New Wolf Forum

[mdunc8]

I realize that, but all of our management is based off estimated numbers. You can't throw around your elk numbers in the Bitterroot and then dismiss wolf numbers just because they're estimates. They're ALL estimates.

 

[fowladdict]

At the end of 2010, the estimated population was 566 in Montana. Removing 220 using hunters and an additional 50 or so due to depredation will result in a harvest rate much greater than 15%.

After re-reading what Ben wrote and your reply, I get it. I think Ben is implying that if the 220 quota is met, that would leave 346 wolves give or take. And by the time the next years season starts the wolves would replenish the packs to roughly 480 wolves or 15% less than the estimated 566. I'm a little slow.

 

[tjones]

Elk, deer, and sheep numbers are actual observed spring count numbers they are not estimates. 2011 pups are also missing from the 550 estimates.

 

[mdunc8]

The ability to accurately count critters from a moving plane doesn't vary from year-to-year or person-to-person? Do spring counts in different drainages represent the same percentage of the greater population? Maybe the nonhunting biologist you had several years ago just wasn't good at finding or counting animals and your elk numbers are actually OK. All I'm saying is that they're all estimates. When used properly, they do just fine. I would hate to see all the work you guys have put into this go down the drain because the state got ahead of itself in its management practices. I think they're doing pretty well so far.

 

[tjones]

The flights are GPS routes during spring green up that have been followed for a long long time. Every year. Studies done according to the Montana EMP on spring survey numbers, depending on terrian is 75% to 90% of total population. Management is done according to the EMP and it uses observed numbers. Observed numbers, not estimates.

Remember no matter what method is used to remove wolves, they cannot be over harvested because of the quota. How to reach the quota in some HDs is the big question.

 

[mdunc8]

I don't think you get my point. I will concede that spring counts for elk are probably more precise and accurate than how FWP estimate wolf and bear numbers, but they're still estimates. Spring green up varies each year. I'd be willing to bet it was much easier to count elk last year due to snow than during the 10-15 years of drought you guys had prior to 2008. Not only were the elk easier to see, they were likely concentrated in a smaller area due to snow cover. Yes, you get a real number from those counts, but they're still estimates.

I haven't looked at the models, so I have no opinion on whether harvest is sustainable. However, I don't see how you, or anyone else, can say definitively that the quota is or is not sustainable. There's too many unknowns at play to make that claim. Continuing to fine tune management and more precisely direct harvest to problem areas will keep the state out of trouble. One year of slight over harvest isn't going to derail state management, but I think throwing on the blinders and trying to remove as many wolves as possible THIS YEAR isn't the smartest way to go about things.

 

[tjones]

I don't think you get my point. I will concede that spring counts for elk are probably more precise and accurate than how FWP estimate wolf and bear numbers, but they're still estimates. Spring green up varies each year. I'd be willing to bet it was much easier to count elk last year due to snow than during the 10-15 years of drought you guys had prior to 2008. Not only were the elk easier to see, they were likely concentrated in a smaller area due to snow cover. Yes, you get a real number from those counts, but they're still estimates.

I haven't looked at the models, so I have no opinion on whether harvest is sustainable. However, I don't see how you, or anyone else, can say definitively that the quota is or is not sustainable. There's too many unknowns at play to make that claim. Continuing to fine tune management and more precisely direct harvest to problem areas will keep the state out of trouble. One year of slight over harvest isn't going to derail state management, but I think throwing on the blinders and trying to remove as many wolves as possible THIS YEAR isn't the smartest way to go about things.

I would suggest reading the EMP. It doesnt matter how many elk you don't see, what matters is how many elk you do see. I say again, management is done by observed numbers per the EMP. Not sure how a number can be real, and an estimate. The bio either saw the elk and counted it or he saw none and counted none.


I am not sure where you got the idea anyone was suggesting blinders and rampant harvest of wolves, all I every suggested was doing what ever it took to hit the FWP approved, quota. No more and certainly no less.

 

[mdunc8]

:W:.........

 

[tjones]

yep,,,,,,,,,,,,,,happy hunting

 

[----]

Great reply from both of you. I appreciate it. One thing that led me to the question is the fact that some of the MT quotas were met fairly quickly. It makes me wonder if the numbers are somewhat underestimated? IMHO These dogs are not easily seen and hunted. I'd like to think the Idaho hunters are hunting these dogs just as hard as the MT boys, yet we are no where near our quotas as of Nov 17th.

We're still a long way from most of our quotas as well. 390 was the exception, not the rule.

http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/planahunt/huntingGuides/wolf/default.html