Wolf news
11-04-2005, 04:15 PM
#51
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,572
RE: Wolf news
ORIGINAL: Dirt2
You relate the old timer's story from the dark ages of the '20s and '30s. It's true that we nearly lost our wildlife at that time, hence my use of the term 'dark ages'. To attribute that situation to wolves is just wildly off base. Weren't there wolves in 1850? In 1880? Seems like we had some game running around then, didn't we? Places like PA, in fact the whole eastern half of the US,nearly ran out of whitetails in that same time frame (1920s), and they hadn't had wolves or cougars for many decades.
The real lesson from those old stories is that people are really handy at finding scapegoats for their problems that don't involve looking in the mirror. The Missoula newspaper just printed an article about hunting in the 1890s. You could shoot 8 deer, 8 bighorns, 8 mountain goats, and 3 elk in a season in Montana. The season ran from roughlyAugust through January. Do you think that maybe such liberal bag "limits" for human predators might be connected in some way to the lack of game in the 1920s?
Why didn't the Indians worry about wolves in the really old times? If you take a look at it, the Indians were killing as high a percentage of the game populations in those days as we do. Yet they never sweated bears and cougars and wolves, oh my. Note that they did, however, manage the habitat, burning off rangeland regularly to replenish the forage.
That, in my view, is more evidence for my personal view, that we overrate the effect of predators and underrate the effect of habitat.
I too, support having wolves managed by the states. "Managed" being a euphemism for issuing wolf tags.
You relate the old timer's story from the dark ages of the '20s and '30s. It's true that we nearly lost our wildlife at that time, hence my use of the term 'dark ages'. To attribute that situation to wolves is just wildly off base. Weren't there wolves in 1850? In 1880? Seems like we had some game running around then, didn't we? Places like PA, in fact the whole eastern half of the US,nearly ran out of whitetails in that same time frame (1920s), and they hadn't had wolves or cougars for many decades.
The real lesson from those old stories is that people are really handy at finding scapegoats for their problems that don't involve looking in the mirror. The Missoula newspaper just printed an article about hunting in the 1890s. You could shoot 8 deer, 8 bighorns, 8 mountain goats, and 3 elk in a season in Montana. The season ran from roughlyAugust through January. Do you think that maybe such liberal bag "limits" for human predators might be connected in some way to the lack of game in the 1920s?
Why didn't the Indians worry about wolves in the really old times? If you take a look at it, the Indians were killing as high a percentage of the game populations in those days as we do. Yet they never sweated bears and cougars and wolves, oh my. Note that they did, however, manage the habitat, burning off rangeland regularly to replenish the forage.
That, in my view, is more evidence for my personal view, that we overrate the effect of predators and underrate the effect of habitat.
I too, support having wolves managed by the states. "Managed" being a euphemism for issuing wolf tags.
11-04-2005, 04:19 PM
#52
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,572
RE: Wolf news
ORIGINAL: trouthunter
I didn't attribute the situation to wolves. I stated that Elk were shipped in by rail. Most of the wolves and Griz (predators) had been killed off by ranchers (humans) by then, leavingno major predator threat other than the solitary cougar and black bear for these elk. The big thing to mention is that at this time game management was in place, and these new elk herds were then managed (tags). When the herd grew, and graze land and farm lands were threatened by the elk, depredation tags were in place to "thin" them outeven more.
Way back before the "dark ages" as you put it, there was no game management. We all know the effects us humans have had globally on game animals taken with no control. It was thru game conservationalists like Theodore Roosevelt and others that started the wheel for the game management we see today.
My big beef is where was this management plan when they introduced the wolves?? The biggest mistake made was letting it go to the federal government to decide. It should have went to the state level to begin with. It's been over 10 years now, and still in the hands of the Feds, with the possibility of "oh, you can manage your wolves when all 3 states come up with an "approved" plan, and then we'll let ya have them". So, us Idahoans get to sit here on our hands and wait for our neighbors to figure out the plan of attack, all the while the wolf population escalates out of control. Hmmm...good plan!
[/align]
ORIGINAL: Dirt2
You relate the old timer's story from the dark ages of the '20s and '30s. It's true that we nearly lost our wildlife at that time, hence my use of the term 'dark ages'. To attribute that situation to wolves is just wildly off base.
You relate the old timer's story from the dark ages of the '20s and '30s. It's true that we nearly lost our wildlife at that time, hence my use of the term 'dark ages'. To attribute that situation to wolves is just wildly off base.
I didn't attribute the situation to wolves. I stated that Elk were shipped in by rail. Most of the wolves and Griz (predators) had been killed off by ranchers (humans) by then, leavingno major predator threat other than the solitary cougar and black bear for these elk. The big thing to mention is that at this time game management was in place, and these new elk herds were then managed (tags). When the herd grew, and graze land and farm lands were threatened by the elk, depredation tags were in place to "thin" them outeven more.
Way back before the "dark ages" as you put it, there was no game management. We all know the effects us humans have had globally on game animals taken with no control. It was thru game conservationalists like Theodore Roosevelt and others that started the wheel for the game management we see today.
My big beef is where was this management plan when they introduced the wolves?? The biggest mistake made was letting it go to the federal government to decide. It should have went to the state level to begin with. It's been over 10 years now, and still in the hands of the Feds, with the possibility of "oh, you can manage your wolves when all 3 states come up with an "approved" plan, and then we'll let ya have them". So, us Idahoans get to sit here on our hands and wait for our neighbors to figure out the plan of attack, all the while the wolf population escalates out of control. Hmmm...good plan!
[/align]
Actually, Aldo Leopold is considered the father of modern wildlife management. Liberal bag limits, habitat loss and just general Manifest Destiny wastefulness spurred the wildlife management movement.
11-04-2005, 08:26 PM
#54
Fork Horn
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Hells Canyon
Posts: 130
RE: Wolf news
Do the people of Northern Idaho realize that we did not have deer and elk here before culling the predators? The Native Americans of our area lived on fish and migrated to hunt elk and buffalo that anyone who has done a little homework knows were plains animals. Guess why Lewis and Clark ate their horses when they traveled through the Lochsaw region. Wasn't because they were tripping over elk! Who was there before them that shot out all the game? So people overhunted them back then...hell, nobody was here but predators! I say the changes we have made that allowed and brought the deer and elk to our area are good and the wolf thing is a bad idea. Please do some homework and don't call our settlers stupid or ignorant for telling us how it really was.
Dirt and Brutalattack, you do a good job of stirring the pot....seems that is what you are trying to do.
Dirt and Brutalattack, you do a good job of stirring the pot....seems that is what you are trying to do.
11-04-2005, 11:54 PM
#55
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,572
RE: Wolf news
ORIGINAL: racowboy
Do the people of Northern Idaho realize that we did not have deer and elk here before culling the predators? The Native Americans of our area lived on fish and migrated to hunt elk and buffalo that anyone who has done a little homework knows were plains animals. Guess why Lewis and Clark ate their horses when they traveled through the Lochsaw region. Wasn't because they were tripping over elk! Who was there before them that shot out all the game? So people overhunted them back then...hell, nobody was here but predators! I say the changes we have made that allowed and brought the deer and elk to our area are good and the wolf thing is a bad idea. Please do some homework and don't call our settlers stupid or ignorant for telling us how it really was.
Dirt and Brutalattack, you do a good job of stirring the pot....seems that is what you are trying to do.
Do the people of Northern Idaho realize that we did not have deer and elk here before culling the predators? The Native Americans of our area lived on fish and migrated to hunt elk and buffalo that anyone who has done a little homework knows were plains animals. Guess why Lewis and Clark ate their horses when they traveled through the Lochsaw region. Wasn't because they were tripping over elk! Who was there before them that shot out all the game? So people overhunted them back then...hell, nobody was here but predators! I say the changes we have made that allowed and brought the deer and elk to our area are good and the wolf thing is a bad idea. Please do some homework and don't call our settlers stupid or ignorant for telling us how it really was.
Dirt and Brutalattack, you do a good job of stirring the pot....seems that is what you are trying to do.
Yeah great point there...
"Wilderness areas" have never had highgamedensitiesby virtue of the fact that most of the high quality forage doens't occur at altitude. So it is quite possible and probably likely that in Lewis and Clarks limited travels through the most rugged parts of the continental divide, they didn't exactly go through prime elk country at the time. Most game was likely concentrated on the grassland areas where food was more abundant and predators could be seen further away. That isn't a very strong argument considering that fact that they traveled into and out of the area by the same route and didn't exactly survey the entire country for wildlife.
11-05-2005, 01:16 AM
#56
Fork Horn
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Hells Canyon
Posts: 130
RE: Wolf news
At that time there were damn few predators and very little else. This brings up another interesting point....like the anti-hound people. Lot of hunters believe we should get rid of the hound hunters and beleive they will get more chance to get cougar or bear themselves. These animals are territorial and will kill and eat each other when the populations get on the rise. Lewis and Clark ate a lot of bear and horse (not because they thought they were tastey). The elk were planted on the Lochsaw in the late 20's and if you spend some time around Kooskia and Kamiah you'll see the pictures of the first elk being unloaded there. I remember them on the wall of the Kamiah General Store.
I guide the Lochsaw and Selway areas, have watched the declining elk herds and rising predator population. How many days have you spent out in the field this year?
I guide the Lochsaw and Selway areas, have watched the declining elk herds and rising predator population. How many days have you spent out in the field this year?
11-05-2005, 09:09 AM
#57
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,572
RE: Wolf news
ORIGINAL: racowboy
I guide the Lochsaw and Selway areas, have watched the declining elk herds and rising predator population. How many days have you spent out in the field this year?
I guide the Lochsaw and Selway areas, have watched the declining elk herds and rising predator population. How many days have you spent out in the field this year?
What people fail to mention is that the decline began in the late 80s before wolves were reintroduced. This gets back to my original point thatthe lack of timber harvest in the 90s and fifty years offire suppression hadfinally taken the toll,keeping elk numbers from rebounding from predator losses and enablingblack bearsto kill 80% of the calf crop (see the 1985 Selway predation study). So I guess I don't see your point. No one is denying that elk herds have declined and predators are on the rise, this has been happening for a long time. I am only making the point that predators, specifically wolves, are not the main culprits.
11-05-2005, 06:49 PM
#58
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Montana USA
Posts: 40
RE: Wolf news
Some people will try to make you think there is no problem with having all these wolves pushed on the residents of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. The fact is they have in many areas completely changed the predator - prey balance, we hunters are part of the predator - prey balance, anti hunters would like to take us out of it, the wolf is their #1 tool. Wolves eat five to ten pounds of meat per day, average that at 7.5, times one year 365 = 2737.5 pounds per wolf, times 900 (that's the number that USFWP admits to in these three states) wolves = 2,463,750 (yea that's two million four hundred and sixty three thousand seven hundred and fifty) pounds of meat per year in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. Now wolves don't eat the whole animal, sometimes they don't eat any of it. Wolves are a tool of the anti hunter, the more elk, deer, moose, that can be killed by wolves = that number that can not be killed by hunters.
Here is a quote from a MSU paper, here is the link: http://www.montana.edu/etd/available/unrestricted/Batastini_0805.pdf
"Gude and Garrott report that in the Lower Madison Valley study area elk comprised of 74 to 93 percent of wolf predation during the three winter seasons studied (Gude and Garrott 2003). They also found that calves made up 64 to 88 percent of the total elk killed by wolves. Kill rates of elk by wolves were found to be between 11.2 and 13.75 per wolf per 100 days (Gude and Garrott 2003). While these results do prove useful in showing the predation rates of wolves on this local population of elk during the winter months, it is limited in that the study period encompasses only the winter months and may not be an accurate representation of wolf predation throughout the remainder of the year.
The results from Montana’s Gallatin Canyon study provide a depth of insight into how wolves are affecting elk populations, not only through direct predation, but through the spatial and distributional effects wolves have on the elk herds in the area (Creel and Winnie 2004). The study area includes four drainages in the Gallatin Canyon, northwest of Yellowstone, which encompasses much of the winter grounds to Yellowstone Park’s Gallatin elk herd. Since wolf colonization, early winter elk calf recruitment rates have been below 20 calves to 100 cows for five of the last six winters. These recruitment rates were only below that level in one of thirteen winters before wolves colonized the area (Creel and Winnie 2004). Population counts since wolf colonization of the area have been less than 1,500 elk for six out of the last seven winters, while only sixteen of forty-one winters prior to wolf colonization had elk populations below 1,500 (Creel and Winnie 2004). Creel and Winnie found that in the study area bull elk were 6.3 times more likely to be killed by wolves than were cow elk. These studies also showed that when wolves were present elk were less likely to stray away from timbered areas and that when wolves were present, elk herd sizes halved (Creel and Winnie 2004). The reduction in herd size due to the presence of wolves was caused by cow dispersal into smaller groups and bulls leaving the herds altogether (Creel and Winnie 2004)."
"Kill rates of elk by wolves were found to be between 11.2 and 13.75 per wolf per 100 days" Get your calculators out and figure this one by year! Again there are appoxamently 900 wolves that USFWP admits to in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. I am sure these numbers will be contested by the pro wolfers on this site.
This is really complicated science isn't it? I'm sure a first grader could figure this out!
Again wolves and the endangered species act are a tool of the anti hunter and environmental extremist. And if you think there are going to be wolf tags any time soon you are dreaming! There will be law suit after law suit to stop it from happening.
The argument that wolves and hunters are doing fine in Alaska, British Columbia, Yukon, does not work. The hunter density does not even come close in these areas. Again, predator - prey balance. For hunters, wolves and prey to be in balance in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming there needs to be either less hunters or less wolves. And since hunters are not on the endangered species list it is and will be hunters that get the short end of the stick.
I am a very successful hunter, I've shot 3 6 point bulls over 300 in the last 4 years in Montana, that does not mean there is not an extreme predator - prey imbalance in many areas. I hunt where I have the best chance, I avoid the high wolf populated areas. I'm not just a slob trying to blame my lack of success on wolves.
Here is some reading for everyone:
THE IMPACT OF WOLVES ON THE “MARKET” FOR ELK HUNTING IN
MONTANA: HUNTER ADJUSTMENT AND GAME AGENCY RESPONSE
Wolf Kills Worry Ranchers - Read this. No, ranchers could not just shoot a wolf if it was killing their calves, they will be able to under the new rule in approximately 30 days. Here is a quote. " What that means to ranchers like Quigley and Stucky is that even if they see a wolf kill a cow, they can't shoot the wolf. Instead, they have to pick up the telephone and call either a state or federal official connected with the wolf program. The endangered listing doesn't even allow ranchers to harass wolves that chase livestock by using rubber bullets or shooting over their heads, Simes said."
WOLVES AND HUNTING
Anti-Wolf Crowd Packs Hall
MONTANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
59th LEGISLATURE - REGULAR SESSION
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE MINUTES
Wolves: An outfitter's view
Here is a quote from a MSU paper, here is the link: http://www.montana.edu/etd/available/unrestricted/Batastini_0805.pdf
"Gude and Garrott report that in the Lower Madison Valley study area elk comprised of 74 to 93 percent of wolf predation during the three winter seasons studied (Gude and Garrott 2003). They also found that calves made up 64 to 88 percent of the total elk killed by wolves. Kill rates of elk by wolves were found to be between 11.2 and 13.75 per wolf per 100 days (Gude and Garrott 2003). While these results do prove useful in showing the predation rates of wolves on this local population of elk during the winter months, it is limited in that the study period encompasses only the winter months and may not be an accurate representation of wolf predation throughout the remainder of the year.
The results from Montana’s Gallatin Canyon study provide a depth of insight into how wolves are affecting elk populations, not only through direct predation, but through the spatial and distributional effects wolves have on the elk herds in the area (Creel and Winnie 2004). The study area includes four drainages in the Gallatin Canyon, northwest of Yellowstone, which encompasses much of the winter grounds to Yellowstone Park’s Gallatin elk herd. Since wolf colonization, early winter elk calf recruitment rates have been below 20 calves to 100 cows for five of the last six winters. These recruitment rates were only below that level in one of thirteen winters before wolves colonized the area (Creel and Winnie 2004). Population counts since wolf colonization of the area have been less than 1,500 elk for six out of the last seven winters, while only sixteen of forty-one winters prior to wolf colonization had elk populations below 1,500 (Creel and Winnie 2004). Creel and Winnie found that in the study area bull elk were 6.3 times more likely to be killed by wolves than were cow elk. These studies also showed that when wolves were present elk were less likely to stray away from timbered areas and that when wolves were present, elk herd sizes halved (Creel and Winnie 2004). The reduction in herd size due to the presence of wolves was caused by cow dispersal into smaller groups and bulls leaving the herds altogether (Creel and Winnie 2004)."
"Kill rates of elk by wolves were found to be between 11.2 and 13.75 per wolf per 100 days" Get your calculators out and figure this one by year! Again there are appoxamently 900 wolves that USFWP admits to in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. I am sure these numbers will be contested by the pro wolfers on this site.
This is really complicated science isn't it? I'm sure a first grader could figure this out!
Again wolves and the endangered species act are a tool of the anti hunter and environmental extremist. And if you think there are going to be wolf tags any time soon you are dreaming! There will be law suit after law suit to stop it from happening.
The argument that wolves and hunters are doing fine in Alaska, British Columbia, Yukon, does not work. The hunter density does not even come close in these areas. Again, predator - prey balance. For hunters, wolves and prey to be in balance in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming there needs to be either less hunters or less wolves. And since hunters are not on the endangered species list it is and will be hunters that get the short end of the stick.
I am a very successful hunter, I've shot 3 6 point bulls over 300 in the last 4 years in Montana, that does not mean there is not an extreme predator - prey imbalance in many areas. I hunt where I have the best chance, I avoid the high wolf populated areas. I'm not just a slob trying to blame my lack of success on wolves.
Here is some reading for everyone:
THE IMPACT OF WOLVES ON THE “MARKET” FOR ELK HUNTING IN
MONTANA: HUNTER ADJUSTMENT AND GAME AGENCY RESPONSE
Wolf Kills Worry Ranchers - Read this. No, ranchers could not just shoot a wolf if it was killing their calves, they will be able to under the new rule in approximately 30 days. Here is a quote. " What that means to ranchers like Quigley and Stucky is that even if they see a wolf kill a cow, they can't shoot the wolf. Instead, they have to pick up the telephone and call either a state or federal official connected with the wolf program. The endangered listing doesn't even allow ranchers to harass wolves that chase livestock by using rubber bullets or shooting over their heads, Simes said."
WOLVES AND HUNTING
Anti-Wolf Crowd Packs Hall
MONTANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
59th LEGISLATURE - REGULAR SESSION
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE MINUTES
Wolves: An outfitter's view
11-05-2005, 09:11 PM
#59
Fork Horn
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Hells Canyon
Posts: 130
RE: Wolf news
Brutal, You admit the fact that the bear are killing 80% of our elk calf crop and argue the fact of introducing more predators. You just really like to argue, huh? I hope you enjoyed the big bulls you took. Do you hunt the same season that I do or the Native American season where you can wait till the snow pushes them down to the highway and you really don't have to go out in the woods? The sadest part of this deal is the fact that our children may not have the opportunity to even see elk with the way we are doing things. I suppose that being a scientific minded person, you also back the scientific study in the Elk City area where they are spending a couple million to see if bears really do eat elk calves, whether they do this as a natural instinct or if it is a learned thing.. My thoughts are that if Idaho's bioligists don't already know that, they should all be fired.
11-05-2005, 09:49 PM
#60
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Montana USA
Posts: 40
RE: Wolf news
A rancher I know that lives five miles from me related a story to me of last years calving season. A wolf killed a calf right in front of him, he saw it out his window, he ran out and chased the wolf away with a pitch fork. He of course can't shoot it because it's a wolf, it's a very special animal ya know, much more important than humans. So he calls the fish and game like he is supposed to, a biologist comes out to check it out, he tells the rancher a bear killed it. He called the biologist a few choice words. He says it was obviously a pro wolf biologist fudging the numbers, there were no bear tracks around and the rancher watched the wolf kill the calf, and wolf tracks everywhere. I wonder how many of these extremely pro wolf biologists are out there?