Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

Idaho Culling 90% of Wolves

12K views 224 replies 53 participants last post by  Edgy and Hip 
#1 ·
#76 ·
Before Montana was settled there wasn't many elk at all in what is now Yellowstone. In fact the quote was "a buzzard would have to pack a lunch to cross that land", made by one of the early explorers of that area.
Of course, the elk were all down in the valleys where the farms and houses are now, much more hospitable area if you're an elk.
Maybe put the wolves down there, to give the elk a break and all.
:)
 
#86 ·
I'm all for getting rid of the wolves . If it's Elk herd management they want issue more hunting license or special seasons to take out the weak . Thats my take on it .
PS : Edit or whatever : The first wolf I see eyeing me on a stream or in the woods had better have a nitrous system on his ass . My 460 rolls pretty hard , just a tad big for a snake though . lol
 
#87 ·
Some folks get all their meat that way I suppose...
I also suppose it's not many.
Far more raise their own domesticated animals for meat, and supplement with game.
Anytime you're eating without going to a grocery store and spending money is a win the way I see it.
 
#98 · (Edited)
I am amazed how we do not learn from our past lessons. I have done a lot of ecological research. I have worked with and on wolves in different capacities. I get that wolves can be hard on livestock in some areas, however if you take out an apex predator in any ecosystem, you are asking for trouble. Historically killing the Cougars (four legged ones) in the Grand Canyon in an effort to improve deer hunting was devastating ( also look up Isle Royale wolves / moose study, the Yellowstone Park Wolf Project... shark culls and the effects on reef and fish populations, etc.). When I am out Halibut fishing and I see someone catch and kill a dogfish I shake my head. They just killed a ton of Salmon in the process. One dogfish eats a lot of Mackerel... Mackerel prey on Salmon...you do the math (worse than seals). We intervene and we f*** with mother nature... we all know it is not nice to "F" with mother nature. As for snakes, one medium sized snake can eat just shy of 200 mice (approx. 9 pounds) in one year. (feel free to google it). That is a lot of mice, and a lot of crop/property damage in itself. When I go anywhere there are rattle snakes I walk around them. I wear appropriate boots/gators in those areas. If it is not possible to steer clear of them I have a long set of snake tongs and I gently move them so we both are safe. If I found one in my house I would get moved. Anyways that is my 2 cents worth.
 
#101 ·
No fighting words here, just science and trying not to repeat tragic history (watch video on Yellowstone project)… the reason wolf numbers are not properly self regulating is because of human interference... wolf pops. regulate in relation to prey numbers. We have messed with land use and have created an artificial abundance of deer/prey...I like my steak...trust me... but culling a huge number is a disaster.
 
#104 ·
No fighting words here, just science and trying not to repeat tragic history (watch video on Yellowstone project)… the reason wolf numbers are not properly self regulating is because of human interference... wolf pops. regulate in relation to prey numbers. We have messed with land use and have created an artificial abundance of deer/prey...I like my steak...trust me... but culling a huge number is a disaster.
How in the world did big game populations survive in Idaho without wolves? Culling a large number will do didly squat, they will repopulate like they did from a low base # and it will give big game populations a break. Idaho never had massive populations of unhunted elk that needed thinning, so the Yellowstone reference is great for that circumstance, not so much to central and northern idaho.
 
#114 ·
You people???

Yes I have seen. I worked with cattle, helped calve, pull with chains, still births, deaths and I watched my wife die from cancer at the age of 39 - so go file yourself with all your assumptions about people you know nothing about.

Don't bother replying.
 
#119 ·
Poisoning, snaring, trapping, and hunting them. I'd say they have done their fair share of suffering! I can not imagine a more horrible death. All life is sacred and no creature deserves this kind of, so-called, "management".
View attachment 281907
Poisoning, snaring, and trapping are abhorrent, but a well placed high velocity round perfectly fine. So you ok dragging fish around by their jaws, in pain, subjecting the to oxygen deprivation, and high lactic acid, only to release them, but placing a round through a wolf's vitals killing it instantly is horrible death?
 
#127 ·
One of the coolest things I ever saw was 3-wolves take down 2-elk at Gibbon Meadows in YNP shortly after their reintroduction. I love that wolves are part of the "wilderness" again, but I also love harvestable amounts of elk and deer. The way we have altered the landscape, especially the in terms of the substantial loss of winter range, makes it necessary to manage both predator and prey.
Aside from the hyperventilating eco news, if you look at the legislation, Idaho is looking at reducing the number of wolves to the number that was agreed upon back in the 90s. I can guarantee that Idaho is not looking to drop the number of wolves below the ESA level where the Feds get involved.
I hear a lot of people say that the Yellowstone elk population is healthier subsequent to the wolf reintroduction, and that may be, but there are far fewer elk, and the abundant elk population wasn't starving prior to wolves.
I think this is an important point..

We don't have the same ecosystem we did 100. Or even 50 years ago. We need to manage for what we have now not what we had back then.
Like it or not we are going to continue to lose habitat for wild animals and there is nothing any of us can do about it. People want to move to beautiful places and that is going to liquidate habitat. We need our management to reflect that.
 
#128 ·
#152 ·
Even if adamcu280's values win out, ie, protect the wolves and decrease the elk hunting permits/bag limits?
permits and limits should be determined by the health of the population..

that's why there should be Grizzly bear and wolf hunts in the greater Yellowstone region.

if deer and elk populations go down the amount of harvest will go down, however this will happen naturally regardless of how many permits you sell. You can sell the same number of permits but hunter success rates will go down.
 
#140 ·
So his saying "There's no way to change human nature", and my saying "No, there are ways to change human nature" are the same?

He's also advocating for management w/o any historical context which is the pitfall of shifting baseline syndrome.

Go back to his post #127 and my post #128 and you'll see why I'm confused here.
 
#151 ·
Adam,

You're appearing to be as binary as I occasionally accuse Rob of being. This is not an either or choice. Habitat is being lost faster than it is being protected, and this trend is far more likely than not to continue based on our very own local example of degrading 9 or 10 times as much Chinook and steelhead habitat as we protect or restore annually, shifting baselines notwithstanding. We are restoring and protecting habitat, but true to the human condition, we continue to degrade it faster. I think that is what Rob is getting at.
 
#154 ·
yes in this specific example we need out of the box thinkers who can come up with ideas for restoring elk populations regardless of the continued degradation of their habitat.

this goes across the board for salmon recovery as well.. simply put we need to find ways to increase runs in degraded habitats..

rather than saying it can't be done we need to figure out how to do it.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top