# Montana wolf hunt closed - harvest objective met



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Well, Montana has met their harvest objective of 75 wolves and the season closes today.
http://fwp.mt.gov/news/article_8663.aspx

Any thoughts?


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Thanks for the link Gary. I haven't been on the Montana G&F site for awhile. They have made some improvements. The information on wolves and wolf hunting was put together well. Hat's off to them.

Looks as though they filled their quota sooner than expected. I wish Wyoming would follow Montana's (and Idaho's) lead on wolf hunting. From what I've seen, and heard, we have a huntable population of wolves outside Teton and Yellowstone National Parks.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Idaho is about half-way to their objective - 104/220 as of today.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/hunt/wolf/quota.cfm


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Idaho is about half-way to their objective - 104/220 as of today.
> http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/hunt/wolf/quota.cfm


Yes, I seen that somewhere and thought 220 was substantial. I'm curious to see when, or if, they meet their objective.

I hope Wyoming works all their "legal" issues out and has a wolf hunt. I hunted them in Ontario Canada, fair chase, but never tagged out...had a shot and missed.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Gary,

Any idea how the harvest objective is determined by the state? I have a lot of free time this coming weekend and plan to read up on the various wolf inhabited western states' "wolf plans", but thought you might be able to point me in the right direction, or know about it yourself... :?: Thanks


----------



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

Well, 75 is a good start. But hardly a dent in the amount they need to kill. :? 

Just talked to my buddy in Idaho, He says they're staking them up like cord wood and there are plenty more to go around.

Can't wait till we can have a wolf hunt! I'd rather hunt them than elk deer and moose any day!


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> Gary,
> 
> Any idea how the harvest objective is determined by the state? I have a lot of free time this coming weekend and plan to read up on the various wolf inhabited western states' "wolf plans", but thought you might be able to point me in the right direction, or know about it yourself... :?: Thanks


Excuse me stillhunterman for stepping in on Gary's question. Here is a link to the Idaho State plan.http://species.idaho.gov/pdf/wolf_cons_plan.pdf

Kinda shooting from the hip here, but I believe each State must come up with a comprehensive Wolf recovery plan which specifies things like an estimated sustainable population of Wolves in that State, population objectives of Wolf prey species, competition from other predators, livestock depredation compensation, etc., etc., sort of like an EIS.
This plan must then be submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service for approval.
Once it has been approved, Wolves have been established, and population objectives are met, then harvest of excess Wolves can occur.
It has been a while since I checked into it, but that is kind of how I remember it.

If both sides of the issue in Wyoming would quit with all the legal actions, Wolf hunting in some areas could have already begun.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I think that naturalist pretty much hit it. The only change I think I would make is that the wolf management plans that the states completed had to be approved by USFWS prior to de-listing in those states. Once delisted however, the states can do what they want, as long as they keep the populations within the prescriptions from USFWS. As such, harvest quotas don't need to be approved by USFWS - just by the state fish and game department.

As I understand it, Wyoming has never come to grips with USFWS demands in their wolf management plan, so that has never been approved. Therefore, in Wyoming, USFWS still maintains control. In Idaho and Montana, the state plans met USFWS demands so control was turned over to the states. And then as mentioned, in Wyoming the lawyers are all fighting things out right now so who knows how long that will take to reach any kind of resolution.

Specific to the quotas - I know Idaho was divided up in to 12 units based mostly on geographic features. Populations in each of the units were measured and then it was calculated how many wolves could be harvested from that area while still leaving a viable population within the terms of the wolf management plan. So each unit has a different quota as you'll see on the Idaho map page.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/hunt/wolf/quota.cfm
The units are a little deceiving though. I grew up in Challis and used to hunt deer, elk and antelope in units 36a, 36b, and 37. These each converge with four different wolf units all tied in quite closely in that area (Wolf units Salmon, Southern Mountains, Middle Fork, and Sawtooth). Because of the geographies, game moves quite a bit among these units, with some of the units as prime winter range and others serve as summer range - and so the wolves follow along. Some of the elk and deer migrations are not insignificant - moving from the White Clouds to the Lost River Range and back again.

Which I guess is why I'm taking such an interest in all this. I know the area very well and spent my summers and falls tooling around the mountains just exploring. That was in the day when every kid had a motorcycle and you could take off in the morning and just go exploring in the local mountains and knew you just had to be back before dark. A different world in so many ways I guess.


----------



## duneman101 (Nov 6, 2009)

My step dad just returned from hunting whitetail up in the panhandle area. He said that the wolves have all but destroyed the deer and elk population there, last two years there were deer and elk everywhere, they never even saw a wolf or wolf sign. this last week he spent 8 nights in the same area trying to locate a half decent buck, a hunting partner that was with him was looking for deer and elk, and happen to have a wolf tag. they saw two different packs in the area's they were hunting, in one there were 9+ animals in the other there were at least 7 probably more. they couldn't get within 600 yards of them no matter how hard they tried. they also said that they couldn't take a step with out seeing wolf sign and found several carcasses both deer and elk. This hunting party of 6 said they won't be returning to idaho again until that wolf problem is solved.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Here are the state websites that have information on wolf management.
Montana:
http://fwp.mt.gov/wildthings/wolf/default.html
Idaho:
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/
Wyoming:
http://gf.state.wy.us/services/educatio ... /index.asp
Utah:
http://wildlife.utah.gov/wolf/


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

In Wyoming the wolf is still listed as an endangered species by the USFWS.

Among other things, the two sides can't agree on how many breeding pairs of wolves are adequate for a "recovered" wolf population. The Wyoming Game and Fish has "massaged" their wolf management plan numerous times to try and satisfy the feds, and more importantly, the enviromentalist groups from the Jackson area that have considerable political clout.

See a short on what seems to me a complicated issue here: http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2009 ... swolfl.htm

In the interim, some livestock owners and big game hunters are using their own wolf management plan.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Thanks much for all the info and links (Gary/The Naturalist), will do some reading this weekend. Since I am moving to Montana soon, would like to know what I am getting into :mrgreen:


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Dang........forgot, you too Goob! You know how it is when you get our age, the mind in the third thing to go....or is it the second? :shock:


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Looks like one more unit in Idaho has reached the harvest objective. The Dworshak-Elk City unit in the central panhandle had its 18th wolf killed this week. Statewide in Idaho, that is 108/220 so far. Still only 3 killed (reported) in the Salmon unit - with harvest goal of 16. Hmmmmm. Seems pretty low. I'm wondering how many "big coyotes" have been killed in that unit this fall during the deer/elk season.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

I would venture to say there have been a "few" taken out, given the state of mind of most deer/elk hunters with regards to the wolf...


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Its been a couple of weeks since we talked much about it. The Idaho wolf harvest is now at 117 of the 220 objective. And most of the big game hunts are wrapping up. The wolf season is open until March 31, or until harvest objective is met in the 9 remaining units. It'll be interesting to see how it goes over the winter - as herds move into winter ranges, and the wolves follow. 

I wonder - and I'll throw this out there. Idaho set the harvest objective at 220. I think when they did that, it was assumed that it would be met. But what if it isn't? What does that mean? Does it mean the wolf "problem" isn't as bad as perceived? Does it only mean they are harder to hunt that initially thought? Will the unfilled tags carry over into next year? Will they change the harvest objectives next year and if so, make them bigger/smaller? 

Remember - the 220 is not the number of tags sold. They sold tens of thousands of tags. That is the number of wolves they wanted harvested. So it isn't like a normal LE hunt with 220 hunters. Thousands of hunters have been after these things since the season opened in September. Like I said - I think this is quite interesting to watch what is going on and how things will continue to evolve with this.


----------



## cklspencer (Jun 25, 2009)

Thanks for keeping us up to date.


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

No stupid animals---------- wait for the snow- once it arrives I think you see things move at a much faster pace


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

> by Packfish on Dec 03, '09, 3:32
> 
> No stupid animals---------- wait for the snow- once it arrives I think you see things move at a much faster pace


I would tend to agree with statement. What I find strange is that the largest unit in Idaho has had 0 kills registered thus far, even though the limit is only 5! (As of Dec 4)

This is pretty interesting to follow, thanks for getting the info out there Gary. :mrgreen:


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The Southern Unit is the largest unit but not real great habitat. This unit doesn't have the mountain terrain nearly what the other units have. Not all the great timbered hillsides and all that. Lots and lots of farm land, and all the Snake River plains. I'm more surprised there is even a harvest objective, more than I am that they haven't reported any kills.


----------



## fyfcalls (Dec 13, 2008)

The only good wolf is a dead wolf!!!

Eradicate don't Litigate!!!


----------



## fyfcalls (Dec 13, 2008)

There is a reason the Lewis and Clark and the western expeditions shot them up!!


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

:roll:


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

One more unit in Idaho reached harvest objective - the Southern Mountains. This is an interesting unit, in that it takes in the Lost River Range - Mount Borah area. This is the unit I grew up hunting elk. It also takes in quite a bit of the East Fork of the Salmon River drainage, and much of the White Clouds. This used to be a huge area for elk back in the 80s. Thousands of them. Since the wolf introduction, the herd has been pretty much wiped out. This area only had a harvest objective of 10 wolves, which kind of surprised me but so be it. This is also the unit where a great share of the livestock depredations have happened because of the overlap of grazing areas, ranches, and the back-country. As bad as the interactions have been, I kind of figured the harvest in this unit would have been two to three times higher.

Statewide now, five units have been closed. 139/220 wolves have been harvested. And 52 of the remaining harvest are in the three most remote units in the state. And once winter sets in, there is very little human presence in these backcountry areas - Middle Fork, Selway, and Sawtooth. So I don't know if the harvest objective will (can) be met in these units. It will be interesting to watch. These are also areas where locals claim, always had wolves.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

Kill em All! I will not rest until EVERY Wolf in the lower 48 has been exterminated!


----------



## Elk Addict (Sep 17, 2007)

Great post elk22,

That has been tried before in the early 1900's when they put a bounty on wolves, but the wolves keep reinhabiting the lower 48 on their own. You are going to be one tired guy when you can't get any rest because you'll NEVER eliminate all of the wolves. I don't agree with everything that the environmentalists have done in this wolf issue, but I think that the anti-wolf people are just as bad as the pro-wolf people and they both deal in half truths that keep the whole issue stirred up. 

Have you ever tried to truly understand such things as carrying capacity and an ecosystem? The wolves and elk seemed to be doing just fine before all the settlers came out here and messed with the balance that was in place. If your hypothesis was correct about the wolves killing off all the elk, then it seems to me we wouldn't have even known what an elk was, because the wolves would have killed them off long before man came on the scene. It's statements like yours that will keep the wolf advocates in the court rooms fighting to keep people from exterminating all the wolves. Face it, you are your own worst enemy...


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

I have no issue with a small manageable wolf population, there has to be some middle ground between the extremist (aka Elk22 :mrgreen: :wink: and PETA). I think these hunts are a great thing to keep the wolves under control, there is nothing natural about our current ecosystem. 

Elk Addict, I understand your carry capacity argument, but what you are neglecting is hunters/humans are now part of that predator equation. Wolves, bear, coyotes, and other predators are in direct competition with hunters. I don't think predators should be eradicated, but I think they need to be controlled. Carry capacity theories work well in an unaltered/untouched situation, which isn't anything like we have now.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

jahan said:


> (aka Elk22 :mrgreen: :wink: and PETA)


I am ok as long as I am at one extreme and they are at the other. 



Elk Addict said:


> Great post elk22,
> 
> Face it, you are your own worst enemy...


Which line am I supposed to believe?
Obviously some one has their knickers in a twist or maybe I just forgot to put a green cheesy grin guy after my post. :mrgreen: I don't want them ALL dead.........just the ones in the lower 48. :mrgreen: I am still looking for the idiot that convinced the nation to transplant wolves back in. I'll bet that he is in the same party as our current president.

Seriously, I agree with wolves and Elk co existing but I would much rather have me in the position of the Wolf. I think that we managed the Elk numbers much better than the wolves ever did.

I wouldnt care if we had 222 wolves as long as they were ALL male or ALL female. :mrgreen:


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The other part of the equation is that humans have always been able to hunt and kill wolves. Pre-european humans killed wolves regularly. The issue with the wolves in central Idaho is that there were no predators on the wolves. That has been restored. And if you'll read this whole thread - its actually a pretty good discussion regarding how the wolf behavior may/may not change in Idaho and Montana as they too become hunted. I think in the case of Idaho, they have been a much more difficult game animal than anticipated. And I am also guessing the difficulty will only increase through more hunting seasons.

I grew up in the middle of what has become "wolf central." The deer and elk herds I used to hunt have been decimated. Yet I still am watching this hunting season VERY closely to see how things happen, how they change, and with a hope that herds can recover as wolf populations are kept a bit more in check. I really don't know if this experiment will work or not. I really don't know what will happen as the effort to have two dominant predators in the system is extended. I am very interested though. Very interested in deed.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Elkaddict, I believe people like Elk22 know about carrying capacity, but I believe man can manage elk numbers better than wolves do. Man is more selective and we issue out a certain number of tags because we only want to harvest X number of elk. Wolves on the other hand are more brutal on the elk population, and you will see the Yellowstone elk population crash in your lifetime. It will take years to build the herd back up to the carrying capacity before wolves were introduced to Yellowstone. Even in Jackson Hole some DWR officials have said they are seeing fewer and fewer calves. This is not good for the future of the elk population. 

The lower 48 states don't have large tracks of land where the Canadian wolf can live without a lot of conflicts with man. The habitat has changed a lot to where wolves really won't have a chance to really survive.

BTW elk addict wolves are a lot easier to kill than coyotes. Man pretty much wiped out the wolf population.

MAN is also a predator because we eat red meat. Man is part of the ecosystem.

Man kills wolves like wolves kill coyotes like coyotes kill fox. Man is the top dog.


----------



## Elk Addict (Sep 17, 2007)

Coyoteslayer,

Just another example of man having grandiose ideas and thinking we know what is best for the environment and the ecosystem. All so we can justify killing animals when and where we want. Your beliefs are short sighted because they coincide with your desire to hunt and kill elk. I also share that desire, but I am realistic enough to understand that we are but a small piece of the ecosystem.

The problem is the Northern Yellowstone elk population will probably never go back to where it was prior to the wolf re-introduction of 1995. Nor should it. The elk were way over their carrying capacity and were forced to exit the park in droves which fueled the outfitters and "hunters" killing lots of elk that were little more than cattle being led to the slaughter. The herd has come down to even below the carrying capacity of the land, but that can't entirely be blamed on wolves. There were some other factors that biologists have identified which have led to the decrease in elk numbers. 

I don't expect everyone to agree with me on this, nor do I want you to. What I am trying to say is that the wolf is back in the ecosystem and we as hunters and stewards of the land need to find a balance in how we deal with them. The advocates who demand ESA protection of the wolves are wrong, as are the people call for their extermination. That is all I hope we gain from this discussion, a realization that we need to look at both sides of the debate, get informed on the actual issue, and then work to manage the wolf and elk populations for the benefit of all. Not just man... My two cents on the issue, for what they are worth.

On the plus side for us hunters, there is another species for us to control through ethical hunting methods.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

YNP is a totally different thing to me than the areas in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho that have the wolves. Human hunters do not shoot elk in Yellowstone. Though, much of the Yellowstone herds have been managed for decades with hunting as the elk moved out of the park in the winter. But that aside, YNP is something different than central Idaho, the Selway, Bitterroot, and Frank Church wilderness areas where ranching and hunting are very much interrelated as parts of the ecosystem for the last 200 years.


----------



## Elk Addict (Sep 17, 2007)

GaryFish I agree with you that YNP is completely separate than the other areas, I was just answering the comments made by CS about the Yellowstone herd and the affect on hunting up there. Having grown up in northwest Montana and hunted the Cabinet Mountain Wilderness as a kid, I hunted in areas where there were wolves and grizzlies before any attempts were made to reintroduce them.

I also understand ranchers concerns about wolves and if they can confirm wolf kills on livestock then those wolves need to be eliminated. My point is that unless both sides give a little we will be stuck with the status quo, which is not beneficial to anyone wolves, elk, or humans. I appreciate the discussion on this issue and hopefully I haven't offended anyone. Try to remember that the ecosystem had been in a balanced existence long before us humans were on the scene. Now we need to find a new balance point for everyone who has a stake in this.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Like cancer.......


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

elk addict - I like the discussion as well. And as much as I am not a wolf-guy, I do find the entire situation incredibly fascinating as a study not only in wildlife biology, but in human sociology as it relates. There have been no variables/issues/concerns more polarizing in the world of wildlife mangement in my lifetime, than the wolf introduction of the mid 90s. And this, the first year of legalized hunting, I find it very interesting to watch and learn as for the very first time in the wolf game, the rules have changed significantly. 

BTW - count as of today in Idaho - 141 down, 79 left to go by the end of March. 52 remaining harvest quota are in the most remote parts of Idaho. I seriously wonder what IFGD is going to do if/when the harvest objective is not met in these units? Did they consider that? I am guessing they didn't, because they already extended the season from Dec. 31, to March 31, to ensure higher harvest rates. Pretty interesting to me for perhaps the most hunted big game animal in the state, and now a six month season. That leaves a ton of questions I don't know if IFGD was prepare to deal with.

If they are so hard to hunt, can they effectively be managed that way?
Is the population NOT what we thought it was? 
Was the harvest objective too high, and should it be lowered?
Have the wolves changed behavior now that they are being hunted? 
Is one season enough to even guess at that?
Were too many killed, pushing control back to USFWS?
What will the short, mid, and long term impacts be?


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Elk Addict said:


> .... Try to remember that the ecosystem had been in a balanced existence long before us humans were on the scene.


Please explain this sentence.

What is this balanced ecosystem that man was not apart of? Is it the same system that removed the Woolly Mammoths and such?


----------



## BugleB (Sep 24, 2008)

I know a guy that went to northern Montana to hunt whitetails. He bought a $300 wolf tag and they close the season in there area where he was hunting the day before he arrived. I'm sure Montana appreciates his $300 donation very much, but he doesn't. The deer and elk herds are being decimated in that area. He saw several wolves that he would have loved to thin out if the season was still opened after he arrived. 

Let's face reality for just one moment. Wolves are not a threatened or endangered species, never have been, and never will be. The wolf huggers just wanted a closer place to go and listen to them howl than Canada or Alaska. And of course wolves will eventually eliminate enough "surplus" big game that human hunters will no longer be needed or allowed. That plays right into the hands of the animal huggers with their ideas of nature in "balance" which really just means enough predators to eliminate any need of human hunters. That is their final goal. 

I agree that there is no need for them in the lower 48 and reintroducing them was the biggest big game blunder ever made by mankind.

How long would we tolerate it if the government decided to have 1,000 breeding pairs of humans that could hunt big game year around, take as many animals as they could kill and only be required to take whatever part of the meat the they wanted and leave the rest to rot, just as the wolves are allowed to do.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Coyoteslayer,
> 
> Just another example of man having grandiose ideas and thinking we know what is best for the environment and the ecosystem. All so we can justify killing animals when and where we want. Your beliefs are short sighted because they coincide with your desire to hunt and kill elk. I also share that desire, but I am realistic enough to understand that we are but a small piece of the ecosystem.
> 
> The problem is the Northern Yellowstone elk population will probably never go back to where it was prior to the wolf re-introduction of 1995. Nor should it. The elk were way over their carrying capacity and were forced to exit the park in droves which fueled the outfitters and "hunters" killing lots of elk that were little more than cattle being led to the slaughter. The herd has come down to even below the carrying capacity of the land, but that can't entirely be blamed on wolves. There were some other factors that biologists have identified which have led to the decrease in elk numbers.


The only reason elk were as high as they were is because MAN isn't allowed to regulate the elk numbers in the park. I don't see anything wrong with killing surplus elk because all the delicious elk meat was used by hunters. I also don't consider it a slaughter as you seem to view it. The biggest reason why elk have declined in Yellowstone is because of wolves. I'm also fine with wolves in the park. All animals in the park are protected, but once a wolf leaves the park then it should be treated like any of predator. It's fair game. That my friend is the circle of life.

Elk Addict You are very short-sighted when it comes to the impact that wolves are having on elk. You let your wolf loving feelings blind you from the truth.

You're more of a wolf addict than a Elk addict. I'm just saying :wink:


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

CS - he does have a pretty valid point on the elk slaughters that used to occur outside YNP prior to wolf introduction in the middle 90s. The numbers of elk harvested on the Gardiner, Montana unit were around 2,000 annually. The hunt was an interesting one, in that if you drew a tag, you were not given a date to hunt until the elk started migrating out of the park. Then you'd get a phone call and be told you had Thursday through Monday of the next week to go and get your elk. Hunters were staggered so there weren't 2,000 rifles showing up on one weekend. The elk would concentrate and it was an absolute circus. Hunters were briefed on the rules - "first knife in the downed elk claims it," all sorts of stuff went on. It was truly an elk slaughter - one that several friends participated in, and vowed to NEVER do again. In fact, two of my friend were so turned off by it all, they gave up hunting all together. It made the Deseret L&L cow hunts look like backcountry man vs. nature experiences. 

And the Flat Creek hunts in Wyoming at the refuge in Jackson Hole were even worse. They were worse than the Antelope Island Bison hunts for fair chase. There, refuge managers would take you out on the feeding sleds and you'd get to shoot one from the sled. Picture that kind of hunt at Hardware Ranch! 

But again - YNP is a totally different deal with the wolves than the areas in Central Idaho and west central Montana where cattle and sheep grazing are part of the equation, as well as deer and elk hunting. Totally different deals all together.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

On the Montana wolf thing - yesterday the Montana FWP board voted to close the Gardiner elk hunt all together. The Gardiner hunt had been the may way of controlling the northern YNP elk herds. At its peak, 2,000 cow tags were given for a season, with harvest nearing 99%. The Northern YNP herd has dropped so low now, that in 2010, Montana FWP will close the cow elk hunt all together. The Northern YNP herd has dropped to 1/5 of its historic numbers - which granted, were really out of whack. But still - wolves within YNP have had a HUGE impact on elk numbers no matter how you look at it. 

As for the Idaho update - The Middle Fork unit has finally been closed - reaching harvest objective of 17 wolves. For the state, 156/220 have been harvested. Most remaining tags are in the most remote units - Lolo (16 left), Selway (9), and Sawtooth (19). The season will remain open until March 31. This has been a fairly mild winter in Idaho, as with Utah. At this point as days are getting longer and south-facing hillsides are melting, I wonder if they will meet harvest in these remaining units.

I've said it before - I really wonder what they do if they DON'T meet full harvest. That opens up so many questions. Are the wolves in Idaho not as plentiful as they thought? Was the objective too high in these units? Are these areas just too remote? Are Idaho hunters just too inept to hunt and kill wolves? How will packs change as wolves are taken out? Did they take out too many? Did they not take out enough?

All interesting questions.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

Thanks for the read. It will be interesting to see what comes of the lack of harvest on these other units. I know that the areas that are still open are very rugged. Hopefully there are still hunters out hunting them.
My question is, are the elk and deer in these remote areas not on winter range or is the snow just lacking so much that they are not accessible? Too bad they won't let them fly it. :|


----------



## Elk Addict (Sep 17, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > Coyoteslayer,
> >
> > The only reason elk were as high as they were is because MAN isn't allowed to regulate the elk numbers in the park. I don't see anything wrong with killing surplus elk because all the delicious elk meat was used by hunters. I also don't consider it a slaughter as you seem to view it. The biggest reason why elk have declined in Yellowstone is because of wolves. I'm also fine with wolves in the park. All animals in the park are protected, but once a wolf leaves the park then it should be treated like any of predator. It's fair game. That my friend is the circle of life.
> >
> > ...


CS,

You are the one who is very short sighted IMHO and don't seem to grasp what I am saying. I have worked closely with the biologists in the park who are way more knowledgable than either you or I on what is affecting the elk population in the Northern Yellowstone ecosystem. I don't love wolves anymore than I love elk. I just see them as a natural part of the ecosystem. I am not against wolf management and see the wolf hunts as the next step in the plan to reintroduce wolves into Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. I also understand the impact that wolves can have on elk and the current studies being done will help us make the right calls on how many wolves can be tolerated. Like GaryFish, I too am interested in seeing how this hunt will affect the wolf population.

Having grown up in northern Montana, I dealt with many different types of predators. Black bears, grizzly bears, coyotes, and yes even wolves. If you do your research the wolves have been in northern Montana a long time before 1995 and the packs up there were not part of the reintroduction they just naturally migrated down from Canada. Even if man hadn't done the reintroduction the wilderness areas in Montana and Idaho would still be dealing with wolves now or in the very near future. I'm just saying...


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Interesting article in the Great Falls, Montana paper today about the wolf populations there. In spite of hunters killing 72 wolves, and wildlife officials culling another 70 this past year, the total wolf population grew by 4% over this time last year. 
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/articl ... but-slowly

Here is the presser from Montana FWP about the wolf population studies.
http://fwp.mt.gov/news/article.html?act ... le&id=9009


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Montana and now Idaho wolf hunt closed*

Well, Idaho's wolf hunt closed last week. Unlike Montana, Idaho did not meet their harvest objective. Some interesting facts about Idaho's hunt:
-183 wolves taken - out of the harvest objective of 220.
-An additional 138 were culled by wildlife officials due to livestock depredation.
-Most "unfilled" in any one unit was the Lolo unit - Where only 13 of the objective 27 were harvested.
-The Sawtooth unit had 49 wolves harvested of the 55 objective - the highest harvest and objective of any unit. 
-Idaho sold 31,400 wolf tags, with only 183 hunters taking a wolf. That is less than one half of one percent of the hunters got a wolf after a six-month. 
Press release on close of season is at: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/apps/relea ... ewsID=5375

My thoughts are that Idaho has some serious "oh crap" things to deal with compared to Montana right now.

I think Montana can claim victory on their wolf hunt. They set a more reasonable harvest objective - 75 - and reached that (actually closed season at 73 kills) and also had 120 cullings by game officials, so 195 wolves killed. In spite of that, Montana experienced a 4% growth in wolf population. They showed that they can manage a wolf hunting season, AND maintain stable populations. This will bode well for them in maintaining state control.

I'm not sure what this means for Idaho. They fell FAR short of their overall objective of 220. But on a unit by unit basis, only the Lolo unit - perhaps the most rugged and remote of them all, was far short of the unit objective. But by not coming close to the statewide objective, even after extending the season by three months, I think leaves several questions. Are there not as many wolves as they thought? Are they not in every backyard and the problem everyone perceived them to be? If they were so rampant, why were they not able to kill as many as projected? Total counts coming out of winter are not out for Idaho yet, so it is not known what the overall impact will be to the wolf populations. Until those numbers are out, it will be hard to tell if Idaho has shown what Montana has shown - they can hunt them while keeping populations stable - the key component of maintaining state control.


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

We had killed essentially all the terrorists in Iraq. I wonder if the same sctivists have reinetsted them, like they did with the wolves. An unusually high number of good Iraqis have been killed lately. The terrorists are now comming from Iran, like the wolves from Canada. Looks suspicious to me


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

R all the wolves dead? Then the objective aint been met!


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

I have a hunch Idaho has a pretty good handel on how many wolves inhabited the state before the hunt season began. Maybe the critters are just a LOT harder to hunt in the more inaccesible or rugged places... :?: Think you are right though Gary, Idaho may have some things to seriously ponder.


----------

