# Democrat hunters! Really?!?!?!



## klbzdad

I'm half temped to be "unaffiliated" with all the political garbage going on in Utah as of late but this definately causes me to refuse to find a political home with donkeys (sorry, nothing personal but, yeah...)

DEMOCRATIC HOUSE MEMBERS ASKING TO DROP WOLF DELISTING EFFORTS


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Affiliate yourself with issues that you believe in and the two party system takes a back seat. You will always find good and bad on either side of the fence. Better sometimes to straddle the fence and take aim.


----------



## klbzdad

Yeah. You're right Mule, the sad part is that politics are no different than a million dollar lottery. You have to be in it to win it.

I'm just disturbed that Utah is mentioned in the letter as a place that protections should be retained because the wolf has not adequately established a population here. What a crock that is!!!!????


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

I here ya. Habitat is "suitable" in a lot of places for wolves. Most notably Washington D.C.


----------



## LostLouisianian

I thought this was going to be about hunting democrats and what kind of bait or decoys to use.....


----------



## Dodger

LostLouisianian said:


> I thought this was going to be about hunting democrats and what kind of bait or decoys to use.....


The best bait they've come up with is free money.


----------



## stillhunterman

Aside from the political stuff, if you haven't commented on this issue yet, shame on you. You have until the 27th of March. I assure you many, many, many, many, many non hunters have.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!search...3ES%E2%80%932013%E2%80%930073;fp=true;ns=true


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

199 Democrats in congress so 43 (21% percent) want to delay wolf delisting. 

Perhaps they should take the Cruz/Lee approach and shut the government down. Cost the country a few billion and push people out of work to make a point.


----------



## klbzdad

Cruz and Lee didn't shut anything down. It was Reid and Obummer. Take a look at who that top dem that penned the letter is and remember that wolves have already wasted billions of dollars and hurt jobs and industry where they lurk and they aren't Republican OR Democrat.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Klbzdad you despise sfw's plan to eliminate as many coyotes as possible saying they only kill compensatory in nature.

Then you dont want wolves in utah. Want them delisted so they can be shot. 

Whats the difference? Am I missing something? Wont wolves also only kill in a compensatory manner?

Seems to me like you cant have it both ways. Predators are either additive in nature or compensatory. If coyotes wont affect deer then wolves won't affect elk, deer, or moose.


----------



## wyoming2utah

swbuckmaster said:


> Seems to me like you cant have it both ways. Predators are either additive in nature or compensatory. If coyotes wont affect deer then wolves won't affect elk, deer, or moose.


BS&#8230;.you often DO have it both ways. IN fact, sometimes coyote predation can be additive on the same unit that lion predation is compensatory and vice versa. Also, predation might be additive for a few years and then compensatory a few years later. Look at the wolves in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming as a perfect example&#8230;in some areas (with wolves) elk populations have actually increased while in other areas their populations have decreased. On some of these units the wolf predation is additive and in some places it is compensatory.

Many of us who were/are against the SFW plan to reduce predators are also against wolves coming into Utah because of the bureaucratic nightmare they become as far as management goes. We worry that if their predation is additive that the state will not be allowed to reduce their numbers.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

What areas in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming have had an increase in elk population because of the presence of the wolf? I would REALLY like to read any study that has proven this to be the case.


----------



## wyoming2utah

I never said that areas increased "because" of wolves…I said they have increased with wolves or despite of wolves. IN fact, last I checked, Montana was still over their population objectives on elk as was Wyoming….and 21 of Idaho's 29 units were at or over objective with the statewide total right around their objective.


----------



## LostLouisianian

wyoming2utah said:


> I never said that areas increased "because" of wolves&#8230;I said they have increased with wolves or despite of wolves. IN fact, last I checked, Montana was still over their population objectives on elk as was Wyoming&#8230;.and 21 of Idaho's 29 units were at or over objective with the statewide total right around their objective.


Is there any report or info you can direct me to that has this info. As a degreed wildlife biologist I would love to see the actual report and read the specifics.


----------



## wyoming2utah

These links should give you a good start&#8230;

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/rules/bgElk.pdf
https://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/PDF/12-Elk and Predation....pdf
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/july182013_presentations/idaho.pdf
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/articleHowling.pdf
http://fwpiis.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=31498


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Poor use of words on my behalf. Reading through some of the links that you have posted it is quite apparent that the areas with high wolf populations have been hit hard and the elk were not doing that well while the wolves were protected. Show me an area with a lot of wolves and I will show you an area with a declining elk population.

The Lolo zone is also notable for 
having experienced one of the greatest elk 
population declines in Idaho. The population 
peaked in 1989 at an estimated 16,054 elk 
before subsequently declining. Several factors 
played a role in this decline but today, wolves 
are the primary reason that elk are still 
trending downward in this zone and cannot 
recover. Wolves became well established in 
the Lolo zone from 2003 to 2005. The elk 
population in 2006 was estimated to be 5,110. 
From 2005 to 2008, IDFG documented that 
wolves removed 20 percent of the cow elk 
population annually, and survival was down 
to only 75 percent annually with no cow 
losses to hunter harvest. Results from previ
-
ous elk studies in the Lolo zone, before 
wolves were released in Idaho, indicated 
annual survival was 89 percent even with 
hunter harvest. Perhaps even more alarming 
is that winter calf survival is only 30 to 52 
percent in areas with relatively high wolf 
numbers. This compares to calf survival rates 
of 71 to 89 percent prior to 2004 when wolf 
densities were lower. Wolves were responsible 
for most of the winter mortality of calves 6 
to 12 months old. Today's estimated popula
-
tion level is 2,178 and wolves are having an 
unacceptable impact on elk herds in the 
Lolo zone.


----------



## LostLouisianian

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Poor use of words on my behalf. Reading through some of the links that you have posted it is quite apparent that the areas with high wolf populations have been hit hard and the elk were not doing that well while the wolves were protected. Show me an area with a lot of wolves and I will show you an area with a declining elk population.
> 
> The Lolo zone is also notable for
> having experienced one of the greatest elk
> population declines in Idaho. The population
> peaked in 1989 at an estimated 16,054 elk
> before subsequently declining. Several factors
> played a role in this decline but today, wolves
> are the primary reason that elk are still
> trending downward in this zone and cannot
> recover. Wolves became well established in
> the Lolo zone from 2003 to 2005. The elk
> population in 2006 was estimated to be 5,110.
> From 2005 to 2008, IDFG documented that
> wolves removed 20 percent of the cow elk
> population annually, and survival was down
> to only 75 percent annually with no cow
> losses to hunter harvest. Results from previ
> -
> ous elk studies in the Lolo zone, before
> wolves were released in Idaho, indicated
> annual survival was 89 percent even with
> hunter harvest. Perhaps even more alarming
> is that winter calf survival is only 30 to 52
> percent in areas with relatively high wolf
> numbers. This compares to calf survival rates
> of 71 to 89 percent prior to 2004 when wolf
> densities were lower. Wolves were responsible
> for most of the winter mortality of calves 6
> to 12 months old. Today's estimated popula
> -
> tion level is 2,178 and wolves are having an
> unacceptable impact on elk herds in the
> Lolo zone.


Yes you are correct, according to the report since the introduction of wolves the elk population overall has decreased nearly 20% in Idaho. The areas of any reasonable wolf population are declining badly while some areas of very few wolves have seen an increase. This is most likely attributed to the elk leaving areas of high wolf population and migrating to areas of low wolf population.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Fifteen years following wolf reintroduction, 
our research demonstrates that unmanaged 
wolves can be a leading cause of elk deaths 
and have contributed directly to elk declines. 
Elk numbers in zones with the greatest wolf 
impacts will continue to decline and/or 
remain below management objectives until 
IDFG can reduce wolf numbers, allowing 
elk to rebound. IDFG has had to reduce 
elk hunting opportunities because of wolf 
impacts on elk numbers. For example, there 
has been virtually no opportunity to hunt 
cow elk in the Lolo zone in the last 10 years 
and the opportunity to hunt cow elk in the 
Sawtooth zone has been reduced dramati
-
cally in recent years. Further management 
actions will be taken in other zones where 
wolves are having a similar impact on cow 
and calf survival, which could also result in 
reduced bull-hunting opportunities. The re
-
ality is, loss of elk to wolves is an additional 
source of mortality that did not exist prior 
to 1995. Wolf impacts can vary by zone, 
affecting how citizens enjoy their wildlife 

Together, idfg and hunters have a proven 
track record of managing 
wildlife responsibly. 
in the one year (2009) that 
idaho was allowed a wolf 
hunt, that track record 
was put to the test and a 
responsible and successful 
hunt was conducted.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

no wolf management = declining elk herd. Period.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Poor use of words on my behalf. Reading through some of the links that you have posted it is quite apparent that the areas with high wolf populations have been hit hard and the elk were not doing that well while the wolves were protected. Show me an area with a lot of wolves and I will show you an area with a declining elk population.


Not necessarily true&#8230;the Lolo herd and the Yellowstone herds are the two poster boys for the wolf haters because those two herds have been knocked back by "high" wolf populations. But, other areas with wolf populations are NOT seeing these same trends. The key in this is the word, "high". "High" wolf populations will often lead to additive mortality. I can totally agree with that. BUT, there are many areas with wolves that have growing elk populations. The idea that wolves will be end of the elk or big game is simply not true&#8230;Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana are great proof of that!

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2013/06/study-wolves-not-cause-wyoming-elk-decline

http://missoulian.com/lifestyles/re...cle_d9e499be-2651-11e3-abfc-0019bb2963f4.html

What the two articles above show more than anything else is that elk and wolves can coexist&#8230;.if they are managed. The problem with elk populations when wolves were protected was that the predator was allowed to tip the balance of predation over to additive levels. This is my whole worry about allowing wolves to establish home packs in Utah&#8230;is the state going to be able to manage them and keep their numbers in check to a point that elk herds aren't going to collapse.

Also, what you don't see with the Lolo and Yellowstone herds is the fact that both of those herds were way over objective and the state game agencies had been trying to lower their populations for years prior to wolf introductions.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Mr Muleskinner said:


> no wolf management = declining elk herd. Period.


Not true at all&#8230;again, Wyoming and Montana have had INCREASING elk herds WITHOUT wolf management! That is fact...


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

So long as tags are cut drastically yes.

From the OL article:
*Hunters and wildlife managers were alarmed by the drop in elk numbers. Doug McWhiter, a Wyoming Fish and Game biologist who manages the area, said elk numbers are stable now, but hunting opportunities had to be cut. Cow tags were reduced and hunting units in the area were switched from general over-the-counter licenses to limited quota in 2010. Hunter opportunity was reduced by 50 to 75 percent, says McWhiter who helped with Middleton's research.
"We can maintain these elk numbers but we had to severely limit hunting opportunity to do that," he says. "That in itself is difficult for people to understand."*

from the Missoulian:
*To help populations, FWP almost eliminated elk cow and deer doe tags from the market in the past several years. A common either-sex week for white-tailed deer was also removed from the season calendar, further limiting antlerless opportunities. Coupled with increased hunting pressure aimed at predators such as wolves, bears and lions, the restrictions have given the ungulates some recovery space to rebuild, Thompson said.*

Pretty clear then........yes wolf and elk can coexist so long as man is willing to give up a ton of permits. This thread was about trying to stop the delisting of wolves. That means to keep them protected. If wolves are protected the only way to counter that is to cut elk tags in great numbers. It says so in every link that I have read. Did you miss those parts?


----------



## wyoming2utah

Muleskinner, you are nitpicking quotes directed at certain areas only&#8230;not statewide. IN some areas tags were cut, but in other areas tags were increased. According to the study titled "The Impact of Wolves on Elk Hunting in Montana":
http://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1/1450/HazenS0512.pdf?sequence=1

"The implications of this study are as follows; using the current data available wolves are not having a significant effect on elk harvest in Montana. On the other hand, they are shifting demand in the southwest region from areas in close proximity to the border of YNP to areas farther away. This shift in demand may negatively impact MFWP since one of their major budget sources is through the sale of hunting licenses. Currently, the only other effect found was decreases in hunter applications in the west central portion. Although this result was highly significant the magnitude of this reduction was
not. Overall, this empirical estimation found wolves are not having the effect on elk hunting in Montana as many people would think."

IF elk are being reduced by wolves in an area, then, yes, elk tags will be cut. But, in the areas where elk are increasing tags go up. Since the introduction of wolves, Montana and Wyoming have actually offered MORE elk hunting tags than prior&#8230;! The results are having on hunting, though, is that over the counter tags are not selling as much because of the misperception many hunters have on the effect wolves are having...


----------



## LostLouisianian

Mr Muleskinner said:


> So long as tags are cut drastically yes.
> 
> From the OL article:
> *Hunters and wildlife managers were alarmed by the drop in elk numbers. Doug McWhiter, a Wyoming Fish and Game biologist who manages the area, said elk numbers are stable now, but hunting opportunities had to be cut. Cow tags were reduced and hunting units in the area were switched from general over-the-counter licenses to limited quota in 2010. Hunter opportunity was reduced by 50 to 75 percent, says McWhiter who helped with Middleton's research.
> "We can maintain these elk numbers but we had to severely limit hunting opportunity to do that," he says. "That in itself is difficult for people to understand."*
> 
> from the Missoulian:
> *To help populations, FWP almost eliminated elk cow and deer doe tags from the market in the past several years. A common either-sex week for white-tailed deer was also removed from the season calendar, further limiting antlerless opportunities. Coupled with increased hunting pressure aimed at predators such as wolves, bears and lions, the restrictions have given the ungulates some recovery space to rebuild, Thompson said.*
> 
> Pretty clear then........yes wolf and elk can coexist so long as man is willing to give up a ton of permits. This thread was about trying to stop the delisting of wolves. That means to keep them protected. If wolves are protected the only way to counter that is to cut elk tags in great numbers. It says so in every link that I have read. Did you miss those parts?


There you go again. Always trying to interject facts and documentable proof into an otherwise emotional debate...sheesh... :grin: *OOO*


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

wyoming2utah said:


> Muleskinner, you are nitpicking quotes directed at certain areas only&#8230;not statewide. IN some areas tags were cut, but in other areas tags were increased. According to the study titled "The Impact of Wolves on Elk Hunting in Montana":
> http://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1/1450/HazenS0512.pdf?sequence=1
> 
> "The implications of this study are as follows; using the current data available wolves are not having a significant effect on elk harvest in Montana. On the other hand, they are shifting demand in the southwest region from areas in close proximity to the border of YNP to areas farther away. This shift in demand may negatively impact MFWP since one of their major budget sources is through the sale of hunting licenses. Currently, the only other effect found was decreases in hunter applications in the west central portion. Although this result was highly significant the magnitude of this reduction was
> not. Overall, this empirical estimation found wolves are not having the effect on elk hunting in Montana as many people would think."
> 
> IF elk are being reduced by wolves in an area, then, yes, elk tags will be cut. But, in the areas where elk are increasing tags go up. Since the introduction of wolves, Montana and Wyoming have actually given MORE elk hunting tags than prior&#8230;!


Well of course. It would stand to reason that elk are doing fine in areas that don't have a wolf population that can have a negative affect on them. Hence............. *"MANAGEMENT"*..............Furthermore............how many wolves have been illegally killed in the past 15 years? Not to mention the amount that have been legally harvested (aka "*MANAGED"*)?............ A LOT.

Wolf populations decline and elk populations increase. Are elk doing great in areas that don't have an abundance of wolves? Yes. In the areas that do, they have either culled out wolves or cut a massive amount of tags or a combination of both..........hence...............*"MANAGEMENT"*.

Protecting an animal that does not need protection (that needs *MANAGED*) is akin to letting an eastern politician vote on western wildlife management...........regardless of their party.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

klbzdad said:


> Cruz and Lee didn't shut anything down. It was Reid and Obummer. Take a look at who that top dem that penned the letter is and remember that wolves have already wasted billions of dollars and hurt jobs and industry where they lurk and they aren't Republican OR Democrat.


Really? Here is a clip you may enjoy. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/mike-lee-government-shutdown-94548.html

What is your next wrong political view? War of Northern Aggression was about states rights and not slavery? Bigfoot? Moon Landing Conspiracy? Black Helicopter? Oh no my favorite is the FEMA Camps.

I fear the GOP and their constant rant about privatizing public lands. I'll take a few Enviroacrats over the Fascist Right!


----------



## LostLouisianian

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Really? Here is a clip you may enjoy. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/mike-lee-government-shutdown-94548.html
> 
> What is your next wrong political view? War of Northern Aggression was about states rights and not slavery? Bigfoot? Moon Landing Conspiracy? Black Helicopter? Oh no my favorite is the FEMA Camps.
> 
> I fear the GOP and their constant rant about privatizing public lands. I'll take a few Enviroacrats over the Fascist Right!


Better step away from the liberal lies. If the civil war wasn't about states rights and was about slavery why wasn't the emancipation proclamation issued till nearly 2 years AFTER the war started. Lincoln sent troops to South Carolina once the south seceded from the US. He didn't free the slaves until nearly 2 years later. I could refute your other rants too but I'm busy watching tv now.


----------



## klbzdad

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Really? Here is a clip you may enjoy. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/mike-lee-government-shutdown-94548.html
> 
> What is your next wrong political view? War of Northern Aggression was about states rights and not slavery? Bigfoot? Moon Landing Conspiracy? Black Helicopter? Oh no my favorite is the FEMA Camps.
> 
> I fear the GOP and their constant rant about privatizing public lands. I'll take a few Enviroacrats over the Fascist Right!


They threatened to fillibuster. Might be a bad choice of words from that EDITED clip....but, okay:

http://townhall.com/columnists/thom...o-shut-down-the-government-n1716292/page/full

Then there was the timeline:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/a-brief-history-of-the-2013-government-shutdown/

What's YOUR next funny rainbow colored political view? That Global Warming is causing record cold temperatures? Mine is that the first lady is really a wookie but I'm guessing that's not too far off the mark.

The GOP (while NEVER completely innocent) voted in the House (where the money is appropriated and handled for our guberment) to fund every single part of the federal government except obummercare. Then they agreed to compromise if there was a delay or setting aside of the mandates until the law could be repealed or fixed. It was Harry Reid and the dems along with the idiot in the White House that shut down the government and then later gave the mandates the GOP wanted with the stroke of said idiot's pen. Common sense always prevails.

Now back to the real issue of a few dem senators wanting to waste billions more on invasive dogs.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

Why did SC secede? What was the big issue?? 

p.s You lost!


----------



## LostLouisianian

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Why did SC secede? What was the big issue??
> 
> p.s You lost!


No you lost because you won't address the truth and answer why it took nearly 2 years AFTER the war started to free the slaves


----------



## klbzdad

^^^^boom!

And then there's this from the dems:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-claims-authority-over-more-streams-wetlands/


----------



## wyoming2utah

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Well of course. It would stand to reason that elk are doing fine in areas that don't have a wolf population that can have a negative affect on them.


EVEN in areas WITH wolves, there are units in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming with increasing elk populations. You keep nitpicking quotes directed at the worst units to back up your opinions&#8230;but those quotes don't apply to everywhere.

Do I think wolves need to be managed? Yes. But, this sky is falling mentality that wolves are going to decimate the elk herds and take all our hunting opportunity away is false.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

You make a habit of taking things out of context. I never said the sky is falling and once again...........read this................... S L O W

*"elk are doing fine in areas that don't have a wolf population that can have a negative affect on them."*


----------



## wyoming2utah

Talk about taking things out of context&#8230;it has been you that has cherry picked quote from articles talking about individual units and making blanket statements about wolves using those quotes as evidence. Again, just because a unit has a population of wolves does NOT mean that the wolves will have a negative impact...let me state this again for you&#8230;.SLOWLY! Elk are also doing fine in some areas WITH wolves&#8230;!

What has been learned from the other Northern Rocky Mountain States?

"Elk are a prime food source for wolves. While wolves are impacting elk in a few hunting districts,* these are the minority*, as elk populations throughout the tri-state area (Idaho, Montana and Wyoming) remain high: According to Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, wolves are probably affecting hunting in some places, but there are no clear answers that apply across the board. Different combinations and densities of predator and prey species, terrain, vegetation, climate, land ownership patterns, and land uses result in different opportunities for hunters

While changes in elk behavior may create a more challenging hunting experience (for wolves as well as people!), elk populations throughout the region remain high.

Wyoming: 120,000 elk estimated statewide, 50 percent above objective; the state of Wyoming continues to manage for a reduction in elk population.
Montana: 150,000 elk estimated statewide, 14 percent over objective. Montana has the second highest elk population of any state.
Idaho: Estimated population: 101,100, slightly below objective; 23 of the state's 29 game management zones have elk numbers within targets or above."

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/big_game/faq.html


----------



## Finnegan

Yup, you gotta buy the "Wolves are evil." if you're a real hunter. Gotta be 4-square Republican/Teabagger. Y'all are so easily manipulated. Cast your votes. Make your donations.

Binary thinking is for machines. (Most) humans are capable of better.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Jeez............I didn't cherry pick anything. A couple of the quotes that I posted actually came from the conclusion portion of the article. I read each article in full. The areas that are doing well with elk, and there are plenty of them, have small populations of wolves or no wolves at all. The areas that have large populations (which is the minority of areas) have had drastic cuts in tags and/or wolves managed. Looking only at the entire population of a states elk herd does little to nothing to show the impact that wolf populations have. It is no different that totally the elk herds of all states combined. There is a reason that units are established.

If wolves go unmanaged and are protected (which is what this thread is about) the population of elk will be drastically reduced. Those that are voting to protect all the wolves have their heads up their arse and care more about gaining the vote of the liberal public than they care about the wildlife.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Finnegan said:


> Yup, you gotta buy the "Wolves are evil." if you're a real hunter. Gotta be 4-square Republican/Teabagger. Y'all are so easily manipulated. Cast your votes. Make your donations.
> 
> Binary thinking is for machines. (Most) humans are capable of better.


You'll never hear me saying that wolves are bad and have no place. You will also not hear me affiliate myself with either party. The world is not that black and white. Just because you choose to side with one party does not mean that those who oppose your opinion automatically follow a blind herd of elephants.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Finnegan said:


> Yup, you gotta buy the "Wolves are evil." if you're a real hunter. Gotta be 4-square Republican/Teabagger. Y'all are so easily manipulated. Cast your votes. Make your donations.
> 
> Binary thinking is for machines. (Most) humans are capable of better.


Hey Pot.....its me Kettle.....over here......we're both black my brotha! Don't hate on me because my elephant has a bigger teabag than your jackass!-----SS


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

klbzdad said:


> ^^^^boom!
> 
> And then there's this from the dems:
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-claims-authority-over-more-streams-wetlands/


Why is this bad? I like fishing and hunting ducks. Need water for those sports.

Oh wait is it the private property rights issuing allowing someone to destroy what god created for some short sighted reason?


----------



## Lonetree

Yep, everyone loves to jump on the few exceptions to the rule. Of all the actual scientific study that has been conducted on wolf-elk interaction, and there has been a lot. No one has been able to make the case that elk declines are caused by wolf predation. One of the only clear cut correlations of Northern elk declines, outside of the greater ecological forces driving all big game numbers, is that declining herds, tend to be migratory, where as resident and less migratory herds are more stable or growing.

If wolves were driving elk numbers you would be able to correlate elk rises and declines, across all wolf occupied habitat, with wolf numbers. Yet that can not be done, you can not even get close to making the case.

The biggest problem driving wildlife declines, is that there are a bunch of overly emotional little girls, on both sides, that let their feelings drive there thoughts on the matter. Regardless of reality.

Reality: Predators kill prey, but they do not drive their declines. That is unless we are looking at the removal of them from an ecosystem. You can look around the globe, and example after example, of how removing apex predators, actually has the affect of also reducing their prey species. One of the things that makes parts of Africa, and the far North, complete ecosystems, with vast game animals, is their intact apex predator structure. You start removing the large carnivores, and you change the predator prey dynamic. As you remove or suppress apex predators, you have rapid growth of intermediate predators, that drive additional dynamics, that actually do threaten game species, through secondary predation, and faunal shifts to mono cultures. All of which can drive ecological shifts that negatively impact habitat, and habitat use, driving across the board wildlife declines. Despite how all the little girls _feel_ about it.

It is all of these feelings on the matter, and ideologically driven belief, that is the greatest threat to wildlife, and hunting, that man has ever seen.


----------



## Lonetree

LostLouisianian said:


> Is there any report or info you can direct me to that has this info. As a degreed wildlife biologist I would love to see the actual report and read the specifics.


I would not brag about that, guys like you seem to be a big part of the problem.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Lonetree,
You have a wicked bad vocabulary bro. When it comes to raw brain power, you are an apex predator among meso-carnivores.------SS


----------



## The Naturalist

klbzdad said:


> ^^^^boom!
> 
> And then there's this from the dems:
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-claims-authority-over-more-streams-wetlands/


This last line of the article sums up the fears of the opponents to this study;

"If EPA is not careful, this rule could effectively give the federal government control of nearly all of our state -- and prove to be a showstopper for both traditional access and *new development*," she said.

Typical fear tactic to call it something else..."land grab by the government"... when its developers who are trying to "grab the land".
From reading the article it sounds as if the EPA is trying to curtail a big part of the non-point source pollution entering larger streams/lakes/groundwater. Not trying to take control of the land.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Lonetree said:


> I would not brag about that, guys like you seem to be a big part of the problem.


Why did you meet with a biologists in Wyoming then to discuss the deer problem? Did you tell him he was part of the problem?


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Why did you meet with a biologists in Wyoming then to discuss the deer problem? Did you tell him he was part of the problem?


I met with a wildlife researcher/biologist/naturalist, an author/wildlife researcher, and we had a botanist drop in for good measure in Wyoming. I am currently in contact with a wildlife researcher/veterinarian/geneticist in Montana, a physicist/research scientist in Washington, along with a few lines out to a bunch of letters and titles in Colorado and Arizona. I, myself possess nothing in the way of formal education. Education is only as relevant, as it is applied.

Point: Based on his posts here on the UWN, his degree is not worth the paper it is printed on.


----------



## Lonetree

The Naturalist said:


> This last line of the article sums up the fears of the opponents to this study;
> 
> "If EPA is not careful, this rule could effectively give the federal government control of nearly all of our state -- and prove to be a showstopper for both traditional access and *new development*," she said.
> 
> Typical fear tactic to call it something else..."land grab by the government"... when its developers who are trying to "grab the land".
> From reading the article it sounds as if the EPA is trying to curtail a big part of the non-point source pollution entering larger streams/lakes/groundwater. Not trying to take control of the land.


Yep, so who is driving the wedge issue here?, and why?

If you are a hunter, or a fisherman, pollution driven eutrophication, and hypertrophication, are by far at the very top of the list, when it comes to the core causes of wildlife declines, and the destruction of hunting tradition and heritage that these declines spawn. And yet, over and over again, hunters and fisherman, like to defend the very things that are destroying that way of Western life, while blocking any real attempt to remedy the real problems driving this destruction. It makes no sense folks, who's pawn are you?

By all means, tell me how it benefits you, and your children, and the wildlife, and fish, and hunting.........


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Lonetree said:


> I met with a wildlife researcher/biologist/naturalist, an author/wildlife researcher, and we had a botanist drop in for good measure in Wyoming. I am currently in contact with a wildlife researcher/veterinarian/geneticist in Montana, a physicist/research scientist in Washington, along with a few lines out to a bunch of letters and titles in Colorado and Arizona. I, myself possess nothing in the way of formal education. Education is only as relevant, as it is applied.
> 
> Point: Based on his posts here on the UWN, his degree is not worth the paper it is printed on.


I can't help but think that a video conference would have been more environmentally friendly.


----------



## LostLouisianian

Lonetree said:


> I would not brag about that, guys like you seem to be a big part of the problem.


Oh really, interesting take you have there. If you really want to know what the problem is, it is people who have big $$$ that know nothing about wildlife management making the rules instead of letting the biologists actually do their jobs and set the hunting regulations. The vast majority of hunting regulations/limits etc are too severely influenced by people who have motives that do not have the best intentions for the herds or flocks in mind. They simply want THEIR trophy and could care less about managing the wildlife for posterity.

And add another degree to my useless list, Forest Mangement. Any other questions?


----------



## Lonetree

LostLouisianian said:


> Oh really, interesting take you have there. If you really want to know what the problem is, it is people who have big $$$ that know nothing about wildlife management making the rules instead of letting the biologists actually do their jobs and set the hunting regulations. The vast majority of hunting regulations/limits etc are too severely influenced by people who have motives that do not have the best intentions for the herds or flocks in mind. They simply want THEIR trophy and could care less about managing the wildlife for posterity.
> 
> And add another degree to my useless list, Forest Mangement. Any other questions?


I would agree with your sentiments, it is a big part of it. But like much of what you have posted on this forum, it avoids any actual biological substance. I won't have any questions for you.


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I can't help but think that a video conference would have been more environmentally friendly.


Deer don't video conference, but good idea.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

I didn't know that you were going on a field trip.


----------



## LostLouisianian

Lonetree said:


> I would agree with your sentiments, it is a big part of it. But like much of what you have posted on this forum, it avoids any actual biological substance. I won't have any questions for you.


OK let me splain it to you real slow so you can understand. Predators eat prey. The more predators you have, the more prey they eat, the more prey they eat the less prey there is. Irrefutable fact of natural law. Any other questions? :shock:


----------



## Lonetree

LostLouisianian said:


> OK let me splain it to you real slow so you can understand. Predators eat prey. The more predators you have, the more prey they eat, the more prey they eat the less prey there is. Irrefutable fact of natural law. Any other questions? :shock:


Did you eat paint chips as a child? Do you understand additive, verses compensatory predation, and the larger trophic dynamics that drive compensatory predation? How can you have increased predation, yet by removing the predation, the prey base does not increase. It is not an "irrefutable fact of natural law", unless your view is myopic, and ignores the big picture, which is a very big part of the problem we have with "wildlife management" and the people that influence it.


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I didn't know that you were going on a field trip.


Keep laughing......


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

I am not laughing. I didn't know. You stated that you were meeting with some people that included biologists. You never stated what you were doing. Does the term "field trip" offend you for some reason? I assume the deer were out in the field.


----------



## LostLouisianian

Lonetree said:


> Did you eat paint chips as a child? Do you understand additive, verses compensatory predation, and the larger trophic dynamics that drive compensatory predation? How can you have increased predation, yet by removing the predation, the prey base does not increase. It is not an "irrefutable fact of natural law", unless your view is myopic, and ignores the big picture, which is a very big part of the problem we have with "wildlife management" and the people that influence it.


I never said that by removing predation the prey base would not increase. Typically the prey base will recover and increase from over predation in time. However there are a number of factors involved in the time it will take for the prey base to recover. And yes it is a "irrefutable fact of nature" that more predators mean less prey. The recovery time can be short to long depending on external factors such as carrying capacity of the area, food available, water available, hunting pressure, and other environmental non prey factors that need to be taken into account. Of course anyone who has studied this would realize that. Hence that is why I have dual degrees so I could better understand the relationship of the forests to the wildlife. I don't know of a single other person that has degrees in both Forest Management and Wildlife, but I am sure there are some out there.

Here is a little test for you since you seem to think that there is not a direct relationship to predator count and prey. Go out and buy 100 sheep and put them in a fenced in area. Put one predator in there and see how long it takes him to kill the 100 sheep. Go out and buy another 100 sheep and put in 10 predators and see how long it takes those 10 to kill the 100 sheep. Then report back to us the number of days of each. Thanks!


----------



## Lonetree

:roll: Take ten apples, and conduct an orange experiment. It is that sort of fundamental mentality, that drives the problems we have today. Open ecosystems and wildlife do not work in the same way as domestic animals, in agriculture and enclosures. When you and the rest of the deer farmers figure this out, we will be one step closer to finding some real solutions. Until then, hunting will continue to decline, because of ignorance like yours.


----------



## Lonetree

Here is a test for you, taking into account your degrees in both wildlife and forestry. What is the nexus between pine beetles, and mule deer?


----------



## GaryFish

Just curious - you mention degrees in wildlife and forestry - Do you do these things professionally? Or do you work in some other field?


----------



## LostLouisianian

Lonetree said:


> :roll: Take ten apples, and conduct an orange experiment. It is that sort of fundamental mentality, that drives the problems we have today. Open ecosystems and wildlife do not work in the same way as domestic animals, in agriculture and enclosures. When you and the rest of the deer farmers figure this out, we will be one step closer to finding some real solutions. Until then, hunting will continue to decline, because of ignorance like yours.


I'm not the one who keeps putting words in everyone else's mouth when they show you that you're wrong, you are the one doing that. As for ignorance, don't look in a mirror, you might be surprised at what you see. After all, YOU are the one who called me ignorant first. Or do you want to put some more words into my mouth and others mouths when they show you that you're wrong, as have been done on this thread at least a half dozen times.


----------



## Lonetree

LostLouisianian said:


> I'm not the one who keeps putting words in everyone else's mouth when they show you that you're wrong, you are the one doing that. As for ignorance, don't look in a mirror, you might be surprised at what you see. After all, YOU are the one who called me ignorant first. Or do you want to put some more words into my mouth and others mouths when they show you that you're wrong, as have been done on this thread at least a half dozen times.


Nice dodge, how about you attempt to support your statements, and supposed qualifications. You don't know what you are talking about, and a piece of paper can't prove otherwise.


----------

