# So.....this just happened.



## klbzdad

Wolves Back Under Federal Protection In Wyoming

Do I need to point out what "conservation group" was responsible for forcing the other two states to distance themselves from Wyoming? -O,-


----------



## 30-06-hunter

I just called my brother to fill him in, he is moving his family down to South Dakota less than an hour from the Wyoming border next week.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

30-06-hunter said:


> I just called my brother to fill him in, he is moving his family down to South Dakota less than an hour from the Wyoming border next week.


what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?


----------



## wyogoob

klbzdad said:


> Wolves Back Under Federal Protection In Wyoming
> 
> Do I need to point out what "conservation group" was responsible for forcing the other two states to distance themselves from Wyoming? -O,-


no

.


----------



## lunkerhunter2

So effing stupid. Who the hell do these morons in DC think they are? Pull your collective heads out of your asses or the sand and then go hang yourselves. This has got to be the biggest joke next to that idiot they call the president.:x


----------



## stillhunterman

It's going to be interesting to watch the political posturing/maneuvering that will take place in the following weeks. It will also be interesting to follow up on the legal analysis of this decision and the direction it may take. I'm also sure there will be many glazed over eyeballs with excessive drooling over the renewal of the 'cash cow' possibilities on both sides of the fence. What a shame wildlife has to be put into such a position. Human nature I suppose.


----------



## Lonetree

Politics: Two states that had Republican governors, MT and ID, drafted plans that were approved. WY had a Dem governor that would not budge on WY's wolf plan. Eventually the current federal administration signed off on WY's plan, despite policy or science.

You can slice the politics how ever you like, its just money, power, peoples feelings, and fiefdoms. 

Ultimately WY's plan does not address scientific sustainability like ID's and MT's. And whether we are talking about deer, wolves, elk, or bigfoot, its sound science that should be at the core of management decisions. Doesn't matter if we are talking about Defenders, or SFW, its nothing but politics and money. The two things that have proven over and over again to be central to the demise of wildlife and hunting. 

Who would be opposed to WY, adapting a plan similar to MT or ID?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/Pr...lverLiningsinWyomingWolfManagementRuling.aspx


----------



## LostLouisianian

Shoot, shovel & shut up.


----------



## Lonetree

LostLouisianian said:


> Shoot, shovel & shut up.


Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

LostLouisianian said:


> Shoot, shovel & shut up.


What purpose does that serve? Science? No. Conservation? No

How does wildlife conservation benefit at all with that approach?


----------



## Bax*

This really seems to be pretty hush hush and swept quietly under the rug.

I havent seen much on this outside a few obscure news sites.


----------



## Lonetree

SSS: Works great when the deer and elk are where some people don't want them to be. Harder to bury elk, but I watched 5 go in hole back in the late '80s with the help of a back hoe. They won't be eating that guys hay anymore.


----------



## Lonetree

Bax* said:


> This really seems to be pretty hush hush and swept quietly under the rug.
> 
> I havent seen much on this outside a few obscure news sites.


Yeah, probably part of the bigger conspiracy?


----------



## PBH

Mr Muleskinner said:


> what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?


It's the Syndicate. We all have a share. (just don't buy the Egyptian cotton)


----------



## Bax*

Lonetree said:


> Yeah, probably part of the bigger conspiracy?


I wont jump on that train but I do find it interesting to hear what the media chooses to report on.


----------



## GaryFish

I saw the story on half a dozen news sites before the link was posted here.


----------



## Bax*

GaryFish said:


> I saw the story on half a dozen news sites before the link was posted here.


Well I only get my news from my drunk uncle. And he knew nothing of it :mrgreen:


----------



## wyogoob

Lonetree said:


> Politics: Two states that had Republican governors, MT and ID, drafted plans that were approved. WY had a Dem governor that would not budge on WY's wolf plan. Eventually the current federal administration signed off on WY's plan, despite policy or science.
> 
> You can slice the politics how ever you like, its just money, power, peoples feelings, and fiefdoms.
> 
> Ultimately WY's plan does not address scientific sustainability like ID's and MT's. And whether we are talking about deer, wolves, elk, or bigfoot, its sound science that should be at the core of management decisions. Doesn't matter if we are talking about Defenders, or SFW, its nothing but politics and money. The two things that have proven over and over again to be central to the demise of wildlife and hunting.
> 
> Who would be opposed to WY, adapting a plan similar to MT or ID?


That is pretty much how it goes. The WY wolf plan was legally contested the day it was passed. The "shoot on sight" part of the plan is the point of contention. That part of the plan will be revised and life will go on for us in WY...but maybe not for all the wolf experts from out of state who know little about wolves but have turned the whole thing into an "us against them" thing.

The few wolves that are in Wyoming (207 outside Yellowstone NP) thank the Court for their decision and the WY Game and Fish is thankful for all the exposure they are getting at the moment. Wolf license sales for the first year of the hunt: 4,500; second year, 2,100.

good grief

.


----------



## OKEE

Life would be different if wolves fed on fat politicians.


----------



## redleg

It took our ancesters al long time to get rid of all the wolves the first time. like getting rid of smallpox and polio. but they did it and we will have to do it with wolves again.
Don't expect any help from the government until after it destroys itself financially and is reorganized.


----------



## wyogoob

OK, it looks like the Wyoming wolf plan was not "legally binding". Wyoming's Governor is pushing thru an administrative rule to make the plan acceptable to the Court...hopefully before the October 1st Wyoming Trophy Wolf hunt opener when thousands, perhaps millions, of mostly non-resident anti-government outdoorsman from Utah will load up there 4-wheelers and head for the logging roads of Big and Wonderful Wyoming.

There is no mention of the "shoot on sight" part of the Wyoming wolf plan (outside the Wolf Trophy Area) from the Governor's office. 

Note: The Governor's office claims there's 197 wolves outside YNP. I'm standing by the 199 number. It goes without saying the Governor is misinformed, spends little time on outdoor forums.

.


----------



## wyogoob

Lonetree said:


> Politics: Two states that had Republican governors, MT and ID, drafted plans that were approved. WY had a Dem governor that would not budge on WY's wolf plan. Eventually the current federal administration signed off on WY's plan, despite policy or science.
> 
> You can slice the politics how ever you like, its just money, power, peoples feelings, and fiefdoms.
> 
> Ultimately WY's plan does not address scientific sustainability like ID's and MT's. And whether we are talking about deer, wolves, elk, or bigfoot, its sound science that should be at the core of management decisions. Doesn't matter if we are talking about Defenders, or SFW, its nothing but politics and money. The two things that have proven over and over again to be central to the demise of wildlife and hunting.
> 
> Who would be opposed to WY, adapting a plan similar to MT or ID?


Many, including myself, feel this has been a problem with Wyoming's Wolf Plan(s) all along. Not that any of Wyoming's plans were bad, just that they didn't want an Idaho/Montana "carbon copy" plan. That's dumb. The (very similar) Idaho and Montana plans went first; were adjusted, compromised, hammered out in court and finally made all the judicial reviews. So why couldn't Wyoming just pattern their plan after our neighbor's? Answer: in-state politics, the "us vs them" mentality, lobbying groups, egos mostly...just like what Lonetree alluded to.

The whole thing is a political joke. There's less than 200 wolves in Wyoming outside the Park. Good grief, Wisconsin has more wolves than that in one county! More elk, cattle, and sheep get killed by vehicles than are taken by wolves in Wyoming. Yellowstone was over-capacity with 19,000 elk and hunting was forbidden. So they put some wolves in the Park and they trimmed the herd considerably. The wolves multiplied, left the Park and spread out.....duh. Yet now, in spite of the wolves, elk numbers in western Wyoming are increasing or steady. A resident can easily obtain, and harvest, two elk a year. Southwest Wyoming moose are starting to rebound after a nasty fight with parasites. And finally Wyoming has a plan, including a trophy hunt, to manage wolf numbers (maintain a population of 100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs minimum) that's working well. The plan will continue to be tweaked, maybe molded into something I don't approve of. So goes a democracy, the minority, hunters in this case, don't always get what they want.

.


----------



## Iron Bear

Really can't we just ignore that wolf kill deer elk and moose. And then when faced with the fact they kill a whole bunch. Tell ourselves things like its natural, they keep the herds healthy or those deer elk and moose would have just died anyway. And if you perceive that there are less deer elk or moose first tell yourself, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. You haven't been properly trained to classify and estimate ungulate populations. That you were probably to close to a road to really see lots of game and the real reason you see less game is weather and habitat.


----------



## Lonetree

Iron Bear said:


> Really can't we just ignore that wolf kill deer elk and moose. And then when faced with the fact they kill a whole bunch. Tell ourselves things like its natural, they keep the herds healthy or those deer elk and moose would have just died anyway. And if you perceive that there are less deer elk or moose first tell yourself, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. You haven't been properly trained to classify and estimate ungulate populations. That you were probably to close to a road to really see lots of game and the real reason you see less game is weather and habitat.


There are a lot less deer, elk, and moose. People like you just don't know why.

Please post up your studies. There have been several done, include those not published yet(I've read one of them). Not a single one has shown that wolves are responsible for elk declines. And I know, everyone likes to point to Yellowstone and the Lolo zone. Both of which were in decline, sharply I might add, prior to wolf reintro.

Here is a piece on the Lolo zone: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/27-lolo-zone-id/

And Yellowstone ungulates started expressing severe epigenetically induced malformations prior to wolves landing. None of the science can point the finger at wolves for these things, and trust me, they have tried. http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/23-yellowstone-national-park/

IB, You are not educated on the subject matter whether we are talking about on paper, or in the field. And you demonstrate this to all of us, all the time. While not being able to demonstrate your claims, by anything other than your unsupported feelings on the matter.

I saw a gun kill a deer.....I think we need to get rid of all of them, or at least severely reduce them.


----------



## longbow

redleg said:


> It took our ancesters al long time to get rid of all the wolves the first time. like getting rid of smallpox and polio. but they did it and we will have to do it with wolves again.
> Don't expect any help from the government until after it destroys itself financially and is reorganized.


No sir Mr. redleg. As a hardhore ungulate hunter and wolf hunter I must respectfully disagree. I've shot wolf and someday I hope to do it again, but I love having them around and there is a place for them in our ecosystem. I agree there is too many of them in some places and it pains me to see the decline of elk in my favorite elk places in Idaho but I would really hate to see the wolves completely gone from those areas. Again, I am politely disagreeing with you.


----------



## wyogoob

I elk hunt Wyoming's Greys River area, nearly 35 years, on foot, backpacking, and sometimes, God forbid, on the back of farm animals. It was, and still is, some of the best deer and elk country on the planet and home to a bajillion domestic cows and sheep. The wolves moved in the 2000's and put a significant dent in the elk herd and drove the livestock people crazy.

For a number of years the wolves had their way with "my elk" and wolf howls replaced bugles in the middle of the night as I lay on the ground under the stars, only a bow and arrow for protection from the devil-dogs. ha ha ha Suddenly, oddly, the wolves disappeared and then elk herd quickly recovered and as good as ever. How did that happen? SSS, shortened cow/calf seasons, and good summer rains is my guess.

In a way I kinda miss them.


----------



## Lonetree

wyogoob said:


> I elk hunt Wyoming's Greys River area, nearly 35 years, on foot, backpacking, and sometimes, God forbid, on the back of farm animals. It was, and still is, some of the best deer and elk country on the planet and home to a bajillion domestic cows and sheep. The wolves moved in the 2000's and put a significant dent in the elk herd and drove the livestock people crazy.
> 
> For a number of years the wolves had their way with "my elk" and wolf howls replaced bugles in the middle of the night as I lay on the ground under the stars, only a bow and arrow for protection from the devil-dogs. ha ha ha Suddenly, oddly, the wolves disappeared and then elk herd quickly recovered and as good as ever. How did that happen? SSS, shortened cow/calf seasons, and good summer rains is my guess.
> 
> In a way I kinda miss them.


Greys river is no different than the Lolo zone, just winter range treatments verses forest practices: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/29-national-elk-refuge-wy/

Edit: You will see increased predation, and attempted predation in animals that have suppressed immune systems. Or that are other wise compromised, sore feet, etc. This is the sick and weak factor in predator prey relationships that some people don't seem to understand.


----------



## Iron Bear

Alright I guess I'll take my uneducated butt elsewhere. 

Since I don't substantiate my viewpoint with studies. Predation is universal non factor and should be ignored. 

Have a good day gentlemen.


----------



## Lonetree

Its a factor, you just don't understand its role, let a lone the bigger picture. I put up a few days worth of reading material, its raining...... I understand your concern about predation to be that of a lack of other wildlife, which affects us as hunters. I understand that part of the concern. Read up, after shooting dogs for years, I did. Its a much bigger picture than just some lions and deer in Utah.

Edit: And before anyone gives me **** about being a desk jockey, I can take you out in the field and show you hands on.


----------



## stillhunterman

LostLouisianian said:


> Shoot, shovel & shut up.


Never much cared for poaching or poachers.


----------



## Springville Shooter

stillhunterman said:


> Never much cared for poaching or poachers.


Have Lonetree tell you about what's happening with MT Lions in California under the moratorium. Have him tell you who is harming the Lions more.....those who poach a few, or those who turn a blind eye to any kind of management. Prey species have adapted somewhat, but the lions are all screwed up. They are starving to death, getting killed by wardens in city parks, etc. and yes, they chew on someone once in a while too.

I don't generally condone lawlessness, but when does the "Boston Tea Party" justification take effect?-------SS


----------



## Lonetree

Springville Shooter said:


> Have Lonetree tell you about what's happening with MT Lions in California under the moratorium. Have him tell you who is harming the Lions more.....those who poach a few, or those who turn a blind eye to any kind of management. Prey species have adapted somewhat, but the lions are all screwed up. They are starving to death, getting killed by wardens in city parks, etc. and yes, they chew on someone once in a while too.
> 
> I don't generally condone lawlessness, but when does the "Boston Tea Party" justification take effect?-------SS


While I disagree with CA lion "management", they still kill lions, and the population did not explode, after the moratorium. It should be scientifically sound management, not policy based on how the general public feels about things, but then again, the same goes for our deer management in Utah.

CA lion management is bad policy in that hunting is not used as the management tool, and it is a huge waste of money. Edit: And was implemented by a ballot initiative, ie. a vote, based on peoples feelings, not any science. Technically, it is not any kind of "management", but rather the will of the people, based on their feelings about hunting. Killing is still used as a management tool. It is a classic example of what happens, when policy is allowed to be made with out sound science. There is absolutely nothing that says that any other hunting could not go the same way. And the more we set that precedent(socially engineered management) the easier it is for those kinds of things to happen. 

As for lions in city parks, look at Utah this year and the number of lions that have been "apprehended" in urban areas. Partly for comparison, but I bring it up because we saw the same thing unfold in the early '90s as well.

SSS vs. Boston, One mans freedom fight is another mans terrorism. If it could be demonstrated that wolves were indeed the cause of big game declines, and there were management plans that were in place, that were not supported by the NAMWC, such as CA lions, then yeah you could make a case for poaching. I could make one just as strong, or stronger to SSS mountain goats in Utah.

MT, ID, and WY have done the studies in an attempt to show that wolf predation is the cause of elk declines, and the science just does not support that case. I worked with one of the researchers that conducted one of these studies. He is no greeny, he grew up an elk hunter. The goal of the study was to show that wolves were responsible for elk declines, that's not what the data showed.

Like I mentioned before, people like to point to YNP, and Lolo as the shining examples of wolves being the cause of some elk declines. It does not hold water, non of the studies support that assertion, and the reality on the ground with regard to the health of these particular elk, does not support wolves being the cause of these elk declines.

Read these two pages: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/27-lolo-zone-id/ http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/23-yellowstone-national-park/ RMEF routinely admits that there _may_ be a "habitat" problem that _may_ need to be looked at. They know better, but just like defenders and the Sierra club, they make too much money on the wolf issue.

No different than most of our wildlife management problems in the West. The incentive structure to implement science based management, has been corrupted. Just like in CA.


----------



## Iron Bear

You don't believe cougar management anywhere in the west is suppressing their numbers do you? I don't have a study to back it up. (Though it may exists I don't care) I certain nobody has a cougar management plan that cuts their population substantially below capacity. The reason populations did not explode in Cali after the moratorium is because today cougar are already managed at or near capacity. 

How many cougar do we kill in Utah? Does that number suppress the population number? Could we have more cougar in Utah right now? If so how? What are the limiting factors to a cougar population?


----------



## Lonetree

Iron Bear said:


> You don't believe cougar management anywhere in the west is suppressing their numbers do you? I don't have a study to back it up. (Though it may exists I don't care) I certain nobody has a cougar management plan that cuts their population substantially below capacity. The reason populations did not explode in Cali after the moratorium is because today cougar are already managed at or near capacity.
> 
> How many cougar do we kill in Utah? Does that number suppress the population number? Could we have more cougar in Utah right now? If so how? What are the limiting factors to a cougar population?


IB, yes "management" is suppressing lion numbers in many places. And the more cubs and females we kill, the more that holds true.

Lion numbers are way down across the West, have been for decades, including CA.

So tell me how declining lion numbers are responsible for our declining deer?

Big game numbers across the West crashed in the early '90s, and have not recovered. The only comparison we have for declines on this kind of scale are either contemporary and explainable, like over hunting during the 1800s, or they are like pre-historic mass extinction events.

This is not a myopic unit by unit problem. Across the West we have lion management that ranges from very liberal takes, to policies like CA that do not allow hunting of lions. Yet the trend line for deer across the West holds on a down ward trend.

So please explain to us the predator prey relationship of deer across the entire West. You're still throwing ice cubes at the sun.


----------



## Lonetree

No studies required IB, just explain to us the mass collapse of wildlife across the West, that occurred 20 years ago, that we have still not even begun to recover from. Tell us how rising wolf numbers, declining lion numbers and stable coyote numbers are responsible for this. A state by state run down would be nice.


----------



## Lonetree

You can start with the winter of 1993, but remember that we had higher than current lion numbers through the '80s, and the deer rebounded fairly remarkably from the much worse winter of 1984, even with major droughts in the latter part of the '80s.


----------



## Lonetree

Or better yet, sticking to the no studies requirement. Why don't you find some lion hunters from around the west to tell us how the lion numbers are, now verses then. Maybe lion hunters might know something about lions.

Its funny, those CA voters did not have any sound science to support their ballot initiative, and subsequent vote to ban hunting of mountain lions. Seems to be a pretty common problem, that keeps having disastrous consequences for hunters.


----------



## wyogoob

Back to the original subject:

Tomorrow, Oct 1, is the start of Wyoming's Trophy Wolf hunt. So far Judge Jackson has not changed her mind. Wyoming has a hearing today to try and get the court to restart Wyoming's Wolf Management Plan. I got a nickel that says the court won't allow the revised plan.

In the meantime we are managing the wolves the best we can until they get done fooling around. good grief



.


----------



## Lonetree

I can stick to wolves.

When you say revised plan, are you referring to the 2011 revision that got WY their management, or more recent revisions?

My understanding is that the current stay and appeals revolves solely around the current 2011 agreement.


----------



## wyogoob

Lonetree said:


> I can stick to wolves.
> 
> When you say revised plan, are you referring to the 2011 revision that got WY their management, or more recent revisions?
> 
> My understanding is that the current stay and appeals revolves solely around the current 2011 agreement.


No. Sorry, "revised" is a poor adjective for this. "Adjusted" would be better.

I'm talking the current plan plus the Governor's administrative ruling made last Friday to make it legally binding. (Seems very odd the plan wasn't legally binding in the first place.)

IMO the fact that WY is not dealing with the shoot-to-kill part of the plan will go against them today.


----------



## Iron Bear

Answer my questions know it all!


----------



## Iron Bear

Iron Bear said:


> How many cougar do we kill in Utah? Does that number suppress the population number? Could we have more cougar in Utah right now? If so how? What are the limiting factors to a cougar population?


FYI predator population follow prey populations. So the relatively low number of cougar we have today is a result of there only being 300,000 deer not the other way around.


----------



## Lonetree

When we are killing cubs and females, and we are not seeing mature toms, the population is suppressed, yes.

And lion numbers have been down for decades, so by the predator control crowds logic, deer numbers should have responded to lower lion numbers and rebounded, correct? Show me the deer.

Doesn't matter how many lions we are killing in Utah, if we are talking abut mule deer, because we don't have a lion predation problem. 

You think we have a Utah lion problem. That's like thinking that putting fuel injector cleaner in your gas tank will fix your truck, because the transmission is blown. 

Lions kill deer. Yet they have not been shown to be suppressing deer numbers. And their removal has not been shown to increase deer numbers, while other factors have been shown to influence the actual population trend line. You can kill every lion and coyote in Utah, it won't bring the deer back, because that is not what has been suppressing deer numbers.

You can believe anything you want, you have a right to your opinion. The problem you have with your argument, is that it is not supported by anything other than how you feel about things that you don't fully understand.

Now answer my questions, and tell me how lions are responsible for 20 years of moose, deer, elk, trout, sage grouse, bighorn sheep, frog, sage brush, garden fairy, and pika declines? That all came on succinctly in the early '90s. That is one of the biggest problems in the current wildlife management regimes in the West, they are not comprehensive. And tying buck to doe ratios, or lions to deer "management" does not make them anymore comprehensive, or integrated, quite the contrary. 

While you are telling us more about predator prey relationships, tell us why when you supplementaly feed deer, and their population goes up, predation goes down, without any predator control?


----------



## Lonetree

wyogoob said:


> No. Sorry, "revised" is a poor adjective for this. "Adjusted" would be better.
> 
> I'm talking the current plan plus the Governor's administrative ruling made last Friday to make it legally binding. (Seems very odd the plan wasn't legally binding in the first place.)
> 
> IMO the fact that WY is not dealing with the shoot-to-kill part of the plan will go against them today.


The way I'm reading it, the plan not being legally binding was the compromise to get it passed. I am kinda surprised this did not surface sooner in a way.

I agree, I don't see it moving without quite a bit more tweeking. ID, and MTs plans read pretty solidly, with arguments against them from both sides. From a lot of different angles, including precedent setting, long term wildlife management, WY and hunters across the West can only benefit from WY adopting a plan along the lines of MT and ID.

On the ground the results will play out the same. But in a political sense, the continued refusal to adopt a sound management plan, is only going to hurt WY, and the DOI. I think the DOI holds a lot of responsibility in this. They had to have seen this coming.


----------



## Iron Bear

Lonetree said:


> Now answer my questions, and tell me how lions are responsible for 20 years of moose, deer, elk, trout, sage grouse, bighorn sheep, frog, sage brush, garden fairy, and pika declines? That all came on succinctly in the early '90s. That is one of the biggest problems in the current wildlife management regimes in the West, they are not comprehensive. And tying buck to doe ratios, or lions to deer "management" does not make them anymore comprehensive, or integrated, quite the contrary.
> 
> While you are telling us more about predator prey relationships, tell us why when you supplementaly feed deer, and their population goes up, predation goes down, without any predator control?


I don't think lions are responsible for declines from historical highs in any species other than deer and porcupine. Elk have been increasing except where wolf are. Moose are slow to reproduce so parasites and disease have probably taken there toll. In Utah the ever increased tag allotment probably is adding to the declines. I am unaware of any widespread decrease in trout populations. That seems to be a very complicated subject since we farm and transplant so many trout. Dunno. As for the bighorn I'm not well versed but I know the DWR is willing to kill off cougar to save a herd from getting munched by them. Frogs may be tied to water quality and pollution even global warming. It's my understanding amphibians are very sensitive to these things. Sage brush and sage grouse. I hope the sage grouse that I have come across were the dumb ones cause I could have killed them with rocks. Idk how them dumb bird ever made it this far. All grouse included. And I see lots of sage brush that is underutilized. I know pj has shaded out a bunch. Pica I know nothing of other than what they are. Could it be predators of all kinds are now keeping there numbers in check?

The predator has more effect on the prey than just biting it and killing it. Predator presence effects things like heart rate feeding activity and ultimately body condition. Predators disrupt birthing.

Again we could walk away from wildlife management all together and the wildlife will do just fine without our input. The only thing in wildlife that need saving is our hunting opportunities. I want to harvest a buck every yr. I want to have a choice in what buck I shoot. Not the only one I see. I can't responsibly go out and kill a deer every yr in Utah because there is 100,000 of us that wNt to do it and only 300,000 deer. Somebody harvests or kills 100,000 deer in Utah every yr. you know who. I want some of them for hunters instead. And since we can't ask predators to cut back and expect them to comply. I feel we need to kill some of them. Simple as that.

So natural predation has proven to be almost universally compensatory. What of hunter harvest? Any studies showing hunters are a limiting factor?

Or is it that when predation is at capacity then human harvest becomes additive. Tipping the balance so to speak.

So reducing natural predation would still leave hunter harvest as additive? Or are they both compensatory. Then why do we regulate hunting at all?

For Goob 

Back to the thread. If wolf predation has shown to be compensatory on elk. And you believe that to be the case. Why would you be concerned with an ESA designation for wolf? I don't get it. You just want to be able to hunt them?


----------



## GaryFish

The thing with the Wyoming wolf management plan, is it has nothing to do with wolves. It has everything to do with emotion, mis-information, and machismo, both individual and culturally. It is far more about "You can't tell me what to do" than it is about elk, moose, livestock, or wolves.


----------



## Lonetree

:mrgreen: You have not read any of the reference material I have provided. Frankly I should not give you the same courtesy.

Moose, elk, bighorns, garden fairies, etc. http://westernwildlifeecology.org/ my responses are in there.

Deer: The ultimate problem is that deer numbers have been suppressed for 20+ years. You want more deer for hunters? Guess what, so do I. You get more deer for deer hunters, by growing more deer. You grow more deer by finding out what is suppressing their ability to grow, and correcting the problem. Predation is not suppressing deer numbers.

Predation does not cause birth defects in deer: http://rutalocura.com/deer http://rutalocura.com/deer2

Predation does not cause deer testicles to shrivel up so they can't reproduce. It does not cause mineral deficiencies and imbalances.

"The predator has more effect on the prey than just biting it and killing it. Predator presence effects things like heart rate feeding activity and ultimately body condition. Predators disrupt birthing."--IB

I think I have heard that some where before. It does not hold up under scrutiny. The "pressure" exerted by predation is not sufficient. In YNP studies it was shown that wolf pressure does not significantly alter feeding behavior of elk, which poked some big wholes in a few long held beliefs. And in ID, that same line of BS was proposed for declining Lolo zone elk: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/27-lolo-zone-id/ again it does not hold up.

You want more deer? Then you have to grow more deer. To do that, you have to figure out what is suppressing their numbers, hint, its not lions. And it is not hunting. We hunt bucks almost exclusively, and we would need to reduce buck to doe ratios down to around 7B to 100D to have an effect on fecundity, so no, its not hunters either.


----------



## Lonetree

GaryFish said:


> The thing with the Wyoming wolf management plan, is it has nothing to do with wolves. It has everything to do with emotion, mis-information, and machismo, both individual and culturally. It is far more about "You can't tell me what to do" than it is about elk, moose, livestock, or wolves.


Huge! piece of the puzzle.


----------



## GaryFish

Quick side note to the wolfie thing - sort of. 
You said:


> The "pressure" exerted by predation is not sufficient. In YNP studies it was shown that wolf pressure does not significantly alter feeding behavior of elk, which poked some big wholes in a few long held beliefs.


I thought that the whole "wolves are changing the whole ecosystem of YNP" and trophic cascade theories were based on the idea that the wolfies are changing the way elk feed, allowing the riparian areas to not get over run. Are you saying that's not the case?


----------



## Lonetree

GaryFish said:


> Quick side note to the wolfie thing - sort of.
> You said:
> 
> I thought that the whole "wolves are changing the whole ecosystem of YNP" and trophic cascade theories were based on the idea that the wolfies are changing the way elk feed, allowing the riparian areas to not get over run. Are you saying that's not the case?


Yes that's what I'm saying. and 5 years ago I would have held to the trophic cascade theory.

In a nut shell, less elk meant more willows, more aspen regeneration, etc. So at least under YNP wolf to elk ratios, under the time frame of study, trophic cascade sort of fell apart. Food webs make better sense than do trophic levels.

Here is the argument for trophic cascade: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320711004046 You would need to get rid of wolves to prove this absolutely.

I love Leopold, but I think our understandings of some of his work(trophic cascade) have evolved, or need to evolve. Especially when it comes to fixing things via the same mechanism of destruction, it start to fall apart at a certain level.

Here is the argument against trophic cascade: http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2012...cascades-on-the-costs-and-benefits-of-wolves/

Throw in the application of huge amounts of chemicals, and it gets even more complicated. Since the early '90s YNP elk have expressed epigenetically induced malformations(testicular realignment?) and they were declining prior to wolves, so not only do the anti wolf folks not get credit for elk declines, the pro wolf crowd does not necessarily get to give credit to the wolf for some perceived benefits.

Typically you will find me siding with Leopold over Mech most days.


----------



## GaryFish

See, I've questioned the YNP trophic cascade of changing elk feeding behaviors because of the wolfies ever since it was first published. But wolf advocates jumped in behind it and started quoting it like it was gospel before I really felt like it got an adequate scrutiny. It nearly totally ignored the fact that 1/3 of the park experienced MASSIVE wholistic change just 7 years prior to the introduction that resulted in the most drastic ecological transformation the Park had seen in a few thousand years. That might have had just a little bit to do with chemical changes in water, soils, riparian areas, etc.... Just a little bit? Maybe?


----------



## wyogoob

GaryFish said:


> The thing with the Wyoming wolf management plan, is it has nothing to do with wolves. It has everything to do with emotion, mis-information, and machismo, both individual and culturally. It is far more about "You can't tell me what to do" than it is about elk, moose, livestock, or wolves.


ya think

2011 pre-election (2012) politics too

.


----------



## wyogoob

GaryFish said:


> See, I've questioned the YNP trophic cascade of changing elk feeding behaviors because of the wolfies ever since it was first published. But wolf advocates jumped in behind it and started quoting it like it was gospel before I really felt like it got an adequate scrutiny. It nearly totally ignored the fact that 1/3 of the park experienced MASSIVE wholistic change just 7 years prior to the introduction that resulted in the most drastic ecological transformation the Park had seen in a few thousand years. That might have had just a little bit to do with chemical changes in water, soils, riparian areas, etc.... Just a little bit? Maybe?


I attributed a lot of it to timing. The 88 fires burnt a considerable amount of the YNP lodgepole pine and sagebrush wasteland. Much of the burned areas recovered in thick and beneficial elk food. Then elk herd increased dramatically, parallel, with the food base. During those winters most of the elk migrated out of the park to Jackson Hole or Idaho and Montana. The Elk Feed Grounds were a mess, 13,500 elk one winter alone, all feeding off the Federal and State teat. So then they put some wolves in the park, '96 I think. After the release it was kinda like, "oh, hey, by the way we let 26 wolves go in YNP last Tuesday"

About a dozen years after the fire the lodgepole pines and quakies started to recover in such a manner they were squeezing out all that lucious post-fire forbs and grasses. I hiked across Yellowstone in 2002 and let me tell ya, parts of the park, the big meadows, were over-grazed by all the elk. And it seemed there were wolves in and around each of those meadows too.

Now the elk are all gone and all the wolves moved to Summit County or Strawberry Reservoir.


----------



## Lonetree

GaryFish said:


> See, I've questioned the YNP trophic cascade of changing elk feeding behaviors because of the wolfies ever since it was first published. But wolf advocates jumped in behind it and started quoting it like it was gospel before I really felt like it got an adequate scrutiny. It nearly totally ignored the fact that 1/3 of the park experienced MASSIVE wholistic change just 7 years prior to the introduction that resulted in the most drastic ecological transformation the Park had seen in a few thousand years. That might have had just a little bit to do with chemical changes in water, soils, riparian areas, etc.... Just a little bit? Maybe?


Massive use of chemicals in the Park goes back to the 1930s, so anything is possible. I have alot more digging on few more points, I should be done in about 50 years. The '88 fires could play a huge role. When I first started looking at cryptorchidism and cactus bucks, a few things stuck out. One was increased incident on granitic soil, this is significant because we see higher rates of big horn sheep decline on granitic soil. The other thing that stood out was the increased rates of cactus bucks after fires. It was though that ash and smoke from the fires carried chemicals that may be responsible. But more likely, its what occurs after many fires that causes the problem: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/28-hopland-ca/ YNP elk have high rates of this malformation: http://rutalocura.com/files/Discussion_of_size_and_placement_of_Hemiscrota_on_Mammal_Species_.pdf this is well documented, and I have seen variations of it in deer in Utah. It is not cryptorchidism, or testicular atrophy, so it does not cause cactus bucks. But the way in which it would be induced would similar.

After treating huge areas big horn sheep habitat in the wind rivers in the early 2000s, thousands of acres of pine trees have since shown signs of disease, in adjacent untreated areas. A lot of this stuff is not our grandfathers DDT.Much of it works very differently, with damage occurring at parts per trillion.

There have been test done to assess "safe" levels of certain families of herbicides on habitat restoration. Specifically how much can be used to kill cheat grass but not bitter brush and curl leaf mahogany. Sounds fine and dandy, except that those plants then become the vessel to carry these chemicals into wintering deer. This is bad on two levels, one of course being direct ingestion, but the second is the reduced nutritional value of the plants. They are not dead, they look fine, but the herbicides inhibit the ability of the plants to synthesize certain enzymes that produce proteins.

You can look at a place like Hart Mountain Oregon: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/hart-mountain-or/ where there have been dramatic visual improvements in the habitat for the last 20 years, yet all we see are suppressed wildlife populations. That's why I beat up on UDWR range rides. Things can look a particular way, but that might not mean anything.

As much as I tend to disagree with Charles Kay, he has a pretty good case about habitat restoration not growing more animals. Its myopic, but accurate in the basic observations. It is far more likely the way in which we are implementing said "restoration".

I had long been a "believer" of trophic cascade, as I think it was one of my first introductions to Leopold. It can be as simple to observe, as predator killing prey. I would not say it is completely dis-proven, but it is certainly not as linear and simplistic as has been proposed. The interconnectedness of webs is more comprehensive, while the linear nature of trophic cascade is easily exploited, incorrectly, by both sides of the wolf argument.


----------



## longbow

wyogoob said:


> Now the elk are all gone and all the wolves moved to Summit County or Strawberry Reservoir.


This HAS to be true because I saw all the trail cam pictures of wolves that came flooding in on this thread.
http://utahwildlife.net/forum/29-other-kinds-animals/36764-wolves-trail-cam.html


----------



## Lonetree

wyogoob said:


> I attributed a lot of it to timing. The 88 fires burnt a considerable amount of the YNP lodgepole pine and sagebrush wasteland. Much of the burned areas recovered in thick and beneficial elk food. Then elk herd increased dramatically, parallel, with the food base. During those winters most of the elk migrated out of the park to Jackson Hole or Idaho and Montana. The Elk Feed Grounds were a mess, 13,500 elk one winter alone, all feeding off the Federal and State teat. So then they put some wolves in the park, '96 I think. After the release it was kinda like, "oh, hey, by the way we let 26 wolves go in YNP last Tuesday"
> 
> About a dozen years after the fire the lodgepole pines and quakies started to recover in such a manner they were squeezing out all that lucious post-fire forbs and grasses. I hiked across Yellowstone in 2002 and let me tell ya, parts of the park, the big meadows, were over-grazed by all the elk. And it seemed there were wolves in and around each of those meadows too.
> 
> Now the elk are all gone and all the wolves moved to Summit County or Strawberry Reservoir.


Wolves have had decreases, with no corresponding increase in elk. Is it because of the increase in food that you cite the reason elk did not rebound, or because there were too many elk and they over grazed everything. Your explanation tries to have it both ways.

So in 2002, there were too many elk in YNP? They were over grazing everything?

Too many quakies causing starving elk? Come on, this is about as mythical as it gets Goob.

And sage brush is not "waste land", elk can not reproduce with out it.

Here are elk numbers in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem.


----------



## Lonetree

Goob, logging creates thick and beneficial elk food, so why have elk declined in logged areas for the last 20-30 years?

Edit: In case you are wonder where I am referring to: Large portions of WA, OR, and Northern CA. The Lolo and Clear Water Forests in MT, and 
ID. And the Caribou-Targhee National forest of ID, Almost everything West of YNP. Pull up Google Earth, and map the clear cuts, and note the dates.


----------



## LostLouisianian

I'm confused. If elk "can not reproduce" without sagebrush then how are the elk populations exploding back east where they are establishing herds. No sagebrush back there.


----------



## wyogoob

longbow said:


> This HAS to be true because I saw all the trail cam pictures of wolves that came flooding in on this thread.
> http://utahwildlife.net/forum/29-other-kinds-animals/36764-wolves-trail-cam.html


Well yeah, I'd like ta have a nickel for everytime I heard that.

.


----------



## wyogoob

Lonetree said:


> Wolves have had decreases, with no corresponding increase in elk. Is it because of the increase in food that you cite the reason elk did not rebound, or because there were too many elk and they over grazed everything. Your explanation tries to have it both ways.
> 
> So in 2002, there were too many elk in YNP? They were over grazing everything?
> 
> Too many quakies causing starving elk? Come on, this is about as mythical as it gets Goob.
> 
> And sage brush is not "waste land", elk can not reproduce with out it.
> 
> Here are elk numbers in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem.


You're preaching to the choir on some of this. Are you prooutdoors with a new username?

The drought years in YNP started in 87. 92 was terrible Do you have them starting in 93?

During the prolonged drought the sagebrush had little new growth, poor nutritional value. You know what I meant.

I'll give ya the quakie thingie. You're right, it doesn't make any sense.


----------



## wyogoob

OK, this just in:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...cba2e4-48e6-11e4-a4bf-794ab74e90f0_story.html

Judge Judy told Wyoming to go pound sand. There's a surprise.

Tomorrow is the wolf opener, hundreds, perhaps millions, of Trophy Wolf Hunt license holders, mostly from Utah, have their wolves picked out and will unknowingly slaughter the defenseless, and protected, canines tomorrow morning. If they only knew. So much for the poor cell phone coverage in Western Wyoming.

more later


----------



## wyogoob

I'm gonna call everyone I know that has a Wyoming Trophy Wolf license!!!


----------



## wyogoob

Uh.......wait a minute, I don't know anyone that has a Wyoming Trophy Wolf license.

.


----------



## wyogoob

statement from the WY Game & Fish:

http://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/WYWGFD/bulletins/d2c392

.


----------



## Lonetree

wyogoob said:


> You're preaching to the choir on some of this. Are you prooutdoors with a new username?
> 
> The drought years in YNP started in 87. 92 was terrible Do you have them starting in 93?
> 
> During the prolonged drought the sagebrush had little new growth, poor nutritional value. You know what I meant.
> 
> I'll give ya the quakie thingie. You're right, it doesn't make any sense.


Pro? Ouch! No, I'd be a little less accurate about everything if I was.

Generally the Western droughts started in '86. YNP fires were '88. The drought was a quick flip from '83-'84, which were some of the wettest years on record. This makes for lots of growth, which is very much a part of the '88 fires across the West, as was the drought. Official reintro took place in 1995. Elk numbers dropped by over 3000 animals in the first 3 years prior to reintroduction. This is the same time frame, that deer crashed across the West, in 1993. Utah shed over 100,000 deer.

And no I don't know what you are talking about on sage brush. Protein, crude fat, selenium content? I've been watching preferential feeding of sage brush by deer for over two years now, and being a young plant with fresh growth, is not what causes deer to select for feeding.


----------

