Yellowstone Park Wolves

[Deleted member 28227]

I think we are always imposing our ideals and preferences on anything conservation related... right?
/insert Hunt Talk forums

Fair point sir.

 

[mtmiller]

Or Cody, or Bozeman, Red Lodge, Cooke City, or Island Park, Dubois, Jackson Hole, Kelly, Bondurant, Star Valley, etc.

Couple were tough to spell, so I abbreviated.

 

[manitou1]

Guess you aren't living in West Yellowstone or Gardiner?

I think you misinterpreted my comment. I am good with them not visiting. Gets awful crowded and you can identify the rude/dangerous drivers before seeing their license plate.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I think you misinterpreted my comment. I am good with them not visiting. Gets awful crowded and you can identify the rude/dangerous drivers before seeing their license plate.

Yeah no…

Those towns economies are entirely based on tourism.

 

[Pmacc60]

Yeah no…

Those towns economies are entirely based on tourism.

Yes they are but there will be tourism in Yellowstone with wolves or without . Wolves are hear to stay but if I’m seeing less mule deer , less elk , less moose I’m inclined to pass on Yellowstone for wildlife and just be there for the other wonders. I admire every predator and am completely enamored but wolves and Bears but the business decision in me says less wolves! Yes I want to see wild wolves but not at the expense of everything else !

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Yes they are but there will be tourism in Yellowstone with wolves or without . Wolves are hear to stay but if I’m seeing less mule deer , less elk , less moose I’m inclined to pass on Yellowstone for wildlife and just be there for the other wonders. I admire every predator and am completely enamored but wolves and Bears but the business decision in me says less wolves! Yes I want to see wild wolves but not at the expense of everything else !

That has nothing to do with my comment.

 

[Pmacc60]

That has nothing to do with my comment.

Yes I understand that but it’s has everything to do with tha discussion , I did not mean to quote you ! Sorry

 

[Straight Arrow]

... but there will be tourism in Yellowstone with wolves or without .

That is true. However, to ignore the analysis by those credible professionals who continuously monitor Montana's economy and point to a significant increase in tourism dollars which they can clearly attribute to the wolves is to bury your head in the sand and rely only on your personal opinion.

 

[Pmacc60]

That is true. However, to ignore the analysis by those credible professionals who continuously monitor Montana's economy and point to a significant increase in tourism dollars which they can clearly attribute to the wolves is to bury your head in the sand and rely only on your personal opinion.

Straight arrow I don’t not ignore anything on the wolf debates . You need to reread I said there will be tourism with wolves or without! Is there increased tourism, I don’t know but your information says yes. How much do I believe that ? Not much but I will be honest I’m not privy to the data or how it was obtained .

Let’s just say for argument that your information is valid and credible ! Will that offset the lack of tourist dollars generated by hunters in the future because as elk , moose and deer population are depleted ? So will Hunter success in the future and bad hunting is the death sentence to the tourist economy ! Reduced tags to help reduce stress on the big game population, that doesn’t sound good for the local economy either. Ok let’s say your data says yes ……Is that ok with you ? That’s what is happening and it’s only going to get worse !

I get it the wolves are here, it’s an emotional topic but let’s be honest! Hunters are always going to get the short end of the stick ! There comes a time when you are damned if you do and damned if you do and it’s is one of those times! The wolf in the park is untouchable , the wolf outside the park is not ! Hunters be honest , be legal but besides that remember your up against it in whatever you choose. We are never going to win the propaganda war ! Fact is the gray wolf is steeling the western hunting heritage as quickly as land grabs , development or all the other things that are going on ! For that I truly feel for my western hunting brothers !

 

[Ben Lamb]

Straight arrow I don’t not ignore anything on the wolf debates . You need to reread I said there will be tourism with wolves or without! Is there increased tourism, I don’t know but your information says yes. How much do I believe that ? Not much but I will be honest I’m not privy to the data or how it was obtained .

Let’s just say for argument that your information is valid and credible ! Will that offset the lack of tourist dollars generated by hunters in the future because as elk , moose and deer population are depleted ? So will Hunter success in the future and bad hunting is the death sentence to the tourist economy ! Reduced tags to help reduce stress on the big game population, that doesn’t sound good for the local economy either. Ok let’s say your data says yes ……Is that ok with you ? That’s what is happening and it’s only going to get worse !

I get it the wolves are here, it’s an emotional topic but let’s be honest! Hunters are always going to get the short end of the stick ! There comes a time when you are damned if you do and damned if you do and it’s is one of those times! The wolf in the park is untouchable , the wolf outside the park is not ! Hunters be honest , be legal but besides that remember your up against it in whatever you choose. We are never going to win the propaganda war ! Fact is the gray wolf is steeling the western hunting heritage as quickly as land grabs , development or all the other things that are going on ! For that I truly feel for my western hunting brothers !

MT & WY have increased hunter opportunity on elk & deer since wolves were reintroduced. There's a few herds who have had reductions, and a lot of that is not wolf related as the core issue, but wolves to influence restoration.

I'm not sure how hunters are getting the short end of the stick here.

 

[shrapnel]

That is true. However, to ignore the analysis by those credible professionals who continuously monitor Montana's economy and point to a significant increase in tourism dollars which they can clearly attribute to the wolves is to bury your head in the sand and rely only on your personal opinion.

That data can be somewhat erroneous too, when there is an effort to substantiate a theory with empirical evidence that may not be totally accurate as to the economic impact.

 

[Straight Arrow]

That data can be somewhat erroneous too, when there is an effort to substantiate a theory with empirical evidence that may not be totally accurate as to the economic impact.

So true. However, the economic analyses which consistently, continuously, and historically come from the University of Montana are considered the best standard for Montana's status and economic factors. They are what are employed in most impactful decisions and plans for the state.

Doubt them if you wish, but their expertise, information, and professionalism is above my pay grade. Just don't let your limited opinion be publicized as gospel and I won't either.

 

[shrapnel]

So true. However, the economic analyses which consistently, continuously, and historically come from the University of Montana are considered the best standard for Montana's status and economic factors. They are what are employed in most impactful decisions and plans for the state.

Doubt them if you wish, but their expertise, information, and professionalism is above my pay grade. Just don't let your limited opinion be publicized as gospel and I won't either.

I don't totally discount their data, but over 40 years I worked in and around Yellowstone Park. I drove the Lamar valley every week for dozens of years and saw visitors, wolves and dealt directly with the economy of that area. I can speak specifically about the sales as they related to the tourist and whether or not the wolf watchers had an impact.

Yes there were wolf watchers that came to Yellowstone, Cooke City and Gardiner, as that is the highest wolf density area of the park. They no doubt spent money on lodging, meals and gasoline, but to say the economic impact was bolstered significantly by that activity is a bit optimistic.

I have access to the sales data for all those years and although wolf watching has contributed, it is still nothing remarkable. Maybe there is displacement, where wolf watchers got lodging that others couldn't get that didn't watch wolves, but there is a limited amount of services in Cooke City and they have historically been maxed out during the summer months for decades.

This whole wolf issue has been an emotional affair from the start. I have lived around and in Yellowstone all my life. The most common theme is simply change. Wolves have created a division in many circles, I for one would like to someday shoot one myself. Even though I would hunt them, I am not saying I would want them eradicated either. But, there seems to be a lop-sided vision of just how much the positive impact really is.

I saw this every day in the park and wolves were not the reason...

 

[Straight Arrow]

I don't totally discount their data, but over 40 years I worked in and around Yellowstone Park. I drove the Lamar valley every week for dozens of years and saw visitors, wolves and dealt directly with the economy of that area. I can speak specifically about the sales as they related to the tourist and whether or not the wolf watchers had an impact.

Yes there were wolf watchers that came to Yellowstone, Cooke City and Gardiner, as that is the highest wolf density area of the park. They no doubt spent money on lodging, meals and gasoline, but to say the economic impact was bolstered significantly by that activity is a bit optimistic.

I have access to the sales data for all those years and although wolf watching has contributed, it is still nothing remarkable. Maybe there is displacement, where wolf watchers got lodging that others couldn't get that didn't watch wolves, but there is a limited amount of services in Cooke City and they have historically been maxed out during the summer months for decades.

This whole wolf issue has been an emotional affair from the start. I have lived around and in Yellowstone all my life. The most common theme is simply change. Wolves have created a division in many circles, I for one would like to someday shoot one myself. Even though I would hunt them, I am not saying I would want them eradicated either. But, there seems to be a lop-sided vision of just how much the positive impact really is.

I saw this every day in the park and wolves were not the reason...

View attachment 198292

"Doubt them if you wish ..."

 

[shrapnel]

"Doubt them if you wish ..."

Experience isn't about doubt...

 

[Pmacc60]

MT & WY have increased hunter opportunity on elk & deer since wolves were reintroduced. There's a few herds who have had reductions, and a lot of that is not wolf related as the core issue, but wolves to influence restoration.

I'm not sure how hunters are getting the short end of the stick here.

Ben , how so ? I’m asking because if this true I really want know. Any information on this is appreciated

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben , how so ? I’m asking because if this true I really want know. Any information on this is appreciated

Currently, MT is going through an overall herd reduction on the statewide elk total by roughly 35%. From 140,000 to 100,000. That effort is taking place across the entire state, in all regions including 1,2,3,4,5 where wolves are all well established. Those areas are not alone, as the majority of that reduction is happening in areas w/o wolves, but with higher concentrations of animals on ag lands, to be sure. MT has already reduced the state herd from 170,000 animals to 140,000. That's a huge amount of hunter killed elk.

In 2019, MT expanded opportunity on elk by adding a 3rd elk license, in 2015, it was the start of shoulder seasons ,bringing about 6 months of hunting opportunity for hunters. 2021 likewise saw that opportunity expanded on public land, over the objection of the vast majority of those who commented.

Some districts have seen a reduction in elk around the park, but it's an oversimplification to lay that at the feet of wolves, especially when late season hunts continued far longer than they should have, and because we know lions & bears play a large role in calf & cow recruitment as well. Add on all of the habitat issues associated with a long-standing drought/warmer climate and less precipitation and you can see elk herds leaving public lands in favor of irrigated bottomlands where there is more security from hunters, large carnivores and the groceries are better.

Deer is a different story due to disease issues across both states, and habitat loss, but mule deer in general are doing poorly across the west, even in states w/o wolves, while whitetail are expanding their range significantly to fill in the gaps. I remember when WY only had whitetail in the far NE part of the state, and mule deer herds was massive across central and southern WY. Now it's flipped, but hunter opportunity remains high due to the whitetails. MT has had disease outbreaks in areas where they never had before, like the Clark Fork river basin down by Superior, and a huge swath of central and eastern MT. Still, OTC opportunity for deer in MT has remained the same. And herd numbers, while fluctuating, are still strong in a lot of areas, even those occupied by wolves.

Wyoming success rates on elk indicate that this is the good old days of elk hunting in the Cowboy state, while MT's public land success rates show a myriad of issues across the state, absolutely including wolf impacts, but also the other issues as stated above.

Hunters now have longer seasons, more seasons, and are being encouraged to kill a lot of elk in MT. WY remains a great opportunity state for both residents and non-residents. I'm not as familiar with Idaho, so I can't make any assumptions there.

Wyoming is saying as of last year that they're 32% over objective across the state, while only being under objective in 17%: https://capcity.news/latest-news/2020/09/22/decade-of-the-elk-for-hunters-as-herds-top-goals-by-32/

WGFD is literally calling the 2020's the decade of the elk.

 

[RobG]

FWIW, when they stopped hunting in the park in 1967 the northern herd elk numbers were lower than they are now.

The park is unique and more protected than wilderness.

 

[Pmacc60]

Currently, MT is going through an overall herd reduction on the statewide elk total by roughly 35%. From 140,000 to 100,000. That effort is taking place across the entire state, in all regions including 1,2,3,4,5 where wolves are all well established. Those areas are not alone, as the majority of that reduction is happening in areas w/o wolves, but with higher concentrations of animals on ag lands, to be sure. MT has already reduced the state herd from 170,000 animals to 140,000. That's a huge amount of hunter killed elk.

In 2019, MT expanded opportunity on elk by adding a 3rd elk license, in 2015, it was the start of shoulder seasons ,bringing about 6 months of hunting opportunity for hunters. 2021 likewise saw that opportunity expanded on public land, over the objection of the vast majority of those who commented.

Some districts have seen a reduction in elk around the park, but it's an oversimplification to lay that at the feet of wolves, especially when late season hunts continued far longer than they should have, and because we know lions & bears play a large role in calf & cow recruitment as well. Add on all of the habitat issues associated with a long-standing drought/warmer climate and less precipitation and you can see elk herds leaving public lands in favor of irrigated bottomlands where there is more security from hunters, large carnivores and the groceries are better.

Deer is a different story due to disease issues across both states, and habitat loss, but mule deer in general are doing poorly across the west, even in states w/o wolves, while whitetail are expanding their range significantly to fill in the gaps. I remember when WY only had whitetail in the far NE part of the state, and mule deer herds was massive across central and southern WY. Now it's flipped, but hunter opportunity remains high due to the whitetails. MT has had disease outbreaks in areas where they never had before, like the Clark Fork river basin down by Superior, and a huge swath of central and eastern MT. Still, OTC opportunity for deer in MT has remained the same. And herd numbers, while fluctuating, are still strong in a lot of areas, even those occupied by wolves.

Wyoming success rates on elk indicate that this is the good old days of elk hunting in the Cowboy state, while MT's public land success rates show a myriad of issues across the state, absolutely including wolf impacts, but also the other issues as stated above.

Hunters now have longer seasons, more seasons, and are being encouraged to kill a lot of elk in MT. WY remains a great opportunity state for both residents and non-residents. I'm not as familiar with Idaho, so I can't make any assumptions there.

Wyoming is saying as of last year that they're 32% over objective across the state, while only being under objective in 17%: https://capcity.news/latest-news/2020/09/22/decade-of-the-elk-for-hunters-as-herds-top-goals-by-32/

WGFD is literally calling the 2020's the decade of the elk.

Thanks Ben I will check this information out .

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thanks Ben I will check this information out .

Always happy to be corrected when I'm wrong!