Dakotakid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 820
How does FWP manage a population without an objective?Arguing for a certain number to meet an undetermined “objective” is pointless.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How does FWP manage a population without an objective?Arguing for a certain number to meet an undetermined “objective” is pointless.
How does FWP manage a population without an objective?
The premise of most of this tread is that Idaho’s decision to allow wolf harvests is destructive and therefore resisting should occur/will occur/ might occur.
It is going to be difficult for environmental groups to litigate that case without an objective and a measurable effect of the policy change.
The current population is having a negative effect on mountain lion numbers as discussed in a recent podcast.
what does the science say for health biodiversity population.
It can’t just be more more more, the west has space, the west has space.
the sustainable population is?
Glad your R2 and 3 are doing great for elk count collections...Talk to your bio Chuck, I see why you have difficulty understand game management. There were plenty of flights done in R2 and R3 for elk. I have the counts and you can get them too. I don't know if your bio flies or not. Maybe you should ask.
Explain this process (serious query - not our usual back and forth banter):They then track the collar to see how many wolves are in the pack.
If that's the same Boyd that I know, She wasn't working on wolves up there after the reintroduction. She was studying those wolves that had recolonized the area. R1 has it's issues there's no doubt.Glad your R2 and 3 are doing great for elk count collections...
On the R1 side, different story from check points to aerial counts.
Chat with Buzz about our wonderful region 1 elk counts and the flights conducted while our "elk populations are circling the drain" counts.
"I've heard all those same excuses for that piece of chit helicopter the FWP spends a boatload of money on for years.
Every time a count is off, they must have missed a bunch of elk due to timing of the flight, the bulls were timbered up, every excuse under the sun.
How about just do your job right, fly on good days, and due it in a timely manner? Novel idea...but not good for excuse making on why the elk populations are circling the drain.
Of course, there's that pesky check station data too...elk hunters are doing just groovy in regions 1".
Explain this process (serious query - not our usual back and forth banter):
Boyd (no longer with FWP as the R1 primary wolf biologist) shared during one of our conversations it explains the territory though not size of the pack.
We were specifically speaking of the Lazy Creek Pack that I was working. She shared one of the collared left the pack with the belief to find a mate and start another pack. However packs size is a general estimate - though we have packs in R1 (highest presumed population) ranging from 5-12...
This is in our fancy "2 quota" per year area...
All said and done, they best any state can do is keep the population numbers as close to the minimum as possible. No one will convince me that a high population of Wolves is a good thing for for deer and elk and moose hunters.
Conservation of species only applies to animals that benefit us.So is hunting merely another extraction industry only concerned about hunters bottom lines? Or is there a proud tradition of conservation which has evolved beyond huntable game?
Management of wolves is conservation. There was plenty of proud conservation long before the thousands of wolves were lowering the odds of the new generation of people getting to get into the field to enjoy hunting. Plenty of conservation long before huge amounts of money was spent to pay out for livestock and pet killings. Conservation was achieved as soon as they were reintroduced and met the minimum breeding pair number that bios came up with. After that conservation becomes competition, and I am top dog and give a rats ass about wolves in large numbers especially on private property. Without hunting, there is little funds to do conservation. Keeping the wolves at low number IS conservation.So is hunting merely another extraction industry only concerned about hunters bottom lines? Or is there a proud tradition of conservation which has evolved beyond huntable game?
I will try it a third way:
What are the “goals” for wolf populations.
As discussed the impacts on mountain lion populations are being observed.
Conservation has historically been a balance, what are the wolf population goals for a balanced ecosystem?
And if it is just more, more, how do you select which species gets preferred animal status?
We often hear criticism of hunters because they promote elk hunting populations but how is the hypocrisy not recognized for the unregulated wolf supporters.
That’s not entirely true, it depends on the unit and the data.Keeping the wolves at low number IS conservation.
Not again please-I am sure you will go posting the same carefully select data and time frames showing wolves and elk co-existing and thriving! Wolves eat elk, more wolves mean less elk, the number of wolves necessary according to the eco terrorist is a simple formula. N plus 1-N is the current number of wolves on any given day plus 1. That is what they have demonstrated as the number they need its just 1 more regardless of the current number of wolves. If we don't have surplus elk to sell tags to create revenue to continue to manage for surplus elk the north american wildlife model breaks. I DONT think any state should try and manage wolves anywhere near the minimum required. WE ARE IN NO DANGER of getting anywhere close to that in Idaho. If you read the management plan for Idaho in 2008-2012 when they could actually start managing the wolves they stated an OBJECTIVE of somewhere between 500-750 the numbers were slightly different by 1 or 2 on either end but were basically exactly the current population estimate. WE are over 1500 so we ARE over objective and there was a STATED objective which proves current seasons and harvest methods were not working. Idaho is 2 to 3 times over the last stated population objective. Politicians should not have gotten involved this is a terrible precedent but Idaho was going here anyways. I like having managed wolves on the landscape in an appropriate amount. Lawsuits would have been filed and the same groups were still filing lawsuits over wolves(great lakes) and grizzlies but this unfortunately was really a gift to them to file sooner and raise more funds for the next one. Look at the headlines-'Idaho orders killing 90 percent of wolves'-that is not at all what the bill said and even with ALL the additional methods and seasons we couldn't do that in our wildest dreams. Wolves are really pretty amazing animals and trapping and hunting them down to 150 is not even possible with the new rules. Idaho fish and game pretty much neutered the new law with how they intend to regulate the rules(which I think was smart given all the publicity).That’s not entirely true, it depends on the unit and the data.
We are the apex of all species and we regulate their existence. Pretend we don't all you'd like though without hunter boots on the ground and conservation coffers filled with our $, their existence would slowly fade.So is hunting merely another extraction industry only concerned about hunters bottom lines? Or is there a proud tradition of conservation which has evolved beyond huntable game?