Wolves ( Who needs them?)

[uey89]

While hunting in Idaho this year I had the Privledge Of hearing the wolves at night and seeing there tracks. Mind you I did't see an elk the whole time. My partner saw a huge whitetail buck run out in a clearcut and then a wolf chasing it. Whoever thought this reintoduction to the wolves was a good thing is very mistaken. These Dangerous dogs are a menace to the forest and that is why the were taken care of the first time the were here.

[Timber]

I didn't see any out of headquarters this year but saw the effects of them. Tim

[uey89]

We were north of you on the Clearwater

[Bait O' Eggs]

A heading like that will certainly get Birdhunter posting away on the benefits of the wolf You know that stuff like the wolf only takes 2% of the population and it is the sick and weak 2%. The herds will be heathier, they were here first, they have a place in our forest, they, blah blah blah

I do believe the wolf will remedy the cat population problems we are seeing. The cats will be pushed away from the dogs range. But, our deer herd will still be diminished extensively, just by another predator.

Shoot shovel and shut up is the solution since they are protected. [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

[ 12-21-2003, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: Bait O' Eggs ]

[billc_sbio]

Yep...you'd think that all of those who went before us, those who struggled and survived and learned how to exist out in the wilds didn't have a lick of sense!

So now we're reinventing the wheel once again...got all our Hi-Rise biologists claiming that they know more than those who've lived off the land.

Wonder how hard it's going to be to legislate reducing the populations of these predators next time?

[ 12-21-2003, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: billc_sbio ]

[elkaholic]

Well Birdhunter, should you or I go first?

BOE, [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

Leave "management" to the land owners not bureaucrats.

I am curious what the hunters on this site think that went to areas outside of this state where wolves are. Any real life testimony for us that are reading so much but don't have first hand knowledge? Enlighten us, please.

[GutshotApe]

One statistic to keep in mind...to put the issue in perspective...is that in 1999 only about 11%* of Oregonians were licensed hunters (5% bought hunting licenses, 6% bought combination licenses). The trend was slightly downward so the numbers of hunters may be even less today.

What does this mean? One possibility is that most Oregonians don't feel as strongly as hunters do about the need to maximize deer & elk numbers...and might think having wolves back is "cool".


*Source: Atlas of Oregon, UofO Press, 2001.

[o-mykiss]

As much as I love to hunt, I don't think the elimination of predators is neccesarily the best idea. One could argue that we aren't eliminating wolves but reintroducing them (at least in Idaho anyway), however, we did eliminate wolves earlier in our history. Ask yourself this, should we start killing all cougars because they eat deer and elk to survive??? Some of us like to hunt cougars as well.

[Gun Rod Bow]

Well,

Here I go again...

Wolves in Oregon are a when and not an if. They have already strayed in from out of state and been removed. Now Director Ball says they will no longer remove these wolves.

When a pack of wolves takes up residence, let's say in Chesnimus Unit, and take 30-50 elk a year (a number consistant with Idaho experience) that will replace 300-500 hunters.

If 1 in 10 hunters on average take an elk, (loose national number) and there are 50 being taken by one pack, that will reduce the game available to tag buying, tax paying, resource supporting hunters.

In US history it has not been environmetal groups or animal rights groups that have payed to conserve game, it has been hunters. Through tag and license sales, Pittman/Robertson funds etc..

Don't kid yourself here folks. The same groups that ban bait and dogs for bear and cougar, sumarily forced a stoppage of poison on federal lands to control coyotes, stopped airial control of coyotes and wolves.... have an agenda. It is to increase predator numbers to the point that "sport hunting" will no longer be needed.

We will never again see deer numbers in the west that were seen in the 50's and 60's. No one has the stomach for organized, state (hunter/taxpayer) funded, effective predator control that was part of management in those days.

Moose have been all but eliminated from large areas of Alaska since the ban on airial control of wolves.

We all need to lobby our states to allow common sense control of predators, managed by the local and state authorities. You want wolves in Oregon? I say no problem as long as the tags are available in the Sport Pac.

[TonTo]

You want wolves in Oregon? I say no problem as long as the tags are available in the Sport Pac.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Well Put [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[Gun Rod Bow]

O-M-K,

I don't think we are saying to kill ALL predators. The problem is that wildlife management is being taken out of the hands of wildlife managers.

Wolves are under fedral control of the ESA and not in control of state and local managers.

Likewise, use of dogs and bait for bear and cougar control was a common sense management tool. Have you ever tried to size up a bear or cougar from 150 yds. VERY, very difficult.

With use of bait and dogs, a hunter can anylize, make sure no cubs or kittens are present, and that an adult was going to be harvested.

Actually harvest of boar bears in the spring can improve bear numbers since boars are the biggest predators of cubs (except for wolves )

Black bears are having HUGE impacts on elk calf recruitment in this state. The bears come out of hibernation and begin feeding to coincide with elk calving. Cougars are extremely effective predators on adult elk and calves. They prefer deer, and have greatly reduced mule deer numbers since the ban.

Humans have radically changed the landscape. Management is now our responsibility. It is naive to think we can take a hands off approach now that we have changed the landscape.

I'm just saying there are political forces involved that hunters should be very aware of. And, that emotional capaigns funded by PETA and passed by the most populous counties in the state are not good wildlife management. These things are hurting wildlife, and the future of hunting.

[ 12-21-2003, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: Gun Rod Bow ]

[kodiakfisher]

I have sat on the sidelines for a long time on this issue.

It seems that it is man that has screwed things up not mother nature. How did the Indians manage to live with all of these predators? When Lewis and Clark first made their expedition out west elk were primarily a plains/open area habitants and were everywhere it was man from over hunting/harvesting that pushed the magnificent animals up into the mountains and close to extinction where they have learned to adapt to a new environment. It was the economic interests of the fur trade that pushed many species into extinction or near extinction. This is why it is illegal to commercially sell or transport wild game meat or other parts. This also further makes the point that man doesn't OWN the animals just because our fees for tags and subscription to Rocky Mountain elk foundation help preserve these animals doesn't mean we own them and have a right to eliminate competition for those animals.

Having predators moving elk and deer around is good for the herds and ecosystem as witnessed in Yellowstone for several reasons. Granted farmers and ranchers may not care for elk moving out of Yellowstone competing/eating the available crops. First the predators move elk around preventing over grazing/browsing it also strenghtens the heard, when hunters take elk we may take the stongest of the heard rather than the weakest. Witness the current craze of harvesting the largest horns. Our ancestors were more interested in eating rather than displaying. I'm not saying that I wouldn't shoot a 350 class bull if I had a tag but I wouldn't hold out for a bull with an any elk tag. I proved that this year first legal elk it was in the freezer. Predators normally take the weakest animal of the heard. This is more commonly known as natural selection. I believe that Gun Rod and Bow is probably correct that if predators take an additional 50 elk that reduces the number of tags by a disproportional number.

So here is the question we all need to ask ourselves do we care about strong healthy elk heards or do we care about killing elk. If you think that you want to say both is it not hypocritical to say you want strong healthy elk heards but eliminate mother natures way of ensuring this happens? To have a better understanding of the ecological process that happens between predator and prey, predators as they increase in numbers cause a corresponding decrease in prey as this prey becomes harder to find predator numbers decrease from starvation this has a corresponding increase in prey and they cycle starts over again.

FYI a FULL grown moose has no natural predators. The only moose that are taken by a predator is a sick and dying one anyway. This is according to a Discovery Channel show on the Alaskan/Canadian moose. Another piece of information that I have gained from discovery channel is that black bears have the greatest impact on Elk herds due to their predation on calves. As we can see there are pleanty of bear tags to be had. Gun Rod and Bow makes a point for consideration in the future about wolf tags. One may also consider that wolves will prey on coyotes and therefore help reduce the number of coyotes preying on the deer population.

The numbers of elk available to hunt have never been greater there are still oppurtunities to help elk herds that will benefit all. Elk hunting is extremely tough business and I can understand our reluctance to accept competition and yes it would be frustrating to have elk in a scouted area and then predators come in and move them out just before the hunt. That just means you have to be willing to move to a new hunting location. It may be worth noting that once a child/niece/nephew of the Animal rights activists or politicians get eaten by a predator they will quickly change their opinion.

I am not an elk biologist but an avid reader. My information should be quoted as it is not my own but I'm too lazy to try and dig up resources. A majority of my information is from discovery channel and Valerius Geist as featured in the Jan/Feb issue of Bugle, along with an environmental history class at PSU.

[Mello-Yello]

I'm afraid I have to side with the Wolf. As stated earlier, and discussed in other threads concerning cougar populations, before the white-man (yeah, I'm one too), nature balanced itself.

One of the biggest problems today is loss of wildlife habitat. Our desire to live in rural "country" settings has encroached on the animal's natural home, causing them to either overcrowd under-developed areas, or learn to live around us. I'd like to see the statistics on animals killed on our highways vs. hunter and predator.

One of the prime reasons that Whitetail Deer are slowly taking over the country is their adaptability. Mature Mule Deer bucks have been known to literally starve to death within site of available food, only because their instinct telling them to 'stay back' is stronger than their desire to eat.

By no means am I some kind of animal rights/tree huggin/sandal wearing bleeding heart. But I don't think it's appropriate to place this blame on the wolf, nor the cougar for animal populations and hunting opportunities being what they are.

The question is, are we willing to give up our rural dwellings? Lower our speeding limits to better ensure we can stop before running over a deer? Reduce tag allotments so that other predators can have their share?

Nahhh, not likely. For many of us, the "Good Old Days" have come and gone, never to return. However, for our younger crowd, they are living the "Good Old Days" right now, as when they get old and gray, it's likely they'll look back at 2003 as "The Good Old Days"...

Times are changing, and it's not likely that we hunters, being the minority that we are, are going to stop these changes.

Enjoy what you have while you have it.

M-Y

[lost_sailor]

I guess God just up when he created wolves.

Heaven forbid something interferes with your right to kill elk!

[img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img]

[ 12-22-2003, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: Rauly ]

[kodiakfisher]

Keta,

Some of this was very interesting reading, The article wolves likely to wipe out wildlife.This is put out by the anti-wolf coalition. This is a very biased but there are some very credible opinions.

This is not directed at you Keta but a general question. If we acknowledge that wolves existed long before the white man (which I am one of) settled vast areas of the west how is that any of the wildlife species survived in having to share habitat with wolves? If these wildlife biologists are correct if wolves existed in the wild before the white man settled the west none of these species shold've survived. We know that huge herds of elk, bison etc inhabited the great plains. The wolf has never been blamed for the drastic decline of any of these species rather the white man with the fire stick receives the blame for drastic reductions along with the fur trade. It should be noted just as gun rod and bow pointed out the wolves would reduce the number of elk tags being issued. The departments of fish and wildlife receive a large portion of revenue from the sale of tags it is only natural that they would be opposed to anything that may reduce this revenue stream. I would expect wildlife biologists to be against the re-introduction of wolves. There is also considerable debate on long term effects vs short term effects. The environments time scale and humans time scale are much different. What is considered long term by humans is really just a short term effect on the environmental scale

It is necessary to point out that some species did go extinct in the absence of man i.e the dinosaur.

KF'
Habitat loss and livestock (prey) as a secondary food source causes the natural cycle to be out of sink. There is a wolf/moose problem in Alaska now.

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by kodiakfisher:
The departments of fish and wildlife receive a large portion of revenue from the sale of tags it is only natural that they would be opposed to anything that may reduce this revenue stream. I would expect wildlife biologists to be against the re-introduction of wolves.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Individual wildlife biologists hold personal opinions, just as we all do. I've had a fair amount of experience working with ODFW's biologists...listening to their analyses...evaluating their recommendations...and I'd have to say you are being too cynical about wildlife biologists, in general. I think most of them stick pretty closely to "the science" and don't bias their work to fit their personal opinions. Now, the upper management and the fish & wildlife commission are another story...but they are SUPPOSED to take political considerations into account...and they do...along with "the science".

[Mojo]

Well...I live and hunt in Idaho. There are wolves where I hunt elk. I saw plenty of tracks and scat. I didn't shoot an elk this year. It wasn't the wolves fault. It had more to do with the 50 yay-hoo's that set up camp at the base of the mountain, rode 4 wheelers up and down closed roads, shot at deer (out of season) and generally disrupted our annual trip. We saw as may elk as we usually do. We saw 6 times the hunters, and they always seemed to be in the way.

I know up near Salmon, where my friend ranches, (he hates wolves by the way), he has admitted that he has never had any predation by woves (though they frequent his property about every 7-10 days). He did tell me that the elk spend more time on his ranch now, because he thinks they are scared of the wolves. His take on the thing is that the elk have changed habits, so they aren't hanging out where they have for the last 75 years. The hunters (stubborn ol' us!) are still hunting "where they got one every year till the danged wolves came back". Since "We" aren't seeing elk, the wolves must have killed them all.

Adapt, improvise, and overcome. You spend enough time scouting, and hunt hard, you are still gonna get your elk. Don't blame the wolves.

[birdhunter]

So Uey89,

Just a single wolf chasing a huge mature whitetail buck. You think a wolf, or even a wolf pack, really kills many, or hardly any, healthy animals. Wolves are coursing predators, which means that they chase and test their prey. They look for and single out weakness. In David Meech's studies in Minnesota, wolves would test (ie chase) anywhere from 50 to 70 deer a day. You know how many they actually killed? On average one every two days.

You know, I didn't see an elk this year. In fact this is the first year in the past 2 years I haven't gotten my bull and the first year anyone can remember that our party didn't get one. I suppose we could blame that on the wolves as well. Except that there are no wolves in the Oregon Cascades right now. But I can guarantee you that if there were, and we'd had the same bad year, people would be screaming bloody murder that wolves had gone in and killed all the elk. Guess what, hunting's hard, elk hunting is really hard, you have to be adaptable. Wolves are any easy, easy scapegoat. They're loud, they're conspicuous, when they do kill something it's spread out over a quarter mile in an open area. So it's easy to blame wolves for bad hunting. And if there is bad hunting somewhere wolves are not, well then I suppose that must be because of all the other predators, huh?

Wolf pack's are territorial and operate over a large (50 to 100 sq. mile) area. My advice to you: 7 - 10 dogs can't be everywhere at once, don't hunt where they are.


Roy,

All those wolves, cougars and bears running around sure prevented you from getting nice mule deer this year in Idaho, huh?


Bill_sbio,

Just a show of hands, how many of us still struggle and survive and exist out in the wilds? I might mention that those who went before us did a great job with the bison, salmon, grazing and old growth huh?


elkaholic,

Beat me to the punch. :tongue:


GRB,

So it's fun with numbers. Okay, so say a pack of wolves takes up residence in the Chesnimus Unit (although they would likely be spread out and overlap with different adjacent units) and take 30-50 elk a year (I'll easily give you that number) you contend that will replace 300-500 hunters. Here is where I have a hard time. Your logic is reasonable, but I think way off. First off, we need to look at how Oregon calculates tag numbers. Every winter biologists spend time in aircraft, flying over the snowy white ground and counting all the elk and deer they can see. They then take this information and present it to the commission who use it to formulate sound management decisions unbiased by any politics right? Okay, so even if that did happen, you'd have to assume that biologist get an accurate count of how many deer and elk are out there. You think most biologist have even a clue about how many elk or deer are in their district? They could give you a range, but it's gonna be broad. Spotlight surveys and even aerial flights are only moderately effective in open country in pristine conditions. Study done in Idaho a few years ago by IDFG had them do aerial surveys over some radio collared elk. Those flights only picked up 50% of those elk. This is in central Idaho, not too dissimilar to NE Oregon. Don’t even get me started on the futility of trying to inventory deer or elk in Western Oregon.

So say you do get a good count and get around 60% of the animals out there. You don’t see those 30-50 elk killed, or at least you wouldn’t see the 60% of them that theoretically you would have seen. So that’s 18 to 30 elk that you would have seen that are now gone due to wolf predation. Then again, we’re also assuming that all the wolf mortality was additive and not compensatory. Meaning, those animals wouldn’t have died from something else, if the wolves hadn’t killed them. Dollars to doughnuts, wolves as a coursing predator are picking out animals in the poorest shape. Animals that were looking for a place to die and the vast majority of which wouldn’t have been around next hunting season anyway.

Your 300-500 hunter replacement estimate is almost half the tags allocated to the Chesnimus unit (753 rifle bull, 26 rifle antlerless and 326 for those damn dirty stick-flickers in 2003). Assuming that they all would have survived anyways, 18 to 30 elk less in an aerial survey is not going to reduce tag numbers appreciably, if at all. Weather variables will change counts more than that. The political reality: at least in Chesnimus even if a wolf pack moves in, cow tags can't be reduced any more and bull tags won't be reduced any more. Success rates may go down slightly, but tag numbers are not going to be reduced appreciably.

How on earth did moose ever survive before aerial control of wolves?

We will never again see deer numbers in the west that were seen in the 50's and 60's because our range will never recover to that level. Overgrazing by domestic livestock and unsustainable populations of ungulates has left us with a barren Great Basin barely capable of supporting the diminished carrying capacity we have now.

I do agree with you that some groups are definitely using the wolf as a tool to try to remove primarily grazing from public lands. It isn’t working, land managers are aware of it, it’s not going to happen. The same could be said for hunting. You may very well get your wish for a wolf tag. Some in ODFW want them classified as game animals. Kinda like bears and cougars. Give it a few years.

Keta,

I’d add to that prey populations indeed can get into a “predator pit” but that is the result of natural predation coupled with human harvest. One or the other or both need to be reduced. It’s just easier politically to reduce wolf predation that it is to reduce human hunting and “subsistence” pressure.

[ 12-22-2003, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: birdhunter ]

[Bait O' Eggs]

Roy,

All those wolves, cougars and bears running around sure prevented you from getting nice mule deer this year in Idaho, huh?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Birdhunter, only my hunting prowess allowed me to harvest a nice muley

And nice to see you back in the batters box, even if you have a jersey on for the other team [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

SSS unless Birdhunters wants the tail :shocked: :shocked:

[birdhunter]

I do, I do!

[bllelk]

Just a couple of points to consider:
In Idaho during the spring denning season if a wolf was spotted and reported the whole area was shut down to ALL activity.
The wolf recovery was much more sucessful in Idaho than expected and the last I heard Fish and Game was moving to get their status changed. What's the latest on that Mojo?
Shoot, shovel and shut up? Better make sure there's not a radio collar. The folks monitoring wolf recovery know when, where and how just about every wolf dies in Idaho and they take their jobs real seriously.

Bird,
The Alaska wolf/moose problem isn't related to hunting pressure. There has been no hunting for moose in some of the worse GMU's for many years. The wolves eat caribou after the moose population crashes and then when they find a moose they kill and eat it.

A wolf pack can and will kill healthy adult animals. I have a video from the ADF&G showing 3 wolves killing a healthy brown bear.

Uncontroled wolf populations are not good but a controled population can coexist with hunting.

[Lured In]

Not to muddy the waters too much more but...

BH...I know you have been intimately involved in researching the wolf reintroduction issue [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] , so let me summarize what I think we can all agree on.

1. We know big game counts are inaccurate, at best. (could be high, could be low). To the best of my knowledge, they have no way of validating the estimates, other than by relative comparison. (consistantly counting the same way, should show any obvious variations in populations assuming all else is equal). I am not slamming wildlife bios here, they have a nearly impossible job to do with limited resources and an uncooperative study group.

2. Elk, deer, antelope, sheep and goats all managed to survive predation by wolves, cougars, bears, coyotes, etc. long ago.

3. We don't live long ago. :grin:

There are so many variables in the above that we either cannot or do not have the ability to manage or measure. Do we really want to introduce yet another variability to the equation?

From a scientific standpoint, having a valid and repeatable test is key to adding variables. Until you understand the nature of the metrics involved you cannot accurately predict or even measure the change in outcomes.

Perhaps the wolf introduction brings another issue to the table. Is it time to change the way we manage wildlife? Given the way we currently conduct population estimates, we must assume that wolf population estimates are just as inaccurate.

My point is we cannot effectively measure the influence of wolves until we can effectively measure the prey population and its current trends.

Without an accurate method for population estimates, I don't see how having yet another inaccurate population is going to benefit anyone.

Lastly, much of the 'hoo-haa' over wolves has centered around whether or not they can be hunted and/or killed for predation on livestock. (like 'yotes or cats). IMHO, this issue needs to addressed before the state makes an official stand on the reintroduction. Specifically, at what poplulation level do the wolves get 'delisted' and what is the MO for the wolf population? [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img]

[GutshotApe]

Some may be critical of me for mis-using research data...in this case, using material from studies of cougars in a discussion about wolves...but I'm going to do it anyway. :tongue:

A well-known researcher, Maurice Hornocker, studied cougars in the Idaho Primitive Area in 1970 and made these observations (that may also apply to wolves):

Hornocker stated that there is no question that individual prey possessing "undesirable behavioral or physical characters" are the most vulnerable to predation by cougars and ultimately are culled from the herd.

Two other researchers, D.J. Spalding & L. Lesowski, reported on the winter food of cougars in south-central British Columbia in 1971. They examined the ages of mule deer that had been killed by cougars and those that had been killed by sport hunters. They found the following:

Deer Age..%killed by cougars..%killed by hunters

&lt; 1.5 yrs.........23..................20
1.5 yrs...........11..................26
1.5 - 8 yrs.......40..................51
9 yrs or older....26...................3

Predation by cougars has some definite beneficial effects on their major prey...as Hornocker reported:

"Cougars keep deer and elk moving on the winter range. This alone is perhaps more important in an ecological sense than the actual removal of animals. The mere presence of a cougar or family of cougars in a locality or watershed does not appear to alarm game animals. When a kill is made, however, the reaction is striking. Deer and elk immediately leave the area, cross to the far side, and in some instances leave to enter a different drainage. This behavior, observed without exception, acts to distribute game animals. Its importance on restricted, overused range is obvious."

Hornocker's study showed that predation by cougars was inconsequential in its effect on the ultimate number of elk and deer. He ended his paper with the statement: "The effects and influence of such predation are considered of great significance in the maintenance of ecological stability in a wilderness environment."

Wolves are not cougars...but there may be parallels in the effect of predation by either species on deer & elk...in some areas, at least.

[ 12-22-2003, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: GutshotApe ]

[Gun Rod Bow]

FYI a FULL grown moose has no natural predators. The only moose that are taken by a predator is a sick and dying one anyway....
The numbers of elk available to hunt have never been greater [/QB]

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Where to start...

Full grown heathy moose are routinely eaten by Grizzlies and packs of wolves. They can even be killed by an over abundance of mosquitoes....no offense to the Discovery Channel.

Yes, the elk numbers nationally are doing very well due to effective management, and reclaimation of winter range, which in most cases determines herd size. Unfortunately historic winter range is now agricultural land, freeways, cities etc...

Elk herds in some units of Oregon are off by 60% since the bear and cougar ban went into effect. Historically low calf recruitment is the reason. According to district bio's, bear and cougar predation is the largest cause.

"predators only take the sick and dying" is a nice quip, but no longer true in the man altered world. The cyclic nature of predators is that when their numbers increase, they will hunt for whatever they can find, depleteing the prey greatly before the predators go into decline.

One of the major disasters with wolf reintroduction has been "non target" species like bighorn sheep. Packs of wolves have found easy pickens with herds of bighorns and completely wiped out bands because they were easier prey than elk. If we could turn them loose in eastern Oregon to eat only wild horses and burros, I'd go haul a load myself.

With hunting as a management tool, you can target only mature animals, adjust bull to cow ratios, take "spike only", etc.... In many cases the largest herd bulls and bucks are killed by predators because they enter winter in the worst condition following the rut.

Man has (lets just say always) been part of the ecosystem as a hunter, as it should be. I see no moral problem with managing the number and type of predators that we want to share our forests and game animals with. We don't dig Camas roots and pick service berries to survive, we grow high production crops to feed ourselves (even vegeterians) at the expense of indigious plants and animals. We no longer have a choice about managing wildlife. It is now our responsibility.

We have changed the landscape permanantly. We can manage a balance in our wild lands and allow predators to survive. In wild places with very little human contact. I don't think that describes the State of Oregon.

Birdhunter,

If airial surveys of elk and deer are so inaccurate, what does that say about surveys of cougars and bears?

If wolves are wildly ranging animals and likely to cover multiple units...that is my point, Oregon isn't wolf country. It isn't big enough.

The range in eastern oregon and much of the great basin was in better shape in the 1950's and 60's than it was in 1910.

Whatever. Wolves don't belong in Oregon. Introduction of predators is a political game.

50 elk per year per pack will displace too many sport hunters in this state.

[ 12-22-2003, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Gun Rod Bow ]

[Phil Layer]

My $.02:

This is a fascinating topic that is being debated very amicably. Both sides are presenting their arguments without getting into the name calling and babble we see on LIG with political topics.

I, for one, appreciate it. Thanks to all for sticking to facts and making me really think about this one.

[goforchrome]

I applaud Birdhunter for his well-reasoned response.
It's obvious in this discussion that the 'wolf vs everything' issue wasn't an issue before white men came on the scene.
Do we really want ranchers dictating our environmental approach?
This is the same group that screams for dams so they can water x000's head of cattle and deny that runoff is polluting our rivers. Tough luck if you're a salmon.
This is the same group that would eradicate bison due to brucellosis fears.
Why not eliminate bald eagles so that more salmon and steelhead smolts survive?
No flames, just thoughts.

[birdhunter]

Lured In,
[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

GutshotApe,

Excellent post. Based upon perliminary studies I have seen coming out of Yellowstone, it's a similar situation. Wolves move animals around. Course we have to remember that the rest of the west is not a park. Animals already move around and don't lounge in riparian corridors.

GRB,

"Elk herds in some units of Oregon are off by 60% since the bear and cougar ban went into effect. Historically low calf recruitment is the reason. According to district bio's, bear and cougar predation is the largest cause."

Low calf recruitment is the reason why elk populations are declining in NE Oregon, and predation is the main cause of elk calf mortality. It's really easy to see this as just a predation caused issue since the bear and cougar ban. But what has also happen since the mid-1990's. How about a sharp curtailment of logging on federal lands? How about a reduction in the available nutritional forage from those clearcuts? How about a diminished carrying capacity in the region? And how do deer and elk populations adjust to diminshed carrying capacity? Populations decrease. That means some animals have got to die. You think it's going to be the adult cows and bulls primarily, or the young of the year? You think a calf in poor condition is going to be more or less vulnerable to predation? Predation is the direct cause of mortality, but nutrition is the underlying reason for it.

Kill a few predators and you'll have a jump in the short term. No question about it. But in the long term, if it is a nutritional issue, the population is still going to decline. They'll just find other ways to die. Instead of being eaten by predators they'll get pnemonia, become overriden by parasites or use up their fat reserves. Just because a population is declining or isn't growing, doesn't mean that's bad thing necessarily. Can a population of animals always increase?

“If airial surveys of elk and deer are so inaccurate, what does that say about surveys of cougars and bears?”

That they are even less accurate! Actually I know of no population surveys that ODFW does for bear or cougar, nor can I think of any that would be effective at estimating total population size. They have some population estimates, but don’t know where they got the numbers from. The same could be said for wolves in the Northern Rockies, coyotes in Eastern Oregon or ruffed grouse in the coast range. They’re there, you can count them but you’ll never know how many there are.

”If wolves are wildly ranging animals and likely to cover multiple units...that is my point, Oregon isn't wolf country. It isn't big enough.”

Oregon isn’t big enough to support wolves? Nowhere in our 97,073 square miles is there room for even one wolf pack? Is it better to have one wolf pack spread out over several units, or would you prefer each unit had 7 to 10 dogs? Individual deer and elk move between different units. See, animals like wolves are kinda funny in that, they don’t recognize political boundaries. Especially one’s printed in the big game hunting regulations, or state lines...

”The range in eastern Oregon and much of the great basin was in better shape in the 1950's and 60's than it was in 1910.”

How about 1810? I’d still disagree with you. The removal of sheep and reduction of cattle grazing from much of the west brought about a boom in mule deer populations, more so than did predator control. When you graze everything down to nubbins and then remove that pressure, new succulent, nutritional growth will give you some really stellar deer herds...for a few years. But is that sustainable? Without further disturbance, that old growth sage and bitterbrush doesn’t provide much.

I've got no problem with managing wolves and other predators. Why manage just one side of the equation? But management is a far cry from elimination.

[Gun Rod Bow]

Well Birdhunter,

You're trying.

To begin with let's take Sled Springs. The available summer range is largely private land. Boise Cascade to be specific. When I was there fall before last there were 5 active logging sites going. The area has been more logged since 1990, not less.

A 60% reduction over 15 years is hardly due to carrying capacity issues. We haven't had a bad winter over there since '94 or '96.

It sounds to me like you concur that predation is the main cause for the decline. If that is the case, and bear and cougar populations are still on this "upswing" why in the world would we want to add another apex predator to that mix now?

No a population can't always increase (other than people) but winter range capacity has not been the issue at those elevations.

So if we agree that airial surveys are inaccurate, and that predator surveys are less so, again why would we want to add another predator into what we know are declining herds??

No I don't think we can support a pack of wolves in 97,000 square miles, because again winter range is the issue. If you eliminate ag land and developed land, we have left basically desert and forests including wilderness areas, much of which are void of large animals during winter.

In the early days of the white man in Oregon there were actually very few deer in eastern Oregon, and plains of crested wheat, a tremendous food source.

Overgrazing wiped out the crested wheat, sagebrush took it's place. Developement brought market hunting, completely exterminating elk in eastern Oregon, almost wiping out all deer and antelope. The depression years took there toll on game. The post war years brought "reclamation" to the west. Some ways bad, some ways good. But the agricultural development, intensive logging, control of the range, state and federal predator control (intensive) and game laws set us up for a boom in deer populations which occured in the west during the '50's and 60's.

We will never see those huge migrating herds of deer in and around the great basin again.

Fortunately, elk are more adaptable and less affected by coyotes, and by in large on the increase. Much due to moving into newer areas. But some of the areas of Oregon that had tremendous herds of elk in the 1970's, 80's and 90's are in serious decline in the years since the ban.

Oregon doesn't need wolves...unless they eat only wild horses.

[uey89]

Well folks I'm glad to get a little dander up. My question is that Birdhunter seems to think there is no room for the wolves. Sure you live on the populated side of the state and you really dont care what the east siders have to say. The ranchers are just the people who don't know any better. If you7 have ever been east you would find there is plenty of room for a pack to roam.
In fishing Up the Hells Canyon last week, I was able to see It takes only a short swim and they are in.
The wolves that have been planted in Idaho were planted by some friends of the wolves org.. The ranchers were told if any of tthe heards of cattle or sheep got damaged they wold pay for the damage. Well in Aug. a pack of wolves went through and wiped out a flock(50)+ of sheep in one night. Well The rancher got some money but you can't buy the breeding program he had. just think on that for a while. there is no good reason to have the wolves back.

uey89,
I live on the dry side of the mountains and raise sheep. I have also lived around wolves, seen wolves, traped wolves (two within 1/2 mile of my house) and shot wolves. I've seen wolves eating salmon out of a creek and chasing deer, shot them too.

If wolves are delisted and put into the same category as coyotes I'd like to see them migrate into Oregon. If they are kept as untouchable and “special” I would be a strong advocate of "Shoot and Shovel management".

The key is to manage their numbers and where they live through harvest. Wolves can be good for the deer and elk herds, if their numbers are kept down.

[uey89]

Keta
Yes I agree. The harvest of a wolf used to be worth a fifty dollar bill in Alaska. I don't know if they still do that but that might help. While I was in Idaho I heard from a local that a wolf had been shot with buck shot and the f&G found it. They put a reward up for any info that seems backwards to me.
Corse in this state we can't even bait or hunt with hounds for cats & bear. So all it does is add another predator we can't shoot

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by Gun Rod Bow:
In the early days of the white man in Oregon there were actually very few deer in eastern Oregon, and plains of crested wheat, a tremendous food source.

Overgrazing wiped out the crested wheat, sagebrush took it's place.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Sorry but I beg to differ...

I took 15 credit-hours of systematic botany from a retired Soil Conservation Service man double-dipping at my college...the guy was an expert on range issues. We made field trips into SE Oregon and one of the main points we learned about range ecology was that crested wheatgrass is NOT native...I think it originated on the Russian steppes. Whenever there was a range fire the BLM, heavily influenced by ranching interests, would seed the burn with crested wheatgrass. The cattle did well on crested wheat...pronghorn antelope do OK on it...but I don't think deer (or elk) use it much.

The original grasslands, in large part, were dominated by Idaho bunchgrass which is now nearly gone from large parts of eastern Oregon. It was a far superior food source for wildlife but didn't hold up well under intensive cattle grazing...so it was replaced. Many large range fires were suspicious in origin...some people believe that certain ranchers set them to burn off the sage and bunchgrass knowing full well the BLM would reseed with crested wheatgrass.

We know better now but there are still a lot of crested wheatgrass seedings east of the Cascades. There is also a lot of cheatgrass that comes in after fires...it, too, is non-native...and of little value to wildlife save chukars.

(its been a while since I was in college...and I could be wrong about this :whazzup: )

[ 12-22-2003, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: GutshotApe ]

uey89,
No bounty on wolves in Alaska anymore but the hides have value.

As it is now it would go better on you if you shot women and children than a wolf.

[Rauly]

Now you guys play nice or the thread will be locked. Maybe a few could go back and clean up their posts so I don't have to. Thanks.

Rauly

[ 12-22-2003, 09:35 PM: Message edited by: Rauly ]

[elkaholic]

WOW,

I think we hit a HOT topic here!!! A little passion guys, please put some passion into your discussion. :grin: :tongue: :depressed: :smile: [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

Bottom line to me is, they are coming/have come and we need tools to deal with the problems short-term. The tool box seems empty, not because there aren't tools, because the state and feds are unclear/uncommitted to a PLAN. They don't want to "confirm" any sightings so they don't have to do anything, all the while numbers are growing and expanding. I think that certainly is the PLAN for defenders of wildlife and other pro groups. That is why they are fighting downlisting and will fight to the death against delisting. Make promises then fight it when it comes time to own up. That is what you see in the reintro area, the plan was for 30 breeding pairs for 3 years, we are over 45 now and they still fight it.

They knew and you should recognize too that if you approve of wolves in certain area of Oregon, you essentially are agreeing to wolves everywhere they are tolerated. I didn't argue for NO wolves in yellowstone because I was unaffected, now I'm affected from the same introduction that I thought I approved of. Don't let yourself be led down that path, they can't and won't control where wolves will be, you will(if they ever let you legally).

Oregon will likely never get a dime of federal money to deal with problem wolves and we were never part of the introduction area. Who is going to pay? Hunters will through lost opportunity and hunting license fees paying for "management". Livestock producers lose even if they don't have a single animal killed by increased management costs, stress of keeping animals safe(including their dogs)and potential land use restrictions around a "den". Rural Oregon loses the most from lost hunter days, that is significant and hell yes I care about those people, we all should.

Yes, a few people benefit, people who will go in search a Howling experience and the possibility of seeing one or a pack. I am not convinced that we have anything like yellowstone where sightseeing on a daily basis is possible. Will the herds be healthier?

It is a bad idea that has little good, for the wolves themselves or those that are using them as a tool to reform land use and to stop hunting. I won't be lulled asleep by the nonsense that there is more good than bad. And I won't forget about my friends on the East side of the state that provide all of us the habitat for wildlife and a place to go to see bucks in rut, deer and elk on winter range(on private ground 90% of the time, and the prime rib I'm having for x-mas.

Give us the tools to deal with them, that's all I say. Coyotes haven't gone away with unlimited harvest, cats haven't gone away with nearly unlimited opportunities and the wolves won't go away either.(specially since the factory across the border appears to be in business for the long haul).

Anybody think I'm riding the fence on this one? :smile:

[birdhunter]

Uey89,

Not quite sure where you got that impression, but I do think there is room in Oregon for wolves. I spend some time every year on the eastside, oftentimes Hells Canyon. When wolves do come over for good, it will be right into my hunting backyard.

GRB,

Let's take Sled Springs. Only 17% public land, stands out as one of the area's with the lowest percentages of public lands in all of NE Oregon. Yet how many cow rifle tags do they allocate? Almost 300. Now that is down from years past, but it paints a prettier picture in that unit than it does in adjacent units (Wenaha - 11 cow tags, Walla Walla - NONE, Mt. Emily - 38, Catherine Creek - 33, Imnaha - 110, Minam - 27, Chesnimus - 26). That tells me either the biologist think the elk in the Sled Springs unit are doing a little better than the rest of the units in NE Oregon, or they aren't doing their jobs very well. Could it be that since Sled Springs is primarily private land and there is still logging elk there have more nutritional forage? But the rest of NE Oregon is predominately public national forest that has seen a sharp curtailment in logging activity. As those clearcuts have gown up and new ones are getting fewer and fewer the elk do two things: 1)move onto private land and/or 2) die.

Bad winters don't determine carrying capacity. Nutritional availability on the summer range affecting the condition of the animals going into winter does.

Sure the timing of wolves coming back into Oregon sucks, but when in the past 70 years since they left has it been any better? I'd never support the active reintroduction of wolves into any part of Oregon. But the gradual and natural recolonization - sure.

Don't think of the herds as declining, think of them as leveling off at a lower level than what you're used to. Seriously, predation does not determine population direction. Natural predation can only accelerate decline or retard growth. We've got a great opportunity here in NE Oregon with ODFW's current studies of elk and deer populations. This should give us great real world information before and after wolf recolonization and perhaps provide the opportunity to dispell some myths or apply some practical management.

Speaking of which, we've been managing populations of animals without accurate population counts for years. Why start now?

[kodiakfisher]

Elkaholic,

Excellent post, we do need tools to deal with wolves in Oregon they are here and there are only going to be more.

Concentrating our efforts on what can be done is certainly wise.

It seems we all agree that determining the size of any given animal population is difficult if not impossible. Some general trends can be observed through consistancy of counting method. If we really don't have any "science" to make decisions on other than Wolves are predators and elk and others are prey do we really understand what impact wolves are having on elk populations? Furthermore like was stated earlier predation is only half the equation, access to quality range habitat is also key. We could overcome predation by increasing the quality and quantity of habitat to support better calf recruitment then the number of elk predated by wolves would be offset by higher calf survival.

Since currently we can't do much about wolves moving into Oregon lets concentrate on what we can have an impact on.

[ 12-24-2003, 08:51 AM: Message edited by: kodiakfisher ]

[Gun Rod Bow]

GSA,

I will always defer to your learned info. I'm a mere high school educated working guy. Substitute bunch grass for crested wheat and the points are the same. Thanks for the correction though.

BH,

We still come back around to Oregon deer and elk herds are in decline, predators are on the increase. We've both agreed on that.

The point of the inability of wolves to target their prey, should be a very serious issue from a management standpoint. Also the fact that they range and expand without control makes the point of lack of fit in our little state IMO.

I see no good in adding wolves to the mix.

Elkaholic,

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

Consider guys the wild horse (and Burros) for a moment. Non-indigenous, introduced by man, overpopulated, needing of federal and state money for management (read: round up and put in feed lots to die of old age) to prevent serious damage to dwindling stocks of bighorns and damage to the range.

Why? Because Wild Horse Annie thought they were cute and people pushed legislation based on emotion and not science.

More info to those in this state that care about wildlife is going to be critical.

There are a lot of misconceptions when it comes to wolves. I lived around wolves for 15 years and have experience with them. We had wolves killing neighborhood dogs, and one was hit by a car about 1 mile from our house. We NEVER saw a wolf around the house but heard them about every 10 days as they made their circuit of the packs range.

There are two wrong beliefs about wolves (the Discovery Channel spreads one) The first is “The Big Bad Wolf” and the second is that wolves are “special”. BOTH are WRONG!!! A wolf needs to kill and eat one deer size animal every 6-7 days to survive, ALL YEAR. Uncontrolled wolf populations will out breed their prey population rapidly and then go to eating livestock and pets. The prey populations then get into a “predator pit” (like moose in most of Alaska) and never recover unless wolf numbers are reduced.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has been trying to reduce wolf numbers for years but the lower 48 save earth crowd has pressured the politicians into stopping them. The new governor has finally said no to out of state interference and they are going to reduce the wolf numbers and get the moose numbers back to where they can sustain wolves predation.

I will support wolves in Oregon if they take ALL protection away from them and manage the packs like coyotes. Otherwise “Shoot and Shovel” is the only way to manage them.

I’d also like to see brown bear reintroduced.

Predator Pit #1
Predator-Prey Interactions

Predator Pit #2

[TonTo]

I wouldn't mind seeing wolves reintroduced in a few select areas.But with introduction there also has to be a management program and I believe total protection is not a good idea. Not that I'm all excited about the prospect of harvisting a wolf, I would be willing to do my part to insure a controlled population.That said and after reading the replys here and doing some thinking on the subject.I would like to see a few wolves released in the Loo-wit GMU of Washington state,the elk population has been out of balance there for quite some time with over browsing and winter kill.Since it seems the WDFW is not planning on opening the unit to hunting anytime soon,a well managed pack of wolves could do some good in balancing the population,thining the weak and sickly that won't survive the winter anyway.Then the bleeding hearts could sleep in peace knowing there aren't numbers of elk starving to death,and their precious wolves have a place to call home.The sportsmen could benefit as well since the elk may feel pressure to leave their sanctuary where they have had no fears of predidation or being hunted.But I would never consider releasing these animals without first making provisions to ensure the wolves remain in the designated area,by first guaranteeing that any animals that wander from within the unit boundries will legally be harvistable.Which of course federal protection will not allow,so they must first be declassified.

[James in Idaho]

The biggest problem was the introduction of a non native species into a prey base that had ZERO experiance with large, effective, canine preditors. It has changed the herd dynamics in the Idaho intro area, and we DO have problem wolves. Now that the elk, the primary prey, deer just don't have enough meat for the effort expended, have had six or seven generations of learning how to deal with the wolf, they are wising up. But the wolves have hammered the population in some areas. They need to be turned over for state management, which should include classifing 'em as a game animal.

[Bounty Hunter]

Originally posted by goforchrome:
I applaud Birdhunter for his well-reasoned response.
It's obvious in this discussion that the 'wolf vs everything' issue wasn't an issue before white men came on the scene.
Do we really want ranchers dictating our environmental approach?
This is the same group that screams for dams so they can water x000's head of cattle and deny that runoff is polluting our rivers. Tough luck if you're a salmon.
This is the same group that would eradicate bison due to brucellosis fears.
Why not eliminate bald eagles so that more salmon and steelhead smolts survive?
No flames, just thoughts.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[bllelk]

James
I don't think we can call wolves a non-native species, they just haven't been around for a while. Your point is well taken however. I was wondering the same thing. WHAT THE HECK DID THOSE ELK THINK WHEN THEY RAN INTO THE WOLVES FOR FIRST TIME? This is just why the wolves have done so well I think. Their prey had no experience to draw on. Sometimes I think the same thing happens when we have several mild winters, the experienced leaders die off, the herd stays high, a hard winter sets in and there is a major winterkill.
What's the latest on wolves in Idaho? Is IDFG going to get to take over management?

[GutshotApe]

Here's some interesting reading regarding wolves and CWD...chronic wasting disease...which threatens deer & elk populations throughout the west:

Theo Stein
Denver Post Environment Writer
Monday, December 22, 2003 -

The spread of chronic wasting disease toward Yellowstone's famed game herds
alarms wildlife lovers, but two top researchers think biologists will
discover a powerful ally in an old frontier villain.

The wolf.

Wildlife managers have never controlled a major outbreak of chronic wasting
disease, a fatal neurologic malady of deer and elk first discovered in a
captive Colorado mule deer herd in 1967.

No one knows for sure if wolves would target CWD-infected deer and elk, but
wolves' uncanny ability to spot vulnerable animals may make them the best
natural control for the disease, researchers say.

Even in its early stages, CWD makes its victims distracted and unwary as it
eats tiny holes in their brains. That's a fatal liability in the presence of
a running predator like the wolf, National Park Service biologist Douglas
Smith said.

"Wolves show up and say, 'Let's see what you've got,"' said Smith, who
helped lead the program that returned wolves to Yellowstone in 1995 and
1996. "And if you don't have it, they laser in on you like a fighter pilot.
The things they pick up on are incredibly subtle."

While the theory is still unproven, Colorado's top wildlife manager says it
is worth factoring in to the blistering debate over how to manage wolves
that may soon migrate into the state.

"Every idea should get a fair hearing and I think disease management is a
fair question for a biologist to ask," said Russell George, director of the
Colorado Division of Wildlife.

Some scientists are skeptical of wolves' ability to contain CWD. David Mech,
a biologist with the United States Geologic Survey who is considered the
world's top wolf expert, cautioned that until wolves and wasting disease
actually interact, such theories are just speculation.

"But that is a reasonable possibility," he said.

The speculation isn't simply academic.

CWD was first identified in a Fort Collins wildlife research station in
1967. By the 1980s, it spread across a 30,000-square-mile area of
northeastern Colorado and neighboring Wyoming. In the late 1990s it appeared
in Nebraska and South Dakota. But the real shock was in 2002, when CWD was
discovered in Wisconsin and on Colorado's Western Slope.

Many consider CWD the biggest single threat to wildlife in North America.

No one has been able to study whether wolves single out CWD-infected animals
because the range of predator and disease have never overlapped.

But over the next few years, that will likely change.

This summer, an infected mule deer was discovered in Bighorn Basin north of
Cody, Wyo., on Yellowstone's doorstep.

Some Wyoming biologists fear CWD will move into the Greater Yellowstone
ecosystem in the next year or two.

But Mike Miller, a CWD expert and research veterinarian for the Colorado
Division of Wildlife, thinks northwestern Wyoming's robust wolf population
will eliminate infected deer that try to move into the park.

"No one knows for sure," Miller said. "But I think wolves could help the
disease from becoming established to begin with. Sick animals just won't
survive that long."

The earlier infected animals are killed, the less opportunity they have to
transmit the disease.

Colorado has plenty of CWD but no wolves, although it's just a matter of
time before they migrate here from Yellowstone, experts say.

Predation by mountain lions and coyotes appears not to have slowed the
spread of the disease in Colorado and Wyoming. But wolves are a different
kind of hunter, Smith and Miller said.

Mountain lions are ambush specialists: They attack any deer or elk that they
can surprise. Coyotes are too small to hunt adult deer, although they kill
fawns and can severely injure adults.

By contrast, wolves constantly test potential prey, including elk, deer,
moose and bison, looking for weakness. Sometimes wolves kill healthy adults,
Smith said, but most of the time they find some vulnerability in their
victim.

It could be a calf or fawn separated from its mother, a bull or buck worn
out from the rut, a doe caught in deep snow, a cow elk with arthritis.

This hunting style, Smith said, seems perfectly tailored to removing sick
animals.

"Wolves are probably the single best way to stop the spread of CWD," he
said. "Chronic wasting disease causes animals to act weird. Wolves kill
animals like that."

University of Calgary professor Valerius Geist, an expert on deer and elk,
is also convinced.

"Wolves will certainly bring the disease to a halt," he said. "They will
remove infected individuals and clean up carcasses that could transmit the
disease."

Scientists still don't know if CWD is a naturally occurring brain disease or
if it jumped to deer and elk from sheep, which get a similar brain disease
called scrapie. In the 1980s, scrapie jumped to British cows that were being
fed sheep bits as a source of protein. The result was a huge outbreak of mad
cow disease, which killed 100 Europeans who ate infected beef.

Deer and elk naturally gnaw on bones to obtain needed minerals. Researchers
suspect the animals may contract CWD by eating brains or spinal tissue of
dead animals, or grazing near their carcasses.

Geist and Princeton University biologist Andrew Dobson theorize that killing
off the wolf allowed CWD to take hold in the first place.

A federal predator control program in the 1920s eliminated the last prairie
wolves in the region, according to Michael Robinson of the Center for
Biological Diversity.

While CWD was first identified in 1967, its prevalence in Colorado and
Wyoming suggests it appeared several decades before that.

"Remove the wolves and 20 to 50 years later you have a problem," Dobson
said.

Federal wildlife officials are considering whether to reintroduce the wolf
to Colorado's San Juan mountains. Rocky Mountain National Park is also
evaluating wolf reintroduction to deal with an overpopulation of elk.

And experts expect the animal will naturally make its way down from
Yellowstone.

Colorado officials are drafting a wolf management plan, outlining if and
where it would be appropriate to have wolves in the state.

Two polls in the past 10 years show two-thirds of Coloradans would like to
see the wolf returned to the state.

But stockmen, who fear wolf attacks on their herds, and hunting groups
worried that wolves will take game meant for hunters, vociferously oppose
the notion.

"We don't think CWD will annihilate a herd, but there are several instances
of herds that we think were annihilated because of the wolf," Wyoming
outfitter Maury Jones said. "Wolves will be far more devastating to a herd
than CWD."

Wolf researchers say those claims are false, but at the Division of
Wildlife, George wonders whether Coloradans could tolerate enough wolf packs
to reduce clusters of CWD infection on the Western Slope, where the overall
infection rate is about 1 percent of animals.

"How often would a wolf be in proximity to an animal in a stage of the
infection that made it vulnerable?" he asked.

It's a different situation in Yellowstone, which is considered fully
occupied by the 17 wolf packs living there.

Veterinarians have managed to control small CWD outbreaks on captive game
ranches, but only by slaughtering every animal in the exposed herds - at a
cost of more than $12 million in Colorado alone. Wisconsin is trying to
eliminate all 25,000 white-tailed deer in a 1,150- square-mile area near the
state capital, Madison, in a desperate attempt to eliminate an outbreak
discovered in 2002.

In a limited trial, Colorado biologists are testing the tonsils of every
deer in a herd and killing the infected animals.

Wolves would essentially do the same culling work for free, the theory goes,
although they would likely also kill livestock and pet dogs.

Researchers may well have a chance to study how effective wolves can be in
stopping the disease. Waves of wolves radiating out from Yellowstone are
approaching the northern borders of Colorado and Utah. And in Wisconsin,
wolf packs are within 70 miles of the CWD zone.

But retired Wyoming Game and Fish veterinarian Tom Thorne thinks animosity
against wolves will be tough to overcome.

"Emotions against wolves are so strong that I'm not sure this potential
benefit, which I agree might be there, would sway the opinions of many
folks," he said. "I think it would be a long, long time before people are
used to wolves enough to admit they might be doing a bit of good."

[ 12-23-2003, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: GutshotApe ]

[Straydog]

Very interesting reading! thanks to all for the good information.

I say bring on the Wolves but manage them as a game animal and control their numbers.

I think we will see healthier herds in the long run.

As I always say, whether you choose creationism or evolution, there is a reason those critters were here when we moved in.

[ 12-23-2003, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Gun Rod Bow]

Interesting take GSA.

Some of the points made during this discussion were remade in that piece." wolves prefer sick prey...will take healthy"...

I think if anything, CWD and brucellosis should be a reason to BAN game farming. Wild creatures belong in the wild IMO. Risks to wild herds are too great to allow.

Problem with Brucellosis is the host animal is otherwise (reasonably) healthy except they abort their calves. It could be absolutely devastating to elk herds. It is a disease carried by Bison (who break through fences onto private land), from domestic cattle, and can be spread to elk.

Hardly naturally occuring. CWA same thing. A natural remedy for a man caused problem may or may not be the best fit.

After Wolves save Colorado from CWD, can they all be shot on site? Like using leaches to eat dead flesh then throwing them in the fire? Just a thought.

One question to all that want to see the West returned to it's former (unatainable) glory. If we want everything that was here at the time of Lewis and Clark to be returned, would that include Small Pox? Are we better of with or without it? It was eliminated for man's good.

Merry Christmas All

[ 12-23-2003, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Gun Rod Bow ]

[Carp Bait]

As McManus would say "There's room for all God's creatures here, Puttem right next to the mashed potatoes!"

[BrotherWolf]

hmmmm trying to decide if I should be offended or not about all this talk about wolves...hehe

[OwyheeKIller]

I've lived in Idaho all my life and welcome the wolves. Personally I think any self respecting, true hunter would appreciate having a "wilderness" that includes game and predators, wolves included. Would Alaska still be majestic and wild if they did'nt have the brown bears, wolves, eagles, wolverines, salmon etc? If all you want to experience when you step into the "WILD" is a bunch of grazing animals, then you've got no business being in the woods. You should hunt in a petting zoo. Maybe you're paranoid a critter is going to eat ya. Perhaps you should hunt on one of them special game ranches. You know the kind, where for $2000 they let you shoot an elk that has practically been hand-fed it's entire life.

Some of your discussions make it sound like the wolf population is growing so fast that they're going to be invading your neighborhoods. Or maybe your just putting the blame on the predators for your lack of hunting success? Hunting is not supposed to be quick and easy. If it were easy, it would'nt be that special would it? It would'nt feel as gratifying when you finally did harvest that animal you so badly wanted.

The fact of the matter is wolves are a part of the biological puzzle God has put together. Wolves and elk have coexisted since creation. So in knowing this, ask yourselves what is the real problem?

Look, I love to hunt as much as the next fella but call me crazy, I just think in order to have a healthy elk herd, you must have predation. I'll spell it out more clearly, elk are PREY. They require predation throughout the year not once a year, (hunting season).

It's ironic ranchers and farmers complain of elk heards decimating their crops. But those very same ranchers, the ones with the "No Hunting/Private Property" posted all over the place' won't let willing hunters hunt on their land. We're seeing a common trend of elk not willing to leave private land. They will stay on private land where there is abundant food with no hunters or other predators around.

Besides a rancher is a businessman who can't lose. If his crop is ruined he's got insurace, the taxpayers like you and me will reimburse him for his crops and his damaged fences.


Having wolves will cause large herds to disperse, thereby reducing overgrazing which would lead to starvation during rough winters. Once large herds are broken up the elk will form smaller new herds and be moved into new territory. Since the herds will be smaller, the likelihood of overgrazing and starvation will be reduced.

Our former president Teddy Roosevelt was a hunter and a conservationist. Roosevelt understood the importance of protecting lands and the animals that live on those lands for future generations. I hope we all can have the vision to be stewards of what the Lord God has given us.

[skein]

Well said, IdahoBowHunter. This has been an excellent thread with some good discussion on both sides.

Wolves, in my opinion, are not the Great Destroyer, but they will change the equations. As was said earlier, where coyotes and cats once ruled, now it will be wolves, at least in many of those areas. Herds will be dispersed and, as IBH said, maybe they won't be so secure behind those private property signs and we will once again be able to hunt them freely.

My greatest fear is that we will be locked out of selected areas of public land simply because there is a denning pair or some other trumped up reason. We've seen that with lynx (which didn't even exist) and we'll see it with wolves. Another fear is that ranchers and others, some with a vested interest, like outfitters who have hunting rights to a ranch, not allowing packs to prey on and disperse herds so they can be hunted by the average hunter without 12 grand to plunk down.

There's one more comparision I'd like to make concerning the perceived decrease in animals. Just like ocean conditions have a HUGE effect on salmon returns, the conditions of the land have a comparable effect. When the waterholes dry up like they have, when there is less browse (often created by logging), and where there is increased encroachment through development, there is, or can be, less animals to hunt or carry over for breeding. Right now I'd say those factors are effecting us much more than wolves ever will.

Pray for rain.

Skein

[Gun Rod Bow]

Originally posted by Idahobowhunter:
Besides a rancher is a businessman who can't lose. If his crop is ruined he's got insurace, the taxpayers like you and me will reimburse him for his crops and his damaged fences. [/QB]

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Huh?

The major concerns I have brought out in this discussion are:

1) Elk and Deer herds in Oregon are currently in decline.

2) "Political" forces want to increase predators without state and local controls (examples: Hound and bait bans, ESA control of wolves)

3) Bear and Cougar populations are on the increase in this state.

I have shared the wilderness with bears (black and brown) cougars, wolverines, wolves in vast remote areas. I love the wilderness, I love the elk herds in Oregon and see no moral issue to artificially increasing their "healthy" numbers through predator control and range management.

Some who have stated that it is wrong to want more deer and elk to hunt, would screem like a mashed cat if hatcheries were shut down.

[elkaholic]

IHB, good shot. I understand your perspective. I'm sure you can point out some of those charity programs the ranchers use for fence repairs and lost revenue to wildlife?

I don't think too many here are afraid of predators but understand the need to have tools when things get out of balance and out of bounds.(wolves, cats, bears, coyotes killing pets and livestock as their preferred option for dinner)

It will be good to not make people outlaws when circumstances call for a response. I think that's all we ask.

I/we do appreciate your perspective and Idaho experience. Thanks

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by elkaholic:
IHB, good shot. I understand your perspective. I'm sure you can point out some of those charity programs the ranchers use for fence repairs and lost revenue to wildlife?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">In Oregon one avenue thru which ranchers & farmers can receive money for fence repairs, weed abatement and other range & pasture improvements (necessary due to wildlife use of private land) is the Access & Habitat Program. A&H is funded by a $2 surcharge on every hunting license...and funds are disbursed by ODFW after screening by the A&H Board and final approval by the F&W Commission. There is usually some amount of public access that occurs on the land where the money is spent...often limited to cow-only hunts or juvenile hunts....however, additional public access is not an absolute requirement of the program.

Besides a rancher is a businessman who can't lose. If his crop is ruined he's got insurace, the taxpayers like you and me will reimburse him for his crops and his damaged fences.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Not quite true. And I don't want my years of selective breeding to be lost.

[OwyheeKIller]

If anyone has ever lived and hunted in Idaho you would agree there are a lot of no hunting signs by prime wildlife habitat, such as creeks and meadows. The elk will stay where they are not hunted daily and have all their basic needs met, often on private ranches. The ranchers can make money every hunting season by outfitting or leasing their lands to outfitters. I'm guessing ranchers see the wolves as competition because wolves can cross fences and get to their land, hunters can't.

Ironically ranchers complain about how elk are such a nuisance, even though they get reimbursed and can make money hunting them. Idaho now has a program where hunters can pay ranchers to hunt on their land, but very few ranchers with too many elk are participating in this state funded program. Hmmm... I wonder why?

I'd say the biggest competition for hunters in Idaho, are the outfitters. They will claim their campgrounds weeks before hunting season starts. They may even drive elk into certain areas with horse and ATV. They can hunt private and state lands. Outfitters see us un-guided hunters as competition because most of their money comes from non-residents.

I understand the frustration of hunters with the current elk populations. I wish the numbers were better too but I think outfitting and ranching hurt elk populations more than the wolves do. I agree wolves do need to be managed, yet I don't feel Idahoans should carry the burden of paying for it.

The real problem with the states's elk is habitat. Think about it. Have you ever come across good public habitat only to find cows and their pizza sized patties left behind, which will still be there a year later? Those huge patties cover up soil from sprouting new grasses thereby reducing available feed.

In closing, I'd like to say predators are a big part of nature. If you want strong, healthy game populations, you have to let nature do it's job. It worked for YellowStone.

[ORoutdoorsman]

What threat, if any, do wolves pose to people in the woods? Are wolves not likely to attack a person, or would they pray on a hunter or a hiker?

Although they can kill a human the wolf usually ends up the looser in wolf/man confrontations.

[Jedediah]

I have lived in the state of Oregon for the past 10 years. I spent the first 40 years of my life living in Saskatchewan (where I was born and raised). I have been an avid hunter and fisherman all my life, and have had some experience with wolves that I feel I should share.

During the last 15 years of my residency in Canada, I mostly hunted the northern provincial forests of Saskatchewan for moose, elk, and deer. Wolves are a natural part of this region, although I don’t believe you will find many of the residents of Northern Saskatchewan that think they are much of an asset. Most of the farmers and ranchers that reside near the northern forest are more than willing to tell stories of livestock and pets that have been killed by the packs of wolves that stray out into the farm land. They must be extremely cautious of where their children are at all times. They will also tell of the deer, elk and moose wolf kills they come across on their property and the surrounding crown lands. I have not met one of these farmers or ranchers that will not tell you to shoot any wolf on site.

I know from personal experience what a pack of wolves will do to the resident game population; they move them out! When a wolf pack hits an area on it’s territorial rounds, the rest of the animals disappear. Within a day of hearing the “beautiful sound of the wolf”, one will be hard pressed to find a deer or moose track anywhere in the area. They do not return until some time after the wolves have left. Not all get away, though. After the wolf pack had gone, it was not uncommon to find 2 or 3 “kill sites” in the area where I was hunting. Most of these were deer, but moose were not safe, either.

I know there are few “documented” cases of wolves attacking people, but there are many undocumented stories. I am confident they will attack human beings, and have pretty good reason to believe it.

On a moose hunt in Northern Saskatchewan, I was returning to camp late one morning when I came upon a wolf on the trail that appeared to be “mousing”. I shot the wolf and dragged him off the trail to be picked up later, and continued towards camp. I had not walked very far when I heard the rest of the pack howling mournfully. I thought it strange, but continued on my way.

The old logging trail I was on paralleled a frozen beaver pond for several yards. Glancing over my shoulder, I saw a wolf cross a beaver dam, and he was headed in my direction. Then I saw another. By the time the third one was crossing the dam, I had my rifle shouldered, and shot him. I then shot the fourth one as he crested the dam. After this, there were wolves scattering in all directions, and heading into the timber. I am not sure how many there were in that pack, but I know it was in excess of 10. Now I was spooked, to say the least! I gathered my wits, and continued my trek toward camp.

After walking another ½ mile after I had shot the last two wolves, I looked ahead of me, and saw another wolf standing in the middle of the trail! I took the rifle off my shoulder, but never got a shot at him…he disappeared into the heavy timber. When I got to the spot on the trail where I had seen him, there were several wolf tracks in the snow. It appeared the entire pack had circled around to the front of me, in spite of all the shooting that I had been doing in their direction! I was still about a mile from camp, and it may have been the longest mile I have ever walked. My rifle was not put back on my shoulder, and the safety was not engaged, either. Although I never saw them again, we heard the mournful howls for most of that afternoon.

After some research, and many questions, on what had happened, I believe I really upset the pack. The first wolf I shot (a large male in the 120-130 lb. range) was likely the alpha male. The rest of the pack was probably not far away, and finding their male leader dead, decided to see what had killed him. I am not saying they were out for vengeance, but who knows? I know the whole incident was more than a little unnerving!

So, with this little knowledge I have gained over the years, I really do not want to see wolves in Oregon. The elk and deer populations are dwindling now and their herds will do nothing more than continue their demise with the introduction of these canines into the wild. The will show up in Oregon, but I truly believe they need to be closely monitored and managed. Otherwise, this will become a “fishing only” message board.