Wolves!! I had no idea...

Getting back to wolves, I can't wait until Wyoming gets the regulations pushed through the courts. Unfortunately it will probably be awhile, but at least they are already listed on the new DOW game classifications, even if with an asterisk.

They will be considered a predator in all of the areas that I hunt. And there have been reported sightings as far south as Cheyenne.
 
Those that were in Wyoming when the put more of them back in the park will remember that the intelligent Federal fish and wildlife told us that the wolves wouldn't leave the park. They must have taught them to read but not their pups.

Both Canada and Alaska said not to do it, and that it's a bad idea but the FF&W knows better than people in the middle of it.

Wyoming had/has a plan that fits wolves, not deer or elk or fairies, but we're dealing with wolves. It is a realistic and intelligent plan but since were up against the government and bunnie huggers, intelligence and reality will not be tolerated.


I used to have a bumper sticker before the so called "reintroduction" that said

THE ONLY GOOD WOLF IS A DEAD WOLF

I wish I could find another!
 
I have heard so called facts and numbers spouted by both sides of the issue.anyone can pull something out of thier hind end and make it back up their own agenda. So all I can go on is what I myself see by being out in the mountains. I have lived in Idaho my whole life (51 years). I hunted before the wolves were planted here and have hunted big game after. There is a big difference in the amount of animals. I see bigger herds of elk. but not as many elk. I think people see these herds and think elk numbers are OK. I think that what elk are left get in bigger herds for protection and not in the smaller groups that I used to see. I do know that the wolves have destroyed the Moose population in the Deadwood area. I go up there for work quit often. before wolves we saw alot of moose every trip. I haven't seen one in years. I have had friends that had their dogs killed by a pack. what really gripes me is that I had to by a sticker for my boat for invasive species. and our government used my tax dollars to plant then. If you talk to the people that make there living out in the woods they have the same opinion that I do wolf reintroduction was a bad idea.
 
Our beloved WDFW in Washington State has been reintroducing wolfs here on both sides of the mountains. They wont let us hunt elk by Mt Saint Hellens, but they are putting wolfs there because the elk are starving... Wow is all I can say
John
 
Wolves is a touchy subject on both sides of the fence. For those of you interested in some information and are willing to take the time to goggle up; may I offer these. (1) When Do Wolves Become Dangerous To Humans? by Dr. Valerius Geist. (2) Where wolves Have Become Common by Dr. Valerius Geist. (3) Of wolves and worms. (4) Echinococcosis granulosus (Hydatid). I highly recommend the time be taken to read the above suggested articles before any hard and firm opinons are formed.
..............Respectfully.....Chan.
 
I GUESS REM 17 THINKS THAT EVERY BODY HAS 4 MILLION DEER IN THERE STATE FOR THE WOLVES TO EAT BUT SENCE HE DOES LIVE IN IDAHO OR THE WEST HE ONLY KNOWS WHAT READS. IDAHO HAD ONLY 120 THOUSAND ELK IN THIS STATE IN 1995 NOW IN THE SPAN OF 10 YEARS OF THE WOLVES WE HAVE ONLY 90 THOUSAND. I WENT TO THE AREA THAT WE HAVE HUNTED SENCE 1967, WE WOULD ALL WAY'S SEE OR GET ELK, THE LAST 5 YEARS HAVE ONLY SEEN FOUR COWS AND ONLY THREE DIED ONES. LAST FALL WE TOOK A FOUR WHEELER TRIP TO THE END OF THE ROAD TO SEE THAT PART OF THE COUNTRY BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN YEARS SENCE WE HAD THAT WAY . TALKED TO THE OLD BOY THAT CAMP OUT THERE THEY HAD BEEN IN FOR 30 DAYS AND THEY HAD KILLED A SPIKE ON OPENING DAY AND THAT WAS THE ONLY ELK THEY HAD SEEN IN 30 DAYS AND THESE GUYS HAVE BEEN COMING FOR OVER 25 YEARS. I AM 50 AND HAVE NEVER SEEN A AREA LOSE SO MIMY ELK SO FAST AND I HAVE COMING THERE FOR 43 YEARS THAT IS THIS REALLY HURTS
 
Here's a though.... If the elk populations are too high, why not sell more licences? After all, were the #1 predator and our hunting pushes more money into the economy.
You watch, this fall, the Govts around the world will start screaming about food shortages again. Maybe if we werent feeding the local wildlife...........
 
Quote:Central Idaho elk and deer doing fine in presence of wolves
April 8, 2008 — Ralph Maughan
Dr. Jim Peek presented data at the Chico wolf conference showing that the elk and deer population is doing fine in the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness. He examined population and hunter success trends in 4 key hunting units before and after wolf restoration.

Currently there are 105-119 wolves in the 4 units, which he believes is the maximum number that will naturally occur.

Overall, elk harvest is nearly stable with a slight upward trend in recent years. Mule deer harvest has increased more dramatically, perhaps the result of the many recent forest fires that have resulted in a proliferation of browse,

In the individual units, elk population is declining on one, increasing on one, with no trend in the other two.

Peek predicted a future decline in the most remote areas because of an overabundance of old, non-productive cow elk, and relatively few bull elk due to human hunting effects (few hunters will pack in 2 to 4 days to shoot an old cow elk, but they will for a bull elk). He speculated that the future elk decrease in the deep backcountry would be greater if wolf populations are reduced because old cows are what the wolves target — average age 13 years.

In the one front country unit (the Salmon Face, unit 28), the present and future seem bright because the cow elk are younger and the cow/calf ratio higher. Hunters there do go after cow elk because it does not take the time to get into that country.

Overall, the wolves have had little effect on elk or deer population size. The important factors are wildfires (57% of the area has burned since 1982), summer drought or adequate rainfall, and winter severity. Wolves can potentially suppress population rebound following a severe winter, especially in the frontcountry unit, although he presented no evidence that this has actually happened.





Quote:North Idaho elk even better
High percentage of bulls in Panhandle are six-point or higher
IDAHO
Top elk zones
Zone Total harvest Success

rate %
Panhandle 2,439 16
Tex Creek 799 29
Salmon 707 22
Weiser River 595 20
Selway 468 26



Rich Landers
Outdoors editor
September 14, 2006

Elk hunting in North Idaho has been great for the past two years, and it's getting better.

Cows continue to produce good crops of calves and some of the oldest bulls in the state are coming from the Panhandle, Idaho Fish and Game Department officials say. Nearly 30 percent of the bulls taken in the Panhandle are six-point or bigger.

Archers in particular are good at zeroing in on the big bulls. Although they shoot far fewer elk than rifle hunters, 65 percent of the archers who fill their tags in Unit 1 take home a bull six points or better.

The 8,000-square-mile- Panhandle region is 85 percent forest land and about half the area is public land. But it's no piece of cake to hunt. Much of the area is rugged and dense with timber and brush. Those are the main reasons the seasons have remained so liberal.

ADVERTISEMENT

Rifle hunting opportunities for elk run from Oct. 10-Nov. 3 in much of the Panhandle with a portion of the season open for both bulls and cows.

Idaho's 2006 big-game regulations pamphlet incorrectly omitted unit 4A from the Panhandle Zone any-weapon season list, said Phil Cooper, department spokesman in Coeur d'Alene. The unit is open Oct 10- Nov 3.

Hunters looking to put all the odds in their favor will get away from roads, said Brad Compton, Idaho Fish and Game Department big game manager. "Elk generally avoid areas routinely traveled by motorized vehicles including ATVs," he said.

Clearwater and Salmon region hunters also enjoy a wealth of public land for hunting elk. "We have a lot of wilderness, but that makes for some classic elk hunting," said Jay Crenshaw, department wildlife manager in Lewiston.

Indeed, it's that remote rugged country in the Selway and Middle Fork zones that provides the now rare opportunity to use a modern rifle to hunt bull elk during the rut. The result for the wilderness-ready sportsmen: about 45 percent of the successful hunters bag bulls with six points or more.

Lolo Zone elk continue to decline, but since controlled hunt tags have been reduced, the quality of hunting the Lolo Zone remains high, Crenshaw said. Hunters can get cheap bear tags and an extra cougar tag for that area in an effort to help reduce the impacts of predation on calf survival.

The Salmon Zone, another area rich with roadless backcountry, is traditionally good, and it's getting better. Elk numbers have increased substantially in recent years and so has the number of controlled-hunt permits.

"The Salmon had its fourth- highest bull harvest on record in 2004," said Tom Keegan, Salmon region wildlife manager.

The Middle Fork herd had a high percentage of old-age cows that perished last winter, Keegan said. That should translate into better calf production and better hunting in a few years.

"The fires we've had in this region have increased the grass for elk," he said.

Portions of the southeastern Idaho that didn't have elk hunting because of few elk 15 years ago now offer lots of general season opportunity, and even a limited number of 'extra' tags to address over-population concerns.

Hunters killed more than 21,000 elk in Idaho last year, including more than 11,000 bulls and 9,000 cows. The 2005 total harvest ranks 8th all time. Bull harvest since 1995 has ranged from 6,600 to 12,200, while cow harvest has ranged 5,200 to 9,400.
 
Last edited:
TA17rem,

I appreciate the articles you were able to post. I guess by taking the Predator Xtreme Magazine as the end all be all might have been ignorant of me but oh well.

However, I have a computer and am armed with GOOGLE as well. Below is an article I found regarding your Expert Witness:

Dr. Jim Peek

My next post will hopefully inform you as to the sources you are sighting to back up your argument.

As for your second article, it's from "Outdoors" Magazine and it's exactly what it says it is, an "Advertisement”. You forgot to delete that part. Get this: THE STATE OF IDAHO MAKES MILLION FROM HUNTERS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY...THEY MARKET THEIR PRODUCT IN MAGS LIKE THIS.

Get this; they even pay Editors like Rich Landers... Hooda Thunk
 
Jim Peek's Fantasy

Wolf Oversight Committee member Dr. Jim Peek, who helped write the five-year-no-hunting Wolf Plan Draft No. 17, frequently publishes selected bits of scientific information mixed with personal opinion suggesting that wolf control is futile. As a University of Idaho wildlife professor, Peek taught future wildlife managers that habitat is always the real cause of declining prey populations regardless of how many are killed by predators.

In 2005 when FWS changed the 10J rule to allow Idaho and Montana to kill wolves, Peek followed the announcement with a media article suggesting that cow elk numbers should be reduced to only 50%-60% of biological carrying capacity. He cited red deer research on a tiny island off the coast of Scotland as proof of his claim that killing off half of the females will produce more and larger newborn male elk calves that can avoid predators and also provide more adult bull elk for hunters to harvest.
...
Yet Jim Peek and his followers in IDFG continued to ignore science and promote reducing cow elk numbers to allegedly increase bull elk numbers.
...
Did A 35% Reduction in Cows Improve Calf and Bull Survival As Peek Suggested?
...
Did reducing cow elk numbers by 35% produce more and larger bull elk calves that could avoid predators and thereby provide more mature bulls for hunters to harvest as Professor Peek suggested? The short answer is "No".

Annual elk harvests in the Lolo Zone in the 11 years since then have averaged only 272 and the 2003 and 2006 helicopter counts each totaled only half of the minimum 6,100 cow objective. Yet IDFG has thus far accomplished nothing to correct the problem.

Despite the fact that predators have killed 30-80% of radio-collared elk calves in F&G studies since 1997 (Zager 2001, 2008), Clearwater Elk Researcher Pete Zager, Regional Supervisor Groen and, of course, Professor Peek continued to claim that declining habitat was causing the declining elk herds.
...
Jim Peek and wolf preservationist allies in IDFG had already given all the information I have discussed in this article to Defenders of Wildlife's Suzanne Stone and others who are using it to oppose reducing the number of wolves.
...
Peek: Wolf Predation "No Big Deal" to Elk Hunters

Stone and others also quoted Peek in both their 2006 and 2008 objections to IDFG killing wolves: "Elk populations across the upper Clearwater apparently peaked in the late 1980s, after which surveys of numbers and of cow-calf ratios showed declines.
...
These quotes by Peek were also printed in a Jan.12, 2007 Idaho Mountain Express report of a teleconference with regional wildlife experts hosted by Defenders of Wildlife. According to the article, Peek said it's too early to tell how much wolves will influence elk populations in the long run and while there may be "some lower levels of elk, it won't be a big deal from the standpoint of a hunter."
 
Thanks for posting comments form the chico wolf conference.
Heres one for you:
Open the link and go to the FACTS page and start opening up the links. Do a google search on the lolo zone in Idaho. There is a reason they will be reduceing the hunting opportunities for elk hunting while they are trying to get the wolves drastically reduced. Its not because theres enough to go around. The biologists doing the counts can see it can you.
link
 
TA17- You quote Ralph Maughan from his web site. This is an anti hunting site. In fact not long ago there was several postings on coyote competitions.

Here is a sampling-
“There’s no fair chase in trapping or calling in coyotes and nobody’s feeding their family with coyote meat. This is a blatant example of animal cruelty, indecency and shows a total lack of respect for life. I’m surprised and disappointed that a business would host an event that celebrates the needless pain and suffering of an animal that’s been called “God’s Dog.”


"In a coyote “contest”, so-called hunters slaughter coyotes using various techniques to attract the coyote into rifle range. This may include using leg hold traps that only have to be checked every 72 hours in Idaho, or a distress call that sounds like an injured animal. Coyotes, like humans, feel a strong bond to other members of their species, and when they hear a cry for help, may come to investigate."

Why don't you come up with a better site to quote?
 
Like i told Ursus21 there is all kinds of info available you just have to do a search to find it. Idaho also has harvest reports but i could'nt get it up on my comp. and these reports come from the DNR..From what i have read though there seems to be a large group that agrees that the elk herds are stable or on the rise except for one unit and i think i read they are haveing problems with Cat and bear predation on fawns..I suppose they could go into that unit and kill as many of the cats and bears and the problem wouldbe solved....
 
Ralph Maughan has an anti hunting website and this goon (TA17rem) is sighting from it!!

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and say I'll bet money TA17rem voted for Al Franken.

I know this is probably a long shot but I had to throw it out there for you all to chew on.
 
In fact this same site or folks who are patrons of this site were instrumental in getting Nikon to pull sponsership from a coyote contest in Idaho recently.

"Great to see we can make a difference!! I’ve been posting about this as well. Glad to see NIKON made the right decision. The light of day needs to shine on these issues so people can speak out!"

"I have always thought of a racially unjust (or simply racist) overtone to these predator hunts. Kill for hate…"

"But killing for fun is wrong, and holding a contest to see who can kill the most, incredibly sick and perverted. It should also be illegal."

"Thousands of animals suffer and die for the amusement of these so-called hunters that wouldn’t understand wildlife conservation if it hit them between the eyes. The change is happening now, and it’s the regular hunter that is disgusted and embarrassed by the actions of these sportsmen that will stop them. It may take several decades but sport trophy hunting will be banned in all but the south and a few western states."

"One of the first “traditions” that needs to go is trapping. There’s simply no use for it in a populated world. "

"In my view, trophy hunting which serves no purpose at all except to satiate blood lust and is considered barbaric by most of the world is one of those “traditions” that needs to be adjusted."

"Trapping is a cruel inhumane unethical practice. It needs to be banned in all states and already is in some."

" I wrote that organization when I found out about their “derby” and told them to volunteer for service in Afghanistan to hunt and kill the Taliban but that not many of them would volunteer because the Taliban shoots back. I think it is disgusting what they do and I agree with one post in which they were compared to the Nazis."

Once again- find a better site to quote here on this one! Common sense is not very common on this site! (R. Maughns)
http://wolves.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/predator-derby/
 
And I believe everything I read on the internet. It's on the internet so it must be true!!!! (sarcasm)
 
Last edited:
Rocketman; It takes a bigger goon to be stupid enough to buy a Tikka and instruction vidios..LMAO.. Take the stock off from youre Tikka and look and see how it was built or scrapped together. Nothing i would be proud of owning..lol Best way to learn to call coyotes is get out and do it first hand rather than sit in a chair and watch abunch of edited tapes..
 
Also the other article that you quoted from above is from 2006. Wolves have grown 20-30% a year since then. Not to mention that the outfitters "marketing" in that article were smart enough to "sell" their hunts. The Lolo and Sawtooth zone are prime examples of the effect wolves have had on elk herds.

here is a quote from Id. Fish and Game's Mark Gamblin-
"in the Lolo and Sawtooth Zones the recent, sharp decline in elk productivity and recruitment I referred to is due to wolf predation of productive cows and their calves, not hunting mortality. The radio-telemety data we have for cows and calves in those zones gives us the fate of each collared elk and allows us to accurately estimate the wolf predation rate of cows and calves. Having good baseline data for these elk populations from previous years, including hunting harvest data, we can say with certainty that wolf predation has pushed elk production and recruitment in these two zones below levels that have required substantial reductions in the elk hunting opportunity that was allowable with essentially the same habitat when wolves were introduced. HOW we manage this new wildlife population dynamic (elk-wolf) and the necessary changes in public uses and benefits of those resources is of course our challenge."

This quote comes from this article- http://idahohuntingtoday.com/blog/index....n-on-elk-herds/

Ironically this article also mentions the anti-hunting/pro wolf site mentioned above.

In the elk hunt that I used to hunt, tags have been reduced by 1/2!
 
Let the math speak for itself. Wolves kill large ungulate(for the most part) because they are meat eaters. Figure one elk, or deer, or moose, or antelope per week. One wolf eats 52 ungulates a year. The more wolves you have? the fewer ungulates remain. Somewhere there is a vector that shows at what point the imbalance between prey(ungulates) and predator(wolves) results in prey base failure, predator population failure and massive dispersion of both animals. It happens in coyotes, it happens in fox, and, one can assume it happens with cats and bears. There is no way that the ungulates can reproduce enough calves in a herd to remain steady(no hunting, no other losses) unless that herd has 70 cows capable of bearing young. ONE wolf does that much damage. What do you get from 1,500 of them? Ludicrous to think that the prey base can survive for long and the wolves will stay at there original home area. Its impossible... Don't tell me they will survive on rabbits, mice, and PD's either. The energy expended to catch them is lost in the attempt due to their size and metabolic requirements.

I hate to say this but LANOLE may be much closer to the truth than one would be willing to admit.

Taking 15% of the wolves when their expansion rate has always been 20+% only means they will spread slower than their present capacity to do so. Horse pucky with the re-introduction. Horse pucky, politics and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ BS..
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: TURBO6046Shoot, shovel and shut up is what I say. What wolf? I've never seen a wolf in my life. I'm glad we don't have a wolf problem up here, the day I lost a pack of dogs to them it would be all out war until I was hauled away.

DITTO !!!!!!!!!!
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top