Wolves and elk
04-09-2010, 03:51 PM
#61
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: beautiful western montana
Posts: 193
On the contrary tango, you're actually the one who's always crying wolf on this board, with very little if anything useful to contribute. Your assertion that the hunters in MT/ID/WY aren't "real" hunters because they're fighting back against the wolf lobby is preposterous. Everybody understands that the wolf is there to stay and that's a fact. What they're tired of is this ****amamie puppet show that is being perpetuated by outside interests. What it has left the states with is a game of continual litigation, abrupted hunting seasons, and hunting quotas that don't even come close to controlling a wolf population that is now nearly six times the recovery goal that was established when they were first reintroduced. It's clearly a game that is being used as a tactic to force out the western big game hunting and ranching interests with the wolf as the primary tool. The groups like Defenders of Wildlife know full well that once the wolf is classified as common game and controlled that their agenda is going to have to take another route.
Now you seem to think that you're so high and mighty over there in BC because you live around wolves, so I decided I'd take a few minutes to look over the provincial hunting regs there. What I found was the following, bearing in mind I'm not claiming to be an expert I just caught on to the obvious. BC doesn't charge a license fee for residents to shoot wolves. In fact they were the only big game species listed that didn't have a tag fee. In general the season length was quite lengthy, from approximately September well into the following spring. The limit was most commonly 3 wolves per person, and in some areas there was no closed season below 1,100 meters in elevation. So the bottom line is you have exponentially more opportunities to keep wolf populations in check up there, which is all that the states want as well. Now seriously tell me that you wouldn't be in the slightest bit perturbed if some group out of Ottawa sued saying that out of the blue your wolves are "endangered" even though there isn't a shred of evidence to support that. Then imagine that your hunting opportunities for wolves were slashed and you had to stand by idly and watch their numbers climb to levels well exceeding recovery goals, and the same said group still claimed they were "endangered." Would you seriously want to have to kowtow to that kind of stupidity? That's what they're dealing with south of your border, and you obviously have no first-hand knowledge of it whatsoever.
Now you seem to think that you're so high and mighty over there in BC because you live around wolves, so I decided I'd take a few minutes to look over the provincial hunting regs there. What I found was the following, bearing in mind I'm not claiming to be an expert I just caught on to the obvious. BC doesn't charge a license fee for residents to shoot wolves. In fact they were the only big game species listed that didn't have a tag fee. In general the season length was quite lengthy, from approximately September well into the following spring. The limit was most commonly 3 wolves per person, and in some areas there was no closed season below 1,100 meters in elevation. So the bottom line is you have exponentially more opportunities to keep wolf populations in check up there, which is all that the states want as well. Now seriously tell me that you wouldn't be in the slightest bit perturbed if some group out of Ottawa sued saying that out of the blue your wolves are "endangered" even though there isn't a shred of evidence to support that. Then imagine that your hunting opportunities for wolves were slashed and you had to stand by idly and watch their numbers climb to levels well exceeding recovery goals, and the same said group still claimed they were "endangered." Would you seriously want to have to kowtow to that kind of stupidity? That's what they're dealing with south of your border, and you obviously have no first-hand knowledge of it whatsoever.
04-09-2010, 05:08 PM
#62
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cedar Valley Utah
Posts: 977
I know it seems that the feelings are extreme but it's very IMORTANT you younger guys know the facts and get involved. In Utah the wolf hasn't taken root yet but here are a few fun facts that you MUST know where wolves have taken hold:
(Source: 2009 Wolf-Ungulate Study Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks)
- The Moose population in Yellowstone National Park trend count shows a decrease to almost zero.
(Source: 2009 Wolf-Ungulate Study Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks)
- The Gallatin Canyon elk herd trend count between Bozeman and Big Sky has dropped from
National Science Foundation)
for over a century.
- The Northern Yellowstone herd, trend count has dropped from nearly 19,000 elk in 1995 before
the introduction of the Canadian gray wolf to just over 6,000 elk in 2008. At the same time wolf
numbers in this same area are on a steady increase. Nowhere can I find where a 60% reduction of
this herd was a goal of the wolf introduction.
the introduction of the Canadian gray wolf to just over 6,000 elk in 2008. At the same time wolf
numbers in this same area are on a steady increase. Nowhere can I find where a 60% reduction of
this herd was a goal of the wolf introduction.
(Source: 2009 Wolf-Ungulate Study Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks)
- The Moose population in Yellowstone National Park trend count shows a decrease to almost zero.
(Source: 2009 Wolf-Ungulate Study Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks)
- The Gallatin Canyon elk herd trend count between Bozeman and Big Sky has dropped from
around 1,048 to 338 in 2008.
(Source: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks)- The Madison Firehole elk herd trend count has dropped from 700 to 108 in 2008.
(Source: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks)- The calf survival rate for those same elk herds mentioned above, where wolves (and bears) are
present, is extremely low amounting to as little as 10% or less recruitment or survival rate. Nearly
any wildlife professional will tell you this is an unacceptable recruitment or survival rate.
Acceptable wildlife science tells us that a 25-40% survival rate is necessary for herd sustainability.
Further, a recent MSU study shows those elk that remain in the Northern Yellowstone herd are in
below standard health as they are not feeding where and how they normally do and the females are
not getting pregnant as they should, due to hormonal imbalances. How and why did this behavior
change?
(See Montana State University Study by Professor Scott Creel in July 2009; funded by the
present, is extremely low amounting to as little as 10% or less recruitment or survival rate. Nearly
any wildlife professional will tell you this is an unacceptable recruitment or survival rate.
Acceptable wildlife science tells us that a 25-40% survival rate is necessary for herd sustainability.
Further, a recent MSU study shows those elk that remain in the Northern Yellowstone herd are in
below standard health as they are not feeding where and how they normally do and the females are
not getting pregnant as they should, due to hormonal imbalances. How and why did this behavior
change?
(See Montana State University Study by Professor Scott Creel in July 2009; funded by the
National Science Foundation)
Wolf numbers have far exceeded what sportsmen, ranchers, wildlife conservationists and the
public at-large were told was a desirable goal. Specifically, 30 breeding pairs and 300 total wolves
was the goal line when wolves were released in 1995. The minimum number of wolves is now
over 1,700 according to Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks and a number of animal rights groups
such as yours believe those numbers should be 2,000 to 5,000.
This is the most disingenuous and deceiving issue relative to the entire Canadian gray wolf
introduction and your groups and others perpetuate this every chance you get. We call it, “keep
moving the goal line” politics. It is doubtful even you believe that 2,000-5,000 wolves in this area
is sustainable. However, this allows you to keep saying “We haven’t reached the goal line yet”. It
is sad wildlife management has to come such political posturing.
Wolf population goals established at the introduction in 1995 have been surpassed by some 300-
500%. Yet groups like yours continue to move the goal line and yes, continue to cherry pick your
facts to push an agenda.
public at-large were told was a desirable goal. Specifically, 30 breeding pairs and 300 total wolves
was the goal line when wolves were released in 1995. The minimum number of wolves is now
over 1,700 according to Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks and a number of animal rights groups
such as yours believe those numbers should be 2,000 to 5,000.
This is the most disingenuous and deceiving issue relative to the entire Canadian gray wolf
introduction and your groups and others perpetuate this every chance you get. We call it, “keep
moving the goal line” politics. It is doubtful even you believe that 2,000-5,000 wolves in this area
is sustainable. However, this allows you to keep saying “We haven’t reached the goal line yet”. It
is sad wildlife management has to come such political posturing.
Wolf population goals established at the introduction in 1995 have been surpassed by some 300-
500%. Yet groups like yours continue to move the goal line and yes, continue to cherry pick your
facts to push an agenda.
- Studies show that each wolf kills up to 23 elk from November through April; that equates to up to
40,000 elk killed in six months. This number does not include those elk killed for food by wolves
from May through October. While the number of elk killed per wolf from May through October is
less than the number from November through April, it is still considerable; and that is just the elk
killed for food. These numbers do not account for those elk simply killed by wolves (surplus
killing) and yes, that does happen. Nowhere near the majority of these elk kills are simply the sick
and the old.
40,000 elk killed in six months. This number does not include those elk killed for food by wolves
from May through October. While the number of elk killed per wolf from May through October is
less than the number from November through April, it is still considerable; and that is just the elk
killed for food. These numbers do not account for those elk simply killed by wolves (surplus
killing) and yes, that does happen. Nowhere near the majority of these elk kills are simply the sick
and the old.
- The habitat loss that you cite in your letter is yet another critical reason why wolves must be properly managed and managed now. As elk ranges shrink and are encroached upon, the elk have
less chance for survival in areas where wolves are concentrated. Elk become trapped with less
habitat available. Your organization talks about elk and wolves coexisting on the same terms as if
it were the Old West again. It clearly is not and that is why man must manage wildlife as we have
less chance for survival in areas where wolves are concentrated. Elk become trapped with less
habitat available. Your organization talks about elk and wolves coexisting on the same terms as if
it were the Old West again. It clearly is not and that is why man must manage wildlife as we have
for over a century.
Last edited by rather_be_huntin; 04-09-2010 at 05:15 PM. Reason: Highlighting important points
04-09-2010, 05:10 PM
#63
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cedar Valley Utah
Posts: 977
One more fun fact:
management, it is simply an assault. Re-listing wolves will worsen the issue dramatically.
All these facts are posted in a letter to the Defender of Wildlife (a notorious anit group) from the RMEF. Do you feel the RMEF is a legitimately factual organization? Still feel this is just "arguing"?
We NEED you young guys to read the facts, form your own opinion and get involved.
- Idaho’s elk numbers in units where wolves exist are far worse, with two units showing over 80% decline
since wolves were introduced. If wildlife conservation was your true agenda you would not stand for such
losses of any species. The facts are there – the numbers do not lie! Our elk herds cannot be sustained if
wolf numbers continue to expand without proper management. What is happening now is not sound
since wolves were introduced. If wildlife conservation was your true agenda you would not stand for such
losses of any species. The facts are there – the numbers do not lie! Our elk herds cannot be sustained if
wolf numbers continue to expand without proper management. What is happening now is not sound
management, it is simply an assault. Re-listing wolves will worsen the issue dramatically.
All these facts are posted in a letter to the Defender of Wildlife (a notorious anit group) from the RMEF. Do you feel the RMEF is a legitimately factual organization? Still feel this is just "arguing"?
We NEED you young guys to read the facts, form your own opinion and get involved.
04-09-2010, 05:59 PM
#64
Fork Horn
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kittitas, Wa.
Posts: 462
Finnbear, you simply do not understand the dynamics of wolf reintroduction, you don't get it, you never have. Once we go from ecosystem biology to political biology we are doomed. The wolf is a perfect example of "political biology". You yourself have made claims that "the wolf was here first". So were the indians, are you going to leave and go back to Europe? Why are you still here? What part of unsustainable do you not get? What part of ecosystem dynamics do you not get? This year Montana FWP eliminated all cow hunting for youth, archery, and handicap hunters do to low population numbers in area 250 due to wolf predation on elk herds. Why? The reason is the lack of understanding biological principles, or worse, ignoring them to appease a certain element of society. Why do we not re-introduce wolves to the greater Chicago area, where they once roamed?
sorry but I do get it!!!! man has created these problems and really doesn't have a clue as to how to fix it....it ain't the wolves fault it's mans fault!!!! blaming the wolves is just an excuse to whine about lack of success in harvesting an animal...I'll ask again should we stop all reintroduction programs??? or intruduction programs like turkeys in Washington state or other states where they are not native??? what about state where man killed all the elk and we are reintroducing them ...should we stop that also????
04-09-2010, 07:05 PM
#65
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: beautiful western montana
Posts: 193
sorry there muley but I am home don't need to go anywhere.....would U like my enrollment number???
sorry but I do get it!!!! man has created these problems and really doesn't have a clue as to how to fix it....it ain't the wolves fault it's mans fault!!!! blaming the wolves is just an excuse to whine about lack of success in harvesting an animal...I'll ask again should we stop all reintroduction programs??? or intruduction programs like turkeys in Washington state or other states where they are not native??? what about state where man killed all the elk and we are reintroducing them ...should we stop that also????
sorry but I do get it!!!! man has created these problems and really doesn't have a clue as to how to fix it....it ain't the wolves fault it's mans fault!!!! blaming the wolves is just an excuse to whine about lack of success in harvesting an animal...I'll ask again should we stop all reintroduction programs??? or intruduction programs like turkeys in Washington state or other states where they are not native??? what about state where man killed all the elk and we are reintroducing them ...should we stop that also????
Rather be Hunting: Yes, re-listing could seriously damage the resource beyond repair. Even the RMEF called this the worse case of wildlife management since the Bison slaughter of the 19th century! The folks that don't live here seem to have a hard time getting their fingers around it, but I think folks are starting to get that this is becomming serious. One thing for sure, the Anti's have certainly gained major ground using the ESA as a template to curb or in some cases eliminate hunting. Look for more ESA restrictions on land access etc under the guise of protection. I just hope folks can get the correlation between the wolf re-introduction and that anti-hunting agenda, and what ramifications that could hold for hunters in all states. Time to watch for lawsuit restrictions for access etc under the ESA to cut down legal hunting. Anti-hunting organizations has scored a major home run with the wolf, they got a shot at a grand slam if the wolf is relisted.
04-09-2010, 07:25 PM
#66
Typical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 694
On the contrary tango, you're actually the one who's always crying wolf on this board, with very little if anything useful to contribute. Your assertion that the hunters in MT/ID/WY aren't "real" hunters because they're fighting back against the wolf lobby is preposterous. Everybody understands that the wolf is there to stay and that's a fact. What they're tired of is this ****amamie puppet show that is being perpetuated by outside interests. What it has left the states with is a game of continual litigation, abrupted hunting seasons, and hunting quotas that don't even come close to controlling a wolf population that is now nearly six times the recovery goal that was established when they were first reintroduced. It's clearly a game that is being used as a tactic to force out the western big game hunting and ranching interests with the wolf as the primary tool. The groups like Defenders of Wildlife know full well that once the wolf is classified as common game and controlled that their agenda is going to have to take another route.
Now you seem to think that you're so high and mighty over there in BC because you live around wolves, so I decided I'd take a few minutes to look over the provincial hunting regs there. What I found was the following, bearing in mind I'm not claiming to be an expert I just caught on to the obvious. BC doesn't charge a license fee for residents to shoot wolves. In fact they were the only big game species listed that didn't have a tag fee. In general the season length was quite lengthy, from approximately September well into the following spring. The limit was most commonly 3 wolves per person, and in some areas there was no closed season below 1,100 meters in elevation. So the bottom line is you have exponentially more opportunities to keep wolf populations in check up there, which is all that the states want as well. Now seriously tell me that you wouldn't be in the slightest bit perturbed if some group out of Ottawa sued saying that out of the blue your wolves are "endangered" even though there isn't a shred of evidence to support that. Then imagine that your hunting opportunities for wolves were slashed and you had to stand by idly and watch their numbers climb to levels well exceeding recovery goals, and the same said group still claimed they were "endangered." Would you seriously want to have to kowtow to that kind of stupidity? That's what they're dealing with south of your border, and you obviously have no first-hand knowledge of it whatsoever.
Now you seem to think that you're so high and mighty over there in BC because you live around wolves, so I decided I'd take a few minutes to look over the provincial hunting regs there. What I found was the following, bearing in mind I'm not claiming to be an expert I just caught on to the obvious. BC doesn't charge a license fee for residents to shoot wolves. In fact they were the only big game species listed that didn't have a tag fee. In general the season length was quite lengthy, from approximately September well into the following spring. The limit was most commonly 3 wolves per person, and in some areas there was no closed season below 1,100 meters in elevation. So the bottom line is you have exponentially more opportunities to keep wolf populations in check up there, which is all that the states want as well. Now seriously tell me that you wouldn't be in the slightest bit perturbed if some group out of Ottawa sued saying that out of the blue your wolves are "endangered" even though there isn't a shred of evidence to support that. Then imagine that your hunting opportunities for wolves were slashed and you had to stand by idly and watch their numbers climb to levels well exceeding recovery goals, and the same said group still claimed they were "endangered." Would you seriously want to have to kowtow to that kind of stupidity? That's what they're dealing with south of your border, and you obviously have no first-hand knowledge of it whatsoever.
No where have I advocated not managing wolves and in fact I encourage it, yet some members even here seem unaware that wolves have been hunted and quotas filled already this winter and in their own back yard. Seems to me it is not I that hasn't a clue. Furthermore for RMEF to use phrases such as the wolves impact on elk is comparable to the destruction of the bufallo is simply amateurish, and plays right into the hands of the antis. If the wolves eat a few thousand force fed elk and this is described as "destruction of the herd" what would the antis use to describe the number harvested by hunters. Holocost comes to mind but that may be too tame a description.
As far as any group from Ottawa trying to list wolves as endangered whell I guess thats what we call democracy. In BC every green group around the world is trying to stop our grizzly hunting as unsustainable but that just forces the province to prove otherwise and the bears (which belong to the public) and I benefit from the research.
As first hand expierience...................maybe not so much but there were always lots of elk and wofies in the Flathead River Valley (and grizzlies) just north of the Montana border and I simply can't understand how these same wolves became super wolves killin everything in site simply because they crossed the border. Again another mythe, these wolves always had duel citizenship and are not a franken wolf from Canada.
04-09-2010, 08:45 PM
#67
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cedar Valley Utah
Posts: 977
Tangozulu.....I do think you bring up some valid points. The problem with these boards is that we sometimes feel attacked and must defend our point of view depsite new information coming into the conversation.
To be fair among your valid points are some things you bring up are a bit over simplified and explained by the RMEF letter very well. There are valid reasons why the situation is Canada is different than the US situation such as the wolf has been over protected and populations are well above the goal that was set forth by the re-intro plan. Any over population of a predator results in destruction to other species. Yes hunters take many elk but we monitor our harvest, obviously wolves don't.
I chalk your force fed comment up to a bit of defensiveness on your part and I understand that. But the situation with our game remains a serious problem even without the wolves in that their winter range is dangerously low and shirinking every day. Feeding elk is only done in situations where no other viable option exists and a very large of wild elk never see an alfalfa bail set out for them. The wolf only makes the situation worse and elk are served up on a platter for them in the winter since the elk are forced to remain at higher elevations in the winter.
To be fair among your valid points are some things you bring up are a bit over simplified and explained by the RMEF letter very well. There are valid reasons why the situation is Canada is different than the US situation such as the wolf has been over protected and populations are well above the goal that was set forth by the re-intro plan. Any over population of a predator results in destruction to other species. Yes hunters take many elk but we monitor our harvest, obviously wolves don't.
I chalk your force fed comment up to a bit of defensiveness on your part and I understand that. But the situation with our game remains a serious problem even without the wolves in that their winter range is dangerously low and shirinking every day. Feeding elk is only done in situations where no other viable option exists and a very large of wild elk never see an alfalfa bail set out for them. The wolf only makes the situation worse and elk are served up on a platter for them in the winter since the elk are forced to remain at higher elevations in the winter.
04-09-2010, 09:14 PM
#68
Typical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 694
Tangozulu.....I do think you bring up some valid points. The problem with these boards is that we sometimes feel attacked and must defend our point of view depsite new information coming into the conversation.
To be fair among your valid points are some things you bring up are a bit over simplified and explained by the RMEF letter very well. There are valid reasons why the situation is Canada is different than the US situation such as the wolf has been over protected and populations are well above the goal that was set forth by the re-intro plan. Any over population of a predator results in destruction to other species. Yes hunters take many elk but we monitor our harvest, obviously wolves don't.
I chalk your force fed comment up to a bit of defensiveness on your part and I understand that. But the situation with our game remains a serious problem even without the wolves in that their winter range is dangerously low and shirinking every day. Feeding elk is only done in situations where no other viable option exists and a very large of wild elk never see an alfalfa bail set out for them. The wolf only makes the situation worse and elk are served up on a platter for them in the winter since the elk are forced to remain at higher elevations in the winter.
To be fair among your valid points are some things you bring up are a bit over simplified and explained by the RMEF letter very well. There are valid reasons why the situation is Canada is different than the US situation such as the wolf has been over protected and populations are well above the goal that was set forth by the re-intro plan. Any over population of a predator results in destruction to other species. Yes hunters take many elk but we monitor our harvest, obviously wolves don't.
I chalk your force fed comment up to a bit of defensiveness on your part and I understand that. But the situation with our game remains a serious problem even without the wolves in that their winter range is dangerously low and shirinking every day. Feeding elk is only done in situations where no other viable option exists and a very large of wild elk never see an alfalfa bail set out for them. The wolf only makes the situation worse and elk are served up on a platter for them in the winter since the elk are forced to remain at higher elevations in the winter.
My Problem is that I've had first hand expierience with the SSS crowd and their good old boy game management practices. Some years ago the local CO received a complaint about some dead and apparntly poisoned wolves in a very remote area of northern BC. A helicopter was required to access the site as it was 50 miles from the nearest road and on a small frozen pond. The complaint wasn't from some green loonie but from the local trapper who had just been wiped out for the season. Not only were a few dead wolves layin about but also foxes, coyotes, wolverines, pine martin, squirrels, otters, mink, weasals, hawks, eagles, whiskey jacks, magpies and everything else that use to move. There was a set of ski tracks from what was probably from a supercub and a moose that had been shot and filled with poison.
The CO's spent some time checking a large area and found more sites just like the first. They no doubt never found all the sites.
Rumour around town was that a few guides had been lookin after "their" animals but no case was ever brought forward. There was no doubt that these wolf control measures continued to kill off the black and grizzly bears once spring arrived. There is little doubt this was goin on for years prior to discovery. The only plus side is a few guys packed their planes and left town. As a resident hunter I didn't need any of these guys lookin after my moose for me............with friends like that ..............
Last edited by tangozulu; 04-10-2010 at 06:13 AM.
04-11-2010, 08:48 PM
#69
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cedar Valley Utah
Posts: 977
But it seems you feel you understand the situation completely and nobody is going to tell you different so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue.
Good luck to you this coming season.
Last edited by rather_be_huntin; 04-11-2010 at 08:57 PM.
04-12-2010, 07:12 AM
#70
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: beautiful western montana
Posts: 193
Our herds are NO WHERE near where they used to be. The recent game populations are better than they've been in a long time but by no means "vast". In Utah we have 66,000 elk. Before settlement there were several hundred thousand. This year will be my 11th year putting in for a limited entry tag, I have yet to draw. Until I draw I'm chasing elk in areas where there are more hunters than there are elk.
But it seems you feel you understand the situation completely and nobody is going to tell you different so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue.
Good luck to you this coming season.
But it seems you feel you understand the situation completely and nobody is going to tell you different so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue.
Good luck to you this coming season.
I don't think most people understand how populations have been crushed by this predator. When you go to a meeting and hear a biologist tell you that recover is not going to happen, believe me, it sinks in. I don't think most people can grasp the concept of changing ecosystems, which seems like that is the base point of almost all arguments pertaining to the wolf. "They were here first". Yes, but that was 200 years ago, the west is vastly different now, how can you get people to understand this?
I think Tango's argument is understandable, since they live with the wolf and elk why can't we? Very different population distrubution and limited seasons, it is like comparing apples to oranges. The key is making rational arguments and trying to explain, rather than argue. I myself get charged up when talking about the wolf, and I think there is mis-information on both sides. I just try to focus on the biological impact and facts.