Wolf pack in CO

[Okhotnik]

Oregon Wolves haven't really acquired a taste for elk meat. What they have done as pointed out earlier is move some of the herds to the more open agriculture/timber land interface areas.

View attachment 145034





These are the Elk tag quotas for the above listed wolf units, 2009 and 2019 respectively.


catherine creek
2009, 549 LE with unlimited bow
2019, 975 LE with unlimited bow

chesnimnus
2009, 1138 LE
2019, 1957 LE

imnaha
2009, 468 LE with unlimited bow
2019, 776 LE with unlimited bow

minum
2009, 585 LE with unlimited bow
2019, 1246 LE with unlimited bow

mt emily
2009, 1800 LE
2019, 1876 LE

sled sp
2009, 1689 LE
2019, 1671 LE

snake rvr
2009, 631 LE with unlimited bow
2019, 890 LE with unlimited bow Bull

walla walla
2009, 723 LE
2019, 669 LE

wenaha
2009, 710 LE
2019, 872 LE

I hunt NE OR and I kn

I don't live in N Idaho and haven't hunted unit 10 since the early 80's so I have no idea what has happened there but I'm in NE OR every year either helping a hunter or hunting myself and wolves haven't eaten all the Elk, it just isn't true. The Elk have changed their patterns and hunters are slow to adapt. They don't see much for animals and now blame wolves.

ow many outfitters there.I saw a lot of elk and cows killed by wolves

Of course you have no wolves in the Bend area so all good in your Disneyland

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Let me make this clear. I know zero about landowner patterns in MT, ID, WY, OR, or much of the west. I do however know if they are like CO's once you come through Loveland Pass heading west on I-70, much of the open bottom land is private and, much of the mountains are public. I assume other states mimic that If that is the case, more tags allotted isn't a good example of their being more elk for the public land guy to kill. It's an example of their being less opportunity for the guy who uses public land to hunt elk..

If farmer Joe owns it, he is likely going to complain to the state wildlife agency that more elk need killed. And, when the biologist see's the "proof" of all the elk that farmer joe is dealing with, they raise quotas All the while, the newly displaced elk are not in greater numbers as touted. They are simply living in a new area in much greater numbers then the past, causing conflict with other highly influential entity's that any wildlife agency has to be accountable to.

I don't know this for a fact. And, as a guy with a pedigree in ecosystem management, I'm usually the first to say that hunters don't adjust well. That they assume things will always be the same in the areas they've hunted in the past. With zero knowledge of why animals' preference for habitat changes with environmental factors. However, it is beyond dumb for anyone to suggest that elk numbers are higher post reintroduction. Look at what they did to the herds of Yellowstone for proof of that reality.

Yes, the wolf will find a balance in any ecosystem. Yes, all prey and predator numbers fluctuate. Yes the wolf will decimate and explode in high numbers if they have unlimited access to prey. Yes their numbers will fall in that area once the prey animals are killed. Yes, that depredation is going to push the prey into new areas. Where the wolf will follow. BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. All this known and undisputed. But, the one thing I ask is why do we need them in any capacity besides what they can etch out on their own? Wolves are only here because men allow them to be. PERIOD.

I'm not advocating eradication. However, what I am saying is when did it become taboo for men to want the piece of the pie that we've carved out as top interest in the food chain. With zero apology for it? Why is it considered so wrong to say the wolf can live here but, he's going to live by my rules. All this natural mumbo jumbo crap from fellow hunters makes me want to puke. Because no one is so dumb to believe that hunting's interest has improved since the introduction.

 

[wapitibob]

Nothing wrong with that at all and anybody I know would prefer state management by the states game Dept. But, in an adult conversation, facts matter regardless of what side they favor. Saying elk hunting opportunity in OR has been diminished because of wolves is nothing but a guy talking out his ass. A calculator and 20 minutes shows opportunity has steadily increased in spite of wolves. That’s not advocating for wolves but again, facts matter.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Yes they do Bob. Buy, what one uses as facts might not be fact if unaccounted for variables aren’t considered, recognized, or looked over as not relevant.

Like I said before, I don’t know all the facts. Neither do you, BuzzH, or anyone else. All we know is what we know. And, sometimes that’s fact. And sometimes that’s just a version of reality.

 

[justin davis]

Let me make this clear. I know zero about landowner patterns in MT, ID, WY, OR, or much of the west. I do however know if they are like CO's once you come through Loveland Pass heading west on I-70, much of the open bottom land is private and, much of the mountains are public. I assume other states mimic that If that is the case, more tags allotted isn't a good example of their being more elk for the public land guy to kill. It's an example of their being less opportunity for the guy who uses public land to hunt elk..

If farmer Joe owns it, he is likely going to complain to the state wildlife agency that more elk need killed. And, when the biologist see's the "proof" of all the elk that farmer joe is dealing with, they raise quotas All the while, the newly displaced elk are not in greater numbers as touted. They are simply living in a new area in much greater numbers then the past, causing conflict with other highly influential entity's that any wildlife agency has to be accountable to.

I don't know this for a fact. And, as a guy with a pedigree in ecosystem management, I'm usually the first to say that hunters don't adjust well. That they assume things will always be the same in the areas they've hunted in the past. With zero knowledge of why animals' preference for habitat changes with environmental factors. However, it is beyond dumb for anyone to suggest that elk numbers are higher post reintroduction. Look at what they did to the herds of Yellowstone for proof of that reality.

Yes, the wolf will find a balance in any ecosystem. Yes, all prey and predator numbers fluctuate. Yes the wolf will decimate and explode in high numbers if they have unlimited access to prey. Yes their numbers will fall in that area once the prey animals are killed. Yes, that depredation is going to push the prey into new areas. Where the wolf will follow. BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. All this known and undisputed. But, the one thing I ask is why do we need them in any capacity besides what they can etch out on their own? Wolves are only here because men allow them to be. PERIOD.

I'm not advocating eradication. However, what I am saying is when did it become taboo for men to want the piece of the pie that we've carved out as top interest in the food chain. With zero apology for it? Why is it considered so wrong to say the wolf can live here but, he's going to live by my rules. All this natural mumbo jumbo crap from fellow hunters makes me want to puke. Because no one is so dumb to believe that hunting's interest has improved since the introduction.

Because at this point humans took over the
Top of the food chain. And the money that is brought in by human hunting goes towards conservation. The wolf’s are paying any money towards wildlife in the state or local
Businesses.

 

[slick]

Why have elk tags and opportunities have Benn greatly reduced in OR and WA ?

Why is deer harvest down in MI,MN and WI?

another uniformed uneducated pro wolf statement

Haven’t always lived in Oregon my friend.

You’re right, the Great Lake states have had a decline in deer harvest. They also have no hunting, nor state management of wolves. I’m not pro or anti wolf. Wolves are wolves. All elk I have killed, and upwards of 90% of elk my buddies have killed occur in wolf country. Besides a handful of bulls shot in the breaks/custer they have all been in western MT & WY and a handful in Idaho.

I’m not saying they don’t have an affect, they certainly do, but it’s not the end of the world or end of hunting. You can still go kill an elk with a little bit of work.

As far as western North America being the same as 500 years ago? You’re right, it’s not, but it’s constantly changing; 50, 500, 5000 it’s all different and 80-100years is nothing on a timeline stretching tens of thousands of years. I believe there are places wolves can exist and places they can’t.

Again, I don’t think we need to go moving anymore of them around. I also believe they would have naturally spread through MT and north ID as was documented prior to re-introduction to Yellowstone, so I would have been against that if I was in a position to be at that time. I was 4-5.

Also- if we spent less time typing and bitching about wolves and more time in the woods trying to hunt/trap them, we’d probably all be better off.

 

[slick]

Shame on me for getting suckered into one of these... again.

Carry on gentleman. Shoot straight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wapitibob]

Yes they do Bob. Buy, what one uses as facts might not be fact if unaccounted for variables aren’t considered, recognized, or looked over as not relevant.

Like I said before, I don’t know all the facts. Neither do you, BuzzH, or anyone else. All we know is what we know. And, sometimes that’s fact. And sometimes that’s just a version of reality.

To the point I referenced, OR tag quotas and Elk herd numbers are published and readily available to anyone who bothers to look. Allocated tag quotas can't be fudged; herd counts ehh... but, if they count the same way before and after wolves, the trend line will be accurate.
It doesn't do anybody any good to just throw s### against the wall hoping it'll stick.

 

[mtluckydan]

What the pro wolf experts on here fail to report are the large swaths of prime habitat that no longer have a viable number of whatever species...elk, whitetail, mule deer, bighorn to hunt or view or whatever your preference. They talk in their limited biased scope such as "well I'm working on filling my third tag" when in reality they fail to recognize the damage that's been done after decades of conservation, restoring game populations across the west. If in fact gray wolves were extinct, how could they be reintroduced? Oh...they're not gray wolves...the entire reintroduction process has been illegal & fraudulent given the funding source & fact that timber wolves aren't gray wolves. The number of tags available only reflects a process to harvest a given quota for a delineated area/zone. Maybe they have to issue more tags in an area because the majority of elk are on private land with no access & the fish & game issues more tags to try to compensate for reduced harvest because of access. When you're trying to argue a point that doesn't make sense I guess you're willing to say anything Buzzh. From what I've seen across large swaths of Montana I don't agree with anything you say & I don't think you're convincing many other people that spend time in the woods they cherish. The damage that's been done couldn't be replaced in my lifetime if all the wolves died today. My research shows you would have to kill 80% or more of the wolf population every year to recover big game herd numbers & we all know that's not going to happen. As I've stated in previous threads...I can't believe anyone who likes to hunt or just enjoys viewing game animals would support reintroduction of wolves.

Sent from my P00I using Tapatalk

 

[WV Mountaineer]

I understand. And agree 100% of the time. Just like I’m sure you will agree that the increase in tags available doesn’t automatically equate into a higher elk population. Maybe it did in Oregon for the reasons stated before. Maybe management goals were to increase harvest. Maybe the population isn’t increasing. Herd counts are a fickle beast. Etc....


Like I said before and, you seemed to have taken task with, it’s arrogant to assume or say wolves have increased elk nerds across the territory they now roam in the lower 48. And, I can’t fathom why Oregon would’ve any different regardless of allotted tags.

 

[wytx]

Not surprising to me. I saw a Gray Wolf about 70 miles from the CO state Line when hunting a drainage area in Unit 43 WY last year for Antelope. Came in to the shot when my wife missed a Lope. Blew my mind.

Predator zone, you should have shot it. They have been verified east of there, takes too.

 

[wapitibob]

I understand. And agree 100% of the time. Just like I’m sure you will agree that the increase in tags available doesn’t automatically equate into a higher elk population. Maybe it did in Oregon for the reasons stated before. Maybe management goals were to increase harvest. Maybe the population isn’t increasing. Herd counts are a fickle beast. Etc....


Like I said before and, you seemed to have taken task with, it’s arrogant to assume or say wolves have increased elk nerds across the territory they now roam in the lower 48. And, I can’t fathom why Oregon would’ve any different regardless of allotted tags.

I never said "wolves have increased elk herds", I said OR Elk herds have increased "in spite of wolves". The two are quite different.

 

[Tradguy]

Please inform us about your wolf experience in KS? lol

Right because no one on this website hunts out of state, has business holdings, land or family that lives in places with wolves . What I liked about Slicks post is animals are not inherently good or bad. When you anthropomorphize wolves or any predator as evil, you are stooping to the same low as the pro animal rights folks who think every animal is out of a Disney movie. I hope the best for Colorado as its a state I hunt in and work every year. As much as I would love to see wolves stay out of certain areas that's not going to happen. The state of Colorado is ran by the same crazy gender fluid purple haired folks that run Oregon. As nuts as they are, they are damn good at organizing and pushing legislation through regardless of more conservative voices in the state.

 

[Hunterman22]

Awesome pics

 

[BuzzH]

What the pro wolf experts on here fail to report are the large swaths of prime habitat that no longer have a viable number of whatever species...elk, whitetail, mule deer, bighorn to hunt or view or whatever your preference. They talk in their limited biased scope such as "well I'm working on filling my third tag" when in reality they fail to recognize the damage that's been done after decades of conservation, restoring game populations across the west. If in fact gray wolves were extinct, how could they be reintroduced? Oh...they're not gray wolves...the entire reintroduction process has been illegal & fraudulent given the funding source & fact that timber wolves aren't gray wolves. The number of tags available only reflects a process to harvest a given quota for a delineated area/zone. Maybe they have to issue more tags in an area because the majority of elk are on private land with no access & the fish & game issues more tags to try to compensate for reduced harvest because of access. When you're trying to argue a point that doesn't make sense I guess you're willing to say anything Buzzh. From what I've seen across large swaths of Montana I don't agree with anything you say & I don't think you're convincing many other people that spend time in the woods they cherish. The damage that's been done couldn't be replaced in my lifetime if all the wolves died today. My research shows you would have to kill 80% or more of the wolf population every year to recover big game herd numbers & we all know that's not going to happen. As I've stated in previous threads...I can't believe anyone who likes to hunt or just enjoys viewing game animals would support reintroduction of wolves.

Sent from my P00I using Tapatalk

I'll be glad to have a legitimate discussion about the woe's of big-game in NW Montana...but the fact is you wont have one.

Being obtuse to the reality of what's happened in the last 50-60 years in MT and what is still taking place there, while playing your best role of red riding hood...doesn't work and isn't reality.

Wolves are one piece of a complex problem, habitat, piss poor management, lions, bears, the elk management plan, and a litany of other things that have found NW Montana where we are currently.

Even if you wipe out every predator in the State, the EMP will not allow elk to recover, your republican dominated State legislature saw to that via Debby Barrett's legislation.

Lots of wolves in Montana...and they aren't all the furry ones you bitch about non-stop.

 

[BuzzH]

Predator zone, you should have shot it. They have been verified east of there, takes too.

If hunting an HMA, which is very likely in 43, would have been a violation.

 

[Ross]

Not sure where this is but when they come to your area it will change things for the worse...very surprising how many wolf lovers we have

 

[88man]

1.Demand for elk tags where there is access keeps increasing every year, Please some fool tell me how wolf reintroduction will increase hunter opportunity on public lands. How will that help current hunters get more youth into the sport? Who besides hunters supplies volunteer labor to help wildlife?
2. We used to hunt an area near cody for cow elk late season and there were hundreds of reduced price tags and thousands of elk. Now there are no tags and a few hundred elk.
3. The concept of reintroduction of wolves is just part of the big picture of the liberal utopia. That way they have an argument that hunting is not needed in game management.

 

[mtnbiker208]

How long have wolves been in Oregon. Not as long as north Idaho. I cat hunt all winter in elk winter grounds we have a very good idea what’s left around here. Moose hunts have been taken away in certain areas. Give it 10 years or more of wolves your option will change. We aren’t lazy hunters complaining about no elk they ain’t here. I killed 17 in a row with bow haven’t got one for three years now.

I live in north Idaho and have seen the moose decline. Question for you, have you changed hunting areas? I have seen, I have to change areas every 5-6 years and am always looking for the next spot.

 

[ewade07]

Wildlife is neither bad or good. Wolves aren’t inherently bad, and elk aren’t inherently good. I think all critters have a place to exist on the landscape, but if they are killing livestock they need to be shot.

I don’t hear anyone groaning about elk eating crop/livestock producers out of house and home during the winter. Usually it’s the opposite- “oh, more hunting opportunity that’s great!”

We can disagree until we’re blue in the face.

Wolves aren’t going anywhere, and elk herds are getting along just fine. There’s plenty of opportunity. Look up Idaho’s harvest stats the last 5 years- it’s above average with 20,000+ elk being killed annually since 2014.

I do agree that we don’t need to be moving wolves around anymore, based on their natural expansion.

People forget that wildlife populations fluctuate. They drop and they rebound. It can’t always be what it was the best year you “had” it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Finally some logic!