We had a conversation concerning wloves making there way to Rocky Mountain national Park in CO. I am sure the USF&W want them there to control the exploding herds of elk. Well today it was confirmed one wolf was seen near Baggs Wy, thats not to far from RMNP. They will be there soon!

I heard the same report on the radio on the way to work this AM.

Get ready Colorado, here they come! Hope all of the Boulder bunny huggers lock up their Malamute muts.

If you want to see what unrestricted killing of elk by wolves does to your elk herd come on up to Idaho.

We have about 500 wolves Colorado can have if they want.

They figure Idaho's wolf population is growing at about 25% a year so we will have plenty more here in the next few years.

Our elk herd is definitely being "controlled"!!

Anybody want to buy an outfitting business cheap?

They sure are ruining Idaho`s elk herds all right. I can`t wait to see them, if you know what I mean.

SSS

A couple weeks ago, my wife and I were in Bear Valley, Idaho, a vast, elongated valley, surrounded by high mountains. We were talking with a friend who is one of the fire lookouts, at a lookout named "Whitehawk," at about 8,600 feet -- for you southern Idaho boys who probably know where it is. He is there from late Spring, until the snow flies in mid-Fall.

I asked him if he'd seen any elk? He laughed and said, "No, but the wolves have sure been seeing whatever's left around here."

I asked how many wolves were around, generally? He pointed to the southeast and said, "Well, the Bear Valley pack is working those mountains."

Then he pointed to the northern mountains and said, "The Scott Mountain pack is working those areas."

Then he pointed to the west and said, "The Deadwood pack is hammering those mountains."

Then he pointed to the far northwest, toward mcCall, about 50 miles away, and said, "The McCall pack is stripping that area."

I asked how many wolves were in each pack? He answered, "Upwards of twenty, twenty five. Depends."

My wife and I drove through the entire Bear Valley area, putting about 60 miles on the truck, getting out often at likely spots, scouting for elk sign. We saw ZERO elk, and only a rare track or two. We saw one deer.

That's what UNCONTROLLED predators do to elk and deer herds. Thank you U.S.F.& W.S. Thank you Sierra Klub. Thank you PETA. Thank you Greenpeace. Thank you, all you rat squeezing, tree hugging, bliss ninnies.

L.W.

Then he pointed to the north

Hi guys,

I must be missing something:
Here in Quebec, we have plenty of wolves and moose. Yes, we do hunt wolves, but there are so much we take out... most prides are very healthy.

What is the difference between Quebec, Colorado, Idaho and Wyoming? Is it that the ungulate population down south is dumb beyond believe, or is it that hunters were accustomate to see waaaaay more elk/deer than a 'balanced' ecosystem usually allows, and that the wolves just brought back the balance back in check? God didn't create wolves to erradicate Elk and Deer, but to keep them in check.

Last year I saw my first wolf on my hunting grounds, and what a sight that was! I was in my car coming back from a fruitless day, he was sitting there 150 feet from me in a cleared area, looking at my car like you look at some boring TV show, no emotions whatsoever, but as soon as I stopped the car he disapeared. In the next few days, I still observed ample moose tracks, dung once in a while: everything to tell me that moose were there! But still, I did not see a single moose the whole week I spent there... to prove that these mooses were well taught and that the dumbest ones were in the bowels of the wolf I've seen before.

I am not a bunny-hugger, nor am I a smart-ass, I am trying to understand.
Guillaume

What these pro wolf people don't understand is the cyle, which means wolf packs will stay on the increase until available prey is reduced to the point that the wolves themselves start dying, this can take numerous years for the wolf pack to get to low enough numbers that they won't be killing every young and old elk. A cycle may take 20 years I am told which is a long time to wait for a huntable population to return, USFWS gotta get off there duff and realize that the wolves are good at what they do and need to be kept in check, a happy balance is what is needed and apparently the people in charge don't have a clue as to the meaning of this. Look what is going on in Alaska, these packs move from area to area decimating the local populations of moose and smaller resident prey animals, populations that will take decades to re establish. Alaska reacted fairly quickly acknowledging the problem, the question is will they be effective??

[ 08-26-2003, 22:37: Message edited by: raamw ]

gd,
I think you answered part of your question in your first sentence. In Idaho wolves are not hunted, they have no fear of man.
They travel on the winter ranges wiping out the cow elk with no restriction from man. There is no place the animals can go to get away from them.

If wolves are hunted they would stay out of the major winter ranges or be killed themselves.

Another factor is in Idaho there are only a few winter ranges left due to subdivisions and development. We have been lucky so far and not had any really bad winters which would greatly concentrate the herds on the limited winter ranges for even easier wolf feasting on the elk.

I don't know if it is a factor but Idaho big game has never had to deal with the wolf so any defenses the animals might develop to deal with the wolves over hundreds of years of evolution are not in place in the Idaho herds, so yeah they are probably dumb beyond belief when it comes to dealing with wolves.

Idaho has gone so far as to create two tag areas for bear and cougar in the areas hit hardest by the wolves. That is perfect logic, lets kill off the bears and cougars so there are more elk for the wolves to eat.

www.usa4id.com
www.usa4id.com/ciwc
Sites with info on the Idaho wolf situation.

[ 08-27-2003, 00:51: Message edited by: rukidnme ]

If I lived in Idaho I would definately help with the population control of Wolves....

trying to post these two websites with info on the Idaho wolf situation for reading if anyone is interested.
www.usa4id.com
www.usa4id.com/ciwc

That's funny Brent . When I look at the Isle Royale data , it does definately look like a cycle to me ......

Gd

I've often wondered about what you've said, having lots of wolves and the moose being in good shape.

Here in B.C. it seems to be fairly balanced too. We have alot of moose in areas that have alot of wolves. Elk on the other hand are not like moose in many ways. They are a herd animal that counts on numbers packed together to defend themselves. The smaller the herd, the more volurnable they get. Moose have many ways to defend themselves because of their sheer size. If they can, they will just go stand in a lake were the wolves are ineffective. That theory goes out the window in winter though. Especially when the snow has crust.

I think the caribou would be a better comparison for wolf prey to the elk.

The area I live in, the moose population is exploading. We are starting to see alot of wolves as a result of that. If in the lower 48 it happened this way where the populations grew together, than there would probably be more ballance. I think the wolf numbers down there are going to grow at a rate unheard of. Too fast for a healthy elk herd. By the time they have peaked and then ebbed, it's going to be a long climb for the elk numbers to get back up.

Maybe the cycle the second time round will be more controlable.

You have to understand, the wolves of Wy, Id, & Mt, were introduced, not naturally ocurring! There were native wolves here prior to the re-introduction. The Canadian wolves displaced the native wolves. The key is INTRODUCTION. They have never been introduced on this scale ever before and even the USF&W people are shocked! DUH! Lots to eat and no control! It's not rocket sience! Read this months Petersons Hunting Letters to the editor!

Lets give Brent 200 of the blood thirsty basturds in Iowa and see what he thinks then.

[ 08-27-2003, 06:18: Message edited by: kudu56 ]

Oh, I know Brent likes wolves. We've had this discussion before.

By the way , I was raised in Iowa , and many parts of that state are a hell of a long ways from flat .......

Hey Brent , do you still claim the timber wolf in Mn eats mostly beaver ?

The Mn DNR (hardly a bunch of wolf haters) still say their diet in Mn is 80% whitetail deer .

[ 08-27-2003, 07:15: Message edited by: sdgunslinger ]

Brent has made the same mistake the ignorant eco-ninnies make--thinking that "the balance of Nature" is a constant balance. It is not (unless outside influences keep it that way). In reality "the balance of Nature" is like a teeter-totter that slams down hard one way. Goes back up and slams down hard the other way. This is really basic stuff, Brent. Check out the definition of a "stable population cycle:"

http://people.uncw.edu/emslies/ecology/terms15.htm

Here's some more info for you. Be sure and check all their math:

http://www.gypsymoth.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/PopEcol/lec10/fullmod.html

http://www.as.wvu.edu/biology/bio21site/L10.pdf

http://www.zoo.ufl.edu/bolker/bsc2011/notes/predation-2up.pdf

http://academic.emporia.edu/barshawd/courses/1997/ecology/1997f.eco.16.htm

http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gross/bioed/bealsmodules/predator-prey.html

Put down your "I love cute little wolfies" books and do a Google search for: predator prey population cycle .

Read until your eyes bleed.

[ 08-27-2003, 08:10: Message edited by: Jon A ]

Yeah, I can see how one could like wolves if they weren't hunters or tried to make a living raising animals for market. The Northern Rockies have never been short wolves years before they were planted. They had better start printing the depredation permits is all I can say. Try, www.natureswolves.com for another perspective. RKBA!

Quite a few months ago I posted on another thread here about wolves, saying that they had been spotted south of Rock Springs Wyoming, in the Fire Hole area.
While not an official sighting by a Biologist, at the time.
I figured then, that would take 6 months to a year before they would aknowledge it.
It would be my guess that they are already in Colorado.

It always amazes me that so many American hunters are so out right "anti wolf". It would seem that anything that competes for "their" deer/elk is classed as vermin and that includes out of State hunters as well as wolves half the time too!

Personnally, I would feel it a privilage to sit around a campfire be able to hear a wolf howl in the moon light; surely a true mark of a wilderness?

Before I get flamed to death for those sentiments, I do realise that wolves cause real problems if their numbers are not controlled and I believe it is their "over protection" which is the root cause of many of the problems quoted here...it seems to me that to re indtrodce them to an area and let their numbers expand unchecked is pure folly....

Regards,

Pete

[ 08-27-2003, 12:52: Message edited by: Pete E ]

Might this not be the real cause of the problem?

quote:

---

Originally posted by rukidnme:
Another factor is in Idaho there are only a few winter ranges left due to subdivisions and development.

---

PS I agree with PeteE - hearing a wolf is a true indication of a wilderness area. No wolves would be just like Africa with no lion.

[ 08-27-2003, 14:31: Message edited by: NitroX ]

John Barsness's "Hunter's Book of the Elk" talks about wolves a bit and makes some points I hadn't thought of -- just to throw them out for discussion:

* Wolves also eat coyotes, which seems to help with bighorn sheep and mountain goats.

* In some areas, elk eat all the moose browse (willows, etc.) so a decline in elk may help moose numbers.

* Elk out-compete mule deer on winter range, so a decline in elk may help deer numbers.

Comments?

John, there are some known interactions between wolves and wildlife.

I can confirm the coyote observation. When the wolves came into the country, all of a sudden our valley was full of coyotes. Of course coyotes are death on antelope fawns, but not much else.

Data so far seems to show that wolves displace both bears and cougars. Of course, cougars are death on mule deer, especially, and some bears specialize in killing elk calves. There might very well be a significant balance there.

There is also no doubt that elk out-compete mule deer, and that the Idaho (temporary) abundance of elk has been a significant factor in the delay of the rebound of the mule deer.

All that said, though, if we don't control the number of wolves on the winter range, we won't have elk. My position is more of an "everything in moderation". With the drought, and the shitty shape the winter AND summer ranges are in, the elk are in comparatively poor shape, already, and they won't be able to put up with much harrassment during a potentially harsh winter. JMO, Dutch.

edit -- we need to control the wolves. We already have an effective tag system for controlling the elk!

[ 08-27-2003, 19:00: Message edited by: Dutch ]

I think most of the shouting here about wolves is sheer ignorance and not on the part of a bunch of wild eyed greenies. I do have moose and wolves and grizzlies in the back yard and wouldn't have it any other way. It's an impoverished place where the wolves have been gone so long that the rabid anti-wolf people seem not to realize how much they've lost.

"PS I agree with PeteE - hearing a wolf is a true indication of a wilderness area. No wolves would be just like Africa with no lion."

The mistake some of you folks make is thinking that most any part of the lower 48 states resembles a wilderness in any shape or form . It won't , ever again , unless you can get rid of about 3/4 of the mangy white men that live here now.

Canada can have lots of wolves and good hunting at the same time because there is simply no comparision in available game habitat and hunting pressure. Even a province like Quebec that has a couple of very large cities in it , still has hundreds of miles of deep wilderness ; leaving ample room for wolves , game , and hunters . There is nothing comparble in the lower 48 US , where the farthest you can get from a road is maybe 20 miles . We may have more hunters than Canada has total population . I would rather see our hunters have greater opportunity and keep a maximum number of people interested in hunting than provide a food source for predators that will likely never have a legal open season . Our game herds will have alot of pressure on them in the future due to shinking habitat , rampant devolpement ,and an exploding population . The wolf is just one more negative factor our game herds don't need . There is simply no room for the wolf in the lower 48 .

Just my opinion .

[ 08-27-2003, 17:28: Message edited by: sdgunslinger ]

We had a similar problem in the metropolitan areas of Chicago, that is with Deer. Since large predators don't mix with populated areas and "deer are cute", "How can you kill Bambi" prevents any hunting of these animal the only thing possible could have happened...an out of control deer population. Now, since no rich or politically conneted person was killed in a car/deer meeting there was no pressure to reduce them. Well eventually the car/deer numbers went up, the tree hugger people noticed that the underbrush was dissappearing...pressure to reduce the herd started. Court order after court order after injunction after injunction and no culling was had, until one innocent little (apparently connected) kid contracted LIMES DESEASE which was blamed on the deer...wala the gun barrels got hot for the next couple of months.

Question is we hire people as game biologists why not give them the power to do what they need to do, if not fire them and get someone that will. Since hunting and the like is a cash rich pastime there has to be a balance somewhere between "hands off" and Kill em all sort em out latter.

Read the following section I pasted from one of the wolf studies, eventually this is where we are heading:

Alaskan and Canadian wildlife agencies are concerned that wolf advocates may unwittingly be helping to destroy wildlife habitat, wilderness, and eventually wolves themselves (Gasaway 1989:134). In British Columbia, expanding wolf populations have decimated game herds to the point that today there are fewer hunters in the province, which translates into less public support when wildlife officials have tried to oppose development projects (Hatter and Janz 1994). Black-tailed deer on Vancouver Island, for instance, need old-growth forest to survive during winters—forests that are worth millions of dollars if they are logged. With few deer left to protect, the B.C. government has been reluctant to curtail logging. The same is true in Alaska’s coastal forests. More wolves = fewer deer = less public support for wildlife = more clear-cuts.

After reviewing the northern Rockies wolf recovery plan, biologists from the University of Idaho concluded that "in the presence of wolves, more intensive monitoring of both predator and prey will be needed" (Peek and Vales 1989; National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service 1990b:3-164). This increased responsibility and its associated costs will fall to western state fish and game agencies, which are funded solely from hunting-license sales and federal excise taxes on sporting goods, not general fund appropriations. When wolves eventually decimate ungulate herds, hunting will have to be curtailed, so revenues available to the state wildlife agencies will fall precipitously. Who then will pay for the needed monitoring, and, for that matter, wildlife management in general? Sportsmen, after all, are the ones who have done the most to nurture and protect the West’s wildlife populations, not environmentalists. Wolf recovery is a bad idea whose time has apparently come—unless, of course, the Endangered Species Act can be changed

Excellent post Rukidnme, pretty much says it like it really is.

Here's a little WOLF NEWS for those interested:

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2003/08/27/bui ld/wyoming/36-wolf.inc

Also the Baggs report with a Utah kicker!

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2003/08/26/build/wyoming/46-wolf.inc

[ 08-27-2003, 22:27: Message edited by: Marsh Mule ]

Here what we need to do with the wolves -since the east coast is having such a problem with deer being over populated -we need to send all thses wolves to NJ,MA DC and see how to Tree huggers feel about wolves after Bambi gets gutted right if front of there kids or they have a kid or two go missing on the way to school or god forbid fido goes missing
See the tree huggers and anti's love this crap cause that means less hunters will bother to go hunting if there's nothing to hunt.

[ 08-27-2003, 22:32: Message edited by: Gunnut 45/454 ]

Amen, to that, gunnut. How anybody can sit at their pc`s and write about how wonderful these wolves are is beyond me. They are simply ruining the hunting in Idaho. This is not a topic that we`re just making up, it`s happening. They must do something to control these out of control predators.We don`t want `em---- you can have `em.

In responce to an e-mail I sent to "Defenders of Wildlife"(pro-wolf org.) they're "matter of fact" e-mail stated that I should get prepaired for the introduction of the Lobo wolf to the Big Bend Nat. Park and Big Bend Ranch(state owned) area of west Texas being that they new I was a Texan. It was an obvious "in your face" responce.

Gentlemen,
There is only one way to handle the problem. If you wait for Big Brother to fix the problem, you will all have grey hair.
It was TERMINAL DUMB to reintroduce Wolves to the Yellowstone area. As if the Elk and Deer didn't have enough problems already.Not to mention the predatation of cattle and sheep.
Develop a new sport, get yourself a Johnny Stewart game caller and get things back to normal.
Nature sometimes gets out of balance, especially when Fish and Game people stick their noses into it. Makes you wonder what they were really doing with the tuition money, doesn't it?
Hawks and Owls have been protected as long as I can remember and between them and Coyotes, we don't have much small game or Deer left.
The DNR here started a few years back,selling doe permits over the counter for $3.00,and an unlimited supply,well, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what the Deer herd is like now.
They caved in to the insurance lobby as well as the farmers.
Someone in an earlier post said that game doesn't follow cycles,they most certainly do!Until the predators starve off and then they slowly rebound.
Predators have to be controlled, whatever it takes.
Stepchild

Someone mentioned that wolves are a great indicator of true wilderness. That may have been true a few decades ago when wolves were shot on sight and only survived where man seldom visited. Not today. Wolves, cougars, bears etc are showing up all over the place, suburban neighborhoods, schoolyards, farm and rural areas, almost anywhere.

The kind of wilderness I like is one where you can hear wolves howl at night and be able to shoot one or two the next morning, (not all of them, just enough to keep them manshy and out of town) keep the ungulate population healthy so we can have good hunting.

Tell, ya what, I was huntin bear in Ontario and our guide works for their version of the DNR. This man spend an inordinate amount of time in the bush both through his regular job and and the guide service, i'd guess close to 300 days a year (no BS - try keeping up with him! ) The day we got there he flat told us - if we see a wolf shoot it, he would reemburse us for the cost of the license. Quote " The BS about eating only the weak and young is BS. The wolf is capable fo taking down large mature moose not grandpa moose but perfect trophy moose" Now I have to go with his opinion as this is his JOB. I'm not saying that wolves are all bad but just dropping wolves in there because they once were there isn't sound management, if the wolf was destined to be there they would have come back on their own. Look at the comeback of the whitetail deer way down through overhunting and it cameback not through re introduction but sound hunting managemant. In areas where they were hunted out they came back as the habitat could support them ( think ripples in a pond as how the spread of animals go) Also FWIW if western states say they have too much elk and the wolf will help keep it down in a "proper balence" why not REDUCE the cost of out of state licenses and make more available. Alot of people would love to hunt out there and are willing to spend $ but not take out a second morgage and apply for 7 yrs to hope to have the $ when they do get their tags. Not only is the elk herd keept in check but it puts $ into the wildlife programs that keep the habitat open for all users ie hikers, photog nuts and backpackers. I don't see the wolf paying the state any money for the elk and deer they kill.

just my .02

Andrew

I believe Brent is in Iowa and has never been to the wolf country of Idaho and parts of Wyoming. Any outfitter or real hunter in these areas know the wolves are destroying hunting. When you hear wolves howl, pack up and move your camp, or you'd better enjoy long trail rides and fishing, cause the hunting is over. Wolves are not like cougars and bears and will kill more than they'll ever eat, and run the weak ones during a bad winter till they die on their own. Just like every other animal, they need to be controlled by some manner, not by tree huggers in New York City and LA that haven't ever seen a coyote, much less a wolf. Idaho was a great hunting state and is really fucked up by the wolf population explosion, believe it.

North west Wyoming is right behind Idaho in being screwed up beyond repair. It will balance but not in our life time!