royinidaho
Well-Known Member
Interesting.................
\
Sorry, don't know how make it larger.......
\
Sorry, don't know how make it larger.......
Wolves in Idaho and Most Probably Montana
- Thread starter royinidaho
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
gonehuntingagain
Well-Known Member
Here, you can actually read this....
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/apps/releases/view.cfm?NewsID=2986
wolf control proposal released
The Idaho Department of Fish and Game has released a proposal to reduce the wolf population by up to 43 wolves or about 75 percent in the Lolo elk management zone of the Clearwater Region.
Fish and Game biologists say wolf predation is a significant contributor to the decline of elk numbers in the Lolo zone and may be preventing population recovery. The proposal is made under the revised 10(j) rule of the Endangered Species Act, which took effect in February 2005 and allows removal of wolves having an unacceptable effect on elk and deer populations. The proposal must be approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The proposal entitled "Effects of Wolf Predation on North Central Idaho Elk Populations" is available for public review on the Fish and Game Website: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov.
Fish and Game is seeking public comments on the proposal. Anyone interested may send comments from the Department website or by mail to: IDFG Wolf Comments, P.O. Box 25, Boise ID 83707.
Fish and Game also plans two public meetings from 5 to 9 p.m. on February 2 at the Double Tree Riverside Motel, 2900 Chinden Blvd. Garden City, and on February 7 at the Fish and Game Regional Office, 3316 16th St., Lewiston. Anyone interested may sign up to speak at the meeting. Individuals and groups will each have three minutes to speak. Elected officials or their representatives will be allowed to testify when they arrive. A hearing officer and court reporter will receive comments for the record.
The public comment period runs until midnight February 17.
Once public comments have been reviewed and incorporated, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission, during its next meeting the first week of March, will decide whether the proposal should be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for review.
And this one..
http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060303/IDOUT/603030363/1059
Idaho Fish and Game commissioners will likely submit a plan to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to kill up to 43 wolves in the Lolo Elk Zone, but not as soon as some would like.
The delay means wolves wouldn't be killed this winter.
But F&G director Steve Huffaker on Thursday encouraged commissioners to strengthen the department's proposal by addressing some comments from the public and other agencies raising questions about the scientific validity of the proposal.
"It (Fish and Wildlife Service rules) doesn't say we have to go this extra mile, but I think it's in our best interest to do so," Huffaker said.
A delay would mean the project is unlikely to start this winter, even though officials were hoping the wolves could be killed while they were concentrated on wintering grounds. F&G must get permission from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to proceed.
"I think your odds are 99 percent if you decide to move this forward today you will not get to do your action (this winter)," said Jeff Allen, policy advisor for the Office of Species Conservation.
F&G is proposing to kill up to 43 wolves, which is about 75 percent of the wolf population in the Lolo Zone. The agency would then maintain wolves at 25 to 40 percent of their current population for five years to see how struggling elk herds respond to fewer predators.
F&G's plan was widely opposed during the public comment period, which ended Feb. 17. The agency received nearly 42,500 comments from the public, and an overwhelming majority opposed the plan.
About 38,500 of those comments were generated by Defenders of Wildlife, which opposes the plan.
Out of 22 organizations that submitted written comments, six favored the plan, 15 opposed it and one group was neutral. All of the organizations have members in Idaho, but not all of the comments came from Idahoans.
Opposition also included the Nez Perce Tribe, Idaho Conservation League, The Wilderness Society, National Wildlife Federation and others.
Proponents included Idaho Wildlife Federation, Gov. Dirk Kempthorne's office, Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition, Concerned Sportsmen of Idaho, and two Idaho cattle organizations.
"Undeniably, our proposal and wolf management is controversial," F&G wildlife bureau chief Jim Unsworth said. "Wolves are a national issue, not just a state issue, and we're on a national stage."
Much of the criticism of F&G's plan centered on habitat being the limiting factor in the Lolo Zone rather than wolves, but Unsworth countered that F&G has already lowered its elk population goals in the area by about 10,000 because habitat has declined.
The zone's once elk-rich meadows and shrub fields have been replaced by mature forests that provide poor elk habitat.
F&G also has reduced the number of elk hunting permits, allowed hunters to kill more bears and mountain lions, and worked with the Forest Service to improve habitat.
Wolves are the only other factor left F&G can manage that might affect the elk herd, Unsworth said, and if they don't do it, "no way is that elk population going to recover."
Commissioners on Thursday said they were committed to submitting the proposal, but they were waiting until today to make a decision.
"We promised we would do everything in our power to manage our (elk) populations, including dealing with wolves," commissioner Wayne Wright of Twin Falls said.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/apps/releases/view.cfm?NewsID=2986
wolf control proposal released
The Idaho Department of Fish and Game has released a proposal to reduce the wolf population by up to 43 wolves or about 75 percent in the Lolo elk management zone of the Clearwater Region.
Fish and Game biologists say wolf predation is a significant contributor to the decline of elk numbers in the Lolo zone and may be preventing population recovery. The proposal is made under the revised 10(j) rule of the Endangered Species Act, which took effect in February 2005 and allows removal of wolves having an unacceptable effect on elk and deer populations. The proposal must be approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The proposal entitled "Effects of Wolf Predation on North Central Idaho Elk Populations" is available for public review on the Fish and Game Website: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov.
Fish and Game is seeking public comments on the proposal. Anyone interested may send comments from the Department website or by mail to: IDFG Wolf Comments, P.O. Box 25, Boise ID 83707.
Fish and Game also plans two public meetings from 5 to 9 p.m. on February 2 at the Double Tree Riverside Motel, 2900 Chinden Blvd. Garden City, and on February 7 at the Fish and Game Regional Office, 3316 16th St., Lewiston. Anyone interested may sign up to speak at the meeting. Individuals and groups will each have three minutes to speak. Elected officials or their representatives will be allowed to testify when they arrive. A hearing officer and court reporter will receive comments for the record.
The public comment period runs until midnight February 17.
Once public comments have been reviewed and incorporated, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission, during its next meeting the first week of March, will decide whether the proposal should be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for review.
And this one..
http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060303/IDOUT/603030363/1059
Idaho Fish and Game commissioners will likely submit a plan to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to kill up to 43 wolves in the Lolo Elk Zone, but not as soon as some would like.
The delay means wolves wouldn't be killed this winter.
But F&G director Steve Huffaker on Thursday encouraged commissioners to strengthen the department's proposal by addressing some comments from the public and other agencies raising questions about the scientific validity of the proposal.
"It (Fish and Wildlife Service rules) doesn't say we have to go this extra mile, but I think it's in our best interest to do so," Huffaker said.
A delay would mean the project is unlikely to start this winter, even though officials were hoping the wolves could be killed while they were concentrated on wintering grounds. F&G must get permission from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to proceed.
"I think your odds are 99 percent if you decide to move this forward today you will not get to do your action (this winter)," said Jeff Allen, policy advisor for the Office of Species Conservation.
F&G is proposing to kill up to 43 wolves, which is about 75 percent of the wolf population in the Lolo Zone. The agency would then maintain wolves at 25 to 40 percent of their current population for five years to see how struggling elk herds respond to fewer predators.
F&G's plan was widely opposed during the public comment period, which ended Feb. 17. The agency received nearly 42,500 comments from the public, and an overwhelming majority opposed the plan.
About 38,500 of those comments were generated by Defenders of Wildlife, which opposes the plan.
Out of 22 organizations that submitted written comments, six favored the plan, 15 opposed it and one group was neutral. All of the organizations have members in Idaho, but not all of the comments came from Idahoans.
Opposition also included the Nez Perce Tribe, Idaho Conservation League, The Wilderness Society, National Wildlife Federation and others.
Proponents included Idaho Wildlife Federation, Gov. Dirk Kempthorne's office, Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition, Concerned Sportsmen of Idaho, and two Idaho cattle organizations.
"Undeniably, our proposal and wolf management is controversial," F&G wildlife bureau chief Jim Unsworth said. "Wolves are a national issue, not just a state issue, and we're on a national stage."
Much of the criticism of F&G's plan centered on habitat being the limiting factor in the Lolo Zone rather than wolves, but Unsworth countered that F&G has already lowered its elk population goals in the area by about 10,000 because habitat has declined.
The zone's once elk-rich meadows and shrub fields have been replaced by mature forests that provide poor elk habitat.
F&G also has reduced the number of elk hunting permits, allowed hunters to kill more bears and mountain lions, and worked with the Forest Service to improve habitat.
Wolves are the only other factor left F&G can manage that might affect the elk herd, Unsworth said, and if they don't do it, "no way is that elk population going to recover."
Commissioners on Thursday said they were committed to submitting the proposal, but they were waiting until today to make a decision.
"We promised we would do everything in our power to manage our (elk) populations, including dealing with wolves," commissioner Wayne Wright of Twin Falls said.
gonehuntingagain
Well-Known Member
As far as I'm concerned, IDFG needs to do 2 things:
1) Improve the habitat, which would probably easy to do if the Forest Circus had some timber sales.
2) Shoot some wolves!
1) Improve the habitat, which would probably easy to do if the Forest Circus had some timber sales.
2) Shoot some wolves!
Buffalobob
Well-Known Member
All predators dislike each other.
wapiti13
Well-Known Member
Our saving grace in the Idaho wolf problem was a mistake made when first reintroduced. The large gray wolf that was transplanted is not the native species! The small gray wolf was native to the Lolo area and is therefore going to allow IDF&G to trap out these large gray wolves. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Buffalobob
Well-Known Member
GHA
It occurred to me that maybe I was a little short in my answer. Also I am bored to death and the day has not even started yet.
Here are three pictures. All dealng with habitat improvement and native versus non-native species
One is native species reintroduction (shad and herring) to a stretcth of stream they have not been in for more than half a century. Fish ladder project.
The second and third picturs is a small stream valley where my family has battled the two nonnative species of plants - knotweed and porcelain berry for five years and planted native trees and berry bushes. Ususllly we spend a day in late spring clearing away the invasies and then another day sometime in August doing it again. This past Fall we replaced a few of the trees that had lost the battle to the porcelain berry vines. ( I missed opening day of deer season to do this with my family).
Put a little more plainly. Much of my life has been devoted to habitat improvement (usually rivers) and so native species could re-populate area's.
Out of balance populations whether native or nonnative is not good.
Before the clean up
After the cleanup and planting
It occurred to me that maybe I was a little short in my answer. Also I am bored to death and the day has not even started yet.
Here are three pictures. All dealng with habitat improvement and native versus non-native species
One is native species reintroduction (shad and herring) to a stretcth of stream they have not been in for more than half a century. Fish ladder project.
The second and third picturs is a small stream valley where my family has battled the two nonnative species of plants - knotweed and porcelain berry for five years and planted native trees and berry bushes. Ususllly we spend a day in late spring clearing away the invasies and then another day sometime in August doing it again. This past Fall we replaced a few of the trees that had lost the battle to the porcelain berry vines. ( I missed opening day of deer season to do this with my family).
Put a little more plainly. Much of my life has been devoted to habitat improvement (usually rivers) and so native species could re-populate area's.
Out of balance populations whether native or nonnative is not good.
Before the clean up
After the cleanup and planting
screech
Well-Known Member
For those in Idaho, they probably know what happend to the elk pop. in the lolo area. They all got killed off because of the snow. The forecircus didn't let any body bring feed in so they starved. Then they had another winner of an Idea and" lets introduce wolves". Kinda like putting gas to a fire.
royinidaho
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
The small gray wolf was native to the Lolo area and is therefore going to allow IDF&G to trap out these large gray wolves. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
I have been informed by those who are supposed to know these things (not gov't) that the larger wolf has now made the smaller native wolf extinct. Neat huh?
As for the smaller wolf I personally observed one 26 years ago just 30 miles east of here and another a year later @ Jackson WY.
From what I have gathered the only thing benefiting nature from wolf reintroduction is better stands of willows along stream beds as the elk are a bit more reclusive since the wolf.
I watched the tree hugger documentary about wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone. The scientist was super excited when he was able to say that when the elk first saw the wolf, they knew exactly what to do.......Run! Duh! Someone wasted a bunch of bucks on that fella's education.....
Locals have stated that they have seen and heard wolves just north of Idaho Falls (Manan Butte) around an elk wintering area. The F&G swear that they are feral dogs. Well good! My new jacket is going to have FDED embossed on the back. (Feral Dog Elimination Division). Then we'll see what comes out of the wood work /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Jeeze this warms me up! Plus we got dumped on in the night and its still dumping. Only snow we've had and its supposed to be spring /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
The small gray wolf was native to the Lolo area and is therefore going to allow IDF&G to trap out these large gray wolves. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
I have been informed by those who are supposed to know these things (not gov't) that the larger wolf has now made the smaller native wolf extinct. Neat huh?
As for the smaller wolf I personally observed one 26 years ago just 30 miles east of here and another a year later @ Jackson WY.
From what I have gathered the only thing benefiting nature from wolf reintroduction is better stands of willows along stream beds as the elk are a bit more reclusive since the wolf.
I watched the tree hugger documentary about wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone. The scientist was super excited when he was able to say that when the elk first saw the wolf, they knew exactly what to do.......Run! Duh! Someone wasted a bunch of bucks on that fella's education.....
Locals have stated that they have seen and heard wolves just north of Idaho Falls (Manan Butte) around an elk wintering area. The F&G swear that they are feral dogs. Well good! My new jacket is going to have FDED embossed on the back. (Feral Dog Elimination Division). Then we'll see what comes out of the wood work /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Jeeze this warms me up! Plus we got dumped on in the night and its still dumping. Only snow we've had and its supposed to be spring /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
Fiftydriver
Official LRH Sponsor
All I have to say is that the Yellowstone elk herd that used to migrate into southern Montana has decreased over 30% since the time they reintroduced the wolves. The bad news is that one study listed the fawn predation precentage at around 55 to 65% every year since the reintroduction.
What this tells me is that in 4 to 5 years when the elk herds mature and start dying off from old age and such, that 30% drop in population will expand to a 60 to 70% drop in numbers.
They used to issue around 2500 bull permits for the Gardner area every year and this late season hunt was world famous. Now its nearly impossible to draw this tag and more sad then that, when you do, seldom do any elk come out of the park because there are not nearly as many there to begin with.
The "Biologists" say its because of drought conditions. They are about as knowlegable on this topic as the Washington DC Liberals that pushed to put the wolves back in the park.
Unfotunately we can not shoot the wolves yet and out numbers are in the several hundred range last time the F&G posted the wolf populations. Thats total including the native wolves in the central and north parts of western Montana.
When out of state tourists line up with huge telephoto lensed cameras for the sole purpose to photograph a calf elk being pulled from its mother by a pack of wolves, we are in serious trouble. Its those **** tourists that have the money and the say in what happens to our wildlife unfortunately. It is really sad to see and unfortunately, my kids will never see the late season hunt around the park. It will be gone in a few years.
Kirby Allen(50)
What this tells me is that in 4 to 5 years when the elk herds mature and start dying off from old age and such, that 30% drop in population will expand to a 60 to 70% drop in numbers.
They used to issue around 2500 bull permits for the Gardner area every year and this late season hunt was world famous. Now its nearly impossible to draw this tag and more sad then that, when you do, seldom do any elk come out of the park because there are not nearly as many there to begin with.
The "Biologists" say its because of drought conditions. They are about as knowlegable on this topic as the Washington DC Liberals that pushed to put the wolves back in the park.
Unfotunately we can not shoot the wolves yet and out numbers are in the several hundred range last time the F&G posted the wolf populations. Thats total including the native wolves in the central and north parts of western Montana.
When out of state tourists line up with huge telephoto lensed cameras for the sole purpose to photograph a calf elk being pulled from its mother by a pack of wolves, we are in serious trouble. Its those **** tourists that have the money and the say in what happens to our wildlife unfortunately. It is really sad to see and unfortunately, my kids will never see the late season hunt around the park. It will be gone in a few years.
Kirby Allen(50)
This whole wolf thing has just gotten out of hand. The management tactics have got some serious readjusting coming. It is my understanding that the feds won't release the handling of wolf populations to the states yet because Wyoming will list them as a "shoot on sight, no limits, no season predator". (Good for them) In the mean time Montana and Idaho elk, deer and livestock are suffering an on going assault (yes, wolves assault their prey) and the sportsmen and ranchers hands are tied. The feds NEED to allow the wolves to be managed by the individual states and not as a massive 3 state pack. The population of wolves has recovered for Pete's sake. They have almost become a cancer in the management program.
They should never have been brought back. If tree huggin, dirt eatin, twig wearing druids wanted to see fluffy, cuddly wolves gorging themselves on fresh born calves, fauns and lambs (which is going to screw up populations like those mentioned above for years to come) they should have gone to Canada or Alaska where they were already roaming about with the hand of mother nature stroking their beautiful pelts as they went about their business.
Wolves suck and I can't wait 'till I get a whack at them.
(The whacky views expressed by 4ked horn are his own and not necessarily that of Longrangehunting.com or it's affiliates or sponsors. These radical opinions are subject to change. 4ked horn is not responsible for any monitary gain or loss incurred by anyone who acts upon these bonky statements.)
They should never have been brought back. If tree huggin, dirt eatin, twig wearing druids wanted to see fluffy, cuddly wolves gorging themselves on fresh born calves, fauns and lambs (which is going to screw up populations like those mentioned above for years to come) they should have gone to Canada or Alaska where they were already roaming about with the hand of mother nature stroking their beautiful pelts as they went about their business.
Wolves suck and I can't wait 'till I get a whack at them.
(The whacky views expressed by 4ked horn are his own and not necessarily that of Longrangehunting.com or it's affiliates or sponsors. These radical opinions are subject to change. 4ked horn is not responsible for any monitary gain or loss incurred by anyone who acts upon these bonky statements.)
royinidaho
Well-Known Member
News cast this morning stated that the number of wolves in ID/MT/WY exceed 1000.
ID about 512
MT 300+
WY 200+
Searched for the source of the numbers. Couldn't find them but found this. Will a Woof eatcha?
Haven't heard anythin in the TV news/newspaper/Radio or the Yellowstone Tree Hugger Post Gazette /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Wind isn't blowing today. I'm gonna punch some holes in paper. Way more soothing than milk /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
ID about 512
MT 300+
WY 200+
Searched for the source of the numbers. Couldn't find them but found this. Will a Woof eatcha?
Haven't heard anythin in the TV news/newspaper/Radio or the Yellowstone Tree Hugger Post Gazette /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Wind isn't blowing today. I'm gonna punch some holes in paper. Way more soothing than milk /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
royinidaho
Well-Known Member
Here's the straight skinny: Billlings , Mont (AP)
Yorkplates
Well-Known Member
Didn't all this get started when someone determined that an overpopulation of Elk was what had caused the drastic reduction of the Aspen? I saw something about that, but can't recall what it was. Surely at some point the powers that be will let y'all start taking a few. I'm curious, not being from that part of the country or ever having been there, are ANY wolves too many? I guess the first time I heard they were reintroducing wolves to the park, I thought that it was a good thing. Maybe I'm confused as to the purpose of the park to begin with.
royinidaho
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
are ANY wolves too many? <font color="blue">The locals think so. So and so down the road remember when his father shot the last wolf in Bingham County. (Though it wasn't really the last one, I don't think) </font>
I guess the first time I heard they were reintroducing wolves to the park, I thought that it was a good thing. Maybe I'm confused as to the purpose of the park to begin with. <font color="blue"> Went to Yellowstone for the first time last year. What a pain in the rear. Was the off season and there were still too many people, though the ones I visited with were pretty nice.
Elk multiply and remain in the same area. Griz multiply and expand their area very slowly. Wolves multiply and spread like wild fire. </font>
[/ QUOTE ]
are ANY wolves too many? <font color="blue">The locals think so. So and so down the road remember when his father shot the last wolf in Bingham County. (Though it wasn't really the last one, I don't think) </font>
I guess the first time I heard they were reintroducing wolves to the park, I thought that it was a good thing. Maybe I'm confused as to the purpose of the park to begin with. <font color="blue"> Went to Yellowstone for the first time last year. What a pain in the rear. Was the off season and there were still too many people, though the ones I visited with were pretty nice.
Elk multiply and remain in the same area. Griz multiply and expand their area very slowly. Wolves multiply and spread like wild fire. </font>
[/ QUOTE ]
