IDFG Turns to a Hired Gun

[brymoore]

I hunted the Big Creek drainage last year for 16 days. I never saw an elk, glassing miles of country. I saw a hand full of hunters in my time. None had killed wolves, one group did encounter a pack twice.

We can debate why the elk aren't there, but I would place a large percentage of the cause on wolves. Habitat is the same, the factor that has changed is the introduction of wolves.

IDFG has previously killed packs to support wildlife, most recently in the Lolo area. Why can't they do something similar in the Frank Church? The elk should recover, but so will the wolves, eventually.

 

[6speed]

Thanks for the reply Ben. I agree the habitat is no where near what it was even 10 years ago. So here is how I see the situation. IDF&G is stuck in a nasty crossfire. The "libtards" don't want wolves killed, the "teatards" want to kill them all, hunters want increased elk numbers, IDF&G budgets are down, bobbing heads on TV, in print, on facebook etc. are feeding the "wolves have ruined hunting in Idaho" machine (see Eastmans) and USFS has taken a completely hands off approach to forest (habitat) management. Somewhere a biologist at IDF&G must have thought removing these wolves would help calf recruitment, even if a temporary fix. Previous attempts by IDF&G to use airial gunning have proven a cost of about $1800 per wolf. If this "hired gun" can do more for less I support their decision.

 

[RobG]

I hunted the Big Creek drainage last year for 16 days. I never saw an elk, glassing miles of country. I saw a hand full of hunters in my time. None had killed wolves, one group did encounter a pack twice.

We can debate why the elk aren't there, but I would place a large percentage of the cause on wolves. Habitat is the same, the factor that has changed is the introduction of wolves.

IDFG has previously killed packs to support wildlife, most recently in the Lolo area. Why can't they do something similar in the Frank Church? The elk should recover, but so will the wolves, eventually.

I remember about a dozen years ago (when I lived in Idaho) the elk started to decline in that general area. Everyone was screaming wolves but it turned out that bears and lions were taking the majority of the animals and furthermore the bigger problem was the regrowth after the fires was replacing the habitat. Piling wolves on top of all this obviously didn't help, but removing them probably isn't going to make much difference either. I expect IDF&G sees this as a relatively cheap way to satisfy the critics, if not show them that it won't work. I don't care much either way.

 

[idnative1948]

Very well said.

Thanks for the reply Ben. I agree the habitat is no where near what it was even 10 years ago. So here is how I see the situation. IDF&G is stuck in a nasty crossfire. The "libtards" don't want wolves killed, the "teatards" want to kill them all, hunters want increased elk numbers, IDF&G budgets are down, bobbing heads on TV, in print, on facebook etc. are feeding the "wolves have ruined hunting in Idaho" machine (see Eastmans) and USFS has taken a completely hands off approach to forest (habitat) management. Somewhere a biologist at IDF&G must have thought removing these wolves would help calf recruitment, even if a temporary fix. Previous attempts by IDF&G to use airial gunning have proven a cost of about $1800 per wolf. If this "hired gun" can do more for less I support their decision.

 

[Elkmagnet]

the bigger problem was the regrowth after the fires was replacing the habitaway.

It may be far before my time but what fire went through the big creek area?
The closest big fires that I can find evidence of we're in the Chamberlain basin area.

You always hear about vegetation regrowth after the big fires affecting elk populations in the lolo, sel and Chamberlain basin areas but not on the west side of the FC which is a long way away from those fires.

 

[brymoore]

Big Creek has had several fires in the area in the past 10 years. Taylor Ranch almost burned at one point. IDF&G believes the fires have helped create more habitat for elk:

"Habitat ultimately determines elk densities and productivity. Over past decades, fire suppression
contributed to conifer encroachment on forage-producing areas, particularly winter ranges.
Recent large wildfires have partially reversed this trend and enhanced elk habitat. Present
management policies that allow fire a larger role in wilderness ecosystems will benefit elk
habitat and elk over the long run. Already established in some areas, spread of noxious weeds
such as knapweed and rush skeletonweed could ultimately have significant impacts on winter
range productivity."

https://collaboration.idfg.idaho.gov/WildlifeTechnicalReports/Elk Statewide PR11.pdf

Having walked or glassed a large portion of the area from the confluence to Cabin Creek, habitat is not an issue. It's beautiful elk habitat. Plenty of cover, grass and water. I might string along that weather has effected the herds, but not habitat.

My wife was along with me on my hunt. She was amazed that Big Creek was such a dead zone for animals.

 

[RobG]

It may be far before my time but what fire went through the big creek area?
The closest big fires that I can find evidence of we're in the Chamberlain basin area.

You always hear about vegetation regrowth after the big fires affecting elk populations in the lolo, sel and Chamberlain basin areas but not on the west side of the FC which is a long way away from those fires.

I think you might be correct - I forgot Big Creek was that far south. Sorry bout that. Maybe it will be money well spent.

 

[jryoung]

Is the grass something the ungulates will eat? Or is it some other species that sprouted after the fires?

 

[Elkmagnet]

Big Creek has had several fires in the area in the past 10 years. Taylor Ranch almost burned at one point. IDF&G believes the fires have helped create more habitat for elk:

"Habitat ultimately determines elk densities and productivity. Over past decades, fire suppression
contributed to conifer encroachment on forage-producing areas, particularly winter ranges.
Recent large wildfires have partially reversed this trend and enhanced elk habitat. Present
management policies that allow fire a larger role in wilderness ecosystems will benefit elk
habitat and elk over the long run. Already established in some areas, spread of noxious weeds
such as knapweed and rush skeletonweed could ultimately have significant impacts on winter
range productivity."

https://collaboration.idfg.idaho.gov/WildlifeTechnicalReports/Elk Statewide PR11.pdf

Having walked or glassed a large portion of the area from the confluence to Cabin Creek, habitat is not an issue. It's beautiful elk habitat. Plenty of cover, grass and water. I might string along that weather has effected the herds, but not habitat.

My wife was along with me on my hunt. She was amazed that Big Creek was such a dead zone for animals.

I think you already realize what I was asking but I'll clarify just in case.

I was aware or the recent fires and was asking about old ones that had regrown in the fairly recent past.

It looks like we have the same feelings towards that great country. I love being up there I am just not going to waste my elk season up there anymore. I killed a bull the last year I hunted it and felt bad because it was the only elk found by 5 hunters in a week of hard hunting. Those elk have it hard enough in there without me chasing them around. I really feel the odds are stacked against them.

Will this help? Who knows!
Is it controversial? Not with me!

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thanks for the reply Ben. I agree the habitat is no where near what it was even 10 years ago. So here is how I see the situation. IDF&G is stuck in a nasty crossfire. The "libtards" don't want wolves killed, the "teatards" want to kill them all, hunters want increased elk numbers, IDF&G budgets are down, bobbing heads on TV, in print, on facebook etc. are feeding the "wolves have ruined hunting in Idaho" machine (see Eastmans) and USFS has taken a completely hands off approach to forest (habitat) management. Somewhere a biologist at IDF&G must have thought removing these wolves would help calf recruitment, even if a temporary fix. Previous attempts by IDF&G to use airial gunning have proven a cost of about $1800 per wolf. If this "hired gun" can do more for less I support their decision.

Reasonable and measured.

I still question the end result. I doubt it's going to do anything other than placate the "do something" crowd.

In Wilderness, you can do habitat treatments, but it usually is up to the regional forester to make that call. Most western wilderness areas opt for no human conditioning of the land at all - which can and does mean habitat functionality is never a constant. Hunters want high elk numbers at all times and nature has a different schedule. That's the real conflict. In 20-30 years, it very well could be Valhalla again.

 

[6speed]

I guess I'm a bit more optimistic in hoping that maybe just maybe it will open more of the "do something" crowd up to the idea that there are more reasons than wolves for declining elk numbers and those reasons can be addressed.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I guess I'm a bit more optimistic in hoping that maybe just maybe it will open more of the "do something" crowd up to the idea that there are more reasons than wolves for declining elk numbers and those reasons can be addressed.

That's like asking me to believe that Kate Upton isn't into me. It's just not gonna happen.

 

[smarandr]

I guess I'm a bit more optimistic in hoping that maybe just maybe it will open more of the "do something" crowd up to the idea that there are more reasons than wolves for declining elk numbers and those reasons can be addressed.

Optimistic indeed. As long as there's a single wolf roaming the Idaho back country the "do something" crowd isn't interested in any other reasons.

 

[6speed]

In their recent post on Facebook Eastmans are asking people to like the idea of privatizing wildlife management in YNP so maybe thats the answer.

I'll stick with my optimism and Ben don't give up on Kate.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Narrow thinking is usually debated with even narrower thinking.

I happen to think everybody is painting with too broad of a brush. Why does the problem have to be wolves in every drainage? Its not. Why does the problem have to be weather in every drainage? Its not. Why does the problem have to be forage and cover in every drainage? Its not. My personal opinion is that this particular drainage has been heavily impacted by predators mostly wolves but definitely lions and bears also. That in no way should make you think that I or anyone else with said opinion think the entire states elk problem is a wolf problem some areas have no problem some areas have different problems ie the Lolo.

I think as soon as you say the problem is wolves you're automatically labeled a nut when the problem could be wolves in the drainage you're talking about and the problem could be environmental in the very next drainage.

 

[6speed]

Looks like the judge sided with IDF&G. The EOJA money suckers are headed to the 9th.

 

[Big Fin]

In their recent post on Facebook Eastmans are asking people to like the idea of privatizing wildlife management in YNP so maybe thats the answer.

Link

 

[6speed]

Link

Its long gone as is the post calling IDF&G insane for the "hired gun" I posted a reply but I cant track it. Both posts were carbon copy links of posts made on the BGF Facebook page in mid December. The posts on the BGF page don't have the comments from Eastmans. I see BGF also has a big thank you post to Eastmans. Looks like a developing relationship.

 

[JLS]

I despise Eastman's for what they've helped turn hunting into.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Looks like a developing relationship.

I scratch your back....