Study uses 1994 data-
Report estimates revenue loss from Idaho wolves
The Associated Press
The report relies heavily on a 1994 environmental impact statement related to the introduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park, and then extrapolates those numbers.
*Update: Read the Report
– – – – – –
Additional commentary by Ralph Maughan.
This is the most simplistic analysis. Idaho Fish and Game assumes that every elk killed by a wolf is 1/5 fewer elk for hunters (they assume a 20% hunter success rate).
1. Wolf predation can be both additive or compensatory. Idaho Fish and Game is assuming it is all additive. This is known to be false. Compensatory predation is when is wolf kills an animal that would have died regardless before spring calving.
2. It is also well known that in many areas wolves almost stop hunting on their own during human hunting season. The gut piles are much more attractive to them. Moreover, wolves take down the wounded animals. Most of these would die without predation.
3. With outfitters telling how wolves have killed all the elk, beginning in about 1998 when there were not very many wolves in Idaho, with Idaho Fish and Game now joining the poormouthing chorus, is it any wonder elk tag sales are down? The numbers in a state could actually be up, but if the outfitters and the state wildlife agency says, “the hunting in our state has gone to hell,” what do they expect?
The Wildlife News 
February 22, 2009 at 10:22 PM
More wolves = less ungulates. The exact numbers can be debated, but not the formula.
I am pretty sure that the moose, deer, and elk populations have dropped in Yellowstone since wolf reintroduction without any hunters there.
February 22, 2009 at 10:33 PM
If the numbers have dropped, that’s how mother Nature intended it to be.
February 23, 2009 at 12:07 AM
Elkchaser,
More wolves does not necessary mean less ungulates when you follow the course of a couple years.
Barb wrote: “If the numbers have dropped, that’s how mother Nature intended it to be.”
– — – – – – – –
I’m not clear what you mean by this.
February 23, 2009 at 12:54 AM
Hunter numbers are declining nationwide, and have been for some time. They are declining in states with and without wolf populations. It seems extremely disingenuous (and politically convenient) to blame the Idaho decline on wolves.
February 23, 2009 at 1:11 AM
The facts don’t mean a thing to these politicians – it’s a foregone conclusion to scapegoat wolves, then they work their way backward from there –
February 23, 2009 at 7:43 AM
Brian is right. And Barb, I think what she was saying is that if the ungulate numbers decline, even a little, it is part of the natural cycle.
I would posit further that this is the way nature works, achieving stasis by way of natural means sans human hunting, is the way it should be. that being the case, most states with a hunting agenda for profit have been managing for an un-natural overpopulation of these animals for the sake of hunting which has led to numerous imbalances over this time of “management”.
Humans have a way of really screwing things up when they think they can chump nature for their own benefit and not recognizing the other elements involved.
February 23, 2009 at 9:50 AM
Sorry to post on this thread, but I am looking for that photo and story of the illegally shot wolf in Idaho that Suzanne posted. Can someone please tell me where I can find it? Thanks!
February 23, 2009 at 9:58 AM
I found it — thanks anyway.
I posted it on a blog on the Idaho Statesman — “This is how Idaho manages it wolves.”
February 23, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Barb,
Your message would carry a lot more credibility if you found a picture and story of wolves killed by management actions, instead of a wolf that was illegally killed by a poacher…I am sure there are quite a few people including government agents that can say, the picture you posted was not an Idaho Management action…
February 23, 2009 at 10:10 AM
I will do that as well —
February 23, 2009 at 11:17 AM
SaveBears — sorry, to clarify…… “This is how Idaho citizens are Managing their wolves……….”
February 23, 2009 at 11:30 AM
I would say, that is how Idaho Criminals Manage wolves, because the act of poaching is a criminal act, and I am sure the majority of Idaho Citizens are not criminals…
February 23, 2009 at 11:31 AM
Ralph, you make great points to refute this article. More people that understand how ecosystems work should be screaming the truth from the rooftops and newspapers when this type of crap happens. That is one reason your website is so good. Here in Arizona (and maybe other states) they put a referendum to a vote about 4years ago. They said it was a referendum to allow wildlife to be managed only by scientists, not by public input—-meaning allowing only game and fish to have say in how wildlife should be managed. A noble attempt to say the least, but look who game and fish departments serve—primarily hunters. Which wildlife gets the short end of the stick? Primarily predators. This is another great example of how politics runs amok and trumps good science. Any good biologist worth his salt knows removing one animal in an ecosystem to benefit another does so much harm that it can’t even all be measured. Yet this is the best simple-minded, century old conclusion that they can come up with? Kill more wolves? If the elk population is being artificially propped up for more hunting opportunities doesn’t that make your state a game farm? By what right does anybody decide which species trump other species? Sounds like playing God to me.
February 23, 2009 at 11:32 AM
good point, again, SaveBears.
February 23, 2009 at 12:40 PM
What these politicians want people to believe is that wolves are the sole reason for declines in elk and hunting opportunity but totally absent from their half of the discussion is habitat issues.
If it were solely the wolves having impact on elk populations then why isn’t it happening to the same extent wherever there are wolves and elk? It’s not happening that way but they sure want you to think that it is.
I’m glad you made the point Ralph about how IDFG is telling people that wolves are affecting hunting. It seems to me that if you’re trying to sell something you don’t go on to say how bad your product is even when it really isn’t.
February 23, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Ken,
Because that is what politicians are good at….Negative Marketing, they didn’t make it in marketing school, to they became a politician…it is a vicious circle…
LOL
February 23, 2009 at 1:06 PM
I guess if you can’t sell product, sell fear!
February 23, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Idaho Fish and Game is just doing what it is told to do.
What I can’t understand is why outfitters began poormouthing hunting success and blaming it on wolves, even long before there were enough wolves to possibly have an impact?
One possibility I heard and added to by thinking is that a number of outfitters had, and still have great success; but they keep it to themselves. Their clients know. That’s all that counts. They depend on return business.
Others, having poor success because of whatever, blamed it on the wolves rather than their operation. Who wants to blame themselves?
Those doing well have no incentive to tell the general public or hunters. Why promote competition and blacken their name in the local cafes and bars?
February 23, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Outfitters that I know around Jackson Hole routinely bad mouth grizzlies and wolves for decimating “their” herds, yet in the same breath rave about their fantastic hunts and high kill rates…I guess we are just so use to hearing and accepting mutually contradictory statements that we hardly bat an eye when we hear them. I had to hunt a lot more this year to get my elk, but standing on Snow King Mountain overlooking the National Elk Refugee there seems to be a lot of elk out there still…This despite years of “the sky is falling” predictions.
February 23, 2009 at 4:46 PM
It goes both ways, several studies that Wolves are both compensatory and additive predators. To put them into one box is simply not fair. As for IDFG statment that wolves are affecting hunting tag sales, that is true. There will be approximately 100 less moose tags this year due in large part to wolf predation. There will be tag cuts in several other area due in large part to wolf predation as well.
February 23, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Ryan, PLEASE!
Would you please go find a blog where the majority of posters actually agree with your views? We certainly don’t here. Why do you keep harrassing everyone? Nothing better to do than “shoot a few yotes” and post garbage? Please.
February 23, 2009 at 5:02 PM
The article states that “[t]he report estimated that 824 wolves in Idaho kill 9,517 elk a year.”
Does anyone else think these numbers are odd? That is over 100 elk a year for every man wolf, woman wolf, and pup. That is every wolf killing an elk every 3 days. I just can’t believe that the “average wolf” is killing an elk every 3 days. An elk is a pretty big meal. And they have other things to eat like rodents, deer, etc. Any wolf experts with thoughts on this estimate?
February 23, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Barb,
Do you just want a place you can talk about your extremes with no one else opposing them? That is Not American and it is not realistic..
I actually enjoy reading some of the things that Ryan posts..
If you JUST want a blog with one viewpoint, then you will have a “Slap your back Club” and no “meat” to the conversations.
Now, I can tell you, if that is what you want, there are several places you can start one on the net for free and regulate the conversation, I for one am glad that Ralph allows both sides of an issue to be discussed!
February 23, 2009 at 5:18 PM
I don’t think Ryan is trying to legitimately discuss issues, his facts are sketchy and his credibility is questionable. I really think his intention is simply to provoke people, not to add to the discussions.
February 23, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Barb,
For the most part, I also think your motives are questionable..you and I had a conversation about horses the other day, and I thought you were unreasonable, and YES I am a biologist, I don’t think that wiping an animal off the face of the earth is reasonable, but I also don’t think that letting them run rampant in this day and age is reasonable..
You made a statement in the last day that said….”Do you think animals should be allowed to live without being persecuted”? Did that include Cows, they are an “animal”
Barb, you bounce around and don’t remember what you said, before you say the next thing..there seems to be some real contradictions at times..
February 23, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Barb,
I actually am, the information I posted is all easily verified online. Stepping back and looking at the other side for a while seems to go a long ways.
If I wanted to engage with people who only saw things my way, where would any knowledge gains be made? I’ve learned alot from articles and posters on this blog.
I’ll never agree with you on most subjects and that is fine, but your first hand knowledge and research combined with your disgust for anyone who doesn’t see things your way is a bit overbearing to say the least. Your posts seem to be emotionally fueled and lack any sort of logic for a large part.
February 23, 2009 at 5:32 PM
I’m laughing now. Your obvious hatred for predatory animals is more than emotional, Ryan.
I’ve been advocating for predatory animals for 10 years now and when folks like you come along, I realize what a long way we still have to go…..
February 23, 2009 at 5:35 PM
Barb,
Well at least you understand how far we still have to go…
February 23, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Ryan, I truly am disgusted by that photo of the wolf shot like that. I never said I am disgusted by “you” but your views do disgust me as I get the distinct feeling that you enjoy animal suffering.
I feel most rational people would be (and are) disgusted by merciless poaching and animal suffering like that.
But your diatrabe makes it seem as if you support those kinds of acts or at least, do not care.
Please — correct me if I’m wrong. I’m all ears.
February 23, 2009 at 5:40 PM
“I’m laughing now. Your obvious hatred for predatory animals is more than emotional, Ryan.”
Because I have no problem with population control, you think I hate them? Because I don’t think every cattle rancher, farmer, and hunter are evil I must be crazy..
February 23, 2009 at 5:42 PM
That photo is not ‘population control.’
That is wanton and illegal destruction of an animal. Even SaveBears agrees with this.
February 23, 2009 at 5:43 PM
Yes, Barb, I agree that was an illegal kill, it should not have happened and it should be punished…. cripes at least we agree on one thing!
February 23, 2009 at 5:47 PM
By the way, I will move onto another subject, it is starting to feel like a dog chasing its tail around here…
When does Ralph get back?
February 23, 2009 at 5:50 PM
WTF does that photo have to do with this conversation? Its called poaching, its illegal and wrong.
Not to be confused with legal population control measures.
February 23, 2009 at 6:18 PM
Some fellow obviously thought they would take predator control into their own hands, the rationale and result are the same.
February 23, 2009 at 6:23 PM
John D.
Yes the rationale and result was the same, as it was ILLEGAL, that was a criminal that chose to take some kind of convoluted law into his/her own hands…and I as well as many others hope that eventually there is someone caught and punished!
February 23, 2009 at 6:23 PM
wow, I just checked in for the first time in a while, and not much is new.
Barb, though I rarely agree with Ryan, I have to say that he allows for things to be examined and often sheds light on the true battle faced by us all…”how to make conservation happen even though there are wide ranging views on how to do it.”
I have had my butt chewed here before for being too ‘middle of the road’. I get it chewed regularly for being too extreme also. I guess Ryan is an example of the varying degrees of opnions that have to be dealt with in order to acheive any realistic goals. I am quite certain he feels the very same way about many here. Yet he comes, and he challenges, and he has upon occasion listened and conceeded. (it has happened) Let’s embrace the chance to oppose his view logically, for every browser who visits to see.
I can also say that I tire of everyone throwing credentials around. Having a history or degree is a great thing, but it doesn’t make anyone’s opinion count more. The American way dictates that we all have an equal right to our opinion and representation under the law.
I have met biologists, rangers, ecologists, economists, anthropologists, organic chemists and doctors of one thing or another, etc., and quite often- they are vastly misinformed or less informed or acquainted with many things they discuss- than many of the people here who are just concerned about issues. Invest your confidence in those you trust and have faith in. There are many good people who hold no degree, and many who do. It’s rarely persuasive to throw a credential out if the person who boasts it doesn’t inspire the confidence or compassion of others.
Anyhow, I would say that ‘yes’ wolves may have an impact on ungulate numbers, and ‘yes’ if they are predating on livestock which is grazed on PRIVATE land they should be controlled. But I would highly disagree with the level of effect being credited to wolves, or the cost.
Further, if there are a few less hunting tags but more chance of bettering environmental and species health for future populations….the price is worth it.
February 23, 2009 at 6:29 PM
Vicky
The only reason the degree gets mentioned is because, people like Barb have a tendency to ASK, are you a Biologist? She did it again today to another person commenting on another topic..
But I will agree, there are plenty of people out there that actually understand a topic and don’t have a degree, that is one of the key points being able to listen to EVERYBODY and take their point of view, not call them a troll and understand there are always going to be varying points of view.
I find it disturbing when someone posts something and then one or more than one say…”This blog don’t support your feelings, why don’t you go somewhere else!”
Both sides can learn from each other, despite differences!
February 23, 2009 at 6:49 PM
Save Bears, you are correct in your analysis of what goes on here sometimes. Opposition is not a bad thing, unless people are so closed minded that their only response is to burn the heritics at the stake. I get the feeling sometimes that if we were all in a room together, punches would be getting thrown.
I just want to thank you and Vicky (and others as well) for being rational commenters that I read with interest and consideration if not always agreement.
February 23, 2009 at 7:55 PM
Ryan said: WTF does that photo have to do with this conversation? Its called poaching, its illegal and wrong. Not to be confused with legal population control measures.”
***
Ryan, I’m relieved you see it that way. But you do support aerial hunting, something that the majority of the population disagrees with. That’s conflicting isn’t it? After all, many shots often have to be fired, making the animal suffer, before the (poor innocent) animal dies.
Sorry if my viewpoint is “overbearing,” SaveBears. I can’t stand to see animals suffer.
February 23, 2009 at 8:11 PM
Barb,
How do you know for a fact that “animals suffer”?
I am just curious…
February 23, 2009 at 8:14 PM
…meant “…viewpoint is overbearing,” RYAN. 🙂 typed too fast…..
February 23, 2009 at 8:14 PM
Barb,
By the way, were did I say your view was overbearing, I don’t seem to find it in this thread?
February 23, 2009 at 8:14 PM
Well I guess you corrected before I posted my question!
February 23, 2009 at 8:16 PM
That animals suffer? How can they not suffer? Do animals not have feelings?
Animals are not inanimate objects like plants. Not only is there a lot of research on this subject (monkeys, dogs, pigs, etc.) to me it is common sense.
Why would anyone even question if animals suffer? Those I would think are “questioning” that are those that use animals in research labs.
Just my opinion.
February 23, 2009 at 8:21 PM
Barb,
It has also been proven that plants are not “Inanimate” objects, we are not talking about lab animals…
Man you are all over the map aren’t you?
I can honestly say, I don’t know for a fact that animals have “feelings’ in the sense that humans have feelings…I don’t know and I have not seen a definitive study to show me otherwise..
I think often times, we assign our “human” feelings to animals…
February 23, 2009 at 8:24 PM
If you actually need “a study” to tell if a dog does not suffer who is strung up and beaten, then you are hopeless and there is nothing I can say.
February 23, 2009 at 8:25 PM
Usually those who question “if animals suffer” are usually working for pharmaceutical co’s. (motives)
February 23, 2009 at 8:25 PM
I’m reposting my question b/c it has gotten buried, and I am hoping for an answer.
The article states that “[t]he report estimated that 824 wolves in Idaho kill 9,517 elk a year.”
Does anyone else think these numbers are odd? (Over 100 elk per year for every wolf; every wolf killing an elk every 3/4 days?)
February 23, 2009 at 8:30 PM
Thanks Brian,
I will keep that in mind the next time I post incorrectly!
Cripes!
February 23, 2009 at 8:39 PM
SB — I must have missed your personal biography as posted somewhere apparently………. how in the world would anyone know what ‘studies’ you are working on unless they are telepathic?
My kids get cranky when they’re hungry too.
February 23, 2009 at 9:39 PM
Tilly,
I have been looking for a cited piece of info on that and I haven’t been able to locate it, my Internet time is limited these days…
But you are right, the numbers are waaaay off. It is another indication that these guys are operating without adult supervision when it comes to reporting, accuracy and ethics, however.
February 23, 2009 at 10:06 PM
You guys all seem to be missing an important point; we humans are animals too. We are a part of nature that evolved as predators and as such still feel the need to pursue prey. It is as ingrained in us as it is in wolves or any other predator.
The big difference is that many of US now hire our killing done for us instead of doing it for ourselves. We pay somone to raise, kill, cut and wrap our food.
Hunting is a good and worthwhile pastime and should be a big part of game management.
The large and dangerous predators must be kept to reasonable levels to protect human interests, because we are not going back in time and we are not going to reduce our population in the forseeable future.
Remember, if one of those big, hungry critters comes after you, climb that tree ’til you gotta reach down for the limbs!
February 23, 2009 at 11:08 PM
Note: I have uploaded and included a link to the report cited in the article for anyone interested in the methodology the IDFG used to come up with their figures.
You are welcome to READ THE REPORT
February 23, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Ryan, I’m relieved you see it that way. But you do support aerial hunting, something that the majority of the population disagrees with. That’s conflicting isn’t it? After all, many shots often have to be fired, making the animal suffer, before the (poor innocent) animal dies.
I’ve never advocated aerial hunting.. Aerial population control yes (the pig killing in the other thread would just be done by unliscensed killers most likely not paying rich hunters) BTW have you ever seen video of aerial predator control. The anmal suffers very little after a short chase usually a single round of buckshot humanely ends it. The average hillbilly has no place in an airplane trying to shoot anything. BTW I have used an airplane to access game (no other way to get there), but the laws where i have hunted do not allow for same day hunting as you fly.
February 23, 2009 at 11:49 PM
Tilly, it is such a relief to see someone else who knows some simple 5th grade math can see that it is impossible for that many wolves to kill that many elk. Like I mentioned before, they are not locusts or all big game everywhere would have gone extinct (as well as the wolves themselves) and there would be nothing for us to hunt or complain about. Plus, if a simple organism like a locust knows to leave when its food supply is depleted then wouldn’t wolves have an instinct not to eat everything available to them at once? If wolves were like that then reintroducing them wouldn’t be a concern because they would have invaded from Canada after eating all the caribou and moose up there.
Jeff, it is such a relief to see a Wyoming hunter who has some common sense of this issue. I don’t know if you agree or not, but I think it is good to have wolves near the refuge. Maybe they can keep the elk on their proverbial toes and not crowded and we can be spared an epidemic of brucellosis or chronic wasting disease from this UNNATURAL crowding.
I also didn’t know grizzlies went and killed elk for fun too? With this double threat shouldn’t elk in Yellowstone have died out years ago? I know I am redundant on this but I can’t resist.
February 23, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Tilly,
9,517elk/824 wolves = 11.5 elk per wolf per year.
I don’t know where these estimates came from but they are in line with Montana’s data from the Greater Yellowstone area.
February 24, 2009 at 4:15 AM
This report, whose methodical approach raises more questions than it answers, was compiled upon an inquiry by a Senator? What conclusion would an ordinary politician draw from such a report? “Hey, those wolves create an annual economic damage of X million $! Why are they still alive!”
February 24, 2009 at 9:13 AM
I’m glad Brian posted the report.
We can see it was pretty much a back of the envelope calculation.
The big drop in elk tags came in 2000. With another smaller decrease recently.
There is no trend in deer tags.
Not really much there except for a headline in a newspaper . . . the purpose of the state senator’s query?
February 24, 2009 at 9:18 AM
I could not find any place to post this message, but wanted to alert everyone to a group called Lobo Watch (in case you are not already familiar with them) which is calling for a protest Friday and Saturday outside the Kalispell offices of the state Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks urging people to bring their own tar and feathers if any federal wolf experts show up. The instigator is named Toby Bridges and he is recommending that wolves be only allowed and closely managed in certain national parks and advocates a return to the Shoot, Shovel and Shutup days. He claims they are tired of the “foot dragging” by federal agencies and the courts. He says, “like it or not many wolves are about to die. And it does not matter if the culling has Federal approval or not.” This was reported in Monday’s Cody Enterprise by the editor, Bruce McCormack, who usually isn’t a wolf fan, but is alarmed by this idiot and what he is trying to do.
February 24, 2009 at 9:41 AM
Wow, thanks for posting Virginia. Unbelievable.
February 24, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Ralph,
Over 100 moose tags were cut this year in ID and quite a few in WY and MT as well. Generally only in areas where wolves are present.
Virginia,
I predicted that very behavior would happen last year. When they were delisted there was a sigh from the anti wolf people knowing that there would be a plan to control numbers so that all user groups could be not mad (best case scenario) Populations were and are still in excess of stated ESA listed goals. Unfortunately not all of the ESA requirements were not completely met and some hillbillys in WY managed to stir the pot by shooting gimpy, so when the stay was put on ESA listing, everyone from moderate wolf control people to the very anti wolf control people were unhappy to say the least. SSS I believe happened alot this year unfortunately, because even moderates felt duped by the feds. In reading the western hunting internet boards, even the moderate – to pro wolf folks (not like pro wolf folks here, but still protection minded) were up in arms and moderates were pushed to more anti levels. Hunters and outfitters, contrary to what you may have read here, are seeing less tags and significant drops in both success and and elk numbers. (read the IDFG herd studies which are availiable online) This is not all directly related to wolf predation, we had a very hard winter last year across the west on big game populations. Still wolves will get pegged as the scapegoat and frustrated people will sometimes take the law into there own hands unfortunately.
February 24, 2009 at 10:31 AM
JBurnham- Thanks for correcting my math. Apparently I may need to repeat 5th grade…
Looks like the report just cites to a 1984 document for the elk kill per wolves figure.
February 24, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Ralph — how does one bring to your attention an article you may wish to consider posting?
http://www.anchoragepress.com/articles/2009/02/20/news/doc499cbfaa43402117797003.txt
February 24, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Thank goodness for folks like save bears who keep this website objective enough to handle the prevailing extreme.
I think many of you are really missing the point with the IDF&G. Part of their job is to “manage” wildlife. When you take away their ability to manage a keystone species that has huge effect good and bad (however and whatever situation you want to look at) you take away their ability to do their job.
I think 95% of you understand the directions they are pulled: by landowners/ranchers, sportsmen, and environmental/wildlife advocates each pulling a different direction. Despite that understanding I am amazed the empathy ppl lack on here for the job they do. Maybe it is the 5% are the loudest but individual comments from informed folks on here lead me to scratch my head.
IMO their job is to serve the common good and from my personal experience (someone who works outdoors, deals with every demographic weekly and whose all hobbies are spend outdoors) they walk a fine line in most cases. Maybe the perceieved paradox results from my viewpoint on the ground working with biologists at different regions (where the real managment takes place) as opposed to viewing from the top down and focusing on the words and “management plans” that come from the “director” and his proximity to the governor.
If you have a problem with the F&G and you didn’t go to the last meeting to voice your opinion in your region it is your fault. So Ralph, if you weren’t there 2 weeks ago, quit throwing them under the bus. I can tell you the landowners dominated the conversation as usual and if sportsmen especially would realize the impact they can have I would get sick of their whining too.
BTW, I do not work for the dept.
February 24, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Well, Smalltown, the common good is not the good of the ranchers or the landowners or the hunters. It is ‘common’, meaning the maximum good for all parties. That ‘common’ good is rarely served.
The common good would be best served through a balanced maintainence of an ecosystem and its species, in such doing serving present and future generations.
There are more than just the right, the left and the unheard, though we sadly see them all recognized.
If we are to serve the interests of all, we have to start with departments, agencies, and agents who are honest regardless of who they piss off.
I am quite certain that Save Bears will attest that the practice of honest science is rarely supported under some government agendas.
SaveBears,
I recognize the responsibility and dedication that goes with a degree. I also see why you mentioned it. I am not trying to take away from the credit you are deserving….I just think that some of the biggest deceivers we know carry a degree and an agenda.
Keep up your good works.
February 24, 2009 at 4:18 PM
Whether ppl realize that is up to them, it doesn’t change the fact that you (an IDF&G on-the-ground EMPLOYEE) have to take into consideration those who you are answering to – LITERALLY Vicki. That is who is there asking for answers – landowners (good and bad) – regardless of its good for everyone else. If your interests aren’t voiced THEY DON”T EXIST. That is the reality. You can talk about “government agendas” all you want but the real control comes from the ppl (bottom-up not top-down). Sure they (IDFG) are limited by what big brother imposes but the actual management is at the local level on the ground, its not in government agendas. So yeah, throw in a 4th axis for the pressure from the agency.
Local biologists make decisions the majority of the time based on the pressure they receive on a local front that influence their everyday job. Yes it goes both ways but your average biologist is only concerned about big brother when his job is on the line.
February 24, 2009 at 4:25 PM
“the practice of honest science is rarely supported under some government agendas.”
I agree, even a conservative statement. Any time state management is implementing science we are moving in the right direction. Having just come from a 5 state collabarotive meeting I can tell you Idaho is ahead of the game in many respects when it comes to science and management. Not all though, I am not painting with that broad of a brush. Overall we are above average for the west in my opinion.
February 26, 2009 at 4:59 AM
…please everybody watch the link supplied by Barb above, on the 24th. Thus a definite “bear topic”, this report, involving my beloved and noble Sportsmen should not go unnoticed!
February 26, 2009 at 2:24 PM
I have read the link about Katmai and find that disgusting. As a hunter, I practice only fair chase. i think that sets up a dangerous precedent of allowing hunting in places like national parks, just as people who think they need to bring guns into national parks. I will definitely not be going to Alaska at any time in the near future until things like this, aerial gunning, and hunting sow bears with cubs is stopped. This is absolutely deplorable.
March 1, 2009 at 12:16 PM
ProWolf,
Killing sows with cubs is illegal in AK. Also this hunt, while not a good thing, is not that big of a deal. While people get there panties all bunched up over this. True threats to the enviroment and ecosystem like the Pebble creek mine, high seas gillnetting, and overfishing seem to get bypassed over hot topic emotional issues.
March 1, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Poisoning or shooting wolf pups in their dens is supposedly illegal in Alaska but it happens all the time. There are news stories about this all the time.
March 1, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Your point barb, Murder is illegal too, but it happens on an almost daily basis.
March 1, 2009 at 5:12 PM
On other thing that has been pointed out is that hunter success ratios have not changed since the elk were reintroduced. What they don’t talk about is the loss of 13,000 tags here in Idaho. So 15% of 93,000 (number of tags prior to reintro) is 13,950 successful elk hunters. 15% of 80,000 (current number of tags) is 12,000. Lets remember New-Old/Old (percentage of change) is equal to about a 14% decrease in the hunter success rate.
March 2, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Ryan
March 2, 2009 at 3:12 PM
Ryan
You need to check Alaskan regulations for unit 16 black bear predator control. Cubs and females with cubs may be taken.
March 2, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Frank,
Where was that listed at, in my copy of the regs I failed to see that. Was it listed in an Emergency letter etc?
March 2, 2009 at 9:01 PM
Ryan
I found it on the A.D.F.&G. website under 2008-2009 Alaska predator control suplement . There was information about obtaining a control permit, and then it got into unit regulations. Below the unit 16 map for black bear predation control it mentions you can take black bear cubs and females with cubs.
Frank