Two Dogs Killed by Wolves in Colorado Less Than 24-Hours Apart 3-17-23

[rogerthat]

I didn't talk to him yesterday...i spoke to him last year prior to hunting season. I also wrote his top end estimate...which it was...which is why he gave a 25% kill rate. Also, the percentage is a bit higher due to non-hunting or trapping deaths...if you want to add more jello. Name another hunted species in Montana that we take 1/4-1/3 of the total population in just hunting/trapping each year.

Name another hunted species that has a large litter size. The population of wolves is definitely not dropping in Montana. It’s still expanding

 

[BuzzH]

. The population of wolves is definitely not dropping in Montana. It’s still expanding

Data to back that claim up?

I think the population peaked quite a while ago...pretty well flat at this point, IIRC.

 

[BuzzH]

Name another hunted species that has a large litter size. The population of wolves is definitely not dropping in Montana. It’s still expanding

Hunted species or trapped species?

Plenty of fur bearers we can trap have litters.

Oh, and about that claim of expanding population, according to this report:

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/conservation/wolf/final-draft-2021-wolf-report-7.28.pdf

The wolf population peaked in Montana in about 2010/2011 and has been pretty steady/declining for the past 10-12 years(see graph on one of the first pages).

Those that claimed hunting and trapping would never control wolf numbers don't appear to be correct in that assumption.

 

[BuzzH]

Sure, that's why I expressed some surprise but sounds like the wolves keep populating. Though now that I think about it, my math or assumptions was wrong anyway. I was slow and took it in a bad direction by saying the number of wolves taken out of total population was X percent hunter success rate. Instead I should have looked at the almost 21K wolf licenses sold in 2021, with a harvest number (hunters and trappers) of 273. So success rate would be calculated much differently, but even at that lower rate, "up to" 1/3 of the wolves are taken out each year.

2021 stats show 4 archery hunters took a wolf. And that 2 hunters took 5 wolves and another hunter took 10 wolves. Must be the guys mtmuley knows

I know the hunter that's taken every wolf that's been available to him since the first season started...got his 10 hunting this season too.

 

[more_cowbell]

Hunted species or trapped species?

Plenty of fur bearers we can trap have litters.

Oh, and about that claim of expanding population, according to this report:

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/conservation/wolf/final-draft-2021-wolf-report-7.28.pdf

The wolf population peaked in Montana in about 2010/2011 and has been pretty steady/declining for the past 10-12 years(see graph on one of the first pages).

Those that claimed hunting and trapping would never control wolf numbers don't appear to be correct in that assumption.

I can't tell from the F&G site, whether their population survey efforts have remained the same since 2011. Maybe or maybe not. Or if they have collars on enough wolves in each pack (thought I read MT says the average pack is less than 6), perhaps they just keep track of collared wolves, assume 4-5 other wolves in the pack, plus X number of pups per year, minus the harvest numbers? I've already shown I'm no good at math, so this is beyond my pay grade to figure it out.

 

[more_cowbell]

I know the hunter that's taken every wolf that's been available to him since the first season started...got his 10 hunting this season too.

Sounds like he has some honey holes. Too bad wolf hunting isn't legal in NE Oregon -- I'd invite him over to tag out. Payment in beer and fuel

 

[Sytes]

Ahhh, then there's Buzz. Unable to continue your rant with one HT member - your dick still swinging around to show all. You're off to #*^@#* with others...

I don't know who TF this BuzzH guy is, though these quotes are from a two minute search.

Keep at it Buzz...

Their data is dogshit...no two ways about it. Everytime they do a survey flight and find crap numbers it's because they flew too late, that piece of shit helicopter had problems, the bulls were in the timber, excuse after excuse.

Of course shoulder seasons, 11 weeks of brown it's down, etc. etc....that has nothing to do with anything.

What a joke, then you get a FWP employee trying to defend it all in this thread.

I can tell you they flat don't care what hunters are seeing, what outfitters are seeing, or what a wildlife watcher is seeing.

They trust their phony numbers and their population models. When they don't find the numbers they need its the same old story, "we flew on a bad day, all the bucks/bulls were in the timber, the green up wasn't quite right, the POS helicopter broke down"...and on and on and on.

The FWP is also very reluctant to EVER admit they were wrong. Further, the last people they believe are hunters who spend, and have spent, many decades hunting the same areas. That's a big mistake, IMO. But they sure do believe the landowners when they complain about too many deer, elk, pronghorn, turkeys, wolves, coyotes, whatever.

I'm experiencing the same in WY in some cases as well, and its super frustrating.

How about managing on what is OBSERVED, rather than what some model suggests?

If you don't see the numbers, don't just make up an excuse that you just didn't see them...pretty good odds, they just flat aren't there. In particular when you have very little data to support how many have been killed from a population, because you don't make harvest reporting mandatory.

I think its great that the folks on HT showed up, but I suspect their concerns, like mine, are falling on deaf ears...

 

[rogerthat]

Hunted species or trapped species?

Plenty of fur bearers we can trap have litters.

Oh, and about that claim of expanding population, according to this report:

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/conservation/wolf/final-draft-2021-wolf-report-7.28.pdf

The wolf population peaked in Montana in about 2010/2011 and has been pretty steady/declining for the past 10-12 years(see graph on one of the first pages).

Those that claimed hunting and trapping would never control wolf numbers don't appear to be correct in that assumption.

I don’t believe their mule deer counts. Wolves are even harder to count.

But you are correct I have no data to back that up just like I have no data on the mule deer to back up my claims.

However I would expect to see a slight uptrend in population for wolves. They are definitely expanding their range. I am seeing them places I never used to.

 

[BuzzH]

I don’t believe their mule deer counts. Wolves are even harder to count.

But you are correct I have no data to back that up just like I have no data on the mule deer to back up my claims.

However I would expect to see a slight uptrend in population for wolves. They are definitely expanding their range. I am seeing them places I never used to.

Expanding range and expanding populations aren't the same thing.

I don't trust their counts that much either, but its the best we've got. What I do trust is what I see in regard to tracks in the areas I hunt.

My buddy that's killed his limit of wolves since the first season, put a good dent in the population in the area I primarily hunt in Montana season before last. IIRC, he shot 4 out of the 12-13 (2 packs) or so that I saw tracks for and heard howling while deer hunting. Another guy trapped 2 on private so those 2 combined packs got cut in about half by the end of the 2022 season.

The one thing I have noticed is significantly lower lion populations since the wolves moved in (which was around 2010).

That has really helped the deer recover in my area...I wouldn't want all the wolves shot as they aren't near as tough on deer than lions. Plus the wolves seem to be limiting the number of lions in the area I hunt very significantly.

 

[rogerthat]

Expanding range and expanding populations aren't the same thing.

Do you believe their deer and elk counts? Wolf counts?

It’s hard for me to have much confidence in mfwp’s data. However the wolf data may be their best data. They do ask for wolf sightings on every hunter survey.

 

[BuzzH]

Do you believe their deer and elk counts? Wolf counts?

It’s hard for me to have much confidence in mfwp’s data. However the wolf data may be their best data. They do ask for wolf sightings on every hunter survey.

Edited the previous post....see above.

I think the average Montana hunter has lost faith in the FWP on all counts.

 

[more_cowbell]

I enjoy a good debate, if it's fair. When people start piling on and cracking inside jokes, or referring to something said on the forum 10+ years ago as something set in stone, I get a bit lost since I haven't read all 1.76 million messages on HT.

An issue with a lot of this is we're all talking from our own different experiences with wolves. Some people love them, some don't. I complain about wolves in NE Oregon affecting deer and elk numbers (and what once was a promising moose herd), "piling on", after in the mid 1990s Oregon voted to ban cougar and bear hunting with dogs (my profile pic is a photo of a cougar at about 60 yards I took while bird hunting). That earlier dog hunting ban resulted in increased predation of big game in a lot of units.

And so over the years elk hunting went from a general season OTC bull elk tag, to a general season OTC spike bull tag, to having to draw for a spike bull tag. And applying for years, to draw a branch bull tag.

In summary, when wolves showed up (perhaps before ODFW would admit it), they didn't help anything. But, there's no wolf hunting season in Oregon. Unlike WY, MT and ID. Which also has a lot better big game hunting. Also looks like at least MT law allows for the reimbursement of hunters and trappers for "costs incurred related to the hunting or trapping of wolves". That's a nice incentive.

 

[Sytes]

Idaho incorporated a rigorous method to count wolves

MT = POM count system. (Inclusive of phone solicitation for wolf sightings).

Groups sue Montana alleging FWP fails to count wolves accurately • Daily Montanan

Two groups are suing the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks for not accurately counting the state's wolf population.

dailymontanan.com

"Montana is the only state to get its wolf population estimate from the new and still scientifically questionable Integrated Patch Occupancy Modeling (iPOM) methodology. The iPOM, as used by FWP, is unreliable. It is a series of models that build on each other to reach a final population estimate, and each model in the series has its own errors. When FWP combines the results of each model to get a final population estimate, the errors combine to overestimate the wolf population."

**This from the anti-ESA side. Heh.

ID camera / interactive has been a quality setting.

Will be interesting to see how Colorado goes about their counts.

 

[more_cowbell]

The MT F&G or F&W 2021 wolf report does a deep dive into how they count (or estimate) the wolf population. They do say their estimations are more conservative, like Idaho's, than Minnesota's calculations. "We selected these values based on studies documenting that 10 – 15% of wolf populations are comprised of lone or dispersing wolves (Fuller et al. 2003). This is consistent with Idaho’s calculations for lone wolves (Holyan et al. 2013) and slightly more conservative than Minnesota’s calculations, which add 15% (Erb et al. 2018)."

And I was incorrect -- their info says now, wolf pack average is under 5.5.

Edit: caption under their Figure 9 in the 2021 report re: "Montana Wolf Population Estimates, 2007-2021): "Estimated wolf population size based on known mortalities anchored to December 31 Patch Occupancy Modelling estimates, 2007 – 2021."

Edit #2: Paage 17 of the report: "Sale of these wolf licenses [in 2021] generated $341,043 for wolf management and monitoring in Montana (Fig. 10). Total funding generated for wolf monitoring and management by the sale of wolf hunting licenses from 2009-2021 is nearly $4.8 million. Because trapping licenses for both residents and non-residents are not wolf-specific, FWP cannot quantify the financial contribution that wolf trapping generates."

 

[BuzzH]

Ahhh, then there's Buzz. Unable to continue your rant with one HT member - your dick still swinging around to show all. You're off to #*^@#* with others...

I don't know who TF this BuzzH guy is, though these quotes are from a two minute search.

Keep at it Buzz...

The area I hunt, I've never seen a single radio collar on a deer in over 40 years of hunting. Too thick to fly and count deer as well, according to them. At least one wolf in each of the packs in that same area are collared (or were until my friend whacked one of the collared ones last year). I've probably seen 20-30 elk with collars in that same time frame. So pretty fair to say they haven't collared deer in there for 40+years. If they did, I would have seen them, yes I'm that good.

What the FWP does is try to estimate deer numbers on harvest data, road kills, and the number of deer they can see while driving the highway in the winter.

I tend to think having wolves collared, being able to observe pack size related to the collared wolves via flights and on the ground observation, is way more effective than counting road killed deer to pull a population estimate out of their ass...

Ones pretty scientific in its approach, the other could be conducted as accurately by a garbage man driving the highway once a week (in fairness, probably better than the FWP, because the G-man would be on the highway at least once a week, instead of once a year).

 

[treedagain]

Yep Hank Meyers...i saw a few of his casualties and my uncle had his dog shot in the butt. My uncle took it in stride...my aunt wasn't happy with Hank. His son is much nicer i believe. He hung the dogs on Middle Burnt Fork road across from the old school/ church.

Well if Hank Meyers shot my dog? They would have found him in the same place. Fact

 

[BuzzH]

Well if Hank Meyers shot my dog? They would have found him in the same place. Fact

I don't think many people would have lost sleep over it...he was something else.

 

[Sytes]

I'm sure your followers buy your political spin from your frequent rants against FWP counts - salvaged by your bravado for quality counts by FWP - when it suites your cause.

Your disdain within your comments anyone here can quote from your prior posts about FWP "inept" so ruthless towards FWP counts - all things except woofs.

Carry on, Buzz. Your followers gulp your wizz regardless.

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

I'm sure your followers buy your political spin from your frequent rants against FWP counts - salvaged by your bravado for quality counts by FWP - when it suites your cause.

Your disdain within your comments anyone here can quote from your prior posts about FWP "inept" so ruthless towards FWP counts - all things except woofs.

Carry on, Buzz. Your followers gulp your wizz regardless.

You aren't the only one who thought this.

 

[BuzzH]

I'm sure your followers buy your political spin from your frequent rants against FWP counts - salvaged by your bravado for quality counts by FWP - when it suites your cause.

Your disdain within your comments anyone here can quote from your prior posts about FWP "inept" so ruthless towards FWP counts - all things except woofs.

Carry on, Buzz. Your followers gulp your wizz regardless.

I think anyone with a 3rd grade education would conclude that having a segment of a population of animals radio collared for determining pack size, total populations, etc. is just slightly more scientific in its approach than counting roadkill. You'll argue otherwise because you haven't the first clue about anything hunting, wildlife, or management of same.

In particular it's important when NOT having better data on wolf populations means immediate relisting, lose of state management, and never coming off the list again. Why I put a BIT more faith in wolf population estimates, big risk for Montana to be out in the weeds on those.

Nobody is going file a lawsuit if the FWP doesn't have accurate population estimates on deer, elk, pronghorn, etc.

I'm not finding it shocking, in any way, having to explain these simple things to you. Or that you can't put a cohesive argument together, in particular when you're on full tilt, which is almost always. Even at your best, you don't have the knowledge, education, or hands on experience to have rational discussions with those that do. Fact.