Idaho declines to give Colorado Wolves.

[Overdrive]

I bet they'll get them from Washington, one of the new appointees to CPW is from Washington and I'm sure there was a backdoor deal with the Governor so he could get this job.

 

[Raghornklr]

Can Washington give away wolves from an “ endangered and rare” population? Seems like they would be forced to get them from a delisted population of wolves.

 

[Mykolaivka887]

Can Washington give away wolves from an “ endangered and rare” population?

Yes.

 

[Raghornklr]

Was hoping it would force the washington commissioners hands to delist before they start ruining other states too.

 

[RS_Non-Res]

If a state can give away some of their precious predators, then they've admitted that they have met their population goals. Right?

 

[lak2004]

That's terrible. I would never wish for a dog to get eaten just because the owner is a liberal...

I'd much rather the liberal owner get eaten.

I'll give you that, as long as the pot is stirred and people are forced to think about what they have contributed to.

 

[Gobbler36]

I’m glad we didn’t send them wolves
im 100% for managing them, I’ve even been in on a kill here in Idaho

so With that I ask this, could someone please clarify that if wolves are eating all the game etc how are wolf/ predator populations growing, I always hear and read that the wolves have eaten all the elk or the cats all the deer and all we see is cats and wolves. logic would think that if they eat all their prey species their own numbers would suffer and nature would recalibrate itself.
can someone more educated on this subject elborage on this for me ?

 

[Hnthrdr]

I’m glad we didn’t send them wolves
im 100% for managing them, I’ve even been in on a kill here in Idaho

so With that I ask this, could someone please clarify that if wolves are eating all the game etc how are wolf/ predator populations growing, I always hear and read that the wolves have eaten all the elk or the cats all the deer and all we see is cats and wolves. logic would think that if they eat all their prey species their own numbers would suffer and nature would recalibrate itself.
can someone more educated on this subject elborage on this for me ?

That is a valid question. I am no biologist, but I believe yes there would be some self regulation if there are no ungulates left to eat, except they can move onto domestic stock, and pets and continue to grow their populations unchecked until the ungulates reach a tipping point. Once at the tipping point the ungulates cannot produce enough offspring to recover. The damage from a recovery of the ungulates is done. Some wolves may starve then, but it’s too late to try and bring back healthy/ huntable herds. Best example from what I know is the moose population in Jackson county Wyo. The wolves have effectively destroyed that population.

Plus we could go into how Co has been touched by the hand of man too much, it is not some game preserve. There are roads and highways and trails which will give predators easy access to animals year round when pre man they might have been snowed into one basin or drainage all winter they can pursue herds all the time.

It certainly will be interesting to see what happens. I think the animal activists think along the same lines as you,( not an insult) they just believe that wolves and cats/bears will replace nasty human hunters and that harmony can be maintained in nature without disgusting men carrying guns. That is the ultimate aim from those organizations. 0 death of animals at the hands of men

 

[Mykolaivka887]

I'll give you that, as long as the pot is stirred and people are forced to think about what they have contributed to.

For the most part, Americans don't consider (think). The greater portion of the United States populace is a constituency of non-thinkers, really. They prefer to keep their worlds small.

 

[Mykolaivka887]

...... logic would think that if they eat all their prey species their own numbers would suffer and nature would recalibrate itself.

And that logic is precisely correct and, it's based in scientific fact.

 

[wind gypsy]

I’m glad we didn’t send them wolves
im 100% for managing them, I’ve even been in on a kill here in Idaho

so With that I ask this, could someone please clarify that if wolves are eating all the game etc how are wolf/ predator populations growing, I always hear and read that the wolves have eaten all the elk or the cats all the deer and all we see is cats and wolves. logic would think that if they eat all their prey species their own numbers would suffer and nature would recalibrate itself.
can someone more educated on this subject elborage on this for me ?

Didn't Donny vincent used to say they just eat mice and bunnies? If so ungulates must be a luxury. Then there's that pack on an island by Hoonah, AK that killed all of the blacktails but is surviving on sea otters. Your thinking is logical but there can be more to it in some cases.

 

[Gobbler36]

Didn't Donny vincent used to say they just eat mice and bunnies? If so ungulates must be a luxury. Then there's that pack on an island by Hoonah, AK that killed all of the blacktails but is surviving on sea otters. Your thinking is logical but there can be more to it in some cases.

I’m not sure I know who Donny Vincent is I’m certainly not naive enough to think they eat mice and rabbits alone I just always kinda wonder how much it’s blown outta proportion one way or the other. you are 100% correct though there is a lot of factors and I’m sure if there is another prey species close by they will exploit that to like the example you mention. I also didn’t think about them switching to domestic animals either, I always am thinking about the more remote areas like the Frank and selway areas thinking there can’t be many Other prey species and if they eat their seLF outta house and home how do they survive? idk


couple Things are for sure though they eat 7lbs of meat a day accoriding to wolf biologist and Ive spent considerable amount of time in some really good looking country in central Idaho with few game sightings and that’s looking really hard

 

[Mykolaivka887]

Once they push prey species into low-level equilibrium, wolves die. They're overall population diminishes due to the lack of prey and cannibalistic behavior.

At that point, the ecosystem enters a long stage of near vacancy; the low occurrence of wolves and extreme low density of wild ungulates.


Unlike bears, which can subsist on sticks, for all intent and purposes, wolves must have flesh to survive.

The trick to the whole thing is finding a happy medium, whereas there's sufficient numbers of ungulates to support the presence of wolves, and also allow for human consumptive use of the prey base.

 

[Customweld]

I’m not sure I know who Donny Vincent is I’m certainly not naive enough to think they eat mice and rabbits alone I just always kinda wonder how much it’s blown outta proportion one way or the other. you are 100% correct though there is a lot of factors and I’m sure if there is another prey species close by they will exploit that to like the example you mention. I also didn’t think about them switching to domestic animals either, I always am thinking about the more remote areas like the Frank and selway areas thinking there can’t be many Other prey species and if they eat their seLF outta house and home how do they survive? idk


couple Things are for sure though they eat 7lbs of meat a day accoriding to wolf biologist and Ive spent considerable amount of time in some really good looking country in central Idaho with few game sightings and that’s looking really hard

I've always said to the guys that say the only thing left in the Frank and Selway are wolves, that if there are wolves there, there are also elk. They can't survive without a prey base . I'm not in the "wolves killed everything" group, but to say they haven't had a dramatic impact in the backcountry is wrong too. For those of us that have been there, we know that the Central Idaho Wilderness areas are a harsh environment on the best days. When you stack everything up against the ungulates, every small brick has an effect. Drought, fires, bears, cats and just plain unproductive habitat. Once they get into that pit, it's damn near impossible for them to make a dramatic rebound.
Idaho elk numbers are still strong, but just in different areas. Being close to ag and urban ground provides much better habitat production and works to help keep the predator numbers honest.

 

[Mykolaivka887]

...... If there are wolves there, there are also elk. They can't survive without a prey base .

Exactly

 

[centershot]

They can have all of them. From all Idaho sportsmen.

 

[Get-n-birdy]

Once they push prey species into low-level equilibrium, wolves die. They're overall population diminishes due to the lack of prey and cannibalistic behavior.

At that point, the ecosystem enters a long stage of near vacancy; the low occurrence of wolves and extreme low density of wild ungulates.


Unlike bears, which can subsist on sticks, for all intent and purposes, wolves must have flesh to survive.

The trick to the whole thing is finding a happy medium, whereas there's sufficient numbers of ungulates to support the presence of wolves, and also allow for human consumptive use of the prey base.

Seen it first hand in Minnesota on property we own. Wolf numbers sky rocketed. They ate a lot of meat. A bad winter or 2 and the deer numbers fell. Fawn survival rates tumbled because of some bad back to back fawning conditions in the spring. Wolves got hungry and hunted harder and longer for food. Ever seen a hungry dog hunt? Different animal than a fat well fed k9. Wolves are that X's 1k. Then the landscape got hungry and everything from beavers to hares was on the menu 24/7/365. Bear cubs were always on the menu, but way more bear hair in wolf scat. When food reserves plummeted, combined with bad winters and spring fawning seasons and everything already under stress from a lack of food or security, the dead zone happened. The length of time to recovery is not one of just time, the equation needs weather conditions and habitat to cooperate as well. Watching wolves in northern Minnesota and seeing the rise and fall of different packs, have always admired wolves and now more so deer that elude them. One of our worst couple year stretches with deer numbers we had one doe on trail cams that had a fawn. Every time she tripped the trail cam's trigger and got an image of her or her fawn, a wolf was in the area shortly there after. The day her fawn was born there was a wolf right behind them. How that doe kept that fawn alive till fall I will never know. For a calendar year only had her and her fawn on cameras, then got a single picture of one buck once. Season went to bucks only and we elected not to hunt up there. A few years later the wolves had eaten themselves out of house and home. Had a friend ask if he applied for Minnesota's first wolf season if he could hunt up there, said sure. It overlapped in our muzzleloader season. He drew a tag and we made plans to hunt the area. He was shocked at the ratio of deer tracks to wolf tracks. He had heard all the talk of low deer numbers in wolf country but thought it was more over reaction than fact. I think he averaged over the hunt coming to the nubmer of one deer track to every 10 set of wolf tracks. The dead end unmaintained dirt road on the north side of our property is a territory line between what we think at the time was almost a corner post for 3 separate packs. It was literally covered in wolf poop and pee for a mile and a half. That same year one of the closest neighbors 2 miles to the north trapped 2 wolves opening day off a ditch line off our property. The friend had 8 different wolves over the hunt in his crosshairs before he shot the last wolf of the season because the season ended because they met the quota. After watching wolves up there, not hunting them is not the answer like many non hunting groups think it is. Having seen the one pack we were familiar with and against my better judgment gave names to, starve to death and get whittled down to one skinny wolf starving to death, then nothing was oddly a little disturbed that they were allowed to some degree to eat themselves out of house and home. A starving wolf with no fear of humans is not a pretty picture. No hunting pressure lead to some very uncomfortable run in's with wolves that had zero fear of humans. Had talked to our local CO about it and he understood the situation and was sick of dealing with constant wolf complaints. If you can get the local LEO's perspective off the record, from the sheriff departments to the DNR, they waste a lot of time dealing with wolves. There was a county in NW MN where the sheriff and his department had some videos online about his thoughts on his department dealing with them. Local law enforcement agencies do not protect wolves as much as the non wolf hunting crowd would like and the trickle down effect of pulling hunting away from Minnesotan's has had a much worse affect on wolves than having a heavily controlled hunting season. Have talked to a lot of hunters and locals who have become lethal at taking matters into their own hands. The chance of them getting caught is basically zero with how they are going about things. Most are quiet about it and know fully well how to do things without getting caught or leaving much of a trace. At first I thought a lot of it was just bs and people talking. But after hearing some rumors about one area in particular, did a little investigating on my own. In our deer hunting area wolves are easy to monitor in the winter because of a vast network of bogs that were ditched in the 1930's and 40's. In the winter packs are easy to find and locate throughout all the ditch intersections and rivers. In the height of the wolf numbers and the low deer numbers, sure shooting saw deer almost right away and not a single wolf track in an area with a lot of rumors about things being controlled on a local level. I did come around a lot of coyote tracks, which is highly unusual in areas with good wolf numbers. In the region if there's wolves, the coyote numbers are near zero. Closer to our property had heard some rumors about similar behavior and the next winter not a single wolf on 13 trail cameras setup in high traffic wolf wintering areas. Deer numbers rebounded. Coyote numbers went off the charts. And in some odd way I missed the wolf. If the MN DNR and the state body of elected leaders would give people at least a feeling of a little control, in my opinion it would be far better for the wolf and deer populations in the long run. But that pulling of any say is a punch to the man berries for a lot of people. Am surprised Colorado hasn't reached out to Minnesota? Little doubt in my mind we'd give them as many as they wanted of our pre-pup population that is closer to 3,000 wolves than 2,000, and climbs to well into the 4,000's if not inching up to 5,000 on good years for pup production numbers. And the bulk of that population basically resides in a 1/3rd of the state. The stress wolves put on deer and moose is far greater than anyone thinks. Not anti-wolf and sure the heck am not pro wolf with no fettered control of them. But this has gotten to a level of pure ignorance. What dropping wolves into Colorado will do to the ungulate populations and ranchers the first decade if wolves are able to have pups and grow their numbers and packs will bring with it such a change for ranchers, hunters and how the game department manages things is beyond the scope of what they think it'll be. Colorado has a high population of animals and in the wintering areas that will cause a mass cluster of problems. The solutions being proposed are pie in the sky, and although the studies they are studying have a lot of merit, every state and situation will have a different set of variables or intangibles that can't be foreseen, as well as they are thinking or blindly hoping for. Wolves are far from dumb, incredibly at adapting and can work around just about everything man made to deter them. Other than lethal measures or live trapping them. And good luck with the cost of time and resources with that one. Combine all the factors with the human population and the constant recreational traffic in Colorado and it'll be far different than areas in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho and even Minnesota.

 

[HuntsKnez]

It looks like Idaho has joined Wyoming in denying to send wolves to Colorado.

Another Western state says it won’t send wolves to Colorado, citing “enormous price” of managing the species

Idaho will not provide wolves for Colorado’s reintroduction efforts, citing federal regulation and disagreements about how wolves should be managed.

www.denverpost.com

Good!!

 

[pwdrski]

They can have all the ones here in California. I've heard they're pretty liberal so they'll fit right in.

Send them the entire Lassen and Whaleback packs. You'd make a lot of NorCal ranchers happy, not to mention deer and elk hunters!!

 

[IdahoBeav]

Good news. I’m sure they will find some land sharks somewhere to get thou. The Governors husband really wants to see a wolf

I'd have thought he would be more happy with bears.