EKM

In answer to your question:
I would guess the Bears Ears Herd covers GMUs: 2, 3, 301, 4, 5, 214 and perhaps some others.
Most of the leftover tags on public land disappeared pretty quick after August 7th. I was counting on a third issue based upon the "underestimation" of a game population that should warrant a change in management actions given the apparent mistake.
================================================== =

I was hard after getting the inside track on that third tag, so after bouncing around the CDOW from phone number to phone number, I ended up talking to the game biologistinvolved in the statistical survey to determine the game population and inquired about their plans to "manage" the "oversized" herd. His upshot wasNO increase in tags. "The number of elk on the ground is the number of elk on the ground." They instituted a new statistical system and came up with the higher numbers but the number of elk is really the same (however many it is that there really are).

Now isn't that handy? "I'm a Ph. D. and/or I'm a biologist and I can make the numbers do whatever I want." Big populations? I can do that. Small populations? I can do that too!
================================================== =

Switching subjects, I asked him point blank.... "So what would happen to these elk if we "dropped" a Yellowstone type wolf population into the Bears Ears herd. He laughed and said, well our calf survival would drop from around 50 calves per 100 cows down to 20 or maybe even as low as 15per 100 cows, so populations would decrease. You would also see a re-distribution of elk out of places you always see them into places you never see them as the elk try to"thin themselves" to avoid contact with the wolf packs.

Boy don't that sound like an improvement! Who was the brain trust that reintroduced these suckers out of Canada in the first place?The old rancher up in Hinton, Alberta must still be just busting a gut. IMHO, theGreatest Generationhad the right idea and had the whole place cleaned up for us, and all we had to do was take care of it.

I was surprised bythis fellow'sstraight forwardopenness, both on the statistics discussion andthe Yellowstone wolf scenario, but at the same time amazed by his notable lack of concern for our elk populations....

Let's see, take a breeding population of elkand reduce their replacement rate by 2/3 (50 down to 15).... average life span of say 8-10 years.... any rancher or someone with a lick of sense can tell you thatwill equate toa severely reduced population in a fairly short period of time, and a severely reduced need for hunters.... hellooooo

IMHO, the result of the wolf plague is bad news for anyonewho likes to hunt including all the out-of-staters that use Colorado as a "safety valve" because they can always just "go to Colorado and buy an Over The Counter bull tag on the spot".... that don't happen without an strong abundance of elk; try getting that same tag in a state with a dinky elk population.

It is amazing how some of the wolf folks that can put a real good spin onthe wolf thing--- kinda like listening to Bill Clinton talk. I didn't like Clinton, but when talking he sure could make you feel good as long as you didn't think about it too much or ask too many questions. Just don't get down to the fundamentals of what is going to happen next. IMO, same way with the wolf folks.... a very romantic idea with a sucky end result.

One upside is thatit sure does get the biologists/game management folks set up with allsorts of grant money to studywolves and to managewolves thus keeping those wildlife professionals gainfully employed to create evenmore authoratative Ph D. papers showing that the whole thing is okay "just trust us" --- you know, the ones with the "highly reliable statistical proof" that they hold out as the professional "staff of life" and equateas being "proof-of-truth" on one hand and then turn around and admit, eh it don't rrrealllly matter, "there are however many there are." [Trust me.]