Wolves kill 176 sheep in Idaho

BenHuntn

Active Member
Messages
586
Not far from where I live in Wyoming.



176 sheep killed in Pole Canyon

August 19, 2013
By Jeannette Boner and Sarah Schneider

Pine Creek wolf pack to blame

Idaho Fish and Game and the US Wildlife Services have confirmed 176 lambs from the Siddoway Ranch Company were killed this weekend by the Pine Creek wolf pack.

The Siddoway Sheep Company said in a news release Monday morning that a pack of wolves attacked a herd of sheep around 1 a.m. on Saturday killing 119 lambs and 57 ewes. This was not the first attack for the Siddoway Ranch this year and Regional Wildlife Supervisor for the Idaho Fish and Game, Daryl Meints said this pack has been active for several years.


In the news release, the sheep were grazing between Pole Canyon and the central Palisades Mountain Range approximately six miles south of Victor. In the dark, the herders watching the sheep could not count the number of wolves mounting the attack. Some sheep were bitten, while others suffocated, as the wolves forced them into a pile. This scenario was confirmed by Idaho Wildlife Services State Director Todd Grimes who added that the sheep were running down hill at the time of the attack.


As the sun rose, the herders were able to inspect the kill. The wolves ate the hindquarters of just one lamb.


A phone call to JC Siddoway who manages the ranch was not immediately returned Monday morning. Please look to www.valley citizen.com for updates this week.


The news release further read that the Siddoway Sheep Company has lost about 250 head of livestock to wolf, bear and coyote depredation since June.


The losses are not limited to sheep. Just last week, wolves killed a pair of Great Pyrenees guard dogs. A horse fell victim in July when a pair of wolves met a pack string on a trail near Indian Creek and spooked the young horse, which ran down the steep grade and fell from a cliff.


Meints identified and named the Pine Creek pack four years ago. It is unknown how large a wolf pack this is as none of the animals are collared.


Siddoway Sheep Company is a fifth generation family owned ranch that has been operating in the Teton, Palisades and Big Hole mountain ranges since 1886. The business infuses over 1.6 million dollars into the local economy each year. Siddoway Sheep Company?s president is Jeff Siddoway, an Idaho state senator from Terreton. The ranch is managed by his son, J.C. Siddoway of Newdale.









ShareThis

VC Hoarder
 
wow that a huge number for one attack, Those sheepherders need a rifle and some light.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
....and they say wolves only kill for food????

I'll bet Siddoway wishes they had some 10-80 AND a rifle and spotlight.

Zeke
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-20-13 AT 01:26PM (MST)[p] Here is an article in 1989 that somewhat intelligent people wrote. Tell me are these people in the real world. They just found this out. Hunters knew this for years. Us hunters knew this would happen as soon as the protection was put on the cats. Soon there won't be any deer in CA.

Predators and Prey?A Case of Imbalance
Mountain Lions and the North Kings Deer Herd

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predators are usually considered to be beneficial to ungulate populations by keeping animal numbers in balance with the habitat and removing the weak and old individuals. It is also often said that:
o predators cannot control a healthy deer population, and
o predator numbers are controlled by the prey population size.

According to Don Neal, a research scientist with the Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station (PSW) (now retired), stationed in Fresno, California, a recent cooperative study by PSW and the California Department of Fish and Game has shed light on a situation where these theories appear to break down. In the study area on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada, apparently mountain lion numbers have increased while deer numbers declined to about one-eighth their peak numbers in the 1950s. Neal, along with George Steger (also with PSW), studied the California mule deer in the Sierra Nevada from 1970 to 1985 as part of an interagency effort to reverse the decline. This effort showed that the decline was primarily due to loss of fawns during the first 6-8 months of life.

The focus of the study was the North Kings deer here, a population of California mule deer. This herd declined from an estimated 17,000 animals in 1950 to about 2,000 animals in 1988. While the initiation of the decline was probably a result of overpopulation in the 1940s and 1950s, the lack of recovery seems to be related to heavy predation.



Fawn survival a problem
The research team captured 96 newborn fawns and equipped them with radio collars over a 7-year period from 1979 to 1985. These radio transmitters not only allowed the researchers to determine the locations of the fawns, but they also sent out a special signal when the fawns died. This allowed researchers to locate the fawns soon after they died and determine the cause of death. They were able to monitor and determine the fate of 90 of these fawns through their first year of life.
All the fawns were healthy at time of capture, and their size and weight were comparable to those of fawns from other mule deer herds. During the 7 years of the study, fawn survival ranged from 13% to 42% and averaged 38%. Two percent were killed in accidents, 9% died from disease or birth defects, and predators were responsible for the deaths of 51% of the fawns. Of those taken by predators 3% were killed by bobcats, 22% by bears, 27% by coyotes, and 49% by mountain lions.

Neal and his team were at first surprised by these results, because the general perception was that mountain lions were in very low numbers in California--the State Legislature had placed them under protection in 1971. It was obvious that it would require a healthy mountain lion population to be responsible for the death of an average of 25% of all the fawns born each year, as was the case in the North Kings deer herd.



A look at the mountain lions
The next step was to look at the mountain lion population and gain some understanding of movements and density. They knew this would not be an easy task. So Neal and Steger asked for the cooperation of Ron Bertram of the California Department of Fish and Game. This team uncovered some surprising results that run contrary to accepted understanding of mountain lion biology and behavior.
First, they selected a 215-square-mile area within the 800-square-mile range of the North Kings deer herd and set out to capture as many lions as time and funding allowed. Over a period of 3 years, they captured, radio equipped, and tracked 22 mountain lions. During the study they discovered 15 adult mountain lions that were using the area but were not radio-equipped, yet were known to be different individuals.

The lion locations determined by radio triangulation were computer plotted onto large-scale maps and aerial photos. This gave a good picture of daily and seasonal movements of mountain lions in the study area.



Home-range size
By plotting the locations of each cat on a map, the scientists were able to determine the size of the animal's home range and the relationships between individual lions. Home ranges of 14 adult lions tracked over 12 months averaged 285 square miles. Those of females averaged 244 and those of males averaged 340 square miles.


Seasonal movements
Each time a mountain lion was located by radio triangulation and plotted on a map or aerial photograph, the elevation was also recorded. This combination of location and elevation showed that most of the mountain lions migrated to high elevations in the summer and to lower elevations in the winter, following the patterns of the deer--their traditional prey.
However, detailed examination of the data revealed that several of the lions remained at low elevation in the foothills and valley edges throughout the year. They were found on ranches and among the rural communities. These lions occupied territories below most of the migrating deer in the winter, and these areas had no deer in the summer. This leaves only small mammals, livestock, and pets for a diet--a good way for a mountain lion to get into trouble.



Density
With the data on the radio-equipped cats, plus information on the known individuals without radios, the team had the data they needed to estimate mountain lion density.
Of the 22 lions captured and radio equipped within the 215-square-mile study area, not all were alive with operating radios during the entire study period. Therefore, one date was selected, January 1, 1987, and only the 14 lions alive and being monitored on that date were used to estimate density. This of course, underestimates the lion density because it does not include lions without radios using the area , or those with radios that have quit transmitting.

The team recognized that the number of lions using an area and lion density are not the same thing. Every radio-equipped lion used some area outside of the 215-square-mile study area. They calculated the proportion of each animal's home range that was within the study area and used that to estimate density. In other words, if a lion's home range was 50% within the study area, it was counted as 0.5 cat. Therefore, the 14 adult cats using the area on January 1, 1987, adjusted to a total of 6.3 lions, or 2.9 per 100 square miles. When the scientists added in the known cats that were not radio-equipped, making a similar adjustment to allow for only partial use of the study area, they calculated the density of adult mountain lions in the study area at 6.1 per 100 square miles.



Home-range overlap
Mountain lions are generally thought to be solitary animals that defend their home ranges for their exclusive use. But, when you look at the density of mountain lions and the size of the home ranges, it's easy to see that if all the female lions maintained exclusive home ranges, there would be 7.2 times as many acres of home ranges as there are available within the study area.
This can only mean overlap and home-range sharing.

Extensive home-range overlap was found between females, between males, and between females and males. One female shared parts of her home range with five other radio-equipped females and an unknown number of males and unradioed lions.



Reproduction
Other workers have stated that when the density of mountain lions reaches the point that home ranges overlap, breeding stops. However, in this study reproduction continued at what appeared to be a normal rate; and litter size averaged about 2.5 kittens. When the known kittens are added, the density of all mountain lions using the area becomes 10.6 per 100 square miles.


Adult deer are being killed also
To estimate the effect of mountain lions on adult deer, Ron Bertram and his coworkers with the California Department of Fish and Game radio equipped 25 adult does. Their work revealed that a sizeable number of does were being killed by mountail lions in the central Sierra Nevada. Of 25 does radio equipped over a period of 3 years, 12 have died. One was killed by a coyote and 11 by mountain lions.


The bottom line
The bottom line is that in the study area, mountain lions appear to be controlling an already depressed deer herd, and they are apparently not benefiting the population by taking only the weak and old. The density of the lion population is not limited by the need for exclusive territories, and reproduction is continuing within this high-density population.
The magnitude of the problem can be understood when we consider that the ratio of deer to mountain lions has apparently declined from an estimated 750:1 in 1950 to about 30:l in 1988. Deer populations cannot meet the needs of the mountain lions and maintain their numbers with the heavy predation that these ratios bring. This is especcially true when you consider the additional predation from coyotes, bears, and bobcats.

Livestock losses to mountain lions have become a serious concern of this team. The number of permits to take mountain lions that are killing livestock reached an all-time high in 1988, with 145 issued and 62 lions taken. Neal, Steger, and Bertram expect livestock predation to continue at a high level or even increase, and deer to continue to decline in all but the most favorable years.

To learn more about this subject, contact PSW Station and request Research Note PSW-392, titled Mountain Lions: Preliminary Findings on Home-Range Use and Density in the Central Sierra Nevada
 
That's a good read!

Remember: animal rights groups care little or nothing about wildlife! They just don't want YOU to kill any wildlife but it's OK if the predators wipe out entire herds!

Zeke
 
Can you imagine what the ratio of deer to lions is know. Probably 15 deer to every 1 lion. That's why they kill other critters is because it's available. I also disagree when they said lions stay behind instead of following the migrating deer herds to the high country. Some stay behind because there are many deer that stay on private ground in the foothills. In Eldorado county hunting deer was much better in the front country on private land than on public land in the high country. Less hunting pressure and less human interaction. There is a substantial deer population along the American river in the Sacramento Valley. There are also lions there and that is in the middle of highly populated area.
 
wow. I know these are animals, but it reaks of a 'revenge' type slaughter.
 
Those sheep were just as likely to be killed by lightning. Whats the big deal?

In fact I believe wolves have been good for livestock producers just think how much grass is available for the remaining sheep.
 
Actually, the wolves didnt kill any more than 11...J.C. Siddoway of Terreton says almost all of the sheep died from asphyxiation. About 10 died of bite wounds and one was partially consumed.

Somehow I think the owner will come out all right...what say you feduptwo?

http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?custnumber=A09379623

The taxpayers will take the lumps via the Federal and State Governments compensating them at 167% of the value. Maybe even the IG&F will kick in some money.

You are correct about one thing...the wolves have been good for the livestock producers bottom line. No question about it.
 
Buzz, I agree that's why most every livestock producer in the western United states has openly welcomed wolf reintroduction. I've heard of secret meetings where they rehearse the front that they are actually opposed to wolf reintroduction. This is to ensure that they protect the story, after all most people from the rural Western United states are all about the handout. (except of course federal and state Govt employee's).
I've also heard but cannot confirm that they can take a portion of the subsidy they receive (about 10%) and role it in to Government pensions where after they die they will receive about 10x what they have paid in for the rest of their lives(and their spouses lives).

On a serious note I despise farms subsidies but I can stomach payouts for lost livestock which were taken by predators. The same predators that the producers fought hard to keep from being reintroduced by agencies from the massively bloated federal govt. I despise all subsides for that matter but as a % of subsides that are paid out by the feds I imagine farm subsides are right in line with the rest of industry and are not even the most egregious.

Saying the other 30 or so sheep that weren't actually killed by wolves wasn't the fault of the attacking wolves is like saying that those who jumped from the twin towers on 9/11 committed suicide.
 
The amount of American wildlife loss because of domestic sheep is far greater than can be attributed to wolves, its not even in the same ball park.
I don't think many people realize how many millions of native bighorn sheep are lost and can't exist because of old world domestic sheep. In reality Its too bad the wolves can't get all of them.
 
>The amount of American wildlife loss
>because of domestic sheep is
>far greater than
>can be attributed to wolves,
>its not even in the
>same ball park.
>I don't think many people realize
>how many millions of native
>bighorn sheep are lost and
>can't exist because of old
>world domestic sheep. In
>reality Its too bad the
>wolves can't get all of
>them.

I guess Piper doesn't like wearing wool or eating lamb.. ridiculous statement there Pipe smoker.
 
Yeah, lamb is a real American staple.

As far as wool, taking into account the massive subsidies received, we'd be better off importing wool, and save money in the process!

What I find ridiculous is the taxpayers giving the guys sheep that were killed in this article, $993,000 in subsidies.

Not to mention the $1.35 he pays the feds to graze 5 of his sheep per month. (meaning he pays $648 to graze 2400 sheep for a month).

Try feeding a fuggin' bowl of goldfish for $1.35 month.
 
I"ll go with Piper on this one, domestic sheep are the parasites of the west. They damage wildlife habit and spread disease to the wild sheep I'd say let the wolves eat them all except it would be an expensive proposition for the taxpayer.
 
Wool is pretty well obsolete, and as far as mutton goes I would much rather eat native bighorns, not only that but
the economic boost from native bighorns would dwarf what rural economies receive from privately owned herds of non native sheep.
Everywhere I live and go there are huge empty areas of public land and entire mountain ranges that once held large herds of north American sheep.
Ernest Thomson Seton estimated that there were 3-4 million bighorn sheep living in this country at one time, guess how many live here now? You think it was the wolves that did them in? think again.
 
I agree the 993,000 would be much better spent on pensions for 2-4 federal employees. Or maybe we could roll it into the gigantic timber industry subsides.

The newspaper article goes on to say that the Siddoway operation infuses 1.6M into the local economy. I'm sure our resident experts will discredit this number but its no small beans in a most rural communities especially since the collapse of the timber industry that used to support this part of Idaho. (i'm aware there is some big money in Victor).

There is already wild sheep in the mountains above Victor. I guarantee a good % of those sheep have found the same fate that the domestic sheep in the valleys below did.

As far a Pipers ridiculous claim that sheep destroy wildlife he should go take a peek at the Green River land and livestock hay fields that are feeding 300+ deer this year. Probably the largest concentration of deer in Sweetwater County Wyoming. But just think if Green River land and livestock didn't own and operate these fields (which also feed sheep) we could subdivide it into 1 acre home lots or turn it over to BLM where it would hold the .2 deer per acre average that the rest of the County enjoys. Not to mention that the most all the non natural water sources that deer, antelope, and other wildlife utilize was built for sheep and cattle interests.
In the mule deer hey day in Southwest Wyoming producers wintered 100,000 sheep and 30,000 head of cows on the Rock Springs grazing allotment. Most of these sheep summered in the Wyoming range. Misinformed people and bloated govt agencies continue on there mission to destroy public land grazing, Wildlife populations continue to plummet and producers now winter about a 1/3 of historical highs (20,000-30,000 sheep and 4000-6000 cows on RS grazing). You all ought to look for another scapegoat.
I would argue that piss poor management of public lands, large predators, and unchecked populations of feral horses are the real cause of wildlife losses in SW Wyoming.
 
That's a lot of sheep. I think some were grand champions but not for sure on that info for it came from another source.


my concern is the impact of wolves of elk and moose.

Lets see northern Wyoming moose is nearly wipe out.
Elk herds like the Garndnier herd went from 21000 to 3000 head.


The Meetetsee herd cam off the mountain and lives on the ranches and oil fields.

That is what worries me.
 
Great post feduptwo! The subsidies may look like big money, but in most cases its just to keep a float. The company doesn't actually make money, but helps to keep from losing. Nobody thinks about whats coming out of the check book either. General liability Ins, Workermans Comp Ins, Unemployment Ins, Auto/Fire Ins. I know for my little 4 employee business this is well over 50 grand a year.

Just like in farming, crop insurance. The farmers pay 15 to 30 an acre throughout the US. Say 20 states have a claim, all of them are recorded as subsidies. So who made the money? The 20 states and the good ole Federal Government. IF it wasn't for subsidies the Government and China would own the Farm/Ranch land.

How much importing do you realy want to do? Lets kick all of our jobs and money over seas.......
 
Theres a lot more than wolves that are keeping moose numbers down in NW Wyoming.

Research is your friend.

Also, the elk numbers in the Gardiner area are still within the populations objectives of the EMP (MT's elk management plan). For the record the EMP, as well as the MT legislature, have killed more elk, and kept herd numbers suppressed more than all the predators combined.

Despite what BGF and SFW spouts, the problems with moose and elk in portions of MT, WY, and ID is much bigger than wolves.

Again, researching the issue is your friend.
 
I GOT IT, SO WHEN I WALK UP ON A MOOSE KILL HERE IN IDAHO,AND I SEE THE ASS END TORE OFF,AND WOOLF TRACKS, THE MOOSE OBVIOUSLY DIED OF A HEART WORM, OR A NOSE KNAT. AND THE SAME UNIT THAT USED TO HAVE 12 TAGS,NOW HAS 2 TAGS.i FEEL MUCH BETTER NOW!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-22-13 AT 06:01PM (MST)[p]What is the other issue for moose? I think wolves are the greatest impact. Take a gray wolf that ate moose before relocate them to Wyoming so why wouldn't they destroy moose populations? Moose populations use to do very well in the sunlight basin, north and south fork area. Thus the areas holding high wolf numbers. Now they are combining moose areas together and giving less tags. Local Game warden Chris Queen who runs those areas has stated moose getting nailed by wolves.


if the sheep died from low oxygen that means they were run to death........ This also happened 9 years with 105 sheep dieing in one night.

I will not stick for the wolves one bit. Been nothing but a waste of money and serious reductions in elk and moose. No good. but hey that's my opinion along with most the residents here in wyo
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-22-13 AT 08:00PM (MST)[p]The part I don't relate to is the whining about domestic sheep deaths and the always silence about all the native bighorn sheep die offs.
What gives? is this a trophy hunting web site or what is it?
The wolf is a drop in the bucket as far as big game losses go, when elk and pronghorns and north American sheep were the most abundant is when the wolf was here, they evolved side by side, think Im kidding? think its all BS?
I forgot, some of you probably don't believe in evolution.

The ecosystems are so screwed up that nothing will ever be completely natural again no doubt, but the real wildlife loss in the west comes from domestic grazing animals, that's where all the biomass is and where many diseases come from, that's where most of the long term changes to the landscape and forage base have come from.

Quotes about there being lots of sheep and cows during the heyday of muleys are true, but its laughable to think some people believe that could ever happen again. That was a one time thing.

If you want to look at the big picture, Climate change (likely man made) and domestic grazing animals are where real big game losses come from, in comparison the rest is just chicken feed.

I'm curious, are any of you wolf haters going to hold a candlelight vigil or anything for the domestic sheep? after all you do know it was the largest sheep loss in Idahos history, (domestic sheep anyway, I mean who cares about native North American sheep)
 
When dogs kill livestock, the owners are held liable for damages. Who owns the wolves? Oh yeah- WE DO!( not really..the federal govt does.) But of course, they can't be held responsible for anything. Right? Oh yeah, I forgot. Subsidies. LOL.

Kinda funny how all these problems affecting the moose and elk populations just happened to start around the same time the wolves showed up.

Predator pit-That is what BenHuntn described above with that article about mtn lions. And that, my friends, is EXACTLY what the anti-hunting community wants to happen across this country. The predator never gives the prey species a chance to recuperate when herd numbers are down; so why do we need hunting?? Predators will take care of the surplus.
 
If the predator pit theory is so true why was wildlife so abundant in pre settlement America? care to hear the estimates in numbers of buffalo, bighorn sheep, antelope, or elk?
how about the birds? sage grouse? passenger pigeons? ducks?

Last year on the last day of the Wy deer season I walked upon a young bull moose, he was laying down with his head up, I walked within 5 feet of him looked him over and saw no visible injuries, as he tried to get up a black bile looking substance came out of his nose, and his eyes were pretty glazed looking.
I just left him there thinking he could possibly recover, a couple weeks later I read in the local paper that someone found a dead moose with his horns cut off close to the sacred rim trail, so I know he didn't recover, the strange thing is that there were no bones or hardly anything left this year where he died, I guess WGF cleaned everything up and hauled it off?
 
Piper,

I'm not silent about die offs. I am very pro free market with the purchase of grazing allotments by conservation groups to support larger populations of wild sheep. Although no one can explain why wild sheep are still are dyeing off when we've removed domestic sheep population and some areas have Domestic sheep.
I also believe that grazing or overgrazing in some areas can be a problem. The biggest problem, not hardly.
Domestic sheep may or may not be the biggest loss of wild sheep but the "drop in the bucket" statement is grossly exagerated. Lions, coyotes, bears, and eagles affect sheep populations where all domestic sheep have been removed for decades. Predation is hands down the biggest effect on Desert bighorn populations in the Southwest united states.
You still haven't spoke to what happens to the 300+ deer when Green River land and livestock sells there hayfields because they can't make a living grazing sheep and they turn fields to a subdivsion. I know piper, a win win for everyone.
Damage to rangelands by wild horses have far outweighed Livestock overgrazing for over two decades.
No doubt we are in a severe drought and most likely it is the biggest effect on wildlife populations but man made climate change, really? I got some ocean front property in Arizona. Just think you can raise some wild sheep with a awesome view of the ocean.
 
Buzz,
Funny abc news (who are not exactly the face of the anti wolf crowd) would touch on the MT legislature killing tens of thousands of elk. Its probably what they meant they just misspoke. The good news is your right the Gardiner elk populations 2013 count hovered about 900 animals over the minimum objective which is 3000-5000 animals. Still no late hunts and a a 99% in antlerless harvest. One would think with 900 animal surplus we'd see a return in the good ol days. I'm sure the real problem is domestic livestock. Buzz your a glass half full kind of guy.



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.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-23-13 AT 06:04PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Aug-23-13 AT 06:02?PM (MST)

fedupto- Overgrazing in the past is a big problem now, but what happened has already happened. While wild horses are a huge problem in certain areas, overall the millions of sheep and cattle have a far greater impact on wildlife populations. I'm not blaming anyone, but that's just the way it is.
I guess everything should be balanced as best as possible, but when you look at domestic sheep grazing in most of the west, the losses to wildlife seem overwhelming in comparison to the amount of benefits the public receives.
The South half of the Wind rivers, much of the Gro Ventre, most of the Wyoming range and all of the Salt river range are ruined for native bighorns, just so some private herds of domestic sheep can travel through in the summer.
That's just some of the places close to where I live, then I think about all the big rams and even mnt goats that were lost in Nevadas Ruby mnts a few years ago, and all the ranges in NE Nevada that are ruined for sheep, in Utah, in other parts of Wyoming (Ferris mnts ect), the die offs that happen in Montana, and on and on.

Im sure wolves have effected hunting opportunity in some areas, but They have been here for what, 15 plus years?, I have two elk tags in my pocket this year, and some people have three, Yet
I will probably be 85 years old before I ever get a chance to hunt Rocky Mnt bighorns, that seems to be kind of a bad deal for many of us.
 
Piper,

You speak just like most liberals, like you have inside information and what you say is indisputable fact. We'll most biologists (that don't work for the Sierra Club or Defenders) value grazing as a valuable tool and if done right can have great impact on range lands. Most biologists agree that domestic sheep have a serious impact wild sheep but as far as the rest of the animals we pursue I think its a drop in the bucket.
Drought, 2 extreme winters in a 5 yr period, horses, predators
and highway mortality are the big reasons are game in Wyoming are suffering. The rest of the reasons make up a very small percentage of wildlife problems when your talking everything from except wild sheep.
For you to claim that sheep are a bigger problem than wolves is probably the most stupid thing I've ever heard a non eco terrorist say! Although Doug Smith would give you a run for your money, oh wait he is a eco terrorist.
 
fedupto- Im not into name calling but you speak like your a rightwinger.
Anyone that professes to be absolutely sure that climate isn't effected by human activity has to be spoonfed by talk radio.
I agree, the weather is the biggest factor that effects huntable big game in Wyoming, with the probable exception of bighorn sheep.
 
yep fact are your friend.

yep that rich rancher could afford to lose all those sheep, wish some-one would come by and side swipe your new truck a few time a year for 5-6 years, MAYBE if you see those $ signs leaving your pocket you might get a clue.
They had a Movie that you all starred in WHAT was it name.
I think you know.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
I'm a fiscal conservative but do not listen to much talk radio. My opinion on global warming is based on the tonnage of greenhouse gases that Mother nature naturally produces. Mother nature kicks our ass in production of CO2, CH4, and VOC's and produces 90% (give or take) of greenhouse gases. We have little control over volcano's, forest fires, geothermal energy and rotting vegetation from the worlds swamp lands.
The other problem with global warming is if you follow the money any reasonable person will see that trading carbon will make the "players" rich and will be a gigantic tax on the rest of us.
I happen to test air quality for a living and there's lots of good reasons for ensuring we have clean air. Thinking were going to change climate that's been constantly changing for millions of years probably isn't one if them
 
I know a lot of hunters don't like sheep. You should work with your elected officials and get that changed. What I can't figure out is why would a hunter side with eco-freaks and anti-hunters and support wolves?

Is it really worth it to decimate the elk and moose so you can stick it to ranchers?

Some of you poor miserable liberals are a disgrace.

Eel
 
I don't know which hunters really support wolves in the lower 48, I just think some of us spend a lot less time worrying about it.
The ranchers aren't getting stuck, I think some of us spend a lot less time worrying about that also.
 
nfh, you asked, What is the other issue for moose?

Its not "issue"...its "issueS

Heres some data compiled by a study that was funded in part by the WGBLC.

http://wyomingwildlife.org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/133619

Pay attention to the decline in moose populations being observed in the Snowy Range, where there is largely no significant predators at all.

The opening statement in the report lays out some of the major influences on moose survival...

"The Wyoming Game & Fish Department (WGFD), Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, and the University of Wyoming initiated the Statewide Moose Habitat Project in June 2011. Currently, Shiras moose (Alces alces shirasi) herds in the state (Fig. 1) are exhibiting a wide range of population performance (Fig. 2), with some declining (e.g. Jackson, Snowy Range, North Park, CO) and some relatively stable (e.g. Sublette, Uinta) or increasing (Bighorns). For the declining herds, potential mechanisms that may affect carrying capacity are habitat deterioration due to current and historic overbrowsing (Fig. 3; Boertje et al. 2007; McArt et al. 2009), and regional variation in forage quality due to climatic warming and drying (Monteith et al. in prep) or other disturbances, such as large, intense wildfire (Vartanian 2011) or bark beetle (Dendroctonus spp.) outbreaks. Additionally, a new and growing predator community is present in the northwest corner of the state and may prevent higher recruitment rates from being achieved, but these predators can not account for declines elsewhere in Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah. Further, a newly emergent disease, the carotid artery worm (Elaeophora schneideri), appears to be prevalent in Wyoming (Henningsen et al. 2012). Unfortunately we do not yet understand the impacts of this disease on the nutritional condition and survival of moose."
 
For some reason the link wont open.

The Bighorn herd is doing awesome. But the bighorns have all the same ISSUES except WOLVES. Beatles are up their. Also some dry years and wet years.

Sometimes it feels like studies are done to insure a job for someone. just like how these study groups state grizzly bears need this whitebark pine to survive. In all of my time in the mountains I still have yet to see a bear eat that source of food. The grizz is doing great. Since wolves kill to kill the grizz gets a free snack. Right now they are enjoying the moths up in the rock chutes with sometimes up to 15-25 bears in one rock chute.

And of course all of the wolf study teams tend to lean for the wolves. just fudge a report saying wolves are not doing great and insure their job along with more protection. I have seen one of the teams up in sunlight watching a pack and talk about a bunch of lefty wolf lovers.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-25-13 AT 07:53AM (MST)[p] comments like, "a bunch of lefty wolf lovers" show immaturity and bias.
When people completely dismiss all researchers and scientists, except maybe the ones that show some agreement with their own bias, its kind of hard to take their comment seriously.

I personally came upon a dying moose last year, yet the comments go "its funny how all these diseases show up after the wolfs came here" implying that WGF biologists make up stories about whatever.

Climate change and wildlife diseases, they are all just made up to bring money in for lefty researchers and scientists bent on destroying sheepherders , helping wolf lovers, and controlling people through fear. I get it now.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-25-13 AT 08:17AM (MST)[p]Well what should I call them? If they had a Rush Limbaugh sticker on the car then I would call them a bunch of righty wolf lovers. Climate change is a whole another story. Sure we add to it but hey lets cap off those Volcanoes. Look at the carbon test from millions of years ago when the carbon levels were through the roof. But lets not share that research lets try to make americans panic and blame it the coal industry.


Im not for the sheepherders either. ITs getting harder for ranchers to make money and I totally get it by wanting to feed your sheep/cattle somewhere for the summer so your own land has feed for the winter. BUT I do feel like if you are wanting to risk putting your animals on the mountain and have bears and wolves prey on them then should be their risk and we shouldn't have to pay for it. Yeah it upsets me going to the mountain and see cattle and sheep on the national forest and pushing wildlife out. So ya see I see it both ways.

When they introduced that huge wolf wasn't is bias to say THEY WILL ONLY STAY IN THE PARK. Why are they finding them in Missouri? We can have the wolves but when you add people into the equation we have to control the numbers. So lets have a controllable number of wolves.
 
I didn't like the idea of putting wolves here in the lower 48 in the first place, I love wild country and wilderness, the more the better to me , but the lower 48 in pretty well colonized and even though there are large tracts of summertime wilderness habitat its still pretty fragmented.
But wolves are here and they are beautiful wild animals,
they have been here for some time and the "end of big game hunting" hasn't materialized.
So hunting them and keeping them in balance with their habitat is the best thing, they did evolve with other native North American big game, and there is something to be said about that, but nothing has escaped the mark of millions of humans, so we have to try to keep the balance.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-25-13 AT 11:42AM (MST)[p]Piper,

You say wolves haven't been the end to big game hunting but there has not been one factor that has reduced hunting permits more than wolves have for moose and elk. I know moose have some other issues but I promise this isn't the first time this worm has caused problems for moose. What has changed is the fact that we used to have a endless supply of moose in nw Wyoming that had no choice but to populate the rest of the state ( and even further south) as their numbers reached capacity. That population is gone and with that population gone so does most of Wyoming moose hunting. (This is a opinion I formed after talking to unnamed field personal from nw Wyoming)

h
 
Feduptwo,

For the only time...ever...in Wyoming can you now kill 3 elk per year.

You can now kill 2 elk per year in Montana.

You can now kill 2 BULL elk per year in Idaho.

You're going to have a tough time convincing anyone, other than those with their minds already made up, that elk hunting is declining anywhere but in very small areas.

An "endless supply" of moose in the NW part of the state resulted in over-utilzation of the habitat, and may be one of the reasons for the declines we are now seeing. Everything is hitched to everything else, and the impacts of too many moose 10-15 years ago are very likely being felt now.

It gets fuggin' old to hear stories like, "I found one dead moose with its a$$ eaten" and blaming the declines strictly on wolves. Its a joke and so far from the truth its not even worth debating. Do wolves have an impact? Yep.

How about lions? Do you think lions kill elk and moose? How have their populations fluctuated? How have season structures, permits, quotas, etc. fluctuated on lions in most of MT, WY, and ID?

How do you explain moose declining in North Central Colorado and South Central Wyoming, where there are essentially NO significant predators (other than people)?

Did you realize that elk numbers in the Northern Yellowstone Herd were LOWER in some years PRIOR to wolf reintroduction? How many people realize that the NY Elk herd is also the most wildly fluctuating herd of elk in Montana? Ever look at the historic counts or just those since wolf reintroduction? Does anyone know what the herd structure looked like via age classes about the time wolves were reintroduced? I bet not. Its no damn wonder BGF/SFW have so much success...research and critical thought processes are in short supply these days.

There are many, many, many forces acting on all our game animals, including a significant impact by human hunters. Seems nobody wants to discuss the impact that we have on populations. I guess human hunting has no impact? Poaching probably doesnt either???


Oh, and nfh, show me one document that stated wolves were never going to be allowed to expand outside of YNP. If that was the case, why where they reintroduced in the Middle Fork of the Salmon? Why were areas way outside the park mapped in the EIS as core recovery areas?

Also, anyone that thinks research isnt the key to finding solutions to some of these problems is off the shallow end of charts in the brain department.

There is NO use throwing money at "fixes" that arent going to fix anything.

Some more research:

http://www.rayneswildlifefund.org/content/doc/Moose/MooseDeclines.Summer2011.pdf

http://wyofile.com/kelsey-dayton/game-and-fish-expand-moose-study-in-wyoming-range/

http://wyomingwildlife.org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/133619
 
BUZZ,

You can kill 3 elk in a handful of units in Southern Wyoming far away from the impact of wolves and the third elk tag was created for areas that have almost no public access. You can still only kill one elk in most of Wyoming unless you draw a reduced price cow calf tag but why bother with the details.

I would say the the whole wolf reintroduction area is a little bigger than a "very small area". We've seen signifigant loss of late season trophy hunts, antlerless hunts and overall hunting opportunity in this area but at least we have willows again. Whew.
An "endless supply" of moose in the NW part of the state resulted in over-utilzation of the habitat, and may be one of the reasons for the declines we are now seeing. Everything is hitched to everything else, and the impacts of too many moose 10-15 years ago are very likely being felt now.

It gets fuggin' old to hear stories like, "I found one dead moose with its a$$ eaten" and blaming the declines strictly on wolves. Its a joke and so far from the truth its not even worth debating. Do wolves have an impact? Yep.

How about lions? Do you think lions kill elk and moose? How have their populations fluctuated? How have season structures, permits, quotas, etc. fluctuated on lions in most of MT, WY, and ID?

How do you explain moose declining in North Central Colorado and South Central Wyoming, where there are essentially NO significant predators (other than people)?

Did you realize that elk numbers in the Northern Yellowstone Herd were LOWER in some years PRIOR to wolf reintroduction? How many people realize that the NY Elk herd is also the most wildly fluctuating herd of elk in Montana? Ever look at the historic counts or just those since wolf reintroduction? Does anyone know what the herd structure looked like via age classes about the time wolves were reintroduced? I bet not. Its no damn wonder BGF/SFW have so much success...research and critical thought processes are in short supply these days.

There are many, many, many forces acting on all our game animals, including a significant impact by human hunters. Seems nobody wants to discuss the impact that we have on populations. I guess human hunting has no impact? Poaching probably doesnt either???


Oh, and nfh, show me one document that stated wolves were never going to be allowed to expand outside of YNP. If that was the case, why where they reintroduced in the Middle Fork of the Salmon? Why were areas way outside the park mapped in the EIS as core recovery areas?

Also, anyone that thinks research isnt the key to finding solutions to some of these problems is off the shallow end of charts in the brain department.

There is NO use throwing money at "fixes" that arent going to fix anything.

Some more research:
 
Look at the meetetsee herd. Wolves pushed them off the mountain and live on the ranches. Ranchers complain to game and fish and they put out more cow tags to get the elk off the ranch land. But the elk keep coming back. One good thing is those elk will go into the preadtor zone and gives us a chance to slam a wolf.I work. Out in the meetetsee oil feild and get see the calves get killed. The elk just keep moving lower and lower and chill out Iin the oil fields.
 
Hey wait everyone knows those fun loving nature homogenous creatures only kill for food and selectively take the sick and the old and weak, right?
 

Wyoming Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Badger Creek Outfitters

Offering elk, deer and pronghorn hunts on several privately owned ranches.

Urge 2 Hunt

We focus on trophy elk, mule deer, antelope and moose hunts and take B&C bucks most years.

J & J Outfitters

Offering quality fair-chase hunts for trophy mule deer, elk, and moose in Wyoming.


Yellowstone Horse Rentals - Western Wyoming Horses
Back
Top Bottom