this will be unpopular i am sure

[Rizzy]

Yeah, the Boise area is right on the edge, basically the Rocky mtns to the north and the Owyhees to the south. There is an open Wolf season in there too, but nothing has been harvested. I ran trap lines in the Owyhees in the winter of 2011 and 2012, never saw any sign of Wolf in the areas I was in. The lions where there though

Riz, do you live near the Owyhees? I really enjoy that area. Have made a fishing trip to the Owyhee every year for the last 5 years. Always have a great time.

 

[Clarktar]

Dang. That would be fun. I have a brother in law that lives in Boise. We visit him once or twice a year. We should try to meet up when I am in that area again. I would enjoy checking out that seekoutside BCS sometime.

 

[cuerro viejo]

the Yellowstone herd is hunted, just not in the park. there is only one herd that remains in the park year round and it numbers less then 200 and is located in the southern part of the park.

Ok, lets put it this way.. if you could hunt the park. Hunting would have a greater and more significant impact on numbers. Your talking about historic migrations that are season and weather dependant. You still can't use yellowstone park as source for research for population and predation research becuase it doesn't factor in hunting. You think about what impact bowhunting would have on the park numbers if we where allowed to hunt it on top of predation.

Tag numbers aren't increasing around the park like they should be if there wasn't such a heavy predator presecence.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Tips, your original attitude is just fine IMO. Wolves are now in your state, accept it and adapt your hunting technique. You will continue to be successful this way. The guys that have not been able to adapt their hunting tactics in Wolf country will struggle to be successful.

IT IS NOT THE STRONGEST OF THE SPECIES WHO SURVIVE, NOT THE MOST INTELLIGENT, BUT THOSE WHO ARE THE MOST ADAPTIVE TO CHANGE.
-CHARLES DARWIN

When we start looking at wildlife management as our own individual success issue, then we miss the big picture. The more prevalent and higher opportunity we have the more hunters we will retain. We need higher hunter numbers now more than ever.

I live in a state that I will probably never have to worry about the wolf issue do to historically aggressive land owner rights, and a exteremly high private land ratio, but I'm not going to be selfish and not care about about my other hunters in other states overall all hunting opportunity

 

[tipsntails7]

When we start looking at wildlife management as our own individual success issue, then we miss the big picture. The more prevalent and higher opportunity we have the more hunters we will retain. We need higher hunter numbers now more than ever.

I live in a state that I will probably never have to worry about the wolf issue do to historically aggressive land owner rights, and a exteremly high private land ratio, but I'm not going to be selfish and not care about about my other hunters in other states overall all hunting opportunity

Wildlife managment is not meant to solely maximize hunter opportunity and success rate. It is to maximize health of that particular animal. More animals don't always mean healthier.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Wildlife managment is not meant to solely maximize hunter opportunity and success rate. It is to maximize health of that particular animal. More animals don't always mean healthier.

I've been managing herds for 15plus years, ive got mountains of data ranging from browse usage, rain fall, fawn recruitment, predation numbers, densities to the section, homerange usuage, harvest data, sex ratios, etc. I'm not promoting a theory, I'm explaining true reality. You're missing what I'm saying. Wildlife health is soley dependent on one thing and that's carrying capacity. You manage cc by herd numbers. You manage herd numbers by tags. When you have heavy predation, you're estimating losses/mortality on a much more broad scale, thus hunting has to be limited or you can quickly hender/drop numbers.

Wolves/high predation numbers are why Minn has had such historically low moose calf recruitment to a point their may never recover.

Estimates for Minn show wolves take 20, 000- 40, 000 deer a year. Thats a pretty signicant number, especailly when you factor in the area they occupy and not just the whole state.


You are simply agruing that consumption interest of people should be balanced with the needs of predators..and that's fine as I said before, but you can not justify it by saying that their is simply no change in hunter opportunity and that its better for herd health, because it is not. Its only better for herd health if you balance it by taking humans harvest out or reducing it.

 

[Rizzy]

Wolves have raised the bar, to be successful hunters have to follow suite. Moral or not, our individual success is what funds wildlife management. Elk hunting got hard in Idaho, hunter numbers went down, revenue was lost. Whats left of our game herds have evolved and permanently adapted to wolf predation. It's a slightly different animal now and a little more difficult to hunt. Personally I choose to take responsibility for my success rather than blame wolves and F@G management. I feel lucky to be able to do that as not all hunters are physically able. One of the big management challenges is how to provide opportunity for those that can't hunt like a wolf. This will be me some day

When we start looking at wildlife management as our own individual success issue, then we miss the big picture. The more prevalent and higher opportunity we have the more hunters we will retain. We need higher hunter numbers now more than ever.

I live in a state that I will probably never have to worry about the wolf issue do to historically aggressive land owner rights, and a exteremly high private land ratio, but I'm not going to be selfish and not care about about my other hunters in other states overall all hunting opportunity

 

[cuerro viejo]

Wolves have raised the bar, to be successful hunters have to follow suite. Moral or not, our individual success is what funds wildlife management. Elk hunting got hard in Idaho, hunter numbers went down, revenue was lost. Whats left of our game herds have evolved and permanently adapted to wolf predation. It's a slightly different animal now and a little more difficult to hunt. Personally I choose to take responsibility for my success rather than blame wolves and F@G management. I feel lucky to be able to do that as not all hunters are physically able. One of the big management challenges is how to provide opportunity for those that can't hunt like a wolf. This will be me some day

I get what you're saying, and we aren't headed back to the pre-wolf introduction anytime soon. My point was no way around it. .higher predator numbers mean less game for humans. We can justify their existance anyway we want but they have to be managed or we loose MORE opportunity/resources for ourselves.

 

[Rizzy]

I agree wolves have taken a big market share, that's for sure.

 

[Beendare]

Now we are getting somewhere...

This is gonna be the last post I make on this thread because the last 3 plus pages have been the exact same thing and its just not constructive for the site or anyone on it. if you think wolves are the only problem and killing all of them will immediately make elk rain from the sky. you are wrong. they are just a piece in a very large puzzle. wolves are great at not allowing elk to recover, that is the real problem. there are always exceptions to the rules and Yellowstone and LoLo are prime examples. wolves are not going away. and yelling to kill them all is going to do nothing but draw attention from liberal, and animal activists. If they get their way and we are not able to control wolf populations properly then we are all in a world of trouble.

I would agree.

We as hunters are seriously outnumbered by the vocal animal rights folks- and its a shame. I don't know the stats in Oregon but in Ca; 37,000,000 pop, sold 247,000 hunting licenses last year. Its no wonder they vote out bear seasons and mtn lion hunting. Oregon is 3,900,000 population vs ???? hunting lic sold- with most of the population in 2 key areas.

 

[ftballman125]

I see it this way:

1) I like wolves and don't mind having them factored into management decisions as long as that includes wolf management (trapping/hunting) to keep the wolf population moderately low.

2) However, I fear that wolf management will be very politically difficult, and that sufficient trapping and hunting of wolves to allow for a relatively low wolf population will be hindered by those that seek to disallow wolf hunting (especially in states like Oregon and California).

3) If, as I think likely, wolves are not allowed to be hunted in those states and the wolf population is thus able to reach its carrying capacity, it will be inevitably competing directly with human hunting pressure, making the number of big-game tags offered necessarily drop.

4) When the tags drop, it becomes more difficult and more expensive to be a hunter. This drives fewer people to continue or to start hunting. This further lowers the voting hunter population.

5) When hunters become a small enough voting population in states like California and Oregon, at some point in the future big game hunting may be regulated into non-existence, either openly (no hunting allowed) or practically (the number of tags diminishes towards zero because of the predation of cougars/wolves). This all assumes a relatively constant level of non-predation related pressure, which any good conservation scientist will tell you ignores the added pressures presented by a changing climate in the west.

So, while I like wolves, and would really like to see them as part of the ecosystem in the west, I'm quite skeptical that the political situation will allow for both wolves and humans hunting big game in liberal states in the coming decades. It's quite a pickle.

 

[fulldraw1972]

Here is a fun fact for everyone. Wolves were on the endangered species list when they were introduced to Yellowstone. At that time there were plenty of wolves in Mn that no one really talked about. But it gets better. At that time there were ruffly 50,000 wolves in Canada and 6,000 wolves in Alaska. Now there are what 5,000 wolves in the lower 48 and there taking them off the endangered species list? Less then 10% of north american wolves live in the lower 48. They were never endangered they were protected so we lose our hunting.

We need hunter recruitment. But hey let's give up some deer, elk and moose to wolves so the bunny huggers that live in a city are happy. While we make areas very over crowded to hunt.

Sure Rizzy we can learn to hunt along side wolves. But give it time and you will have plenty of company on the same ridge your hunting as well.

There will never be good wolf management in the lower 48 because its constantly under attack. There is a very high chance Mn will lose its wolf season and they have more wolves then the rest of the western states combined. They have no moose season as well.

We are a anti hunter president away from being screwed. Face it people.

The anti hunters and US fish and game are taking a little every chance they can. No polar bear hunting, no elephant hunting, rhinos are on the fringe lions are on the fringe. Wolves are there tool to lose our hunting in the 48.

 

[tipsntails7]

I would agree.

We as hunters are seriously outnumbered by the vocal animal rights folks- and its a shame. I don't know the stats in Oregon but in Ca; 37,000,000 pop, sold 247,000 hunting licenses last year. Its no wonder they vote out bear seasons and mtn lion hunting. Oregon is 3,900,000 population vs ???? hunting lic sold- with most of the population in 2 key areas.

Been I see California being in real trouble in the next 3-5 years. the mountain lions are absolutely out of control. this year alone I saw more then I have in my entire life combined. I saw 3 at the same time and a timberlands manager showed me one with 5 in the same picture. I also believe bears will grow to overwhelming numbers. the bear take is already way down and their numbers will continue to grow rapidly.

 

[stephen b]

Like many states in the west- in Oregon any current active hunter that has been at it for at least 20 years will tell you that the good 'ol days for hunting have long since passed. And there are a multitude of reasons for that. And right near the top here is the predator issue that has exploded since 1994, when the voters took management of cougars and bears away from wildlife ( not that they do a good job with most of there decisions) and voted out bear bait hunting and hunting cougars or bears with dogs. And that voter initiative was put on the ballot specifically from the anti hunting groups.

And since then our legislature and governors ( liberally bent majority by and large) have not changed the situation and won't.

So now we have wolves..... So how do you think that is going to go?

Are they going to be managed? Yes they will be- just like the cougars and bears are- for the strict benefit of the predators and NOT for the benefit of the hunters.

And they wonder why their budget is going the wrong way and the overall #'s of hunters are dropping, even while the state population grows. So now they have announced that they want to raise our tag and license fees even more for us in the minority that want to continue to play the game.

So as you can imagine, most all hunters in the state did not get a bunch of warm fuzzies when the linked article that the OP posted in the first post of this thread, was splashed across the headlines in the papers of our state. Because while wolves have already been a bit of a problem ( for ranchers and hunters ) in the NE part of the state; now this article showed that wolves are for sure in the western part of the state. And that did cause warm fuzzies for the liberal, tree hugging, "fern fondling", ex 60's hippies that reside in the west side of the state- where the vote counts and sways the state. They are thrilled and will remain to be that way.

In Eugene a couple months ago a mother cougar and at least 2 cubs raided a land owners goat and chicken coop and killed a number of them- right in town, right by a major popular park. And when they ( ODFW) euthanized the mother and one of the cubs, people went ape sh!t. The letters to the editor in the Eugene liberal rag were beyond belief. A lot of these people just do not think it is a bad thing that a cougar comes into someone's pen and takes their livestock. They berated the fella for not practicing proper "animal husbandry " by not having his stock locked in tight enough for the night. Even though they were penned in. The letters were unreal- most said the cougars were just doing " what they are naturally trained to do". Yeah- their natural prey is in fences in people's back yards. Could it be because the deer population is so depleted? No, that can't possibly be it.

So that is a small bit of the nut jobs that we deal with. I think a lot of these people think it would be just great if we could take a bunch of 'shrooms, smoke some weed and have a big bonfire; sit around it with our arms around a cougar, lamb and a wolf and all sing Kumbaya.

 

[Mike7]

Just one more. I wonder if you could afford my simple mind one more answer. Hypothetically, let's say you have 5 elk and a wolf eats one are there

A- more elk than before
B- less elk than before
C- wouldn't have this super hard math equation if there wasn't a wolf there
D- do you like or hate kuiu


I sure hope you can answer this for me. I'm just a anti wolf guy so you know, we're lot real book learned and stuff

I nearly died laughing when I read this. Classic littlebuf.

I don't have a master's in Wildlife Biology, but am aware of some of the "theories"(not facts) mentioned above from my lowly B.S. in Biology and also worked for the Biology Dept for the Forest Service in NE Oregon when moose were just really getting established in the Eagle Cap, single wolves had been sited coming across to the Halfway/Imnaha area, and just before the first breeding wolves came across Hell's Canyon from Idaho supposedly. We were doing 25-100 mile round trip snowmobile rides as part of predator surveys and primarily to establish that there were no wolverines that needed to be managed for...whatever that meant, because most all logging was already coming to an end and no new roads were being built. At that time, everything was hush, hush with respect to the wolves, and they were considered to be a really cool thing without any potential downside in the Forest Service and Fish & Wildlife Community it seemed to me.

I have no problem with wolves, except they are an amazing killing machine, and from what I've seen, there can only be a limited number if you want to have a stable huntable popullation of big game that will generate enough hunter interest to pay for game management and keep hunting alive as we know it now. I don't know how you accomplish a limited number of wolves in places like the N. Idaho jungles regardless of the politics of it all, but an August to March open season is a good start I think. Every time I hear someone say, why can't we just leave it all natural without any logging or wolf management, then it makes me wonder why we can't just destroy all of their suburban houses and freeways that cover the valleys/winter ranges/travel corridors, and why we can't just stop all fire suppression, whether people live there or not.

P.S. There have always been a lot of lions in California. I saw several (not tracks but the actual cats) in N. CA in the early 90's in just 3 mos of working there during the summer. I wonder what "additive" effect/pressure it may have when wolves are there and start confiscating a lion's kill within a day of them being successful?

 

[Beendare]

Oregon stats

Personally, I like to look beyond the hype and look at actual stats.
Oregon stats here (31 pages its long!)
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/agency/commission/minutes/06/mar/c_2_sales%20trends.pdf

I'm convinced, this wolf reintro is GENIUS if you are an animal rights person- it has severely limited the sport hunting in those areas...and the big deal is folks get discouraged...and then it spirals down even further due to less hunters/licenses sold. The F&G depts haven't figured it out yet- REINTRODUCING WOLVES IS THE DEATH OF THEIR DEPARTMENTS

Oregon stats- from above link
1980 population 2,640,000 resident hunt licenses sold 393,000 about 15% of the pop buys a license

2004 Pop 3,600,000 resident lic sold 261,000 about 7% of pop buys a license

What do you think will happen when the avg guy goes hunting and doesn't see or hear an elk for 5 days? they quit as the stats show.....

Hunting lic sales is down in many areas, but if you study the numbers in all of the areas where they reintro wolves, there is a trend that hunters are giving up hunting. I don't think its a stretch to say that low success rates are the driving factor in this...and wolves contribute to low success rates.

Genius plan- to kill hunting...the reinro of wolves- Especially in strong hunting states- they go after the casual hunters first- not the die hards. We are all die hard guys here....but we need the casual hunters...and even a part of the general public to respect what we do to keep hunting alive. Its going to be hard for some of you in hunting states to see this trend- thinking it will never happen here...sorry, it already is, and you just don't realize it- wolves and other predator protections are replacing hunters.



...


...

 

[AZ Vince]

Personally, I like to look beyond the hype and look at actual stats.
Oregon stats here (31 pages its long!)
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/agency/commission/minutes/06/mar/c_2_sales%20trends.pdf

I'm convinced, this wolf reintro is GENIUS if you are an animal rights person- it has severely limited the sport hunting in those areas...and the big deal is folks get discouraged...and then it spirals down even further due to less hunters/licenses sold. The F&G depts haven't figured it out yet- REINTRODUCING WOLVES IS THE DEATH OF THEIR DEPARTMENTS

Oregon stats- from above link
1980 population 2,640,000 resident hunt licenses sold 393,000 about 15% of the pop buys a license

2004 Pop 3,600,000 resident lic sold 261,000 about 7% of pop buys a license

What do you think will happen when the avg guy goes hunting and doesn't see or hear an elk for 5 days? they quit as the stats show.....

Hunting lic sales is down in many areas, but if you study the numbers in all of the areas where they reintro wolves, there is a trend that hunters are giving up hunting. I don't think its a stretch to say that low success rates are the driving factor in this...and wolves contribute to low success rates.

Genius plan- to kill hunting...the reinro of wolves- Especially in strong hunting states- they go after the casual hunters first- not the die hards. We are all die hard guys here....but we need the casual hunters...and even a part of the general public to respect what we do to keep hunting alive. Its going to be hard for some of you in hunting states to see this trend- thinking it will never happen here...sorry, it already is, and you just don't realize it- wolves and other predator protections are replacing hunters.



...


...

Best post award of there should be such a thing.
And folks wonder why I hate wolves?

 

[shamlin88]

I have read this entire thread and it has been amusing and educational. I tend to listen to and respect the information coming from the few guys that live in Alaska and Canada that have commented on it. It is pretty obvious, they live, hunt, and compete with the wolf year in and out. Everyone else that comments is utilizing pure speculation driven from TV, News, and maybe minor dealings with the wolf. The bottom line is, and I quote, " If you don't have them, you don't want them!" Especially from the poster in Canada where the laws are extremely liberal allowing practically year around hunting; the wolf is still a problem. Do we as Americans think that we are so arrogant that we will not have similar problems with the wolf when they are introduced in a natural habitat that is 1/10th the size of Canada's? Between our political climate, tree huggers, and lack of State control, this will quickly become a problem just like the coyotes are today. The big difference is the wolf is twice the size of a yote and tons more effective at killing due to their pack mentality. I find it humorous that the arrogance of some that support the re-introduction of the wolf and do not think they will have a negative impact on deer/elk herds goes on so blasé. I tend to listen to the "experts" that live to our immediate North..........."you don't want them"!!!

 

[AZ Vince]

I have read this entire thread and it has been amusing and educational. I tend to listen to and respect the information coming from the few guys that live in Alaska and Canada that have commented on it. It is pretty obvious, they live, hunt, and compete with the wolf year in and out. Everyone else that comments is utilizing pure speculation driven from TV, News, and maybe minor dealings with the wolf. The bottom line is, and I quote, " If you don't have them, you don't want them!" Especially from the poster in Canada where the laws are extremely liberal allowing practically year around hunting; the wolf is still a problem. Do we as Americans think that we are so arrogant that we will not have similar problems with the wolf when they are introduced in a natural habitat that is 1/10th the size of Canada's? Between our political climate, tree huggers, and lack of State control, this will quickly become a problem just like the coyotes are today. The big difference is the wolf is twice the size of a yote and tons more effective at killing due to their pack mentality. I find it humorous that the arrogance of some that support the re-introduction of the wolf and do not think they will have a negative impact on deer/elk herds goes on so blasé. I tend to listen to the "experts" that live to our immediate North..........."you don't want them"!!!

Great post!

 

[JFKinYK]

Wildlife health is soley dependent on one thing and that's carrying capacity. You manage cc by herd numbers. You manage herd numbers by tags.

Its only better for herd health if you balance it by taking humans harvest out or reducing it.

Pretty narrow minded. 9 pages of comments and not one person suggesting the solution of increasing the carrying capacity of the area for the herd. Ya know, like don't bulldoze, pave and turn all your wilderness into strip malls, parking lots and Wal-Marts?

You can't support more predators of any kind, because there ain't any wilderness left. Work on the root cause of the problem. Everyone here is fired up about the symptoms.