be the tipping point that causes a serious decline in the herd. Not all herds are suffering, just some that can't deal with one more negative impact, such as the presence of more wolves. Take for another example, it is my understanding that moose were struggling around the outskirts of the park before the wolves were present in large numbers, now in some places they are doing worse yet because they just couldn't handle one more thing not in their favor. The wildlife in NW Wyoming have enough problems to deal with that you have pointed out, but adding one more huge factor (wolves) is enough to turn the tables even further in the wrong direction. Maybe I'm just ignorant but it seems that only thing that has SIGNIFICANTLY changed in the primary wolf habitat in the last 5-7 years is a rapid increase in more predators. The wolves are not the only problem, but in some cases they are like the straw that broke the camels back. You could also compare elk herds in the Bighorns, maybe that is a more similar situation as NW WY, or even the snowy range/sierra madres that have heavy general hunting pressure, but I doubt you would say you can even use these as comparisons. Im just thankful we have the rest of the state that is wolf free is case hunting NW wyoming goes to hell in a hand basket (hopefully it doesn't).

Oh and paochers kill as many animals as legal hunters do??

Bring on some more insults.
 
Some points based on research done on the Northern Yellowstone elk herd/wolf interaction.

1. The original management plan before reintroduction assumed wolf predation on elk would be compensatory, meaning wolves would kill elk that would have died anyway from other causes. This view was touted as the case for the first few years after re-introduction, but research now clearly shows that predation by wolves is cumulative, in addition to other causes.

2. The original management plan stated that each wolf would kill 10 prey species, mostly elk, during the winter. Research done over the past several years shows the rate is double that, at 20 per wolf/ per winter.

3. The Northern Yellowstone elk herd has been reduced from 17,000 to 6,500 since the wolf was introduced. Without question, 17,000 was too many for the available habitat, 6,500 is considerably below the carrying capacity of the habitat.

4. For a number of year, Montana did aging studies on harvested cow elk and bull elk as a means of evaluating the health of the herd. The last numbers I saw from 3-4 years ago, was that the average age of bulls harvested was 10 years +, the average age of cows was 9 years +. For bulls, since hunters tend to harvest mature animals, that number is not necesarily representative of overall herd dynamics. For cows, since age is not a factor in harvest, the number is likely very accurate, and indicates an extremely old breeding population. Since then, the antlerless harvest has been reduced to the point that aging studies on harvested cows would have no statistical meaning.

5. Calf ratios over the past 6-8 years have consistently been less than 20/100 cows, below the number needed to maintain an elk herd at it's present population.

There are certainly arguments to be made on both sides of the wolf re-introduction issue. What can no longer be debated, in my opinion, is what affect the introduction will have on elk populations, and hunting opportunities. Without question, elk populations and hunting opportunities will be reduced in the future due to this reintroduction.

Finally, I want to address the issue many wolf supporters raise regarding lost opportunity; ie going somewhere else where there are more elk. The most likely result of increasing the pressure on elk herds that are not impacted by wolves will be to negatively impact those populations as well. This is hardly a helpful solution to the lost opportunity dilemna we face in some areas.

Wolves are now established here in Oregon, where elk herds are already in bad shape in the areas they have moved into. The only possible outcome will be reduced hunting opportunity in the future. Those of you who support the wolf re-introduction, and believe the trade-offs are justified, should at least have the intellectual honesty to recognize the cost of those trade-offs to the hunting community.

Scoutdog
 
>
>Those of you who support
>the wolf re-introduction, and believe
>the trade-offs are justified, should
>at least have the intellectual
>honesty to recognize the cost
>of those trade-offs to the
>hunting community.
>
>Scoutdog


Well said! I think too often it's the Hunting Community that's being asked to look at the big picture while those pro wolf advocates are focused soley on thier own purpose.

Oregon Elk heards in general are in decline because of enviormental policy (fire, etc) and due to added predation especially since 1994-95. With the wolf now being established here in OR it will only get worse. Just to be clear wolves can not and should not be blamed soley for reductions but they are or will be major contributers to the overall scheme. Oregon in general needs an agressive predetor plan put in place. We have seen a focus on cougars over the last several years however it's just a matter of time before we too look at the big dogs. We already subsidize state hunters to pursue cougars and bears because hunters alone do not have or are not allowed the means to harvest enough animals to control the populations.

It seems that no matter what you can rest assured that we will see reductions in oppourtunity. Oh yeah! and an increase in fees.


Sad times if your trying to bring a young hunter up. Kids need to see animals to remain interested in our sport and when I have to walk my young son 5 miles back just to see a few elk it's pretty sad. Luckliy for me his focus is on the experinece and not just filling a tag.

ORsouthpaw
 
Wow, just when you think you've heard it all...

"Sad times if your trying to bring a young hunter up. Kids need to see animals to remain interested in our sport and when I have to walk my young son 5 miles back just to see a few elk it's pretty sad. Luckliy for me his focus is on the experinece and not just filling a tag."

I tell you what sad times are...when you have to read something like that and worse actually having to realize someone wrote it and believes it!

If your young son cant hike 5 miles, then dont take him hunting. The elk country I grew up hunting was all just like that. I tagged along with my Father from the time I was 8 years old...and we did hikes over 5 miles routinely. If I would have whined about it, I would have been left at home.

Also, hunting is supposed to be about the experience. If you're doing it to just fill a tag you shouldnt even be out there.

Heres the problem as I see it. Hunting has become too easy over the years. Apparently some want to drive down the road and blast an elk, deer, antelope off the road. Not sure how some grew up hunting, but in my camp hiking, packing, and just plain old hard work was the norm. The guys that didnt want to put in the effort...didnt get much. Thats the way it should be.

If you want an easy elk...go to a game farm.

Also, as far as hunting opportunity for kids...there isnt even a remote question that there is way, way, way more opportunity for kids now than when I grew up. In my home state of Montana kids can shoot cow elk and doe deer in about 99% of the units. Second B tags are available over the counter...you can apply and draw a 3rd B tag. You can have 3 antelope tags per year. You know how many tags were available to youth when I started hunting? ONE elk ONE deer and no cow or doe seasons. Not to mention that now there are some special "youth only" hunts available.

Wyoming you can shoot 6 deer, 6 antelope, and 2 elk per year...all at reduced prices for youth.

Not enough opportunity?

I'm going to call BS on that.

Todays youth are enjoying the best times I believe young hunters have ever seen as far as opportunity and game availability is concerned.

I'm actually pretty tired of the "I want an elk on the first day I hunt, close to a road, with as little effort as possible" crowd whining about no opportunity and how tough hunting is.

If it were easy, everyone would do it.
 
BUZZ.....WHO CRAPPED IN YOUR WHEATIES ??? & YOUR PUTTING WORDS IN PEOPLES MOUTHS/ ASSUMING ALOT OF THINGS.....THROTTLE BACK SON............YD.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-09-08 AT 03:47PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON May-09-08 AT 03:46?PM (MST)

BuzzH - With that reply, I can only assume that while you were out on one of those long hikes that you take that you slipped, fell and hit your head... HARD!

You talk a great game but you have no clue how many miles we put on our boots each season. We cover a ton of ground, the shortest round trip was right around 10 miles. Sorry but don't presume to judge.

I stand behind what I said though most kids these days have a richer experience when they see and interact with game. Key in on MOST KIDS! Not mine! I will agree with you that too many people want an easy elk and although that happens from time to time for some there is for the most part no such thing.

Like I said my son and I enjoy the entire experience and honestly some of our best hunts together have been when we didn't see a single deer or elk. He also has been afield since he was 8 and been taught that the hunting game is about hard work, patience and sometimes good old fashioned luck.

If you think that kids (in Oregon) have the same oppourtunity today that they did 30 plus years ago then you really need take a look at the draw system, the game numbers, the predator numbers, the amount of accesible land and all of the other factors that are reducing oppourtunity. Maybe in your world these things aren't happening. Oh and did I mention the wolves.
 
BuzzH,
I agree with you, western frame of minds is to blame the worlds problems on predators, if they have two canine teeth they should be exterminated cause they are the root of all the hunters/ranchers problems, when in reality they are PART of the problem.
For you guys that think wolves kill all your elk/deer and think they are the main/only reason the poplulations have dropped. Why don't you check out minnesota's deer populations and how they have expanded to record highs and have been there for like 10 years with record high number of wolves that are nearing 4000, in the arrowhead region which is (without bragging) quite a few more than the couple dogs you have in the tri-state area. Oh yeah you can shoot 2- umpteen deer per person depending on the area you hunt.


The reason there are so many deer is due to the MILD winters they have been having, all the logging that goes on generating the perfect habitat for the whitetail and oh yeah all the farm crops generating a surplus of food. The last time the deer herd dropped there dramatically was the very severe winter of 1996. Wolves weren't to blame the cold and snow was.

Another thing I have to laugh at is how all the wolf haters think that every wolf out west is a 120-150 pound monster :) that is really funny. I would have to say that the guys hunting wolves in Wy are shooting at the biggest one first so yeah they are big, same as elk hunting in UT, if you see 4 bulls ranging from 330-390+ you shoot the 390. Does that mean that every fricken bull in UT is born with a rack of 390+? :) Plus hunters like to brag and stretch the truth, so in reality wolves in Wy, MT, and ID are the same as any where else raning from 80- 120 (not sure of the scientific listed weights) pounds as an adult with the few exceptions + or -.

Oh yeah, In the future when I draw my bull tags in these states if they offer a wolf season I will be in the drawing for a wolf tag too hoping I can add one to my trophy room.

Like it or not they are here to stay no matter how much whinning, complaining and blaming is done. They are/will be part of your states Management plans FOREVER! At least you better hope they do or they will be put back on the endangered list again :-(


Mntman

"Hunting is where you prove yourself"
 
LAST EDITED ON May-09-08 AT 06:55PM (MST)[p]YD,

I'm not your son and I wasnt the one whining about having to hike five miles to hunt elk. I never knew there was any other way.

I've read a lot of just plain crap on hunting sites and the "I have to hike 5 whole miles to hunt elk" line was about one of the worst.

If it werent for those pesky wolves, I could still shoot an elk off the mirror of the truck. Now I have to hike for one...I dont know...that sounds like it might require some effort.

Wolves are to blame for everything, its now official.

There is lots of opportunity for youth hunters today. If Oregons hunters dont do enough for youth hunters...dont blame it on wolves. Get off your arse, get involved and make some changes.

But, again that would require some effort...much easier to blame it all on wolves.

Oh, and ORsouthpaw...I do alot more than talk a good game.
 
BuzzH and others:

I always find it interesting when you are directly challenged to respond to some facts, and ignore that while continuing to post about other things. Let me make it simpler for you, and please answer the questions.

1. Do you agree that wolves are a major factor in the reduction in the population of the Northern Yellowstone Elk herd from 17,000 + in 1995 to 6,500 in 2007?

2. Do you agree that this reduction has led to less hunting opportunity in southern Montana adjacent to the park?

3. Do you agree that this reduction has resulted in the relocation of some hunters to other areas, putting additional presuure on those herds?

4. Is there any research or information you are aware of that would support the idea that similar reductions won't take place in other areas as the wolves become established?

I have never hunted in Montana, but absolutely agree with you about youth hunters in Wyoming. Their opportunities on antelope are perfect for young hunters, lots of animals, open country, etc. Many, many years, ago, when I was young, mule deer were everywhere, and it was great fun to go hunting, not because we could drive roads, or be lazy, but BECAUSE WE SAW LOTS OF DEER EVERY DAY. Back then, there were about 20% of the roads we have today, so you had to get out and hunt. On average, in the sixties and early seventies, I would see more than 100 deer every day during the seaaon. Today, in that same unit, I would feel fortunate to see 100 deer in a 7 day hunt. In Oregon, the animal that would provide a great hunting experience to kids would be antelope, except that it takes 10-14 points to draw, so very few kids will ever get to go before they are adults.

I would also be willing to bet that you would find the percentage of youth hunters to adult hunters would be considerably higher in Wyoming, and Montana, than Oregon.

Scoutdog
 
"If it werent for those pesky wolves, I could still shoot an elk off the mirror of the truck. Now I have to hike for one...I dont know...that sounds like it might require some effort."

Buzz, that line might work with your non-hunting wolf loving buddies, but not here where real hunters hang out. Nice try though.

Eel
 
LAST EDITED ON May-10-08 AT 09:56AM (MST)[p]All right scoutdog...to answer your question...which, by the way, you answered a few of in your response.

But...without further delay:

1. Do you agree that wolves are a major factor in the reduction in the population of the Northern Yellowstone Elk herd from 17,000 + in 1995 to 6,500 in 2007?

First off, your numbers are a bit suspect. The recorded "high" number of elk in the NYE was over 22,000. I also dont think your 6500 number is accurate...from memory...I'd say that number is closer to 9,000. But either way it doesnt matter. IMO, the wolf is one of several contributing factors, but standing alone, not the ONE factor. From extensive research and data, the NYE elk herd was heavily skewed toward older age class animals, in particular older, less productive cows. Which, if you've taken a single course in wildlife and/or population dynamics...usually means an over-all less productive herd. The age data is available via the Gardiner check station. Its also fair to note that in another key study...the findings on calf mortality was that grizzly and black bears were responsible for a vast majority of the problem with calf recruitment in the NYE. Which makes total sense if you understand predators and how they function...even in the slightest. There is a parallel predation study in the Selway...long before the wolves were present that does an absolutely fantastic job of explaining the impacts of black bears on calf mortality...really worth the read. You were aware that grizzly and black bear populations are fairly "good" in the GYE arent you? Another key thing to keep in mind, is that for many years AFTER the MTFWP knew that: 1. the wolf was already in Yellowstone...and 2. knew that bear populations were on the rise...they continued to issue literally thousands of cow elk permits for the late hunt near Gardiner. Now, answer me this...why did it take ten years for the MTFWP to know and react to the "problem" with NYE elk herd? I doubt that whiney outfitters, landowners, and hunters had anything to do with that...NAAAAAAAA...the herd "crashed" over-night. Nothing like good old fashioned reactive game management. Apparently the MTFWP biologists, along with a commission full of landowners, hunters, and outfitters, were playing rip van winkle while trying to understand the merits of proactive management.

If you choose to blame the problem on wolves, when its intuitively obvious, even to a casual observer,...that there is many, many, many things that have caused the situation...well, thats your business. But there is more than enough empirical data for me to know and believe otherwise. YMMV.



2. Do you agree that this reduction has led to less hunting opportunity in southern Montana adjacent to the park?

It has led to a reduction in a bunch of lazy hunters waiting for a$$ deep snow in January and February for the cheetoh fed elk to wander out of the Park and onto the highway near Gardiner and their rifles resting on truck mirrors. I've been involved in the elk "hunt" near Gardiner...I dont know, the things I saw down there...I'm not so sure I'm broke up about the less "hunting" opportunity.

However, that being said, is 5 weeks of archery season and 5 weeks of rifle season really "no" opportunity? I dont think so, but some may argue...likely those that were sitting in trucks near the Gardiner airport on a chilly February morning waiting for some elk to cross the highway.

3. Do you agree that this reduction has resulted in the relocation of some hunters to other areas, putting additional presuure on those herds?

I suppose. But it depends on your definition of "pressure". If you mean increased truck traffic where the road hunting elk hunters now go...I agree. A threat to those that actually hunt elk the right way...not a chance. Plus, in much of SW Montana there is lots and lots of opportunity. Additional (2nd) elk licenses are available...longer cow seasons...NEW cow seasons in many areas.

4. Is there any research or information you are aware of that would support the idea that similar reductions won't take place in other areas as the wolves become established?

Yes, in the area I hunt in Montana there is an established wolf population. This year, there will be a 7 day eithr-$ex season for the first time since I was 12...as well as plenty of cow permits. Last year the same area, along with a host of others, was kept open an additional week to address the bloated elk populations. Its also fair to note that a vast majority of MT's elk hunting units are at, or in most cases, above the population goals for elk as per Montanas statewide elk management plan (both units with wolves and without)...and that includes the GY elk herd.

Its truly unbelievable how much BS, distortion, and out-right lies there are regarding this issue. The sad part is, many believe the BS that runs rampant.

Oh, and eelgrass, real hunters dont whine about wolves.
 
>LAST EDITED ON May-09-08
>AT 06:55?PM (MST)
>
>Oh, and ORsouthpaw...I do alot more
>than talk a good game.
>

We'll I can't argue with that. It was written on hunting forum so it must be true. Right? You probably cover at least 30-40 miles a day. Right? Braggin on a forum is just sad! Especially for a Real Hunter. Right?

Going back to the original question. Oregon is a state in the very begining stages of it's wolf problems. Although wolves have been present for some time it wasn't until just recently that we actually had the state confirm thier presence. All I can say is that if the we follow the Idaho example we will likley see a continued steady decline in game numbers. Like I said before they (wolves) won't be the only reason but they will have an impact none the less.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-11-08 AT 00:00AM (MST)[p]ORsouthpaw

I've often pondered why if Idaho's elk are in such a dire situation...why can you still buy 2 bull permits a year there?

Continued steady decline and 2 permits a year...wow, thats sort of contradictary, dont you think?

Also, the truth aint bragging or sad...it is what it is.
 
BuzzH:

Over the next several days, I will post the direct links to the research done on the Northern Yellowstone elk herd regarding your points. I found it particularly interesting that you quoted research regarding grizzly predation on this elk herd. It is true that research done several years ago indicated grizzly bears were responsible for most of the calf predation. What you left out was that research done in later years showed grizzly bears had figured out what good killers the wolves were, and were following them around, chasing them off the kill once the animal was down. I will post the link, as well as the link from the latest population counts. With a little luck, the information on calf/cow ratios from this spring will also be available.

In the meantime, i would appreciate it if you would provide the area where tags are being increased in the presence of an active wolf population. Not that I don't believe you, but I have learned over the years to do my own research.

Scoutdog
 
Okay, BuzzH, here are the stats, and the links so you can verify the numbers yourself.

the year and the count are listed, and then the link where I got the numbers is below those years . I am not sure why there is a difference in the counts for 2001 and 2002 from the two different sources.

1993 population count: 17,585
1994 population count: 19,045
1995 population count: 16,791
1996 no count
1997 no count
1998 population count: 13,400
1999 population count: 11,742
2000 population count: 14,538
2001 population count 11,969
2002 population count 9,215

http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/yellowstone_elk_counts.htm

2001 population count: 13,400
2002 population count: 11,969

http://fwp.mt.gov/news/article_1880.aspx

2005 population count: 9,548
2006 population count: 6,588
2007 population count: 6,738
2008 population count: 6,279

http://www.nps.gov/yell/parknews/08010.htm

Population counts have been done on this herd since the 1930's. The last time the count was lower than 2008 was 1970, 38 years ago. If you examine the 70 years of data contained in the first link, you will see that this herd has traditionally gone up and down like a yoyo, with some large drops in one year, caused by very bad winters, I would guess, followed by several years of rapid growth in the herd. Only since wolves were introduced have the numbers been consistently lower year after year. The only good news is that the rate of decrease appears to have slowed. Unfortunately, it is stabilizing at a level far below the historic numbers for this herd.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-11-08 AT 09:23AM (MST)[p]A few different topics now going...

You said, "In the meantime, i would appreciate it if you would provide the area where tags are being increased in the presence of an active wolf population. Not that I don't believe you, but I have learned over the years to do my own research."

That wont be difficult to research...try most any 300 series units...the bighole valley...general tags and no quotas on cows the entire hunting season (10 weeks total between archery and rifle). Nearly all those units were at one time permit only for cow elk. Not sure how familiar you are with how MT has structured its antlerless elk hunting in the past...always needed to draw a cow permit (used with your general tag). That system was in place to ensure that not too many antlerless elk were killed. Not that way now. Some like unit 300 have additional A9/B12 licenses available (allowing hunters to kill TWO elk) per year...as well as any elk with a general tag.

200 series units in the Blackfoot near Ovando...now have 7 day antlerless season...along with 300-400 antlerless elk permits. Again...no quota. The 200 series units near Deerlodge and Anaconda...all have general season antlerless elk hunting opportunity as well as antlerless elk permits.

Unit 270...East Fork Bitterroot...antlerless elk on a general permit and quota of 300 plus and additional 200 cow permits.

All these units I just listed had much more restrictive seasons on antlerless elk when wolves were reintroduced. All were permit only for antlerless elk...no antlerless hunts on just a general license. Antlerless elk permit quotas were very low...like the particular unit I hunt. Antlerless permit numbers were around 75-100 for about the first 20 years I hunted there. The last 8 years around 200 antlerless permits were issued. Now there is a 7 day antlerless hunt on a general tag as well as 225 antlerless permits.

Take a look at Montanas elk management plan. You'll see that a vast, vast, vast majority of the elk units in MT are way over the objective numbers. In nearly all the 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 series units. Oh, and in case you missed it the first time, that includes the GY elk herd.

Get after the research...its all there...black and white...crystal clear.

To make your research easier: http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/elkplan.html
 
LAST EDITED ON May-11-08 AT 09:30AM (MST)[p]To address this statement: "Unfortunately, it is stabilizing at a level far below the historic numbers for this herd."

Why is that unfortunate? Because lazy elk hunters cant shoot half tame elk when they cross the highway near Gardiner?

The number of elk in the GYE was way over objective. It was an artificial situation created by Yellowstone park. If hunting would have been allowed in the park all along...those numbers would have been significantly lower and much closer to objective. You also wouldnt have seen the huge swings in populations like you did in the past. You would have seen a situation similar to what you're seeing today...a nice stable population within objectives.

I cant find anything unfortunate about that, YMMV.
 
BuzzH, I am not sure there is any point in continuing to have an honest discussion with you. You claim the current population is 9,000, I provide the link showing the actual count is 6,200, you ignore that, and go back to ranting about lazy hunters.

But, being a glutton for punishment, I will try again.

The issue is NOT what the appropriate number of elk in the Northern Yellowstone herd is, or what level of hunting is appropriate on that herd.

Here is the big picture question that we face:

If elk predation is a major factor in the decline in the Northern Yellowstone elk herd, will that same trend occur in other herds as wolves become established and gain population numbers.

In my opinion, the answer to the first part of the question is yes, wolves are a major cause of the decrease in this population. I don't really see how a rational person who examines the research can come to any other conclusion.

As to the second part of the question, it is too soon to tell, and the same level of research is not being applied to any other elk herd compared to the Northern Yellowstone herd, However, there is some data in trend counts and tag numbers coming out of north central Idaho that seem to be following the same trend line. Many Wyoming hunters claim the same thing is happening in Northwest Wyoming, but wyoming does not publish detailed trend count data, at least that I can find, so it is hard to do any analysis.

You are correct, I have not spent a lot of time looking at Montana's numbers. I absolutely hope you are correct, and that there are areas where elk numbers are increasing in the presence of established wolf populations. I appreciate the link to the elk management plan, and there is a lot of interesting information there. I would note that it was written in 2004, using data from 2003 and earlier. Can you tell me if Montana publishes on their website trend count information that is more recent than that?

It will be another 10 years before we really know the answer to how wolves will impact over all population numbers for elk in areas where they will coexist. That will also be about the time Wolves will have sufficient populations in Oregon to become a factor here, assuming there are any elk left by then.

As to hunters being lazy, personally am glad that a lot of them are. The truth is, if every hunter who was issued a tag by our Fish and Game Deptartments hunted hard, the elk would have been gone long ago.

Scoutdog
 
Scoutdog, here is a link to the information you probably have been looking for about Wyoming. The Wyoming Game and Fish has done a very good job of studying elk herds outside of Yellowstone that have been infected by wolves.

http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/pdf/FinalElkCCRatios3-23-07.pdf

There are a couple of quotes/points from this study I would like to point out.

1. "It is apparent wolves are causing significant declines in 4 herds (Green River, Gooseberry, Cody, and Clarks Fork). Calf:cow ratios in 3 of those 4 herds are below the 25:100 necessary to sustain stable elk populations and provide hunting opportunity (Gooseberry, Cody, and Clarks Fork)." Page 2 of the study.

2. "After wolves reached a density > 6 wolves per 1,000 elk in Northern Yellowstone, calf:cow ratios dropped to approximately 14:100 (White and Garrott 2005), well below the recommended level of 25:100 required to maintain a stable population and support moderate public hunting (WGFD POP-II Modeling Criteria)." Page 3

3. "However, the same factors (drought, disease, hunting, and other forms of predation) have had relatively minor impact on elk recruitment in herds without wolves. The only herds with recruitment rates that will not support hunting or possibly even stable populations, are the herds with significant wolf predation in addition to other factors." Page 12

Now if these quotes from a study completed by the Wyoming Game and Fish don't scare the hell out of you for the future of hunting in Wyoming nothing will.

Everyone please read the study and become educated on the situation at hand. This is not a matter of not being able to find elk, I have killed elk in Wolf areas every year since reintroduction. But this is a matter of reduced hunting opportunity by limiting the amount of licenses that will be available and that is only if hunting will even be allowed in those areas infected with wolves.

Now one thing to remember is this study was completed in 2007 when Wyoming only had an estimated 252 wolves. We now are approaching 400, and if the Pro Wolf lawsuit prevails who knows what that number will end up being.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-11-08 AT 04:00PM (MST)[p]Scoutdog,

I dont doubt your numbers...I was going off memory and said so when I used the 9000 estimate. Which, given confidence intervals in big-game counts...I may, in all actuality, be as close as the 6200 estimate.

But, either way, it doesnt really matter if there are 6200 or 9000 or something in between, for the discussion at hand.

With all due respect, the issue is about maintaining elk quotas within the Montana elk management plan. Why else would the state of Montana deam it necessary to have such a plan? So that it can be ignored?

Before the huge increase in grizzlies in the GYE and the reintroduction of wolves...Montana FWP was failing miserably to control elk numbers in the GYE. There were flat too many elk for the habitat and too many as prescribed by the EMP. The elk are still within management objectives today, 13 years after wolf reintroduction.

Its also fair to note that the wolf population in the GYE is also remaining stable...look at the data.

You must want 22,000 elk again in the GYE...I dont, and most biologists will agree. The park created a completely unnatural situation with elk...and you choose to use that situation as your litmus test? Wow, thats not much of a control set there partner.

Frankly, you're basing all your conclusions off a very unique situation that is the GYE. Thats risky to use that situation to make an arguement regarding other areas and other states. Very risky. Rarely are two hunting districts managed the same way...each having unique factors of habitat, hunting pressure, escapement potential, big-game security, private VS public lands, etc. etc. etc.

Oh, and there is data on Wyoming...NW Wyoming has carried far more elk than the habitat can handle for a very, very, very long time. As long as there have been supplemental feeding programs going on. When you have to feed elk on a continual basis on winter range...is that correct management? I dont think so, but again YMMV.

Idaho has many problems, one of the major ones being just shy of 100 years of fire suppression. Look into the fire years of 1910 and 1919...check out the acreages that burned, where they burned, how they burned, and what happens with wildlife (elk) habitat after large fires.

Human nature will bring up a lot of excuses why hunters fail to bag elk each year...it used to be weather, NR hunters, poor management...now wolves are the new excuse for pi$$ poor basic hunting skills. Oh well...I'll just continue to kill an elk or four every year while others whine about wolves.

The data is there...its up to the individual to believe it or continue to believe the big-bellied elk road hunters who claim the wolves ate all the elk.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-11-08 AT 04:01PM (MST)[p]Wyosheds,

Do you always only quote the data that supports your arguement, while systematically omitting data that does not? In particular from the very same document?

Do you want me to point out the data that does not support your claims or do you want to? Just curious.
 
BuzzH:

I am obviously not communicating very well, or you are purposely mistating my points, not sure which. I will try one more time.

The value of looking at the Northern Yellowstone herd is that extensive research has been done there since before the wolves were re-introduced. That is not the case in other parts of the wolf introduction area. In 2005, Idaho initiated a comprehensive research project to measure the effect of predation on elk populations, primarily through radio collaring adult females and calves, and then tracking distribution patters, mortality and causes, etc. Their concern is that wolf predation will result in further reductions in populations that were already substantially below management objective. Down the road, the results of this study are likely to be a better indicator of what will happen in other areas as wolves are established, but that will take a few years.

Your statement about the Northern Yellowstone elk herd being within management objective is wrong. It is true that the Montana portion of the herd is at the lower end, but within, the MO. However, the wintering population that remains within the park is significantly below the management objective. Your statement that the herd has stabilized is a stretch at best. By definition, a herd whose population is stable would show increases and decreases from year to year, with baseline number staying approximately the same. In the case of this herd, the general trend continues downward, and there is no evidence I am aware of that indicates the bottom has been reached. If over the next few years the herd counts run between 5,500 and 7,000, that would be indicative that the herd has stabilized. I certainly hope you are correct. it is interesting to note that one of the biologists involved with the wolf introduction reported a few years ago that it appeared this herd had stabilized at around 11,000 animals, and that he expected future population numbers to remain in that range. I wish he had been correct.

Scoutdog
 
LAST EDITED ON May-11-08 AT 04:40PM (MST)[p]scoutdog,

I agree its fine to look at the GYE and try to understand whats going on THERE. But, its not always correct to believe that the same thing will happen elsewhere. In fact, I can almost assure you it will not. Too many other variables and factors to make sweeping comparisons between two very different situations.

I also contend that the last "few years" data is showing a pretty stable population:

2006 population count: 6,588
2007 population count: 6,738
2008 population count: 6,279

From your own example regading Idaho: "In 2005, Idaho initiated a comprehensive research project to measure the effect of predation on elk populations, primarily through radio collaring adult females and calves, and then tracking distribution patters, mortality and causes, etc. Their concern is that wolf predation will result in further reductions in populations that were already substantially below management objective. Down the road, the results of this study are likely to be a better indicator of what will happen in other areas as wolves are established, but that will take a few years."

For starters what caused the elk populations in Idaho to be "already substantially below management objectives"? Apparently it wasnt wolves, so it must be other things. Do you think, perhaps, that if those other things are addressed wolf predation would, in fact, be of no significant concern? I'm confident that would be the case.

The only conclusion that could be drawn from that study is if you compare it to other areas with a similar sitation (ie: other areas that have elk populations substantially below management objectives, areas with similar reasons for depressed elk numbers, etc). You could not use it in comparison to a situation where wolves were reintroduced to areas with elk that are above objectives, have favorable habitat, etc.

Look, you can compare apples and aardvarks all day long...just dont expect many people to see similarities.
 
Buzz,

The whole report supports my case that the ONLY herds in Wyoming that will not support hunting or even stable populations are herds with wolves.

Are there herds with wolves present that have not seen a notible affect? Absolutely, in fact 4 of the 8 herds have not had a noticable affect as of yet. But those 4 herds do not have as many wolves or established wolf packs as the 4 herds that are on the brink of not supporting hunting opportunity or possibly a viable population.

Are herds in the state without wolves seeing declines in Cow/Calf ratios? Absolutely, but the ones with wolves are declining at a greater rate.

Look Buzz, I am not here to get in a pissin match with you over wolves. I am glad for you that wolves in your area have not had an adverse affect on your hunting opportunity, but in mine they are. In fact the Wyoming Game and Fish has come out recelnty and stated that if the Pro Wolf organizations are successful in their lawsuit, hunters will loose 50% of their hunting opportunity in the Western portion of Wyoming within a year or two due to an unmanaged wolf population.

Personally I am not very open to the fact of loosing hunting opportunity due to an UNMANAGED predator. If I ended up loosing opportunity while Wyoming had management I could live with that. But too loose opportunity while wolves continue to increase in numbers unchecked I will never accept that as a viable option. These animals in Wyoming need managed, Period.
 
Holy cow! This has been, and hopefully will continue to be, the most interesting and informative wolf thread yet. Thanks, guys. mtmuley
 
It never ceases to amaze me how people can use a bunch of biased statistics to muddy the waters. No matter how you cut it 1000 wolves kill 20,000 elk. If that state, like Idaho was harvesting 30,000 by hunting it's a no brainer what has to happen and will happen. End of story. Now my hat goes off to the all mighty, el macho, mega rugged Buzz who can harvest an elk no matter what, because he is the man's man, wow! It would be nice though to help those who aren't so rugged to have the same opportunites in the future that I had as a kid, and my grand dad had.

The bottom line is we as hunters have got to ban together and support groups who are trying to get these wolf numbers to the absolute minimum that is possible, what ever that may be? Hopefully about 300 for Idaho at the most. The fact that we have as many hunters as we do today, there just isn't room for a very large wolf population in Idaho, man has replaced the wolf like it or not.

The reason they can justify introducing a foreign sub-species of wolves in the Park is because they took the main predator away. Where do they think man came from, Mars? How can they have a complete eco system in any place when you take the number one predator out of the equation, it's like man is not a natural species. The whole planet would be in happy harmony if evil man hadn't been placed on it.
 
Frontier,

You said, "If that state, like Idaho was harvesting 30,000 by hunting it's a no brainer what has to happen and will happen."

I guess you're implying that hunters are killing less elk now in Idaho than they did prior to wolf reintroduction.

Well, I got some news for you...Idaho hunters are killing the same number of elk now than they did prior to wolf reintroduction. The information and numbers are there...read them.

Wyosheds,

What makes you believe that wolves have not been managed in Wyoming already? Montana? Idaho?

How many wolves have been "managed" by the various Federal and State agencies since 1995?

Do you want me to post those numbers...or are we good on that?

I'm in agreement that there is nothing at all wrong with keeping wolf numbers in check and doing it via legal hunting and letting hunters and trappers do it. But, to declare that wolves have not ever been managed since day one...is absolutely ridiculous. I just dont buy into the panic you are trying to spread that if WY, MT, and ID lose the current lawsuit (which I dont believe they will) that wolves will not be managed. I dont buy it...and past history of how they've been dealt with is why I dont buy your "theory".

Like I said, the lies, distortions, and out-right bull$hit you hear is really getting old and worn out. The reason that educated hunters can not "all stick together" is because they wont fall for the BS propoganda being spread by the likes of Ron Gillette and the SSS crowd. Most of what they say just flat isnt true. The information is there for people to educate themselves...sadly...very few take the time. Easier to believe local drunks on bar stools, SFW, Ron Gillette, and big-bellied road hunters.

Its really that simple.
 
Come on Buzz, the 724 wolves that have been controlled since reintroduction, were killed for one reason and one reason only, Livestock Depredation.

Also if you look at the locations where wolves have been killed in Wyoming by the Feds, 95% were killed in the areas where Wyoming has them classified as Predators under our current management plan. All of the elk herds the Wyoming Game and Fish are concerned about are not in this area, they live in an unchecked population of wolves. I hardly call that management.

Wolves never have been managed to maintain a population quota while they were under control of the USFWS, the Endangered Species Act prevented that. If control is returned to the USFWS they will return to their reactive rather than proactive management guidlines, but only for Livestock Depredation.

I wish I could sit back and not worry about our future of hunting in Wyoming. But that is rather hard when the Wyoming Game and Fish flat out tells us that hunting opportunity will significantly decline if wolves are relisted, and then offer research to support that claim. I'm sorry that I tend to believe the information that my governing wildlife agency offers us.

I hope your right about the lawsuit though, I week ago I would have agreed with you, but after the judges comments earlier this week I am not so sure.
 
Aren't fat, lazy bastards equal american tax payers same as you Buzz? Are they your elk? Do fat, lazy bastards pay the same for license and tags?? Seems you think some are more equal than others regarding game animals.........I get your point but you are an elitist ##### like most liberals.

JB
 
Hey Buzz, I like your style on how to prove a point on saying what I implied. Heck if I'd thought of that technique a while ago, I could of won alot more arguments with my wife! If wolves are not controlled, I can see wolf populations in Idaho, as well as the neighboring states going to 1000 in each state. If that happens the number of elk being harvested by hunters will start to decline permanently.

A number of years ago I sat in meetings with the IDFG, one of the statistics the IDFG brought to point was that the same hunters seem to be harvesting elk every year. One of their goals was to increase the harvest of that certain group of hunters,"big bellied, fat, handicap, or what ever name you want to call them". There were a few ways which they did accomplish that. My point being that the IDFG realized that alot of funds come from that group of people and they wanted to keep them involved. They have a say to, and just because they don't hike the mountains doesn't make them right or wrong either.

Keep up the good posts Wyosheds, you make alot more sense.
 
You bet the fat lazy road hunters have a say.

But, the various Game and Fish agencies, as well as the citizens of the various states, and the hunters of said states, dont have to manage big game for the lowest common denominator.

Lets drive management so that the lazy can also get themselves an elk from the comfort of their trucks...brilliant management. Perhaps hobbles for elk would accomplish the goal and make things easier? Maybe the states could just set up a few game farms for all those hunters with hang-overs, a fat a$$, or a general lack of desire?

Did you ever stop to think why the same people kill elk every year?

I did think about that, and I made the decision to be in that group of people 29 years ago. What I didnt do is ask my fellow sportsmen and my state game and fish department to make it easier so I could do the same thing.

I didnt realize game management was supposed to cater to the lazy, the out-of-shape, road hunters, etc.

What a joke...lets just make elk hunting so easy everyone can do it. Frickin' sounds like a bunch of whiney liberals wanting to redistribute our wildlife wealth to level the playing field.
 
Wyosheds, thank you very much for the link. I had seen some of that info, but was unable to track down the actual information.
Do you know if Wyoming posts any of their herd trend count numbers on their website?

BuzzH: I can't tell if I am just not capable of expressing my point, and you don't get it, or you purposely ignore what does not fit your theory.

A stable population of a ungulate population by definition is one in which numbers reported during a trend count swing both above and below a fixed point. There are many variables which affect trend counts, weather, hours available, type of plane or helicopter used, skill of the pilot/staff member, etc. but far and away the most important is the snow levels at the time the count is conducted.

During mild winters with a light snow pack on traditional winter ranges, trend counts will typically show less animals than are actually in the population, due to significant animals having moved back into transitional ranges where they can be impossible to see, and thus count.

In the case of the Northern Yellowstone herd, I believe that 1997 was a lighter than normal snow year, and one would expect that the count might be low. This year, I believe the snow pack was much higher, and the count is likely an accurate reflection of the true herd numbers. I think if you read the link I provided about this year, the authors commented that counting conditions were excellent.

Three years ago, when I first joined this site, I provided the population numbers for this herd, when it dropped under 10,000 animals. A number of posts denying that wolves were the problem followed, with most stating that the herd would now stabilize, and that 9,000 to 10,000 was probably about right for that herd, given the habitat.

Now, three years later, we are down another 3,000 elk. I sincerely hope you are correct, and this is the level at which this herd will stabilize, but based on what I know about calf ratios, my opinion is the decrease will continue. Time will tell.

Scoutdog
 
you got that right ... thanks for stating that for everyone! nice job
idahoelkinstructor
 

Similar threads

M
Changes in Regulation
Replies
4
Views
827
ICMDEER
ICMDEER
gr8fuldoug
Athlon Winners Chosen - Enter to Win a Pulsar Thermal
Replies
0
Views
165
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

2020 High Country Bucks #1
7DFC8842-A499-46ED-B782-E5C539745C85.jpeg
IMG_5420.jpeg
1A61E8BA-ECA8-4ADD-AA18-9580019A818A.jpeg
C7DFB1DF-7424-45A5-A640-C409BC0EF984.jpeg
5E9EDE34-15C0-4A82-BBCB-C3AE5FDFFE1A.jpeg
FC8C397A-E021-45D6-A396-C5D411CF72A8.jpeg
FCF88031-BAD6-4679-A092-6D11CAEB1A7A.jpeg
Elk Hunting Success
trim.9490D5E9-084F-430B-975D-8AABF2AF680E.MOV
65D7690D-4742-49D3-9130-F820FC2A9AA7.jpeg
99138142-A379-4010-80D5-94ED354AA78E.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom