Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

  • Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

Help Stop Wolves

To Those Concerned:
At the present time and political environment, I support the State of Idaho 2002 Wolf Conservation and Management Plan’s objective of fifteen (15) packs that translates to 150 wolves. I am pleased that our Governor, the Office of Species Conservation and the Fish and Game Commissioners have corrected the error of their previous pursuit of, what I believe to be, the unlawful 2008 Idaho Wolf Population Plan that required between 518 and 732 wolves in Idaho.
The Governor and the Commissioners exhibited leadership and new found courage in confronting the catastrophic wolf situation that continues to significantly impact Idaho’s ungulate herds, Idaho’s hunters and a yet to be fully accounted for economic loss to Idaho’s economy. That new found courage and leadership must continue and it must grow in proportion to the growing wolf situation Idaho faces.
The Governor and the Commissioners must give serious consideration to the utilization of the principle of nullification of Federal Law as it relates to the wolf emergency Idaho is experiencing under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Either nullification or disobedience or both should be rapidly employed by our State. Numerous examples of government (federal state and municipal) instigated non-compliance of Federal Law exist in our country today. So-called “sanctuary cities” defy Federal immigration statutes and Federal government regularly failing to enforce its own laws related to undocumented aliens are examples.
Idaho must act rapidly to save and rebuild what remains of its ungulate resources that have been significantly eroded by wolf introduction.
Idaho’s dilemma is how to reduce Idaho’s rapidly expanding wolf population to fifteen (15) packs as per the intent and directives of the Idaho Legislature. I believe we must institute a full array of methods that employ resident and non-resident hunters and trappers, IDFG personnel, USFWS personnel (if cooperative) and other local, State and Federal (if cooperative) authorities and facilitating organizations capable of assisting. Such methods should be employed by our State whether or not Idaho is granted State management authority by the Federal government. Those methods should include the following and others that are effective:
Hunting and trapping (including snares), the year round of all sexes and age classes of wolves in the State much like the taking of coyotes is presently permitted in our State. Such a program would require only a hunting or trapping license (or both for those who participate in both manners of take) for those who take wolves. Simple reporting with proof of take would be necessary to keep an accurate count of wolves taken.
Aerial gunnery of all sexes and age classes of wolves, especially in months that offer a good contrast background with the terrain such as that presented by snow. Fixed and rotary wing aircraft to include ultra-light aircraft when deemed safe and appropriate, could be utilized by cooperating government and non-government personnel who are qualified to conduct such activities. Accurate reporting of wolves taken verified by an accompanying air crew member when available, photo evidence or simple written reporting when carried out by a single participant would be forwarded to IDFG.
Chemical sterilization of all sexes and age classes of wolves well prior to mating. Appropriate and sufficient reporting to IDFG would be required.
The next recommendation requires change to Federal Law. Poisoning of all sexes and age classes of wolves the year round, especially near dens using a poison that is either not passed up or down the food chain or has a low probability of doing the same. Appropriate and sufficient reporting to IDFG would be required.
At the present time, wolf control must eliminate about 80% of an estimated population of between 1200 and 1600 wolves in our State. Even with all of the above methods of take operating efficiently, it will take years to bring Idaho’s wolves to the 15 pack population level and to a reasonable management routine. Let IDFG tell us where they want those 15 packs of wolves to live. We need to eliminate the rest. Now is the time for Idaho to stand resolutely before bad Federal Law and an over-reaching Federal Government.
Ed Lindahl, Sagle, Feb 9, 2011
 
So I crunched the numbers and graphed them (thanks to Ride the Rockies for getting the formatting figured out). And here you go. It doesn't look like there are any changes in the number of permits sold nor does it look like there are significant drops in harvest numbers over the last 9 years. The blue line is the Elk Harvested and the red bars are the number of Hunters for that year.

Elk Harvest.gif
 
So I crunched the numbers and graphed them (thanks to Ride the Rockies for getting the formatting figured out). And here you go. It doesn't look like there are any changes in the number of permits sold nor does it look like there are significant drops in harvest numbers over the last 9 years. The blue line is the Elk Harvested and the red bars are the number of Hunters for that year.

Now can you break that up into areas? Permits are issued per area and it looks like your harvest data is statewide. I guarantee the Lelo area does not have the same harvest rate. In fact it is impossible when the numbers of elk simply aren't there. Your graph doesn't mean anything unless you can produce them per each hunting unit and area.
 
Now can you break that up into areas? Permits are issued per area and it looks like your harvest data is statewide. I guarantee the Lelo area does not have the same harvest rate. In fact it is impossible when the numbers of elk simply aren't there. Your graph doesn't mean anything unless you can produce them per each hunting unit and area.

Yeah, I thought about that too. Do you want to see just the lelo area or are there any other areas you want included? If i do it for every area, thats gonna be a lot of graphs.

Heres the graph for just units 10,12 (lolo herd). The numbers don't show any significant drop in permits offered in this area (except for in 2009). And the harvest data doesn't look too out of whack either. If the elk numbers are dropping, I'd suggest its not only due to mismanagement of wolves but to mismanagement of the elk herd by the fish&game giving out too many permits. In 2008 the state issued 1656 permits, the most by far in the last decade. The next year, 2009, was one of the lowest harvest numbers......seems like theres a connection to me (and it doesn't really point to the wolves).

LOLO herd.gif
 
Last edited:
There is a BUNCH of new info out this past week...definite documented elk decline due to wolves. You can do a search from here for all of the new stuff out. Those of us living it, and witnessing it know what the *real* facts are. I don't want to see them eradicated (even though what was re-introduced wasn't what was here originally), but they do need population control. When we are seeing them down close to town here....there IS an overpopulation.

http://www.nbcmontana.com/news/26824713/detail.html

http://www.kpax.com/news/preliminar...daho-to-kill-up-to-60-endangered-gray-wolves/

http://www.nbcmontana.com/news/26825498/detail.html
 
Nobody wants to talk numbers and facts huh?

Fact is on your last graph, the number of elk taken by hunters is under 10% of the entire, elk herd. There is nothing wrong with those numbers that would point the finger at hunters. Deer and elk can sustain herd numbers with higher percentage elk taken. You are talking 150-200 elk taken by hunters in that area each year. On the Wasatch here way more elk are taken each year and the herd continues to grow....what's the difference? The Wolf. The wolf doesn't just take bulls. They take cows, calfs or both during the calving season. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the "facts" you have posted. It does not show unreasonable harvest or management of the elk.


"Wolves took over and became the leading cause of Lolo elk deaths. It wasn’t until May of last year that the state could finally manage wolves. By then, the balance of elk and wolves in the Lolo Zone was completely out of whack. Extreme predation on adult females and calves means not enough calves survive to replace the adults that die each year."

—Cal Groen, 2010
Director
Idaho Department of Fish and Game
 
OK, I'm gonna stir the pot a little. First off, a little background. I am a big game, small game hunter and I'm about the furthest thing from a tree-hugger you can find (I just quit my job with an oil & gas company to go to work for a coal mine). Sooo, it seems to me that ranchers and sportsman lobbyists are using scare-tactics and embellished facts to sell their desire and disdain for wolves. We know this stuff goes on, we see it in the anti-snowmobiling lobbyists when they preach about how our sleds are destroying the forests and harassing the wildlife. Its all scare tactics. Wolves are part of the ecosystem. I realize they are known to kill livestock and big game just for the thrill of it, but thats part of the hazard of living in the west. I also agree that the wolf packs need to be regulated, just like all the other wildlife groups are so as to maintain a balance. I enjoy pheasant hunting, but that doesn't mean that I'm gonna lobby against raccoons, skunks and hawks because they all target and kill the pheasants that I want to shoot. Its just the way the ecosystem works. Ya, we reintroduced the wolves to Yellowstone and allowed them to spread throughout the northern rockies, but we were also responsible for their annihilation in the same area to begin with.

OK, bring the flame.....:flame::argue::target::target::target:



There are several sides to this, and while I understand your point... However, the reintroduction of wolves to the area would have been fine if it had in fact been the same wolves that had ORIGINALLY lived in the ecosystem. The wolves introduced are non native thats the whole reason for the thrill killing that they are doing.

There are hundreds if not thousands of articles regarding this. I've never seen them kill first hand but ive seen the aftermath of what they do, kill stuff just for the sake of killing it and dont eat ANY of it. There over aggressive nature makes them potentially problematic.
 
Nobody wants to talk numbers and facts huh?

Well I suppose if someone were to post some factual data that was actually relevant to the discussion, then you might see some responses. Most of what has been presented on the pro-wolf side hasn't been worth the wasted key strokes in a response.
 
Well I suppose if someone were to post some factual data that was actually relevant to the discussion, then you might see some responses. Most of what has been presented on the pro-wolf side hasn't been worth the wasted key strokes in a response.

Good one:face-icon-small-dis These numbers all came directly off the Idaho Game and Fish website. Where would YOU suggest I get the numbers from? All you have presented here so far are emotional rants and unsustained anti-wolf banter. If you want to talk facts, I'm all ears and welcome the info. If you want to just shoot your mouth off and claim you know what you're talking about because you heard somebody else say it or you saw an elk cacass once, I'm not giving your comments much credence. Also, I'm not presenting a "PRO-WOLF" side. I'm just throwing the data into the conversation to see what everybody thinks.

If you actually had read anything I have written, you would have seen the post where I said I'm all for wolf management....I'm just not willing to pin the elk herd destruction on the just the wolves. I suggested that maybe it could be due to herd mismanagement by the state as well. Its easier for the state and fed to cover their arses by pinning their ineptitude for not regulating the number of hunters/permits on a declining herd and instead getting the public to heap it 100% on the wolf due to the general disdain for its reintroduction. To me, thats what the harvest numbers suggest.
 
If you want to talk facts, I'm all ears and welcome the info. If you want to just shoot your mouth off and claim you know what you're talking about because you heard somebody else say it or you saw an elk cacass once

Did you seriously think that the number of elk harvested and the number of tags issued has anything to do with a discussion of wolves? Tags issued is irrelevant, the number is totally dependent upon a group of people who have repeatedly demonstrated their ineptitude in herd/hunter management.

Numbers harvested is a reflection of tags issued, prevalent weather conditions, cyclical herd population numbers, quality of the hunters issued tags, etc. Without making comparisons to state wide and region wide harvest numbers over a period of time you're not going to find any significant correlation or meaningful comparison.

Now if you actually had "good" herd populations for all the game in the area by year over the last ten years AND wolf populations over the same period of time, then you would have something you could use to back your opinion.

If you actually had read anything I have written, you would have seen the post where I said I'm all for wolf management....I'm just not willing to pin the elk herd destruction on the just the wolves. I suggested that maybe it could be due to herd mismanagement by the state as well. Its easier for the state and fed to cover their arses by pinning their ineptitude for not regulating the number of hunters/permits on a declining herd and instead getting the public to heap it 100% on the wolf due to the general disdain for its reintroduction. To me, thats what the harvest numbers suggest.

I have "actually read your posts" and if you had read mine you would have noticed that I never suggested that wolves were tied to game population declines. My point is, without wolf population control (or total eradication in the lower 48) there will be significant reductions in game populations.

FWIW... My experience with wolves and other predators in general is tied to my lifetime of livestock ownership, that of my family (there were actually here with livestock when the indigenous wolves were eradicated) and 30+ years of hunting experience. Since there isn't any quality data available to anyone, the only thing you're going to find is people who have experienced what a wolf can do and those who haven't. Nothing I have stated is something I've heard second hand.

In the end we may be arguing the same basic point...
 
Last edited:
Did you seriously think that the number of elk harvested and the number of tags issued has anything to do with a discussion of wolves? Tags issued is irrelevant, the number is totally dependent upon a group of people who have repeatedly demonstrated their ineptitude in herd/hunter management.

Numbers harvested is a reflection of tags issued, prevalent weather conditions, cyclical herd population numbers, quality of the hunters issued tags, etc. Without making comparisons to state wide and region wide harvest numbers over a period of time you're not going to find any significant correlation or meaningful comparison.

Now if you actually had "good" herd populations for all the game in the area by year over the last ten years AND wolf populations over the same period of time, then you would have something you could use to back your opinion.



I have "actually read your posts" and if you had read mine you would have noticed that I never suggested that wolves were tied to game population declines. My point is, without wolf population control (or total eradication in the lower 48) there will be significant reductions in game populations.

FWIW... My experience with wolves and other predators in general is tied to my lifetime of livestock ownership, that of my family (there were actually here with livestock when the indigenous wolves were eradicated) and 30+ years of hunting experience. Since there isn't any quality data available to anyone, the only thing you're going to find is people who have experienced what a wolf can do and those who haven't. Nothing I have stated is something I've heard second hand.

In the end we may be arguing the same basic point...

I think we may be arguing the same point, just coming from a different angle.

My thought on the whole numbers thing pretty much comes down to whether you can trust the numbers on the IDOW website and whether you can trust what people are saying about wolves relative to the elk numbers. The DOW's job is to regulate the elk herds. They do that by counting the elk and then issuing a number of tags per area (or at least thats how they're supposed to do it). If the herd numbers are dwindling due to wolf kills, then wouldn't that be reflected in the amount of permits that are sold and number of elk that are harvested (less elk = less elk harvested)? But if the numbers are staying relatively flat and the number of hunters in the area hasn't declined, that tells me one of two things. One, the elk herds aren't really being decimated by wolves like many people say and its all a rumor. Two, the Idaho DOW isn't doing their job and is just keeping the tag numbers at the same levels to keep the money rolling in despite running the elk population into the ground and eventually biting the hand that feeds them. In that case, not only should the wolves be managed but so should the DOW. Both are just as guilty and deserve to be shot if that really is the case.
 
Last edited:
Elk are by far one of the smartest animals I have ever hunted (coyotes being the smartest) a trait that doesn't allow them to be easily counted.

And as a result I really don't ever trust herd size numbers, but if you were to actually get accurate numbers on herds and by some small miracle you also knew the number of wolves within an area then you could determine if the wolves had led to decline in herd numbers.

I personally don't believe that the wolf population is high enough yet to of had a significant impact in most of the areas they have migrated into yet, but I don't think you will find anyone that can argue with the population declines across several species (including other predators) within yellowstone where the wolves have been for quite some time.
 
Premium Features



Back
Top