not for the wolf lovers
11-02-2004, 03:36 PM
#71
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Rocky Mountains, Colorado
Posts: 1,964
RE: not for the wolf lovers
IdahoElkInstructor,
I appreciate and understand EXACTLY what you are saying. Ranchers and hunters that either live off the land or visit the same lands continually thru hunting have a pretty dog gone good idea what the heck is going on and IMHO it doesn't take a rocket scientist and a super computer to put 2 and 2 together and figure it out.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid that the kind of observation you have noted is just way too straight forward for some of the "new age" folks out there. You may have met/talked/"discussed things" with them before. If not, then be aware that there is a academic/scientific/envioronmental sector out there that will gladly interpret your observations (for you) along the following lines:
"You don't really know what you saw or what the real story is." "The cause of it all could almost be anything." "Everything is (needlessly) complex and straight forward answers just are not found in mother nature." "I see you do not have a college degree in zoology or biology therefore you are essentially an ignorant lay person." "Never mind the mandate, directives and the underpinning we operate our little community under, we've got this thing pretty well thought out and have already determined the direction it is going to go." "Unless you want to hire a PhD and a graduate assistant to do an official, sanctioned study with some statisitical modelling to supposedly prove your point (to the tune of $150,000 or so).... you don't really know anything at all." "You see, the West is going to be re-settled (and re-violated) for the second time and this time it is going to be by the scientific book and by "the greatest good for the greatest number", so step aside and let us "official folks" provide you with an explanation of what is really happening." "In case you do not agree, then too bad, that is just the way it is going to be." "What you yahoos think is happening and/or the way you would like it to be is not really of importance here, though we will give you a public hearing to spout off at." "Trust us, it will be a better world our way." "Besides, we are going to turn a big chunk of the West into the world's greatest visiting/petting/watching/listening "zoo", and we won't have you local yokels interferring with the plans." "Ranching families out there on the margin and hunters like yourself are part of a dying breed that no longer fit into the "new age" vision of things."
If you would have told me 5 years ago that this was going on I would have laughed to your face; however, after being involved with the research that went into several lawsuits that involved the USFS and the Fish and Wildlife folks, namely RS2477 cases, I blush at the things I've seen our own government (operating hand in hand with this "little scientific community") inflict upon rural folks and hunting interests while in the pursuit of their agenda.
We've caught them red handed and in one case an administrators head rolled, but seems like for each one we "nail" ten more pop up in their place. These folks are well financed, connected, on the inside track, zealots in their own right, and practically above the law. I hate to say it, but I think they are going to win --- that don't make it right --- but that is my read on it. The way the West was won the last time wasn't right either, but that didn't stop it from happening. There, I've already said more than I shoulda and I won't go any further.
It will be a damn fine "petting zoo" by the next century though.
=================
IdahoElkInstructor, I'm afraid there will (before its done) be many, many more areas like the one you described, once rich in elk, now rich in wolves.
EKM
I appreciate and understand EXACTLY what you are saying. Ranchers and hunters that either live off the land or visit the same lands continually thru hunting have a pretty dog gone good idea what the heck is going on and IMHO it doesn't take a rocket scientist and a super computer to put 2 and 2 together and figure it out.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid that the kind of observation you have noted is just way too straight forward for some of the "new age" folks out there. You may have met/talked/"discussed things" with them before. If not, then be aware that there is a academic/scientific/envioronmental sector out there that will gladly interpret your observations (for you) along the following lines:
"You don't really know what you saw or what the real story is." "The cause of it all could almost be anything." "Everything is (needlessly) complex and straight forward answers just are not found in mother nature." "I see you do not have a college degree in zoology or biology therefore you are essentially an ignorant lay person." "Never mind the mandate, directives and the underpinning we operate our little community under, we've got this thing pretty well thought out and have already determined the direction it is going to go." "Unless you want to hire a PhD and a graduate assistant to do an official, sanctioned study with some statisitical modelling to supposedly prove your point (to the tune of $150,000 or so).... you don't really know anything at all." "You see, the West is going to be re-settled (and re-violated) for the second time and this time it is going to be by the scientific book and by "the greatest good for the greatest number", so step aside and let us "official folks" provide you with an explanation of what is really happening." "In case you do not agree, then too bad, that is just the way it is going to be." "What you yahoos think is happening and/or the way you would like it to be is not really of importance here, though we will give you a public hearing to spout off at." "Trust us, it will be a better world our way." "Besides, we are going to turn a big chunk of the West into the world's greatest visiting/petting/watching/listening "zoo", and we won't have you local yokels interferring with the plans." "Ranching families out there on the margin and hunters like yourself are part of a dying breed that no longer fit into the "new age" vision of things."
If you would have told me 5 years ago that this was going on I would have laughed to your face; however, after being involved with the research that went into several lawsuits that involved the USFS and the Fish and Wildlife folks, namely RS2477 cases, I blush at the things I've seen our own government (operating hand in hand with this "little scientific community") inflict upon rural folks and hunting interests while in the pursuit of their agenda.
We've caught them red handed and in one case an administrators head rolled, but seems like for each one we "nail" ten more pop up in their place. These folks are well financed, connected, on the inside track, zealots in their own right, and practically above the law. I hate to say it, but I think they are going to win --- that don't make it right --- but that is my read on it. The way the West was won the last time wasn't right either, but that didn't stop it from happening. There, I've already said more than I shoulda and I won't go any further.
It will be a damn fine "petting zoo" by the next century though.
=================
IdahoElkInstructor, I'm afraid there will (before its done) be many, many more areas like the one you described, once rich in elk, now rich in wolves.
EKM
11-03-2004, 02:17 PM
#73
Typical Buck
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 590
RE: not for the wolf lovers
Has anyone looked into our situation here in the Bitterroot valley in Montana? Our wolf population is exploding, and you know what? So is our elk population! Our herd here has been expanding slowly for 10-20 years, then they introduced wolves but the elk expansion just keeps picking up steam. We have more elk here than I've ever seen before, and our calf ratios are hitting up around 40 per 100 cows. Biologists believe we have more elk now than at any time in history.
With due respect to everyone here who is going to want to attack me after this post, but I think the wolf is just a handy whipping boy for every day somebody comes out of the woods not having had the success they had hoped. "By gummy, it must be them durned wolves again." If you think about it, some hunters blame wolves in exactly the same fashion that the antis blame hunters. I know because I lived in Seattle for many years, whenever any apparent problem arose with wildlife, the antis immediately jump on their "it's them durned hunters again" bandwagon. We hunters don't appreciate this for obvious reasons, then we turn around and do the same thing to wolves.
Archaeologists have projected that back in the day when Indians had the run of the entire country, they took an annual harvest of deer and elk very comparable to what we hunters do today. The Indians could do this even though they let the wolf alone.
I know that people in central Idaho are currently crying the wolf blues, yet when I went through the wildlife management program at University of Idaho in the late '80s, I remember reading some real interesting science. This science was written in the '70s, and predicted that as the burn areas from the fires of the early part of the 20th century grew back, that we would see dramatic declines in elk numbers throughout much of Idaho.
This prediction has come true, so is the wolf really to blame? We let those burn areas grow back and shut down logging all across the West at the same time. What result would you expect from a situation where dark timber is allowed to grow back at the expense of successional stages of vegetation (brush and grass) that elk like to eat? Why, you're going to see declining elk numbers.
The answer my friend, is habitat. Habitat, habitat, habitat. Lots of fires and lots of logging created great elk forage conditions in the early part of the 20th century. Thus, we saw a nearly nationwide surge in elk numbers from roughly 1930 to 2000. Nowadays, the cumulative effect of shutting down logging and Smokey Bear sniffing out every fire before it started to flame has returned much of the West to a successional stage that is generally less favorable for elk.
The Indians did manage the land, by setting fires to knock back the constant advance of vegetation. And, harking back to the Bitterrroot example I started with, we had those huge "catastrophic" fires in 2000. (I personally was rooting for the fires that year, although I could have done without the smoke and the lost homes.) I predicted then in my little circles that we were going to have an elk boom, damn the wolves. In 2003 and 2004 we have had biologist counts showing up to 40 calves to 100 cows, numbers we could only dream of ten years ago (before wolves), when the number lagged around 25 calves per 100 cows.
In summary, while I grant that in local cases wolves may have some impact, they take a distant back seat to considerations of habitat. Clear out some of that old dark timber, log it or burn as you wish, and watch the elk come back! Our true battle as hunters should be to see sane management practices instituted in our forests, and give the wolves a little bit of a break. Oh yeah, and let's get Wyoming off their silly duffs so they put together a reasonable plan so we can get wolf management where it belongs, with the states.
With due respect to everyone here who is going to want to attack me after this post, but I think the wolf is just a handy whipping boy for every day somebody comes out of the woods not having had the success they had hoped. "By gummy, it must be them durned wolves again." If you think about it, some hunters blame wolves in exactly the same fashion that the antis blame hunters. I know because I lived in Seattle for many years, whenever any apparent problem arose with wildlife, the antis immediately jump on their "it's them durned hunters again" bandwagon. We hunters don't appreciate this for obvious reasons, then we turn around and do the same thing to wolves.
Archaeologists have projected that back in the day when Indians had the run of the entire country, they took an annual harvest of deer and elk very comparable to what we hunters do today. The Indians could do this even though they let the wolf alone.
I know that people in central Idaho are currently crying the wolf blues, yet when I went through the wildlife management program at University of Idaho in the late '80s, I remember reading some real interesting science. This science was written in the '70s, and predicted that as the burn areas from the fires of the early part of the 20th century grew back, that we would see dramatic declines in elk numbers throughout much of Idaho.
This prediction has come true, so is the wolf really to blame? We let those burn areas grow back and shut down logging all across the West at the same time. What result would you expect from a situation where dark timber is allowed to grow back at the expense of successional stages of vegetation (brush and grass) that elk like to eat? Why, you're going to see declining elk numbers.
The answer my friend, is habitat. Habitat, habitat, habitat. Lots of fires and lots of logging created great elk forage conditions in the early part of the 20th century. Thus, we saw a nearly nationwide surge in elk numbers from roughly 1930 to 2000. Nowadays, the cumulative effect of shutting down logging and Smokey Bear sniffing out every fire before it started to flame has returned much of the West to a successional stage that is generally less favorable for elk.
The Indians did manage the land, by setting fires to knock back the constant advance of vegetation. And, harking back to the Bitterrroot example I started with, we had those huge "catastrophic" fires in 2000. (I personally was rooting for the fires that year, although I could have done without the smoke and the lost homes.) I predicted then in my little circles that we were going to have an elk boom, damn the wolves. In 2003 and 2004 we have had biologist counts showing up to 40 calves to 100 cows, numbers we could only dream of ten years ago (before wolves), when the number lagged around 25 calves per 100 cows.
In summary, while I grant that in local cases wolves may have some impact, they take a distant back seat to considerations of habitat. Clear out some of that old dark timber, log it or burn as you wish, and watch the elk come back! Our true battle as hunters should be to see sane management practices instituted in our forests, and give the wolves a little bit of a break. Oh yeah, and let's get Wyoming off their silly duffs so they put together a reasonable plan so we can get wolf management where it belongs, with the states.
11-03-2004, 05:53 PM
#74
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Raleigh NC USA
Posts: 352
RE: not for the wolf lovers
Why is it that the re-introduction of wolves, so that they may hunt and harvest wild game for the use and benefit of wolves is a good thing worthy of great sums of our tax dollars?
And why is it that the hunting and harvest of that same game by people, for the use and benefit of people, is something that needs to be fought against tooth and nail?
No doubt that there are a great many people in the fish and game departments that support hunting. But I suspect that a lot of the people on the top of these organizations that push these two agendas have a lot in common.
And why is it that the hunting and harvest of that same game by people, for the use and benefit of people, is something that needs to be fought against tooth and nail?
No doubt that there are a great many people in the fish and game departments that support hunting. But I suspect that a lot of the people on the top of these organizations that push these two agendas have a lot in common.
11-03-2004, 06:23 PM
#75
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: south western, wy USA
Posts: 496
RE: not for the wolf lovers
Oh yeah, and let's get Wyoming off their silly duffs so they put together a reasonable plan so we can get wolf management where it belongs, with the states.
the park, wilderness, and national forest if thats not good enough TUFF
you can whine all you want but wyoming is standing up for what they were promised and they are also standing up for the right of the land owners\ citizens which is why they have there jobs instead of rolling over and kissing there federal butts
maybe montana and idaho aught to climb on board so we can get something accomplished
and on another note the more predators the less prey it is a natural check and balance i am pretty sure if you follow the moose \ wolf trends in alaska it proves my point very well
