So, they "re-introduced" the wolf at (who knows?) what cost, and then (who knows?) years later re-introduce making it legal to kill one....put the license fee at $11.95 R and $186 NR? Sounds like typical politics to me...the taxpayers got screwed again. (not to mention the wolves!)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/18/2009 09:32PM by blooty.

And, meanwhile in neighboring Wyoming, you can't hunt them at all, despite the fact that wolf target populations have been exceeded and elk numbers are plummeting. I remain largely non-committal on the wolf re-introduction issue, but our federal agencies are continuing to prove that they do not make good neighbors.

Quote
Dearborn
And, meanwhile in neighboring Wyoming, you can't hunt them at all, despite the fact that wolf target populations have been exceeded and elk numbers are plummeting. I remain largely non-committal on the wolf re-introduction issue, but our federal agencies are continuing to prove that they do not make good neighbors.

Elk numbers are plummeting?

What is your source for this claim?

What is the normal, natural carrying capacity of the area for elk? You know, when Fish and Wildlife don't artificially feed alfalfa to most of the herd to unnaturally maintain their populations at inflated levels through endless severe winters? Just to appease hunters?

Elk pops prior to wolf reintroduction were huge - often in excess of 25,000 animals in the central GYE, probably far bigger than than across the full area, with the only important enemy human hunters. Everywhere you went up there, you tripped over scads of elk who had become essentially unafraid of being out in the open. Nice for tourists and autumn hunters, I suppose, but excessive for the habitat.

Now, GYE elk pops are maybe half that number, and the elk have smartened up and stay a bit more stealthy (which is not to say they are invisible - we still see plenty of them when we visit). Does this suggest that the pops have plummeted? Meanwhile, wolf pops have grown and approximately leveled off, with fluctuations depending on winter weather, interpack competition and variable elk pops. In other words, they have pretty much achieved a good dynamic equilibrium level that allows minor population ups and downs with the elk.

Meanwhile, thanks to reduced elk pops, natural riparian areas and willows are coming back to life after being decimated for 50 years; aspen groves are returning to historic ranges because the elk have been less likely to munch them into oblivion. Native aquatic species are likely to benefit from this progression. Grizzlies have seen a benefit from being able to nab some wolf kills, and their pops are doing fairly well...which is a good thing, because warmer climate temps have reduced their autumn sources of pine nuts, upon which they have heavily depended.

Maybe a bit of naturally selective depopulation was actually in order. Now if we just knock off that foolish feeding, let both elk and wolves regain a slightly lower natural dynamic equilibium level, shut federal management efforts to a trickle and stop worrying about it.

Bruce Jensen

I'm on the fence on this one. Data from Idaho suggests that the wolf population is 700-1000 and has been increasing yearly. I don't think that wolves were "reintroducted" into Idaho. There has been a continuous movement between Idaho and Canada and an increase in numbers for years. We sometimes have a misunderstanding of how management of wildlife and hunting have impacted sizes of animal populations. Hunting is not necessarily bad for the overall wildlife situation. Overpopulation,habitat destruction, and animal density can be managed with hunting. I would go with the Fish and Game experts on this one, so long as it is not a guise for extermination. Interestingly, I believe that there are more whitetail deer now in the US than were around in 1900 due to active wildlife management that included appropiate hunting regulations and seasons in spite of the loss of wild lands during that interval.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

I readily admit that I do not have elk population statistics available, but I'm not certain that I would believe them anyway. My prime authority for the dwindling elk population is - admitted - hearsay among northwest Wyoming hunters, and hearing that resident hunters are having to apply for limited-quota hunts where there was no previous limit.

In the matter of feeding elk, I have read a few arguments in regional newspapers, but frankly I don't know who to believe anymore and prefer to avoid the argument. Ever since my old alma mater Yellowstone released pictures to the Associated Press of fee collectors wearing dust respirators at the West Entrance in snowmobile season, I have regarded the scenario as, "The first liar doesn't have a chance!"

Is this a new concept: Regulated Wolf Hunts? It seems odd to me because the wolf is not edible (to my knowledge) so does the meat go to waste? Also, the wolf pack is a complex social structure, so I wonder what impact this will have on their future? It seems like some element of the management of both the Elk and the Wolf is missing, as the two populations are supposed to rise and fall in tandem (in theory).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/19/2009 01:30AM by Bee.

Quote
Bee
the wolf is not edible

No more so than dog (same species). The real problem is the wolf makes elk more cautious and thus harder to hunt.

Quote
eeek

Quote
Bee
the wolf is not edible

No more so than dog (same species). The real problem is the wolf makes elk more cautious and thus harder to hunt.

Bingo. Hunters hate wolves for this reason.

Ranchers and 19th century types don't like them either - the BIg Bad Wolf myth persists ad nauseum.