# Wolf hunt in Idaho - meeting harvest objectives



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I know we've discussed the pros/cons of wolves to the nth degree so I really don't want to go there for now so bear with me here.

I've been watching the wolf hunting season in Idaho with great interest. The area where I grew up in Challis is the center of the largest concentration of wolves in Idaho. The big game herds I used to hunt have been impacted in a big way since native wolf populations were augmented with the 1995 transplants.

This year, Idaho set a management objective to harvest 220 wolves, from 12 different hunting units. As the harvest objective has been met, hunting in that unit is closed. As of today - November 10 - two units have reached objective (McCall-Weiser- 15 wolves, and Upper Snake (just outside YNP) - 5 wolves ). A total of 98 wolves have been harvested statewide. The following web link is updated regularly and gives the harvest totals and objectives.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/hunt/wolf/quota.cfm

The thing that compells me at this point is first - how will the big game herds respond to a reduction in wolf populations? Will it make a difference? How will wolf behaviors change as pack dynamics are altered as more wolves are removed? Will wolf behvior change if they are being hunted themselves? I certainly think that hunters in Idaho are finding them to be tougher to hunt than originally expected - evidenced in the season being open for nearly 6 weeks and harvest not even at half of objective.

I know many of us have the opinion that the only good wolf is a dead wolf. I cringe to see what the wolves have done to big game populations in the place I grew up hunting. But I also see a very interesting case study going on right now that I think if very compelling - can wolves be managed as a big game animal in conjunction with other hunting opportunities. How is this thing going to turn out I wonder. how will it evolve over time? Can the deer and elk herds recover and coexist as a balance is pursued?


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Some great questions and points to ponder Gary! The wolf and its pack is extreemly dynamic and complex. I hope this thread takes off with some good discussion instead of emotional outcries, as I would love to contribute when I get a bit more time. I firmly believe that hunting/killing some of the wolves and changing pack dynamics will have a tremendous influence on thier behavior, both territorily and with thier prey relationship...this could indeed get interesting :mrgreen:


----------



## lehi (Sep 13, 2007)

As much as I hate what they have done to big game herds, they lived everywhere before we got here. And they are just plain awesome animals, so I think it would be great if there was a yearly management plan for them, while at the same time, carefully watching the deer and elk herds. I think it could happen IMHO. 

One thing is for sure, if there is a yearly season or a season every other year, the Antis will be crying like babies. :lol:


----------



## Mntman (Nov 16, 2007)

Yes, it will help the deer/elk herds recover/sustain their numbers.

The bigger impact will be to the wolves pack hirearchy (spelling??) in a non-hunted wolf area the alpha male and females could be in power for a few years keeping the pack in order and a finely tuned "machine" but with hunting taking out the alpha males/females on a somewhat regular pace throught out the year possibly, their packs will be disorganized on a constant basis which will effect their pack boundarys, hunting efficiency, pup reproduction, and other things. I think all of these will help the deer and elk populations the most by just keeping the wolves disorganized, cause more than likely there won't be the large packs working together like a 3 time super bowl champion team. There will more likely be more smaller packs with wanna be alpha's trying to start their own packs and trying to take control of different areas. So I feel that yes you will still have a majority of the wolves around but they won't have the same impact that they did prior to the hunting of them.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

so what you are telling me is with more smaller packs you will have more females breading. As I recall in a big wolf pack the only one who has pups is the alpha female and the rest take care of the pupps.

so with more smaller groups there will be an increase in wolves. GREAT there goes the moose, elk, and deer as we know it.

_O\ O*-- <<--O/


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

Kill em all. That would be my harvest objective. :evil:


----------



## Mntman (Nov 16, 2007)

swbuckmaster not trying to be a [email protected]$$ but do you know anything about how wolf packs/society's work? 
When there are junior/young wolves trying to start their own packs there are a minimal amount of wolves in the pack, alot of times it's only 2-4 young adults trying to raise a set of pups. KEY word "TRYING", they are young, inexperienced at hunting and raising pups so survival rates of both adults and pups is lower cause there is no leadership.
Also when there is only 2-4 adults in a pack when they try to bring down prey they usually leave one adult to defend the pups, now you are down to 1-3 adults chasing the prey. With that the prey has a higher success of escaping vs. when there are 7-14 adults taking turns chasing them till they are exhausted.
I hope this helps you understand how this will positively effect the wolf's prey species.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

See mntman - you are teaching me some things. I am not all that knowledgeable about wolves - and this is the kind of discussion I had hoped for. I don't know enough about pack dynamics to know what would happen if for instance, both the alpha male and female were taken out. What would that do to survival of the overall pack? I find the point made that the longer a pack is together, the more effecient they get at killing - that makes total sense. If that is the case, then taking out a few wolves - especially if hunters are able to take out the alphas from a pack - then the fewer deer/elk per/pack will be killed. Hmmmm. Very interesting. 

Like I said - I'm not a wolf guy. They have nearly wiped out the big game where I grew up. But watching now from a distance - I find the whole thing very interesting.

Let me throw in another compelling case study worth watching on this one. Growing up in central Idaho in the 80s, there were wolves. Not many, but deep in the Middle Fork or Sawtooths, you could hear them and I had several friends who had taken them. Sure, hunters and ranchers didn't like them - but they respected them. Then in the mid 90s when the federal government stepped in and supplemented them with transplants, the locals went nuts. Sure, they didn't want the wolves, but they also didn't want a government entity to tell them what to do. They hated that they were being forced to deal with wolves on a much grander scale - they couldn't defend themselves except in extreme situations and if they did take a wolf out, even in defense of self/property, they'd be dragged through hoops that were simply not worth it. 

Now, much of that has changed. The state governs things. Wolves are now a big game animal. I am wondering how the human acceptance/perceptions/perspectives on wolves will change now since the state manages, and lets the hunters/ranchers take an active role in that management. Locals are not being told what to do by a suit in washington. But instead are counted on as the tool in managing the populations. I wonder, like with the pack dynamics, how the local human sociology will continue to change in this process.

I certainly don't have the answers. I just think it is interesting to watch and learn. Very interesting.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

> Quote MntmanRe: Wolf hunt in Idaho - meeting harvest objectives
> by Mntman on Nov 11, '09, 8:09
> 
> swbuckmaster not trying to be a [email protected]$$ but do you know anything about how wolf packs/society's work?
> ...


Some good points mtnman. A couple of things. Should one of the alpha's be taken out, it is very common for the remaining one to keep control of the pack and territory until a new mate is bred, often times a member of the same pack, a daughter or son. The packs have a few ways of controling breeding pairs, when one or the other are taken out by whatever means. There are often times adoptions that are made within the pack which is usually a male wolf that has been lurking around the outskirts of the pack. It's thought that this adoption process also allows "new blood" to take over as a breeder should the alpha male die. It's pretty rare a female wolf is adopted. When other lower ranked wolves are killed, it really doesn't effect the pack dynamics that much.

There is a misconception that wolves usually hunt with most of the pack. That isn't true, with one exception. Often, only a few wolves do the hunting. It's also been recorded that large packs will split hunting parties in two, each one doing their own things. Pack dynamics is truely complex. Dang, gotta get back to work


----------



## springbowhunt (Sep 15, 2008)

Here are a couple of things you should know.

The original re-introduction plan called for about 300 Wolves.

Idaho is now around 1300 Wolves. 

Killing 220 per year will do nothing to return to the original objective. We need to kill MORE!


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

No, we need to kill ALL of them. The Timber Wolf was the original "native" wolf to this region. The hybrid Canadian Grey Wolf is NOT. They are an introduced species that was never here in the first place. They need to GO right along with all the *****, red foxes, and any other undesirable nuisance animal. Wolves are nothing but a varmint and should be treated as such.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

This whole wolf situation to me is just unbelievable. Looking at the overall picture
of what it is costing western sportsmen is frightening at best. Let a lone the ranchers
in the effected areas. I read in an article last week were a rancher lost 90+ sheep in
one night. Some of the best elk hunting gone, herds down 75% in many areas around
Yellowstone and getting worse. Original plan for 300 wolfs in the park is now wildly 
out of control. At least some hunting of wolfs has begun , but to little to late.

Three years ago I spent some time with a biologist from Alaska, A 35 year veteran studying
wolves up there, His exact quote regarding the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone was
"Worst mistake in wildlife management he had witnessed in his life."

He also went on to state that no matter what happens now we will never get rid of them,
even if hunting was opened unlimited and we were to hunt wolves like coyotes.
The only way we exterminated them the first time was with poisons and trapping that
will never be allowed again. Considering what has happened to the elk/deer/moose/ herds
in the last five years,,,How much farther dose it have to go before there is a big enough out cry to really change the situation?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> No, we need to kill ALL of them. The Timber Wolf was the original "native" wolf to this region. The hybrid Canadian Grey Wolf is NOT. They are an introduced species that was never here in the first place. They need to GO right along with all the *****, red foxes, and any other undesirable nuisance animal. Wolves are nothing but a varmint and should be treated as such.


Very selfish statement don't you think? The Indians were here first and maybe we should get rid of all the undesirable nuisance hairy self bow archers. :wink: :lol: :mrgreen:


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> This whole wolf situation to me is just unbelievable. Looking at the overall picture
> of what it is costing western sportsmen is frightening at best. Let a lone the ranchers
> in the effected areas. I read in an article last week were a rancher lost 90+ sheep in
> one night. Some of the best elk hunting gone, herds down 75% in many areas around
> ...


great article goofy elk 
now if we could only convince all the tree huggers


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> No, we need to kill ALL of them. The Timber Wolf was the original "native" wolf to this region. The hybrid Canadian Grey Wolf is NOT. They are an introduced species that was never here in the first place. They need to GO right along with all the *****, red foxes, and any other undesirable nuisance animal. Wolves are nothing but a varmint and should be treated as such.





> Very selfish statement don't you think? The Indians were here first and maybe we should get rid of all the undesirable nuisance hairy self bow archers.


It's not a selfish statement because Canadian Grey wolves AREN'T native to Wyoming and Idaho. They should have the same status as coyotes because they're a non-native species.

Once there was a Great Plains Grizzly so maybe we should introduce the Grizzly bear to the Great Plains again.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here is a list of livestock and dogs killed in Idaho during 2008.....

Tons of info about the impact of wolves in Idaho,,Web site........http://www.saveelk.com/

Figure 1. Number of wolf packs in Idaho compared to number of depredation investigations, FY 03-08.
- Based on Idaho WS investigations, the minimum number of confirmed and probable livestock depredations due to wolves in FY 2008 was:
a. Confirmed:
-74 calves (killed), 7 calves (injured) (as compared to 41 calves killed, and 8 calves injured in FY 2007)
-11 cows (killed) (as compared to 10 cows killed and 2 cows injured in FY 2007)
-225 sheep (killed), (as compared to 219 sheep killed and 41 sheep injured in FY 2007) (note: 12 of the 225 sheep confirmed killed were from one depredation incident that occurred just across the state line in Lincoln County, Wyoming)
-13 dogs (killed), 8 dogs (injured) (as compared to 6 dogs killed and 4 injured in FY 2007)
b. Probable:
-23 calves (killed), 1 calf (injured) (as compared to 20 calves killed and 1 calf injured in FY 2007)
-4 cows (killed) (as compared to 3 cows killed in FY 2007)
-63 sheep (killed), 3 sheep (injured) (as compared to 14 sheep killed and 148 sheep missing and presumed dead and 1 injured in FY 2007). (note: 13 of the sheep listed as probable wolf kills were involved in the depredation in Wyoming that is listed above).


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > No, we need to kill ALL of them. The Timber Wolf was the original "native" wolf to this region. The hybrid Canadian Grey Wolf is NOT. They are an introduced species that was never here in the first place. They need to GO right along with all the *****, red foxes, and any other undesirable nuisance animal. Wolves are nothing but a varmint and should be treated as such.
> 
> 
> [quote:3mx0ezpa]Very selfish statement don't you think? The Indians were here first and maybe we should get rid of all the undesirable nuisance hairy self bow archers.


*It's not a selfish statement because Canadian Grey wolves AREN'T native to Wyoming and Idaho. They should have the same status as coyotes because they're a non-native species.*

Once there was a Great Plains Grizzly so maybe we should introduce the Grizzly bear to the Great Plains again.[/quote:3mx0ezpa]

Obviously you didn't get the point of my post. Most of us aren't native to the United States, does that mean we don't belong? This logic is very flawed, I agree with regulating the wolves population, but we need good reasons, not illogical fear based reasons for regulating wolves.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

Lets not forget about the countless outfitters, guides, and businesses that had to fold up shop because all the elk, deer, and moose that had been fueling the economy in the area for decades are now extinct. All that remains are a few very isolated herds and a few thousand piles of wolf sh!t. Millions of hunters dollars are now gone from the economy of these effected states because of these criminal wolves and the retards who lobbied to reintroduce them. Those who don't think this was the single most effective anti hunting stunt ever pulled off, need to pull their heads out of the sand.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

> No, we need to kill ALL of them. The Timber Wolf was the original "native" wolf to this region. The hybrid Canadian Grey Wolf is NOT. They are an introduced species that was never here in the first place. They need to GO right along with all the *****, red foxes, and any other undesirable nuisance animal. Wolves are nothing but a varmint and should be treated as such.


So Mtn Goats, Moose, California Bighorn, Rocky Mtn Bighorn are not native species so they will also be classified as introduced? Don't forget Pheasants, Huns, Chukars. We won't get into the fish.

Wolves are native to Utah and at some point will return. Should they be managed similiar to lions. **** right.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> > No, we need to kill ALL of them. The Timber Wolf was the original "native" wolf to this region. The hybrid Canadian Grey Wolf is NOT. They are an introduced species that was never here in the first place. They need to GO right along with all the *****, red foxes, and any other undesirable nuisance animal. Wolves are nothing but a varmint and should be treated as such.
> 
> 
> So Mtn Goats, Moose, California Bighorn, Rocky Mtn Bighorn are not native species so they will also be classified as introduced? Don't forget Pheasants, Huns, Chukars. We won't get into the fish.
> ...


+100000, don't be coming on here with logic **** it. :lol: :wink: :mrgreen:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Obviously you didn't get the point of my post. Most of us aren't native to the United States, does that mean we don't belong? This logic is very flawed, I agree with regulating the wolves population, but we need good reasons, not illogical fear based reasons for regulating wolves.


I understood your post perfectly LOL. The wolf population is almost 6 times over objective that should be a good enough reason to kill many of them.

Most of us were born in the United States and this where we belong. We are Americans.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> [quote:34ss2gm5]So Mtn Goats, Moose, California Bighorn, Rocky Mtn Bighorn are not native species so they will also be classified as introduced? Don't forget Pheasants, Huns, Chukars. We won't get into the fish.


[/quote:34ss2gm5]

Wrong!!

Rocky Mtn goats and Rocky mtn Bighorns are natives to Utah. Moose on the other hand first came here on their own.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > Obviously you didn't get the point of my post. Most of us aren't native to the United States, does that mean we don't belong? This logic is very flawed, I agree with regulating the wolves population, but we need good reasons, not illogical fear based reasons for regulating wolves.
> 
> 
> I understood your post perfectly LOL. The wolf population is almost 6 times over objective that should be a good enough reason to kill many of them.
> ...


I never said not to regulate them, I was commenting on the getting rid of all Wolves based on flawed logic is all.

Going along with your analogy, most wolves were born in these states, therefore they are now native. I am just pointing out how flawed this logic is is all. I think we agree on the fact that wolves have to be regulated, there populations can't go unchecked.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I believe Treehuggers, Enviromentalist and Naturalists would love to see so called nature back to its so called natural state. What does that mean? When one speaks of nature rarely is man considered in that equation. Sure that mentality should apply in a place like Yellowstone where humans are not a part of the predatory equation. But in other lands where humans can more than make up for natural predatory harvest. I think it puts us as hunter in dirrect compitition. I include all predators in this.

My take on it is really humans are a part of nature. Just another predator as far as prey is concerned. And effective at that. So if you support any predators then you are dirrectly supporting compitition for yourself. IMO.

I think wolves are so threataning because they do what they do out in the open. You can have a cougar living w/in 200yds of camp and you would have no idea. But both kill the game that I have made a lifestyle hunting. So I just like in any conflict my resolution would be to try and kill them all. With hunters afield they serve no purpose to me. And I would trade a cougar that I never will see for 50 deer a yr for 8yrs anyday. At least you will see the deer and get your nature jollies off. (thats for the treehuggers). I say screw the eagles and bring back poison.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I think we agree on the fact that wolves have to be regulated, there populations can't go unchecked.


Wolves that leave the park should be fair game and should have the same status as coyotes. Why didn't the wolf lovers reintroduce the true "native" wolf???? Because the Canadian Grey wolf is bigger and more aggresive. It would accomplish their ultimate goal which is end all hunting by using the wolf as a tool. The wolves are 6 or 7 times over objective, and wolf lovers still want to protect them.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> *This year, Idaho set a management objective to harvest 220 wolves*, from 12 different hunting units. As the harvest objective has been met, hunting in that unit is closed. As of today - November 10 - two units have reached objective (McCall-Weiser- 15 wolves, and Upper Snake (just outside YNP) - 5 wolves ). *A total of 98 wolves have been harvested statewide*. The following web link is updated regularly and gives the harvest totals and objectives.
> http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/hunt/wolf/quota.cfm
> 
> The thing that compells me at this point is first - how will the big game herds respond to a reduction in wolf populations? Will it make a difference? How will wolf behaviors change as pack dynamics are altered as more wolves are removed? Will wolf behvior change if they are being hunted themselves? I certainly think that hunters in Idaho are finding them to be tougher to hunt than originally expected - *evidenced in the season being open for nearly 6 weeks and harvest not even at half of objective. *


I wonder if some wolves have been shot and never reported. A lot of people have hatred towards these wolves, and they would like to see them ALL gone. Some hunters may have gut shot a few. :lol:


----------



## 2-Fer (Oct 29, 2007)

When a predator like the wolf is introduced into an ecosystem where the top predator is maybe a coyote, or a lion it is going to take a long time for that ecosystem to catch up to where it can support that predator. Now that wolves are here they are not going anywhere and no other predator, other then man, can manage them. Just like with any animal if there is more then what the ecosystem can support they need to be controlled. With a wolf I think hunting them will be the only way that can be accomplished, and even with hunting I think they are going to have a hard time meeting harvest objectives.


----------



## lehi (Sep 13, 2007)

I am more than willing to bet that more wolves have been killed than what is actually reported. But If they are that much over the harvest objective as some of you may claim, Then yes, we should harvest more. And I didn't know about the whole timber wolf vs. Canadian Grey. Does anyone know why they brought Canadian Grey wolves to Yellowstone in the first place?


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

> Re: Wolf hunt in Idaho - meeting harvest objectives
> by lehi on Nov 11, '09, 9:56
> 
> I am more than willing to bet that more wolves have been killed than what is actually reported. But If they are that much over the harvest objective as some of you may claim, Then yes, we should harvest more. And I didn't know about the whole timber wolf vs. Canadian Grey. Does anyone know why they brought Canadian Grey wolves to Yellowstone in the first place?


I would probably agree more wolves have been killed than have been disclosed. The wolves that were introduced into Yellowstone were Grey wolves, but a subspecies, the same one that roamed the Rockies way back when. It doesn't matter the subspecies, they all will devistate ungulates if not kept in check. But I'm not sure people realize its not the actual killing of the elk/deer that takes the herd down so radically and quickly, it is the combination of the killing (but mostly) the added stress on the animals (in addition to all the other stress from various sources) that virtually pushes reproduction to a standstill in many areas. There really isn't any turning back now I am afraid, so we are left to deal with the situation as best we can, and hope the states are able to find a way to maintain both prey and predator...tough, tough situation!


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

coyoteslayer said:


> > [quote:39zmx4ie]So Mtn Goats, Moose, California Bighorn, Rocky Mtn Bighorn are not native species so they will also be classified as introduced? Don't forget Pheasants, Huns, Chukars. We won't get into the fish.


Wrong!!

Rocky Mtn goats and Rocky mtn Bighorns are natives to Utah. Moose on the other hand first came here on their own.[/quote:39zmx4ie]

Right!!! No historic proof goats were in Utah and native bighorns were of the Desert variety.

Back to the issue at hand now. In the next 5 years wolves will migrate into Utah and establish permanent residence and the world will go on. The anti wolf hysteria is hyped and borderline comical. In Yellowstone the wolves have been killing coyotes and anything that kills those fawn/calf killers can't be all bad.

I am surprised Idaho hasn't reached the objective after 2 months. I'm sure it will take a couple of years for hunters to figure out how best to hunt them.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

coyoteslayer said:


> > [quote:1cmw1x6e]So Mtn Goats, Moose, California Bighorn, Rocky Mtn Bighorn are not native species so they will also be classified as introduced? Don't forget Pheasants, Huns, Chukars. We won't get into the fish.


Wrong!!

Rocky Mtn goats and Rocky mtn Bighorns are natives to Utah. Moose on the other hand first came here on their own.[/quote:1cmw1x6e]

Right!!! No historic proof goats were in Utah and native bighorns were of the Desert variety.

Back to the issue at hand now. In the next 5 years wolves will migrate into Utah and establish permanent residence and the world will go on. The anti wolf hysteria is hyped and borderline comical. In Yellowstone the wolves have been killing coyotes and anything that kills those fawn/calf killers can't be all bad.

I am surprised Idaho hasn't reached the objective after 2 months. I'm sure it will take a couple of years for hunters to figure out how best to hunt them.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here's an interesting article from the Fairbanks Alaska news paper.

Game board says yes to aerial shooting of wolves
By Tim Mowry
Published Saturday, March 8, 2008
For the first time in more than 20 years, the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game will shoot wolves from helicopters as part of its statewide predator
control program.
The Alaska Board of Game late Thursday approved a plan that calls for
department staff to shoot approximately 25 wolves from a helicopter on the
southern Alaska Peninsula to help save the Southern Alaska Peninsula Caribou
Herd, which has dropped from a high of 10,000 caribou in 1983 to a population
of 600 animals.
“We have a chance to rescue an important caribou herd before it disappears,
and we need to do it very soon,” board chairman Cliff Judkins said during
debate on the proposal. “If we don’t act now, this herd could disappear.”
While the game board has approved the use of helicopters for other predator
control plans, the state has not employed the practice of having snipers kill
wolves from helicopters since 1985 on the Minto Flats, department
spokeswoman Cathie Harms said.
The department plans to kill the wolves sometime in the next two months
before the caribou begin calving. To not act quickly would be “irresponsible” on
the department’s part, said Doug Larsen, director of the state’s Division of
Wildlife Conservation.
“We’d like to do this as soon as we possibly can,” he said. “This is a serious
conservation issue.”
Loading


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Right!!! No historic proof goats were in Utah and native bighorns were of the Desert variety


 :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Bighorn sheep are native to Utah. Archeological evidence indicates they were well known to the
prehistoric inhabitants of Utah, since bighorns are depicted in pictographs and petroglyphs more
than any other form of wildlife. Historical records of the first white men in the state also confirm
the presence of bighorns. Father Escalante noted in his journal as he crossed the Colorado River
in Utah - "through here wild sheep live in such abundance that their tracks are like those of great
herds of domestic sheep" (Rawley 1985). Explorers, trappers, pioneers and settlers also recorded
numerous observations of bighorn sheep throughout the state. *Rocky Mountain bighorns (Ovis
canadensis canadensis) are generally recognized to have inhabited northern and central Utah,**whereas desert bighorns (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) were found in southern Utah. California*bighorns (Ovis canadensis californiana) historically inhabited portions of the Great Basin in
Nevada and Idaho. Although it is not known conclusively whether or not California bighorns
inhabited Utah, recent studies indicate there is no genetic or taxonomic distinction between
Rocky Mountain and California bighorns (Ramey 1993).

Thus, they should both be considered
2
the same subspecies (Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep). Some mixing and interbreeding of Rocky
Mountain and desert bighorns likely occurred where their ranges converged in Utah, making a
clear distinction of historic ranges difficult.
Native populations of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep were nearly extirpated following pioneer
settlement. A few scattered sighting of bighorns persisted in northern Utah as late as the 1960's.
Factors contributing to their demise included competition with domestic livestock for forage and
space, vulnerability to domestic livestock-borne diseases, habitat conversions away from native
grasslands towards shrub lands due to excessive grazing and fire suppression, and unregulated
hunting (Shields 1999).
Utah's desert bighorn sheep populations also struggled to survive civilization. Whereas some
herds suffered early extirpation, others remained relatively unexploited until the 1940's and
1950's, when uranium was discovered on the Colorado Plateau. By the 1960's, only a small
population of desert bighorns remained in Utah along the remote portions of the Colorado River.
Desert bighorn populations were thought to have declined for the same reasons as Rocky
Mountain Bighorns.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

Kill them all!!!!! They will do nothing but ruin our prized herds. Utah DNR will commit suicide when our herds turn out like Idaho's has. I agree with the quote that this is the biggest wildlife management decision in history. I hope a few of these precious wolves eat a couple thousand treehuggers and the story ends like the Grizzley man! That would be fun to watch as they rip out their lower intestines and stomach out their butt hole. God forbid one of them is pregnant because she will suffer a slow and painful death as they only want the tender fetus. Yeah, your precious wolves are so nice to have around. :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> That would be fun to watch as they rip out their lower intestines and stomach out their butt hole. God forbid one of them is pregnant because she will suffer a slow and painful death as they only want the tender fetus. Yeah, your precious wolves are so nice to have around.


This is exactly what wolves are doing to pregnant elk. They're riping the calf out of the mother. She will die also. Many biologists have stated that there is fewer calves in Jackson Hole and that the elk will likely crash because recruitment numbers are so low. In many areas the DWR has reduced tags or closed an area to hunting.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

> In Yellowstone the wolves have been killing coyotes and anything that kills those fawn/calf killers can't be all bad.


You're kidding right? :? That's like injecting someone with the AIDS virus because it eats cancer cells. This is the type of logic the antis are known for.

The elk herds in Yellowstone and surrounding areas has changed and shrunk dramatically since the introduction of wolves. The herd has had to change their whole way of life because of the constant threat of being chased down and eaten by a wolf population that is WAY out of hand. The original objective of 300 wolves has been met and exceeded. *BY A MILE!* Cows are aborting calves and or not even conceiving because of the trauma they're constantly under and calf production is down 30%. Couple that with unmanaged predation and the Elk have got NO chance. When they're all gone, the wolves will simply turn to another food source. They have already done so in many areas. Now in those areas the deer and moose herds are suffering as well. What's next, you guessed it, Livestock and peoples pets.

Pull your head out!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

New Report Examines the Effects of Wolves on Elk

CHEYENNE, March 23—A new report released today by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department takes a detailed look at the effects that wolves are having on elk populations in northwestern Wyoming. In the report, department biologists analyzed statewide elk population data from 1980 through 2005.

Wolf reintroduction began in 1995, when the federal government released 14 wolves in Yellowstone National Park. Wolf populations reached recovery goals established by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in 2002 and continue to grow. At the end of 2006, there were an estimated 36 packs in Wyoming, including 311 individual wolves.

To determine the impacts wolves are having on elk, biologists looked at trends in calf:cow ratios over a 26-year period, both in areas where wolf populations have been established and in areas where wolves are not present. Of the 21 elk herds included in the analysis, eight are currently occupied by wolves.

“We have seen a downward trend in many of Wyoming’s elk herds over this 26-year period,” said Wyoming Game and Fish Department Wildlife Chief Jay Lawson. “That trend is likely due to long-term drought and other habitat related factors. But in half of the herds occupied by wolves, we saw a significantly greater rate of decline after wolves were established compared to herds without wolves. We can’t attribute that increased rate of decline to any factor other than wolves.”

Biologists feel an elk herd’s population can be maintained at objective and provide some hunter harvest when the ratio of calves to cows is around 25 to 100. Once ratios fall below 20:100 there is very little opportunity for hunting. Four elk herds in Wyoming with wolves present have dropped below 25 calves per 100 cows, and two of those herds are below 20 calves per 100 cows. All four herds had declining ratios before wolves were present, but the rate of decline increased significantly after wolves were established. Currently, the only elk herds in the state with recruitment rates that will not support hunting, or possibly even stable populations, are those with significant wolf predation.

“There are a lot of different factors affecting wildlife throughout the state, and wolves are a relatively recent addition to the challenges facing our elk,” said Lawson. We’re very concerned about the effects of wolves on the state’s elk and reduced hunting opportunities for the public. This report helps us understand how wolves are contributing to changes in our elk herds. We also hope this data will provide us tools to work with federal agencies in charge of wolf management to minimize the effects of wolves on elk and elk hunting opportunities.”


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

OK. I get it. Most hunters hate the wolves and think it was criminal that they were transplanted in central Idaho and Yellowstone (though I think the two are very different for many reasons but that is a different discussion.) That's all good. 

After 14 years of the wolves running amuk with nothing to keep them in check, the rules changed this year in a very big way. There is no question that they have devestated herds and livestock predation is horrible. Undoubtedly, ranching and hunting based economies have been hit very hard - especially in my hometown of Challis. The elk herd I used to hunt in unit 37 has been completely wiped out. I get all that. 

But this year marks a very significant difference and I'm wondering if/how wolf behaviors will change. Will breeding success change when the alpha male/female are taken out - in some cases - both. Will hunting success change as packs are split/altered by human hunters? Is it possible for the hunting pressure to be enough of a deterant to push the wolves deep into the back country where they survived prior to the population supplements starting in 1995? Will hunting pressure in Idaho push more wolves south into Utah - a very good question worth asking. I will be VERY interested in seeing the data on elk calving/deer fawning recruitments next spring - will they change as a slice of the wolf population is taken out? Will any of it be fixed in one year? Absolutely not. Perhaps the wolf harvest objective will increase in 2010 - perhaps it will go down. It will be interesting to see how things go though.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

I have no data, but just my opinion. I think it will have a very positive affect, how couldn't it. I think if Idaho is allowed to keep the wolf numbers down, elk and deer herd numbers will start to go up. Believe it or not there can be a balance with wolves in the equation, I think the objective numbers for the wolves are still high, but going in the right direction. It will take years of harvesting wolves to actually see what the effects are.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

> But this year marks a very significant difference and I'm wondering if/how wolf behaviors will change. Will breeding success change when the alpha male/female are taken out - in some cases - both. Will hunting success change as packs are split/altered by human hunters? Is it possible for the hunting pressure to be enough of a deterant to push the wolves deep into the back country where they survived prior to the population supplements starting in 1995? Will hunting pressure in Idaho push more wolves south into Utah - a very good question worth asking. I will be VERY interested in seeing the data on elk calving/deer fawning recruitments next spring - will they change as a slice of the wolf population is taken out? Will any of it be fixed in one year? Absolutely not. Perhaps the wolf harvest objective will increase in 2010 - perhaps it will go down. It will be interesting to see how things go though.


All good and very valid questions. There simply isn't a way to know without looking at history. This has never happened before so it's a crap shoot. Only time will tell how hunting will effect the wolves. I don't think it will effect them enough, and the elk herds we once had are a thing of the past. Don Peay will have a coronary if they take hold here in this state. God help us if they are allowed to do here what they've done to Idaho and Montana.


----------

