First Wolf Kill of Livestock in Colorado

[Trap]

My comment was based solely on Buzz's comment on post #250

I realize that I was quoting you but asking buzz the question. I agree 110 percent with your answer also. I don’t believe there is any below objective units with a shoulder season but if there were it would be absurd. I also agree that wildlife professionals won’t always make the right choice but that’s 100 percent better than uninformed out of touch general voters making wildlife decisions. The whole idea of a large number of non hunting city dwellers making wildlife decisions is just a disaster

 

[Trap]

buzz I have asked every way I know how about 10 times? Do you agree with and support shoulder seasons on top of an 11 month season with multiple tags available? I promise I will shut up I just want your stance on this. Not specific units etc just in general for or against?

 

[BuzzH]

buzz I have asked every way I know how about 10 times? Do you agree with and support shoulder seasons on top of an 11 month season with multiple tags available? I promise I will shut up I just want your stance on this. Not specific units etc just in general for or against?

There are no 11 month elk seasons in Montana, shoulder or otherwise. August 15-Feb 15 would be closer to 6 months by my calculations.

According to you, its just fine to hunt elk with B-tags (additional tags) in units at or below objective, and yes there are some. Pretty tough to find a unit that DOESN'T issue B-tags (ability to harvest multiple elk in below objective units). Also, nearly every unit in the State is continuing to allow unfettered Resident OTC (over 100K sold IIRC) and at least 17K NR general season hunters to pursue elk in areas that are well below objective. They are also allowing youth hunters and handicapped hunters to kill cows in those units as well as issuing B-tag.

Since the decision was made by the wildlife officials you say should be the only ones making such decisions, then it must be the right decision.

You have been very addiment that the only people qualified to make such determinations are the wildlife "professionals". What I think about shoulder seasons, populations of elk my family has hunted in Montana since the 1940's, is pointless to you.

What I'm left with, according to you, is simply agreeing with the decisions, seasons, and bag limits the FWP professionals say is appropriate.

So, you should also then accept the fact that a very large group of wildlife professionals have determined what is acceptable levels of wolves, bears, lions, etc. We must trust the professionals and that is how the minimum numbers to keep wolves off the list was determined. It was left up to the wildlife professionals in ID, MT, and WY to determine acceptable population objectives to satisfy the minimum objective numbers to keep them off the list. In most cases, that objective number is obviously much higher than the minimum numbers to keep them from relisting.

You should be fine with all that, they're the professionals. Just like you should be fine with people hunting 1-3 elk per State. The same way that its fine for others to shoot from 1-unlimited wolves per year.

What I find odd is that you have chosen to chastise a legal hunter (with the time, talent and money to do so) who kills multiple elk per year, legally, and with the blessing of the wildlife professionals, but seem to champion someone that has the time, talent, and money who does the same with wolves?

I'd be so bold as to call that hypocrisy...

 

[BuzzH]

Ok I think totally the opposite. With wolves being much harder to kill than cow elk( which if you’re honest can be easy depending on the circumstances) . I think everyone should kill as many wolves as possible. I choose not to harvest more elk than my family and a few friends we share with can use. You aren’t doing anything that’s not legal or necessarily wrong so carry on with taking 5 or 6? Elk per year. We just have a different approach to me it feels a little selfish and pointless. I will always try and harvest 1 or 2 per year because we eat that and I would rather shoot a bull given the choice. One cow will maybe produce 1 calve that might survive the first year. One female wolf will produce a litter of wolves just like any other dogs. What would happen to the population if you put 200 domestic dogs together and let them breed freely? Let’s say I take 10 wolves out of a pack of 12. I just reduced that population by 83%. The Wolfers heads would explode. The remaining 2 if male and female could breed and have a litter of 10 and they are back to 100%. What if I get zero that year and the next. The population will explode. Reproductive rates alone should DEMAND way more aggressive management of wolves over elk. It’s kinda basic math. Do you hunt predators?

How much more aggressive do we need to get when 2/3 of Wyoming is open year round, no permit?

How much more aggressive than 10 tags per hunter, per year in Montana?

So, 3-6 elk a year is selfish, but 10-unlimited wolves per hunter is not?

Sounds to me like those bitching about wolves should get off the 'net, go buy their limit of tags, and start getting aggressive with the management already available to them.

Yes, I hunt predators....before I left Montana for Wyoming the only 3 furbearers/predators I never shot or trapped were wolverine, wolf, and grizzly bear. Sort of screwed up in my youth and never hunted grizzlies before they closed the season in the early 90's...and was not successful in drawing a grizzly tag for the 3 spring seasons they had. But still blew it on not buying the OTC fall tag.

I trapped and/or shot black bears, lions, otter, mink, weasel, fisher, marten, fox, coyotes, skunk, raccoon, bobcats, beaver, muskrats, and one of the last legally harvested lynx in Montana.

These discussions are so predictable...if you aren't a 3S, shoot every wolf in sight, illegally plant poison, etc. etc. then you're a pro-wolf hippy.

I would guess I've trapped, snared, and shot more predators/furbearers, than 99% of the people whining in this post.

I just don't lose my shit over having some predators, including wolves, around.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

How much more aggressive do we need to get when 2/3 of Wyoming is open year round, no permit?

How much more aggressive than 10 tags per hunter, per year in Montana?

So, 3-6 elk a year is selfish, but 10-unlimited wolves per hunter is not?

Sounds to me like those bitching about wolves should get off the 'net, go buy their limit of tags, and start getting aggressive with the management already available to them.

Yes, I hunt predators....before I left Montana for Wyoming the only 3 furbearers/predators I never shot or trapped were wolverine, wolf, and grizzly bear. Sort of screwed up in my youth and never hunted grizzlies before they closed the season in the early 90's...and was not successful in drawing a grizzly tag for the 3 spring seasons they had. But still blew it on not buying the OTC fall tag.

I trapped and/or shot black bears, lions, otter, mink, weasel, fisher, marten, fox, coyotes, skunk, raccoon, bobcats, beaver, muskrats, and one of the last legally harvested lynx in Montana.

These discussions are so predictable...if you aren't a 3S, shoot every wolf in sight, illegally plant poison, etc. etc. then you're a pro-wolf hippy.

I would guess I've trapped, snared, and shot more predators/furbearers, than 99% of the people whining in this post.

I just don't lose my shit over having some predators, including wolves, around.

Buzz, ya know what is even more predictable? You tell everyone how you are a better hunter than 99% of the world and call everyone that doesn’t agree with you a whiner and a crybaby.

I take no issue with you filling legal tags allotted to you and there is probably some validity to claims of mismanagement of elk populations in places like Montana. Even FWP officials are fallible but I don’t think ballot box initiatives are a great way to make wildlife decisions either. On to the real question, do you support wolf reintroduction in Colorado? Surely you can see how misguided it is. As a Colorado resident I will continue to provide public comments to CPW, attend meetings to speak out, support pro hunting groups, and wait for the opportunity to manage these predators.

 

[BuzzH]

Buzz, ya know what is even more predictable? You tell everyone how you are a better hunter than 99% of the world and call everyone that doesn’t agree with you a whiner and a crybaby.

I take no issue with you filling legal tags allotted to you and there is probably some validity to claims of mismanagement of elk populations in places like Montana. Even FWP officials are fallible but I don’t think ballot box initiatives are a great way to make wildlife decisions either. On to the real question, do you support wolf reintroduction in Colorado? Surely you can see how misguided it is. As a Colorado resident I will continue to provide public comments to CPW, attend meetings to speak out, support pro hunting groups, and wait for the opportunity to manage these predators.

Not my decision to make on wolf reintroduction there, what I think simply doesn't matter.

It is up to the Residents of that State to decide how to manage their wildlife, including reintroducing wildlife (sheep, goats, moose, wolves, etc.).

What I do support is for you to continue to provide comments to your CPW, Legislature, etc. on wolves and anything else that is for your State Residents to decide.

I do agree that ballot box biology is not a good idea. However, it can work favorably in some cases when the various Commissions and Legislatures seem hell bent on defying the people they represent. Think doing away with OSL's and hunting on game farms in Montana via ballot initiative. That sword does, however, cut both ways as it were....

 

[Indian Summer]

It is up to the Residents of that State to decide how to manage their wildlife,

I do agree that ballot box biology is not a good idea. However, it can work favorably in some cases when the various Commissions and Legislatures seem hell bent on defying the people they represent.

Which is it???

What about when wolf huggers defy the recommendations of state biologists?

What about when wolf huggers defy the population numbers they were hell bent on shoving down our throats in the first place?

I’ll say it again…. Some wolf lovers don’t even realize they are one. Yes Buzz we should let fish and GAME decide what is best. Yes they make mistakes. But they aren’t anti hunter. AND they aren’t anti wolf either. They listen to public comments and have public meetings. The public is involved.

What’s also amazing is you and your wolf humping buddy NewToEverything seem to have an answer for everything except most of the questions we ask.

How do you feel about wolf reintroduction in Colorado? What problems do you think will come from it?

 

[Marble]

No one on the pro wolf side ever talks about reproduction rates. Cow elk normally has 1 calf per year. One wolf has 5-10 pups as a wide estimate

What is also interesting is calving info for domestic livestock. The females are lighter in weight overall because they constantly have to watch for predation, meaning instead of standing in a pasture with their head down all day, they have to constantly check for danger.

Calves have lighter birth rates, less calves are born and their entry weight into winter is less. I haven't seenand don't know if the data transfers over to elk, but to me it doesn't matter if it does or not for me to give a thumbs down. Why would we as a society make it more difficult to raise food for ourselves? There is no measurable gains for us or the environment .

This info was across the board for livestock in areas populated by wolves. It was stats from, IIRC, a livestock organization in Montana.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[BuzzH]

Which is it???

What about when wolf huggers defy the recommendations of state biologists?

What about when wolf huggers defy the population numbers they were hell bent on shoving down our throats in the first place?

I’ll say it again…. Some wolf lovers don’t even realize they are one. Yes Buzz we should let fish and GAME decide what is best. Yes they make mistakes. But they aren’t anti hunter. AND they aren’t anti wolf either. They listen to public comments and have public meetings. The public is involved.

What’s also amazing is you and your wolf humping buddy NewToEverything seem to have an answer for everything except most of the questions we ask.

How do you feel about wolf reintroduction in Colorado? What problems do you think will come from it?

What do you mean which is it?

Ballot initiatives come from the Residents of the States they live/vote in. They gather signatures, they vote on the initiatives.

That's how the process works. That's one of the checks and balances of a representative republic. You don't have to like it, but IMO/E it gives voters/citizens a way to check the indignation that many Legislatures show to the people they allegedly represent.

Its also up to the Residents of the State they live in, to manage wildlife as they see fit. Not many Montana Resident biologists telling Colorado Resident biologists how to manage...and vice versa.

If enough of the Residents decide they don't like the way a State is managing its/their wildlife its their concern to deal with. They can elect a new Governor who appoints a new GF/DOW/FG Director. They can ask the legislature to intervene, or they can run ballot initiatives.

So, again, not sure what you mean "which is it?" The citizens have at their disposal, ways to influence management of their wildlife. Be that ballot initiative, voting the bums out, influencing commissioners, and public comments, etc. But its all up to the citizens of the individual states. ALL citizens have the ability, and right, to do those things, not just those running hooks and bullets through wildlife.

What I think about wolf reintroduction in Colorado is of no value to you. Its of no value to the Citizens of Colorado what I think. Its simply none of my business...their state, their wildlife, their decisions to make.

The wolf huggers never shoved anything down your throat. Minimum population levels needed to keep wolves off the ESL in the tri-state wolf recovery area was determined by each of the 3 states and biologists from each of those states as well as from the various tribes and Federal agencies as well. Multi-agency task force comprised of many biologists, the best in the business, made those recommendations.

Those recommendations were put out for the public to consider, over one hundred thousand responses to those recommendations were accepted. In fact, the most public comments ever received for a single EIS (at least at the time).

 

[Trap]

There are no 11 month elk seasons in Montana, shoulder or otherwise. August 15-Feb 15 would be closer to 6 months by my calculations.

According to you, its just fine to hunt elk with B-tags (additional tags) in units at or below objective, and yes there are some. Pretty tough to find a unit that DOESN'T issue B-tags (ability to harvest multiple elk in below objective units). Also, nearly every unit in the State is continuing to allow unfettered Resident OTC (over 100K sold IIRC) and at least 17K NR general season hunters to pursue elk in areas that are well below objective. They are also allowing youth hunters and handicapped hunters to kill cows in those units as well as issuing B-tag.

Since the decision was made by the wildlife officials you say should be the only ones making such decisions, then it must be the right decision.

You have been very addiment that the only people qualified to make such determinations are the wildlife "professionals". What I think about shoulder seasons, populations of elk my family has hunted in Montana since the 1940's, is pointless to you.

What I'm left with, according to you, is simply agreeing with the decisions, seasons, and bag limits the FWP professionals say is appropriate.

So, you should also then accept the fact that a very large group of wildlife professionals have determined what is acceptable levels of wolves, bears, lions, etc. We must trust the professionals and that is how the minimum numbers to keep wolves off the list was determined. It was left up to the wildlife professionals in ID, MT, and WY to determine acceptable population objectives to satisfy the minimum objective numbers to keep them off the list. In most cases, that objective number is obviously much higher than the minimum numbers to keep them from relisting.

You should be fine with all that, they're the professionals. Just like you should be fine with people hunting 1-3 elk per State. The same way that its fine for others to shoot from 1-unlimited wolves per year.

What I find odd is that you have chosen to chastise a legal hunter (with the time, talent and money to do so) who kills multiple elk per year, legally, and with the blessing of the wildlife professionals, but seem to champion someone that has the time, talent, and money who does the same with wolves?

I'd be so bold as to call that hypocrisy...

11 month was typo lol I’m aware that there is no seasons that long. Funny that I agree with most of what you’ve said on Montanas current elk management. I don’t agree with shoulder season or a bunch of cow elk tags.I have been in Idaho 30 years but moved here from Montana in my twenties. I still hunt Montana yearly. I’m not chastising you for legally killing as many elk as you desire. I just find it odd that you’re AGAINST such liberal tag limits but PARTICIPATE fully in them. That’s strange to me but I already stated you’re not necessarily doing anything wrong and it’s definitely legal . Wolves in Idaho are way over the objective that’s been set( not the minimum requirement) offhand I remember the objective being 350 and we hover around 1300 to a high of over 1500. I think the only thing we disagree on is you seem pretty dismissive of the impact wolves really can have on elk. You seem to be claiming wolves don’t have a major impact on elk. I totally disagree with that. I’m for predators on the landscape. I get pissed when our states are constantly getting sued to halt wolf management when we are way above the agreed upon objectives. I think families like yours and all hunters should have major input into the direction of wildlife management but the final decision has to be left in the hands of those we hire to do that.Montana doesn’t seem to be listening to the public hunters right now, that’s a problem. Ballot box biology has been a shit show and I don’t think uninformed voters should be making wildlife management decisions. Not all voters are uninformed but the management decisions decided by voters in California, Oregon and Washington prove that many are totally clueless . I am not a shoot shovel and shut up guy. I have never had a smoke a pack a day sticker on my truck but I do hunt and trap wolves every year. The reason I’m for lots of wolf tags but not extra elk tags is reproductive rates. If I shoot 1 elk a cow might have 1 calf. If I kill 5 wolves 1 female might have ten more wolf pups. It’s just math.

 

[Trap]

How much more aggressive do we need to get when 2/3 of Wyoming is open year round, no permit?

How much more aggressive than 10 tags per hunter, per year in Montana?

So, 3-6 elk a year is selfish, but 10-unlimited wolves per hunter is not?

Sounds to me like those bitching about wolves should get off the 'net, go buy their limit of tags, and start getting aggressive with the management already available to them.

Yes, I hunt predators....before I left Montana for Wyoming the only 3 furbearers/predators I never shot or trapped were wolverine, wolf, and grizzly bear. Sort of screwed up in my youth and never hunted grizzlies before they closed the season in the early 90's...and was not successful in drawing a grizzly tag for the 3 spring seasons they had. But still blew it on not buying the OTC fall tag.

I trapped and/or shot black bears, lions, otter, mink, weasel, fisher, marten, fox, coyotes, skunk, raccoon, bobcats, beaver, muskrats, and one of the last legally harvested lynx in Montana.

These discussions are so predictable...if you aren't a 3S, shoot every wolf in sight, illegally plant poison, etc. etc. then you're a pro-wolf hippy.

I would guess I've trapped, snared, and shot more predators/furbearers, than 99% of the people whining in this post.

I just don't lose my shit over having some predators, including wolves, around.

Glad you hunt predators. I don’t lose my shit over predators either. I love predator hunting and hunt and( trap if legal) lions,bobcats, wolves , coyotes and bears every yesr. I don’t want predators gone I want them managed. I lose my shit when people who know better act like wolves don’t really effect elk herds. I lose my shit when Idaho is so far above the agreed upon wolf objective and the states getting sued to halt state management. I lose my shit when they tell the same lies spewed in Idaho in the 90’s to a bunch of Colorado voters and 50.9 percent of voters go for it. They are “reintroducing “ wolves where they already exist. How much taxpayers money do we have to waste? Think how much of our fish and game budgets have already been spent on wolf reintroduction. I don’t want to kill all wolves I want them properly managed. I’m sick of wolf deniers that won’t acknowledge what damage too many wolves can do. The classic I still got my elk no problem here!! It’s about special places and great elk herds that don’t exist like they once were. We can all adjust and still harvest elk but it’s not about that. Acting like wolves have no impact just makes the problem worse .

 

[BuzzH]

Glad you hunt predators. I don’t lose my shit over predators either. I love predator hunting and hunt and( trap if legal) lions,bobcats, wolves , coyotes and bears every yesr. I don’t want predators gone I want them managed. I lose my shit when people who know better act like wolves don’t really effect elk herds. I lose my shit when Idaho is so far above the agreed upon wolf objective and the states getting sued to halt state management. I lose my shit when they tell the same lies spewed in Idaho in the 90’s to a bunch of Colorado voters and 50.9 percent of voters go for it. They are “reintroducing “ wolves where they already exist. How much taxpayers money do we have to waste? Think how much of our fish and game budgets have already been spent on wolf reintroduction. I don’t want to kill all wolves I want them properly managed. I’m sick of wolf deniers that won’t acknowledge what damage too many wolves can do. The classic I still got my elk no problem here!! It’s about special places and great elk herds that don’t exist like they once were. We can all adjust and still harvest elk but it’s not about that. Acting like wolves have no impact just makes the problem worse .

Who claimed wolves have no impact?

 

[Trap]

What do you mean which is it?

Ballot initiatives come from the Residents of the States they live/vote in. They gather signatures, they vote on the initiatives.

That's how the process works. That's one of the checks and balances of a representative republic. You don't have to like it, but IMO/E it gives voters/citizens a way to check the indignation that many Legislatures show to the people they allegedly represent.

Its also up to the Residents of the State they live in, to manage wildlife as they see fit. Not many Montana Resident biologists telling Colorado Resident biologists how to manage...and vice versa.

If enough of the Residents decide they don't like the way a State is managing its/their wildlife its their concern to deal with. They can elect a new Governor who appoints a new GF/DOW/FG Director. They can ask the legislature to intervene, or they can run ballot initiatives.

So, again, not sure what you mean "which is it?" The citizens have at their disposal, ways to influence management of their wildlife. Be that ballot initiative, voting the bums out, influencing commissioners, and public comments, etc. But its all up to the citizens of the individual states. ALL citizens have the ability, and right, to do those things, not just those running hooks and bullets through wildlife.

What I think about wolf reintroduction in Colorado is of no value to you. Its of no value to the Citizens of Colorado what I think. Its simply none of my business...their state, their wildlife, their decisions to make.

The wolf huggers never shoved anything down your throat. Minimum population levels needed to keep wolves off the ESL in the tri-state wolf recovery area was determined by each of the 3 states and biologists from each of those states as well as from the various tribes and Federal agencies as well. Multi-agency task force comprised of many biologists, the best in the business, made those recommendations.

Those recommendations were put out for the public to consider, over one hundred thousand responses to those recommendations were accepted. In fact, the most public comments ever received for a single EIS (at least at the time).

They are shoving it down our throats right now. Idaho is WAY over objective for wolves and they are suing to halt any state management. Multiple lawsuits when our current season and tags up to this point have NOT reduced wolves at all since state management was allowed

 

[Trap]

Who claimed wolves have no impact?

You seem very dismissive of their impact for starters.

 

[BuzzH]

You seem very dismissive of their impact for starters.

Based on what? I'm well aware of the impact wolves, lions, bears, human hunting, weather, disease, habitat changes, fencing, migration corridors, poaching, habitat loss, and shit management, to name a handful have on elk, deer, etc.

How is killing a few hundred wolves a year going to fix a vast majority of the woes facing ungulate herds?

 

[Laramie]

I think a lot of people are directing anger at Buzz because his posts are abrasive... Reality is I have gone back through and people, including myself, are making a lot of assumptions.

Who knows, and not sure why I or any of you care, what his actual opinion is on Colorado. I think all should however take his advice and direct our communication to the state of Colorado. We all know bickering on here isn't going to accomplish anything.

 

[mtluckydan]

You have to watch ole BuzzH's facts as they're a little wishy washy. The starting point of this conversations isn't about Colorado...that's just the continuation of more destruction of wildlife from an illegally introduced non-native species. My understanding is the Gray wolf is extinct. How is it that the Federal Government is allowed to use Pittman Robertson money to introduce a non-native species such as the Canadian Timber Wolf to the lower 48? Well I guess you have to ask Bill Clinton...or maybe Hillary knows....

Buzz mentions the public comment count for wolf introduction was one of the highest in history. Wonder which parts of the country most of those comments came from Buzz?? Were the decisions from those comments based on scientific facts of the multiple impacts the wolf would have on the entire wildlife ecosystem in the north west US and now major parts of the upper midwest. Was the Federal Government forthright with all the negative impacts wolf introduction might have to existing game populations and impacts of non-game animals? Did the Federal Government explicitly tell everyone the potential diseases the introduced wolves would bring into our game populations that would be detrimental to their health and existence? Most if not all of those questions would be a big NO.

Buzz mentions how bad all of us are as hunters and predator controllers. It took the concerted efforts of the Federal Government somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 years to take the original wolf population out. They used any means of killing those little rascals...poison, trapping, shooting....you name it they did it. My research shows you have to kill 80-85% of the wolf population EVERY YEAR to recover game herds from the destruction of the wolves. What Buzz doesn't tell you is the game agencies are also out there killing wolves and have been since almost day one. That has occurred so they don't really get out of hand killing cattle, horses, sheep, goats, dogs, cats and who knows what else. Who do you think pays for all that government predator control. Goggle the costs and numbers of predators killed by these actions...good luck.

Buzz says you are all a bunch of whiners and bad hunters if you engage in threads like these and don't agree with Buzz that the wolf isn't the problem...it's the pesky game agencies. Too many tags in the wrong areas and frankly if he had more time...none of this would be a problem. Buzz says it's perfectly fine for all the non-hunters that moved from California to Colorado and voted to re-introduce the illegal Canadian Timber Wolf as long as you get to make comments and they listen to your comments but then act against the best health of the elk and other game animals in Colorado as long as you get to comment.

Did Buzz tell you the wolves eat other game animals like Bighorn Sheep, Mountain Goats, Moose and such?? It's interesting that in Glacier National Park they're taking on another study or may have already done so to see why they aren't as many Mountain Goats...they're blaming it on Global Warming or something. Funny thing is...they're wondering what happened to all the moose as well. Then there is the questions of the missing herd of Bighorn Sheep around Snowslip by Marias pass. Guess they'll need to do another study.

We'll never be able to satisfy Buzz with our links and facts...his are better. I have my own little unsupported theory to go along with some of Buzz's unsupported theories. It would be interesting to know if the reintroduction and rapid expansion of the wolf population has anything to do with the rapid spread of CWD in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. The entire northern part of Montana looks like it's going to have CWD and now they're finding it in parts of Idaho. Funny thing is it's all through parts of Western Canada. Wouldn't that be funny if somehow the wolf that the Feds set free was part of this wonderful process.

Make sure to keep your dogs on a leash...Buzz says they'll kill off all the elk....

 

[Trap]

Based on what? I'm well aware of the impact wolves, lions, bears, human hunting, weather, disease, habitat changes, fencing, migration corridors, poaching, habitat loss, and shit management, to name a handful have on elk, deer, etc.

How is killing a few hundred wolves a year going to fix a vast majority of the woes facing ungulate herds?

How will it help? Save 4000-5000 elk sounds like a benefit? I appreciate your laundry list of problems facing deer and elk all of them are affecting deer and elk. Why drop an apex predator in the middle of those problems? Worse yet why are these groups fighting so hard to stop management of them? Deer and elk face a number of issues. When it comes to wolves I just want to call a spade a spade. Wolves eat elk. If you don’t agressively manage them you won’t have many elk period. Even if you solved every other problem facing elk if you have too many wolves you will have too few elk. I think that’s what some wolf huggers want-there is no other explanation for their actions except maybe total ignorance. I don’t think we disagree on that much.

 

[BuzzH]

How will it help? Save 4000-5000 elk sounds like a benefit? I appreciate your laundry list of problems facing deer and elk all of them are affecting deer and elk. Why drop an apex predator in the middle of those problems? Worse yet why are these groups fighting so hard to stop management of them? Deer and elk face a number of issues. When it comes to wolves I just want to call a spade a spade. Wolves eat elk. If you don’t agressively manage them you won’t have many elk period. Even if you solved every other problem facing elk if you have too many wolves you will have too few elk. I think that’s what some wolf huggers want-there is no other explanation for their actions except maybe total ignorance. I don’t think we disagree on that much.

Lots of ways to save 4-5 thousand elk a year...should we ignore the other ways?

 

[Trap]

What is also interesting is calving info for domestic livestock. The females are lighter in weight overall because they constantly have to watch for predation, meaning instead of standing in a pasture with their head down all day, they have to constantly check for danger.

Calves have lighter birth rates, less calves are born and their entry weight into winter is less. I haven't seenand don't know if the data transfers over to elk, but to me it doesn't matter if it does or not for me to give a thumbs down. Why would we as a society make it more difficult to raise food for ourselves? There is no measurable gains for us or the environment .

This info was across the board for livestock in areas populated by wolves. It was stats from, IIRC, a livestock organization in Montana.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

I seen some study done on cow elk that showed areas of high wolf depredations significantly reduced the percent of cows that successfully calved. It cited similar reasons such as low body weight of cow elk due to constant wolf pressure and stress. It was on the foundation for wildlife management website I think. Interesting in an irritating sort of way