this will be unpopular i am sure

[robby denning]

hey Shrek- a pile of fires in central Idaho over the years but so far no elk explosion, just elk herds below objective. If you have a set of Idaho Big Game regs, see page 38. The units with all the wolves are pretty much all the ones struggling, even though there is some good habitat after all those fires.

 

[PA 5-0]

I recently watched a Nat Geo show about the proliferation of wolves in Yellowstone. I believe they stated the elk herd was down under 6000 head. Wording like " the elk herd was less than half it was 10yrs ago(high of 19,000)". Am I remembering that correctly???

I have read, and this show also noted, that wolves are one of the only species that kill for fun. Or "kill for sport" for the politically correct. I have read many many accounts of hunters watching the killing of big game by wolves, only to have the wolves run off and leave the animal. I fantasize about having one in my crosshairs in AK this Aug.

 

[JeremiahH]

Idahohunter
sorry your post shows I edited it- I didn't! I accidentally hit my mod button to edit instead of quote you.

Agreed on the Lolo zone. I killed my first archery elk there in '90 way before wolves and all the locals and F&G were saying then that it was in decline. The burns of the 1900's were all headed toward old growth even then. Predators are much more damaging when the habitat is out of whack.

I would never invite wolves to my hunting area. Don't hate 'em, but happy to hunt where they aren't.

No worries Robby,
I put the edit there to show I added that paragraph after my post.
And yes I am in agreement.
Moreover I love the fact we can hunt wolves now in Idaho. Just one more season to enjoy the outdoors when the legs are getting too much rest.

 

[mt100gr.]

Management is the key. If we have wolves they need to be managed...and we have plenty that are not getting managed early enough in the colonization process when they disperse to form new packs. We need to get away from touchy-feely "seasons" and quotas and treat them like vermin. (If we have to tolerate them at all) shoot on sight, any time, any place, year round. Trap if you like, etc. Without poisoning them out again, we'll never kill them all. Dogs are smart! They have a few bullets whiz by and good luck seeing them in the daylight again, let alone the same hunting season. The problem in MT was they waited 15 years to manage them. The fern-fondlers got a hold of it and tied it up with the ESA for too long. Now they are here for good.....at least they are cute, though....

 

[69ChrisCraft]

Do you guys really believe that your ODFW honestly believed there were no wolves the past few decades!?!? They knew damn well there was, they were watching out for YOUR best interest. Once it's officially acknowledged there's no going back. Once it's acknowledged there must be a management plan set in place which allows the voters to have their say. If you're a wildlife agency, or any agency for that matter the last thing you want is the uneducated public telling you how to do you job. They were hoping you'd SSS to save your hide and theirs. The ball has been dropped now.

I think it's a very selfish thing to hope for an eventual tag so you can hunt them.

 

[Rizzy]

It's getting better in some of those areas. This year there has been a trapping season opened up in some more zones and wolf season is open year round in some others. IMO, Idaho is doing a good job at staying on top of the wolf management, hopefully Oregon can follow in the footsteps.
The F&G's population data lags a little bit. I think we will see published improvement in the next few years. They have been doing some radio collar studies with Elk in the Sawtooth zone so this should lead to more accurate data.

The burn produces a ton of deadfall and blowdown giving the Elk an advantage.

With the canopy opened up it's also a lot easier to shoot a wolf, both for the helicopter and the hunter

Didn't much of central Idaho burn two years ago ? I'm wondering if the elk will explode or will the wolves just be able to find them easier and finish them off ?

 

[Beendare]

In 1995 the Lolo zone was already at half the 16000 from the 1980s count. That was before the reintroduction of wolves. I'm am by no means pro wolf but the hard winter kills, lack of foliage, etc, are getting blended and blamed on wolves. The data can always be manipulated and just because the Idaho fish and game have numbers doesn't mean they are always accurate either.
........ Too much money for personal agenda and when needed, disregard for scientific management, just my opinion, but as a neighbor I remain very concerned.

My point was tips has cherry picked data to suit his/her argument.....lets compare apples to apples and Lolo is a perfect example.

Correct that the 16,000 count in the 80's is the absolute pop high- and overpopulated due to some previous fires and habitat increases etc. The pop was in decline due to other predators- lions, bears and habitat leveling out- thats a given. I don't have the exact numbers in front of me but lets take your 1/2 number- call it 8,000.

Wouldn't you say going from 8,000 to 2,100 is a pretty big decline? If that was your homes value that dropped 75% would you be a little upset?

 

[tipsntails7]

I recently watched a Nat Geo show about the proliferation of wolves in Yellowstone. I believe they stated the elk herd was down under 6000 head. Wording like " the elk herd was less than half it was 10yrs ago(high of 19,000)". Am I remembering that correctly???

You are remembering that correctly. Although the Yellowstone herd is at 12000 ish now. What they don't tell you is that area was way above viable carrying capacity and that was the most elk ever recorded... Ever... in that area. You don't run projections and statistics off outlier numbers. The median head of elk for that area is around 14000. Are elk down. Yep a bit. But not nearly as drastic as some people will lead you to believe.

 

[idelkslayer]

Tips,
I had not heard that the yellowstone elk herd had grown again but if it has it is probably because the number of wolves is half of what it was 5 years ago. THat is the natural way of things, predators up, prey down and vis versa. As hunters we have enjoyed years of mostly stable or increasing populations because harvest was managed to prevent such crashes, however if left to themselves wolves and elk will go through dramatic population swings. Kills by predators are additive meaning that a wolf kill does not take away from mountain lion kills and come up even, it means that there will just be more prey animals killed until the prey numbers are low enough that the predaotrs die off.

The selway still has a lot of good habitat, enough to support more than double the current low number in the 2000 range. THe Lolo also has enough habitat to support more elk. It is true that both areas were already in decline prior to the introduction of wolves having suffered 2 really bad winters in the previous 4 years and then another bad one 2 years after introduction, the reason they haven't recovered is the wolves, and Moose are becoming rare. IDFG isn't even issuing a single tag for the selway this year, down from over a dozen in years past.

Idaho also was never void of wolves, they persisted in several areas and documented encounters have been recorded throughout the 60's, 70's and 80's before the introduction in the 90's. In fact two of the introduced wolves paired up and mated with wild wolves that already existed in the central Idaho. So despite the fact that wolves were alsways present they had little impact because they were mostly solitary or in pairs or small groups. The behavior changed when the new wolves were brought in coming from a behavior background of larger packs.

I too like that wolves are present, but if hunting is to persist then we have to have the ability to hunt and control wolf populations. The liberals and enviro wackos want forests where humans can only be observers and the only killing is by bears lions and wolves. Unfortunately, in your state, hunters do not have the numbers to combat the wolf humper mentality.

 

[JeremiahH]

My point was tips has cherry picked data to suit his/her argument.....lets compare apples to apples and Lolo is a perfect example.

Correct that the 16,000 count in the 80's is the absolute pop high- and overpopulated due to some previous fires and habitat increases etc. The pop was in decline due to other predators- lions, bears and habitat leveling out- thats a given. I don't have the exact numbers in front of me but lets take your 1/2 number- call it 8,000.

Wouldn't you say going from 8,000 to 2,100 is a pretty big decline? If that was your homes value that dropped 75% would you be a little upset?

Oh yes, I agree no doubt about the wolves further influence in that zone. I am simply stating they arr a negative influence on an already declining elk population. Given the significant trend, lets ask ourselves, what would the numbers in that zone show if no wolves ever showed up? Take the high from the 80's then the number in 1995 before wolves. Also take into consideration the winter of 96 before wolves were really putting a dent in. Extrapolate that decline out to now. Doesn't look so good, wolves or no wolves. However I understand, that not all years in that zone have been unfavorable and the variables show that because there are still approx 2000 elk there, so they say. There are just questions we can never know because wolves were introduced. But we can educate ourselves as best as possible, especially when it comes to the other side's argument. I don't agree that wolves are the main reason the numbers deteriorated. In contrast I do agree that they are the major factor keeping the numbers from recovering. Also check out the neonate calf elk mortality. Number one factor was black bears. Older calves number one factor was wolves.
Apologies to the OP for the tangent away from Oregon.

 

[tipsntails7]

My point was tips has cherry picked data to suit his/her argument.....lets compare apples to apples and Lolo is a perfect example.

Correct that the 16,000 count in the 80's is the absolute pop high- and overpopulated due to some previous fires and habitat increases etc. The pop was in decline due to other predators- lions, bears and habitat leveling out- thats a given. I don't have the exact numbers in front of me but lets take your 1/2 number- call it 8,000.

Wouldn't you say going from 8,000 to 2,100 is a pretty big decline? If that was your homes value that dropped 75% would you be a little upset?

Good call, because I figured sighting only two distinct units that were severly mismanaged by creating a population that was grossly unsastanable then plumitted due to combined factors but then blaming it solely on one piece of a very large puzzle was cherry picking....

 

[tipsntails7]

Oh yes, I agree no doubt about the wolves further influence in that zone. I am simply stating they arr a negative influence on an already declining elk population. Given the significant trend, lets ask ourselves, what would the numbers in that zone show if no wolves ever showed up? Take the high from the 80's then the number in 1995 before wolves. Also take into consideration the winter of 96 before wolves were really putting a dent in. Extrapolate that decline out to now. Doesn't look so good, wolves or no wolves. However I understand, that not all years in that zone have been unfavorable and the variables show that because there are still approx 2000 elk there, so they say. There are just questions we can never know because wolves were introduced. But we can educate ourselves as best as possible, especially when it comes to the other side's argument. I don't agree that wolves are the main reason the numbers deteriorated. In contrast I do agree that they are the major factor keeping the numbers from recovering. Also check out the neonate calf elk mortality. Number one factor was black bears. Older calves number one factor was wolves.
Apologies to the OP for the tangent away from Oregon.

No apologies necessary this is exactly what I wanted out of this thread. I agree with pretty much everything you have said.

 

[tipsntails7]

Yes and no for Florida but they definitely effected my elk hunting in Montana last year. After the first snow I found one set of elk tracks and two very little deer tracks and five sets of wolf tracks.
In Florida they are using one of the barrier islands to raise red wolves for transplant. There used to be a pretty good herd of sambar deer on the Island but the fawn survival has gone to chit since the wolves were put on the island and the herd is fading away.

Btw , I assume you are one of the folks who would spontaneously burst into flames if I was god for a day ?

hey shrek lets be honest will ourselves. what was more a factor? wolves? or correct me If I am wrong anywhere, it was the first time you have ever hunted the west, first time you had ever hunted elk, so knowing actual elk behavior was an issue, first time you had ever been to that area, so lack of scouting was a factor. you also were unprepared for the harshness of that land, so a hotel room was needed. but damn those wolves...

 

[shaun]

Doesn't Oregon already have a Cougar problem and a shit load of leaf licking tree huggers? Good Luck!

I think you are referring to California

 

[OR Archer]

I think you are referring to California

Nope that sums Oregon up pretty well too.

 

[Brock A]

I think you are referring to California

That whole west coast is just one big shit sandwich ;-)

 

[shaun]

Big Shit Sandwich for sure!

 

[hntnnut]

Here are the stats on the Yellowstone Elk herd
1995 winter count (same year as the wolf introduction) 16,791
2009 winter count was 6,070 (down about 70%)
2010 winter count was 4,635 (down another 24% fron 2009)
2013 winter count was 3,915 (down another 9% from 2010)

Richard

 

[hntnnut]

Oh and heres an interesting read

http://mtmultipleuse.org/endangered/wolfreport.htm

Richard

 

[stephen b]

Guaranteed this is not good for Oregon if you are a hunter.

Oregon is part of the left coast- it is not Idaho, Montana, nor Wyoming. It does not have the demographics or politics in those states. If people in Montana think their state has gone liberal ( and was talking to a hunter last year there that thought they had- and he thought the hunting had gone down hill)- well that is nothing compared to the politics in general, or the hunting situation in Oregon. We are one of the most liberal states ( in the big population areas that control all the votes and power) as just about any state in the US.

The ODFW has done a very poor job managing ungulate populations and their hands are tied on cats and bears. And you can bet before this dog situation even really takes off - the writing is on the wall. I can guarantee the dog is already being managed for the dogs benefit- not the hunter.

If I had not had my business here for 25 years, and we raised all our kids here; and still have 3/4 of them still here- and now a couple of grandkids, I would be gone. There are a few nice things about living here, but the hunting has gone to you know where, and the politics and economics of the state do not line up with my beliefs.

But I am stuck here, unless I want to divorce my wife and leave my adult children. But that is not going to happen- because even though I am not thrilled with the state, I am in love with them.