Elk City Wolves
- Thread starter Brentster7189
- Start date
shoots-straight
Well-known member
According to this link, there was 17,900 elk in 1986.
http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/yellowstone_elk_counts.htm
I too like to work off of FACTS. The problem was that most of your comments, were opinions.
Ben is right about #5 being a legislative decision. The local Bio's were under pressure to pick lower elk numbers than where we were sitting at the time this went down. (ELK SUMMIT) Our bio at the time (Killer) picked some pretty low numbers for the Root (6400). We (Ravalli County Fish & Wildlife Ass.) battled for 10,000 head county wide. We ended up getting a number around 7700. We then used page 55 of the EMP, and added close to 600 more. Land owners asked for the decrease, funny thing is, we only have a hand full of ranchers left. Noisy ones, but none the less, our numbers were ridiculous considering the amount of winter range coming from the fires of 2000. (330,000+ acres). In the 5 years sense the adoption of the new EMP, (if you had been following) hunters killed 5900 head of elk, (04-09) in the Root alone. Remember just recently, the several years of extended either sex elk seasons? 11 weeks of rifle alone. What does your colleagues say about that? This had nothing to do with wolves. So, I'm sorry if I don't think killing them right now is so pending.
The article said:
As you read the article it's talking about spring time, when the bears come out of their dens. " After den emergence" means spring time. The availability of fewer early-winter ungulate carcasses to bears..... would mean animals that originated in early winter, and not the over-all numbers.
I take that as carcasses in general. In 1986, there most likely wasn't many ungulates killed by predators, early, in the park, that lasted over till spring. There might be more ungulates killed early-winter, now, but there's no noticeable increase lasting until spring. Meaning winter-kill, or otherwise. Their talking spring, so how do you differentiate as to time of death.
Your picking buggers.
So in "YOUR" field, what do your colleagues think about your wanting wolves shot during whelping,and or killing pups in dens? Have you expressed your feelings to them?
I don't believe everything I read, nor everything that I hear, maybe you haven't been paying attention. But I did support my opinions with conclusions from a scientist, that did do several studies on the subject.
I'm not sure why studies done by the Park service are less important than those done by others. Maybe you can enlighten me.
Last edited:
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Do you? What's next?
I had a long reply written but decided to delete it and go with the shorter version. Yes, if necessary and we'll see.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Other than illegal activity, it's really not even on the table at this time. I don't see it ever getting any type of traction. So it's a mute point. Just wanted to see where your coming from. Trapping is another alternative, and it's use is stated as a means of take on both states management plans. This form of take is more apt to gain traction, and not creat some sort of lawsuit or backlash from the pro-wolf crowd.
This subject has been beat to death. You might not of discussed it before, but I doubt that. Sense you brought it up, what type of collateral damage do you think happens with poison? What other species could end up on the ESL because of this type of activity?
It took , what seems like forever, to convince many of you fellas that we would get control of wolves eventually. Many naysayers. Now that we have control, these same naysayers are already advocating poison? Toby Bridges gang members? You put any Xylitol out. I know people who did, and do. It's not a good precedent to get involved with. What we really don't need is anything to make the list, again.
Horn Seeker
New member
I thought this was a good read yesterday... One reviewers opinion is that Idaho will never get the wolves to a level they want without poison or aircraft shooting....
I am having a heck of a time getting it to link.... if you google "lolo calf survival wolf geist" and go down 7 places to the [pdf] State of Idaho... its a peer review of ID's wolf removal plan...
I am having a heck of a time getting it to link.... if you google "lolo calf survival wolf geist" and go down 7 places to the [pdf] State of Idaho... its a peer review of ID's wolf removal plan...
lamdilligaf
Member
That's right Ben. It wasn't FWP's fault as a whole, but I don't think the legislature dictated to the biologist how the season was to be implemented. His decision to allow a 48 hour closure notice resulted in a tremendous overharvest. The quota was met by noon the first day and still the season had to remain open for another day and a half. A friend of mine was there on the first day and counted over 200 shots in the first hour. It just wasn't thought out very well. Then compound that with his shoddy elk counts followed with another late season elk hunt the following year, and the result was some pretty significant damage.
That's just my opinion, SS.
Last edited:
lamdilligaf
Member
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Lets continue with your anger management session: You said:
Just because I didn't address 1 through 4 doesn't mean a thing. I do know what facts are, and will now address your 1 through 4, for your benefit:
According to the link I provided, the Northern Yellowstone elk herd had already lost 2000 head by the time the wolves were re-introduced. The Northwest part of Montana had a sever winter in 96 that killed almost 1/2 the elk populations up there. Then the state mandated elk reductions in 03. By then, we where over population objectives in most HD's. We're still over objective in a majority of HD's throughout the state. In 2005 the elk populations hit a historic high in the Bitterroot Valley. The mandate, along with over harvest was to blame for the decline here, not wolves. Wolves, bears, and lions, are keeping them from coming back. Low calf production. You can't remove the prey numbers, without removing predators first in my opinion. Our old Bio wouldn't listen. I have meet many individuals that felt their degrees gave them a right to be arrogant, and none responsive to others opinions, concerning their fields of "expertise". HINT, HINT.
Again, I'd like to point out the 11 week either sex "RIFLE" season we had just a couple of years ago. In many areas you were allowed 2 elk if you had a cow tag. Hunters killed far more elk than wolves, in the same period of time. Many elk migrate to the Root, from the Big Hole Valley. In the southern end of the Hole, you could shoot 2 elk there if one was a cow there last year.
72 wolves had been removed from there the winter previously to that season.
Thank you! I think I mentioned this first. Does that conclude that you do not know what a FACT is? Our group, RCF&W ass. have pushed to get the bear season extended in the upper Bitterrooot region, in both the West, and East Forks. We would also like to see a limited bait season to insure harvest of bears there.
I know that statement to be true, because I have been involved with the lion setting process in the Root for the last 26 years. We were killing close to 60 a year here, until the Bitterroot houndsmen organized. In the next decade following, we didn't harvest half that number. We have, however made good progress sense (the old bio) left, and this year harvested a modest 28 in the Root. That's a start.
I already addressed #5 so I won't elaborate on it.
Continue with your management session: I'll check back in later.
Just because I didn't address 1 through 4 doesn't mean a thing. I do know what facts are, and will now address your 1 through 4, for your benefit:
According to the link I provided, the Northern Yellowstone elk herd had already lost 2000 head by the time the wolves were re-introduced. The Northwest part of Montana had a sever winter in 96 that killed almost 1/2 the elk populations up there. Then the state mandated elk reductions in 03. By then, we where over population objectives in most HD's. We're still over objective in a majority of HD's throughout the state. In 2005 the elk populations hit a historic high in the Bitterroot Valley. The mandate, along with over harvest was to blame for the decline here, not wolves. Wolves, bears, and lions, are keeping them from coming back. Low calf production. You can't remove the prey numbers, without removing predators first in my opinion. Our old Bio wouldn't listen. I have meet many individuals that felt their degrees gave them a right to be arrogant, and none responsive to others opinions, concerning their fields of "expertise". HINT, HINT.
Again, I'd like to point out the 11 week either sex "RIFLE" season we had just a couple of years ago. In many areas you were allowed 2 elk if you had a cow tag. Hunters killed far more elk than wolves, in the same period of time. Many elk migrate to the Root, from the Big Hole Valley. In the southern end of the Hole, you could shoot 2 elk there if one was a cow there last year.
72 wolves had been removed from there the winter previously to that season.
Thank you! I think I mentioned this first. Does that conclude that you do not know what a FACT is? Our group, RCF&W ass. have pushed to get the bear season extended in the upper Bitterrooot region, in both the West, and East Forks. We would also like to see a limited bait season to insure harvest of bears there.
I know that statement to be true, because I have been involved with the lion setting process in the Root for the last 26 years. We were killing close to 60 a year here, until the Bitterroot houndsmen organized. In the next decade following, we didn't harvest half that number. We have, however made good progress sense (the old bio) left, and this year harvested a modest 28 in the Root. That's a start.
I already addressed #5 so I won't elaborate on it.
Continue with your management session: I'll check back in later.
Last edited:
thegamegtr
New member
Shoots Straight--Your a biologist?
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Just a active sportsman, that gets good info from good Bio's. It's not hard to see through those that have "OTHER" agendas.
thegamegtr
New member
I suppose you consider a good bio is one who has the same opinion as yourself
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Not at all, I consider a good bio, one that can show me where I might be wrong, and back it up. Just as Iamdillgaf has said several times. I don't believe everything I'm told.
The last Bio, was in constant conflict with me and others. We predicted the outcome of what would come from his management. Myself and others, ,(a minority at the time) were under constant ridicule even from members in our own club. Our predictions have unfortunately come to bear fruit. We have been vindicated by the mistakes of the last Bio. Those that drank his cool-aid have gone by the way side, and aren't' a blip on the radar. It has been one of those things where you win, but you lose. We won because the Elk herds have declined, and are poised for a possible crash. That's what we predicted back in 2004, when the state implemented the liberal hunting seasons here. We lost, because our hunting opportunities are crashing down, around us.
When I hear people blame this one thing, or this other thing, without either fact, or history to back them up, I feel compelled to set the record straight. No longer do I just complain, I get involved and act.
The Bio we have now, will show us if we're wrong with "FACTs" and numbers. Just so happens that after living my entire life in Western Montana, it's usually a long shot that I'm wrong. Utilizing that insight is a valuable tool if a bio uses it.
The resource comes first with me. If you want to beat your chest and drink cool-aid then have at it. I don't get to impressed with that attitude.
Our club threw such a fit because of what happened with our last bio, that we got a say in the hiring of our new bio. We had a representative for our club, at the interviewing of perspective bios vying for the job. We got to ask some questions and give our input as to whom we thought should get the job. It's worked out well. One of our questions we thought important was if the bio was a hunter of big game. Our is, and has that understanding in his background.
What's your take on poisoning wolves, and do think that we need to modify the management plans to control wolf numbers. That's the issue here. Are you a cool-aid drinker, or are you going to do some research of your own?
BTW, do you know what it means to wolf management if we try and modify these approved management plans?
In your posts you seem to want to say something but can't quit get it out. Don't be shy.
Last edited:
lamdilligaf
Member
shoots-straight
Well-known member
That's what the outcome has shown, after analyzing the data.
