Elk vs. Wolves

Make no mistake, Wolves are a tool, a weapon, used in a war against not only the rural west as a whole, but also the outdoors-man, hunter, conservationist, rancher etc.

In Idaho it reached it's worst in '08-'10. Ranching in the high desert of Idaho, at the base of mountain country, we experienced this warfare first hand. In a similar fashion to how Colorado, Oregon, Washington and other states are starting to figure out, and will undoubtedly feel the effects of in the coming few years.

In this war, there is no rule of engagement. You better be prepared to defend life, and property against the enemy.

During the aforementioned years, we carried, openly, everywhere we went. On multiple occasion that carry was necessary to defend ourselves, and our property. From Animals, yes, form people? Yes also.

I personally spent hundreds of nights keeping guard to protect our livestock. I personally worked along side Government employed hunters and trappers to control the immediate problem out hand.

The enemy at present, in Idaho, is quite suppressed in comparison. However the enemy is also much wiser. Yes, Elk's response is very different now for those reasons. Patterns, cycles, ranges, domineer around people (and other animals) all of the above. Yes, and yes.

There is no such thing as poaching a Wolf. Keep that in mind people of Colorado.

Over and out -
Joseph
Meth- not even once!
 
Reading the title of this thread got me thinking; there are lots of sports teams called "the Wolves." But, are there any teams named after elk? The Bugling Bulls would be a great name, no?!
 
Make no mistake, Wolves are a tool, a weapon, used in a war against not only the rural west as a whole, but also the outdoors-man, hunter, conservationist, rancher etc.

In Idaho it reached it's worst in '08-'10. Ranching in the high desert of Idaho, at the base of mountain country, we experienced this warfare first hand. In a similar fashion to how Colorado, Oregon, Washington and other states are starting to figure out, and will undoubtedly feel the effects of in the coming few years.

In this war, there is no rule of engagement. You better be prepared to defend life, and property against the enemy.

During the aforementioned years, we carried, openly, everywhere we went. On multiple occasion that carry was necessary to defend ourselves, and our property. From Animals, yes, form people? Yes also.

I personally spent hundreds of nights keeping guard to protect our livestock. I personally worked along side Government employed hunters and trappers to control the immediate problem out hand.

The enemy at present, in Idaho, is quite suppressed in comparison. However the enemy is also much wiser. Yes, Elk's response is very different now for those reasons. Patterns, cycles, ranges, domineer around people (and other animals) all of the above. Yes, and yes.

There is no such thing as poaching a Wolf. Keep that in mind people of Colorado.

Over and out -
Joseph
This is hilarious.......wolves certainly bring out the internet tough guys.
 
Back here in WI, not just the small elk herd & deer predation. Winter kill and management has natural food sources diminished. When wolves were re-introduced or let back in, there were (minimum) goals. Between State & Federal there are so many different "goals", its hard to follow. Minimum goal, Federal delisting goal, but maybe I missed it, don't see a Maximum goal.
Wisconsin has a high density of human population in wolf territory and in the northern areas they turn to domestic feed. The Federal delisting goal was surpassed nearly 20 years ago. We had a wolf hunting season,2014, short delisting. The anti's put us back on the list.
We were delisted Jan. 4th, but I believe there are already a couple lawsuits to stop.
Don't mind the wolves and don't really hunt that area but I want our elk herd to thrive, not just survive.
Wolves were not reintroduced in Wisconsin, they naturally moved over from Minnesota. They have hardly been a factor in the population of the elk herd, although every time they do kill one it makes headlines because that stuff sells.

I find it disappointing that so many "conservation" groups want to manage a species at the bare minimum. What other species do we manage like that?

The behavior of elk and deer is due to the presence of predators like wolves, causing the species to evolve to its current state
 
Wolves were not reintroduced in Wisconsin, they naturally moved over from Minnesota. They have hardly been a factor in the population of the elk herd, although every time they do kill one it makes headlines because that stuff sells.

I find it disappointing that so many "conservation" groups want to manage a species at the bare minimum. What other species do we manage like that?

The behavior of elk and deer is due to the presence of predators like wolves, causing the species to evolve to its current state
Wolves were not reintroduced in Wisconsin, they naturally moved over from Minnesota. They have hardly been a factor in the population of the elk herd, although every time they do kill one it makes headlines because that stuff sells.

I find it disappointing that so many "conservation" groups want to manage a species at the bare minimum. What other species do we manage like that?

The behavior of elk and deer is due to the presence of predators like wolves, causing the species to evolve to its current state
 
If the DFW doesn't acknowledge their existence you cant be punished for shooting one. "Couldn't have shot one. There aren't any here."
 
Don’t laugh to hard but the propane truck driver hit one Monday night, no damage to the truck but damn those things are big. Ow we’re down to 10
 
Don’t laugh to hard but the propane truck driver hit one Monday night, no damage to the truck but damn those things are big. Now we’re down to 10.
 
15 wolves were introduced in central idaho in 95 another 20 were added the following year. Estimated wolf population by IDFG 1,556 now probably more. Federal criteria for wolf recovery is 150 or 15 packs. Idaho has pending legislation by IDFG to bring the population down to 500 that’s 2/3 of the current population now. Included is reclassification to predator no season no limits until the 500 is reestablished. Hunting at night from motor vehicles, atv, helicopters, thermals. Currently 15 can be taken hunting and 15 can be taken trapping IDFG is wanting to change that to the legislation mentioned above. Wolves are an apex predator they will kill more than they can eat. You will rarely see them once they move in but they will effect your ungulate population. Very few wolves here are killed by hunters, trapping has proven to be more productive but it cant keep up. When wolves are in the area bulls go quiet, they won’t bugle and they will move out of the area. Wolves will chase pregnant cows causing them to stress and miscarry. The problem with wolves in the lower 48 is they aren’t native to the lower 48 they were brought in from Canada. Before introduction, Canadian wildlife personnel were consulted and they warned “Not” to introduce the wolves because they would eventually wreck havoc on domestic and ungulates, saying that Canada has vast amounts of wilderness whereas the lower 48 is compartamentalized into small areas. Wolves have effected the ungulate population in Idaho. No known predators and they reproduce quickly. Sorry to hear about introducing them in Colorado. I agree with MT Muley. Just my 2 cents, if you don’t agree or think differently, that’s ok with me, I’m not wanting to argue just giving you some information.
 
15 wolves were introduced in central idaho in 95 another 20 were added the following year. Estimated wolf population by IDFG 1,556 now probably more. Federal criteria for wolf recovery is 150 or 15 packs. Idaho has pending legislation by IDFG to bring the population down to 500 that’s 2/3 of the current population now. Included is reclassification to predator no season no limits until the 500 is reestablished. Hunting at night from motor vehicles, atv, helicopters, thermals. Currently 15 can be taken hunting and 15 can be taken trapping IDFG is wanting to change that to the legislation mentioned above. Wolves are an apex predator they will kill more than they can eat. You will rarely see them once they move in but they will effect your ungulate population. Very few wolves here are killed by hunters, trapping has proven to be more productive but it cant keep up. When wolves are in the area bulls go quiet, they won’t bugle and they will move out of the area. Wolves will chase pregnant cows causing them to stress and miscarry. The problem with wolves in the lower 48 is they aren’t native to the lower 48 they were brought in from Canada. Before introduction, Canadian wildlife personnel were consulted and they warned “Not” to introduce the wolves because they would eventually wreck havoc on domestic and ungulates, saying that Canada has vast amounts of wilderness whereas the lower 48 is compartamentalized into small areas. Wolves have effected the ungulate population in Idaho. No known predators and they reproduce quickly. Sorry to hear about introducing them in Colorado. I agree with MT Muley. Just my 2 cents, if you don’t agree or think differently, that’s ok with me, I’m not wanting to argue just giving you some information.

Idaho Fish and Game data

1995 elk population : 112,333
2017 elk population : 116,800

1995 elk harvest : 22,400
2017 elk harvest : 22,751

1995 wolf reintroduction
2020 wolf population 1,500+

Deciding what information to provide others matters. Elk behavior has been affected, population in some units have been affected negatively, big picture looks good with some of the highest numbers of elk harvested in state history in recent years. 2020 elk population was estimated to be at 120,000 so the statewide elk population appears to be growing as well.

 

Attachments

  • Idaho 2019:2020 elk population.png
    Idaho 2019:2020 elk population.png
    438.7 KB · Views: 1
  • Idaho harvest.png
    Idaho harvest.png
    25.8 KB · Views: 0
  • Idaho Harvest 2.png
    Idaho Harvest 2.png
    79.3 KB · Views: 1
  • Idaho Harvest 2a.png
    Idaho Harvest 2a.png
    102.1 KB · Views: 1
Yes charts and data dont show significant impact from wolves. But huge problem on public lands. Private lands will protect there interest (elk). Public left for the wolves.
 
15 wolves were introduced in central idaho in 95 another 20 were added the following year. Estimated wolf population by IDFG 1,556 now probably more. Federal criteria for wolf recovery is 150 or 15 packs. Idaho has pending legislation by IDFG to bring the population down to 500 that’s 2/3 of the current population now. Included is reclassification to predator no season no limits until the 500 is reestablished. Hunting at night from motor vehicles, atv, helicopters, thermals. Currently 15 can be taken hunting and 15 can be taken trapping IDFG is wanting to change that to the legislation mentioned above. Wolves are an apex predator they will kill more than they can eat. You will rarely see them once they move in but they will effect your ungulate population. Very few wolves here are killed by hunters, trapping has proven to be more productive but it cant keep up. When wolves are in the area bulls go quiet, they won’t bugle and they will move out of the area. Wolves will chase pregnant cows causing them to stress and miscarry. The problem with wolves in the lower 48 is they aren’t native to the lower 48 they were brought in from Canada. Before introduction, Canadian wildlife personnel were consulted and they warned “Not” to introduce the wolves because they would eventually wreck havoc on domestic and ungulates, saying that Canada has vast amounts of wilderness whereas the lower 48 is compartamentalized into small areas. Wolves have effected the ungulate population in Idaho. No known predators and they reproduce quickly. Sorry to hear about introducing them in Colorado. I agree with MT Muley. Just my 2 cents, if you don’t agree or think differently, that’s ok with me, I’m not wanting to argue just giving you some information.

IDFG had nothing to do with that piece of proposed legislation. It was introduced by a fill in state rep that raises sheep and high fence elk.
 
Yes charts and data dont show significant impact from wolves. But huge problem on public lands. Private lands will protect there interest (elk). Public left for the wolves.

Well guess what? public lands are held in trust for the general public, not just hunters.

If you perceive the wolves are pushing all of the elk onto private lands you can always purchase private land. Or you can support politicians who want to expand public lands instead of selling them.

It would be interesting to see if there is any data on public vs private land success rates pre and post wolf. I'm not doubting it for some areas. My subjective observations differ. So far I find the elk still there but in different spots, our harvest rates have not changed, the elk population has not been higher in 20 years, there is private land down low for all of them to run to, and about half of the party I hunt with complain all the elk are being eaten :giggle:

Give me something meaningful rather than rebuking my data only to offer your personal perceptions. I did you the favor of providing the best data available for the point I was making, that's all I ask for in return.
 
The only correlation I can find with wolves on public vs private is in a state like MT where the highest populations of wolves are also in areas with the largest amount of public land. These areas also have more timber and are harder to hunt. Western Montana vs eastern Montana. No matter what anyone says...if a rancher sees a wolf on his place in eastern Montana...it probably won’t last long.

I don’t have a problem with wolves. They need to be managed like all predators do, but they have a place and are a blast to hunt.
 
Back
Top