Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Wolves need our help NOW!
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author     Message
AA+
brineal
Snarky Master



Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 150 | TRs | Pics
brineal
Snarky Master
PostThu Apr 29, 2021 9:28 am 
altasnob wrote:
How did Idaho come to the conclusion that 150 wolves is the correct ecologically stable amount of wolves to have in their state? That seems to be their main argument on why they need to kill these wolves. 1,500 wolves is too many, but 150 is the perfect amount. Why 150? Seems pretty low to me. I think 150 is about how many wolves in Washington but Idaho has way more suitable habitat.

Most likely was determined by the biologists and game managers in control of the reintroduction / delisting / management plan.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 11861 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostThu Apr 29, 2021 12:57 pm 
brineal wrote:
"...determined by the biologists and game managers..."

Why on earth would you want to have credentialed professionals making management decisions in their own fields of expertise?
Those decisions should be left to lawyers and internet armchair quarterbacks!

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
brineal
Snarky Master



Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 150 | TRs | Pics
brineal
Snarky Master
PostThu Apr 29, 2021 3:17 pm 
Ski wrote:
brineal wrote:
"...determined by the biologists and game managers..."

Why on earth would you want to have credentialed professionals making management decisions in their own fields of expertise?
Those decisions should be left to lawyers and internet armchair quarterbacks!

Seems a better process than putting a bunch of random numbers on a wall and throwing a dart blindfolded to pick but hey, what do I know?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
brineal
Snarky Master



Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 150 | TRs | Pics
brineal
Snarky Master
PostThu Apr 29, 2021 3:21 pm 
timberghost wrote:
126 individuals, 27 packs,15 successful breeding pairs up from 122, 22, 14 respectfully. Quite the growth rate.

That they are aware of / willing to report; by their own admission their estimation methods are unreliable.  Although that's not really WDFW's fault, going out to find wolves purposefully is nearly impossible and unique identifiers must also be a nightmare for accurate count reporting.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Pyrites
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Sep 2014
Posts: 1602 | TRs | Pics
Location: South Sound
Pyrites
Member
PostThu Apr 29, 2021 6:09 pm 
Ski,

I watched the WDFW YouTube report a couple days ago.

One collared wolf went on walkabout. The map was tiny, but it appeared from n central WA, N to E of 100 Mile house with some significant zig zag. Comment was that just because WDFW has had poor luck seeing reported wolves in S Cascades doesn’t mean some have wandered around there.

Also mentioned was WSDOT is doing some kind of study of barriers to dispersal to W of I-5. I could’nt find this on the DOT site.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Sculpin
Member
Member


Joined: 23 Apr 2015
Posts: 1076 | TRs | Pics
Sculpin
Member
PostFri Apr 30, 2021 8:24 am 
brineal wrote:
couldn't even find a wolf

I challenge you to prove that you have ever done anything other than troll behind a keyboard by posting a trip report.   wink.gif

My wild wolf sighting is documented on this site and also in WDFW records.  How about you?

--------------
Between every two pines is a doorway to the new world. - John Muir
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
brineal
Snarky Master



Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 150 | TRs | Pics
brineal
Snarky Master
PostFri Apr 30, 2021 9:10 am 
Sculpin wrote:
I challenge you to prove that you have ever done anything other than troll behind a keyboard by posting a trip report.   wink.gif

My wild wolf sighting is documented on this site and also in WDFW records.  How about you?

A sighting is not the same as purposefully seeking out an animal (and with your smug, ascribed intent of "slaughter").

I've run into 1 cougar in all my time in the woods, it was by happenstance on my part; unfortunately I missed the shot or I'd have a nice, unpopular photo to share wink.gif.  The notion of going out to purposefully locate a cougar is as laughable as you going out to purposefully find a wolf, the probabilities are stacked against you (this is why trapping is the most effective method of hunting wolves). No one is out "slaughtering" wolves and to insinuate as such is hyperbolic alarmism.

My outdoor endeavors are mostly centered around hunting which are unwelcome by the bigoted biases here (yours included).  Didn't realize I needed to provide my "Hiking CV" to know and demonstrate that yours aren't the best ideas in the room.  biggrin.gif

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 732 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
Member
PostFri Apr 30, 2021 10:41 am 
Ski wrote:
brineal wrote:
"...determined by the biologists and game managers..."

Why on earth would you want to have credentialed professionals making management decisions in their own fields of expertise?
Those decisions should be left to lawyers and internet armchair quarterbacks!

I looked into my question more, and as I suspected the decision to reduce Idaho's wolf population from 1,500 to 150 was done by the Idaho legislature, and not biologist, game managers, or anyone else with any scientific expertise.

The 150 number, from the original The Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, which was passed in 2002, was written by the legislature, not Fish and Game. "That number was determined by the legislature to be the population size that would allow the species to remain sustainable in the state—without creating conflict with ranchers and hunters. Wildlife biologists, in contrast, argue that wolves must return to the entire portion of their historic range that’s currently able to support the species before their population can be considered sustainable."

"The Idaho Fish and Game Commission opposes the legislation, arguing the bill would remove decisions about how to manage wildlife from the department’s professionals and place that decision making in the hands of politicians. Idaho’s approach is also in conflict with that of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service."

Fact-Checking Idaho’s Wolf Eradication Law


Ex-wildlife managers want veto of Idaho wolf-killing bill

Idaho Wildlife Federation, a non-profit hunting and fishing organization, supports wolf harvest, but still opposes the bill because of the precedent it would set for allowing the Idaho Legislature or voters to manage wildlife, a task specifically designated to the Fish and Game Commission.

“We all need to understand that managing wildlife needs to be guided by science-based decisions. Those are thrown out the window when we favor these political decisions being made either by voters or legislators.”

https://www.idahostatesman.com/outdoors/hunting/article251012894.html#storylink=cpy

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
brineal
Snarky Master



Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 150 | TRs | Pics
brineal
Snarky Master
PostFri Apr 30, 2021 2:16 pm 
altasnob wrote:
I looked into my question more, and as I suspected the decision to reduce Idaho's wolf population from 1,500 to 150 was done by the Idaho legislature, and not biologist, game managers, or anyone else with any scientific expertise.

The 150 number, from the original The Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, which was passed in 2002, was written by the legislature, not Fish and Game. "That number was determined by the legislature to be the population size that would allow the species to remain sustainable in the state—without creating conflict with ranchers and hunters. Wildlife biologists, in contrast, argue that wolves must return to the entire portion of their historic range that’s currently able to support the species before their population can be considered sustainable."

"The Idaho Fish and Game Commission opposes the legislation, arguing the bill would remove decisions about how to manage wildlife from the department’s professionals and place that decision making in the hands of politicians. Idaho’s approach is also in conflict with that of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service."

Fact-Checking Idaho’s Wolf Eradication Law


Ex-wildlife managers want veto of Idaho wolf-killing bill

Idaho Wildlife Federation, a non-profit hunting and fishing organization, supports wolf harvest, but still opposes the bill because of the precedent it would set for allowing the Idaho Legislature or voters to manage wildlife, a task specifically designated to the Fish and Game Commission.

“We all need to understand that managing wildlife needs to be guided by science-based decisions. Those are thrown out the window when we favor these political decisions being made either by voters or legislators.”

https://www.idahostatesman.com/outdoors/hunting/article251012894.html#storylink=cpy

Not sure if wildlife biologists referenced above from the 2002 decision from Idaho Fish and Game Commission, it doesn't specify who that commentary came from - whether from Fish and Game, the relevant management body, or an outside source weighing in. Biologists aren't a monolith and have various outlooks on the role of management and management policies.  This matters.

I'd be curious how much input game managers actually had in 2002 in formulating a fairly complex reintroduction plan.

If noted above about the outcomes of this bill is true, I would agree that there shouldn't be legislation passed which removes responsibility for the management of a game species from IFGC in favor of legislature dictate.  This needs to be managed by Fish and Game, not politicians in Boise and continue through Fish and Game license and tag sales, bag limits (increased if need be or prudent) and within the seasons and weapons/baiting/trapping regulations that are in place for legal hunting.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 732 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
Member
PostMon May 03, 2021 3:46 pm 
The Center for Biological Diversity, a wildlife advocacy group, is urging federal officials to disqualify Idaho from receiving $18 million in wildlife management funds in response to legislation passed by Idaho lawmakers that could lead to the killing of up to 90% of the state's wolves.

Under the Pittman-Robertson Act, a state may receive federal funding to support critical conservation and outdoor recreation projects but may be deemed ineligible if it passes legislation contrary to the Act. The Center for Biological Diversity has asked the U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to disqualify Idaho for federal funds.

https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/local/idaho-risks-losing-18m-in-wildlife-management-funds/277-681e704f-6790-4868-9613-c132e463dfe3

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
timberghost
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Dec 2011
Posts: 997 | TRs | Pics
timberghost
Member
PostMon May 03, 2021 4:55 pm 
Maybe they should increase the funds to ID. Since this is a step in the direction of conservation of the ungulate population.
https://www.idahostatejournal.com/pittman-robertson-act-crucial-to-wildlife-protections/article_9d8c32f1-f1f1-5b67-8b5c-d044db0aaaa0.html

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 732 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
Member
PostMon May 03, 2021 5:55 pm 
The current elk population estimate in Idaho is more than 120,000 elk, just 4% below the all-time highest count of 125,000.

https://www.livingwithwolves.org/2020/09/09/idaho-elk/

https://idfg.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/seasons-rules-big-game-2019-2020-v2-elk.pdf

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
timberghost
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Dec 2011
Posts: 997 | TRs | Pics
timberghost
Member
PostMon May 03, 2021 6:19 pm 
Statewide elk populations are irrelevant to impacts by wolves. When you talk about wolves, you must address areas where they live — not where they don’t.
Central Idaho where the elk population dropped 43 percent since 2002.
Since the reintroduction of wolves in the mid-1990s, the population of the Northern Yellowstone elk herd is down 80 percent from nearly 20,000 to less than 4,000 today.
In the mid-2000s, some biologists claimed the elk population stabilized in the 6,000 plus range, yet since that time the herd dropped another 30 percent in size and is now below the 4,000 mark for the first time ever. Now tell me they don't have any effect again.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Sculpin
Member
Member


Joined: 23 Apr 2015
Posts: 1076 | TRs | Pics
Sculpin
Member
PostWed May 05, 2021 7:37 am 
timberghost wrote:
Since the reintroduction of wolves in the mid-1990s, the population of the Northern Yellowstone elk herd is down 80 percent from nearly 20,000 to less than 4,000 today.
In the mid-2000s, some biologists claimed the elk population stabilized in the 6,000 plus range, yet since that time the herd dropped another 30 percent in size and is now below the 4,000 mark for the first time ever.

Sigh.   rolleyes.gif

"Now" is not 2013.  The population is back to 6-7,000 in the last few years.

"The [northern Yellowstone elk herd] long-term average of observed elk numbers since surveys began in 1976 is 10,634 elk, with a peak high count of 19,045 elk in 1994 and a low count of 3,915 elk observed in 2013."

And then there is this:

"Research from Yellowstone shows that wolves prefer to target female elk between 13 and 16 years old, near the end of their life. By hunting the older female elk, wolves remove the competition for younger and more reproductive cow elk. Incidentally, the average cow elk selected by a hunter is two to six years old, during the reproductive and fertile prime of a cow elk’s life.

In terms of the total number of elk killed by hunters in Idaho, in the 85 years since the state has been keeping record, each of the past five years have ranked in the top 14 most successful elk hunting seasons. In each of the past six years, hunters have killed over 20,000 elk in Idaho. That marks the second longest stretch of over 20,000 elk taken annually in the state’s history. These banner hunting years are occurring in parallel with a recovering wolf population in Idaho. The numbers simply do not support the arguments of those who insist wolves are detrimental to elk and hunting. In light of the beneficial effects that have been observed when wolves and elk coexist, perhaps it is less of a mystery as to why Idaho’s elk herds remain robust alongside a population of wolves."

--------------
Between every two pines is a doorway to the new world. - John Muir
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
timberghost
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Dec 2011
Posts: 997 | TRs | Pics
timberghost
Member
PostWed May 05, 2021 9:06 am 
If you knew anything about the ID fish and game and the fact that in areas where the the game animals are surveyed and the fact game quotas are set based on management objectives. Like I said elk populations flourished where wolves are non existent. The Lolo herd and Frank Church wilderness herd is a prime example of how the wolves affected those herds.
If you think that wolves have changed their tactics from the Yellowstone obliteration your crazy. Wolves don't just target old cows or sick elk either. You think when a population goes from over 24k to 6k, 18k of those were sick or old?
The dirty little secret is an active controversy over wolves is good for the bottom line for those groups who solicit donations to “save the wolf” and yet put nothing into wildlife management, habitat restoration or anything else related to wildlife management.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Wolves need our help NOW!
  Happy Birthday Sabahsboy, The NW Explorers!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy