jones123

Not sure what you mean, if you're talking to me. I didn't suggest anyone was on "my side". I personally know a Montana FWP biologist who is an avid hunter whowill not admit that wolves will be a problem. That is what I meant by that statement. But that same person admits that the calf:cow ratio is going down quickly. I don't have any numbers to back up the term "quickly".

I had heard that the timber wolf used to repopulate is not from here. That point was made in response to naturalists that believe nature should be untouched, yet there was an unnatural wolf introduced. Granted, that may be all BS, I wouldn't know. There is plenty of emotion around the subject. You only need a few trips to Gardiner, MT to see that.

Sniper151

It’s great to get a response from a Biologist that knows his stuff. Now lets hear from the ranchers in the area to which the wolf was reintroduced. I would like to hear their side of the story. Seems few biologists will acknowledge the negatives effects on the residents and ranchers property with this reintroduction.

jones123

Thanks for the response tangozulu. I hope you're right.

The travesty is that two whole industries/ways of life(livestock and hunting) grow around a certain set of conditions, then the feds decide they can just change the operating conditions with no allowance to the people who have depended on the industries and traditions for generations. All while ignoring their arguments as uninformed or selfish.

Sure, I am selfish about my elk hunting, but you can't tell me I am more selfish than the backpacker or naturalist who wants to see the wolves for his own pleasure.

I am looking forward to wolf tags. We have bear tags and unlimited coyote killing, and they are doing fine.

Muliefever

I have seen first hand the damage that the Wolf Packs are doing in Idaho. And you are crazy if you think they are only in Central Idaho.. I consider myself as a ethical hunter and person for that matter. However, I will shoot a wolf on sight. My bow huntingtrip last Sept. was in a place called Council. I have hunted there for 15 years. Never seen a wolf once... Not to say they were not already there. I just never saw them. This year we saw 14 WOLVES IN 7 DAYS!!!!!!
I was furious. Because I wasn't seeing the game thatI normally see. i hadn't hunted up there in two years. i have been away in the Military. It was appaling to see the loss in Elk numbers. I only saw a couple calves...
I HATE THE NUMBERS OF WOLVES IN IDAHO NOW!!!
That's all I have to say about that!

BrutalAttack

We do acknowledge the negatives. However, we would be more likely to actually talk about the negatives if the numbers we are getting were anything remotely alarming.

The last numbers I saw (which was last year) was so rediculously low that the thought almost completely left my mind.

There was several studies done on this exact issue in Minnesota. The researchers found that the livestock losses were completely negligible (<1% IIRC), and were generally not just the products ofpredation but here were actually other factors involved like improper carcass disposal by ranchers, among other things.

Now I'm not saying that a few calves lost can't make a difference for a rancher but I think considering the circumstances, the losses realized by the industry are very, very light. Not to mention the reimbursment programs that pay for confirmed and even probable losses.

Just for comparison: 17,000sheep were lost to coyotes in 2003. Since 1995 losses to wolves have averaged 16 cattle and 68 sheep in the Greater Yellowstone area. These losses, at least to me, are not significant.

Not only that but Wildlife Servies has authority to destroy any wolves seen predating on livestock.

I guess my question would be: Wolves are not going anywhere, so what else needs to be done? I think just about anything that the rest of society can tolerate has already been implemented in terms of protecting ranchers. Except foractivemanagement via hunting and trapping which is only a couple years down the road.

ELKampMaster

Are you suuuuuure you want to take that blanket position on the non-hair splittingefficacyfor all your scientific brethern regarding what is and what isn't "close enough" in regard to DNA when it comes to Species, Sub-speciesand the issue of achieving "endangerment?"
================================

Also, nice tactic.... jumping in the thread early, declaring your view the ultimate truth, attempt to undercut any competition with one slash, pokeyour opponentsin the eye, and then turn around and imply there is no sense in going any further.... don't need any long hard fought threads, it's all been covered before, you've decided you've already won, so we should get used to it..... I don't think so....

So typical,
So systemic in your community,
Almost a sense of royal entitlement and arrogance.
=================================

I predict these same folks here are gonnaargue your arseto a standstill.... again.

BrutalAttack

The cow:calf ratio is also going down here in Idaho. The thing people fail to mention is that it's been on the decline since about 1985. Wolves didn't have any impact on elk herds in the beginning. The main culprits of this long term slide were actually fifty years of almost total fire suppression and sharp decline in timber harvest since the 80's. These two factors magnified the impact of predation on elk and the introduction of wolves increased that magnification.

The main predator component of low cow:calf ratios here (and I'm assuming in similar habitats such as MT) is actually black bears, not wolves. Wolves certainly have an impact now, but my point is, this decline in the elk population was set up by other factors before wolf reintroduction was even thought of. Based on the research I have read, the main predator culprits up to that point were black bears, cougars and to a small extent golden eagles. With black bears having a devastating impactat calving time.

The Clinton roadless bill actually did more to hurt elk herds than wolf reintroduction in my opinion.

tangozulu

Hi Elk Kamp
100 years ago some biologists had identifird about 50 different subspieces of grizzly bears from California to Alaska.

This included not only the Brown Bears of Alaska but also such pedigrees as a "bald face" and "silvertip" etc. We have since sanely decided that this was a bit extreme. The former wolf populationfrom Yellowstone, I am sure had a continuous link to those now used to repopulate the former range.
If we were to use this argument about inappropriate dna against re-introducing wolves back into the western US, then please return the hundreds of Bighorn and CaliforniaBighorns Sheep that Canada donated to the US for the same purpose.
Happy Hunting

BrutalAttack

I'm not sure I understand your point. Could you explain it a little more clearly? I'm pretty familiar with the ESA listing laws and regulations and I'm sure I can cover any concerns you may have.

This isn't about winning orlosing. No one wins and no one loses. I'm only trying to lendsome reason to what is almost a purely emotional debate. I just happen to end up repeating myself because there a few basic factswhich prettyhandily sum up the situation.I don't see the point in opening thiswhole thing upanymore frankly. There hasn't been much new information that would change what has already been argued for the pastyear on this forum.

Every time a logical point is made it's met with anger and mud slinging instead of real science supporting your position. This is what I mean by "intellectually resonsible debate". Your post makes it apparent that your not capable of such a debate because instead ofrefuting my pointsusing some sort of knowledge, your calling me arrogant and accusing me of hoodwinking people who you obviously consider gullible, that is being intellectually irresponsible and that is why the anti-wolfers (and to some extent the prowolfers) will never mount an effective opposition. Just ask the Democratic party how effective spewing vitriolic nonesense is.

jones123

But they're not using it in many cases. Ranchers have had to require a lot of proof and have had to wait, only to have the officer merely re-locate the wolf - if he finds it. And to wait until the kill - are any wolves not going to eat animals?

Many Ranchers are taking things into their own hands now, after several years of many of them giving the officers a chance.