Supreme Court Decision Shows More Even-Handed Interpretation of Environmental Statutes Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP By Christopher J. Dunsky A recent decision by the United States Supreme Court acknowledges that the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., has some purposes in addition to protecting endangered species. The decision suggests that, at least for some purposes, the Court will interpret environmental statutes to protect both economic and environmental interests. Together with other recent decisions, this case may reflect a judicial attitude that is less willing than before to rely on the remedial purposes of environmental legislation to justify decisions which favor environmental interests. Bennett v. Spear, 65 Law Week 4201 (March 18, 1997) arose when the United States Fish and Wildlife Service advised the United States Bureau of Reclamation ("Bureau") that it would be necessary to maintain minimum water levels in two lakes in northern California in order to protect the Lost River sucker and the shortnose sucker, two species of fish which had been listed as endangered under the ESA. The Bureau replied that it would maintain minimum lake levels, as requested. Two irrigation districts and two ranchers, who believed that the decision would reduce the amount of water available to meet their needs, sued the Bureau under the citizen suit provision of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g), which allows "any person" to seek injunctive relief against any person in violation of any provision of the ESA, or against the Secretary of Interior if he fails to perform any non-discretionary duty under ESA. The plaintiffs alleged that their economic and recreational interests would be adversely affected by the decision to maintain minimum lake levels. The Department of Justice successfully moved the district court to dismiss the action on grounds that the plaintiffs had no standing to seek an injunction under the citizen suit provision of the ESA, because their interests were purely economic, "an interest which conflicts with the interests protected by" the ESA. The district court held that economic and recreational interests were not even "arguably within the zone of interests" protected by the ESA, and dismissed the complaint. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court, holding that "only plaintiffs who allege an interest in the preservation of endangered species fall within the zone of interests protected by the ESA. Because the plaintiffs have not alleged such an interest in their complaint, they do not have standing." Bennett v. Plenert, 63 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 1995) (italics in original). The Ninth Circuit relied on two Supreme Court opinions, including Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978), the famous snail darter case, to support its conclusion that "the overall purposes of the ESA are singularly devoted to the goal of insuring species preservation; they do not embrace the economic and recreational interests that underlie the plaintiffs'' challenge." 63 F.3d at 920. The court of appeals acknowledged that the ESA requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to consider a variety of factors, including economic ones, in its decision making, but held that these requirements were not enough to "confer standing on every plaintiff who could conceivably claim that the failure to consider one of those factors adversely affected him." 63 F.3d at 921. Justice Scalia, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, analyzed the standing issue in two parts. The first part of his analysis focused on the citizen suit provision of the ESA, which authorizes "any person" to commence a civil action. Anyone familiar with Justice Scalia''s literal approach to statutory interpretation will not be surprised that he held that "any person" means exactly that, and is not limited to persons who desire to vindicate the preservation of a species, but also includes those who wish to advance other causes. Unlike the Ninth Circuit, Justice Scalia did not consider the fact that the ESA is an environmental statute as a reason to limit the universe of parties eligible to commence citizen suits. On the contrary, he argued that the environmental protection subject matter of the ESA supports the view that Congress intended "to encourage enforcement by so-called ''private attorneys general.''" 65 Law Week at 4204. Justice Scalia did briefly acknowledge that these particular plaintiffs sought "to prevent application of environmental restrictions rather than to implement them." Id. Nonetheless, because he found "no textual basis" to limit the citizen suit provision "to environmentalists alone," Justice Scalia concluded that Congress intended to confer standing to commence a citizen suit under the ESA on any person, regardless of his or her motive for doing so. The Court also analyzed the standing issue outside the context of the citizen suit provision of the ESA, because one of the plaintiffs'' claims was based on the Administrative Procedure Act, instead of the citizen suit provision of the ESA. This analysis was based on the "substantive provisions of the ESA," rather than the citizen suit provision. Justice Scalia agreed with the courts below that "the overall purpose of the ESA is the preservation of endangered species"; however, he held that analysis of the standing issue must be determined not by the overall purpose of the statute in question, but instead "by reference to the particular provision of law upon which the plaintiff relies." 65 Law Week at 4207. In this case, the plaintiffs relied on 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2), which requires the government to "use the best scientific and commercial data available" in making decisions. Justice Scalia held that it was "readily apparent that another objective [of the ESA in addition to species preservation] . . . is to avoid needless economic dislocation produced by agency officials zealously but unintelligently pursuing their environmental objectives." 65 Law Week at 4207. After thus finding that the ESA has both economic and environmental objectives, he concluded that the economic interests of the plaintiffs were within the "zone of interests" protected by the ESA, so that they have standing to contest the decision to maintain minimum lake levels. The significance of this decision is debatable. Perhaps the plaintiffs won nothing more than an opportunity to present their substantive arguments to the district court, where they may face an uphill battle. On the other hand, this case may indicate that courts are becoming more even-handed in their interpretation of environmental statutes, and feel less need to write decisions which assure an outcome which is environmentally "desirable." In the past, some courts have cited the "remedial purposes" of environmental legislation almost as a substitute for analysis of other aids to statutory construction. Smith Land and Improvement Corp. v. Celotex Corp., 851 F.2d 86, 92 (3rd Cir. 1988). U.S. v. R.W. Meyer, Inc., 889 F.2d 1497, 1503 (6th Cir. 1989). In the last few years, however, courts have been less willing to adopt "liberal" constructions to achieve "remedial" purposes, and have demonstrated a more even-handed approach to interpreting environmental statutes. South Florida Water Management District v. Montalvo, 84 F.3d 402, 409 (11th Cir. 1996). United States v. Cordova Chemical Co., 59 F.3d 584 (6th Cir. 1995), opinion vacated, 67 F.3d 586 (6th Cir. 1995). United States v. USX Corp., 68 F.3d 811, 822 (3rd. Cir. 1995). The Supreme Court''s decision in Bennett v. Spear reinforces this trend. This article was written by Christopher J. Dunsky, a partner in our Environmental Department, and previously appeared in the July 21, 1997 edition of the Michigan Lawyers Weekly.
Terry
Terry
Not only the guides and outfitters, but motels or any body that will lose money because of no elk season, including our F&G. You may have noticed that loss of recreation is also a valid reason.
The part I like the best is "requires the government to use the best scientific and commercial data available in making decisions". Right now we aren't even getting any of this data because there is a gag order on our F&G. No one is ALLOWED to talk except the pro-wolf groups. These would be the Nez Perz Indians in Idaho. They are charged with wolf management and are gaining benifits so they don't want the wolf to go away. Their information is totally useless.
I could go on all day, but I won't. I just posted this to get some of your feed back. Hopefully we have an attorney lurking that will comment.
jd
It's plumb obvious that you don't have any idea in the world what you are talking about.
Pull your head out into the sunshine and look around, you'll be amazed at the difference in the view when you aren't looking thru that window in your belly button!!!!
DDD
There ia a huge difference between a problem such as overgrazing and a problem like game populations crashing due to irresponsible and idiotic ideas such as wolf introduction.
Go ahead and work harder for one --- you can probably do that for a few more years --- then you can sit on your porch and tell folks how "there used to be elk here in the Northwest, then we had to quit hunting them because somebody in New York wanted to hear wolves howl, the wolves ate the elk".
If you aren't sorry about getting them back now, you will be.
DDD
The elk used not to have any pressure on them in the winter except for the occassional mountain lion. They were not forced to use up all their reserves RUNNING. Now in their most stressful time they are being pressured ALL the time. In years, like this one, of heavy snow they can't afford to spend energy in this manor. So you can take the figures of how many elk the wolves are killing and eating and just add the numbers that won't survive but are left to rot.
Any idiot can see if no calves are surviving, in a few short years there will be no elk. CALVES ARE NOT SURVIVING. Do you get that? 33% of all calves HAVE to survive to maintain the herds. We are at 0% to 10% survival on calves and the adults are dying in large numbers.
Hunters are supposed to be tied to their enviornment closer then most. You are blind or not a hunter I think.
jd
I am not an activist, I love to hunt. But, I have never understood how ranchers can dictate what kind of animal is going to live or die in the woods. The ranchers greed is what made wolves extinct, it's time to bring them back. The impact of overgrazing and overpopulation of cattle is by far a more serious threat to elk populations.
stevo and shaft2 here is the math you do it yourself there are 300+ woves in idaho ten wolves can eat 360+ deer and elk a year, the wolves are doubling there population every year, Idaho have a heard of about 75,000 elk. how many years untill the elk herd is thinned out enough we won't be able to hunt elk ?
Wolves do damage and it is not only the ranchers but the hunters that would not like to see all of the work F&G has done in the last century go down the drain.
this is just elk we are talking about other species will fall prey or be killed to eliminate competition.
Read this:http://bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2004/01/08/news/01elkbzbigs.txt
jd
Do you get it yet? REDUCE HUNTERS=STOP HUNTING
jd
http://montanalife.tripod.com/wolves/elk_numbers.htm
Those who think bringing wolves back is good need to look at what happened to the moose population in Alaska when they outlawed airborn wolf hunting. It got outlawed because folks thought "the poor wolves...shot from planes". Well, finding them from the ground is nearly IMPOSSIBLE in the vastness of AK, so essentially wolf hunting was outlawed. With virtually no control, their population has skyrocketed, thus the moose, etc. have plumeted.
Now that wolves are "back" they need to be hunted and controlled, or they will be the ones who get to do all the hunting and we'll be wishing there were hunting opportunities somewhere besides game farms...
I think the two of you should be banned from hunting elk.
Unreal.
Calf depredation on the moose from what I was told by the Outfitters working around Yellowstone is 100% mortality. I have not seen any figures to support this from the press, but after spending 2 weeks on the north Yellowstone border last year knowing that the region was once thriving with moose, and not seeing or cutting a single moose track in 2 weeks time...Made me sick!
How can you say the elk will be fine when they are for a fact being reduced at a rapid rate?
Are you really so naive to beleive that somehow wolves will regulate themselves or somehow decide to leave enough deer, elk and moose for other uses? Don't think so. This elevated and unrealistic view of the sacred wolf has caused some people to abandon logic and common sense.
Let me ask this question; how does a forest full of wolves benefit any of us? When is the last time you heard someone purchasing products at a sporting goods store, buying gas at the local station or making vacation plans to go find a stupid wolf?
The big city folks pushing this wolf fantasy won't be out here looking at them or enjoying them in any way. They will however be happy in front of their big-screened TV knowing that those of us who love to spend time in the outdoors can no longer pursue big game as we have done for years and years.
I've been saying all along that the moose will be the first to go. Let's not forget the Bighorn that becomes very accessible during the winter months. The moose is the favorite prey of these big Canadian Gray wolves ours will be easy pickings.
Let's see with the woodland caribou up north, moose, bighorn, elk looks like a trade of six species for one. The sixth species would be the Idaho Biggame Hunter.
jd
Yep, the "lunatic fringe" is the only bunch that cares ----- oh, by the way -- that lunatic fringe is the people that live around old canis lupis.
Yea, the ones that are used to hunting elk!! OR the ones that want to continue to hunt elk.
Tell the ranchers that are losing the stock that they have no right to defend them or that they have no right to have the livestock in the woods --- where they PAY to have them.
If you want to hear the damn things howl, go to the zoo or go to yellowstone --- or - just wait a few years, you can hear them howl instead of hearing elk bugle.
Me??? I'd rather hear the elk.
DDD
Does any of that even matter to you, or is it just about easy kills and $$$?
Just some questions I have wondered about on my elk hunts and hiking trips in MT and ID over the past 5 years.
You want them in South Dakota, you can have them.
jd
In whose opinon??
NEVER have I heard anybody complain because there were to many elk.
Must be some new kind of "hiking around thinking silly thought" kind of a biological opinion. Wonder where you get a degree like that??
Oh, by the way, who is it that decided that to have a "decent elk hunting experience" that we had to have these (evidently) thousands of elk running around??
Just ONE of you folks out there that like these wolves give me ONE reason that we need an uncontrolled, unregulated and unwanted predator out there that kills just for the hell of it when he's not hungry.
By the way, don't EVEN come with the "all they kill are the old and the weak" argument. That went out with mother goose.
DDD
Antis unite very well, we backstab ourselves and end up helping them too. Sad.
Of course, perhaps there are trolls in our midst?
Carl
Personally I would rather have the high densitys of elk. Heck we have the mexican gray wolf now with a lot of "wolfers" screaming protection but that is the least of "our" worry's down here. We have morons killing tons of elk out of season on their private land leaving them to rot,in the name of the Jennings Bill. I feel for you northern elk hunters and this problem. Wouldn't it be nice to have a wolf hanging in the family room? Why wouldn't hunting/managing the wolf be a viable solution? It would be like 125lb coyote!
As far as ranchers paying for the right to graze on National Forests, that's rediculous. In NM grazing rights are 2 dollars a head annually. The definition for a head of cattle in NM is a cow and calf. 2 DOLLARS!! Are you kidding! That "head" of cattle eats through 2 dollars in about 2 minutes. Not to mention the fact that those grazing fees don't come anywhere close to the taxes we all pay for access to that land. For $2 dollars a head somebody dictates what happens in a National Forest? No way dude, that ain't right.
I am from Back east so I am probably not welcomed here but if you will tell who to write the letters to I will write and get as many people as I can to write as well(hunters).
Later J
Here's something about grazing costs and it's effects on the local economy:
Private grazing rental rates are higher than the federal grazing fee but the two types of leases are not analogous. Most federal land is extensive, steep, and difficult to manage; homesteaders settled on more productive lands. Also, private leases generally include all improvements and may include management and exclusive use of the land. Federal grazers must share the land with other users; and management agencies restrict the time and pattern of livestock grazing, require construction and/or maintenance of improvements, and impose ever-increasing overhead (nonfee) costs.
If federal grazing fees were increased to the level of private lease rates, grazing on public lands would not be economically feasible for many public-land-dependent livestock ranchers and would contribute to the decline of western rural communities. Some ranchers priced off of public lands would have to sell their livestock and subdivide or sell their private-land holdings to developers. Others would greatly intensify their livestock operations on private land. Either action can have serious ecological consequences and affect valuable winter wildlife habitat for big game herds. ---------------------------------------
From what I've seen, including studies in the Starkey Experimental Area the impacts of regulated grazing on elk and deer is minimal most years and gets all the way up to moderate in dry years when there is some competition for feed. Remember it's winter range that determines the size of the herd, not summer range, which is where most of the grazing occurs.
I'm no fan of range cows or cows anywhere but in a meat case or on my plate but facts is facts. I am more fond of large expanses of open land than I am subdevelopments. I like the character of small agricultural towns instead of yuppied out "quaint" little towns. Cattle and agriculture is what keeps our rural lands going. AS long as the land isn't overgrazed, and that won't be happening any time soon, I think we should leave the cattlemen alone so they can grow us some food in case we don't get an elk one year.
BTW the wolves that were "introduced" were not the wolves that were extirpated from the West. We got the Canadian gray wolf, not the Rocky Mountain wolf that was originally here. I read here a while back that the Canadian is larger and travels in larger packs than the original did. Maybe somebody can cut and paste the details.
Different breed of cat they shoved up our butt, all in the name of "reintroduction". And I wish someone would sue for the removal of the Canadian gray on these grounds.
We have a runaway train on our hands that no one will take control of. It will ruin hunting as we have come to know it.
Natural is a pipe dream; man has changed the scenario. What is natural to assume is that given the current or an increased population of wolves in Idaho, and other western states, our ability to hunt elk will be severely limited at best.
DDD, Idaho and others present rational arguement written as individuals who have experienced what wolves are doing. Elk populations in areas that in the past have been the most productive in the state are plummeting. Hunting opportunities on the Salmon, Selway, Lochsa and Clearwater rivers have already been reduced.
Wolves were introduced into these areas when populations were already being threatened by a harsh winter and habititat problems. Wolves are finishing the job.
The facts are that on the Clearwater you used to be able to spike in and see elk nearly every day and hear them bugle all night. Today you are fortunate in many drainages to see an elk in a week and the only thing you will hear at night is wolves howling.
Wolves are limiting hunting opportunities. Elk recruitement in many areas are below sustainability. It is time for idealists to wake up and unite to force at least the extensive management and at best extermination of this introduced species. I never thought I would say this but I wish they would have given us grizzlies instead.
You people that read about the raparian damage that elk do or the over grazing or even the slaughter of elk in yellowstone need to get a clue. the rest of the world is not like that. Yellowstone is a poor example of wildlife managment probebly the world worst experiment in playing god.
It is basic if you remove a preditor you must replace it with another or other animals and plants will have problems. but if you add another predetor without taking away the original then you have damage to the herd numbers. wolves Kill and very efficiently too. they kill everything they can from mice to moose, including coyotes and calfs, and someday soon it will be a human.
For all of you that are for the wolves and supposedly hunt you should re think or just send your paycheck to peta and stay away from hunting because you do not look to the future and don't appreciate the heritage.
There is no livestock grazing on the north fork of the Clearwater, Lochsa or Selway yet elk populations are still plummeting. Wolf, bear and cougar predation has calf recruitment well below sustainability. You can't take what you know about elk in NM and assume you understand them in Idaho. Walk where they live and are having an impact then you might understand. The fact is in these areas livestock has zero impact and the elk population is declining.
If the 0% recruitment is real, it is obviously a problem, but I just cannot see how wolves can have such a large impact on elk in one area when they do not seem to elsewhere. Is it simply the lack of management at this point, or is there 0% in wolf range in Canada?
I for one am happy to see wolves out there. I don't see how anyone can claim to be a hunter/conservationist without believing in a complete ecosystem. We no doubt need to manage the wolves in the context of herds levels. That is an imperative if we are seeing 0% recruitment, but there has to be a reasonable medium.
The governor put the gag order on F&G so that he could take control ... personally.
(My momma always taught me that if you can't say anything good about someone, don't say anything at all. With that in mind, let me tell you about our current Governor ..
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and as far as I know he is not a litterer.
Enough said.
The Old Sarge
The governor put the gag order on F&G so that he could take control ... personally.
(My momma always taught me that if you can't say anything good about someone, don't say anything at all. With that in mind, let me tell you about our current Governor ..
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and as far as I know he is not a litterer.
Enough said.
The Old Sarge
also what are the populations of elk in canada? how many are there and is there seasons on wolves?
The sad fact is the Canadian Gray Wolf is here. They must be managed.
So two of the three are managed, sort of. How many elk hunters go after bear? Every bear that kills a few calves, or a dozen, a year is an impact too. We may not presently be able to do much about wolves but we can kill off a few bear. Actually we could kill off quite a few bear before they'd curtail the season or restrict the numbers killed in another way.
So what are we going to do, complain or get in the woods and hunt? Which will save more elk calves this spring, or next spring, or the spring after?
If it was in fact the case that elk and wolves cannot coexist together with some sort of balance, there would have been no elk in N.A. prior to the white man killing off all the wolves. That was not the case.
There are obviously some other factorts involved here, but it doesn't seems as though they are that well understood.
I believe many parts of Idaho did not have the elk population to sustain a large number of wolves especially this big canadians.
If we want a complete ecosystem get rid of 99% of the people and run all the elk out of the mountains. We can't go back, natural is no longer possible and wolves don't fit. We have to choose between hunters or wolves getting the elk. I know what I choose.
All wolf populations in the contiguous 48 states are increasing. Minnesota wolves occupy all suitable areas there and even have been colonizing agricultural regions where the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team felt they should not be (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992). Thus, in 1993, the Department of Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program destroyed a record 139 wolves for livestock depredation control (Paul 1994). As wolf populations continue to grow in other newly colonized areas, there may be an increasing need for control of those wolves preying on livestock.
Because the public has so strongly supported wolf recovery and reintroduction, it may be difficult for many to understand the need for control. Thus, strong efforts at public education will be required. _-----------------------------------__
That's from government biologists on a government site so all is not lost to the wolves just yet.
In Alaska, even where we CAN shoot and trap wolves and bears in a lot of areas, on a large scale predators take on the order of 80% of the annual production of ungulates (moose, caribou, sheep, deer)
For those of you in small flat states, that means that 80 of every 100 calves produced are killed by predators.
Humans (hunters) take 2 or 3 per cent.
Are you willing to give up 80% of your annual production of elk or deer to wolves, just so you can "know you are sharing the woods with a large predator?"
Or are those of you who advocate wolf reintroduction just willing for the REST of us to give up 80% (or more) of populations you have no vested interest in?
Pete
You might lose 70% of the calves and the other 10% are adults but the real story is the overall population. What is it doing? Going up, down, or sideways?
Looking at a given population of elk the cows live to be 12-15 and the bulls maybe 3-7 years old on the average. You don't need anywhere near 100% calf survival to maintain a herd at a steady level. If a herd of 50 replaces 1/8 to 1/12 of it's cows yearly the population stays static. If they replace bulls at 1/3 or so you can say the same. So if 40 cows and 10 bulls have 3 bull calves and 3.33 cow calves make it to a year old every year the population will stay the same. That's about a 15% total survival rate if every cow was bred and had a calf.
My math could be all wrong though. Maybe you really need 90% calf survival to keep it steady and there will be no game in AK in 5 years.
Moreover, it seems you glossed over the "management" part of the picture. I will long remember being close to big bears on Kodiak long after the details of the deer hunt become fuzzy. To me there is a benefit to sharing the field with large predators -it makes the hunting experience more rich and I think you would agree.
I am not so fond of them or so naive to suggest I would rather have them and no game to hunt. I think we should seek a balance, and I think that economic interest: cattle, hunting guides, etc. will ensure that the wolf issue in the lower 48 never gets too far out of hand.
Math aside, there are areas of Alaska where high wolf and bear populations are either keeping populations at low levels, or even causing them to drop lower and lower.
Would it finally "fix itself?" Yup. Sure would. But how long would we have to wait?
I am willing to share my prey with predators, but what has happened here in some areas is that we have had to close down the human hunting because that is the only mortality factor that we could control!
And guess what boys? Non-resident hunting goes first. Now if you are living in NJ, making $10 an hour and never coming to Alaska (or ID, or MT, or WY) to hunt, I guess it is easy to be "for" wolves taking as much game as they want.
Pete
Until wolves are "controlled" in some way, they will continue to multiply rapidly...and expand their territories. Therefore the numbers of elk and other game animals they kill will be reduced at an exponential rate.
It should be obvious that game animals left for human hunters will be sharply reduced.
It's not an all or nothing scenario although there are people in each of those camps. Most people are in the middle and are rational enough to understand the need for control of the wolf, like there is for the cougar (cougars have a lot higher kill rate BTW, about 80% of their attempts are successful).
I don't think wolves will either be allowed to increase unchecked nor do I believe we'll be allowed to re-extirpate them.
Having seen what unchecked cougar populations have done here in CA, I hope the good folks, of WY, ID and MT soon get the ability to manage wolf numbers.
The quickest way to get attacked by one is to run but a person should be able to jog or ride a bike on a suburban trail without fear of having that happen.
Oddly enough his father in law shot cougars and had at least one hide on his wall. He was a rancher and loved to hunt deer on his ranch.
Both of the cats I've met at my father in laws house liked me right off the bat. He said that was odd. Maybe they smelled the elk on my breath. I just think transferring your affection for a pet to wild and free roaming animals is not a logical thing to do but that's just what most people against hunting (of anything)do.
Yes, your math is faulty!! First of all, we are talking about calf survival here. 3% of the calves of the year will not keep a viable elk herd.
The first thing that happens (and it's happening now) is that the mean, or average age of the cows goes up -- not enough female calves to keep the age down.
When that happens, successful breeding is less likely (the cows are older, and less apt to bear a viable calf in the spring) and the population WILL go down.
The feds in all their wisdom have turned a "top of the chain" predator loose on an elk population that is not, aware of even what a wolf is, and second has no escape. What would you think would happen??
"I don't think wolves will either be allowed to increase unchecked nor do I believe we'll be allowed to re-extirpate them."
The current thing that is happening to keep de-listing out is that the feds and the greenies are saying "Wyoming's plan isn't up to OUR standards, therefore we won't delist ANYWHERE". Meanwhile the elk (and other critters) in Idaho and Montana take it in the shorts waiting on a de-listing process that, IMNSHO, will never happen. Who knows what the NEXT roadblock to de-listing will be???
Not allowed to increase unchecked?? Sorry, but BULLROAR!!! That is EXACTLY what is happening here where the damn things live.
You don't see it --- Matt doesn't see it, WE DO!!!
DDD
The wolves met and exceeded those minimum numbers in less than 6 years ... even as a number of them were shot, trapped, or died of unknown causes. Idaho's official data (latest available is 2001) shows 17 CONFIRMED breeding packs and at least 12 more packs where the breeding is "unknown" and three "packs" in which the 'experts' are pretty sure there is no breeding going on.(See paragrap 1for an indication of what the 'experts' know.)
We have something in the neighborhood of 400 wolves ... as of 2001. All this in 6 years and from a release of 35 wolves? Can you imagine what the numbers/packs have done since 2001? They sure ain't shrunk!
DDD, I had a link to the Idaho Wolf Management Plan but lost it and can't find it again. You got one?
The Old Sarge
The Old Sarge's Link
Check out the link if you're interested in the "official" version on Idaho's wolves.
The Old Sarge
SteelyEyes's Link
Roadblocks are temporary as is the rate of increase of the wolf population. Put any species in a place with good food and lots of room and it will increase it's population at a rapid pace, for a while.
Yes they need to be delisted. Yes they need to be controlled to a lower level than they are right now.
I might be a bit naive but I've read that the total North American elk herd was expanding, even into areas of BC and Alberta where these "brutal, viscious killing machines" (as I just read them desribed in an editorial by Jim Slinsky, host of Outdoor Talk Network) have been since before man ever set foot in the area. If the Canadian wolf is so devestating to elk herds how could the elk possibly expand into an area the wolf has been well established in?
SteelyEyes's Link
I've done some more reading and some things popped out. One is that the majority of the prowolf people aren't anti hunting. The other was that in a wolf study area that's been studied for 3 years MT had a new cow season last year. If the elk are going to be wiped out by the wolves how is it that there were enough left in the Madison Valley for a new cow hunt in 2002-2003?
Think link is a really long PDF document about the wolf/elk interactions in some of he core wolf reintroduction areas. One thing that stood out was that although 81% of the animals the wolf kills are elk and 70% of those are calves they remove a total of 6% or so of the calves each year. The elk population in the study area hasn't appreciably been reduced yet.
Funny thing. The elk tend to move away from the wolves just like they tend to move away from human hunters or cougar kill sites. It looks like they do know what to do to keep from being wiped out.
Oh, and the exploding wolf population. One year it went up 35%, the last year I saw numbers on it was 12%, so the rate is slowing. It's about 750 total now and they figure it will level off at about 1000, not the 5700 some people are forecasting.
Time will tell. Estimates of disaster are always high at first. Look at the WTC thing. The first guess was that 25,000 to 45,000 people died because of the number of people generally in the building. It turned out to be less than 3000 because people, like the elk, tend to modify their location to avoid dying so a lot of them fled before the collapse.
I guess time will tell on this one. I for one ain't gonna buy the sky is falling story until I see pieces of it coming down.
The Clark Fork is the same. At the time the Nez Perce went through that area it was nearly devoid of big game. It's anything but now. Huge fires and logging had a fairly long term, and beneficial effect on ungulate habibtat between then and now.
Even now the decrease in logging on USFS land is decreasing the elk population in some areas while the private timber areas are seeing steady to increasing populations because they are still cutting timber...and providing open feeding areas.
Just about any game population study shows that weather and feeding opportunity has a lot larger role to play than predation. Elk can avoid predators by changing their routine or location. They can't avoid starving if the winter gets too tough.
Stillhunter e-mail me with names and addresses of who we need to get after and I will get all my hunting buddies to write letters. I do not live out there I know but I would like to hunt out there! I mount quite of few elk for some of my clients every yr. and cannot wait to jump out there myself but doing taxidermy kinda keeps me strapped.
In all seriousness I can talk to my clients and hunters I know that hang around the shop.
My e-mail is [email protected] soon as ya get a chance.
Thanks Jason
I know the Clark Fork valley (Sanders County in MT) was heavily forested because of the accounts of the cavalry chasing the Nez Perce when Chief Joseph had his last hurrah.
SteelyEyes's Link
I really don't want to argue with you, all I'll say is I/we live here and are watching what is happening. Why would you suppose our F&G has been reducing tags in some areas and increasing tags in others for the past 50 years? It was not too long ago here in Idaho it was an event to SEE an elk track. Because of some intelligent biologic game management Idaho elk have been thriving. Just like whitetail populations in some other states, now is the good ol' days of hunting. Oppertunity exists for EVERYONE to obtain an elk tag and experience the thrill of hearing an elk bugle in the Rocky Mountains. Believe what you want, but this is coming to a screaching halt! 33% calf survival is necessary to MAINTAIN ELK POPULATIONS. Not to grow bigger herds but to maintain. Survival rate is currently at 0% to 10% right now. This means our elk herds will CRASH in a few short years as the older animals die off.
I really don't want to wait until this happens so I can write you on here and say "I told you so". I would prefer to try to do something NOW, before this happens. Our governer has taken our state biologist away from us. Do you think if they had good things to say about wolf introduction they would not let them say it? Me neither, it's bad news which is why they are not allowed to talk.
There was plenty of room for the "rocky mountain wolf" to co-exist with our animals here in Idaho. These wolves hunted in pairs, not packs and provided a good relationship between preditor and prey. There is NO room for the "Canidian Gray Wolf" here in Idaho. They should have never been introduced and they should be eradicated as quickly as is possible.
Will the Canidian Gray Wolf and Idaho's elk reach a balance? Maybe, what is your best guess? Twenty years? Thirty years? A hundred years? No matter, by then the Idaho elk hunter will have become extinct. Unfortunately so probably will be the other species that are on the bubble like moose and big horn. These animals are even easier for the wolf to catch.
It is truly a very sad state of affairs. Sadder yet that some hunters can't see it.
jd
It is truly a very sad state of affairs. Sadder yet that some hunters can't see it.
IDAHO, who are you alluding to? There is not a single person on this thread who advocates what you wrote above.
jd
Wolves have core areas and if you look at all the maps and graphs in the study you can see that the elk have figured out that it's not good to hang around where the wolves are. In fact the elk spend the least amount of time where the wolves spend the most so it's not like the wolves are "shooting fish in a barrel".
So far the total kill of calves has been less than 7% of them and less than 5% of cows. They hardly kill any bulls, like a few a year. So far hunters are killing well more than double the amount of cows as the wolves are.
It's also a fact that calf recruitment in the Madison area is 25% and that the elk herd in that area in 2001-2003 is about double what it was in 1995. The population of elk in that area had a low point in 1994 before the wolves got there in 2000.
Mule deer recuitment in the same area averages 33-45% for 2001-2003 despite the wolves.
The hunter harvest of elk in the study area was 61% higher in 2002-2003 because of an additional cow hunt that year. If the wolves that have been in this area had really caused all the doom and destruction people claim they will then why the hunt? Not only why the hunt but how could the hunters find and kill that many elk when they're all supposed to have been gobbled up by wolves?
So far the total population in the area has been stable and the biggest effect on the elk is where they spend their time, which is in different places than the old time hunters are used to.
As to wolf control not happening I found this here: http://www.usa4id.com/Documents/13%20September%202002%20Wolf%20Update.htm which is an update from Sept. 2002 from the USFWS. --------------------------------------- The Jureano Mountain pack killed a calf within the fladry barrier near Salmon, ID on the 9th. The alpha male, B106, was designated for removal. Wildlife Services personnel attempted to shoot and kill B106 from a helicopter on the 12th. The wolf entered heavy timber and thus was able to elude the helicopter. Wildlife Service’s Rick Williamson has devoted a considerable amount of time, energy, and expertise to the livestock producers of the Salmon area, and on the wolves’ behalf, this summer, as well as over the past few years.
------------------------------------- and this: ------------------------------------- Stanley Basin pack subadult wolf B-55-M was implicated in repeated depredations on livestock in the Sawtooth Valley during the first two weeks of July. During this time, B55 was implicated in killing 10 sheep and 1 livestock calf. Attempts to capture and relocate B55 were unsuccessful. B55 was lethally controlled after relocation attempts failed and livestock losses continued.
---------------------------------------
It looks to me the wolves have been in the Salmon area of ID for some time by the size and locations of the packs in these reports. My buddy, Dave, (the guy that turned in the guys for wasting meat last season) hunted around there and had no trouble findin elk, although he did have trouble killing one. The guys he turned in had no trouble killing them, just packing out all of the meat. Most of those guys were from CA and had been hunting (and being complained about for wasting meat) in the area for a while with plenty of success, just not a much for ethics.
Elk can strike back too. ------------------------------------ In early 2001, Chief Joseph numbered 12 wolves. Then, in mid-summer, the alpha female was killed by a car on Hwy. 191 and 2 months later, the alpha male was killed by a bull elk. --------------------------------------------
"So far the total kill of calves has been less than 7% of them and less than 5% of cows. They hardly kill any bulls, like a few a year. So far hunters are killing well more than double the amount of cows as the wolves are."
First of all, where are you getting those numbers?? I'd really like to see them firsthand.
Second --- Hunters are killing more than twice as many elk ---- If it is only twice as many I'm really suprised and the problem is a lot worse than even I feared.
In case you haven't done the math, there are several THOUSAND hunters and only several HUNDRED wolves. Get the picture??
I think it was IDAHO, up above on this thread, that tried to point out that one of the first things that is going to happen if these things continue in their killing ways is for the courts (prodded by the greenies) to curtail elk hunting because people are killing the food for a species that is (incorrectly) classified as endangered.
Think for just one minute ---- the wolves are doing fine, better than their most rabid supporters thought they would --- BUT --- because of that, HUNTERS will be the next endangered species. And it won't be all that far in the future!!!!
What (specifically) study are you looking at that is "near the release site" Is it one of the Yellowstone Park ones??
By the way, you also cite "25% calf recruitment", you seem to think that is a success, most competent biologists will tell you that it takes 33% to just maintain the population of ungulates.
DDD
People are forgetting the economic picture here. It is just not about hunting elk, it is about western states that get a lot of income from hunting, and all the other activities that go along with it. Some of these smaller towns depend on big game hunting and fishing industry. When that is gone, there is less exposure to other tourism activities etc. Whitewater rafting kayaking and the rest will suffer too. I don't see people traveling to Idaho to get a glimpse of the wolf and it for sure isn't going to pick up the slack economically.
For those who say they co-existed before and can again. You need to remember that was before man was introduced to the ecosystem. If you want things to balance out, then hunting by humans will have to cease. If the Fish and Game lose most of their revenue, where are they going to get the money to use for fish management and non-game management?
Man has changed the way ecosystems are and we can't go back.
Forests were not as dense as they are now because now we practice fire suppression. Nature isn't allowed to maintain the forests. The agencies are now starting to change their fire suppression policies.
What will happen to these western states when the economic fallout occurs?
Lets put the wolf back in all of the areas it was existed in and see how the rest of you like that. :) No more mulitiple deer tags and the archery industry will suffer. Less interest in 3d shoots because most hunting will be limited and people will move to other interests.
You don't need a majority of non-hunters for wolf reintro with no management for achieving the antis agenda. They are doing quite nicely bsing alot of the hunters as it is. The longer this no management with wolf policy goes on, the closer they get to their long term goal of eliminating hunting all together. If you don't think these people are trying to do that, then you are very naive. If you don't think people actually believe that we shouldn't be allowed to hunt, you are very naive.
I challenge all of you who don't undestand what is really going on to educate yourself on the way our ecosystems work and understand better about wildlife biology.
If there was no gag order on our fish and game dept., do you think they would go along with what is going on? Heck no!
Does our governor care about the economic welfare of the Idaho citizen? No unless they live in Boise maybe. I believe our governor, Dirk Kempthorne is a closet anti, or maybe he just doesn't have the balls to defend the state he has sworn to protect. Ok, maybe it is both no balls and a closet anti.
Some of you guys should start studying the biology of the wolf a little better.
Justin
Yes, in the "old days" there was a balance. Wolves killed elk. Statistically few elk were killed by humans (sure Indians hunted, but they weren't taking that many in the grand scheme of things). So that means that a "balance" is achieved when wolves kill elk and humans basically don't. That's why anti-hunters are so happy. As pointed out in some of the articles posted, human hunters are the only thing that can be controlled, so tags will be reduced.
Wolf numbers need to be controlled, and the way things are now they cannot be. Wolves are not endangered. There are plenty of them - look to Alaska and Canada.
I don't personally live where wolves have been reintroduced, but I am from Alaska and have some understanding of what the wolves up there have done since the ban on airborne hunting.
Why doesn't anybody listen to those who are posting here listing their personal experiences? Some folks have posted that they aren't seeing any tracks or hearing elk where they once did. They hear wolves howling all the time, etc.
Those who don't seem to have any first hand knowledge simply quote from articles (which are skewed toward the reintroduction of wolves) that all is hunky dory, instead of listening to the Bowsiters who are actually in the wolf-reintroduction areas and are reporting what they have seen.
SteelyEyes's Link
Yes it's in the Madison Valley near Yellowstone park.
There are three study areas. One in the park and two outside the park. The East/Lower Madison study has the most information.
It's not mentioned in that study but in another one the coyote predation rates on elk calves has been reduced by 50% since the wolves showed up.
Nothing happens in a vaccum. There are some complex relationships in the woods. There's additive predation and compensatory predation. So far the studies are looking like wolves are a bit of both. If putting the wolves in runs off some coyotes, which it appears to, and changes the elk distribution, which it appears to the total impact of wolves on elk might not be as large as some think it will be.
Also as I pointed out earlier there is lethal removal of wolves being used even though they are not delisted. The wolves are being shot by the Feds if they can't catch and relocate them. To think there isn't going to be some sort of wolf control efforts in the future isn't logical.
We are going to need help from our fellow citizens back east, because you will be next if you don't. I hope you all do.
Do you think the antis think logically?
I do believe we can have some wolves and enough elk to hunt, but when do you think that will happen? If they can drag this out for awhile, we won't have any choice but to limit hunting by us humans.
Just because the elk moved to a place they weren't before, and Joe Hunter doesn't see them in their old haunts doesn't mean they are all gone. I've been in the woods enough to know just because another group of guys didn't see anything doesn't always mean I won't or that there really aren't any animals there.
The converse is also true. I hunted the Entiat area for 3 days during the rifle season and saw not one living big game animal. During the late archery season it was an entirely different story.
One of my hunting buddies and some of his partners went to Idaho to hunt last year and they're going back this year despite the wolves because they found elk. They had the choice to to OR, or CO, or any other state without wolves but they're going back to ID. Why, again because they got into plenty of elk and elk sign. I don't think they imagined the elk. I do know the elk they found were in some tough spots to pack one out of. They were also far from any roads.
I believe wolves do impact the elk population, I just don't believe they will be allowed to do so at the loss of millions of dollars of hunting related income in the western states. They will be delisted and they will (they already are to a degree) be controlled through lethal removal. Money talks and big game hunters put more money into the economy than just about any other sporting group. We're not easy to forget. My job has been directly affected by the ESA and "biological opinions" so I know a little about how it goes. I've had the opportunity to exchange ideas with some biologists and I could see they had an agenda. Their agenda is what ruled the day.
In the case of the wolves the government biologists monitoring them from the very beginning have said that they were going to have to be lethally controlled at some point. They're the ones whose opinions count more than even our elected officials when it comes to ESA issues.
I like to have real hard facts to form an opinion on too, but do you really think they are doing that good of a job tracking them and keep abreast of their wereabouts and numbers? Do they have a least one wolf in every pack with a collar? I doubt it.
I think the agencies have always been weak in this area. That is my opinion though. Do they have good estimations on the cat numbers? There are other species they say they don't really have firm numbers on. What they actually track and study may just be the tip of the iceberg in a few years.
Yes, in the "old days" there was a balance."
So I take it you rethinking whether or not you are a hunter? McFly? ;-)
"Why doesn't anybody listen to those who are posting here listing their personal experiences? Some folks have posted that they aren't seeing any tracks or hearing elk where they once did. They hear wolves howling all the time, etc."
Because that is anecdotal and proves nothing. I heard the same anecdotal stories tahts were wiping out the elk 3-4 years ago at a time when WY biologists counted an increase in the herd size. The elk had simply moved. Would you trust or 1 (or 3 or 4) person's anecdotal experiences or a scientifically done survey with historical, quantitative information on which one can judge trends?
Just because one man's opinion suits your agenda doesn't make his opinion valid.
SteelyEyes's Link
I know that capture and collaring is going on but to what extent I don't know.
SteelyEyes's Link
Note that both mention the use of lethal contols and efforts to use it. The "forwolves" site mentioned it and even though it's obviously a prowolf site they didn't lament at the death of one.
yellow journalism is still alive and well in the U.S.
SteelyEyes, so your buddies chose Idaho to elk hunt in last year and will do so again this year. YOU AREN'T LISTENING!!!!!! Yes we still have elk in Idaho, the adults but that will change in a few short years BECAUSE WE AREN'T GETTING THE 33% SURVIVAL RATE ON CALVES TO SUSTAIN THE POPULATIONS SO THE ELK ARE GOING TO CRASH.
The folks publishing your reports are the prowolf anti hunting groups. Listen to the hunters,........or don't. I don't need 100% agreement here. I've been posting about wolves for at least three years, I'm sure more. All I'm trying to do is educate as many 'Joe Average' hunters as I can and let them know of the injustice our Federal Government is cramming down our throats. By your simplistic arguements you are giving me a reason to debate this issue some more. Rather then be frustrated as I sometimes get I'm leaning toward thanking you. My message is getting through, just look at all the folks from all parts of the country that are taking the hunters side on this thread.
1995 35 Canada Gray Wolves were introduced at a cost of around one million each. Now we have over 700. Lethal Control has been used on "maybe" twenty wolves. I don't know the exact number hence the quotes. It really doesn't matter, it hasn't slowed them down a bit.
jd
I know that there are biologists that hunt, just like there are doctors, lawyers, and CEOs of corporations that hunt. Where are the anti-wolf biologists? Where's the money from SCI or other prohunting organizations to do an "unbiased" study if we can't trust the USFWS or any college biology programs?
I've looked into this for a few years myself and you know what I've found so far for science of any kind that's anti-wolf? None.
My daughter did a college paper on this issue. It was supposed to cite primary sources and data both for and against wolf reintroduction and come to a conclusion. She got less than a perfect grade on it. The reason was she looked and looked online, in libraries, and even called people that were supposed to know something and couldn't find one thing with any scientific credibility to use in the argument against the wolves. Most of the anti-wolf stuff wasn't even published with a person's name, let alone any data in it. She didn't have any postion to start with. She hunts and even started to study for a trapping license.
I don't love the wolf. I'm ambivilant about the whole thing. I try to make my decisions based on the best FACTS available, not stories or fables or conjecture. When I see facts that are verifiable that the sky is indeed falling, the the wolves will rob of the chance to hunt, or anything like that I'll be lobbying to kill them all.
I've been through the "you ain't from aroun' here, is ya boy?" thing before and it's a waste of time. I live in this place because it's where my job is right now. My preference would be to live in a more rural area not in WA but that's not in the cards for the near term. Regardless of which western state I live in (even though it's one of two that already had wolves) the facts is the facts.
So convince me with facts.
Until WY, ID, and MT come up with an acceptable plan, the wolves will continue to multiply and expand their ranges.
Here's a "fact" for you, an undeniable fact:
The more wolves there are, the more elk will be eaten. And therefore fewer elk will be available for human hunting.
If the elk move to avoid wolves, the wolves will eventually follow. So if the wolf population isn't "controlled", then eventually, the elk will run out of places to avoid them. It may take a while in some areas, but it will happen.
SteelyEyes's Link
This is the link to the ID wolf management plan. I guess the Governor forgot to delete the website.
Here's a quote despite the gag order from a guy with 32 years experience. I guess being retired keeps him out of reach of the long arm of the Governor.
"In the Clearwater National Forest elk are way down because the winter range can no longer support them. Huge fires in the early 1900s created massive brush fields and, in turn, an explosion in the elk population. But as trees matured, the elk faded away. "A lot of the winter range there is probably on a 500-year [growth-burn] cycle," says Lonn Kuck, Fish and Game's former big-game manager who retired last July after 32 years with the department. "There is an element out there that is convinced that predators are the limiting factor. That element simply can't comprehend that habitat isn't always constant; it thinks that if you kill the predators, we'll have elk coming out of our ears."
I can see why the Gov. wouldn't want guys like this speaking their mind. People might start believing a guy that spent his life in game management.
"The reason I prefer studies to anecdotal stories is because both the elk and the wolves are tracked with radio collars and by aerial survey, something Joe Hunter can't do."
If you read some of the studies that you quote so freely you will find that there are PACKS of wolves that don't have radio collars!!!!
The feds aren't even sure WHERE these packs eat and roam, let alone how many individual wolves are in them.
"I believe wolves do impact the elk population, I just don't believe they will be allowed to do so at the loss of millions of dollars of hunting related income in the western states. They will be delisted and they will (they already are to a degree) be controlled through lethal removal"
Do you also believe in the Easter Bunny??
This is EXACTLY what is happening here - folks like yourself don't believe it, I guess you never will, you apparently don't want to.
Put your head back in the sand, when the elk are gone --- or the population is so diminished that we can't hunt anymore --- see if you can remember the folks that were trying to provide "anecdotal" evidence that you wouldn't believe.
http://montanalife.tripod.com/wolves/elk_numbers.htm
http://bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2004/01/08/news/01elkbzbigs.txt
It's counter productive to try and convince people that won't listen, I'm sure that Matt and SteelyEyes have the inside track and that the rest of us are wrong!!!!
Have fun, come to Idaho and hunt elk while there are a few left.
DDD
Nice quote there steely.
But Kuck quit several years before the wolves were introduced AND I believe that quote had to do with bear predation.
DDD
How can I be ambivilent? Easy. I don't get all emotionally involved until I find out the real scoop first.
Common sense? Common sense dictates you check how deep the water is before you dive in. It tells you to look both ways before crossing the road. The reason we do those common sense things is to gather the facts before we commit to action.
So the wolves will eat more elk. That's a given. What else is going to happen? Are the coyotes going to eat less calves because the wolves don't tolerate them around? How do the wolves and cougars interact? Don't you think another predatory animal in competition for the same food source won't have impacts in that direction too?
I don't know these things for certain and I've yet to be convinced the "kill 'em all" crowd does either. Common sense tells me you can't throw a pebble in a pond without causing a splash, ripples in the water, and puff of mud when it hits the bottom. It's not just the elk that are going to be affected. The other predators will be as well. Look at the predators in Africa, they impact each other, fight over territory, and even kill each other. It's not Jungle Book out there where all the animals talk and get along.
SteelyEyes's Link
I'm convinced. You are right. Kill em.
And the logic gets better. Because we don't live in ID or WY, we must be able to read or think. How quaint.
We had the mountain lions off limits to hunting here in CA well before you folks had the Canadian wolves. A bunch of hunters from CA who pulled pages out of the PETA handbooks too, decided to follow their hearts rather than brain and proclaimed our deer herds would be wiped out. They weren't. Neither will your elk herds.
No doubt there needs to be some wolf management (as I have been saying - and you have been ignoring - all along...perhaps it makes you feel more correct to misrepresent the ideas of those you don't agree with) and there have been very limited areas that have been hard hit by cougars here but...and I hate to break it to you...the sky isn't falling.
Do you wait until your pantry and refridgerator is completley empty before you "head to the local grocery store"? I didn't think so - then why would you wait until the wolves have done so much damage that it will take years (if ever) to recoup what the G & F have worked decades to establish.
You need to listen to the voices that are ACTUALLY SEEING the devistation first hand rather than what the SO CALLED "scientific??" studies are telling you.
Here in north central Minnesota the wolf has been reintroduced and yes, some of them have transmitters on. My realatives have a large tract of land further north and they used to harvest several deer EVERY year - since the wolf - they get very few.
MY POINT IS PLLEEESSSE""LISTEN"" TO THE PEOPLE THAT SEE THE EFFECTS FIRST HAND!
If you wait to long on this issue ALL of our fridg's will be empty!!!!!!!
I truly have to say I hope you are right. Their is something wild about seeing and or hearing wolves in the wilderness areas of my home state of Idaho. If I could coexist with the wolf without any threat to my opportunity to pursue one of God's greatest creatures with my bow I say fine.
But, my passion for elk and elk hunting will not allow me to take the risk that wolves will not severely impact that which I hold most precious. The ability to pursue these magnificent animals in the wilderness of Idaho during the September rut.
I respect your opinions and your right to voice them on this forum. But I feel that the future will prove us out and am unwilling to face the consequences of supporting wolf reintroduction.
Consider the cost of either side. If the majority of us are wrong we don't have any wolves and continue to have huntable thriving elk populations. If the minority is wrong we have wolves everywhere and can kiss our opportunity to pursue or passion (wild free roaming elk) goodbye. Ask yourself this question; can you face the consequences if your opinion is wrong?
The mountain lion comparison doesn't work here. They don't reproduce at the same rate. They have a litter every 2 years. 2-4 cubs generally. Wolves have a litter every year. Guess how many they can have? Mountain lion populations take longer to build. Grizzlys are even slower. Now that people are dying in CA, is anyone caring over there? Do the animal lovers care that people are now dying as a result of no management? Mountain lions just can't impact deer and elk herds like the wolves can.
Click the link above for the real, genuine Idaho Wolf Plan ... same one I linked on the 15th.
The Old Sarge
The Old Sarge's Link
By the time a plan gets approved to allow harvest of the wolves Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming hunters will see drastically reduced herds of Elk, Deer, Sheep, and Moose to hunt, and to top it all off - hunting the wolf will not have the impact that will be needed to bring back the wildgame populations that hunters have strived for over the last 50 years. Wolves kill these animals - and not just for food either, contest that statement if you can! When they eat these animals they are no longer living - right?
I believe that the right approach to getting approval to hunt the wolf is through the pocketbook - bottom line - litterally. Hunters have a huge impact on State and Local economy.....
I don't believe any of the "studies" the pro-wolf groups are doing. Their studies are biased studies that reflect nontruths.
Which would mean that if they in fact killed thousands for 2-3 years, mountain lions would be extirpated from CA (the highest estimate for the state population is 6,000 lions). Since they haven't been wiped out, what that in turn means is you are full of $&!#. If you are going to come on here and try and BS us, at least do it more convincingly.
Or maybe I can site my CA state citizenship as the reason I know all and tell you that you are completely wrong just because I say? Or does that just work if you live in ID?
"Now just because your tweeny little state..."
That is pretty funny considering the only states larger than CA are AK and TX. I wonder what that makes MT? Mwiniscule?
"Elk never really inhabitited mountainous regions before the white man. Do some reading please".
DEFINITELY wrong.
here is just one link to check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wapiti#History
Do a little reading yourself, especially about the Mannitoba and Eastern sub-species.
Even if you were right somehow, you did not address my point about the game animals that have coexisted with wolves in BC and Alberta for eons. These are not just any wolves, mind you. These are the EXTRA ferocious Canadian brand that has been brought to the USA where they will wipe out all life in a matter of years!
Absolutely - they are estimates, and wide estimates at that. I have seen numbers anywhere from less than 4,000 to 6,000. Regardless, if thousands were in fact being killed each year (and gov't trappers are not a new thing, they have been killinglions for years), the upper bound of the estimates would have been reached and exceeded within just a few years. If that had happened as suggested, trappers wouldn't be able to kill thousands each year, because be thousands left. Proof positive the BS is flowing freely.
I'm not going to take the time to go up above in this POS thread and see who the genius(s) were that said anecdotal evidence wasn't any good - I guess it has to be some cockamamy theory from somebody getting a master's that hasn't been in the field a day in his life - but the fact is that somebody said it.
Matt and Stevo - you are both short sighted and seem to be slightly stupid. Or, to put it a little less politically correct - you are proving yourselves to be morons!!!
I'm not going to post any more to this thread, stupid people can't be convinced of anything. They don't want to be.
If you can't see that these wolves are RIGHT NOW out of control and wreaking havoc on our elk population there is absolutely no hope for you.
DDD
I think it was a person who read the same cry from WY hunters re: the Yellowstone herd a few years back, based on them seeign a decrease in the numbers of elk they saw in some hunt areas. As it turns out the herd had actually grown year over year based on counts done by the state.
Time will tell in ID.
Good point.
Thanks, but in Idaho we aren't willing to just let "time tell". How about if you babysit the wolves on YOUR time in YOUR state..........not ours.
I just read a couple of the articles from above and found that even the State of MT's biologists haven't come to a good conclussion on the matter. It leads me to wonder how wolves are causing pregnancy rates in elk to drop and for recruimtment to drop in parts of the state where they don't exist?
NO doubt the wolves are part of the problem, but there are things that wolves are being blamed for that they cannot legitimately be held resposnible for. Moreover, issues like prolonged drought are being competely discounted as a factor. That just doesn't make sense.
Read "The Wolf Trap" by Chuck Adams in the January issue of American Hunter. This is written by a bow hunter of some renown, but you probably would rather believe the "pro-wolf" drivel.
jd
I guess I would ask the same of you. There are some indications that there are other factors at play (see my prior post), but many here would rather react and do something...anything than take the time to figure it out and do the right thing.
Perhaps you can explain to me how the wolves are decreasing pregnancy/recruitment rates in areas where they don't exist?
Feel free to call me names if you cannot answer the question. It seemed to help some of the other guys. ;-)
That leads me to elfking's questions:
"Do you hunt Matt?"
Stupid question. Absolutely.
"do you care about elk at all?"
My RMEF life membership would suggest yes.
"do you care about game management?"
Yes. And I have seen enough bad policy decisions regarding wildlife management based on bad information and poor assumptions to learn to question things.
"what is your objective?"
To get some of you folks to get answers to improtant qwuestions before making wide reaching decisions. It is abundantly clear that soime here, though well meaning, are basing their position on some pretty weak data. Garbage in, garbage out.
Yes- there will be a decline in elk numbers, however the wolf numbers are directly effected by the number of elk in an ecosystem. This means that when the elk numbers are up- wolf numbers are up. When elk numbers are down- wolf numbers are down.
No- elk are not going to become extinct because of wolves.
No-Hunting season will not end because of the wolf packs
Yes- the wolf may kill livestock-but we are here because of our concern for elk and other big game animals.
No- Wolves are not the primary predator of elk. Bears are. I gathered this data from Wyoming Game and Fish who studied predation on elk calves. Bears are the single largest predator of elk calves-not wolves.
A wolf pack will kill 1.3 elk about every three to five days.
My best guess for all the hunters out there who are claiming there is a decline in elk numbers need to consider a couple other critical factors before pointing fingers at a natural existing species of the Rocky Mountain Ecosystems. We have had hotter than normal hunting seasons for a couple years-drought conditions which have moved many elk down to winter ground earlier in the year- and elk calf mortality rates that have been pretty high. The last I heard out of 100 claves about 15 were surviving. Much of this was due to predation by bears. The drought also could be playing a huge role in the calf mortality rates but I have yet to read any hardcore data that backs this theory up.
"Northern Yellowstone elk herd population down 11 percent
After three days of flying along Yellowstone National Park’s northern border in late December, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks biologists found that the northern Yellowstone elk has dropped by 11 percent from 2001 and almost 20 percent from 2000.
Biologists counted 11,969 elk, down from last winter’s count of 13,400. The herd is about the same size as it was after the hard winter of 1996-97. But biologists say the herd is still within normal population fluctuations, and nearly 4,000 above the desired carrying capacity of 8,000.
Some outfitters and hunters near Gardiner blame the decrease in elk numbers on the area’s wolf population—now 200 animals strong. Wildlife officials say predation could indeed be a factor, as well as winter conditions, hunting by humans and the availability of quality forage throughout the year."
Synopsis: The herd is down, but is within historical norms and still 50% above desired carrying capacity.
I read another article in "Bugle" that discussed a study in Central Idaho. Some interesting points are as follows:
- The study was a joint effort between the RMEF, Idaho DF&G, NFS, BLM, USFWS and others.
-The study looked at lion and wolf predation in the Panther Creek and Big Creek wintering areas.
-90% of wolf kills were elk, 58% of which were calves, 31% cows and 11% bulls.
- The packs killed an elk each 3.45 days on average.
- 50% of elk killed had previous injuries.
- The % of young killed was lower than average, likely due to the low calf numbers due to low recruitment (7-10:100 cows)
- IDF&G attributes "the low calf production and survival to the overpopulation of elk that is at or beyond the carrying capacity of the range. Elk on Big Creek winter range are often observed in poor body condition with lice infestations and internal parasites in late winter. When cows suffer from poor health, they produce fewer calves and fewer of those calves survive."
- The study also asks several important questions, one of which is "Can the effect of predation be distinguished from the effects of exceeding carrying capacity in a declining elk polulation?"
The article ends with the following: "As the Idaho study and other research continues, wildlife will learn answers to these questions and more, so the management of big game and the animals and people who hunt them can be based on GOOD, SOUND SCIENCE" (emphasis mine).
What a quaint idea.
It is funny to think the professionals who study the situation cannot decide whether the poor recruitment is because of the wolves or because of our well-intentioned but misguided attempts at us managing the elk.
The wolf kills we see here are eaten so fast that the very day of the kill the whole animal is consumed. A patch of fur here, a bone there and blood everywhere in the snow. It is very easy to age the time of death based upon latest snowfall. In other words we can easily tell the animal was killed after the snow quit. There is not enough animal left to put on a cracker so how in the hell is someone going to tell me "50% of elk killed had previous injuries." The guys doing the wolf studies have JOBS AND GET PAID SALARIES BECAUSE OF THE WOLF. Gee, I wonder if they would be giving us a biased opinion. Don't forget our state biologist ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GIVE ANY INFORMATION. Again, I repeat do you think that is because the news is good?
Let me leave you with another thought: The people that LIVE HERE and HUNT HERE almost without exception say we are getting screwed and the wolf needs to be removed before our wildlife is gone. The people that are in favor of the wolf DON'T LIVE HERE. Doesn't that carry any weight with you? Doesn't that open your eyes a little? Geez!
jd
While the DATA may be sound, it simply cannot be very analogous because neither hunting nor livestock grazing are allowed in the park, and thus not part of the equation.
The issue with ranchers is the impact on their livelihood (predation on stock.)
The issue with hunters is (or should be...!)the impact on numbers of elk available for hunters to harvest.
Part of my position in this disscusion stems from something that does not need study, just thought... It is a very simple concept: Wolves are competing with us for game, in this case, primarily elk.
I don't recall that anyone here has argued that ALL wolves should be eliminated (perhaps I just missed it!) And it not that any of us are anti-wolf, I think we are just pro-elk and pro-hunting for meat for our families.
What we are discussing (OK, arguing about) is HOW MANY elk are we willing to forgo so that we can have wolves (and bears ) in the ecosystems where we hunt.
It is irresponsible to pretend that the more elk are taken by predators, the less there will be availble for hunters. And it doesn't really matter whether the elk were on the plains or in the mountains when L&C went walkabout!
We need our G&F departments and politicians to pressure the USFWS (who garnered the support of lots of non-hunters and anti-hunters and shoved reintroduction down our collective throats) to be more forthright on what the actual impacts on "numbers of elk available for hunters" are and will be.
Having worked for and with the USFWS on and off for more than 30 years, I can assure you that we were lied to (when they were "selling" the idea of reintroduction) when we were told that the impact on hunting would be minimal or non-existant. They set out to reintroduce wolves and there was noting going to stop them. The "public input" process was a sham. There are just too many data from places that DO have wolves and DO actually manage them through hunting and trapping (such as my state,) that show that large predators can limit growth of prey species populations and thus end up shutting down human take.
Pete
The people here from ID have, in my opinion, blamed things on the wolves that biologists suggest could just as easily be caused by the elk...too many elk for the habitat. I will reiterate my support for WY,MT and ID's ability to manage the wolves since it seems the introduction goals have been met (that was the deal from what I have read), but I think people need to open their eyes and realize that every bad thing that happens to elk isn't the fault of wolves. Once people do that, decisions based on logic can be made, rather than decisions based on emotion.
You can look at CA's cougars, the Kaibab predator kill of old and countless other well intentioned but failed attempts at wildlife management due to the sort of things many here recommend.
The other question I have is, how in the world are they determining that 50% of the elk killed by wolves were previously injured? I have heard this arguement before and it usually ends up pointing the finger at hunters who wound elk, and once again the sacred wolf is not responsible.
Sorry, but I have very little to no confidence in a study performed by the USFWS, NFS, BLM (all pro-wolf groups)and our state F&G who can't talk about it.
We were told it would take about twelve years for the wolf to reproduce enough numbers for them to be de-listed. It took only three and they still aren't de-listed and they won't be for a long time to come.
Like I said, many more people are coming over to this side of the fence. The fact that you are not,...I don't need 100%. You must not have read the Chuck Adams aritcle,...he's stupid too huh?
"We have had high bear numbers during these same years and now all of the sudden bears are to blame for a sudden decrease in elk? Don't think so. Sounds like an attempt to take the blame away from the real culprit."
I think the comment above was to try and put predation into perspective, not make any commentary on the decrease. My posts above were to try and shed additional light on what the real culprit may be. All the Idaho folks seem to refuse to believe that excessive populations coupled with poor weather/habitat condition might be to blame. They blame the wolves, even in areas that don't have wolves which have seen similar decreases.
"The fact that you are not,..."
Is your reading comprehension really that bad? I have never stated that I am against wolf control - quite the opposite.
My position is that neither you nor any other of the folks that blame the population reductions on wolves have approached the issue with an open mind. The course you recommend is the right one, but pull your head out and propose it based on reasonable information. Look at all the information available, not just the anecdotal info that suits you.
Sure there are other reasons for declining elk herds, we all know that. But will they be able to rebound with unchecked growth of the wolf population? Wolves are a big part in this, but not the only part. Once we lose enough elk that they are at unhuntable levels, what is going to bring them back? Previously, they could rebound with good managment. It will be tougher with wolves. Soon we will be managing elk for the wolves and not for hunting etc. Our state can't afford to take the economic hit that will happen if things continue to go unchecked. By then it will be too late for the hunting and fishing industry and the businesses that support that or are aligned with them in this state.
If those industries go south, then who will be picking up the tab for wildlife management? Right now hunters and fisherman from in state and alot from out of state provide the revenue so that the fish and game can operate. Looks like Joe Taxpayer will be footing the bill to me. We will be paying for increased welfare costs, bail outs, bankruptcies etc. Lots of areas in this state will become even more depressed than they are now.
You are not a resident and so you don't have to care, but I am and I love this state and I hate to see what is happening to it. If we had a different governor who doesn't lay down and whine, maybe we wouldn't have this problem. Where is Phill Batt when you need him? He was a farmer and understood this stuff.
Any of you other states want to work out a deer or elk for wolves trade? :)I bet no one else wants wolves with the same conditions we had to deal with. You are either with us or against us. Your state could be next.
Thanks for helping make my point about the viewpoints and common argumentative stances taken by many anti-wolfers. The "you aint from 'round here so you can't know anything about anything" argument is a classic!
No I am not from Idaho. Yes, I am from a "wolf" state. Does that mean I can not have an opion on what goes on in Idaho? Last time I checked, I was an American citizen. Last time I checked 68.3% of the land that sits within the borders of Idaho is owned by the U.S. Government (75% of the forest land). When all of that land is sold to state and private interests,we out of staters will have to accept your main argument. Until then it is just the same tiresome stuff that does not get anyone closer to a comprimise on this issue.
That's your quote stevo, you can handle it and that's just fine. Maybe we don't want to, that should be fine too. I'm not saying you don't know anything, I'm just saying we don't want to see 50 years of game management go down the drain. Yes, if you lived here I would be more prone to listen but you don't. Idaho does not have the same demographics as Montana,...very plain and simple what you are willing to live with is different then what we are willing to live with.
jd
I'd guess that if wolves were really wiping out elk left and right, the MTFWP wouldnt be issuing more permtis and increasing hunter opportunity. Someone forget to tell the elk the story of the big-bad wolf, at least in Montana...
Thanks for helping make my point about the viewpoints and common argumentative stances taken by many anti-wolfers. The "you aint from 'round here so you can't know anything about anything" argument is a classic!
No I am not from Idaho. Yes, I am from a "wolf" state. Does that mean I can not have an opion on what goes on in Idaho? Last time I checked, I was an American citizen. Last time I checked 68.3% of the land that sits within the borders of Idaho is owned by the U.S. Government (75% of the forest land). When all of that land is sold to state and private interests,we out of staters will have to accept your main argument. Until then it is just the same tiresome stuff that does not get anyone closer to a comprimise on this issue.
so matt what is response to the part where it looks like I am in person and yelling in your face?
This is a serious issue for a person that hunts and is a RMEF member but...seems to be really happy with what is happening."
All I can say is your reading comprehension skills are right up there with ole IDAHO's. Misrepresenting another's views and then attacking them based on the misrepresentation is disingenuous and is not a very comelling way to get level headed thinkers to support your stance. To that degree, I think you are your own worst enemy.
Gee, Matt. That's exactly the same type of generality you seem to dislike so much. "All the people here from Idaho"? You sure about that?
No one is saying that because you don't live in Idaho you are not allowed an opinion. What is being said is that you don't live here and you are not SEEING what is happening. Sorry to you all if we consider the elk herds in this state to be a very personal issue. IT IS PERSONAL TO US AND IT IS IN OUR BACKYARD.
I'm not familiar with the Idaho situation, and perhaps things are different there.
Here's a recent article from Wyoming Outdoors that fits my view on things very well:
Wolves: A hunter's view One hunter's view on Wyoming's wolf reintroduction plan By Dave Glenn Wyoming Wildlife magazine
"Did you hear that?" My brother is nudging me in my sleep. It's the night before the opening of elk season and we've horsepacked deep into the Absarokas. Throughout the night we've been awakened by elk bugles. "That one is close" he whispers.
It's the sixth year in a row we've hunted in this country. Big, open country with a few elk and even fewer hunters. To me, it's some of the remotest and wildest areas in the lower forty-eight. Due to this, it's also the home of some critters that thrive on this seclusion. The land of the grizzly and the wolf. It's why we come here. With a lot of patience and hard work we've been fortunate enough to score every year. Moose, deer, elk, we've had great hunts in here.
There are a large number of hunters that believe wolves, elk and deer herds and the hunter can all co-exist harmoniously. I'm an avid hunter and outdoorsman and have been my whole life. Growing up in Wyoming and Utah it's what you do, it's in your blood, it's what I live for. It even became my profession for many years as I worked my way through school as a fishing and hunting guide in some incredibly remote areas in Alaska for several years. Again in the land of the wolf and the grizzly.
This whole wolf issue is an interesting one. Statistics are thrown around like candy flying out of a piñata. Everyone uses different numbers. Frankly I don't believe any of them. The majority of these numbers don't take into account many things such as we're in the middle of a four-year drought that greatly effects the survival rate of calf elk. Nor do I want to spend all my time formulating and throwing out my own creative numbers, I'd rather spend that time hunting and fishing.
One element of the hunting crowd that has not been too vocal is those that are avid hunters who believe wolves have a place in Wyoming. I'm one of these people, and believe me there's a large number of Wyoming hunters who feel this way. It upsets me to hear hunting organizations spouting away that they represent all hunters and all hunters are against wolves.
For me it really gets down to the reason of why we hunt.
Some hunt to fill the freezer, others hunt to put a big rack on the wall, some want to get out with their quad-runners and horses, others want to spend time camping with their friends or just want to get out and revive the senses.
It's probably a mixture of these reasons for most folks; it is for me. To me there's nothing better than stalking through the timber with a bow or rifle. I hunt hard and have been fortunate enough to have harvested an elk every year but one for the last twenty-one years. Yes, I enjoy the thrill of taking down a bull I've bugled in. But to me there's more to it. My hunt will be a successful hunt if I never take a shot, if I never bugle in a bull, if I never see an elk. For I hunt for several of the reasons above.
I remember hunts where I've watched a golden eagle take a grouse out of a tree, a cougar chasing a deer over a ridge, a coyote nail a jack rabbit twenty feet away, and where I've seen a pack of wolves take down a caribou. I want to again see a pack of wolves trotting across the hillside, to hear a wolf howl in the night. These are also reasons why I hunt.
There's two things I believe all of these groups can agree on:
1. Wolves eat big game, and some livestock
2. Wolves need to be managed
The state is already benefitting from non-residents' desires to see a wolf in Yellowstone, and that income could increase if wolves were managed with hunting. We need to manage these wolves to make sure people can continue to make a living and enjoy their hunting heritage. But what's wrong with having wolves around? It's not rocket science. Wyoming, Montana and Idaho are never going to manage wolves to the extreme detriment of big game hunting. Period.
Wolves kill to eat, they kill violently, they eat as much as they can and yes, sometimes they don't eat the whole animal. I don't buy these stories going around about how all wolves kill just for the joy of killing and how they maim animals just for sport. Saying something like this is like saying all hunters are horrible because they drink and drive, shoot off highways and put their deer and elk on their hoods so people can see them. We can't just blatantly throw out one or two instances and categorize like this. It scares people, it's not the truth, and hurts the cause.
Outfitters work hard at making a living, and it's difficult. Yes, the elk numbers will lower slightly, but what about all of the income coming into the state from people who are traveling to see the wolves in Yellowstone? What about hunting wolves?
I believe there are many non-residents who would pay a bundle of money to hunt a wolf.
The current Wyoming plan calls for a dual status … trophy, and predator. I believe the state is shooting itself in the foot on this one. Hunting wolves as trophy animals would be a way to manage the wolf populations while increasing revenue for outfitters and the state. Giving wolves predator status actually reduces the income for the state and reduces the ability to better manage the wolf packs. Not only that but if wolves had statewide trophy status ranchers could then be reimbursed for confirmed livestock kills by any trophy animal. Not so with predator status.
Wolves have a place in Wyoming and there are a lot of us hunters who believe this. Wolves need to be, and will be managed so people can continue to make a living and we can continue our hunting heritage. We need to educate ourselves to the reality vs. going off biased fears. In my book, hunting in grizzly and wolf country is what it's all about.
Life-long hunter Dave Glenn lives and works in Lander. He grew up just across the Wyoming line in Dutch John, Utah, and spent his youth hunting and fishing in the famous Brown's Hole country. Glenn spends all of his free time in the Wind River and Absaroka Mountains hunting and fishing and riding his saddle horses.
Montana hasn't run out of elk yet - Sunday, January 18, 2004
SUMMARY: NRA's hunting magazine paints a grim - and wrong - picture of the devastation wrought by wolves.
Elk hunting in Montana is going to hell. Wolves are eating all our elk. Sportsmen are now facing up to the "idiocy of introducing an indiscriminate killer among populations of carefully managed elk, deer, mountain sheep, moose and livestock." All this according to the latest edition of the influential "American Hunter," a national magazine published by the National Rifle Association.
The lengthy article goes into great detail, quoting "experts" about the fact that "the ecosystem north of Yellowstone National Park has been, for all practical purposes, sterilized of wildlife" and lamenting that the "severe decline" of elk populations were completely predictable. Government biologists, we're informed, won't admit the extent of the problem. "Determining levels of wolf predation on elk and other big game is not an exact science," after all.
Neither, apparently, is magazine publishing.
In all its exhaustive research, "American Hunter" apparently failed to pick up on one tiny little detail: The thesis of its breathless account of how wolves are ruining elk hunting is flat-out wrong. While NRA's writers and editors were working up their exposé, Montana hunters last fall were enjoying their best hunting season in decades.
What's more, elk populations remain so large that the state Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks is proposing even more liberal hunting opportunities next fall. Tentative regulations for 2004, now circulating the state for public comment, call for increasing the limit to two elk per hunter in some areas. FWP also is proposing extended and additional seasons for either-sex elk hunting. Montanans continue to enjoy an envy-of-the-nation five-week general big-game hunting season, along with generous early archery and special late seasons. In nearly two out of every three hunting districts, elk populations exceed management goals. Far from seeing a severe decline in elk numbers - attributable to wolves or anything else - Montana hunters today are living in the "good old days."
So, where's this notion about wolves ruining our elk populations coming from? Yellowstone National Park.
After hunters nearly wiped out elk in the 19th century, populations of these magnificent creatures rebounded under modern wildlife management, starting in Yellowstone. Hunting is prohibited in the park, and after wolves were killed off in the early 20th century, Yellowstone's elk herds grew largely unchecked. By the 1960s, the Park Service was thinning out the herds, trapping and shooting elk by the hundreds to hold the number at around 3,000. The slaughter proved controversial, to say the least. Ultimately, the Park Service embraced a let-nature-take-its-course philosophy, and Yellowstone's elk numbers soared, ultimately peaking at some 20,000 animals - a level widely acknowledged as unnaturally large and probably environmentally destructive. In the mid-1970s, Montana began special hunts on the park's periphery to take advantage of the thousands of elk pouring out of the park in winter. It was easy pickings, albeit not necessarily the epitome of the sport.
The need to regulate Yellowstone's elk population was one of the arguments used to win support for reintroducing wolves in 1995. It appears to be working, although not as dramatically as expected by some. One study found bears eat more elk calves than do wolves in Yellowstone. At a conference held last spring to review wolves and their effect on elk numbers, Park Service biologists said computer modeling predicts the elk population in the northern part of the park likely will fluctuate between 5,000 to 16,000 over the coming century. FWP biologists last winter counted 9,200 elk along the northern fringe of the park.
FWP has reduced the number of late-season hunting permits in two units north of Yellowstone by nearly half in recent years. To someone looking to waylay an elk near the firing line along Yellowstone's boundary, perhaps the change - from the aberrantly high tide of elk flowing out of the park in the past to the levels today - does seem calamitous. Others might recognize an abnormal situation returning to something closer to normal.
Step back a little further, look at the whole picture, and you'll see Montana's big game populations are thriving. We've got a lot of country to hunt, and most of it is well populated with elk, deer and other critters. "American Hunter's" assertion that "Idaho, Montana and Wyoming are under siege by wolves" is laughable to anyone who spends much time watching and hunting big game.
Wolves do need to be managed, just as other wildlife - and people - do. FWP has a good plan for doing so. We remain optimistic that the return of wolves, ultimately, will enrich our treasured wildlife heritage, not destroy it.
The wolves only eat the sick and the weak.
jd
Matt, I can appreciate your open mind attitude but the point you keep making about other factors (drought, etc.)having an impact on the elk is a given, and I think well understood by most of us here in Idaho. They are factors but they are variables that have been and will be dealt with through our state management. I personally don't believe they will deplete our herds to the point we can no longer hunt.
The reason people are so angry at the wolf being shoved down our throats is that there is the POTENTIAL for us to lose our hunting seasons due to wolf depredation. If not a closed season, maybe a month long general hunt being changed to a week long permit hunt.
The concern is, they haven't been delisted, they aren't being managed by our state, and they are increasing at a rapid pace while big game numbers have decreased. Even if other factors are at work, the wolves are having an impact. Keep in mind that in some areas where wolves have flourished, outfitters have called it quits due to lack of game. That's lost opportunity to everyone including you.
Idaho isn't B.C. or Montana and most Idahoans aren't buying into the fairytale ending that Stevo dreams of where we have reached some happy balance. For those of us who love to pursue big game here in Idaho, there is too much at stake to ASSUME that some kind of balance will be the end result of this introduction experiment.
I might also add that I have no desire to hunt a wolf with my bow. I am however quite fond of elk and moose steak. I'm confident if you were to poll bowhunters in this state the vast majority would feel the same way.
Return of the Wolf Will the alpha predator change your hunting? by Thomas McIntyre
Last summer, Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho released their plans to manage wolves in the Northern Rockies—the final step toward taking them off the endangered species list. The proposals are now under peer review, but delisting could occur as early as this year. Yet in a way the paperwork is about as relevant as surrender terms brought out of the Philippine jungles by some aged Imperial Japanese soldier who doesn’t know the war is over. Plainly speaking, the wolves have already won. By the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s last count in 2003, the Northern Rockies contained 747 wolves, including 46 breeding pairs. The population was growing at a 12 percent clip, a decrease from previous rates. Ed Bangs, the USFWS northwestern wolf recovery coordinator, believes that all the most suitable wolf habitat—free from conflicts with humans—has wolves. Yellowstone has the “highest density of wolves in the world,” reports the New York Times. Bangs estimates that their numbers will top out at 1,000; but that does not mean there will be 1,000 wolves in Yellowstone and none anywhere else.
Homes on the Range Wolves, which had kept a toehold in the Upper Midwest (especially northern Minnesota), continue to recover and today number in the thousands there. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Defenders of Wildlife petitioned the federal government in 2002 to designate 16 million acres of forest and parks in southern Oregon and northern California as suitable habitat for up to 500 wolves. The animals, it seems, can lope farther than 500 miles in search of new homes. (The first wolf tracks in probably 70 years have appeared in Wyoming’s Bighorn Mountains, hundreds of miles from Yellowstone, but only tens from my home.) Meanwhile, the government is continuing introduction elsewhere. Mexican gray wolves were let go in the Apache and Gila National Forests of Arizona and New Mexico in 1998. In an article in the New York Times, Douglas W. Smith, chief of the Yellowstone Wolf Project, claimed that the next places “on the table” for wolves are the Adirondacks, Southern Rockies, Washington state’s Olympic Peninsula, and (most likely of all) northern Maine. Wherever wolves may come to be released in the future, however, in the Northern Rockies they are a fait accompli.
Dire Predictions What will this mean for hunters in the region, and elsewhere? In perfect candor, nobody knows for sure, or as Bangs puts it, “We all make better historians than prophets.” Still, there is no lack of dire predictions about the impact wolves will have on wildlife. Assorted ranching interests and sportsmen’s associations envision that without strenuous control efforts, there will be 5,700 wolves by 2010; and each one will kill 100 elk per year, plunging calf-to-cow ratios to zero. Inevitably, the doomsayers maintain, game will be wiped out. They also claim that environmentalists, with the support of the USFWS, will never allow wolves to be hunted, and the ultimate motive is for the wolf to become the principal instrument of big-game management, eliminating any need for licensed hunters and hunting. Is there any basis for these alarming assertions? Without question, those who want to do away with hunting are legion, but very few of the antis seem to be directly associated with wolf restoration (everyone actively involved accepts as a given that wolves will need to be killed, some by hunters). As for the remaining claims, most should properly come under the heading of woods lore, or even tall tales, rather than solid scientific study (see sidebar). Bangs says, “If wolves were going to wipe out the elk, they would have done it 10,000 years ago—why wait till now?”
Hunting and the Wolf What wolves will do, for certain, is change things. As of now, states are widely using winter cow-elk hunts to bring down populations that are “over objective.” Wolves will probably reduce the need for these hunts. Game managers are seeing low calf-to-cow ratios in wolf areas, but for various reasons. In one part of Idaho, “right in the middle of wolf-pack activity,” according to a state wildlife biologist, calf-to-cow ratios have increased to 36 per 100. Wolves can carry rabies, but could they also act as a control on diseased ungulates, such as those with chronic wasting disease? They are going to make life very hard for coyotes, which could help lots of ground-nesting birds. Their presence will move big game around to different areas; and each year at least 75 percent of hunters (in Idaho) won’t get an elk, just as 75 percent don’t get an elk currently. In his influential and well-researched book, The Wolf Almanac, naturalist Robert H. Busch writes, “Wolf predation can accelerate prey declines caused by other factors [lack of feed or hard winters are two]…and can delay the recovery of prey numbers.” In other words, wolves need to be managed. And to keep wolf numbers down, Busch continues, “wolf kills would have to be continued for years.” Hunters shouldn’t mind that part at all.
This shows why it is imperative for the states to get their plans approved, put the wolf on the regular list of game animals, establish seasons and bag limits, and take reasonable steps to address the concerns of livestock growers. (The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, for one, seems to grasp this and has urged President Bush to aid delisting.) The sooner wolves come off the endangered list, the sooner we get to hunt them. I look forward to the likelihood of a wolf hunt only miles from my house, and I wager that more than a few other hunters would, too. And there will be another important benefit: the knowledge that with the wolf present, the other game will be worth more.
In the mid-1940s, Aldo Leopold, the father of game management, was one of the first to call for wolf restoration in Yellowstone Park. Years earlier as a young man, Leopold shot a she-wolf in Arizona Territory, as was done without hesitation in those days. Upon reaching her—described in the most famous scene of his posthumously published book, A Sand County Almanac—he witnessed a “fierce green fire dying” in her eyes. The sight began to transform Leopold into a conservationist who recognized the relatedness of all components of the wild. The wolf, Leopold saw, was as important as the deer he thought he was assisting by killing the wolf. He learned, he said, to “think like a mountain” after that. Leopold the hunter wrote that the “unit value of the trophy” should not be lowered any longer by our “artificializing it,” as we have been doing during all the years we have kept the wolf at bay.
Wolves, Bears, and Cats all need to be part of a controled plan for harvest that takes into account their local impact on wildlife, livestock, and people. How hard is that?
Most of the wolves are in the Salmon Region and the Clearwater Region. Note that article says "Elk herds in the Salmon Region appear to be taking advantage of the large wildfires that burned through the area in 2000 and created excellent forage. Biologists have seen low cow-calf ratios in Unit 27 in recent years, but last spring, F&G biologists counted about 35 calves per 100 grows. That´s enough to grow a herd and add a good number of young bulls . . ."
Deer in the Clearwater Region have been attacked not by wolves, but by a disease. "The big news out of the Clearwater Region is the die-off of white-tailed deer from a disease called Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease. The disease is transmitted by gnats and is fatal to deer. Hundreds and possibly thousands of whitetails have died so far. F&G biologists have counted 250 to 300 dead deer, but they say that several times that number died from the disease. Regional wildlife biologist Dave Koehler estimates about a thousand animals have died from EHD in the Clearwater."
The elk in the Clearwater went into a steep decline in the early 1990s (that's before the wolves came), but the article says "The Clearwater Region still has a long ways to go before it can relive past glory days as the most popular region for elk hunting, but there are some positive signs. Biologists saw an increase in the number of calves this year along the Lochsa River."
http://www.idahostatesman.com/Features/story.asp?ID=50415
Roger Phillips The Idaho Statesman
Weather is the shell game nature plays with big game hunters. Last winter was mild throughout the state, which meant good survival of deer and elk, especially the young ones that make up the bulk of the annual hunting harvest.
“All our counts suggest we´ve got tons of critters,” said Jon Rachael, Idaho Department of Fish and Game´s Southwest Region wildlife manager.
Last year, F&G predicted lots of deer and elk available for the hunting season, but fall weather was mostly warm and dry, which made for difficult hunting conditions. Animals tend to move less in warmer temperatures, and the woods are dry and difficult to walk in quietly.
Hunters ended up shooting fewer deer and elk in 2002 than they did in 2001.
This year could be a repeat of that situation. Deer and elk are plentiful in most parts of the state, but warm, dry weather continues.
So the weather shell game continues.
Consecutive mild winters have produced abundant deer and elk herds throughout most of the state. But that mild weather went hand-in-hand with drought, which meant fewer plants for deer and elk herds to eat.
Now we´re moving into fall, and hunters are hoping for fall weather to bring rain and snow, which makes animals more active and improves hunting conditions.
But an early winter can be hard on animals, especially when drought prevents them from finding enough forage to build an ample supply of fat to get them through the coldest winter months.
We can´t say what the weather will be during hunting season, but there appears to be plenty of big game out there. Here´s an outlook from all the Fish and Game regions in the state.
Southwest Region
The home of most of the state´s residents is also a favorite hunting area, and the prognosis is good.
Excellent winter survival and healthy big game herds in the Southwest Region have provided good hunting in recent years, and this year should be no different.
“I have no reason to believe we won´t have a great crop of deer and elk out there,” Rachael said.
Last year, Unit 39, which encompasses nearly the entire Boise River watershed, was among the top five hunting units for harvest of both deer and elk during general seasons.
F&G moved the elk season out of the deer season last year to reduce the bull harvest. Before 2002, the two hunts overlapped, which put more hunters in the woods at once and more pressure on the animals.
Splitting the seasons dropped the bull elk harvest from 483 bulls in 2001 to 339 in 2002.
Overall elk numbers remain strong in the unit, but F&G biologists still are concerned about the elk herd. They want to make sure hunters don´t shoot more bull elk than are born each year, and that a good mix of young and old bulls remain in the herd after the hunting season.
Moving the elk season away from the deer season was an alternate to capping the number of general season “B” elk tags available for the Boise River Zone.
The “B” tag elk season runs Nov. 1-9 in the Boise River elk zone in this year.
Deer hunters will probably see a good crop of young bucks this year. That´s especially good news for hunters who prefer the Owyhee Desert. Hunting in the Owyhees is restricted to two-point bucks unless hunters have controlled- hunt permits for larger bucks.
A good group of yearlings will mean more deer available for hunters.
Weather has been mixed in the Owyhees. The desert had a cool, wet spring, which was favorable for big game animals. But that was followed by a hot, dry summer. Desert animals have less high-elevation habitat, so they have a tougher time finding forage during a drought.
Deer will likely be congregated around water, and hunting conditions could be difficult unless the drought ends. The northern part of the Southwest region has consistently produced healthy elk herds and excellent deer herds near the Hells Canyon and Council areas.
“Elk herds appear to be doing well,” F&G biologist Jeff Rohlman said. “We´re harvesting a lot and still seeing a lot of animals on the hill.”
But hunting them can be tough. It´s big country with lots of places for animals to hide. Elk hunter success rates averaged 10 percent in the McCall Zone last year.
Deer hunters also should see good numbers of young bucks in the northern units in the region.
Hunters should be aware of new regulations on all-terrain vehicle use in units 32 and 32A.
ATVs are only allowed on roads capable of use by full-sized vehicles.
Deer season opens in most units on Sunday. Check F&G regulations for exact dates for each unit.
Magic Valley
Go north, young Magic Valley hunter, but only if you have a permit.
The north side of the Magic Valley is the promised land for many deer and elk hunters. Herds are prospering and offering hunters spectacular hunting opportunities.
Spring counts showed better than 30 bulls per 100 cows in the Smoky Mountain Zone. Numbers like those come from tightly controlled hunting. Most elk hunting in the upper Magic Valley is limited to controlled hunts to preserve hunting quality, but there are some general season hunts for spikes and cows.
“We´re looking forward to another good elk season in the Magic Valley,” said regional wildlife manager Randy Smith. “Our elk populations are meeting our objectives for overall numbers.”
Big bucks are also abundant in portions of the Magic Valley. During one controlled hunt in Unit 45 last year, 48 hunters had a 96 percent success rate, and 86 percent of the bucks killed were four points or better.
Naturally, chances of drawing one of those tags are starting to resemble the odds of being struck by lightning. But the region also offers some general rifle hunting.
Smith said overall deer harvest dropped a little last year, and the season was shortened in some areas to improve buck/doe ratios. He expects those adjustments will put more deer in the hills this fall and improve hunter success.
Deer herds in the southern part of the region have struggled in recent years from prolonged drought, and they do not appear to be recovering.
Most units open for deer hunting on Sunday. Elk seasons in the Magic Valley open in October and November.
Check F&G regulations for exact dates for each unit. ATV restrictions will also be in place for units 48, 49, 50 and 51 during big game seasons.
Clearwater Region
The big news out of the Clearwater Region is the die-off of white-tailed deer from a disease called Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease. The disease is transmitted by gnats and is fatal to deer. Hundreds and possibly thousands of whitetails have died so far.
F&G biologists have counted 250 to 300 dead deer, but they say that several times that number died from the disease. Regional wildlife biologist Dave Koehler estimates about a thousand animals have died from EHD in the Clearwater.
Cool fall weather is slowing the spread of the disease, which is expected to end after the first hard freeze.
Higher elevations have had a hard frost, but lower elevations have remained above the freezing level.
The disease flares up during periods of drought and hot weather. The Clearwater suffered a smaller outbreak of the disease two years ago.
Despite the outbreak, white-tailed deer should remain plentiful in the region, according to regional wildlife manager Jay Crenshaw.
The disease hit hardest at lower elevations and around agricultural areas, he said, and hunting in those areas will be affected.
That´s a tough break for the region, which has been the top hunting unit in the state. Last year, Unit 10A produced more deer and elk than any other unit in the state, despite the much-publicized decline of the Clearwater elk herd.
The Dworshak and Elk City elk zones should remain productive, Crenshaw said. Both those zones have a cap on “B” season tags, which will probably be sold out before season opens.
The Clearwater Region still has a long ways to go before it can relive past glory days as the most popular region for elk hunting, but there are some positive signs. Biologists saw an increase in the number of calves this year along the Lochsa River.
Most elk seasons in the Clearwater Region open in October. Most deer seasons open Oct. 10 A Clearwater deer tag is required. Check F&G regulations for exact opening dates for each unit.
Panhandle
The Panhandle could be called the land of big game hunting opportunity. The region offers generous general seasons and lots of either-sex hunting for deer and elk.
Deer hunters willing to travel around the region could hunt from Oct. 10 through Dec. 1, and “A” tag elk hunters could hunt from August through December if they´re willing to hunt with archery, rifles and muzzleloaders. Many units also offer overlapping deer and elk hunts.
What´s the catch? The terrain. The Panhandle has lots of steep, brushy country that can make for tough hunting.
But many hunters seem to have have figured it out. Unit 1 had the third-highest deer harvest in the state last year, and units 4 and 6 were the second and third-highest elk harvests.
Units 4, 6, 7 and 9 typically have the most elk in the region, and units 1, 2, 3 and 6 have the most deer.
Whitetails make up about 80 percent of the deer harvest in the Panhandle, and that percentage could increase this year. General season mule deer hunting is limited to bucks only this year.
Deer seasons open Oct. 10 and Nov. 1 in Panhandle. Elk hunting opens in October. Check F&G regulations for exact dates for each unit.
Salmon Region
Elk herds in the Salmon Region appear to be taking advantage of the large wildfires that burned through the area in 2000 and created excellent forage.
Biologists have seen low cow-calf ratios in Unit 27 in recent years, but last spring, F&G biologists counted about 35 calves per 100 grows.
That´s enough to grow a herd and add a good number of young bulls, but that won´t do hunters much good this year. Unit 27 has a “brow-tine” restrictions that means hunters can only harvest older bulls with branched antlers.
The Middle Fork Zone also is capped for “B” tags, and its earlier season is already over.
There is a later season in November.
The “A” tag season for the Middle Fork Zone runs Oct. 1-31 and tags are unlimited.
The Salmon Region also shares the popular Sawtooth Zone with the Southwest Region, which offers a general season “B” tag for any weapon, antlered elk only from Oct. 15 to Nov. 8.
Most elk units east of the Salmon River are limited to controlled hunts.
The mild winter last year seems to have boosted deer herds in the Salmon Region, according Bret Stansberry, F&G´s sportsman / landowner coordinator for the region.
The area had excellent fawn survival, and Stansberry said people are seeing a fair number of young bucks.
“It looks good at this point and time,” he said.
Deer season opens Sunday in most units in the Salmon Region. Deer season in Units 26 and 27 opened Sept. 15.
Upper Snake Region
The Upper Snake is poised to have an excellent season if it gets a little cooperation from the weather.
Elk herds are thriving and deer herds are rebounding, but without some fall storms, it could be dry and loud in the woods.
F&G biologists counted up to 90 fawns per 100 does in the Upper Snake.
“I have no reason to believe most of those won´t still be alive,” big game manager Daryl Meints said.
Elk hunting “probably doesn´t get much better in the Upper Snake than it is now,” he added.
Most bull elk hunting in the popular Island Park Zone is limited to controlled hunts, but the Teton, Palisades and Tex Creek zones all offer general season bull hunting. There are also several opportunities for any-weapon antlerless elk hunts in those units in October and November.
Deer season opens Oct. 5 in most of the Upper Snake Region. Check F&G regulations for exact opening dates for each unit.
Southeast Region
The Southeast Region´s deer herds took a beating two years ago. A harsh winter killed nearly half the population.
Not only did half the deer die, but many of the does that survived did not produce any fawns.
Things have improved since then thanks to last year´s mild winter, but deer herds still have not recovered and it may take several years to return to previous levels.
“We´ve got more deer than last year, but not one behind every tree,” regional wildlife manager Carl Anderson said.
The Southeast Region has been one of the most drought-stricken areas of the state, which also hurts deer herds.
“We´re not going to set any world records for deer harvest,” Anderson said.
Elk are much less susceptible to the whims of weather, so they continue to thrive in the Southeast. Most hunting for bull elk is restricted to controlled hunts, but there is a general any-weapon hunt for antlerless elk that runs Oct. 15 through Nov. 15 in the Bannock Zone, and a muzzleloader hunt Nov. 16-30.
Deer season will run Oct. 5-19 in most units in the Southeast Region. Check F&G regulations for exact opening dates for each unit. Hunters will also see ATV restrictions in much of the Southeast Region during big game seasons.
To offer story ideas or comments, contact Roger Phillips [email protected] or 373-6615
Edition Date: 10-02-2003
I respectfully disagree based on the responses above. No doubt some do, but I don't think most or even many do.
I don't disagree with what most want to accomplish, but I disagree with how they are going about it to the extent that they are ignoring lots of pertinent information in the process.
And in the end this makes me "pro-wolf"? If they can turn people who agree with them agianst them, I wonder how they will do convincing people who don't agree with them. IMO they will do more harm to their cause than good.
Your "everything will be great in the end" assumptions are right in line with the same tune the pro-wolf and anti-hunting folks have been singing for quite some time now. Keep in mind your predictions on big game numbers after the wolf "boom" is just that.......a prediction.
I'm curious about all this money being generated by the "wolf viewers" who will be flocking from the big city to our forests. Do you happen to have any data or numbers on what kind of money we are talking about? (Another prediction?).
Will that money replace dollars that was spent by hunters and outfitters? Will this wolf money support our fish and game agencies? It sounds a lot like what I hear from a Sierra Club member I work with, he feels strongly that just wildlife "viewers" and not hunters should be supporting our fish and game agencies.
I didn't make any predictions on elk numbers; those are predictions from Idaho Fish and Game as published in the Idaho Statesmen. I also did not make any claims about money generated by wolve viewers; that is in an article written by Dave Glenn.
As for my personal observations, as mentioned above, I have seen wolves and wolf tracks in the areas I hunt, and I also see (and have killed) lots of elk in those areas. I like seeing and hearing wolves. The only impacts I believe wolves will have on my elk hunting is that it will enhance my hunting experience, by providing me the oportunity to see and hear wolves.
However, since you ask for facts about wolves and tourism, I looked up the stats. Here's what I found:
Since wolves returned to Yellowstone National Park in 1995, the region has a seen a $10 million increase in economic activity because of wolves. In surveys, visitors to Yellowstone now rank wolves as the number one animal they come to see . . . and they spend there money for near-by lodging, guided wolf-watching tours and a variety of wolf-related merchandise. Merchants in the Lamar Valley reported that stuffed wolves, books on wolves, wolf T-shirts and wolf stationary have been selling briskly since the reintroductions. In Cooke City, Montana, adjacent to the northeast entrance to Yellowstone, 22 percent more tourists passed through the town in the summer of 1995 than just one year prior. That figure rose again in the summer of 1996 with another record breaking tourist season. In a recent survey of Cooke City business owners, 71 percent thought wolf recovery was responsible for the increased tourist traffic.
I've seen similar statistics for northern Minnessota, where wolves and a wolf visitor center have contributed to the economy of the Ely area, and in a place where the state has abundant deer and recently increased available deer tags.
As I mentioned earlier, Montana's Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks is seeking to expand and increase elk hunting oportunities because we have too many elk in most places. And so the economic benefit of wolves is NOT replacing or harming the economic benefits of hunting; rather, it is additive. Last year, 170,000 resident and 59,000 non resident hunters contributed $238 billion to the state's economy---the highest number on record.
And just as economics isn't the only good thing about hunting, the same is true for wolves. Like hunting, and elk and deer, wolves have had social and ecological benefits to the Yellowstone area as well: In fact, the return of wolves has had some postive ecological impacts on Yellowstone. Coyotes, which had become overabundant are being displaced from their former territories by wolves. Coyote numbers have dropped and allowed small predators, such as foxes to flourish. A reduction in elk and bison numbers has allowed willow and aspen trees to regenerate and regain their place in an area that had been heavily overgrazed from an overabundance of elk and bison. And so on . . .
As I said; I like wolves, I like hunting elk, thus far wolves have only had a positive impact on my elk hunting . . . I'm not from New York City, I live and work and hunt in Montana . . . I support the delisting and sutainable hunting of wolves, I'm just tired of all the hype. myths and misconceptions I see about wolves wich rarely jive with the facts . . .
Just my view on things . . .
We have now gone from, maybe we can adjust to living with the wolf even though elk hunting will be more challenging with fewer elk......to - "wolves will enhance our bowhunting experience."
No offense MTWapiti(no real name?), but your wonderful elk hunting world with the wolf is a little too perfect for me to buy into.
These guys are extremists, there will be no changing their mind - no matter what. I feel that the majority of hunters are more open minded like yourself and the authors of these pieces. You are going to get flamed for posting them, I am going to get flamed for saying I agree. What is new there? At least there is another point of view here for those that have not made up their minds yet.
Montana may have good populations of elk in many places right now. But if wolf populations are not controlled will that always be true? Wolves prefer to live where humans don't go much. Some of the best elk hunting is currently in those same "wildnerness type" places. So if/when the wolves move in, what happens to the quality of elk hunting in those areas? If the elk move, where will they move to to escape wolf predation? On to ranches, causing more problems for ranchers? Won't one possible result be more elk hunters on fewer square miles of hunting grounds?
I'm just not buying the argument that the reintroduction of wolves is going to have "minimal" impact on elk hunting.
Agreed, but IMO you can put some hunters on that list. Management of wolves is necessary, but it should be done scientifically based on solid data.
Snares...lots and lots of snares. Cyanide lased meat, strictnine, antifreeze, high speed lead. For some reason everytime I think of wolves these thoughts pop into my head.
NewMex
But I still think you misinterpret/misunderstand the feelings/beliefs of Idahoans in general. Of all the Idaho hunters I have met that hold any opinion at all about wolves, only one is for total eradication. Another is almost that extreme. The rest are sprinkled everywhere between there and the Bambi-lover line. The majority fall in an area very similar to my position.
As H4E said, most of us know and understand a lot more than some would give credit for. Personally, I like the idea of wolves running in the forest. I like to hear them howl once in a while. I like the idea that things are still "that primitive". But I disagree with the way this whole thing was done and I think it has created big problems in game management. You can't manage wildlife a species at a time. You must take it as one big package and let one state agency figure out what is needed and then let them go do it.
The Idaho Department of Fish and Game has been doing at least a fair job for decades. Let's get wolves back under F&G where they belong and let F&G do its job.
The problems we have with F&G and the F&G Commission are separate issues that should not be entangled in the debate about wolves. Our problems with our own governor and the way he has 'handled' the wolf issue should not reflect on F&G. He purposely and deliberately cut them out of the picture when they might have had something worthwhile to add and just when it would have mattered.
The Old Sarge
If you can't understand how seeing wolves and wolf tracks, and hearing wolves howl, can enhance my bowhunting experience, than you and I indeed are from different planets, and propably hunt for different reasons.
The name thing was pointed out because most arrow slingers on this site aren't afraid to list a real name but to each their own.
Good luck with the wolf campaign.
I can only speak for the places I hunt, but I have heard wolves howl a few times, and I hear plenty of elk bugle.
I've been frequenting the Bowsite since it began. (I remember when we had live chat, which had a similar URL as the Kenau Reeves fan club, and so we were getting the actor's fans in on our chats!) I've never been shy about letting folks know my real name. In fact, I used to post with my real name, but only recently decided to join folks like you who do not use their real names.
Is it really one or the other? As I said, I occassionally see wolves and wolf tracks, and have heard them howl where I hunt. There's alos lots of elk (too many, according to the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks) and I manage to kill elk most every year, including this year. Here's a few recent articles about the places I hunt:
Regulations targeting booming elk population adopted Posted at 6:25 p.m. February 12 By BOB ANEZ Associated Press Writer
HELENA (AP) - New hunting regulations were adopted Thursday by the state Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission to deal with ballooning elk populations in western and southwestern Montana.
The goal is to increase the elk kill during the 2004 season in areas where the numbers are as much as 40 percent above targets set by the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department, said Jeff Herbert, assistant administrator of the Wildlife Division.
The regulations create more liberal hunting seasons for elk and allow some hunters to obtain two . . . http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2004/02/12/mtracker/news/47elk.txt
Elk herd numbers at all-time high; record year possible By JARED MILLER Ravalli Republic Oct. 25, 2003
HAMILTON: A strong elk harvest in the Bitterroot Valley depends on four criteria.
Herd numbers must be strong. Hunter numbers must be high. Land must be accessible. And the weather must be wet and cold.
If all those variables come together, hunters will be successful, and freezers will be full. But subtract even one, and the hunt will be as flat as it was last year, and the two previous years, experts say.
The harvest this year, which begins Sunday, has the potential to be awesome, officials have said. But it will depend on the presence of all four criteria.
Here's how they look so far:
Elk herds in the Bitterroot are running at an all-time high. As usual, hunters are expected to turn out by the thousands. And land access is good. The wild card has has been the case in recent years will be the weather.. . . http://www.talkaboutpets.com/group/alt.wolves/messages/55270.html\
And, as predicted, it was indeed one of the largest elk harvests ever recorded . . . nearly every hunter I know killed an elk this year . . . and still, the local wildlife biologist told me that elk numbers are still far above their desired level . . .which is why they are proposing even more liberal hunting seasons next year . . . those damn wolves!
All you real intelligent folks from elsewhere that keep telling us dumb yucks from Idaho that we are "crying wolf" so to speak, don't have a frickin clue. You flat out ARE NOT in the middle of it. You schmucks just keep buying that load of crap the pro-wolfers are selling ya. I love it when you yahoos buy the BS the "experts" give you about exactly what type of elk have been killed by wolves, and which ones had previous injuries,........Bullshmidt!!!!If you'd wake up and use your freakin brain you'd realize that they're blowin smoke up your arse. At least have of wolf kills there is NOTHING LEFT!!!!!!! How do the experts trace the critter's family tree when there's nothin left? As far as them telling you that they know what percentage of elk killed had previous injuries, what, are they following all the elk on cructhes???????Wake up
I grew up in California, but my parents moved to Idaho in 1981. Both my parents were raised in Idaho so I feel I'm a native. My mom was from Pahsimeroi, by Mackey and my dad was from Nampa. I'm an avid fisherwoman and huntress. I do see both sides of this wolf issue, the good, the bad and the really ugly. I have to tell you a little about the information I was able to get.
I had the opportunity to have a long conversation with a couple of ID F&G officers last Memorial Day (2003) with regards to the wolf situation. They were none to happy with any of it either.
I've hunted the Boise River zone, A tag and B tag. Not gotten a thing either, but I still put out my money to support the hunting in the great state of Idaho. For the last few years, I've been hunting the Sawtooth zone which covers Deadwood Reservoir. My questions for F&G centered on my experiences in this zone as well as the reading I have done in Bugle Magazine, Field & Stream, Outdoor Life and several informative studies that indicated this zone was the best you could hope to kill a Rocky Mountain Elk in. All said this unit was the one with the largest elk population in the state with the best odds for killing a record size elk or mule deer in.
In my conversation with F&G, I had several questions on how I could protect my mules, livestock, from a wolf attack. I was told I could not shoot a wolf unless it was attacking my mule, which I ride to hunt in this area. Fine, I can deal with it, although, not happy about it.
I was also told at this time, 9 months ago, there are at LEAST 4 active packs in the area where I was hunting. Each pack of wolves on the average will kill 100 elk per calendar year. That would be an average of 400 elk per year. I will say, I don't the numbers of elk that were supposedly in the herd by Deadwood Reservoir, but I can say, in two years of hunting for three weeks in October, I have yet to see an elk during season. Just a few tracks indicating cow elk are around. Not a single bull elk track. If I didn't spend almost every weekend in the summer riding the trails, up and down the steep terrain on my mule, I more than likely wouldn't hunt there. BUT, I have seen monster elk in this area and some monster mule deer. Less last year than the year before.
If F&G officers are giving this information, freely, how come no one else in this long chain, has made the effort to talk to an officer? I make it my business to be informed before making an opinion or decision on where to hunt.
I may not agree with the wolf reintroduction, I've dealt with the loss of elk in the area I've chosen to hunt, but I also know the wolves need to be managed if we want to continue to hunt elk. There are several trucks in the Boise Valley sporting bumper stickers that read "save 100 elk, kill a wolf" and I'm really beginning to agree with this sentiment as the pleasure I look forward to every year may be taken away from me, if the wolves are not managed correctly.
I also happen to agree with the person that mentioned the buffalo would take some of the hunting off the elk in the old days, but what about a buffalo reintroduction in the areas they used to be rather than just in Yellowstone? Two can play this game. If the buffalo can only roam free in Yellowstone, why can't the wolves stay there too? Has anyone thought about this?
We have had animal rights-wolf introduction extremist on here before using fake names, claiming to be hunters but calling other hunters idiots. They are always quick to tell someone in another state how it "really" is or how it "should" be.
I am only interested in how wolves are effecting big game numbers here in IDAHO, and ultimately how it will effect hunting opportunities, and I will continue to look at accurate information while ignoring the pro-wolf propaganda.
just to let you know, I spend alot of time discussing the issues with F&G biologists and GW's.
http://www.huntingandfishingjournal.org/archives/light_reading/hu-Stalling-MONTANA-Article.htm
Obviously we all think the wolf should be managed/regulated along with all animals, what can we do to get this process moving? Has any one asked the sportmens alliance to pick this up? Has anyone written their congressmen?
I say we put our differences aside and try to battle this thing smartly. Certainly I'm no ring leader but I'm willing to cough up some cash to support the cause.
I'm thinkin' the longer this thing is sat on, the more elk that are killed.
Please reply
NewMex
Amen.
In Cody, some county commissioners are considering filing a lawsuit over wolf management (or lack of it), and they say it might not be politically correct, but with the right judge, politics won't matter. Sound familiar?
NPR, National Public Radio, aired two broadcast recently, on wolves in Yellowstone. The biologist, who had been watching the Lamar wolves for 400 days straight (he needs to get a life), stated that the willows were now well above his head, because of the wolves. Now, am I missing something, or is he in such a narrow corridor, mind wise, that he can't see that without big game to eat the willows, they will grow pretty tall? He did mention something about the quality of the habitat, but without moose and elk, isn't it a sterile landscape? They said the transcripts can be found on NPR.ORG
And finally, for what it's worth, the Friends of the Yellowstone Elk Herd, and I have never heard of them, say that the elk population in Yellowstone went from 19,700 elk, pre-wolf, to 7000 right now, with mild winters up until now. It was in the paper, but I have no idea about the validity of the numbers.
And sphuntfish, looks like our elk are all in Montana, according to MTwipiti.
May I suggest some research, before you fling your BS.
Read this thread, Most areas in MT are still way over desired elk numbers, second tags are being issued, more opportunity for hunters. The Gravelly range is 40% over desired elk numbers, and theres plenty of wolves in there too.
If you cant find elk in Montana, you probably have the same problem that Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder have...or you dont roll out the rack until noon.
Did you also forget about the record harvest this year in MT, broke a decades old record? Still too many elk.
Yep, the wolves are destroying elk and elk hunting opportunities in MT.
Just think about whats going on with elk in Montana before you accuse others of shooting from the hip, you're doing the same thing.
Yeah, I'll gladly get into the debate with you, I'm pretty checked out on whats going on with wolves in MT and whats going on with elk. I've hunted MT every year for 24 years straight, I see things too. But I also take the time to talk with biologists and research things before I start flailing.
You forget to mention some pretty important facts about Yellowstone. First of all, I aint in denial, wolves definately do kill elk, they do have an impact.
But, trying to blame wolves soley for the decline in elk in the Northern herd is a joke, and a bad one at that.
You bet drought has an impact, so do a lot of other factors. For starters, check out the past few years average aged cow killed in the Gardiner hunts. Give Tom Lemke a call, he'll let you know all about it. The Northern herd was strongly skewed to older cows, many beyond the prime productive years. Thats slowly starting to right itself, but in the meantime herd productivity wont be that great. Younger herds are more productive than older herds.
You suppose maybe the park carrying a few thousand bison has any impact?
Lets not forget, that the record high elk numbers several years back, were way beyond the carrying capacity for available winter range, according to any biologist you want to talk to. Notice any new yuppie homes between Livingston and Gardiner lately? Thats always a good deal for elk, right? In particular when they let their husky/wolf hybrids run elk behind the house they built on winter range.
How about fire suppression, certainly a masters student in ecology understands the ramifications of that on elk habitat and their productivity. You dont suppose that elk productivity increased a little unnaturally because of the '88 fires do you? I just wish those fires would have burned more winter range.
I'm not even slightly convinced that wolves are causing the decline in the N. herd, yeah, they kill elk, they reduce the herd some. But I think if you blame the decline soley on elk, you better take a few more ecology classes...
...which has everything to do with the drought and habitat decimation. I posted figures above which showed that there were similar trends in herds that are not subject to wolf predation. The biologists also said that despite the Yellowstone herd numbers being down, they are still well over carrying capacity of 8,000 animals.
I buy the argument that wolves may need even more control due to the changes in the herd which you listed, but people can shoot holes through your assertion that the changes are due to the wolves.
As an aside, I tryed to find kill stats for CA's gov't trappers this weekend to no avail. I talked with my friend's mom about it, who has been ranching and working with these trappers for about 60 years now, and when I told her that I read a statistic which suggested that 1 trapper killed 367 lions in one year (more than 1/day) and that 1,500 were killed in CA in one year she laughed as said, "well that is a bunch of hooey".
They live in Mendocino County and their are has a very high population of cats (the gov't has killed quite a few on their relatively small ranch in the last decade). The last she heard their local trapper has only been in on 2 lions this year. Keep in mind that except for very exceptional circumstances, lions have to kill livestock before a trapper can go after them, and I don't think that in any region in the state that livestock is being killed daily be lions and being discovered.
The data does support that wolves arent the only issue.
You agree that a mean age of 10+ years old is not going to produce healthy recruitment numbers. In particular when you have other factors like drought, poor winter range conditions, etc. working on the elk at the same time.
Plus, the late hunts were just a way to control an out-of-control elk herd in the park. Theres still lots of elk opportunity throughout the state, as well as near Gardiner.
Another thing to think about is wolves have been in the gravelly range for quite a few years, elk are doing well there and the herds are increasing in numbers. The difference is though, that herd is younger, much younger and more productive.
Populations move up and down, and I think you are unnecessarily hitting the panic button. I think as range conditions in and out of the park improve because of less total elk, you'll see a strong increase in calf recruitment and ultimately the numbers will increase. Total elk populations near Jackson WY havent moved that much since wolf reintro, and this years calf survival wsa around 30%, despite record numbers of wolves. Bottom line is, the park carried too many elk through too many mild winters and good condition years, it caught up.
Look, I'm all for controlling wolf numbers, just like I'm all for controlling elk numbers. But, the sky wont fall on elk hunting because of some wolves.
I should have waited for you to answer my question from above before I posted this. ;-)
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/tables/02table10t.pdf
don't get me wrong...I do not side with the enviro-nuts....just don't know a thing about this topic. In Colorado all I hear is too many elk...they need more of them killed.
The bottom line is we have met and way exceeded the agreed upon number of wolves. Time to get a handle on them. We (hunters) manage to keep cougar and bear populations in check and at a healthy status, why can't we do the same for the wolf through hunting?
