Idaho County officials ask Gov. Otter
to declare disaster over wolves
BOISE — Officials in Idaho County want Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter to
declare an ongoing disaster that will allow wolves to be shot on sight,
citing attacks on livestock and wildlife.
County commissioners declared a local disaster Thursday. The gov-
ernor’s office was aware of the county’s move but had not seen it and
couldn’t immediately comment, said Otter spokesman Jon Hanian.
“We heard about it just at the close of business today,” Hanian said.
“Beyond that, I don’t have a comment about it, until we’ve had a
chance to read it, review it and make sure the governor has seen it.”
A U.S. District Court decision in August restored federal protections
to wolves in Idaho and Montana, despite objections from both states.
Otter has said he’ll negotiate until Oct. 7 with the federal govern-
ment on a plan to manage the approximately 850 wolves in his state.
Idaho’s governor said he wants increased flexibility to kill them
when they eat livestock or too many elk.
But if no pact comes about, Otter has cautioned that Idaho will no
longer be a designated agent for monitoring, providing law enforce-
ment support or investigating wolf deaths.

The union is falling appart. This is a small window into a larger problem. The federal government has become so large finaly the states are pushing back.

Congratulations Idaho !!
Beware though, Obama won't "tolerate" this independance.

good move on the part of the county hope the state follows through, something has to happen

Big Balls in Cow Town,I love it, but im sure
Osama will send his wolf protectors to
say that wolves in Idaho do not cause cancer
in California. All I can say is FIGHT for States
Rights.

The wolves are really taking a toll on Idaho's big game. It is a damned shame!

You should see the effect of the over 10,000 - yes 10,000 wolves in MN. Luckily we will soon be able to buy a special tag if we are selected in the lottery for a proposed $400.00! I was hiking in the Itaska State park this spring and the trails had wolf scat every 50 yards for miles. We never saw a single set of deer tracks in 15 miles hiked. At night the never ending corus of wolves howling caused us to stand armed watch when the kids had to leave the tent to pee. Great experiment we're running up here.

I BELIEVE IN THE STATES RIGHTS TO MANAGE THEIR OWN WILDLIFE.
CONGRATS IDAHO, GOOD MOVE!!!!!!!

I too support states rights and always thought the original intent was to have states more independent.

Red

Not in a libreal Mind,they want the world
to think only the Goverment can solve the problems we as a country face. SCARY.

quote:

Originally posted by ravenr:
I BELIEVE IN THE STATES RIGHTS TO MANAGE THEIR OWN WILDLIFE.
CONGRATS IDAHO, GOOD MOVE!!!!!!!

+1

In just came back from Alaska - the natives kill every wolf they can where I was hunting.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I have a real solution to this wolf problem.

Catch them, put them in a C-130, and drop them off in Fairmont Park in Philadelphia. The deer population in Philadelphia and the western suburbs is out of hand, and the wolves will take care of that lickety split.

Of course a few dogs, cats, parrots, and what not will meet their demise in a wolf's jaws, but its either that or those pets becoming the occasional road pizza, which works out about the same anyway.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

quote:

Originally posted by Yale:
road pizza

THAT IS ONE FUNNY DESCRIPTION!! NEVER HEARD IT BEFORE!

Yo Doc:

I learned the term while in working in Jamaica in 1985, the trifecta being: "mystery meat, slow dog, road pizza".

These terms all emanated from an interesting mind going by the name of Larry.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

I woke up the other night to find some kind of show going on about one of the HUGE National Parks out West. Could have been Yellow Stone, Glacier or one of the others. Beautiful vistas!

Thought it might be worth watching, so I began paying attention. The premise was they had been doing research into "Why?" many of the Trees and Understory were not sprouting and growing. (That is the Bait! )

Next thing I knew a Park Ranger was describing how wonderful it was to have the Wolf Packs back. (Huh??!?!!?!?) He went on blathering for awhile and then showed Trees and Understory growing back in areas where it has not been for a long time. (Do you get it yet?)

More blah, blah, blah and finally he got to - the Wolf Packs were reducing the number of Elk and Deer which tend to feed on the small trees and plants as they are growing.

As you all surely know, Elk are primarily "grazers" and resort to short trees and bushes only as a last resort. Deer do eat the leaves from "some" small trees, but there is a far ranging group of brouse they prefer.

So, they are selling the "Once upon a time..." Story that the Wolf Packs have been very beneficial the the Parks by eating off the Elk and Deer.

How `bout allowing the Hunters to do Hunt the Elk and Deer, which would also generate Fees for the same Parks, and eliminate the Wolf Packs??????????

Those of you who voted the lying, adulterous, draft-dodging, dope-smoker bill clinton and bruce babbitt into office are the people to thank for the Wolf Fiasco.

well,fewer elk would result in more vegetation.The big question is ,who wants to trade fewer elk,to get more wolves,an more grass?

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
I woke up the other night to find some kind of show going on about one of the HUGE National Parks out West. Could have been Yellow Stone, Glacier or one of the others. Beautiful vistas!

Thought it might be worth watching, so I began paying attention. The premise was they had been doing research into "Why?" many of the Trees and Understory were not sprouting and growing. (That is the Bait! )

Next thing I knew a Park Ranger was describing how wonderful it was to have the Wolf Packs back. (Huh??!?!!?!?) He went on blathering for awhile and then showed Trees and Understory growing back in areas where it has not been for a long time. (Do you get it yet?)

More blah, blah, blah and finally he got to - the Wolf Packs were reducing the number of Elk and Deer which tend to feed on the small trees and plants as they are growing.



So, they are selling the "Once upon a time..." Story that the Wolf Packs have been very beneficial the the Parks by eating off the Elk and Deer.

How `bout allowing the Hunters to do Hunt the Elk and Deer, which would also generate Fees for the same Parks, and eliminate the Wolf Packs??????????

Those of you who voted the lying, adulterous, draft-dodging, dope-smoker bill clinton and bruce babbitt into office are the people to thank for the Wolf Fiasco.

You're as right as you can be!

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
As you all surely know, Elk are primarily "grazers" and resort to short trees and bushes only as a last resort. Deer do eat the leaves from "some" small trees, but there is a far ranging group of brouse they prefer.

And as we all surely know, you're showing your ignorance again. Maybe you should stick to culling deer with "inferior genes."

The "short trees" in question are young aspens, a source of "brouse" (sic) that elk relish. Given the choice between the young aspen shoots and grass, the elk quickly choose the aspens. They also chew on the bark of older aspen trees.

And it is fact, as shown by a long-term study, that the overpopulation of elk in YNP has had an adverse effect on the regeneration of the younger aspen trees. The research to come to such a conclusion was quite simple -- the same principle to see the effect of cattle browsing on grassland. In known elk habitat, one fences off certain aspen groves and leaves the others available to the elk. Those young shoots within the fences survive to live another day. Not so for those on the outside of the fences.

What isn't fact as of yet is if the reintroduction of wolves will eventually cause a significant decline in elk numbers so as to cause the aspen groves to return to historic levels. The likelihood is minimal because the aspens have pretty much been devastated over the last 40-50 years. So while the wolves might cause some effect, it will not be enough -- too little, too late, so to speak.

Another factor that has contributed to the demise of aspens has been too much forest fire control. But that's a different issue that would affect an overall area. It doesn't factor into the difference in aspen growth in the controlled study related to the elk.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am in agreement with Tony Mandile on this one.

I saw first hand the devastation of the Aspen groves in Rocky Mountain National Park ("RMNP") caused by the elk over grazing (over browsing?).

Actually, I've been waiting for the big fire in RMNP. There are tons of alien flora in and around that park that could use a good dose of mother nature.

On the other hand, a pretty well educated Park Ranger that I talked to in RMNP told me that the entire park could not handle even one wolf pack. He contended that they would soon leave the park for easy pickings of pets in and around the suburban cities on the front range.

He said that wolves like man are inherently lazy, and any easier to obtain food source than elk readily available would be substituted pretty quickly. So, that would not solve the elk problem either.

This is some hunting in RMNP now, but will it work to save the aspens; I don't know.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

quote:

Originally posted by Quintus:
You should see the effect of the over 10,000 - yes 10,000 wolves in MN. Luckily we will soon be able to buy a special tag if we are selected in the lottery for a proposed $400.00! I was hiking in the Itaska State park this spring and the trails had wolf scat every 50 yards for miles. We never saw a single set of deer tracks in 15 miles hiked. At night the never ending corus of wolves howling caused us to stand armed watch when the kids had to leave the tent to pee. Great experiment we're running up here.

SHOOT...SHOVEL...SHUT UP Works really well.

We are getting over run hhere as well.

FN in MT

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:
And as we all surely know, you're showing your ignorance again. Maybe you should stick to culling deer with "inferior genes."

Yes indeed, still culling the Deer with poor genetics. I do understand it is something you will never understand - unless - a $$$Million$$$ Study which is funded with TAX Payer $$$money$$$ is wasted on it. Any Breeder understands and most actual Hunters.

quote:

The "short trees" in question are young aspens, a source of "brouse" (sic) that elk relish. Given the choice between the young aspen shoots and grass, the elk quickly choose the aspens. They also chew on the bark of older aspen trees. ...

Darn shame you weren't there to explain all your infinite Elk Wisdom to the fools spending HUGE amounts of TAX Payer $$$money$$$, milking it out over a bunch of years "studying" the issue about the "brouse".

Let's see if anyone can follow this:
1. Plenty of "sprouting" Aspens growing outside the National Park.
2. The "claim" of no Aspens growing inside the National Park. Obviously a HUGE TAX Payer funded $$$Study$$$ is needed.
3. Hunting allowed outside the National Park along with the "sprouting" Aspens, and the Game "was" doing fine(until the Wolf re-introduction by the democrats.
4. No Hunting allowed inside the National Park where the Game was more than the land could properly carry and the Elk resorted to eating "brouse" that they wouldn't normally have to eat.

So, what to do???

A. Introduce Hunting inside the National Park to stabalize the Game population at a properly sustainable level. This would increase the National Park Revenue on Hunter $$$Fees$$$, $$$Licenses$$$, and outside the National Park with $$$Motels$$$, $$$Fuel$$$, $$$Food$$$ all going to the local economy and gladly paid by the Hunter.
B. " Or " re-introduce the Wolf - at TAX Payer $$$expense$$$, continue to prevent any Hunting from happening, spend HUGE amounts of TAX Payer $$$$money$$$$ on Studies, loss of commercial livestock(cattle,sheep, horses, etc.) which had to be compensated for with more TAX Payer $$$money$$$, more TAX Payer funded $$$Studies$$$, allow the Wolves to become the same disaster our fore-fathers eliminated, more TAX Payer funded $$$Studies$$$.
-----

Yes, it doesn't surprise me at all that the resident Spike Deer Guru doesn't get it - about the "brouse".

Old Sam L. Clemmons said words to the effect, "It takes a limited mental capacity to only be able to spell a word "uno" ways.

Outdoor Writer wrote:

quote:

What isn't fact as of yet is if the reintroduction of wolves will eventually cause a significant decline in elk numbers...

Tony-

It's time to get out from behind the computer and quit putting stock in biased propaganda from agenda-driven sources. Big game numbers are being DECIMATED by wolves. THAT'S a fact -- and there are no two ways about it.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:
Outdoor Writer wrote:

quote:

What isn't fact as of yet is if the reintroduction of wolves will eventually cause a significant decline in elk numbers...

Tony-

It's time to get out from behind the computer and quit putting stock in biased propaganda from agenda-driven sources. Big game numbers are being DECIMATED by wolves. THAT'S a fact -- and there are no two ways about it.

You can't quote selectively to make a point.

"What isn't fact as of yet is if the reintroduction of wolves will eventually cause a significant decline in elk numbers so as to cause the aspen groves to return to historic levels."

And of course, the above addressed what is going on in YNP.

quote:

Next thing I knew a Park Ranger was describing how wonderful it was to have the Wolf Packs back. (Huh??!?!!?!?) He went on blathering for awhile and then showed Trees and Understory growing back in areas where it has not been for a long time. (Do you get it yet?)

No mention of the drought we had, that lasted over 10 years was there? They (pro-wolf people) have tried to use the drought to explain lower numbers of elk, more B.S., the southern part of Wyoming was suffing from the same drought, guess what, elk were doing fine and numbers were increasing,why? No wolves!

Elk, aspen & wolves: a complicated food triangle


The Gazette Staff The Billings Gazette | Posted: Sunday, September 19, 2010 1:29 am

In the past decade, separate studies have come to opposite conclusions about the growth of young aspen trees in Yellowstone National Park and how their growth relates to the reintroduction of wolves.

The first study, by Oregon State University researchers, argued that wolf reintroduction had caused an “ecology of fear” among resident elk, keeping them from grazing on young aspen in certain areas for fear of being eaten by wolves. The result was the regeneration of some aspen, the study concluded.

The second study, out of the University of Wyoming, found that new aspen growth has been relatively unaffected by wolf reintroduction and argues that a further drop in elk numbers would be necessary before the trees see a significant resurgence.



Middle ground


The truth is likely somewhere in between the two claims, said Roy Renkin, a park ecologist.

“The studies are two ends of the spectrum,” he said. “Some aspen is growing taller, but it isn’t widespread.”

About 13 percent of 113 aspen stands Renkin is monitoring are growing new shoots, another 15 percent are dying out and many of the rest are simply maintaining.

“Where we used to have 65 to 90 percent utilization of aspen by elk, we’re down to 40 percent utilization,” Renkin said. “Is it because elk are afraid to go in there? I don’t think so.”

Although the two studies try to tie aspen growth, or the lack of it, to wolves’ effect on elk, Renkin says another factor could be at work. Yellowstone has seen an increase of almost two weeks of frost-free weather in the spring and fall. He thinks any additional growth is just as likely to be attributable to the lengthening of the growing season.

“Where we’re seeing those huge changes it’s related to productivity and not to (grazing),” Renkin said.

Warmer temperatures could also mean grasses are available to grazing elk for longer periods.

“They prefer to graze on grasses,” Renkin said. “Elk go to woody vegetation when they don’t have access to grasses.”


Diversity hotspots


Aspen don’t occupy much of the vast landscape of Yellowstone’s 2.2 million acres. But where the trees are found, they are a huge attraction to a variety of species, for everything from birds and insects to big game and fungi.

“They are really diversity hotspots,” Renkin said.

In Yellowstone, elk are wolves’ main food source, especially in the winter. As a result of the wolves’ reintroduction in 1995 and 1996, the park’s northern range herd has plummeted from a high of about 19,000 animals to a current population of 6,000. Wolf numbers have also fallen recently, dropping from a high of more than 170 to just less than 100 now.

“The elk population has declined, so there are fewer mouths to feed,” Renkin said.

Because of their predator-prey relationship, elk have changed their habits. Renkin said elk have abandoned many of the higher drainages they used to utilize, probably to avoid the deeper snow that makes them easier targets for wolves in winter.

“We’re seeing elk select for shallower snow as a way to deal with predation,” he said.



Debatable points


If nothing else, the contradicting studies along with Renkin’s observations point out how difficult it is to attribute changes in the environment to any single factor.

“There were a lot of people who bought into the whole elk-wolf story and the pendulum may be swinging back now,” Renkin said. “Both studies made contributions to us understanding elk-aspen-wolf interaction.

“Biologists will be debating this issue long after I’m gone.”

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
Yes indeed, still culling the Deer with poor genetics. I do understand it is something you will never understand - unless - a $$$Million$$$ Study which is funded with TAX Payer $$$money$$$ is wasted on it. Any Breeder understands and most actual Hunters.

Actually, there have been dozens of studies done on CAPTIVE deer herds by folks that know what they're doing. That doesn't translate to some yahoo sitting in a treestand being able to judge the "poor genetics" of a deer in a wild, free-ranging population and think killing it will change anything other than eliminate that one deer. And of course, the buck and doe that produced the genes of that deer on a 50/50 basis are probably still alive, ready to produce more inferior genes.

quote:

Let's see if anyone can follow this:
1. Plenty of "sprouting" Aspens growing outside the National Park.

More ignorance. The aspen demise is also occurring outside the parks and in several states.

quote:

4. No Hunting allowed inside the National Park where the Game was more than the land could properly carry and the Elk resorted to eating "brouse" that they wouldn't normally have to eat..:

More ignorance. In fact, the Yellowstone elk herds have been hunted for decades when they migrate out of the park every year. The northern herd still continued to grow, even as they kept raising the annual permit allotments. Now since the wolf introduction, that elk herd's number has declined significantly, thus providing fewer targets.

And elk have been eating aspens as long as both of them have existed in the same places. They don't "resort" to eating them; they eat them all the time. And mule deer also enjoy tender aspen shoots.

quote:

A. Introduce Hunting inside the National Park to stabalize the Game population at a properly sustainable level.

It will never happen. If any hunting inside the park ever occurs, it will likely be done as it now is in RMNP. They would never want dingalings from SC roaming around inside the park boundaries and shooting at things.

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:
No mention of the drought we had, that lasted over 10 years was there?

Well the drought sure has an effect on many things. And as I mentioned earlier, the suppression of fires has had an effect, too. I just wonder how either of the above can be so selective to affect only the aspen growth outside the fenced areas where elk couldn't munch on the trees.

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:
Elk, aspen & wolves: a complicated food triangle

Yup, all good points and why I said the wolf/elk conclusion in regards to restoriing aspen growth was not "fact" yet.

I'll tell you what is a fact. The wolves are certainly taking a toll on the Elk herds in the state of Idaho. Where once you could see herds of elk in the backcountry.... now it's like a graveyard.... nothing's there. And it has been this way for the last 3 or 4 years. It is a shame to see the difference since these wolves were put upon us. I'm not trying to be a know it all but there has got to be something done! It is truly a damned shame.

Another disaster in the making, Pine Bark Beetles. No one knows why, or what will result from this. Total acres of damaged trees is approaching acres burned in the 88 fires.

My family has lived in Montana for 4 generations and when I joined the military I had planed on retiring there. From the time I was 12 until I joined I killed an elk and that and a few deer that feed my family but not any more thanks to the wolves . When you drive from one end of Montana to the other all you see is dead and dying trees from the pine bark beetles or wild fires that were allowed to burn but the government still spent millions setting up camp and have people on standby. With Yellowstone and the U of M the problem will never go away so I need to find a new place to retire . PS we don’t need any one from AZ running around shooting stuff ether .

The only reason the Union didn't put Jefferson Davis on trial for secession and hang him was secession was guaranteed by the US Constitution. They kept him in prison for two years and then released him. Sounds like Idaho has some feet under them. 'bout time someone took a stand on this Wolf nonsense. I've yet to see anyone in Washington try to make a living out west raising livestock or guiding.
LDK

Here's some good info on the aspens and their decline in many parts of the West. Use the other links on the page to view the info on the ecology, decline, etc.

This is just a question, I am no expert but have seen 1st hand the devastation wolves do
on elk, mainly when the cows are dropping calves
but how come the fact that most of our elk herds that are declining are on BLM land
and used for grazing cattle all summer and part of the fall. Elk are in constant stress and what
I have researched shows this greatly maybe more than wolves though no doubt adding to the stress
has a lot to do with the numbers decline.

Not quite sure what you're getting out.

Are you asking if the grazing cattle are affecting the elk populations?

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:
No mention of the drought we had, that lasted over 10 years was there? ...the southern part of Wyoming was suffing from the same drought, guess what, elk were doing fine and numbers were increasing,why? No wolves!

That is correct, no mention at all about the drought that I heard(or herd for tony )

Elk doing really fine in KY, TN, VA and NC - but no Wolves are present. No Aspen either and the Elk are growing at an amazing rate. There will be 1000 Elk Permits issued for the Southeastern KY herd(or heard for tony ) this year due to the excellent reproduction rate. The 1000 Permit level was not expected to occur for a good number of years, but the TOTAL lack of Wolves does make a HUGE difference.

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:
“They prefer to graze on grasses,” Renkin said. “Elk go to woody vegetation when they don’t have access to grasses.” ...

Amazing!!!

Looks like I'm Right Again - as usual and tony is WRONG Again - as Usual.

Just more TAX Payer $$$dollars$$$ wasted on a Study that could have been saved if ANYONE had thought to ask a "real" Hunter - not tony.

quote:

but how come the fact that most of our elk herds that are declining are on BLM land
and used for grazing cattle all summer and part of the fall.

THe declining elk in Wyoming are mostly on forest service land, not BLM. Elk numbers are increasing in BLM lands in Wyoming, in fact two areas, one near Heart Mountain and areas along the lower Greybull River, have increased tags every year and in one case, one area has become a general elk area for any elk. To many elk adjacent to private properties on BLM lands. TO much depredation by the elk on crops. I believe the elk moved into these areas to escape wolf packs. Nearer to human habitation, wolves still shy away from these areas, and are eleminated rapidly by government trappers because of possible wolf attacks on livestock.

Declining elk numbers are in Yellowstone, National Park land, and in Sunlight Basin, mostly National Forest, cow tags in Sunlight almost been eliminated. When only a few years ago over a 1000 were issued each year. And the above article tells about the great yellowstone herds that once numbered 19,000 and now in the neighborhood of 6,000. Many of those elk funneled into Sunlight out of the Park in midwinter.

quote:

Originally posted by Yale:
Ladies and Gentlemen:

I have a real solution to this wolf problem.

Catch them, put them in a C-130, and drop them off in Fairmont Park in Philadelphia. The deer population in Philadelphia and the western suburbs is out of hand, and the wolves will take care of that lickety split.

Of course a few dogs, cats, parrots, and what not will meet their demise in a wolf's jaws, but its either that or those pets becoming the occasional road pizza, which works out about the same anyway.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis