threejones
Well-Known Member
We just gotta pray for FWP to open up trapping, and open the season year round.
Wolf scoreboard.
- Thread starter HARPERC
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
HARPERC
Well-Known Member
Idaho continues to add on to a good season: 248 hunters-114 trappers=362 wolves that won't be a problem next year. I'm would have never thought the Panhandle would be in the lead coming down to the wire, Dworshak was the unit I had picked. Densities must be higher than I ever expected.
I just posted on Broz's "Montana wolf hunting news" thread, so I"ll spare you the details here, but the Panhandle and NW Montana share some wolves. Given some of what came out in this study it should not surprise us the numbers coming out of there.
I just posted on Broz's "Montana wolf hunting news" thread, so I"ll spare you the details here, but the Panhandle and NW Montana share some wolves. Given some of what came out in this study it should not surprise us the numbers coming out of there.
HARPERC
Well-Known Member
On top of more numbers, longer season, trapping, calling, etc. the FWP has to accept you can't run a quota system on a animal that ranges as far as a wolf, and whose litters disperse as far as they do. The concept of breeding pair needs revision as well a female with pups is a breeding pair even if you can't find the daddy. Any body we can write or call let us know.
There are well over 200 wolves in the panhandle. Killing 80 of them won't put a dent in their population and it won't stop them from killing elk and deer. Wolves compete with other wolves for food resources, so all you are doing by killing wolves is making sure that the remaining wolves won't have to compete with other wolves for deer and elk. read Jim Beer's new article when harvest equals enhancement. There are easily over 2000 wolves in Idaho. I am afraid that Idaho hunters will never fix this problem.
According to an expert, you have to remove 70% of the wolf population every year to help the elk and deer herds. There are easily 2000 plus wolves in Idaho Removing near 400 wolves won't even come close to putting a dent in their population. You kill wolves in an area, other wolves will move in to claim that area. I know some hunters think that a hunting season and trapping season is going to help cure the problem, but it's not. Wolves hunt year round. Many hunters in idaho already know they are doomed.
The panhandle is doomed. You have to remove 70% of the wolf population every year to help the deer and elk. The panhandle has 200 wolves plus. Removing nearly 80 of them isn't going to do anything. Idaho hunters in the panhandle were allowed 2 wolf tags each. Only 1 wolf hunter in the panhandle bagged 2 wolves and one only trapper bagged the 3 wolves he was allowed. As you can see, we aren't going to hunt and trap our way out of this problem. Poison is not allowed and the Idaho fish and game have said they aren't going to use bounties on wolves and they won't allow a predator shoot on sight season for wolves. Idaho unfortunately is doomed. To think otherwise is living in fantasy land. Ask the hunters in Idaho. They will all tell you the same thing. You cannot kill or trap enough wolves to help the deer and elk herds. With 2000 plus wolves in Idaho and them being prolific breeders, they know that the elk and deer don't stand a chance.
HARPERC
Well-Known Member
rick297
You are correct on many points, but I'm uncertain with 3 posts where you came in on the conversation. The points you make have been mentioned many times on the wolf threads on this site, but it never hurts to restate them for folks that maybe haven't been exposed. Backtrack and I think you'll find a lot of agreement with what you've said.
Once the facts are assembled it becomes a matter of what to do with them. At this time last year I was way more pessimistic than I am today. While there is more work to do many have taken the hand dealt, played it as well as it could be, and continue to stay in the game pressing for changes that will reduce wolf populations to numbers that will allow recovery of big game herds.
I would like to know where some of your numbers come from, as I try very hard to keep up with the facts involved specifically: 200 wolves in the Panhandle I don't dispute it, but where did it come from? Your stats on hunter/trapper success how can I access those?
Fantasyland I don't think most folks here are operating, out of a delusion. We might well lose this battle, but I'll have as much fun and draw as much blood as I can along the way. What's your suggestion as to how we proceed?
You are correct on many points, but I'm uncertain with 3 posts where you came in on the conversation. The points you make have been mentioned many times on the wolf threads on this site, but it never hurts to restate them for folks that maybe haven't been exposed. Backtrack and I think you'll find a lot of agreement with what you've said.
Once the facts are assembled it becomes a matter of what to do with them. At this time last year I was way more pessimistic than I am today. While there is more work to do many have taken the hand dealt, played it as well as it could be, and continue to stay in the game pressing for changes that will reduce wolf populations to numbers that will allow recovery of big game herds.
I would like to know where some of your numbers come from, as I try very hard to keep up with the facts involved specifically: 200 wolves in the Panhandle I don't dispute it, but where did it come from? Your stats on hunter/trapper success how can I access those?
Fantasyland I don't think most folks here are operating, out of a delusion. We might well lose this battle, but I'll have as much fun and draw as much blood as I can along the way. What's your suggestion as to how we proceed?
HARPERC
Well-Known Member
Idaho hunters 251, and trappers 117. total 368. The best news for me is Idaho continues not to flinch. I'm not sure how many wolves it would add to the bag, but next seasons proposal raises the tags to, 5 per hunter and 5 per trapper. The season in some places will be extended. Realistically I'm not sure how many guys will limit out, but the continued movement toward the stated goals of wolf population, are a welcome sign.
Hunting/trapping is not going to even come close to removing the # of wolves that need to be removed for our elk and deer herds to be helped. It just isn't going to happen and I believe Idaho fish and game knows this and this is why they are selling more tags. Only a handful of hunters bagged 2 wolves each and there were well over 30,000 hunters that bought wolf tags. What does that tell you? The only real method of getting the wolf population to where we want it and that is to help the deer and elk herds is with poison. Aerial gunning costs too much money, so it's very likely this will only be used in certain situations. Even if there was a shoot on sight season year round, it still wouldn't remove the amount of wolves that have to be removed. Talk to Idaho hunter and they will tell you the same. The 360 plus wolves removed won't even put a dent in the wolf population in Idaho. Even Idaho fish and game biologists admitted there were 2000 plus wolves in Idaho.
Hunting Seasons a "Feel Good Band Aid" not a Solution
Dr. Charles Kay states we need to remove 70% of the wolves each year to help declining elk herds. Fair chase hunting of wolves could not possibly remove 70% of the wolf population. So even under Idaho's no quota season wolf hunting is not an answer to reverse declining elk herds. Montana's wolf season has a quota of 220 wolves. Several biologists have stated there are 4000-5000 wolves in the three states of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana. That is a significantly higher number than the frequently reported 1650 wolves. Dr. L. David Mech told me that was one of his real pet peeves. He says the 1650 number is a bare minimum. He is one of the biologists that estimates the number closer to 4000 than 1650. If Montana has a third of the wolves and the number is 4000 then Montana's quota of 220 wolves is only 17% of the wolves, far less than the 70% Dr. Kay says we need to remove to have any positive affect on elk populations.
Idaho fish and game are letting hunters kill 5 wolves as a way to make money off of them. They know it's very unlikely than any hunter will come close to bagging 5 wolves. it's funny when you see sme hunters acting like these hunting/trapping seasons are going to help our deer and elk herds. If you understand nature, you'd know that wolves compete with each other for elk/deer. The less wolves there are, the more deer and elk there will be to kill and eat by the remaining wolves.
HARPERC
Well-Known Member
It appears the Idaho final tally is 376-253 hunters, 123 for the trappers. Panhandle and Dworshak tied with 75 apiece. Panhandle 33 hunters, 42 trappers. Dworshak the reverse 42 hunters an 33 trappers. Montana 166. Wyoming moves ahead in slow motion, but it will be interesting to see their different approach in action. Let's hope the changes that need to take place to truly control wolf numbers transpire. The battle is far from over.
steelshooter
Well-Known Member
I had never realised how big wolves are!
You have a much greater diversity of game than we do here in Australia. We are limited to pigs, foxes, goats etc. Theres deer and Dingoes if you're in the right areas, and definately nothing here thats gonna eat you (except crocs).
You have a much greater diversity of game than we do here in Australia. We are limited to pigs, foxes, goats etc. Theres deer and Dingoes if you're in the right areas, and definately nothing here thats gonna eat you (except crocs).
